Hopefully they'll read the comments

+5, funny

I expressed these concerns back around mid 2000. IMNSHO, that's about when everything took a major wrong turn, with the neo-cons coming to the forefront.

Then name a language Cloud++ and it will fly off the shelves (even if it's a steaming mass of unicorn farts).

I am wondering why you think the energy density is low? I think it is huge, a lot more kinetic energy per square meter than faster moving, but lighter, air.(wind)

That's the problem - you can't really tap into the kinetic energy of the wave from the surface. The up-down motion of the wave is just a boundary layer height change due to a transient lateral pressure differential in the water. i.e. The water pressure is higher at this point than at a point 1 meter away, while the air pressure is the same in both spots. So the water is higher at this point, creating the height differential we call a wave. The vast majority of the energy is transmitted under the surface - even if you covered the ocean surface with a solid 100% energy-absorbing material, the wave would still propagate. The amount that'd be lost to the surface (due to harvesting) is just the difference in cross sectional area of the wave front from one end of the harvesting device to the other if the wavefront were allowed to expand upwards. Unless you're in very shallow water, the vast majority of the energy simply passes underneath your device.

So a floating structure is a terribly inefficient way to extract energy from the wave. It'd be like trying to extract wind energy using balloons which flop around in the wind. A turbine is a much more efficient way to harvest the kinetic energy, except underwater turbines tend not to last very long due to corrosion, biological fouling, and experience higher wear due to the incompressibility of water.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself why sailing ships were designed to use wind energy instead of wave energy. Waves are more consistent than wind - even when there is no wind there are frequently ocean swells which could've provided energy to propel ships. It's because average wind energy is denser than the fraction of wave energy you can extract from something bobbing on the surface.

They just ask for 15 years of experience in R&R regardless....and get it (per claims).

Several coders once told me, "you gotta learn to lie better" when I was struggling to find a new gig. Dealing with HR is a game.

C# - As a language, ignoring MS's platform-lockage API games, it seems to tick off the fewest. And one can use its brother, VB.Net, if they don't like the punctuation-heavy style and/or prefer type descriptors on the right of variable names.

If you master its "different" framework, perhaps you are right. But the problem is that the learning curve is too high. A master swordsman can probably beat a generic cop with a gun in a urban environment. However, it takes a heck of a lot of training to reach that point. Cops with guns are cheaper and easier to find and train.

JavaScript is widespread because of "QWERTY syndrome". It's available everywhere simply because it's available everywhere...unfortunately.

(It's fine for light-duty "gluing and scripting", but people are trying to do OS-like things with it.)

Ruby will probably fail to go mainstream for the same reason Lisp has. It's wonderfully flexible in that it's almost a meta language that allows you to shape your "language" into just about any construct you want.

The downside is that everybody thinks different, and shaping a language to fit your head de-fits it for other heads. Standards are often preferred because they provide consistency between individuals and teams even when they don't perfectly fit a specific situation in terms of parsimony and compactness of expression.

The lesson of the market is that inter- and and intra-team communication trumps parsimony economically, in most cases.

When will you learn to use the internets, including important features like a search engine? But frankly, I believe that your obtuseness is entirely disingenuous. You cannot have an interest in this subject and not be familiar with that phrase.

Of course they would. They'd make a profit, too. They might not be able to make the kind of fuck-you profits they make now, not least through that aforementioned creative accounting.

It's not about prevention. It's about not being able to compete with someone who is successfully gaming the system.

The radio is not a radio any more, it's a control unit (in many cases) and it changes powertrain and suspension settings. it legitimately needs to be able to communicate with stuff that's on that bus. But it should be doing it through a gateway which only permits the necessary signals...

I want remote features, but nobody should be able to drive away with the vehicle without actually having the key, and nobody should be able to reflash the vehicle without actually physically accessing it. Once they are in, though, there's very little you can do to prevent them. For cars which cost multiple thousands of dollars, it's not difficult to imagine someone spending a few hundred on a PCM and a couple hundred per model they want to steal making up a harness ahead of time which will operate any vehicle but the very fanciest without discussing starting the engine with the immobilizer at all. Preventing them from accessing it is also preventing a tech from doing so...

So they use oil to mean coal?
I do not think so...
I think they actually mean oil but have no clue that it is not really used for generation of electricity. I as does the gov lump bunker, gasoline, and diesel under oil but coal????

Not for side-to-side movements.

Bullshit. The far left is still here in the US, it's just been equated with terrists by loudmouths in red states living off tax money from blue states.

The sad part is that preventing this is really easy by following some basic principles of networking and security like properly sanitizing your inputs. But they're just not used to even having to think about that at all at the companies which build the PCMs. Some vehicles are clever enough to have a communications gateway in between systems but who trusts the gateways?