You, my friend, read a very narrow type of history. You do realize that many European countries occupied much of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East until quite recently? And have not given them up entirely? And are still implicated in manipulating their former colonies? I guess it's not a coup if you own the place and just change governors.
For the last 60 year, Europeans haven't so much condemned what the US has done as complain that we don't do it as slick as they do.
As someone who has made stuff regulated by the FDA, I can shed a little light on what they regulate.
The first rule of thumb is that doctors can do any medical treatment. There are rules and customs that limit doctors on what they do, but legally once they are a doctor, they can do pretty much anything. So in theory, a podiatrist could do brain surgery (if he could find a patient dumb enough, a hospital dumb enough, staff dumb enough, etc). States tend to have enough rules to prevent it, but they aren't as rigid as you might imagine. And it does mean that doctors can prescribe pretty much any chemical legally available, and some that aren't
The second rule of thumb is that the FDA regulates drugs and devices, not treatments or surgery. Some people argue that autologous cell transplants are surgery maybe with a few drugs tossed into the mix. You're just moving stuff around and using drugs.
The third rule of thumb is that the FDA focuses on medical claims. You've heard the term "off label use?" It means that the product is approved for market, and cannot be marketed as useful for anything but what it was approved for, but doctors can use it for something else. Botox used to be sold that way. Even mentioning off label use by a company is a big no-no.
So what you have here is a doctor, who can do pretty much what he wants, and may not even subject to the FDA. But if his company is making marketing claims, the FDA might still go after him (presumably he is an officer of the company, which makes him subject to criminal arrest by the FDA. Unlike ISO, FDA agents carry badges and can slap cuffs on you)
This has nothing to do with lockdown. It came from the manufacturer this way. iPhones can connect by USB, so the same could happen if the manufacturer were not careful.
Yeah, it's not worth the fuss and people should be prosecuted where they are caught. But I'd add fraud and theft to violent crime as a reason for extradition. Ripping people off remotely shouldn't result in immunity.
Actually, our legal system isn't any more corrupt or money based than elsewhere. Those with money always have the best lawyers, but that's about all you can do to influence the system. However, it's a big system and there are always idiots, so it's not spotless. And we do have a press that actively exposes mistakes, giving the impression of a giant mess.
Information sharing is a whole different matter. There has to be information sharing on some level. "Hey, is this guy a citizen of yours?" The US shouldn't expect wholesale data mining, but if they ask and get it, then should you really be blaming the US?
Unless all 12 million pcs were in Spain, they should qualify for extradition. Most likely another EU country, but also the US. Heck, Spain could just shop these guys around if they really want to maximize the pain to these guys.
Bypassing the controller actually sounds kind of fun. Not necessarily easy, but fun. Ultimately there are only a few analog wires (carrying digital pulses, but still analog) that control the essentials of a hard drive. Simplified a bit:
A couple wires for moving the arm. A couple wires for writing to each platter. A couple wires for reading from each platter.
Probe those wires while the drive is running normally to get a sense of voltage and current patterns. Then get a D/A and A/D board so you can simulate the digital pulses, plus read output.
That much reverse engineering might be more trouble than this guy wants. But it would give you a degree of control far beyond anything purely software based. You could play with areal density, make custom bit sizes (dots and dashes) and so on. Which could be useful if you really are getting into some exotic research.
Just an interesting observation, but at times you compared the US to individual countries, and at other times compared it to the EU. There's more to that split personality than you think.
For the first half of its history, the US considered itself a collection of states (as in nation states). Strongly connected, but individual, much like the EU members. Now days we act like one country, but the laws and governance are still the original system. There are treaties between states (though they sometimes go by another name), extraditions, and so on. Most of the incompatibility between state as been sorted out over the years, just as EU members are doing. But it's still going on here to.
So the point you made in paragraph is both correct and a bit wrong. Externally, we look like one country. And no, the US hasn't recently changed any laws because of another country, just as the EU hasn't changed any laws because of someone outside the EU. But internally, states challenge, sue, harass, and fight each other over laws every day. Except for a few high profile situations, we don't even pay attention here. For example, credit card trouble because of SD was addressed last week by the legislature. But health care, education, energy, etc have all been adjusted by the legislature, executive, and judicial branches are fairly recently.
As far as calling the US more corrupt, that might not be quite the right word. More often its misguided. Corrupt implies knowing the right thing, but choosing to do the opposite. I think the guys making policy honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but are just misguided dumb-asses easily persuaded by people with influence who also believe they are in the right. The result is the same, so it might seem silly to argue the point. But if we want to solve the problem, the approach to dealing with corruption and ignorance are radically different.
Oh, I think they'll do great. Falcon 1 taught a lot. Falcon 9 is still a different beast with new challenges. I'm curious about the mental state of the guys sending it up. Assuming there's going to be a failure (which may be a false assumption, but history shows a lot of rocket designs fail eventually for whatever reason), when is the gut-feeling optimal time for a failure. Maybe launch 1, maybe not. Probably before they start using a crew module.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say there was a decision on when to blow up or how much effort into making a good rocket. More the moral dilemma of do want any hypothetical failures early or later. I agree: get the best rocket on the pad you can. But even design flaws can take time to have any consequence (Challenger explosion, for example). Others show up on the first launch.
The dilemma isn't on choosing which to have. It's the choice of thinking "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, let it be today so that we learn of our mistakes early" vs "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, don't let it explode today so that we stay in business long enough to correct our mistakes."
Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma. If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one? Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early. But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.
Or maybe it's $100,000 saved after depreciation, or other accounting method. Since the article doesn't say, the $100k/9 months might be what's saved on top of capital costs, maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc.
Warning: Car analogy
It's like investing in a new car that is cheaper to fuel. You can compare fuel costs of your old car vs monthly payments plus fuel costs of your new car and state it as a savings per month. Yeah, when you pay off the car and a whole bunch of other stuff matters, same as for the fuel cells. But if you're happy with the monthly savings, then you're happy.
We've suffered from several internally launched attacks. Weird stuff too. Raid arrays reporting bad disks, server DOS, server files altered preventing reboot. Under linux too.
Oh wait, that would be me using a cheap raid card, forgetting I'd set the firewall to deny any network access (did it during pre-production testing), and plain vanilla upgrading.
Sorry. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish attacks from f$%#-ups.
You joke, but that might be an actual solution. If you can go that fast, why not postulate some other technology. Something that causes hydrogen to have a 50% probability of being on the left, 50% on the right. Just for a microsecond. Let it collapse back to the middle once you've gone past.
Really you'd want to create some sort of probability donut. Fly right through the middle. I propose calling it the Homer-Schrodinger shield.
No, this is designed to hit the targets while in boost phase. It's mounted on a plane so that the interception zone is where ever the plane is. Worried about North Korea? Just fly around the Sea of Japan. Worried about Iran? Fly around the Persian Gulf. Worried about China v Taiwan, fly it near the Formosa Straits.
Other systems are intended for ballistic and reentry phases.
Interesting. I would think (and be wrong) that liquid chlorine gas would be more expensive than hypochlorite. The production equipment, distribution, and cost of handling such hazardous material has to be more expensive, so maybe it must come down to energy required.
Yeah, I'm partial to the AVC version myself. For simplicity, I confined my comments to just the baseline. And that's murky enough. I wonder when AVC technology was first discussed openly (spec drafts, white papers, graduate thesis, whatever).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure! No problem! Where do you live? We'll have US ordinance delivered there shortly. Please keep low until the loud noises stop.
Ha! That's it? Weak weak weak. BTW, you totally missed the point of my original post: Europeans WERE the dictators in their colonies.
You're really beginning to make me question my view of Europeans. I never thought of them so naive before.
Circular features are a great way to find impact sites. Heck, this area must have been hit by hundreds of meteors: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.701207,-100.71991&spn=0.375406,0.617294&t=h&z=11
Europeans didn't back anyone? Wow, that is news. You should write a book.
Oh wait, you're wrong.
Let's take a recent example: Hong Kong. When was that? Who's in charge now?
Let's try another. Ever heard of Guinea? http://en.afrik.com/article16616.html
How about a little place called Bosnia? Serbia had nothing to do with it? Damn the US for stepping in!
Faulklands?
Ukraine?
Georgia?
Algeria?
Rwanda?
No one is sinless.
You, my friend, read a very narrow type of history.
You do realize that many European countries occupied much of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East until quite recently? And have not given them up entirely? And are still implicated in manipulating their former colonies? I guess it's not a coup if you own the place and just change governors.
For the last 60 year, Europeans haven't so much condemned what the US has done as complain that we don't do it as slick as they do.
Methane traps 20 times as much heat as CO2, so it's the same effect.
As someone who has made stuff regulated by the FDA, I can shed a little light on what they regulate.
The first rule of thumb is that doctors can do any medical treatment. There are rules and customs that limit doctors on what they do, but legally once they are a doctor, they can do pretty much anything. So in theory, a podiatrist could do brain surgery (if he could find a patient dumb enough, a hospital dumb enough, staff dumb enough, etc). States tend to have enough rules to prevent it, but they aren't as rigid as you might imagine. And it does mean that doctors can prescribe pretty much any chemical legally available, and some that aren't
The second rule of thumb is that the FDA regulates drugs and devices, not treatments or surgery. Some people argue that autologous cell transplants are surgery maybe with a few drugs tossed into the mix. You're just moving stuff around and using drugs.
The third rule of thumb is that the FDA focuses on medical claims. You've heard the term "off label use?" It means that the product is approved for market, and cannot be marketed as useful for anything but what it was approved for, but doctors can use it for something else. Botox used to be sold that way. Even mentioning off label use by a company is a big no-no.
So what you have here is a doctor, who can do pretty much what he wants, and may not even subject to the FDA. But if his company is making marketing claims, the FDA might still go after him (presumably he is an officer of the company, which makes him subject to criminal arrest by the FDA. Unlike ISO, FDA agents carry badges and can slap cuffs on you)
This has nothing to do with lockdown. It came from the manufacturer this way. iPhones can connect by USB, so the same could happen if the manufacturer were not careful.
Dumb question, but are there any Windows apps that serve pages to a browser front end that might have borrowed the Apache code in question?
Yeah, it's not worth the fuss and people should be prosecuted where they are caught. But I'd add fraud and theft to violent crime as a reason for extradition. Ripping people off remotely shouldn't result in immunity. Actually, our legal system isn't any more corrupt or money based than elsewhere. Those with money always have the best lawyers, but that's about all you can do to influence the system. However, it's a big system and there are always idiots, so it's not spotless. And we do have a press that actively exposes mistakes, giving the impression of a giant mess. Information sharing is a whole different matter. There has to be information sharing on some level. "Hey, is this guy a citizen of yours?" The US shouldn't expect wholesale data mining, but if they ask and get it, then should you really be blaming the US?
You do realize Italy and Spain are different countries, right? And that I suggested extradition is possible from Spain to another EU country?
You might want to read this then: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/criminal/extradition/fsj_criminal_extradition_en.htm
Check under "Surrender of Nationals"
Unless all 12 million pcs were in Spain, they should qualify for extradition. Most likely another EU country, but also the US. Heck, Spain could just shop these guys around if they really want to maximize the pain to these guys.
Bypassing the controller actually sounds kind of fun. Not necessarily easy, but fun. Ultimately there are only a few analog wires (carrying digital pulses, but still analog) that control the essentials of a hard drive. Simplified a bit:
A couple wires for moving the arm.
A couple wires for writing to each platter.
A couple wires for reading from each platter.
Probe those wires while the drive is running normally to get a sense of voltage and current patterns. Then get a D/A and A/D board so you can simulate the digital pulses, plus read output.
That much reverse engineering might be more trouble than this guy wants. But it would give you a degree of control far beyond anything purely software based. You could play with areal density, make custom bit sizes (dots and dashes) and so on. Which could be useful if you really are getting into some exotic research.
Just an interesting observation, but at times you compared the US to individual countries, and at other times compared it to the EU. There's more to that split personality than you think.
For the first half of its history, the US considered itself a collection of states (as in nation states). Strongly connected, but individual, much like the EU members. Now days we act like one country, but the laws and governance are still the original system. There are treaties between states (though they sometimes go by another name), extraditions, and so on. Most of the incompatibility between state as been sorted out over the years, just as EU members are doing. But it's still going on here to.
So the point you made in paragraph is both correct and a bit wrong. Externally, we look like one country. And no, the US hasn't recently changed any laws because of another country, just as the EU hasn't changed any laws because of someone outside the EU. But internally, states challenge, sue, harass, and fight each other over laws every day. Except for a few high profile situations, we don't even pay attention here. For example, credit card trouble because of SD was addressed last week by the legislature. But health care, education, energy, etc have all been adjusted by the legislature, executive, and judicial branches are fairly recently.
As far as calling the US more corrupt, that might not be quite the right word. More often its misguided. Corrupt implies knowing the right thing, but choosing to do the opposite. I think the guys making policy honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but are just misguided dumb-asses easily persuaded by people with influence who also believe they are in the right. The result is the same, so it might seem silly to argue the point. But if we want to solve the problem, the approach to dealing with corruption and ignorance are radically different.
Oh, I think they'll do great. Falcon 1 taught a lot. Falcon 9 is still a different beast with new challenges. I'm curious about the mental state of the guys sending it up. Assuming there's going to be a failure (which may be a false assumption, but history shows a lot of rocket designs fail eventually for whatever reason), when is the gut-feeling optimal time for a failure. Maybe launch 1, maybe not. Probably before they start using a crew module.
Just food for thought.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say there was a decision on when to blow up or how much effort into making a good rocket. More the moral dilemma of do want any hypothetical failures early or later. I agree: get the best rocket on the pad you can. But even design flaws can take time to have any consequence (Challenger explosion, for example). Others show up on the first launch.
The dilemma isn't on choosing which to have. It's the choice of thinking "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, let it be today so that we learn of our mistakes early" vs "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, don't let it explode today so that we stay in business long enough to correct our mistakes."
I just think it's an interesting quandary.
Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma. If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one? Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early. But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.
Just a thought.
Or maybe it's $100,000 saved after depreciation, or other accounting method. Since the article doesn't say, the $100k/9 months might be what's saved on top of capital costs, maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc.
Warning: Car analogy
It's like investing in a new car that is cheaper to fuel. You can compare fuel costs of your old car vs monthly payments plus fuel costs of your new car and state it as a savings per month. Yeah, when you pay off the car and a whole bunch of other stuff matters, same as for the fuel cells. But if you're happy with the monthly savings, then you're happy.
We've suffered from several internally launched attacks. Weird stuff too. Raid arrays reporting bad disks, server DOS, server files altered preventing reboot. Under linux too.
Oh wait, that would be me using a cheap raid card, forgetting I'd set the firewall to deny any network access (did it during pre-production testing), and plain vanilla upgrading.
Sorry. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish attacks from f$%#-ups.
You joke, but that might be an actual solution. If you can go that fast, why not postulate some other technology. Something that causes hydrogen to have a 50% probability of being on the left, 50% on the right. Just for a microsecond. Let it collapse back to the middle once you've gone past.
Really you'd want to create some sort of probability donut. Fly right through the middle. I propose calling it the Homer-Schrodinger shield.
No, this is designed to hit the targets while in boost phase. It's mounted on a plane so that the interception zone is where ever the plane is. Worried about North Korea? Just fly around the Sea of Japan. Worried about Iran? Fly around the Persian Gulf. Worried about China v Taiwan, fly it near the Formosa Straits.
Other systems are intended for ballistic and reentry phases.
They were stolen, molested, then dumped.
Interesting. I would think (and be wrong) that liquid chlorine gas would be more expensive than hypochlorite. The production equipment, distribution, and cost of handling such hazardous material has to be more expensive, so maybe it must come down to energy required.
Yeah, I'm partial to the AVC version myself. For simplicity, I confined my comments to just the baseline. And that's murky enough. I wonder when AVC technology was first discussed openly (spec drafts, white papers, graduate thesis, whatever).