Has anybody thought about the dramatic difference in the difficulty of making a copy of someones physical key unless you have a very large timeslot for the metal cutting duplication as opposed to the relitive ease of activating and capturing the RFID tags resonse?
It seems to me that it's a matter of security that the metal key is difficult to copy and must be physically present for the amount of time it takes to make the dupe. That's a good feature as far as I'm concerned and losing that by going over to a RFID system is not an option.
BTW has anybody made one of these readers as a home DIY project yet, is there any security in triggering the tag or is it just a dumb transmitter when turned on by induction?
"Combustion releases all the potential energy stored in the fuel. ALL of it."
Then what exactly is an Octane rating for? What are different fuel injector nozzels for? Why do superchargers and blowers try to either compress the air or lower it's temprature as it enters the engine prior to combustion?
You might want to call nascar to let them know their special gas mixes don't improve output.
effeciency is just what any given system can do with what it's given. You can change the system and you can change the fuel.
"If you look at your description of this process, it's basically a car that runs on water, whose only waste product is water."
I never said that, period. If you read the post you'll see that I discuss additives quite a bit. It's the concept of an additive to gasoline that this is all about. if you add a chemical to another to get a bigger chemical reaction and the additive is cheap and readily available, it benifits the process. Any chemist will tell out that there thousands of combinations that explode. Some better and some worse that gasoline. cars with ethanol additives, prop airplanes, jet planes, diesel powered trucks, and bio-diesel modified trucks all use different types of fuel and they all have been improved in the last ten years(some created). It's arrogant to think that we are the the best ever at getting the energy out of a substance.
And Einstein was brought into the discussion because I just weanted to point out this exact fact. There are much more effecient ways to extract energy and thinking that the current tech is the best is something genius never does. it is open to the ideas that we are not perfect and there are probably better ways to do things than the way they are being done now.
"...allow the engine to be shut down when it is making more power than necessary."
thought that there was no extra energy so it could never be outputting more power than is necessary.
"No. Cars are not nuclear powered. Einstein has nothing to do with internal combustion. No material is used up or converted to energy."
You even post where I state this as a matter of course: "Now we can't get the entire subatomic amounts Einstein was talking about..."
What don't you understand about this sentence:
"...we can have the best chemical reaction amounts if we make a system that extracts the energy more effeciently from this reaction."
This is the basis of all fire related energy extraction. it is a chemical reaction between a fuel source, oxygen and a spark that they teach in 4th grade science class.
"No. It's not even close to how a fuel cell works. A fuel cell converts hydrogen and oxygen to water,..."
What did I say: "fuel cells that we all accept work by harnessing hydrogens easy molecular structure and it's easy seperation and combination charactoristics."
That sounds kinda like a hydrogen oxygen "combination" resulting in water. This in enabled by hydrogens easy combination charactoristics.
one last bit: "This system adds energy to water to get hydrogen and oxygen, and then figures burning the hydrogen with oxygen to get water will net them a gain."
uh no. they have gasoline somewhere in there too if you read the article.
and on your last comment:
"Ever wonder why fuel cell vehicles don't carry their hydrogen in the form of water? Because the extraction consumes more energy than can possibly be harvested."
Then why go to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle if it takes more energy to make the hydrogen in the first place? Big plants generating hydrogen could have just used the power by putting it on the electric grid and we could all go around using electric powered vehicles for cheaper than hydrogen right? use the costs associated in transporting and storing and distributing hydrogen to make electrical outlets and battery swap stations in the back of gas stations.
but wait, there's another 4th grade science experiment that creates hydrogen with a small 9v battery! here.
But oh wait, hydrogen does help an internal combustion engine. Ford already did it last year. from the article: "fuel efficiency improves by 25 percent with hydrogen" But yes, they have to store it onboard.
so you combine a 4th grade 9v battery experiment and an engine ford built in 2004 and... but wait, Fortress says it can't work so we all go home.
And the nonrationalized response of a closed minded sheep, is posted without so much as a justification of what must have gone over his head.
Fusion is a super effecient means of extraction energy from matter, so is fission. but the inability to do this with adaquate safety or in small closed-loop systems prohibits us from using this fundamentally accepted scientifically sound method of subatomic matter/energy conversion in smaller portable systems such as cars.
We have kneejerk reactions from people like you that have fear and ignorance as their primary motivators to thank for the general reluctance of intelligent people to try and explain things like this to the population at large.
Go to the library and read up on the science facts involving matter/energy and the thousands of conversion methods you use every day in your very small life.
ok, if you burn say a very samll amount of gas (x) in a chanber and 98% of it burns and that energy pushes a piston with (y) amount of force. What would happen if you were to use a lesser amount of gas and enhanced it's explosive power with an additive like say hydrogen to the point that the burn would match the previous (y)
This is the difference in fuel types used for racecars and rc cars that have a higher cumbustion ratio of matter/energy. it's just that the fuel is more difficult to manufacture and uses additives to the main fuel. The effeciency is offset by the cost.
Now suppose that an additive, say hydrogen, was relitivly inexpensive to produce but could not be stored safely onboard so it's enhancement of the combustion could not be taken advantage of. and this invention created a way to generate hydrogen in small amounts and feed it into the system wuth the fuel sensor technology we have already reducing the amount of gas needed to produce just as much horsepower on each stroke of the piston.
And before you go all "load on the motor from the electricity draw increces gas consumption" on me. Just think if you were to use the motor to recharge your standard car battery. (like you do already)
The sulfuric acid used in batteries produces hydrogen gas when they are being recharged.
You are not using this output from your cars burning of gas right now. You are wasting energy that is a byproduct of gas combustion. Just like the heat that escapes the tailpipe or the noise from vibration, which is motion and therefore energy.
Like you said, "...it's the amount of usable energy that comes out of the combustion." Some of these wasted energy outputs can be harnessed easier than others but if you were to put a thermocouple device on your tailpipe you would get a current that would be reclaimed energy you didn't have before.
Who says that you need to have the same amount of gas to make the same amount of energy, people tweak the ratio of chemicals in fuel all the time. but that's just their wishfull thinking.
that means the gas is being converted into motion and electricity to power things like headlights a/c and other accessories in your car.
in one example of a hybrid gas/electric the gas engine charges the batteries for the electric side when it's running and then shuts down when the vehicle switches over to electric only. This utilizes the gas power to move the car as well as charge the batteries for electric.
Now the charging of the batteries can be done with a straight shot altinator method off the gas engine or it can be charged by spinning up small generators when the brakes are applied. If it gets the recharge using the braking method it is simply using the stored momentum that was generated by the gas engine in the first place. the braking method is benificial because you have to stop anyway and might as well use the energy that would have been converted straight to heat by normal brake pads and instead converted that friction into a geared motion to drive a generator that in reality is just about the same as an altenator, converting motion to energy.
The increse in total gas effeciency for moving the car rises because the energy that the combustion engine outputs is divided and used in a better arrangement. That's why you get a hybrid car that gets 50 mpg gas effeciency and doesn't have to be charged from an outside source. it is using the gas more effectivly.
The load on the engine in the hybrid case is greater for shorter periods of time and by shutting off the engine you get an overall decrece in total gas usage for the same resultant output (mpg). That's a duty cycle improvement. You would do a similar thing if you turned off your engine while going downhill. it would just have dangerous risks from the lack of power steering you're used to.
Basic thermodynamics are laws of the conversion of matter to energy and energy to motion right? Do you think it would be ok to use that in defence of the steam engine. Using the same gallon of gas to heat water to power pistons to turn a driveshaft to turn wheels to make a car go is thermodynamicly sound and yet there is a better way to get the gas to move the car. Same with fuel enjection, same with oxegenated fuel. The system can improve because you change the method of extracting the energy from matter.
I hope eventually there is a method of using fusion to extract energy from a fuel. But you people would say that breaks the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't you. Just because it hasn't been used before.
The voltage is not fixed, go out with a multimeter and test it at idle and then rev the engine. You'll see the altenator output voltage jump up. The only thing that limits the actual voltage is the electronics in newer cars for safer use of the electronic components including your battery. It's a law that without changing the coils or magnets of a generator and spinning it faster will generate more voltage and more amperage.
I never said it was free linch, re-read the post. You are burning gas at idle you are burning gas as long as your engine is running. Might as well use it for something. If you can use it to charge batteries (which is a chemical reaction) you can cause other chemical reactions that release energy into a system that can be made more effecient in it's use of the expensive fuel at the cost of a very inexpensive additive such as the water solution.
Damn, you guys have never plugged anything into your cars have you?
you have extra power in your car because of the altenator. it is turned because your car is running and producing more power than you are using unless you're going up hill or accelerating. If you're at a dead stop and your engine is at idle where is the power of the combusing gas going? into heat, noise, and the altenator recharging your battery which is probably full after the first 5 min. So you have extra electricity.
They have tried using this extra electricity for charging batteries for use in hybred electric cars but you have the offset of dragging around large batteries that weigh 50 lbs each and you have to have a couple to really get any extended electric mileage out of the system.
They have tried using this extra electricity to power flywheels to store the power and release it back into the system when you release the brake but again you have this giant heavy flywheel to drag around.
The article uses this electricity to release the power that is naturally stored in the water solution. Einstien proved that all mater has a great deal of energy but getting it out has always been the problem. With gas we are getting no more than about a third of the actual energy out of the material we use up. That means that out of a gallon of gas we get the output of 1/3 actually making our car go. The rest is waisted.
If we made an engine that recaptured the unspent fuel or had a system of burning the fuel completely we would have a better ratio of conversion from matter to energy.
Now we can't get the entire subatomic amounts Einstein was talking about but we can have the best chemical reaction amounts if we make a system that extracts the energy more effeciently from this reaction.
An example of this is when we add oxygen to gas (common practice now) to make a better chemical reaction inside the engine. We are taking a cheap additive and mixing it with a relitivly expensive main ingredient to make it burn better. If we add different chemicals we get different outputs, some help some hurt, most do both. Adding water helps the combustion by adding pressure and oxygen but hurts the engine by pressing water vapor into the oil and making our engine grind and wear out. Additive are nothing new and they have been proven to work. The main difference is that the right additivs are dangerous and hard to introduce to the system easily.
The article states that they have simply found a way to introduce an additive to the system. Not a perpetual energy machine or a super mysticaly shaped piece of metal to harness the rays of the egyptian gods powers. It's the same concept of todays hydrogen fuel cells that we all accept work by harnessing hydrogens easy molecular structure and it's easy seperation and combination charactoristics. By adding hydrogen to gas it will explode better. Simple as that. You add hydrogen and you get power. The machine is special because it makes hydrogen on the spot by using extra electricity that we have on the go and usually use to power portable tvs and watch shows that complain about gas prices.
so what calculating functions would need color graphics? like the code editing software that automatically colors tags and modules, could there be a benifit to a color display in high end calculator. Aside from playing movies that is.:)
My point was actually to bring attention to the software and hardware venders that make the actual network devices by default, wide open, and in the case of wifi sometimes, automatically set to break the law. If stores sold guns that shot at people automatically out of the box people would blame the gun makers. But if Wifi equipment automatically connects to open networks people blame the owner.
If it was Windows xp-pre-sp2 it would have automatically connected to the network.
He could have been lost, stopping to look up directions on his laptop when he noticed he had internet access, then went to mapquest. It's just a hypothetical but some wifi cards with connection software still auto-connect to unencrypted networks.
Imagine if they have free T1 access in the rooms, Lan parties at night, electronic expos, and 24hr Dew and Nacho room service. The/. crowd would never leave the hotel. all the taxes generated would be great, not to mention how many local computer stores would get giant sales boosts because of forgotten equipment or emergency upgrades.
How do you blackmail an employer by filing an internal memo that can be traced by anybody in management? Blackmail requires some basic form, what's the threat and what's the demand?
It's more plausable that the company feared the files that would prove that they were breaking the law were copied on his home computers and made something up with their lawyers to get his computers for "imaging". He might or might not have been planning on going public, but their reaction is totally over the top. We'll see if any of the computers come back formatted.:)
I don't know of anybody that has copied a cd that doesn't know about mp3s. Only older adult computer users that didn't grow up watchig napster on the news might have a chance of being thwarted by this. Anybody trying to copy a cd that gets stopped by this method will immediatly look for another way to make the copy. With computers comming preloaded with windows and bundled software that rips cds to mp3 this is a waste of time.
Does anybody at these companies know about mp3 or ogg? It's a waste of time unless you cannot read the cd. If anybody can read the cd then they can rip it to ogg and burn a regular cd or as many as they want from those tracks. This is a total waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anybody thought about the dramatic difference in the difficulty of making a copy of someones physical key unless you have a very large timeslot for the metal cutting duplication as opposed to the relitive ease of activating and capturing the RFID tags resonse?
It seems to me that it's a matter of security that the metal key is difficult to copy and must be physically present for the amount of time it takes to make the dupe. That's a good feature as far as I'm concerned and losing that by going over to a RFID system is not an option.
BTW has anybody made one of these readers as a home DIY project yet, is there any security in triggering the tag or is it just a dumb transmitter when turned on by induction?
relevant pics link
"Combustion releases all the potential energy stored in the fuel. ALL of it."
Then what exactly is an Octane rating for?
What are different fuel injector nozzels for?
Why do superchargers and blowers try to either compress the air or lower it's temprature as it enters the engine prior to combustion?
You might want to call nascar to let them know their special gas mixes don't improve output.
effeciency is just what any given system can do with what it's given. You can change the system and you can change the fuel.
"If you look at your description of this process, it's basically a car that runs on water, whose only waste product is water."
I never said that, period. If you read the post you'll see that I discuss additives quite a bit. It's the concept of an additive to gasoline that this is all about. if you add a chemical to another to get a bigger chemical reaction and the additive is cheap and readily available, it benifits the process. Any chemist will tell out that there thousands of combinations that explode. Some better and some worse that gasoline. cars with ethanol additives, prop airplanes, jet planes, diesel powered trucks, and bio-diesel modified trucks all use different types of fuel and they all have been improved in the last ten years(some created). It's arrogant to think that we are the the best ever at getting the energy out of a substance.
And Einstein was brought into the discussion because I just weanted to point out this exact fact. There are much more effecient ways to extract energy and thinking that the current tech is the best is something genius never does. it is open to the ideas that we are not perfect and there are probably better ways to do things than the way they are being done now.
Ok. here we go:
Just from your own post to keep this small.
"No. There's no extra energy."
"...allow the engine to be shut down when it is making more power than necessary."
thought that there was no extra energy so it could never be outputting more power than is necessary.
"No. Cars are not nuclear powered. Einstein has nothing to do with internal combustion. No material is used up or converted to energy."
You even post where I state this as a matter of course: "Now we can't get the entire subatomic amounts Einstein was talking about..."
What don't you understand about this sentence:
"...we can have the best chemical reaction amounts if we make a system that extracts the energy more effeciently from this reaction."
This is the basis of all fire related energy extraction. it is a chemical reaction between a fuel source, oxygen and a spark that they teach in 4th grade science class.
"No. It's not even close to how a fuel cell works. A fuel cell converts hydrogen and oxygen to water,..."
What did I say: "fuel cells that we all accept work by harnessing hydrogens easy molecular structure and it's easy seperation and combination charactoristics."
That sounds kinda like a hydrogen oxygen "combination" resulting in water. This in enabled by hydrogens easy combination charactoristics.
one last bit:
"This system adds energy to water to get hydrogen and oxygen, and then figures burning the hydrogen with oxygen to get water will net them a gain."
uh no. they have gasoline somewhere in there too if you read the article.
and on your last comment:
"Ever wonder why fuel cell vehicles don't carry their hydrogen in the form of water? Because the extraction consumes more energy than can possibly be harvested."
Then why go to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle if it takes more energy to make the hydrogen in the first place? Big plants generating hydrogen could have just used the power by putting it on the electric grid and we could all go around using electric powered vehicles for cheaper than hydrogen right? use the costs associated in transporting and storing and distributing hydrogen to make electrical outlets and battery swap stations in the back of gas stations.
but wait, there's another 4th grade science experiment that creates hydrogen with a small 9v battery! here.
But oh wait, hydrogen does help an internal combustion engine. Ford already did it last year. from the article: "fuel efficiency improves by 25 percent with hydrogen" But yes, they have to store it onboard.
so you combine a 4th grade 9v battery experiment and an engine ford built in 2004 and... but wait, Fortress says it can't work so we all go home.
And the nonrationalized response of a closed minded sheep, is posted without so much as a justification of what must have gone over his head.
Fusion is a super effecient means of extraction energy from matter, so is fission. but the inability to do this with adaquate safety or in small closed-loop systems prohibits us from using this fundamentally accepted scientifically sound method of subatomic matter/energy conversion in smaller portable systems such as cars.
We have kneejerk reactions from people like you that have fear and ignorance as their primary motivators to thank for the general reluctance of intelligent people to try and explain things like this to the population at large.
Go to the library and read up on the science facts involving matter/energy and the thousands of conversion methods you use every day in your very small life.
ok, if you burn say a very samll amount of gas (x) in a chanber and 98% of it burns and that energy pushes a piston with (y) amount of force. What would happen if you were to use a lesser amount of gas and enhanced it's explosive power with an additive like say hydrogen to the point that the burn would match the previous (y)
This is the difference in fuel types used for racecars and rc cars that have a higher cumbustion ratio of matter/energy. it's just that the fuel is more difficult to manufacture and uses additives to the main fuel. The effeciency is offset by the cost.
Now suppose that an additive, say hydrogen, was relitivly inexpensive to produce but could not be stored safely onboard so it's enhancement of the combustion could not be taken advantage of. and this invention created a way to generate hydrogen in small amounts and feed it into the system wuth the fuel sensor technology we have already reducing the amount of gas needed to produce just as much horsepower on each stroke of the piston.
And before you go all "load on the motor from the electricity draw increces gas consumption" on me. Just think if you were to use the motor to recharge your standard car battery. (like you do already)
The sulfuric acid used in batteries produces hydrogen gas when they are being recharged.
You are not using this output from your cars burning of gas right now. You are wasting energy that is a byproduct of gas combustion. Just like the heat that escapes the tailpipe or the noise from vibration, which is motion and therefore energy.
Like you said, "...it's the amount of usable energy that comes out of the combustion."
Some of these wasted energy outputs can be harnessed easier than others but if you were to put a thermocouple device on your tailpipe you would get a current that would be reclaimed energy you didn't have before.
Who says that you need to have the same amount of gas to make the same amount of energy, people tweak the ratio of chemicals in fuel all the time. but that's just their wishfull thinking.
alright lets get the facts straight.
You power most cars with gas.
that means the gas is being converted into motion and electricity to power things like headlights a/c and other accessories in your car.
in one example of a hybrid gas/electric the gas engine charges the batteries for the electric side when it's running and then shuts down when the vehicle switches over to electric only. This utilizes the gas power to move the car as well as charge the batteries for electric.
Now the charging of the batteries can be done with a straight shot altinator method off the gas engine or it can be charged by spinning up small generators when the brakes are applied. If it gets the recharge using the braking method it is simply using the stored momentum that was generated by the gas engine in the first place.
the braking method is benificial because you have to stop anyway and might as well use the energy that would have been converted straight to heat by normal brake pads and instead converted that friction into a geared motion to drive a generator that in reality is just about the same as an altenator, converting motion to energy.
The increse in total gas effeciency for moving the car rises because the energy that the combustion engine outputs is divided and used in a better arrangement. That's why you get a hybrid car that gets 50 mpg gas effeciency and doesn't have to be charged from an outside source. it is using the gas more effectivly.
The load on the engine in the hybrid case is greater for shorter periods of time and by shutting off the engine you get an overall decrece in total gas usage for the same resultant output (mpg). That's a duty cycle improvement. You would do a similar thing if you turned off your engine while going downhill. it would just have dangerous risks from the lack of power steering you're used to.
Basic thermodynamics are laws of the conversion of matter to energy and energy to motion right? Do you think it would be ok to use that in defence of the steam engine. Using the same gallon of gas to heat water to power pistons to turn a driveshaft to turn wheels to make a car go is thermodynamicly sound and yet there is a better way to get the gas to move the car. Same with fuel enjection, same with oxegenated fuel. The system can improve because you change the method of extracting the energy from matter.
I hope eventually there is a method of using fusion to extract energy from a fuel. But you people would say that breaks the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't you. Just because it hasn't been used before.
The voltage is not fixed, go out with a multimeter and test it at idle and then rev the engine. You'll see the altenator output voltage jump up. The only thing that limits the actual voltage is the electronics in newer cars for safer use of the electronic components including your battery. It's a law that without changing the coils or magnets of a generator and spinning it faster will generate more voltage and more amperage.
I never said it was free linch, re-read the post. You are burning gas at idle you are burning gas as long as your engine is running. Might as well use it for something. If you can use it to charge batteries (which is a chemical reaction) you can cause other chemical reactions that release energy into a system that can be made more effecient in it's use of the expensive fuel at the cost of a very inexpensive additive such as the water solution.
simple.
Damn, you guys have never plugged anything into your cars have you?
you have extra power in your car because of the altenator. it is turned because your car is running and producing more power than you are using unless you're going up hill or accelerating. If you're at a dead stop and your engine is at idle where is the power of the combusing gas going? into heat, noise, and the altenator recharging your battery which is probably full after the first 5 min. So you have extra electricity.
They have tried using this extra electricity for charging batteries for use in hybred electric cars but you have the offset of dragging around large batteries that weigh 50 lbs each and you have to have a couple to really get any extended electric mileage out of the system.
They have tried using this extra electricity to power flywheels to store the power and release it back into the system when you release the brake but again you have this giant heavy flywheel to drag around.
The article uses this electricity to release the power that is naturally stored in the water solution. Einstien proved that all mater has a great deal of energy but getting it out has always been the problem. With gas we are getting no more than about a third of the actual energy out of the material we use up. That means that out of a gallon of gas we get the output of 1/3 actually making our car go. The rest is waisted.
If we made an engine that recaptured the unspent fuel or had a system of burning the fuel completely we would have a better ratio of conversion from matter to energy.
Now we can't get the entire subatomic amounts Einstein was talking about but we can have the best chemical reaction amounts if we make a system that extracts the energy more effeciently from this reaction.
An example of this is when we add oxygen to gas (common practice now) to make a better chemical reaction inside the engine. We are taking a cheap additive and mixing it with a relitivly expensive main ingredient to make it burn better. If we add different chemicals we get different outputs, some help some hurt, most do both. Adding water helps the combustion by adding pressure and oxygen but hurts the engine by pressing water vapor into the oil and making our engine grind and wear out. Additive are nothing new and they have been proven to work. The main difference is that the right additivs are dangerous and hard to introduce to the system easily.
The article states that they have simply found a way to introduce an additive to the system. Not a perpetual energy machine or a super mysticaly shaped piece of metal to harness the rays of the egyptian gods powers. It's the same concept of todays hydrogen fuel cells that we all accept work by harnessing hydrogens easy molecular structure and it's easy seperation and combination charactoristics. By adding hydrogen to gas it will explode better. Simple as that. You add hydrogen and you get power. The machine is special because it makes hydrogen on the spot by using extra electricity that we have on the go and usually use to power portable tvs and watch shows that complain about gas prices.
so what calculating functions would need color graphics? like the code editing software that automatically colors tags and modules, could there be a benifit to a color display in high end calculator. Aside from playing movies that is. :)
Here we set ourselves up again to be arrested by buying another device that is set out of the box to be able to access networks without security.
or we can all use this from now on:
username AnonymousCoward
password password
My point was actually to bring attention to the software and hardware venders that make the actual network devices by default, wide open, and in the case of wifi sometimes, automatically set to break the law.
If stores sold guns that shot at people automatically out of the box people would blame the gun makers. But if Wifi equipment automatically connects to open networks people blame the owner.
It'd be interesting to see what OS he was using.
If it was Windows xp-pre-sp2 it would have automatically connected to the network.
He could have been lost, stopping to look up directions on his laptop when he noticed he had internet access, then went to mapquest. It's just a hypothetical but some wifi cards with connection software still auto-connect to unencrypted networks.
Is this scenareo against the law?
Imagine if they have free T1 access in the rooms, Lan parties at night, electronic expos, and 24hr Dew and Nacho room service. The /. crowd would never leave the hotel. all the taxes generated would be great, not to mention how many local computer stores would get giant sales boosts because of forgotten equipment or emergency upgrades.
How about:
I will come visit and spend tourist dollars and create an influx of cash to your towne. Isn't that in the best interest of the people?
E-mail in support of the economic benifits, please do some research and present as good an argument as possible in your e-mails.
Board of Selectmen for the towne of Weare:
Laura Buono, Chair Person
lbuono@weare.nh.gov
Leon Methot, Vice-Chair
lmethot@weare.nh.gov
Heleen Kurk
hkurk@weare.nh.gov
Joseph Fiala
jfiala@weare.nh.gov
Donna Osborne
dosborne@weare.nh.gov
Hell yeah, build a hotel on his land, this is america and those in power should be held to at least the same level as those they enforce the law upon!
How do you blackmail an employer by filing an internal memo that can be traced by anybody in management? Blackmail requires some basic form, what's the threat and what's the demand?
:)
It's more plausable that the company feared the files that would prove that they were breaking the law were copied on his home computers and made something up with their lawyers to get his computers for "imaging". He might or might not have been planning on going public, but their reaction is totally over the top. We'll see if any of the computers come back formatted.
Who was the translator who handled this one?
Did he do other games too?
We could find stuff like:
Some your ship are belong to die.
This article is very interesting. This article is very interesting... ad infinitum.
I don't know of anybody that has copied a cd that doesn't know about mp3s. Only older adult computer users that didn't grow up watchig napster on the news might have a chance of being thwarted by this. Anybody trying to copy a cd that gets stopped by this method will immediatly look for another way to make the copy. With computers comming preloaded with windows and bundled software that rips cds to mp3 this is a waste of time.
Does anybody at these companies know about mp3 or ogg? It's a waste of time unless you cannot read the cd. If anybody can read the cd then they can rip it to ogg and burn a regular cd or as many as they want from those tracks. This is a total waste of time.
PS. Who out there thinks this movie would have been spectacular as a 3 movie quintet?
time enough for everything?
Movie 1: HHGTTG 1.7
Movie 2: HHGTTG 3.4
Movie 3: HHGTTG 5
Think the general public would have gotten it?