I'm fairly sure that the primary fuel for the current car is diesel, not gasoline, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's a multifuel engine capable of running on both. Diesel is a lot less volatile than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient in larger displacements than gasoline engines.
It may not go very far very often, but it absolutely must be capable of going far for those few times when it's essential. I wouldn't be surprised if there are contingency plans to use the current presidential limo to escape every major metro area that the President could find himself in, and the car itself is designed to survive antitank weapons.
I totally get that there are benefits to a truly untraceable, anonymous currency. But to those who oppose regulation for the simple fact that it's the government getting involved, I would advise taking a look at what happened to the banking industry back in the 1920s and early 1930s before making claims that it's all bad.
Yep. Rules and regulations are usually a byproduct of previous experience. Wildcat banks often issued their own scrip, supposedly based on currency on-deposit, but often that currency was either other wildcat banks' scrip, or was so incredibly over-leveraged that they had really almost nothing on deposit to support their outstanding currency.
These banks could either go under due to bank runs or could just close up shop overnight, leaving the local employees stuck holding the bag while the owners ran off with what real money actually was on deposit. If other banks had this bank's scrip, that scrip was now valueless and that other bank was likely to have its own problems.
One could even integrate this kind of thing into the mesh network concept, where aircraft and ground stations simply routinely exchange their data as a sort of near-field-communication thing for the skies.
It could work along the same lines as the early shared-bandwidth ethernet model:
Plane, on takeoff and once away from range of the airport (which could be a predetermined value and could even be unique to any given airport) starts listening, and starts a random count to transmit (like the CSMA/CD negotiation for Ethernet). The aircraft is listening for basic data such as grandparent post outlined.
If aircraft detects a transmission from another, it simply notes the sender ID and checks if it has previous data on that sender. If it does it simply appends to the log on the sender, otherwise it starts a new log with that sender's ID.
If there's no one transmitting, the aircraft transmits.
If the aircraft detects a special node, like a ground-based node, and if no one is transmitting, the aircraft transmits its flight history information, and then transmits the collected information on other aircraft. This could be on a different frequency so to avoid interrupting the real-time data from aircraft.
When the aircraft lands, it uploads all of the history on itself and on other aircraft to the airport. Depending on the airline or nation, it may then delete the logs of other aircraft or it may hold on to them, but it holds on to its own logs until maintenance clears them. Once it takes off, the process repeats itself.
To me this isn't all that difficult of a concept, though it would require mandatory participation among commercial jets to be most effective. It would also require that the system couldn't readily be turned off either, so that a hijacker can't disable it.
Last time I checked, dietary considerations and irrigation policy weren't high on the agenda of a site that usually talks about electronics, rockets, and Star Trak...
If I remember what I read somewhere, the Russian/Soviet side lost something like 2500 tanks in the Winter War, mainly due to the Finns figuring out how to interfere with the treads to immobilize the tanks before setting them on fire...
A tank without a crew would go a long way in explaining how that happened, as there wouldn't be personnel to see the attack on the tank or to repel it while clearing whatever was used to jam the treads.
As a side note, that war explains why Biathlon is so culturally significant to the Scandinavian countries...
The block chain does not have names associated with it. Governments may well know that transactions have occurred, but they do not necessarily know who made the transactions, nor is there a method by which to automagically pay any required taxes during the transaction itself.
It costs nothing to create a new wallet? What kind of argument is that? It's the contents that matter, not the wallet itself. If one loses access to all of one's accumulated wealth then one is done for.
At least the banks, the FDIC, and the NCUA guarantee the money of depositors in the event of a banking system problem. If they didn't then no one would keep their money in banks
I don't actually want a specie-based economy, as either the value of the specie has to fluctuate with the value of the currency, or else as you state, the amount of money in circulation is limited.
I prefer the other option I discussed for this very reason.
It also doesn't help that Bitcoin, in of itself, has no intrinsic value, and it can be argued that as far as real-world value goes it's actually a detriment as it takes fairly significant resources to run the computers to competitively generate bitcoins and it's possible and even quite likely that people will lose their private keys and thus will lose access to bitcoins.
Money relying on specie that is also itself a valuable material for manufacturing will at least maintain the value of exchange for that manufacturing. Gold is a good example of that given its use in the electronics industry and the jewelery industry, among others. Same could be said for platinum or palladium, and this is the strongest argument in favor of a specie-backed currency.
Money whose value is market-based and is sponsored by government is inexpensive to produce, which is its strong suit. Printing bills is inexpensive- printing the $100 costs the government just about the same as printing the $1. Generating money electronically in the form of credit at the prime rate is also inexpensive, and while computers are involved they're not working as hard in parallel competition to generate the money.
...that all scrip currencies are going to find themselves subject to attack from all sides? Wasn't it obvious that governments are going to have a problem with it due to a lack of ability to regulate/tax, banking systems are going to have a problem with it due to their not having a role in something that could be lucrative, and criminals are going to be interested in exploiting the lack of government oversight in order to either profit through its use or through outright theft?
A coworker previously had sang the praises of Bitcoin, but it sounded like he was approaching it from a stock market speculation angle, as in the more it grows the more he was interested. This wasn't long before it started making the news big-time, and like all bubbles, once everyone is involved it usually means that it's time to get out. And also like other bubbles, it has started experiencing the bursting that kills value.
Bitcoin is interesting, but for something so libertarian requires way too much third-party interaction in order to practically use it, and those third-party gatekeepers are the perfect targets.
You compare certificates as-recorded by your computer with certificates retrieved by third-party sites. If they don't match then there's probably this kind of thing going on.
It's not "the only way". And people on here should really have the knowledge to secure their networks that does not rely on some cheap piece of foreign junk where they spend longer designing the case to look snazzy in your living room than they did writing the firmware containing the firewall.
You know, I tried a commercial-grade NAT-capable router, designed with two WAN ports with the ability to do routing to different networks, or failover, or load balancing, and the thing had a firmware programming error that made it fail to handle full-motion video streaming correctly. By contrast, the "piece of junk" that I still use has no problem with routing-through any content that I choose to download.
It's also wise to remember how Apple has fared over the years when it attempted to follow mainstream practices. Those years were usually when Steve Jobs wasn't involved and the management attempted to follow the business practices of others. On ended up with a company that tried to be SGI and Packard Bell at the same time, with predicable results.
Cook appears to have learned at least a bit of the lessons of those eras. He doesn't have to do what the alleged professionals in the business community claim to be best practices; Apple has made a lot more money over the last fifteen or so years by bucking the trend and continually changing. Don't get me wrong, my ownership of Apple products is limited to a few castoff keyboards and I'm certainly no fanboi, but they've managed to build a successful, profitable company by doing what their customers, not necessarily the business community, wants.
It's kind of like how Costco is doing well, by paying employees actual living wages so those employees work at the stores until retirement as opposed to being bled dry by corporate interest. Costco still makes money, Costco is popular among customers, employees are happy, owners are happy, and things will continue to be long-term stable for them.
If Cook manages to keep Apple going strong in the wake of Jobs' demise then this will be interesting to watch.
Isn't this similar to keeping COBOL code bases going as they still work even though the really good developers are dying off? At least with a codebase when things break there isn't an international emergency...
The air traffic control system used at international airports in the United States begs to differ...
The A-10 is on the chopping block, as is the U2. What I don't get about the elimination of those is that one has proven itself extremely cost-effective in close-quarters ground support (as in using bullets, rather than relying on rockets and bombs) and extremely durable when taking fire (flying back with a wing missing) and the other has been extremely effective for quick-turnaround intelligence.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
In what car?! All modern mainstream vehicles still use a master cylinder in tandem with a booster and ABS. Even if you lose all engine power, should still be able to apply the brakes. Although it will require more force to push the pedal down, it should still be doable to bring the car to a complete safe stop.
The brakes are never adequate to overcome the power of open throttle. NEVER. One is expected to stop pressing the throttle when applying the brakes, that's why one is taught to use one foot for both functions, so that one does not push both pedals at the same time.
Braking subjects lots of parts to massive thermal changes. Those changes significantly reduce the effectiveness of the brakes after only a small amount of use. That's why race cars and other performance vehicles that are expected to have *ahem* spirited driving have much more expensive brake components, that fade less.
Lastly, look at burnout competitions. In those, someone spins their tires for as long as possible, generating smoke and noise, usually either the longest-burning or the crowd favorite wins. Unless a car has been modified to allow only the non-drive wheels to apply brakes, then the same brakes holding the car still (from a standing stop position mind you, not starting out in-motion) are easily overcame by the drivetrain. Yes, the drive wheels spinning in a burnout competition have their brakes applied and it doesn't do a thing to stop the wheels. Sometimes even the non-drive-wheel brakes are overcome in a burnout competition, and the car crashes into something.
My daily driver is a '95 Impala SS. 260hp, 330lbft torque. Tires are 255mm wide, about 10 inches, and are "W" rated, meaning that they're high-performance for grip and are capable of handling extremely high-speed rotation. On smooth, dry pavement or asphalt it's very hard to do a burnout, the car simply overcomes the brakes and takes off, and that's with probably 75% of the braking force on the front, non-drive wheels. A modern FWD car puts all of its torque into the wheels that would normally do the lion's share of the braking, so once they're overcome, the rear wheels aren't going to do squat to stop the car.
This error is VERY dangerous. The ignition key should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. The brakes should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. The gear shifter should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. Hell, even the four-way hazards should trip the computer into resetting the throttle algorithm.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fairly sure that the primary fuel for the current car is diesel, not gasoline, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's a multifuel engine capable of running on both. Diesel is a lot less volatile than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient in larger displacements than gasoline engines.
It may not go very far very often, but it absolutely must be capable of going far for those few times when it's essential. I wouldn't be surprised if there are contingency plans to use the current presidential limo to escape every major metro area that the President could find himself in, and the car itself is designed to survive antitank weapons.
Just remember, in the United States, all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others...
I think George Lucas had a plot kind of like this in some of his movies... complete with letting the hate flow through [us].
Yep. Rules and regulations are usually a byproduct of previous experience. Wildcat banks often issued their own scrip, supposedly based on currency on-deposit, but often that currency was either other wildcat banks' scrip, or was so incredibly over-leveraged that they had really almost nothing on deposit to support their outstanding currency.
These banks could either go under due to bank runs or could just close up shop overnight, leaving the local employees stuck holding the bag while the owners ran off with what real money actually was on deposit. If other banks had this bank's scrip, that scrip was now valueless and that other bank was likely to have its own problems.
It could work along the same lines as the early shared-bandwidth ethernet model:
To me this isn't all that difficult of a concept, though it would require mandatory participation among commercial jets to be most effective. It would also require that the system couldn't readily be turned off either, so that a hijacker can't disable it.
How is this a Slashdot topic?
Last time I checked, dietary considerations and irrigation policy weren't high on the agenda of a site that usually talks about electronics, rockets, and Star Trak...
Ah. My apologies, I assumed that the Scandinavian label applied to the Finnish.
If I remember what I read somewhere, the Russian/Soviet side lost something like 2500 tanks in the Winter War, mainly due to the Finns figuring out how to interfere with the treads to immobilize the tanks before setting them on fire...
A tank without a crew would go a long way in explaining how that happened, as there wouldn't be personnel to see the attack on the tank or to repel it while clearing whatever was used to jam the treads.
As a side note, that war explains why Biathlon is so culturally significant to the Scandinavian countries...
The block chain does not have names associated with it. Governments may well know that transactions have occurred, but they do not necessarily know who made the transactions, nor is there a method by which to automagically pay any required taxes during the transaction itself.
It costs nothing to create a new wallet? What kind of argument is that? It's the contents that matter, not the wallet itself. If one loses access to all of one's accumulated wealth then one is done for.
At least the banks, the FDIC, and the NCUA guarantee the money of depositors in the event of a banking system problem. If they didn't then no one would keep their money in banks
I don't actually want a specie-based economy, as either the value of the specie has to fluctuate with the value of the currency, or else as you state, the amount of money in circulation is limited.
I prefer the other option I discussed for this very reason.
It also doesn't help that Bitcoin, in of itself, has no intrinsic value, and it can be argued that as far as real-world value goes it's actually a detriment as it takes fairly significant resources to run the computers to competitively generate bitcoins and it's possible and even quite likely that people will lose their private keys and thus will lose access to bitcoins.
Money relying on specie that is also itself a valuable material for manufacturing will at least maintain the value of exchange for that manufacturing. Gold is a good example of that given its use in the electronics industry and the jewelery industry, among others. Same could be said for platinum or palladium, and this is the strongest argument in favor of a specie-backed currency.
Money whose value is market-based and is sponsored by government is inexpensive to produce, which is its strong suit. Printing bills is inexpensive- printing the $100 costs the government just about the same as printing the $1. Generating money electronically in the form of credit at the prime rate is also inexpensive, and while computers are involved they're not working as hard in parallel competition to generate the money.
...that all scrip currencies are going to find themselves subject to attack from all sides? Wasn't it obvious that governments are going to have a problem with it due to a lack of ability to regulate/tax, banking systems are going to have a problem with it due to their not having a role in something that could be lucrative, and criminals are going to be interested in exploiting the lack of government oversight in order to either profit through its use or through outright theft?
A coworker previously had sang the praises of Bitcoin, but it sounded like he was approaching it from a stock market speculation angle, as in the more it grows the more he was interested. This wasn't long before it started making the news big-time, and like all bubbles, once everyone is involved it usually means that it's time to get out. And also like other bubbles, it has started experiencing the bursting that kills value.
Bitcoin is interesting, but for something so libertarian requires way too much third-party interaction in order to practically use it, and those third-party gatekeepers are the perfect targets.
You compare certificates as-recorded by your computer with certificates retrieved by third-party sites. If they don't match then there's probably this kind of thing going on.
How about Dance, Monkey Boy!
You know, I tried a commercial-grade NAT-capable router, designed with two WAN ports with the ability to do routing to different networks, or failover, or load balancing, and the thing had a firmware programming error that made it fail to handle full-motion video streaming correctly. By contrast, the "piece of junk" that I still use has no problem with routing-through any content that I choose to download.
It's also wise to remember how Apple has fared over the years when it attempted to follow mainstream practices. Those years were usually when Steve Jobs wasn't involved and the management attempted to follow the business practices of others. On ended up with a company that tried to be SGI and Packard Bell at the same time, with predicable results.
Cook appears to have learned at least a bit of the lessons of those eras. He doesn't have to do what the alleged professionals in the business community claim to be best practices; Apple has made a lot more money over the last fifteen or so years by bucking the trend and continually changing. Don't get me wrong, my ownership of Apple products is limited to a few castoff keyboards and I'm certainly no fanboi, but they've managed to build a successful, profitable company by doing what their customers, not necessarily the business community, wants.
It's kind of like how Costco is doing well, by paying employees actual living wages so those employees work at the stores until retirement as opposed to being bled dry by corporate interest. Costco still makes money, Costco is popular among customers, employees are happy, owners are happy, and things will continue to be long-term stable for them.
If Cook manages to keep Apple going strong in the wake of Jobs' demise then this will be interesting to watch.
For great justice
The air traffic control system used at international airports in the United States begs to differ...
Would a gaggle or reactors work better?
How about a murder of reactors?
First, they came for my tacos. But I did not speak out because I was not a taco...
Then they came for my tequila drinks. But I did not speak out because I was not a tequila drink...
Did you mean JSF, not JSOC?
The A-10 is on the chopping block, as is the U2. What I don't get about the elimination of those is that one has proven itself extremely cost-effective in close-quarters ground support (as in using bullets, rather than relying on rockets and bombs) and extremely durable when taking fire (flying back with a wing missing) and the other has been extremely effective for quick-turnaround intelligence.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
The brakes are never adequate to overcome the power of open throttle. NEVER. One is expected to stop pressing the throttle when applying the brakes, that's why one is taught to use one foot for both functions, so that one does not push both pedals at the same time.
Braking subjects lots of parts to massive thermal changes. Those changes significantly reduce the effectiveness of the brakes after only a small amount of use. That's why race cars and other performance vehicles that are expected to have *ahem* spirited driving have much more expensive brake components, that fade less.
Lastly, look at burnout competitions. In those, someone spins their tires for as long as possible, generating smoke and noise, usually either the longest-burning or the crowd favorite wins. Unless a car has been modified to allow only the non-drive wheels to apply brakes, then the same brakes holding the car still (from a standing stop position mind you, not starting out in-motion) are easily overcame by the drivetrain. Yes, the drive wheels spinning in a burnout competition have their brakes applied and it doesn't do a thing to stop the wheels. Sometimes even the non-drive-wheel brakes are overcome in a burnout competition, and the car crashes into something.
My daily driver is a '95 Impala SS. 260hp, 330lbft torque. Tires are 255mm wide, about 10 inches, and are "W" rated, meaning that they're high-performance for grip and are capable of handling extremely high-speed rotation. On smooth, dry pavement or asphalt it's very hard to do a burnout, the car simply overcomes the brakes and takes off, and that's with probably 75% of the braking force on the front, non-drive wheels. A modern FWD car puts all of its torque into the wheels that would normally do the lion's share of the braking, so once they're overcome, the rear wheels aren't going to do squat to stop the car.
This error is VERY dangerous. The ignition key should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. The brakes should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. The gear shifter should ALWAYS overcome the throttle. Hell, even the four-way hazards should trip the computer into resetting the throttle algorithm.
You mean, because all of the texts will be sent in several eight-minute windows separated by 52 minute gaps?