In addition to that, it looks like he's touching the probes with his fingers. He could be seeing that reading without touching the hooks at all.
On the other hand, maybe he really did find low resistance between the hooks, and the picture is simply a poor illustration.
There are a number of lines in TFA that imply that such technology is going to somehow give better security to wireless communications, but apparently people are forgetting that basically if you can see it, you can copy it:
Information Leakage from Optical Emanations specifically addresses devices that accidentally leak information, but the same principles will apply to information that is deliberately transmitted (in the visible spectrum, or otherwise).
It might not be as easy as eavesdropping on your neighbor's wifi, but the bottom line is that the physical transmission of information in both cases (wifi and visible/optical) is observable from a distance, and therefore both mediums face the same problems in terms of security.
You forgot to divide by 550. (50 ft-lbs/hr) / (3600 s/hr) =.0139 ft-lbs/s, not.0139 HP. That * 1/(550 ft-lbs/s) =.000025 HP = 0.19W. Not enough.
Perhaps you've discovered how the original inventor screwed up his math?
FTA: "Router ACLs are in place to block unnecessary ports"
While that might not provide SPI and other benefits of a true firewall, it's still a hell of a lot different than plugging a box into a wide open connection.
Not really. The other posters explaining the effect of dihedral are correct. The airspeed difference from one wing to the other while the aircraft is turning is very slight. The difference in angle of attack that is produced can be quite significant, on the other hand.
Most "trainer" style R/C aircraft have significant dihedral to contribute to stability. Many "park flyer" models are actually controlled with throttle, rudder, and elevator only.
IAAAE (I am an aerospace engineer), as well as an R/C pilot.
Let's say you do woodworking as a hobby, and are very skilled at it. Suppose you spent a month and a couple hundred dollars in materials crafting an exquisite dining room table. Suppose a guest came to your house for dinner, fell in love with your table, and offered to buy it for few thousand dollars. You accept the offer and sell your table.
Do you owe taxes on the table from the time you completed it? Not likely.
Do you owe taxes on the income from the sale of the table? Yes (assuming you have enough other income, etc).
Can you deduct the cost of materials? Yes, up to the amount of profit you earned from your hobby.
Disclaimer: I am neither an accountant nor a tax lawyer.
Useful info on a few of the manufacturers, thx. But seriously, are you really attempting to describe the performance of a digital storage medium with terms used to describe the way the stored data sounds? "bright", "good and neutral", "richer, 'tube' toned"?
The terms you use correlate to accuracy of reproduction of various frequency of audio. Audio stored on a CD (I"m not talking about CD with mp3 files on it) is stored as a sequence of samples... that is to say strictly as a time-domain function.
I can't think of any possible way that the performance of the medium could have an effect on the sound of the audio that could be remotely described by the terms you've used.
Actually, federal law prohibits you from operating many portable electronic devices onboard many flights. See the following Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs):
91.21
125.204
121.306
135.144
Actually, what you have described here (driving, with opposite polarity, the two halves of an antenna consisting of two adjacent, colinear elements, each 1/4 of a wavelength in length) is a simple dipole antenna. These are quite common. The performance of a dipole is essentially the same as that of a 1/4-wave antenna. Dipole antennas require no ground plane because they are balanced. The height above ground, however, does affect the radiation pattern of the antenna.
I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that the radiation from the two elements would cancel out. It simply does not work that way.
If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and a headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow.
If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift.
Yes, if the plane and the airmass are moving as you first described, the airspeed will be 40kts. If you have an airplane moving along at the same speed as the airmass it is in (as you also described), the airspeed will be zero.
The problem is that getting your airspeed to zero is not a function of the wind whatsoever. You can fly an aircraft to an excessively low airspeed with or without wind.
If your hypothetical aircraft is flying along as you first described and you execute a normal 180 turn, you will then be flying along with... 40kts of airspeed, not zero. Your headwind will now be a tailwind , and you will have 60kts of groundspeed.
Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact.
Actually, that statement is completely untrue. If you land with a tailwind, you will have the same airspeed as you would with a headwind or no wind. You will, however, have a higher groundspeed. This is undesireable because it will increase your stopping distance, wear excessively on the brakes, etc. The stall speed of an aircraft is determined by the weight of the aircraft and the angle of attack that results in the maximum lift. Stalling has nothing at all to do with groundspeed. Autorotation of a rotorcraft is a bit more complicated than just talking about forward airspeed, but it also has nothing to do with the wind or groundspeed.
As far as the physics of flight are concerned, the takeoff and landing phases are are the only phases of flight where speed relative to the ground is important, and windspeed then becomes important as well. The problem here is that you have attempted to relate all phases of flight as motion with respect to the ground.
What you need to understand is that a failure to maintain forward airspeed in flight has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind. Failure to maintain sufficient energy in the rotor of a rotary wing aircraft also has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind.
If you would like to provide actual evidence of crashes to support your arguments, please cite the appropriate NTSB report (www.ntsb.gov). I guarantee that you will not find one where the probable cause is listed as "flew into a tailwind and fell out of the sky".
Nothing in my post is intended to address windshear or microbursts, which fall outside the scope of flying in a steady air mass.
You really should take your own advice, you who obviously has no knowledge of basic aerodynamics. An aircraft in an air mass moving relative to the ground (i.e. wind) behaves exactly the same (with respect to the air mass) as an aircraft in a non-moving air mass. (Yes, that is a restatement of a previous post.)
BTW, I am an aerospace engineer, I DO know the difference, and I leared long ago what keeps things in the air.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to that, it looks like he's touching the probes with his fingers. He could be seeing that reading without touching the hooks at all. On the other hand, maybe he really did find low resistance between the hooks, and the picture is simply a poor illustration.
Information Leakage from Optical Emanations specifically addresses devices that accidentally leak information, but the same principles will apply to information that is deliberately transmitted (in the visible spectrum, or otherwise).
It might not be as easy as eavesdropping on your neighbor's wifi, but the bottom line is that the physical transmission of information in both cases (wifi and visible/optical) is observable from a distance, and therefore both mediums face the same problems in terms of security.
is clearly because someone wanted the worlds largest porn collection!
From TFA:
"there's a lot of porn on the internet, so there's a lot of porn that gets collected when you're archiving the whole internet"
0.019W. Missed a decimal point there myself. But in the meantime, I see I'm not the only one who noticed the original error.
You forgot to divide by 550. (50 ft-lbs/hr) / (3600 s/hr) = .0139 ft-lbs/s, not .0139 HP. That * 1/(550 ft-lbs/s) = .000025 HP = 0.19W. Not enough.
Perhaps you've discovered how the original inventor screwed up his math?
FTA: "Router ACLs are in place to block unnecessary ports" While that might not provide SPI and other benefits of a true firewall, it's still a hell of a lot different than plugging a box into a wide open connection.
Not really. The other posters explaining the effect of dihedral are correct. The airspeed difference from one wing to the other while the aircraft is turning is very slight. The difference in angle of attack that is produced can be quite significant, on the other hand. Most "trainer" style R/C aircraft have significant dihedral to contribute to stability. Many "park flyer" models are actually controlled with throttle, rudder, and elevator only. IAAAE (I am an aerospace engineer), as well as an R/C pilot.
Let's say you do woodworking as a hobby, and are very skilled at it. Suppose you spent a month and a couple hundred dollars in materials crafting an exquisite dining room table. Suppose a guest came to your house for dinner, fell in love with your table, and offered to buy it for few thousand dollars. You accept the offer and sell your table.
Do you owe taxes on the table from the time you completed it? Not likely.
Do you owe taxes on the income from the sale of the table? Yes (assuming you have enough other income, etc).
Can you deduct the cost of materials? Yes, up to the amount of profit you earned from your hobby.
Disclaimer: I am neither an accountant nor a tax lawyer.
Useful info on a few of the manufacturers, thx. But seriously, are you really attempting to describe the performance of a digital storage medium with terms used to describe the way the stored data sounds? "bright", "good and neutral", "richer, 'tube' toned"?
The terms you use correlate to accuracy of reproduction of various frequency of audio. Audio stored on a CD (I"m not talking about CD with mp3 files on it) is stored as a sequence of samples... that is to say strictly as a time-domain function.
I can't think of any possible way that the performance of the medium could have an effect on the sound of the audio that could be remotely described by the terms you've used.
Actually, federal law prohibits you from operating many portable electronic devices onboard many flights. See the following Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs):
91.21
125.204
121.306
135.144
Actually, what you have described here (driving, with opposite polarity, the two halves of an antenna consisting of two adjacent, colinear elements, each 1/4 of a wavelength in length) is a simple dipole antenna. These are quite common. The performance of a dipole is essentially the same as that of a 1/4-wave antenna. Dipole antennas require no ground plane because they are balanced. The height above ground, however, does affect the radiation pattern of the antenna.
I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that the radiation from the two elements would cancel out. It simply does not work that way.
If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and a headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow.
... 40kts of airspeed, not zero. Your headwind will now be a tailwind , and you will have 60kts of groundspeed.
If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift.
Yes, if the plane and the airmass are moving as you first described, the airspeed will be 40kts. If you have an airplane moving along at the same speed as the airmass it is in (as you also described), the airspeed will be zero.
The problem is that getting your airspeed to zero is not a function of the wind whatsoever. You can fly an aircraft to an excessively low airspeed with or without wind.
If your hypothetical aircraft is flying along as you first described and you execute a normal 180 turn, you will then be flying along with
Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact.
Actually, that statement is completely untrue. If you land with a tailwind, you will have the same airspeed as you would with a headwind or no wind. You will, however, have a higher groundspeed. This is undesireable because it will increase your stopping distance, wear excessively on the brakes, etc. The stall speed of an aircraft is determined by the weight of the aircraft and the angle of attack that results in the maximum lift. Stalling has nothing at all to do with groundspeed. Autorotation of a rotorcraft is a bit more complicated than just talking about forward airspeed, but it also has nothing to do with the wind or groundspeed.
As far as the physics of flight are concerned, the takeoff and landing phases are are the only phases of flight where speed relative to the ground is important, and windspeed then becomes important as well. The problem here is that you have attempted to relate all phases of flight as motion with respect to the ground.
What you need to understand is that a failure to maintain forward airspeed in flight has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind. Failure to maintain sufficient energy in the rotor of a rotary wing aircraft also has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind.
If you would like to provide actual evidence of crashes to support your arguments, please cite the appropriate NTSB report (www.ntsb.gov). I guarantee that you will not find one where the probable cause is listed as "flew into a tailwind and fell out of the sky".
Nothing in my post is intended to address windshear or microbursts, which fall outside the scope of flying in a steady air mass.
You really should take your own advice, you who obviously has no knowledge of basic aerodynamics. An aircraft in an air mass moving relative to the ground (i.e. wind) behaves exactly the same (with respect to the air mass) as an aircraft in a non-moving air mass. (Yes, that is a restatement of a previous post.)
BTW, I am an aerospace engineer, I DO know the difference, and I leared long ago what keeps things in the air.