You can bet your invisible boots that if the Emperor's New Clothes had (while obviously only being visible to "very wise people") nonetheless kept the Emperor warm and dry, that story would have ended differently. Probably with research into military applications.
If you're interested in a 'fair' price for the Kindle 2, you might like this link. Apparently the Kindle 2 contains roughly $177 worth of components, of which just shy of $100 covers the screen and the mobile broadband package.
Actually e-ink is used in ebook readers more for the display quality than the price (although initially it was researched in the hope that it would turn out to be cheaper for high res, low cost, low refresh rate screens). Human eyes evolved staring at reflective surfaces, and as good as we make them, brightly lit screens still give us eye strain.
It's different in that you're quoting small snippets from many different sources. If you cribbed an entire chapter and handed it in, then that's obviously different.
As for taping music off the radio, that's explicitly protected by the AHRA. It's interesting that there's a blanket distinction between digital and analogue recording... so in theory an 8 bit 11kHz recording is illegal but a super-high-quality analogue recording is fine.
If your not selling it for money. Copyright infringement is not criminal. ie usenet/bittorrent is not criminal copyright infringement. Its a civil matter similar too, but not the same as say breaking a contract you signed. RIAA etc want this changed, but that so the state will do its enforcing for it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, at least in Australia. According to copyright.org.au (sorry, it's a PDF):
Generally, only infringements of copyright that involve
commercial dealings or infringements that are on a commercial scale are criminal. For example, under the Copyright
Act, it may be an offence to, among other things:
cause infringement on a commercial scale, even if the person doing this makes no financial gain
The way I read this, if you're distributing copyrighted material for free on a commercial scale (which, with BitTorrent, you are), then you're potentially up for a criminal charge. Also:
It may also be a criminal offence to:
make or possess a "device" that is to be used to make infringing copies of a copyright work;
advertise the supply of infringing copies of copyright material; or
cause the public performance of some copyright material at âoea place of public entertainmentâ, with the result
that copyright in the material is infringed.
So it sounds from that like writing a program like Kazaa or BitTorrent is potentially a criminal offense, as is linking to infringing copies (a la Pirate Bay).
Anyway, I think a large part of what's causing this new wave of "omg ppl r download teh books" is the blooming popularity of ebook readers with screens that are actually easy on the eyes.
Think they care? You can send unsolicited commercial SMSes out to random numbers and charge them $10 per text and there's nothing the current system can do to stop it, it's retarded. Serves me right for believing them when they said it was free for Telstra users, I guess.
Meanwhile, hydrogen is stupid because it's difficult to store and transport and you have to use [comparatively] exotic alloys with it because of problems with hydrogen embrittlement... oh, and fuel cells are energy-intensive and toxic to make, and they wear out and have to be replenished like everything else.
You are correct. However, hydrogen is ALSO impossible (barring some breakthrough that verges on violating the laws of thermodynamics) to efficiently generate from sea water. GPP is correct in stating that our current best methods of hydrogen production are still horribly inefficient.
Wrong. The motor, motor controller, in fact EVERYTHING about an EV is a solved problem, bar the energy store. Fuel cells and batteries are two very different means of storing energy, so (except in so far as new materials discovered may help, etc) fuel cell research doesn't do a jot towards building battery EVs.
No it's not. Well, yes to the Volt, but the others are non-plug-in parallel hybrids, whereas the Volt is a plug-in series hybrid and the Metric Mind AC Honda (which I believe is the one the GPP mentioned) is a pure plug-in electric with optional range extender trailer. A fuel range-extender for long trips means that the car's electric-only range isn't an issue, while being able to charge from the grid means that in practice, very little fuel is actually consumed.
And the fact that you can build the equivalent of those big-company factory cars in your garage and achieve fairly similar performance and practicality says a lot about how hard building one of these cars is NOT.
Hydrogen power sounds good on paper, but we need something that works soon.
No, no it doesn't. Hydrogen power sounds good in a spin presentation to an uneducated audience. Even on paper it's horrible if you consider "well-to-wheels" (or "power plant to wheels") efficiency. If you only consider the bit that takes hydrogen out of a magically-self-filling tank and use it to drive your car then it's only 'pretty damn bad'.
Are these "gasoline fuel cells" actually different, or do they just come with a converter that cracks the hydrogen off the carbon atoms before use? Hydrogen fuel cells are still butt-hurtingly expensive for their low power outputs and short effective lifetimes.
Talk about a clue, all the hydrogen hype that started in early 2000 was designed to stop the US auto industry from bringing out any fuel efficient hybrids. You know, like the ones they'd been working on through the 90s. And there was probably nothing behind how the hydrogen hype was used to get the CARB board to eliminate high fuel efficiency requirements for California and eliminate the zero emission requirements which caused GM to product the EV1.
Thank you for posting this, you are exactly right. Hydrogen was pushed because hydrogen makes people think of fusion and therefore of free energy, and because car makers needed a white elephant with which to distract the public's attention from battery electrics while they went about their usual business of making large, inefficient cars. It's never, ever been a viable alternative to fuel vehicles. The only remotely feasible source of hydrogen on the scales needed is fossil fuel.
They offer wireless internet as an incentive for people to use their stores. People are staying too long. Limiting the time allowed for the wireless internet is the obvious solution. Maybe a full cut-off would be too annoying, but at least cap it at 64kbps after half an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
You can bet your invisible boots that if the Emperor's New Clothes had (while obviously only being visible to "very wise people") nonetheless kept the Emperor warm and dry, that story would have ended differently. Probably with research into military applications.
Cue the High Templar's 'Hallucination' ability in StarCraft. Now if only your imaginary tanks had hitpoints...
Did... did you just do a reverse 'your mum' joke? Because if so, I just did your mum in reverse.
And just what were you using to search the web in the 80's?
*** join #chat
> hay guys i need to find a maccas in springdale
fractoid: um, it's down the main street across from quik-ee-mart
> omg tahnks
>/bye
If you're interested in a 'fair' price for the Kindle 2, you might like this link. Apparently the Kindle 2 contains roughly $177 worth of components, of which just shy of $100 covers the screen and the mobile broadband package.
Yes please. Now that you mention it I have a bottle of Wild Turkey waiting for me at home, I think I'll call it a day. :)
Actually e-ink is used in ebook readers more for the display quality than the price (although initially it was researched in the hope that it would turn out to be cheaper for high res, low cost, low refresh rate screens). Human eyes evolved staring at reflective surfaces, and as good as we make them, brightly lit screens still give us eye strain.
That is true in the same sense that your post is insightful.
It's different in that you're quoting small snippets from many different sources. If you cribbed an entire chapter and handed it in, then that's obviously different.
As for taping music off the radio, that's explicitly protected by the AHRA. It's interesting that there's a blanket distinction between digital and analogue recording... so in theory an 8 bit 11kHz recording is illegal but a super-high-quality analogue recording is fine.
If your not selling it for money. Copyright infringement is not criminal. ie usenet /bittorrent is not criminal copyright infringement. Its a civil matter similar too, but not the same as say breaking a contract you signed. RIAA etc want this changed, but that so the state will do its enforcing for it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, at least in Australia. According to copyright.org.au (sorry, it's a PDF):
Generally, only infringements of copyright that involve commercial dealings or infringements that are on a commercial scale are criminal. For example, under the Copyright Act, it may be an offence to, among other things:
The way I read this, if you're distributing copyrighted material for free on a commercial scale (which, with BitTorrent, you are), then you're potentially up for a criminal charge. Also:
It may also be a criminal offence to:
So it sounds from that like writing a program like Kazaa or BitTorrent is potentially a criminal offense, as is linking to infringing copies (a la Pirate Bay).
First rule of Usenet is...
Anyway, I think a large part of what's causing this new wave of "omg ppl r download teh books" is the blooming popularity of ebook readers with screens that are actually easy on the eyes.
*headplonk at me not thinking of that one* lol's off to you, sir!
;)
I guess you could say that after 20 minutes you need to buy another MAC muffin?
:( shoulda known better I guess.
Or more like this? :)
Think they care? You can send unsolicited commercial SMSes out to random numbers and charge them $10 per text and there's nothing the current system can do to stop it, it's retarded. Serves me right for believing them when they said it was free for Telstra users, I guess.
LiON and NiMH are very environmentally unfriendly.
NiMH, yes, they're toxic is, bru. LiIon I'm not so sure about, I seem to recall that some LiIon chemistries are safe enough to eat.
Meanwhile, hydrogen is stupid because it's difficult to store and transport and you have to use [comparatively] exotic alloys with it because of problems with hydrogen embrittlement... oh, and fuel cells are energy-intensive and toxic to make, and they wear out and have to be replenished like everything else.
You are correct. However, hydrogen is ALSO impossible (barring some breakthrough that verges on violating the laws of thermodynamics) to efficiently generate from sea water. GPP is correct in stating that our current best methods of hydrogen production are still horribly inefficient.
Wrong. The motor, motor controller, in fact EVERYTHING about an EV is a solved problem, bar the energy store. Fuel cells and batteries are two very different means of storing energy, so (except in so far as new materials discovered may help, etc) fuel cell research doesn't do a jot towards building battery EVs.
Probably nuclear fusion. >.<
No it's not. Well, yes to the Volt, but the others are non-plug-in parallel hybrids, whereas the Volt is a plug-in series hybrid and the Metric Mind AC Honda (which I believe is the one the GPP mentioned) is a pure plug-in electric with optional range extender trailer. A fuel range-extender for long trips means that the car's electric-only range isn't an issue, while being able to charge from the grid means that in practice, very little fuel is actually consumed.
And the fact that you can build the equivalent of those big-company factory cars in your garage and achieve fairly similar performance and practicality says a lot about how hard building one of these cars is NOT.
Fuel Cell cars are still 15 years away.
Always have been, always will be. That's why auto companies love them so much.
Hydrogen power sounds good on paper, but we need something that works soon.
No, no it doesn't. Hydrogen power sounds good in a spin presentation to an uneducated audience. Even on paper it's horrible if you consider "well-to-wheels" (or "power plant to wheels") efficiency. If you only consider the bit that takes hydrogen out of a magically-self-filling tank and use it to drive your car then it's only 'pretty damn bad'.
Are these "gasoline fuel cells" actually different, or do they just come with a converter that cracks the hydrogen off the carbon atoms before use? Hydrogen fuel cells are still butt-hurtingly expensive for their low power outputs and short effective lifetimes.
Talk about a clue, all the hydrogen hype that started in early 2000 was designed to stop the US auto industry from bringing out any fuel efficient hybrids. You know, like the ones they'd been working on through the 90s. And there was probably nothing behind how the hydrogen hype was used to get the CARB board to eliminate high fuel efficiency requirements for California and eliminate the zero emission requirements which caused GM to product the EV1.
Thank you for posting this, you are exactly right. Hydrogen was pushed because hydrogen makes people think of fusion and therefore of free energy, and because car makers needed a white elephant with which to distract the public's attention from battery electrics while they went about their usual business of making large, inefficient cars. It's never, ever been a viable alternative to fuel vehicles. The only remotely feasible source of hydrogen on the scales needed is fossil fuel.
They offer wireless internet as an incentive for people to use their stores. People are staying too long. Limiting the time allowed for the wireless internet is the obvious solution. Maybe a full cut-off would be too annoying, but at least cap it at 64kbps after half an hour.