Certainly. As with other technologies we start by copying nature up to the point we understand the subject matter well enough to leave the natural solution behind. Airplanes don't flap wings after all.
You mean airplanes don't have wings which flap as the primary method of propulsion. It was something that was tried though. The primary reason for trying other solutions to this issue was that moving wings to produce thrust simply had other solutions, not that "we" understood the subject matter all that much.
It should also be pointed out that the Wright Brothers also experimented with wing warping rather than using "flaps" (there is that term again... actually from bird flapping BTW) for flight control. It was abandoned for a great many years, yet the "technology" from birds is coming back in a great many ways in spite of a supposed understanding of how birds fly.
Indeed I would say that we really don't understand much about how birds fly, not to mention they happen to mostly fly in a different flight environment anyway because they are much smaller and lighter than most things that humans build except for perhaps R/C airplanes. New discoveries of flight are constantly being made in regards to how birds fly, and is still an area of knowledge that has some low hanging fruit as it were.
Yeah. By the time this mission could launch, our robots will actually be a lot more capable of doing useful research on Europa than the human settlers, especially when you control for all the mass that needs to be launched in order to keep people alive (and not crazy) for as long as this would take. Instead of people, why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath? If we have a chance of finding something cool, it will be down there.
I doubt it. While I will agree that there is considerable "low hanging fruit" in terms of very legitimate science that can be done by sending robotic probes, there will reach a point in that research where having actual people physically there will make a whole lot of sense. With the distances involved, bandwidth for sending data can be a considerable problem. Some local synthesis of the data (like was done with the Kepler mission... which had terabytes of data to sift through) can take place in an automated fashion, eventually even that will eventually need to have somebody physically there to evaluate all of that data.
There is a reason why automated probes don't go running around Antarctica, even though sending people there happens at considerable expense. Even with people there in Antarctica at the various research stations, there still is a huge amount of bandwidth sending that research data back to the various countries involved... and even that bandwidth is seen as very limited.
The question isn't if people should go to Europa, but rather when. A good argument could be made that there is no need for human researchers to go for at least a century or more as there is definitely plenty of research that can be done in the meantime with robotic probes including spacecraft dedicated explicitly to Europa.... including the nuclear submarine you have described. Such a vehicle was even described in this TED talk:
The U.S. government has banned the use of Chinese telecom equipment by U.S. government agencies not because it is too cheap or too good, but because it is compromised and is used by the People's Liberation Army to spy on the U.S. government. Not that the U.S. government has never done something like that to other countries.
There is no ban on such equipment by ordinary Americans or even American companies. You just can't directly use that stuff if you are involved in government contracts. On the other hand, federal contracts are so pervasive in America now that you would be pretty hard pressed to be doing something that at some level completely avoids a federal contract.
Actually, that would be a casus belli for a war against America on the part of Brazil if an undersea cable was tapped into by a 3rd party government. It is not as that has never happened before even against countries openly hostile to America. It is doubtful that physical cables would be laid from the splice all of the way back to America though.... but who knows if you are making stuff up here? Thousands of miles of additional cable from that splice to America would still be quite the investment with Brazil justifiably laughing off their asses at the NSA sorting through porn sites, video game streaming, and other general junk in that data stream for any precious nuggets of information about a plot by Brazil to invade America.
Right. A friend of mine (I was there when it was done) asked a Brazilian Air Force general what Brazil would do if America decided to go to war against Brazil. His reply was to ground all of the planes and surrender. Brazil certainly is not a major threat to America.
It wouldn't hurt for Brazil to have more physical connections with other Latin American countries as well as other countries relatively near, such as perhaps a direct link to South Africa and Spain/Portugal (aka something across the Atlantic). Unfortunately west Africa isn't exactly an economic hot spot in the world and would be the easiest to reach.
What I don't understand is why you or anybody else is worried about "fragmentation" on this issue? Fragmentation of IP addresses? I thought IPv6 pretty much solved that problem anyway (with enough address space so every person can have thousands of IP addresses and still have room left over for governments and corporations). Routers can do a pretty good job of finding network addresses in even a very fragmented world infrastructure as that is sort of why they were invented in the first place. Network traffic certainly doesn't need to go into America first.
The "bad old days of dial up access" was mostly an issue of finding an ISP in your neighborhood.... which was eventually solved with pools of dial up access and then widespread DSL coverage. If you are complaining about bandwidth, I hardly think that is going to be a problem with additional links and physical connections between people in more distant parts of the world from the primary corridors of telecommunications. If anything, bandwidth will improve if peripheral edges of networks are connected as well as improving reliability. Fragmentation actually improves things as opposed to making it worse.
Perhaps you are complaining about fragmentation of services like more kinds of websites that are "portals". Would it be a bad thing if those services are broken up and people use things other than Google's gmail?
It isn't as if building engines like this is some kind of ancient knowledge that has been lost in the mists of history. The ability to create new rocket engines exists. Besides, Aerojet wants to keep their contract with Orbital and be the engine supplier for these rockets.
It is possible that RKK Energia (the license owner of the NK-33 design) may want to negotiate the licensing terms for building these engines. I certainly think that if money can be made, a deal can also be struck.
It sounds pretty much like what Tesla is already doing. The Model S has their battery pack on the floor of the vehicle, with what amounts to be standard "AA" cells standing upright but as a broad sheet of those batteries made into long and flat panels. This has the added benefit of lowering the center of gravity on that vehicle too (increased stability and handling) and gets rid of the middle "hump" found in most automobiles where the drive shaft is found.
The real problem with trying to design a new shape to an individual cell (from what I gather in your suggestion here) is that it would require retooling the assembly plant and also become a non-standard cell that would have a very limited market. Tesla buys the same Li-ion batteries that are used in laptops, sold individually at Wal-Mart, and are used in just about every child's toy. This makes those cells into a standardized commodity that can even have futures trading in commodities markets like the Chicago Merc and have literally dozens of suppliers (so Tesla isn't held hostage by an individual producer). The only advantage I would see to a custom cell design would be to design them explicitly for some kind of liquid cooling system where the individual cells could be put into that fluid for increased cooling efficiency and have that coolant flow around the cell's form.
GM has one advantage though. In some states, Tesla is forbidden to sell cars because they are not going through dealers.
I don't consider that to be much of an advantage. Tesla can still sell cars to people in Texas and Massachusetts and even deliver automobiles there as well as set up service centers in those states.... they simply can't operate stores inside of those states that will hand over the keys as you pluck down the cash or sign the loan papers. Tesla can, however, provide "free wi-fi" at their service centers and even set up a few computer terminals with network access at those service centers... where a hyperlink to the sales website can be accessed.
All you will be missing is the overweight middle aged salesmen with bad aftershave breathing down your neck.
I agree with the huge piles of capital that General Motors has at their disposal though. It is also possible for an older company... one that may even be facing bankruptcy (again) to become nimble and act like a start-up if their existence is on the line. That isn't exactly GM's style or business culture, but it could happen and assuming GM thinks their back is up against the wall or lose out to a company like Tesla or Nissan, they very well might reform their internal business culture.
The advantage that GM has which far exceeds anything Tesla could do is simply access to massive amounts of capital and physical assembly plants, not to mention an army of employees who are very capable of not only designing but also building these vehicles.
That said, this advantage is gradually diminishing as Tesla is selling vehicles and has an amazing assembly plant (one that GM even jointly owned in the past). The problems with labor unions is something that Tesla has to face in California (where labor unions do have considerable influence on state labor policy), not to mention that Tesla is not really able to have that much cheaper labor costs than GM.
The question is if GM will be able to leverage their advantages knowing full well that the automobile industry is definitely changing? GM had all but written off the development of electric automobiles (just watch "Who killed the electric car?" for details) until the Tesla Roadster was built and the then CEO of GM interviewed Martin Eberhard about Tesla's view of electric automobiles. That was the foundation of the Volt... and the fact that the Volt was the only major automobile project from prior to the bankruptcy of GM that still exists today.
For those complaining about the fact that Tesla doesn't have an "affordable automobile", that simply is a reflection of the fact that Tesla lacks the capital necessary to mass produce a quarter million automobiles in the 20k-30k price range. It takes those kind of production numbers in order to profitably build cheaper cars. I certainly don't fault Tesla for not building those low end cars first but instead sticking to high end/low volume niche markets first.
I think there is something to the general attitude that some Amish communities have toward technology. They aren't really Luddites in a general sense, but they feel that technology shouldn't be overwhelming society and that we need to step back a little bit and examine how those new technologies will impact our lives first before they are adopted. Even more significant is that they try to adopt technology in such a way that the senior citizens can also adapt to changes in technology over time and not be made instantly obsolete. Grandfathers actually can pass on ideas, skills, and traditions to the next generation without any sort of fear that they are clueless about how things work.
Also, thinking that Amish and Mennonites are a homogenous community with all the same attitudes toward technology is simply being closed minded yourself. You will find a whole spectrum from those who eschew any sort of technological development since the Renaissance to those who are basically indistinguishable from others living in the 21st century in terms of the kinds of devices and technology they are using.
Seriously, what is wrong about questioning supposed technological advances and wanting to live in harmony with nature? For those worried about stuff like your carbon footprint or sustainable living, you might want to take a page or two from those who are Amish and see how they are able to be productive and even thrive on renewable resources. I certainly have no problem with any group of people who voluntarily choose to live as a community without some technological devices.
I certainly doubt that the Amish are too worried about their correspondence being intercepted and read by the NSA.
Originally (and until fairly recently) most films came in cans that were only 12 minutes long. There have been a few tricks done by projectionists over the years including winding that film into a giant spool and splicing those various pieces of film together prior to what you saw in a movie theater, or by having multiple projectors set up where the moment one of those cans of film would end the next projector would immediately start running.
Still, if you had to interrupt your movie to switch tapes, it sounds like you had a genuine cinematic experience. Perhaps a little too authentic, and I guess you could enhance that by having two month old spilled soda on your floor along with bubble gum under the chairs and lots of popcorn and empty boxes of other candy strewn about.
While Google may have a pile of cash, I doubt they have that much cash on hand to actually pay Elon Musk on the spot with that much liquid assets. Frankly, any public company capable of being able to pay out that much money immediately should have their entire board of directors replaced and have every signatory officer (CEO, those with the "Vice President" in their title, and likely the general counsel too) fired for utter incompetence. We are talking billions of dollars worth of money here, as any such merger would most certainly drive up the price of Tesla stock.
The reason for such a drastic move against the corporate leadership is because if a company like Google was sitting on such cash surpluses, they should be returning it to the share holders as dividends instead. Microsoft was in such a position a decade ago and did precisely that as that company didn't have other substantive ways to invest the money other than buying things like Treasury bills or other general investments. You don't invest into a high tech company only to have that company turn out to be a glorified mutual fund... especially when many of its shareholders likely could find more productive ways to invest that money.
If Elon Musk wanted to bail out of the new Google in such a merger, he would then subsequently start selling off his stock in some gradual fashion that could also be predictable in the equity markets as well. That would certainly be the most sensible move and why such stock exchanges usually happen. Keep in mind that Google would also presumably need to use any cash reserves they would have to be doing things like building this fleet of taxis, expanding the Fremont plant in some fashion, or doing other things that will take some sort of investment. If all of that cash reserve was tied up in trying to pay off Elon Musk, such a loss of liquidity would also make it very difficult to even run a business.
The Texas government has reversed in the past on car-related regulations that pissed people off - it's fairly responsive to the people when it comes to that. If people want Teslas, the government will act. It will actually be pretty interesting to watch this play out.
This is a most insightful comment. Tesla has been fighting several states on this issue, including a couple states where there are dealership owners who want to force Tesla legally to grant them a franchise. Frankly I think Tesla's approach to this in terms of breaking up the monopoly dealers have on sales is a pretty good thing.
In time, if there is demand for Tesla automobiles and they sell very strongly in other states, there will be increasing public pressure in Texas to change these laws. It will just need to be a protracted battle rather than something done in one day. The state where it would be a disaster for Tesla would be in California... where I think Tesla is viewed almost as a savior and something where there would be some very significant allies in the California legislature to stop that from happening. Tesla has New York, California, and Florida, and is doing well in the rest of America too. One little battle at a time and let Texas feel left in the dark.
If the Brownsville spaceport gets built, I think Elon Musk is going to have a little bit more influence in the Texas state legislature. Time is definitely on his side.
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
Yes, you should insist that people who are anarchists admit that they are anarchists and not libertarians. It is also you that is ignoring the philosophy of a smaller government is something that captures a wide swath of people with a variety of other political philosophies in terms of how that is accomplished and how far to go with that scaling back of government.
Mixed in with this are people (who I think are naive) that wish to simply eliminate government organizations completely. Since they are still pretty much fighting for the same thing... to cut back government... they often campaign and support efforts similar to other libertarians who simply don't like large government organizations running thing. There are even differences in opinions on what kinds of government services ought to be cut.
Treating this as a monolithic philosophy with specific dogma is something that simply doesn't exist.
The world was paying attention, to what they thought was export grade quality cryptography - protected by law/bad press if faulty and the makers stock price and a lot of other legal/coding hopes.
It should be pointed out that for a great many years, it was illegal to "export" any computer software that contained high degrees of encryption. It was called a "munition", thus it was a controlled item that you needed special permission from the U.S. State Department in order to sell or even give away that software. Because of this, "export grade quality cryptography" in America meant it was stuff that was substantially inferior to even stuff done by ordinary commercial outfits domestically in America.
That didn't stop companies outside of America from selling that stuff though, nor did it stop those researchers and programmers from outside of America to attend conferences in America where they certainly could take notes and implement the same algorithms or simply tweak some of the basic algorithms to work with more bits... thus becoming "more secure". I knew several GPL'd projects when all of this was taking place that actually had teams of people working on encryption algorithms that had no Americans on those teams and explicitly had their commits done outside of America.
In the end, such games ended up hurting American encryption efforts and became a major disincentive to "buy American"... even by American companies who were purchasing this kind of software as it wasn't illegal to import these "munitions"... only to export them. It is almost as if there are U.S. government policies in place to explicitly destroy America economically.
The other problem with the Concorde was its rather limited flight range. New York to London was just about at its extreme limit (on a routine basis with fuel reserves and no in-flight refueling like is done for military aircraft). That ended up making otherwise much more profitable routes like Los Angeles to Sydney or even San Francisco to Tokyo something that was physically impossible to fly with that aircraft. Had the aircraft been able to fly these routes (nobody cared about sonic booms over the Pacific Ocean), it likely would have continued to fly.
Even London to New York was still profitable though... at least until 9/11 and airport screenings basically killed any advantage for supersonic flight where your wait in the airport just to get to the gate was longer than the flight itself. The TSA really screwed up the airline industry in more ways than is obvious on the surface, and they have definitely killed any attempt to build a next generation of the Concorde at least as long as they continue to do the security theater and deliberately try to remind Americans that they are now subjects and not citizens.
Another problem is that plowing through the air on any aircraft, at supersonic velocities, induces some friction on the wings that causes all sorts of problems due to high temperatures on the airframe surfaces. This requires more exotic materials and causes many of the problems for why it is so expensive to build SST vehicles in general. It works for military aircraft where expense isn't as huge of a factor and the advantages of high speed can be justified. Besides, even for military aircraft they are increasingly going for slower aircraft that can be "stealthy" rather than fast. If you are going to need the fancy composite materials for high temperatures anyway, you might as well design the vehicle to go into space... where surprisingly you don't need to worry so much about sustained high temperatures on the wing surfaces like you do for supersonic vehicles.
I really doubt that the SST would have done any better than the Concorde, and its cancellation was mostly an economic one rather than political, even though politics did play a role. That SST plane by Boeing was pretty much limited by the same constraints as the Concorde with some additional problems that the Concorde engineers were able to resolve. There are some other companies who are considering supersonic vehicles, including a business jet company (where issues of airport queues really don't matter). If there will be something to change, it will be a vehicle made with 21st Century materials (mostly composite materials that simply weren't available in the 1960's) and likely be sub-orbital as well.
I wonder if this will ever be viable as a form of travel rather than just space tourism, or if it will always be cost prohibitive. Most people can't afford a quarter million dollars, but for a few thousand dollars, I think a lot of people would love the opportunity to fly in space at Mach 2+ and get across the country in a couple of hours.
The funny thing is that when you get to significant distances where suborbital spaceflight matters, you might as well try for orbital spaceflight as the energy needed is the same or even more.
A couple of years back Scaled Composites + Virgin Galactic did suggest they would build a "Spaceship three" vehicle. I haven't heard anything about it for some time and it seems like that idea has been dropped or at least shelved for a very distant future (more than a decade away). I suspect that if the current vehicle produced by The Spaceship Company (yeah, that is its name) finally gets into operational status and some of the deposit backlog becomes actual flying customers, you will start to hear about the next generation.
Some interesting other businesses besides people going for thrill rides includes bona fide space research, where there are some people interested in using SS2 for testing components on spacecraft prior to sending them into orbit. They currently use sounding rockets, parabolic aircraft, drop towers, and other sorts of systems for this kind of activity, and it is cheap enough (in comparison to orbital spaceflight) that it provides a good practical testing environment. Indeed several universities and even NASA research grants have already been signed explicitly to do this kind of activity. Many of these contracts are generic enough that they are not tied just to Virgin Galactic either, and this looks like a long term and sustained application for this vehicle even if the trill ride market dries up completely.
Point to point delivery of some manufactured goods is definitely an application being looked at, where being able to deliver a component over a distance of several thousand miles in a couple of hours would be considered justification for a flight all by itself. Yes, there are some things that spending a quarter of a million dollars or more to save a few hours in shipping time would be worth the effort. It also gets the rather strange notion of delivering something if "it absolutely, positively, has to get there yesterday" (when crossing in the right direction over the International Date Line).
Another application that has been considered is delivering Rangers or SEALs in a "space plane" that could literally go anywhere on the Earth and arrive in just a few hours. There are definitely some drawbacks to such a vehicle and it has been debated as to if it is even worth bothering to try this concept at all, but there are definitely potential military applications for a vehicle like this.
I mention these other applications for revenue that Virgin Galactic and/or the Spaceship Company could have simply to point out that the only way it will become cheap enough for mere mortals like you and I to use something like this is if other much more profitable business opportunities also exist using the same technology. I'm sure other business opportunities can be found for a vehicle like this, but unfortunately most business ideas for space usually require substantially cheaper transportation options than currently exist, thus profit margins so low (at least to start with) that even well financed companies with investors looking at the long term prospects are unlikely to invest in developing such vehicles. It really is trying to find a way to make a profit, and once that happens other ways to utilize a vehicle like this can be found.
I'm not convinced that the price will go down that much simply because the just slightly cheaper business opportunities simply aren't there.
And there is nothing that scares me more than a rabid patriot who will do anything "for the cause."
It's the very definition of "Fascist."
Not quite. Fascism is pretty much "government by corporation". In other words, a government which is owned by companies who in turn receive grants of monopoly situations in that country for their support. That pretty much defined Nazi Germany.
It may even define America at the moment, but that is up to personal interpretation.
As for somebody who strongly believes in the founding principles of their country and is willing to commit everything they have including their life for their country... that is the definition of a patriot. Please don't mix words here as they really do have meaning. That you may not have that kind of devotion to your country or land where you live is your problem. It is also your choice too.
That some idiots will also break any rule and throw out things like ethics, laws, and principles just to further their particular political cause simply shows they are simply evil. I'm not afraid of using that word either. There are plenty of evil people around the world and I don't mind calling for them to be destroyed either.
These back doors that you are complaining about where something that was openly discussed as a matter of public policy when it happened. It became legislation where the United States Congress (not the NSA) required these backdoors through legislation and made it criminal for telecommunications companies to even object. Furthermore, that these companies had to go out of their way and hire programmers and electrical engineers to explicitly put these back doors into their equipment.
Ummm...Can you please point out which law required back doors in things like SSL, DES and the like? There are no such laws. Strange how you seem to think this was all done above board by the Congress yet it took Snowden's revelations before any else in the world knew about it.
Actually, yes I can point out some laws.... something you could Google if you cared:
This isn't exactly new. I think you are confusing some stuff here too, as if you are using stuff like DES you are using the actual research of the NSA itself (they are the guys that invented the DES algorithm) that you are complaining about here.
If you had any kind of a clue hammering on your head, you would realize that 95%+ of the stuff that Snowden "revealed" was already public knowledge. It sort of banged a few reporters on the head as they basically didn't give a damn when this P.O.S. legislation was working its way through congress.... even though people like the Electronic Frontier Foundation was literally screaming at the top of its lungs that this stuff needed to be defeated.
How in the hell do you think those judges and agents are able to tell these telecom companies to shut up in the first place? It is this legislation that your illustrious members of congress were passing that nobody gave a damn about at the time except for a few crazy computer programmers and silly activists that had no constituency. Geez.... you really think Snowden made all of this stuff up and it was unknown prior to this year? This kind of crap has been going on for decades. It didn't start with the President, as for most of that stuff even the President can't even sneeze without permission from Congress.
I suppose finally some people actually give a damn about this stuff now, but it is going to take a long, long time to get some of that legislation repealed... if it ever will be repealed.
BTW, that huge woosh was going right back at you. I guess you didn't read a damn thing I wrote about that Enigma machine. I got your comment about the "patriots". Many people are loyal to the country, and surprisingly even the government under which they live even if they may be oppressed. Big effing deal. I was pointing out that there are some very smart people in those countries too who want to keep secrets about their country and want to make damn sure that if some other country (like America) is doing something to hurt them that they know about it ahead of time.
I simply cannot reply to the rest of what you wrote. It isn't worth my time.
Yeah, like putting back doors in most of the security used on the internet. They're not magical...wait...what was that article about again?
They want to be able to read what ever the enemy produces. You don't seem to recognize that the for the NSA we're the enemy. The real secure methods they won't let the public have. They keep those secret for internal use only. If they publicized them the enemy (you know, the public) would have access to them.
These back doors that you are complaining about where something that was openly discussed as a matter of public policy when it happened. It became legislation where the United States Congress (not the NSA) required these backdoors through legislation and made it criminal for telecommunications companies to even object. Furthermore, that these companies had to go out of their way and hire programmers and electrical engineers to explicitly put these back doors into their equipment.
If you are bitching about the fact that the NSA has exploited these features that Congress put into place, you are complaining about somebody closing the barn door after the barn burned down. You need first to work to get that legislation repealed and to get politicians who give a damn about individual privacy.
As far as complaining that members of Congress are "bought out" by "special interest groups".... help to make a difference in that area of society too. Throwing up your hands and bitching but not doing anything else won't get anything accomplished.
Do you know how many people in the world have the level of math required for advance cryptography? It ain't many. You certainly aren't going to pick up a book and figure it out in a few weeks of studying.
Why not? It may take a genius to figure that out, but you as a private individual can certainly figure this out if you cared. Most people don't want to bother as there are more important things to do with their life.
Besides.... as I said, find somebody you can trust if you don't want to take that kind of time to figure things of that nature out. There are enough people in this world that I'm sure you can find somebody with your same world view, political opinions, and likely even location that can go over this kind of stuff. Every university has mathematicians who are certainly capable of doing the kind of analysis needed to at least know if the NSA guys are full of crap or not.
The only difference is that the NSA guys do this full time as that is their career. Good for them.
You know those WWII Germans you mentioned above? They were just patriots too. It was all for the Fatherland...and the children.
I and not disputing that either. Indeed.... if you actually studied a bit about the enigma machine... that it needed some real hard analysis by mathematicians to verify the quality of the encryption being used with that machine. It was quite complex, but there were some substantial flaws that made its complexity actually defeated the cryptographic security of the messages being sent.
I brought the point up as an example of somebody who thought they were clever about encryption, but ended up shooting themselves in the foot because they didn't do the mathematics necessary to make it secure. The video even shows how the Bletchley Park guys actually broke the Enigma machine codes. You can be too clever for your own good when there are very smart people "out there" who are doing the same kind of thing you are doing.
In other words, don't get so smug thinking you have a monopoly on mathematics and encryption. I wasn't trying to invoke Godwin's Law or something stupid.
That doesn't make them sinister, just patriots... patriots that know there are people just like them in other countries around the world.
Did you just call people who help violate the constitution... patriots? No, they are absolute scum for working for such an organization.
Yup, I did. The blame for the violation of the Constitution goes up to the top of the food chain on that particular point..... meaning the guy who held a huge party that cost close to a billion dollars, televised on every network when it happened, where he swore an oath that his specific and indeed only job duties was to "preserve, protect, and defend" that very Constitution you are asserting here were violated. The NSA works for that guy, and he can relieve them and indeed the entire agency of their job duties by the stroke of a single pen.
Yeah, I'd hate to work for such a person.... and thank goodness I don't right now.
I do think that there are people who work for the NSA are indeed patriots and people who care about "truth, justice, and the American way" (yeah, another cliche), and a number of them that are deeply concerned about violations of people's individual privacy. As important and I would dare say far more important is that this scanning of information from ordinary citizens is not used for political purposes to further a political agenda. That is something very new and different. I don't give a crap if it started with Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt, or even Washington.... the guy at the top can still stop this from happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly. As with other technologies we start by copying nature up to the point we understand the subject matter well enough to leave the natural solution behind. Airplanes don't flap wings after all.
You mean airplanes don't have wings which flap as the primary method of propulsion. It was something that was tried though. The primary reason for trying other solutions to this issue was that moving wings to produce thrust simply had other solutions, not that "we" understood the subject matter all that much.
It should also be pointed out that the Wright Brothers also experimented with wing warping rather than using "flaps" (there is that term again... actually from bird flapping BTW) for flight control. It was abandoned for a great many years, yet the "technology" from birds is coming back in a great many ways in spite of a supposed understanding of how birds fly.
Indeed I would say that we really don't understand much about how birds fly, not to mention they happen to mostly fly in a different flight environment anyway because they are much smaller and lighter than most things that humans build except for perhaps R/C airplanes. New discoveries of flight are constantly being made in regards to how birds fly, and is still an area of knowledge that has some low hanging fruit as it were.
Why should anybody care about what some kind of god-like being said in a work of pure fiction?
Yeah. By the time this mission could launch, our robots will actually be a lot more capable of doing useful research on Europa than the human settlers, especially when you control for all the mass that needs to be launched in order to keep people alive (and not crazy) for as long as this would take. Instead of people, why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath? If we have a chance of finding something cool, it will be down there.
I doubt it. While I will agree that there is considerable "low hanging fruit" in terms of very legitimate science that can be done by sending robotic probes, there will reach a point in that research where having actual people physically there will make a whole lot of sense. With the distances involved, bandwidth for sending data can be a considerable problem. Some local synthesis of the data (like was done with the Kepler mission... which had terabytes of data to sift through) can take place in an automated fashion, eventually even that will eventually need to have somebody physically there to evaluate all of that data.
There is a reason why automated probes don't go running around Antarctica, even though sending people there happens at considerable expense. Even with people there in Antarctica at the various research stations, there still is a huge amount of bandwidth sending that research data back to the various countries involved... and even that bandwidth is seen as very limited.
The question isn't if people should go to Europa, but rather when. A good argument could be made that there is no need for human researchers to go for at least a century or more as there is definitely plenty of research that can be done in the meantime with robotic probes including spacecraft dedicated explicitly to Europa.... including the nuclear submarine you have described. Such a vehicle was even described in this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html
The U.S. government has banned the use of Chinese telecom equipment by U.S. government agencies not because it is too cheap or too good, but because it is compromised and is used by the People's Liberation Army to spy on the U.S. government. Not that the U.S. government has never done something like that to other countries.
There is no ban on such equipment by ordinary Americans or even American companies. You just can't directly use that stuff if you are involved in government contracts. On the other hand, federal contracts are so pervasive in America now that you would be pretty hard pressed to be doing something that at some level completely avoids a federal contract.
Actually, that would be a casus belli for a war against America on the part of Brazil if an undersea cable was tapped into by a 3rd party government. It is not as that has never happened before even against countries openly hostile to America. It is doubtful that physical cables would be laid from the splice all of the way back to America though.... but who knows if you are making stuff up here? Thousands of miles of additional cable from that splice to America would still be quite the investment with Brazil justifiably laughing off their asses at the NSA sorting through porn sites, video game streaming, and other general junk in that data stream for any precious nuggets of information about a plot by Brazil to invade America.
Right. A friend of mine (I was there when it was done) asked a Brazilian Air Force general what Brazil would do if America decided to go to war against Brazil. His reply was to ground all of the planes and surrender. Brazil certainly is not a major threat to America.
It wouldn't hurt for Brazil to have more physical connections with other Latin American countries as well as other countries relatively near, such as perhaps a direct link to South Africa and Spain/Portugal (aka something across the Atlantic). Unfortunately west Africa isn't exactly an economic hot spot in the world and would be the easiest to reach.
What I don't understand is why you or anybody else is worried about "fragmentation" on this issue? Fragmentation of IP addresses? I thought IPv6 pretty much solved that problem anyway (with enough address space so every person can have thousands of IP addresses and still have room left over for governments and corporations). Routers can do a pretty good job of finding network addresses in even a very fragmented world infrastructure as that is sort of why they were invented in the first place. Network traffic certainly doesn't need to go into America first.
The "bad old days of dial up access" was mostly an issue of finding an ISP in your neighborhood.... which was eventually solved with pools of dial up access and then widespread DSL coverage. If you are complaining about bandwidth, I hardly think that is going to be a problem with additional links and physical connections between people in more distant parts of the world from the primary corridors of telecommunications. If anything, bandwidth will improve if peripheral edges of networks are connected as well as improving reliability. Fragmentation actually improves things as opposed to making it worse.
Perhaps you are complaining about fragmentation of services like more kinds of websites that are "portals". Would it be a bad thing if those services are broken up and people use things other than Google's gmail?
It isn't as if building engines like this is some kind of ancient knowledge that has been lost in the mists of history. The ability to create new rocket engines exists. Besides, Aerojet wants to keep their contract with Orbital and be the engine supplier for these rockets.
It is possible that RKK Energia (the license owner of the NK-33 design) may want to negotiate the licensing terms for building these engines. I certainly think that if money can be made, a deal can also be struck.
If it works, why re-invent the wheel?
It shows that somebody besides SpaceX can actually send stuff into space.
It sounds pretty much like what Tesla is already doing. The Model S has their battery pack on the floor of the vehicle, with what amounts to be standard "AA" cells standing upright but as a broad sheet of those batteries made into long and flat panels. This has the added benefit of lowering the center of gravity on that vehicle too (increased stability and handling) and gets rid of the middle "hump" found in most automobiles where the drive shaft is found.
The real problem with trying to design a new shape to an individual cell (from what I gather in your suggestion here) is that it would require retooling the assembly plant and also become a non-standard cell that would have a very limited market. Tesla buys the same Li-ion batteries that are used in laptops, sold individually at Wal-Mart, and are used in just about every child's toy. This makes those cells into a standardized commodity that can even have futures trading in commodities markets like the Chicago Merc and have literally dozens of suppliers (so Tesla isn't held hostage by an individual producer). The only advantage I would see to a custom cell design would be to design them explicitly for some kind of liquid cooling system where the individual cells could be put into that fluid for increased cooling efficiency and have that coolant flow around the cell's form.
GM has one advantage though. In some states, Tesla is forbidden to sell cars because they are not going through dealers.
I don't consider that to be much of an advantage. Tesla can still sell cars to people in Texas and Massachusetts and even deliver automobiles there as well as set up service centers in those states.... they simply can't operate stores inside of those states that will hand over the keys as you pluck down the cash or sign the loan papers. Tesla can, however, provide "free wi-fi" at their service centers and even set up a few computer terminals with network access at those service centers... where a hyperlink to the sales website can be accessed.
All you will be missing is the overweight middle aged salesmen with bad aftershave breathing down your neck.
I agree with the huge piles of capital that General Motors has at their disposal though. It is also possible for an older company... one that may even be facing bankruptcy (again) to become nimble and act like a start-up if their existence is on the line. That isn't exactly GM's style or business culture, but it could happen and assuming GM thinks their back is up against the wall or lose out to a company like Tesla or Nissan, they very well might reform their internal business culture.
The advantage that GM has which far exceeds anything Tesla could do is simply access to massive amounts of capital and physical assembly plants, not to mention an army of employees who are very capable of not only designing but also building these vehicles.
That said, this advantage is gradually diminishing as Tesla is selling vehicles and has an amazing assembly plant (one that GM even jointly owned in the past). The problems with labor unions is something that Tesla has to face in California (where labor unions do have considerable influence on state labor policy), not to mention that Tesla is not really able to have that much cheaper labor costs than GM.
The question is if GM will be able to leverage their advantages knowing full well that the automobile industry is definitely changing? GM had all but written off the development of electric automobiles (just watch "Who killed the electric car?" for details) until the Tesla Roadster was built and the then CEO of GM interviewed Martin Eberhard about Tesla's view of electric automobiles. That was the foundation of the Volt... and the fact that the Volt was the only major automobile project from prior to the bankruptcy of GM that still exists today.
For those complaining about the fact that Tesla doesn't have an "affordable automobile", that simply is a reflection of the fact that Tesla lacks the capital necessary to mass produce a quarter million automobiles in the 20k-30k price range. It takes those kind of production numbers in order to profitably build cheaper cars. I certainly don't fault Tesla for not building those low end cars first but instead sticking to high end/low volume niche markets first.
Just like MINIX?
I think there is something to the general attitude that some Amish communities have toward technology. They aren't really Luddites in a general sense, but they feel that technology shouldn't be overwhelming society and that we need to step back a little bit and examine how those new technologies will impact our lives first before they are adopted. Even more significant is that they try to adopt technology in such a way that the senior citizens can also adapt to changes in technology over time and not be made instantly obsolete. Grandfathers actually can pass on ideas, skills, and traditions to the next generation without any sort of fear that they are clueless about how things work.
Also, thinking that Amish and Mennonites are a homogenous community with all the same attitudes toward technology is simply being closed minded yourself. You will find a whole spectrum from those who eschew any sort of technological development since the Renaissance to those who are basically indistinguishable from others living in the 21st century in terms of the kinds of devices and technology they are using.
Seriously, what is wrong about questioning supposed technological advances and wanting to live in harmony with nature? For those worried about stuff like your carbon footprint or sustainable living, you might want to take a page or two from those who are Amish and see how they are able to be productive and even thrive on renewable resources. I certainly have no problem with any group of people who voluntarily choose to live as a community without some technological devices.
I certainly doubt that the Amish are too worried about their correspondence being intercepted and read by the NSA.
Originally (and until fairly recently) most films came in cans that were only 12 minutes long. There have been a few tricks done by projectionists over the years including winding that film into a giant spool and splicing those various pieces of film together prior to what you saw in a movie theater, or by having multiple projectors set up where the moment one of those cans of film would end the next projector would immediately start running.
Still, if you had to interrupt your movie to switch tapes, it sounds like you had a genuine cinematic experience. Perhaps a little too authentic, and I guess you could enhance that by having two month old spilled soda on your floor along with bubble gum under the chairs and lots of popcorn and empty boxes of other candy strewn about.
While Google may have a pile of cash, I doubt they have that much cash on hand to actually pay Elon Musk on the spot with that much liquid assets. Frankly, any public company capable of being able to pay out that much money immediately should have their entire board of directors replaced and have every signatory officer (CEO, those with the "Vice President" in their title, and likely the general counsel too) fired for utter incompetence. We are talking billions of dollars worth of money here, as any such merger would most certainly drive up the price of Tesla stock.
The reason for such a drastic move against the corporate leadership is because if a company like Google was sitting on such cash surpluses, they should be returning it to the share holders as dividends instead. Microsoft was in such a position a decade ago and did precisely that as that company didn't have other substantive ways to invest the money other than buying things like Treasury bills or other general investments. You don't invest into a high tech company only to have that company turn out to be a glorified mutual fund... especially when many of its shareholders likely could find more productive ways to invest that money.
If Elon Musk wanted to bail out of the new Google in such a merger, he would then subsequently start selling off his stock in some gradual fashion that could also be predictable in the equity markets as well. That would certainly be the most sensible move and why such stock exchanges usually happen. Keep in mind that Google would also presumably need to use any cash reserves they would have to be doing things like building this fleet of taxis, expanding the Fremont plant in some fashion, or doing other things that will take some sort of investment. If all of that cash reserve was tied up in trying to pay off Elon Musk, such a loss of liquidity would also make it very difficult to even run a business.
The Texas government has reversed in the past on car-related regulations that pissed people off - it's fairly responsive to the people when it comes to that. If people want Teslas, the government will act. It will actually be pretty interesting to watch this play out.
This is a most insightful comment. Tesla has been fighting several states on this issue, including a couple states where there are dealership owners who want to force Tesla legally to grant them a franchise. Frankly I think Tesla's approach to this in terms of breaking up the monopoly dealers have on sales is a pretty good thing.
In time, if there is demand for Tesla automobiles and they sell very strongly in other states, there will be increasing public pressure in Texas to change these laws. It will just need to be a protracted battle rather than something done in one day. The state where it would be a disaster for Tesla would be in California... where I think Tesla is viewed almost as a savior and something where there would be some very significant allies in the California legislature to stop that from happening. Tesla has New York, California, and Florida, and is doing well in the rest of America too. One little battle at a time and let Texas feel left in the dark.
If the Brownsville spaceport gets built, I think Elon Musk is going to have a little bit more influence in the Texas state legislature. Time is definitely on his side.
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
Yes, you should insist that people who are anarchists admit that they are anarchists and not libertarians. It is also you that is ignoring the philosophy of a smaller government is something that captures a wide swath of people with a variety of other political philosophies in terms of how that is accomplished and how far to go with that scaling back of government.
Mixed in with this are people (who I think are naive) that wish to simply eliminate government organizations completely. Since they are still pretty much fighting for the same thing... to cut back government... they often campaign and support efforts similar to other libertarians who simply don't like large government organizations running thing. There are even differences in opinions on what kinds of government services ought to be cut.
Treating this as a monolithic philosophy with specific dogma is something that simply doesn't exist.
The world was paying attention, to what they thought was export grade quality cryptography - protected by law/bad press if faulty and the makers stock price and a lot of other legal/coding hopes.
It should be pointed out that for a great many years, it was illegal to "export" any computer software that contained high degrees of encryption. It was called a "munition", thus it was a controlled item that you needed special permission from the U.S. State Department in order to sell or even give away that software. Because of this, "export grade quality cryptography" in America meant it was stuff that was substantially inferior to even stuff done by ordinary commercial outfits domestically in America.
That didn't stop companies outside of America from selling that stuff though, nor did it stop those researchers and programmers from outside of America to attend conferences in America where they certainly could take notes and implement the same algorithms or simply tweak some of the basic algorithms to work with more bits... thus becoming "more secure". I knew several GPL'd projects when all of this was taking place that actually had teams of people working on encryption algorithms that had no Americans on those teams and explicitly had their commits done outside of America.
In the end, such games ended up hurting American encryption efforts and became a major disincentive to "buy American"... even by American companies who were purchasing this kind of software as it wasn't illegal to import these "munitions"... only to export them. It is almost as if there are U.S. government policies in place to explicitly destroy America economically.
The other problem with the Concorde was its rather limited flight range. New York to London was just about at its extreme limit (on a routine basis with fuel reserves and no in-flight refueling like is done for military aircraft). That ended up making otherwise much more profitable routes like Los Angeles to Sydney or even San Francisco to Tokyo something that was physically impossible to fly with that aircraft. Had the aircraft been able to fly these routes (nobody cared about sonic booms over the Pacific Ocean), it likely would have continued to fly.
Even London to New York was still profitable though... at least until 9/11 and airport screenings basically killed any advantage for supersonic flight where your wait in the airport just to get to the gate was longer than the flight itself. The TSA really screwed up the airline industry in more ways than is obvious on the surface, and they have definitely killed any attempt to build a next generation of the Concorde at least as long as they continue to do the security theater and deliberately try to remind Americans that they are now subjects and not citizens.
Another problem is that plowing through the air on any aircraft, at supersonic velocities, induces some friction on the wings that causes all sorts of problems due to high temperatures on the airframe surfaces. This requires more exotic materials and causes many of the problems for why it is so expensive to build SST vehicles in general. It works for military aircraft where expense isn't as huge of a factor and the advantages of high speed can be justified. Besides, even for military aircraft they are increasingly going for slower aircraft that can be "stealthy" rather than fast. If you are going to need the fancy composite materials for high temperatures anyway, you might as well design the vehicle to go into space... where surprisingly you don't need to worry so much about sustained high temperatures on the wing surfaces like you do for supersonic vehicles.
I really doubt that the SST would have done any better than the Concorde, and its cancellation was mostly an economic one rather than political, even though politics did play a role. That SST plane by Boeing was pretty much limited by the same constraints as the Concorde with some additional problems that the Concorde engineers were able to resolve. There are some other companies who are considering supersonic vehicles, including a business jet company (where issues of airport queues really don't matter). If there will be something to change, it will be a vehicle made with 21st Century materials (mostly composite materials that simply weren't available in the 1960's) and likely be sub-orbital as well.
I wonder if this will ever be viable as a form of travel rather than just space tourism, or if it will always be cost prohibitive. Most people can't afford a quarter million dollars, but for a few thousand dollars, I think a lot of people would love the opportunity to fly in space at Mach 2+ and get across the country in a couple of hours.
The funny thing is that when you get to significant distances where suborbital spaceflight matters, you might as well try for orbital spaceflight as the energy needed is the same or even more.
A couple of years back Scaled Composites + Virgin Galactic did suggest they would build a "Spaceship three" vehicle. I haven't heard anything about it for some time and it seems like that idea has been dropped or at least shelved for a very distant future (more than a decade away). I suspect that if the current vehicle produced by The Spaceship Company (yeah, that is its name) finally gets into operational status and some of the deposit backlog becomes actual flying customers, you will start to hear about the next generation.
Some interesting other businesses besides people going for thrill rides includes bona fide space research, where there are some people interested in using SS2 for testing components on spacecraft prior to sending them into orbit. They currently use sounding rockets, parabolic aircraft, drop towers, and other sorts of systems for this kind of activity, and it is cheap enough (in comparison to orbital spaceflight) that it provides a good practical testing environment. Indeed several universities and even NASA research grants have already been signed explicitly to do this kind of activity. Many of these contracts are generic enough that they are not tied just to Virgin Galactic either, and this looks like a long term and sustained application for this vehicle even if the trill ride market dries up completely.
Point to point delivery of some manufactured goods is definitely an application being looked at, where being able to deliver a component over a distance of several thousand miles in a couple of hours would be considered justification for a flight all by itself. Yes, there are some things that spending a quarter of a million dollars or more to save a few hours in shipping time would be worth the effort. It also gets the rather strange notion of delivering something if "it absolutely, positively, has to get there yesterday" (when crossing in the right direction over the International Date Line).
Another application that has been considered is delivering Rangers or SEALs in a "space plane" that could literally go anywhere on the Earth and arrive in just a few hours. There are definitely some drawbacks to such a vehicle and it has been debated as to if it is even worth bothering to try this concept at all, but there are definitely potential military applications for a vehicle like this.
I mention these other applications for revenue that Virgin Galactic and/or the Spaceship Company could have simply to point out that the only way it will become cheap enough for mere mortals like you and I to use something like this is if other much more profitable business opportunities also exist using the same technology. I'm sure other business opportunities can be found for a vehicle like this, but unfortunately most business ideas for space usually require substantially cheaper transportation options than currently exist, thus profit margins so low (at least to start with) that even well financed companies with investors looking at the long term prospects are unlikely to invest in developing such vehicles. It really is trying to find a way to make a profit, and once that happens other ways to utilize a vehicle like this can be found.
I'm not convinced that the price will go down that much simply because the just slightly cheaper business opportunities simply aren't there.
And there is nothing that scares me more than a rabid patriot who will do anything "for the cause."
It's the very definition of "Fascist."
Not quite. Fascism is pretty much "government by corporation". In other words, a government which is owned by companies who in turn receive grants of monopoly situations in that country for their support. That pretty much defined Nazi Germany.
It may even define America at the moment, but that is up to personal interpretation.
As for somebody who strongly believes in the founding principles of their country and is willing to commit everything they have including their life for their country... that is the definition of a patriot. Please don't mix words here as they really do have meaning. That you may not have that kind of devotion to your country or land where you live is your problem. It is also your choice too.
That some idiots will also break any rule and throw out things like ethics, laws, and principles just to further their particular political cause simply shows they are simply evil. I'm not afraid of using that word either. There are plenty of evil people around the world and I don't mind calling for them to be destroyed either.
These back doors that you are complaining about where something that was openly discussed as a matter of public policy when it happened. It became legislation where the United States Congress (not the NSA) required these backdoors through legislation and made it criminal for telecommunications companies to even object. Furthermore, that these companies had to go out of their way and hire programmers and electrical engineers to explicitly put these back doors into their equipment.
Ummm...Can you please point out which law required back doors in things like SSL, DES and the like? There are no such laws. Strange how you seem to think this was all done above board by the Congress yet it took Snowden's revelations before any else in the world knew about it.
Actually, yes I can point out some laws.... something you could Google if you cared:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/caleatwo
This isn't exactly new. I think you are confusing some stuff here too, as if you are using stuff like DES you are using the actual research of the NSA itself (they are the guys that invented the DES algorithm) that you are complaining about here.
If you had any kind of a clue hammering on your head, you would realize that 95%+ of the stuff that Snowden "revealed" was already public knowledge. It sort of banged a few reporters on the head as they basically didn't give a damn when this P.O.S. legislation was working its way through congress.... even though people like the Electronic Frontier Foundation was literally screaming at the top of its lungs that this stuff needed to be defeated.
How in the hell do you think those judges and agents are able to tell these telecom companies to shut up in the first place? It is this legislation that your illustrious members of congress were passing that nobody gave a damn about at the time except for a few crazy computer programmers and silly activists that had no constituency. Geez.... you really think Snowden made all of this stuff up and it was unknown prior to this year? This kind of crap has been going on for decades. It didn't start with the President, as for most of that stuff even the President can't even sneeze without permission from Congress.
I suppose finally some people actually give a damn about this stuff now, but it is going to take a long, long time to get some of that legislation repealed... if it ever will be repealed.
BTW, that huge woosh was going right back at you. I guess you didn't read a damn thing I wrote about that Enigma machine. I got your comment about the "patriots". Many people are loyal to the country, and surprisingly even the government under which they live even if they may be oppressed. Big effing deal. I was pointing out that there are some very smart people in those countries too who want to keep secrets about their country and want to make damn sure that if some other country (like America) is doing something to hurt them that they know about it ahead of time.
I simply cannot reply to the rest of what you wrote. It isn't worth my time.
Yeah, like putting back doors in most of the security used on the internet. They're not magical...wait...what was that article about again?
They want to be able to read what ever the enemy produces. You don't seem to recognize that the for the NSA we're the enemy. The real secure methods they won't let the public have. They keep those secret for internal use only. If they publicized them the enemy (you know, the public) would have access to them.
These back doors that you are complaining about where something that was openly discussed as a matter of public policy when it happened. It became legislation where the United States Congress (not the NSA) required these backdoors through legislation and made it criminal for telecommunications companies to even object. Furthermore, that these companies had to go out of their way and hire programmers and electrical engineers to explicitly put these back doors into their equipment.
If you are bitching about the fact that the NSA has exploited these features that Congress put into place, you are complaining about somebody closing the barn door after the barn burned down. You need first to work to get that legislation repealed and to get politicians who give a damn about individual privacy.
As far as complaining that members of Congress are "bought out" by "special interest groups".... help to make a difference in that area of society too. Throwing up your hands and bitching but not doing anything else won't get anything accomplished.
Do you know how many people in the world have the level of math required for advance cryptography? It ain't many. You certainly aren't going to pick up a book and figure it out in a few weeks of studying.
Why not? It may take a genius to figure that out, but you as a private individual can certainly figure this out if you cared. Most people don't want to bother as there are more important things to do with their life.
Besides.... as I said, find somebody you can trust if you don't want to take that kind of time to figure things of that nature out. There are enough people in this world that I'm sure you can find somebody with your same world view, political opinions, and likely even location that can go over this kind of stuff. Every university has mathematicians who are certainly capable of doing the kind of analysis needed to at least know if the NSA guys are full of crap or not.
The only difference is that the NSA guys do this full time as that is their career. Good for them.
You know those WWII Germans you mentioned above? They were just patriots too. It was all for the Fatherland...and the children.
I and not disputing that either. Indeed.... if you actually studied a bit about the enigma machine... that it needed some real hard analysis by mathematicians to verify the quality of the encryption being used with that machine. It was quite complex, but there were some substantial flaws that made its complexity actually defeated the cryptographic security of the messages being sent.
This video explains the problem with that machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4V2bpZlqx8
I brought the point up as an example of somebody who thought they were clever about encryption, but ended up shooting themselves in the foot because they didn't do the mathematics necessary to make it secure. The video even shows how the Bletchley Park guys actually broke the Enigma machine codes. You can be too clever for your own good when there are very smart people "out there" who are doing the same kind of thing you are doing.
In other words, don't get so smug thinking you have a monopoly on mathematics and encryption. I wasn't trying to invoke Godwin's Law or something stupid.
That doesn't make them sinister, just patriots... patriots that know there are people just like them in other countries around the world.
Did you just call people who help violate the constitution... patriots? No, they are absolute scum for working for such an organization.
Yup, I did. The blame for the violation of the Constitution goes up to the top of the food chain on that particular point..... meaning the guy who held a huge party that cost close to a billion dollars, televised on every network when it happened, where he swore an oath that his specific and indeed only job duties was to "preserve, protect, and defend" that very Constitution you are asserting here were violated. The NSA works for that guy, and he can relieve them and indeed the entire agency of their job duties by the stroke of a single pen.
Yeah, I'd hate to work for such a person.... and thank goodness I don't right now.
I do think that there are people who work for the NSA are indeed patriots and people who care about "truth, justice, and the American way" (yeah, another cliche), and a number of them that are deeply concerned about violations of people's individual privacy. As important and I would dare say far more important is that this scanning of information from ordinary citizens is not used for political purposes to further a political agenda. That is something very new and different. I don't give a crap if it started with Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt, or even Washington.... the guy at the top can still stop this from happening.