The point isn't the large speed of the shuttle, but the acceleration. After the foam detached, the shuttle accelerated up into it. By the time the shuttle reached the position of the foam, the shuttle had accelerated *a lot*, therefore the velocities were very different.
It's actually even worst than that. Since as soon as the foam broke off it would become subject to both an acceleration due to gravity and drag due to the air around it.
Because prior to this accident, the concensus opinion at NASA was that the foamed insulation was low-mass and crumbled easily enough that it didn't pose a threat to the vehicle.
When it comes to kinetic energy relative velocity plays a far greater part than mass.
I am not condoning the what is happening, it is still a copyright violation, but it was entirely predictable, and IMHO, the publishers only have themselves to blame.
If the publishers were smart they'd offer these people the job of doing the translation. Which would probably cost far less than reaching for the lawyers in the first place.
Traslating a book is not the same as a movie or localising a game. With a movie, there is a LOT less content to work on
So much so that when a novel is written from a movie additional content is added and when a movie is adapted from a book content is deleted.
and the standrards are way lower so it only takes about a week, if that.
Yet people can end up having to wait months to see a movie. Even where no translation is done. (People in Britain and Australia are expected to understand US "culture" and various Americanisms.)
Um, because copyright laws are intended to protect creators, not publishers.
In practice it seems to wind up that publishers tend to gain far more that creators the majority of the time.
Um, because copyright laws are intended to protect creators, not publishers.
The problem here is differences in power. An unknown creator is faced with the situation of a publisher saying "We will only publish if you assign the copyright to us". Only someone who is already established can dictate to a publisher and say "do it this way or I'll go elsewhere". Assuming they havn't signed a contract pledging all their future works to that publisher.
The "work for hire" fiasco is partly responsible for getting the music industry into its present abominable state, where you can practically see the hands sticking up the backs of the dancing meat puppets.
The situation with the music industry is that there arn't actually that many major record companies and they all tend to demand that artists sighn over everthing. They can even ask people to sign over copyrights for works they never have any intention of publishing. The only possible way out would be statutes to prevent copyright from being assigned to publishers. Which is very unlikely in the current situation.
I hope this doesn't come off as too 'Jon Katzy,' but the internet has made irrelevant this common practice of premiering something in one country and delaying it's release (often for marketing purposes) in other countries.
Yet this is still done with movies.
For example, 28 Days Later was released in the UK on Nov 1, 2002, but they waited until June 27, 2003 before the US release.
The only unusual thing here is the US not getting to see it first. Whereas "The Hulk" does not open in the UK until the 18th of July.
The DVD-R of this title has literally been floating around the internet for months. Who wants to wait?
Review copies are sent out before the film "opens". It wouldn't suprise me if regular DVD's are also done at the same time.
The Harry Potter publishers were naive to think this wouldn't happen.
There were no advance copies of OotP to anyone, including reviewers and official translators. The book was available to everyone at the same time (mostly exactly the same book, with the exception of the US who got a somewhat modified version). What's intersting is that that these fans appear to have done the job of translating in a very short period of time. Maybe instead of threatening legal action the publishers of translated versions should be offering these enthusiasts jobs when books 6 and 7 become available.
I wonder how many fans will be excited about being sued? Even if J.K. has a full right to do so, suing your fanbase isn't the smartest or most polite thing to do. In fact, since they're obviously intelligent and industrious fans (they're translating for God's sake, how many times have you done that for a book you despised?)they're probably the last people you're going to get good press out of.
They are not being sued by the author, they are being sued by the publishing company who intend publishing their translation sometime in the future.
First of all, who is "they"? MS is a corporation, which I suppose technically is a person, but only a single one, and that "person" lives at its headquarters, not on your computer.
Part of the problem is that corporations are only sometimes treated as "people". Were a real person accused of breaking the law they could wind up being held in a jail, subject to bail conditions, etc before they even get their day in court (where they have to drop everything and appear in court.) Nothing similar happened to Microsoft, they could just carry on "business as usual" even whilst they were supposedly "on trial".
And if you ask the musicians, the ones who actually make the music, they make music so groups of people can enjoy it together, this is why they give concerts etc etc. Musicians dont mind people listening to their music, its the CEO at the record company who minds.
To many musicians (and other creative people) the worst possible situation is that of obscurity.
Musicians do not care how many people listen to their music as long as they get paid, Musicians could get paid based on how popular their music is, on P2P.
Well, the obvious one is that stuff gets created that otherwise wouldn't have been.
It can also be argued that current copyright can discourage creations of new materials.
And, if I may defend an industry that's constantly under attack here, it makes the publishing industry viable which means that there's a real distribution network for these works.
Since when has it been appropriate for governments to support specific industries and business models. If the publishing industry is so important that's more an argument for nationalising it...
And, of course, there are many forms of art that wouldn't exist, period, if copyright didn't.
Plenty of art forms predate copyright. Thus they did not require copyright to come into existance.
Film and television would be two major examples. With it costing millions to put together a low budget movie, and hundreds of dollars an hour for the cheapest TV station to stay alive generating its own content, I think it's fair to argue that without copyright at least providing the means to guarantee a revenue stream for content of reasonable quality, it wouldn't exist.
Both film and television are technologies which postdate the concept of copyright. The only thing that can be said is that the current business models surrounding them assume copyright. Does anyone have a breakdown on what actually costs what in film and TV production. Including expenses which may only exist because of copyright...
The CURRENT situation is that there is a promise to artists that if they create something, they will have control over its use in their lifetimes (and a bit more.)
In practice actual creators often don't have control over the uses of their works. Often they must hand over these rights to a third party publisher/distributor in order for their work to be published.
Native Americans arnt white republican gun toting christians, you know like jesus was. Someone once told me he was a jew. That person was probably a liberal.
Jesus wasn't white either. No doubt many of these supposed "Christians" would horrified by the fact that the real Jesus probably looked like an Arab.
The Constitution does not give the fedgov power to declare any essentially private behavior "illegal," and all "laws" contrary to the Constitution are null and void. The DMCA is unconstitutional on its face - it openly contradicts the 1st Amendment. Hence, it is null and void, and, therefore, circumventing copyright protection in and of itself is NOT illegal.
The problem is that until the US Supreme court decides a law is unconsitutional it tends to be treated as valid. Wonder what happens if anyone was punished under a law subsequently found to be unconsitutional. There is also something of a big loophole in that nothing apparenly prevents the US Congress from passing laws blatently against the US Constitution.
Well, that's great, except that up until 9/11 no one imagined that an airliner could be used.
Nonsense. A disgruntled Fed-Ex employee actually tried such a thing years before. Several authors came up with the sanario in books. Fox television had an attempt to crash an airliner in to 2WTC as a major part of their X-Files spinoff series. What apparently no-one had imagined was that it would be possible to do this with several planes right under the nose of NORAD.
That's a very interesting point. I suspect that the answer is that critical infrastructure such as airports would eventually have to move away from easy targets like big cities, and flight paths would just avoid them completely, with any aircraft heading for one triggering alarm bells.
The further away from cities airports are the less use they are for transporting people and cargo.
I'm sorry, but this is a very poor description of the TCAS system. First of all, you assume both aircraft are so equipped. What if one of the planes is a small Cessna -- it has no TCAS.
A light aircraft is in trouble even if it dosn't actually hit a much larger aircraft.
Second, even if they "chat", the only resolution may be for one plane to turn into a "soft wall". Third, they do NOT move anything automatically. They issue a warning and tell the pilot what to do. It is the pilot's responsibility to decide if that is the best course of action.
As recently demonstrated TCAS is not foolproof, especially if the pilots are being given contrary information from ATC. Do they listen to the machine or the human?
When you create a system like this, you have to imagine the likely failure modes, and then imagine the new failure modes it introduces. Like, "pilot MUST turn into a wall to avoid a collision with another aircraft, cannot, and they hit"
How is the pilot likely to react when they attempt to turn and the plane suddenly does not respond as expected. Whilst various alarms age going off warning of impending collision.
The problem with this idea, besides emotional coercion as others have mentioned, is that airplane doors are actually designed to blow out so that pressure can be quickly equalized throughout the cabin and cockpit. This is the reason that the old cockpit doors were so flimsy, and is the reason why even the new security doors are equipped with blow out panels.
Similarly aircraft now have systems to ensure that preasure between the cabin and the cargo hold stays the same. Especially if the flight controls run under the cabin floor.
Unless the cockpit and cabin were individually pressurized putting a solid wall in place would be a huge safely risk.
Such a wall would need to be capable of acting as a preasure bulkhead. Also you still have the risk of what happens if the cockpit area is depreasurised.
There was that crash in I don't remember where, but it was on video flipping end over end, about half the people died.
The plane crashed at Souix City, Iowa.
That plane completely lost the hydraulics, and was flown, and very difficultly, by varying the speed of the engines to make turns (astoundingly clever). Anyhoo, that system might have spelled certain doom for them.
Probably wouldn't have made any difference, since this system operates through the usual flight controls.
How often, in the 40 odd years of commercial air travel, has an engine (or any failure) caused a commercial aircraft to crash in a 'densly' populated area? The only one I can only think of was Air Florida Flight 90 -- it hit the 14th street bridge and went into the Potomac.
The cause of the crash here was a failure on the part of the flight crew.
More recently there was the crash of the Airbus in New York. Last I heard the airline and the manufacturer are still arguing about who was responsible. Though IMHO it does appear rather pointless to have a rudder control which becomes much more sensitive the moment the plane leaves the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
The point isn't the large speed of the shuttle, but the acceleration. After the foam detached, the shuttle accelerated up into it. By the time the shuttle reached the position of the foam, the shuttle had accelerated *a lot*, therefore the velocities were very different.
It's actually even worst than that. Since as soon as the foam broke off it would become subject to both an acceleration due to gravity and drag due to the air around it.
They figured that falling foam could not be so fast; it isn't in everyday situations.
The foam probably wasn't falling, just slowing down due to air resistance. Whilst the shuttle was accelerating upwards.
And the difference here is that the shuttle was going extremely fast. I don't know the exact speed, but much faster than 850 km/ hour.
What's important here is the relative speed.
Because prior to this accident, the concensus opinion at NASA was that the foamed insulation was low-mass and crumbled easily enough that it didn't pose a threat to the vehicle.
When it comes to kinetic energy relative velocity plays a far greater part than mass.
Doing a top quality translation of a 700+ page novel takes more than a month.
If you have one person doing it in serial. How long would it take with a translator per chapter?
I am not condoning the what is happening, it is still a copyright violation, but it was entirely predictable, and IMHO, the publishers only have themselves to blame.
If the publishers were smart they'd offer these people the job of doing the translation. Which would probably cost far less than reaching for the lawyers in the first place.
Traslating a book is not the same as a movie or localising a game. With a movie, there is a LOT less content to work on
So much so that when a novel is written from a movie additional content is added and when a movie is adapted from a book content is deleted.
and the standrards are way lower so it only takes about a week, if that.
Yet people can end up having to wait months to see a movie. Even where no translation is done. (People in Britain and Australia are expected to understand US "culture" and various Americanisms.)
Um, because copyright laws are intended to protect creators, not publishers.
In practice it seems to wind up that publishers tend to gain far more that creators the majority of the time.
Um, because copyright laws are intended to protect creators, not publishers.
The problem here is differences in power. An unknown creator is faced with the situation of a publisher saying "We will only publish if you assign the copyright to us". Only someone who is already established can dictate to a publisher and say "do it this way or I'll go elsewhere". Assuming they havn't signed a contract pledging all their future works to that publisher.
The "work for hire" fiasco is partly responsible for getting the music industry into its present abominable state, where you can practically see the hands sticking up the backs of the dancing meat puppets.
The situation with the music industry is that there arn't actually that many major record companies and they all tend to demand that artists sighn over everthing. They can even ask people to sign over copyrights for works they never have any intention of publishing.
The only possible way out would be statutes to prevent copyright from being assigned to publishers. Which is very unlikely in the current situation.
I hope this doesn't come off as too 'Jon Katzy,' but the internet has made irrelevant this common practice of premiering something in one country and delaying it's release (often for marketing purposes) in other countries.
Yet this is still done with movies.
For example, 28 Days Later was released in the UK on Nov 1, 2002, but they waited until June 27, 2003 before the US release.
The only unusual thing here is the US not getting to see it first. Whereas "The Hulk" does not open in the UK until the 18th of July.
The DVD-R of this title has literally been floating around the internet for months. Who wants to wait?
Review copies are sent out before the film "opens". It wouldn't suprise me if regular DVD's are also done at the same time.
The Harry Potter publishers were naive to think this wouldn't happen.
There were no advance copies of OotP to anyone, including reviewers and official translators. The book was available to everyone at the same time (mostly exactly the same book, with the exception of the US who got a somewhat modified version). What's intersting is that that these fans appear to have done the job of translating in a very short period of time. Maybe instead of threatening legal action the publishers of translated versions should be offering these enthusiasts jobs when books 6 and 7 become available.
I wonder how many fans will be excited about being sued? Even if J.K. has a full right to do so, suing your fanbase isn't the smartest or most polite thing to do. In fact, since they're obviously intelligent and industrious fans (they're translating for God's sake, how many times have you done that for a book you despised?)they're probably the last people you're going to get good press out of.
They are not being sued by the author, they are being sued by the publishing company who intend publishing their translation sometime in the future.
A translation is a derivative work under U.S. Copyright law and International treaties such as the Berne Convention.
US Copyright law is irrelevent here. What matters are the laws in Germany and the Czech Republic.
First of all, who is "they"? MS is a corporation, which I suppose technically is a person, but only a single one, and that "person" lives at its headquarters, not on your computer.
Part of the problem is that corporations are only sometimes treated as "people". Were a real person accused of breaking the law they could wind up being held in a jail, subject to bail conditions, etc before they even get their day in court (where they have to drop everything and appear in court.)
Nothing similar happened to Microsoft, they could just carry on "business as usual" even whilst they were supposedly "on trial".
It is not illegal to have a monopoly,
But it is illegal to do all sorts of things when you are a monopoly.
and the penalties are not designed to break up the monopoly. The court already decided NOT to break up Microsoft.
As Microsoft were a "repeat offender" you'd resonably expect a harsher penalty than was applied to them previously.
And if you ask the musicians, the ones who actually make the music, they make music so groups of people can enjoy it together, this is why they give concerts etc etc. Musicians dont mind people listening to their music, its the CEO at the record company who minds.
To many musicians (and other creative people) the worst possible situation is that of obscurity.
Musicians do not care how many people listen to their music as long as they get paid, Musicians could get paid based on how popular their music is, on P2P.
Or they get paid when they perform music.
Well, the obvious one is that stuff gets created that otherwise wouldn't have been.
It can also be argued that current copyright can discourage creations of new materials.
And, if I may defend an industry that's constantly under attack here, it makes the publishing industry viable which means that there's a real distribution network for these works.
Since when has it been appropriate for governments to support specific industries and business models. If the publishing industry is so important that's more an argument for nationalising it...
And, of course, there are many forms of art that wouldn't exist, period, if copyright didn't.
Plenty of art forms predate copyright. Thus they did not require copyright to come into existance.
Film and television would be two major examples. With it costing millions to put together a low budget movie, and hundreds of dollars an hour for the cheapest TV station to stay alive generating its own content, I think it's fair to argue that without copyright at least providing the means to guarantee a revenue stream for content of reasonable quality, it wouldn't exist.
Both film and television are technologies which postdate the concept of copyright. The only thing that can be said is that the current business models surrounding them assume copyright.
Does anyone have a breakdown on what actually costs what in film and TV production. Including expenses which may only exist because of copyright...
The CURRENT situation is that there is a promise to artists that if they create something, they will have control over its use in their lifetimes (and a bit more.)
In practice actual creators often don't have control over the uses of their works. Often they must hand over these rights to a third party publisher/distributor in order for their work to be published.
It varies from £9 an album to £17. Supermarkets tend to discount the most, but they often import from the European mainland to get the price down.
Even at the lower price the supermarket is still likely to be making a profit on the sale.
One supermarket was importing Levis from the US and the cost was much lower, a high court battle ensued and the supermarket lost.
"Globalization" apparently isn't intended to be for the benefit of retailerss, let alone individual customers.
Branding sucks, you don't see Intel, AMD or Microsoft complaining about where their products are sold.
I'm sure Microsoft would kick up a huge fuss if someone tried to do this with their software.
Native Americans arnt white republican gun toting christians, you know like jesus was. Someone once told me he was a jew. That person was probably a liberal.
Jesus wasn't white either. No doubt many of these supposed "Christians" would horrified by the fact that the real Jesus probably looked like an Arab.
The Constitution does not give the fedgov power to declare any essentially private behavior "illegal," and all "laws" contrary to the Constitution are null and void. The DMCA is unconstitutional on its face - it openly contradicts the 1st Amendment. Hence, it is null and void, and, therefore, circumventing copyright protection in and of itself is NOT illegal.
The problem is that until the US Supreme court decides a law is unconsitutional it tends to be treated as valid. Wonder what happens if anyone was punished under a law subsequently found to be unconsitutional.
There is also something of a big loophole in that nothing apparenly prevents the US Congress from passing laws blatently against the US Constitution.
Well, that's great, except that up until 9/11 no one imagined that an airliner could be used.
Nonsense. A disgruntled Fed-Ex employee actually tried such a thing years before. Several authors came up with the sanario in books. Fox television had an attempt to crash an airliner in to 2WTC as a major part of their X-Files spinoff series.
What apparently no-one had imagined was that it would be possible to do this with several planes right under the nose of NORAD.
That's a very interesting point. I suspect that the answer is that critical infrastructure such as airports would eventually have to move away from easy targets like big cities, and flight paths would just avoid them completely, with any aircraft heading for one triggering alarm bells.
The further away from cities airports are the less use they are for transporting people and cargo.
Yep, and that is why this hysteria for perfect safety is dangerous. It makes people think 1) it is possible, and 2) it is worth any cost to achieve.
People have a level of risk which they are comfortable with. In an environment which is "too safe" people will behave recklessly.
I'm sorry, but this is a very poor description of the TCAS system. First of all, you assume both aircraft are so equipped. What if one of the planes is a small Cessna -- it has no TCAS.
A light aircraft is in trouble even if it dosn't actually hit a much larger aircraft.
Second, even if they "chat", the only resolution may be for one plane to turn into a "soft wall". Third, they do NOT move anything automatically. They issue a warning and tell the pilot what to do. It is the pilot's responsibility to decide if that is the best course of action.
As recently demonstrated TCAS is not foolproof, especially if the pilots are being given contrary information from ATC. Do they listen to the machine or the human?
When you create a system like this, you have to imagine the likely failure modes, and then imagine the new failure modes it introduces. Like, "pilot MUST turn into a wall to avoid a collision with another aircraft, cannot, and they hit"
How is the pilot likely to react when they attempt to turn and the plane suddenly does not respond as expected. Whilst various alarms age going off warning of impending collision.
The problem with this idea, besides emotional coercion as others have mentioned, is that airplane doors are actually designed to blow out so that pressure can be quickly equalized throughout the cabin and cockpit. This is the reason that the old cockpit doors were so flimsy, and is the reason why even the new security doors are equipped with blow out panels.
Similarly aircraft now have systems to ensure that preasure between the cabin and the cargo hold stays the same. Especially if the flight controls run under the cabin floor.
Unless the cockpit and cabin were individually pressurized putting a solid wall in place would be a huge safely risk.
Such a wall would need to be capable of acting as a preasure bulkhead. Also you still have the risk of what happens if the cockpit area is depreasurised.
There was that crash in I don't remember where, but it was on video flipping end over end, about half the people died.
The plane crashed at Souix City, Iowa.
That plane completely lost the hydraulics, and was flown, and very difficultly, by varying the speed of the engines to make turns (astoundingly clever). Anyhoo, that system might have spelled certain doom for them.
Probably wouldn't have made any difference, since this system operates through the usual flight controls.
How often, in the 40 odd years of commercial air travel, has an engine (or any failure) caused a commercial aircraft to crash in a 'densly' populated area? The only one I can only think of was Air Florida Flight 90 -- it hit the 14th street bridge and went into the Potomac.
The cause of the crash here was a failure on the part of the flight crew.
More recently there was the crash of the Airbus in New York. Last I heard the airline and the manufacturer are still arguing about who was responsible. Though IMHO it does appear rather pointless to have a rudder control which becomes much more sensitive the moment the plane leaves the ground.