I used to sell Sony batteries in my retail store. I had no contract with Sony. I did not need Sony's permission. Sony didn't even know I existed; and liked it that way.
I could have sold Sony TVs, Game machines, whatever on the same terms.
I bought them from someone who owned them. I resold them. It's a pretty straightforward equation. Sony did not rely on contract issues in the lawsuit (if Lik-Sang got their stuff under contract from Sony, Sony could have just stopped selling to them. Problem solved).
No, Sony invoked consumer protection law; just as consumer protection law would now prevent me from selling certain . . . Sony batteries.
Yes, but as I said the control for that is 'speed in the chosen direction', and not a directional control in and of itself.
Try not touching that control and see what direction you go in. You can try it in a car first if you like. Don't touch it and you are moving in zero dimensions. Touch it and you are moving in one. What will seem to surprise you is that in a plane if you touch it you will be moving in two dimensions.
I'm not a pilot. ..
I was able to deduce that.
. ..but I'd assume spiraling upward is a combination of 'turning' and 'climbing'.
And to do so you will have to simultaneously adjust controls for pitch, roll and yaw. Elevator, ailerons and rudder. Three controls. Because planes inherently work in three dimensions. In a power plane you'll have to simultaneously work four controls just to fly a straight, level line at constant speed. Touch the trottle and you do not simply move faster or slower, you also move up or down. Touch the elevator and you do not simply move up or down, you also move faster or slower (nevermind the fact that by moving the elevator up you might go down -- or left). Even the Wright Bros. understood that, before they had ever flown. That's the essential reason their plane worked where others failed.
Your mouse is a three axis controler. You can push it left-right; you can push it up-down; you can turn the scroll wheel. Put in some flight sim time (not a flight game, a flight sim) and you'll find you need all three; at the same time.
If you're flying a plane, in real life, you're mostly working with two dimensions as well: you can turn left and right, and you can climb and descend.
Presumably your plane is also moving forward? I'd like to see you spiral up a thermal in two dimensions.
. ..2D navigation is simply more natural for us.
That's one of the reason that learning to fly a plane, properly, is difficult for some people.They persist in thinking that they're mostly working in 2 dimensions. Some of them end up dead because of it.
You can put the files anywhere, on as many computers as you like and request that any computer they are on be authorized to play them, with a maximum of 5 computers authorized to actually play them at any given time.
Could it be that the Wikipedia Foundation is considering to stop being a non-profit organisation and start placing advertising in its articles?
Nonprofit does not mean cannot be profitable. Nonprofit refers to how profits are dispersed, not necessarily how they are made. Ever see a museum without a gift shop? Wikipedia is not banned from placing advertising, they do not wish to. They are not free of advertising because they are nonprofit, it's the other way around, they are nonprofit so that they may solicit and take tax exempt donations in order to remain free of advertising.
Thus they can accept $100M from someone who only "spends" $50M, or less, to give it to them.
It's fashionable to bash Symantec and McAfee and make ridiculous comparisons between them and viruses, but they're just companies meeting a demand for specific software. They are no more leaching off of microsoft than car-washes 'leech' off the auto-industry.
Stuff gets dirty. That isn't within the engineering specs of the product. Did Fuel Safe go running to governments complaining that Ford started building cars that didn't blow up?
Post Columbian American ball sports. Can't stand 'em. I've played the precolumbian kind in precolumbian courts. Obviously I'm not very good at them though; I'm still alive (they were a winner lose all affair).
Oh, and I've never played double reeds. Maybe this winter I'll make an oboe or something.
My father was a jewelry maker and my mother a ceramicist. They often combined their talents in copper enamel work. From where I'm sitting I've got a clear Nerf(tm) pistol shot at two kilns, one a large pottery kiln, the other a small, benchtop jewelry makers kiln. I cook on a 110v hotplate. The 220 line is reserved for the kilns. It's not that I'm an expert, it just happens to be one of those things that I grew up with going on around the house and "picked up" along the way.
Of which we have none. The article is about how to make an investment casting. The web is full of them. The library has shelves of books on the subject. I've shown grade school kids how to do it.
This is Slashdot; I was really expecting (hope springs infernal) an article, however shoddy and silly, about how somebody put an LED and lens into a ring to make it give off Green Lantern's light.
Slashdot, reporting on copper age technology; today!
It was in the late 60s, early 70s that the definition of "addiction" was changed to include any obsessive behavior. It was in the 80s that every behavior started being a symptom of some sort of "syndrome."
Of course kids are getting more brain disorders; their parents being addicted to the fear of their kids having a brain disorder; and finding them everywhere, is driving the kids fucking crazy.
Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation.
Although the presence of ozone in the atmosphere has been known for a bit over 100 years, knowledge of the presence of a permanent ozone layer is rather more recent. Man did not reach the south pole until 1912 and did not fly over it until 1929. The first permanent observation station at the south pole was not established until 1957. Meanwhile the ability measure the thickness of the ozone layer, from either ground or satellite is concurrent with the discovery of the ozone hole. Mid 70s through mid 80s. Although ballons have been flying into the stratosphere for a couple ticks over 100 years, we only got a good idea of its structure in the mid 80s when we sent up an instrumented U2. OP is right to the extent that we really know squat all about the history of the ozone layer.
Go back to eighth grade science class, then come back and post on slashdot.
I had just finished my undergraduate studies in physics when we first started acurately measuring the thickness of the ozone layer indirectly; and thus being able actually map it. Perhaps you have the advantage on me of only recently being out of the eighth grade.
That depends a good deal on the genre. I didn't say "bar," or "club." I specifically said "coffeehouse." There are implications in that.
. ..about 2/3rds of the people I know and hang around with are musicians (just back from a gig by one of them, in fact), and yet music sharing almost never bubbles up above the horizon. ..
I notice that you don't say that you are a musician.If you're not; why would I talk to you about music sharing? It's unlikely you have anything to share.
Ask one of your musician friends to teach you something, and you'll be sharing music. Record something and you can start playing "If you give me yours I'll give you mine."
And in terms of meeting "hot girls" I note that you failed to even, ummmmmmmmmm, address, the most relevant point of my post.
When I meet a girl in a bar, unless it was the starting subject, talk about music is usually scraping near the bottom of the conversation barrel.
I meet girls in coffeehouses, although I don't call them girls. I call them musicians. Music is almost always at the top of the barrel as a conversation subject.
Where do you meet people who want to trade music anyway!?
See above. I'm not a music spectator. I'm a participant. Trading music is something musicians do, although this is often done through actual social interaction and not just "socially." It's sometimes called the aural tradition.
Even if music is an important subject, what are the odds that said girl will have dumped her $300 Ipod for a Zune and will be able to recieve your music?
Not a chance in fucking hell. Guess I'll just have to get her email address, huh?
However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg.
Right, if you give up that accelerating most of the time. That's something to give up. Some people won't. It's what they primarily want out of a motor vehicle. There are also still tradeoffs to be made, since an engine that isn't capable of that sort of acceleration can be made smaller and lighter, but then we're getting into the 3000 mpg territory I was talking about and not a mere 100.
Various efficiencies of the power plant my also vary with speed and acceleration. That's why our cars don't all just have gas turbines in them. They tried 'em in road racing and they sucked. They tried 'em in oval racing and they were so good they were banned (there were market politics involved in this. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday . ..if you're racing something that can be related to what you're selling).
Oval racers don't do much in the way of sudden accelerating.
And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.
The realism of the sacrifice is an issue I did not address. I simply stated that to get one thing you will have to give up some other thing. I'm often chided on this very forum for suggesting "sacrifices" that are "unrealistic;" and yet I obviously think they are realsitic, because I have really made them.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.
Q.E.D. Ha, ha, I'm only being serious.
The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow.
No, I was primarily making a social commentary, but I am implying that the slower you go the better the milage you can get. Taken to its logical extreme you will get the best "milage" by simply being content with where you already are. This applies to human power just as well as mechanical power.
However, as I said, I can make a Chevette that gets 100 mpg, while only using technology that was available at the time it was made, but the higher you want its potential performance the more you'll have to give up in milage. I'm not working with a clean slate with that one. For starters I have a given power plant with certain built in inefficienes.
The second quickest, cheapest way to increase its milage is to shed mass, but you'll have to give up passenger carrying capacity for that. The next is to reduce rolling resistence, but you'll have to give up tractive force for that. The next is to change the final drive ratio, but you'll have to give up acceleration for that. The next is to tune the engine for maximum efficiency, but again you will have to give up some acceleration for that as well. It's innate in the device. I could be on to certain aerodynamic changes, but you may have to give up "styling" for that (Hey, it's not exatly my favorite, but I don't actually object to the way a Chevette looks).
Of course the cheapest way to increase milage (irrespective of a specific target) is to simply teach you how to drive it. With gentle, unhurried patience.
Depending on local conditions this may, however, result in your getting to work at a slower average speed. It might well take as much as . . . a couple minutes longer.
On the other hand I might well beat your Porsche on my bicycle. The world is a mass of variables and one of the essential problems with designing a road vechicle is that you have to take them all into account.
For years Jaguar battled American complaints that their cars overheated. They couldn't understand it, because they kept improving the cooling system year on year, but the complaints kept coming.
So, one year, they actually sent some of the engineers to America, go figure. Their reaction?
Slashdot Mirror
What on Earth are you smokin'?
I used to sell Sony batteries in my retail store. I had no contract with Sony. I did not need Sony's permission. Sony didn't even know I existed; and liked it that way.
I could have sold Sony TVs, Game machines, whatever on the same terms.
I bought them from someone who owned them. I resold them. It's a pretty straightforward equation. Sony did not rely on contract issues in the lawsuit (if Lik-Sang got their stuff under contract from Sony, Sony could have just stopped selling to them. Problem solved).
No, Sony invoked consumer protection law; just as consumer protection law would now prevent me from selling certain . . . Sony batteries.
KFG
Yes, but as I said the control for that is 'speed in the chosen direction', and not a directional control in and of itself.
.
.but I'd assume spiraling upward is a combination of 'turning' and 'climbing'.
Try not touching that control and see what direction you go in. You can try it in a car first if you like. Don't touch it and you are moving in zero dimensions. Touch it and you are moving in one. What will seem to surprise you is that in a plane if you touch it you will be moving in two dimensions.
I'm not a pilot. .
I was able to deduce that.
. .
And to do so you will have to simultaneously adjust controls for pitch, roll and yaw. Elevator, ailerons and rudder. Three controls. Because planes inherently work in three dimensions. In a power plane you'll have to simultaneously work four controls just to fly a straight, level line at constant speed. Touch the trottle and you do not simply move faster or slower, you also move up or down. Touch the elevator and you do not simply move up or down, you also move faster or slower (nevermind the fact that by moving the elevator up you might go down -- or left). Even the Wright Bros. understood that, before they had ever flown. That's the essential reason their plane worked where others failed.
Your mouse is a three axis controler. You can push it left-right; you can push it up-down; you can turn the scroll wheel. Put in some flight sim time (not a flight game, a flight sim) and you'll find you need all three; at the same time.
KFG
If you're flying a plane, in real life, you're mostly working with two dimensions as well: you can turn left and right, and you can climb and descend.
.2D navigation is simply more natural for us.
Presumably your plane is also moving forward? I'd like to see you spiral up a thermal in two dimensions.
. .
That's one of the reason that learning to fly a plane, properly, is difficult for some people.They persist in thinking that they're mostly working in 2 dimensions. Some of them end up dead because of it.
KFG
A key quote from the movie, which comes in the very first minutes of the film, is; "Plastics."
Environmental issues aside it's wonderful stuff.
I also bought an Alfa Romeo. Go see the movie.
KFG
In point of fact seeing The Graduate at a young age had a profound effect on me.
KFG
It was the people who came after Columbus who did everything.
Like stamping out the native American ball games. Or, at the very least, turning them into a game for wussies by replacing the rock with a ball.
KFG
You can put the files anywhere, on as many computers as you like and request that any computer they are on be authorized to play them, with a maximum of 5 computers authorized to actually play them at any given time.
Or you could just buy used CDs and rip 'em.
KFG
I mean after 1492.
KFG
4)After decades of running on the killer ap paradigm the gravy train has parked in the terminal.
Maybe now they can spend some time polishing the shit they've already got until it actually works?
KFG
Could it be that the Wikipedia Foundation is considering to stop being a non-profit organisation and start placing advertising in its articles?
Nonprofit does not mean cannot be profitable. Nonprofit refers to how profits are dispersed, not necessarily how they are made. Ever see a museum without a gift shop? Wikipedia is not banned from placing advertising, they do not wish to. They are not free of advertising because they are nonprofit, it's the other way around, they are nonprofit so that they may solicit and take tax exempt donations in order to remain free of advertising.
Thus they can accept $100M from someone who only "spends" $50M, or less, to give it to them.
KFG
With this funding, I believe that we may at long last be able to open-source Natalie Portman.
And the prospect alone would probably petrify her.
KFG
It's fashionable to bash Symantec and McAfee and make ridiculous comparisons between them and viruses, but they're just companies meeting a demand for specific software. They are no more leaching off of microsoft than car-washes 'leech' off the auto-industry.
Stuff gets dirty. That isn't within the engineering specs of the product. Did Fuel Safe go running to governments complaining that Ford started building cars that didn't blow up?
http://www.fuelsafe.com/mustang.htm
KFG
That one's easy. Hold it near a power cable. . .
Silly me. I was just going to wire up a few potatoes.
KFG
Is there any subject you aren't an expert on?
Post Columbian American ball sports. Can't stand 'em. I've played the precolumbian kind in precolumbian courts. Obviously I'm not very good at them though; I'm still alive (they were a winner lose all affair).
Oh, and I've never played double reeds. Maybe this winter I'll make an oboe or something.
My father was a jewelry maker and my mother a ceramicist. They often combined their talents in copper enamel work. From where I'm sitting I've got a clear Nerf(tm) pistol shot at two kilns, one a large pottery kiln, the other a small, benchtop jewelry makers kiln. I cook on a 110v hotplate. The 220 line is reserved for the kilns. It's not that I'm an expert, it just happens to be one of those things that I grew up with going on around the house and "picked up" along the way.
KFG
Well sure, if you happen to have a selfcontained, portable nanotech delivery system for electromotive force just lying around the house.
KFG
Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!
Of which we have none. The article is about how to make an investment casting. The web is full of them. The library has shelves of books on the subject. I've shown grade school kids how to do it.
This is Slashdot; I was really expecting (hope springs infernal) an article, however shoddy and silly, about how somebody put an LED and lens into a ring to make it give off Green Lantern's light.
Slashdot, reporting on copper age technology; today!
KFG
Good doggy. Have a Scooby snack.
KFG
. . .sometimes changing definitions of illness.
It was in the late 60s, early 70s that the definition of "addiction" was changed to include any obsessive behavior. It was in the 80s that every behavior started being a symptom of some sort of "syndrome."
Of course kids are getting more brain disorders; their parents being addicted to the fear of their kids having a brain disorder; and finding them everywhere, is driving the kids fucking crazy.
KFG
Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation.
Although the presence of ozone in the atmosphere has been known for a bit over 100 years, knowledge of the presence of a permanent ozone layer is rather more recent. Man did not reach the south pole until 1912 and did not fly over it until 1929. The first permanent observation station at the south pole was not established until 1957. Meanwhile the ability measure the thickness of the ozone layer, from either ground or satellite is concurrent with the discovery of the ozone hole. Mid 70s through mid 80s. Although ballons have been flying into the stratosphere for a couple ticks over 100 years, we only got a good idea of its structure in the mid 80s when we sent up an instrumented U2. OP is right to the extent that we really know squat all about the history of the ozone layer.
Go back to eighth grade science class, then come back and post on slashdot.
I had just finished my undergraduate studies in physics when we first started acurately measuring the thickness of the ozone layer indirectly; and thus being able actually map it. Perhaps you have the advantage on me of only recently being out of the eighth grade.
KFG
So basically, women in the future will walk around naked with lampshades on their heads?
Well, as long as you stay away from Wal-Mart that should work out ok.
KFG
I'd hate to see what the new definition of "wardrobe malfunction" will be now!
The dress stays on?
KFG
But music is different from music trading.
.about 2/3rds of the people I know and hang around with are musicians (just back from a gig by one of them, in fact), and yet music sharing almost never bubbles up above the horizon. . .
That depends a good deal on the genre. I didn't say "bar," or "club." I specifically said "coffeehouse." There are implications in that.
. .
I notice that you don't say that you are a musician.If you're not; why would I talk to you about music sharing? It's unlikely you have anything to share.
Ask one of your musician friends to teach you something, and you'll be sharing music. Record something and you can start playing "If you give me yours I'll give you mine."
And in terms of meeting "hot girls" I note that you failed to even, ummmmmmmmmm, address, the most relevant point of my post.
KFG
When I meet a girl in a bar, unless it was the starting subject, talk about music is usually scraping near the bottom of the conversation barrel.
I meet girls in coffeehouses, although I don't call them girls. I call them musicians. Music is almost always at the top of the barrel as a conversation subject.
Where do you meet people who want to trade music anyway!?
See above. I'm not a music spectator. I'm a participant. Trading music is something musicians do, although this is often done through actual social interaction and not just "socially." It's sometimes called the aural tradition.
Even if music is an important subject, what are the odds that said girl will have dumped her $300 Ipod for a Zune and will be able to recieve your music?
Not a chance in fucking hell. Guess I'll just have to get her email address, huh?
KFG
How much weed do you smoke?
About 4 oz. last week, which is about average, but not the kind you're talking about.
And I didn't inhale.
KFG
However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg.
.if you're racing something that can be related to what you're selling).
Right, if you give up that accelerating most of the time. That's something to give up. Some people won't. It's what they primarily want out of a motor vehicle. There are also still tradeoffs to be made, since an engine that isn't capable of that sort of acceleration can be made smaller and lighter, but then we're getting into the 3000 mpg territory I was talking about and not a mere 100.
Various efficiencies of the power plant my also vary with speed and acceleration. That's why our cars don't all just have gas turbines in them. They tried 'em in road racing and they sucked. They tried 'em in oval racing and they were so good they were banned (there were market politics involved in this. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday . .
Oval racers don't do much in the way of sudden accelerating.
And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.
The realism of the sacrifice is an issue I did not address. I simply stated that to get one thing you will have to give up some other thing. I'm often chided on this very forum for suggesting "sacrifices" that are "unrealistic;" and yet I obviously think they are realsitic, because I have really made them.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.
Q.E.D. Ha, ha, I'm only being serious.
The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow.
No, I was primarily making a social commentary, but I am implying that the slower you go the better the milage you can get. Taken to its logical extreme you will get the best "milage" by simply being content with where you already are. This applies to human power just as well as mechanical power.
However, as I said, I can make a Chevette that gets 100 mpg, while only using technology that was available at the time it was made, but the higher you want its potential performance the more you'll have to give up in milage. I'm not working with a clean slate with that one. For starters I have a given power plant with certain built in inefficienes.
The second quickest, cheapest way to increase its milage is to shed mass, but you'll have to give up passenger carrying capacity for that. The next is to reduce rolling resistence, but you'll have to give up tractive force for that. The next is to change the final drive ratio, but you'll have to give up acceleration for that. The next is to tune the engine for maximum efficiency, but again you will have to give up some acceleration for that as well. It's innate in the device. I could be on to certain aerodynamic changes, but you may have to give up "styling" for that (Hey, it's not exatly my favorite, but I don't actually object to the way a Chevette looks).
Of course the cheapest way to increase milage (irrespective of a specific target) is to simply teach you how to drive it. With gentle, unhurried patience.
Depending on local conditions this may, however, result in your getting to work at a slower average speed. It might well take as much as . . . a couple minutes longer.
On the other hand I might well beat your Porsche on my bicycle. The world is a mass of variables and one of the essential problems with designing a road vechicle is that you have to take them all into account.
For years Jaguar battled American complaints that their cars overheated. They couldn't understand it, because they kept improving the cooling system year on year, but the complaints kept coming.
So, one year, they actually sent some of the engineers to America, go figure. Their reaction?
"B