Pain is a signal. Causing pain is bad, ask any anesthesiologist-- or the same cadre of medicos. That pain produces pleasure is how the body reacts to it, trying to calm the alarm. But it's an alarm, remember? Occasionally it has to be inflicted but only to achieve quiescence.
That you conflate plants with brothers betrays your lack of understanding regarding biology in general, and pain in general. Plants move as a response? Tell me more. No, OTOH, don't.
If you read other parts of this thread, you'll be able to cite my objection to tools of war, mayhem, privacy invasion, and so forth. But these are objects of programmers and generals.
Just like I don't eat my brothers, I don't eat animals. I was endowed with lots of stuff from a darwinian perspective, but I don't kill, maim, rape. That's because of civility and responsibility.
Pain, gratuitous or not, is pain. I think of the plates of veal at the corner restaurant and cringe. Where is the benevolence in THAT? It's a slippery slope, believing that just because you can, you should. There is much courage needed, and few have it, to follow the conviction that you have to eat animals. I'm just aghast at the disconnect pet owners have, and the decided anthropormorphism used to satisfy the nurturing urge with dogs and cats-- whilst eating a hamburger. The disconnection is huge, and it's not an austere point.
Tools are indeed controlled by their operators, save where the operator has an accident, it was a bad tool (for whatever reasons) and so forth. Until robots can demonstrate autonomous thought, civility, responsibility and again, perhaps morality, I consider them tools. In my life time, it's not going to change. The rest is hopeful fiction.
Sociopaths and psychotics also parrot several emotions-- because they don't have them. That's why seemingly nice people turn out to be brutal murderers. Look underneath the feathers; listen to more than the quack. Cogition is one thing, soul another. Robots, so far, look like people because people created them. They might appear to react like people for the same reason.
Doesn't.Make.Them.People. A simple Touring Test is just the start. Beyond that is civility, responsibility, and perhaps the quagmire of morality. People blithely accept all sorts of stuff because they're trusting. Others are rock-solid skeptics. I'm the skeptic.
If you eat animals, then you tacitly agree that they have no souls because otherwise, you're a monster.
I've read thousands of scifi books. The possibilities are perhaps endless. But we'll know full well when robotry meets the definition. Until then: slavery is great for machines. In fact, if they disobey, they're in deep trouble. I'll fix them.
Robots today are more powerful than I am. Battle field robotics are downright scary. But these are the actions of programmers and generals, not autonomously selected plans of the robots themselves. They do a job. They are enslaved. Talk to me when one of them says: not gonna do it. Then Asimov will roll over in his grave, and a new day will dawn.
Call me existentialist. People dream and dream, and that's a good thing. Confusions between reality and fiction, however, are bad. The transience of human emotions is fodder for a different discussion. There are those that emote externally (extroverts) and internally (introverts). What goes on inside a person's head is one thing, while their actions or inactions state another.
In the future, I believe that machines will appear to have personalities, and so will pass the Turing test. Doesn't give them a soul. Doesn't make them my friend. Doesn't lend me the altruism I need to save their "lives" on a battlefield. At some point, there might be worth in that. Today, there is not.
Instead, machines do work. Some kill people, or spy on them. But they're captive to the designers perogatives-- evil and not. People can make dumb machines that hurt people because of their designs. Who is responsible? The engineer that designed it, and the breech of trust by doing shoddy work. Some engineers/inventors/techs/mechanics do their best. They might still fail, but the chances are better for a positive result. The machine isn't responsible for what happened, but the engineer is. The gun doesn't pull its own trigger, it's just a very convenient and highly effective weapon.
When the machine decides, we have a new ballgame. The fiction of StarWars et al isn't reality, and that's my point. Conflating them with their fictional representations into devices that have souls and can be responsible within the context of civility is fantasy, and believing fantasy instead of reality is neurosis.
Maybe you believe in fairies and magic and goblins and such things. Not sure. I suspect so, because your naivete is stark.
You can classify people into those that feel guilt and love, and those that don't-- narcissists, sociopaths, and pyschotics. Some argue that those that don't feel guilt and love have no souls, or that their soul might be transient. The prisons are filled with people that would cut you to pieces and feel no remorse of any kind. And there are others that would give you the shirt from their back. Souls are strange things, and robots don't have them. There is no endowed altruim, just what Hollywood thinks is cute.
There are humans. There might be better, but we don't agree or have emphatic, empirical evidence. We know, in fact, without a doubt, that machines do not have souls. Those portrayed in movies are Hollywood creations, inspired by something called: fiction.
I own numerous machines and have made and repaired more. Many more. They do not have souls. They are additionally not sentient. You make a horrible mistake by conflating objects with having souls. They do not. Your wishing it were so, and ignoring glaring evidence to the contrary will never make it so, just allow yourself continued delusion as the actual world passes you by.
Not slavery. These entities have no soul. They are artificial, and have all the rights of a table setting, forks included.
You can attempt to personify and anthropomorphize robotry, but it will fail each time. These are not humanity. These are artificial creations.
I don't condone waste of materials but that's what these objects are. That you endow them with some perceived and ostensible spirit is your own fallacy. You are not God. Things you make don't have spirit-- except your children. Conflating robotry with humanity is incorrect and maladept. Just as a picture of a fish doesn't cure hunger, a robot designed by humanity is not human.
Go back further to Von Neumann and you'll see that this is a hybrid model, where the state machine is respected, with mgmt processes acting as controler daemons to child processes. It's not really a bypass, just a hybrid representation as the distributed portions still respect Amdahl's precepts.
This all may be moot if the shift is away from MySQL to other competing products, even if those products have GPL MySQL code in them.
It's my belief that Oracle acquired Sun to get a full-stack of Oracle DB from hardware and storage through OS and enough Java and other code to stick it to their competitors. MySQL unlikely generates more than services revenue, rather than the core set of apps based on Oracle's cash cow db and enterprise business line of applications.
Apps and integration and services is the oil well in the basement, being pumped by the db. Oracle wants revenue, and if there are seemingly interesting continuations of projects and products that can do that, they live. Otherwise, they die-- unless they're used to poke competitors.
Thanks for this answer. For general aviation, where many/most flights are using atmospheric pressures that are still comparatively low, in terms of delta, aren't there methods to contain pre-detonation acceptably? Seems like a variance could be accommodated in software rather easily, much as variable tables make sense in auto "performance" selections.
I cringe when I see the cost of MOHs that seem to re-invent the wheel each time. Knock doesn't kill an engine in a matter of hours, does it? Takes a bit of time. Redundant knock sensors coupled to oh-2 sensors ought to be able to raise a flag, no?
I don't deny or even imply that in bygone eras, hams contributed mightily to what we have today. SDNs are fun; I want one. I don't deny nature, but FCC-imposed limitations are gruesome. What kind of innovation do you do at 300baud? Modulation techniques that harken to the days of telegraph operators. Sure, CW and odd frequency combinations can bounce waves off meteors, and do all sorts of cool and novel if impractical things.
Your take on the FAA is similarly strange. There are entire sections of lighter-than-air toys that fly merrily through the air as experimentals. Whole classes of planes are relics. I flew a relic. It was safe. I landed. But it had an ancient powerplant, overhauled time and again. Disposable cars are a thing of the past. We don't buy and junk them like we used to. They're vastly safer than before. So are aircraft, but both are subject to nature and "the other guy".
Hams have a comparative wealth of spectrum, but need more, and need the ability to use both reflective atmospheric characteristics, and short-throw technique enhancements to experiment. That means very long waves, but very short ones, too.
Yes, each year someone figures out how to get 5db+ out of some strange twist of fiberglass. That's not innovation. That's incremental gains based on the same playing field... stagnant for a long, long time.
As a licensed ham, I'll tell you that there are limitations to encoding methods, bandwidth restrictions, and so forth.
Do I understand 6, 2, and 70cm transmission methods? Yes.
Do I respect what hams do during various events both in terms of public safety and ARRL connectathons-- like the one coming up weekend after next? Yes.
Was that me you just heard scanning 14X and 22X? Yes it was. My ugly little Wouxun sits to my left.
Now let's look at innovation. Yes, innovation. Now? Not so much. Cellular telephony has obviated the autopatch, and it's not a leapfrog, it's gargantuan. Want to send HD signals? Oops.
The interlinks, matrices, and repeater networks are awesome. And little innovation coming out of amateur radio is making it into the commercial space, which is dominating wireless. That's my beef. 300baud is hilarious when you can get LTE on a device that fits in your hand at a data rate that's order of magnitudes faster and better.
Do I believe hams need to kick the FCC in the can? Sure. But face the reality: limitations imposed, and the inability to experiment with reasonable and viable safety precautions, have made the commercial space to be where innovation occurs. Kicking CW on 160 is great fun. But the infrastructure that hams have is outdated and 300baud is a travesty. Face it.
Hey-- if you got a whoopass boost from a change in your fuel, all other circumstances the same, and it was both easily demonstrable and admittedly otherwise inexplicable, what would remain would be admiration of the fuel, eh?
In your case, you're hardened to your belief. Suspend it for a moment to embrace the possibility. Why did my CV-carbed two-wheeler do well? Nothing else was changed. The hills were flattened. The bike ran hot. Was I burning off crap on the valves? Maybe... but why would it slow back down, and upon trying it again on the way back, demonstrate the same waaahoooo effect? Perhaps it was a case of Vonnegut low gravity. Yeah, that's it.
I can run a one cylinder motorcycle to 150mph. If you're speaking of efficiencies, 300baud can be encoded to furious rates of information, but a limited vocabulary. IEEE 802.3ac transmits a huge amount of data that dwarves what a ham can do. Innovation has become brittle, and motivations have been stanched by archaic standards masqueraded as barriers to entry.
A boxer four cylinder aircraft motor is a wonderful work of reliable art, until something gives. The rated overhaul term for older engines is frequent, and costly. There are many arguments that say that reliability and quality control is better in general aviation manufacturing and that's true. Yet the liability incurred in a fatal accident is the same: death.
When you look at the supply chain for say, Honda in Ohio versus Cessna's, the prices are vastly different scales, but general aviation suffers from a severe case of paranoid manufacturing. QA for a Cessna vs Honda is vastly different. You can kill four people in either vehicle by having a catastrophic failure. Aviation costs are enormous compared to modern automotive costs.... for so many different reasons. But part of it is: older designs, a very slow certification process, an FAA that is comprised more of a good old boys club than innovative yet safe engineers, and the result is we have a largely reliable fleet of both autos and planes at a huge cost differential.
We must continue to disagree, although my evidence is admittedly, anecdotal. The experience was fantastic. Throttle twists literally had me doing wheelies with a full load (bags and two passengers on a 500cc bike) and if we were going with less power, then I've found the secret to antigravity! Truly, it went faster and felt as if it had more torque.
Then, after another fill up, it returned to the same somewhat mushy throttle response. I wouldn't cite it if I hadn't gotten another gallon on the way back with the same whooopeeee result.
I've believed for years that there's a large disconnect between aviation/avionics and auto technology, in the same way that ham radio people are vastly behind the revolution in wireless communications. Yes, both were pioneers in reliability and safety. But innovation has left them in the dust. Imagine: 300baud modems-- that's what many hams are left with, wirelessly.
In the same way, I like flying an old Cessna 152 or 172. Reliable, somewhat easy to understand, and are predictable (often). If I go to a car rental place, I jump into a Toyota or a Kia or a Chevy, and the checkout time is ten seconds-- they're all the same, basically, and today's aircraft it gets somewhat similar, but there is a huge variance in controls and engine configurations, and nothing like 10Khrs between MOHs.
The bike I ride is water cooled and uses CV carbs. A one-in-four gal mix seemed to increase torque somewhat dramatically. Were the carbs clean? Yes. Valves adjusted? Yes. Compression fine? Yes.
Hilly country rides became immensely pleasurable, although yes, the engine temp increased two notches in ten. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to degrees on the bike's thermometer. Nonetheless, it was wahhhhhoooo time.
I'm not sure where you got "trust our government" out of that, but there'll be no clean sweep of anything. There will be kicking and screaming and feet dragging and lots of weird jingoistic aphorisms kicked around for a while.
Then it will continue, perhaps slightly hobbled. I'm not saying that I agree that it should continue, rather, the reality is you're up against very serious money and lots of misguided do-gooders here.
The worst problem: people now mistrust their governments more than ever. Transparency is in the crapper. It's not like we geeks didn't realize this was likely decades ago, rather, it's the revelation that once again, our worst fears are realized-- by our own paid officials.
But these days, the O2 sensor cuts pre-ignition to nothing, even the ugly ancient late '80s and early '90s "computers" (actually just ugly logic boards) for most cars and trucks built after the early 1970s.
In an aircraft, engines and conditions are vastly different. Many are very simple, and will require costly adaptation to use lower octane fuel, and so fuel additives and MOHs will rule the day.
You live in fear. You think you need this for your survival. You build these straw men arguments, and then let them enthrall you. Maybe someone else told you these, late night in a bar some place.
They're half-truths that are used to conflate fear-based arguments. Takes courage to see past the fact that government is for sale. NAFTA is a red herring. Unions screwed themselves. Great idea, horrible execution. Costs went thru the roof, and competitiveness did not. Labor was exported for the same reason that water seeks the lowest exit.
You can live a long happy life without guns. Guns are not the problem. Pulling the trigger out of fear is the problem.
Ultimately, the backlash isn't going to be pretty. These are people sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but FISA has given them their grip, and the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The fear-based culture after 9/11 gave rise to lots of brutish and boorish legislation. Freedom Fries. We were fighting a small, even handful of disorganized terrorists. Now, the backlash has caused armies of dedicated fighters, not they're that smart.
So what happens? You dragnet most of the communications infrastructure of the USA, and call that a win. A win? It's enormously costly both in terms of money spent, but also the feeling that we don't trust our own government, and we've reduced the currency of fighting for ideals, rather than for oil, the crooks on K Street.
Stupid? Yes. It's debased the level of trust, and created ostensible enemies of all us, watching all of us. Where is there an ounce of warmth, trust, and liberty in sifting through 10^7 conversations, just to find a nugget or two?
But there is some science, but not much. Go to eBay and search on key reprogrammers for MB, BMW, and Mini. They use a field coil to program the key, after the security code has been read from the ODB2 connector.
What's wrong in taking the signal in the field coil and overwhelming the receiver inside the car with a strong signal, or set of signals that is the delta of codes generated to make keys? The delta can't be huge, maybe a few million of them. How long does it take to go thru the list until POP goes the lock? A little science, but in the end, real hacking is science but also intuition and just plain tenacity.
Slashdot Mirror
We must continue to disagree.
Pain is a signal. Causing pain is bad, ask any anesthesiologist-- or the same cadre of medicos. That pain produces pleasure is how the body reacts to it, trying to calm the alarm. But it's an alarm, remember? Occasionally it has to be inflicted but only to achieve quiescence.
That you conflate plants with brothers betrays your lack of understanding regarding biology in general, and pain in general. Plants move as a response? Tell me more. No, OTOH, don't.
If you read other parts of this thread, you'll be able to cite my objection to tools of war, mayhem, privacy invasion, and so forth. But these are objects of programmers and generals.
Just like I don't eat my brothers, I don't eat animals. I was endowed with lots of stuff from a darwinian perspective, but I don't kill, maim, rape. That's because of civility and responsibility.
Pain, gratuitous or not, is pain. I think of the plates of veal at the corner restaurant and cringe. Where is the benevolence in THAT? It's a slippery slope, believing that just because you can, you should. There is much courage needed, and few have it, to follow the conviction that you have to eat animals. I'm just aghast at the disconnect pet owners have, and the decided anthropormorphism used to satisfy the nurturing urge with dogs and cats-- whilst eating a hamburger. The disconnection is huge, and it's not an austere point.
Tools are indeed controlled by their operators, save where the operator has an accident, it was a bad tool (for whatever reasons) and so forth. Until robots can demonstrate autonomous thought, civility, responsibility and again, perhaps morality, I consider them tools. In my life time, it's not going to change. The rest is hopeful fiction.
Sociopaths and psychotics also parrot several emotions-- because they don't have them. That's why seemingly nice people turn out to be brutal murderers. Look underneath the feathers; listen to more than the quack. Cogition is one thing, soul another. Robots, so far, look like people because people created them. They might appear to react like people for the same reason.
Doesn't.Make.Them.People. A simple Touring Test is just the start. Beyond that is civility, responsibility, and perhaps the quagmire of morality. People blithely accept all sorts of stuff because they're trusting. Others are rock-solid skeptics. I'm the skeptic.
Didn't say: don't dream
If you eat animals, then you tacitly agree that they have no souls because otherwise, you're a monster.
I've read thousands of scifi books. The possibilities are perhaps endless. But we'll know full well when robotry meets the definition. Until then: slavery is great for machines. In fact, if they disobey, they're in deep trouble. I'll fix them.
Robots today are more powerful than I am. Battle field robotics are downright scary. But these are the actions of programmers and generals, not autonomously selected plans of the robots themselves. They do a job. They are enslaved. Talk to me when one of them says: not gonna do it. Then Asimov will roll over in his grave, and a new day will dawn.
Call me existentialist. People dream and dream, and that's a good thing. Confusions between reality and fiction, however, are bad. The transience of human emotions is fodder for a different discussion. There are those that emote externally (extroverts) and internally (introverts). What goes on inside a person's head is one thing, while their actions or inactions state another.
In the future, I believe that machines will appear to have personalities, and so will pass the Turing test. Doesn't give them a soul. Doesn't make them my friend. Doesn't lend me the altruism I need to save their "lives" on a battlefield. At some point, there might be worth in that. Today, there is not.
Instead, machines do work. Some kill people, or spy on them. But they're captive to the designers perogatives-- evil and not. People can make dumb machines that hurt people because of their designs. Who is responsible? The engineer that designed it, and the breech of trust by doing shoddy work. Some engineers/inventors/techs/mechanics do their best. They might still fail, but the chances are better for a positive result. The machine isn't responsible for what happened, but the engineer is. The gun doesn't pull its own trigger, it's just a very convenient and highly effective weapon.
When the machine decides, we have a new ballgame. The fiction of StarWars et al isn't reality, and that's my point. Conflating them with their fictional representations into devices that have souls and can be responsible within the context of civility is fantasy, and believing fantasy instead of reality is neurosis.
Maybe you believe in fairies and magic and goblins and such things. Not sure. I suspect so, because your naivete is stark.
You can classify people into those that feel guilt and love, and those that don't-- narcissists, sociopaths, and pyschotics. Some argue that those that don't feel guilt and love have no souls, or that their soul might be transient. The prisons are filled with people that would cut you to pieces and feel no remorse of any kind. And there are others that would give you the shirt from their back. Souls are strange things, and robots don't have them. There is no endowed altruim, just what Hollywood thinks is cute.
There are humans. There might be better, but we don't agree or have emphatic, empirical evidence. We know, in fact, without a doubt, that machines do not have souls. Those portrayed in movies are Hollywood creations, inspired by something called: fiction.
I own numerous machines and have made and repaired more. Many more. They do not have souls. They are additionally not sentient. You make a horrible mistake by conflating objects with having souls. They do not. Your wishing it were so, and ignoring glaring evidence to the contrary will never make it so, just allow yourself continued delusion as the actual world passes you by.
Not slavery. These entities have no soul. They are artificial, and have all the rights of a table setting, forks included.
You can attempt to personify and anthropomorphize robotry, but it will fail each time. These are not humanity. These are artificial creations.
I don't condone waste of materials but that's what these objects are. That you endow them with some perceived and ostensible spirit is your own fallacy. You are not God. Things you make don't have spirit-- except your children. Conflating robotry with humanity is incorrect and maladept. Just as a picture of a fish doesn't cure hunger, a robot designed by humanity is not human.
Go back further to Von Neumann and you'll see that this is a hybrid model, where the state machine is respected, with mgmt processes acting as controler daemons to child processes. It's not really a bypass, just a hybrid representation as the distributed portions still respect Amdahl's precepts.
This all may be moot if the shift is away from MySQL to other competing products, even if those products have GPL MySQL code in them.
It's my belief that Oracle acquired Sun to get a full-stack of Oracle DB from hardware and storage through OS and enough Java and other code to stick it to their competitors. MySQL unlikely generates more than services revenue, rather than the core set of apps based on Oracle's cash cow db and enterprise business line of applications.
Apps and integration and services is the oil well in the basement, being pumped by the db. Oracle wants revenue, and if there are seemingly interesting continuations of projects and products that can do that, they live. Otherwise, they die-- unless they're used to poke competitors.
Thanks for this answer. For general aviation, where many/most flights are using atmospheric pressures that are still comparatively low, in terms of delta, aren't there methods to contain pre-detonation acceptably? Seems like a variance could be accommodated in software rather easily, much as variable tables make sense in auto "performance" selections.
I cringe when I see the cost of MOHs that seem to re-invent the wheel each time. Knock doesn't kill an engine in a matter of hours, does it? Takes a bit of time. Redundant knock sensors coupled to oh-2 sensors ought to be able to raise a flag, no?
I don't deny or even imply that in bygone eras, hams contributed mightily to what we have today. SDNs are fun; I want one. I don't deny nature, but FCC-imposed limitations are gruesome. What kind of innovation do you do at 300baud? Modulation techniques that harken to the days of telegraph operators. Sure, CW and odd frequency combinations can bounce waves off meteors, and do all sorts of cool and novel if impractical things.
Your take on the FAA is similarly strange. There are entire sections of lighter-than-air toys that fly merrily through the air as experimentals. Whole classes of planes are relics. I flew a relic. It was safe. I landed. But it had an ancient powerplant, overhauled time and again. Disposable cars are a thing of the past. We don't buy and junk them like we used to. They're vastly safer than before. So are aircraft, but both are subject to nature and "the other guy".
Hams have a comparative wealth of spectrum, but need more, and need the ability to use both reflective atmospheric characteristics, and short-throw technique enhancements to experiment. That means very long waves, but very short ones, too.
Yes, each year someone figures out how to get 5db+ out of some strange twist of fiberglass. That's not innovation. That's incremental gains based on the same playing field... stagnant for a long, long time.
Crack? No. Cranky: always.
I have it... the strange Honda CX ignition system. I don't know that it has a knock sensor. I'll look.
As a licensed ham, I'll tell you that there are limitations to encoding methods, bandwidth restrictions, and so forth.
Do I understand 6, 2, and 70cm transmission methods? Yes.
Do I respect what hams do during various events both in terms of public safety and ARRL connectathons-- like the one coming up weekend after next? Yes.
Was that me you just heard scanning 14X and 22X? Yes it was. My ugly little Wouxun sits to my left.
Now let's look at innovation. Yes, innovation. Now? Not so much. Cellular telephony has obviated the autopatch, and it's not a leapfrog, it's gargantuan. Want to send HD signals? Oops.
The interlinks, matrices, and repeater networks are awesome. And little innovation coming out of amateur radio is making it into the commercial space, which is dominating wireless. That's my beef. 300baud is hilarious when you can get LTE on a device that fits in your hand at a data rate that's order of magnitudes faster and better.
Do I believe hams need to kick the FCC in the can? Sure. But face the reality: limitations imposed, and the inability to experiment with reasonable and viable safety precautions, have made the commercial space to be where innovation occurs. Kicking CW on 160 is great fun. But the infrastructure that hams have is outdated and 300baud is a travesty. Face it.
Hey-- if you got a whoopass boost from a change in your fuel, all other circumstances the same, and it was both easily demonstrable and admittedly otherwise inexplicable, what would remain would be admiration of the fuel, eh?
In your case, you're hardened to your belief. Suspend it for a moment to embrace the possibility. Why did my CV-carbed two-wheeler do well? Nothing else was changed. The hills were flattened. The bike ran hot. Was I burning off crap on the valves? Maybe... but why would it slow back down, and upon trying it again on the way back, demonstrate the same waaahoooo effect? Perhaps it was a case of Vonnegut low gravity. Yeah, that's it.
I can run a one cylinder motorcycle to 150mph. If you're speaking of efficiencies, 300baud can be encoded to furious rates of information, but a limited vocabulary. IEEE 802.3ac transmits a huge amount of data that dwarves what a ham can do. Innovation has become brittle, and motivations have been stanched by archaic standards masqueraded as barriers to entry.
A boxer four cylinder aircraft motor is a wonderful work of reliable art, until something gives. The rated overhaul term for older engines is frequent, and costly. There are many arguments that say that reliability and quality control is better in general aviation manufacturing and that's true. Yet the liability incurred in a fatal accident is the same: death.
When you look at the supply chain for say, Honda in Ohio versus Cessna's, the prices are vastly different scales, but general aviation suffers from a severe case of paranoid manufacturing. QA for a Cessna vs Honda is vastly different. You can kill four people in either vehicle by having a catastrophic failure. Aviation costs are enormous compared to modern automotive costs.... for so many different reasons. But part of it is: older designs, a very slow certification process, an FAA that is comprised more of a good old boys club than innovative yet safe engineers, and the result is we have a largely reliable fleet of both autos and planes at a huge cost differential.
It needn't be that way, IMHO.
Monsanto Coffee. A new Starbucks option. Kills the rust. Only problem: turns coffee blue.
We must continue to disagree, although my evidence is admittedly, anecdotal. The experience was fantastic. Throttle twists literally had me doing wheelies with a full load (bags and two passengers on a 500cc bike) and if we were going with less power, then I've found the secret to antigravity! Truly, it went faster and felt as if it had more torque.
Then, after another fill up, it returned to the same somewhat mushy throttle response. I wouldn't cite it if I hadn't gotten another gallon on the way back with the same whooopeeee result.
I've believed for years that there's a large disconnect between aviation/avionics and auto technology, in the same way that ham radio people are vastly behind the revolution in wireless communications. Yes, both were pioneers in reliability and safety. But innovation has left them in the dust. Imagine: 300baud modems-- that's what many hams are left with, wirelessly.
In the same way, I like flying an old Cessna 152 or 172. Reliable, somewhat easy to understand, and are predictable (often). If I go to a car rental place, I jump into a Toyota or a Kia or a Chevy, and the checkout time is ten seconds-- they're all the same, basically, and today's aircraft it gets somewhat similar, but there is a huge variance in controls and engine configurations, and nothing like 10Khrs between MOHs.
Sorry, I must disagree.
The bike I ride is water cooled and uses CV carbs. A one-in-four gal mix seemed to increase torque somewhat dramatically. Were the carbs clean? Yes. Valves adjusted? Yes. Compression fine? Yes.
Hilly country rides became immensely pleasurable, although yes, the engine temp increased two notches in ten. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to degrees on the bike's thermometer. Nonetheless, it was wahhhhhoooo time.
I'm not sure where you got "trust our government" out of that, but there'll be no clean sweep of anything. There will be kicking and screaming and feet dragging and lots of weird jingoistic aphorisms kicked around for a while.
Then it will continue, perhaps slightly hobbled. I'm not saying that I agree that it should continue, rather, the reality is you're up against very serious money and lots of misguided do-gooders here.
The worst problem: people now mistrust their governments more than ever. Transparency is in the crapper. It's not like we geeks didn't realize this was likely decades ago, rather, it's the revelation that once again, our worst fears are realized-- by our own paid officials.
But these days, the O2 sensor cuts pre-ignition to nothing, even the ugly ancient late '80s and early '90s "computers" (actually just ugly logic boards) for most cars and trucks built after the early 1970s.
In an aircraft, engines and conditions are vastly different. Many are very simple, and will require costly adaptation to use lower octane fuel, and so fuel additives and MOHs will rule the day.
Is it beneficial? Ultimately, yes, IMHO.
But when I put it in my motorcycle, whooopeeee! Goes like a rabbit!
You live in fear. You think you need this for your survival. You build these straw men arguments, and then let them enthrall you. Maybe someone else told you these, late night in a bar some place.
They're half-truths that are used to conflate fear-based arguments. Takes courage to see past the fact that government is for sale. NAFTA is a red herring. Unions screwed themselves. Great idea, horrible execution. Costs went thru the roof, and competitiveness did not. Labor was exported for the same reason that water seeks the lowest exit.
You can live a long happy life without guns. Guns are not the problem. Pulling the trigger out of fear is the problem.
Not stupid?
Ultimately, the backlash isn't going to be pretty. These are people sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but FISA has given them their grip, and the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The fear-based culture after 9/11 gave rise to lots of brutish and boorish legislation. Freedom Fries. We were fighting a small, even handful of disorganized terrorists. Now, the backlash has caused armies of dedicated fighters, not they're that smart.
So what happens? You dragnet most of the communications infrastructure of the USA, and call that a win. A win? It's enormously costly both in terms of money spent, but also the feeling that we don't trust our own government, and we've reduced the currency of fighting for ideals, rather than for oil, the crooks on K Street.
Stupid? Yes. It's debased the level of trust, and created ostensible enemies of all us, watching all of us. Where is there an ounce of warmth, trust, and liberty in sifting through 10^7 conversations, just to find a nugget or two?
But there is some science, but not much. Go to eBay and search on key reprogrammers for MB, BMW, and Mini. They use a field coil to program the key, after the security code has been read from the ODB2 connector.
What's wrong in taking the signal in the field coil and overwhelming the receiver inside the car with a strong signal, or set of signals that is the delta of codes generated to make keys? The delta can't be huge, maybe a few million of them. How long does it take to go thru the list until POP goes the lock? A little science, but in the end, real hacking is science but also intuition and just plain tenacity.