All true, but at least we'd be paying the Fed employee less to screw us over. I did a stint as a DoD contractor and was paid a little more than twice what a Fed doing the same work (in the same group) was getting paid. And I was getting about a quarter of what was going to my contracting company for the position. Hell, given that math I'd be more worried about disgruntled Feds than contractors

In principle I agree with everything you said except that. If you are doing a burnout that means power is already going to the wheels and therefore the clutch is already engaged.

What you are thinking of there is what launch control systems help with (engaging the transmission at the optimal time for the best off the line start) and all of the cars I'm familiar with that have such an option also use transmission and drive line components that can handle torque values much greater than the engine (from the factory) can provide. I expect constant use, however, would shorten the lifespan of wear components (clutch, transmission fluid, etc..) considerably though.

I don't think that's really true, at least not in the near term.

Years ago I had something simple made out of steel at a local machine shop and it cost be a bloody fortune for something simple. That's the kind of stuff this will be replacing for the near term. The one off relatively simple things is where something like this printer comes into play and (good) machine shops don't live off of that type of work. What you are talking about is the higher volume and higher skill machining and that will not be replaced anytime soon by a ~$1500 machine. Hell it already hasn't been replaced by the $300,000 machines. Just look at the RepRap itself. We've had that for a few years now and I remember some of the same claims about plastic items, but people still buy all kinds of plastic crap because it can be made quicker, cheaper, and better by the places that specialize in it.

Besides all that, are your ready to trust a DIY printer to build you the barrel of a gun, a new head for your engine, or any other item that has to deal with high stress loads? If so, please stay away from me when you use them

Over time the technology will improve (assuming IP law doesn't get in the way) and of course there will come a time when there is a shift away from manual labor (as is the case with all technology), but my point is that even those machinists that are starting their apprenticeships now don't need to give it up and go learn CAD as there is going to be plenty of work for them for quite some time yet.

The GT-R (at least the original, I haven't continued to follow it) limited itself unless the GPS told it you were at a known race track and if I recall correctly one of the recent Mustangs required an extra or special key to enable it's full abilities. So it is possible to limit it's functionality in some way (read: limit their liability when you do something stupid).

You realize that there are many classes of cars in pro racing? You realize that each class (and even cars within a class) have different needs of the driver? Yes the basic concepts and principles hold true throughout, but how the vehicles handle those principles can be vastly different. Unless the guy was a Prototype driver his pro experience has little practical application to the CGT.

Also, as a "pro" he should have had the respect for the vehicle to not drive it like that in that environment (hell he should have known better than to drive any car like that in that environment).

That's not true. We have a 2001 996 C4 (~1/4 of the price of the CGT) with PSM (Porsche's stability system) and it is exceptionally good at what it is supposed to do. The problem with such systems is that they are always counter operative to driving aggressively. It's argued by the purists in the Porsche community, but PSM changed the 911 for the better as a daily driver as the cars with it are far less likely to swap ends on you. On the track, however, it has to be turned off to get the most from the car (unfortunately in the AWD models you can never fully turn it off).

So in 2004 the CGT could have had a very capable system, but they chose not to add it because it wasn't appropriate to the purpose of the car. The car is fully controllable and perfectly safe. You just have to understand what you are driving and pay absolute attention to it. It's not like we are talking about a Honda that needs to be "safe" in the hands of the least common denominator. We are talking about a $400k+ (new) purpose built car sold in very small numbers.

This case was simply a matter of someone that did not understand/respect the car doing something stupid (doubly so since he is supposedly a race driver already).

Actually no that is not why ABS is there. As you said, you can't cheat physics and removing the brakes (no matter how much of a fractional amount of time) is not going to make you stop faster.

The point of ABS is to prevent skidding which gives you better control during the braking maneuver. Once your wheels break traction and start skidding, nothing you do with your steering wheel is going to change a damn thing. The idea of ABS it to keep you from skidding so that you are still able to control the car (e.g. swerve to avoid the object that caused you to brake suddenly).

I'm not saying the other guy is right, but you've never held a real corporate job have you? Waste is rampant in all major companies and the executives responsible for it don't get fired (they may leave for "family reasons", but they take their bonuses and parachutes with them).

The problem with Michael's argument is that just because a company is in the red doesn't automatically stop waste. In fact in some cases it makes it worse as all the little fiefdoms within continue to fight for their piece regardless of how it impacts the rest of the company or if they really need it.

International spying is not a trivial thing that is solved purely by money. China, Russia, the UK, and the USA are the only major players because they are the ones that have been doing it for a long time (China is the upstart, but there are multiple reasons for their quick up take beyond just money) and continue to focus on it.

I would agree that some of those countries focus their resources in other places which indeed impacts the technical ability (both toys and ability to use them effectively) of their agencies, but if they suddenly redirected resources it wouldn't change things in the near term.

I'm sorry, but you are childishly naive about human nature if you truly believe that. For it's security a nation needs to know as much as possible about both it's friends and foes. That is an undeniable fact. The question becomes one of balance with the other things that is expected of the government. A central similarity between the main players is that they have allowed (willingly or not) their governments to go to extreme ends for "safety".

I would also point out that a few months ago the average American would have (equally naively) argued that the US doesn't go to the levels that has now been made clear. Just because a spy agency hasn't been caught doing such things doesn't mean that they aren't doing it and to trust that they aren't is sticking your head in the sand.

I'm not pretending anything. The whole point of spying is to get as much data as you can about the target. That's it. Nothing more. The problem comes into when there is little or no oversight to control how far that goes. In the US the oversight (such that it is) isn't ruled by some moral compass (and I doubt it is in most other places either). Such oversight is done through politics so each decision comes down to either "how can I benefit" or "how will this hurt me" in regards to the political career. There is no room for purity in successful politics or spying.

Actually I think the main difference is technical superiority. If the <insert country upset about the NSA that also has their own spying programs> had the same capabilities as the US, does anyone in the real world really believe that they wouldn't be doing the same damn thing? In espionage you don't say "well we could tap the phones of the leader of the target country/organization, but that wouldn't be nice so we'll just tap the low level people instead". The whole point of what any of these agencies do is to get as deep into their target as possible.

I'm not excusing some of the things the NSA has done. I'm just pointing out that there is no large scale government out there that doesn't have a spying program and those spying programs are equally as greedy as those in the US (even if they aren't as capable).

By saying that to the cop you are showing that you are aware of the situation which makes you at fault since you are showing prior knowledge. That's different than getting your speedo calibrated after the ticket and finding it under reporting. Unless they can find evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption of the later case is that you had no way to know it was broken.

I'm in VA and had a period in my younger days where I saw far too much of the inside of my local traffic courts. As such I can say that if you came to court with certified documentation that your speedometer was under reporting most judges would let you off (especially if you also brought receipts showing it was corrected). In a few cases the judge would do the math based on your calibration report and reduce the ticket to what you "thought" you were doing. I never saw such a case where the judge stuck them with the original ticket.

There was a day when those things were difficult and specialized but the tools have been made easier to use and more common over time. The same will happen with programming (and has been happening since the first program was written).

There is a difference between framing a wall in an otherwise finished house and framing the house itself. There is a difference between changing your oil and rebuilding your engine. Just because some tasks in a job really are (or should be) simple enough that anyone with a clue and the inclination can do it doesn't mean that there isn't still room for the specialists and more experienced non-specialists to do the heavy lifting.

That doesn't mean that everyone can or should code, but that doesn't mean people should fear writing a little bit of it when they find a need just like they shouldn't fear patching a hole in their drywall.

The only reason the equivalent of changing your oil isn't routine in coding is that people believe it's some mystical thing that they can't do. When it's really simple for them to "paint the walls" without having to "build the whole house" they'll do it (even if the rest of us professionals have an aneurysm over the drips and splatters). They just need the simple tools and understanding which starts with education.

It's worse than that in some places. Verizon laid the lines literally to my parents property line but decided not to go any farther even though the rest of the houses beyond that point all had signed the agreement that brought FiOS into the sub-division. So this is a case where you have half a sub-division with access to FiOS and half without.

Interestingly Verizon claimed that it was due to people not signing up in the numbers that the agreement promised, but that was at least partially due to the majority of the houses what wanted it were beyond the point where they packed it in. My dad even offered to foot the bill to have them do the last 25' to his house but they weren't interested.

And just how much of what the NSA does do you think isn't categorized as "state secrets"? Who is going to judge what really is a state secret? The same ones that approved the things we're already complaining about?

All such a law would do is make clueless people feel better, give incumbents a "see what I did for your benefit" talking point, and generate more work and cost for government offices to comply with it (even the ones that still aren't being honest).

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want such a thing to exist, i'm just pointing out the reality that it won't have the desired effect and will in fact just result in a lot of waste.