So close. Almost everything you say is true, but you can't copyright a logo or the style of the car. However, both are very likely registered trademarks.
If we put a GPS receiver and a radio transponder in everyone's car, we could compile all sorts of interesting data!
You mean like a cell phone?
Look this whole thing is sour grapes, just because something could be misused doesn't mean it will. Bruce Schneier isn't even concerned that this is an issue, which I take to be a first.
Credit cards, ez-pass, cell phones, and supermarket club cards all give you greater exposure.
Here's the problem with things like this, it's double billing.
It's more efficient, and cheaper to put it online. The administration should get credit for being efficient.
The fact that it's green is a side effect, not the intended consequence. You should only get credit for going green if normal business factors wouldn't have forced you down that road anyway.
This is the problem with a lot of the cap-and-trade proposals and a lot of the carbon offsets.
Hey look I saved a billion dollars by switching from chinchilla to cotton, and reduced emissions in my chinchilla slaughterhouse by 300 million tons. - You saved a billion dollars, congratulations. You shouldn't also get a tax benefit for emissions reductions associated with that change, because you would have done it anyway, tax credits (or accolades in this case) should be encouragement for people to make changes they otherwise wouldn't have.
That puts you into a dangerous game where you're selling credits for reducing carbon emissions, not decreasing total carbon emissions.
See I can build a coal plant with no emission controls and get credit for reducing carbon emissions by putting even the most primitive scrubber on line (this is what China is doing). This might make more financial sense than just building a cleaner powerplant upfront. In order for any carbon-tax or cap-and-trade system to work, it has to account for every kilo of carbon, not start at some arbitrary limit and reward people for decreasing. If you actually reduce you pay less, and you can't play games by getting credit using less energy by making fewer widgets, because your business is drying up.
Since the US is the major greenhouse gas emitter we should be paying everyone else until China or India surpass us, either because of our reduction, or because of their increases.
Actually, that's the argument being presented by the EFF. They can't arbitrarily put their hands up peoples' butts, but they can if they have to have a reasonable suspicion that they'll find something. The defense argues that searching a computer is analogous to putting a hand up ones butt.
I don't know, maybe it's a quirk of your field where it is difficult to teach from the bottom up.
I can tell you that an automotive engineer with a Mechanical Engineering degree would be much less employable if he didn't study thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer (the fundamentals of jet propulsion), for the simple reason that those are required areas for an accredited degree. The automotive engineer would also have have a basic understanding of chemistry, be able to write an essay, and have a passing familiarity with the social sciences in order to receive an accredited degree. Even Kettering University (formerly the GM institute) teaches those things.
Now the reason for that is probably partly academic, but it also makes the aspiring automotive engineer a better problem solver in general.
Ok, I'm not a programmer, but a mechanical engineer, and I know precious little about programing, but I find articles like this very interesting. I was reading your post, and I stopped dead in my tracks here:
I think the authors are WRONG in saying that a university should be focussed on the academic
People don't go to the university to get real world skills, people go to the university to understand the foundations of their field, so that they can adapt their fundamental understanding to solving the problem at hand. People get certificates to learn routine use of employment friendly tools.
As I said, I'm not a programmer. I could (if I had to) model the frequency response of a simple mechanical system to a range of perturbations by hand. The chance that I'd have to do that in the course of my professional employment is so slim as to be laughable. Yet, the fact that I could do this (if I really had to) tells me that I don't want to put an eccentric load on a rotating shaft with out a lot of careful consideration. Now if I sort of knew this was a bad thing, but didn't really understand why I might to something silly like put only a single U-joint in a shaft. After all, it provides flexibility, and as long as the shaft is straight there is no eccentricity. The problem occurs when there is a deflection, then your single U-joint translates a nasty sinusoid down-stream. If you do that things tend to break.
Now, I agree that the university should have some courses focused things that practicing professionals in the field use. I could draw a part by hand (if I really had to), but if I've never seen CAD before, I'd be at a serious disadvantage if I ever wanted to be a machine designer. However, fundamentally, a university is an academic institution. The suggestion that it should be an employment mill would severely compromise our education system.
While the previous poster may have underestimated the ingenuity of the terrorists, I think you are greatly overestimating it.
Terrorist ingenuity isn't in developing sophisticated weapons electronics, it's in locating and exploiting valuable and vulnerable targets.
The only organizations that have the resources to develop or modify weapons to either circumvent or utilize this laser are maybe about half of the G8 and China.
A specialized ground to air shoulder launched missile, which is hardened against this type of counter measure is in fact very, very difficult to develop. Especially when you can just park at the end of the runway and use an RPG for the same effect.
The trick is to research gunpowder first, so you can see the saltpeter on the map before your opponents can. If you don't have any in your territory, attack and acquire it before they can use it to make musketmen.
Try on this follow-up question on for size: "What would the transition look like, and how would state-run civil works (road, schools, etc.) be funded? And who would prevent a state enabled ecological disaster in Texas from crossing state lines into California?"
I respectfully disagree with many of Ron Paul's positions, but that is what makes me like him so much. I could have a rational argument with him about why we need (federally funded) social programs, and how the sixteenth amendment is, in fact, part of the constitution. I can respect Barry Goldwater, and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan, and still call myself a democrat. I'm not convinced that big government is always the answer, and I can stand a logical opposing viewpoint. (Aside from Ron Paul, John McCain also passes my logic litmus test)
What I have a real problem with are the neo-cons who have no logic, only rhetoric. How can you have a constructive argument with someone incapable of justifying their position? (My personal favorite, how are the Christian values of right to life and forgiveness congruent with the death penalty Mr. Huckabee?... -10 points for invoking Jesus in your response)
One thing that I think will shake out of Ron Paul's phenomenal fund raising is that it will embolden other libertarian leaning republicans and hasten the inevitable (in my mind) schism in the GOP along the role of government line.
Drag goes with the cube of velocity (sort of) at subsonic speeds. As soon as you approach mach 1 you enter a whole different regime. In fact for many shapes there is only a very slight increase in drag from Ma=0.7 to Ma=1.3. Sometimes, drag even decreases once you're supersonic.
I took a tour of the Air and Space museum annex last summer, and the tour guide raised this point. He said that the primary innovations in the last 20 years for flight were by way of economics and efficiency. Not exciting, no, but it has put air travel within reach of most Americans. Lighter, stronger, more efficient, and cheaper, might not be hypersonic transport, but I couldn't fly today with current gas prices and 1970's tech.
Aside, I highly recommend that museum for anyone remotely interested in aircraft, history, or technology in general. While the SR-71 was awesome to behold, the Enola Gay is really what did it for me.
The problem with scramjets is that they have a minimum operating speed in excess of current standard jet engine speed. Currently the way they test scramjets is to launch them on a rocket to get up to speed.
Any practicle incarnation will have to be multi-stage as it is, likely turbofan/ramjet/scramjet. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility to add a fourth rocket stage, but you are hauling a lot of engine parts that don't do anything for the entire flight at that point.
I'd like to add that while the SR-71's top speed may technically be classified, but anyone with a photo, a protractor, and a scientific calculator can figure out at least the top design speed.
When an object like the black bird travels at supersonic speeds, an oblique shock is formed starting at the tip of the plane. The angle that the shock wave forms is proportional to the mach number, and they are related in a relatively simple equation. The faster you go, the tighter the shock.
It is wise to keep the wingtips inside of the shock, lest they be ripped off. It is logical to assume that the designers would put the wingtips as close to the shock as possible to maximize the wing's area. Therefore, by drawing a triangle from the tip of the plane to the tip of the wings, and measuring the angle, you should have a pretty good first order approximation of the maximum speed of the blackbird. I don't recall the number off the top of my head, but if someone wants to figure it out, the math is pretty simple.
I've got to disagree with you there. Flying is in fact optional. By choosing to fly, you consent to the search. You can decline to be searched, but then you can be denied entry. Same deal with nightclubs.
IMHO we should go back to private security, but regardless of who is doing the search the fact remains that you consented.
You'd have a much stronger case arguing against metal detectors in schools or courthouses, places that people are actually legally compelled to go, but somehow in those cases security has triumphed over liberty.
I think the risk isn't so much the $50, but in the case you like it the many thousands of dollars it takes to obtain a pilots license. And then you get to lust after your own plane.
Slashdot Mirror
So close. Almost everything you say is true, but you can't copyright a logo or the style of the car. However, both are very likely registered trademarks.
Do you need fusion?
How about a alpha emitter and an electron stream?
You mean like a cell phone?
Look this whole thing is sour grapes, just because something could be misused doesn't mean it will. Bruce Schneier isn't even concerned that this is an issue, which I take to be a first.
Credit cards, ez-pass, cell phones, and supermarket club cards all give you greater exposure.
Here's the problem with things like this, it's double billing.
It's more efficient, and cheaper to put it online. The administration should get credit for being efficient.
The fact that it's green is a side effect, not the intended consequence. You should only get credit for going green if normal business factors wouldn't have forced you down that road anyway.
This is the problem with a lot of the cap-and-trade proposals and a lot of the carbon offsets.
Hey look I saved a billion dollars by switching from chinchilla to cotton, and reduced emissions in my chinchilla slaughterhouse by 300 million tons. - You saved a billion dollars, congratulations. You shouldn't also get a tax benefit for emissions reductions associated with that change, because you would have done it anyway, tax credits (or accolades in this case) should be encouragement for people to make changes they otherwise wouldn't have.
That puts you into a dangerous game where you're selling credits for reducing carbon emissions, not decreasing total carbon emissions.
See I can build a coal plant with no emission controls and get credit for reducing carbon emissions by putting even the most primitive scrubber on line (this is what China is doing). This might make more financial sense than just building a cleaner powerplant upfront. In order for any carbon-tax or cap-and-trade system to work, it has to account for every kilo of carbon, not start at some arbitrary limit and reward people for decreasing. If you actually reduce you pay less, and you can't play games by getting credit using less energy by making fewer widgets, because your business is drying up.
Since the US is the major greenhouse gas emitter we should be paying everyone else until China or India surpass us, either because of our reduction, or because of their increases.
Is goatse in the common domain? If not, the guy just made himself a giant hypocrite.
You can't complain that Microsoft is infringing on your copyright then copy and pass along someone else's copyright image.
Actually, that's the argument being presented by the EFF. They can't arbitrarily put their hands up peoples' butts, but they can if they have to have a reasonable suspicion that they'll find something. The defense argues that searching a computer is analogous to putting a hand up ones butt.
I don't know, maybe it's a quirk of your field where it is difficult to teach from the bottom up.
I can tell you that an automotive engineer with a Mechanical Engineering degree would be much less employable if he didn't study thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer (the fundamentals of jet propulsion), for the simple reason that those are required areas for an accredited degree. The automotive engineer would also have have a basic understanding of chemistry, be able to write an essay, and have a passing familiarity with the social sciences in order to receive an accredited degree. Even Kettering University (formerly the GM institute) teaches those things.
Now the reason for that is probably partly academic, but it also makes the aspiring automotive engineer a better problem solver in general.
As I said, I'm not a programmer. I could (if I had to) model the frequency response of a simple mechanical system to a range of perturbations by hand. The chance that I'd have to do that in the course of my professional employment is so slim as to be laughable. Yet, the fact that I could do this (if I really had to) tells me that I don't want to put an eccentric load on a rotating shaft with out a lot of careful consideration. Now if I sort of knew this was a bad thing, but didn't really understand why I might to something silly like put only a single U-joint in a shaft. After all, it provides flexibility, and as long as the shaft is straight there is no eccentricity. The problem occurs when there is a deflection, then your single U-joint translates a nasty sinusoid down-stream. If you do that things tend to break.
Now, I agree that the university should have some courses focused things that practicing professionals in the field use. I could draw a part by hand (if I really had to), but if I've never seen CAD before, I'd be at a serious disadvantage if I ever wanted to be a machine designer. However, fundamentally, a university is an academic institution. The suggestion that it should be an employment mill would severely compromise our education system.
I hear the plans for v.4 actually allow the NSA to watch you in real time.
Your kidding right?
While the previous poster may have underestimated the ingenuity of the terrorists, I think you are greatly overestimating it.
Terrorist ingenuity isn't in developing sophisticated weapons electronics, it's in locating and exploiting valuable and vulnerable targets.
The only organizations that have the resources to develop or modify weapons to either circumvent or utilize this laser are maybe about half of the G8 and China.
A specialized ground to air shoulder launched missile, which is hardened against this type of counter measure is in fact very, very difficult to develop. Especially when you can just park at the end of the runway and use an RPG for the same effect.
Thoreau and MLK would say that you not only have a right to violate an unjust law, but a duty.
Whether a flawed law, such as copyright is unjust and warrants civil disobedience is a matter for debate.
The trick is to research gunpowder first, so you can see the saltpeter on the map before your opponents can. If you don't have any in your territory, attack and acquire it before they can use it to make musketmen.
Yeah, it's a great talking point.
Try on this follow-up question on for size: "What would the transition look like, and how would state-run civil works (road, schools, etc.) be funded? And who would prevent a state enabled ecological disaster in Texas from crossing state lines into California?"
I respectfully disagree with many of Ron Paul's positions, but that is what makes me like him so much. I could have a rational argument with him about why we need (federally funded) social programs, and how the sixteenth amendment is, in fact, part of the constitution. I can respect Barry Goldwater, and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan, and still call myself a democrat. I'm not convinced that big government is always the answer, and I can stand a logical opposing viewpoint. (Aside from Ron Paul, John McCain also passes my logic litmus test)
... -10 points for invoking Jesus in your response)
What I have a real problem with are the neo-cons who have no logic, only rhetoric. How can you have a constructive argument with someone incapable of justifying their position? (My personal favorite, how are the Christian values of right to life and forgiveness congruent with the death penalty Mr. Huckabee?
One thing that I think will shake out of Ron Paul's phenomenal fund raising is that it will embolden other libertarian leaning republicans and hasten the inevitable (in my mind) schism in the GOP along the role of government line.
If anyone is interested, the bill is likely to pass, but Chris Doddmay be stage a filibuster.
Also the house passed a version of the bill without immunity, so even if this does pass it isn't quite done yet.
Drag goes with the cube of velocity (sort of) at subsonic speeds. As soon as you approach mach 1 you enter a whole different regime. In fact for many shapes there is only a very slight increase in drag from Ma=0.7 to Ma=1.3. Sometimes, drag even decreases once you're supersonic.
I took a tour of the Air and Space museum annex last summer, and the tour guide raised this point. He said that the primary innovations in the last 20 years for flight were by way of economics and efficiency. Not exciting, no, but it has put air travel within reach of most Americans. Lighter, stronger, more efficient, and cheaper, might not be hypersonic transport, but I couldn't fly today with current gas prices and 1970's tech.
Aside, I highly recommend that museum for anyone remotely interested in aircraft, history, or technology in general. While the SR-71 was awesome to behold, the Enola Gay is really what did it for me.
The problem with scramjets is that they have a minimum operating speed in excess of current standard jet engine speed. Currently the way they test scramjets is to launch them on a rocket to get up to speed.
Any practicle incarnation will have to be multi-stage as it is, likely turbofan/ramjet/scramjet. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility to add a fourth rocket stage, but you are hauling a lot of engine parts that don't do anything for the entire flight at that point.
I'd like to add that while the SR-71's top speed may technically be classified, but anyone with a photo, a protractor, and a scientific calculator can figure out at least the top design speed.
When an object like the black bird travels at supersonic speeds, an oblique shock is formed starting at the tip of the plane. The angle that the shock wave forms is proportional to the mach number, and they are related in a relatively simple equation. The faster you go, the tighter the shock.
It is wise to keep the wingtips inside of the shock, lest they be ripped off. It is logical to assume that the designers would put the wingtips as close to the shock as possible to maximize the wing's area. Therefore, by drawing a triangle from the tip of the plane to the tip of the wings, and measuring the angle, you should have a pretty good first order approximation of the maximum speed of the blackbird. I don't recall the number off the top of my head, but if someone wants to figure it out, the math is pretty simple.
Product placement.
Seriously. Any accounting model that doesn't take into account the labels blow and hooker fund is fundamentally flawed.
I've got to disagree with you there. Flying is in fact optional. By choosing to fly, you consent to the search. You can decline to be searched, but then you can be denied entry. Same deal with nightclubs.
IMHO we should go back to private security, but regardless of who is doing the search the fact remains that you consented.
You'd have a much stronger case arguing against metal detectors in schools or courthouses, places that people are actually legally compelled to go, but somehow in those cases security has triumphed over liberty.
sorry,but we're out of ulations.
I think the risk isn't so much the $50, but in the case you like it the many thousands of dollars it takes to obtain a pilots license. And then you get to lust after your own plane.