Porn reconstruction is easy: nipples are nipples, groin bits are groin bits. ...
faces are a different story. Facial recognition is deeply wired into the human brain and human behavior,
Dunno about you, but pr0n recognition is deeply wired in MY brain...
Well, now I have to go find some other way to draw attnetion to myself. *Logs into Facebook*
You don't need to. They said "blur faces and license plates". Last time I checked, "whale tails" are not considered license plates (and much less faces)...
How about they release their own distribution of Linux/BSD/whatever, and then make all of their other apps work great on that (as well as backwards compatible). They can make it look like XP
It's like making Mohammed put on a Jesus-Christ mask (and stigmatas on his wrists) and ask catholics to worship him...
Nice, but largely a marketing plot. Catenary voltage was increased to 31 kV from the standard 25 kV. The mechanical tension in the wire was increased to 40 kN from the standard 25 kN as you can read here. You won't see that on production trains. The "sweet" spot for conventional trains is at 400km/h.
Well, yes, the train as well as the power system was souped up. But the fact is that the record-breaking TGV is a standard off-the-shelf train, unlike the maglev that is still experimental.
Above that the air drag and wheel-track-resistance is too costly. Maglev is pretty much frictionless. It can hold a sustained speed over 450km.
So can the TGV. The new lines and trains are designed for 400 km/h (yes, sustained). The only reason why they do not run them at 400 km/h is due to the diminished savings. When going from 150 km/h to 300 km/h, a 2 hour journey becomes a 1 hour journey, a savings of 1 hour.
But if you go from 150 to 400 km/h, a 2 hour journey only becomes 45 minutes, as the extra 100 km/h saves only 15 extra minutes off the travel time.
maglev is only more expensive than a conventional track if the conventional track does not need a tunnel while the maglev does not thanks to not having to rely on inherently low wheel-on-track friction, enabling maglev to be able to easily climb mountains that a conventional train could not dream of climbing.
The original Paris-Sud-Est TGV line (Paris_Lyon) has no tunnels at all, and it effortlessly climbs 35 grades. This is one of the advantages of the TGV as it can climb steep grades, which obviates the need for tunnels and long viaducts. In addition, the line can be much shorter (as a matter of fact, the LGV-PSE is some 60 km shorter than the old "imperial" mainline via Dijon).
Newer lines have tunnels, yes, but only to avoid disrupting towns or high-quality vineyards.
the TGV partially overcomes this problem with relying on inertia to climb some small mountains (legends go that there are places in the network, where the TGV could not get out of if stopped for an emergency)
It is indeed a legend. TGV trainsets are powerful enough to restart from a dead stop up a 35 grade.
but the dedicated TGV tracks that really allow high speeds are probably still expensive enough.
I have to disagree. You compare the safety of a railroad track built to be used by dozens of trains a day to the safety of a test track which was built to test the properties of a single train.
Since you mention this, we have yet to see a multi-train maglev line in operation...
What happened here is what would happen if an idiot parks his truck on a TGV track just before it arrives.
And what would have happenned with a TGV is that the TGV would have plowed right through the truck.
The signalling system was inadequate because it was a test line.
Where else than a test line one shall test a signalling system? The fact that the developpers did not see fit to design and test a signalling system is telling!!!
There's precisely one train on that test line, and the only possible obstacle it can meet is a maintenance car that is sent out to fix things or whatever.
False, there are also maintenance units; in railroad operations, anything that can occupy the tracks is defined as a train; and when it cannot shunt track signalling to tell it's presence to the signalling system, there are special strict regulatory procedures that are to be followed.
On that day, human error caused the maglev train to be sent off while the maintenance car was still on the track.
Human error designed a fail-unsafe operation method.
If you build a TGV test track under the same conditions and apply the same amount of human error, the outcome will be no better.
No TGV test track had to be built, as the testing was all done on existing lines. And in conventionnal rail, automatic block signalling is as simple as sending a current between the rails, so there is no excuse for not doing it. Better yet, conventional rail signalling not only detects trains, it also detect unsafe conditions, such as obstacles or broken rails. The maglev, however, simply disregarded elementary safety by design.
1. And I'm still calling B.S. The overall point you are trying to make is that high-speed rail has this magnificent safety advantage while maglev is inherently dangerous or something.
Conventional rail has been developped over the last two centuries, and thus has 200 years of engineering experience. Any self-respecting low-level railroader can tell blindfolded in his sleep what arrangement is safe or not.
Maglev has no such lengthy experience. Maglev is radically different technology, and the safe practices and design have to be determined from scratch.
And while high-speed rail has enjoyed excellent safety, it is completely disingenuous to focus only on TGV and not other high-speed rail systems as well.
Only the TGV and the Shinkansen have the number of passenger/miles AT HIGH-SPEED to give it sufficient experience.
The articulated carriage does lend a measure of safety, but there was also a tremendous amount of Good Luck on the rare incidents where a TGV derailed, and a tremendous amount of Bad Luck one well known example of an ICE derailing.
The only good and bad luck was because of the design. The articulated trainset is an inherent safety feature which neatly paid-off. And the resilient wheel was a fatal feature. Engineers willingly chose to design an articulated train on one side, and to give it resilient wheels on the other. There is no luck in that, only calculation that, alas, proved to be faulty in the case of the ICE.
2. A demonstration of a capability that will never be used in service? What is another word for that?
p-u-b-l-i-c-i-t-y The only way for high-speed rail to get any faster *in-service* is through massive investment in new rail lines.
The investment is much smaller than comparable investment in roadways or airlines for the same transport capacity.
In principle, that is no different than investment in maglev except for the fact that maglev is still more expensive.
Maglev will always be more expensive than maglev for the only reason that maglev is not compatible with the existing rail network.
So, instead of riding on existing lines to go downtown, you will either have to very expensively build new lines to reach the downtown station, or have to stay on the outskirt of the city, much like the airports of today. And everywhere you want to go with a maglev, you have to build a line. Not so with a TGV that can go anywhere a train can go.
3. I'm not talking about TGV or ICE. If you notice the context, I was referring to maglev. Germany is doing much of the early adoption for maglev which is great for the rest of the world once they drive down the cost.
The cost is never going to go down.
In order to be profitable, a rail network needs flexibility. One important factor for flexibility is the ability to switch tracks. Not just to get to a particular track in a station, but to go around other traffic.
In order to do this, you need track switches. The more switches in your network, the more flexible it is.
Maglev networks will never be as efficient or flexible as conventional rail networks because maglev switches are so cumbersome that putting as many switches on a maglev as there are on regular rail networks will be prohibitive.
The reason is that a maglev switch has to replace a straight sect
And pay no attention to the 101 killed when the German ICE derailed at Eschede? You can't use a single incident to broadly declare a technology "rather dangerous." What a load of b.s.
I stand by what I said. I talked about TGV safety record; I said nothing about the ICE.
The TGV is an articulated trainset, whereas the ICE is a conventional separable coach trains. The TGV has extreme longitudinal safety (the cars cannot separate) whereas the ICE cars are easily separated during an accident (whenever the TGV derailed at speed, no cars separated)
The 360 mph run was pure publicity and in-service train sets won't ever come near that. Maglev will continue to evolve in any number of ways that will reduce cost and increase speed.
The 360 mph run was not publicity, but a demonstration to drive the final nail in the maglev coffin. Maglev is a financial disaster, a boondoggle that leads nowhere. The message is: had the money wasted in maglev projects put towards conventional rail transit, there would be far more high speed lines in service.
Like any new technology, it will cost the early adopters a lot which sucks for Germany I guess. But for everyone else, it's great news.
The ICE was not "new technology". So isn't the TGV. Both are ordinary trains souped-up to operate faster when faster-designed tracks are available (both run at "normal" speeds when running on "normal" tracks). But yes, the "new" technology on the ICE, the resilient wheel (which, as a matter of fact, was invented in the 1930's to equip PCC streetcars), proved to be it's undoing, and those wheels were not designed into the ICE because of the need for speed, but simply to offer a quieter ride.
This is pretty stupid. Maglev is a dead-end technology. Conventional rail has achieved 360 miles per hour a few months ago on a standard track with a souped-up standard train whereas maglev only goes up to 280 mph.
In addition, german Maglev technology is rather dangerous; an accident 1 year ago on a demonstration line killed 23 people, this accident was caused by inadequate (by design) signalling system. This is particularly concerning because the first role of railroad signalling is to indicate that the track is free from obstructions ahead so the train may proceed.
By contrast, not a single passenger has been killed in TGV, despite several derailments at high-speed during 26 years of service in Europe.
But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive -- namely, that the right to own guns should prevent your government from ever taking away your rights (fearing rebellion from an armed militia). At least in my opinion, as a non-American observing your politics from afar, this has failed (beating the Patriot Act example to death, here).
That's because those who like guns don't think that the patriot act is bad...
Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock. Then tell their public officials that not only do they want the camcorder bill rescinded, and the Canadian DMCA dropped. But also a law passed rescinding ALL of the MPAA's copyrights for copyright abuse.
We do not need guns, because we make sure to elect governments that won't abuse us, and that keeps the crime rate very low, too. This is why we have free universal health-insurance.
We do not have a DMCA either, so we can download music, backup our DVDs, talk about DeCSS and watch DVDs from India, Luxembourg or China.
5. Question. Do you want the judge's decision to be "perpetuated", or would you rather leave it up to other judges to ignore it because it was "misguided"?
It can hardly be ignored, because it was a federal court decision, which do establish the state of federal laws.
6. I am guessing that
-it was a decision by a judge, because the "code" did not specify whether file sharing was legal or not, and
File sharing is actually legal. The canadian copyright act provides for "private copy"; you can copy music you borrow from your friends and/or the library -- libraries are full of people ripping CDs on their laptops:
[...]the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of [a sound recording] onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
-you would want other judges to follow that decision, rather than for each new case to be a guessing game as to what the judge's personal opinion will be.
No guessing game here! We're talking about federal law...:)
7. People need to know, when they wake up in the morning, how to plan their lives so they don't run afoul of the law. They need to know what the law is, and can't have a random system where each judge's personal opinion is all that counts. And no legislator is so much of a prophet that he can write a code that will cover all eventualities. Sometimes one needs a judge to apply the law to the facts. So you see, the 2 systems are not so dissimilar after all. And you are not so different than the people you are attacking. You too, want good judicial decisions to be followed by future judges.
Of course they are not too different; there is jurisprudence in our civil code system, but new cases aren't crap shoots, they are carefully reviewed and applied to the relevant civil codes articles. And when necessary, the civil code gets updated.
However, the main advantage of a civil code is that cases are very rarely murky so the outcome can be most often determined early enough to keep down litigation to an acceptable level.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been my experience that very often, the nether region of people is far more fun to watch than their face...
This is not surprising. On July 14, 2007 at 10:00, I saw this van on the Tadoussac ferry (right here): 1 2 3 4.
"You have the freedom not to sign a contract you deem abusive"... "You have only yourself to blame if you sign a bad contract"... etc... etc... etc...
It does not apply to big croporations, only governments.
But if you go from 150 to 400 km/h, a 2 hour journey only becomes 45 minutes, as the extra 100 km/h saves only 15 extra minutes off the travel time.
Newer lines have tunnels, yes, but only to avoid disrupting towns or high-quality vineyards.
It is indeed a legend. TGV trainsets are powerful enough to restart from a dead stop up a 35 grade. But much cheaper than equivalent highways.Which is exactly what happenned...
Conventional rail has been developped over the last two centuries, and thus has 200 years of engineering experience. Any self-respecting low-level railroader can tell blindfolded in his sleep what arrangement is safe or not.
Maglev has no such lengthy experience. Maglev is radically different technology, and the safe practices and design have to be determined from scratch.
Only the TGV and the Shinkansen have the number of passenger/miles AT HIGH-SPEED to give it sufficient experience.
The only good and bad luck was because of the design. The articulated trainset is an inherent safety feature which neatly paid-off. And the resilient wheel was a fatal feature. Engineers willingly chose to design an articulated train on one side, and to give it resilient wheels on the other. There is no luck in that, only calculation that, alas, proved to be faulty in the case of the ICE.
Never say never. Back in 1955, trains were experimentally run as fast as 206 mph. It took almost 50 years for this speed to be attained in normal commercial service. Never say that there will not be 400 mph TGVs within the next 50 years.
The investment is much smaller than comparable investment in roadways or airlines for the same transport capacity.
Maglev will always be more expensive than maglev for the only reason that maglev is not compatible with the existing rail network.
So, instead of riding on existing lines to go downtown, you will either have to very expensively build new lines to reach the downtown station, or have to stay on the outskirt of the city, much like the airports of today. And everywhere you want to go with a maglev, you have to build a line. Not so with a TGV that can go anywhere a train can go.
The cost is never going to go down.
In order to be profitable, a rail network needs flexibility. One important factor for flexibility is the ability to switch tracks. Not just to get to a particular track in a station, but to go around other traffic.
In order to do this, you need track switches. The more switches in your network, the more flexible it is.
Maglev networks will never be as efficient or flexible as conventional rail networks because maglev switches are so cumbersome that putting as many switches on a maglev as there are on regular rail networks will be prohibitive.
The reason is that a maglev switch has to replace a straight sect
The TGV is an articulated trainset, whereas the ICE is a conventional separable coach trains. The TGV has extreme longitudinal safety (the cars cannot separate) whereas the ICE cars are easily separated during an accident (whenever the TGV derailed at speed, no cars separated)
In addition, the resilient wheel technology used by the ICE was disastrous, as it was the prime cause of the wreck at Eschede.
The 360 mph run was not publicity, but a demonstration to drive the final nail in the maglev coffin. Maglev is a financial disaster, a boondoggle that leads nowhere. The message is: had the money wasted in maglev projects put towards conventional rail transit, there would be far more high speed lines in service. The ICE was not "new technology". So isn't the TGV. Both are ordinary trains souped-up to operate faster when faster-designed tracks are available (both run at "normal" speeds when running on "normal" tracks). But yes, the "new" technology on the ICE, the resilient wheel (which, as a matter of fact, was invented in the 1930's to equip PCC streetcars), proved to be it's undoing, and those wheels were not designed into the ICE because of the need for speed, but simply to offer a quieter ride.In addition, german Maglev technology is rather dangerous; an accident 1 year ago on a demonstration line killed 23 people, this accident was caused by inadequate (by design) signalling system. This is particularly concerning because the first role of railroad signalling is to indicate that the track is free from obstructions ahead so the train may proceed.
By contrast, not a single passenger has been killed in TGV, despite several derailments at high-speed during 26 years of service in Europe.
If the la says overtime must be paid, contracts who say otherwise are null and void.
It's not for nothing that there are laws, because companies cannot be relied to do the right thing.
We do not have a DMCA either, so we can download music, backup our DVDs, talk about DeCSS and watch DVDs from India, Luxembourg or China.
However, the main advantage of a civil code is that cases are very rarely murky so the outcome can be most often determined early enough to keep down litigation to an acceptable level.