Exactly. Personally, I can't take notes on a computer (it's a style thing; I don't write them in nice orderly rows and I tend to make lots of diagrams, arrows, sketches, etc), but even trying to take notes in class I was often reduced to being a "mindless stenographer." I couldn't process and think about what the professor was writing because I was too busy just trying to write it down, particularly with stuff involving heavy/high-level math. I usually wound up using the class notes not to learn from directly, but rather as references for doing the homework or making equation sheets.
I have to wonder, though, how many people who are going "oh noes... mah freedum iz under attack" would get upset if a state government suddenly abolished its concealed carry license laws and declared that any adult who can legally carry a weapon is entitled to concealed carry.
Go ask residents of Alaska or Vermont. Anyone legal to purchase and own a firearm can carry it, open or concealed, without any kind of license. I'd hardly say there's outrage about it in those states.
And really, it's open carry that tends to freak people out. It's legal in 47 of 50 states to carry concealed (the process varies by state), but only around half of them allow open carry (of which some allow open carry unlicensed, others require the license for open or concealed). There's only one state that allows open carry only. There was strong implication in Heller that carrying arms was covered under the 2nd, and mention was made that concealed carry could be prohibited because it was thought repugnant in the past and often prohibited. But, given that the recent trend is overwhemlingly towards concealed carry, both legally and in practice, I expect that a future ruling would say states must allow some form of carry, it must be shall-issue (ie, not at the arbitrary whim of an official), and can't prohibit concealed carry if they do not allow open.
0. Establish a new immigration system. No arbitrary restrictions or quotas on origin; fill out your paperwork properly and pass your background check (basically, don't be a criminal) and you get your visa and, if you desire, a work permit, tax ID, and residency (after a period of time). Limited exceptions on case-by-case basis for those seeking asylum.
1. Announce new system; everyone in the country legally can apply and have their status updated. Anyone here illegally has __ months to leave, fill out paperwork properly, and re-enter. Anyone here illegally after the deadline is immediately deported and permanently barred from further entry (unless a "first offender" seeking asylum as above).
2. Secure the border. If that means a wall and armed sentries, then so be it. Everyone entering goes through a customs checkpoint. It's absurd that we demand proper security and customs facilities at airports, but get outraged that anyone even suggests monitoring land borders. It's like securing the back door to your house, but leaving the front door and garage wide open.
Benefits:
-Everyone gets proper legal protection from OSHA and FLSA. No abusive conditions go unreported because of fear of deportation.
-Everyone pays taxes. Those with families would be paying the sales and property taxes to send their kids to school, state and federal taxes would cover the roads they use, etc. Cuts down on freeloading.
The theoretical maximum efficiency of a given engine cycle may be N. This is the perfect no-losses engine.
Now, let's say that the current best-performing engine may run at an efficiency of 41% of the theoretical maximum (number chosen for illustrative purposes only; I don't know what the real value would be). The new design may run at an efficiency of 50% of theoretical maximum, which is about 20% better than the current one. That's a lot different than saying the new engine is 50% better than the old one, which would implies a new efficiency of 62% or so of theoretical.
Of course, if we set theoretical maximum as a percentage (ofcomplete energy conversion), it gets more complicated, and may even be below 50% itself.
The technology (assuming it works, which is a big if at this point) may be applicable to renewable fuels as well, particularly if those biomass-based gasoline/diesel analogs ever work out.
The thing is, you're never going to really get away from some kind of combustible fuel for some methods of transportation. Yeah, trains can be electrified, everyday commuter cars equipped with batteries, and large enough ships equipped with nuclear power... but large trucks, construction equipment, "traveling" cars used for longer distances, smaller seagoing vessels, and pretty much any aircraft larger than a Cherokee or 172 will still need something combustible, whether it's something like biodiesel, or ethanol, or algae-based. Weight and volume restrictions pretty much require something with a high energy density (and the weight reduction with consumption benefits aircraft); you won't find those with fuel cells or batteries or cryogenic hydrogen tanks.
There are several promising biomass-based fuels in development; Embry-Riddle will soon be testing a sorghum-derived fuel with better performance than regular avgas, and without the lead. Combine this with more efficient IC engines, and you'll not only reduce emissions output (carbon, toxins, particulates) but also reduce the dependency on foreign energy.
I just want shit to work right and not require hours of dicking around with before they even begin to function correctly. I don't want to spend all day poring over tutorials and man pages to install a program, finally get it installed, and run into a schrodinger-like problem--the process can't be started because it's already running, but can't be stopped because it's not running. And I want to be able to do all of it through a GUI instead of having to resort to obscure command-line inputs.
I know there's a faction around here which believes that nobody should be allowed to touch a computer unless they can compile their own OS from source, but the vast majority of potential users don't have the time (much less the mental capability) to devote to that. I'd be quite happy to switch to some flavor of linux, and I'm trying (albeit very slowly, because I do have other things to do in my life), but you just aren't going to see the converts you look for until installing and using things beyond the basic OS and prepackaged applications is as easy as it is with Windows. Yes, Windows has its faults, but at least when I go to install something or buy something like a UPS or a printer, I can install the driver/program and just expect it to work. I don't have to futz with config files or spend all afternoon tinkering with settings just to get it to run.
Basically, they need to stop worrying about color schemes, and settle on some kind of standard. Get stuff to work right the first time and not require hours of dedication to do anything past web browsing. Then, you might finally see the "average guy" converting.
Heh, I'm an engineer for an aircraft manufacturer, built a kitplane in the garage with my dad, and hold a pilot's license. But cars? I just drive them; nothing special to me. I know roughly how they work, and and usually work on them given the right tools, but they just don't get the juices flowing, if you know what I mean.
You're right, though, most people have no idea what really goes into cars or airplanes. They almost pride themselves on it.
Most people would be surprised to learn taht, up until the last decade, the average light aircraft (Cessna or Piper light single, for example) wasn't much above a 1940's tech level. Basic riveted structure, direct mechanical (no power boost) flight controls, brakes, steering. Engines were air-cooled and carbureted, with fixed ignition timing (driven by magnetos), valve timing, and manually-adjusted mixture control. Instrumentation was analog and mechanical. The most advanced equipment would have been the comm and nav radios, at maybe 1970's level, and some kind of handheld or retrofitted GPS/LORAN system. If you had an autopilot, it was also a basic analog system.
It's only recently that we've seen production light aircraft get "glass" isntrumentation, and some are even starting to come with electronic ignition and fuel control (including injection), though those are all still fitted to the same air-cooled engine blocks. The three biggest factors keeping these airplanes so expensive are (1) certification and compliance costs, including flight testing and all the paperwork, (2) lawsuits with huge damages awarded by idiot juries and sleazy lawyers who manage to point the finger at manufactuers for everything, their fault or not, and (3) no economy of scale due to 1 and 2--the vast majority of airplanes (even airliners) are still mostly hand-assembled because production rates aren't high enough to justify car-style robotic production lines.
I'm not saying they can't do it, or can't afford it... I'm saying that they don't do it because it's not profitable to the shareholders and it's not required. Anyone who's ever worked in engineering (and I'd imagine software development is the same way) knows how marketing and management tend to take precedence over sound technical reasoning, and this is no different.
That said, I don't know if you really understand what's involved in getting an FAA certification, especially a type certificate. If we're talking about really using that as a model for certifying cars, it's going to involve a lot more than you think.
Let's see... first, we'll have a federal agency dealing with the matter. Let's call it the FCA (Federal Car Administration). It is responsible for everything related to cars and driving. Think dealing with your state DMV is bad? Just wait.
Next, every car and truck on the road must have a roadworthiness certificate, which would be pretty simple to get; it just basically says "you have an engine, four wheels, and it looks kind of like a car". One-off (kit-built) and prototype cars would have an experimental cert, which might come with operating restrictions and would prohibit use for commercial purposes.
A type certificate will be required for all factory-produced vehicles. The type certificate specifies the exact configuration of the vehicle, down to each nut and bolt. It also certifies that the particular configuration meets the federal safety and performance standards. Every single variation and option, from seat cover material to sunroofs to rims, hubcaps, and stereo systems would have to be individually covered under the cert.
Finally, a production certificate for the vehicle would be needed, too. This cert basically checks off the manufacturing process and essentially says "if you follow your documented process to produce this particular vehicle, and verify that it is built correctly, the vehicle will automatically qualify for roadworthiness and be in compliance with the type certificate".
Every change to the model line, whether it's adding a new sound system option or making changes to the engine, will require that the new configuration be certified, too. For small changes, it's relatively simple, and reusing systems from older/other models does reduce the work and paperwork required, but it doesn't completely eliminate it. But major changes (new body style, new engine/transmission, EEC software upgrade, etc) will involve significantly more work. Even standard bug-fix changes ("move this hole because it's in the wrong place" or "reroute this wire because it's getting pinched") generate certification paperwork, if only to say "this change will not affect compliance with the certificate".
But that's not the end of it.
All cars on the road will require an annual inspection, to be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. All maintenance beyond things like changing the oil or rotating the tires must be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. All modifications to the vehicle will require FCA approval, and must be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. Want to change the radio out? Want window tint? How about a cargo rack, or even a dashboard mount for your GPS? One-off mods can be approved by the local FCA field office, but mass-market mods will need a supplemental type certificate, which essentially certifies the mod as if it were a factory option. Few companies are going to invest all that effort and money. Forget buying whatever tire you want when your old ones wear out; you'll only be able to get ones on the factory-approved list. Need a replacement part? Your only option is the dealer, unless another company decides to reverse-engineer it and certify their own replacements to the same spec. You're likely to only have one or two options for things like oil filters or wiper blades. Get in a fender-bender? Too bad; you can't drive the car till it's been repaired back to spec, unless you get a one-time wa
Well, because then then the car manufacturers wouldn't be able to make new models every year--they'd have to run the same one for a while to recoup the certification costs. Marketing and design are more important, you see.
That's not to say the aircraft certification process is the greatest thing in the world; some of the requirements are a little excessive for things like four-seat piston singles, and that's one of the reasons flying is so damned expensive. That, and litigation-happy ambulance chasers with their dumb-as-rocks juries. Pilot takes off into bad weather he's trained specifically to avoid? Oops, manufacturer's fault. Poorly-maintained twenty-year-old engine or airplane breaks? Manufacturer's fault.
Cruise control isn't stupid at all. It saves my leg from cramping up (and my wallet from paying speeding tickets) while driving constant speeds down the interstate. 99.99% of my driving is to get somewhere, not just for the hell of it, and cruise control is useful for the "driving two hours on a relatively straight road at constant speed" situations. If I need better control, I just kick it off and use the clutch.
If I want to operate a vehicle just for the hell of it, and be in direct control, I'll drive to my parents' place and borrow the airplane. The only "automatic doodad" on that is the mechanical prop governor; everything else is direct, pilot-controlled mechanical linkages (pushrods and cables). Though, I would like at least an engine computer so I don't have to constantly twiddle with the mixture; it's a shame GA piston engine technology is still stuck at about a 1930's technology level. Thanks, litigation-happy society...
... is quite involved and requires careful thought. Training and procedures are important, but the best UIs should make the next step(s) in a task obvious. A symptom of an overly complex, poorly thought out UI is the high level of training and checklists needed to identify the next step(s) or locate required data. Using the flight deck model, older airplanes needed a large amount of training (and a third crew member) because all of the instrumentation and controls were just mounted on a few panels, with no guidance as to which dials and knobs would require special attention under various different flight conditions. The modern flight deck makes use of flexible displays that remain quiet (dark) until they demand attention. Then, they are presented in a manner which suits the particular task at hand. Like an automated checklist.
It's not just an issue of ergonomics. Older aircraft, even up to the DC-10/747/L-1011 era, didn't have the automation to allow two-crew operations. Engines were mechanically controlled, requiring someone to monitor temperatures, pressures, oil levels, etc. and make adjustments to keep them happy and prevent them from exceeding parameters. Cabin pressurization required monitoring, as did the electrical system. Newer aircraft, by contrast, have things like FADECs (Full-Authority Digital Engine Controller), automated monitoring and load-shedding for the electrical side, automatic cabin-pressure controls, auto-tuning radios, etc. Taken together, these mean that the pilots don't have to spend as much time watching gauges and trying to make sure they don't exceed some critical parameter, or fiddling little knobs back and forth to keep a constant pressure differential, and can instead worry about flying and navigating.
To use a car analogy, imagine having to constantly monitor and adjust choke, mixture, and ignition timing while driving... wouldn't it be easier to have someone else doing that?
Actually, it's not so simple. Major upgrades to an aircraft often have to be done all at once if that's how the upgrade is certified. You can't operate with an "in-between" configuration; if the only certified configs are "base" and "fully upgraded", well, sucks to be you.
Employers shouldn't have anything to do with health care at all. Most people get stuck with their employer's chosen plan because everything else costs so much more in comparison. Give individuals the tax break on their premiums and prohibit employers from offering plans or subsidizing coverage unless said subsidies are provider- and plan-agnostic. And get rid of the "use-it-or-lose-it" stipulation of medical savings accounts; let people save up multiple years and even withdraw it (taxed) for non-medical purposes after a given time.
Oh, and tort reform, end pre-existing conditions, crack down on poor/malicious billing practices and wrongful dismissal of claims... shit, I could be here for hours...
The problem is the current focus of non-commercial spaceflight--science. That is, pure science for its own sake. We spend billions of dollars on flights (manned and not) for the sake of doing "science". Now, I like science as much as the next guy--its a great thing. But spending our billions of spaceflight dollars to launch a mission just so we can watch worms wriggle around in zero gravity is a waste. It's one thing to run such experiments in the course of something larger, but as an end in themselves, they're a terrible idea.
We need to drop all the BS about "science" and "exploration" and "discoveries". The only goal of the public space program should be establishing as many permanent, self-sustaining stations and settlements as we can. Moon, Mars, asteroids, Jovian moons, 2001-style "wheel" stations, generation ships. Expand, or die.
The efforts to support this should be national level, right up there with fixing the national infrastructure and transitioning to nuclear/renewable power. I'm talking bigger than Apollo, bigger than the bailouts or the stimulus package. These ought to be the national domestic priorities, not shoveling billions of dollars down the drain for useless, ineffective social programs we've already wasted trillions on, only to pay trillions more because the first 20 years of payments were pissed away.
The first goal should be the development of a high flight rate, low-cost, robust orbital launch vehicle, because without affordable space access, you can't do anything else up there. This is what the shuttle was supposed to be, but wound up failing miserably at. Yes, it will be expensive to develop. It will probably take a few generations of vehicles and two or three decades to get it right. Offer it out to Lockheed, Boeing, EADS, N-G, SpaceX, Scaled, Dassault, even Sukhoi.
Supporting this and the future goals will take lots of engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. Add funding to existing educational money so that school systems can afford to hire existing engineers, scientists, and mathematicians at wages they will be willing to work for, and have them teach. Cut administrative and school board positions by at least two thirds, get rid of the do-nothing, know-nothing "education" majors that merely pretend to teach, and hire some retired drill sargeants to straighten up the schools with discipline problems. Give the kids a chance to work towards something worthwhile instead of glamorizing entertainers.
Once the reliable launch vehicle is in service, then you start the colonization and utilization push. Mine some asteroids, put bases on the moon and Mars, build thousand-person stations in low orbit. Set up space-based solar collectors and beam energy down to remote areas.
It comes down to this: we can sit here staring at our belly button lint for the next fifty years, or we can actually go and do something worthwhile with our lives. Doing it will be hard, it will be expensive... but sitting on our collective ass waiting for things to happen won't work. New technology doesn't jsut materialize out of thin air; someone needs to work on it.
Two weekends to click on menu -> Software -> YaSt-> System -> Software -> Samba Server, fill in a few boxes?
No, the first day or so was installing Samba and getting it to run. Day two was fixing its config. The next entire weekend was straightening out all the file permissions, getting the shares visible from all three of the other computers (and making them only visible to certain accounts), making the permissions apply to files copied into the shared drive, and so on. And lots of pounding my head on the wall trying to figure out why things weren't working the way tutorials and "helpful" postings on forums said they would. "just do this and it'll work" doesn't actually work.
And as I said before, setting up that UPS was even worse. It went something like this:
(install program, set up config file)
Start apcupsd --> cannot start, process already running
hmm...
Stop apcupsd --> no such process
WTF?! You can't start cause it's running, but you can't stop it cause it's not running? The program's name isn't schrodingersupsd...
(list processes) --> ####=apcupsd
kill #### --> process killed
start apcupsd --> started
get ups status --> no connection
hmm...
(unplug ups from wall) --> "power lost, running on battery"
Not to be too mean, but what's so hard about getting linux to run properly on a PC?
Getting it installed and running was fairly easy. Trying to do anything else besides browse the internet or use pre-installed programs was (and still is) a bitch. On the fileserver I set up at home, it took me two full weekends just to get the samba shares working right and with what I hope are the proper permissions and group settings, and I spent a full day last weekend trying to get apcupsd to talk to my UPS (I get "on battery" and "power restored" messages, but I can't view status and I haven't yet gotten around to testing auto shutdown). I spend probably almost half an hour researching and trying each step because a lot of the tutorials or guides are outdated or just don't work. I want to put ubuntu on my new laptop, but given the above trouble and the PITA it's been trying to set Win 7 up the way I want it, I might just pass.
Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives
on
20 Years of Photoshop
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I just want to see an updated run of Jasc Paintshop 6. Basic photoediting capabilities without getting rid of the "traditional" paint functions. Gimp and Photoshop are too complicated.
The problem is that the vast majority of the "debate" is political. The ridiculousness is driven by several different factions, most of which cling to one end of the spectrum or another. In no particular order and with poorly-contrived names:
The left economists. These are the guys who try to use climate change as a front to push their own brand of economic and social idealism, and/or take swipes at the economic and social setups of countries they have distaste for (particularly the US, Canada, Western Europe, and other industrialized "western" countries). They will often favor things like high carbon taxes and social restrictions intended to hit large companies and those they see as "rich" in order to exact "social justice". These groups will often ignore other industrialized polluting countries (coughChinacough) because (at least in theory) they more closely match their desired socioeconomic structure and/or simply tend to oppose said "western" countries.
The oil barons. Really, this applies to the fossil fuel industry as a whole, and those who manufacture things that use said fossil fuels (like car companies). The mindset appears to be little more than "well, we have it now and it works, so why worry?" They're also the ones who oppose even modest efficiency improvements because they would "cost too much". Has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because the status quo ensures good quarterly profits.
The gluttons and the ignorant. These are the ones who completely deny that anything could be wrong simply because they can't process or understand that anything could be so. The glutton subset will even conspicuously waste resources just out of spite (run A/C with the windows open, deliberately buy the car with the lowest fuel efficiency, leave all the lights on, etc). May often be scientifically illiterate. May even claim that "God wouldn't let anything bad happen".
The simple politicists. These are found on both ends of the spectrum, and can be identified by supporting or opposing climate/energy-related ideas not on anything even remotely related, but rather because those they view as their political opposites support something else. Examples would be Republicans who oppose a given measure simply because Democrats came up with it, or those who reject proposals as "dirty hippie liberal flaming commie" ideas.
The anti-technologists. These are the super-environmentalists who view pretty much any kind of technology (even "green" tech) as somehow being inherently bad or evil. Alternatively, they may hold that man's ideal state is "living in harmony with nature", essentially equivalent to a pre-industrial agrarian society. The irony is quite amusing given how reliant they tend to be on such technology, and how ingorant they are about the grim realities of living in their ideal society. These groups will typically find a reason to oppose any proposed fix or improvement, usually on some crazy/irrational basis. "Clean" coal? "Still makes CO2". Hydroelectric? "Kills fish". Geothermal? "Causes earthquakes". Wind? "Kills birds". Solar? "Disturbs animal habitats". Nuclear? "ZOMG radiation!!1!" And so on. Their ideal is to force restrictions and sacrifices to make everyone atone for the "sins" of technology.
Anti-humanists. Similar to the previous, but usually holding that humans themselves are inherently bad and evil. This set may often intersect with the set of PETA. Will usually favor drastic, self-imposed reductions in the human population, if not voluntary extinction. Holds little regard for human life other than their own, and strangely unwilling to lead the way with their own proposals.
The hipster environmentalist. This type will typically cling to anything purporting to be "green", whether it actually is or not, because it makes them look "environmentally conscious". Politicians in this group will support purportedly "green" projects if they eithe appeal to the voter base or bring in federal funds. Se
First, I'm trying to move from windows as much as possible. This process is made difficult by the excruciating difficulty of relearning an entirely new OS and the consequent hours spent on every step of the process (see my other post regarding my home server). Don't think I'll ever move away from it completely, though, as I have a few programs for which there is no linux version available at all or within my price range, and no equivalent product exists. But for most tasks (ie, everything outside of CAD, Matlab, and a game or two) I want to move to Ubuntu.
Second, what bugs me most about Google isn't the censorship (though it does still bother, and I know MS does it too, but I don't use Bing) but the datamining of their services. Gmail, documents, calendar, and their new facebook thing... I want to transition to something else. I know I'm a little late in the game realizing this stuff, but I actually want to try and fix it. Snarky holier-than-thou replies aren't helpful.
And just to vent... if linux is so easy and ideal for everyone, why the fuck does every step of every tutorial not work? I expect every now and then that some tasks might be more difficult than others... but every single one? Say what you want about Windows, and it certainly has its faults... but at least stuff generally works the first time, without having to spend hours digging through forums, searching websites and blogs, and dicking around with config files and cryptic command line inputs at each step of the process. And that's on a fresh install, too!
Is it that big a pain to set up with decent security? I've looked at running one on the Ubuntu box I have at home (supposed to be a fancy server, but it's just a network drive at the moment), but from what I've read, the process scares me--it took me two full weekends just to get the samba shares working right and with what I hope are the proper permissions and group settings, and I spent a full day last weekend trying to get apcupsd to talk to my UPS (I get "on battery" and "power restored" messages, but I can't view status and I haven't yet gotten around to testing auto shutdown). I still need to set up remote desktop, regular backups, and hopefully some way to auto decrypt at startup... Obviously, I'm not very good with linux, so I'm afraid setting up a mail server would take me a solid month or more...
I think it has less to do with the Confederates being "good old boys" and more with (a) Lincoln's half-followed idea of trying to bring the rebels back "into the fold" and avoid the kinds of post-war vengeance that we later saw applied to Germany following WWI, and (b) that said rebellion took place almost 150 years ago. Everyone alive at the time is long since dead.
The problem's logistics... if you cancel all of that stuff, you then have half the country trying to redo their arrangements, and a whole bunch of case law to be rehashed. The simplest solution is to change the wording on government documents from "marriage" to "civil union" and open it to any pair of consenting adults. It provides a minimum of hassle and is much easier to work into existing frameworks than starting from scratch.
Yes, you can accomplish all of the stuff that comes with a marriage license through contracts, wills, legal documents, and all that, but it's easier and faster to roll the common options into one package that can later be tweaked rather than having to have everyone build it up from scratch. To use a pooor analogy, how many people really compile their own OS from source instead of just using a preassembled package and modifying it after installation?
Can anyone suggest a decent provider for email that doesn't have the privacy concerns? Should I just suck it up and move to my ISP's mail? Calendar and all that I can do without and find alternatives for easily enough, but setting up my own mail server is a fair bit beyond my experience...
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Personally, I can't take notes on a computer (it's a style thing; I don't write them in nice orderly rows and I tend to make lots of diagrams, arrows, sketches, etc), but even trying to take notes in class I was often reduced to being a "mindless stenographer." I couldn't process and think about what the professor was writing because I was too busy just trying to write it down, particularly with stuff involving heavy/high-level math. I usually wound up using the class notes not to learn from directly, but rather as references for doing the homework or making equation sheets.
I have to wonder, though, how many people who are going "oh noes... mah freedum iz under attack" would get upset if a state government suddenly abolished its concealed carry license laws and declared that any adult who can legally carry a weapon is entitled to concealed carry.
Go ask residents of Alaska or Vermont. Anyone legal to purchase and own a firearm can carry it, open or concealed, without any kind of license. I'd hardly say there's outrage about it in those states.
And really, it's open carry that tends to freak people out. It's legal in 47 of 50 states to carry concealed (the process varies by state), but only around half of them allow open carry (of which some allow open carry unlicensed, others require the license for open or concealed). There's only one state that allows open carry only. There was strong implication in Heller that carrying arms was covered under the 2nd, and mention was made that concealed carry could be prohibited because it was thought repugnant in the past and often prohibited. But, given that the recent trend is overwhemlingly towards concealed carry, both legally and in practice, I expect that a future ruling would say states must allow some form of carry, it must be shall-issue (ie, not at the arbitrary whim of an official), and can't prohibit concealed carry if they do not allow open.
I like that solution.
0. Establish a new immigration system. No arbitrary restrictions or quotas on origin; fill out your paperwork properly and pass your background check (basically, don't be a criminal) and you get your visa and, if you desire, a work permit, tax ID, and residency (after a period of time). Limited exceptions on case-by-case basis for those seeking asylum.
1. Announce new system; everyone in the country legally can apply and have their status updated. Anyone here illegally has __ months to leave, fill out paperwork properly, and re-enter. Anyone here illegally after the deadline is immediately deported and permanently barred from further entry (unless a "first offender" seeking asylum as above).
2. Secure the border. If that means a wall and armed sentries, then so be it. Everyone entering goes through a customs checkpoint. It's absurd that we demand proper security and customs facilities at airports, but get outraged that anyone even suggests monitoring land borders. It's like securing the back door to your house, but leaving the front door and garage wide open.
Benefits:
-Everyone gets proper legal protection from OSHA and FLSA. No abusive conditions go unreported because of fear of deportation.
-Everyone pays taxes. Those with families would be paying the sales and property taxes to send their kids to school, state and federal taxes would cover the roads they use, etc. Cuts down on freeloading.
Example:
The theoretical maximum efficiency of a given engine cycle may be N. This is the perfect no-losses engine.
Now, let's say that the current best-performing engine may run at an efficiency of 41% of the theoretical maximum (number chosen for illustrative purposes only; I don't know what the real value would be). The new design may run at an efficiency of 50% of theoretical maximum, which is about 20% better than the current one. That's a lot different than saying the new engine is 50% better than the old one, which would implies a new efficiency of 62% or so of theoretical.
Of course, if we set theoretical maximum as a percentage (ofcomplete energy conversion), it gets more complicated, and may even be below 50% itself.
The technology (assuming it works, which is a big if at this point) may be applicable to renewable fuels as well, particularly if those biomass-based gasoline/diesel analogs ever work out.
The thing is, you're never going to really get away from some kind of combustible fuel for some methods of transportation. Yeah, trains can be electrified, everyday commuter cars equipped with batteries, and large enough ships equipped with nuclear power... but large trucks, construction equipment, "traveling" cars used for longer distances, smaller seagoing vessels, and pretty much any aircraft larger than a Cherokee or 172 will still need something combustible, whether it's something like biodiesel, or ethanol, or algae-based. Weight and volume restrictions pretty much require something with a high energy density (and the weight reduction with consumption benefits aircraft); you won't find those with fuel cells or batteries or cryogenic hydrogen tanks.
There are several promising biomass-based fuels in development; Embry-Riddle will soon be testing a sorghum-derived fuel with better performance than regular avgas, and without the lead. Combine this with more efficient IC engines, and you'll not only reduce emissions output (carbon, toxins, particulates) but also reduce the dependency on foreign energy.
I just want shit to work right and not require hours of dicking around with before they even begin to function correctly. I don't want to spend all day poring over tutorials and man pages to install a program, finally get it installed, and run into a schrodinger-like problem--the process can't be started because it's already running, but can't be stopped because it's not running. And I want to be able to do all of it through a GUI instead of having to resort to obscure command-line inputs.
I know there's a faction around here which believes that nobody should be allowed to touch a computer unless they can compile their own OS from source, but the vast majority of potential users don't have the time (much less the mental capability) to devote to that. I'd be quite happy to switch to some flavor of linux, and I'm trying (albeit very slowly, because I do have other things to do in my life), but you just aren't going to see the converts you look for until installing and using things beyond the basic OS and prepackaged applications is as easy as it is with Windows. Yes, Windows has its faults, but at least when I go to install something or buy something like a UPS or a printer, I can install the driver/program and just expect it to work. I don't have to futz with config files or spend all afternoon tinkering with settings just to get it to run.
Basically, they need to stop worrying about color schemes, and settle on some kind of standard. Get stuff to work right the first time and not require hours of dedication to do anything past web browsing. Then, you might finally see the "average guy" converting.
Heh, I'm an engineer for an aircraft manufacturer, built a kitplane in the garage with my dad, and hold a pilot's license. But cars? I just drive them; nothing special to me. I know roughly how they work, and and usually work on them given the right tools, but they just don't get the juices flowing, if you know what I mean.
You're right, though, most people have no idea what really goes into cars or airplanes. They almost pride themselves on it.
Most people would be surprised to learn taht, up until the last decade, the average light aircraft (Cessna or Piper light single, for example) wasn't much above a 1940's tech level. Basic riveted structure, direct mechanical (no power boost) flight controls, brakes, steering. Engines were air-cooled and carbureted, with fixed ignition timing (driven by magnetos), valve timing, and manually-adjusted mixture control. Instrumentation was analog and mechanical. The most advanced equipment would have been the comm and nav radios, at maybe 1970's level, and some kind of handheld or retrofitted GPS/LORAN system. If you had an autopilot, it was also a basic analog system.
It's only recently that we've seen production light aircraft get "glass" isntrumentation, and some are even starting to come with electronic ignition and fuel control (including injection), though those are all still fitted to the same air-cooled engine blocks. The three biggest factors keeping these airplanes so expensive are (1) certification and compliance costs, including flight testing and all the paperwork, (2) lawsuits with huge damages awarded by idiot juries and sleazy lawyers who manage to point the finger at manufactuers for everything, their fault or not, and (3) no economy of scale due to 1 and 2--the vast majority of airplanes (even airliners) are still mostly hand-assembled because production rates aren't high enough to justify car-style robotic production lines.
I'm not saying they can't do it, or can't afford it... I'm saying that they don't do it because it's not profitable to the shareholders and it's not required. Anyone who's ever worked in engineering (and I'd imagine software development is the same way) knows how marketing and management tend to take precedence over sound technical reasoning, and this is no different.
That said, I don't know if you really understand what's involved in getting an FAA certification, especially a type certificate. If we're talking about really using that as a model for certifying cars, it's going to involve a lot more than you think.
Let's see... first, we'll have a federal agency dealing with the matter. Let's call it the FCA (Federal Car Administration). It is responsible for everything related to cars and driving. Think dealing with your state DMV is bad? Just wait.
Next, every car and truck on the road must have a roadworthiness certificate, which would be pretty simple to get; it just basically says "you have an engine, four wheels, and it looks kind of like a car". One-off (kit-built) and prototype cars would have an experimental cert, which might come with operating restrictions and would prohibit use for commercial purposes.
A type certificate will be required for all factory-produced vehicles. The type certificate specifies the exact configuration of the vehicle, down to each nut and bolt. It also certifies that the particular configuration meets the federal safety and performance standards. Every single variation and option, from seat cover material to sunroofs to rims, hubcaps, and stereo systems would have to be individually covered under the cert.
Finally, a production certificate for the vehicle would be needed, too. This cert basically checks off the manufacturing process and essentially says "if you follow your documented process to produce this particular vehicle, and verify that it is built correctly, the vehicle will automatically qualify for roadworthiness and be in compliance with the type certificate".
Every change to the model line, whether it's adding a new sound system option or making changes to the engine, will require that the new configuration be certified, too. For small changes, it's relatively simple, and reusing systems from older/other models does reduce the work and paperwork required, but it doesn't completely eliminate it. But major changes (new body style, new engine/transmission, EEC software upgrade, etc) will involve significantly more work. Even standard bug-fix changes ("move this hole because it's in the wrong place" or "reroute this wire because it's getting pinched") generate certification paperwork, if only to say "this change will not affect compliance with the certificate".
But that's not the end of it.
All cars on the road will require an annual inspection, to be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. All maintenance beyond things like changing the oil or rotating the tires must be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. All modifications to the vehicle will require FCA approval, and must be conducted by a federally-certified mechanic. Want to change the radio out? Want window tint? How about a cargo rack, or even a dashboard mount for your GPS? One-off mods can be approved by the local FCA field office, but mass-market mods will need a supplemental type certificate, which essentially certifies the mod as if it were a factory option. Few companies are going to invest all that effort and money. Forget buying whatever tire you want when your old ones wear out; you'll only be able to get ones on the factory-approved list. Need a replacement part? Your only option is the dealer, unless another company decides to reverse-engineer it and certify their own replacements to the same spec. You're likely to only have one or two options for things like oil filters or wiper blades. Get in a fender-bender? Too bad; you can't drive the car till it's been repaired back to spec, unless you get a one-time wa
Well, because then then the car manufacturers wouldn't be able to make new models every year--they'd have to run the same one for a while to recoup the certification costs. Marketing and design are more important, you see.
That's not to say the aircraft certification process is the greatest thing in the world; some of the requirements are a little excessive for things like four-seat piston singles, and that's one of the reasons flying is so damned expensive. That, and litigation-happy ambulance chasers with their dumb-as-rocks juries. Pilot takes off into bad weather he's trained specifically to avoid? Oops, manufacturer's fault. Poorly-maintained twenty-year-old engine or airplane breaks? Manufacturer's fault.
Cruise control isn't stupid at all. It saves my leg from cramping up (and my wallet from paying speeding tickets) while driving constant speeds down the interstate. 99.99% of my driving is to get somewhere, not just for the hell of it, and cruise control is useful for the "driving two hours on a relatively straight road at constant speed" situations. If I need better control, I just kick it off and use the clutch.
If I want to operate a vehicle just for the hell of it, and be in direct control, I'll drive to my parents' place and borrow the airplane. The only "automatic doodad" on that is the mechanical prop governor; everything else is direct, pilot-controlled mechanical linkages (pushrods and cables). Though, I would like at least an engine computer so I don't have to constantly twiddle with the mixture; it's a shame GA piston engine technology is still stuck at about a 1930's technology level. Thanks, litigation-happy society...
... is quite involved and requires careful thought. Training and procedures are important, but the best UIs should make the next step(s) in a task obvious. A symptom of an overly complex, poorly thought out UI is the high level of training and checklists needed to identify the next step(s) or locate required data. Using the flight deck model, older airplanes needed a large amount of training (and a third crew member) because all of the instrumentation and controls were just mounted on a few panels, with no guidance as to which dials and knobs would require special attention under various different flight conditions. The modern flight deck makes use of flexible displays that remain quiet (dark) until they demand attention. Then, they are presented in a manner which suits the particular task at hand. Like an automated checklist.
It's not just an issue of ergonomics. Older aircraft, even up to the DC-10/747/L-1011 era, didn't have the automation to allow two-crew operations. Engines were mechanically controlled, requiring someone to monitor temperatures, pressures, oil levels, etc. and make adjustments to keep them happy and prevent them from exceeding parameters. Cabin pressurization required monitoring, as did the electrical system. Newer aircraft, by contrast, have things like FADECs (Full-Authority Digital Engine Controller), automated monitoring and load-shedding for the electrical side, automatic cabin-pressure controls, auto-tuning radios, etc. Taken together, these mean that the pilots don't have to spend as much time watching gauges and trying to make sure they don't exceed some critical parameter, or fiddling little knobs back and forth to keep a constant pressure differential, and can instead worry about flying and navigating.
To use a car analogy, imagine having to constantly monitor and adjust choke, mixture, and ignition timing while driving... wouldn't it be easier to have someone else doing that?
Actually, it's not so simple. Major upgrades to an aircraft often have to be done all at once if that's how the upgrade is certified. You can't operate with an "in-between" configuration; if the only certified configs are "base" and "fully upgraded", well, sucks to be you.
Employers shouldn't have anything to do with health care at all. Most people get stuck with their employer's chosen plan because everything else costs so much more in comparison. Give individuals the tax break on their premiums and prohibit employers from offering plans or subsidizing coverage unless said subsidies are provider- and plan-agnostic. And get rid of the "use-it-or-lose-it" stipulation of medical savings accounts; let people save up multiple years and even withdraw it (taxed) for non-medical purposes after a given time.
Oh, and tort reform, end pre-existing conditions, crack down on poor/malicious billing practices and wrongful dismissal of claims... shit, I could be here for hours...
I think you're on to something there.
The problem is the current focus of non-commercial spaceflight--science. That is, pure science for its own sake. We spend billions of dollars on flights (manned and not) for the sake of doing "science". Now, I like science as much as the next guy--its a great thing. But spending our billions of spaceflight dollars to launch a mission just so we can watch worms wriggle around in zero gravity is a waste. It's one thing to run such experiments in the course of something larger, but as an end in themselves, they're a terrible idea.
We need to drop all the BS about "science" and "exploration" and "discoveries". The only goal of the public space program should be establishing as many permanent, self-sustaining stations and settlements as we can. Moon, Mars, asteroids, Jovian moons, 2001-style "wheel" stations, generation ships. Expand, or die.
The efforts to support this should be national level, right up there with fixing the national infrastructure and transitioning to nuclear/renewable power. I'm talking bigger than Apollo, bigger than the bailouts or the stimulus package. These ought to be the national domestic priorities, not shoveling billions of dollars down the drain for useless, ineffective social programs we've already wasted trillions on, only to pay trillions more because the first 20 years of payments were pissed away.
The first goal should be the development of a high flight rate, low-cost, robust orbital launch vehicle, because without affordable space access, you can't do anything else up there. This is what the shuttle was supposed to be, but wound up failing miserably at. Yes, it will be expensive to develop. It will probably take a few generations of vehicles and two or three decades to get it right. Offer it out to Lockheed, Boeing, EADS, N-G, SpaceX, Scaled, Dassault, even Sukhoi.
Supporting this and the future goals will take lots of engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. Add funding to existing educational money so that school systems can afford to hire existing engineers, scientists, and mathematicians at wages they will be willing to work for, and have them teach. Cut administrative and school board positions by at least two thirds, get rid of the do-nothing, know-nothing "education" majors that merely pretend to teach, and hire some retired drill sargeants to straighten up the schools with discipline problems. Give the kids a chance to work towards something worthwhile instead of glamorizing entertainers.
Once the reliable launch vehicle is in service, then you start the colonization and utilization push. Mine some asteroids, put bases on the moon and Mars, build thousand-person stations in low orbit. Set up space-based solar collectors and beam energy down to remote areas.
It comes down to this: we can sit here staring at our belly button lint for the next fifty years, or we can actually go and do something worthwhile with our lives. Doing it will be hard, it will be expensive... but sitting on our collective ass waiting for things to happen won't work. New technology doesn't jsut materialize out of thin air; someone needs to work on it.
Ok, it's hard. So was building an airplane little more than a century ago. What's your point?
Does the SpaceX contract include the delivery vehicle? Cause I really doubt that Ariane 5 figure includes an ATV.
Two weekends to click on menu -> Software -> YaSt-> System -> Software -> Samba Server, fill in a few boxes?
No, the first day or so was installing Samba and getting it to run. Day two was fixing its config. The next entire weekend was straightening out all the file permissions, getting the shares visible from all three of the other computers (and making them only visible to certain accounts), making the permissions apply to files copied into the shared drive, and so on. And lots of pounding my head on the wall trying to figure out why things weren't working the way tutorials and "helpful" postings on forums said they would. "just do this and it'll work" doesn't actually work.
And as I said before, setting up that UPS was even worse. It went something like this:
(install program, set up config file)
Start apcupsd --> cannot start, process already running
hmm...
Stop apcupsd --> no such process
WTF?! You can't start cause it's running, but you can't stop it cause it's not running? The program's name isn't schrodingersupsd...
(list processes) --> ####=apcupsd
kill #### --> process killed
start apcupsd --> started
get ups status --> no connection
hmm...
(unplug ups from wall) --> "power lost, running on battery"
Aha, so you do have a connection!
(plug in) --> "power restored"
get status --> no connection
FFFFUUUUUUUUUU----
Not to be too mean, but what's so hard about getting linux to run properly on a PC?
Getting it installed and running was fairly easy. Trying to do anything else besides browse the internet or use pre-installed programs was (and still is) a bitch. On the fileserver I set up at home, it took me two full weekends just to get the samba shares working right and with what I hope are the proper permissions and group settings, and I spent a full day last weekend trying to get apcupsd to talk to my UPS (I get "on battery" and "power restored" messages, but I can't view status and I haven't yet gotten around to testing auto shutdown). I spend probably almost half an hour researching and trying each step because a lot of the tutorials or guides are outdated or just don't work. I want to put ubuntu on my new laptop, but given the above trouble and the PITA it's been trying to set Win 7 up the way I want it, I might just pass.
I just want to see an updated run of Jasc Paintshop 6. Basic photoediting capabilities without getting rid of the "traditional" paint functions. Gimp and Photoshop are too complicated.
Thank you!!
The problem is that the vast majority of the "debate" is political. The ridiculousness is driven by several different factions, most of which cling to one end of the spectrum or another. In no particular order and with poorly-contrived names:
The left economists. These are the guys who try to use climate change as a front to push their own brand of economic and social idealism, and/or take swipes at the economic and social setups of countries they have distaste for (particularly the US, Canada, Western Europe, and other industrialized "western" countries). They will often favor things like high carbon taxes and social restrictions intended to hit large companies and those they see as "rich" in order to exact "social justice". These groups will often ignore other industrialized polluting countries (coughChinacough) because (at least in theory) they more closely match their desired socioeconomic structure and/or simply tend to oppose said "western" countries.
The oil barons. Really, this applies to the fossil fuel industry as a whole, and those who manufacture things that use said fossil fuels (like car companies). The mindset appears to be little more than "well, we have it now and it works, so why worry?" They're also the ones who oppose even modest efficiency improvements because they would "cost too much". Has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because the status quo ensures good quarterly profits.
The gluttons and the ignorant. These are the ones who completely deny that anything could be wrong simply because they can't process or understand that anything could be so. The glutton subset will even conspicuously waste resources just out of spite (run A/C with the windows open, deliberately buy the car with the lowest fuel efficiency, leave all the lights on, etc). May often be scientifically illiterate. May even claim that "God wouldn't let anything bad happen".
The simple politicists. These are found on both ends of the spectrum, and can be identified by supporting or opposing climate/energy-related ideas not on anything even remotely related, but rather because those they view as their political opposites support something else. Examples would be Republicans who oppose a given measure simply because Democrats came up with it, or those who reject proposals as "dirty hippie liberal flaming commie" ideas.
The anti-technologists. These are the super-environmentalists who view pretty much any kind of technology (even "green" tech) as somehow being inherently bad or evil. Alternatively, they may hold that man's ideal state is "living in harmony with nature", essentially equivalent to a pre-industrial agrarian society. The irony is quite amusing given how reliant they tend to be on such technology, and how ingorant they are about the grim realities of living in their ideal society. These groups will typically find a reason to oppose any proposed fix or improvement, usually on some crazy/irrational basis. "Clean" coal? "Still makes CO2". Hydroelectric? "Kills fish". Geothermal? "Causes earthquakes". Wind? "Kills birds". Solar? "Disturbs animal habitats". Nuclear? "ZOMG radiation!!1!" And so on. Their ideal is to force restrictions and sacrifices to make everyone atone for the "sins" of technology.
Anti-humanists. Similar to the previous, but usually holding that humans themselves are inherently bad and evil. This set may often intersect with the set of PETA. Will usually favor drastic, self-imposed reductions in the human population, if not voluntary extinction. Holds little regard for human life other than their own, and strangely unwilling to lead the way with their own proposals.
The hipster environmentalist. This type will typically cling to anything purporting to be "green", whether it actually is or not, because it makes them look "environmentally conscious". Politicians in this group will support purportedly "green" projects if they eithe appeal to the voter base or bring in federal funds. Se
First, I'm trying to move from windows as much as possible. This process is made difficult by the excruciating difficulty of relearning an entirely new OS and the consequent hours spent on every step of the process (see my other post regarding my home server). Don't think I'll ever move away from it completely, though, as I have a few programs for which there is no linux version available at all or within my price range, and no equivalent product exists. But for most tasks (ie, everything outside of CAD, Matlab, and a game or two) I want to move to Ubuntu.
Second, what bugs me most about Google isn't the censorship (though it does still bother, and I know MS does it too, but I don't use Bing) but the datamining of their services. Gmail, documents, calendar, and their new facebook thing... I want to transition to something else. I know I'm a little late in the game realizing this stuff, but I actually want to try and fix it. Snarky holier-than-thou replies aren't helpful.
And just to vent... if linux is so easy and ideal for everyone, why the fuck does every step of every tutorial not work? I expect every now and then that some tasks might be more difficult than others... but every single one? Say what you want about Windows, and it certainly has its faults... but at least stuff generally works the first time, without having to spend hours digging through forums, searching websites and blogs, and dicking around with config files and cryptic command line inputs at each step of the process. And that's on a fresh install, too!
Is it that big a pain to set up with decent security? I've looked at running one on the Ubuntu box I have at home (supposed to be a fancy server, but it's just a network drive at the moment), but from what I've read, the process scares me--it took me two full weekends just to get the samba shares working right and with what I hope are the proper permissions and group settings, and I spent a full day last weekend trying to get apcupsd to talk to my UPS (I get "on battery" and "power restored" messages, but I can't view status and I haven't yet gotten around to testing auto shutdown). I still need to set up remote desktop, regular backups, and hopefully some way to auto decrypt at startup... Obviously, I'm not very good with linux, so I'm afraid setting up a mail server would take me a solid month or more...
And what do you do about server downtime?
I think it has less to do with the Confederates being "good old boys" and more with (a) Lincoln's half-followed idea of trying to bring the rebels back "into the fold" and avoid the kinds of post-war vengeance that we later saw applied to Germany following WWI, and (b) that said rebellion took place almost 150 years ago. Everyone alive at the time is long since dead.
The problem's logistics... if you cancel all of that stuff, you then have half the country trying to redo their arrangements, and a whole bunch of case law to be rehashed. The simplest solution is to change the wording on government documents from "marriage" to "civil union" and open it to any pair of consenting adults. It provides a minimum of hassle and is much easier to work into existing frameworks than starting from scratch.
Yes, you can accomplish all of the stuff that comes with a marriage license through contracts, wills, legal documents, and all that, but it's easier and faster to roll the common options into one package that can later be tweaked rather than having to have everyone build it up from scratch. To use a pooor analogy, how many people really compile their own OS from source instead of just using a preassembled package and modifying it after installation?
Can anyone suggest a decent provider for email that doesn't have the privacy concerns? Should I just suck it up and move to my ISP's mail? Calendar and all that I can do without and find alternatives for easily enough, but setting up my own mail server is a fair bit beyond my experience...