CC-0 doesn't go far enough. They need a CC-Null that equates to pure abandonment of all restrictions on use or any intent to enforce any rights that could have been associated with the work. But that exists. It's called not using the CC licenses.
Putting something in the public domain means you no longer have to defend it. Everyone can use it as they please. If someone else claims they own it, that means nothing unless they try to sue you for using it. So you point to the documentation of the prior art showing that it's in the public domain, and they lose the suit.
All the "free software" licenses don't do that. They actually try to keep the software un-free, and out of the hands of people who could make a small profit from it if it were actually public-domain software and they weren't required to perform actions according to the un-free license terms when demanded.
Since American corporations now have pay for votes, Fox News, which is a self-described news organization and which contains vast amounts of astroturfing of current events, should be treated as false advertising as well.
LCDs work by polarizing light emitted by a lamp behind them (or light reflected from the front that is reflected by mirrored surface behind them).
You make pixels by making small regions that you can control electrically. But with LCD there's a limit to how small you can make them because of the crystals involved. And to do colors you make a color mask and have each color covered by one region, and open or close them in combination to make one RGB pixel.
These researchers have found a new polarization method that also does color filtering, and does it in a much smaller space.
The picture of the M with the 3-micron scale bar on it is sick. It tells me that the "8 times smaller" thing is way understating the resolution these guys have achieved. A pixel on a good monitor is 240 microns across, and it would take a square a couple dozen pixels across to render that picture with the fidelity of those angles and spaces. Their effective pixels are a fraction of a micron across. That's a factor of about 1000, not 8, unless they were comparing to some other technology that isn't yet in stores.
This stuff is totally FTW.
The hard part now will be finding enough CPU or GPU power to drive it all in real-time.
The fact that we weren't getting repurposed HDTV screens back when 1920x1080 was new hotness was a scam. It was a collusion between LCD manufacturers to keep prices high for both computer monitors (which were available at 1050-pixel vertical resolution for no good reason) and TV screens.
Now you get higher resolution by either adding a second monitor or getting a humungous monitor. Higher resolution on the size of monitor you have now may not do you any good, unless you want 3D without the goggles in which case a multiplier of current maximum pixel densities is an awesome enabler.
Oh, and biodiesel is still diesel and still results in noxious pollution and global warming.
The mechanical issues in the vehicle are a wash (though Diesel tech has about 150 years head start so it seems easier and cheaper to go with now).
From a process standpoint, the extra steps and inputs and outputs involved in the algae process make it less efficient than the hydrogen process.
And it's not portable. You have to have a big space and access to all of the inputs in mass quantities. Hydrogen production takes a little space, only as much water as you want to split, and an electrical outlet. You could probably build a refinery into a car so you can dump in water and plug it in, and in the morning drive off on a full charge of hydrogen. No more supertankers delivering goo to far off lands or isolated islands; just drop off a few solar-powered hydrolysis units and let them make their own.
As for who wants to do it, that's currently up to them. Big Business thinking it can pwn something as scalable as hydrogen production is shooting itself in the ass. But it could easily take advantage of the need for scale and distribution in the algae-biodiesel process to keep mom'n'pop producers from competing with them.
All combustible gases I know of are stored without their oxidizers mixed in. (Not so for all solid fuels I know of, but we're not talking about solid fuels.) Probably because people who store combustible gases like to live.
And they all burn in roughly the same way, with a plume of fire as the oxygen mixes with the fuel, usually as it rises.
Hydrogen is the same, but since hydrogen is very light it rises very fast. Like your average hollywood explosion, played back at 2-3X normal speed.
And while it's a light-yellow flame, it's not invisible.
I can still see a couple of reasons for firemen to stay away from it after the initial explosion: 1. there might be other tanks that could explode, and shrapnel of any size can ruin your day 2. there might be other chemicals and materials involved making using just one firefighting method unworkable 3. there might be more hydrogen in the tank that's still leaking out, if the tank had a leak and not a big rupture 4. there might not be anyone on the truck who's allowed to fight a hydrogen fire, even if everyone knows how to 5. the safest thing may be to let it burn out the supply in the leaking tank 6. it might backfire into the leaking tank as the tank runs low, and then you're looking at shrapnel issues again
I don't think the algae idea is going to get us there. The algae-based oil has byproducts that have to be disposed of, requires a large investment in land, has inputs and growing conditions that have to be controlled (your operation can be gutted by immoderate weather), and its refining systems are complex chemical processes with their own cost issues. Hydrogen needs water and electricity, its byproduct is oxygen, and its production system needs only a compressor.
If you're going to use chemical fuels in your propulsion systems, just from what I've listed here, hydrogen is going to win the economic battle eventually.
with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated
(*looks straight at you*)
The fact that it can be generated (profitably, if you want to quibble) makes it renewable.
We can make oil, but it's not economical, at least not for use as a fuel. The non-renewability of oil means that we will run out and that will be that. Same deal for coal and uranium. We get one shot at those resources.
Whereas hydrogen, when it burns, becomes water, which, when we add a little electricty, becomes hydrogen and oxygen again. And we can get electricity from non-fossil fueled sources.
So you're about to say why not just use solar? Well, for one, solar isn't a fuel so you're changing the argument. Solar isn't as easily stored as hydrogen and isn't usable in many places hydrogen is. (Of course the converse is true for places where combustion or consumption of the oxygen are not desirable, or explosions are not just possible but likely - a jacob's ladder factory, e.g.)
Did you read the whole thing? The USA was just one of the countries whose perceived influence was being evaluated.
The thing that I got out of it that was most clear was that Pakistan hates everyone but Pakistan and Iran, and didn't give either themselves or Iran a 40% favorable rating.
And they wonder why people were slow to lift a hand to help in the floods...
The Internet is not an open-air medium. I am not broadcasting anything to you, as I would by speaking it audibly into airspace or transmitting it into the electromagnetic aether.
I am placing words on a server with a known location. In order for your precious subjects to come across my words and be offended/libeled/scandalized/blasphemed by them, they have to find the server, access it, request the information, decode it, and present to themselves it on their equipment.
And likely their request has to cross an international boundary to reach the server.
Therefore, what I type into my computer that they are not allowed to read in your country is not for you to stop me from posting, nor for you to stop the server from serving. It is for you to tell your subjects not to read, if you choose to have laws that make certain forms of speech illegal in your country.
That's quite aside from the fact that it is likely that making such things illegal makes you a freedom-hating tyrant who can just fuck off.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians serve the money.
America has died.
You probably voted for it, too.
More like:
Developer demonstrates pitfall of getting your warez from Pirate Bay
Don't complain to me. That's what the summary said.
As for EEG, I wonder what mine looks like when I'm playing Poker.
I bet it's not too readable. I'm pretty good; mechanistic even when I'm bluffing.
CC-0 doesn't go far enough. They need a CC-Null that equates to pure abandonment of all restrictions on use or any intent to enforce any rights that could have been associated with the work. But that exists. It's called not using the CC licenses.
Putting something in the public domain means you no longer have to defend it. Everyone can use it as they please. If someone else claims they own it, that means nothing unless they try to sue you for using it. So you point to the documentation of the prior art showing that it's in the public domain, and they lose the suit.
All the "free software" licenses don't do that. They actually try to keep the software un-free, and out of the hands of people who could make a small profit from it if it were actually public-domain software and they weren't required to perform actions according to the un-free license terms when demanded.
Since American corporations now have pay for votes, Fox News, which is a self-described news organization and which contains vast amounts of astroturfing of current events, should be treated as false advertising as well.
LCDs work by polarizing light emitted by a lamp behind them (or light reflected from the front that is reflected by mirrored surface behind them).
You make pixels by making small regions that you can control electrically. But with LCD there's a limit to how small you can make them because of the crystals involved. And to do colors you make a color mask and have each color covered by one region, and open or close them in combination to make one RGB pixel.
These researchers have found a new polarization method that also does color filtering, and does it in a much smaller space.
The picture of the M with the 3-micron scale bar on it is sick. It tells me that the "8 times smaller" thing is way understating the resolution these guys have achieved. A pixel on a good monitor is 240 microns across, and it would take a square a couple dozen pixels across to render that picture with the fidelity of those angles and spaces. Their effective pixels are a fraction of a micron across. That's a factor of about 1000, not 8, unless they were comparing to some other technology that isn't yet in stores.
This stuff is totally FTW.
The hard part now will be finding enough CPU or GPU power to drive it all in real-time.
Yes, that's what it means.
I never know why people don't get what it means.
It may be mathematically ungrammatical, but it's perfectly clear what it means.
Except for the part where they don't say whether it's by lineal or areal dimensions.
The fact that we weren't getting repurposed HDTV screens back when 1920x1080 was new hotness was a scam. It was a collusion between LCD manufacturers to keep prices high for both computer monitors (which were available at 1050-pixel vertical resolution for no good reason) and TV screens.
Now you get higher resolution by either adding a second monitor or getting a humungous monitor. Higher resolution on the size of monitor you have now may not do you any good, unless you want 3D without the goggles in which case a multiplier of current maximum pixel densities is an awesome enabler.
3D screens that don't need goggles
see-through HUD screens built into glasses
high-res video on keyboard buttons
only better
it's called "putting it in the public domain"
If it's open source, can I make a fork of it where Han shoots first?
When I'm watching a video alone, I don't usually have facial expressions, unless something is insanely funny, or I've got into the scotch.
Oh, and biodiesel is still diesel and still results in noxious pollution and global warming.
The mechanical issues in the vehicle are a wash (though Diesel tech has about 150 years head start so it seems easier and cheaper to go with now).
From a process standpoint, the extra steps and inputs and outputs involved in the algae process make it less efficient than the hydrogen process.
And it's not portable. You have to have a big space and access to all of the inputs in mass quantities. Hydrogen production takes a little space, only as much water as you want to split, and an electrical outlet. You could probably build a refinery into a car so you can dump in water and plug it in, and in the morning drive off on a full charge of hydrogen. No more supertankers delivering goo to far off lands or isolated islands; just drop off a few solar-powered hydrolysis units and let them make their own.
As for who wants to do it, that's currently up to them. Big Business thinking it can pwn something as scalable as hydrogen production is shooting itself in the ass. But it could easily take advantage of the need for scale and distribution in the algae-biodiesel process to keep mom'n'pop producers from competing with them.
I never watched that, but the irony of a team of superheroes made out of Fast Food is...ironic.
I mean, they'll save you now, but eventually they'll kill you...
The new McDonald's Double Quarter-Tonner with Cheese.
All combustible gases I know of are stored without their oxidizers mixed in. (Not so for all solid fuels I know of, but we're not talking about solid fuels.) Probably because people who store combustible gases like to live.
And they all burn in roughly the same way, with a plume of fire as the oxygen mixes with the fuel, usually as it rises.
Hydrogen is the same, but since hydrogen is very light it rises very fast. Like your average hollywood explosion, played back at 2-3X normal speed.
And while it's a light-yellow flame, it's not invisible.
I can still see a couple of reasons for firemen to stay away from it after the initial explosion:
1. there might be other tanks that could explode, and shrapnel of any size can ruin your day
2. there might be other chemicals and materials involved making using just one firefighting method unworkable
3. there might be more hydrogen in the tank that's still leaking out, if the tank had a leak and not a big rupture
4. there might not be anyone on the truck who's allowed to fight a hydrogen fire, even if everyone knows how to
5. the safest thing may be to let it burn out the supply in the leaking tank
6. it might backfire into the leaking tank as the tank runs low, and then you're looking at shrapnel issues again
Okay. More than a couple.
Hydrogen is safe to use, despite today's addition to the anecdotal evidence. It's at least as safe as gasoline.
Hydrogen costs about $8/kg to make now, and there's links to things saying it's going to $3/kg, or effectively about the same $/mile as gasoline.
I don't think the algae idea is going to get us there. The algae-based oil has byproducts that have to be disposed of, requires a large investment in land, has inputs and growing conditions that have to be controlled (your operation can be gutted by immoderate weather), and its refining systems are complex chemical processes with their own cost issues. Hydrogen needs water and electricity, its byproduct is oxygen, and its production system needs only a compressor.
If you're going to use chemical fuels in your propulsion systems, just from what I've listed here, hydrogen is going to win the economic battle eventually.
So you're saying both were put in the Zoning Board's back yard?
with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated
(*looks straight at you*)
The fact that it can be generated (profitably, if you want to quibble) makes it renewable.
We can make oil, but it's not economical, at least not for use as a fuel. The non-renewability of oil means that we will run out and that will be that. Same deal for coal and uranium. We get one shot at those resources.
Whereas hydrogen, when it burns, becomes water, which, when we add a little electricty, becomes hydrogen and oxygen again. And we can get electricity from non-fossil fueled sources.
So you're about to say why not just use solar? Well, for one, solar isn't a fuel so you're changing the argument. Solar isn't as easily stored as hydrogen and isn't usable in many places hydrogen is. (Of course the converse is true for places where combustion or consumption of the oxygen are not desirable, or explosions are not just possible but likely - a jacob's ladder factory, e.g.)
Worse.
It warmed the globe.
Did you read the whole thing? The USA was just one of the countries whose perceived influence was being evaluated.
The thing that I got out of it that was most clear was that Pakistan hates everyone but Pakistan and Iran, and didn't give either themselves or Iran a 40% favorable rating.
And they wonder why people were slow to lift a hand to help in the floods...
Still better politics than France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, China, Australia, Somalia, Russia, and the Pirate Bay.
But that ain't saying much...
it's even stranger since the USA recently used European legal actions as evidence when threatening open prosecution of a major American corporation:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1726603/ftc-intel-announce-settlement
The Internet is not an open-air medium. I am not broadcasting anything to you, as I would by speaking it audibly into airspace or transmitting it into the electromagnetic aether.
I am placing words on a server with a known location. In order for your precious subjects to come across my words and be offended/libeled/scandalized/blasphemed by them, they have to find the server, access it, request the information, decode it, and present to themselves it on their equipment.
And likely their request has to cross an international boundary to reach the server.
Therefore, what I type into my computer that they are not allowed to read in your country is not for you to stop me from posting, nor for you to stop the server from serving. It is for you to tell your subjects not to read, if you choose to have laws that make certain forms of speech illegal in your country.
That's quite aside from the fact that it is likely that making such things illegal makes you a freedom-hating tyrant who can just fuck off.