Just curious: by "hysterically-high charge/discharge rates", you're referring to hysteresis, not comedy, right?
Neither. The meaning I intended is more like "extremely", but far beyond it. "Extremely" might be read as a substantial improvement but still within the same general range. (Like "ultra-fast", it has been devalued by previous use for smaller deltas.) "Hysterically" would be more in the "whole new ballpark" class - an order of magnitude or much more improvement.
"Hysterically" could mean something like putting a charge of >80% of a cell's total capacity into it (or pulling it out) in half a minute, while "extremely" might still take double-digit minutes as it waits around for things like ions to diffuse in and out of plates.
I don't have to have a solution. The army of engineers designing this, and executives designing the deployment logistics, have to come up with a solution. But it only needs to be no worse than "a driver notices it and does something effective about it".
Having said that, I DO have some experience in the auto industry, industrial automation, remote sensing, and computer science. So let me supply a few possible solutions, just off the top of my head:
a blowout (Which happens regularly)
All a driver does is (maybe) notice it, pull over and get it fixed. We now have battery and radio-based tire pressure sensors built into tire valves, reporting to a computer in the cab.
- Insure they're present and reporting on all wheels on all trailers hauled by an auto-driven tractor (which can be programmed to refuse to leave until matched to the new trailer - and go right back to the starting point if it was somehow misconfigured - as soon as it goes out of range of the transmitter that fooled it.)
- When one reports a pressure drop to unsafe levels - pull over at at the nearest service point. If it reports a sudden drop to zero, pull over and radio for road service.
a mechanical fault happens (also happens regualrly), a senosor fucks up (happens even more),
How does a driver detect this? Why can't an algorithm in a control computer detect the same thing? Maybe even better?
What does a driver do about it? Change behavior? There are rules for that. Include them in the progrms. Hands-on tweaking? Pull over and call a service truck.
there' rain, fog, snow or dirt (Basically daily)
And if they require a change in driving procedures that you can teach a human, why can't you teach a computer? If they require sensor and light cleaning, we already have windshield wipers, defrosters, and the like both on windows and (on high-end cars) headlamps. Why can't that approach be adapted to cameras and truck headlights.
For big, immediate, stuff requiring hands, pull over and wait it out - or call road service in extremity. For more gradual stuff, pull into a service point and wait it out or have the service guys handle it. (I'm sure truck stops can easily add the equivalent of cleaning the windshield and knocking the ice off the marker lamps for auto-trucks to their services - in return for actually getting to service the trucks. They already go as far as providing showers for humans, after all.)
But if you saved your salary, it shouldn't matter.
If you saved your salary, it was probably wiped out or otherwise stolen by taxes, inflation, deliberately depressed interest rates, and other economic manipulation (such as the "economic crisis" - or crises) by now. Going forward, with the current policies of effectively zero (or even negative) interest rates it can be expected to be even worse.
Better energy storage technology, rapid charging, etc.
And better renewable energy sources - like solar panels and related storage/inverter/control systems that are cheaper in total-cost-of deployment, operation, and energy delivered than more grid power.
But we already HAVE that, at least for sunny sites. Good but cheap panels, batteries that have good lifetimes, are efficient, and have hysterically-high charge/discharge rates, inverter and control electronics that have the benefits of decades of Moore's law. Now the flies in the ointment are:
- The improvements are still coming, so fast that by the time you get production of the current stuff ready to ramp up there's something better enough to kill it before you make back your investment.
- Government regulations impeding the deployment and/or distorting the marketplace.
It's not a shortage of research or engineering effort, and there is no shortage of researchers or engineers. (If there were, their pay would be higher, and engineers would not be rejected if they were the wrong color, from schools other than the top three or so, or more than a decade or two out of school (with lots of real-world experience, ongoing self-education, refresher courses, and/or field news publication reading, and the knowledge to not waste time re-attempting certain obvious and attractive solutions that have hidden killer-bugs, but go right to others that work.) So inducting MORE kids into MORE schools and produce MORE unemployed STEM workers isn't going to help.
One thing I see that MAY help is more funding for small-device fusion research - for those non-sunny areas. But even that is proceeding in the private sector, as the governments throw their billions at the monster projects. But I suspect it's better if the government keeps its hands out. Look at how long they delayed solar, by "picking winners" like Solyndra, or polywell, by putting roadblocks in the way of releasing information and getting investment from the private sector after turning off the dribble of government money.
The OTHER thing that would help is GETTING OUT OF THE WAY, mainly by reducing the taxes that bleed out the veins of commerce, and currency inflation, which transfers the value of the rest of the money and investment value from those creating value to the government's cronies.
Also:
- "They'll just take your gun away and use it on you!" is a crock. It's virtually impossible, and rarely occurs.
Think about it: An attacker has caused a victim to be "in reasonable fear of danger to life or limb". The victim has pulled a loaded gun. If the attacker tries to "take it away", does he get the gun or just a bullet or three at several hundred miles per hour?
Getting shot makes it really hard to succeed at wrestling.
My understanding from John Oliver's show is that one reason there isn't good data on gun violence is that the CDC is not allowed to fund studies pertaining to it.
There's plenty of good data and analysis on gun (and other) violence, and how private ownership of guns affects it.
But it's researched and published in the relevant field. That field is criminology, not medicine.
Some of their conclusions include:
- Guns are used several times (sixish last I looked) more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.
- Increasing private ownership and carrying of guns (drastically!) decreases victimization: Murders, assaults, robberies, rapes,...
- Defending against an attack using a gun (per FBI stats) substantially reduces chances of injury or death of the victim, compared to completely cooperating with the attacker. Any other mode of self-defence INcreases chances of injury or death.
- Most self-defence with a gun does not even involve the gun being fired. (Being confronted with a gun usually makes the bad guy back down right away.)
- When someone is shot in the defender's belief the shoot is proper (e.g. self-defence), cops are about five and a half times more likely to be found to have shot someone they shouldn't have than armed private citizens. (Not a law-of-small-numbers thing: Civilians shoot MORE in self-defense than cops. Main factor may be that they just are more likely to know what's going on when they have to act.)
With results like this, of course, it's no wonder that you never hear a mention of the field of criminology or its work in the press. B-b
Fleets of long-haul cargo trucks, going between a limited number of specialized terminals or loading docks, on major roadways and well-maintained commercial access roads, under lowered speed limits and other tightly-constrained legal behavior requirements, without tight constraints on transit time, are easier to automate than herds of passenger cars, and have an economy-of-scale at the owner level.
Imagine a truck on a roadway, going from one loading dock to another, as an elevator car, or a "people-mover" style unmanned train.
Lost the start of that, trying to recover . Quick summary.
Imagine a flickering-LED optical transmitter on the side of one hill, and (instead of an optic fiber to a receiver) a telescope pointed at it with a photodiode at the corresponding point of the image. The Nyquist limit applies to the amount of data you can send that way (and forward-error-correction coding schemes exist that approach the maximum theoretical bitrate).
Now imagine a billboard on the hill, with an array of flickering-LED optical transmitters, and an array of photodiode receivers at the telescope image plane. The individual signals are flying through the same space and separated by their direction of flight. The Nyquist limit applies to each of these links, but if the optics are good, the aperture large enough, and the air is not dusty, foggy, or the signal so strong it starts ionizing things, the signals don't mix enough to raise each other's noise level. So with N signals you can get up to N times the data rate. (If the separation isn't perfect you get less than Nx because of some of the signals appearing as a noise in the reception of others.)
At any cross-section of the path from the billboard to the telescope, the light is the sum of the light from all of the transmitters. The direction of flight of each individual signal is represented by the way the phase of its contribution changes from point to point across this cross-section. The telescope samples a cross section and the optics "computes" the separation of the beams, bringing each to a focus on a different receiver.
With MIMO the transmitting station does something approximately like synthesizing the signals at several points on such a cross-section and pushing each out through a separate antenna located appropriately. Meanwhile the receiving station does something like sampling several points on the cross-section and computing the separation of the individual flying-slightly-different-directions signals.
With more than (two? three?) antennas there are some issues that keep you from synthesizing and extracting as many completely independent channels as there are antennas at the end with the fewer antennas, but it approaches that.
Also: If you've got one central site (like a hotspot or cell tower or coherent array of them) with a lot of antennas and a number of remote devices with only one or a few, you can do things like "steerable null" - computing waveforms that send signals to several remote sites arranged so that each "can't hear" the signals intended for the others. (You make the others maximally quiet, rather than his maximally loud, because the ones intended for others are "noise" and its the ratio of signal to noise that matters.) Your multi-antenna remotes can also get multiple re-uses of the bandwidth and your single-antenna remotes a signle use of the bandwidth - but the cancellation on the multi-antenna remotes isn't quite as good, so it's another case of you can't quite get to data rates equivalent to the ideal of M antennas at the central and a sum of M antennas at the remotes giving you M complete re-uses of the spectrum.
Did they finally fix calling a virtual function of a containing class during the constructor or destructor (or other initialization) of a member object of a derived class that provides a new overriding for the virtual function?
It should be strongly defined to get the base class version of the virtual function until the first line of the derived class constructor is executing until the last line of the derived class destructor has executed.
I have been asking for this since the first round of standardization.
Intellectual property is the only hope left... for the USA...
So the USA ('s 1%) is hosed.
Interesting that it's come full circle:
Royal "patents", limiting the manufacturing of certain goods (needed by the colonists) to British companies, were a big part of the system for keeping the colonists dependent, low-priced, commodity producers for the enrichment of British companies. The colonials (at least in New England), in turn, subsidized the immigration of engineers, mechanics, tanners, shipwrights, and such, with the knowledge and talent to, for instance, build mills and manufacturing or processing operations on this side of the Atlantic. (The English, for instance, saw New England as a farm for masts, while the New Englanders saw it as a fine site for shipyards.) This enabled the eventual secession (after attempts to obtain equal "rights of Englishmen" resulted in military suppression and the attempt to seize their guns).
However, lumping all protected "Intellectual Property" together misses a major point: The US government is rabid on protecting the entertainment industry's content. But it does squat to defend technological patents against misappropriation by foreign companies. For example: Huawei's cloning of router technology from Cisco and others.
The US demands the IP holder put a number on the damages before it will do anything. For cloning of an entertainment product that's a reasonably straightforward number to make up. For feature patents on devices like routers, the accused can claim that people make their buying decisions on other factors and the infringing features are minor bells and whistles - and the US lets it drop.
A year or two ago I saw a description of a "telescreen" variant on an LED or LCD flat display. Some of the pixels in each cluster were light sourcing, but some were light-sensing. They had individual lenses, like an insect eye, spaced very slightly differently from the pixels themselves so the field of view fanned out appropriately (say, for a virtual viewer's eye being located a couple feet behind the screen).
The result is a flatscreen that is also a camera. Handy for videoconfrencing, as looking at the image on the screen also means looking at the camera. Handy for construction: No separate camera needed, simplifying construction and reducing the amount of non-screen bezel around the screen.
Impossible to put a piece of tape over it, though. You'd have to intercept the wiring or install your own code.
Even intercepting the wiring might become impossible, as the signal both ways could be encrypted under the guise of video copy protection. Cut the inbound wires and the screen stops displaying, too, while the encryption makes it effectively impossible to separate the inbound video from the inbound side of the outbound video's DRM handshaking.
Tivoization makes software tweaking almost impossible. Things like Intel's AMT's management engines, or AMD's equivalent means even if you could replace the software you're still hosed.
Add a piezo (or other MEMS device) sensor to detect the flexing of the screen and it's a microphone, too. Orwell's telescreen is created.
(Heck: You could make it a drop-in replacement for a NORMAL screen and the spooks could install it on a laptop that DOES have a camera and microphone for you to cover up. Use the official ones for the user features while reserving the screen for the clandestine and the victim thinks he's shut it off while the spooks gleefully watch and listen.)
The 1984 scenarios may be a few decades late. But now we HAVE the technology!
I normally use a post-it note Same here - cut down to an appropriate size. Though I originally used electrical tape.
I've been taping them over since they started being standard equipment on enough laptops that finding a laptop without one when looking for one that could run linux crimped the selection.
(If they'd had a switch I might have trusted it - though that would be foolish. Since they don't the choice is easy.)
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?
When they help out you usually don't hear about it in the press.
That's partly because it's against most press outlets' (often publicly announced!) editorial policies to print anything that portrays self-defense use of firearms as desirable. And it's partly because, when civilian gun-toters stop an attempted mass murderer, the murdered mass is small to non-eixistent.
A case in point is the Clakamas Mall attempted mass shooting.
The wikipedia article is pretty sketchy, mentioning only one CCW carrier who showed his weapon. As I hear it, after this guy started shooting, while the store personnel were helping their customers out the service passages at the back, several mallgoers (not all of them armed!) started stalking him, and he noticed. This was in Oregon, where both open and concealed carry is legal and common, so the expectation would be that several armed people would be present, and this impromptu platoon would be a serious threat. So he retreated, eventually ending up in a dead-end passage where he killed himself.
Shooter with an AR-15 and 120 rounds (not counting the additional 30 in the magazine he dropped in the parking lot on the way in), opening fire in a mall crowded with 8,000-10,000 ordinary people. Score: Two victims dead, one victim seriously wounded, one perpetrator dead at his own hand. No shots actually fired by the defenders (mostly due to not having a good shot due to other civilians as backstops).
Law enforcement officers are also less law abiding than civilians who are licensed to carry but maybe they have more opportunity to be convicted of crimes.
There's no tracking I'm aware that specifically covers licensed civilians who are convicted of any crimes, let alone shooting related.
Actually, there's a lot of such studies (and the FBI keeps stats). You don't hear about them because with-gun crime among licensed gun owners is vanishingly small.
For instance: After Florida went to shall-issue (one of the earliest states to do so - to try to quell a crime wave), they quickly had a half-million CCW licenses. (They're up to 1.38 million as of 2015.) The anti-gunners had predicted a bloodbath, and all eyes were on Florida. But it was several years (and thus a couple million man-years of carry) before a CCW holder was arrested for, and eventually convicted of, improperly shooting someone (in a traffic altercation) with his firearm. Turns out that the police had blown the background check: Under existing law this guy shouldn't have even been allowed to buy a gun, let alone carry it concealed.
Or Law enforcement shoots more, outnumbering the carrying civilians by far, even aside from awareness issues. Note you said more bystanders are shot, which is different from more often they do shoot bystanders.
Actually (according to a study a few years back):
- The numbers for civilians are NOT small enough to be statistical noise: Self-defenders shoot MORE perpetrators total than police do (even though most with-gun self defence incidents don't end up with the defender actually firing a shot.)
- When they actually shoot somebody, police are well over five times more likely to shoot somebody improperly than civilians.
In defence of the police: They come to active confrontations when they're well under way, and pretty much can't back out because it's their job to preserve the peace. They have to figure out quickly who the bad guy is, a process fraught with opportunity for error, and bring the confrontation to an end. Civilian self-defenders (and other-defenders) are generally in the stew from its start, have a very good idea what's happening, and get to bail out at any point when it's safe to do so. (Usually that's the whole POINT for them.)
On the other hand, police rarely actually have to shoot. More than half of them go through their career without firing their service weapon except at the range
Police are also notoriously rotten shots compared with armed civilians: Police generally only do the mandatory minimum practice required for qualification. (Some forces, such as San Francisco's, penalize, demote, or fire any officer who does additional practice shooting. Even among those who don't, the officers have a lot of stuff to learn besides using guns, skills they must use far more often.) Civilians, on the other hand, generally practice until they (and their instructors or advisors) are confident they know what they're doing.
The higher the number and quality of lethal armaments that are floating around in your country/city/town, the higher the body-count from an attack will be.
The higher the percentage of the people carrying concealed weapons in your country/city/town, the higher the probability that one or more of the people in the targeted site can and will shoot back, incapacitating or killing the attacker(s) and aborting the carnage, and thus the lower the body-count from the attack will be.
The higher the probability of such a counter-action, the less likely potential terrorists will chose to attempt the attack. The body count of an attack that doesn't occur is zero.
Of course, if the venu is a gun-free zone, only the terrorist will have guns. In Florida, as with many states permitting concealed-carry, this is the case for establishments serving alcohol, such as Pulse. Oops!
That's one reason I intend to retire in Nevada, which (as of the last time I renewed) doesn't block CCW in bars and casinos. B-)
How about if they just send you some packets over the internet?
A possible exploit or backdoor could be triggered this way. The workaround would be a really aggro firewall, but even then you'd have to be sure you were running it on something auditable if this was your concern.
Again, how would you know what to block?
Even if you knew what to block, how would your firewall ever see it? If you built it out of Intel chips, AMD's ME gets first look at them. It could recognize its own, see that they're for something behind it, and forward them itself, without the main CPU ever seeing them. Even if there are multiple cards involved the MEs get to talk to each other in private.
The same applies to outgoing packets from the advertised "M.E. Phone Home" feature on machines behind your firewall. A firewall's rules and logging don't mean squat when the firmware on the hardware under the firewall's processor intercept and forward the packets themselves and don't bother to mention it to their victim.
It might seem hard to do but it's actually pretty trivial. The M.E. already knows how to intercept packets for itself and establish a connection from an external controller. All it has to do in addition is provide that service on inward-facing interfaces as well, and proxy between them and similar connections on the outward-facing interfaces. Piece of cake.
How about if the machine, once connected to the net, "phones home", bypassing NAT and most firewalls?
We'd see this. This is not a concern.
ORLY?
How would you see it? Are you logigng every outgoing packet and watching the logs for it? How would you know what to watch for? How would you differentiate it from any other encrypted connection (such as all that https: traffic your browser generates whenever you use it)?
We know the feature is there. They ADVERTISE and SELL tools to use it to their corporate customers.
Nope. If an Intel engineer rolls up to your house, breaks in and attaches a probe to your motherboard you should probably ask what the hell he or she is doing.
How about if they park down the block and turn on a WiFi Access Point?
How about if they just send you some packets over the internet?
How about if the machine, once connected to the net, "phones home", bypassing NAT and most firewalls?
These are all functions of Intel AMT that are ADVERTIZED AS FEATURES.
If I choose the option in my BIOS to *erase* the ME firmware, does that make it any better?
I was under the impression (from some of the sketchy online stuff touting it a few years back) that "erasing" the ME stuff actually consisted of erasing the configuration and returning it to factory settings.
Presuming this is true: Since factory settings consist of it waiting for anybody claiming to be its owner, and having the necessary software tools, to configure it, "erasing" it takes it from only responding to the keys of whomever previously controlled it to responding to anyone at all.
... or at least the "gain" should be indexed to either gold or silver (government's choice - but in advance of the period during which the so-called "gain" occurs).
The "capital gain" of the tax code is actually a PRICE gain measured in dollars. The value of the dollar is under the control of the government (via its proxy, the Federal Reserve), and is systematically lowered ("inflation"). So an asset whose value doesn't change at all nevertheless suffers a "gain" in price, which is taxed. (An asset whose actual value does rise still suffers an additional "gain" in price, and one whose value falls doesn't start to show a "loss" unless the loss in value is more than that of the dollar.)
This means that the government not only steals the value out of money held by printing more of it, for itself and its cronies, diluting the supply, but it also steals a portion of the value of any other property held by someone between its purchase and its sale. Thus the "capital gains" tax is an additional incentive to inflate the currency and rip off the general population for the benefit of the government officials, functionaries, and their cronies.
With all of the Samsung critical security bugs... I'm really surprised he didn't switch to an iPhone.
On the other hand, Samsung builds most of the supported platforms for Replicant, the open-code-only spinoff from cyannogen-mod (which discovered and fixed some of those Samsung bugs).
Replicant is only up to the S3. But it might be interesting to try to look into whether any of its work was incorporated into this platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious: by "hysterically-high charge/discharge rates", you're referring to hysteresis, not comedy, right?
Neither. The meaning I intended is more like "extremely", but far beyond it. "Extremely" might be read as a substantial improvement but still within the same general range. (Like "ultra-fast", it has been devalued by previous use for smaller deltas.) "Hysterically" would be more in the "whole new ballpark" class - an order of magnitude or much more improvement.
"Hysterically" could mean something like putting a charge of >80% of a cell's total capacity into it (or pulling it out) in half a minute, while "extremely" might still take double-digit minutes as it waits around for things like ions to diffuse in and out of plates.
Got a solution ...?
I don't have to have a solution. The army of engineers designing this, and executives designing the deployment logistics, have to come up with a solution. But it only needs to be no worse than "a driver notices it and does something effective about it".
Having said that, I DO have some experience in the auto industry, industrial automation, remote sensing, and computer science. So let me supply a few possible solutions, just off the top of my head:
a blowout (Which happens regularly)
All a driver does is (maybe) notice it, pull over and get it fixed. We now have battery and radio-based tire pressure sensors built into tire valves, reporting to a computer in the cab.
- Insure they're present and reporting on all wheels on all trailers hauled by an auto-driven tractor (which can be programmed to refuse to leave until matched to the new trailer - and go right back to the starting point if it was somehow misconfigured - as soon as it goes out of range of the transmitter that fooled it.)
- When one reports a pressure drop to unsafe levels - pull over at at the nearest service point. If it reports a sudden drop to zero, pull over and radio for road service.
a mechanical fault happens (also happens regualrly), a senosor fucks up (happens even more),
How does a driver detect this? Why can't an algorithm in a control computer detect the same thing? Maybe even better?
What does a driver do about it? Change behavior? There are rules for that. Include them in the progrms. Hands-on tweaking? Pull over and call a service truck.
there' rain, fog, snow or dirt (Basically daily)
And if they require a change in driving procedures that you can teach a human, why can't you teach a computer? If they require sensor and light cleaning, we already have windshield wipers, defrosters, and the like both on windows and (on high-end cars) headlamps. Why can't that approach be adapted to cameras and truck headlights.
For big, immediate, stuff requiring hands, pull over and wait it out - or call road service in extremity. For more gradual stuff, pull into a service point and wait it out or have the service guys handle it. (I'm sure truck stops can easily add the equivalent of cleaning the windshield and knocking the ice off the marker lamps for auto-trucks to their services - in return for actually getting to service the trucks. They already go as far as providing showers for humans, after all.)
But if you saved your salary, it shouldn't matter.
If you saved your salary, it was probably wiped out or otherwise stolen by taxes, inflation, deliberately depressed interest rates, and other economic manipulation (such as the "economic crisis" - or crises) by now. Going forward, with the current policies of effectively zero (or even negative) interest rates it can be expected to be even worse.
Better energy storage technology, rapid charging, etc.
And better renewable energy sources - like solar panels and related storage/inverter/control systems that are cheaper in total-cost-of deployment, operation, and energy delivered than more grid power.
But we already HAVE that, at least for sunny sites. Good but cheap panels, batteries that have good lifetimes, are efficient, and have hysterically-high charge/discharge rates, inverter and control electronics that have the benefits of decades of Moore's law. Now the flies in the ointment are:
- The improvements are still coming, so fast that by the time you get production of the current stuff ready to ramp up there's something better enough to kill it before you make back your investment.
- Government regulations impeding the deployment and/or distorting the marketplace.
It's not a shortage of research or engineering effort, and there is no shortage of researchers or engineers. (If there were, their pay would be higher, and engineers would not be rejected if they were the wrong color, from schools other than the top three or so, or more than a decade or two out of school (with lots of real-world experience, ongoing self-education, refresher courses, and/or field news publication reading, and the knowledge to not waste time re-attempting certain obvious and attractive solutions that have hidden killer-bugs, but go right to others that work.) So inducting MORE kids into MORE schools and produce MORE unemployed STEM workers isn't going to help.
One thing I see that MAY help is more funding for small-device fusion research - for those non-sunny areas. But even that is proceeding in the private sector, as the governments throw their billions at the monster projects. But I suspect it's better if the government keeps its hands out. Look at how long they delayed solar, by "picking winners" like Solyndra, or polywell, by putting roadblocks in the way of releasing information and getting investment from the private sector after turning off the dribble of government money.
The OTHER thing that would help is GETTING OUT OF THE WAY, mainly by reducing the taxes that bleed out the veins of commerce, and currency inflation, which transfers the value of the rest of the money and investment value from those creating value to the government's cronies.
Some of their conclusions include: ...
Also:
- "They'll just take your gun away and use it on you!" is a crock. It's virtually impossible, and rarely occurs.
Think about it: An attacker has caused a victim to be "in reasonable fear of danger to life or limb". The victim has pulled a loaded gun. If the attacker tries to "take it away", does he get the gun or just a bullet or three at several hundred miles per hour?
Getting shot makes it really hard to succeed at wrestling.
My understanding from John Oliver's show is that one reason there isn't good data on gun violence is that the CDC is not allowed to fund studies pertaining to it.
There's plenty of good data and analysis on gun (and other) violence, and how private ownership of guns affects it.
But it's researched and published in the relevant field. That field is criminology, not medicine.
Some of their conclusions include: ...
- Guns are used several times (sixish last I looked) more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.
- Increasing private ownership and carrying of guns (drastically!) decreases victimization: Murders, assaults, robberies, rapes,
- Defending against an attack using a gun (per FBI stats) substantially reduces chances of injury or death of the victim, compared to completely cooperating with the attacker. Any other mode of self-defence INcreases chances of injury or death.
- Most self-defence with a gun does not even involve the gun being fired. (Being confronted with a gun usually makes the bad guy back down right away.)
- When someone is shot in the defender's belief the shoot is proper (e.g. self-defence), cops are about five and a half times more likely to be found to have shot someone they shouldn't have than armed private citizens. (Not a law-of-small-numbers thing: Civilians shoot MORE in self-defense than cops. Main factor may be that they just are more likely to know what's going on when they have to act.)
With results like this, of course, it's no wonder that you never hear a mention of the field of criminology or its work in the press. B-b
The first "jobs" casualty will be truck drivers.
Fleets of long-haul cargo trucks, going between a limited number of specialized terminals or loading docks, on major roadways and well-maintained commercial access roads, under lowered speed limits and other tightly-constrained legal behavior requirements, without tight constraints on transit time, are easier to automate than herds of passenger cars, and have an economy-of-scale at the owner level.
Imagine a truck on a roadway, going from one loading dock to another, as an elevator car, or a "people-mover" style unmanned train.
Lost the start of that, trying to recover . Quick summary.
Imagine a flickering-LED optical transmitter on the side of one hill, and (instead of an optic fiber to a receiver) a telescope pointed at it with a photodiode at the corresponding point of the image. The Nyquist limit applies to the amount of data you can send that way (and forward-error-correction coding schemes exist that approach the maximum theoretical bitrate).
Now imagine a billboard on the hill, with an array of flickering-LED optical transmitters, and an array of photodiode receivers at the telescope image plane. The individual signals are flying through the same space and separated by their direction of flight. The Nyquist limit applies to each of these links, but if the optics are good, the aperture large enough, and the air is not dusty, foggy, or the signal so strong it starts ionizing things, the signals don't mix enough to raise each other's noise level. So with N signals you can get up to N times the data rate. (If the separation isn't perfect you get less than Nx because of some of the signals appearing as a noise in the reception of others.)
At any cross-section of the path from the billboard to the telescope, the light is the sum of the light from all of the transmitters. The direction of flight of each individual signal is represented by the way the phase of its contribution changes from point to point across this cross-section. The telescope samples a cross section and the optics "computes" the separation of the beams, bringing each to a focus on a different receiver.
With MIMO the transmitting station does something approximately like synthesizing the signals at several points on such a cross-section and pushing each out through a separate antenna located appropriately. Meanwhile the receiving station does something like sampling several points on the cross-section and computing the separation of the individual flying-slightly-different-directions signals.
With more than (two? three?) antennas there are some issues that keep you from synthesizing and extracting as many completely independent channels as there are antennas at the end with the fewer antennas, but it approaches that.
Also: If you've got one central site (like a hotspot or cell tower or coherent array of them) with a lot of antennas and a number of remote devices with only one or a few, you can do things like "steerable null" - computing waveforms that send signals to several remote sites arranged so that each "can't hear" the signals intended for the others. (You make the others maximally quiet, rather than his maximally loud, because the ones intended for others are "noise" and its the ratio of signal to noise that matters.) Your multi-antenna remotes can also get multiple re-uses of the bandwidth and your single-antenna remotes a signle use of the bandwidth - but the cancellation on the multi-antenna remotes isn't quite as good, so it's another case of you can't quite get to data rates equivalent to the ideal of M antennas at the central and a sum of M antennas at the remotes giving you M complete re-uses of the spectrum.
It should be strongly defined to get the base class version of the virtual function until the first line of the derived class constructor is executing
then the derived class version
until the last line of the derived class destructor has executed
(except when further overridden by additional layers of derived classes, of course).
Did they finally fix calling a virtual function of a containing class during the constructor or destructor (or other initialization) of a member object of a derived class that provides a new overriding for the virtual function?
It should be strongly defined to get the base class version of the virtual function until the first line of the derived class constructor is executing until the last line of the derived class destructor has executed.
I have been asking for this since the first round of standardization.
Intellectual property is the only hope left ... for the USA ...
So the USA ('s 1%) is hosed.
Interesting that it's come full circle:
Royal "patents", limiting the manufacturing of certain goods (needed by the colonists) to British companies, were a big part of the system for keeping the colonists dependent, low-priced, commodity producers for the enrichment of British companies. The colonials (at least in New England), in turn, subsidized the immigration of engineers, mechanics, tanners, shipwrights, and such, with the knowledge and talent to, for instance, build mills and manufacturing or processing operations on this side of the Atlantic. (The English, for instance, saw New England as a farm for masts, while the New Englanders saw it as a fine site for shipyards.) This enabled the eventual secession (after attempts to obtain equal "rights of Englishmen" resulted in military suppression and the attempt to seize their guns).
However, lumping all protected "Intellectual Property" together misses a major point: The US government is rabid on protecting the entertainment industry's content. But it does squat to defend technological patents against misappropriation by foreign companies. For example: Huawei's cloning of router technology from Cisco and others.
The US demands the IP holder put a number on the damages before it will do anything. For cloning of an entertainment product that's a reasonably straightforward number to make up. For feature patents on devices like routers, the accused can claim that people make their buying decisions on other factors and the infringing features are minor bells and whistles - and the US lets it drop.
A year or two ago I saw a description of a "telescreen" variant on an LED or LCD flat display. Some of the pixels in each cluster were light sourcing, but some were light-sensing. They had individual lenses, like an insect eye, spaced very slightly differently from the pixels themselves so the field of view fanned out appropriately (say, for a virtual viewer's eye being located a couple feet behind the screen).
The result is a flatscreen that is also a camera. Handy for videoconfrencing, as looking at the image on the screen also means looking at the camera. Handy for construction: No separate camera needed, simplifying construction and reducing the amount of non-screen bezel around the screen.
Impossible to put a piece of tape over it, though. You'd have to intercept the wiring or install your own code.
Even intercepting the wiring might become impossible, as the signal both ways could be encrypted under the guise of video copy protection. Cut the inbound wires and the screen stops displaying, too, while the encryption makes it effectively impossible to separate the inbound video from the inbound side of the outbound video's DRM handshaking.
Tivoization makes software tweaking almost impossible. Things like Intel's AMT's management engines, or AMD's equivalent means even if you could replace the software you're still hosed.
Add a piezo (or other MEMS device) sensor to detect the flexing of the screen and it's a microphone, too. Orwell's telescreen is created.
(Heck: You could make it a drop-in replacement for a NORMAL screen and the spooks could install it on a laptop that DOES have a camera and microphone for you to cover up. Use the official ones for the user features while reserving the screen for the clandestine and the victim thinks he's shut it off while the spooks gleefully watch and listen.)
The 1984 scenarios may be a few decades late. But now we HAVE the technology!
I normally use a post-it note
Same here - cut down to an appropriate size. Though I originally used electrical tape.
I've been taping them over since they started being standard equipment on enough laptops that finding a laptop without one when looking for one that could run linux crimped the selection.
(If they'd had a switch I might have trusted it - though that would be foolish. Since they don't the choice is easy.)
I
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?
When they help out you usually don't hear about it in the press.
That's partly because it's against most press outlets' (often publicly announced!) editorial policies to print anything that portrays self-defense use of firearms as desirable. And it's partly because, when civilian gun-toters stop an attempted mass murderer, the murdered mass is small to non-eixistent.
A case in point is the Clakamas Mall attempted mass shooting.
The wikipedia article is pretty sketchy, mentioning only one CCW carrier who showed his weapon. As I hear it, after this guy started shooting, while the store personnel were helping their customers out the service passages at the back, several mallgoers (not all of them armed!) started stalking him, and he noticed. This was in Oregon, where both open and concealed carry is legal and common, so the expectation would be that several armed people would be present, and this impromptu platoon would be a serious threat. So he retreated, eventually ending up in a dead-end passage where he killed himself.
Shooter with an AR-15 and 120 rounds (not counting the additional 30 in the magazine he dropped in the parking lot on the way in), opening fire in a mall crowded with 8,000-10,000 ordinary people. Score: Two victims dead, one victim seriously wounded, one perpetrator dead at his own hand. No shots actually fired by the defenders (mostly due to not having a good shot due to other civilians as backstops).
Actually, there's a lot of such studies (and the FBI keeps stats). You don't hear about them because with-gun crime among licensed gun owners is vanishingly small.
For instance: After Florida went to shall-issue (one of the earliest states to do so - to try to quell a crime wave), they quickly had a half-million CCW licenses. (They're up to 1.38 million as of 2015.) The anti-gunners had predicted a bloodbath, and all eyes were on Florida. But it was several years (and thus a couple million man-years of carry) before a CCW holder was arrested for, and eventually convicted of, improperly shooting someone (in a traffic altercation) with his firearm. Turns out that the police had blown the background check: Under existing law this guy shouldn't have even been allowed to buy a gun, let alone carry it concealed.
Or Law enforcement shoots more, outnumbering the carrying civilians by far, even aside from awareness issues. Note you said more bystanders are shot, which is different from more often they do shoot bystanders.
Actually (according to a study a few years back):
- The numbers for civilians are NOT small enough to be statistical noise: Self-defenders shoot MORE perpetrators total than police do (even though most with-gun self defence incidents don't end up with the defender actually firing a shot.)
- When they actually shoot somebody, police are well over five times more likely to shoot somebody improperly than civilians.
In defence of the police: They come to active confrontations when they're well under way, and pretty much can't back out because it's their job to preserve the peace. They have to figure out quickly who the bad guy is, a process fraught with opportunity for error, and bring the confrontation to an end. Civilian self-defenders (and other-defenders) are generally in the stew from its start, have a very good idea what's happening, and get to bail out at any point when it's safe to do so. (Usually that's the whole POINT for them.)
On the other hand, police rarely actually have to shoot. More than half of them go through their career without firing their service weapon except at the range
Police are also notoriously rotten shots compared with armed civilians: Police generally only do the mandatory minimum practice required for qualification. (Some forces, such as San Francisco's, penalize, demote, or fire any officer who does additional practice shooting. Even among those who don't, the officers have a lot of stuff to learn besides using guns, skills they must use far more often.) Civilians, on the other hand, generally practice until they (and their instructors or advisors) are confident they know what they're doing.
The higher the number and quality of lethal armaments that are floating around in your country/city/town, the higher the body-count from an attack will be.
The higher the percentage of the people carrying concealed weapons in your country/city/town, the higher the probability that one or more of the people in the targeted site can and will shoot back, incapacitating or killing the attacker(s) and aborting the carnage, and thus the lower the body-count from the attack will be.
The higher the probability of such a counter-action, the less likely potential terrorists will chose to attempt the attack. The body count of an attack that doesn't occur is zero.
Of course, if the venu is a gun-free zone, only the terrorist will have guns. In Florida, as with many states permitting concealed-carry, this is the case for establishments serving alcohol, such as Pulse. Oops!
That's one reason I intend to retire in Nevada, which (as of the last time I renewed) doesn't block CCW in bars and casinos. B-)
Again, how would you know what to block?
Even if you knew what to block, how would your firewall ever see it? If you built it out of Intel chips, AMD's ME gets first look at them. It could recognize its own, see that they're for something behind it, and forward them itself, without the main CPU ever seeing them. Even if there are multiple cards involved the MEs get to talk to each other in private.
The same applies to outgoing packets from the advertised "M.E. Phone Home" feature on machines behind your firewall. A firewall's rules and logging don't mean squat when the firmware on the hardware under the firewall's processor intercept and forward the packets themselves and don't bother to mention it to their victim.
It might seem hard to do but it's actually pretty trivial. The M.E. already knows how to intercept packets for itself and establish a connection from an external controller. All it has to do in addition is provide that service on inward-facing interfaces as well, and proxy between them and similar connections on the outward-facing interfaces. Piece of cake.
ORLY?
How would you see it? Are you logigng every outgoing packet and watching the logs for it? How would you know what to watch for? How would you differentiate it from any other encrypted connection (such as all that https: traffic your browser generates whenever you use it)?
We know the feature is there. They ADVERTISE and SELL tools to use it to their corporate customers.
Nope. If an Intel engineer rolls up to your house, breaks in and attaches a probe to your motherboard you should probably ask what the hell he or she is doing.
How about if they park down the block and turn on a WiFi Access Point?
How about if they just send you some packets over the internet?
How about if the machine, once connected to the net, "phones home", bypassing NAT and most firewalls?
These are all functions of Intel AMT that are ADVERTIZED AS FEATURES.
If I choose the option in my BIOS to *erase* the ME firmware, does that make it any better?
I was under the impression (from some of the sketchy online stuff touting it a few years back) that "erasing" the ME stuff actually consisted of erasing the configuration and returning it to factory settings.
Presuming this is true: Since factory settings consist of it waiting for anybody claiming to be its owner, and having the necessary software tools, to configure it, "erasing" it takes it from only responding to the keys of whomever previously controlled it to responding to anyone at all.
... or at least the "gain" should be indexed to either gold or silver (government's choice - but in advance of the period during which the so-called "gain" occurs).
The "capital gain" of the tax code is actually a PRICE gain measured in dollars. The value of the dollar is under the control of the government (via its proxy, the Federal Reserve), and is systematically lowered ("inflation"). So an asset whose value doesn't change at all nevertheless suffers a "gain" in price, which is taxed. (An asset whose actual value does rise still suffers an additional "gain" in price, and one whose value falls doesn't start to show a "loss" unless the loss in value is more than that of the dollar.)
This means that the government not only steals the value out of money held by printing more of it, for itself and its cronies, diluting the supply, but it also steals a portion of the value of any other property held by someone between its purchase and its sale. Thus the "capital gains" tax is an additional incentive to inflate the currency and rip off the general population for the benefit of the government officials, functionaries, and their cronies.
With all of the Samsung critical security bugs ... I'm really surprised he didn't switch to an iPhone.
On the other hand, Samsung builds most of the supported platforms for Replicant, the open-code-only spinoff from cyannogen-mod (which discovered and fixed some of those Samsung bugs).
Replicant is only up to the S3. But it might be interesting to try to look into whether any of its work was incorporated into this platform.
In this case, as with Luby's Cafeteria, it obviously was not.