This could solve all the UK's problems with our current drought!
I still think that part of the solution should be a national grid for water. The north is pretty much awash with the stuff and a network of large pipes or aquifers could move it south where there are shortages. The powers that be suggest this isn't feasible but it's just engineering. You can bet yer boots that if the Victorians were short of water in the south that Brunel and buddies would have built something back then!
And I do realise it will be expensive to build, but the problem is only going to get worse and the cost to build it is only going to rise! We could really use such a grid now, but in 20 or 50 years we might find we're screwed without it! I say build it now, build it big, and build it to last (if we still can!).
Alongside this sort of thing should be building legislation to make new buildings capture grey water and use it for flushing toilets and maybe even watering your lawn! In Bermuda all houses capture the rain that falls on them and directs it into large tanks under each house. It's just the will to do it not the technology! (OK... and maybe the cost!).
Sure, throw in water meters, cheap(er) desalination, water butts for all, wash your car less often, shower instead of bath (who remembers "shower with a friend" from a few years ago!), but we need the water grid too!
It's ok to copy a CD (for YOUR OWN use) not because it's easy, but because you paid for the music on it. You didn't pay for the CD; you paid for what it carries. You also paid for the music you downloaded on iTunes, but it's ok to put it on your iPod, right? (in general; I don't know if you have an iPod, I don't!)
Aha... OK (playing the devil's advocate here a bit...) so if you purchased the music originally on an LP (good old vinyl eh!), you don't need to purchase it again on CD - in theory, the record company should swap your old LP for a CD if you asked them (plus some cost for the new medium, plus some cost for disposing of the old LP).
How does that relate to the purchase of, for example, books?
If when you purchase a CD you are buying the music to do with as you will (within reason) then I guess it's all fine and dandy. The problem is then how do you stop someone copying the music for bad reasons (ie giving copies to friends, posting on download sites, etc) and not stop people copying for good reasons (iPod, etc).
I think the answer is probably that you just can't, and therefore a reasonable approach might be to not even try! As I have said before elsewhere, the Music Industry needs to stop trying to do the impossible (ie actually prevent someone copying their product) and look for some other way to run their business!
If you had a holiday home, a closer analogy here would be bringing your existing kettle and toaster WITH you, from your other home. You can bring your CD with you right? It makes very simple sense to bring your CD with you and play it on your CD player at your holiday home. So you could bring your kettle and toaster with you too.
Er, what I said (or at least was trying to say!) was that you might have copies of your music at your holiday home, but you would buy a new kettle and toaster. Obviously, taking your CDs (and kettle and toaster) with you is all fine and dandy, but we usually find this a fag, so we copy our CDs and we buy a new kettle and toaster. Can you spot what I am trying to get at?
Say I'm listening to a CD on my computer. There is a certain amount I'd pay to put one of the songs on my iPod as well. 25 cents maybe. Instead, I copy it. "Lost sale"=25c. This is the point at which you and **AA leave off your analysis -- except that **AA likes assuming that everyone who copies would have paid full price for an iTune, which is patently false.
Sure, I agree that people wouldn't necessarily pay full price for their second/third/fourth copies, but if you feel 25c would be appropriate for your iPod copy then you presumably agree that the music has some (if not 'that') value. "Lost sale"=25c... er, yes, exactly. 25c might not be much to you, but maybe it would add up if there were lots of people doing it!
I don't feel it is unreasonable to copy music for your own benefit but I do think it is a grey area not helped by the ease with which music can be copied.
X harms somebody if you can point to the harmful effect of X. Not if you can demonstrate that doing Y instead of X would have some beneficial effect. If I buy a bag of pretzels for $2, it doesn't to $2 of "harm" to the homeless person I otherwise would've given the money to. Only when I deprive that person of $2 that they currently possess do I harm her.
Hmmmm. I know what you are trying to say here, and I agree with you to a point, but if you buy bags of pretzels wholesale then sell them at a lower price (or if they were cheap enough, give them away) to people outside the old Pretzel shop, you are indeed doing harm to the pretzel shop owner.
I also agree that when lending CDs, or tracks, to people there will be some of them who will like it and go and buy the item, and possibly the next single and the next album. Indeed, I'd say it is possible that the Music biz could make more money out of this "free" advertising than they lose! I'm just still not sure where the line should be drawn. I'd say copies for personal use should be OK, but if you make music copyable then it will be copied!
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. This conclusion also supports the idea that you're copying the music by simply... removing the CD and playing it in a different player. While the music companies would love it if you bought a separate CD for every playing device you own, this is the realm of ridiculous.
Well this is obviously just silly. If I take the copy I purchased and play it somewhere else, or indeed lend it to someone, I don't see that as (potentially) depriving the "artist" of a sale as I'm not permitting the music to be listened to in more than one place. If I make a copy and listed to that copy in the car, I would only be depriving the artist if there was also someone at home listening to my original copy. This is perhaps easier to see when a friend has a copy.
Maybe if we compare it to a pair of sunglasses... I purchase a pair of sunglasses which I wear at home in the garden. I take them with me when I drive my car and I sometimes lend them to friends. No problems so far. If I could magically clone the sunglasses (ie the copy is, as near as makes no difference, identical) and I then gave a copy of them to a friend, that is (I think we all agree) a bad thing. The grey area I was struggling with is whether it is OK for me to clone myself a copy so I can have a pair of sunnies in the car and a pair at home and a pair on the boat and a pair at work. Because sunglasses aren't easy to copy/clone we tend to purchase more than one pair. Why is music different?
My contention, and I'm not sure I'm right, is that we think it is different because it is easy to copy it.
Now, make it 20 miles high and we'd be around the 1% pressure point. You'd still have to pump the thing out, just not as quickly.
So how high would it need to be to have the top end in a total vacuum and therefore not need any "cap" on it? Just assuming, for the sake of the question, that we could build something that high!
Is this more or less feasible than a space elevator?
I guess you are always going to have to pump some air out of it, so there's presumably a tradeoff between extra height and pumping effort. Even if it were sufficiently far out in space to not allow any air to fall in from the top, there's likely going to be some air getting in from the bottom as you load the next vehicle, etc.
I don't think copying "intellectual property" harms anyone
If I buy a CD then the people involved in producing that item (artist, record company, CD shop, etc) will all gain financially from the purchase. If I take a copy of the CD from a friend, or download it from the internet then no one has gained financially (except presumably me, because I've not forked out hard-earned wedge for it!).
There is a financial loss from such behaviours and this could easily be construed as "harm" if it is you that is not getting paid!
I like to copy my CDs onto my PC, etc. I used to copy music to tapes to listen in the car, and I have recently come to the conclusion that this is actually the same process as copying from a friend or downloading from the internet as I would otherwise have had to purchase a copy on tape for my car, purchased another copy to listen to at work, etc.
I'm not sure what the answer is, because most people would suggest that it's not unreasonable to want to copy CDs for personal use, but I suspect that the only reason people think it is "OK" is because it is so easy!
Let's assume you had a holiday home. You'd maybe have copies of your music there, but you'd buy a new kettle and toaster. Why? Because it's easy to copy your CDs but somewhat harder to copy your kettle!
I think the Music (Media) industry needs to come at the problem from a different angle, because they are never going to be able to stop people copying their products whilst the products are so expensive and copying is so easy! I'd argue that if they reduced the cost of CDs from the £10+ (in the UK) to £5+ they'd sell more than double the No of CDs! People mostly like owning things and if they are sufficiently cheap they'll buy the suckers in cartloads!
One problem I see is how do you keep the tube evacuated while leaving a clear path for the ship?
If the top end of the tube was high enough, ie "in space" for whatever values of "in space" are appropriate (ie maybe a lot more than 11km!), maybe the end could just be open, as it is in "space" and therefore actually in a vacuum. You'd need some sort of air-lock (er, vacuum-lock?) at the base to load your next container, but otherwise, the open top would take care of itself!
Of course they could sue him for slander. And an independent body, like a court would decide who is right.
I'd agree with that, and if he was subsequently found guilty then they could think about spending or expelling him, or making him stand in the corner or write lines or something.
To just punish him straight off is to take the law into their own hands!
If somebody wants to know what you are saying, they just bug the handset.
I think the point many are trying to make is that if the authorities have a good enough reason to want to see what someone is up to, then they should be able to find out, after getting a warrant, etc, but what many are unhappy about is the thought that everyone is constantly monitored regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to suspect wrongdoing.
This being the case, cell phones that encrypt would hopefully stop the general surveillance occuring, and make the authorities focus their attention on those who (they at least suspect!) are actually up to no good!
And before someone trumps my post with the "if you've done nothing wrong..." mantra, remember that clerical errors gave 2700 innocent people criminal records in the UK recently, and also remember that all these powers that our Governments are giving themselves, and telling us it is for our protection, are the very same powers that dictatorships want.
Do you trust your Government to always do what is best for you?... Yawn... is that coffee I smell?
Well I know this is quite an old story now, but I went ahead and purchased a Bluetooth USB Adaptor. I picked up one of the Belkin USB Adapter and whilst it does see my mobile phone, it doesn't allow my bluetooth headset to connect.
It would appear that I am unable to purchase anything even vaguely technical without it simply failing to work. I cannot remember the last time I purchased something and it just worked first time, straight out of the box!
If anyone wants to test any new piece of hardware or software, just send it to me and I will find some way to make it not work!
I am, as usual, really disappointed, because the technology offered so much and has (as usual) delivered so little (well, delivered nothing actually!).
It can get put away with the pile of other things I have purchased that don't work!
Life needs to find a way off this gravity well before the next "great extinction".
I wonder if anyother imperitive might be that life needs to find a way off this gravity well whilst we can still afford to do so! The cost now is more than the cost back in the 60s, and yes, this is due to inflation, but "the people" still think it is too much money to just spend, whereas back in the 60s it was (obviously) deemed a worthwhile enteprise.
Let's wind the clock forward:- More starving people, civil unrest, various wars, shortages of land due to rising sea level, shortages of drinking water due to the ever increasing demands of the increasing population. At some point, might we not get to a stage where all the wealth of the Earth is tied up just trying to keep our head above water (figuratively). At this point there won't be any extra funds available to research into getting off the planet without deciding to allow "disasters" to happen. Then it's just too late!
I'd say the time is now and we should just get on with it!
What an awesome tool for a government agency to have!
I friend sent me this link just yesterday about someone trying to purchase a pizza in the world it would appear both the UK and US governments want us to live in!
I, for one, do not welcome any overlords, whether insect or other sufficently low life to want to be in politics!
Just say NO
Actually there was a little incident in the Ukraine that may ahve some impact on your theory
I think that is the point he is trying to make when he says... if we did not have the 70s/80s scare tactics about Nuclear power
Sure, there have been some bad events like Three Mile Island, and obviously, Chernobyl, but the technology has moved on since then. No one wants to have a Nuke plant down the road, regardless of how safe it might be, hell, most people wouldn't want a Coal power station next door! This doesn't mean that nuclear power stations can't be built in more isolated locations though!
Many of the old designs (Chernobyl included) would go critical if something went wrong, but new designs usually don't, making them inherently safer (though I guess you couldn't ever say "safe"!).
The best advice would be to not farm out the design and construction of any new nuclear power stations to the lowest bidder.
If your time is worth enough, that actually saves you money.
As I understand it, BA had a bunch of meeting rooms you could hire that were "this side" of customs and immigration, allowing a UK (European) visitor to have a meeting in JFK without having to clear customs and hence saving even more time!
There will always be people willing to pay the extra. I paid £40 extra for more legroom the last time I returned from New York, and that would seem like a waste to many. If I could pay maybe a couple of hundred more for a 3 hour flight instead of 7 or 8, that'd be money well spent in my book, and I'm not that wealthy, I just don't like sitting on a plane for hours! It's really not that big a leap to see people willing to spend a couple of grand to fly supersonic, and all you really need to do is look back at Concorde, under BA, and see it basically working!
and I'd like to save any fellow/.'ers from the same mistakes ($$) I made.
You've got my attention! Just yesterday I was googling to see if the cell phone BT headsets could be connected to a PC (presumably, via a BT USB device) as I'd rather like to use it for VOIP, and it just seems silly to have to buy another device for the PC. I think it might be what I want for playing Unreal too.
My googling efforts seemed to say that any BT USB device should enable me to connect my BT headset (Bluetrek 6217 from Orange) to my PC for VOIP and Unreal - well, for everything! Is this true?
I do like your thoughts on being able to split out just a "voice" channel to the earpiece though!
Slightly back on-topic, I tend to only use it when I'm in the car (handsfree!) or if I'm on a long conference call, as it really does make you look like a bit of a tool! The biggest bonus is that if I swap phones I don't need to buy another one! I sure wish the phone industry would standardise some other of their components too... batteries and chargers would be a start!
There is really no reason why even a less racy looking EV could not be as fast as a Ferrari or Porche, even more pedestrian EV's are quite peppy.
Ford in the UK had an Electric Escort Van and they had to install special electronics to prevent the drivers from lighting up the tyres. EV's have max torque from zero revs, and people always assume EVs are going to be slow (thinking "milk float" or "golf cart"), so they tend to stamp on the accelerator to get it started. Without the electrickery, the van would just spin it's tyres!
Travelling cross-country, it simply is *not* acceptable to have to sit around for 3 hours at the gas station waiting for your car to get enough juice to continue.
It is recommended that you stop every couple of hours or so for a break (though I know I tend to "press-on" when I'm driving!), so if you can charge up when you stop for lunch (maybe an hour?), and stop for a coffee every now and then (half hours?) this would increase your range a bit, but this is indeed the real problem, because the 100km range wouldn't be enough between coffee stops, unless you drive so slow you could drive Miss Daisy!
But don't most people have more than one car? An EV commute vehicle for driving into town to work, or local shopping, and an IC car (maybe a hybrid!) for longer distance! Think how much nicer towns/cities would be if most people were in EVs.
I'd have a EV for local driving if there was one I liked. MG Rover had an MGF mule which had 4WD by adding electric motors to the front wheels (last one on the page). I'd have one of them in a heartbeat! There was an Electric Elise too. Where do I sign!
Are you kidding? All you need is an office by a window and a long extension cord. Just like free gas!
In the UK where we have a "company car" culture, the Gov. could legislate to allow your employer to "pay" you tax free (or lower tax rate) by charging your car during the day.
This would be a nice benefit for your company to be able to offer you, and a nice benefit to have (free, or at least cheaper, motoring), and it would be a good "green" thing for a Gov. to do. It could also stimulate the market for EVs which could help increase the number sold, and hence reduce the cost of the technology, whilst also driving investment and R&D to improve the technology!
I pretty much agree with you. The only problem is that terrorist groups will act on behalf of their "country" without necessarily getting the mandate to do so. Case in point - The IRA, hell Al Quieda (sp?) are acting (they claim) on behalf of "Muslims". Just because some nutjob gets it into their head to come and bomb you (nuke or not), there's no guarantee there'll be a "valid" target you can strike back at. Also, striking back at the wrong target could just escalate the conflict.
The original thread wasn't even about nukes. Surgical strikes controlled by satalites vs nutjob with a holdall. Certainly, in a one-sided conflict with a large and poor population you've got to consider the poor people as potential suicide jockeys.
If you think back to WWII there were plans in place throughout the UK to setup armed resistance cells for if the Germans got across the channel. Large arms dumps were setup and specialist personel were seeded throughout the Home Guard on the quiet. There was a chap in the village where I grew up and he reported that a local had discovered the arms cache. He was told that if the Germans got into the UK it should kill the local fellow to protect the arms dump. Obviously not suicide bombers, but pretty strong stuff none the less. Needs must when the devil drives... or something like that!
So can you come up with one strategy for successfully hijacking a commercial flight in the US?
I was hoping my point was exactly that, though perhaps it wasn't clear. If we can keep "serious" weapons (ie guns!) off planes, there's a much higher chance that the passengers and crew will fight back, hell, even with guns there's be a proportion in the crew/passengers who'd be will to take them on.
As for ideas as to how to hold the passengers and crew to ransom where they won't rush you... OK... but don't blame me if someone tries it! How about board the plane unarmed, and find the smallest, youngest, child/baby on board. Once airborne, snatch the child/baby and threaten to break it's neck.
If the people rush you, they have to know that their action will cause the death of the child/baby. That _may_ be enough to keep them back. If that's enough to get you or an accomplice into the flightdeck then the door can be locked behind and the passengers and crew can't get into the flightdeck anymore.
Perhaps it's unlikely. I'd suggest it would sufficiently polarise the crowd that action would be at least more difficult.
On the hole, I agree with you. The 9/11 hijackers might actually end up saving more lives than they took, because hijacking is so much more difficult now. Returning to the original point though, it is so much more difficult because the passengers and crew will fight, not because of extra security!
Do you really think that the majority reaction to a hijack attempt is going to be to rush the hijackers? Um....no. It's going to be to do as you are told, in order that you *MIGHT* save your life.
I pretty much agree with everything you said, apart from where you say people would capitulate, and I may agree with that if the purps had firearms. IF all the baddies can get on the plane is a nitting needle or a box cutter I think there would be a sufficiently large proportion of the passengers and crew who would take action. Hell, I'd say even if they did have guns there'd be some who would want to take action.
Your mugging analogy doesn't really stack up, as whilst some people have successfull fought off muggers in a heroic fashion (a friend of mine hospitalised 4 muggers a few years ago!), there hasn't been a change in how muggers operate where they are more likely to kill you afterwards.
I'd suggest that the "frightened animals" concept is correct, and in the case of being on a plane when it is hijacked, is likely to work in the animal's favour, as they KNOW if they do nothing they are likely to die! You only need a few in the crowd to act as leaders and many of the frightened ones will join them. Remember, it's "flight or fight". That's the reaction, and it's not always "flight".
And therein lies your problem. If your enemy can't pin-point the military target, then their next best option is to target a large city. Way to go, that was smart. Instead of losing a missile silo, you lose 250,000 citizens.
Not sure why this is modded at zero... I think the AC is onto something here! Take this to its logical conclusion, ie otherwise totally powerless citizens against a superpower, and you end up with terrorists, as that is the only apparent way to strike back!
Of course, the US has historically had the benefit of being physically remote from the people they wage war on - no V1 or V2 flying bombs flying over the channel in US history (discounting the Japanese balloons of WWII I guess). The threat of ICBMs brings this a little closer to home, but we know who has these, and "we" tend not to wage war on them so much! But now we have the age of the bomb in a backpack and all bets are off!
Could you please elaborate on which parts are necessary and which parts aren't if, as you claim, the security is pointless.
I'd suggest that if someone really wanted to hijack another plane in the US, or wherever, it would still be possible, even with the extra security. A number of scenarios spring to mind, but forgive me if I don't suggest them out loud! You're all clever people and I don't doubt for a second you could all come up with a number of feasible plans. The current security might make some of them fail, but if you kept trying (ie the scumbags who send out the suicide jockeys "keep trying"!) you will inevitably succeed.
So, if it is still possible, the extra security is perhaps pointless. I'd suggest a level of security that makes it "difficult" for potential bad guys, but doesn't piss off the general public too much.
I'd say the biggest problem any hijacker would have now is the bit where they stand up and say "do as you are told and you won't get hurt". Since the World Trade Center was hit, there aren't many passengers who are going to calmly sit back and let anyone hijack a 'plane, and probably even fewer crew. This could be the lasting legacy of the 9/11 bombers - they made hijacking a plane more difficult, because the passengers and crew are unlikely to give up so easily!
So security just has to make it difficult to get "serious" weapons on the plane, and let the passengers and crew do the rest!
Slashdot Mirror
I still think that part of the solution should be a national grid for water. The north is pretty much awash with the stuff and a network of large pipes or aquifers could move it south where there are shortages. The powers that be suggest this isn't feasible but it's just engineering. You can bet yer boots that if the Victorians were short of water in the south that Brunel and buddies would have built something back then!
And I do realise it will be expensive to build, but the problem is only going to get worse and the cost to build it is only going to rise! We could really use such a grid now, but in 20 or 50 years we might find we're screwed without it! I say build it now, build it big, and build it to last (if we still can!).
Alongside this sort of thing should be building legislation to make new buildings capture grey water and use it for flushing toilets and maybe even watering your lawn! In Bermuda all houses capture the rain that falls on them and directs it into large tanks under each house. It's just the will to do it not the technology! (OK ... and maybe the cost!).
Sure, throw in water meters, cheap(er) desalination, water butts for all, wash your car less often, shower instead of bath (who remembers "shower with a friend" from a few years ago!), but we need the water grid too!
Aha ... OK (playing the devil's advocate here a bit ...) so if you purchased the music originally on an LP (good old vinyl eh!), you don't need to purchase it again on CD - in theory, the record company should swap your old LP for a CD if you asked them (plus some cost for the new medium, plus some cost for disposing of the old LP).
How does that relate to the purchase of, for example, books?
If when you purchase a CD you are buying the music to do with as you will (within reason) then I guess it's all fine and dandy. The problem is then how do you stop someone copying the music for bad reasons (ie giving copies to friends, posting on download sites, etc) and not stop people copying for good reasons (iPod, etc).
I think the answer is probably that you just can't, and therefore a reasonable approach might be to not even try! As I have said before elsewhere, the Music Industry needs to stop trying to do the impossible (ie actually prevent someone copying their product) and look for some other way to run their business!
Er, what I said (or at least was trying to say!) was that you might have copies of your music at your holiday home, but you would buy a new kettle and toaster. Obviously, taking your CDs (and kettle and toaster) with you is all fine and dandy, but we usually find this a fag, so we copy our CDs and we buy a new kettle and toaster. Can you spot what I am trying to get at?
Sure, I agree that people wouldn't necessarily pay full price for their second/third/fourth copies, but if you feel 25c would be appropriate for your iPod copy then you presumably agree that the music has some (if not 'that') value. "Lost sale"=25c ... er, yes, exactly. 25c might not be much to you, but maybe it would add up if there were lots of people doing it!
I don't feel it is unreasonable to copy music for your own benefit but I do think it is a grey area not helped by the ease with which music can be copied.
X harms somebody if you can point to the harmful effect of X. Not if you can demonstrate that doing Y instead of X would have some beneficial effect. If I buy a bag of pretzels for $2, it doesn't to $2 of "harm" to the homeless person I otherwise would've given the money to. Only when I deprive that person of $2 that they currently possess do I harm her.
Hmmmm. I know what you are trying to say here, and I agree with you to a point, but if you buy bags of pretzels wholesale then sell them at a lower price (or if they were cheap enough, give them away) to people outside the old Pretzel shop, you are indeed doing harm to the pretzel shop owner.
I also agree that when lending CDs, or tracks, to people there will be some of them who will like it and go and buy the item, and possibly the next single and the next album. Indeed, I'd say it is possible that the Music biz could make more money out of this "free" advertising than they lose! I'm just still not sure where the line should be drawn. I'd say copies for personal use should be OK, but if you make music copyable then it will be copied!
Well this is obviously just silly. If I take the copy I purchased and play it somewhere else, or indeed lend it to someone, I don't see that as (potentially) depriving the "artist" of a sale as I'm not permitting the music to be listened to in more than one place. If I make a copy and listed to that copy in the car, I would only be depriving the artist if there was also someone at home listening to my original copy. This is perhaps easier to see when a friend has a copy.
Maybe if we compare it to a pair of sunglasses ... I purchase a pair of sunglasses which I wear at home in the garden. I take them with me when I drive my car and I sometimes lend them to friends. No problems so far. If I could magically clone the sunglasses (ie the copy is, as near as makes no difference, identical) and I then gave a copy of them to a friend, that is (I think we all agree) a bad thing. The grey area I was struggling with is whether it is OK for me to clone myself a copy so I can have a pair of sunnies in the car and a pair at home and a pair on the boat and a pair at work. Because sunglasses aren't easy to copy/clone we tend to purchase more than one pair. Why is music different?
My contention, and I'm not sure I'm right, is that we think it is different because it is easy to copy it.
So how high would it need to be to have the top end in a total vacuum and therefore not need any "cap" on it? Just assuming, for the sake of the question, that we could build something that high!
Is this more or less feasible than a space elevator?
I guess you are always going to have to pump some air out of it, so there's presumably a tradeoff between extra height and pumping effort. Even if it were sufficiently far out in space to not allow any air to fall in from the top, there's likely going to be some air getting in from the bottom as you load the next vehicle, etc.
If I buy a CD then the people involved in producing that item (artist, record company, CD shop, etc) will all gain financially from the purchase. If I take a copy of the CD from a friend, or download it from the internet then no one has gained financially (except presumably me, because I've not forked out hard-earned wedge for it!).
There is a financial loss from such behaviours and this could easily be construed as "harm" if it is you that is not getting paid!
I like to copy my CDs onto my PC, etc. I used to copy music to tapes to listen in the car, and I have recently come to the conclusion that this is actually the same process as copying from a friend or downloading from the internet as I would otherwise have had to purchase a copy on tape for my car, purchased another copy to listen to at work, etc.
I'm not sure what the answer is, because most people would suggest that it's not unreasonable to want to copy CDs for personal use, but I suspect that the only reason people think it is "OK" is because it is so easy!
Let's assume you had a holiday home. You'd maybe have copies of your music there, but you'd buy a new kettle and toaster. Why? Because it's easy to copy your CDs but somewhat harder to copy your kettle!
I think the Music (Media) industry needs to come at the problem from a different angle, because they are never going to be able to stop people copying their products whilst the products are so expensive and copying is so easy! I'd argue that if they reduced the cost of CDs from the £10+ (in the UK) to £5+ they'd sell more than double the No of CDs! People mostly like owning things and if they are sufficiently cheap they'll buy the suckers in cartloads!
If the top end of the tube was high enough, ie "in space" for whatever values of "in space" are appropriate (ie maybe a lot more than 11km!), maybe the end could just be open, as it is in "space" and therefore actually in a vacuum. You'd need some sort of air-lock (er, vacuum-lock?) at the base to load your next container, but otherwise, the open top would take care of itself!
er ... maybe?
I'd agree with that, and if he was subsequently found guilty then they could think about spending or expelling him, or making him stand in the corner or write lines or something.
To just punish him straight off is to take the law into their own hands!
I think the point many are trying to make is that if the authorities have a good enough reason to want to see what someone is up to, then they should be able to find out, after getting a warrant, etc, but what many are unhappy about is the thought that everyone is constantly monitored regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to suspect wrongdoing.
This being the case, cell phones that encrypt would hopefully stop the general surveillance occuring, and make the authorities focus their attention on those who (they at least suspect!) are actually up to no good!
And before someone trumps my post with the "if you've done nothing wrong ..." mantra, remember that clerical errors gave 2700 innocent people criminal records in the UK recently, and also remember that all these powers that our Governments are giving themselves, and telling us it is for our protection, are the very same powers that dictatorships want.
Do you trust your Government to always do what is best for you? ... Yawn ... is that coffee I smell?
It would appear that I am unable to purchase anything even vaguely technical without it simply failing to work. I cannot remember the last time I purchased something and it just worked first time, straight out of the box!
If anyone wants to test any new piece of hardware or software, just send it to me and I will find some way to make it not work!
I am, as usual, really disappointed, because the technology offered so much and has (as usual) delivered so little (well, delivered nothing actually!).
It can get put away with the pile of other things I have purchased that don't work!
I wonder if anyother imperitive might be that life needs to find a way off this gravity well whilst we can still afford to do so! The cost now is more than the cost back in the 60s, and yes, this is due to inflation, but "the people" still think it is too much money to just spend, whereas back in the 60s it was (obviously) deemed a worthwhile enteprise.
Let's wind the clock forward :- More starving people, civil unrest, various wars, shortages of land due to rising sea level, shortages of drinking water due to the ever increasing demands of the increasing population. At some point, might we not get to a stage where all the wealth of the Earth is tied up just trying to keep our head above water (figuratively). At this point there won't be any extra funds available to research into getting off the planet without deciding to allow "disasters" to happen. Then it's just too late!
I'd say the time is now and we should just get on with it!
I friend sent me this link just yesterday about someone trying to purchase a pizza in the world it would appear both the UK and US governments want us to live in!
I, for one, do not welcome any overlords, whether insect or other sufficently low life to want to be in politics!
Just say NO
I think that is the point he is trying to make when he says ...
if we did not have the 70s/80s scare tactics about Nuclear power
Sure, there have been some bad events like Three Mile Island, and obviously, Chernobyl, but the technology has moved on since then. No one wants to have a Nuke plant down the road, regardless of how safe it might be, hell, most people wouldn't want a Coal power station next door! This doesn't mean that nuclear power stations can't be built in more isolated locations though!
Many of the old designs (Chernobyl included) would go critical if something went wrong, but new designs usually don't, making them inherently safer (though I guess you couldn't ever say "safe"!).
The best advice would be to not farm out the design and construction of any new nuclear power stations to the lowest bidder.
As I understand it, BA had a bunch of meeting rooms you could hire that were "this side" of customs and immigration, allowing a UK (European) visitor to have a meeting in JFK without having to clear customs and hence saving even more time!
There will always be people willing to pay the extra. I paid £40 extra for more legroom the last time I returned from New York, and that would seem like a waste to many. If I could pay maybe a couple of hundred more for a 3 hour flight instead of 7 or 8, that'd be money well spent in my book, and I'm not that wealthy, I just don't like sitting on a plane for hours! It's really not that big a leap to see people willing to spend a couple of grand to fly supersonic, and all you really need to do is look back at Concorde, under BA, and see it basically working!
You've got my attention! Just yesterday I was googling to see if the cell phone BT headsets could be connected to a PC (presumably, via a BT USB device) as I'd rather like to use it for VOIP, and it just seems silly to have to buy another device for the PC. I think it might be what I want for playing Unreal too.
My googling efforts seemed to say that any BT USB device should enable me to connect my BT headset (Bluetrek 6217 from Orange) to my PC for VOIP and Unreal - well, for everything! Is this true?
I do like your thoughts on being able to split out just a "voice" channel to the earpiece though!
Slightly back on-topic, I tend to only use it when I'm in the car (handsfree!) or if I'm on a long conference call, as it really does make you look like a bit of a tool! The biggest bonus is that if I swap phones I don't need to buy another one! I sure wish the phone industry would standardise some other of their components too ... batteries and chargers would be a start!
Ford in the UK had an Electric Escort Van and they had to install special electronics to prevent the drivers from lighting up the tyres. EV's have max torque from zero revs, and people always assume EVs are going to be slow (thinking "milk float" or "golf cart"), so they tend to stamp on the accelerator to get it started. Without the electrickery, the van would just spin it's tyres!
It is recommended that you stop every couple of hours or so for a break (though I know I tend to "press-on" when I'm driving!), so if you can charge up when you stop for lunch (maybe an hour?), and stop for a coffee every now and then (half hours?) this would increase your range a bit, but this is indeed the real problem, because the 100km range wouldn't be enough between coffee stops, unless you drive so slow you could drive Miss Daisy!
But don't most people have more than one car? An EV commute vehicle for driving into town to work, or local shopping, and an IC car (maybe a hybrid!) for longer distance! Think how much nicer towns/cities would be if most people were in EVs.
I'd have a EV for local driving if there was one I liked. MG Rover had an MGF mule which had 4WD by adding electric motors to the front wheels (last one on the page). I'd have one of them in a heartbeat! There was an Electric Elise too. Where do I sign!
In the UK where we have a "company car" culture, the Gov. could legislate to allow your employer to "pay" you tax free (or lower tax rate) by charging your car during the day.
This would be a nice benefit for your company to be able to offer you, and a nice benefit to have (free, or at least cheaper, motoring), and it would be a good "green" thing for a Gov. to do. It could also stimulate the market for EVs which could help increase the number sold, and hence reduce the cost of the technology, whilst also driving investment and R&D to improve the technology!
The original thread wasn't even about nukes. Surgical strikes controlled by satalites vs nutjob with a holdall. Certainly, in a one-sided conflict with a large and poor population you've got to consider the poor people as potential suicide jockeys.
If you think back to WWII there were plans in place throughout the UK to setup armed resistance cells for if the Germans got across the channel. Large arms dumps were setup and specialist personel were seeded throughout the Home Guard on the quiet. There was a chap in the village where I grew up and he reported that a local had discovered the arms cache. He was told that if the Germans got into the UK it should kill the local fellow to protect the arms dump. Obviously not suicide bombers, but pretty strong stuff none the less. Needs must when the devil drives ... or something like that!
I was hoping my point was exactly that, though perhaps it wasn't clear. If we can keep "serious" weapons (ie guns!) off planes, there's a much higher chance that the passengers and crew will fight back, hell, even with guns there's be a proportion in the crew/passengers who'd be will to take them on.
As for ideas as to how to hold the passengers and crew to ransom where they won't rush you ... OK ... but don't blame me if someone tries it! How about board the plane unarmed, and find the smallest, youngest, child/baby on board. Once airborne, snatch the child/baby and threaten to break it's neck.
If the people rush you, they have to know that their action will cause the death of the child/baby. That _may_ be enough to keep them back. If that's enough to get you or an accomplice into the flightdeck then the door can be locked behind and the passengers and crew can't get into the flightdeck anymore.
Perhaps it's unlikely. I'd suggest it would sufficiently polarise the crowd that action would be at least more difficult.
On the hole, I agree with you. The 9/11 hijackers might actually end up saving more lives than they took, because hijacking is so much more difficult now. Returning to the original point though, it is so much more difficult because the passengers and crew will fight, not because of extra security!
I pretty much agree with everything you said, apart from where you say people would capitulate, and I may agree with that if the purps had firearms. IF all the baddies can get on the plane is a nitting needle or a box cutter I think there would be a sufficiently large proportion of the passengers and crew who would take action. Hell, I'd say even if they did have guns there'd be some who would want to take action.
Your mugging analogy doesn't really stack up, as whilst some people have successfull fought off muggers in a heroic fashion (a friend of mine hospitalised 4 muggers a few years ago!), there hasn't been a change in how muggers operate where they are more likely to kill you afterwards.
I'd suggest that the "frightened animals" concept is correct, and in the case of being on a plane when it is hijacked, is likely to work in the animal's favour, as they KNOW if they do nothing they are likely to die! You only need a few in the crowd to act as leaders and many of the frightened ones will join them. Remember, it's "flight or fight". That's the reaction, and it's not always "flight".
Not sure why this is modded at zero ... I think the AC is onto something here! Take this to its logical conclusion, ie otherwise totally powerless citizens against a superpower, and you end up with terrorists, as that is the only apparent way to strike back!
Of course, the US has historically had the benefit of being physically remote from the people they wage war on - no V1 or V2 flying bombs flying over the channel in US history (discounting the Japanese balloons of WWII I guess). The threat of ICBMs brings this a little closer to home, but we know who has these, and "we" tend not to wage war on them so much! But now we have the age of the bomb in a backpack and all bets are off!
I'd suggest that if someone really wanted to hijack another plane in the US, or wherever, it would still be possible, even with the extra security. A number of scenarios spring to mind, but forgive me if I don't suggest them out loud! You're all clever people and I don't doubt for a second you could all come up with a number of feasible plans. The current security might make some of them fail, but if you kept trying (ie the scumbags who send out the suicide jockeys "keep trying"!) you will inevitably succeed.
So, if it is still possible, the extra security is perhaps pointless. I'd suggest a level of security that makes it "difficult" for potential bad guys, but doesn't piss off the general public too much.
I'd say the biggest problem any hijacker would have now is the bit where they stand up and say "do as you are told and you won't get hurt". Since the World Trade Center was hit, there aren't many passengers who are going to calmly sit back and let anyone hijack a 'plane, and probably even fewer crew. This could be the lasting legacy of the 9/11 bombers - they made hijacking a plane more difficult, because the passengers and crew are unlikely to give up so easily!
So security just has to make it difficult to get "serious" weapons on the plane, and let the passengers and crew do the rest!
Oh ... that's OK then! Where do I sign?