Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
You can take paying passengers in a Cessna or other small aircraft. Sea plane tours come to mind as a practical example. They are also used for training which is another commercial use.
To take passengers for money (commercial operation) you can not use a plane certificated as experimental (home built) but you are most certainly able to take non-paying passengers. I've been such a passenger. The Young Eagles organization depends on it too.
Bottom line: kit planes are certified by the FAA as experimental, but can be used in just about any way commercially built planes can except for commercial operation.
Nothing you listed is a problem. Of course there are requirements and costs for getting a pilots license. As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world. In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt. You don't get to fly it until an FAA examiner goes over your paperwork (you must document the construction process to some extent), checks out your plane, and issues an airworthiness certificate so you can begin testing. You don't get a normal type certificate because it is a one-of-a-kind since building it in your garage is not a certified process. Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals;-)
Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well.
The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.
Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.
Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.
So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAAchapter
It may be the anti-vaccine crowd, or it may be you. There is evidence that catching things is good for you long term and that vaccines may not be as effective at building the immune system as natural disease. Notice that I'm sidestepping the issue of vaccine safety and still making an argument. Now I'm a fan of eradication programs - I've got a small-pox vaccination scar and think it's great that the disease has been eliminated. I think it's great that we may soon see an end to polio. I'm up for eradicating the really bad stuff. Chicken Pox vaccine? Fuck that, it used to be a right of passage. Sure, if you don't get it as a child you should be vaccinated because getting it as an adult can be terrible. Or perhaps it should be a choice, but to make people get vaccinated? And flu? God no, not for healthy people at low risk (my grandmother died of it at 92, she probably should have gotten the vaccine). Hey, if they really are stupid then not getting it will be evolution in action and humans will become smarter - you should be happy. And lastly, if you get your kid vaccinated and they catch the shit anyway please don't run around blaming those who didn't vaccinate. We have to many people blaming thier problems on others and trying to tell other people what to do.
Again, I'm all for eradication programs for the really bad stuff, but for the rest I think calling people who don't want vaccines "stupid" is just plain ignorant.
That already exists. For a number of systems in cars, the bootloader requires proper authentication to flash new code.
So long as they keep the "infotainment" systems off the vehicle bus everything should be fine. However, there are some nice things that can be done if these devices can talk to each other....
A growing fascination with science and teacher support schemes seem to be improving the teaching of maths and physics in UK state schools.
Initiatives are nice, but I suspect the students are drawn to physics in particular because they see billions on dollars/pounds being spend on the LHC and either thinks it's cool and want to understand whats really going on there, or they see the money. Others will not the rise in interest at the time of their "initiative" and say they caused it. Seems like a survey of the students could help clarify this.
All those things we perceive as flaws today may be the "mutation" that allows the human race to survive after something cataclysmic happens.
And they might not. They may just be flaws.
Sometimes something that appears bad is bad.
So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages over not having it at all.
The problem is that humans actually have very little understanding of how the body works and should not meddle in genetics on a large scale. Even in a case where we know a specific condition (2 copies of the CFTR gene) is bad, we should not try to eliminate that gene from the gene pool. I would agree that not producing babies with 2 copies is *probably* a good thing, but people have a tendency to generalize and go too far. Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.
There have also been recent drug trials where the substance in question had the opposite effect from what was intended. The immediate effect was correct, but the expected response in the body was wrong. We have a long way to go both scientifically and socially before such things may be considered a good idea.
Is there a potential for it to be misused, yeah, but I'd welcome any move to judge my driving over lumping me in with a particular age group or gender.
The purpose of insurance is to amortize unexpected expenses over time and population. When they get to the point of charging you specifically for YOUR actions, you eliminate the "over population" part and may as well not have insurance at all. You can pay your own expenses when they arise, and smooth it out with something called "savings". Note: As a homeowner you are free to self-insure unless you have a mortgage (the lender will require it) and rich people can and do take advantage of that option. Companies can also do it for some things (rental cars come to mind).
The only reason they care about schemes like tracking drivers, is competition. They could and would insure everyone with the same coverage for the same premiums if they had a monopoly - it's trivial to look at expenses and adjust the price to get the profit you want - no need to pay actuaries. Competition forces them to lower premiums to get customers, which in turn pushes them toward identification of high risk people to penalize or get rid of.
I have not devised or heard of a good way to balance these competing interests and objectives optimally - though I do think about it from time to time.
PhDs don't get you jobs. I can point you to plenty of PhD students that have come from the university where I work that had trouble finding work. Now to be fair, most deserved it, they weren't very good, just hoop jumpers who kept jumping through enough hoops until they got their degree
I know people in management that won't hire PhDs for that exact reason. You hire one because they have specialized knowledge in a particular area. The problem is that when the work is done in that area and they move on to other projects, they act (and are treated by management) superior to everyone else when they no longer have an edge over anyone. In fact, the hoop jumping seem to go against innovation. There are plenty of really smart people who also hold a PhD, but from what I've seen there are at least as many hoop jumpers. YMMV of course.
The reason the payload exists is so that it can be decrypted and used. Both the algorithm and the key are in there somewhere.
You didn't read carefully. The key is on the target machine and is not part of the attack software.
Dumb old way to do this:
1) Check for certain system configurations.
2) Use some key in the malware to decrypt and run the payload.
New hot way to do this:
1) Use some combination of system configuration to decrypt the payload
2) If that worked, run it.
See that? it hides both the decryption key AND the definition of the system it's meant to attack. Unless you have the target configuration (or can guess it) you can't decrypt the payload or figure out what it's meant to attack. Brilliant.
A facebook page does not need to be cached. It needs to be sent to 10 people. It should be stored on your own personal machine with secure access handed to your "friends". Of course this requires actual peer-to -peer networking which doesn't really exist - just try to get a fixed URL from your ISP, and then try to find a common app that uses it. I'd like to see an IPv6 subnet where the addresses correspond to GPS location - that's just plain easy to route, and it helps with identification.
If you're going to cache things on my computer you're going to be using my hardware. That hardware isn't free, and neither are the bits you want to use my internet connection to send. How am I going to be compensated?
You only cache the things you get for yourself, and they are only stored for a finite amount of time (say a few days). Your compensation is that you got the data you wanted for yourself over a better system. See Bit Torrent. Now imagine that an embedded YouTube video just points to a torrent and we're done with video. Of course this doesn't include DRM.
How do you verify the public key used to verify the signature without guaranteeing the origin of the key?
Web of trust? Printing the public key in the newspaper? This was solved decades ago. Public keys are to be made as public as possible and kept by as many people as possible so as to be more verifiable.
#2 get the management to recommend taking the company private? It happens and if there is a premium over the current price it's viewed positively.
#3 is probably illegal, but companies manipulate their stock prices all the time.
Good to see you realize #5,6, and 7 are legal since at that point its privately owned.
#8 is not illegal IPOs happen all the time. Over valued IPOs happen too - see facebook.
#9 Once public, the management does have some accountability, but they are still bound by lease agreements and contracts made during the private ownership.
Some are saying HFT issues only affect HFT traders. However, when your FDIC insured deposits are being played on this table instead of being loaned out, the losses can easily impact the population at large, and the diversion of money is allegedly hurting the economy these days. Keep the banks in banking. Keep the brokers brokering. Stop letting them leverage other peoples assets. Then by all means allow HFT to continue on its merry way with their own money.
And it's not just a bright pixel, you can clearly see what it is.
Sure, but the image taken from the surface used a 1 megapixel non-color camera. Talk about low budget...
Also, in spite of all the excitement about Mars, it doesn't really have much of an atmosphere, so being able to get clear pictures from orbit isn't that surprising. They first got images from Mars in the 1970s you know.
Pure speculation based on past observations of other companies:
1) get some money together
2) get the current management on board (their help is needed to take it private).
3) given #2, get the stock to drop more (this step is optional but I just noticed #2 can help).
4) Offer a "premium" over the current price to get shareholders to allow the buyout.
5) Once private, sell all company assets (real estate) to companies owned by the same private investors - dirt cheap.
6) Lease said assets back to company on whatever terms will make the next steps work best.
7) Make some changes to make the company appear better than before
8) Issue new shares to the public to recover the money spent in #4.
9) Try to sustain it long enough to unload all the shares and keep a paying tenant in the buildings purchased in #5.
Since it is the founder this is less likely to resemble their idea of a plan. Let's see who gets on board with him.
It appears that this has been known to Nvidia for at least a month.
At normal software companies this would probably go through a process like:
1) Confirmation of the problem
2) Determine severity
3) Assign a release to fix it by
4) Have someone fix it
5) Verify the fix
6) Ship it with the next release
In addition, one may want to look around for related problems and fix those too. Since it is a security issue, I would hope that a fix makes it into the next driver release AFTER the one that is in process. Or perhaps hurried into the one that is in process if it won't delay too long. I don't think a month is really that long for a company that size to go without a fix. Upon reading the summary I honestly thought the last word was going to be "year" not "month", in which case a fix would be long overdue.
Algebra is doing arithmetic on unknown quantities in order to learn something about them. Perhaps their value or their relationship to another unknown quantity.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take paying passengers in a Cessna or other small aircraft. Sea plane tours come to mind as a practical example. They are also used for training which is another commercial use.
To take passengers for money (commercial operation) you can not use a plane certificated as experimental (home built) but you are most certainly able to take non-paying passengers. I've been such a passenger. The Young Eagles organization depends on it too.
Bottom line: kit planes are certified by the FAA as experimental, but can be used in just about any way commercially built planes can except for commercial operation.
Nothing you listed is a problem. Of course there are requirements and costs for getting a pilots license. As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world. In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt. You don't get to fly it until an FAA examiner goes over your paperwork (you must document the construction process to some extent), checks out your plane, and issues an airworthiness certificate so you can begin testing. You don't get a normal type certificate because it is a one-of-a-kind since building it in your garage is not a certified process. Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
;-)
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals
Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well.
The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.
Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.
Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.
So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA chapter
How else would you describe a mandate for a chickenpox vaccine?
Long term, eradication is cheaper than vaccines for the deadly stuff. Mandated vaccines are a form of corporate welfare.
It may be the anti-vaccine crowd, or it may be you. There is evidence that catching things is good for you long term and that vaccines may not be as effective at building the immune system as natural disease. Notice that I'm sidestepping the issue of vaccine safety and still making an argument. Now I'm a fan of eradication programs - I've got a small-pox vaccination scar and think it's great that the disease has been eliminated. I think it's great that we may soon see an end to polio. I'm up for eradicating the really bad stuff. Chicken Pox vaccine? Fuck that, it used to be a right of passage. Sure, if you don't get it as a child you should be vaccinated because getting it as an adult can be terrible. Or perhaps it should be a choice, but to make people get vaccinated? And flu? God no, not for healthy people at low risk (my grandmother died of it at 92, she probably should have gotten the vaccine). Hey, if they really are stupid then not getting it will be evolution in action and humans will become smarter - you should be happy. And lastly, if you get your kid vaccinated and they catch the shit anyway please don't run around blaming those who didn't vaccinate. We have to many people blaming thier problems on others and trying to tell other people what to do.
Again, I'm all for eradication programs for the really bad stuff, but for the rest I think calling people who don't want vaccines "stupid" is just plain ignorant.
That already exists. For a number of systems in cars, the bootloader requires proper authentication to flash new code.
So long as they keep the "infotainment" systems off the vehicle bus everything should be fine. However, there are some nice things that can be done if these devices can talk to each other....
Initiatives are nice, but I suspect the students are drawn to physics in particular because they see billions on dollars/pounds being spend on the LHC and either thinks it's cool and want to understand whats really going on there, or they see the money. Others will not the rise in interest at the time of their "initiative" and say they caused it. Seems like a survey of the students could help clarify this.
Hence the lawsuit.
So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages over not having it at all.
The problem is that humans actually have very little understanding of how the body works and should not meddle in genetics on a large scale. Even in a case where we know a specific condition (2 copies of the CFTR gene) is bad, we should not try to eliminate that gene from the gene pool. I would agree that not producing babies with 2 copies is *probably* a good thing, but people have a tendency to generalize and go too far. Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.
There have also been recent drug trials where the substance in question had the opposite effect from what was intended. The immediate effect was correct, but the expected response in the body was wrong. We have a long way to go both scientifically and socially before such things may be considered a good idea.
The purpose of insurance is to amortize unexpected expenses over time and population. When they get to the point of charging you specifically for YOUR actions, you eliminate the "over population" part and may as well not have insurance at all. You can pay your own expenses when they arise, and smooth it out with something called "savings". Note: As a homeowner you are free to self-insure unless you have a mortgage (the lender will require it) and rich people can and do take advantage of that option. Companies can also do it for some things (rental cars come to mind).
The only reason they care about schemes like tracking drivers, is competition. They could and would insure everyone with the same coverage for the same premiums if they had a monopoly - it's trivial to look at expenses and adjust the price to get the profit you want - no need to pay actuaries. Competition forces them to lower premiums to get customers, which in turn pushes them toward identification of high risk people to penalize or get rid of.
I have not devised or heard of a good way to balance these competing interests and objectives optimally - though I do think about it from time to time.
I know people in management that won't hire PhDs for that exact reason. You hire one because they have specialized knowledge in a particular area. The problem is that when the work is done in that area and they move on to other projects, they act (and are treated by management) superior to everyone else when they no longer have an edge over anyone. In fact, the hoop jumping seem to go against innovation. There are plenty of really smart people who also hold a PhD, but from what I've seen there are at least as many hoop jumpers. YMMV of course.
And we can borrow and spend money today with no idea how it's ever going to be paid back....
Since when did we start calling a payload a warhead, especially when it hasn't been decrypted?
You didn't read carefully. The key is on the target machine and is not part of the attack software.
Dumb old way to do this:
1) Check for certain system configurations.
2) Use some key in the malware to decrypt and run the payload.
New hot way to do this:
1) Use some combination of system configuration to decrypt the payload
2) If that worked, run it.
See that? it hides both the decryption key AND the definition of the system it's meant to attack. Unless you have the target configuration (or can guess it) you can't decrypt the payload or figure out what it's meant to attack. Brilliant.
A facebook page does not need to be cached. It needs to be sent to 10 people. It should be stored on your own personal machine with secure access handed to your "friends". Of course this requires actual peer-to -peer networking which doesn't really exist - just try to get a fixed URL from your ISP, and then try to find a common app that uses it. I'd like to see an IPv6 subnet where the addresses correspond to GPS location - that's just plain easy to route, and it helps with identification.
You only cache the things you get for yourself, and they are only stored for a finite amount of time (say a few days). Your compensation is that you got the data you wanted for yourself over a better system. See Bit Torrent. Now imagine that an embedded YouTube video just points to a torrent and we're done with video. Of course this doesn't include DRM.
Web of trust? Printing the public key in the newspaper? This was solved decades ago. Public keys are to be made as public as possible and kept by as many people as possible so as to be more verifiable.
#2 get the management to recommend taking the company private? It happens and if there is a premium over the current price it's viewed positively.
#3 is probably illegal, but companies manipulate their stock prices all the time.
Good to see you realize #5,6, and 7 are legal since at that point its privately owned.
#8 is not illegal IPOs happen all the time. Over valued IPOs happen too - see facebook.
#9 Once public, the management does have some accountability, but they are still bound by lease agreements and contracts made during the private ownership.
Some are saying HFT issues only affect HFT traders. However, when your FDIC insured deposits are being played on this table instead of being loaned out, the losses can easily impact the population at large, and the diversion of money is allegedly hurting the economy these days. Keep the banks in banking. Keep the brokers brokering. Stop letting them leverage other peoples assets. Then by all means allow HFT to continue on its merry way with their own money.
I'd mod you up too if I had points. Troll is completely unwarranted.
Sure, but the image taken from the surface used a 1 megapixel non-color camera. Talk about low budget...
Also, in spite of all the excitement about Mars, it doesn't really have much of an atmosphere, so being able to get clear pictures from orbit isn't that surprising. They first got images from Mars in the 1970s you know.
Pure speculation based on past observations of other companies:
1) get some money together
2) get the current management on board (their help is needed to take it private).
3) given #2, get the stock to drop more (this step is optional but I just noticed #2 can help).
4) Offer a "premium" over the current price to get shareholders to allow the buyout.
5) Once private, sell all company assets (real estate) to companies owned by the same private investors - dirt cheap.
6) Lease said assets back to company on whatever terms will make the next steps work best.
7) Make some changes to make the company appear better than before
8) Issue new shares to the public to recover the money spent in #4.
9) Try to sustain it long enough to unload all the shares and keep a paying tenant in the buildings purchased in #5.
Since it is the founder this is less likely to resemble their idea of a plan. Let's see who gets on board with him.
At normal software companies this would probably go through a process like:
1) Confirmation of the problem
2) Determine severity
3) Assign a release to fix it by
4) Have someone fix it
5) Verify the fix
6) Ship it with the next release
In addition, one may want to look around for related problems and fix those too. Since it is a security issue, I would hope that a fix makes it into the next driver release AFTER the one that is in process. Or perhaps hurried into the one that is in process if it won't delay too long. I don't think a month is really that long for a company that size to go without a fix. Upon reading the summary I honestly thought the last word was going to be "year" not "month", in which case a fix would be long overdue.
Algebra is doing arithmetic on unknown quantities in order to learn something about them. Perhaps their value or their relationship to another unknown quantity.