This study will never reach a reasonable conclusion because it is trying to summarize the effects of two distinct not necessarily related issues.
If I download a copy of [insert song] from the interwebs and it is as performed by the original artist, to me that is not counterfeit. Now if I went into Big Box Buy, grabbed the latest Green Day CD, payed for it and when I play it in my car in the parking lot I find the CD contains Rick Astley covering Green Day songs instead, that would be counterfeit but not pirated.
Additionally FTA they say that the effects are negative for the consumer and that is really only correct for counterfeiting. If I buy a good and it's a fake that causes health problems etc. then yes I lost. If however I don't pay for it and still obtain the product through digital piracy then I've experienced no loss regardless of whether it is genuine or not.
The GAO needs to break it up and separately study counterfeiting and piracy because Counterfeit != Pirated
we can even make a left turn at a red light from a two-way street onto a one-way street going left; this is explicitly stated.
Universal left on red is not commonly applied unless in denser urban situations and typically this is left from a one way to another one way heading to the left. It's similar to the Universal right on red law but you need to check with your local jurisdiction. Around me, right and left on red are legal in Philadelphia but only right on red outside city limits.
The yellow light is just meant as a margin of error before the traffic starts going in the other direction. You're most certainly not supposed to count on the length of the yellow to clear the intersection before the red light.
The yellow light (inter-green time) is not just a margin of error, it is supposed to be a warning. If it just turned red you would have people applying emergency braking levels to avoid entering the intersection. This would lead to a lot of accidents. There is a margin of error typically 2 to 3 seconds that is built into an all red period where no lane is supposed to move, this also allows slower pedestrians to clear.
The light timing specifically for yellow lights is highly variable and is based on a number of inputs including typical traffic type, sight distance, reaction time, and speed limit to name a few. In the case of TFA it is entirely possible to "short" the light, whereby they do not allow a reasonable reaction time or allow enough distance to stop with normal braking. Reference any highway design text or specifically HCM2000 chapter 16.
For what it's worth, no profit is ever enough.
Look at the recent situation where Avatar crushed so many box office sales records that the theater chains (AMC and Regal in the US) decided they could raise prices. The worst part is that they wholly admit that the increase does not cover an increase in operating cost they just know that people will pay whatever they want. In NYC it's now $19.50 per ticket with no concessions just to see the likes of Avatar. So if my options are to continue to line the pockets of the greedy for a movie that I'll probably only be able to afford to see once or to download it, I'll see you on the nearest tracker.
What surprises me is that you weren't arrested for assault.
Being here in Philadelphia, in all honesty if I were in that position I'd be less afraid of being charged with assault than having the bully or one of his lackeys come back the next day with a gun and putting an end to my "protection" right there on the bus.
I've worked at a Waste Management transfer facility (basically a temporary landfill) and the scent blasters smell a lot like simple green and they are reasonably effective, not 100% and definitely not like a the flowery air fresheners that exacerbate the problem.
You mention covering the layers with soil everyday, this is an extremely expensive process that shortens the life span of the facility and reduces the effectiveness. Landfills cost a lot of money to operate and remediate after their useful lifespan. By layering in soil you are taking up very valuable volume in the facility with a loss inducing product. This is one of the reasons why they have moved to a much more geosynthetic heavy liner system for retaining the leachate produced. The old dual clay liners were prone to slipping at the membrane layers causing landslides of garbage and they had to be 3 times as thick as they are now and that was lost money.
All modern landfills have some sort of methane collection system. If they don't collect the gas it bubbles up and causes "whales" in the cover liner (these can then burst and cause lots of problems). Additionally methane is a 20 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 so they try to collect it. There are two ways to treat the collected gas, one is to flare it off like you describe the other is to build a power plant and use it to create electricity (after filtering of course). The methane quantity will reduce over time to barely a trickle so the power plants are short lived. Bioreactor landfills are a good way of extending the useful methane output and will eventually reduce the trash volume as well (then a new land fill can be piggy backed on top).
Sorry for the lack of links here, but a quick google or wikipedia search will give you all you need.
I think you have accurately described the broader issues here and I would agree for the most part. But I have to protest that the vast majority of people in America have lost completely or at least have a crippled sense of distrust for the mass media.
The fact that the most popular "news" agencies are the most biased (pick your side here both are equally bad) and yet they are the most popular and taken word for word should be enough to show that the distrust is lost.
Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.
Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.
So by the same logic you would be entirely ok if BBC said "Oh by the way you can only watch our programming on a Panaphonic or a Sorny TV" solely b/c those models don't allow you to connect a TIVO, VCR, (insert time shifting/reproduction device here), etc.
I understand that the distribution and reproduction rights are theirs as well it should be for the original distribution (everybody deserves to paid for their work if they want to). The way I see it is that once it's out there you give up all control of it because you have two options. 1) Allow people to what they wish with the product. 2) Do not distribute your product b/c you don't like what will inevitably happen to it.
Concrete is stronger under compression, but it's so lousy under tension that you put metal into it to take that strain. And how metal is supposed to be stronger than metal I dunno.
Absolutely correct here, concrete has very little tensile strength and it is typically reinforced in varying degrees depending on the force distribution being applied to the member. In any other sense than being pedantic, it is not a fair statement to say that the steel is what makes it so special. The majority of the section is concrete steel is limited in AASHTO to 4% by area (if my memory serves me correctly). Anything more than that does not help with additional strength and can actually weaken the matrix. Good question on metal being stronger than metal, I will assume you mean steel, there are numerous grades of steel that are used structurally ranging from 36 ksi to 60 ksi typically some can be even stronger. It depends entirely on the amount of carbon in the steel and the way the nodules are shaped and distributed.
And lighter than metal? Not yet. Tell me when you see stadiums with concrete roofs.
The answer here is that yes they are lighter than steel in a way. The density of concrete is 150 pcf and steel is around 490 pcf. So even though the concrete beams have a larger sectional area they tend to be marginally lighter. This is related to the shape of the beams, steel tends to have a deeper web and concrete a shallower thicker web for the same capacity. Additionally when the concrete beams are heavier, the savings in the reduced height of the abutments more than off sets the downside.
Also how you're going to resist an earthquake with only compression I dunno.
Well that's the funny thing about earthquakes and it is a major area of research around the globe. It has been proven repeatedly that a reinforced concrete wall will survive exceptionally well in an earthquake. The primary reason is the way the waves propagate with the most common form being a vertical movement (this introduces a compression in to the column rather than a shear). The horizontal Rayleigh waves are usually very shallow and introduce a shear movement that is not as great a magnitude as the vertical waves. BTW the measure of the compression strength of concrete is really a measure of the shear strength (think back to Mohr's circles) so as long as there is sufficient shear capacity within the concrete and steel matrix there will be no problem (see above for how its mainly concrete and the claims about steel are just pedantic - I fully expect to see that though, this is/. after all).
Correction:
Even the beams being put into bridges are bendable concrete because they are stronger and lighter than metal.
ECC - Engineered Cementicious Composite - is NOT used in bridges. Your standard I bulb beams are prestressed concrete. It has high strength concrete in it (compression typically > 5500psi) but it is almost never fiber reinforced.
In fact for that matter the "newer" concrete technologies, ECC, RCC, SCC, to name a few are not widely used in industry. Some projects use them but they are not common.
First off I think it is dreadfully ignorant to call the bill that was passed by congress Obama care. It is pretty far from it. The original proposal by Obama was 11 points on one sheet of paper and the majority of those items were not included in the bloated corpse of the legislation. It is a disgusting statement of the sentiments of the American public that they are willing to deny the neediest access to affordable health care. If you argue that it is a states issue, that's BS. The states have less interest in protecting their citizens than the feds. The states cannot even repair the pot holes in the roads let alone even think about providing assistance to the needy.
This silent majority that you are talking of, would this be the same nutters that are part of the tea party movement? They are obviously not silent and they are typically a large portion of the GOP base, 15 years ago they would have been called libertarians. The only thing that has changed is title. Besides the fact that I would be willing to guess that a good portion of them are completely misinformed about the content of the bill or it's impact on them (most will be completely unaffected). And I think that it would be even more true to say that they are very unlikely (because it's very unlikely for anybody for that matter) to have actually read the entire 2500 page bill. And please spare me the crap about not being respected and it being a political stunt. The health care bill was not passed in November because the GOP wanted a say in the contents, they were given a say in exchange for support and yet not a single one of them voted for it.
If you think that health care reform and specifically a single payer system is a "liberal" idea you are flat out wrong. The idea has been proposed by several presidents (Republican and Democrat including GOP deity Reagan) dating back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt. This country is founded on the principals of liberty and justice for all, not just those who can afford it.
I'll absolutely agree with you and anybody else that the deficit is by far a larger concern than anything else. If we wanted to prevent that we would not be in Iraq and Afghanistan now. I think it's amazing that in the darkest days of the fighting in Iraq no matter how bad the deficit was we always had more money to spend on the war. Now though we have a president who gives a budget for the whole year (not just 3 months) and the deficit is huge and everybody is bent out of shape over spending. Well I've been outraged over spending for 7 years now and that is unlikely to change! Spending hasn't grown its still the same, it's just shifting streams from killing human beings to healing human beings.
What country have you been living in? A left leaning political spectrum my ass. This country was controlled completely by the Republican party up until 2006 when they lost congress. Even after they lost control there was still no swing left, the president wouldn't sign any legislation that was not right biased. Additionally if you look at the trends in the bias of the people elected you will see that most are very right leaning conservatives or very moderate (and thereby right leaning) liberals.
Essentially that is the draw back of the American way, nobody is directly represented. A few speak for the many and we all hope that they speak for what we feel.
Effectively the majority has relinquished their opinion in Congress by not voting. Take a look at levels of turnout for federal elections over the last several non-presidential elections and you will see that nobody is elected by a majority of the population (approx 30% turnout != majority).
Presidents are another matter all together, now if we take the results of the most recent election since there was a clear winner, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority is represented fairly. In the previous two elections it was a little closer and I would say nobody was fairly represented.
If you don't like the way you are represented then you have every right as a citizen to run for office or elect somebody who will represent you the way you want. I'd like to imagine a future where we are all represented fairly where we have multiple political parties involved, money and donations play absolutely no roll in the process, and extremist attitudes (conservative or liberal) are not rewarded.
I think that there are very few areas of controversy in the US where there is a clear consensus of a majority and minority opinion. Typically speaking the groups that are out spoken claiming to be speaking for the majority really only speak for a few members of a select minority and these people are who get the most publicity. Sometimes it's not about what one person wants (you, senator, rep., pres.) it's about what will benefit the whole.
Yes but they are two completely separate branches of the government. The legislative branch controls what happens in Congress. All the executive (Obama in this case) can do is make suggestions and requests.
In the end if none of Obama's (or any future President for that matter) ideas and goals don't work out for lack of passage or poor implementation (*cough* health care reform *cough*) it is not the Presidents fault, the responsibility lies solely with the goobers in Congress.
Being an engineer and a liberal progressive, I think that my biggest concern with the Solar plants (and the only reason I would even consider opposing them) is the fact that they use vast quantities of water. The best suited areas are desserts and this means that water is already scarce. The groundwater is too precious to be used wastefully. Damming rivers ravages the down stream communities and the local populations by diverting the water that they use for irrigation and drinking supplies. The natural habitat is destroyed as well (look no further than the impacts on the Grand Canyon due to the reduced flow from the Hoover Dam).
You know, not all teens have sex. Some of us even chose not to have sex in our teenage years. You're right that parents cant control when teens have sex, but parents can have a huge impact, good and bad, when it comes to how children think of sex and when they choose to have it.
Yes not all teens have sex, many spend their days idly by their computers on/.
But parent is absolutely correct, you cannot control the if and when but you surely can influence the outcome. If you are open about addressing the issue they will be more likely to make a reasonable and mature decision (Source: Life experiences).
Slashdot Mirror
Is that she is now more likely to cheat on whomever she is with due to a need to satisfy the urge when her significant other is not around.
This study will never reach a reasonable conclusion because it is trying to summarize the effects of two distinct not necessarily related issues.
If I download a copy of [insert song] from the interwebs and it is as performed by the original artist, to me that is not counterfeit. Now if I went into Big Box Buy, grabbed the latest Green Day CD, payed for it and when I play it in my car in the parking lot I find the CD contains Rick Astley covering Green Day songs instead, that would be counterfeit but not pirated.
Additionally FTA they say that the effects are negative for the consumer and that is really only correct for counterfeiting. If I buy a good and it's a fake that causes health problems etc. then yes I lost. If however I don't pay for it and still obtain the product through digital piracy then I've experienced no loss regardless of whether it is genuine or not.
The GAO needs to break it up and separately study counterfeiting and piracy because Counterfeit != Pirated
we can even make a left turn at a red light from a two-way street onto a one-way street going left; this is explicitly stated.
Universal left on red is not commonly applied unless in denser urban situations and typically this is left from a one way to another one way heading to the left. It's similar to the Universal right on red law but you need to check with your local jurisdiction. Around me, right and left on red are legal in Philadelphia but only right on red outside city limits.
The yellow light is just meant as a margin of error before the traffic starts going in the other direction. You're most certainly not supposed to count on the length of the yellow to clear the intersection before the red light.
The yellow light (inter-green time) is not just a margin of error, it is supposed to be a warning. If it just turned red you would have people applying emergency braking levels to avoid entering the intersection. This would lead to a lot of accidents. There is a margin of error typically 2 to 3 seconds that is built into an all red period where no lane is supposed to move, this also allows slower pedestrians to clear.
The light timing specifically for yellow lights is highly variable and is based on a number of inputs including typical traffic type, sight distance, reaction time, and speed limit to name a few. In the case of TFA it is entirely possible to "short" the light, whereby they do not allow a reasonable reaction time or allow enough distance to stop with normal braking. Reference any highway design text or specifically HCM2000 chapter 16.
For what it's worth, no profit is ever enough.
Look at the recent situation where Avatar crushed so many box office sales records that the theater chains (AMC and Regal in the US) decided they could raise prices. The worst part is that they wholly admit that the increase does not cover an increase in operating cost they just know that people will pay whatever they want. In NYC it's now $19.50 per ticket with no concessions just to see the likes of Avatar.
So if my options are to continue to line the pockets of the greedy for a movie that I'll probably only be able to afford to see once or to download it, I'll see you on the nearest tracker.
What surprises me is that you weren't arrested for assault.
Being here in Philadelphia, in all honesty if I were in that position I'd be less afraid of being charged with assault than having the bully or one of his lackeys come back the next day with a gun and putting an end to my "protection" right there on the bus.
I've worked at a Waste Management transfer facility (basically a temporary landfill) and the scent blasters smell a lot like simple green and they are reasonably effective, not 100% and definitely not like a the flowery air fresheners that exacerbate the problem.
You mention covering the layers with soil everyday, this is an extremely expensive process that shortens the life span of the facility and reduces the effectiveness. Landfills cost a lot of money to operate and remediate after their useful lifespan. By layering in soil you are taking up very valuable volume in the facility with a loss inducing product. This is one of the reasons why they have moved to a much more geosynthetic heavy liner system for retaining the leachate produced. The old dual clay liners were prone to slipping at the membrane layers causing landslides of garbage and they had to be 3 times as thick as they are now and that was lost money.
All modern landfills have some sort of methane collection system. If they don't collect the gas it bubbles up and causes "whales" in the cover liner (these can then burst and cause lots of problems). Additionally methane is a 20 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 so they try to collect it. There are two ways to treat the collected gas, one is to flare it off like you describe the other is to build a power plant and use it to create electricity (after filtering of course). The methane quantity will reduce over time to barely a trickle so the power plants are short lived. Bioreactor landfills are a good way of extending the useful methane output and will eventually reduce the trash volume as well (then a new land fill can be piggy backed on top).
Sorry for the lack of links here, but a quick google or wikipedia search will give you all you need.
there is an innate distrust of the media.
I think you have accurately described the broader issues here and I would agree for the most part. But I have to protest that the vast majority of people in America have lost completely or at least have a crippled sense of distrust for the mass media.
The fact that the most popular "news" agencies are the most biased (pick your side here both are equally bad) and yet they are the most popular and taken word for word should be enough to show that the distrust is lost.
Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.
Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.
So by the same logic you would be entirely ok if BBC said "Oh by the way you can only watch our programming on a Panaphonic or a Sorny TV" solely b/c those models don't allow you to connect a TIVO, VCR, (insert time shifting/reproduction device here), etc.
I understand that the distribution and reproduction rights are theirs as well it should be for the original distribution (everybody deserves to paid for their work if they want to). The way I see it is that once it's out there you give up all control of it because you have two options.
1) Allow people to what they wish with the product.
2) Do not distribute your product b/c you don't like what will inevitably happen to it.
Concrete is stronger under compression, but it's so lousy under tension that you put metal into it to take that strain. And how metal is supposed to be stronger than metal I dunno.
Absolutely correct here, concrete has very little tensile strength and it is typically reinforced in varying degrees depending on the force distribution being applied to the member. In any other sense than being pedantic, it is not a fair statement to say that the steel is what makes it so special. The majority of the section is concrete steel is limited in AASHTO to 4% by area (if my memory serves me correctly). Anything more than that does not help with additional strength and can actually weaken the matrix.
Good question on metal being stronger than metal, I will assume you mean steel, there are numerous grades of steel that are used structurally ranging from 36 ksi to 60 ksi typically some can be even stronger. It depends entirely on the amount of carbon in the steel and the way the nodules are shaped and distributed.
And lighter than metal? Not yet. Tell me when you see stadiums with concrete roofs.
The answer here is that yes they are lighter than steel in a way. The density of concrete is 150 pcf and steel is around 490 pcf. So even though the concrete beams have a larger sectional area they tend to be marginally lighter. This is related to the shape of the beams, steel tends to have a deeper web and concrete a shallower thicker web for the same capacity. Additionally when the concrete beams are heavier, the savings in the reduced height of the abutments more than off sets the downside.
Also how you're going to resist an earthquake with only compression I dunno.
Well that's the funny thing about earthquakes and it is a major area of research around the globe. It has been proven repeatedly that a reinforced concrete wall will survive exceptionally well in an earthquake. The primary reason is the way the waves propagate with the most common form being a vertical movement (this introduces a compression in to the column rather than a shear). The horizontal Rayleigh waves are usually very shallow and introduce a shear movement that is not as great a magnitude as the vertical waves. BTW the measure of the compression strength of concrete is really a measure of the shear strength (think back to Mohr's circles) so as long as there is sufficient shear capacity within the concrete and steel matrix there will be no problem (see above for how its mainly concrete and the claims about steel are just pedantic - I fully expect to see that though, this is /. after all).
Correction: Even the beams being put into bridges are bendable concrete because they are stronger and lighter than metal.
ECC - Engineered Cementicious Composite - is NOT used in bridges. Your standard I bulb beams are prestressed concrete. It has high strength concrete in it (compression typically > 5500psi) but it is almost never fiber reinforced.
In fact for that matter the "newer" concrete technologies, ECC, RCC, SCC, to name a few are not widely used in industry. Some projects use them but they are not common.
First off I think it is dreadfully ignorant to call the bill that was passed by congress Obama care. It is pretty far from it. The original proposal by Obama was 11 points on one sheet of paper and the majority of those items were not included in the bloated corpse of the legislation. It is a disgusting statement of the sentiments of the American public that they are willing to deny the neediest access to affordable health care. If you argue that it is a states issue, that's BS. The states have less interest in protecting their citizens than the feds. The states cannot even repair the pot holes in the roads let alone even think about providing assistance to the needy.
This silent majority that you are talking of, would this be the same nutters that are part of the tea party movement? They are obviously not silent and they are typically a large portion of the GOP base, 15 years ago they would have been called libertarians. The only thing that has changed is title. Besides the fact that I would be willing to guess that a good portion of them are completely misinformed about the content of the bill or it's impact on them (most will be completely unaffected). And I think that it would be even more true to say that they are very unlikely (because it's very unlikely for anybody for that matter) to have actually read the entire 2500 page bill. And please spare me the crap about not being respected and it being a political stunt. The health care bill was not passed in November because the GOP wanted a say in the contents, they were given a say in exchange for support and yet not a single one of them voted for it.
If you think that health care reform and specifically a single payer system is a "liberal" idea you are flat out wrong. The idea has been proposed by several presidents (Republican and Democrat including GOP deity Reagan) dating back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt. This country is founded on the principals of liberty and justice for all, not just those who can afford it.
I'll absolutely agree with you and anybody else that the deficit is by far a larger concern than anything else. If we wanted to prevent that we would not be in Iraq and Afghanistan now. I think it's amazing that in the darkest days of the fighting in Iraq no matter how bad the deficit was we always had more money to spend on the war. Now though we have a president who gives a budget for the whole year (not just 3 months) and the deficit is huge and everybody is bent out of shape over spending. Well I've been outraged over spending for 7 years now and that is unlikely to change! Spending hasn't grown its still the same, it's just shifting streams from killing human beings to healing human beings.
What country have you been living in? A left leaning political spectrum my ass. This country was controlled completely by the Republican party up until 2006 when they lost congress. Even after they lost control there was still no swing left, the president wouldn't sign any legislation that was not right biased. Additionally if you look at the trends in the bias of the people elected you will see that most are very right leaning conservatives or very moderate (and thereby right leaning) liberals.
Essentially that is the draw back of the American way, nobody is directly represented. A few speak for the many and we all hope that they speak for what we feel.
Effectively the majority has relinquished their opinion in Congress by not voting. Take a look at levels of turnout for federal elections over the last several non-presidential elections and you will see that nobody is elected by a majority of the population (approx 30% turnout != majority). Presidents are another matter all together, now if we take the results of the most recent election since there was a clear winner, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority is represented fairly. In the previous two elections it was a little closer and I would say nobody was fairly represented.
If you don't like the way you are represented then you have every right as a citizen to run for office or elect somebody who will represent you the way you want. I'd like to imagine a future where we are all represented fairly where we have multiple political parties involved, money and donations play absolutely no roll in the process, and extremist attitudes (conservative or liberal) are not rewarded.
I think that there are very few areas of controversy in the US where there is a clear consensus of a majority and minority opinion. Typically speaking the groups that are out spoken claiming to be speaking for the majority really only speak for a few members of a select minority and these people are who get the most publicity. Sometimes it's not about what one person wants (you, senator, rep., pres.) it's about what will benefit the whole.
Yes but they are two completely separate branches of the government. The legislative branch controls what happens in Congress. All the executive (Obama in this case) can do is make suggestions and requests.
In the end if none of Obama's (or any future President for that matter) ideas and goals don't work out for lack of passage or poor implementation (*cough* health care reform *cough*) it is not the Presidents fault, the responsibility lies solely with the goobers in Congress.
Being an engineer and a liberal progressive, I think that my biggest concern with the Solar plants (and the only reason I would even consider opposing them) is the fact that they use vast quantities of water. The best suited areas are desserts and this means that water is already scarce. The groundwater is too precious to be used wastefully. Damming rivers ravages the down stream communities and the local populations by diverting the water that they use for irrigation and drinking supplies. The natural habitat is destroyed as well (look no further than the impacts on the Grand Canyon due to the reduced flow from the Hoover Dam).
You know, not all teens have sex. Some of us even chose not to have sex in our teenage years. You're right that parents cant control when teens have sex, but parents can have a huge impact, good and bad, when it comes to how children think of sex and when they choose to have it.
Yes not all teens have sex, many spend their days idly by their computers on /.
But parent is absolutely correct, you cannot control the if and when but you surely can influence the outcome. If you are open about addressing the issue they will be more likely to make a reasonable and mature decision (Source: Life experiences).