One of the biggest potential uses for flywheel technology is for satelites. At the moment the lifetime of a sat is (amongst other factors) determined by the cycle limit of its batteries. Since sat batteries are cycled EVERY day as they go into and out of the sun, they take quite a hit, and they are obviously quite tricky to replace.
If you were to use high speed vacuum sealed flywheels on magnetic bearings then the friction is obviously very low, and the limit on the lifetime of the system is a material limit. Currently a fair amount of development cash is beiong spent on making fibre materials to use in flywheels which don't fail catastrophically, have predictable and high failure stresses and low creep.
There was an article about this in Wired a few months back.
I'd imagine that what makes this difficult on PCs and easy on Macs has nothing to do with the relative merits of those two Operating systems, and everything to o with the fact that Mac hardware is made or spec'd by apple, so they set there is a standard mechanism. There isn't this feature standardisation on PCs.
Isn't making NTSC sets not obsolete bad for the economy?
No. Most television sets in use in the states are Japanese as will the new HDTV ones. Consequently this technology will improve America's balance of trade. This is generally considered to be a good thing. Of course it also saves a shit load of energy and prevents a massive amount of waste, but Americans don't generally care about pollution anyway.
umm, where do you live? I assume that it is the states because you are so passionate about the RIAA. Now America, like most of the western world has developed a _system of Democracy_ to ensure tha each person gets a say in the running of the nation. This system imposes a set of rules on the citizens of each nation to ensure that things run smoothly, people are dissuaded from doing bad shit etc. If these rules were ignored mob rule would take over, and I don't think many reasonable people would agree that that would be agood thing. The way to challenge these rules if you disagree with them is within the system that makes ample, and some might say excessive, allowances for legal challenge. In this way every case is heard fairly.
Now why should your disagreement with current business practice be any different? If you don't think that a car is good value then you don't buy it. You don't steal it from the forecourt. Now why should IP be any different? Why is it a reasonable to steal other peoples' property just because you don't think they have a right to it in the first place.
I humbly suggest to you that it is not morally justifiable to advovate theft when there is reasonable democratic recourse available to you.
So there are 8 regions and a DVD player weighs about a pound, so that's $80,000 dollars to get them up there as well as the comparatively small cost of buying them. Good use of taxpayers money.
In what way is hanging a 100kg car shell off a bridge by a nylon rope moving engineering forward? Sure, It's a pretty cool hack, but it didn't require great technical skill or anything.
Oh, wait. Could it be instead that he has experience of running very large computer installations instead.
Re:Pardon me, but WTF is this
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
What makes you say that?
As a guess I reckon that I have spent about 3000 hours in cars in the last 15 years and I have been involved in one accident.
On the other hand other posters have pointed to 101 space shuttle missions in the last 15 years lasting (guess) 3 days per mission, giving around 7300 hours. They've had 1 accident.
So that seems to me to be a factor of two, which isn't exactly "much safer", and doesn't take into acount the generally catastrophic nature of a shuttle accident when compared to a car accident.
Although I suppose it would be very different if you were talking about accidents per mile.
No, because in order to get anything done in cgi, you have to use lots of those "unix-specific functions" you allude to
Having just spent the last month or two messing around with perl on win98 and SuSE Linux I reckon that you're talking crap. I have had next to no problems with cross-compatibility and have found that if i need to make calls to the shell then there is probably a better way to do it within perl. But as I said, I'm not very knowledgeable about the intricacies.
The second thing is that if you are writing something that you can't port without much difficulty then you should perhaps consider writing it natively in C in the first place.
Marketing Manager 1: Hmm. I think that all the functionality that we can possibly add to Word has already been added. There's absolutely no way that anyone would ever want to upgrade to a new version because it would just fill up their hard drive, require hardware upgrades to manhandle the bloat around and provide nothing new or useful.
Marketing manager 2: That's really going to hit our revenue. We're not going to be able to illegally leverage our monopoly position in the marketplace to force people to buy our new product. What on earth are we going to do?
MM1: I don't know. There is, after all, no way we can compete on price because our salaries might have to take a cut then.
MM2: And the product's such a bloated mess that you need the latest kit just to run a word processor.
MM1: How about we open up new markets. That way we can fire all the pesky expensive engineers and just flog the same old stuff to new people.
MM2: Great idea. That'd double our salaries and we might get more stock options as well. The only snag is that everyone who can afford it already uses Office on the desktop, and if we sell it cheaper to bring it into budget for the second world we'd be cutting our margin and hence our salaries.
MM1: Well how about we charge them 50% less to begin with and then charge them 50% again every 12 months until we buy them.
MM2: My God. That's a work of genius. We can rent the software to everyone. That way our revenue stream is practically guaranteed 'til we buy our own country. Sack all the badly dressed tree-hugging engineers immediately and triple our stock options. MS will never have to produce another line of code ever again...well, maybe a few service packs.
Say....Do you reckon the idiots will fall for it?
MM1: Course they will. We'll just give it a funky new name that the MD's think sounds up to the minute... how about, hmmmmm,.con. No, that's too obvious.net maybe. Yep, that'll do. And now we somehow bring in the internet to the marketing angle, make a few colourful powerpoint slides with graphs rising to the right...
MM2: You mean a copy of Microsoft's profits over the last 10 years?
MM1: Excellent. Bill's going to love this. And the best part is that it's legal
If.com,.org and.net hadn't been constructed in the first place and geographic TLD's had been used then much of the congestion that we have now wouldn't exist. Furthermore, if.net and.org really had been restricted to networks and non-profit organisations respectively, that would have reduced congestion in that namespace.
Oh dear. I have just realised that this has turned into a "me too" post. Bugger.
On reading the article I remembered a spam account that I set up a few months ago as an experiment and then forgot about. I just spent about 30 minutes going through headers of randomly selected mails in the account. The results exactly reflect what you have just said, with UUnet on 18 spams, PSInet on 17, a few others like corecomm.net and verio.net on about 5 and all the rest totalling about 40. In other words about 40% of the spam in that account was from either PSInet or UUnet.
if you look in the right places you can find Tetley's, McEwans, etc.
My God, you poor bastards. You feel that Tetleys is good, proper beer. I feel for you, I really do. But then I live in a town where the pub* opposite my house has four different beers on pump (not tap) (although they're not that great), and there's the highest density of pubs in Europe, or so I am led to believe.
- Tom
[*] The Panton Arms if you are in Cambridge. The Alma has Pirahna and so is better though.
Has anyone here actually read the submission, which I acknowledge was written by Guiness Lawyers, but still tells the actual tale of this dispute.
Was this guy a cybersquatter or did he actually have a dispute with Guiness?
The Complainant submits that the Shields case is analogous to the facts at hand in that the Respondent changed the content of his www sites from commercial uses to purported "protest sites" after being served with a complaint by the
owner of the trademark that he was infringing.
Well that seems to say that he was using the perfectly correct argument that a protest site is a valid reason to use a trademark as an excuse. lets keep going.
The Court found that "the vast majority of Zuccarini's many websites are not political fora but are merely vehicles for him to make money. . ..It strains credulity to believe that he uses 99.9% of
his domain names for profit but reserves his Joe Cartoon domains for fair and lawful political speech."
"...the
Respondent admitted that he "put up the protest pages . . . just hours after being served with [the plaintiff's] complaint.""
So again it seems like this might actually be a reasonable case unlike some of the shit that we have seen WIPO get away with.
The Court found that the Respondent was a wholesaler of Internet domain names (defined as someone who acquires multiple domain names with the intent to profit from them), who owns approximately 3000 domain names,
and that many of his sites featured advertisements for other sites and credit card companies where "visitors were trapped or 'mousetrapped' in the sites, unable to exit without clicking on a succession of ads."
So where does the geek stand? Does [s]he go with the eminently sensible argument proposed by the defendant in this case, or do they listen to the other side and realise that perhaps this is actually reasonable and the possible cybersquatter is just hijacking a reasonable argument for nefarious ends.
Have a look at the whole story before you post, and believe me, I don't think that this is open and shut either way.
-Tom
Slashdot Mirror
If you were to use high speed vacuum sealed flywheels on magnetic bearings then the friction is obviously very low, and the limit on the lifetime of the system is a material limit. Currently a fair amount of development cash is beiong spent on making fibre materials to use in flywheels which don't fail catastrophically, have predictable and high failure stresses and low creep.
There was an article about this in Wired a few months back.
No. Most television sets in use in the states are Japanese as will the new HDTV ones. Consequently this technology will improve America's balance of trade. This is generally considered to be a good thing. Of course it also saves a shit load of energy and prevents a massive amount of waste, but Americans don't generally care about pollution anyway.
Now why should your disagreement with current business practice be any different? If you don't think that a car is good value then you don't buy it. You don't steal it from the forecourt. Now why should IP be any different? Why is it a reasonable to steal other peoples' property just because you don't think they have a right to it in the first place.
I humbly suggest to you that it is not morally justifiable to advovate theft when there is reasonable democratic recourse available to you.
It's on the die, not on the card. That means the bus is at full speed, and .... go figure.
http://bastilleweb.techhouse.org/
As a guess I reckon that I have spent about 3000 hours in cars in the last 15 years and I have been involved in one accident.
On the other hand other posters have pointed to 101 space shuttle missions in the last 15 years lasting (guess) 3 days per mission, giving around 7300 hours. They've had 1 accident.
So that seems to me to be a factor of two, which isn't exactly "much safer", and doesn't take into acount the generally catastrophic nature of a shuttle accident when compared to a car accident.
Although I suppose it would be very different if you were talking about accidents per mile.
Having just spent the last month or two messing around with perl on win98 and SuSE Linux I reckon that you're talking crap. I have had next to no problems with cross-compatibility and have found that if i need to make calls to the shell then there is probably a better way to do it within perl. But as I said, I'm not very knowledgeable about the intricacies.
The second thing is that if you are writing something that you can't port without much difficulty then you should perhaps consider writing it natively in C in the first place.
Marketing manager 2: That's really going to hit our revenue. We're not going to be able to illegally leverage our monopoly position in the marketplace to force people to buy our new product. What on earth are we going to do?
MM1: I don't know. There is, after all, no way we can compete on price because our salaries might have to take a cut then.
MM2: And the product's such a bloated mess that you need the latest kit just to run a word processor.
MM1: How about we open up new markets. That way we can fire all the pesky expensive engineers and just flog the same old stuff to new people.
MM2: Great idea. That'd double our salaries and we might get more stock options as well. The only snag is that everyone who can afford it already uses Office on the desktop, and if we sell it cheaper to bring it into budget for the second world we'd be cutting our margin and hence our salaries.
MM1: Well how about we charge them 50% less to begin with and then charge them 50% again every 12 months until we buy them.
MM2: My God. That's a work of genius. We can rent the software to everyone. That way our revenue stream is practically guaranteed 'til we buy our own country. Sack all the badly dressed tree-hugging engineers immediately and triple our stock options. MS will never have to produce another line of code ever again...well, maybe a few service packs.
Say....Do you reckon the idiots will fall for it?
MM1: Course they will. We'll just give it a funky new name that the MD's think sounds up to the minute... how about, hmmmmm, .con. No, that's too obvious .net maybe. Yep, that'll do. And now we somehow bring in the internet to the marketing angle, make a few colourful powerpoint slides with graphs rising to the right...
MM2: You mean a copy of Microsoft's profits over the last 10 years?
MM1: Excellent. Bill's going to love this. And the best part is that it's legal
Oh dear. I have just realised that this has turned into a "me too" post. Bugger.
anyone else?
[*] American readers should think Yankee Stadium here.
My God, you poor bastards. You feel that Tetleys is good, proper beer. I feel for you, I really do. But then I live in a town where the pub* opposite my house has four different beers on pump (not tap) (although they're not that great), and there's the highest density of pubs in Europe, or so I am led to believe.
- Tom
[*] The Panton Arms if you are in Cambridge. The Alma has Pirahna and so is better though.
Was this guy a cybersquatter or did he actually have a dispute with Guiness?
The Complainant submits that the Shields case is analogous to the facts at hand in that the Respondent changed the content of his www sites from commercial uses to purported "protest sites" after being served with a complaint by the owner of the trademark that he was infringing.
Well that seems to say that he was using the perfectly correct argument that a protest site is a valid reason to use a trademark as an excuse. lets keep going.
The Court found that "the vast majority of Zuccarini's many websites are not political fora but are merely vehicles for him to make money. . . .It strains credulity to believe that he uses 99.9% of
his domain names for profit but reserves his Joe Cartoon domains for fair and lawful political speech."
"...the Respondent admitted that he "put up the protest pages . . . just hours after being served with [the plaintiff's] complaint.""
So again it seems like this might actually be a reasonable case unlike some of the shit that we have seen WIPO get away with.
The Court found that the Respondent was a wholesaler of Internet domain names (defined as someone who acquires multiple domain names with the intent to profit from them), who owns approximately 3000 domain names, and that many of his sites featured advertisements for other sites and credit card companies where "visitors were trapped or 'mousetrapped' in the sites, unable to exit without clicking on a succession of ads."
So where does the geek stand? Does [s]he go with the eminently sensible argument proposed by the defendant in this case, or do they listen to the other side and realise that perhaps this is actually reasonable and the possible cybersquatter is just hijacking a reasonable argument for nefarious ends.
Have a look at the whole story before you post, and believe me, I don't think that this is open and shut either way.
-Tom