Care to cite anything that states one can take any fiber and make a cable out of it with 80% of the fiber's yield strength? The issue with a weave is that the limiting factor is no longer the strength of each fiber but the adhesion between each fiber. The strength of a carbon nano tube is so high that the fibers will start sliding against each other long before the nano tubes break. Take a look at this
For high specific strength, carbon has advantages because it is only the 6th element in the periodic table. Carbon has comparatively few of the protons and neutrons which contribute most of the dead weight of any material. Most of the interatomic bonding forces of any element are contributed by only the outer few electrons. For carbon, the strength and stability of those bonds is high compared to the mass of the atom. The challenge in using carbon remains to extend to macroscopic sizes the production of such material that are still perfect on the microscopic scale (as microscopic defects are most responsible for material weakness). The current (2009) carbon nanotube technology allows growing tubes up to a few tens of centimeters.
Notice they refer to the difficulty in making carbon nano tubes more more than "a few tens of centimeters" long.
(this is how Kevlar is made, for example).
Kevlar is a para-aramid synthetic fiber and works completely differently than carbon nano tubes. Take a look at this. Notice how the molecules of Kevlar join with other molecules of Kevlar by hydrogen bonds to create long chains? This makes it possible to create very long fibers from short molecules. Carbon nano tubes do not have these kinds of bonds therefore methods that work with Kevlar will not work with carbon nano tubes.
What made people stop laughing? Nanotech. Carbon nanotubes were developed in the 90s and promised to be the uber-strong, light, flexible supermaterial needed to build the kind of 62,000-mile cable that could transport humans into space. By the end of the 90s, NASA had released its report on the technological progress:
Nanomaterials are strong and light enough, but the rub is that scientists can't get them to scale yet. Luckily, billions of dollars are being poured into this area of research. The report predictsa suitable material will be ready by the 2020s.
Materials are the sticking point and they can predict anything they want. Will those predictions come true? We will only know if and when it happens. I think it is doubtful. From what I can find they have made carbon nano tubes about 130cm long. Extending them to 62,000 miles might not be possible.
Saying something is feasible based on prediction of scientific progress is dubious at best.
The difference is that if a "collonist" stayed on earth they could live for anothe 50-60 years. If they go to Mars they life expectancy is probably around 10-20 years. Deliberately shortening one's life that much is suicide. Yes we do things like smoke and drink but some people live long lives who still do that. Going to Mars is a pretty definite short term death sentence.
For example, if the average person learned not to ever believe anything important without first investigating it
Mainly because the average person does not have the time or resources to check out everything important. Especially when time sensitive things occur. Should doctors be able to advertise untested and unproven treatments? The average person has no way to verify them. What happens if a couple of days before an election it comes out that a candidate is a pedophile. Do you ignore the statement because you do not have time to look into it before voting? How would you even look into that allegation? If on the other hand one knew there were libel laws it is much more reasonable to believe it. I am a research fanatic and I would be overwhelmed if I had to check every important statement.
The conversation I was having with the other poster was that he see copying and disseminating other people's work as free speech. I see it as theft. His come back was that free speech overrides any monetary loss. I don't agree.
What makes you sure that legal limits would be better than another solution that we've never seriously tried?
Mainly because the only alternative anyone has presented is "anyone can say anything they want at any time no matter what harm it causes". Sorry but society does not work that way. The main problem is that people are emotional being and not always logical. The right speaker saying the right words can cause some very bad things to happen. With libel and slander laws there is at least a consequence for the damage they do.
Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06C (0.11F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16C (0.28F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Take look at the graph they are referring to. Between 1880 and 2010 there is a change of 1.43 F giving a per decade increase of.11F. But wait, that is not the whole picture. It ignores the period between 1880 and 1910 when global temperatures were decreasing. If you look at the increase since 1910 you get 2F over ten decades which is.2F per decade. It also ignores the time between 1910 and 1940 where the temperature changed 1.1F or 0.37F/decade. Compared with the time between 1910 and 1940 global warming is slowing. To me it looks like they are picking data that agrees with their conclusion.
I am not saying everything is perfect but it is difficult to plan for a 2/3 drop in rainfall. That's why they are called droughts. If we based our planning on drought levels most farming would not be done.
16,000 search warrants, 50 states, 320 search warrants per state... I should have an active terrorist cell of AT LEAST 50 people in my city.
That 16,000 is all the warrants from all sources including local, state and federal police investigating crimes not related to terrorism. You are making the assumption that all the requests are supposed to be terrorism related and that is not true. For example, getting a warrant for a phone dump on a murder suspect would be in that total.
Even the national Security Letters and FISA requests are not all about terrorism. That have been and continue to be about counterespionage as well.
The first part of the report refers to National Security Letters and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requests. Most people seem to assume that all these requests are submitted as counter terrorism related. That is not true. Both of these types of requests existed before 911 and were used to investigate foreign intelligence operations. What changed is that they are now able to use them to investigate individuals not associated with a country but a terrorist organization instead. There are still counterespionage investigations going on and that would account for some if the requests. I would like a breakdown between the two categories but I doubt that will ever happen.
The next section refers to "Total U.S. Criminal & Civil Litigation Demands". These requests can come from many sources including local police. They could be related to crimes such as murder, drug dealing, racketeering, etc. For example,when a police officer is investigating a murder suspect and they dump the phone that is one request. The civil cases could include things like divorces where one party is trying to prove infidelity. These requests are most likely unrelated to terrorism.
First, are you in the area effected by the drought? Second, are you in an area that is very cold without snow? Third, the pipes are not always 14' below ground. Your house is probably above ground so there must me a pipe that goes from 14' below ground to at least ground level to get to your house. I bet if you go outside you will find a shut off valve between the water main and your house. I doubt very much that the valve is 14' below ground level. It is that section that might freeze.
I was on an island that always has a fresh water shortage. Beside each toilet there was a little sign. "If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down." If we can get over the issue of having pee sit in the toilet we can reduce water consumption significantly. Pee does not need to be flushed immediately.
Haven't we been through this before, as you already pointed out?
Sorry, I didn't recognize you name. For anyone else reading this, you believe that freedom of speech is inviolate and that colours everything you think about copyright. You are unrealistic and there is no use talking.
Going to court every time has the following issues; 1. Places an undue burden on the court system. There would be thousands of cases clogging the courts. There are already suspects going free because the courts are clogged. 2. Small copyright holders would have to spend thousands of dollars defending obvious copyright infringement. 3. It would take months, if not years, to get to court and by that time the damage has already been done. 4. Take down notices are evidence in court used to establish the clam and sometimes the falsehood of the claim.
you'll find that I'm no friend of copyright.
So your bias against copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective and can damage the court system. I am curious, why don't you like copyright?
I am not saying that DMCA is perfect. I believe that it needs improvement, mainly in the area of automated and/or false take down notices, but getting rid of it is also not the solution. Perhaps if more people advocated for change rather than removal of the DMCA things would improve.
Lets list the controls are used quite regularly volume source tuning playlist preset selection temperature vent distribution AC fan speed re circulation window defrost rear wipers/washer That's 13. Add in phone and/or gps interface and you get even more. Then there is the issue of remembering what gesture means what and the difficulty of gestures when wearing gloves.
The idea needs work (BTW, anyone notice the reference to the very old sitcom?)
YouTube *is* the bad guy. They don't even look at counter-claims most of the time,
Yet another person who does not understand the DMCA process. YouTube makes not determination at all and therefore has no need to look at the submissions. From YouTube;'s point of view the DMCA process has up to 3 steps. 1. Take down notice filed. The content comes down. 2. Counter-notice file. Content goes up in 10-14 days unless step 3 is done. 3. Original claimant files suit in court and informs provider of case number. When a take down notice is filed the content has to come down. That is the law. When a counter claim is filed the content must go back up unless a suit is filed. That is also the law. There is no taking sides on the part of YouTube. The mere existence of a take down notice and possibly counter claim cause things to happen. It is up to the courts, not YouTube, to decide the voracity of the claims.
classical musician on Reddit who has had hostile DMCA claims filed against his own performances of Bach pieces that have been taken down
Did he file a counter notice? Did his content go back up or was he sued? If you do not file a counter notice your content does not go back up. It is as simple as that.
I think the statement is framed that way to remove the possibility of libel. The mistake could be the idea that malicious intent is a valid reason for a take down notice. So in effect a take down notice due to malicious intent is a mistake.
I think we have had this conversation in another thread. You believe that there should be no limit on free speech. I believe reasonable limits are good. Neither of us will change our positions therefore there is no reason to continue this thread.
because the "common cold" is actually a symptom with over 200 different possible causes
Care to cite anything that supports this claim? There are a number of causes but the main one is the Rhinovirus. Why is there no cure for the rhinovirus? The fact it mutates quickly make curing it very difficult. The same goes for HIV with mutates even faster than the rhinovirus.
Your position that "it they were right they would have cured it by now" is baseless speculation considering how difficult it is to cure viruses in general and genetically diverse viruses in particular.
You now add to the mix "one of them started killing people tomorrow I expect a vaccine at least". That too is false as death is not the only driving factor behind research. Rhinovirus is an extremely widespread disease infecting millions of people a year causing the loss of billions of dollars in productivity. The cure for the common cold would make the inventor a billionaire. This much potential for profit should induce lots of research.
Molecular biologist is not a virologist or epidemiologist. Yes he invented PCR which by the way is not a test. It is a way of replicating DNA so that small quantities can be tested. It had nothing to do with disease transmission.
he is certainly qualified to comment on how the test he invented works
Here is the introduction from one of Duesberg's books. The only link to PCR is that he was doing work with PCR when he started asking questions. His issue is that he could not find someone who could point to a smoking gun at that time and became a Duesberg believer after one lecture. Take a look at this page and you see many smoking guns that show HIV needs to be present for AIDS yet neither Duesberg or Mullis have changed their views. In 1988 there may have been lack of proof but today there is plenty of proof.
The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled many times that the right freedom of speech stops where it harms others. Copyright and the laws that support it are there to stop economic harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to cite anything that states one can take any fiber and make a cable out of it with 80% of the fiber's yield strength? The issue with a weave is that the limiting factor is no longer the strength of each fiber but the adhesion between each fiber. The strength of a carbon nano tube is so high that the fibers will start sliding against each other long before the nano tubes break.
Take a look at this
For high specific strength, carbon has advantages because it is only the 6th element in the periodic table. Carbon has comparatively few of the protons and neutrons which contribute most of the dead weight of any material. Most of the interatomic bonding forces of any element are contributed by only the outer few electrons. For carbon, the strength and stability of those bonds is high compared to the mass of the atom. The challenge in using carbon remains to extend to macroscopic sizes the production of such material that are still perfect on the microscopic scale (as microscopic defects are most responsible for material weakness). The current (2009) carbon nanotube technology allows growing tubes up to a few tens of centimeters.
Notice they refer to the difficulty in making carbon nano tubes more more than "a few tens of centimeters" long.
(this is how Kevlar is made, for example).
Kevlar is a para-aramid synthetic fiber and works completely differently than carbon nano tubes. Take a look at this. Notice how the molecules of Kevlar join with other molecules of Kevlar by hydrogen bonds to create long chains? This makes it possible to create very long fibers from short molecules. Carbon nano tubes do not have these kinds of bonds therefore methods that work with Kevlar will not work with carbon nano tubes.
The 62,000 miles comes from the quoted article;
What made people stop laughing? Nanotech. Carbon nanotubes were developed in the 90s and promised to be the uber-strong, light, flexible supermaterial needed to build the kind of 62,000-mile cable that could transport humans into space. By the end of the 90s, NASA had released its report on the technological progress:
Nanomaterials are strong and light enough, but the rub is that scientists can't get them to scale yet. Luckily, billions of dollars are being poured into this area of research. The report predictsa suitable material will be ready by the 2020s.
Materials are the sticking point and they can predict anything they want. Will those predictions come true? We will only know if and when it happens. I think it is doubtful. From what I can find they have made carbon nano tubes about 130cm long. Extending them to 62,000 miles might not be possible.
Saying something is feasible based on prediction of scientific progress is dubious at best.
Some of the company's other projects look just as luicrous.
The difference is that if a "collonist" stayed on earth they could live for anothe 50-60 years. If they go to Mars they life expectancy is probably around 10-20 years. Deliberately shortening one's life that much is suicide. Yes we do things like smoke and drink but some people live long lives who still do that. Going to Mars is a pretty definite short term death sentence.
For example, if the average person learned not to ever believe anything important without first investigating it
Mainly because the average person does not have the time or resources to check out everything important. Especially when time sensitive things occur. Should doctors be able to advertise untested and unproven treatments? The average person has no way to verify them. What happens if a couple of days before an election it comes out that a candidate is a pedophile. Do you ignore the statement because you do not have time to look into it before voting? How would you even look into that allegation? If on the other hand one knew there were libel laws it is much more reasonable to believe it. I am a research fanatic and I would be overwhelmed if I had to check every important statement.
The conversation I was having with the other poster was that he see copying and disseminating other people's work as free speech. I see it as theft. His come back was that free speech overrides any monetary loss. I don't agree.
What makes you sure that legal limits would be better than another solution that we've never seriously tried?
Mainly because the only alternative anyone has presented is "anyone can say anything they want at any time no matter what harm it causes". Sorry but society does not work that way. The main problem is that people are emotional being and not always logical. The right speaker saying the right words can cause some very bad things to happen. With libel and slander laws there is at least a consequence for the damage they do.
From the article;
Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06C (0.11F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16C (0.28F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Take look at the graph they are referring to. Between 1880 and 2010 there is a change of 1.43 F giving a per decade increase of .11F. But wait, that is not the whole picture. It ignores the period between 1880 and 1910 when global temperatures were decreasing. If you look at the increase since 1910 you get 2F over ten decades which is .2F per decade. It also ignores the time between 1910 and 1940 where the temperature changed 1.1F or 0.37F/decade. Compared with the time between 1910 and 1940 global warming is slowing.
To me it looks like they are picking data that agrees with their conclusion.
I am not saying everything is perfect but it is difficult to plan for a 2/3 drop in rainfall. That's why they are called droughts. If we based our planning on drought levels most farming would not be done.
16,000 search warrants, 50 states, 320 search warrants per state... I should have an active terrorist cell of AT LEAST 50 people in my city.
That 16,000 is all the warrants from all sources including local, state and federal police investigating crimes not related to terrorism. You are making the assumption that all the requests are supposed to be terrorism related and that is not true. For example, getting a warrant for a phone dump on a murder suspect would be in that total.
Even the national Security Letters and FISA requests are not all about terrorism. That have been and continue to be about counterespionage as well.
Lets look at the report actually means.
The first part of the report refers to National Security Letters and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requests. Most people seem to assume that all these requests are submitted as counter terrorism related. That is not true. Both of these types of requests existed before 911 and were used to investigate foreign intelligence operations. What changed is that they are now able to use them to investigate individuals not associated with a country but a terrorist organization instead. There are still counterespionage investigations going on and that would account for some if the requests. I would like a breakdown between the two categories but I doubt that will ever happen.
The next section refers to "Total U.S. Criminal & Civil Litigation Demands". These requests can come from many sources including local police. They could be related to crimes such as murder, drug dealing, racketeering, etc. For example,when a police officer is investigating a murder suspect and they dump the phone that is one request. The civil cases could include things like divorces where one party is trying to prove infidelity. These requests are most likely unrelated to terrorism.
This says something different. 2013 was the driest year on record. I think that meets the definition of drought.
First, are you in the area effected by the drought?
Second, are you in an area that is very cold without snow?
Third, the pipes are not always 14' below ground. Your house is probably above ground so there must me a pipe that goes from 14' below ground to at least ground level to get to your house. I bet if you go outside you will find a shut off valve between the water main and your house. I doubt very much that the valve is 14' below ground level. It is that section that might freeze.
I was on an island that always has a fresh water shortage. Beside each toilet there was a little sign. "If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down." If we can get over the issue of having pee sit in the toilet we can reduce water consumption significantly. Pee does not need to be flushed immediately.
Haven't we been through this before, as you already pointed out?
Sorry, I didn't recognize you name. For anyone else reading this, you believe that freedom of speech is inviolate and that colours everything you think about copyright. You are unrealistic and there is no use talking.
Going to court every time has the following issues;
1. Places an undue burden on the court system. There would be thousands of cases clogging the courts. There are already suspects going free because the courts are clogged.
2. Small copyright holders would have to spend thousands of dollars defending obvious copyright infringement.
3. It would take months, if not years, to get to court and by that time the damage has already been done.
4. Take down notices are evidence in court used to establish the clam and sometimes the falsehood of the claim.
you'll find that I'm no friend of copyright.
So your bias against copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective and can damage the court system. I am curious, why don't you like copyright?
I am not saying that DMCA is perfect. I believe that it needs improvement, mainly in the area of automated and/or false take down notices, but getting rid of it is also not the solution. Perhaps if more people advocated for change rather than removal of the DMCA things would improve.
Lets list the controls are used quite regularly
volume
source
tuning
playlist
preset selection
temperature
vent distribution
AC
fan speed
re circulation
window defrost
rear wipers/washer
That's 13. Add in phone and/or gps interface and you get even more.
Then there is the issue of remembering what gesture means what and the difficulty of gestures when wearing gloves.
The idea needs work
(BTW, anyone notice the reference to the very old sitcom?)
YouTube *is* the bad guy. They don't even look at counter-claims most of the time,
Yet another person who does not understand the DMCA process. YouTube makes not determination at all and therefore has no need to look at the submissions. From YouTube;'s point of view the DMCA process has up to 3 steps.
1. Take down notice filed. The content comes down.
2. Counter-notice file. Content goes up in 10-14 days unless step 3 is done.
3. Original claimant files suit in court and informs provider of case number.
When a take down notice is filed the content has to come down. That is the law. When a counter claim is filed the content must go back up unless a suit is filed. That is also the law. There is no taking sides on the part of YouTube. The mere existence of a take down notice and possibly counter claim cause things to happen. It is up to the courts, not YouTube, to decide the voracity of the claims.
classical musician on Reddit who has had hostile DMCA claims filed against his own performances of Bach pieces that have been taken down
Did he file a counter notice? Did his content go back up or was he sued?
If you do not file a counter notice your content does not go back up. It is as simple as that.
I think the statement is framed that way to remove the possibility of libel. The mistake could be the idea that malicious intent is a valid reason for a take down notice. So in effect a take down notice due to malicious intent is a mistake.
I think we have had this conversation in another thread. You believe that there should be no limit on free speech. I believe reasonable limits are good. Neither of us will change our positions therefore there is no reason to continue this thread.
What is your alternative to this that will allow copyright holders to effctivly remove their material from infringing sites?
It is very easy to point at something and say it is wrong. It is much harder to come up with a better solution.
because the "common cold" is actually a symptom with over 200 different possible causes
Care to cite anything that supports this claim? There are a number of causes but the main one is the Rhinovirus. Why is there no cure for the rhinovirus? The fact it mutates quickly make curing it very difficult. The same goes for HIV with mutates even faster than the rhinovirus.
Your position that "it they were right they would have cured it by now" is baseless speculation considering how difficult it is to cure viruses in general and genetically diverse viruses in particular.
You now add to the mix "one of them started killing people tomorrow I expect a vaccine at least". That too is false as death is not the only driving factor behind research. Rhinovirus is an extremely widespread disease infecting millions of people a year causing the loss of billions of dollars in productivity. The cure for the common cold would make the inventor a billionaire. This much potential for profit should induce lots of research.
Molecular biologist is not a virologist or epidemiologist. Yes he invented PCR which by the way is not a test. It is a way of replicating DNA so that small quantities can be tested. It had nothing to do with disease transmission.
he is certainly qualified to comment on how the test he invented works
Here is the introduction from one of Duesberg's books. The only link to PCR is that he was doing work with PCR when he started asking questions. His issue is that he could not find someone who could point to a smoking gun at that time and became a Duesberg believer after one lecture. Take a look at this page and you see many smoking guns that show HIV needs to be present for AIDS yet neither Duesberg or Mullis have changed their views. In 1988 there may have been lack of proof but today there is plenty of proof.
Yes they do. They have a procedure to easily put them in too but you have to have a video with a claim against it to use it.
The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled many times that the right freedom of speech stops where it harms others. Copyright and the laws that support it are there to stop economic harm.
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.
In this case the "uncomfortable truth" being that their advice lead to the deaths of over 330,00 South Africans due to misguided health policy.