In your opinion is there a percentage of countersuits (compared to the number of suits filed by the RIAA), particularly percentage of countersuits won, that would dissuade the RIAA from filing suits of this kind?
On a related note, is there such a thing as a class action countersuit? Can those sued by the RIAA gather together and countersue the RIAA?
Totally off topic, but, in that case, there'd be nothing preventing you from buying the Ferrari, hanging out on some tropical island and grabbing some satellite internet access (anyone tried Hughesnet?) a few high end laptops and working on whatever you wish on a south pacific beach somewhere. That way, you mix in that all important geek factor into your fantasy, and get to retain your geek card.
Well, I am neither a physicist, nor a chemist, nor an aerospace engineer, so I have lots of questions. I thought the article at least gave some layman level information about the scale of overpressures a commercial airplane can withstand at cruising altitude (no more than 10%) without disclosing exactly how much of which binary liquid explosive would be enough to do the deed. True, a professional (or a learned slashdot regular) would find the article lacking.
I also have no idea what degree of destruction a 747 or 777 can withstand at cruising altitude. Tough smaller planes like the 737 have withstood major airframe failures and survived to land safely. If modern planes are tougher than the 737, then yes, it would be difficult to smuggle enough explosive onboard to down the plane and a hijacker would look for another means of destroying the plane. Which leads us to the scenario you suggest.
Poison gas.
Now that IS a plausible scenario, particularly if the hijackers kill the passengers & crew and then (if they're still consious) manually pilot the plane (or reprogram the autopilot) to cause even more destruction on the ground.
Are there liquid explosives whose components are (relatively) safely drinkable? I say relatively because, if you're a suicide bomber, it really doesn't matter if it will kill you in 24 hours, you just have to be conscious for 2 or 3 hours after drinking the stuff for the security staff.
Are there liquid explosives which can be made from a drinkable component (or two or three) and (ewwww) urine?
aadvancedGIR - Among many others, Boeing uses this method to store its planes technical documentation.
Really? Seriously, I'd love to hear more about this. What kind of glass do they use? Borosilicate? Aluminosilicate? Something even more exotic? How do they etch it? What's the character density per cm^2?
First of all, the works of Verne and Wells were deeply rooted in science and tech of their respective times. If their works seem fantastic or quant or swashbuckling to our modern eyes, to their contemporaries they were as hard as Benford or Forward or Steel are to us.
Speaking of which, I'd say that Benford, Forward and the like are the exception among modern s.f. writers, in that they are (or were) working scientists or scientific academics. Nowadays you're more likely to find s.f. authors who are English / Literature / Language Arts / Liberal Arts majors than engineers / scientists, an notion which seems to better describe s.f. in the 1930's through the 1950's. The New Wave of the '60's seems to be responsible for this.
In any case, you seem to be a perfect candidate for reading works from the space opera renaissance. Galaxy spanning tales of heroism where empires rise and fall (sound familiar)? Oh, and get to a science fiction convention like L.A.Con or Readercon and talk to an author.
I too mourned the death of TechTV, but I no longer miss it.
I now watch DL.TV and TWIT.TV, which gives me about 80% of what I got from TechTV.
True, it was convenient to have everything gathered on one cable channel (if you ignored all of the useless repeats), but I'd argue that the natural environment for TechTV's content is the web. Plus, now, using a good RSS feed reader, you can roll your own TechTV. Can't you do that with TIVO and Freevo now?
Now, all we need is for Joshua "Yoshi" DeHerrera to start up a modding video podcast then all will truly be right with the world, with all TechTV goodness gathered on the web, in nicely downloadable / streamable gobbits.
Shouldn't / Doesn't the definition of an airplane include the vehicle achieving flight primarily through the exploitation of aerodynamic forces, instead of primarily through the expulsion of reaction mass? The Blue Origin vehicle (if the picture on the cover of the FAA Draft is any guide) has no wings, it looks like the DC-X.
If a vehicle has wings or a lifting body, and flies by using the lift generated by those wings or the lifting body, then it is an plane. If the vehicle travels exclusively through the atmosphere using aerodynamic lift, then I'd say it is an airplane (driven by gravity, propellers, jets, or rockets). If part of the operational envelope includes operation beyond the 62 mile (100km) altitude normally defined as the limit of space but it still has aerodynamic lift generating elements used for takeoff, cruise (think of the "skipping" designs), or landing, then it is a spaceplane. The shuttle is a spaceplane. Spaceship1 is a spaceplane.
What then is the Blue Origin vehicle? It doesn't have any (as far as I can tell) any lift generating surfaces, so it cannot be a plane of any sort. Is it a manned rocket? According to pedants in the thread, rocket applies only to the means of propulsion, so I'll play along and say no. Is it a missile? How about a manned (what it carries), sub-orbital (altitude envelope), ballistic (flight profile), missile (type of vehicle)?
In case you'd rather read the draft yourself, instead of depending upon Fox's analysis, here's a link to the draft environmental assissment.. Warning, it is a 229 page PDF. The exec. summary, however, is only 11 pages.
Stop & Shop here in New England has exactly that. You have to prove that you could successfully use the system, including having your purchases quickly double checked by a human, before you could use the system unsupervised.
You scan as you shop. Checkout consists of placing your scanner into the holster. Relatively painless. I wish more stores had it. My local Hannaford's doesn't.
I do agree, however, that shoppers should get a discount for using the system, because we're saving the store labor costs.
I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.
Ahh, but DRM is being being shoved down your throat. While Mickey D's hasn't gone crawling to Congress demanding that all hamburgers contain some nasty ingredient, the RIAA has.
If this system is used to disable digital cameras, and this system becomes widespread, then will we see a resurgence and acceleration in the development of film cameras.
Don't throw away your old Canon/Mamiya/Nikon yet!
Of course, this will work until owning analog cameras is made illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
In your opinion is there a percentage of countersuits (compared to the number of suits filed by the RIAA), particularly percentage of countersuits won, that would dissuade the RIAA from filing suits of this kind?
On a related note, is there such a thing as a class action countersuit? Can those sued by the RIAA gather together and countersue the RIAA?
Totally off topic, but, in that case, there'd be nothing preventing you from buying the Ferrari, hanging out on some tropical island and grabbing some satellite internet access (anyone tried Hughesnet?) a few high end laptops and working on whatever you wish on a south pacific beach somewhere. That way, you mix in that all important geek factor into your fantasy, and get to retain your geek card.
I think Verizon is on to something, but IMHO something like that is bound to be lost by a primary school aged kid.
Better form factor, a watch like device or a pendant.
With a form that is more difficult to lose, then, I can easily imagine kindergarten aged kids having one strapped to their wrist.
Thanks for the critique
Well, I am neither a physicist, nor a chemist, nor an aerospace engineer, so I have lots of questions. I thought the article at least gave some layman level information about the scale of overpressures a commercial airplane can withstand at cruising altitude (no more than 10%) without disclosing exactly how much of which binary liquid explosive would be enough to do the deed. True, a professional (or a learned slashdot regular) would find the article lacking.
I also have no idea what degree of destruction a 747 or 777 can withstand at cruising altitude. Tough smaller planes like the 737 have withstood major airframe failures and survived to land safely. If modern planes are tougher than the 737, then yes, it would be difficult to smuggle enough explosive onboard to down the plane and a hijacker would look for another means of destroying the plane. Which leads us to the scenario you suggest.
Poison gas.
Now that IS a plausible scenario, particularly if the hijackers kill the passengers & crew and then (if they're still consious) manually pilot the plane (or reprogram the autopilot) to cause even more destruction on the ground.
- Are there liquid explosives whose components are (relatively) safely drinkable? I say relatively because, if you're a suicide bomber, it really doesn't matter if it will kill you in 24 hours, you just have to be conscious for 2 or 3 hours after drinking the stuff for the security staff.
- Are there liquid explosives which can be made from a drinkable component (or two or three) and (ewwww) urine?
How far do we go with this?You'd have to use some sort of rosetta like format. Otherwise you'll place our decendents in the same boat we are in with respect to linear a.
Otherwise we should think about evacuating. Well, evetually.
Australia hunh? Aussie fans are great fans!
Consider looking into DUFF, the Down Under Fan Fund - http://sffanz.sf.org.nz/duff/Welcome.shtml . Kind of late for L.A. but next year is Yokohama, and after that, Chicago or Denver.Wow.
Where to start?
First of all, the works of Verne and Wells were deeply rooted in science and tech of their respective times. If their works seem fantastic or quant or swashbuckling to our modern eyes, to their contemporaries they were as hard as Benford or Forward or Steel are to us.
Speaking of which, I'd say that Benford, Forward and the like are the exception among modern s.f. writers, in that they are (or were) working scientists or scientific academics. Nowadays you're more likely to find s.f. authors who are English / Literature / Language Arts / Liberal Arts majors than engineers / scientists, an notion which seems to better describe s.f. in the 1930's through the 1950's. The New Wave of the '60's seems to be responsible for this.
In any case, you seem to be a perfect candidate for reading works from the space opera renaissance. Galaxy spanning tales of heroism where empires rise and fall (sound familiar)? Oh, and get to a science fiction convention like L.A.Con or Readercon and talk to an author.
See Also
I'm a gardener. This makes perfect sense to me. After all, it takes goodly amounts of s*it to produce beautiful flowers and foliage.
I too mourned the death of TechTV, but I no longer miss it.
I now watch DL.TV and TWIT.TV, which gives me about 80% of what I got from TechTV.
True, it was convenient to have everything gathered on one cable channel (if you ignored all of the useless repeats), but I'd argue that the natural environment for TechTV's content is the web. Plus, now, using a good RSS feed reader, you can roll your own TechTV. Can't you do that with TIVO and Freevo now?
Now, all we need is for Joshua "Yoshi" DeHerrera to start up a modding video podcast then all will truly be right with the world, with all TechTV goodness gathered on the web, in nicely downloadable / streamable gobbits.
If you throw up during the flight. Would that be "projectile vomiting"?
If it's used mainly to send Billionaires on trips between continents, would it be an InterContinental Billionaire Missile?
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.Shouldn't / Doesn't the definition of an airplane include the vehicle achieving flight primarily through the exploitation of aerodynamic forces, instead of primarily through the expulsion of reaction mass? The Blue Origin vehicle (if the picture on the cover of the FAA Draft is any guide) has no wings, it looks like the DC-X.
If a vehicle has wings or a lifting body, and flies by using the lift generated by those wings or the lifting body, then it is an plane. If the vehicle travels exclusively through the atmosphere using aerodynamic lift, then I'd say it is an airplane (driven by gravity, propellers, jets, or rockets). If part of the operational envelope includes operation beyond the 62 mile (100km) altitude normally defined as the limit of space but it still has aerodynamic lift generating elements used for takeoff, cruise (think of the "skipping" designs), or landing, then it is a spaceplane. The shuttle is a spaceplane. Spaceship1 is a spaceplane.
What then is the Blue Origin vehicle? It doesn't have any (as far as I can tell) any lift generating surfaces, so it cannot be a plane of any sort. Is it a manned rocket? According to pedants in the thread, rocket applies only to the means of propulsion, so I'll play along and say no. Is it a missile? How about a manned (what it carries), sub-orbital (altitude envelope), ballistic (flight profile), missile (type of vehicle)?
In case you'd rather read the draft yourself, instead of depending upon Fox's analysis, here's a link to the draft environmental assissment.. Warning, it is a 229 page PDF. The exec. summary, however, is only 11 pages.
Stop & Shop here in New England has exactly that. You have to prove that you could successfully use the system, including having your purchases quickly double checked by a human, before you could use the system unsupervised.
You scan as you shop. Checkout consists of placing your scanner into the holster. Relatively painless. I wish more stores had it. My local Hannaford's doesn't.
I do agree, however, that shoppers should get a discount for using the system, because we're saving the store labor costs.Better analogy: If men wore pants cut like women's shirts, with a big v-shaped exposed area just above, well, you know...
I don't know if women generally find men's chests as interesting as men generally find women's chests.I suspect Phillip K. Dick was a time traveller who escaped into the past to try and warn us.
But
We
Just
Won't
Listen
Oh, never mind.
Ahhhhhhh! My eyes! My eyes! That has to be the ugliest, scariest looking real robot I've ever seen. Ummm, PLEASE, don't tell it I said so.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/687.asp
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp ?lbid=776666
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/technology/circu its/06came.html?en=8bc6df38e1042a40&ex=1262667600& amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;am p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ei=5090&partner= rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=
I tip my hat to you for remembering the Thunderbirds camera detectors.
I must go home now and review my Thunderbirds DVSs.
If this system is used to disable digital cameras, and this system becomes widespread, then will we see a resurgence and acceleration in the development of film cameras.
Don't throw away your old Canon/Mamiya/Nikon yet!
Of course, this will work until owning analog cameras is made illegal.