This might be a nitpick, but as you know, there are no brakes (even figurative) on a ship. There is (figuratively) only an engine with a throttle and an automatic transmission. The torque converter is the propeller in the water. To stop, you jam the thing into reverse; the torque converter saves the drive train from self destructing, and you sweat out the sloooow effect.
A better summary: RSA guy annoyed that privacy groups oppose lots of ideas as Orwellian before analyzing the details of any plan.
Your summary is at least typo free, grammatical and intelligible, but it still doesn't convey WTF he was talking about any more than the original summary did. Can't anyone sum it up informatively in two sentences?
It can definitely negatively identify a person - if the public IP is different it wasn't you doing it (assuming you weren't using that public IP:) ).
So in other words, really it CAN'T negatively identify a person. There is nothing to say John didn't visit Harry and use Harry's router to download. It can't positively identify, and it can't negatively identify. It can't identify SHIT. Not by itself.
Exactly like you said, it is merely a piece of evidence which MAY, combined with other evidence, combine to accumulate evidence against you.
Title of the article is unmitigated crap. The Avrocar, which was actually built, was a miserable failure which could barely lift off the ground, wallowing dangerously, with very poor control. It was abandoned as absolutely useless.
Yes, some blue sky dreamer in defense probably did dream up the mach 3 flying saucer, but it was never any closer to reality than any comic book or lurid magazine article.
Complete nonsense. Terminal velocity of a skydiver who is assuming the customary body orientation, in the lower atmosphere, is 54 m/s (121 mph - mach 0.16). If his orientation is changed to minimum drag, either through inexperience, loss of consciousness, or deliberately, terminal velocity can reach as much as 90 m/s or more, but this is still under mach 0.3.
Of course there is some variation with body weight and type, but most skydivers are pretty physically fit.
As you point out, and as is obvious, terminal velocity is much higher at high altitude.
Most 100 watt bulbs are marked 1600 lumens. Mine are. And I have a pantload of Feit 23 w CFLs that are marked 1600 lumens. They fit in the same space. I couldn't care less about dimmers; granted, that's subjective. There ARE dimmable CFLs and LEDs though.
Even if it was between 1600 and 1750 lumens, that's not a difference anyone would ever notice without a side by side A-B test.
VERY unlikely any kind of incandescent could ever meet the target, and if it did they would just move the target. However, there are loopholes in the law. Appliance bulbs and "heavy duty" or "rough service" bulbs are not affected. Could you use these in the irrigation system? Your shop should be fine.
That would be kinda hard on people who have air conditioning or electric heat, or heat pumps using electricity for energy. Not necessarily saying the idea should be dismissed with prejudice, but this issue would have to be addressed satisfactorily.
The Philips does not "shatter" under any circumstance, let alone merely packing them in a box and moving it. There is no glass in it. It's built like a brick shithouse. Yeah, the circuit or plastic phosphor carrier MIGHT crack if it hit a hardwood floor in a free fall from several feet, but it's far from a sure thing. No way would falling on a rug do it in. I've done that and there is nothing more than a solid thunk. I'm disinclined to test one against hardwood, but I bet someone else has and could chime in here.
You are spreading misinformation wholesale. First, your post is full of typos[*] and bad data[**], but forget that. Your analysis is not rational.
Philips LED: the price is all over the place depending on where you are geographically, what the subsidies are, what store you buy it in, but let's take your price of $23. Life is 25,000 hr, not 5000 hr as you claim. It's printed right on the box. In fact everything you need is right on the box. Cost of electricity for 25,000 hr at 11 cents/kWh = $34.38. Add cost of the "bulb" and you get $57.38 spent for 25,000 hr of light.
Incandescent: we'll take your figure of $0.4375 per 60 watt bulb. Cost of electricity for the same 25,000 hr at 11 cents/kWh = $165.00. Add cost of 19 bulbs (which is how many you will have to buy to last 25,000 hr) and you get $173.31 spent for 25,000 hr of light.
The actual payback is $173.31 - $34.38 = $138.93. You buy the incandescent toasters and I'll buy the Philips. I'll save $138.93 compared to your cost for 25,000 hr of light. You keep your satisfaction with 100 year old tech, and I'll keep the money.
Actually I can get the Philips for $12.97 where I shop, and my electric bill is 18 cents/kWh, not 11, so it's even more of a no-brainer for me.
~~~~~~~
[*] It's.0125 kW, not.0125 w, and.06 kW, not.06 w.
[**] The lifetime of the Philips is 25,000 hr, not 5000. In fact, anecdotally I have had one running 24x7 for over 5000 hr with no discernable degradation whatsoever. Sure, the warranty is not for 25,000 hr, just like the warranty for the incandescent is not 1330 hr. There would be no way to verify either figure. It's same as other products. Lots of hard drives have a life expectancy of 5 yr, but the warranty you get is almost always only 1 or 3 years.
... in the Netherlands... if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always.
I am not in a position to dispute the factual accuracy of this assertion, so I won't do so. But laws and regulations couched in such simplistic terms are offensive to me as a rational thinker. They do not allow judging each situation on its own merit. Now, had you said "the motor vehicle driver is always presumed to be at fault, pending evaluation of the special circumstances of the individual case leading to a contrary finding", I would not as a rational thinker have any objection.
The motor vehicle driver, given that he is operating equipment with great potential to cause bodily harm to others, does bear a heavy responsibility. But pedestrians and cyclists also have a responsibility not to act in flagrant defiance of safety. Example: the pedestrian in a crosswalk has the presumptive right of way, but that does not mean he should be held faultless if he rushes into the crosswalk in a blind entrance between two tall parked vehicles without paying any attention to vehicular traffic which is already too close to the crosswalk to possibly stop in time. Another example: a cyclist abruptly and carelessly turning across the path of motor vehicle traffic or lurching wildly into the path of a motor vehicle should be held to be at contributory or primary fault.
Government: Needs to change what is available to eat.
Actually, no. Just no. That is none of the government's goddam business. You couldn't have possibly chosen a more perfect example of nanny state big brother busybody intrusion. All that shit does is increase contempt for those governments worthy of contempt.
Because god forbid a corporation allow anyone to infer from their name they are subordinate or owe allegiance to any particular national government any more. The scale has tipped. The corporations now tell the governments what to do. Let the bribing and arm twisting of the courts begin.
But then, no sane coder uses a light background for coding, right?
I suppose when you take notes with pen on paper you use white ink on black paper, too? And when you print it out, the page comes out all smeared solid with black toner, with the white paper showing through only where the character strokes are? Strange indeed...
Did you ever consider that they do not use charging stations because THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY NO CHARGING STATIONS? Chicken and egg.
But you are right that the absurdly impractical cost and ridiculously low range are enough to keep the electric car in a tiny niche. The lack of infrastructure is just something that would come into play if those two crippling problems were ever solved.
The cost problem just MIGHT be solved in reverse. As the complexity of gasoline powered cars rises to insane levels, their cost is set to skyrocket, and serious repairs (engine or transmission replacement) become economically impossible.
Please be careful signing up to do something antithetical to your core morality, just if somebody else will do something you are sure they will never do. They could call you on it. Nobody should ever sign up for anti-blasphemy legislation under ANY hypothetical condition.
Just tell them you will CONSIDER their demand when they clean up their own act. I would say one second of fair and honorable consideration, followed by a REJECTED sticker, would then fulfill the bargain and leave one's own core morality uncompromised.
Slashdot Mirror
This might be a nitpick, but as you know, there are no brakes (even figurative) on a ship. There is (figuratively) only an engine with a throttle and an automatic transmission. The torque converter is the propeller in the water. To stop, you jam the thing into reverse; the torque converter saves the drive train from self destructing, and you sweat out the sloooow effect.
Your summary is at least typo free, grammatical and intelligible, but it still doesn't convey WTF he was talking about any more than the original summary did. Can't anyone sum it up informatively in two sentences?
So in other words, really it CAN'T negatively identify a person. There is nothing to say John didn't visit Harry and use Harry's router to download. It can't positively identify, and it can't negatively identify. It can't identify SHIT. Not by itself.
Exactly like you said, it is merely a piece of evidence which MAY, combined with other evidence, combine to accumulate evidence against you.
Title of the article is unmitigated crap. The Avrocar, which was actually built, was a miserable failure which could barely lift off the ground, wallowing dangerously, with very poor control. It was abandoned as absolutely useless.
Yes, some blue sky dreamer in defense probably did dream up the mach 3 flying saucer, but it was never any closer to reality than any comic book or lurid magazine article.
Complete nonsense. Terminal velocity of a skydiver who is assuming the customary body orientation, in the lower atmosphere, is 54 m/s (121 mph - mach 0.16). If his orientation is changed to minimum drag, either through inexperience, loss of consciousness, or deliberately, terminal velocity can reach as much as 90 m/s or more, but this is still under mach 0.3.
Of course there is some variation with body weight and type, but most skydivers are pretty physically fit.
As you point out, and as is obvious, terminal velocity is much higher at high altitude.
Most 100 watt bulbs are marked 1600 lumens. Mine are. And I have a pantload of Feit 23 w CFLs that are marked 1600 lumens. They fit in the same space. I couldn't care less about dimmers; granted, that's subjective. There ARE dimmable CFLs and LEDs though.
Even if it was between 1600 and 1750 lumens, that's not a difference anyone would ever notice without a side by side A-B test.
VERY unlikely any kind of incandescent could ever meet the target, and if it did they would just move the target. However, there are loopholes in the law. Appliance bulbs and "heavy duty" or "rough service" bulbs are not affected. Could you use these in the irrigation system? Your shop should be fine.
Actually the energy cost difference adds up substantially and greatly swamps the bulb cost. See my other post.
That would be kinda hard on people who have air conditioning or electric heat, or heat pumps using electricity for energy. Not necessarily saying the idea should be dismissed with prejudice, but this issue would have to be addressed satisfactorily.
The Philips does not "shatter" under any circumstance, let alone merely packing them in a box and moving it. There is no glass in it. It's built like a brick shithouse. Yeah, the circuit or plastic phosphor carrier MIGHT crack if it hit a hardwood floor in a free fall from several feet, but it's far from a sure thing. No way would falling on a rug do it in. I've done that and there is nothing more than a solid thunk. I'm disinclined to test one against hardwood, but I bet someone else has and could chime in here.
You are spreading misinformation wholesale. First, your post is full of typos[*] and bad data[**], but forget that. Your analysis is not rational.
Philips LED: the price is all over the place depending on where you are geographically, what the subsidies are, what store you buy it in, but let's take your price of $23. Life is 25,000 hr, not 5000 hr as you claim. It's printed right on the box. In fact everything you need is right on the box. Cost of electricity for 25,000 hr at 11 cents/kWh = $34.38. Add cost of the "bulb" and you get $57.38 spent for 25,000 hr of light.
Incandescent: we'll take your figure of $0.4375 per 60 watt bulb. Cost of electricity for the same 25,000 hr at 11 cents/kWh = $165.00. Add cost of 19 bulbs (which is how many you will have to buy to last 25,000 hr) and you get $173.31 spent for 25,000 hr of light.
The actual payback is $173.31 - $34.38 = $138.93. You buy the incandescent toasters and I'll buy the Philips. I'll save $138.93 compared to your cost for 25,000 hr of light. You keep your satisfaction with 100 year old tech, and I'll keep the money.
Actually I can get the Philips for $12.97 where I shop, and my electric bill is 18 cents/kWh, not 11, so it's even more of a no-brainer for me.
~~~~~~~
[*] It's .0125 kW, not .0125 w, and .06 kW, not .06 w.
[**] The lifetime of the Philips is 25,000 hr, not 5000. In fact, anecdotally I have had one running 24x7 for over 5000 hr with no discernable degradation whatsoever. Sure, the warranty is not for 25,000 hr, just like the warranty for the incandescent is not 1330 hr. There would be no way to verify either figure. It's same as other products. Lots of hard drives have a life expectancy of 5 yr, but the warranty you get is almost always only 1 or 3 years.
Wow, a new dinosaur. I thought they had been gone for many million years. Goes to show.
Score 5: Brilliant
Wrong, actually.
I am not in a position to dispute the factual accuracy of this assertion, so I won't do so. But laws and regulations couched in such simplistic terms are offensive to me as a rational thinker. They do not allow judging each situation on its own merit. Now, had you said "the motor vehicle driver is always presumed to be at fault, pending evaluation of the special circumstances of the individual case leading to a contrary finding", I would not as a rational thinker have any objection.
The motor vehicle driver, given that he is operating equipment with great potential to cause bodily harm to others, does bear a heavy responsibility. But pedestrians and cyclists also have a responsibility not to act in flagrant defiance of safety. Example: the pedestrian in a crosswalk has the presumptive right of way, but that does not mean he should be held faultless if he rushes into the crosswalk in a blind entrance between two tall parked vehicles without paying any attention to vehicular traffic which is already too close to the crosswalk to possibly stop in time. Another example: a cyclist abruptly and carelessly turning across the path of motor vehicle traffic or lurching wildly into the path of a motor vehicle should be held to be at contributory or primary fault.
Actually, no. Just no. That is none of the government's goddam business. You couldn't have possibly chosen a more perfect example of nanny state big brother busybody intrusion. All that shit does is increase contempt for those governments worthy of contempt.
I call bullshit and spit on the US court. Thought police come arrest me.
Because god forbid a corporation allow anyone to infer from their name they are subordinate or owe allegiance to any particular national government any more. The scale has tipped. The corporations now tell the governments what to do. Let the bribing and arm twisting of the courts begin.
Correct. It goes back to at least the 1950s, in my experience.
Or vice versa.
I suppose when you take notes with pen on paper you use white ink on black paper, too? And when you print it out, the page comes out all smeared solid with black toner, with the white paper showing through only where the character strokes are? Strange indeed ...
Did you ever consider that they do not use charging stations because THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY NO CHARGING STATIONS? Chicken and egg.
But you are right that the absurdly impractical cost and ridiculously low range are enough to keep the electric car in a tiny niche. The lack of infrastructure is just something that would come into play if those two crippling problems were ever solved.
The cost problem just MIGHT be solved in reverse. As the complexity of gasoline powered cars rises to insane levels, their cost is set to skyrocket, and serious repairs (engine or transmission replacement) become economically impossible.
Please be careful signing up to do something antithetical to your core morality, just if somebody else will do something you are sure they will never do. They could call you on it. Nobody should ever sign up for anti-blasphemy legislation under ANY hypothetical condition.
Just tell them you will CONSIDER their demand when they clean up their own act. I would say one second of fair and honorable consideration, followed by a REJECTED sticker, would then fulfill the bargain and leave one's own core morality uncompromised.
Hear, hear. This is fundamental. Even the three laws of robotics only worked because the priority was specified.
Or impolitely. There is no right for people to be polite to you.