That's odd, according to Wikipedia steel tops out around 2700 MPa (similar to what you claim), but spider silk tops out around 27,000 MPa, or 10 times that of steel, though your run-of-the-mill spider will only produce around 1,000 MPa silk. Kevlar is about the same as the strongest steel (around 2,700 MPa), UHMDWPE fibers (Spectra) are a bit stronger. Piano wire only hits about 2500 MPa (pretty good for steel, but not the best).
Titanium is as strong as low-grade steel (430-ish MPa), but is 45% lighter. In other words, you need a much higher grade steel (at least 800 MPa) to match the characteristics of titanium, and as you said titanium is cheep. High grade steel is not. That's why steel scuba tanks are more expensive. The bonus is as you mentioned though - they are about half as thick, though not any lighter (unless you go for even higher grade steel), so tanks can be a little smaller and still hold the same volume of air at the same pressure, or be the same size and hold the same volume of air at slightly lower pressure. Not a bad deal, but it's going to cost you some extra cash.
Carbon fiber tops out at 6,370 MPa, more than twice that of steel. Pure silica glass fiber tops out at 4,000 MPa, but mono-crystalline silicon hits up to 7,000 MPa.
The strongest material yet measured is multi-walled carbon nanotubes, with a tensile strength of 63 GPa, though theoretically they should be able to hit 300 GPa.
In other words, I think you need to hit the books again man, your figures are way, way off.
Why the hell would we use exotic materials if they were weaker and heavier than steel? Steel can only do so much, and it has been far, far surpassed by new materials.
The 80's-style hyper-dramatic techno music slowly builds, then suddenly drums kick in, picking up the pace, before the spokesperson in a flashy suit comes on:
"The new computing paradigm of the present invention starts from a new kind of world view: A global economy is emerging with rapid flows of capital, knowledge, products, and competitive pressures. A growing number of companies and industries face new needs to leapfrog their limits and become effective competitors on a global level, transforming their performance, productivity, adaptation, and innovation capabilities. Is it possible for a single leverage point to help fill part of these needs?
"This new type of software is defined by its novel purposes: the improvement or fabrication of reality based on its users' ideas and imaginations."
Even without software patents, there'd still be copyright.
No, there wouldn't. You have to publish something to have copyright, and someone has to make a copy of it and distribute that copy for it to be a copyright violation. A re-implementation of an idea in no way, shape, or form violates copyright.
Copyright only applies to a direct copy. If you re-write it you are not violating copyright.
Copyrights protect the arrangement of words, numbers, sounds, and such. Patents protect the ideas those arrangements are based on.
Since this company is a patent troll and has not produced one lick of software, nobody is in danger of violating copyright in this case.
Does it stop future products? Maybe, at least yours.
It stops you ever sharing the idea, so the innovation won't come until someone is both clever enough to re-invent it AND wealthy enough to make it into a profitable product.
In other words you've just pushed back progress 5, 10, maybe even 50 years. Sure eventually it will happen, but why waste all that time? Why not give someone the incentive to share his idea anyway, so we can all benefit? That's the whole purpose behind the patent system, and it works very well for non-software patents.
The problem is that software moves way, way too fast for the current patent system. 20 years is 5-10 generations in the software world, it's just way too long. As such, instead of promoting invention, it tends to stifle it. It doesn't take 5 years to go from idea to market in the software world (well, it can, but if it does it's a failure) and the expected profitability of a product generally isn't more than a couple years without a major overhaul. Honestly, cutting software patents down to anywhere from 5-10 years would do us a world of good.
Actually no, for patents prior to 1995, it's 20 years from the earliest application OR 17 years from the date issued, whichever is longer. For all patents after 1995 it's 20 years from the earliest application. The issuance date does not matter any more.
It was first applied for Feb 17 1990, so 20 years ran up this past Feb 17.
It was issued Oct 5, 1993, so 17 years ran up 9 days ago.
In other words, there aren't going to be any new lawsuits, but those in progress will continue. That's why they shotgunned them like this, they had almost no time in which to do it.
I believe they can go through with their current lawsuits (since the term ended 9 days ago), but I don't think it is possible for them to create new ones.
Who the fuck is the American here? Assange is Australian, and is in Sweden. All the US Govt did was put him on a watch list.
If you think he's such a great guy, then why has the Australian government banned a site created by one of their own? The US hasn't done anything close to that, they just put him on a watch list (it was a private company that chose not to do business with him - frankly, I wouldn't either).
The US has a long-standing executive order against assassinations.
Every president since Gerald Ford (who initiated it) has reaffirmed this order.
G. W. Bush got a little fuzzy with it (as long as they could be classified as enemy combatants/terrorists it was a go), but he did not recind the order.
In other words, assassination (at least of folks like Assange) is currently illegal in the US, and if caught the assassins and those who ordered the assassination would face serious jail time.
For Christ's sake all the US Govt did was put him on a watch list, which is entirely understandable, given the fact that he facilitated the theft of a large number of confidential military documents.
It was a private company that decided they no longer wanted to do business with his company, probably because they did not want to be involved if the US Govt ever did decide to go ape-shit on Wikileaks.
Sorry I forgot, Slashdot only likes individual rights when the individual is an underdog. Fuck the right to choose not to do business with someone you don't approve of, am I right Slashdot?
On the other hand, just because you spent a lot of money on content doesn't mean it is as good as the free services.
Compare any cable news network to broadcast news. The broadcast networks have higher quality content across the board. You get less content, but better content, and it's free.
Also, the most popular shows on TV are on the broadcast networks, not subscription networks. That doesn't mean the subscription networks' shows aren't any good, but they can't be much better than the broadcast networks' shows, or people would be flocking to the subscription and ignoring the broadcast. That just isn't the case.
Really, the only people who need to be paid are the front-line reporters. After that all you need is an aggregate service and some organization/categorization. For the most part regional and national news coverage is redundant. It's rarely original news reporting, it is almost always gathered from a local affiliate and re-broadcast.
The big national news coverage has served as our aggregate service in the past, basically. We just never looked at it like that. So when a new technology allows us to do the same thing for several orders of magnitude less money, obviously the old way is not going to be able to keep up.
All we really need these days is something like the AP, we don't need the major news companies that support it.
Obviously these are sweeping generalizations, and there are exceptions for everything. But generally speaking, they are true.
There are stories, generally op-eds, "think pieces," and commissioned pieces with original research that appear on the NY Times and no where else.
Which are no different than a quality blog.
News is now so easy to get, it's not worth paying for its duplication. If you've got local news that is accessible by the whole planet, then these progressively less-local news agencies (state, region, national, etc) become very redundant. You can replace the news portion of those agencies with simple aggregate services and serve the whole world with a staff of 20.
What's left are, like you said, the op-eds and opinion articles. These are quickly being over-taken by blogs - there are some very high quality ones out there, and the news agencies are having trouble keeping up.
It's a totally different world these days. No longer do you have to wait until today to find out what happened yesterday or the day before. It's even free, to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd, according to Wikipedia steel tops out around 2700 MPa (similar to what you claim), but spider silk tops out around 27,000 MPa, or 10 times that of steel, though your run-of-the-mill spider will only produce around 1,000 MPa silk. Kevlar is about the same as the strongest steel (around 2,700 MPa), UHMDWPE fibers (Spectra) are a bit stronger. Piano wire only hits about 2500 MPa (pretty good for steel, but not the best).
Titanium is as strong as low-grade steel (430-ish MPa), but is 45% lighter. In other words, you need a much higher grade steel (at least 800 MPa) to match the characteristics of titanium, and as you said titanium is cheep. High grade steel is not. That's why steel scuba tanks are more expensive. The bonus is as you mentioned though - they are about half as thick, though not any lighter (unless you go for even higher grade steel), so tanks can be a little smaller and still hold the same volume of air at the same pressure, or be the same size and hold the same volume of air at slightly lower pressure. Not a bad deal, but it's going to cost you some extra cash.
Carbon fiber tops out at 6,370 MPa, more than twice that of steel. Pure silica glass fiber tops out at 4,000 MPa, but mono-crystalline silicon hits up to 7,000 MPa.
The strongest material yet measured is multi-walled carbon nanotubes, with a tensile strength of 63 GPa, though theoretically they should be able to hit 300 GPa.
In other words, I think you need to hit the books again man, your figures are way, way off.
Why the hell would we use exotic materials if they were weaker and heavier than steel? Steel can only do so much, and it has been far, far surpassed by new materials.
Whirled Peas! Whirled Peas man! Everybody wishes for whirled peas. It's the human thing to do!
Mmmmmmm... Daaaaanishhh....
Wait it's probably "Reipu Sheedo", or maybe Sheedu, give them all a try.
It probably is, try punching in Raipu Sheedo in Google and find out!
Canola is a brand name awarded to a Canadian company for their genetically modified rape seed.
You fail to mention that non-GM rape seed and its oil are poisonous.
By genetically modifying the rape seed, Canola substantially increased the world's food supply.
But GM is evil right?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
Hopefully you don't live in Australia, as this guy has a patent on the wheel!
Nah, it's not just the US. You hear about it here because this is a US based website, so most of the news is going to be pertaining to the US.
For example, a few years back a guy managed to patent the wheel in Australia. Pretty impressive if you ask me, considering the eons of prior art.
You laugh, but if every new mathematical advancement were patented we would be centuries behind where we are now.
The 80's-style hyper-dramatic techno music slowly builds, then suddenly drums kick in, picking up the pace, before the spokesperson in a flashy suit comes on:
"The new computing paradigm of the present invention starts from a new kind of world view: A global economy is emerging with rapid flows of capital, knowledge, products, and competitive pressures. A growing number of companies and industries face new needs to leapfrog their limits and become effective competitors on a global level, transforming their performance, productivity, adaptation, and innovation capabilities. Is it possible for a single leverage point to help fill part of these needs?
"This new type of software is defined by its novel purposes: the improvement or fabrication of reality based on its users' ideas and imaginations."
Cue logo and breathless voices: "Rollovers!".
Fortunately it expired 9 days ago, so we're all good.
Actually good inventions make you think "wow, I never would have thought of that!"
Shitty inventions make you think "wow, they got a patent for this?"
Even without software patents, there'd still be copyright.
No, there wouldn't. You have to publish something to have copyright, and someone has to make a copy of it and distribute that copy for it to be a copyright violation. A re-implementation of an idea in no way, shape, or form violates copyright.
Copyright only applies to a direct copy. If you re-write it you are not violating copyright.
Copyrights protect the arrangement of words, numbers, sounds, and such. Patents protect the ideas those arrangements are based on.
Since this company is a patent troll and has not produced one lick of software, nobody is in danger of violating copyright in this case.
Meh, TedIsGod has pictures, I like it better. The text is also smaller, so I feel like I'm smarter when I pretend I am reading it.
Though I admit Timecube is more sciency.
Does it stop future products? Maybe, at least yours.
It stops you ever sharing the idea, so the innovation won't come until someone is both clever enough to re-invent it AND wealthy enough to make it into a profitable product.
In other words you've just pushed back progress 5, 10, maybe even 50 years. Sure eventually it will happen, but why waste all that time? Why not give someone the incentive to share his idea anyway, so we can all benefit? That's the whole purpose behind the patent system, and it works very well for non-software patents.
The problem is that software moves way, way too fast for the current patent system. 20 years is 5-10 generations in the software world, it's just way too long. As such, instead of promoting invention, it tends to stifle it. It doesn't take 5 years to go from idea to market in the software world (well, it can, but if it does it's a failure) and the expected profitability of a product generally isn't more than a couple years without a major overhaul. Honestly, cutting software patents down to anywhere from 5-10 years would do us a world of good.
Actually no, for patents prior to 1995, it's 20 years from the earliest application OR 17 years from the date issued, whichever is longer. For all patents after 1995 it's 20 years from the earliest application. The issuance date does not matter any more.
It was first applied for Feb 17 1990, so 20 years ran up this past Feb 17.
It was issued Oct 5, 1993, so 17 years ran up 9 days ago.
In other words, there aren't going to be any new lawsuits, but those in progress will continue. That's why they shotgunned them like this, they had almost no time in which to do it.
Ahh, but this is on the internet! It's totally different!
Is "on the internet" the new "on the computer" for patents? Me thinks likely.
You are correct sir.
I believe they can go through with their current lawsuits (since the term ended 9 days ago), but I don't think it is possible for them to create new ones.
What exactly is wrong about the US Govt putting Assange on a watch list? Seems reasonable to me.
Who the fuck is the American here? Assange is Australian, and is in Sweden. All the US Govt did was put him on a watch list.
If you think he's such a great guy, then why has the Australian government banned a site created by one of their own? The US hasn't done anything close to that, they just put him on a watch list (it was a private company that chose not to do business with him - frankly, I wouldn't either).
The US has a long-standing executive order against assassinations.
Every president since Gerald Ford (who initiated it) has reaffirmed this order.
G. W. Bush got a little fuzzy with it (as long as they could be classified as enemy combatants/terrorists it was a go), but he did not recind the order.
In other words, assassination (at least of folks like Assange) is currently illegal in the US, and if caught the assassins and those who ordered the assassination would face serious jail time.
For Christ's sake all the US Govt did was put him on a watch list, which is entirely understandable, given the fact that he facilitated the theft of a large number of confidential military documents.
It was a private company that decided they no longer wanted to do business with his company, probably because they did not want to be involved if the US Govt ever did decide to go ape-shit on Wikileaks.
Sorry I forgot, Slashdot only likes individual rights when the individual is an underdog. Fuck the right to choose not to do business with someone you don't approve of, am I right Slashdot?
On the other hand, just because you spent a lot of money on content doesn't mean it is as good as the free services.
Compare any cable news network to broadcast news. The broadcast networks have higher quality content across the board. You get less content, but better content, and it's free.
Also, the most popular shows on TV are on the broadcast networks, not subscription networks. That doesn't mean the subscription networks' shows aren't any good, but they can't be much better than the broadcast networks' shows, or people would be flocking to the subscription and ignoring the broadcast. That just isn't the case.
Really, the only people who need to be paid are the front-line reporters. After that all you need is an aggregate service and some organization/categorization. For the most part regional and national news coverage is redundant. It's rarely original news reporting, it is almost always gathered from a local affiliate and re-broadcast.
The big national news coverage has served as our aggregate service in the past, basically. We just never looked at it like that. So when a new technology allows us to do the same thing for several orders of magnitude less money, obviously the old way is not going to be able to keep up.
All we really need these days is something like the AP, we don't need the major news companies that support it.
Obviously these are sweeping generalizations, and there are exceptions for everything. But generally speaking, they are true.
There are stories, generally op-eds, "think pieces," and commissioned pieces with original research that appear on the NY Times and no where else.
Which are no different than a quality blog.
News is now so easy to get, it's not worth paying for its duplication. If you've got local news that is accessible by the whole planet, then these progressively less-local news agencies (state, region, national, etc) become very redundant. You can replace the news portion of those agencies with simple aggregate services and serve the whole world with a staff of 20.
What's left are, like you said, the op-eds and opinion articles. These are quickly being over-taken by blogs - there are some very high quality ones out there, and the news agencies are having trouble keeping up.
It's a totally different world these days. No longer do you have to wait until today to find out what happened yesterday or the day before. It's even free, to boot.