The obvious next step would be to place both you and your product on Double Secret Probation... the terms of which are only available to developers with Super-Level Clearance. You don't have Super-Level Clearance, do you? Hmmm, very well, just sign here... and here... and here... thank you.
"All the way down" to where? I don't think I've ever gotten a satisfactory answer. On a related note, perhaps we should consider using turtle-shell filaments as the composite material for a space-elevator tether. Remarkably strong stuff.
I don't see how that's going to help my Post Traumatic CowboyNeal Exposure Syndrome... However, I'm certain that any of the big pharma cartels would be happy to medicate me.
I'm not buying the 500x more light absorption spec. Current cheapo amorphous silicon solar cells are 3% efficient... they harvest that percentage of the incident light, regardless of area. If you harvested *all* the incident light, you'd only have a 33x increase in efficiency. Similarly, triple-junction cells peak at about 40% efficiency. Theoretically, the maximum increase you could see is 2.5x. The numbers are inflated, making me skeptical.
Eh, this sounds like the high-and-mighty features that FlexLM was supposed to bring to the CAD market over the last few decades. Anyone who has used development tools from Xilinx, Altera, Cadence, et al, knows what an outrageous PiTA this thing is. It's undeniably twitchy, and changing any configuration item (like adding a new licensed feature) results in something breaking somewhere else. You have to have a degree to manage a FlexLM server, and I can't envision Joe Sixpack *ever* getting a floating license structure working between his PC, his iPod, his laptop, and anything else.
These "portable" license management schemes were one collective turd when deployed 20+ years ago... they're not any more palatable now. I tend to classify them as a scam, attempting to motivate you to re-purchase the product due to severe inconvenience.
So they're going to ban Mythbusters clips now? I mean, last week they showed how to make an improvised explosive using coffee creamer as the fuel. This week, they determined the necessary explosive amount required to blow up your average genetically-altered great white shark (albeit under the watchful eye of a California bomb squad.)
Seriously, a bomb is fuel, oxidizer, and a containment vessel. Technically, the propane tank on your barbecue grill counts as a "bomb" in the right context.
At my previous job (optical network equipment manufacturer, now defunct,) we ran a nifty TSR web server with a single fake news release webpage. Surprisingly, the TSR app would continue running even after logging out. We left it running on a lab computer for about a week before making the internal URL available. When we announced it, it took about 20 minutes before a team of IT guys barged through the lab doors. They chased wall plate tags, right up to the machine in question.
ITguy1: This is it.
ITguy2: It's not logged in.
ITguy3: Double check the wall plate number.
ITguy1: Yep, that's it. But nobody's logged in?
ITguy2: Pull the cable. [*yank*]
ITguy1: (on phone) That's it? Okay, good.
ITguy3: That's it? Fuck it, take the whole machine.
With that, they grabbed the whole machine and took off. Took them a day or two to figure out what was happening. The couldn't pin it on anyone, as there had been numerous log-ins on the lab machine. However, the gave us a knowing nod of the head and a shake of the finger. I do believe that they appreciated the prank, but couldn't officially say so.
Actually, it's more primitive than tribalism. Humans are pack animals. You accept members of your pack, and reject members of other packs. Not surprisingly, members of your pack tend to physically and behaviorally resemble you.
You'll see the appearance element pop up in the workplace. Ever hear the local suit guy advertising "The suit makes the man!" or "Dress for success!"? I used to have a manager who judged folks by their shoes. He said that people tended to wear clothes based on a desired perception, but their shoes tended to have more subconscious elements. In general, I think he was correct.
Years ago, I attended a community Labor Day parade. I wore a bright orange T-shirt with the word "STAFF" across the back. Worked wonders for gaining access to areas off-limits to ordinary "unwashed masses" folks. Social engineering can be entertaining.
Folks should accept that everything in their past is necessary to get them to being who they are today. Beyond that, follow up with "besides, I was trying to impress a girl," and your harshest critics should start mumbling and looking at their shoes (cuz they've done it too.) Hell, I'd be more concerned if you didn't have youthful indiscretions, because that indicates you're more likely to do stupid things as an adult... you didn't get it out of your system as a kid, and haven't learned your lesson yet.
I'm certain the insurance guys have an actuarial table for such an event. They've been doing this sort of thing for centuries. Unknown quantities go into the "risk" column, and raise the rates accordingly. They may offer you a liability policy, but not a comprehensive one. Beyond that, there are agencies that specialize in Historic and Street Rod insurance - Condon and Skelly, for example. Yes, I am a customer. A satisfied one, too.
Incorrect? I believe you just said the same thing I did. You can register your custom vehicle as a Street Rod (or equivalent,) but there are restrictions on doing so. I have a Historic-registered car in my driveway. I get to skip the emissions requirements, but I'm restricted to driving it less than 2500 miles per year. Same thing goes for the Street Rod. Here's some typical wording (from Maryland's MVA:)
Vehicles classified as historic or street rod certify the vehicle will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses. The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation or primarily for the transportation of passengers or property on highways. You will need to fill out the Application for Historic or Street Rod Registration (form # VR-096) and supply all necessary documentation.
While you can register a home-built car as a Street Rod, there's strong opposition to you using it as a daily driver... which was what I stated.
First, it's a motorcycle in the US, so that eliminates most of the headaches. Second, it's a lot like registering a self-built trailer from a kit. You put it together, grab all your receipts, and head down to the State Sherrif's office for a safety inspection. Some states allow third-party inspections, so you might go that route. As you're not a "vehicle manufacturer," you aren't permitted to issue VIN numbers, and you don't have a title yet, so you use something called a "certificate of origin" to get your local DMV to create a title for you. AFAIK, the certificate of origin allows the DMV to tax you appropriately... how else would they know how to value your custom-built creation? I built a trailer from a kit (Haulin' flatbed from the local Home Despot.) It came with a certificate of origin. I took that, the purchase receipt, and a gas-station inspection to the local DMV, and all was well.
Cars are a completely different matter, as the auto manufacturers have lobbied to make sure it's illegal for you to make your own car. Think of the children, etc. There are special categories for Antique and Street Rod cars, but there are restrictions against using them as daily drivers. However, trailers and motorcycles are still viable.
Conventional "windmill" generators need to be mounted on a mast, and need to be pointed into the wind. They're more "generator" than "propulsion system," which is what a Flettner Rotor was designed for. I think this vehicle design is more "futuristic concept" than practical application. A Flettner Rotor generates a force perpendicular to the incident wind compliments of the Magnus Effect. Since the rotor is a vertical cylinder, you don't need to "point" it into the wind. You will, however, need a keel of some sort to push against (like all other sailing ships.)
The main problem I see is that they intend to turn the rotor using the incident wind. That'll cause all sorts of localized turbulence, and require rather large "buckets" to catch the wind. One thing wind-power proponents consistently (conveniently?) neglect is that the power available from the wind is a function of wind velocity AND intercepted area. Discovery Channel recently ran an episode of their Planet Earth series with a guy in Virginia trying to float wind-harvesting balloons. Aside from the guy apparently having a really poor grasp of aerodynamics, he was completely dumbfounded that his big airship wouldn't rotate in a 10mph wind. They were ecstatic at generating 20W in a 12mph wind, barely turning. The problem involves the teeny tiny rotor vanes on the balloon. They don't intercept enough wind area to generate substantial power, much less overcome the fundamental drag created by the airship frame.
The Flettner Rotor is a propulsion device. Spin the rotor with a motor, and generate thrust by passing wind over it. If you want to harvest power from the wind, you'd be better off with something that sweeps out a large area. Have a look at a Darrieus Turbine or some of the other Vertical Axis Wind Turbines.
While the science folks tend to be reasonable, the members of the press aren't. They expect "hard answers," and tend to get all pissy if scientists haven't figured everything out yet. Their editors don't like storied that contain lots of "we don't know," so I'm sure they're more than willing to fill-in the gaps as necessary.
I can also envision a situation where someone gets completely frustrated at the members of the press for repeatedly asking the same inane questions, and finally resorts to calling something "junk" just to get the reporters off his case. I've watched enough of the NASA briefings to know that most of the reporters haven't a clue about what they're reporting. Using the term "junk DNA" could easily be a sarcastic dig at the reporters, since they probably won't get it.
Up until the disaster, I do expect the municipal services to be in place - roads, electricity, water, law enforcement, etc. However, during the disaster, they all disappear or are overwhelmed. I'll drive if I can, but I won't hesitate to abandon the vehicle and walk if necessary. BTW, the go-kit is contained in a very nice backpack for just such a contingency. ("On the road" was used as more of a colloquialism than a transport method.)
What you won't see is us sitting around waiting for the FEMA bus to come rescue us.
So pray tell where this disaster-potential-free zone is located.
Bzzzt. I'm not talking about some mythical "safe" zone. Everywhere has risks. However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana. Similarly, the Louisiana folks shouldn't be paying into a drought fund for Arizona. Choose an area to live in; accept the risks associated with doing so. DON'T live there with a Government Bail-Out being your disaster plan.
I have a "go kit." The wife and I have discussed our disaster plan, and know *exactly* what we need to "get out, right now." We can grab the kids, abandon non-essential stuff, and be on the road in about 10 minutes. Seriously. We understand the regional risks where we live, and are prepared accordingly. I *expect* exactly zero assistance from the government. That, it would seem, is my point.
... declare martial law, and then send out the troops to enforce a mandatory evacuation.
Oh gawd, the Nanny State argument. Folks aren't capable of behaving "properly," so we (the government) shall remove all your freedoms and protect you from yourself. Slippery slope, well lubed.
One of your fundamental freedoms is to choose your life path. Life involves risk, and certain benefits are garnered by taking risks. I'm an SCCA member, and I race. The chance of injury or death in a race is not zero. Why doesn't the government protect me from myself in this regard? "Clearly" I would be safer if I didn't race, right? If folks choose to try to ride-out a storm, the government's obligation ends at informing them of the evacuation.
In New Orleans, without electricity the pumps stop and the city defaults to it's flooded state. California's default state is "normal" with the earthquake being the anomaly. California doesn't drop chunks into an abyss every time the power drops out.
... the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability.
And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will bail them out, right?
Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it's called "professional courtesy." (yes, old bad joke)
The obvious next step would be to place both you and your product on Double Secret Probation ... the terms of which are only available to developers with Super-Level Clearance. You don't have Super-Level Clearance, do you? Hmmm, very well, just sign here ... and here ... and here ... thank you.
"All the way down" to where? I don't think I've ever gotten a satisfactory answer. On a related note, perhaps we should consider using turtle-shell filaments as the composite material for a space-elevator tether. Remarkably strong stuff.
Might I recommend the "nuking from orbit" option as the one, true "only way to be sure"? Other methods are somewhat less effective.
I don't see how that's going to help my Post Traumatic CowboyNeal Exposure Syndrome ... However, I'm certain that any of the big pharma cartels would be happy to medicate me.
I'm not buying the 500x more light absorption spec. Current cheapo amorphous silicon solar cells are 3% efficient ... they harvest that percentage of the incident light, regardless of area. If you harvested *all* the incident light, you'd only have a 33x increase in efficiency. Similarly, triple-junction cells peak at about 40% efficiency. Theoretically, the maximum increase you could see is 2.5x. The numbers are inflated, making me skeptical.
What, no Virtual CowboyNeal option?
I wonder how "orbiting space barge of death" translates from the original Russian into Chinese.
Eh, this sounds like the high-and-mighty features that FlexLM was supposed to bring to the CAD market over the last few decades. Anyone who has used development tools from Xilinx, Altera, Cadence, et al, knows what an outrageous PiTA this thing is. It's undeniably twitchy, and changing any configuration item (like adding a new licensed feature) results in something breaking somewhere else. You have to have a degree to manage a FlexLM server, and I can't envision Joe Sixpack *ever* getting a floating license structure working between his PC, his iPod, his laptop, and anything else.
... they're not any more palatable now. I tend to classify them as a scam, attempting to motivate you to re-purchase the product due to severe inconvenience.
These "portable" license management schemes were one collective turd when deployed 20+ years ago
A tribe is much more sophisticated. There's language, religion, beliefs, history, etc. Members of a tribe can demonstrate pack behavior.
So they're going to ban Mythbusters clips now? I mean, last week they showed how to make an improvised explosive using coffee creamer as the fuel. This week, they determined the necessary explosive amount required to blow up your average genetically-altered great white shark (albeit under the watchful eye of a California bomb squad.)
Seriously, a bomb is fuel, oxidizer, and a containment vessel. Technically, the propane tank on your barbecue grill counts as a "bomb" in the right context.
At my previous job (optical network equipment manufacturer, now defunct,) we ran a nifty TSR web server with a single fake news release webpage. Surprisingly, the TSR app would continue running even after logging out. We left it running on a lab computer for about a week before making the internal URL available. When we announced it, it took about 20 minutes before a team of IT guys barged through the lab doors. They chased wall plate tags, right up to the machine in question.
ITguy1: This is it.
ITguy2: It's not logged in.
ITguy3: Double check the wall plate number.
ITguy1: Yep, that's it. But nobody's logged in?
ITguy2: Pull the cable. [*yank*]
ITguy1: (on phone) That's it? Okay, good.
ITguy3: That's it? Fuck it, take the whole machine.
With that, they grabbed the whole machine and took off. Took them a day or two to figure out what was happening. The couldn't pin it on anyone, as there had been numerous log-ins on the lab machine. However, the gave us a knowing nod of the head and a shake of the finger. I do believe that they appreciated the prank, but couldn't officially say so.
Actually, it's more primitive than tribalism. Humans are pack animals. You accept members of your pack, and reject members of other packs. Not surprisingly, members of your pack tend to physically and behaviorally resemble you.
You'll see the appearance element pop up in the workplace. Ever hear the local suit guy advertising "The suit makes the man!" or "Dress for success!"? I used to have a manager who judged folks by their shoes. He said that people tended to wear clothes based on a desired perception, but their shoes tended to have more subconscious elements. In general, I think he was correct.
Years ago, I attended a community Labor Day parade. I wore a bright orange T-shirt with the word "STAFF" across the back. Worked wonders for gaining access to areas off-limits to ordinary "unwashed masses" folks. Social engineering can be entertaining.
Folks should accept that everything in their past is necessary to get them to being who they are today. Beyond that, follow up with "besides, I was trying to impress a girl," and your harshest critics should start mumbling and looking at their shoes (cuz they've done it too.) Hell, I'd be more concerned if you didn't have youthful indiscretions, because that indicates you're more likely to do stupid things as an adult ... you didn't get it out of your system as a kid, and haven't learned your lesson yet.
I'm certain the insurance guys have an actuarial table for such an event. They've been doing this sort of thing for centuries. Unknown quantities go into the "risk" column, and raise the rates accordingly. They may offer you a liability policy, but not a comprehensive one. Beyond that, there are agencies that specialize in Historic and Street Rod insurance - Condon and Skelly, for example. Yes, I am a customer. A satisfied one, too.
While you can register a home-built car as a Street Rod, there's strong opposition to you using it as a daily driver ... which was what I stated.
First, it's a motorcycle in the US, so that eliminates most of the headaches. Second, it's a lot like registering a self-built trailer from a kit. You put it together, grab all your receipts, and head down to the State Sherrif's office for a safety inspection. Some states allow third-party inspections, so you might go that route. As you're not a "vehicle manufacturer," you aren't permitted to issue VIN numbers, and you don't have a title yet, so you use something called a "certificate of origin" to get your local DMV to create a title for you. AFAIK, the certificate of origin allows the DMV to tax you appropriately ... how else would they know how to value your custom-built creation? I built a trailer from a kit (Haulin' flatbed from the local Home Despot.) It came with a certificate of origin. I took that, the purchase receipt, and a gas-station inspection to the local DMV, and all was well.
Cars are a completely different matter, as the auto manufacturers have lobbied to make sure it's illegal for you to make your own car. Think of the children, etc. There are special categories for Antique and Street Rod cars, but there are restrictions against using them as daily drivers. However, trailers and motorcycles are still viable.
Conventional "windmill" generators need to be mounted on a mast, and need to be pointed into the wind. They're more "generator" than "propulsion system," which is what a Flettner Rotor was designed for. I think this vehicle design is more "futuristic concept" than practical application. A Flettner Rotor generates a force perpendicular to the incident wind compliments of the Magnus Effect. Since the rotor is a vertical cylinder, you don't need to "point" it into the wind. You will, however, need a keel of some sort to push against (like all other sailing ships.)
The main problem I see is that they intend to turn the rotor using the incident wind. That'll cause all sorts of localized turbulence, and require rather large "buckets" to catch the wind. One thing wind-power proponents consistently (conveniently?) neglect is that the power available from the wind is a function of wind velocity AND intercepted area. Discovery Channel recently ran an episode of their Planet Earth series with a guy in Virginia trying to float wind-harvesting balloons. Aside from the guy apparently having a really poor grasp of aerodynamics, he was completely dumbfounded that his big airship wouldn't rotate in a 10mph wind. They were ecstatic at generating 20W in a 12mph wind, barely turning. The problem involves the teeny tiny rotor vanes on the balloon. They don't intercept enough wind area to generate substantial power, much less overcome the fundamental drag created by the airship frame.
The Flettner Rotor is a propulsion device. Spin the rotor with a motor, and generate thrust by passing wind over it. If you want to harvest power from the wind, you'd be better off with something that sweeps out a large area. Have a look at a Darrieus Turbine or some of the other Vertical Axis Wind Turbines.
While the science folks tend to be reasonable, the members of the press aren't. They expect "hard answers," and tend to get all pissy if scientists haven't figured everything out yet. Their editors don't like storied that contain lots of "we don't know," so I'm sure they're more than willing to fill-in the gaps as necessary.
I can also envision a situation where someone gets completely frustrated at the members of the press for repeatedly asking the same inane questions, and finally resorts to calling something "junk" just to get the reporters off his case. I've watched enough of the NASA briefings to know that most of the reporters haven't a clue about what they're reporting. Using the term "junk DNA" could easily be a sarcastic dig at the reporters, since they probably won't get it.
"Again? That trick never works."
Up until the disaster, I do expect the municipal services to be in place - roads, electricity, water, law enforcement, etc. However, during the disaster, they all disappear or are overwhelmed. I'll drive if I can, but I won't hesitate to abandon the vehicle and walk if necessary. BTW, the go-kit is contained in a very nice backpack for just such a contingency. ("On the road" was used as more of a colloquialism than a transport method.)
What you won't see is us sitting around waiting for the FEMA bus to come rescue us.
Bzzzt. I'm not talking about some mythical "safe" zone. Everywhere has risks. However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana. Similarly, the Louisiana folks shouldn't be paying into a drought fund for Arizona. Choose an area to live in; accept the risks associated with doing so. DON'T live there with a Government Bail-Out being your disaster plan.
I have a "go kit." The wife and I have discussed our disaster plan, and know *exactly* what we need to "get out, right now." We can grab the kids, abandon non-essential stuff, and be on the road in about 10 minutes. Seriously. We understand the regional risks where we live, and are prepared accordingly. I *expect* exactly zero assistance from the government. That, it would seem, is my point.
Oh gawd, the Nanny State argument. Folks aren't capable of behaving "properly," so we (the government) shall remove all your freedoms and protect you from yourself. Slippery slope, well lubed.
One of your fundamental freedoms is to choose your life path. Life involves risk, and certain benefits are garnered by taking risks. I'm an SCCA member, and I race. The chance of injury or death in a race is not zero. Why doesn't the government protect me from myself in this regard? "Clearly" I would be safer if I didn't race, right? If folks choose to try to ride-out a storm, the government's obligation ends at informing them of the evacuation.
In New Orleans, without electricity the pumps stop and the city defaults to it's flooded state. California's default state is "normal" with the earthquake being the anomaly. California doesn't drop chunks into an abyss every time the power drops out.
And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will bail them out, right?
Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."