. As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
But the Mini in question doesn't have modern brakes. It has 1960's brakes. So your reply is meaningless and irrelevant.
So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
But that's a Mini being built in a fantasy world - and utterly irrelevant, because nobody is going to put a car on the road today built with essentially no safety So again, your reply is meaningless.
I get 23mpg in my Nissan Maxima. My inherited 40-year-old Mini Cooper got 50mpg with 1960s technology and 100,000 miles on the clock. How far we've (not) come!
And how does the emissions compare between the two? Or safety?
Depending on the speed of the vehicle, a canopy might provide a higher weight penalty than it provides a benefit in drag reduction. Especially considering that you then have to make provisions to ventilate to driver's compartment to control temperature. (I.E. in any sun at all, that canopy is going to turn into a greenhouse.)
Additionally, legalization will allow users to know exactly WHAT is in the pot their buying.
Why would Joe Potsmoker want to go buy from some random dealer down the street and have to guess to the quality and contents, whereas if it were legal nobody would pick a dealer over going down to the store and picking some up that you know for sure is good quality and has met the regulations laid out by the authoritative body assigned to do so.
You either live in another universe, our you're seriously mentally altered (by birth or excessive substance use). I can't be 100% sure what's in my milk for fucks sake. What makes you think Big Marijuana is going to be any different from Big Tobacco, Big Dairy, Big Food, or any other commercial entity?
Horseshit. If I wanted a word processor, I bought one (retail or shareware or freeware). If I wanted a chat program, ditto. If I wanted a game, ditto. In fact, I could have gone my entire life having the computer doing everything I bought it to do without ever touching a line of code.
Damn right. I've met a number of people who say (or their mothers say) are quite good at computers. This means that they can find MS Word in the start menu, can change their desktop wallpaper and maybe degauss their old CRT. That's it.
And though there's many here on Slashdot who'll try desperately to claim otherwise (because their fragile ego's, self image, and virtual penises depend on it), that's 99.99% percent of being "good with computers" is. Crap like scraping IRC chatlogs (the original commenter's example of "being useful") is like smoking your tires - impressive as hell to your adolescent buddies.. but it doesn't get you to work the next morning. It's nothing but sound and fury signifying - nothing.
"Back in the day" anyone interested in using their computer for something useful had to learn to do it themselves, and tinker, and become interested in expanding their ability to make their computer do what they want.
Horseshit. If I wanted a word processor, I bought one (retail or shareware or freeware). If I wanted a chat program, ditto. If I wanted a game, ditto. In fact, I could have gone my entire life having the computer doing everything I bought it to do without ever touching a line of code.
The question is whether there were chances to deal with this much earlier? It seems that a rational person might have said "please stop doing this" and that would have been it.
Why would a "rational person" not seek recompense when his rights are violated and that's the remedy provided under the law?
Taking it as far as tens of thousands of dollars in compensation seems a little unfair and money-grubbing. It's not like it was used on some corporate billboard somewhere.
As you said, one is not different from the other - both are wrong. Why apply unequal standards to the same wrong?
It's recognizably the same work - thus it's a derivative work and not fair use. It uses the key colors, elements, proportions, and composition of the original work - thus is not a transformative work and not fair use.
He was careful to license everything else, but he failed to license the artwork because he handwaved a "fair use" justification into place. He blew it and it cost him.
Workspace have been designed around not tripping over cables since electric equipment first became common around fifty years ago with the introduction of the electric calculator and the electric typewriter. Not to mention the rise of the desktop computer over the last quarter century.
So if you're just now 'redesigning" your workspace to account for cables... it's not the "gadgets" that are at fault.
Precise landing with a parachute, in the biggest ocean, awaiting then the recovery.
Was done back in the 1960's - all but two of the Apollo missions landed within two nautical miles of the target. The biggest miss was three nautical miles. (See the Entry, Splashdown, and Recovery page of Apollo By The Numbers.)
I does sound kind of silly on the surface, but it a valuable capability. Precise landing means landing close to the recovery vessel which means faster recovery.
The laser will become the ultimate defence weapon.
Weapons of this nature are only useful in proportion to their sensors and command-and-control systems.
Image roof top boxes in cities that can shoot stff down a mile away. Bombing Baghdad would have been impossible
The aircraft then just fly five miles up and saturate your defenses with carpet bombing. Or use stealth aircraft. Or use electronic warfare. Or use saturation level artillery from five miles away... Or any combination thereof.
All this is assuming that a (pretty expensive and sophisticated) sensor and command and control network is in place though - a network that's vulnerable in it's own right.
Yes, you can use the truly social aspects of these sites to reconnect with old friends and catch up. But in reality, after a while, you then realize suddenly that there was a reason you lost touch with those old friends.
Yeah, moving three times during high school and half a dozen times over the course of a decade long Navy career made it hell to keep track of people back when long distance cost real money and your only other recourse was snail mail. The world's a different place today, and I for one am glad it is.
But I would ask that the luddites and socially inept stop trying to turn back my clock. Go live in a cave if the new world bothers you that much, but stop insisting I do too.
They're boring or they pissed you off a long time ago or they stole your significant other from you. Unfortunately for you, now you've "friended" them.
Well, no I didn't. I'm a mature adult and choose who I friend and who I do not. If they "bored me, or pissed me off", then I didn't friend them on Facebook. I'm selective as hell and have no problems not replying to a friend invite. If you cannot manage this, that's your fault - not Facebook's.
You're getting all that from a rumor that has Facebook losing something less than 1% of it's users? You're either the most prescient individual ever (and should be an investment consultant), or you're a pompous windbag blowing smoke because the rumors confirm your bias.
So, since you don't have the gumption to say "I don't use Facebook", you blame your friends for guilt tripping you? The problem isn't Facebook or your friends mate.
It's not a sweeping ruling but it is a precedent. Also interesting is that here we have a clear case of the judiciary ruling to limit the power of... the judiciary. Kind of. How often do you see something like that?
It's not a precedent, nor is it particularly new. The Supreme Court has been handing issues back to the Legislative Branch for decades. For just one example, that's why nobody has sued any of the major sports leagues for monopolistic practices since (IIRC) the 50's... It was tried multiple times, but the Court consistently ruled that was an issue of interstate commerce and that Congress was the place to seek remedies - not the Court.
that maintenance schedule suggests they really should be looked after regularly
The maintenance schedule you quoted says, in mile high flaming letters (all caps), that they are being looked after regularly.
Then again, those bridges do get a few million cars driving over them every year, so they might be an exception
Not really, from everything I can find they're pretty close to average for most bridges. The problem is that a very small number of problematical bridges has been for decades consistently inflated into "OHMYGAWD ALL THE BRIDGES ARE FALLING OH THE HUMANITY". 100% of the infrastructure cannot be at 100% condition 100% of the time - it's physically and financially impractical do to so, and only provides minuscule marginal gains
My own city's sewer system and coal-fire power plant are both in need of almost complete replacement.
That's a problem with your local city, I.E. don't confuse local problems with global problems. My own city has no power plants, but has just finished a decade long upgrade of it's water and sewer systems. (And I know of many other cities that are working on their infrastructure as well.)
And don't even get me started on the bridges.
Can we just shut the f___ up about bridges? Ever since the 1970's the Chicken Little's have been screaming about the bridges and how they're all going to fall down any day now. Yet, the sky persists in not falling. Yes, bridges have fallen - but it's literally a one-in-ten-million event. So what? (And no, you can't trust the various reports. They depend on self reporting, and the locals flat out lie to raise their position on the lists so the get to the head of the line for pork.)
Those of you complaining about how journalism is crap, this is an example of non-crap journalism.
In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.
In particular, the article fails to point out that in many cases relaxing of safety standards is routine when it's legitimately discovered that the original standard was too stringent. Famously in the case of nuclear power, (then) Capt Rickover considerably relaxed safety standards and removed safety systems while proceeding from the prototype to the first operational reactors.
I don't know a great way of funding journalism like this. The Associated Press is funded by member newspapers who use their stories in the local papers.
Which leads to pseudo investigative reporting seeking sensationalism because sensationalism attracts eyeballs.
Modern books aren't designed to last hundreds of years. Within decades, most of that archive will begin deteriorating.
Indeed. And I suspect that their current system will just accelerate that. Within a few years, I bet there will be mold damage and within a decade probably half their collection will suffer significant degradation.
Book and paper preservation is a specialty all on it's own, and one best left to the professionals. Not to an engineer who has 'studied the literature'.
It would be great if we could do away with purchasing things in bulk, i.e., buying a full bottle of a specialty spice even though you're just going to use half of a teaspoon of it, and instead just receive exactly what you need in general purpose containers (saving also the hassle of measuring it yourself). Especially as someone who likes to cook gourmet, I like to buy ingredients as near to when I'm using them as possible.
Anyone who knows anything about cooking knows that properly stored bottled spices are stable for four to six months. (Longer if the spices are whole.) So buying them 'close to when you use them' is a pointless affectation. (Not that a gourmet cook would use bottled spices anyhow.)
Getting things to order, and in exact quantities, could also avoid the energy waste of everyone owning large personal refrigerators and freezers, besides avoiding the cost and environmental impact of fancy packaging, etc.
In some universe where you're getting daily delivery (which is not without it's own huge environmental impacts) that would be true. And as you'd still require packaging that could withstand handling, there probably wouldn't be any savings there either. (In fact, it would probably be worse - because the product:packaging ratio gets worse as the quantities get smaller.)
But arguably even those two [video game consoles and walled-garden tablets] are irrelevant because a) the vast majority of their users aren't creators anyway
They aren't creators because the devices' firmware doesn't allow them to be.
They weren't creators before either.
and b) neither of the things you claim to have been replaced have actually been replaced
As for consoles: What do you mean they haven't have replaced personal computers connected to televisions?
Oh, I see now. You're playing a narrow minded and ignorant semantics game. Only devices attached to televisions count, the explosion of PC's not connected to televisions that replaced PC's connected to televisions is irrelevant.
As for tablets: Low-end laptops haven't been replaced yet, but some analysts claim the proverbial writing is on the wall.
And you'll just ignore the majority of laptops that aren't low end because their existence is inconvenient to your thesis. You'll ignore the fact that the users of low end laptops aren't creators for the same reason.
When you have to twist facts and ignore others to support your thesis, that's prima facie evidence you have a problem in your formulation.
Seriously - it sounds more like the author is trying to drum up outrage/page hits/ad revenue rather than actually examining the situation. Just enough about the vets and the USAF supercomputer to seem 'fair and balanced', countered with nothing but bile.
Which brings me to another question: Often participatory media die and are replaced with consumer media. For example, video game consoles replaced 8-bit microcomputers with TV output, Compact Disc replaced cassette, DVD replaced VHS, and walled-garden tablets have begun to replace laptop computers. These media create a barrier between those who can produce and those who can only consume, and one must pay dearly to surmount this barrier.
Except - only two of your examples (the first and last) even remotely support your thesis because on the others, content can still be created by anyone that cares to. (And one need not pay 'dearly' to do so. A few hundred bucks tops.) But arguably even those two are irrelevant because a) the vast majority of their users aren't creators anyway, and b) neither of the things you claim to have been replaced have actually been replaced (or are even close to being so).
So, what you've said here is pretty much nothing but FUD that doesn't stand a moments scrutiny. (That you started with "another question" and then subsequently fail to actually ask a question says it all really.)
Slashdot Mirror
But the Mini in question doesn't have modern brakes. It has 1960's brakes. So your reply is meaningless and irrelevant.
But that's a Mini being built in a fantasy world - and utterly irrelevant, because nobody is going to put a car on the road today built with essentially no safety So again, your reply is meaningless.
And how does the emissions compare between the two? Or safety?
Depending on the speed of the vehicle, a canopy might provide a higher weight penalty than it provides a benefit in drag reduction. Especially considering that you then have to make provisions to ventilate to driver's compartment to control temperature. (I.E. in any sun at all, that canopy is going to turn into a greenhouse.)
Engineering, it's all about compromises.
You either live in another universe, our you're seriously mentally altered (by birth or excessive substance use). I can't be 100% sure what's in my milk for fucks sake. What makes you think Big Marijuana is going to be any different from Big Tobacco, Big Dairy, Big Food, or any other commercial entity?
And though there's many here on Slashdot who'll try desperately to claim otherwise (because their fragile ego's, self image, and virtual penises depend on it), that's 99.99% percent of being "good with computers" is. Crap like scraping IRC chatlogs (the original commenter's example of "being useful") is like smoking your tires - impressive as hell to your adolescent buddies.. but it doesn't get you to work the next morning. It's nothing but sound and fury signifying - nothing.
Horseshit. If I wanted a word processor, I bought one (retail or shareware or freeware). If I wanted a chat program, ditto. If I wanted a game, ditto. In fact, I could have gone my entire life having the computer doing everything I bought it to do without ever touching a line of code.
Why would a "rational person" not seek recompense when his rights are violated and that's the remedy provided under the law?
As you said, one is not different from the other - both are wrong. Why apply unequal standards to the same wrong?
learnthelaw
It's recognizably the same work - thus it's a derivative work and not fair use. It uses the key colors, elements, proportions, and composition of the original work - thus is not a transformative work and not fair use.
He was careful to license everything else, but he failed to license the artwork because he handwaved a "fair use" justification into place. He blew it and it cost him.
Workspace have been designed around not tripping over cables since electric equipment first became common around fifty years ago with the introduction of the electric calculator and the electric typewriter. Not to mention the rise of the desktop computer over the last quarter century.
So if you're just now 'redesigning" your workspace to account for cables... it's not the "gadgets" that are at fault.
Was done back in the 1960's - all but two of the Apollo missions landed within two nautical miles of the target. The biggest miss was three nautical miles. (See the Entry, Splashdown, and Recovery page of Apollo By The Numbers.)
I does sound kind of silly on the surface, but it a valuable capability. Precise landing means landing close to the recovery vessel which means faster recovery.
Weapons of this nature are only useful in proportion to their sensors and command-and-control systems.
The aircraft then just fly five miles up and saturate your defenses with carpet bombing. Or use stealth aircraft. Or use electronic warfare. Or use saturation level artillery from five miles away... Or any combination thereof.
All this is assuming that a (pretty expensive and sophisticated) sensor and command and control network is in place though - a network that's vulnerable in it's own right.
That's your problem - to own up to lying to your friends.
Yeah, moving three times during high school and half a dozen times over the course of a decade long Navy career made it hell to keep track of people back when long distance cost real money and your only other recourse was snail mail. The world's a different place today, and I for one am glad it is.
But I would ask that the luddites and socially inept stop trying to turn back my clock. Go live in a cave if the new world bothers you that much, but stop insisting I do too.
Well, no I didn't. I'm a mature adult and choose who I friend and who I do not. If they "bored me, or pissed me off", then I didn't friend them on Facebook. I'm selective as hell and have no problems not replying to a friend invite. If you cannot manage this, that's your fault - not Facebook's.
You're getting all that from a rumor that has Facebook losing something less than 1% of it's users? You're either the most prescient individual ever (and should be an investment consultant), or you're a pompous windbag blowing smoke because the rumors confirm your bias.
So, since you don't have the gumption to say "I don't use Facebook", you blame your friends for guilt tripping you? The problem isn't Facebook or your friends mate.
It's not a precedent, nor is it particularly new. The Supreme Court has been handing issues back to the Legislative Branch for decades. For just one example, that's why nobody has sued any of the major sports leagues for monopolistic practices since (IIRC) the 50's... It was tried multiple times, but the Court consistently ruled that was an issue of interstate commerce and that Congress was the place to seek remedies - not the Court.
The maintenance schedule you quoted says, in mile high flaming letters (all caps), that they are being looked after regularly.
Not really, from everything I can find they're pretty close to average for most bridges. The problem is that a very small number of problematical bridges has been for decades consistently inflated into "OHMYGAWD ALL THE BRIDGES ARE FALLING OH THE HUMANITY". 100% of the infrastructure cannot be at 100% condition 100% of the time - it's physically and financially impractical do to so, and only provides minuscule marginal gains
Reading comprehension, get some you ignorant moron. When you do, go back and read what I wrote and you'll notice I did note that bridges had fallen.
That's a problem with your local city, I.E. don't confuse local problems with global problems. My own city has no power plants, but has just finished a decade long upgrade of it's water and sewer systems. (And I know of many other cities that are working on their infrastructure as well.)
Can we just shut the f___ up about bridges? Ever since the 1970's the Chicken Little's have been screaming about the bridges and how they're all going to fall down any day now. Yet, the sky persists in not falling. Yes, bridges have fallen - but it's literally a one-in-ten-million event. So what? (And no, you can't trust the various reports. They depend on self reporting, and the locals flat out lie to raise their position on the lists so the get to the head of the line for pork.)
In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.
In particular, the article fails to point out that in many cases relaxing of safety standards is routine when it's legitimately discovered that the original standard was too stringent. Famously in the case of nuclear power, (then) Capt Rickover considerably relaxed safety standards and removed safety systems while proceeding from the prototype to the first operational reactors.
Which leads to pseudo investigative reporting seeking sensationalism because sensationalism attracts eyeballs.
Indeed. And I suspect that their current system will just accelerate that. Within a few years, I bet there will be mold damage and within a decade probably half their collection will suffer significant degradation.
Book and paper preservation is a specialty all on it's own, and one best left to the professionals. Not to an engineer who has 'studied the literature'.
Anyone who knows anything about cooking knows that properly stored bottled spices are stable for four to six months. (Longer if the spices are whole.) So buying them 'close to when you use them' is a pointless affectation. (Not that a gourmet cook would use bottled spices anyhow.)
In some universe where you're getting daily delivery (which is not without it's own huge environmental impacts) that would be true. And as you'd still require packaging that could withstand handling, there probably wouldn't be any savings there either. (In fact, it would probably be worse - because the product:packaging ratio gets worse as the quantities get smaller.)
They weren't creators before either.
Oh, I see now. You're playing a narrow minded and ignorant semantics game. Only devices attached to televisions count, the explosion of PC's not connected to televisions that replaced PC's connected to televisions is irrelevant.
And you'll just ignore the majority of laptops that aren't low end because their existence is inconvenient to your thesis. You'll ignore the fact that the users of low end laptops aren't creators for the same reason.
When you have to twist facts and ignore others to support your thesis, that's prima facie evidence you have a problem in your formulation.
Seriously - it sounds more like the author is trying to drum up outrage/page hits/ad revenue rather than actually examining the situation. Just enough about the vets and the USAF supercomputer to seem 'fair and balanced', countered with nothing but bile.
Except - only two of your examples (the first and last) even remotely support your thesis because on the others, content can still be created by anyone that cares to. (And one need not pay 'dearly' to do so. A few hundred bucks tops.) But arguably even those two are irrelevant because a) the vast majority of their users aren't creators anyway, and b) neither of the things you claim to have been replaced have actually been replaced (or are even close to being so).
So, what you've said here is pretty much nothing but FUD that doesn't stand a moments scrutiny. (That you started with "another question" and then subsequently fail to actually ask a question says it all really.)