Defcon people are typically a lot more concerned about their rights and privacy than the general public, so I suspect it's just that they were the first to make a big stink about it.
It still seems easier than microfiche. You only need a laptop, and some VM software. And the only thing you've lost is the index database; which I assume is something you didn't have on the original microfiche (or did you? I really don't know how this works). You still have the TIFFs. You still have the database if you can decode it.
I do agree with your point about the other low tech benefits. Although that seems to be more about data that we want to preserve post apocalypse. Guessing the data format of a piece of film is quite easy. A full newspaper page is probably large enough on fiche to work out that you just need to magnify it. A CD - the data format is designed for error correction, which makes it pretty cryptic, and while TIFFs can probably be decoded if they use RLE or raw encoding, LZW and JPEG will require some insightful guesses to work out how the data might be stored.
but there's 10's of millions of dollars invested from people who apparently think it is! This is the part I can't understand. Who is investing in this company? Somehow I find this upsetting simply because it makes so little sense, so please excuse any angry ranting on my part.
The data isn't worth that much though. Not the amount they're paying. Google makes something like $7 per quarter for each user and they have way more information about you, as well as the advertising platform. This is a name, and the type of movies you like. Advertisers aren't going to pay a lot for that.
No. It's copyright infringement. It may be wrong. It may not. If you want to claim something is wrong, explain why on its own terms, not because it's similar to something else which may or may not be wrong.
I know you are, but what am I? This seems to be the level of discourse you're at.
They are at the ends.
The "End door airlock system" requires no pumping.
Because you need to open the vacuum chamber to allow passengers to enter and exit the pod. If you don't depressurize the airlock before opening the valve between the airlock chamber and the main tube, you will get a sudden shock of super sonic air that will damage expensive stuff like vacuum pumps and gauges.
No you don't. The pods are at the same pressure as the outside. The tube is at the same pressure as the rest of the tube. The fact that you have a specific idea of how you think this should work, which you aren't bothering to explain - possibly because it allows you to convince yourself you're smarter than other people rather than a bad communicator - doesn't mean this is how they're going to to it.
I wish I had the faintest idea what you were talking about. Where are these airlocks? Why do they need to be depressurised? Why do we suddenly have so much air that is will make a substantial difference to the pressure in the rest of the tube?
You come across as not really knowing what you're talking about.
A train every 3 minutes is the proposal for the UK's HS2.
I have no idea why you'd need 30 minute spacing. Which railways lines have that requirement? That would only be needed if the stopping distance was 100-200km.
I am sure the engineering is feasible. And I even believe it can be made safe. I think the main problem will be cost effectiveness.
A high speed train can plausibly carry 800-1000 people and leave every 3 minutes. A hyperloop pod - they're planning one every 30 seconds (so 6 times the rate) but that seems optimistic, and the capacity is still nowhere near as high.
My guess would be that the offcuts are sold as scrap. Probably for somewhat less than it originally cost because the scrap merchant has to deal with cleanup and purifying. Would still count as a net loss for Lockheed Martin compared with more efficient manufacturing processes.
Like I say, this is just a guess, but it would make sense.
I agree though. The illustrations are pointless. I have no idea what 530 donuts looks like, or 310,000 M&Ms. Or for that matter 74.4 gallons. On the other hand, they have a damn picture that indicates the size! And for those of us who have a general idea of imperial, a 4ft radius hemisphere is also reasonably descriptive.
There's always a bit of a panic that kids aren't reading. "Oh no! Kids are watching TV rather than reading!" "Argh! They're playing video games rather than reading!!", "The internet will destroy books!!!"
People are still reading. Kids still enjoy books. Books are no less enjoyable now than they were years ago. There's no need for gimmicks.
It helps a lot that Norway has a small population. Those gas and oil reserves go a long way. And they get to export nearly all of their gas, since they use hydroelectric for most of their power. Canada probably is in a good position to do similar, but most of the rest of Europe is not quite in the same position.
I've given up live TV, and I live in the UK where the BBC is ad free, and the main commercial channels are very tightly regulated. Streaming is simply better. The broadcasters know this. They blame streaming because streaming really is the cause of their problems.
I do suggest you listen to some women and radical feminists for their views
What makes you think I haven't? I have read a lot from SWERF and from sex workers. I feel the sex workers are perhaps a little too willing to dismiss the problems in their industry, but the SWERFs dismiss the sex-workers entirely as an awkward inconvenience.
those rare occasions when a woman abused for years finally snaps and kills the man.
You assume, that if a woman kills a man, it can only be because of years of abuse, yet you do not offer the same excuse for men killing women. Why not? Are men never abused? And you say it's rare. While women are more likely to be the victim of spousal murder, it's hardly an rare outlier. We're looking at a roughly 2:1 ratio. Curiously, the rate of violence against women in lesbian relationships is higher than in heterosexual relationships.
Male violence and male socialisation have also caused me worry and pain.
Do you feel personally responsible for those who also have a Y chromosome? Why is that?
You see those same stories in the papers I do. Also male violence affects men too, more than 50% of reported victims of violent crime in the UK are male (90+% committed by males).
Yes. This is a problem. A serious one. We do need to focus on why these people have such violent tendencies. But we can't assume that since the majority of perpetrators are man, the majority of men are perpetrators. Statistics do not work that way. Instead we should be looking at those who are statistically most likely to be violent. Gender is only one factor. Male on male violence is much higher than male on female violence, but that will include a lot of bar brawls and the like.
100% of rape is committed by men (in the UK at least), it has something like a 2% conviction rate. I don't think men are particularly worried about it.
To get to that 2% conviction rate, you need to include a lot of incidents that even the victim didn't consider to be rape. A large number of men are victims of the equivalent crime of non-consensual sex. This is not legally considered rape, and so tends to be ignored, despite being the same crime.
But porn is not healthy sexual relationships. It's mostly abuse of women for men's pleasure. It is normalising the abuse of women in relationships.
Of course it's not a sexual relationship. You're asserting that it's abuse of women, without any justification. These are women doing a job and getting paid. And yes, men enjoy it too. There seems to be a puritanical view that this makes it a bad thing.
But men are the ones most profiting from porn from mostly the labour of women. It's all pretty exploitative. You can't just look at the product but how it's made too.
I'm not profiting from porn. The producers are, and I guess they tend to be more likely to be male. This seems to be the case in a lot of industries. Female porn actresses do get paid more than men in this industry. But there is nothing linking this to the violence that you're concerned about. Porn comes across as a scapegoat here.
How successful is the nordic model? Your links don't indicate any reduction in trafficking or in sexual violence,
Being male doesn't mean that you're immune from regurgitating anti-male rhetoric.
Seems that criminalising prostitution doesn't really help that much. And while there are claims that legalisation of prostitution has enlarged the market, that seems to be a problem for the puritanical types who feel this is inherently bad. Evidence seems to also suggest that this "failed experiment"Reduces sexual violence.
Your proposal appears to be a war on prostitution. Essentially I can't see this as being any different from the war on drugs, except that it pulls yet another underclass into an illegal underground where their protections are even worse.
I simply can't see how this would reduce sexual violence. Your opposition to porn sounds like it would have completely the opposite effect from what you think. The argument is no different from that of Jack Chick regarding violent video games. Even if we do accept that porn that implies coercion encourages sexual violence, that doesn't justify an opposition to all pornography.
You seem to be projecting your sexual prejudice on me. I have no idea why you believe I think men have a right to sex, or what incels have to do with this. This comes across as anti-male, anti-sex rhetoric using feminist talking points to obscure the general puritanism behind it.
"Rape culture" is a curious term. I am under the impression that rape is illegal. Is this not the case? I also rather get the impression allegations can destroy the careers of people. Rape is considered one of the most heinous crimes imaginable today. It comes across as a meaningless buzzword. Perhaps you can provide examples to illustrate what you're talking about and how this interacts with this "porn culture" you talk about.
Sex workers are being sidelined in this debate. How do you respond to their position that making sex work more socially acceptable reduces violence? Let's suppose, hypothetically, that this is found to be the case. Would this cause you to reverse your position?
Well, it depends. It's not really all that good if you want to transmit over the internet, but storage is fairly cheap. For promotional displays and domestic recording, this is probably quite adequate. An MPEG2 HD camcorder will be able to store a couple of hours on a 32GB memory card, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Defcon people are typically a lot more concerned about their rights and privacy than the general public, so I suspect it's just that they were the first to make a big stink about it.
Not sure why. They're still giving you 2 free movies a month. Might as well take advantage of their bizarre business model.
It still seems easier than microfiche. You only need a laptop, and some VM software. And the only thing you've lost is the index database; which I assume is something you didn't have on the original microfiche (or did you? I really don't know how this works). You still have the TIFFs. You still have the database if you can decode it.
I do agree with your point about the other low tech benefits. Although that seems to be more about data that we want to preserve post apocalypse. Guessing the data format of a piece of film is quite easy. A full newspaper page is probably large enough on fiche to work out that you just need to magnify it. A CD - the data format is designed for error correction, which makes it pretty cryptic, and while TIFFs can probably be decoded if they use RLE or raw encoding, LZW and JPEG will require some insightful guesses to work out how the data might be stored.
but there's 10's of millions of dollars invested from people who apparently think it is! This is the part I can't understand. Who is investing in this company? Somehow I find this upsetting simply because it makes so little sense, so please excuse any angry ranting on my part.
The data isn't worth that much though. Not the amount they're paying. Google makes something like $7 per quarter for each user and they have way more information about you, as well as the advertising platform. This is a name, and the type of movies you like. Advertisers aren't going to pay a lot for that.
My 2D knife is great though! Infinitely sharp! Don't bring a 2D gun to a 2D knife fight.
No. It's copyright infringement. It may be wrong. It may not. If you want to claim something is wrong, explain why on its own terms, not because it's similar to something else which may or may not be wrong.
I know you are, but what am I? This seems to be the level of discourse you're at.
The "End door airlock system" requires no pumping.
No you don't. The pods are at the same pressure as the outside. The tube is at the same pressure as the rest of the tube. The fact that you have a specific idea of how you think this should work, which you aren't bothering to explain - possibly because it allows you to convince yourself you're smarter than other people rather than a bad communicator - doesn't mean this is how they're going to to it.
I wish I had the faintest idea what you were talking about. Where are these airlocks? Why do they need to be depressurised? Why do we suddenly have so much air that is will make a substantial difference to the pressure in the rest of the tube?
You come across as not really knowing what you're talking about.
A train every 3 minutes is the proposal for the UK's HS2.
I have no idea why you'd need 30 minute spacing. Which railways lines have that requirement? That would only be needed if the stopping distance was 100-200km.
I am sure the engineering is feasible. And I even believe it can be made safe. I think the main problem will be cost effectiveness.
A high speed train can plausibly carry 800-1000 people and leave every 3 minutes. A hyperloop pod - they're planning one every 30 seconds (so 6 times the rate) but that seems optimistic, and the capacity is still nowhere near as high.
Well, no. How does it compare with the red, or yellow ventures? How does it compare with a monkey picking randomly?
My guess would be that the offcuts are sold as scrap. Probably for somewhat less than it originally cost because the scrap merchant has to deal with cleanup and purifying. Would still count as a net loss for Lockheed Martin compared with more efficient manufacturing processes.
Like I say, this is just a guess, but it would make sense.
They're just trying to be cute.
I agree though. The illustrations are pointless. I have no idea what 530 donuts looks like, or 310,000 M&Ms. Or for that matter 74.4 gallons. On the other hand, they have a damn picture that indicates the size! And for those of us who have a general idea of imperial, a 4ft radius hemisphere is also reasonably descriptive.
There's always a bit of a panic that kids aren't reading. "Oh no! Kids are watching TV rather than reading!" "Argh! They're playing video games rather than reading!!", "The internet will destroy books!!!"
People are still reading. Kids still enjoy books. Books are no less enjoyable now than they were years ago. There's no need for gimmicks.
It helps a lot that Norway has a small population. Those gas and oil reserves go a long way. And they get to export nearly all of their gas, since they use hydroelectric for most of their power. Canada probably is in a good position to do similar, but most of the rest of Europe is not quite in the same position.
There are no ad breaks. Who cares what happens between shows?
I've given up live TV, and I live in the UK where the BBC is ad free, and the main commercial channels are very tightly regulated. Streaming is simply better. The broadcasters know this. They blame streaming because streaming really is the cause of their problems.
What makes you think I haven't? I have read a lot from SWERF and from sex workers. I feel the sex workers are perhaps a little too willing to dismiss the problems in their industry, but the SWERFs dismiss the sex-workers entirely as an awkward inconvenience.
You assume, that if a woman kills a man, it can only be because of years of abuse, yet you do not offer the same excuse for men killing women. Why not? Are men never abused? And you say it's rare. While women are more likely to be the victim of spousal murder, it's hardly an rare outlier. We're looking at a roughly 2:1 ratio. Curiously, the rate of violence against women in lesbian relationships is higher than in heterosexual relationships.
Do you feel personally responsible for those who also have a Y chromosome? Why is that?
Yes. This is a problem. A serious one. We do need to focus on why these people have such violent tendencies. But we can't assume that since the majority of perpetrators are man, the majority of men are perpetrators. Statistics do not work that way. Instead we should be looking at those who are statistically most likely to be violent. Gender is only one factor. Male on male violence is much higher than male on female violence, but that will include a lot of bar brawls and the like.
To get to that 2% conviction rate, you need to include a lot of incidents that even the victim didn't consider to be rape. A large number of men are victims of the equivalent crime of non-consensual sex. This is not legally considered rape, and so tends to be ignored, despite being the same crime.
Of course it's not a sexual relationship. You're asserting that it's abuse of women, without any justification. These are women doing a job and getting paid. And yes, men enjoy it too. There seems to be a puritanical view that this makes it a bad thing.
I'm not profiting from porn. The producers are, and I guess they tend to be more likely to be male. This seems to be the case in a lot of industries. Female porn actresses do get paid more than men in this industry. But there is nothing linking this to the violence that you're concerned about. Porn comes across as a scapegoat here.
How successful is the nordic model? Your links don't indicate any reduction in trafficking or in sexual violence,
Being male doesn't mean that you're immune from regurgitating anti-male rhetoric.
Seems that criminalising prostitution doesn't really help that much. And while there are claims that legalisation of prostitution has enlarged the market, that seems to be a problem for the puritanical types who feel this is inherently bad. Evidence seems to also suggest that this "failed experiment"Reduces sexual violence.
Your proposal appears to be a war on prostitution. Essentially I can't see this as being any different from the war on drugs, except that it pulls yet another underclass into an illegal underground where their protections are even worse.
I simply can't see how this would reduce sexual violence. Your opposition to porn sounds like it would have completely the opposite effect from what you think. The argument is no different from that of Jack Chick regarding violent video games. Even if we do accept that porn that implies coercion encourages sexual violence, that doesn't justify an opposition to all pornography.
You seem to be projecting your sexual prejudice on me. I have no idea why you believe I think men have a right to sex, or what incels have to do with this. This comes across as anti-male, anti-sex rhetoric using feminist talking points to obscure the general puritanism behind it.
"Rape culture" is a curious term. I am under the impression that rape is illegal. Is this not the case? I also rather get the impression allegations can destroy the careers of people. Rape is considered one of the most heinous crimes imaginable today. It comes across as a meaningless buzzword. Perhaps you can provide examples to illustrate what you're talking about and how this interacts with this "porn culture" you talk about.
Sex workers are being sidelined in this debate. How do you respond to their position that making sex work more socially acceptable reduces violence? Let's suppose, hypothetically, that this is found to be the case. Would this cause you to reverse your position?
Well, I'm not a woman. Are men allowed to buy me as an object? I'm fine with it. They seem willing to pay. You seem to be an interfering prude.
Do you object to paid surrogacy as well?
Yay! SWERFs! I guess I don't have autonomy over my own body then.
Well, it depends. It's not really all that good if you want to transmit over the internet, but storage is fairly cheap. For promotional displays and domestic recording, this is probably quite adequate. An MPEG2 HD camcorder will be able to store a couple of hours on a 32GB memory card, for example.
LOL!
ROTFL!
Sadly, in the real world you can only sue for actual damages.