if it runs on hot air on a hot day it could once started possible run off of ambient heat then destroy the nuclear plant
Hot air on a hot day alone is likely not sufficient to produce even a F3 strength tornado;
let alone a F5+ supertornado/superburst capable of damaging the plant
Sure... but the original argument of $0.03 / kwH.
Is very similar to the idea of having a perpetual motion machine, or "harnessing free energy from the vacuum";
with a new label stamped on it.
The use of geothermal heat makes sense, in which case it's just Geothermal power, or "Power produced by tapping exhaust heat"
which requires more energy than suggested, and there are already other Geothermal power production methods....
so this is of benefit, only if more efficient, or it can harness exhaust heat that cannot be harnessed through other methods more safely/efficiently.
I thought the author made some good technical arguments about the usability, and
was going well with valid criticisms, until he started having to use the F-word to criticize Windows 8.
Now I cannot safely point other people to the video, because they will find the content utterly offensive.
The previously mentioned international body, used to enforce the agreements. I personally feel "international" is the wrong place to start, it needs to be completely extra-national or you will end up with something like the UN with its Security Counsel.
It needs to be approved by the nations on earth, and treaties put into place, to ensure the organization
can enforce the rules, by penalizing people, organizations, entities, or freezing assets on earth, based
on violations of "space law"; eg it needs to be able to make doing so unprofitable.
Once there are enough people not living on earth, the organization has to become not just international, but interplanetary, in order to remain relevant. Which means gaining enforcement arms: police, and military forces in space and stationed on nearby planets, ready to respond to law violations.
And who will be the receiver of all these payments? What will they do with the money?
The entity so appointed. They will use the money to fund their operations, eg to hire employees to process and validate registrations.
And they will also utilize them to conduct enforcement actions -- just because you have claims, registrations and rights, does not mean you won't also have lawbreakers; unless there are mechanisms of enforcement, the claims/rules would simply be ignored.
I claim all inhabitable planets in all galaxies to be mine. Except for two which I offer to my wife.
I claim the void space in between Earth and all inhabitable and uninhabitable planets, asteroids, comets, stars, black holes, quasars, dark matter, and other objects, in all galaxies to be mine.
And i'm hanging up no trespassing signs. So if someone wants to get to one of those inhabitable planets other than earth; I will be happy to negotiate
that, for the proper toll in rent of extended passage through my property:-)
Otherwise, how do you separate people with plans in motion to go there from those who are merely being 'patent trolls'
I suggest require that anyone who wants to claim something visit the place first, build something, place markers and protective barriers completely around it,
and prove that they have marked it, by taking pictures back to earth, with their application, in order to establish a claim.
Those 'patent trolls' would likely not have even tried to visit the site
The point is there needs to be a legal framework in place so such expenditures are protected.
I suggest: Formation of an international body, to register ownership of materials in space, in exchange for a fee.
(1) Temporary retained ownership/claim to any object or material you owned on earth and sent into space (for a period of time, say 6 years) --
the object must be identified and registered with the authority, paid up annually -- or in advance.
(2) Extended ownership of any human person manned vehicle or object the owner or human representative of the owner interacted with in the past 6 years -- renewal application for the registration every 6 years, with declaration of value and payment of additional fee.
(3) Ownership of the first landing site of a human person manned vehicle most recently after its departure from earth, and the immediate vicinity, within a X foot radius, as long as no portion previously owned; for a 6 year period. A prominent, robust central marker must be installed, with a protective barrier around the landing site; the landing site must be registered within 1 year.
(4) Ownership of any structure fully enclosed on all sides - built by human workers on owner's behalf that continues to be manned and not abandoned, (not caves or normal features of the planet or asteroid); automatic, and indefinite, as long as not abandoned -- must be formally registered within 1 year, renewed within every 10 years.
(5) Ownership of ground and materials in ground beneath owned enclosed structures.
(6) Temporary ownership of fenced in areas around manned enclosed structures, and ground / materials in ground - with registration, and annual payment to the body per cubic mile of surface area claimed, and per cubic yards volume of material claimed.
(7) Ownership of habitation areas - any place where people live and sleep, and the immediate vicinity within 1000 feet - by the people or organization that owned the materials used to build the areas. Indefinite, as long as manned, and not requiring registration.
(8) Transferrance of registry - upon establishment of any colony or settlement on a planetary body of no less than 1000 people, and establishment of local government; the provisional government of that settlement will receive the right to register boundaries of their settlement, which they may update from time to time, and have full control of property rights within the boundaries of their settlement - providing they agree to maintain the existing registrations, and adhere to principles of fairness.
But if you are going 45 in a 70 behind a slow car, and pull out in front of the car going 80 in a 70 who was less than 50 feet back
If you're going 45 in a 70, then you are not driving at the speed limit, and the distance you must ensure is 90 feet; whereas, if you are going the full speed limit, the distance any vehicle in the rear is required to be behind to complete lane change is the normal safe following distance; the expected maximum reaction time is 700ms. If the driver in the lane's reaction time is so impaired, so that it takes them longer than a whole second to start applying the brake while you are increasing speed to the speed limit after lane change, then you are not responsible for the fact that the other driver is apparently drunk or driving with so impaired faculties, that they don't notice they are closing the distance to the vehicle ahead (with their illegally high speed) to a distance shorter than a safe following distance.
It is simply not true that the person in the back is always at fault.
It's very true that they are almost always (although not 100% guaranteed to be) at fault.
If you rear-end a lawyer, police officer, or other friend of the judge/law, that's an exceptional situation and they are likely to find a way to point the finger at you.
No, it is not the responsibility of an approaching car to stop for every possible hazard and verify they are not going to unsafely cut them off.
Indeed it is. Should you have someone behind you, and you slow down at a reasonable rate of deceleration and distance, the person behind you is responsible for slowing down or otherwise avoiding you. A lane change; or lane change followed by slowing down is no different.
There always exists some combination where the *only* person who can avoid the collision is the one making the lane change
It is the responsibility of the person making the lane change or changing their vehicle's velocity to ensure they do not make a lane change or speed reduction in a situation which creates the risk of a collision that would be unavoidable, or that an attentive driver would have any difficulty avoiding.
A person running from the cops, driving in a straight line who has a cop jump out in front of them when it was impossible for them to avoid hitting him would be tried for assault.
Running from cops in the furtherance of a crime or otherwise messing with cops is a bad idea. They will find radical ways of misconstruing unrelated laws, if necessary, in order to levy charges.
Assault indicates specific intentional actions designed to threaten battery.
If you unsafely change lanes and cause a crash, you bear liability even if the other vehicle is speeding.
This is not true. In the event of a crash, the hit on the rear will be used as evidence of fault for the speeding driver, and data gathered from the scene may be used to prove the car in the rear was exceeding the speed limit, and therefore at full fault.
The only way the driver changing lanes will have committed an offense, is if they changed lanes at so close a distance, that the car behind could not clearly, safely avoid collision while traveling at the speed limit.
(E.g. the speeding driver is a few feet behind, rather than 20 or 30 feet behind)
If you saw them and hit them anyway, you committed assault.
You apparently have no idea what assault means.
In this situation, the speeding driver bears the full responsibility, because it is an approaching driver's responsibility to see any vehicle moving into their lane, ahead, and ensure they slow if necessary to retain stopping distance.
Every driver is required by law to follow traffic rules, and may rely on other drivers doing so in the operation of their vehicles. I assure you, if you run a stop sign, or red light, and there is a collision with the vehicle crossing with green light or on the highway direction with no stop-sign; the other driver will not be tried for "assault"; even if they had some potential chance to prevent the incident.
The courts have found that corporations are legally people born or naturalized in the United States.
Their rights derive, from the fact that their shareholders are people, and the corporation is a legal structure called a "person".
That is, a corporation is a kind of person borne out of its charter.
Oh, so it's not a tailgate prevention system, it's a system which will cause someone to slow down, fall back, and speed up again so they can tailgate me again and again and again?
OK: every time the system is triggered, it will increment a counter, and broadcast a signal on a certain frequency containing a transponder ID, odometer reading, and a counter value for the past 24 hours.
If/when a police receiver picks up the alert, you will automatically be cited a $5 fine, for each count above 10 for every 200 miles driven.
Also, every vehicle will be required to have one, and respond to a special police signal to query counter status.
Certain roads will query all cars that pass, and any car not to have one, will have their odometer manually compared to the last callin, and receive a $1 fine per mile driven without a transponder unit, at a minimum of $1000 per time found in violation of the law requiring anti-tailgating system compliant with the state standard.
it wasn't necessary for you to describe the system. here's why it's a bad idea; someone is coming up on you too fast to stop, because they just switched into your lane
In other words, if they made an illegal lane change, because you were too close, at the time they made the lane change.
Somehow they were going to fast, BUT the car directly in front of them was not? It sounds like they have a choice between crashing into you and the vehicle in the same lane then, and reckless behavior can cause an accident, regardless of safety systems.
The person to the right of you is a fucking moron so they're driving along side of you for no reason
In this case, you blow your horn, and the person to your right is required by law to immediately slow down and allow you to complete your pass
But more realistically, the tailgate prevention system doesn't activate in this situation, as long as you are were already maintaining a safe following distance from any vehicle in front, and you need to be less than 1 stopping distance behind the vehicle in front for at least 5 seconds, before your acceleration is throttled down by the system.
I was taught the "Two second rule" in Driver's Ed - "ensure that you are at least so far from a vehicle in front of you that at least 2 seconds complete before you enter an area they vacated."
This is a useful rule of thumb, however: The generally recommended rule is 3 seconds, plus 1 second
for each factor of difficulty (poor lighting), (inclement weather), (personal - eg fatigue), adverse traffic - large vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians.
If it's a string of cars going faster than you are, you're a traffic hazard by changing lanes and you need to make sure that you are going the same speed as that traffic. No one should have to brake because you decided that moment was the time for you to switch lanes.
If you are over the speed limit, you are required to brake in the first place, but you may be forced to to prevent you causing an accident as well. If a vehicle in the passing lane is violating the speed limit when you have a need to pass, they may have to brake for you.
People who choose to break the law and speed do not have priority rights to the use of the road, just because they are speeding.
If you change lanes and are hit in the rear, the speeding driver has liability (civil and criminal) for the outcome.
Obviously, you should take pass in such a way as to mitigate the risk as much as possible.
In the event that you start getting tailgated, this is an unsafe situation, and you should gradually begin braking at a sufficiently low rate of deceleration that it is safe.
(This will indeed mean that the tailgater messed up your purpose of using the lane to pass, and you might as well return to the other lane if safe to do so)
If you're going to put that law into place, then how about computer controlled speed governors on every car, restricting them to the speed limit (with maybe a short override allowable for merging/passing)
How about computer controlled governors, that kick in, based on the speed and distance of a car in front of the vehicle. If the distance to the object in front is less than the stopping distance minus 2 seconds, then kick in, apply additional engine breaking mechanisms to burn off forward momentum, activate rear warning lights, and gradually decrease the maximum allowed speed at 2 miles per hour per second , until either the distance increase resulting from the slowing, brings things back into tolerance, or the maximum speed is less than 10 Mph.
After the distance to any forward object is back in tolerance, the maximum speed will gradually begin to return to the maximum speed that is in tolerance, but not until the foot is fully lifted off the accelerator, after exceeding the stopping distance requirement.
In other words... tailgate prevention software mandatory in vehicles.
Managers should manage, coders should write code
Some people are comfortable and enjoy managing, others are comfortable and enjoy clacking on a computer.... myself being very much in the latter category. I absolutely can't stand the thought of managing a team and having to deal with interpersonal people problems and office politics, whereas instead I could just do what I love instead.
But maybe you should manage at least once, and see what it's like, before knocking it.
Also... Hiring and interviewing a prospective hire are management type functions.
So if you're not willing to manage, why are you in the position of doing that?
Perhaps you should be hiring an assistant under you to do the management work managing the people, instead (With you as the superior in the hierarchy), so you can take care of the more difficult, more highly intellectual tasks such as managing the code..
Slashdot Mirror
Put all of the project management records in a tool or data set they're not using. Give them only aggregate data.
If you don't document the actual work and records using methods approved by the org, then management may assume you didn't do the work.
so i'm not sure where this idea that an AVE could produce a tornado came from, but this is slashdot
Yeahp.... ambient hot air would likely shut it down, as the differential no longer exist.... and people accuse Microsoft of creating FUD :)
if strong Tornados had such simple requirements to form on their own; there'd be a heck of a lot more natural tornados ravaging the lands.
Controlled nuclear reactions in the immediate vicinity of nuclear reactors. What could possibly go wrong? (A lot)
if it runs on hot air on a hot day it could once started possible run off of ambient heat then destroy the nuclear plant
Hot air on a hot day alone is likely not sufficient to produce even a F3 strength tornado; let alone a F5+ supertornado/superburst capable of damaging the plant
Sure... but the original argument of $0.03 / kwH. Is very similar to the idea of having a perpetual motion machine, or "harnessing free energy from the vacuum"; with a new label stamped on it.
The use of geothermal heat makes sense, in which case it's just Geothermal power, or "Power produced by tapping exhaust heat" which requires more energy than suggested, and there are already other Geothermal power production methods.... so this is of benefit, only if more efficient, or it can harness exhaust heat that cannot be harnessed through other methods more safely/efficiently.
I thought the author made some good technical arguments about the usability, and was going well with valid criticisms, until he started having to use the F-word to criticize Windows 8.
Now I cannot safely point other people to the video, because they will find the content utterly offensive.
I am shocked Slashdot would link to such a thing.
The previously mentioned international body, used to enforce the agreements. I personally feel "international" is the wrong place to start, it needs to be completely extra-national or you will end up with something like the UN with its Security Counsel.
It needs to be approved by the nations on earth, and treaties put into place, to ensure the organization can enforce the rules, by penalizing people, organizations, entities, or freezing assets on earth, based on violations of "space law"; eg it needs to be able to make doing so unprofitable.
Once there are enough people not living on earth, the organization has to become not just international, but interplanetary, in order to remain relevant. Which means gaining enforcement arms: police, and military forces in space and stationed on nearby planets, ready to respond to law violations.
And who will be the receiver of all these payments? What will they do with the money?
The entity so appointed. They will use the money to fund their operations, eg to hire employees to process and validate registrations.
And they will also utilize them to conduct enforcement actions -- just because you have claims, registrations and rights, does not mean you won't also have lawbreakers; unless there are mechanisms of enforcement, the claims/rules would simply be ignored.
I claim all inhabitable planets in all galaxies to be mine. Except for two which I offer to my wife.
I claim the void space in between Earth and all inhabitable and uninhabitable planets, asteroids, comets, stars, black holes, quasars, dark matter, and other objects, in all galaxies to be mine.
And i'm hanging up no trespassing signs. So if someone wants to get to one of those inhabitable planets other than earth; I will be happy to negotiate that, for the proper toll in rent of extended passage through my property :-)
Otherwise, how do you separate people with plans in motion to go there from those who are merely being 'patent trolls'
I suggest require that anyone who wants to claim something visit the place first, build something, place markers and protective barriers completely around it, and prove that they have marked it, by taking pictures back to earth, with their application, in order to establish a claim.
Those 'patent trolls' would likely not have even tried to visit the site
The point is there needs to be a legal framework in place so such expenditures are protected.
I suggest: Formation of an international body, to register ownership of materials in space, in exchange for a fee.
(1) Temporary retained ownership/claim to any object or material you owned on earth and sent into space (for a period of time, say 6 years) -- the object must be identified and registered with the authority, paid up annually -- or in advance.
(2) Extended ownership of any human person manned vehicle or object the owner or human representative of the owner interacted with in the past 6 years -- renewal application for the registration every 6 years, with declaration of value and payment of additional fee.
(3) Ownership of the first landing site of a human person manned vehicle most recently after its departure from earth, and the immediate vicinity, within a X foot radius, as long as no portion previously owned; for a 6 year period. A prominent, robust central marker must be installed, with a protective barrier around the landing site; the landing site must be registered within 1 year.
(4) Ownership of any structure fully enclosed on all sides - built by human workers on owner's behalf that continues to be manned and not abandoned, (not caves or normal features of the planet or asteroid); automatic, and indefinite, as long as not abandoned -- must be formally registered within 1 year, renewed within every 10 years.
(5) Ownership of ground and materials in ground beneath owned enclosed structures.
(6) Temporary ownership of fenced in areas around manned enclosed structures, and ground / materials in ground - with registration, and annual payment to the body per cubic mile of surface area claimed, and per cubic yards volume of material claimed.
(7) Ownership of habitation areas - any place where people live and sleep, and the immediate vicinity within 1000 feet - by the people or organization that owned the materials used to build the areas. Indefinite, as long as manned, and not requiring registration.
(8) Transferrance of registry - upon establishment of any colony or settlement on a planetary body of no less than 1000 people, and establishment of local government; the provisional government of that settlement will receive the right to register boundaries of their settlement, which they may update from time to time, and have full control of property rights within the boundaries of their settlement - providing they agree to maintain the existing registrations, and adhere to principles of fairness.
But if you are going 45 in a 70 behind a slow car, and pull out in front of the car going 80 in a 70 who was less than 50 feet back
If you're going 45 in a 70, then you are not driving at the speed limit, and the distance you must ensure is 90 feet; whereas, if you are going the full speed limit, the distance any vehicle in the rear is required to be behind to complete lane change is the normal safe following distance; the expected maximum reaction time is 700ms. If the driver in the lane's reaction time is so impaired, so that it takes them longer than a whole second to start applying the brake while you are increasing speed to the speed limit after lane change, then you are not responsible for the fact that the other driver is apparently drunk or driving with so impaired faculties, that they don't notice they are closing the distance to the vehicle ahead (with their illegally high speed) to a distance shorter than a safe following distance.
It is simply not true that the person in the back is always at fault.
It's very true that they are almost always (although not 100% guaranteed to be) at fault.
If you rear-end a lawyer, police officer, or other friend of the judge/law, that's an exceptional situation and they are likely to find a way to point the finger at you.
No, it is not the responsibility of an approaching car to stop for every possible hazard and verify they are not going to unsafely cut them off.
Indeed it is. Should you have someone behind you, and you slow down at a reasonable rate of deceleration and distance, the person behind you is responsible for slowing down or otherwise avoiding you. A lane change; or lane change followed by slowing down is no different.
There always exists some combination where the *only* person who can avoid the collision is the one making the lane change
It is the responsibility of the person making the lane change or changing their vehicle's velocity to ensure they do not make a lane change or speed reduction in a situation which creates the risk of a collision that would be unavoidable, or that an attentive driver would have any difficulty avoiding.
A person running from the cops, driving in a straight line who has a cop jump out in front of them when it was impossible for them to avoid hitting him would be tried for assault.
Running from cops in the furtherance of a crime or otherwise messing with cops is a bad idea. They will find radical ways of misconstruing unrelated laws, if necessary, in order to levy charges. Assault indicates specific intentional actions designed to threaten battery.
If you unsafely change lanes and cause a crash, you bear liability even if the other vehicle is speeding.
This is not true. In the event of a crash, the hit on the rear will be used as evidence of fault for the speeding driver, and data gathered from the scene may be used to prove the car in the rear was exceeding the speed limit, and therefore at full fault.
The only way the driver changing lanes will have committed an offense, is if they changed lanes at so close a distance, that the car behind could not clearly, safely avoid collision while traveling at the speed limit. (E.g. the speeding driver is a few feet behind, rather than 20 or 30 feet behind)
If you saw them and hit them anyway, you committed assault.
You apparently have no idea what assault means.
In this situation, the speeding driver bears the full responsibility, because it is an approaching driver's responsibility to see any vehicle moving into their lane, ahead, and ensure they slow if necessary to retain stopping distance.
Every driver is required by law to follow traffic rules, and may rely on other drivers doing so in the operation of their vehicles. I assure you, if you run a stop sign, or red light, and there is a collision with the vehicle crossing with green light or on the highway direction with no stop-sign; the other driver will not be tried for "assault"; even if they had some potential chance to prevent the incident.
They're about freedom of information over the internet, not freedom of issuing your own currency.
Perhaps some country could make bitcoins their official currency, and then the debate would be over they'd just be accepting "Country $X bitcoins".
Sorry Mitt, but corporations ain't people.
The courts have found that corporations are legally people born or naturalized in the United States. Their rights derive, from the fact that their shareholders are people, and the corporation is a legal structure called a "person". That is, a corporation is a kind of person borne out of its charter.
Oh, so it's not a tailgate prevention system, it's a system which will cause someone to slow down, fall back, and speed up again so they can tailgate me again and again and again?
OK: every time the system is triggered, it will increment a counter, and broadcast a signal on a certain frequency containing a transponder ID, odometer reading, and a counter value for the past 24 hours.
If/when a police receiver picks up the alert, you will automatically be cited a $5 fine, for each count above 10 for every 200 miles driven.
Also, every vehicle will be required to have one, and respond to a special police signal to query counter status.
Certain roads will query all cars that pass, and any car not to have one, will have their odometer manually compared to the last callin, and receive a $1 fine per mile driven without a transponder unit, at a minimum of $1000 per time found in violation of the law requiring anti-tailgating system compliant with the state standard.
it wasn't necessary for you to describe the system. here's why it's a bad idea; someone is coming up on you too fast to stop, because they just switched into your lane
In other words, if they made an illegal lane change, because you were too close, at the time they made the lane change.
Somehow they were going to fast, BUT the car directly in front of them was not? It sounds like they have a choice between crashing into you and the vehicle in the same lane then, and reckless behavior can cause an accident, regardless of safety systems.
The person to the right of you is a fucking moron so they're driving along side of you for no reason
In this case, you blow your horn, and the person to your right is required by law to immediately slow down and allow you to complete your pass
But more realistically, the tailgate prevention system doesn't activate in this situation, as long as you are were already maintaining a safe following distance from any vehicle in front, and you need to be less than 1 stopping distance behind the vehicle in front for at least 5 seconds, before your acceleration is throttled down by the system.
I was taught the "Two second rule" in Driver's Ed - "ensure that you are at least so far from a vehicle in front of you that at least 2 seconds complete before you enter an area they vacated."
This is a useful rule of thumb, however: The generally recommended rule is 3 seconds, plus 1 second for each factor of difficulty (poor lighting), (inclement weather), (personal - eg fatigue), adverse traffic - large vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians.
If it's a string of cars going faster than you are, you're a traffic hazard by changing lanes and you need to make sure that you are going the same speed as that traffic. No one should have to brake because you decided that moment was the time for you to switch lanes.
If you are over the speed limit, you are required to brake in the first place, but you may be forced to to prevent you causing an accident as well. If a vehicle in the passing lane is violating the speed limit when you have a need to pass, they may have to brake for you.
People who choose to break the law and speed do not have priority rights to the use of the road, just because they are speeding.
If you change lanes and are hit in the rear, the speeding driver has liability (civil and criminal) for the outcome.
Obviously, you should take pass in such a way as to mitigate the risk as much as possible. In the event that you start getting tailgated, this is an unsafe situation, and you should gradually begin braking at a sufficiently low rate of deceleration that it is safe. (This will indeed mean that the tailgater messed up your purpose of using the lane to pass, and you might as well return to the other lane if safe to do so)
If you're going to put that law into place, then how about computer controlled speed governors on every car, restricting them to the speed limit (with maybe a short override allowable for merging/passing)
How about computer controlled governors, that kick in, based on the speed and distance of a car in front of the vehicle. If the distance to the object in front is less than the stopping distance minus 2 seconds, then kick in, apply additional engine breaking mechanisms to burn off forward momentum, activate rear warning lights, and gradually decrease the maximum allowed speed at 2 miles per hour per second , until either the distance increase resulting from the slowing, brings things back into tolerance, or the maximum speed is less than 10 Mph.
After the distance to any forward object is back in tolerance, the maximum speed will gradually begin to return to the maximum speed that is in tolerance, but not until the foot is fully lifted off the accelerator, after exceeding the stopping distance requirement.
In other words... tailgate prevention software mandatory in vehicles.
Managers should manage, coders should write code Some people are comfortable and enjoy managing, others are comfortable and enjoy clacking on a computer.... myself being very much in the latter category. I absolutely can't stand the thought of managing a team and having to deal with interpersonal people problems and office politics, whereas instead I could just do what I love instead.
But maybe you should manage at least once, and see what it's like, before knocking it.
Also... Hiring and interviewing a prospective hire are management type functions. So if you're not willing to manage, why are you in the position of doing that?
Perhaps you should be hiring an assistant under you to do the management work managing the people, instead (With you as the superior in the hierarchy), so you can take care of the more difficult, more highly intellectual tasks such as managing the code..
I'll fork the kernal and keep the 386 dream alive, just as soon as the checkout is complete on my blazing fast 28.8k modem.
Show off... i'll start checking out the kernel to fork, as soon as I finish getting git to download on my 300 Baud modem.
But slow and steady wins the race, right?
Well, that'd be nice, but I think you're living in a land of make-believe filled with pixies and fairies and frogs with magic hats.
I might concede your point, if you had actually backed it up with rational argument. Are you a lawyer?
I am not suggesting he could plead the insanity defense, but the fair use defense, in case he were sued.
Mere possession of a lawfully created copy is not infringement.
Of course.... these things use electricity, and electricity is not free
I also wonder, how large does the network provider/datacenter have to be before Netflix will make them available for free? :)