OK, first off, I'm the Talon Software Production Engineer for Foster-Miller Inc., we produce the SWORDS robots. And yes, they are robots. From where I sit there are many of these in the production bay about 100 ft away. We currently produce Talon and Swords vehicles, where Talon robots have a manipulator arm and are primarily used for IED inspection and removal, and Swords are their weaponized brother, minus a manipulator. A lot of people seem to be marginalizing these simply because there is a human operator, claiming that a robot requires some sort of artifical intelligence to be considered a "true" robot. What you have to understand is that these are robotic systems, by which I mean there is operator input but there is also quite a lot of onboard processing and control that allows these to run. I suppose by my definition a fighter plane is also a robot, but if you think about it this is also a correct statement. Both our robots and a (modern) fighter jet are capable of being autonomously controlled, it isn't currently being done. But take a look at other items we DO consider robots. Like the Kondo1 fighting biped robots made from servos. I think most anyone would agree that these are robots, and yet most of their outward actions are dictated by the operator (punch, kick, flip, laydown, getup, etc). Again, a system that has some limited autonomy, but is more or less always operated by a human. Our system is taking its directions from a human, true, but it doesn't have to, if the AI were there it could just as easily be controlled via that. Right now though there is no way that ANY ground-based system would be allowed by the military to autonomously operate a weapon, there are just too many variables that only a human can distinguish to make a lethal decision. As others pointed out there are fully autonomous radar operated guns on various battleships, but the difference there is that your area of fire is 99.99% of the time clear, and only true targets are likely to enter the killzone, whereas with a small ground based robot driving down a city street there are far too many obstacles, objects, and people to safely distinguish friend from foe. It is much easier to determine a bogey on radar in an otherwise clear sky is an enemy than to locate a single gunman in a crowded street.
Anyway, this post will probably never see the light of day since I'm so late to the party. However if anyone has questions about the Talon or SWORDS systems I can certainly point you towards the most relevent public information on them. NO, I cannot tell you operational details, components, number in service or other sensitive data. But I do have a unique perspective since I work with these everyday and I can certainly dispel any myths or misunderstandings that have most likely been furthered by this thread (only read at +4 but didn't see anything glaringly incorrect thus far.)
Having this thing attached to your wrist is gonna make it really hard to look at the screen while you're... oh wait, I can just put it on my other arm. Nevermind.
Perhaps you are correct that I'm not a libertarian afterall. [sigh] I suppose I will have to find my way to the isle of misfit voters. As I said, it's only been in the last year I've started to a) read about politics in depth at all, and b) decided that I seem to lean most toward libertarianism. I read many lewrockwell.com articles daily, and Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell don't seem to espouse the radical capitalistic views you associate with the movement. At least, that's what I glean from their articles, I might just not have enough information yet. I have long lamented that there seems to be no political party of Reason, and the only one that has come close is libertarians for me. Part of what I personally believe is that no one party can have it Right. I'm a robotics engineer so I know first hand that even when you have a solution that works a fresh set of eyes may be able to improve it or replace it with something even better. Besides a host of other things, something that seems to have been lacking from our politics for a long time is the idea of debate. A true debate, where the the point is not just to spew soundbites and one-up the other debators* but is in fact to present your argument and all of your reasoning and basically challenge others to prove those points wrong. And even then one should come to such an event with the intention of taking the good criticisms and rolling them into your solution, thus making it stronger for effort. Alas, I see none of this at any level of government. It's all my way or the highway reasoning and partisan backing despite flagrant conflicts and logical fallacies. Perhaps I will never find a large organization that objectively considers issues and in the case of moral ambiguity leaves the choices to the individual where they belong, rather than trying to legislate broad solutions for everyone that dehumanize and stifle us. And I likely misunderstand a lot of libertarianism as well, still lots to learn at 26 and all that. Anyway, thanks for your excellent and reasoned reply, I had you on my friends list already for insightful posts in the past, I wish more/. posters put up fare like yours.
Regards, ~J
* a debate with more than two participants too, imagine that!
and "libertarians" (radical revolutionaries is a more fitting term for all of them) who would be happy with gargantuan inequality of wealth where few individuals literally own nations, globe spanning monopolies, corporate armies, wars for resources, being ruled by outright feudal lords and many other similar things,
You need to go read the actual definition of libertarian. At it's core it's about personal responsibility, and that includes the state being run under a similar set of guidelines, as opposed to the current behemoth state that tramples our rights, privacy, and personal wealth. True libertarians are anti-state, anti-war, and most defintely anti-empire. You may not beleive the US is already an Empire, but at the very least I'm sure you will agree it's slipping towards being one. Libertarians also do not favor massive monopoly corporations, as again those trample rights and eschew responsibility in favor of profits. We do believe in less government intereference in markets, however that does not mean that capitalism be allowed to run wild until all corporations have merged into a huge monopoly. In order to function pure capitalism does require some intervention (checks and balances), else it is self-destructive. However there is more than a fine line of what constitutes running hte system and over-intereference by government. While true, many libertarian authors often advocate strange and unreasonable policies (a recent LRC article suggested taxing politicians for being... well politicians) but for the most part (rabid fanatics exist in any group but do not represent the mainstream of that group) these are meant as satirical logical-conclusion pieces that are more meant to draw attention to inadequacies or hypocracies of current policies rather than be accepted as literal solutions. The "tax all politicians" piece I reference for example was using the "sin tax" argument that "the power to tax is the power to destroy". The point was that NY was imposing extremely high taxes on ciggarettes in an effort to force people to stop or never take up smoking due to costs. While to some extent this has merits it is also not going to work in reality, people who are truly addicted will simply find some other way to get ciggs cheaper or they will find the extra $$, likely by forgoing other things. And since when has an extra 50 cents per unit of something stopped a kid from doing what they think is cool? Ever priced beer? that costs way more than ciggs yet underage kids still get it for various reasons (fitting in, coolness, escape, etc). To highlight how absurd this sin tax policy is in practice the author applied it to a Libertarian goal of smaller government, and suggested taxing politicians as a means to eradicate them. This is more patently rediculous and highlights the absurdity of using a tax as a means of "wiping out" any undesirably behavior. So I can see how people may think that Libertarians are lunatic radicals if you take some arguments at face value, but in fact the underlying arguments are sound and many of the "radical" suggestions are meant to highlight the absurdities of current policies, not actually be applied.
Myself, I have only recently started identifying with the Libertarians, and some are more hardcore than others (againt this is true of any political group) but I must say more than any other political ideaology I have encountered they seem to espouse my (and many other/.ers) beliefs on issues like privacy, personal responsibility, and smaller more focused and efficient (and accountable!!) government.
Ironic that your post was a result of your taking offense at someone ignorantly miscategorizing your ideals, and yet you immediately slander a whole set of others, demonstrating the same ignorance. I suggest you think twice and maybe even do some research before just spouting off fallacious vitriol when you yourself are so sensitive to people correctly understanding your point of view.
It's always a choice and I hope that if I was put in that situation I'd act differently but to be honest I don't know what I'd do if family was killed infront of my eyes. I don't think I'd be as honourable as I like to imagine I would be.
our government is fundamentally broken. I'm voting straight down the line this year - voting out every single incumbant, regardless of how much I hate the alternative.
Without getting into specifics I agree with you on these points. However I do have a suggestion for like-minded thinkers: vote for a non-major party. Pick your favorite, just as long as it's anything but republican/democrat. The American government is stifling under the "two" party system, they've been around for so long that they control every aspect of the game and know just how to manipulate voting demographics to get their man in office then execute whatever their true agenda is. As with Bush we've seen that this agenda rarely follows the official party stance (republicans favor small government, suuuure). And afterall, isn't the official party line what most voters are buying into? I don't know the exact numbers (so please, respond with the correct info instead of insults) but a non-major party requires something like 5% of the vote in a national election to become nationally recognized. That means a lot! It means a guaranteed spot in the national debate, and a whole host of other advantages that normally stack the deck against non-republocratican parties.
So remember, when voting for "anyone but the status quo", vote for a third party so we can finally try to break the endless and brainless belief that there are only two party choices in this country! Get some new blood in the system and at the very least shake up the damn incumbent parties and let them know they're on notice!
Why do I have to click on a zoom icon in order to search? Oh, you mean a circle with a line coming out of it means "search"? Why not write "search" on the button, then?
I'm guessing you're not running Windows, not that I blame you. The windows file/folder search feature in the Start menu uses a magnifying glass icon, so I'm assuming this is just part of branding the engine as a Windows experience.
Hiro, I applaud your good sense that seems to be lacking in most Americans these days (to say nothing of/. posters) so I have added you to my friends list. I look forward to more of your commentary in the future here.:) If you don't already read articles at www.LewRockwell.com yet then I highly recommend it to you.
The voting majority, however, for the most part are fine with it.
You seem to have missed his accurate point that this 'majority' you speak of was only a majority by about 1% which is little more than a technicality. And even so, the president's approval rating in most every poll lately falls somewhere between 30% to 40%, usually on the lower side of that. So it seems to me that a real majority also disagree with the result.
1) If this tiered service did exist, it would be a strong incentive to destroy the "Common Carrier" status of the Telco.
You nailed on the head the most common misconception in this argument. The telcos DO NOT HAVE COMMON CARRIER STATUS FOR ISPs. Not in America anyway. Yes, the TELCO part of the business has common carrier status, but there is a different article (I believe section 6) of the Communications Act which applies to ISPs and they are not granted common carrier status so you can't hold that over their head.
So, what exactly is the reason for customer to upgrade to either HD-DVD or BluRay?
In another discussion about DVDs vs $next_gen_dvds one poster nailed this on the head I think. Right now you're right, consumers have really bought into DVDs and are happy enough with them that there is no compelling reason to upgrade, which means the studios must fabricate a reason.
That reason? Well one possibility is those stupid non-skippable, non-fast-forward previews/trailers/commercials/FBI scoldings at the start of DVDs that we're seeing more and more of. The studios just need to keep adding to that crap until your average Joe starts to feel his DVDs are more like the old VHS tapes with 30+ minutes of previews, except now he can't even fast-forward! Then in swoops the movie industry with this wonderful new format to "solve" the problem. Nevermind the fact that the DRM and end-user lockdown in these discs will be many times worse than current DVDs. All they have to do is make it Just Work at the outset while simultaneously making the regular DVD experience crappier. I think we'll start to see more new release DVDs with few if any extra features, extensive pre-movie non-skippable trailers, and anything else that will make people want the new format discs which start having all the features they're looking for.
Will it work? That remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past MPAA companies to hobble one product to sell us another.
Although you personally don't believe it will be effective anytime soon I'm afraid I must inform you that on this point you are dead wrong. China has just recently announced the intention of adding facial recognition to some of it's cameras, and it has been a viable technology for a number of years. When I attended college ('98 - '02) our university had a functional demo version of such software that could track and ID multiple targets on multiple cameras in realtime. Granted, there are issues scaling up to full citywide DB search for recognition but it's not impossible. Hell if you want an example of realtime searching of a huge information space take a look at google, it returns results culled from billions of indexed pages in under a second in most cases. The point is that the technology is either availabel now, or will be available sometime relatively soon (i.e. our lifetimes) so it IS something we should consider now. Do we really want this kind of surveilance power available to those who governm us? In most cases history has proven that rulers cannot be trusted to not abuse such power in the long run.
When talking abotu cameras improving certain areas I agree it's a reasonably application in some cases. The problem is that it tends to be used as a carte blanche model for ALL public places in short order. "See, crime rates went down after cameras were installed in this gang-controlled neighborhood, therefore it will equally prevent crime in any neighborhood!" That is usually how the sell to politicians goes by the people who stand to profit from implementing such programs large scale. In the cases where these cameras would help I think there are other possible solutions that could be just as effective, if perhaps more expensive or resource intensive. One has to weigh all the factors for such a decision including will this be used as an example to expand surveilance into other places it does not belong, and can we live with such powers granted to our rulers? For me, that answer is 'NO' 99.9% of the time.
what do you have to fear from cameras in public places, other than a slipery slope argument?
Does one need another reason? That's the whole point of the "slippery" slope, once you start down it, it is difficult to impossible to reverse course. Better to not enter/create grey areas without good reason. Just as you said, these cameras probably won't catch a hell of a lot of crime or even very large crimes, so why is it so important to have them? The argument FOR the surveilance but be stronger than the arguments AGAINST to even consider it, and yes, the slippery slope argument is a valid one in this case. Cameras start on the corners to deter crime, next they are upgraded with facial recognition, then full scale recording and archiving, then datamining, then pattern recognition of any one person's schedule/habits. Sure, no one in power now will abuse it, however in 10 years, 20, or just 16 months maybe, someone might be in power who abuses it. Had we never started the program, it wouldn't be available for abuse later.
So you're suggesting we fire, as in with a gun, a solid-state rocket? This is probably the most primative approach to the concept of "pre-lifting" a rocket, and would no doubt end in catastrophy an unacceptable percentage of the time. The idea of getting a solid state rocket to a high altitude and then firing it from there has been around for a long time however, and has been proven as a sound method by the recent SpaceShipOne launches which do exactly that. They take a solid state rocket craft (I believe the fuel is rubber and NO2) and strap it to the belly of an high altitude plane, climb to 100,000 ft or so, release and lauch rocket, voila.
The other problem I can see right off the bat with firing a rocket from a gun, besides the issue of stability of the rocket fuel, is the cargo itself would have to withstand a tremendous initial acceleration from the gun. Yes, rockets cause a lot of vibration and g-forces due to acceleration, but even they accelerate relatively slowly compared to a gun which literally applies all of its kinetic energy within a single second, as opposed to gradually over a few minutes as with a rocket. You could never use such a system for live cargo, or sensitive electronics or delicate mechanical equipment. In other words, really nothing of any value anyway.
Now as to the feasibility of the ribbon project, there's a long way to go for it to be successful and will require a lot of breakthrough technologies, not the least of which is a strong enough carbon ribbon, 62,000 miles long with strength enough to support not only its own weight, but that of the climbers and the forces applied to it as they move. Those issues notwithstanding, even if it takes weeks for cargo to get to space it will be insanely cheaper per kilogram than using a traditional solid state rocket. We're talking $$ cheaper here, not time cheaper, it's a tradeoff. Additionally it should be cheaper energy-wise as kinetic energy can be recaptured on the downward trips and used to power the upwards trips. There is a net loss due to friction and conversion inefficiencies, but we would be able to reclaim some energy as opposed to now where you burn up your fuel and get nothing but a contrail in return. Apart from sending humans into space, there are almost no applications which can't take into account the long "launch" time as part of the schedule. Additionally you can send up more sensitive equipment that otherwise might be damaged during the stresses of launch atop a rocket. There is also the added benefit that the system could be in continuous use, and due to its placement on earth would be less affected by weather than current launch sites (most plans that I have read call for a floating platform at sea near the equator as the ribbon base).
The 'benevolent and wise MPs' crack made me think you were being sarcastic, but your post title would seem to imply otherwise. What exactly about a national ID card do you think is going to stop terrorism? Do you think terrorists can't forge documents and IDs? Newsflash, they already do. In fact, every 9-11 hijacker had valid ID, so a national ID card would just be one moe document to forge. In addition London has one of the most extensive closed-circuit camerra survellience systems in the world right now, yet somehow all those cameras didn't prevent the London train bombings.
What I really don't understand about people who say "government idea X, which is a threat to my rights and freedoms, is a good thing in my mind because they tell me it will stop terrorism." On what basis are they measuring these trade-offs? Most of these government schemes (on both sides of the pond) offer very few, and vague at that, promises for reducing terrorism, and in the past have rarely shown any hard-evidence results. At best you'll get a canned response like "Oh program XYZ has thwarted numerous terrorist plots but I can't provide any references, accounts, or proof since it's all in the name of national security." And yet the populace still gives up freedoms knowlingly as long as they get these empty promises and examples. Unless the ruling powers can offer some program with a thorough breakdown of how that program is worth the rights it infringes - and later provides specific examples of program successes, or else shut it down - then no citizen of any country should feel in any way obligated, safe, or well-represented in giving up rights and freedoms for that program.
The fight going on now is not about the people's rights, but the congress's powers.
I too am a pretty diehard cynic, so this isn't news to me. That's why I lamented this attitude and suggested what should happen. Do I expect it to? Nope. It's yet another one of the rights that are being hollowed out under the guise of protecting us. It's very clear that the current congress has no interest in truly checking presidential powers, even to a certain degree at the loss of their own. If they truly wanted to do something about it there are numerous issues that could be used to start impeachment. Not all of them are viable, but there certainly seem to be enough to find something that will stick. And that's a problem too, and related to what I was upset about. There are lots of things that are disturbing about the Bush administration and how it has handled a very difficult time for America. There will obviously never be full consensus on going to war, but the way Bush has reacted to and manipulated feelings about 9/11 has been far less than optimal. there is ample evidence that it was wholly a war of choice, that Iraq was a political target that was mostly unrelated to the events of 9/11, that intelligence on WMDs was cherry-picked, that certain threats were overblown to manipulate the public to support the war. The list goes on (torture, renditions, billions unaccounted for, no-bid contracts). One or two isolated incidents could be attributed to mistakes or overzealousness, but as a whole we get a pretty clear picture that this president and administration are really just doing what they want and manipulating whatever they need to to achieve their goals. And because at every step of the way it has been technically legal or plausibly deniable they're getting away with it. At the very least one has to admit that this is probably not the best way to run a government. Even if one supports Bush's goals and policies they can probably agree that there are many things that he's done that are shady or at least questionable and probably could have been acheived in a much more freedom-minded way. Our international relations and world sentiment towards America have gone south with Bush's poll numbers. To ignore and offend our allies is as much a risk for this country in the long run as is ignoring national threats.
Getting back to congress' powers, the delegation to the president to essentially fight a war without declaring a war is again, something that should never have been allowed. Most presidents point to "hundreds" of past incidents of the president authorizing military force without congressional permission, but when one actually looks into the details of these incidents you find that most of them are engaging pirates or manuevers involving 100 or fewer soldiers. I do not deny that the president needs the power to order such MINOR operations without having to explicitly run it through congress, however when we're talking about a major ooperation that involves a massive portion of all branches of the military and is likely to last years (even if we thought it would only take a few weeks, once it became obvious the conflict would last longer it should have been revisited) we need a declaration of war. The president's current feelings about this as expressed in the State of the Union, was basically 'well, right or wrong it's too late to turn back now, I've painted us into a corner and now you have to support my actions.' I don't think that's the approach we should be taking to an international conflict that costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars, lasts for years, and has resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 servicemembers. The congress may have the power to authorize use of force to the president, but by the constitution they cannot delegate away their right to declare war. Again, technically we haven't decalred war, but who can argue that what we're doing isn't a war? Vietnam unfortunately set the nasty precident that such a large and long conflict can be considered not a war, but not all precidents are co
Agreed, although not explicitly stated in my post, changing the system is useless if society doesn't support those changes through their actions. The problem is manyfold, but to suffice to say there are too many people in power with political goals that are counter to what is best for a free society, as well as too many voters who are either apethetic to problems or so short-sighted as to vote for candiates based on fluff issues like gay marriage*, tiny tax cuts, or how nice a guy they are. This is not to say that gay marriage or taxes are irrelevant or wholly unimportant, but it seems to me that many people vote based on a specific item in a candidate's agenda without considering the entire package. If you support/are against gay marriage it's fine to vote for a candidate that matches your view, but you need to take into account how they will influence all other policies beyond that single issue. Most people don't seem to realize that in each election there are candidates other than the lesser of two evils that may in fact support more of their views on issues they see as important than the republicrats that are presented to us term after term who really evince no significant change.
In other words, voters need to stop letting themselves be distracted by breads and circuses which serve only to obscure the fact that candidate X is not really looking out for their best interests in the larger sense and long term.
*Note: I am using gay marriage here as an example of a "hot-button issue" that is often flouted during campaigns simply to garner votes from people who feel very strongly about it. Other things like taxes, "for the children" programs, etc are used similarly. The larger populace never seem to notice that these supposedly all-important issues that are referenced in nearly every campaign speech seem to always dip to the far background when the candidate actually makes it into office. Amazing how it was so important before the election that they couldn't shut up about it, but once in office it's a backburner issue at best.
So I don't think there is any organised conspiracy of the New World Order trying to control the world via mind-control lasers and chips in people's heads. I think what you're seeing is simply the emergent effect as entropy builds up in your political system.
You make a good point, but I must argue that I don't care about the cause, I care about the effect! So what if it's not being consciously orchestrated to some grand scheme by an evil secret political cult. The gradual (and rapidly accelerating) loss of freedoms and complete disregard for the constitution in America needs to be stopped. As you stated part of the problem is currently elected officials either thinking too short term or not at all, that means that organised or not they are still part of the problem. We need to get people into office that are going to think past their next election and do something for WE THE PEOPLE instead of ME THE PUBLIC FIGURE.
I think another thing that needs to be recognized and dealt with in our government (and this applies to all parties, and goes back to Wilson policies [some will argue Lincoln]) is this fine line that policy makers keep walking between what is legal and what is constitutional. For instance the current hullabaloo about Bush's secret wiretapping keeps being touted by him and his cronies as legal under current law and presidential constitutional powers. If it were blantantly so then there wouldn't be the huge outcry that there is now, so obviosuly at best it's a convoluted or extremely technical argument that its legality hinges on. My issue is that regardless of the technical legal loophole Gonzalez et al may present, it is pretty flagrantly unconstitutional and immoral. Someone needs to stand up and say "Even if this is proven technically legal, it goes against the principles of freedom and everything that America should stand for, therefore we should reword the laws to MAKE it illegal!"
Bully for Bush that he MAY have found a gotcha clause somewhere, that doesn't mean he should get to use it, that means we should PATCH it!
There is a process in place for performing wiretaps of this nature, and that is the FISA court. It is already secret, wiretaps can already be started 72 hours in advance of even applying for a warrant through that court. It provides oversight and all of the expediency that an intelligence agency requires. And the stupid protest that somehow using that court would tip off the terrorists under investigation is ludicrous. To accept that as truth means either A) they believe the FISA court is compromised and the cases heard are being leaked to terrorists, or B) up until now terrorist cells were so stupid as to think they government isn't trying to find them and eavesdrop on their communications. Frankly B seems more plausible than A, and if A were true then there's a lot more to worry about then the legality of the wiretapping! Studies by the CIA and other government intelligence agencies have already demonstrated that sophisticated terrorist groups like Al Queda already operate with complex forms of communication to hide their tracks. They speak in codes, they use disposible cell phones, they change communication mediums and lines often. They have guidelines that if an operative is late checking in then assume they are captured and scrap the entire plan and come up with a new one. These people are not learning anything new by hearing from the NY Times that the government isn't going through its secret court to get orders to wiretap them. They are aware the government is actively seeking them, what the hell could they think we've been doing since 10 minutes after the first plane struck the towers??
It seems pretty clear that the only people being aided in any way by this warrantless surveilance program is the administration that has initiated it and is preventing any oversight of their activities. As they say, turnabout is fair play. If you've done nothing wrong Mr. Bush then you should have nothing to hide. Let the FISA court look at these cases and determine if they meet the burden of proof required by law!
So ONE game from ONE company having hidden content proves that the industry as a whole which produces scores, if not hundreds, of titles per year has failed the ratings system? Uhuh. [sarcasm] I heard this one time that a kid totally saw an animated boobie in the movie Cool World(PG13) that his older brother rented for him. Oh noes! All of Hollywood has deceived us! [/sarcasm]
The ESRB rating system is only as useful as the store clerks that enforce it and the parents that bother to educate themselves about it. The industry as a whole has made a good faith effort to make this work. To codemn an entire industry for the isolated acts of a single company that skirted the rules is rediculous.
At 55 mpg, the gas cost to drive 200,000 miles (at $2.20/gallon) is $8,000. At 60 mpg, the gas cost to drive 200,000 miles (at $2.20/gallon) is $7,333. The difference is $666.
You make an excellent point and it is well taken. At the moment these are not going to be as cost-effective as some might hope. However, you need to also take into account the fact that it is extremely likely that gas prices will only continue to increase going forward. Looking at just gas price increases in my area (Boston, MA) over the past year a rough estimate is that prices have increased by $0.40 per gallon, that's a 20% increase in just one year! Granted, Katrina disrupted the gulf coast and damaged both oil and gas production and distribution causing increased prices. However prices right now are almost equal to levels they were post-Katrina, they dropped slightly as production came back online, but never fully recovered and have slowly crept up. Going into summer we can expect the usual price increases as more people are out driving for pleasure or vacation. It seems pretty clear that gas prices will continue to climb without another major disaster. If we get another Cat 5 storm on the gulf coast, if Iran shuts down oil production or possibly the whole Persian Gulf, or any number of other unforeseen but likely scenarios we can expect oil and gas prices to make another major jump.
For the sake of argumant let's look at your numbers again over a 10 year span and choose the (IMHO modest) appreciation of 10%/year in gas prices. So we're looking at a 100% increase in the cost of gas over 10 years, I don't think that's completely out of the question considering that many countries pay that much or more now. At 55mpg it would cost roughly $13,120 for gas over that ten year span, that's $5000 more than the figure that assumes gas stays steady at $2.20/gal. At 60 mpg using the same calculation I get total cost of $10,620. The difference now is $2,500, slightly more than the $2,195 price tag for this device!
To be fair we would also have to take into account the degredation over time of the solar panel, and any maintenance costs. But the point is the cost savings - while not stellar - are a bit better than you make out. It's possible that if the panel degredation and/or efficiency can be improved then there would be a definite cost savings over 10 years and 200K miles. These calculations were also assuming that the price of gas would only double by the end of that ten year period, which seems extremely low given the current state of oil markets and the political climate surrounding the largest oil producing nations. If a major event causes gas prices to more than double, or double in less than 10 years then these panels would actually provide a positive savings over their lifetime.
In fact, drinking such large amounts of proper temperature coffee at that rate would probably cause minor burns to your throat. Does that mean we now can sue for that as well?
You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?
One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Twolinks for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.
God I hate ACs. I read through all of this last year and did a complete breakdown of this case on/. based on a numebr of sources. Here is the one that sums them all up nicely. Also, as to the temps I did not remember the exact values and stated so in my post, you conveniently inserted "..." for the sentence which indicated these values were estimated and to check them for oneself. The important point being that the McDonalds temp was well above industry standards.
"Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees." quoted from here
The standard to which I was referred byt he sites that broke down this case was the internation coffee association website which states guidelines and best practices, although it is by no means an industry standard in the sense that many industries produce hard guidelines. While McDonalds was certainly within their rights to turn the temp up, most restaurants were below what McD's was serving at.
Here's a novel idea for you. Brew some coffee at 190 degrees, pour a cup and maintain the rest at 190. Now let the poured cup cool to 160 or 165, try it. You'll find that's a fine 'hot' temperature, not too cold as you claim. Now try to drink the other coffee at 190 degrees and notice how you burn the shit out of your mouth. And as to her "deep pockets" gold digging, the original suit asked only for $20,000 in medical expenses, which you also conveniently glossed over. It was only upon all denial by McDonalds for settlement that the amount was raised. The final settlement value, by the way, WAS released and was $480,000. There are well-established laws that punish companies for knowingly engaging in behavior or practices that are considered unsafe. Thus despite the fact that the woman played a role in her injury, McDonalds was considered partly at fault and found guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".
Unlike your unsubstantiated rebuttal I have provided two links that support my facts. If you google for "mcdonalds + coffee + lawsuit" you will find many other sites that repeat these same facts, and if you look hard enough you'll probably find the court documents from which these sites got their information. It's completely tracable and you are dead wrong. A product intended for immediate human consumption should be able to be consumed by humans without causing third degree burns. I would say that a food or drink that causes immediate and severe injuries (requiring a skin graft is certainly severe!) is an unsafe product. How can you argue otherwise?
Coffe is made of water. How can you take it to 170-180C?
Am I missing something? Or are you missing a proper course of physics?
Gorram Brit ACs. Since you seem to imply that you have had the proper physics courses then you must be familiar with the fact that there are TWO widely accepted temperature scales. I did not specify which I was using, but since water at 170 degrees C is not possible in a coffee machine then one might assume I meant Farenheit, where 170 degrees is below boiling (212F).:P
And speaking of physics, I believe you can have water at 170 degrees C however you have to keep it under tremendous pressure. Been a long time since I did the calculations for pressure vs temp and volume but IIRC it can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, this post will probably never see the light of day since I'm so late to the party. However if anyone has questions about the Talon or SWORDS systems I can certainly point you towards the most relevent public information on them. NO, I cannot tell you operational details, components, number in service or other sensitive data. But I do have a unique perspective since I work with these everyday and I can certainly dispel any myths or misunderstandings that have most likely been furthered by this thread (only read at +4 but didn't see anything glaringly incorrect thus far.)
Having this thing attached to your wrist is gonna make it really hard to look at the screen while you're... oh wait, I can just put it on my other arm. Nevermind.
Also, happy Pi Day to someone who no-doubt appreciates it. :)
Regards,
~J
* a debate with more than two participants too, imagine that!
You need to go read the actual definition of libertarian. At it's core it's about personal responsibility, and that includes the state being run under a similar set of guidelines, as opposed to the current behemoth state that tramples our rights, privacy, and personal wealth. True libertarians are anti-state, anti-war, and most defintely anti-empire. You may not beleive the US is already an Empire, but at the very least I'm sure you will agree it's slipping towards being one. Libertarians also do not favor massive monopoly corporations, as again those trample rights and eschew responsibility in favor of profits. We do believe in less government intereference in markets, however that does not mean that capitalism be allowed to run wild until all corporations have merged into a huge monopoly. In order to function pure capitalism does require some intervention (checks and balances), else it is self-destructive. However there is more than a fine line of what constitutes running hte system and over-intereference by government. While true, many libertarian authors often advocate strange and unreasonable policies (a recent LRC article suggested taxing politicians for being... well politicians) but for the most part (rabid fanatics exist in any group but do not represent the mainstream of that group) these are meant as satirical logical-conclusion pieces that are more meant to draw attention to inadequacies or hypocracies of current policies rather than be accepted as literal solutions. The "tax all politicians" piece I reference for example was using the "sin tax" argument that "the power to tax is the power to destroy". The point was that NY was imposing extremely high taxes on ciggarettes in an effort to force people to stop or never take up smoking due to costs. While to some extent this has merits it is also not going to work in reality, people who are truly addicted will simply find some other way to get ciggs cheaper or they will find the extra $$, likely by forgoing other things. And since when has an extra 50 cents per unit of something stopped a kid from doing what they think is cool? Ever priced beer? that costs way more than ciggs yet underage kids still get it for various reasons (fitting in, coolness, escape, etc). To highlight how absurd this sin tax policy is in practice the author applied it to a Libertarian goal of smaller government, and suggested taxing politicians as a means to eradicate them. This is more patently rediculous and highlights the absurdity of using a tax as a means of "wiping out" any undesirably behavior. So I can see how people may think that Libertarians are lunatic radicals if you take some arguments at face value, but in fact the underlying arguments are sound and many of the "radical" suggestions are meant to highlight the absurdities of current policies, not actually be applied.
Myself, I have only recently started identifying with the Libertarians, and some are more hardcore than others (againt this is true of any political group) but I must say more than any other political ideaology I have encountered they seem to espouse my (and many other /.ers) beliefs on issues like privacy, personal responsibility, and smaller more focused and efficient (and accountable!!) government.
Ironic that your post was a result of your taking offense at someone ignorantly miscategorizing your ideals, and yet you immediately slander a whole set of others, demonstrating the same ignorance. I suggest you think twice and maybe even do some research before just spouting off fallacious vitriol when you yourself are so sensitive to people correctly understanding your point of view.
Mod: +1 Honest Self-reflection.
What an excellent and salient point you make.
Without getting into specifics I agree with you on these points. However I do have a suggestion for like-minded thinkers: vote for a non-major party. Pick your favorite, just as long as it's anything but republican/democrat. The American government is stifling under the "two" party system, they've been around for so long that they control every aspect of the game and know just how to manipulate voting demographics to get their man in office then execute whatever their true agenda is. As with Bush we've seen that this agenda rarely follows the official party stance (republicans favor small government, suuuure). And afterall, isn't the official party line what most voters are buying into? I don't know the exact numbers (so please, respond with the correct info instead of insults) but a non-major party requires something like 5% of the vote in a national election to become nationally recognized. That means a lot! It means a guaranteed spot in the national debate, and a whole host of other advantages that normally stack the deck against non-republocratican parties.
So remember, when voting for "anyone but the status quo", vote for a third party so we can finally try to break the endless and brainless belief that there are only two party choices in this country! Get some new blood in the system and at the very least shake up the damn incumbent parties and let them know they're on notice!
I'm guessing you're not running Windows, not that I blame you. The windows file/folder search feature in the Start menu uses a magnifying glass icon, so I'm assuming this is just part of branding the engine as a Windows experience.
Hiro, I applaud your good sense that seems to be lacking in most Americans these days (to say nothing of /. posters) so I have added you to my friends list. I look forward to more of your commentary in the future here. :)
If you don't already read articles at www.LewRockwell.com yet then I highly recommend it to you.
You seem to have missed his accurate point that this 'majority' you speak of was only a majority by about 1% which is little more than a technicality. And even so, the president's approval rating in most every poll lately falls somewhere between 30% to 40%, usually on the lower side of that. So it seems to me that a real majority also disagree with the result.
You nailed on the head the most common misconception in this argument. The telcos DO NOT HAVE COMMON CARRIER STATUS FOR ISPs. Not in America anyway. Yes, the TELCO part of the business has common carrier status, but there is a different article (I believe section 6) of the Communications Act which applies to ISPs and they are not granted common carrier status so you can't hold that over their head.
In another discussion about DVDs vs $next_gen_dvds one poster nailed this on the head I think. Right now you're right, consumers have really bought into DVDs and are happy enough with them that there is no compelling reason to upgrade, which means the studios must fabricate a reason.
That reason? Well one possibility is those stupid non-skippable, non-fast-forward previews/trailers/commercials/FBI scoldings at the start of DVDs that we're seeing more and more of. The studios just need to keep adding to that crap until your average Joe starts to feel his DVDs are more like the old VHS tapes with 30+ minutes of previews, except now he can't even fast-forward! Then in swoops the movie industry with this wonderful new format to "solve" the problem. Nevermind the fact that the DRM and end-user lockdown in these discs will be many times worse than current DVDs. All they have to do is make it Just Work at the outset while simultaneously making the regular DVD experience crappier. I think we'll start to see more new release DVDs with few if any extra features, extensive pre-movie non-skippable trailers, and anything else that will make people want the new format discs which start having all the features they're looking for.
Will it work? That remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past MPAA companies to hobble one product to sell us another.
A bit late for a reply on my part but why not?
Although you personally don't believe it will be effective anytime soon I'm afraid I must inform you that on this point you are dead wrong. China has just recently announced the intention of adding facial recognition to some of it's cameras, and it has been a viable technology for a number of years. When I attended college ('98 - '02) our university had a functional demo version of such software that could track and ID multiple targets on multiple cameras in realtime. Granted, there are issues scaling up to full citywide DB search for recognition but it's not impossible. Hell if you want an example of realtime searching of a huge information space take a look at google, it returns results culled from billions of indexed pages in under a second in most cases. The point is that the technology is either availabel now, or will be available sometime relatively soon (i.e. our lifetimes) so it IS something we should consider now. Do we really want this kind of surveilance power available to those who governm us? In most cases history has proven that rulers cannot be trusted to not abuse such power in the long run.
When talking abotu cameras improving certain areas I agree it's a reasonably application in some cases. The problem is that it tends to be used as a carte blanche model for ALL public places in short order. "See, crime rates went down after cameras were installed in this gang-controlled neighborhood, therefore it will equally prevent crime in any neighborhood!" That is usually how the sell to politicians goes by the people who stand to profit from implementing such programs large scale. In the cases where these cameras would help I think there are other possible solutions that could be just as effective, if perhaps more expensive or resource intensive. One has to weigh all the factors for such a decision including will this be used as an example to expand surveilance into other places it does not belong, and can we live with such powers granted to our rulers? For me, that answer is 'NO' 99.9% of the time.
Does one need another reason? That's the whole point of the "slippery" slope, once you start down it, it is difficult to impossible to reverse course. Better to not enter/create grey areas without good reason. Just as you said, these cameras probably won't catch a hell of a lot of crime or even very large crimes, so why is it so important to have them? The argument FOR the surveilance but be stronger than the arguments AGAINST to even consider it, and yes, the slippery slope argument is a valid one in this case. Cameras start on the corners to deter crime, next they are upgraded with facial recognition, then full scale recording and archiving, then datamining, then pattern recognition of any one person's schedule/habits. Sure, no one in power now will abuse it, however in 10 years, 20, or just 16 months maybe, someone might be in power who abuses it. Had we never started the program, it wouldn't be available for abuse later.
Since about January 2nd 2000, which for some reason correlates almost precisely with Bush taking office.... Funny coincidence, huh?
The other problem I can see right off the bat with firing a rocket from a gun, besides the issue of stability of the rocket fuel, is the cargo itself would have to withstand a tremendous initial acceleration from the gun. Yes, rockets cause a lot of vibration and g-forces due to acceleration, but even they accelerate relatively slowly compared to a gun which literally applies all of its kinetic energy within a single second, as opposed to gradually over a few minutes as with a rocket. You could never use such a system for live cargo, or sensitive electronics or delicate mechanical equipment. In other words, really nothing of any value anyway.
Now as to the feasibility of the ribbon project, there's a long way to go for it to be successful and will require a lot of breakthrough technologies, not the least of which is a strong enough carbon ribbon, 62,000 miles long with strength enough to support not only its own weight, but that of the climbers and the forces applied to it as they move. Those issues notwithstanding, even if it takes weeks for cargo to get to space it will be insanely cheaper per kilogram than using a traditional solid state rocket. We're talking $$ cheaper here, not time cheaper, it's a tradeoff. Additionally it should be cheaper energy-wise as kinetic energy can be recaptured on the downward trips and used to power the upwards trips. There is a net loss due to friction and conversion inefficiencies, but we would be able to reclaim some energy as opposed to now where you burn up your fuel and get nothing but a contrail in return. Apart from sending humans into space, there are almost no applications which can't take into account the long "launch" time as part of the schedule. Additionally you can send up more sensitive equipment that otherwise might be damaged during the stresses of launch atop a rocket. There is also the added benefit that the system could be in continuous use, and due to its placement on earth would be less affected by weather than current launch sites (most plans that I have read call for a floating platform at sea near the equator as the ribbon base).
What I really don't understand about people who say "government idea X, which is a threat to my rights and freedoms, is a good thing in my mind because they tell me it will stop terrorism." On what basis are they measuring these trade-offs? Most of these government schemes (on both sides of the pond) offer very few, and vague at that, promises for reducing terrorism, and in the past have rarely shown any hard-evidence results. At best you'll get a canned response like "Oh program XYZ has thwarted numerous terrorist plots but I can't provide any references, accounts, or proof since it's all in the name of national security." And yet the populace still gives up freedoms knowlingly as long as they get these empty promises and examples. Unless the ruling powers can offer some program with a thorough breakdown of how that program is worth the rights it infringes - and later provides specific examples of program successes, or else shut it down - then no citizen of any country should feel in any way obligated, safe, or well-represented in giving up rights and freedoms for that program.
I too am a pretty diehard cynic, so this isn't news to me. That's why I lamented this attitude and suggested what should happen. Do I expect it to? Nope. It's yet another one of the rights that are being hollowed out under the guise of protecting us. It's very clear that the current congress has no interest in truly checking presidential powers, even to a certain degree at the loss of their own. If they truly wanted to do something about it there are numerous issues that could be used to start impeachment. Not all of them are viable, but there certainly seem to be enough to find something that will stick. And that's a problem too, and related to what I was upset about. There are lots of things that are disturbing about the Bush administration and how it has handled a very difficult time for America. There will obviously never be full consensus on going to war, but the way Bush has reacted to and manipulated feelings about 9/11 has been far less than optimal. there is ample evidence that it was wholly a war of choice, that Iraq was a political target that was mostly unrelated to the events of 9/11, that intelligence on WMDs was cherry-picked, that certain threats were overblown to manipulate the public to support the war. The list goes on (torture, renditions, billions unaccounted for, no-bid contracts). One or two isolated incidents could be attributed to mistakes or overzealousness, but as a whole we get a pretty clear picture that this president and administration are really just doing what they want and manipulating whatever they need to to achieve their goals. And because at every step of the way it has been technically legal or plausibly deniable they're getting away with it. At the very least one has to admit that this is probably not the best way to run a government. Even if one supports Bush's goals and policies they can probably agree that there are many things that he's done that are shady or at least questionable and probably could have been acheived in a much more freedom-minded way. Our international relations and world sentiment towards America have gone south with Bush's poll numbers. To ignore and offend our allies is as much a risk for this country in the long run as is ignoring national threats.
Getting back to congress' powers, the delegation to the president to essentially fight a war without declaring a war is again, something that should never have been allowed. Most presidents point to "hundreds" of past incidents of the president authorizing military force without congressional permission, but when one actually looks into the details of these incidents you find that most of them are engaging pirates or manuevers involving 100 or fewer soldiers. I do not deny that the president needs the power to order such MINOR operations without having to explicitly run it through congress, however when we're talking about a major ooperation that involves a massive portion of all branches of the military and is likely to last years (even if we thought it would only take a few weeks, once it became obvious the conflict would last longer it should have been revisited) we need a declaration of war. The president's current feelings about this as expressed in the State of the Union, was basically 'well, right or wrong it's too late to turn back now, I've painted us into a corner and now you have to support my actions.' I don't think that's the approach we should be taking to an international conflict that costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars, lasts for years, and has resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 servicemembers. The congress may have the power to authorize use of force to the president, but by the constitution they cannot delegate away their right to declare war. Again, technically we haven't decalred war, but who can argue that what we're doing isn't a war? Vietnam unfortunately set the nasty precident that such a large and long conflict can be considered not a war, but not all precidents are co
In other words, voters need to stop letting themselves be distracted by breads and circuses which serve only to obscure the fact that candidate X is not really looking out for their best interests in the larger sense and long term.
*Note: I am using gay marriage here as an example of a "hot-button issue" that is often flouted during campaigns simply to garner votes from people who feel very strongly about it. Other things like taxes, "for the children" programs, etc are used similarly. The larger populace never seem to notice that these supposedly all-important issues that are referenced in nearly every campaign speech seem to always dip to the far background when the candidate actually makes it into office. Amazing how it was so important before the election that they couldn't shut up about it, but once in office it's a backburner issue at best.
You make a good point, but I must argue that I don't care about the cause, I care about the effect! So what if it's not being consciously orchestrated to some grand scheme by an evil secret political cult. The gradual (and rapidly accelerating) loss of freedoms and complete disregard for the constitution in America needs to be stopped. As you stated part of the problem is currently elected officials either thinking too short term or not at all, that means that organised or not they are still part of the problem. We need to get people into office that are going to think past their next election and do something for WE THE PEOPLE instead of ME THE PUBLIC FIGURE.
I think another thing that needs to be recognized and dealt with in our government (and this applies to all parties, and goes back to Wilson policies [some will argue Lincoln]) is this fine line that policy makers keep walking between what is legal and what is constitutional. For instance the current hullabaloo about Bush's secret wiretapping keeps being touted by him and his cronies as legal under current law and presidential constitutional powers. If it were blantantly so then there wouldn't be the huge outcry that there is now, so obviosuly at best it's a convoluted or extremely technical argument that its legality hinges on. My issue is that regardless of the technical legal loophole Gonzalez et al may present, it is pretty flagrantly unconstitutional and immoral. Someone needs to stand up and say "Even if this is proven technically legal, it goes against the principles of freedom and everything that America should stand for, therefore we should reword the laws to MAKE it illegal!"
Bully for Bush that he MAY have found a gotcha clause somewhere, that doesn't mean he should get to use it, that means we should PATCH it!
There is a process in place for performing wiretaps of this nature, and that is the FISA court. It is already secret, wiretaps can already be started 72 hours in advance of even applying for a warrant through that court. It provides oversight and all of the expediency that an intelligence agency requires. And the stupid protest that somehow using that court would tip off the terrorists under investigation is ludicrous. To accept that as truth means either A) they believe the FISA court is compromised and the cases heard are being leaked to terrorists, or B) up until now terrorist cells were so stupid as to think they government isn't trying to find them and eavesdrop on their communications. Frankly B seems more plausible than A, and if A were true then there's a lot more to worry about then the legality of the wiretapping! Studies by the CIA and other government intelligence agencies have already demonstrated that sophisticated terrorist groups like Al Queda already operate with complex forms of communication to hide their tracks. They speak in codes, they use disposible cell phones, they change communication mediums and lines often. They have guidelines that if an operative is late checking in then assume they are captured and scrap the entire plan and come up with a new one. These people are not learning anything new by hearing from the NY Times that the government isn't going through its secret court to get orders to wiretap them. They are aware the government is actively seeking them, what the hell could they think we've been doing since 10 minutes after the first plane struck the towers??
It seems pretty clear that the only people being aided in any way by this warrantless surveilance program is the administration that has initiated it and is preventing any oversight of their activities. As they say, turnabout is fair play. If you've done nothing wrong Mr. Bush then you should have nothing to hide. Let the FISA court look at these cases and determine if they meet the burden of proof required by law!
The ESRB rating system is only as useful as the store clerks that enforce it and the parents that bother to educate themselves about it. The industry as a whole has made a good faith effort to make this work. To codemn an entire industry for the isolated acts of a single company that skirted the rules is rediculous.
You make an excellent point and it is well taken. At the moment these are not going to be as cost-effective as some might hope. However, you need to also take into account the fact that it is extremely likely that gas prices will only continue to increase going forward. Looking at just gas price increases in my area (Boston, MA) over the past year a rough estimate is that prices have increased by $0.40 per gallon, that's a 20% increase in just one year! Granted, Katrina disrupted the gulf coast and damaged both oil and gas production and distribution causing increased prices. However prices right now are almost equal to levels they were post-Katrina, they dropped slightly as production came back online, but never fully recovered and have slowly crept up. Going into summer we can expect the usual price increases as more people are out driving for pleasure or vacation. It seems pretty clear that gas prices will continue to climb without another major disaster. If we get another Cat 5 storm on the gulf coast, if Iran shuts down oil production or possibly the whole Persian Gulf, or any number of other unforeseen but likely scenarios we can expect oil and gas prices to make another major jump.
For the sake of argumant let's look at your numbers again over a 10 year span and choose the (IMHO modest) appreciation of 10%/year in gas prices. So we're looking at a 100% increase in the cost of gas over 10 years, I don't think that's completely out of the question considering that many countries pay that much or more now. At 55mpg it would cost roughly $13,120 for gas over that ten year span, that's $5000 more than the figure that assumes gas stays steady at $2.20/gal. At 60 mpg using the same calculation I get total cost of $10,620. The difference now is $2,500, slightly more than the $2,195 price tag for this device!
To be fair we would also have to take into account the degredation over time of the solar panel, and any maintenance costs. But the point is the cost savings - while not stellar - are a bit better than you make out. It's possible that if the panel degredation and/or efficiency can be improved then there would be a definite cost savings over 10 years and 200K miles. These calculations were also assuming that the price of gas would only double by the end of that ten year period, which seems extremely low given the current state of oil markets and the political climate surrounding the largest oil producing nations. If a major event causes gas prices to more than double, or double in less than 10 years then these panels would actually provide a positive savings over their lifetime.
You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?
One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Two links for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.
"Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees."
quoted from here
The standard to which I was referred byt he sites that broke down this case was the internation coffee association website which states guidelines and best practices, although it is by no means an industry standard in the sense that many industries produce hard guidelines. While McDonalds was certainly within their rights to turn the temp up, most restaurants were below what McD's was serving at.
Here's a novel idea for you. Brew some coffee at 190 degrees, pour a cup and maintain the rest at 190. Now let the poured cup cool to 160 or 165, try it. You'll find that's a fine 'hot' temperature, not too cold as you claim. Now try to drink the other coffee at 190 degrees and notice how you burn the shit out of your mouth. And as to her "deep pockets" gold digging, the original suit asked only for $20,000 in medical expenses, which you also conveniently glossed over. It was only upon all denial by McDonalds for settlement that the amount was raised. The final settlement value, by the way, WAS released and was $480,000. There are well-established laws that punish companies for knowingly engaging in behavior or practices that are considered unsafe. Thus despite the fact that the woman played a role in her injury, McDonalds was considered partly at fault and found guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".
Unlike your unsubstantiated rebuttal I have provided two links that support my facts. If you google for "mcdonalds + coffee + lawsuit" you will find many other sites that repeat these same facts, and if you look hard enough you'll probably find the court documents from which these sites got their information. It's completely tracable and you are dead wrong. A product intended for immediate human consumption should be able to be consumed by humans without causing third degree burns. I would say that a food or drink that causes immediate and severe injuries (requiring a skin graft is certainly severe!) is an unsafe product. How can you argue otherwise?
Gorram Brit ACs. Since you seem to imply that you have had the proper physics courses then you must be familiar with the fact that there are TWO widely accepted temperature scales. I did not specify which I was using, but since water at 170 degrees C is not possible in a coffee machine then one might assume I meant Farenheit, where 170 degrees is below boiling (212F). :P
And speaking of physics, I believe you can have water at 170 degrees C however you have to keep it under tremendous pressure. Been a long time since I did the calculations for pressure vs temp and volume but IIRC it can be done.