It's my understanding that fc80::/64 is assigned automatically by the stack, and is guaranteed to be unique on a subnet without requiring any external IP issuer.
Point 1 is moot.... since you are going to try to transmit the energy back down to earth anyways... The atmosphere is going to be just as effective at blocking the energy from the satellites as it is from the sun... possibly even moreso, since the satellites will not actually be transmitting as much energy as the sun can potentially provide.
Point 2 I can see the merit behind... but unless the satellites approach a hundred percent efficiency, I'm still not sure you'd see significant gains over collecting energy from the sun directly using ground-based collection.
For point 3, see point 1.... you still need ground-based collection anyways... unless you are only using the energy in space, it does not make any sense to expect transmitting the energy from a satellite to earth to somehow magically be more efficient or superior to collecting the energy from the sun directly using ground-based collection.
But for point 2, you are still having to ultimately try to collect that energy on the ground anyways. It would be fine for collecting energy in space that you were using in space, but if you are beaming it to the ground anyways, I really don't see a fundamental difference between that and just collecting it from the sun from the ground.
That said, I can see how it could provide almost 24 hour access to energy (point 1), although I'm not exactly sure that you'd really collect sigificantly more energy doing things that way than you would just collecting energy on the ground directly from the sun in the first place, since in both cases, you are still dealing with ground-based collectors... and although the space-based collectors might be very efficicent, unless they actually approached 100% efficiency, I'm not sure that after transmitting the energy to ground-based collectors on earth, you'd get anywhere close to twice the amount of energy out of them just because you happen to be able to collect energy any time of day or night.
I get how collecting energy in space can be more efficient than collecting it on the ground, but if you actually have to beam it down to earth in the first place, you are going to have to transmit it through the same atmosphere that would reflect and absorb so much of the sun's energy in the first place. Although I can see the theory of not having a night giving additional power, for everything else you are still ending up trying to collect energy on the ground from space, which seems fundamentally no different than collecting it from the sun directly.
fe80::/64 addresses are automatically assigned locally, by the stack... and no two machines on the same subnet will ever have the same one anyways. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the same IP on two different machines that start out unconnected and then you connect them together while they are still active, creating an ip conflict, but in reality, I'm not too sure how serious a problem this is. We're talking about over 18 quintillion choices here.... the likelihood of them picking the same one is pretty small in the first place, even if they are unable to verify that they are unique because they are unconnected. (when they are connected on a subnet, it's my understand that such automatically generated addresses *are* guaranteed to be unique on the lan).
Anyways, the number of use cases for actually needing separate loopback addresses is really quite small, since there are tens of thousands of port numbers available for any given IP anyways, and there are usually workarounds for managing multiple virtual servers even on a single IP and port through dependance on DNS for some of the most common protocols. Nonetheless, after doing some additional research, it appears that 1::/32 is also being presently considered as a range to offer additional loopback addresses. Look up "A Larger Loopback Prefix for IPv6". As far as I can tell, it is still in the draft stage, though and it may not have enough use cases to justify its inclusion.
If the pressure difference is great enough, then yes... it will flow upward. Have you ever used a straw? That's pulling liquid upward entirely through difference in air-pressure
However, there is still a maximum height that can achieved even if the higher end were in complete vacuum, and for something like water, that distance is not even 35 feet (it's even less for heavier liquids, like mercury). The difference in atmospheric pressure with so little difference in altitude is not gong to be sufficient to pull liquid upward, which is why you don't ever see it happening.
And which is why the output of a siphon must be positioned at a lower altitude than the input unless you provide artificial pumping to pull the liquid upward. But with a regular siphon, between the input and output, the siphon can certainly go higher than its input, making it appear as though the liquid is defying gravity. But while siphoning water, for instance, no point on the siphon can be greater than about 35 feet higher than the input because of the maximum vertical height that water can be drawn from only 1 atmosphere of pressure.
So I take it that check-stops don't exist in your jurisdiction?
They stop people at random and ask if they've had anything to drink... (most common around the holidays, but I've seen it happen at various other times as well). They don't even need to *suspect* that you might be impaired to pull you over and ask questions, they just need to be conducting an impaired driving investigation, whether or not a specific person may be alleged to have been impaired.
Precision of 3d printing technology will have to improve by more than an order of magnitude before it will be able to actually do lego parts that fit well with existing lego.
That said, the maker community is not exactly small, and I think it's entirely reasonable for a device like this to be content with targeting that particular market, but in the end the maker community is still going to represent a fairly small fraction of the total number of appliance users out there. Trying to measure the appeal of a device that tends to appeal only to one relatvely tiny community by looking at the general population is not going to be indicative of how desirable that thing is for people who could actually use it.
Why does a 3d printer require mass consumer appeal to take off? What's wrong with it just being an appliance thats going to only most strongly appeal to somebody in the maker community?
And they were only able to 'smell' it BECAUSE they pulled him over. Which they only did BECAUSE of the tip
Which they are legally allowed to do.... when conducting any kind of impaired driving investigation (which is what the police were technically doing), they do not require any reason at all to suspect that any particular driver has been drinking to have just cause to expect them to pull over and ask the driver if they have had anything to drink that evening, and if so, how much. That they received an allegation that a particular driver was impaired gave them more than enough cause to track down the vehicle and briefly question the driver. His rights were not infringed. Police checkstops, which largely exist as preventative measure, and are most common during holidays or celebratory special events, would not be legal otherwise.
Perhaps you were unaware that the police do not even need any reason to suspect that a particular driver might be impaired to require the driver to pull over and ask if they have been drinking when the police are conducting any kind of impaired driving investigation. An actual allegation of impairment, whether it was true or not, gives them more than enough just cause to track down the vehicle and briefly interrogate the driver.
That the officers witnessed nary a minor traffic violation nor any other âoesound indici[um] of drunk driv ing,â ante, at 8, strongly suggests that the suspected crime was not occurring after all.I don't know if you realize this, but the police do not need any so-called substantiated reason to puill a vehicle over and ask the driver if they have been drinking... police are allowed to pull over and interrogate *ANY* driver that they choose, at any time, in the interests of pursuing impaired driver infractions, whether or not there is any basis to presume that the driver might be impaired. Police checkstops, which are most common around the holidays, are an excellent example of this. Actual allegation of impaired driving gives them even more than just cause to track a vehicle down and interrogate the driver.
Such interrogation, however, will generally only amount to whether or not the driver has been drinking, and (sometimes) asking where they are going or coming from (to ascertain the likelihood that there may be liquor present). If the officer is satisfied no law is being broken, then the vehicle is completely free to go. If, during said interrogation, evidence of any crime does become evident, then that can legitimately warrant additional investigation.
In no way were this persons rights infringed on when he was pulled over for alleged impaired driving.
A person's word that an infraction has been comitted does, however, reach the status of being able to ask the suspected vehicle to pull over and expect the driver to answer at least one question, which probably would have only amounted to "have you had anything to drink tonight?", perhaps with a caveat that they had received a report about the vehicle so that the driver understands the reason for the question. Police don't even really *need* a reason to expect that you answer such a question (roadside checkstops being an excellent example of this)... The fact that they had received a tip that identified a particular vehicle is more than enough to justify them tracking the car down and questioning him.
Of course, you can, if you want, always say that you won't answer any questions without your lawyer, but considering the nature of the question, all doing that would be liable to do is end up with you being detained until your lawyer actually arrived. If one isn't driving impaired in the first place, what possible rational reason could one have for not answering a question they would ask absolutely *anybody* they had stopped on suspicion of impairment?
Even if you had the plate #, you'd still need to tell the police where and when you had allegedly seen the vehicle. It would fairly quickly be determined that it was a false report. Bear in mind that deliberately making a a false police report is a crime.
Oh... and perhaps you were unaware, but 911 traces all calls. Still want to make that false report?
Netflix pays for the rights to broadcast the shows that it provides. It's my understanding that Aereo does not. If they did, there would not be any issue of unlicensed rebroadcasting in the first place.
If the [sic] constitutes a 'public performance,' then so does the act of downloading a copyrighted document stored in a cloud storage service
Who stored the copyrighted document on the cloud storage device? If it was the user who had already purchased the rights to said storage from the provider of the copyrighted content then there's no problem at all. If it was the cloud service itself or somebody else that stored it there, ready for any end user who pays for the service to access it, then I can see there could be problems
At a road check-stop set up by police to regulate impaired driving, the police don't even need a reason to stop your vehicle and ask if you've had anything to drink. A 911 tip actually gives them more than what they'd need to have just cause to stop a vehicle, and police are not doing their job if they don't follow it up. They do where I live, and I'm glad of it.
Anyways, there is absolutely nothing illegal about the police stopping a vehicle where the driver has been reported to have done something illegal. When calling 911, however, you do have to actually tell them what the person did which makes you think they are doing something illegal, and you must have actually personally witnessed whatever it was that they did which made you believe that they were breaking the law.
And considering that they can trace absolutely any call to 911, the number of fraudulent reports tends to be rather low.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that fc80::/64 is assigned automatically by the stack, and is guaranteed to be unique on a subnet without requiring any external IP issuer.
Point 1 is moot.... since you are going to try to transmit the energy back down to earth anyways... The atmosphere is going to be just as effective at blocking the energy from the satellites as it is from the sun... possibly even moreso, since the satellites will not actually be transmitting as much energy as the sun can potentially provide.
Point 2 I can see the merit behind... but unless the satellites approach a hundred percent efficiency, I'm still not sure you'd see significant gains over collecting energy from the sun directly using ground-based collection.
For point 3, see point 1.... you still need ground-based collection anyways... unless you are only using the energy in space, it does not make any sense to expect transmitting the energy from a satellite to earth to somehow magically be more efficient or superior to collecting the energy from the sun directly using ground-based collection.
But for point 2, you are still having to ultimately try to collect that energy on the ground anyways. It would be fine for collecting energy in space that you were using in space, but if you are beaming it to the ground anyways, I really don't see a fundamental difference between that and just collecting it from the sun from the ground.
That said, I can see how it could provide almost 24 hour access to energy (point 1), although I'm not exactly sure that you'd really collect sigificantly more energy doing things that way than you would just collecting energy on the ground directly from the sun in the first place, since in both cases, you are still dealing with ground-based collectors... and although the space-based collectors might be very efficicent, unless they actually approached 100% efficiency, I'm not sure that after transmitting the energy to ground-based collectors on earth, you'd get anywhere close to twice the amount of energy out of them just because you happen to be able to collect energy any time of day or night.
Your clarification is most welcome. Thank you for your pedantry.
I get how collecting energy in space can be more efficient than collecting it on the ground, but if you actually have to beam it down to earth in the first place, you are going to have to transmit it through the same atmosphere that would reflect and absorb so much of the sun's energy in the first place. Although I can see the theory of not having a night giving additional power, for everything else you are still ending up trying to collect energy on the ground from space, which seems fundamentally no different than collecting it from the sun directly.
fe80::/64 addresses are automatically assigned locally, by the stack... and no two machines on the same subnet will ever have the same one anyways. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the same IP on two different machines that start out unconnected and then you connect them together while they are still active, creating an ip conflict, but in reality, I'm not too sure how serious a problem this is. We're talking about over 18 quintillion choices here.... the likelihood of them picking the same one is pretty small in the first place, even if they are unable to verify that they are unique because they are unconnected. (when they are connected on a subnet, it's my understand that such automatically generated addresses *are* guaranteed to be unique on the lan).
Anyways, the number of use cases for actually needing separate loopback addresses is really quite small, since there are tens of thousands of port numbers available for any given IP anyways, and there are usually workarounds for managing multiple virtual servers even on a single IP and port through dependance on DNS for some of the most common protocols. Nonetheless, after doing some additional research, it appears that 1::/32 is also being presently considered as a range to offer additional loopback addresses. Look up "A Larger Loopback Prefix for IPv6". As far as I can tell, it is still in the draft stage, though and it may not have enough use cases to justify its inclusion.
why not just collect it from the ground in the first place?
What's going to make collecting energy on the ground from a satellite more efficient than collecting it from the sun?
If the pressure difference is great enough, then yes... it will flow upward. Have you ever used a straw? That's pulling liquid upward entirely through difference in air-pressure
However, there is still a maximum height that can achieved even if the higher end were in complete vacuum, and for something like water, that distance is not even 35 feet (it's even less for heavier liquids, like mercury). The difference in atmospheric pressure with so little difference in altitude is not gong to be sufficient to pull liquid upward, which is why you don't ever see it happening.
And which is why the output of a siphon must be positioned at a lower altitude than the input unless you provide artificial pumping to pull the liquid upward. But with a regular siphon, between the input and output, the siphon can certainly go higher than its input, making it appear as though the liquid is defying gravity. But while siphoning water, for instance, no point on the siphon can be greater than about 35 feet higher than the input because of the maximum vertical height that water can be drawn from only 1 atmosphere of pressure.
So I take it that check-stops don't exist in your jurisdiction?
They stop people at random and ask if they've had anything to drink... (most common around the holidays, but I've seen it happen at various other times as well). They don't even need to *suspect* that you might be impaired to pull you over and ask questions, they just need to be conducting an impaired driving investigation, whether or not a specific person may be alleged to have been impaired.
Since when is a link local ip in ipv6 *not* localhost? Note, link-local, not site-local, the latter of which would correspond to a subnet.
Try making a brick and see how well it fits.
Precision of 3d printing technology will have to improve by more than an order of magnitude before it will be able to actually do lego parts that fit well with existing lego.
That said, the maker community is not exactly small, and I think it's entirely reasonable for a device like this to be content with targeting that particular market, but in the end the maker community is still going to represent a fairly small fraction of the total number of appliance users out there. Trying to measure the appeal of a device that tends to appeal only to one relatvely tiny community by looking at the general population is not going to be indicative of how desirable that thing is for people who could actually use it.
Why does a 3d printer require mass consumer appeal to take off? What's wrong with it just being an appliance thats going to only most strongly appeal to somebody in the maker community?
Where do you figure you have only one loopback address?
0xfe80::/64 is explicitly reserved for link-local addresses in ipv6. You can add as many as you want.
Or is 18 quintillion addresses not enough for you?
Do you know of an alternative to capacitive that still supports multitouch?
Key words: "starts at". To be practical, your can be often looking at double that amount
Which they are legally allowed to do.... when conducting any kind of impaired driving investigation (which is what the police were technically doing), they do not require any reason at all to suspect that any particular driver has been drinking to have just cause to expect them to pull over and ask the driver if they have had anything to drink that evening, and if so, how much. That they received an allegation that a particular driver was impaired gave them more than enough cause to track down the vehicle and briefly question the driver. His rights were not infringed. Police checkstops, which largely exist as preventative measure, and are most common during holidays or celebratory special events, would not be legal otherwise.
Perhaps you were unaware that the police do not even need any reason to suspect that a particular driver might be impaired to require the driver to pull over and ask if they have been drinking when the police are conducting any kind of impaired driving investigation. An actual allegation of impairment, whether it was true or not, gives them more than enough just cause to track down the vehicle and briefly interrogate the driver.
A person's word that an infraction has been comitted does, however, reach the status of being able to ask the suspected vehicle to pull over and expect the driver to answer at least one question, which probably would have only amounted to "have you had anything to drink tonight?", perhaps with a caveat that they had received a report about the vehicle so that the driver understands the reason for the question. Police don't even really *need* a reason to expect that you answer such a question (roadside checkstops being an excellent example of this)... The fact that they had received a tip that identified a particular vehicle is more than enough to justify them tracking the car down and questioning him.
Of course, you can, if you want, always say that you won't answer any questions without your lawyer, but considering the nature of the question, all doing that would be liable to do is end up with you being detained until your lawyer actually arrived. If one isn't driving impaired in the first place, what possible rational reason could one have for not answering a question they would ask absolutely *anybody* they had stopped on suspicion of impairment?
Even if you had the plate #, you'd still need to tell the police where and when you had allegedly seen the vehicle. It would fairly quickly be determined that it was a false report. Bear in mind that deliberately making a a false police report is a crime.
Oh... and perhaps you were unaware, but 911 traces all calls. Still want to make that false report?
Netflix pays for the rights to broadcast the shows that it provides. It's my understanding that Aereo does not. If they did, there would not be any issue of unlicensed rebroadcasting in the first place.
Who stored the copyrighted document on the cloud storage device? If it was the user who had already purchased the rights to said storage from the provider of the copyrighted content then there's no problem at all. If it was the cloud service itself or somebody else that stored it there, ready for any end user who pays for the service to access it, then I can see there could be problems
At a road check-stop set up by police to regulate impaired driving, the police don't even need a reason to stop your vehicle and ask if you've had anything to drink. A 911 tip actually gives them more than what they'd need to have just cause to stop a vehicle, and police are not doing their job if they don't follow it up. They do where I live, and I'm glad of it.
Anyways, there is absolutely nothing illegal about the police stopping a vehicle where the driver has been reported to have done something illegal. When calling 911, however, you do have to actually tell them what the person did which makes you think they are doing something illegal, and you must have actually personally witnessed whatever it was that they did which made you believe that they were breaking the law.
And considering that they can trace absolutely any call to 911, the number of fraudulent reports tends to be rather low.