> "When policy-makers ask for secure encryption with a back door, we do not always see that this would like be telling Ford and GM to stop their cars from crashing, and to make them run on gasoline that doesn’t burn. Well yes, that would be nice, but how? They say ‘no’? Easy - just threaten them with a fine of 25% of global revenue and they’ll build it!"
> "This would like be telling Ford and GM to stop their cars from crashing"
Easy - car doesn't go until all seatbelts are on. All seats face backwards. Helmet and HANS device for all occupants. Maximum speed is 45 mph. Cars are wrapped in giant foam pads. Cars are limited to roads mapped by the automaker. (Type 2b [I have interpreted the intention of your Type 3 proposal] - Customers would revolt)
> "Make them run on gasoline that doesn’t burn"
Easy - catalyze gasoline to hydrogen and use a fuel cell. Well not easy, but possible. (Type 3 - I can propose this, but no one can evaluate it without doing a LOT of work)
====
Personal opinion: People feel like experts have lied to them, because experts have lied to them. We can't trust experts. How should people think? Specifically when it is very expensive to test something? 'Expensive' includes all kinds of risk, not just money spent. 'Test' includes "what will this do to me?"
So some people think that there is a 100 mpg water carburetor that Shell bought the patents to and maybe the inventor had an 'accident'. In reality, (Type 2) They have not understood the tradeoffs. 100 mpg is easy - on a speed limited motorcycle on a chosen route. Water carburation is not too hard for motivated and handy person to use. It IS too hard to put on a general consumer's vehicle.
Jet airplanes used to inject water into the engine to get more performance on takeoff. Someone realized that it's cheaper, easier, and saves weight to just inject more fuel. The fuel doesn't fully burn, but it adds to the thrust just by being mass that goes out the end of the engine.
Type 1: The tradeoffs are not in my favor.
Type 2: You have not understood the tradeoffs.
Type 3: No one can evaluate the proposal.
> "When policy-makers ask for secure encryption with a back door, we do not always see that this would like be telling Ford and GM to stop their cars from crashing, and to make them run on gasoline that doesn’t burn. Well yes, that would be nice, but how? They say ‘no’? Easy - just threaten them with a fine of 25% of global revenue and they’ll build it!"
> "This would like be telling Ford and GM to stop their cars from crashing"
Easy - car doesn't go until all seatbelts are on. All seats face backwards. Helmet and HANS device for all occupants. Maximum speed is 45 mph. Cars are wrapped in giant foam pads. Cars are limited to roads mapped by the automaker. (Type 2b [I have interpreted the intention of your Type 3 proposal] - Customers would revolt)
> "Make them run on gasoline that doesn’t burn"
Easy - catalyze gasoline to hydrogen and use a fuel cell. Well not easy, but possible. (Type 3 - I can propose this, but no one can evaluate it without doing a LOT of work)
====
Personal opinion: People feel like experts have lied to them, because experts have lied to them. We can't trust experts. How should people think? Specifically when it is very expensive to test something? 'Expensive' includes all kinds of risk, not just money spent. 'Test' includes "what will this do to me?"
So some people think that there is a 100 mpg water carburetor that Shell bought the patents to and maybe the inventor had an 'accident'. In reality, (Type 2) They have not understood the tradeoffs. 100 mpg is easy - on a speed limited motorcycle on a chosen route. Water carburation is not too hard for motivated and handy person to use. It IS too hard to put on a general consumer's vehicle.
Jet airplanes used to inject water into the engine to get more performance on takeoff. Someone realized that it's cheaper, easier, and saves weight to just inject more fuel. The fuel doesn't fully burn, but it adds to the thrust just by being mass that goes out the end of the engine.