Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Trailer-generators (Score 1) 490

by amliebsch (#41440211) Attached to: Toyota Abandons Plans For All-Electric Vehicle Rollout

Another disadvantage: the time when you would most want to tow something else, like an actual trailer or a boat - on a longer trip - you can't, because you're towing part of your car instead. There's also the issue of safety: trailers are terrible for handling and make driving, dangerously lethal as it already is, even more difficult.

Comment: Re:Good to keep in mind (Score 1) 421

by amliebsch (#41362921) Attached to: How the Critics of the Apollo Program Were Proven Wrong

There's no inherent reason you *have* to rebuild everything, it's just that our resuable designs are not sufficiently advanced. Early jet engines had to be rebuilt after almost every flight; but after a few decades of refinement, they can operate almost continuously for months without major maintenance.

Comment: Re:My prediction (Score 1) 179

by amliebsch (#40895231) Attached to: Sci-Fi Writers of the Past Predict Life In 2012

You're on to something, but I think it's simply a case of chronological proximity bias. The problems we face today always *feel* like the most severe problems ever faced, but that is probably often just because they are the most prominent in our minds. I mean, look how many writers from the last century predicted widespread famine, because when you ran the numbers it just didn't seem possible. They thought it was the biggest problem humanity ever faced. Eventually we managed to overcome it and now it feels like a big nothing. Instead we have our own, new, biggest problems humanity has ever faced. Except they're not, not really. They just seem that way because we know that the other ones got solved, and we don't know yet how to solve the unsolved ones. And those writers, in turn, were probably overestimating the relative severity of that problem compared to other historical problems.

It's the same perspective problem that causes doomsdayism.

Comment: Re:Thin edge of the wedge. (Score 1) 521

by amliebsch (#40878871) Attached to: UEFI Secure Boot and Linux: Where Things Stand

The point is that there is nothing that will be preventing you from doing whatever you want to the hardware you bought: hack it, wipe it, blend it, nobody will stop you. What you are actually complaining about is that the hardware you bought isn't exactly the hardware you want. But, it's a lot harder to blame other people for the poor purchasing decision you made.

Comment: Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (Score 1) 222

I don't recall the specific physics principle, but it is something along the lines of 'particles below a certain size cannot be measured without affecting their behavior'.

It's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, by reversing the polarity of the entangled particles and running them through the matrix field of a Heisenberg compensator, you get a controlled tachyon burst that counteracts entropy. At least, that's what I gathered from this write-up.

Comment: Re:Look to Gene Kranz (Score 1) 432

by amliebsch (#40846483) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is There a Professional Geek Dress Code?

You know, I'm not sure if there was an explicit dress code beyond "shirt and tie," or if it was simply a case of everybody following Kranz's lead. I'm fairly certain that engineers were originally expected to wear suits, but somewhere along the line that rule was relaxed and short sleeves permitted due to the heat generated by all the equipment.

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.

Working...