You'll probably be so confused by the differences you'll give up in disgust.
Exactly. And I'll go back to Windows. And Linux will fail to be competitive on the desktop. Glad you agree with me. Now, if we could just convince the rest of the world.
That isn't going to solve the issue. What happens when I use Fedora, which uses one browser, and I sit down at a Mandrake machine, which uses a different browser? Even more important, what happens when Fedora uses KDE and SuSE uses Gnome? There needs to be a user interface component to the LSB (or an alternate standard) which defines what a standard commercial install looks like. All the other stuff can still be there as user choices but the default install needs to be consistent across installations. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
It seems as though the strategy backfired on SCO, however. This turned into a public relations nightmare for EV1. If you were CEO of a corporation , would you be willing to take out a license from SCO now? SCO has almost single handedly sunk their chances of making any money from licensing deals. It's questionable if they ever intended to make significant money from it, but, absent a compelling victory in court, they certainly won't now.
I have spoken to a number of people in chemistry and drug industries who confirm that the situation between the industries is not that different.
The situation between the industries is very different in some key ways.
First, if you write a software product which does some task, its almost always straightforward for me, assuming I'm a competent programmer, to implement the same functionality in a clean room environment. My code will not be identical to yours. It might be similar in some aspects (thus the SCO debacle) or it might be wildly different in all aspects, but it certainly will not be identical. A software patent prevents me from selling my code because it implements the same functionality as yours. You haven't patented your code, you've patented the idea of what your code does. You've patented its functionality.
The situation is makedly differnt if you patent a specific drug which treats a specific disease. Before that drug can be used, a great deal of testing must be done to ensure that it is effective and safe for use. That testing costs time and money. If I now start selling that same drug, it is absolutely identical to the drug you're selling. If it is not identical, it's a different drug. I am perfectly free to find another drug which performs the same function - treats the same illness. You haven't patented the idea of treating the illness - you've patented a specific chemical compound. If you're unable to patent your drug, and I start selling the same drug, I'm able to take advantage of all your research and testing. You did all the hard work and invested all the money, yet I'm able to jump in and reap the profits. That isn't what libertarianism is about.
Certainly giving us unaffordable medicine is not the answer
Right here, you've left the land of libertarianism. Who is this "us" you're talking about? Who's this unnamed person giving something to this mysterious "us"? Your underlying assumption is of a group of people who have some inherent right to medicine and of some group in authority who regulates that access....claiming that no one would make reasonable medical progress without patents is ludicrous.
Claiming that medical progress would be slowed and harmed by not allowing companies to profit from their invested money and time is not at all ludicrous. As it is, most drugs lose money for the originating company. The companies are carried by the successes.
...it is clearly unlibertarian to prevent a second person from inventing what a first person has laid broad claim to having invented, most of which came from others in the first place.
Our patent system is a mess. It is badly in need of reform, and I'm talking about more than just software patents. An invention is supposed to be original and non-obvious to an expert in the field. All too often, things patented as new inventions do not meet the criteria. They're obvious and/or far too broad. I'm all for tightening and revising the patenting system. But because the current implementation is poor doesn't mean that the concept is itself flawed.
I'd buy a cheap PC case (a local shop carries them for $12 sans power supply) and cut out the metal plate where the mobo mounts. Depending on your design, you might want to keep the back plane attached. Mount it to your wooden case using screws in elongated slots with the slots running in the direction of the grain of the wood. That will allow the wood to expand and contract without stressing the motherboard. As a bonus, you can run a ground from the PS to the metal base, which makes sure your mobo is well grounded.
So you oppose all patents? If so, you left me behind. I note that you quote extensive arguments for patents but post very little in the way of rebuttal.
In your first post, you specifically mentioned software patents. No argument from me there - patenting software is ludicrous. However, patenting a legitimate invention for a limited time is, I think, justified. If you want to amend the patent system such that two people who independently invented the same object can have a co-patent of some sort, I'm willing to listen to your proposal. I oppose drug companies patenting DNA sequences but I don't oppose them patenting specific drugs.
I'm not sure which lp pages you're reading. I have seen a number of calls for strong government controls of drug companies, and liberatarians do generally oppose that. I do as well. However, I (and other libertarians) also favor eleminating most of the current regulations as well. Is it possible you're seeing a specific argument in a specify context (ie, a response to the calls to increase drug company regulation) and assuming that it covers the entirity of the situation?
In general, libertarians oppose both corporate welfare and most corporate regulation. Allow the free market to work.
Libertarians also strongly support personal rights. However, it's important to understand exactly what a "personal right" is. A personal right is something which you may not be prevented from doing. It doesn't guarantee you any special considerations or assistance. You have the right to free speech, but no one is required to listen, and no one is compelled to provide you with a bullhorn, newspaper space or any other assistance.
Of necessity, a personal right does not impost obligations on any one else. Thus things such as health care are not personal rights, despite claims by the UN to the contrary. If you have a personal right which grants you access to health care, then it follows that someone else is obligated to provide you with that health care. Whether we're talking about the physcian who provies the health care or the taxpayer who funds it, someone else has suddenly become responsible for you - their interests have been subsumed by your interests. Libertarians don't believe rights work that way.
I'm well aware that the Internet is an international medium. Exactly what does that have to do with my post? Is it your contention that the poster I replied to was under the impression that some folks thought the web sites actions was a violation of US law?
The problem is people who fail to understand the fundamental nature of rights and freedom. They act as if any questioning of an individual's rights is a violation of that person's freedom. If it's only their own ignorance, that's one thing. But their vociferation tars those who protest legitimate violations of freedom - we all get lumped in together. In simpler terms, folks like that give [Ll]ibertarians a bad name.
BTW, you have entirely too high an opinion of normal intelligence.
As a libertarian and strong defender of personal rights, it flat out pisses me off when I see someone post crap like the parent.
Of COURSE they can block whomever they want. Unless you're replying to a post that is advocating bringing a lawsuit, passing a new law to prohibit referral blocking or bringing in the National Guard to stop them from referral blocking, then what on earth is the point of your post? Yes, they can block whomever they want, and I can utilize my freedom of speech to point out that they're being stupid and will lose any business they may have gotten from me if they keep such a lame policy in place.
Freedom to take an action does not mean freedom from the responsibility of that action, it simply means that neither the government or anyone else can use force to prevent you from taking the action. As I have yet to see a post advocating using force to change their policy, your post is completely inane.
Interesting that you see a simple statement of fact as condescension. From a literary standpoint, the Earthsea series is clearly superior to Dragonlance. If you're really not capable of seeing this, perhaps your local university offers a course in literature appreciation that might interest you.
This isn't to say that Dragonlance is worthless or a waste of time to read, nor that a movie based on the books would be a bad thing. It might be quite fun. However, it would not be as significant an event as a movie based on the Earthsea series.
You may very well be right. While they didn't do too bad a job with the story of Dune, they failed utterly in translating its depth. To echo the thread above, they essentially transformed it from a work of literature into a work of escapist fiction. I'm not sure it's possible to translate Herbert or Wolfe or even, say, Silverberg, to film. The mediums are too dissimilar. On the other hand, as I've already commented, they managed to succeed with Tolkien, so perhaps the right director and cast could do justice to other works of depth.
Well said; I don't disagree with anything that you said other than that I suspect that Jane Austen knew the depths of her book. She was intentionally commenting on the social structure and the position of women in that time. She certainly intended her books to entertain, and she suceeded in that regard as well.
You are correct, however, that a work of literature stands on its own merits and not the intentions of its author. For all I know, Weis and Hickman intended the struggles between the twins to be deep comentary on the nature of good and evil. If so, they failed. The examination of good and evil there is simplistic and never goes beyond the cursory. Tolkien may have intended solely to entertain, but his examination of the nature of good and evil goes much deeper than that of W&H.
Thanks for clarifying an issue I unintentionally left muddy.
How old were you when you read it? It's a bit simplistic for adults or even teens just to read as a piece of fiction. I've found that they're wonderful to read to children. I'm not at all religious but young kids usually don't recognize the religious references and the moral implications can be discussed without referring to Christianity as a source document.
Escapist fiction is writing with no other pretense than to entertain. It's meant to distract you from your day to day existence. It doesn't attempt to address any issues; it doesn't attempt to teach any lessons; it has no theme or moral; it says absolutely nothing about the human condition. It's simply fun to read.
The Chronicles of Narnia are children's literature but they are most definitely literature. They address and examine a number of moral and ethical issues. Their purpose is to teach children WHILE they entertain, not just to while away some time.
I don't think the Belgariad is great literature by any means. Even within the genre, it's definitely a step below the Earthsea books, the Lord of the Rings and other classics. However, I think the series is much better written than Dragonlance and such. There is definitely a stock element to some of the characters, but it's literally impossible to write classic fantasy without running into some of that. The only reason you can't say that about the Lord of the Rings, for example, is that they're the archetypes on which the stock charactes are based.
You're right that it's easy to see certain things as a reader, but I don't believe those things are meant to be hidden. Belgarath and Polgara are well aware of whom Garion, Ce'nedra, etc. are and what role they play in the prophecy. The books feature reasonably deep characters with good interplay and a well-developed, coherent plot. Not great literature by most definitions but certainly a cut above Dragonlance.
I thought there was a serious drop-off in quality between the Belgariad and the Mallorean. I would have said they'd have a hard time capturing the essence of the Belgariad on film, but I would have said the same thing about the Lord of the Rings, and I was proven wrong there.
Another series I'd love to see would be Patricia McKillip's "Riddlemaster of Hed" series. I think the plot would lend itself quite well to film.
Another series of a quite different sort that would make an excellent film or series is Zelazny's Amber books, particularly the first series. You could spend a few hours just talking about who to cast in the various roles there.
The Earthsea series is one of the defining series of fantasy. It is a classic in every sense of he word. The Dragonlance series is mildly entertaining escapist fiction with stock characters and a predictable plot. A Dragonlance movie or series might be amusing, but it wouldn't be near as significant an event.
Mostly correct. At top speed, the engine is working to overcome everything which is working to slow the car down. The majority of that is air resistance, but that isn't all of it. A car has a natural rolling resistance which the width of the tire affects. All other things being equal, a wider tire will increase the rolling resistance of the car.
No, the car is rev limited. At approximately 500 RPM past red line, the compuer cuts fuel to the engine to prevent over-reving and blowing up the engine. It doesn't matter if you're in first gear or fifth. The engine will not turn above a certain RPM.
My first post was a bit simplistic and glossed over a few things.
Friction has an effect on traction, but it isn't the entire story. You're correct, of course, that tire width has no effect on simple friction. That is, if you took a car and locked the wheels and measured the amount of force it takes to drag the car (over a smooth surface), that force will theoretically be the same regardless of the width of the tires. Narrower tires will have a smaller contact patch but will have more weight on that patch.
However, traction involves more than just simple friction. There are a great many issues that come into play. One issue is the amount of unsprung weight - it takes more energy to spin a heavy wheel than it does a light wheel. You yourself mentioned that Wider wheels have greater mass. Since your engine puts out a fixed amount of power (fixed in the sense of a maximum output, power output varies over the RPM range of course), wider wheels require more of that power simply to rotate and that leaves less power to apply toward moving the car forward. Wider tires also have to move more air out of the way, which also takes energy (the aerodynamic issue you mentioned). Asphalt is not a smooth surface and is often litered with pebbles, bits of tire rubber and other debris. These tend to act like ball bearings and reduce the friction under the tire. A wider tire has a better chance of coming into contact with a solid surface. Wider tires can be built of softer compound and still stand up to the strain of a hard launch as the force is spread out over more material.
In short, while simple friction is not affected by tire width, a wider tire does provide both more traction and more rolling resistance than a narrower tire.
Saying that tire friction is your limiting factor implies that at some point, the engine is capable of providing more power but the tires start spinning and can not hook that power to the ground. I do not know of any car where the engine spins the tires out at top speed.
You're correct in that air resistance often sets your top speed. An engine is capable of providing a set amount of power. At some point, the rolling resistance of the car equals the engine power output. That's your top speed. Air resistance is the largest part of your rolling resistance. Tire resistance plays a part as well, however, and decreasing tire resistance will give you a slightly higher top speed, assuming you don't reduce it so much that you DO start spinning out the tires at top speed and that your engine is capable of providing the power.
However, this isn't always the case. An engine also has a top RPM. Imbalances in the engine mean that if you spin it too fast, its going to come apart on you. My car tops out at just over 130 because that's when the rev limiter kicks in. Even in a vacuum, with no air resistance (and assuming some method of feeding air to the engine, of course) my to speed would not change. Of course, that's an engineered limit and not a limit of physics. It would be possible to alter the gearing to allow the car to go faster at lower engine RPM, and thus allow the fundamental limits of physics to come into play.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll probably be so confused by the differences you'll give up in disgust.
Exactly. And I'll go back to Windows. And Linux will fail to be competitive on the desktop. Glad you agree with me. Now, if we could just convince the rest of the world.
That isn't going to solve the issue. What happens when I use Fedora, which uses one browser, and I sit down at a Mandrake machine, which uses a different browser? Even more important, what happens when Fedora uses KDE and SuSE uses Gnome? There needs to be a user interface component to the LSB (or an alternate standard) which defines what a standard commercial install looks like. All the other stuff can still be there as user choices but the default install needs to be consistent across installations. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
It seems as though the strategy backfired on SCO, however. This turned into a public relations nightmare for EV1. If you were CEO of a corporation , would you be willing to take out a license from SCO now? SCO has almost single handedly sunk their chances of making any money from licensing deals. It's questionable if they ever intended to make significant money from it, but, absent a compelling victory in court, they certainly won't now.
The situation between the industries is very different in some key ways.
First, if you write a software product which does some task, its almost always straightforward for me, assuming I'm a competent programmer, to implement the same functionality in a clean room environment. My code will not be identical to yours. It might be similar in some aspects (thus the SCO debacle) or it might be wildly different in all aspects, but it certainly will not be identical. A software patent prevents me from selling my code because it implements the same functionality as yours. You haven't patented your code, you've patented the idea of what your code does. You've patented its functionality.
The situation is makedly differnt if you patent a specific drug which treats a specific disease. Before that drug can be used, a great deal of testing must be done to ensure that it is effective and safe for use. That testing costs time and money. If I now start selling that same drug, it is absolutely identical to the drug you're selling. If it is not identical, it's a different drug. I am perfectly free to find another drug which performs the same function - treats the same illness. You haven't patented the idea of treating the illness - you've patented a specific chemical compound. If you're unable to patent your drug, and I start selling the same drug, I'm able to take advantage of all your research and testing. You did all the hard work and invested all the money, yet I'm able to jump in and reap the profits. That isn't what libertarianism is about.
Certainly giving us unaffordable medicine is not the answer
...claiming that no one would make reasonable medical progress without patents is ludicrous.
Right here, you've left the land of libertarianism. Who is this "us" you're talking about? Who's this unnamed person giving something to this mysterious "us"? Your underlying assumption is of a group of people who have some inherent right to medicine and of some group in authority who regulates that access.
Claiming that medical progress would be slowed and harmed by not allowing companies to profit from their invested money and time is not at all ludicrous. As it is, most drugs lose money for the originating company. The companies are carried by the successes.
Our patent system is a mess. It is badly in need of reform, and I'm talking about more than just software patents. An invention is supposed to be original and non-obvious to an expert in the field. All too often, things patented as new inventions do not meet the criteria. They're obvious and/or far too broad. I'm all for tightening and revising the patenting system. But because the current implementation is poor doesn't mean that the concept is itself flawed.
I'd buy a cheap PC case (a local shop carries them for $12 sans power supply) and cut out the metal plate where the mobo mounts. Depending on your design, you might want to keep the back plane attached. Mount it to your wooden case using screws in elongated slots with the slots running in the direction of the grain of the wood. That will allow the wood to expand and contract without stressing the motherboard. As a bonus, you can run a ground from the PS to the metal base, which makes sure your mobo is well grounded.
So you oppose all patents? If so, you left me behind. I note that you quote extensive arguments for patents but post very little in the way of rebuttal.
In your first post, you specifically mentioned software patents. No argument from me there - patenting software is ludicrous. However, patenting a legitimate invention for a limited time is, I think, justified. If you want to amend the patent system such that two people who independently invented the same object can have a co-patent of some sort, I'm willing to listen to your proposal. I oppose drug companies patenting DNA sequences but I don't oppose them patenting specific drugs.
I'm not sure which lp pages you're reading. I have seen a number of calls for strong government controls of drug companies, and liberatarians do generally oppose that. I do as well. However, I (and other libertarians) also favor eleminating most of the current regulations as well. Is it possible you're seeing a specific argument in a specify context (ie, a response to the calls to increase drug company regulation) and assuming that it covers the entirity of the situation?
In general, libertarians oppose both corporate welfare and most corporate regulation. Allow the free market to work.
Libertarians also strongly support personal rights. However, it's important to understand exactly what a "personal right" is. A personal right is something which you may not be prevented from doing. It doesn't guarantee you any special considerations or assistance. You have the right to free speech, but no one is required to listen, and no one is compelled to provide you with a bullhorn, newspaper space or any other assistance.
Of necessity, a personal right does not impost obligations on any one else. Thus things such as health care are not personal rights, despite claims by the UN to the contrary. If you have a personal right which grants you access to health care, then it follows that someone else is obligated to provide you with that health care. Whether we're talking about the physcian who provies the health care or the taxpayer who funds it, someone else has suddenly become responsible for you - their interests have been subsumed by your interests. Libertarians don't believe rights work that way.
I'm well aware that the Internet is an international medium. Exactly what does that have to do with my post? Is it your contention that the poster I replied to was under the impression that some folks thought the web sites actions was a violation of US law?
The problem is people who fail to understand the fundamental nature of rights and freedom. They act as if any questioning of an individual's rights is a violation of that person's freedom. If it's only their own ignorance, that's one thing. But their vociferation tars those who protest legitimate violations of freedom - we all get lumped in together. In simpler terms, folks like that give [Ll]ibertarians a bad name.
BTW, you have entirely too high an opinion of normal intelligence.
As a libertarian and strong defender of personal rights, it flat out pisses me off when I see someone post crap like the parent.
Of COURSE they can block whomever they want. Unless you're replying to a post that is advocating bringing a lawsuit, passing a new law to prohibit referral blocking or bringing in the National Guard to stop them from referral blocking, then what on earth is the point of your post? Yes, they can block whomever they want, and I can utilize my freedom of speech to point out that they're being stupid and will lose any business they may have gotten from me if they keep such a lame policy in place.
Freedom to take an action does not mean freedom from the responsibility of that action, it simply means that neither the government or anyone else can use force to prevent you from taking the action. As I have yet to see a post advocating using force to change their policy, your post is completely inane.
Interesting that you see a simple statement of fact as condescension. From a literary standpoint, the Earthsea series is clearly superior to Dragonlance. If you're really not capable of seeing this, perhaps your local university offers a course in literature appreciation that might interest you.
This isn't to say that Dragonlance is worthless or a waste of time to read, nor that a movie based on the books would be a bad thing. It might be quite fun. However, it would not be as significant an event as a movie based on the Earthsea series.
You may very well be right. While they didn't do too bad a job with the story of Dune, they failed utterly in translating its depth. To echo the thread above, they essentially transformed it from a work of literature into a work of escapist fiction. I'm not sure it's possible to translate Herbert or Wolfe or even, say, Silverberg, to film. The mediums are too dissimilar. On the other hand, as I've already commented, they managed to succeed with Tolkien, so perhaps the right director and cast could do justice to other works of depth.
Which in itself is a good thing and sufficient to justify a book's existence.
Certainly it is. If I implied otherwise, it was unintentional. I've spent many a long hours pleasantly enthralled in a work of escapist fiction.
Well said; I don't disagree with anything that you said other than that I suspect that Jane Austen knew the depths of her book. She was intentionally commenting on the social structure and the position of women in that time. She certainly intended her books to entertain, and she suceeded in that regard as well.
You are correct, however, that a work of literature stands on its own merits and not the intentions of its author. For all I know, Weis and Hickman intended the struggles between the twins to be deep comentary on the nature of good and evil. If so, they failed. The examination of good and evil there is simplistic and never goes beyond the cursory. Tolkien may have intended solely to entertain, but his examination of the nature of good and evil goes much deeper than that of W&H.
Thanks for clarifying an issue I unintentionally left muddy.
How old were you when you read it? It's a bit simplistic for adults or even teens just to read as a piece of fiction. I've found that they're wonderful to read to children. I'm not at all religious but young kids usually don't recognize the religious references and the moral implications can be discussed without referring to Christianity as a source document.
Escapist fiction is writing with no other pretense than to entertain. It's meant to distract you from your day to day existence. It doesn't attempt to address any issues; it doesn't attempt to teach any lessons; it has no theme or moral; it says absolutely nothing about the human condition. It's simply fun to read.
The Chronicles of Narnia are children's literature but they are most definitely literature. They address and examine a number of moral and ethical issues. Their purpose is to teach children WHILE they entertain, not just to while away some time.
Narnia is escapist and Dragonlance is not? Surely you're trolling.
I don't think the Belgariad is great literature by any means. Even within the genre, it's definitely a step below the Earthsea books, the Lord of the Rings and other classics. However, I think the series is much better written than Dragonlance and such. There is definitely a stock element to some of the characters, but it's literally impossible to write classic fantasy without running into some of that. The only reason you can't say that about the Lord of the Rings, for example, is that they're the archetypes on which the stock charactes are based.
You're right that it's easy to see certain things as a reader, but I don't believe those things are meant to be hidden. Belgarath and Polgara are well aware of whom Garion, Ce'nedra, etc. are and what role they play in the prophecy. The books feature reasonably deep characters with good interplay and a well-developed, coherent plot. Not great literature by most definitions but certainly a cut above Dragonlance.
I thought there was a serious drop-off in quality between the Belgariad and the Mallorean. I would have said they'd have a hard time capturing the essence of the Belgariad on film, but I would have said the same thing about the Lord of the Rings, and I was proven wrong there.
Another series I'd love to see would be Patricia McKillip's "Riddlemaster of Hed" series. I think the plot would lend itself quite well to film.
Another series of a quite different sort that would make an excellent film or series is Zelazny's Amber books, particularly the first series. You could spend a few hours just talking about who to cast in the various roles there.
The Earthsea series is one of the defining series of fantasy. It is a classic in every sense of he word. The Dragonlance series is mildly entertaining escapist fiction with stock characters and a predictable plot. A Dragonlance movie or series might be amusing, but it wouldn't be near as significant an event.
Mostly correct. At top speed, the engine is working to overcome everything which is working to slow the car down. The majority of that is air resistance, but that isn't all of it. A car has a natural rolling resistance which the width of the tire affects. All other things being equal, a wider tire will increase the rolling resistance of the car.
No, the car is rev limited. At approximately 500 RPM past red line, the compuer cuts fuel to the engine to prevent over-reving and blowing up the engine. It doesn't matter if you're in first gear or fifth. The engine will not turn above a certain RPM.
Let's analyze, shall we? The title of the post is "The SHOULD ban styrofoam," not "They should ban DHMO." Clearer now?
My first post was a bit simplistic and glossed over a few things.
Friction has an effect on traction, but it isn't the entire story. You're correct, of course, that tire width has no effect on simple friction. That is, if you took a car and locked the wheels and measured the amount of force it takes to drag the car (over a smooth surface), that force will theoretically be the same regardless of the width of the tires. Narrower tires will have a smaller contact patch but will have more weight on that patch.
However, traction involves more than just simple friction. There are a great many issues that come into play. One issue is the amount of unsprung weight - it takes more energy to spin a heavy wheel than it does a light wheel. You yourself mentioned that Wider wheels have greater mass. Since your engine puts out a fixed amount of power (fixed in the sense of a maximum output, power output varies over the RPM range of course), wider wheels require more of that power simply to rotate and that leaves less power to apply toward moving the car forward. Wider tires also have to move more air out of the way, which also takes energy (the aerodynamic issue you mentioned). Asphalt is not a smooth surface and is often litered with pebbles, bits of tire rubber and other debris. These tend to act like ball bearings and reduce the friction under the tire. A wider tire has a better chance of coming into contact with a solid surface. Wider tires can be built of softer compound and still stand up to the strain of a hard launch as the force is spread out over more material.
In short, while simple friction is not affected by tire width, a wider tire does provide both more traction and more rolling resistance than a narrower tire.
Saying that tire friction is your limiting factor implies that at some point, the engine is capable of providing more power but the tires start spinning and can not hook that power to the ground. I do not know of any car where the engine spins the tires out at top speed.
You're correct in that air resistance often sets your top speed. An engine is capable of providing a set amount of power. At some point, the rolling resistance of the car equals the engine power output. That's your top speed. Air resistance is the largest part of your rolling resistance. Tire resistance plays a part as well, however, and decreasing tire resistance will give you a slightly higher top speed, assuming you don't reduce it so much that you DO start spinning out the tires at top speed and that your engine is capable of providing the power.
However, this isn't always the case. An engine also has a top RPM. Imbalances in the engine mean that if you spin it too fast, its going to come apart on you. My car tops out at just over 130 because that's when the rev limiter kicks in. Even in a vacuum, with no air resistance (and assuming some method of feeding air to the engine, of course) my to speed would not change. Of course, that's an engineered limit and not a limit of physics. It would be possible to alter the gearing to allow the car to go faster at lower engine RPM, and thus allow the fundamental limits of physics to come into play.