LPG (or GPL as it is called in some countries in Europe) stands for Liquified Petroleum Gas, not Propane Gas. I don't know the exact chemical composition of LPG, and it is possible that it contains propane, but I'm pretty certain it is not pure propane.
The beauty of using it to power cars lies in the fact that it is actually a waste product from oil refineries. Ever see those big flames coming out of those smoke stacks? That's LPG they are burning, since they have no use for it. Other than fuel for cars. Unfortunately you can't save the world with this principle, since the production of LPG is related to the production of ordinary gasoline. However, every little bit helps.
Yes, LPG is a little bit more explosive than gasoline or diesel, so you have to take a few precautions, like not filling the tank more than 80%. However, millions of cars have been powered by LPG in Europe for many years, and there has not been an unusual occurrence of exploding fuel tanks as far as I know. Also, consider that an LPG tank will have about the same energy contents as an ordinary gas tank, so you won't take out an entire city block should it explode. Bottom line is that it has been used without major problems for many years in Europe, so there really is not a compelling safety concern.
What I find odd is that the article says the perpetrator is as yet unknown. Does MS allow anonymous submissions to its core products? That is truely astonishing. It may be that their configuration management/version control procedures leave a lot to be desired. Maybe MS does not allow anonymous submissions, maybe they just can't do anything about it. Would it surprise you?
Slight correction: the sale (and use!) of marijuana and hash is officiallynot legal in the Netherlands (maximum penalty for posession of less than 1oz. is a $250 fine or 2 days imprisonment, if I remember correctly). You won't be prosecuted for using it though, and the sale of these "soft drugs" is more or less permitted in coffeeshops, under strict conditions (no sales to minors, no sales of "hard drugs", etc.)
The sale of drugs like heroin, cocaine, speed, etc. is highly illegal.
Flamebait indeed, as the reactions prove, but interesting nonetheless. I can't resist the urge to react to this. I have lived and worked in three different countries in my life, 34 years in Europe and the last four years in the US, and I like to kid myself that I can have an informed opinion on this.
Thinking they have some God-given right to stick their noses into the rest of the world's business. There is some truth in this. The USA has been laying mines in harbors in Nicaragua in the '80s, clearly an act of war. Americans feel they are justified to do this kind of stuff, because "we're the good guys", and "who's gonna do anything about it?" The invasion of Grenada is another example. You don't have the right to invade another country just because you don't like their internal politics (it would be a different story if gross crimes against humanity were committed, but that was clearly not the case here). As despicable as Noriega is, the invasion of Panama also left a bit of a strange taste in my mouth. Apparently you can just invade another country to arrest someone. Never mind about innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sick of them trying to make macho posturings about their military on the world stage, whilst not commiting a single soldier in Kosovo. That's not entirely correct, I think. Also, I don't completely disagree with the argument that Europe has the first responsibility here.
I'm sick of their "moral" centre, whilst at the same time their Red Cross "missionaries" disrupt the lifestyles of villages across SE Asia which had been happy for hundreds of years. I thought the Red Cross was a Swiss organization originally. Anyway, you can't credit/blame the US for what the Red Cross is doing.
I'm sick of the US and it's stupid lawsuits - the latest being the woman suing Nike for tripping over her shoelaces. True, it's stupid, but it generally doesn't bother people outside of the US.
I'm sick of the US way of spelling things, and then trying to claim that it's England that are spelling it wrong. That's too silly to get worked up about, but I guess you could argue that since US English is derived from UK English, Americans can not reasonably claim that the English spelling is wrong.
I'm sick of the US claiming it is the greatest nation on Earth, when any number of other countries could in reality nuke the fuck out of it. I'm not sure about the nuking part. Fact is that, however horrible nuclear weapons are, they do act as an equalizer in the sense that no country can be protected from them. Not even the USA, and forget about SDI part II, it won't work. More interestingly, what I have found in the last four years is that Americans truly believe that the USA is the greatest and most wonderful nation on earth, in every aspect imaginable. You can't really blame them for this, since they have been brainwashed with this idea since they were born. Even so, even the most educated, intelligent and open-minded American cannot completely divorce himself from this idea. Although they can accept on a rational level that some things might be better in some other countries, there is always this subconscious part of them that can't fully accept the notion. I have found this rather disturbing.
And I'm fucking sick of the US proclaiming that they are the only nation who are "free", when they know nothing about any other country in the world, and precious little about their own. Yes, and to give you some examples: even though there is freedom of speech, you cannot say 'excrement' on national television (see, even I'm afraid to use the proper word) Less than 5% of adult Americans have a passport. So, 95% have never been ouside the US/Mexico/Canada. You can't live in every country, but a little travel now and then greatly helps to see issues from more than one side.
To balance this out a little, consider the following:
- The US Constitution is a brilliant document. Especially the part about being able to amend it is evidence of great vision.
- Americans are not shallow minded. This is a European prejudice that I had myself when coming to the US, and it is not justified.
I think you're right and wrong: it is stupid, and IMHO therefore funny. You see, the dumber the joke, the funnier it is, at least to me. Different people have a different sense of humor.
Excuse my ignorance, but I have a burning question:
How is it determined if and how a copyright is violated?
I'll clarify a little:
"0110100110"
That happens to be a fragment of a digital picture I took. So I guess the copyright is mine. Or maybe you could argue that this bit sequence is so common that it cannot possibly be copyrighted. Of course, if you were to copy the whole 1.2 Megs that my picture is made up of, you would be violating my copyright. Right?
The above bit sequence is actually part of a WAV file that I ripped off a CD I bought. Or, part of a highly useful.EXE file. But in reality, I just made it up.
So the question is: where does it stop being common or fair use and where does the copyright start?
This is nothing new, of course. The word "the" is used quite a bit in the English language, so you can't copyright that. You can get a trademark on "Bookshelf", though. Can I write a novel where my main character is called Sherlock Holmes? What if he is a bartender? What if he is a detective?
Can I distribute files that are 'striped' MP3s, i.e., I just distribute the first bit of every byte, tomorrow I distribute the second bit, etc?
Of course, one of the most scary aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the Anti-Circumvention part.
If I were to write a piece of software that could decrypt strong encryption (yeah, right...:-) , would I be violating the Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA? Even if I don't have a clue what DVDs are? Or what if I find a mathematical method to quickly factor large numbers (not large primes, as Bill Gates once envisioned:-) ? Am I in violation then?
Is Napster a pirating tool or a file distribution system?
Yes, it may be unprovable. But the fact that people have been working on it for hundreds of years does not say anything. The same goes for Fermat's Last Theorem, and that was proven a couple of years ago, after centuries of fruitless efforts...
Interesting. I think a prime number p is defined as a number that has exactly two divisors. That would be 1 and p, and therefore 1 does not qualify, since it has only 1 divisor.
The two are really inseparable though different. There is no true liberty where there is no right to private property, and there is positively no capitalist system where private property rights are snuffed out by the state.
How are they inseparable? I agree that that capitalist systems uphold private property rights, since that is a premise for a capitalist system in the first place, but I don't see how that proves your point.
What I actually meant was that the automatic connection between capitalism and freedom does not hold in my opinion. Yes, capitalism implies a greater economic freedom than other systems, but that does not mean that it implies a greater personal freedom. Having lived most of my life in Europe, my experience is that although most countries there implement a weaker form of capitalism than the US, personal freedom is actually greater than in the USA. Arguably this has different reasons than just the economic model. It's just that the blind assumption "the USA is the most capitalist country, and the most free, therefore capitalism = freedom" should be challenged. I'm almost afraid to say it, but as much as I love to live in the US, it is not the country with the most freedom in the world. Sorry.
Free enterprise often implies the ability to restrict other people's freedom.
The only "restriction" free enterprise places is on the fact that a man has the right to control his own property, and that another man does not have the right to coerce him into disposing of it in ways he does not want. But that works both ways: everyone's property is protected.
True. I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant to say. Free enterprise enables a big difference between economic means. That's all fine. The unfortunate side effect is that big corporations with a lot of money can force the little guy with no money into a legal settlement, simply because they can afford the outrageous legal fees that the little guy cannot. I'll admit that that is more a problem of the legal system than the capitalist system.
The American national pastime of sueing everyone over every little thing is an illustration of this.
The litigiousness of American society cannot reasonably be said to be a necessary feature of capitalism. The fact that this litigiousness has only appeared in the last century demonstrates this. The U.S. was far more capitalistic in the 19th century, in that there were far fewer restrictions upon how a man might use his private property. It is only with the growth of additional restrictions upon that freedom that we have seen the explosion of lawsuits in this country. I don't believe that the demise of capitalism and the rise of the lawsuit are particularly linked to each other, but certainly litigiousness is not in any way a feature of capitalism.
Nope, it's not a feature of capitalism, but a result of capitalism. Or, at the very least, a side effect. The more money a big company has, the more you can sue out of them by spilling hot coffee in you lap. Again, the twisted legal system is also responsible for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Liquefied Petroleum Gas, rather than Liquified.
LPG (or GPL as it is called in some countries in Europe) stands for Liquified Petroleum Gas, not Propane Gas. I don't know the exact chemical composition of LPG, and it is possible that it contains propane, but I'm pretty certain it is not pure propane.
The beauty of using it to power cars lies in the fact that it is actually a waste product from oil refineries. Ever see those big flames coming out of those smoke stacks? That's LPG they are burning, since they have no use for it. Other than fuel for cars. Unfortunately you can't save the world with this principle, since the production of LPG is related to the production of ordinary gasoline. However, every little bit helps.
Yes, LPG is a little bit more explosive than gasoline or diesel, so you have to take a few precautions, like not filling the tank more than 80%. However, millions of cars have been powered by LPG in Europe for many years, and there has not been an unusual occurrence of exploding fuel tanks as far as I know. Also, consider that an LPG tank will have about the same energy contents as an ordinary gas tank, so you won't take out an entire city block should it explode. Bottom line is that it has been used without major problems for many years in Europe, so there really is not a compelling safety concern.
What I find odd is that the article says the perpetrator is as yet unknown. Does MS allow anonymous submissions to its core products? That is truely astonishing.
It may be that their configuration management/version control procedures leave a lot to be desired. Maybe MS does not allow anonymous submissions, maybe they just can't do anything about it. Would it surprise you?
The sale of drugs like heroin, cocaine, speed, etc. is highly illegal.
Thinking they have some God-given right to stick their noses into the rest of the world's business.
There is some truth in this. The USA has been laying mines in harbors in Nicaragua in the '80s, clearly an act of war. Americans feel they are justified to do this kind of stuff, because "we're the good guys", and "who's gonna do anything about it?"
The invasion of Grenada is another example. You don't have the right to invade another country just because you don't like their internal politics (it would be a different story if gross crimes against humanity were committed, but that was clearly not the case here).
As despicable as Noriega is, the invasion of Panama also left a bit of a strange taste in my mouth. Apparently you can just invade another country to arrest someone. Never mind about innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sick of them trying to make macho posturings about their military on the world stage, whilst not commiting a single soldier in Kosovo.
That's not entirely correct, I think. Also, I don't completely disagree with the argument that Europe has the first responsibility here.
I'm sick of their "moral" centre, whilst at the same time their Red Cross "missionaries" disrupt the lifestyles of villages across SE Asia which had been happy for hundreds of years.
I thought the Red Cross was a Swiss organization originally. Anyway, you can't credit/blame the US for what the Red Cross is doing.
I'm sick of the US and it's stupid lawsuits - the latest being the woman suing Nike for tripping over her shoelaces.
True, it's stupid, but it generally doesn't bother people outside of the US.
I'm sick of the US way of spelling things, and then trying to claim that it's England that are spelling it wrong.
That's too silly to get worked up about, but I guess you could argue that since US English is derived from UK English, Americans can not reasonably claim that the English spelling is wrong.
I'm sick of the US claiming it is the greatest nation on Earth, when any number of other countries could in reality nuke the fuck out of it.
I'm not sure about the nuking part. Fact is that, however horrible nuclear weapons are, they do act as an equalizer in the sense that no country can be protected from them. Not even the USA, and forget about SDI part II, it won't work.
More interestingly, what I have found in the last four years is that Americans truly believe that the USA is the greatest and most wonderful nation on earth, in every aspect imaginable. You can't really blame them for this, since they have been brainwashed with this idea since they were born. Even so, even the most educated, intelligent and open-minded American cannot completely divorce himself from this idea. Although they can accept on a rational level that some things might be better in some other countries, there is always this subconscious part of them that can't fully accept the notion. I have found this rather disturbing.
And I'm fucking sick of the US proclaiming that they are the only nation who are "free", when they know nothing about any other country in the world, and precious little about their own.
Yes, and to give you some examples: even though there is freedom of speech, you cannot say 'excrement' on national television (see, even I'm afraid to use the proper word)
Less than 5% of adult Americans have a passport. So, 95% have never been ouside the US/Mexico/Canada. You can't live in every country, but a little travel now and then greatly helps to see issues from more than one side.
To balance this out a little, consider the following:
- The US Constitution is a brilliant document. Especially the part about being able to amend it is evidence of great vision.
- Americans are not shallow minded. This is a European prejudice that I had myself when coming to the US, and it is not justified.
I think you're right and wrong: it is stupid, and IMHO therefore funny. You see, the dumber the joke, the funnier it is, at least to me. Different people have a different sense of humor.
Does that qualify as strong encryption (i.e. munitions under US law)? I sure can't make any sense of it...
How is it determined if and how a copyright is violated?
I'll clarify a little:
"0110100110"
That happens to be a fragment of a digital picture I took. So I guess the copyright is mine. Or maybe you could argue that this bit sequence is so common that it cannot possibly be copyrighted. Of course, if you were to copy the whole 1.2 Megs that my picture is made up of, you would be violating my copyright. Right?
The above bit sequence is actually part of a WAV file that I ripped off a CD I bought. Or, part of a highly useful .EXE file. But in reality, I just made it up.
So the question is: where does it stop being common or fair use and where does the copyright start?
This is nothing new, of course. The word "the" is used quite a bit in the English language, so you can't copyright that. You can get a trademark on "Bookshelf", though.
Can I write a novel where my main character is called Sherlock Holmes? What if he is a bartender? What if he is a detective?
Can I distribute files that are 'striped' MP3s, i.e., I just distribute the first bit of every byte, tomorrow I distribute the second bit, etc?
Of course, one of the most scary aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the Anti-Circumvention part.
If I were to write a piece of software that could decrypt strong encryption (yeah, right... :-) , would I be violating the Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA? Even if I don't have a clue what DVDs are? Or what if I find a mathematical method to quickly factor large numbers (not large primes, as Bill Gates once envisioned :-) ? Am I in violation then?
Is Napster a pirating tool or a file distribution system?
I was going to list some of Anonymous Coward's comments, but it's too much work. Gee, that guy has a lot of time on his hands...
The two are really inseparable though different. There is no true liberty where there is no right to private property, and there is positively no capitalist system where private property rights are snuffed out by the state.
How are they inseparable? I agree that that capitalist systems uphold private property rights, since that is a premise for a capitalist system in the first place, but I don't see how that proves your point.
What I actually meant was that the automatic connection between capitalism and freedom does not hold in my opinion. Yes, capitalism implies a greater economic freedom than other systems, but that does not mean that it implies a greater personal freedom. Having lived most of my life in Europe, my experience is that although most countries there implement a weaker form of capitalism than the US, personal freedom is actually greater than in the USA. Arguably this has different reasons than just the economic model. It's just that the blind assumption "the USA is the most capitalist country, and the most free, therefore capitalism = freedom" should be challenged. I'm almost afraid to say it, but as much as I love to live in the US, it is not the country with the most freedom in the world. Sorry.
Free enterprise often implies the ability to restrict other people's freedom.
The only "restriction" free enterprise places is on the fact that a man has the right to control his own property, and that another man does not have the right to coerce him into disposing of it in ways he does not want. But that works both ways: everyone's property is protected.
True. I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant to say. Free enterprise enables a big difference between economic means. That's all fine. The unfortunate side effect is that big corporations with a lot of money can force the little guy with no money into a legal settlement, simply because they can afford the outrageous legal fees that the little guy cannot. I'll admit that that is more a problem of the legal system than the capitalist system.
The American national pastime of sueing everyone over every little thing is an illustration of this.
The litigiousness of American society cannot reasonably be said to be a necessary feature of capitalism. The fact that this litigiousness has only appeared in the last century demonstrates this. The U.S. was far more capitalistic in the 19th century, in that there were far fewer restrictions upon how a man might use his private property. It is only with the growth of additional restrictions upon that freedom that we have seen the explosion of lawsuits in this country. I don't believe that the demise of capitalism and the rise of the lawsuit are particularly linked to each other, but certainly litigiousness is not in any way a feature of capitalism.
Nope, it's not a feature of capitalism, but a result of capitalism. Or, at the very least, a side effect. The more money a big company has, the more you can sue out of them by spilling hot coffee in you lap. Again, the twisted legal system is also responsible for this.