Heck, if the cable cost $40 million in materials it would be a steal.
It's probably going to cost $40 billion dollars to install, and the project will disrupt more lives than some acts of terrorism, knowing government contractors.
Why? Because plants and algae use a significant portion of their solar power to do things like growing and reproducing, which reduce their efficiency. A purely electro-mechanical production system would be more reliable and more consistent, at least.
Ah well, I guess gassification technologies are going to probably be the best we can do, barring engineering some crazy little algae.
I don't know what the hell the GP was talking about, but he did somehow manage to come close to the practical overall efficiency (roughly 20-35%) to convert a given fuel to electricity, and to convert that electrical energy to hydrogen through electrolysis. Sure, the electrolysis part of the equation can be pretty damned efficient, though.
The thing that bothers me most about the article is that they don't mention how efficient the entire system is. They pretend that recycling the aluminum oxides is simply like melting scrap aluminum down, and turning it into something else. Electrolyzing aluminum oxides is a high energy process, and I can't imagine that it's very efficient at all, from an energy system standpoint.
What I would like to see is a technology that synthesizes fuel oil by taking water, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and electricity and putting out something roughly comparable to diesel fuel, kerosene, or something else.
Sure, a wing on an FWD car make sense in race applications, because:
1) They put it there for the negative lift, like you say, but it also likely enhances negative lift from various ground effect/underbody aerodynamic tricks. Two birds, one stone. Ricers are generally not known for their knowledge of aerodynamic principals.
2) The air dam on the front of a race would be expected to actually work, unlike those pieces of kit that ricers enjoy so much, causing a significant down force on the front tires to counter the torque along the axis of the rear wheels, from the down force provided by the rear wing.
Well, I do agree, on principal. If both parties were in one country, I think it would be infinitely easier, however.
My main problem is, the plaintiff would have to put up a pretty good investment in lawyer money to get it to court, with no real guarantee of an outcome proportional to the investment in time and money. In other words, it might be worth the gamble to give 'em the smackdown if you had a good chance of recovering statutory damages, but it might not be worth the money and stress to go after lost profits, especially if she doesn't sell her photos as a professional, where one could have documented the market price of the photos. Since the market of art and photography is so subjective, there's no real way to approximate the value of her craft, unless she's successful in the market, otherwise her damages would probably be undervalued.
If I were her, I'd take this lesson from it above all else, supposing she hadn't already learned it: People like her stuff. This company sold around four grand worth of her photos, and she didn't even get to represent it like an artist would. If she isn't making a killing selling her photos (assuming she wants to), she's doing something terribly wrong.
Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin? They are legally liable for what they sell. If they can't produce the people who sold them the prints, that's their fault for doing business with shady people. Did they bother to ask the people for licensing information?
Okay, here's some facts: She lives in Iceland, the company lives in Great Britain, and Flickr is owned by an American company. International copyrights are a strange beast. Do you really know that they are liable for damages, if they violate her copyright, or is that just what you think you know? 'Cause I'll tell you how it works in the US:
Let's say you're a photographer and you post some stuff on Flickr. By default, your stuff is copyrighted when the shutter is clicked, or when you go to file->save in your favorite photo editing app (or is otherwise made into a fixed form). It is not, however registered with the Copyright Office, at the Library of Congress, unless you explicitly register your work. If you haven't registered your work, you cannot seek statutory damages, you can only seek lost profits, actual damages, and possibly attorney's fees.
Now, I won't pretend to understand how it's supposed to work in the UK, nor in Iceland, nonetheless in between the two... But I can sure as hell see that it would be a complicated, expensive matter to resolve via a civil lawsuit, and it's all too likely that she couldn't seek statutory damages, making any action not entirely worth it. Death threats are over the line, however, stupid people aren't under her control. A call-to-protest is, however, totally understandable.
Oh, so I suppose Darth Vader would be considered liberal, because he could have slowly strangled the life from his enemies with their entrails, but he simply chose not to.
Well, Germany at least holds the position that CoS isn't a church, and has primarily monetary interests, doesn't grant them tax exempt status, etc. CoS claims that Germany is discriminating against their members by not giving them government job and the like, but in truth I don't know specifics of what has happened... And the EU commission (or whatever it's called) was asking why Germany is keeping CoS members and buildings under surveillance. The CoS has filed a buttload of suits against the government for about the last 15 years, and AFAIK they haven't won any. It's not a lot, but I think they're the only first world county that isn't eagerly kowtowing to these wackos.
The CoS even put out all kinds of propaganda ads in the US some time back, about how they were the new Jews in the German's newest war on religions, or something like. As far as Germany doing anything truly proactive against them, I don't think that is the case, but like I said, at least they're doing some things.
I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.
And that's a totally understandable position, in many ways: back in days when bibles were copied by monks, by hand, each text was as precious as gold. It was not unusual for smaller churches to not even have a bible, as I understand. Furthermore, if you could read, you were likely either somehow involved with the church, or were a member of the aristocracy. Plus, what did the common folk understand about preserving documents? I mean, up until the point in time where Bible was becoming mass produced, there are a ton of practical reasons for not letting people except the priests handle them. The same can hardly be said of COS materials, in this day and age.
Jesus existed. The Romans have logs of a man named Jesus from Nazareth being chosen for execution by crucifixion. Not the Christians, but the Romans.
Jesus was a common name in the era and the locale. Some documents saying Jesus got crucified by some Romans are not entirely unlike, for example, some documents from any particular New York Italian mob in the 1920-1940 era saying that they whacked some knucklehead named either Joe, Frankie, Vinnie, or Mario--take your pick.. I mean, back then, you could pick up a rock chuck it into a crowd of people and you'd likely brain someone named Jesus.
Mind you, I'm not saying or implying that the Jesus we all know and love didn't exist, but we need some perspective. There were tons of Jesuses running around.
Let me guess, you're either terrible at playing the devil's advocate, or you're a terrible lobbyist for the drug industry.
That's the primary reason why drugs are so expensive in the US, we're subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world
You know, when drug companies stop throwing truckloads of money at marketing firms so they convince millions of people that some incredibly insignificant problem needs to be fixed by their overpriced product, when well known remedies which have existed forever do so, more cheaply, and with fewer side effects, you might have a point. When drug companies stop returning on their investments over 5 times the median of other fortune 500 companies, you might have a point. When drug companies stop exploiting patent system loopholes, you might have a point. When drug companies set a price, and stick to it, for everyone, you might have a point.
As it stands, my health care premiums subsidize these stupid companies because the other morons (including doctors who prescribe these products) in my plan chose to use overpriced and under effective shit. I'm not happy about it. You been to a doctor's office lately? If you have, you'd know that doctors have representatives practically crawling up their asses, trying and almost always succeeding to get them to promote their products both through subscriptions and free samples. They're worse than fucking Mormon-Scientologist-Adventist hybrids! The whole goddamned industry is laden with conflicts of interest, if not pure unethical goodness. Hell, I know doctors who haven't bought a meal since after their residency!
If some little virus comes crawling out, threatening to wipe out humanity, only to be averted by some wunder-cure, I'll have a good guess as to where it came from. These guys are worse than Dr. Evil, and much more competent.
And Amen to giving more encouragement to the drug industry to further ignore the needs of the developing world.
They were already largely ignored anyway. Was it possible to make and market these drugs at a price point that could be accessible to people who need it? Surely. That's the entire reason why they have an Indian company lined up to produce it. No, they would rather have their ten thousand percent markup, and a monopoly on the market for their seven years, while everyone suffers.
The funniest part of this is that Merck now gets shit nothing, because they wouldn't play ball. They could have had a nice piece of the pie, but now they have pie in the face because they were too greedy.
I think it's an interesting thing how Canada can get these stupid drug companies to push their prices down 50% less than we can buy them in the US in some cases, and yet the drug companies are in a shit storm frenzy to compete with the other companies who market similar products, so their product will be sold to Canadians... But I guess that's what capitalism is all about. It's funny that the last bastion of true corporation on corporation capitalism in the US might very well be represented by a foreign countries' socialized medical program, don't you think?
Good fucking job Brazil. If I could give a country a pat on the back, you'd get it. Bravo.
Oh, yeah, I didn't make that too clear. Sorry. I meant to say something like: they only offer Server 2003 out of the MS product line, and seem to not support desktop OSs.
Well, Dell will only ship Server 2003 with their server products, and that is a $800 expense.
I think that XP should be able to support an 8 core, dual socket setup, though. XP is limited to two sockets, but should be able to support at least 8 cores, I think.
The claim is plausible, isn't it? That's enough. Or are you willing to jump out on a limb and say there is no possible way Verizon could benefit, Mr. I see everything in black and white?
Is it? Where's your proof of that? You said it's likely - I call shenanigans. Even if Verizon doesn't pursue VOIP service, Vonage's continued existence takes customers away from Verizon. It's not even a matter of Verizon making use of the patents they have, they could merely sit on them to keep a competitor out of the field. You haven't proven to me that Verizon would make more money through licensing than either driving competition out or using the technology themselves now that VOIP is a more established technology in the mind of the general public.
Well, for one, not everyone is in Vonages' area of service for landlines. Licensing to Vonage would at least let them reach out and touch millions more people, in an indirect way. Of course, there's no proving that Vonage isn't wiping the floor with Verizon in it's own turf, which is probably more problematic for Verizon than any good which could come from licensing to Vonage.
Just curious...is this how you feel about lexus drivers.....or anyone in a higher priced car?
Well, I think drivers of luxury brands have a certain tendency to be pretentious douchebags, but I think most of this subset of people would be so inclined, even if they were driving a Honda. They're the same sort of people who rice-up cars, just richer usually. Ostentatiousness for its own sake, so to say.
I'm a member of the PCA (Porsche Club of America), and an interesting feature of the club is that the jerkoffs who can be initially attracted to the club (because they think the club consists mainly of other narcissistic jerkoffs) usually disappear from events in sort order, since their antisocial attitudes are generally incompatible with the activities and club philosophy. So, it's an interesting disparity, a lot of the drivers of Porsches I meet on the road are assholes, but most everyone who attends club events are great people.
I don't really harbor any negative feelings to Merc or Caddy drivers, or drivers of other brands. I just think driving a Lexus screams "Hi, I have shit for brains, AND I'm too poor to afford a 5 series Beamer!" Furthermore, it doesn't help that every Lexus driver on the planet seem to be constantly on the phone, and seem to be too poor to afford, or too stupid to use a Bluetooth headset, and therefore drive like they have a pineapple shoved up their ass.
That used to be my opinion, but they've since started actually making cars, well, different, with different engines and not just different trim, and stuff.
I still scowl at Lexus drivers, though, bunch of jerk-asses that group.
Oh, and Epson's color rating for 100 year durability is not for archival storage. It's for display, on a wall, under glass, with display light(s) shining on it for 12 hours a day. Halogen display lights should have a UV filter on them, which should go without saying. Furthermore, some of their medias proved to have much greater colorfastness, and with an additional UV filter, either in/on the glass or as a spray onto the print/paper, some of them proved to last 200+ years in the simulations, under display conditions. In dark storage, all Epson prints should go 200+ years without noticeable color differences, in either paper yellowing or in the ink itself.
Yeah, I'm sure our ability to determine photostability can't be anywhere near the same level of educated guessing we implore to determine the ages of things through the use the decay of radioisotopes. It's probably more like hitting a pinata whilst blindfolded, or perhaps like a game of darts, and we all know that carbon dating is pretty much like a game of pin the tail on the donkey.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, if the cable cost $40 million in materials it would be a steal.
It's probably going to cost $40 billion dollars to install, and the project will disrupt more lives than some acts of terrorism, knowing government contractors.
Why? Because plants and algae use a significant portion of their solar power to do things like growing and reproducing, which reduce their efficiency. A purely electro-mechanical production system would be more reliable and more consistent, at least.
Ah well, I guess gassification technologies are going to probably be the best we can do, barring engineering some crazy little algae.
I don't know what the hell the GP was talking about, but he did somehow manage to come close to the practical overall efficiency (roughly 20-35%) to convert a given fuel to electricity, and to convert that electrical energy to hydrogen through electrolysis. Sure, the electrolysis part of the equation can be pretty damned efficient, though.
The thing that bothers me most about the article is that they don't mention how efficient the entire system is. They pretend that recycling the aluminum oxides is simply like melting scrap aluminum down, and turning it into something else. Electrolyzing aluminum oxides is a high energy process, and I can't imagine that it's very efficient at all, from an energy system standpoint.
What I would like to see is a technology that synthesizes fuel oil by taking water, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and electricity and putting out something roughly comparable to diesel fuel, kerosene, or something else.
Sure, a wing on an FWD car make sense in race applications, because:
1) They put it there for the negative lift, like you say, but it also likely enhances negative lift from various ground effect/underbody aerodynamic tricks. Two birds, one stone. Ricers are generally not known for their knowledge of aerodynamic principals.
2) The air dam on the front of a race would be expected to actually work, unlike those pieces of kit that ricers enjoy so much, causing a significant down force on the front tires to counter the torque along the axis of the rear wheels, from the down force provided by the rear wing.
Well, I do agree, on principal. If both parties were in one country, I think it would be infinitely easier, however.
My main problem is, the plaintiff would have to put up a pretty good investment in lawyer money to get it to court, with no real guarantee of an outcome proportional to the investment in time and money. In other words, it might be worth the gamble to give 'em the smackdown if you had a good chance of recovering statutory damages, but it might not be worth the money and stress to go after lost profits, especially if she doesn't sell her photos as a professional, where one could have documented the market price of the photos. Since the market of art and photography is so subjective, there's no real way to approximate the value of her craft, unless she's successful in the market, otherwise her damages would probably be undervalued.
If I were her, I'd take this lesson from it above all else, supposing she hadn't already learned it: People like her stuff. This company sold around four grand worth of her photos, and she didn't even get to represent it like an artist would. If she isn't making a killing selling her photos (assuming she wants to), she's doing something terribly wrong.
Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin? They are legally liable for what they sell. If they can't produce the people who sold them the prints, that's their fault for doing business with shady people. Did they bother to ask the people for licensing information?
Okay, here's some facts: She lives in Iceland, the company lives in Great Britain, and Flickr is owned by an American company. International copyrights are a strange beast. Do you really know that they are liable for damages, if they violate her copyright, or is that just what you think you know? 'Cause I'll tell you how it works in the US:
Let's say you're a photographer and you post some stuff on Flickr. By default, your stuff is copyrighted when the shutter is clicked, or when you go to file->save in your favorite photo editing app (or is otherwise made into a fixed form). It is not, however registered with the Copyright Office, at the Library of Congress, unless you explicitly register your work. If you haven't registered your work, you cannot seek statutory damages, you can only seek lost profits, actual damages, and possibly attorney's fees.
Now, I won't pretend to understand how it's supposed to work in the UK, nor in Iceland, nonetheless in between the two... But I can sure as hell see that it would be a complicated, expensive matter to resolve via a civil lawsuit, and it's all too likely that she couldn't seek statutory damages, making any action not entirely worth it. Death threats are over the line, however, stupid people aren't under her control. A call-to-protest is, however, totally understandable.
Oh, so I suppose Darth Vader would be considered liberal, because he could have slowly strangled the life from his enemies with their entrails, but he simply chose not to.
Oh, have they gone liberal on us?
I'm curious to know what, exactly, this means in your little world.
You know, I'd pay em' too, if only I could recieve Top Gear 24/7.
Now we're talking religion.
Well, Germany at least holds the position that CoS isn't a church, and has primarily monetary interests, doesn't grant them tax exempt status, etc. CoS claims that Germany is discriminating against their members by not giving them government job and the like, but in truth I don't know specifics of what has happened... And the EU commission (or whatever it's called) was asking why Germany is keeping CoS members and buildings under surveillance. The CoS has filed a buttload of suits against the government for about the last 15 years, and AFAIK they haven't won any. It's not a lot, but I think they're the only first world county that isn't eagerly kowtowing to these wackos.
The CoS even put out all kinds of propaganda ads in the US some time back, about how they were the new Jews in the German's newest war on religions, or something like. As far as Germany doing anything truly proactive against them, I don't think that is the case, but like I said, at least they're doing some things.
I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.
And that's a totally understandable position, in many ways: back in days when bibles were copied by monks, by hand, each text was as precious as gold. It was not unusual for smaller churches to not even have a bible, as I understand. Furthermore, if you could read, you were likely either somehow involved with the church, or were a member of the aristocracy. Plus, what did the common folk understand about preserving documents? I mean, up until the point in time where Bible was becoming mass produced, there are a ton of practical reasons for not letting people except the priests handle them. The same can hardly be said of COS materials, in this day and age.
Wow. That's fucked up. And I believe every iota of what you've said, having not known the story previously, due to some prior personal dealings.
I think we all need to get behind Germany on this one, for once.
Jesus existed. The Romans have logs of a man named Jesus from Nazareth being chosen for execution by crucifixion. Not the Christians, but the Romans.
Jesus was a common name in the era and the locale. Some documents saying Jesus got crucified by some Romans are not entirely unlike, for example, some documents from any particular New York Italian mob in the 1920-1940 era saying that they whacked some knucklehead named either Joe, Frankie, Vinnie, or Mario--take your pick.. I mean, back then, you could pick up a rock chuck it into a crowd of people and you'd likely brain someone named Jesus.
Mind you, I'm not saying or implying that the Jesus we all know and love didn't exist, but we need some perspective. There were tons of Jesuses running around.
Let me guess, you're either terrible at playing the devil's advocate, or you're a terrible lobbyist for the drug industry.
That's the primary reason why drugs are so expensive in the US, we're subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world
You know, when drug companies stop throwing truckloads of money at marketing firms so they convince millions of people that some incredibly insignificant problem needs to be fixed by their overpriced product, when well known remedies which have existed forever do so, more cheaply, and with fewer side effects, you might have a point. When drug companies stop returning on their investments over 5 times the median of other fortune 500 companies, you might have a point. When drug companies stop exploiting patent system loopholes, you might have a point. When drug companies set a price, and stick to it, for everyone, you might have a point.
As it stands, my health care premiums subsidize these stupid companies because the other morons (including doctors who prescribe these products) in my plan chose to use overpriced and under effective shit. I'm not happy about it. You been to a doctor's office lately? If you have, you'd know that doctors have representatives practically crawling up their asses, trying and almost always succeeding to get them to promote their products both through subscriptions and free samples. They're worse than fucking Mormon-Scientologist-Adventist hybrids! The whole goddamned industry is laden with conflicts of interest, if not pure unethical goodness. Hell, I know doctors who haven't bought a meal since after their residency!
If some little virus comes crawling out, threatening to wipe out humanity, only to be averted by some wunder-cure, I'll have a good guess as to where it came from. These guys are worse than Dr. Evil, and much more competent.
And Amen to giving more encouragement to the drug industry to further ignore the needs of the developing world.
They were already largely ignored anyway. Was it possible to make and market these drugs at a price point that could be accessible to people who need it? Surely. That's the entire reason why they have an Indian company lined up to produce it. No, they would rather have their ten thousand percent markup, and a monopoly on the market for their seven years, while everyone suffers.
The funniest part of this is that Merck now gets shit nothing, because they wouldn't play ball. They could have had a nice piece of the pie, but now they have pie in the face because they were too greedy.
I think it's an interesting thing how Canada can get these stupid drug companies to push their prices down 50% less than we can buy them in the US in some cases, and yet the drug companies are in a shit storm frenzy to compete with the other companies who market similar products, so their product will be sold to Canadians... But I guess that's what capitalism is all about. It's funny that the last bastion of true corporation on corporation capitalism in the US might very well be represented by a foreign countries' socialized medical program, don't you think?
Good fucking job Brazil. If I could give a country a pat on the back, you'd get it. Bravo.
Interesting, however, I think it would have been more apt were this ship named USS Richard Nixon.
Oh, yeah, I didn't make that too clear. Sorry. I meant to say something like: they only offer Server 2003 out of the MS product line, and seem to not support desktop OSs.
Well, Dell will only ship Server 2003 with their server products, and that is a $800 expense.
I think that XP should be able to support an 8 core, dual socket setup, though. XP is limited to two sockets, but should be able to support at least 8 cores, I think.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
The claim is plausible, isn't it? That's enough. Or are you willing to jump out on a limb and say there is no possible way Verizon could benefit, Mr. I see everything in black and white?
Is it? Where's your proof of that? You said it's likely - I call shenanigans. Even if Verizon doesn't pursue VOIP service, Vonage's continued existence takes customers away from Verizon. It's not even a matter of Verizon making use of the patents they have, they could merely sit on them to keep a competitor out of the field. You haven't proven to me that Verizon would make more money through licensing than either driving competition out or using the technology themselves now that VOIP is a more established technology in the mind of the general public.
Well, for one, not everyone is in Vonages' area of service for landlines. Licensing to Vonage would at least let them reach out and touch millions more people, in an indirect way. Of course, there's no proving that Vonage isn't wiping the floor with Verizon in it's own turf, which is probably more problematic for Verizon than any good which could come from licensing to Vonage.
Just curious...is this how you feel about lexus drivers.....or anyone in a higher priced car?
Well, I think drivers of luxury brands have a certain tendency to be pretentious douchebags, but I think most of this subset of people would be so inclined, even if they were driving a Honda. They're the same sort of people who rice-up cars, just richer usually. Ostentatiousness for its own sake, so to say.
I'm a member of the PCA (Porsche Club of America), and an interesting feature of the club is that the jerkoffs who can be initially attracted to the club (because they think the club consists mainly of other narcissistic jerkoffs) usually disappear from events in sort order, since their antisocial attitudes are generally incompatible with the activities and club philosophy. So, it's an interesting disparity, a lot of the drivers of Porsches I meet on the road are assholes, but most everyone who attends club events are great people.
I don't really harbor any negative feelings to Merc or Caddy drivers, or drivers of other brands. I just think driving a Lexus screams "Hi, I have shit for brains, AND I'm too poor to afford a 5 series Beamer!" Furthermore, it doesn't help that every Lexus driver on the planet seem to be constantly on the phone, and seem to be too poor to afford, or too stupid to use a Bluetooth headset, and therefore drive like they have a pineapple shoved up their ass.
Well, IMO, that is exactly what they are.
That used to be my opinion, but they've since started actually making cars, well, different, with different engines and not just different trim, and stuff.
I still scowl at Lexus drivers, though, bunch of jerk-asses that group.
Oh, so you mean that you're so old, when you were carbon dating, you were actually dating carbon?
Oh, and Epson's color rating for 100 year durability is not for archival storage. It's for display, on a wall, under glass, with display light(s) shining on it for 12 hours a day. Halogen display lights should have a UV filter on them, which should go without saying. Furthermore, some of their medias proved to have much greater colorfastness, and with an additional UV filter, either in/on the glass or as a spray onto the print/paper, some of them proved to last 200+ years in the simulations, under display conditions. In dark storage, all Epson prints should go 200+ years without noticeable color differences, in either paper yellowing or in the ink itself.
Yeah, I'm sure our ability to determine photostability can't be anywhere near the same level of educated guessing we implore to determine the ages of things through the use the decay of radioisotopes. It's probably more like hitting a pinata whilst blindfolded, or perhaps like a game of darts, and we all know that carbon dating is pretty much like a game of pin the tail on the donkey.