You could make a film about a pile of dead body parts assembled into the form of a man being shocked by lightning and being given the will to live. You could even add some wanton violence and philosophical questions of existence to make the story interesting.
Uhhh...just FYI? Rohm and the SA leadership were pretty much ALL gay and Hitler and pals didn't have a problem with it until Rohm started talking about a "second revolution" because he thought "the little colonel" had betrayed the socialist part of national socialism, just FYI.
Hitler had a pretty firm "babies good, homosexuals bad" policy for the common folk. Rohm was a party insider long before Hitler was elected Chancellor; in general, Hitler was pretty willing to give special treatment to party insiders, even ones less senior than Rohm. Even so, I'm not aware of any other SA leaders who got a pass for the same reason; care to name names?
For that matter, Hitler's family doctor Eduard Bloch was Jewish, and he got special treatment too (only Jew in Linz with special protection from the Gestapo, notes Wikipedia). Adolf reportedly had quite the soft spot for him after he did everything he could to treat Klara Hitler's rather horrifically advanced breast cancer, despite her financial hardship. Basically, Hitler was a giant hypocrite who tried to ignore the brutality of his own policies by shielding only the people he cared about and could personally see suffering from them.
So don't live in the US -- I'm sure there is a nanny-state that is more to your liking.
In Ohio, I don't need a permit to own and bear a gun.
I need a permit to conceal a gun. Open-carry is, and has been, legal here: It's perfectly legal for me to wander around downtown with an old-Western style gunbelt and a couple of revolvers on my hips, as long as they're not concealed.
(Or an AR-15, or a shotgun, or......)
Wireless data is not universal with regard to police agencies.
Around here, it is necessary for them to speak into the radio to dispatch. A dispatcher then performs the LEADS request and relays back (again, using their own voice) whatever details seem pertinent.
(Disclaimer: I learned a lot more about how cops operate by working with and around them, than by watching them on TV.)
But much as car manufacturers change the cosmetics of cars each year to sell new models to people who don't really need to replace their old ones, we can expect Microsoft, Apple, Dell, et. al. to continue to change the cosmetics to convince us to "upgrade".
I have been stocking up on car analogies for years in preparation for exactly this moment.
PCs are going to be like trucks. They are still going to be around
So decades after they've almost vanished from mainstream use, they'll suddenly become faddish again, and manufacturers will be competing with each other to see who can build the biggest box to take up the most space on the desktop? Cool. I can't wait for the resurgence of 50-pound CRTs.
I know I'll get marked as a troll for this
"Mod me up! Mod me up!"
from the euro-centric crowd, but this is exactly why you embrace freedom-loving society and not authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe. As John Green has said, you cannot declare war on an idea or noun because nouns are so amazingly resilient.
Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you'd left off the second sentence there. The freedom-loving US has declared "War on $NON_MATERIAL_THING" more often than any other country I can think of.
Thank you for summing up the state of affairs. You've done better than most.
Inertial guidance isn't so far-fetched. Ridiculously-small accelerometers are getting mighty good, as are tiny gyroscopes (both of which can be found in many modern smartphones, sipping very little power indeed). Combine both of them with sufficient resolution, and you've got inertial guidance.
Combine that with other signals (constant transmitters of any type, including local TV and radio stations... even Wifi AP broadcasts are well-mapped in populated areas, and such maps can be trivially augmented with accumulated data collected by other drones in-flight) and an altimeter (also included on many new phones) and the system will be quite secure enough to drop off a package of goods in the absence of GPS.
It will be computationally-expensive, but low-power CPUs are increasingly ridiculously fast, and software-defined radios ridiculously easy, and solid-state storage density keeps getting better. A drone could have its own map of how the RF landscape looks, and follow it to the target without any GPS at all, and the energy required to do so would be dwarfed by the energy required to simply keep the thing aloft.
With all of these data inputs and the energy required to survey, triangulate, and use, any intentional jamming ("DOS") will have to be tailored to the specific area of operation: This makes an out-of-the-box solution impossible.
And that jamming device (or devices) will be very easy to locate, given one or more clueful person, a suitable directional antenna, the most modest of spectrum analyzers, and drivers to ferry them about.
And since Amazon's drone proposal is not a wartime mechanism, the findings can be simply reported to LEO to take care of it. It's not the end of the world if someone's diaper delivery winds up on some miscreant's stoop instead, or if the service is down for a few hours while a bunch of jack-booted thugs ("police") find and disable the ridiculously well-honed jamming device.
In summation: Sensors are cheap enough and there is enough RF floating around in the populated areas of the US where drone delivery could ever be a viable option, that low-altitude drone navigation ought to be a very secure system by default, GPS availability or not. You'd have to jam everything at once (a spark gap can do that), but you'll be easy to find.
And detecting GPS falsing is easy, too: "Hmm. GPS says I'm here, but most of the other indications are that I'm way the hell over there. I'll trust the other sensors, since GPS is obviously not working." (The same works in the opposite direction, too.)
You're forgetting something important: Radio is traditionally used for broadcast and does not traditionally suffer the problems of long-range point-to-point Wifi links.
Who said Amazon's drones would be controlled with Wifi, anyway? There's a myriad of other ways of efficient, reliable, low-speed (and inefficient, less reliable, high-speed) wireless technologies.
Remember POCSAG? It's what is (still!) used for 1-way alphanumeric pagers. It's plenty fast enough to tell a swarm of drones where to go, and can have a high-power transmitter in a singular fixed location that can easily cover ten miles of range. A POCSAG receiver can run for weeks or months from a single AA battery: It is perhaps the most ideal solution.
Talking back to home base is a bit more challenging, but with the pervasiveness of cellular data should not be a big deal (and the cellular radio can be turned completely off once the communications are sent).
(Disclaimer: I install and maintain paging terminals. Everyone wants their smartphone to do everything, as well they should, and everyone is rightfully obsessed with Wifi...but there's no better alternative to a pager when lives are on the line (hospitals) or when production problems happen (factories) than a paging terminal with a real power amplifier and a gain antenna, with zero dependance on services provided by the outside world. 10 miles is -easy-. Trivial, even. Add a little bit of well-understood public-key encryption, and gosh: You've got a secure, low-speed wide-area control channel for your army of drones. It can be jammed with intentional interference, but control cannot be taken over without Hard Math.)
(Also: Although it doesn't seem like it these days, one can send an awful lot of Real Data in a short time at 9,600bps.)
Apartments are easy! Just drop it on the communal stoop, wait for someone to steal the package, and send an SMS alert about "successful delivery" some hours later.
Just like it works right now, with UPS, USPS, FedEx [...].
(Speaking of SMS delivery alerts: A decade or more ago, I was getting delivery alerts in near real-time to my (then) fancy-pants alphanumeric pager (via SMTP). I'd greet the driver at the door, and usually by the time I was unboxing the stuff my pager would go off.
What happened to the timeliness of this stuff? It's been terrible for the past few years.)
You're purposefully ignoring the obvious.
People often thumb-fuck their phone for a bit, and then hold it to their ear as if to listen to it (voice mail, a phone call, whatever). Their eyes thus freed from the burden of staring into the screen, they may tend to look around, often changing their entire posture and pivoting their whole head...including the phone.
Someone intent on recording/filming/photographing you need only act like any of these people. My own smartphone's camera can be activated screen-off, using the volume buttons on the side, which is the natural spot for my thumb to rest when holding the device to my right ear. To the casual observer, it will appear that I am on a phone call, or waiting on hold. If I want to make it extra obvious that I'm on a (fake) phone call, I can talk to myself while I do this.
High-quality video? Not necessarily, but it should be about as stable as any other head-mounted camera without a viewfinder. Accomplishing this is more about motivation than practice (and with motivation comes practice, so there's that).
Meanwhile, in all cases, post-process video stabilization will help. It is far from perfect, but -is- completely trivial. (Youtube offers this service for free.)
And finally, with Google Glass, I'd have to keep my head facing you the whole time: Folks are trained to ignore the casual and ubiquitous smart phone user, but I'm not sure that we're anywhere near the point where being actively stared at is so easily-overlooked.
(That said, I think you're right in that nobody really cares to film those around them. If I had Google Glass, I wouldn't spend much time filming my surroundings with it. Battery life, slowdowns, storage/network availability, video management, etc etc etc. But a motivated person is more worrisome to me than a casual person.)
...I've already demonstrated the existence of ASC (which is simply BMW's naming for their early "stability control" system) in 1993, not 1994. But you're keen on ignoring facts.
The rest of what you wrote exemplifies the point: With about 10 years of progress in the field and Moore's law at play, still the Carrera GT apparently did not include any such system.
This is not a technological problem, but a design problem: The Carrera GT already had ABS brakes. It is plain to me that they simply didn't want the extra mechanical complication that comes with such systems.
BMW, for instance, was fond of using an extra throttle body inline with the normal cable-operated throttle. This extra throttle existed only to reduce engine output in response to the ASC's decision of something being amiss. Such "extra parts" and intake restrictions may be frowned upon in an allegedly race-ready supercar, being easily trumped by simplicity, weight savings, and getting rid of any superfluous intake restrictions.
Fly-by-wire throttle gets rid of some of these issues. It is unclear to me if the Carerra GT had that, or conventional cable-operated throttle(s).
Furthermore, you understate the utility of even the early BMW system. Even in 1993, it worked rather miraculously. I've repeatably rounded bends on freshly frozen, sun-polished ice at speeds that would've left most other cars in a ditch (or indeed, even the same car with ASC disabled) without any drama other than a bit of grunt from the ABS pump and the odd sensation that the throttle was not entirely under my own control. The car tracked neatly around the corner with my foot on the throttle pedal.
Low speed example? Yes. Fast forward, add about a decade of computing improvements, and doing the same thing in a much lighter, 600HP car is not so daunting: The physics involved don't care what the maximum engine output is, only that it can be reduced.
BMW used DSC (a later version of ASC) in the E39 M5, which had ~400HP at the crank and eight fly-by-wire throttles. Production of this model was finished in 2003.
Later M5s offered more power, and still had stability control.
So, plainly, the opportunity was there for a higher-powered car to have stability control while the Carrera GT was still in the planning stage. Porsche themselves are no stranger to stability control: They call their own system "PSM."
In conclusion: Either Porsche is inept and, you know, just couldn't figure it out (which I doubt: It takes lots of very smart people and truckloads of cash to get a car like that onto the street), or it was a simple design decision to help foster the notion of the car being a stripped-down, race-ready package of awesome ridiculousness. (Please choose only one.)
So stay in Vancouver and smoke your real Cohibas.
I am not a physicist.
But I keep hearing that there is actually nothing mysterious about entanglement at all... Something along the lines of:
You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions, one with a printed letter A, the other card with the letter B.
At one destination, the envelope is opened to reveal the letter A.
And that's about all there is to entanglement....
Can any physicist confirm?
I'm not a physicist, just a well-read layman, but...
It is more mysterious than that, but if you go with the Many Worlds interpretation it's not much more mysterious.
Basically, if you entangle letters A and B and send them in opposite directions, you're really creating two universes corresponding to the two possibilities: universe P (A here, B there) and universe Q (B here, A there). If you open the envelope to reveal A, for instance, then that copy of you in universe P now knows they exists in universe P, and likewise for B and Q. But unlike in classical physics, universe P is not completely separated from universe Q. P and Q still exist as a single mathematical object, P-plus-Q, and you can manipulate that mathematical object in ways that don't make sense from a classical standpoint.
Basically, it all comes down to one small thing with big consequences. The real world is NOT described by classical probability (real numbers in the range [0,1]). Instead, the real world is described by quantum probability (complex numbers obeying Re[x]^2 + Im[x]^2 = 1).
As it turns out, "system P-plus-Q has a 50% chance of P and a 50% chance of Q" is really saying "system P-plus-Q lies at a 45deg angle between the P axis and the Q axis". Starting from P-plus-Q, you can rotate 45deg in one direction to get orthogonal P (A always here), or you can rotate 45deg in the opposite direction to get orthogonal Q (B always here), thus deleting the history of whether A or B was "originally" here. (If P and Q were independent universes, this would decrease entropy and thus break the laws of physics.) Even more counterintuitively, you can even rotate P-plus-Q by 15deg to get a 75% chance A is here and a 25% chance B is here (or vice versa, depending on which quadrant the starting angle was in). Circular rotations in 2-dimensional probability space are the thing that makes quantum probability different from classical probability, and thus the thing that makes quantum physics from classical physics.
Classically, A is either definitely here or definitely there, and until we open the envelope and look we are merely ignorant of which is the case. Classical physics is time-symmetric, and it therefore forbids randomness from being created or destroyed; classical probability actually measures ignorance of starting conditions. In a classical world obeying classical rules, you can't start from "50% A-here, 50% B-here" and transform it into "75% A-here, 25% B-here" without cheating. The required operation would be "flip a coin; if B is here and the coin lands heads, swap envelopes", and you can't carry that out without opening the envelope to check if B is here or not. Quantum physics is also time-symmetric and also forbids the creation and destruction of randomness, but quantum probability (also called "amplitude") is not a mere measure of ignorance. In the Many Worlds way of thinking, physics makes many copies of each possible universe, and the quantum amplitude determines how many copies of each universe to make. At 30deg off the P axis, cos(30deg)^2 = 75% of the copies are copies of universe P, and you experience this as a 75% probability of finding yourself in a universe with "A here, B there".
(Or something like that. It'll probably make more sense once we eliminate time from the equations. At the moment not even Many Worlds can help us wrap our heads around the fact that quantum entanglement works backward the same as it does forward. The equations as they stand today imply that many past-universes containing past-yous have precisely converged to become the present-universe containing present-you.)
One last complication. If the information of A's location spreads to more particles than A and B, then P and Q become more and more different, and as a consequence the quantum probability rules become harder and harder to distinguish from the classical ones. If you open the envelope and learn "A is here", for instance, then P now contains billions of particles that are different from Q (at the very least, the particles in your brain that make up your memory) and it now becomes impossible-ish to perform rotations on P-plus-Q, because you would need to find each particle that changed and rotate it individually. (Not truly impossible, but staggeringly impractical in the same sense that freezing a glass of room-temperature water by gripping each molecule individually to make it sit still is staggeringly impractical. And both are impractical for the same reason: entropy.)
When so many particles are involved that we can't merge the universes back together, we call the situation "decoherence", but it's really just "entanglement of too many things to keep track of". Entanglement itself isn't really that special; what's special is limiting the entanglement to a small group of particles that we can keep track of and manipulate as a group.