What happens if you hit a magma vein in the Moon? Possibly something like Saturns moon Enceladus which spews out what appears to be something like water. But in the our Moons case your looking more at a volcano that could spew magma and that is unknown when it will stop since there is such low gravity.
The surface of the moon is cold. The liquid hot magma would cool quite rapidly, plugging up the hole. After all, that's where the lunar seas came from.
With enough pressure, it wouldn't. Remember, for a hole to plug up like that, it needs gravity. Thats why I mentioned Saturns moon Enceladus. Its even colder there then out Moon and they don't stop until they run out of pressure. Not because "It'll cool quite rapidly", the pressure will cause the cooling parts to keep flying outward.
This could cause things like ash to blow over the Earth
Ash from what? Volcanic ash on Earth is created by pulverized rock. The low gravity on the moon means the rock is launched upward instead of pulverized.
Liquid cord of the Moon means that is where the volcanic ash would come from. That why I mentioned what if they hit mamga. Magma is lava, it would burn and melt the sides of the whatever tunnel it is using to come out of, and would fly outward. Due to the Moons very low gravity, it wouldn't fall back down to the Moon but enter into the Earth's orbit. Similar to how Saturn's rings work.
possibly enter the atmosphere or other negative side effects (like lava rocks hitting satellites)
You have no real understanding of just how large space is, do you?
You have no real understanding of things in orbit work do you? Something like this happens, the cooling lava rocks won't go outward into space, Earth's gravity would be too strong. It would go inward, towards Earth. It's the reason satellites don't go flying out randomly into space. It's how any planet can keep a moon.
As well as the fact the a volcano on the Moon might cause it to shift orbit due to the gravity (like a jet engine, depending on the pressure and size of the volcano)
...and you have no real understanding of just how massive the moon is either.
Nor do we know just how much magma, sulpher and/or other materials are in the moon. Making an explosion large enough might cause enough of the Moon to tilt. Drain enough magma, ect, could cause the same effect. What would happen if you managed to cause enough rupturing to cause something like a new volcano the size of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano which happens to be on the smallest planet. Its possible without more information and since it's only just be figured out 2 weeks ago that the Moon most likely has a liquid core, it shows we know very little about the Moon. Also, we don't know how much pressure is built up within the Moons core, enough pressure and we make the only hole to the pressure and it could burst out, ripping a bigger hole. Maybe a volcanic eruption the size of the one that happened on Jupiters moon Io in 2002?
Another fact is that the Moon appears to possess light elements like sulphur and oxygen, which are both flammable
First, oxygen isn't flammable. Oxygen is an oxidizer that supports fire, but something else is burning. Second, how are you planning to sustain a sulfur fire without an atmosphere? Or are you asserting that the moon is covered with massive pockets of oxygen that are lined with sulfur? If that's your model the way you fight the fire is to vent the oxygen from the chamber. You're left with vacuum, and the sulfur fire goes out.
That is a very small chance. But there are other things that might happen with worse results. Other, more likely results are things like the Moon does have liquid core. What happens if you hit a magma vein in the Moon? Possibly something like Saturns moon Enceladus which spews out what appears to be something like water. But in the our Moons case your looking more at a volcano that could spew magma and that is unknown when it will stop since there is such low gravity. This could cause things like ash to blow over the Earth, possibly enter the atmosphere or other negative side effects (like lava rocks hitting satellites). As well as the fact the a volcano on the Moon might cause it to shift orbit due to the gravity (like a jet engine, depending on the pressure and size of the volcano), if the Moon shifts orbit this can cause many major issues here on Earth. Another fact is that the Moon appears to possess light elements like sulphur and oxygen, which are both flammable. Hit a pocket of the two under the surface and your looking at issues similar to a gas pocket when oil drilling except without gravity the typical solutions might not work causing unknown effects.
Its called Earth, I think it's pretty close to you. Remember things like the Earth's tide is controlled by the Moon. And while the 2002 movie of The Time Machine was an over exaggerated version of what could happen, there is always the chance of something going wrong that could have huge impact to life on Earth. We don't have a full grasp of everything the Moon does that the Earth benefits from but I for one wouldn't want to learn the hard way by having it removed.
Not every terrorist is a religious zealot that has no concern of death. Some are people who seem themselves as freedom fighters trying to over throw a corrupt government, like those whom fought against Saddam before the US invasion. They had all been labeled terrorist for their actions. Also if you had read all the information in my posts about this and not just picked a small paragraph you would have known that these pirates were not businessmen but freedom fighters trying to get rid of people trying to rob them of their livelyhood. With time this has become all they know and they are unable to return to their peaceful means of making a living.
In short your entire post is too damn stupid to be taken seriously as the information to understand was there but you lacked the logic to fully comprehend it. For someone who is claiming to be able to understand the concepts of logic you are failing at it horribly. Logic said you should have tried to understand the full picture that had been set before you. Instead you have shown yourself to be too damn stupid to do that and prefered to act like a child hoping to pick a small piece of the subject and hope to make you feel big about yourself. Bravo for showing yourself to be just a little child.
MJPEG isn't a part of MPEG-LA, yes. But everyone is still saying one thing, your saying another. I'm not sure what else to say. Even the Sonys own manual on page 27 says, and I'll quote "File format: Movies: MPEG-4 Visual" It says nothing about MJPEG or h.264.
I did know that. I also read the 3 reviews that mentioned that it encodes the video in MPEG-4 (I even made sure to mention that exactly) Only the Sony site says MP4 and thats why I seperated it from the other three and mentioned that it says MP4. The information from the 3 reviews:
The ZDNet view has it listed as "Digital Video Format
MPEG-4"
CNet's review says "File format (still/video) JPEG/MPEG-4 (.MP4)"
And cameralabs.com review says (which is the most exact in phrasing) "All three video modes shoot at 30fps which is then encoding into MPEG-4 with AAC audio and wrapped in an MP4 file."
Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs.
That's the whole point of creating a standard high quality codec. Would you rather Sony, Olympus, etc., all have their own incompatible formats? What's worse, is these formats would be limited in quality by lack of licensing of patents.
By pooling their patents, a codec which is legal, high quality, and universally supported is possible.
So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits.
How is the free choices of other, non-MPEG-LA members an example of MPEG-LA maximizing their profits?
Sony pays more to license H.264 than they receive in royalties from their licensing fees, by definition. So how is this Sony maximizing their profits? Wouldn't it be better to use their own, proprietary codec?
It would be more profitable, but it would not be better. They tried that with ATRAC and UMD and it didn't work. What *does* work is having an open format which is high quality and universally supported.
As I mentioned, it strangled out competition so that MPEG-LA, and ONLY MPEG-LA is profiting from this. It kills any form of competition which is never a good thing. It has been shown numerous times in numerous business fields. And what good does a free to use codec do? It allows people to use their videos and try to make money from their hard work without having to pay even more money on top of their investment of the tools they already paid for or worry about it being denied. If I made a for-profit movie that shows the downfalls of relying upon the MPEG-LA's licensed technologies and promote free to use ones, I'm likely to have the MPEG-LA want to figure out a legal way to refuse it which would cause me to lose time and money, a risk I shouldn't have to worry about. And there is always other problems. Without competition, a company won't bother to improve their products to the extent that it can be because that costs money.
There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales.
Google can join MPEG-LA. And to assert that WebM would work "just as great" is absolute bullshit at this point in time. A standard that is widely supported is far superior to even a better format that is poorly supported. Doubly so when it comes to battery life of handheld devices. But WebM isn't even technologically better in any way. H.264 is superior. The *only* thing WebM has on H.264 is its licensing arrangement (and even that's dubious given the likelihood of it infringing upon MPEG-LA's patents).
To start with, there is no real reason that Google should have to agree to MPEG-LA's rules if they don't want to. Nor is h.264 superior, as tests have shown that they are neck to neck (with WebM's code not being optimized). The only times h.264 was done better was went it was assisted by the GPU which isn't in most mobile devices. Now as WebM becomes more mature and optimized, it might very well be a more superior.
It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money.
Are you sure it uses MJPEG? According to the spec part in reviews 123 they all say that the Sony DSC-W350 encodes video only in MPEG-4 (which is also owned by MPEG-LA). Even Sonys website for the camera states (under Features) that it records video in MP4. It takes photo's in JPEG, but according to all 4 of these sites, its videos are in MPEG-4 format.
Sorry, but I agree with John Hasler, its horseshit. The MPEG-LA is designed to control and maximize profits. And they use their size and power to prevent others from trying to rise against them. Things like this were mentioned here on/. months ago when it was pointed out about video recording camera's and all of them using x264. Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs. So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits. There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales. It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money. It doesn't matter if you later transfer the video to a different codec that is free since at one point of the making of the video it was done in MPEG-LA's codec so they are entitled to their fee's. (While the MPEG-LA has stated that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, that doesn't hold any weight since it says you do in the license agreement and in the eyes of the law, the license agreement is what the reality is).
The company cares about the bottom line. If your productivity is noticeably impaired, make a business case to your boss for a faster machine. A thousand bucks gets you a pretty decent machine these days.
$500 these days can buy you a decent machine that will run most office software (outside of heavy 3d graphics). They are upgrading the computer, and only need to buy a new tower, not new keyboard, monitor, ect... Letting the boss know that its that kind of cheap to get that big of an improvement in work speed and ability helps you get the tools you really need.
Does Twitter have any business partners that are only EU based? (ie, doesn't have a US HQ).
As for buying marijuana in Holland as a Germen citizen, the Germen police don't enter Holland to arrest you because they have no legal power in Holland. If you try to bring the marijuana in Germany then they will because when you step on German soil, you have to obey German law.
No they don't, and email doesn't either, not if it isn't based in the country. If Twitter had a EU based location then, yes they would have to. But Twitter isn't and it isn't Twitters job to enforce who decides to go to www.twitter.com and post a message. Thats the users problem and choice. Its like cross-boarder shopping and services. If its not in their country then its not bound by their laws.
The article isn't about spying on Twitter. Its about demanding the information without a legal reason to do so. The US has no legal leg to stand on for demanding this information, yet they did it anyways.
Not the same. Radio stations pay a licensing fee for a public performance of the music, not a fee for a private listening. Its public broadcasting because it was paid by the radio station to be publicly broadcasted.
Thats what I was wondering. Its a foreign country requesting information from a foreign company (to the EU its a foreign company. Its a US based company). While it does involve some of their citizens, it has nothing to do with anything legally in the EU. The way I see it, legally it was like all the tweets they did were considered out of their country. Don't like that? Then use a system in your own country then it can be protected by your countries laws.
Tweets are, both normally sent ones and ones that are sent as replies (though most feeds ignore tweets sent as replies). Twitter does allow you to send people a direct message though, and those aren't public.
Slashdot Mirror
The surface of the moon is cold. The liquid hot magma would cool quite rapidly, plugging up the hole. After all, that's where the lunar seas came from.
With enough pressure, it wouldn't. Remember, for a hole to plug up like that, it needs gravity. Thats why I mentioned Saturns moon Enceladus. Its even colder there then out Moon and they don't stop until they run out of pressure. Not because "It'll cool quite rapidly", the pressure will cause the cooling parts to keep flying outward.
Ash from what? Volcanic ash on Earth is created by pulverized rock. The low gravity on the moon means the rock is launched upward instead of pulverized.
Liquid cord of the Moon means that is where the volcanic ash would come from. That why I mentioned what if they hit mamga. Magma is lava, it would burn and melt the sides of the whatever tunnel it is using to come out of, and would fly outward. Due to the Moons very low gravity, it wouldn't fall back down to the Moon but enter into the Earth's orbit. Similar to how Saturn's rings work.
You have no real understanding of just how large space is, do you?
You have no real understanding of things in orbit work do you? Something like this happens, the cooling lava rocks won't go outward into space, Earth's gravity would be too strong. It would go inward, towards Earth. It's the reason satellites don't go flying out randomly into space. It's how any planet can keep a moon.
...and you have no real understanding of just how massive the moon is either.
Nor do we know just how much magma, sulpher and/or other materials are in the moon. Making an explosion large enough might cause enough of the Moon to tilt. Drain enough magma, ect, could cause the same effect. What would happen if you managed to cause enough rupturing to cause something like a new volcano the size of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano which happens to be on the smallest planet. Its possible without more information and since it's only just be figured out 2 weeks ago that the Moon most likely has a liquid core, it shows we know very little about the Moon. Also, we don't know how much pressure is built up within the Moons core, enough pressure and we make the only hole to the pressure and it could burst out, ripping a bigger hole. Maybe a volcanic eruption the size of the one that happened on Jupiters moon Io in 2002?
First, oxygen isn't flammable. Oxygen is an oxidizer that supports fire, but something else is burning. Second, how are you planning to sustain a sulfur fire without an atmosphere? Or are you asserting that the moon is covered with massive pockets of oxygen that are lined with sulfur? If that's your model the way you fight the fire is to vent the oxygen from the chamber. You're left with vacuum, and the sulfur fire goes out.
Again, we don't know enough a
Meant to use this link to mention about the Moon having a liquid core.
That is a very small chance. But there are other things that might happen with worse results. Other, more likely results are things like the Moon does have liquid core. What happens if you hit a magma vein in the Moon? Possibly something like Saturns moon Enceladus which spews out what appears to be something like water. But in the our Moons case your looking more at a volcano that could spew magma and that is unknown when it will stop since there is such low gravity. This could cause things like ash to blow over the Earth, possibly enter the atmosphere or other negative side effects (like lava rocks hitting satellites). As well as the fact the a volcano on the Moon might cause it to shift orbit due to the gravity (like a jet engine, depending on the pressure and size of the volcano), if the Moon shifts orbit this can cause many major issues here on Earth. Another fact is that the Moon appears to possess light elements like sulphur and oxygen, which are both flammable. Hit a pocket of the two under the surface and your looking at issues similar to a gas pocket when oil drilling except without gravity the typical solutions might not work causing unknown effects.
You are aware of things like JET? While it is still experimental for more practical usage, it still has been able to successfully preform fusion reactions. Also, the hydrogen bomb is powered by nuclear fusion.
Its called Earth, I think it's pretty close to you. Remember things like the Earth's tide is controlled by the Moon. And while the 2002 movie of The Time Machine was an over exaggerated version of what could happen, there is always the chance of something going wrong that could have huge impact to life on Earth. We don't have a full grasp of everything the Moon does that the Earth benefits from but I for one wouldn't want to learn the hard way by having it removed.
Not every terrorist is a religious zealot that has no concern of death. Some are people who seem themselves as freedom fighters trying to over throw a corrupt government, like those whom fought against Saddam before the US invasion. They had all been labeled terrorist for their actions. Also if you had read all the information in my posts about this and not just picked a small paragraph you would have known that these pirates were not businessmen but freedom fighters trying to get rid of people trying to rob them of their livelyhood. With time this has become all they know and they are unable to return to their peaceful means of making a living.
In short your entire post is too damn stupid to be taken seriously as the information to understand was there but you lacked the logic to fully comprehend it. For someone who is claiming to be able to understand the concepts of logic you are failing at it horribly. Logic said you should have tried to understand the full picture that had been set before you. Instead you have shown yourself to be too damn stupid to do that and prefered to act like a child hoping to pick a small piece of the subject and hope to make you feel big about yourself. Bravo for showing yourself to be just a little child.
MJPEG isn't a part of MPEG-LA, yes. But everyone is still saying one thing, your saying another. I'm not sure what else to say. Even the Sonys own manual on page 27 says, and I'll quote "File format: Movies: MPEG-4 Visual" It says nothing about MJPEG or h.264.
MPEG-4 isn't h.264. MPEG-4 is MPEG-4. Different codec from the same group. Would be why you would have to transcode it into h.264.
I did know that. I also read the 3 reviews that mentioned that it encodes the video in MPEG-4 (I even made sure to mention that exactly) Only the Sony site says MP4 and thats why I seperated it from the other three and mentioned that it says MP4. The information from the 3 reviews:
The ZDNet view has it listed as "Digital Video Format MPEG-4"
CNet's review says "File format (still/video) JPEG/MPEG-4 (.MP4)"
And cameralabs.com review says (which is the most exact in phrasing) "All three video modes shoot at 30fps which is then encoding into MPEG-4 with AAC audio and wrapped in an MP4 file."
Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs.
That's the whole point of creating a standard high quality codec. Would you rather Sony, Olympus, etc., all have their own incompatible formats? What's worse, is these formats would be limited in quality by lack of licensing of patents.
By pooling their patents, a codec which is legal, high quality, and universally supported is possible.
So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits.
How is the free choices of other, non-MPEG-LA members an example of MPEG-LA maximizing their profits?
Sony pays more to license H.264 than they receive in royalties from their licensing fees, by definition. So how is this Sony maximizing their profits? Wouldn't it be better to use their own, proprietary codec?
It would be more profitable, but it would not be better. They tried that with ATRAC and UMD and it didn't work. What *does* work is having an open format which is high quality and universally supported.
As I mentioned, it strangled out competition so that MPEG-LA, and ONLY MPEG-LA is profiting from this. It kills any form of competition which is never a good thing. It has been shown numerous times in numerous business fields. And what good does a free to use codec do? It allows people to use their videos and try to make money from their hard work without having to pay even more money on top of their investment of the tools they already paid for or worry about it being denied. If I made a for-profit movie that shows the downfalls of relying upon the MPEG-LA's licensed technologies and promote free to use ones, I'm likely to have the MPEG-LA want to figure out a legal way to refuse it which would cause me to lose time and money, a risk I shouldn't have to worry about. And there is always other problems. Without competition, a company won't bother to improve their products to the extent that it can be because that costs money.
There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales.
Google can join MPEG-LA. And to assert that WebM would work "just as great" is absolute bullshit at this point in time. A standard that is widely supported is far superior to even a better format that is poorly supported. Doubly so when it comes to battery life of handheld devices. But WebM isn't even technologically better in any way. H.264 is superior. The *only* thing WebM has on H.264 is its licensing arrangement (and even that's dubious given the likelihood of it infringing upon MPEG-LA's patents).
To start with, there is no real reason that Google should have to agree to MPEG-LA's rules if they don't want to. Nor is h.264 superior, as tests have shown that they are neck to neck (with WebM's code not being optimized). The only times h.264 was done better was went it was assisted by the GPU which isn't in most mobile devices. Now as WebM becomes more mature and optimized, it might very well be a more superior.
It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money.
Big deal. If you are using your video commerc
MPEG-4 is a codec, MP4 is a container.MPEG home page.
Are you sure it uses MJPEG? According to the spec part in reviews 1 2 3 they all say that the Sony DSC-W350 encodes video only in MPEG-4 (which is also owned by MPEG-LA). Even Sonys website for the camera states (under Features) that it records video in MP4. It takes photo's in JPEG, but according to all 4 of these sites, its videos are in MPEG-4 format.
Sorry, but I agree with John Hasler, its horseshit. The MPEG-LA is designed to control and maximize profits. And they use their size and power to prevent others from trying to rise against them. Things like this were mentioned here on /. months ago when it was pointed out about video recording camera's and all of them using x264. Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs. So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits. There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales. It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money. It doesn't matter if you later transfer the video to a different codec that is free since at one point of the making of the video it was done in MPEG-LA's codec so they are entitled to their fee's. (While the MPEG-LA has stated that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, that doesn't hold any weight since it says you do in the license agreement and in the eyes of the law, the license agreement is what the reality is).
The company cares about the bottom line. If your productivity is noticeably impaired, make a business case to your boss for a faster machine. A thousand bucks gets you a pretty decent machine these days.
$500 these days can buy you a decent machine that will run most office software (outside of heavy 3d graphics). They are upgrading the computer, and only need to buy a new tower, not new keyboard, monitor, ect... Letting the boss know that its that kind of cheap to get that big of an improvement in work speed and ability helps you get the tools you really need.
Does Twitter have any business partners that are only EU based? (ie, doesn't have a US HQ).
As for buying marijuana in Holland as a Germen citizen, the Germen police don't enter Holland to arrest you because they have no legal power in Holland. If you try to bring the marijuana in Germany then they will because when you step on German soil, you have to obey German law.
No they don't, and email doesn't either, not if it isn't based in the country. If Twitter had a EU based location then, yes they would have to. But Twitter isn't and it isn't Twitters job to enforce who decides to go to www.twitter.com and post a message. Thats the users problem and choice. Its like cross-boarder shopping and services. If its not in their country then its not bound by their laws.
The article isn't about spying on Twitter. Its about demanding the information without a legal reason to do so. The US has no legal leg to stand on for demanding this information, yet they did it anyways.
I have also bookmarked you for checking out new posts.
You've bookmarked me? Wow, how nice of you.
Whoops, missed the "Where is the EU?" part.
Not the same. Radio stations pay a licensing fee for a public performance of the music, not a fee for a private listening. Its public broadcasting because it was paid by the radio station to be publicly broadcasted.
Then what?
Thats what I was wondering. Its a foreign country requesting information from a foreign company (to the EU its a foreign company. Its a US based company). While it does involve some of their citizens, it has nothing to do with anything legally in the EU. The way I see it, legally it was like all the tweets they did were considered out of their country. Don't like that? Then use a system in your own country then it can be protected by your countries laws.
Tweets are, both normally sent ones and ones that are sent as replies (though most feeds ignore tweets sent as replies). Twitter does allow you to send people a direct message though, and those aren't public.
Please next time, read the article... it says it there.
Its a US based company.
That's what he said: "dictatorial".
Seriously, in 2010, what is the difference between "business strategy" and "dictatorial"?
One gets your cheers from your share holders, the other gets you in court. Beyond that, nothing.
Well I saw the movie, and lets be honest. Morgan Freeman is a smooth talker.