It sounds like developers didn't have experience in what they were using, and blamed the "vendor." Except, others don't have this sort of trouble.
The problem isn't linux, it is Valve's customers. Their customers are not programmers or sysadmins, and shouldn't be using linux. Linux works great for grandma to surf the web, but it only works for end-user gaming if you buy a specific combination of hardware that works well for that. And end users are not capable of making purchasing decisions that involve doing research before the purchase.
Linux is set up to work well for all common business tasks on the GUI, especially when set up by an admin. Users who don't know how to use anything, can use normal office and internet software, and can't break anything, can't cause problems for other users of a shared system, etc. Medium-skilled users who are only doing tasks in the "business, internet, and education" categories can install it themselves, easily, and have it work well.
Games that involve 3d are just not something historically that linux developers care about. 3d works great on linux though... for CAD and other workstation-type tasks. Linux users generally value being able to do something difficult and custom with the graphics than playing mass-market games. Making this all easier to use would decrease customizability if done in the way consumer OSes do it. That would be a downgrade for us and our needs.
And on the other side, there is lots of hardware that makes a good linux box that can't even run windows, or other end-user OSes.
Nobody said that linux is by "all programmers" for "all programmers" and liked by "all programmers." If you don't understand the difference... I sure hope you're not a programmer.
Your argument is like saying that Perl is unpopular with programmers, because Java developers hate it. It is nonsensical. Perl and Java are both popular with programmers. If you don't know that Linux is popular with programmers, you just don't know. And you probably don't need to know, either.
There is nothing religious about it at all. You don't need religion to care about what the OS can do for you, instead of how popular it is. That's just nuts.
We don't need you to like us. That doesn't make us religious, it is the opposite; it makes us self-sufficient.
It does not benefit us for you to agree, or join us, so your insistent argument is silly. We're not even asking you to agree. That isn't a sign that handwaving to shout us down is needed, it is just a sign that it really shouldn't matter to you. You don't need to go agro whenever somebody makes a pro-linux argument. You're not fighting for anything by opposing people's choices or opinions. Just get your own opinions, and talk about those instead of calling names.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but a lot of more serious types are going to refuse to just "plug in a driver that might work and wait a few months to decide if it is buggy." Especially when there are generally alternatives, like the one the person used. You're handwaving away their experience entirely because, "gosh, there is a kludge for that that sometimes works and internet know-it-alls will tell you the kludges are unicorns and rainbows."
To solve this problem, you would need to migrate it all to systemd, and make sure everything involved with the graphics and controllers is using compiled systemd startup modules instead of crufty old scripts.
There are too many parts, and not enough of the upstream has ported yet, so systemd can not (yet) solve this problem. But it will.
I find their responses to the public comments to be evasive, dishonest, and confrontational. They make no attempt to seriously address the issues in a way that could lead to compromise solutions or mitigation of problems.
They give a bunch of reasons for denial. And they didn't approve it and then unapprove it, either; they processed the application and denied it. The whales were captured in Russia before the permit application. Fox News would prefer it to be ambiguous so that it sounds like the big bad Gubermint is hurting everybody by changing their minds. But that didn't happen.
Remember, the default thing with importing marine mammals for public display is that you can't do it. You can't just buy a marine mammal and build an aquarium. You need special permission, because these are intelligent animals who are under continued population stress due to human activity. People have gone to great lengths to afford them some minor protections. You need to get a permit, and it needs to be in the public interest. This company seems to think that they have a right to import marine mammals, but they simply don't. That isn't a right. The government has a significant interest in regulating foreign trade.
Why does Fox News care? Because evul libraaals want to save whales.
There was no approval before the denial. They applied, the public commented, the agency considered, and they denied it. Which is what most of the public wanted in this case. I don't even understand their claim; how could they have approval already before the required public comment period, etc? It makes no sense at all. They knew the process going in; the person doing the review recommended denial, and the Agency agreed and denied. It is a requirement of the law that in order to issue such a permit, it has to not have a negative impact on the species. In this case, these are whales being captured in the wild purely to sell to zoos, and so supporting that trade has a small but negative impact on the species. There is no positive conservation goal identified that balances that. It is purely for entertainment. That is banned under the law where it has any negative impact on the species. In other cases, whales that are threatened in the wild are captured to be used in captive breeding programs that are believed to have a net positive impact on the species. That means it is legal for NOAA to issue the permit in those cases. The Beluga population is not benefiting or expected to benefit from any such breeding program.
I'm only going in as far as to say, I mentioned the airplane thing in the post you were replying to. That is where you got it. L O L *ROFLCOPTER*
You're simply wrong in trying to turn all the regulations into modifications of an expectation of privacy. You don't have an expectation of privacy anywhere that a drone would be unless it is flying indoors. Yes, there are still rules. No, the existence of those rules don't create an expectation of privacy even where you might feel like your neighborhood is more "private" if people follow those rules. It is not actually difficult to comprehend the language used.
One of the chess sites detects if the ads don't load, and sends nasty emails threatening to delete your account if you block ads. That is their right, just as blocking ads until they ban me is my right. That is just the give-and-take of Freedom.
I didn't wait to get banned, or unblock the ads, I just switched to a different site. The best chess site doesn't have ads and is membership only; none of the free-to-access ones are worth paying for, or worth crying over if they fail to make money off of a "free" service.
I spend lots of money at the stores I shop at, but they aren't ones that have large advertising budgets. And if blogs-for-profit all go bust... honestly the content quality will skyrocket. Way less noise, even if the signal appears smaller in the short term.
The funny part is, I haven't seen an ad on slashdot since the 90s, but I always re-check the box to make sure I'm in the right category; that I cast my vote as a person who can select products without advertising. It always annoys me when it finally forgets or resets the setting... even though I never saw an ad.
Right, once you're designing a custom motor instead of using one made for electric cars, then you can avoid or refute all arguments that are based on practical situations using retail equipment.
If you have magnetic bearings, then yes, magnetic coupling is a standard coupling method. And you can use standard parts, designed to work with your flywheel.
If magnetic coupling is exotic, how the heck are you going to build the custom motor?
The funny part about your "has actually been tried" comment is that yeah, it is actually in use and I probably know people that own the lemons. No, manufacturers didn't abandon it, at the prototype stage or ever. Passenger cars are just not a good use case in any common configuration. There is at least one guy in town using compressed air to power a flywheel, and the flywheel provides starting torque. He charges up with a compressor at home, and gets over 15 miles of range. Based on a French prototype. Lots of gearheads have flywheels in their garages somewhere. Not all have fancy things like vacuum packing or magnetic bearings. You actually don't need that for many use cases.
You might want to lower your nose before you drown. I "follow," yes, you have some information but don't entirely understand the context of your words.
If there is an angle where visibility is legal, then you do not have an expectation of privacy. An expectation of privacy isn't based on who is looking, it is based on having completely blocked all the angles of view, generally by being indoors with completely covered and secured windows. Outdoors, you would need to be under a cover, or you don't have any expectation of privacy, because those airplanes are authorized. The analysis is of the expectation of the person desiring privacy, not the actual location of a specific viewer. The location of the viewer becomes important when they could actually see, because it disqualifies any claim of expectation of privacy. And the person who couldn't see doesn't matter either, because you don't benefit by demonstrating a negative. You have to have a reasonable expectation that any hypothetical viewer that you don't know about cannot see you from any legal place, including that airplane. Then you can expect the result "privacy."
That does not mean that photography is allowed. There are other laws, other precedents. And in most cases, physical presence in such a location, such as reaching over a fence with a camera, is criminal trespassing. The photograph itself though might not be "illegal;" you might simply not be authorized to show anybody, because it depicts a famous person and was not taken in public or with permission. See, it is actually rather complicated. Unless the person is actually caught trespassing, it is probably a legal photograph that can't be displayed in public.
Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.
Right, that is not enough to make that horrible thing illegal.
It doesn't take just one law to ban all the things you want to ban.
That people find upskirts without permission to be offensive and contrary to the public good doesn't mean that it therefore violates any law you wave your hands and recite. You need a law that actually bans the peeping of areas that people were trying to cover with clothing. "Privacy" is a very specific legal concept with broad implications. You can't invoke it just anywhere. You can't "expect" privacy just because it is in poor taste to look up your skirt. And if it is legal to look, then it is legal to take a picture, barring some specific law. It is known there are people with poor taste in the world, so it is just not valid as something to "expect." It is just what you want to happen. So the law instead bans photography in public of parts of the body people were attempting to cover with clothing, or that a reasonable person would expect to cover their body parts.
Expecting privacy is expecting success; the anti-upskirt laws instead measure having tried.
And indeed, longtime readers of this site (like the person you borrowed the account from) remember the stories from when they arrested perverts, and then had to let them go after the Courts explained that in many States the peeping laws just weren't written in a way that covered upskirts. And in other States, the hundred-year-old laws already did ban it.
All you need to detect tow condition is an attitude sensor. Anti-roll will engage when a modern vehicle is pulled onto a tow truck while in gear, based on the wheel movement; if the car can detect the vehicle angle then it can easily note that it is "rolling" uphill and engage an anti-theft fuse or other lock-out.
You could probably add that aftermarket to most modern vehicles if you can get the anti-roll activation off the data bus.
You're forgetting the practicalities of real parts. Ohm's law is not the main thing you should be using here. You may only care about "total power," but you have to actually deliver the power at the motor voltage. There are very few devices where you can just use a different voltage, and expect it to draw the same total power. Boosting the voltage that much is going to have large switching losses and require a lot of factory-grade power supply parts. The response time won't be very good, either. Plus, leaning on the upper end of the battery current capability will lower the life of the battery. Even batteries rated for higher current levels will have their main endurance specs listed for optimal use; the high current lifespan will be much much shorter.
You will not save money or weight by using that technology, compared to a full lithium battery module. If you were going to use an under-sized battery pack, you'd still use whatever lithium module you could scrape together, not 12V car batteries. How many lithium cells can you fit into a box the size of a 12V battery, limiting yourself to the same total weight? 200V or so, with way more total power, and not only triple the rated life, but operating in the middle part of the performance capability where life is extended.
Remember, internal resistance is a real thing. And voltage conversion is not free. An expensive full-featured motor controller that is efficient under more than one exact setup is going to cost over $5000. A regular controller is going to cost around $2000.
A flywheel can provide direct mechanical force using any of a variety of standard coupling methods.
It is at least true that when buying a device you care about power. Because the design is finished and you can also compare price. But designing a device using real parts, there are a whole bunch of extra terms in the real equations because of the internal resistances and other physical properties of things. It is not actually symmetrical and perfect as you imply.
The economy has recovered, according to all the above. Except you didn't get shit unless you're part of the 1%, who are now really the middle class.
The 99% are just working class schumcks, or worse off than that, living of table scraps.
"Same as it ever was," as they say.
Sounds like a recovery to me! Star Trek style post-scarcity socialism has not arrived. I'm not surprised, because we would have had to vote on changes that big. And here in the US we would have to change most of Congress and 75% of the State legislatures to have any chance at that sort of thing. So I can be confident that I'll know about it before it happens.
In defense of those living off of scraps, they're usually doing so as a lifestyle choice because they don't like the life of a schmuck. It is a valid choice IMO. They might be better off than the schmucks, if they know their scraps anyways. But anybody who desires the schmuck life can get a crap job now. People who don't should be happy; if they're still whining, maybe they should just get one of the jobs that is available? There are worker shortages right now, not high unemployment.
They're probably just in shock that they're not privileged angels, they're just regular humans like past generations, and start work at the bottom.
Statistics say the unemployment rate is low, and longterm unemployed are mostly disgruntled middle aged and older workers whose industries have automated.
If you don't know there are jobs available, you're simply not looking. Maybe you already have a job, and have a young relative who doesn't like to work who tells you there is nothing available.;) If they can pass a drug test and have an IQ over 100 (average is 110) they can become a trade apprentice in a solid trade like HVAC repair. There is a shortage of workers who are not on drugs, can read, do basic math, and follow a checklist in order.
Right, TJ leaves out all the fancy European brands. They don't have the same selection, but they have a high quality offering for each product type. If you just want a high quality fair trade organic whatthewhat they will probably have it. If you want Fancy Brand X, they won't.
As far as moving to the NW, our culture and climate are different enough to the rest of the country that you probably either need to move here, or need not to.;)
You apparently can't find the internet to check before making up numbers, but the US median income is $50,500. You're off by... a lot!
And yes, you can not only buy a new car for $8k, there are a few of them at that price. Spring for a full 3 months salary and the selection more than doubles.
If a person has even 6 months of savings, they can buy a used car with cash. That is true even for working class people making 15k. If you can't buy a used car without debt, you're flat broke already and should probably buy an electric-assist bicycle.
The funny part is that the poorest people I know are also the least likely to buy a used car on credit, because they know the value of money and are poor as a lifestyle choice. (eg, they don't want to chase money with their time) If you can't afford a used car, how can you afford to over-pay by giving the bankers a handout? Maybe buy less car, and save towards having a 6 month security layer. Entry level used cars are under $1000. If you're willing to drive something ugly, you can get something mechanically sound at that price.
Yeah, but is just saying "you can't time the market." Everybody knows that. The price wouldn't be low during a fake-crash if everybody could just treat it like a fire sale. You have to be rich to do that. It is why the rich love cycles and hate those "liberal" economists and their boom-bust-breaking Keynsianisms.
But for the cost and weight, a battery is better than a flywheel in essentially every aspect. For however much you reduce the required size of a flywheel, you can reduce the battery size as well.
Battery systems are damn close to 100% efficient if you're not too close to fully charged or fully discharged, or not diving the current much higher than 1.0C.
There is no advantage to using a flywheel at all. None. =Smidge=
The advantage to using a flywheel is that the voltage needed for a battery system is very high, so you need a large number of cells to do anything useful. With a fuel cell setup you don't already have a big battery pack. Often an EV battery pack is 500V. A small flywheel to replace regenerative braking can be useful in that setup, because it is displacing a minimum size full battery pack. They don't really make tiny high voltage battery modules, you'd have to use the minimum size one from a hybrid with a matching motor voltage. If you just boost the voltage using normal means like a switch mode boost power supply, you won't have enough current for it to make sense. The internal resistance of batteries combined with the acceleration use case, you just have to have a module with a lot of cells, since each cell has a fixed (low) voltage.
You're right in that it isn't a good choice; battery technology has moved forwards faster than fuel cells. I thought fuel cells would get there first, but they didn't. That's how non-optimal fuel cells are for cars; they make a flywheel make sense! lol
Yeah, but considering the cost and weight of an armored flywheel shell, you're not going to save money; part of what people usually want from the thing. If you only want efficiency, you're not using a flywheel, you're going full electric with an AC motor and regenerative braking. Air resistance should be low though, even with no case. Shaft friction is going to be high enough that air resistance won't have time to become a problem. You could install giant magnets to avoid bearings, but you're not saving power.;)
The only practicable solution is to accept the (very small) increase in risk and try to place the flywheel well.
No, that is just damage, the same as any other damage to a used car. Stolen cars are rarely sold, they're usually driven by the thief for a few days and abandoned. There is almost no "black market" for stolen cars. Most of them get parted out, and the parts are then sold on the "grey market" because individual parts are not traceable and don't require paperwork. Cars that are sold on the black market have to have all their numbers changed, which requires a "chop shop" that is actually just a regular auto shop. They can fix any damage. It would be minor, like a door window, or some door trim.
A car stereo, now that sells better without damage. There is a significant black market because the parts are marked with serial numbers. A car stereo sells better without damage, because it is small enough that if it looks normal, maybe nobody checks. A whole car? The bucket seats are each worth more than the car stereo, because they don't have serial numbers. You get full used price for seats. And almost the whole car. The car stereo gets thrown out, it has little value.
I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.
Sure, sure, take over the world, institute Global Government, and enforce that law.
There is no realistic way to stop satellites. And the resolution will improve.
Drones, well, in my State we have direct democracy and the people could change the rules if it becomes seen as a problem. I'm assuming it will come up soon as prices come down and flight control improves. But there won't be any way to stop people from flying vertically over their own property to film yours. Rights are a two way street, it isn't your business if your neighbor is into photography and likes to photograph what is visible from their property. But banning them from flying over residential fence lines is likely, at least in some places.
Tall hedges and plentiful shade trees might help with both problems. Prevention works whenever you can make it work. Privacy isn't expected, it is only achieved. Or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Server OSes require constant system administration now?
Yes.
# uptime
18:34:03 up 168 days, 17:18, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.05, 0.05
I end up having to reboot almost every year these days. It is nearly constant. Gone are the 90s and multiple years of uptime.
It sounds like developers didn't have experience in what they were using, and blamed the "vendor." Except, others don't have this sort of trouble.
The problem isn't linux, it is Valve's customers. Their customers are not programmers or sysadmins, and shouldn't be using linux. Linux works great for grandma to surf the web, but it only works for end-user gaming if you buy a specific combination of hardware that works well for that. And end users are not capable of making purchasing decisions that involve doing research before the purchase.
Linux is set up to work well for all common business tasks on the GUI, especially when set up by an admin. Users who don't know how to use anything, can use normal office and internet software, and can't break anything, can't cause problems for other users of a shared system, etc. Medium-skilled users who are only doing tasks in the "business, internet, and education" categories can install it themselves, easily, and have it work well.
Games that involve 3d are just not something historically that linux developers care about. 3d works great on linux though... for CAD and other workstation-type tasks. Linux users generally value being able to do something difficult and custom with the graphics than playing mass-market games. Making this all easier to use would decrease customizability if done in the way consumer OSes do it. That would be a downgrade for us and our needs.
And on the other side, there is lots of hardware that makes a good linux box that can't even run windows, or other end-user OSes.
Nobody said that linux is by "all programmers" for "all programmers" and liked by "all programmers." If you don't understand the difference... I sure hope you're not a programmer.
Your argument is like saying that Perl is unpopular with programmers, because Java developers hate it. It is nonsensical. Perl and Java are both popular with programmers. If you don't know that Linux is popular with programmers, you just don't know. And you probably don't need to know, either.
There is nothing religious about it at all. You don't need religion to care about what the OS can do for you, instead of how popular it is. That's just nuts.
We don't need you to like us. That doesn't make us religious, it is the opposite; it makes us self-sufficient.
It does not benefit us for you to agree, or join us, so your insistent argument is silly. We're not even asking you to agree. That isn't a sign that handwaving to shout us down is needed, it is just a sign that it really shouldn't matter to you. You don't need to go agro whenever somebody makes a pro-linux argument. You're not fighting for anything by opposing people's choices or opinions. Just get your own opinions, and talk about those instead of calling names.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but a lot of more serious types are going to refuse to just "plug in a driver that might work and wait a few months to decide if it is buggy." Especially when there are generally alternatives, like the one the person used. You're handwaving away their experience entirely because, "gosh, there is a kludge for that that sometimes works and internet know-it-alls will tell you the kludges are unicorns and rainbows."
To solve this problem, you would need to migrate it all to systemd, and make sure everything involved with the graphics and controllers is using compiled systemd startup modules instead of crufty old scripts.
There are too many parts, and not enough of the upstream has ported yet, so systemd can not (yet) solve this problem. But it will.
Well, don't just blindly trust the Fox News story here.
As to the claim that they didn't give reasons...
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...
All of the documents are there, including the public comment, and the response from the company to the public comments, and the denial letter.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...
I find their responses to the public comments to be evasive, dishonest, and confrontational. They make no attempt to seriously address the issues in a way that could lead to compromise solutions or mitigation of problems.
They give a bunch of reasons for denial. And they didn't approve it and then unapprove it, either; they processed the application and denied it. The whales were captured in Russia before the permit application. Fox News would prefer it to be ambiguous so that it sounds like the big bad Gubermint is hurting everybody by changing their minds. But that didn't happen.
Remember, the default thing with importing marine mammals for public display is that you can't do it. You can't just buy a marine mammal and build an aquarium. You need special permission, because these are intelligent animals who are under continued population stress due to human activity. People have gone to great lengths to afford them some minor protections. You need to get a permit, and it needs to be in the public interest. This company seems to think that they have a right to import marine mammals, but they simply don't. That isn't a right. The government has a significant interest in regulating foreign trade.
Why does Fox News care? Because evul libraaals want to save whales.
https://www.change.org/p/noaa-...
There was no approval before the denial. They applied, the public commented, the agency considered, and they denied it. Which is what most of the public wanted in this case. I don't even understand their claim; how could they have approval already before the required public comment period, etc? It makes no sense at all. They knew the process going in; the person doing the review recommended denial, and the Agency agreed and denied. It is a requirement of the law that in order to issue such a permit, it has to not have a negative impact on the species. In this case, these are whales being captured in the wild purely to sell to zoos, and so supporting that trade has a small but negative impact on the species. There is no positive conservation goal identified that balances that. It is purely for entertainment. That is banned under the law where it has any negative impact on the species. In other cases, whales that are threatened in the wild are captured to be used in captive breeding programs that are believed to have a net positive impact on the species. That means it is legal for NOAA to issue the permit in those cases. The Beluga population is not benefiting or expected to benefit from any such breeding program.
I'm only going in as far as to say, I mentioned the airplane thing in the post you were replying to. That is where you got it. L O L *ROFLCOPTER*
You're simply wrong in trying to turn all the regulations into modifications of an expectation of privacy. You don't have an expectation of privacy anywhere that a drone would be unless it is flying indoors. Yes, there are still rules. No, the existence of those rules don't create an expectation of privacy even where you might feel like your neighborhood is more "private" if people follow those rules. It is not actually difficult to comprehend the language used.
This. Very this.
One of the chess sites detects if the ads don't load, and sends nasty emails threatening to delete your account if you block ads. That is their right, just as blocking ads until they ban me is my right. That is just the give-and-take of Freedom.
I didn't wait to get banned, or unblock the ads, I just switched to a different site. The best chess site doesn't have ads and is membership only; none of the free-to-access ones are worth paying for, or worth crying over if they fail to make money off of a "free" service.
I spend lots of money at the stores I shop at, but they aren't ones that have large advertising budgets. And if blogs-for-profit all go bust... honestly the content quality will skyrocket. Way less noise, even if the signal appears smaller in the short term.
The funny part is, I haven't seen an ad on slashdot since the 90s, but I always re-check the box to make sure I'm in the right category; that I cast my vote as a person who can select products without advertising. It always annoys me when it finally forgets or resets the setting... even though I never saw an ad.
Right, once you're designing a custom motor instead of using one made for electric cars, then you can avoid or refute all arguments that are based on practical situations using retail equipment.
If you have magnetic bearings, then yes, magnetic coupling is a standard coupling method. And you can use standard parts, designed to work with your flywheel.
If magnetic coupling is exotic, how the heck are you going to build the custom motor?
The funny part about your "has actually been tried" comment is that yeah, it is actually in use and I probably know people that own the lemons. No, manufacturers didn't abandon it, at the prototype stage or ever. Passenger cars are just not a good use case in any common configuration. There is at least one guy in town using compressed air to power a flywheel, and the flywheel provides starting torque. He charges up with a compressor at home, and gets over 15 miles of range. Based on a French prototype. Lots of gearheads have flywheels in their garages somewhere. Not all have fancy things like vacuum packing or magnetic bearings. You actually don't need that for many use cases.
You might want to lower your nose before you drown. I "follow," yes, you have some information but don't entirely understand the context of your words.
If there is an angle where visibility is legal, then you do not have an expectation of privacy. An expectation of privacy isn't based on who is looking, it is based on having completely blocked all the angles of view, generally by being indoors with completely covered and secured windows. Outdoors, you would need to be under a cover, or you don't have any expectation of privacy, because those airplanes are authorized. The analysis is of the expectation of the person desiring privacy, not the actual location of a specific viewer. The location of the viewer becomes important when they could actually see, because it disqualifies any claim of expectation of privacy. And the person who couldn't see doesn't matter either, because you don't benefit by demonstrating a negative. You have to have a reasonable expectation that any hypothetical viewer that you don't know about cannot see you from any legal place, including that airplane. Then you can expect the result "privacy."
That does not mean that photography is allowed. There are other laws, other precedents. And in most cases, physical presence in such a location, such as reaching over a fence with a camera, is criminal trespassing. The photograph itself though might not be "illegal;" you might simply not be authorized to show anybody, because it depicts a famous person and was not taken in public or with permission. See, it is actually rather complicated. Unless the person is actually caught trespassing, it is probably a legal photograph that can't be displayed in public.
Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.
Right, that is not enough to make that horrible thing illegal.
It doesn't take just one law to ban all the things you want to ban.
That people find upskirts without permission to be offensive and contrary to the public good doesn't mean that it therefore violates any law you wave your hands and recite. You need a law that actually bans the peeping of areas that people were trying to cover with clothing. "Privacy" is a very specific legal concept with broad implications. You can't invoke it just anywhere. You can't "expect" privacy just because it is in poor taste to look up your skirt. And if it is legal to look, then it is legal to take a picture, barring some specific law. It is known there are people with poor taste in the world, so it is just not valid as something to "expect." It is just what you want to happen. So the law instead bans photography in public of parts of the body people were attempting to cover with clothing, or that a reasonable person would expect to cover their body parts.
Expecting privacy is expecting success; the anti-upskirt laws instead measure having tried.
And indeed, longtime readers of this site (like the person you borrowed the account from) remember the stories from when they arrested perverts, and then had to let them go after the Courts explained that in many States the peeping laws just weren't written in a way that covered upskirts. And in other States, the hundred-year-old laws already did ban it.
All you need to detect tow condition is an attitude sensor. Anti-roll will engage when a modern vehicle is pulled onto a tow truck while in gear, based on the wheel movement; if the car can detect the vehicle angle then it can easily note that it is "rolling" uphill and engage an anti-theft fuse or other lock-out.
You could probably add that aftermarket to most modern vehicles if you can get the anti-roll activation off the data bus.
You're forgetting the practicalities of real parts. Ohm's law is not the main thing you should be using here. You may only care about "total power," but you have to actually deliver the power at the motor voltage. There are very few devices where you can just use a different voltage, and expect it to draw the same total power. Boosting the voltage that much is going to have large switching losses and require a lot of factory-grade power supply parts. The response time won't be very good, either. Plus, leaning on the upper end of the battery current capability will lower the life of the battery. Even batteries rated for higher current levels will have their main endurance specs listed for optimal use; the high current lifespan will be much much shorter.
You will not save money or weight by using that technology, compared to a full lithium battery module. If you were going to use an under-sized battery pack, you'd still use whatever lithium module you could scrape together, not 12V car batteries. How many lithium cells can you fit into a box the size of a 12V battery, limiting yourself to the same total weight? 200V or so, with way more total power, and not only triple the rated life, but operating in the middle part of the performance capability where life is extended.
Remember, internal resistance is a real thing. And voltage conversion is not free. An expensive full-featured motor controller that is efficient under more than one exact setup is going to cost over $5000. A regular controller is going to cost around $2000.
A flywheel can provide direct mechanical force using any of a variety of standard coupling methods.
It is at least true that when buying a device you care about power. Because the design is finished and you can also compare price. But designing a device using real parts, there are a whole bunch of extra terms in the real equations because of the internal resistances and other physical properties of things. It is not actually symmetrical and perfect as you imply.
Spoiler alert: they already installed them every few miles in whole US regions. ;) Almost every strip mall already has one.
Maybe you have an unrealistic image of how much money $10k is?
The economy has recovered, according to all the above. Except you didn't get shit unless you're part of the 1%, who are now really the middle class.
The 99% are just working class schumcks, or worse off than that, living of table scraps.
"Same as it ever was," as they say.
Sounds like a recovery to me! Star Trek style post-scarcity socialism has not arrived. I'm not surprised, because we would have had to vote on changes that big. And here in the US we would have to change most of Congress and 75% of the State legislatures to have any chance at that sort of thing. So I can be confident that I'll know about it before it happens.
In defense of those living off of scraps, they're usually doing so as a lifestyle choice because they don't like the life of a schmuck. It is a valid choice IMO. They might be better off than the schmucks, if they know their scraps anyways. But anybody who desires the schmuck life can get a crap job now. People who don't should be happy; if they're still whining, maybe they should just get one of the jobs that is available? There are worker shortages right now, not high unemployment.
They're probably just in shock that they're not privileged angels, they're just regular humans like past generations, and start work at the bottom.
Statistics say the unemployment rate is low, and longterm unemployed are mostly disgruntled middle aged and older workers whose industries have automated.
If you don't know there are jobs available, you're simply not looking. Maybe you already have a job, and have a young relative who doesn't like to work who tells you there is nothing available. ;) If they can pass a drug test and have an IQ over 100 (average is 110) they can become a trade apprentice in a solid trade like HVAC repair. There is a shortage of workers who are not on drugs, can read, do basic math, and follow a checklist in order.
Right, TJ leaves out all the fancy European brands. They don't have the same selection, but they have a high quality offering for each product type. If you just want a high quality fair trade organic whatthewhat they will probably have it. If you want Fancy Brand X, they won't.
As far as moving to the NW, our culture and climate are different enough to the rest of the country that you probably either need to move here, or need not to. ;)
You apparently can't find the internet to check before making up numbers, but the US median income is $50,500. You're off by... a lot!
And yes, you can not only buy a new car for $8k, there are a few of them at that price. Spring for a full 3 months salary and the selection more than doubles.
If a person has even 6 months of savings, they can buy a used car with cash. That is true even for working class people making 15k. If you can't buy a used car without debt, you're flat broke already and should probably buy an electric-assist bicycle.
The funny part is that the poorest people I know are also the least likely to buy a used car on credit, because they know the value of money and are poor as a lifestyle choice. (eg, they don't want to chase money with their time) If you can't afford a used car, how can you afford to over-pay by giving the bankers a handout? Maybe buy less car, and save towards having a 6 month security layer. Entry level used cars are under $1000. If you're willing to drive something ugly, you can get something mechanically sound at that price.
Yeah, but is just saying "you can't time the market." Everybody knows that. The price wouldn't be low during a fake-crash if everybody could just treat it like a fire sale. You have to be rich to do that. It is why the rich love cycles and hate those "liberal" economists and their boom-bust-breaking Keynsianisms.
But for the cost and weight, a battery is better than a flywheel in essentially every aspect. For however much you reduce the required size of a flywheel, you can reduce the battery size as well.
Battery systems are damn close to 100% efficient if you're not too close to fully charged or fully discharged, or not diving the current much higher than 1.0C.
There is no advantage to using a flywheel at all. None.
=Smidge=
The advantage to using a flywheel is that the voltage needed for a battery system is very high, so you need a large number of cells to do anything useful. With a fuel cell setup you don't already have a big battery pack. Often an EV battery pack is 500V. A small flywheel to replace regenerative braking can be useful in that setup, because it is displacing a minimum size full battery pack. They don't really make tiny high voltage battery modules, you'd have to use the minimum size one from a hybrid with a matching motor voltage. If you just boost the voltage using normal means like a switch mode boost power supply, you won't have enough current for it to make sense. The internal resistance of batteries combined with the acceleration use case, you just have to have a module with a lot of cells, since each cell has a fixed (low) voltage.
You're right in that it isn't a good choice; battery technology has moved forwards faster than fuel cells. I thought fuel cells would get there first, but they didn't. That's how non-optimal fuel cells are for cars; they make a flywheel make sense! lol
Yeah, but considering the cost and weight of an armored flywheel shell, you're not going to save money; part of what people usually want from the thing. If you only want efficiency, you're not using a flywheel, you're going full electric with an AC motor and regenerative braking. Air resistance should be low though, even with no case. Shaft friction is going to be high enough that air resistance won't have time to become a problem. You could install giant magnets to avoid bearings, but you're not saving power. ;)
The only practicable solution is to accept the (very small) increase in risk and try to place the flywheel well.
No, that is just damage, the same as any other damage to a used car. Stolen cars are rarely sold, they're usually driven by the thief for a few days and abandoned. There is almost no "black market" for stolen cars. Most of them get parted out, and the parts are then sold on the "grey market" because individual parts are not traceable and don't require paperwork. Cars that are sold on the black market have to have all their numbers changed, which requires a "chop shop" that is actually just a regular auto shop. They can fix any damage. It would be minor, like a door window, or some door trim.
A car stereo, now that sells better without damage. There is a significant black market because the parts are marked with serial numbers. A car stereo sells better without damage, because it is small enough that if it looks normal, maybe nobody checks. A whole car? The bucket seats are each worth more than the car stereo, because they don't have serial numbers. You get full used price for seats. And almost the whole car. The car stereo gets thrown out, it has little value.
I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.
Sure, sure, take over the world, institute Global Government, and enforce that law.
There is no realistic way to stop satellites. And the resolution will improve.
Drones, well, in my State we have direct democracy and the people could change the rules if it becomes seen as a problem. I'm assuming it will come up soon as prices come down and flight control improves. But there won't be any way to stop people from flying vertically over their own property to film yours. Rights are a two way street, it isn't your business if your neighbor is into photography and likes to photograph what is visible from their property. But banning them from flying over residential fence lines is likely, at least in some places.
Tall hedges and plentiful shade trees might help with both problems. Prevention works whenever you can make it work. Privacy isn't expected, it is only achieved. Or not.
Because then you know it doesn't work. Would you put some faith in the healing effect of something labeled "sugar pills"?
If the label says "sugar pills" then the placebo effect will likely not manifest except for illiterates.