Copyright infringement occurs when you copy someone else's protected work.
Really?
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
.2 volts is not going to make a difference. Anything with "complex electronic chips" is likely going to be voltage-regulated anyway, even if it's just with a Zener.
opps, wait a minute, Privacy isn't expressly listed in the Constitution either.
It doesn't have to be. The Constitution serves to expressly detail the few powers that the Federal government actually has, and the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If you don't get that, you shouldn't be engaging in Constitutional analysis.
So, finishing the math: using 15% efficiency solar cells, the Average US Household needs only 40 square meters (430 square feet) of solar cells to cover all its energy needs. Heck, I could use 5% solar cells on my roof in downtown San Francisco, and STILL have 2x extra capacity to sell back to the grid!
That's great, if all you care about is area and are willing to ignore capital investment and maintenance costs.
The claim in the article was 120 watts per *square inch*, not square foot, so '3 or 4' of those lenses *still* doesn't bring you anywhere close. You're gonna need a *big honking lens* to increase the sunlight falling on a single square inch of the panel by a factor of 186, and the panel in the story was something like 11' by 14' in size.
I reiterate: Go calculate the size of the lens you'd need to increase the incident solar radiation on that panel by a factor of 186, figure out how expensive that lens would be, and get back to me.
Now calculate how big a focusing lens you'd have to make to come up with that factor of 186, and then figure out how much size and expense it would add to the system. Then you'll find out that "easily" is a word that doesn't really apply.
Not to mention that TFA made no mention whatsoever of a focusing lens.
Whoa, good catch. According to this article, they're delivering approximately 186 times as much energy from their panels as is actually falling on the panels in the form of incident solar radiation.
It most certainly does *not.* Insolation at *Earth's orbit* is only 1.3 kilowatts per square meter, so it can't possibly be greater than that at the Earth's surface without some kind of focusing array.
6 kilowatts per square meter? That's a 'you must be on crack' figure.
On average the extraterrestrial irradiance is 1367 Watts/meter2 (W/m2).
[...]
Near noon on a day without clouds, about 25% of the solar radiation is scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere. Therefore about 1000 w/m2 of the incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface without being significantly scattered.
Note that that's *peak*. Averaged over, say, a year, which includes periods where the sun doesn't shine at all ("night"), as well as periods where it's not high noon on a cloudless day, and average insolation falls quite a bit. This site claims a yearly average for central Australia of 5.89 kilowatt-hours per meter per day, which (if my conversion is right), breaks down to an *average* insolation of 245 watts. So just flat-out double that to get rid of the night time, and you're getting an average value of about 500 watts in one of the sunniest, hottest places on the planet.
You'd probably change your mind about that immediately after the government decides to confiscate your land so the local mall can enlarge its parking lot.
But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous.
Well, sure, but to think that conventional print methods will automagically give you the right information is just ridiculous. Just because something shows up in a book or an article doesn't mean it's correct.
To which people will say "What about peer review?" Well, sure, that's lovely and helpful, but to think that peer review will automagically provide you with the right information is just ridiculous. Look at Bellesiles, who received the Bancroft Prize for his book, Arming America, only to be eventually revealed as a fraud. The plagiarism of historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin went unnoticed for years. Alan Sokal took the piss completely out of the peer-reviewed Social Text in a greatly entertaining fashion, and so on.
Regardless of the method by which you obtain sources, there's no automagic wand you can wave and be assured that those sources are accurate. That's why the more important it is that the information is accurate, the more diligence *you* need to undertake in order to ensure that. If it's a 5th-grade book report, going to the Brittanica or Wikipedia is probably just fine, but if you're looking on how to build a building that won't fall down, you use more reliable methods of scholarship.
I'm not sure how the existence of Google or Wikipedia changes this simple fact of epistemology.
So far, the main impediment to building the tower has been the cost, with estimates ranging from $500 million to $750 million. Davey won't say how much the project will ultimately cost but said the company is considering two new engineering innovations that will reduce construction costs and improve efficiency.
Let's assume they don't hit any overruns and go with their minimum estimate of a half billion dollars. That's for 200 megawatts of generation capacity.
That breaks down to 125 acres and $2.5 million dollars per megawatt.
You can build a Westinghouse AP1000 advanced light water reactor at around $1400 per kilowatt, assuming you build 2 at a site. That includes design, engineering, and licensing for the first two plants. Cost for 200 megawatts would be only 280 million, and would take up far far less than 25,000 acres. GE's advanced boiling water reactors, which are already cranking out megawatts in Japan, could be build in the US for $1300/kilowatt, again assuming two per site.
Nobody builds nuclear reactors that small, of course, so those estimates are really for plants of about 1500 megawatts capacity.
The expenditures for this solar tower are *still* way out of line, even assuming their best-case estimates are correct.
One of the great benefits to society of free speech is it makes it easy to spot the idiots.
If someone's a racist asshole, better for all involved for him to be openly proclaiming his assholishness on a street corner for all to hear than for him to be keeping it to himself in his basement. In either case, his actions will be informed by his racism, but in the former case, that fact is obvious.
The very *existence* of a corporation is regulated influence on the market. A corporation is a *legally-created* entity; absent the laws which allow them to exist, you'd just have a mass of individuals wholly liable for their actions.
That's something I rarely see free-marketers mention.
I followed your link, and it doesn't say what you say it does. Using 'earth flats' for calibration purposes does not entail using the telescope to look at the earth.
PP was correct; focusing earthlight through Hubble would zorch many components.
It's not that there's a virus piggybacked on the.rar, which you infect yourself with by unraring the.rar, it's that they're sending around.rared viruses, which you infect yourself wih if you unrar and then execute them.
Not seeing the problem, aside from the same old 'don't go happy-assing around executing any damn old executable that someone emails you.'
Why does it force anyone to not be stupid? Surely you're not talking about MAD, which is not only a grotesque oversimplification of the nuclear strategy pursued during the cold war, but also becomes exponentially less stable a game with each new player at the table.
Let's say a nuclear bomb explodes in Haifa or Tel Aviv tomorrow.
Who do you retaliate against? With only two nuclear powers, it's a relatively easy choice to decide who was responsible.
What about with three? Four? Seven? Some of whom are demonstrably unstable and hostile states?
The concern isn't that North Korea will do something "stupid" with their bombs in an obvious and overt fashion. The concern is that North Korea will do something with their bombs by proxy, or in an attempt to implicate a third party.
It forces all sides to not be stupid.
You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim. Why do you think nukes which can spread that same level of suffering outside his own borders will?
This becomes less significant an issue when you start to realize the piddling amounts of waste produced, and understand that whatever we do with it, it's better than what we're currently doing with the wastes produced in conventional power plants.
The 104 nuclear pants currently operating in the US generate about 2000 tons of high-level waste per year. And that's dense stuff, very tiny in volume, about equal to 15 acre-feet. In 2003, those reactors generated about 800 billion kilowatt-hours, at about 90% capacity. So for every megawatt-hour of energy produced, you're generating 5 pounds of high-level waste.
That is fundamentally trivial. No, not ignorable, but it's nowhere near so big a problem as you make it out to be. Wrap in in concrete or lead, and I would gladly take all the high-level waste produced in the generation of all the electricity I will *ever* use, and keep it in my basement.
Why? 'cause it's a small price to pay to clean up all the crud we're dumping into the air, which is what we do with the waste we produce right now. See, every single kilowatt-hour you get from burning coal, you dump 2.3 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. 800,000 megawatts from coal? You just worsened global warming to the tune of 920,000 tons of carbon dioxide. You're also dumping out sulphur and nitrogen oxides, all sorts of toxic crud. Sure, it gets distributed into the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean it stops killing people. There are thousands of people dying every year as a result of that pollution. And that doesn't count the stuff that actually gets scrubbed out of the emissions. Lead, arsenic, other crud. Radiation comes and goes, but arsenic is forever. What do we do with *that* stuff now, and why is *that* okay?
And, hey, you get radiation emissions with coal, too. Coal's got a lot of thorium in it, and sometimes up to 10ppm of uranium, which in turn contains the standard percentage of U235. Since 1937, burning coal in the US alone has put 145,000 tons of uranium and 357,000 tons of thorium into the atmosphere. The radiation in those isotopes is just as real as the radiation in high-level waste, and rest assured that when you distribute it through the global ecology you cause real cancers that kill real people.
Now, that 145,000 tons of uranium wasted by burning that coal? That includes 10,440 tons of U235, which if fissioned totally would produce 17.6 kilotons per kilogram of energy. That's 193 petawatt hours, or the same as the entire current electrical needs of the United Kingdom for 500 years.
That all went right up the smokestack, 'cause folks don't know what we'd do with the nuclear waste we'd generate if we fissioned it, instead.
It's ridiculous to hold up this technology because we're concerned about the waste it would generate, when the unbelievably greater amounts of lethal waste we're generating now are ignored solely because they're dispersed around the planet rather than being concentrated in a single pit in the ground. No. Fucking. Sense.
That's because the lines reflect the correct proportions. When he sticks them on the screwed-up head, they show up in screwed-up places. In other words, the 'top of head' line reflects where the 'top of head' would be if they eyes were in the middle of the head, like they should be.
The most glaring error in the fabrication of this thing isn't the age, whatever that is, it's that the image of Christ doesn't even begin to indicate the facial proportions of a normal human being. On human faces, the eyes are approximately in the middle of the head; we get the impression that they're higher than that, but that's only because we put so much emphasis on the eyes and mouth, and not so much on the forehead. But, really, the eyes are almost exactly in the middle of the head.
The face depicted on the Shroud simply isn't that of a real person. The eyes are about 2/3rds of the way up, like it's a cartoon, or something drawn/painted by someone who wasn't very conversant with real human anatomy.
Here's a brief, but good depiction of what I'm talking about.
Doesn't matter how old this rag is, it's not a real person pictured on it.
Your blood is at a higher pressure than the outside environment. A typical blood pressure might be 75/120. The "75" part of this means that between heartbeats, the blood is at a pressure of 75 Torr (equal to about 100 mbar) above the external pressure. If the external pressure drops to zero, at a blood pressure of 75 Torr the boiling point of water is 46 degrees Celsius (115 F). This is well above body temperature of 37 C (98.6 F). Blood won't boil, because the elastic pressure of the blood vessels keeps it it a pressure high enough that the body temperature is below the boiling point-- at least, until the heart stops beating (at which point you have other things to worry about!). (To be more pedantic, blood pressure varies depending on where in the body it is measured, so the above statement should be understood as a generalization. However, the effect of small pockets of localized vapor is to increase the pressure. In places where the blood pressure is lowest, the vapor pressure will rise until equilibrium is reached. The net result is the same.)
Yes, blood that leaves your body will begin to boil. That's not what we were talking about, which was blood *inside* your body.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement occurs when you copy someone else's protected work.
Really?
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Emphasis mine.
.2 volts is not going to make a difference. Anything with "complex electronic chips" is likely going to be voltage-regulated anyway, even if it's just with a Zener.
opps, wait a minute, Privacy isn't expressly listed in the Constitution either.
It doesn't have to be. The Constitution serves to expressly detail the few powers that the Federal government actually has, and the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If you don't get that, you shouldn't be engaging in Constitutional analysis.
So, finishing the math: using 15% efficiency solar cells, the Average US Household needs only 40 square meters (430 square feet) of solar cells to cover all its energy needs. Heck, I could use 5% solar cells on my roof in downtown San Francisco, and STILL have 2x extra capacity to sell back to the grid!
That's great, if all you care about is area and are willing to ignore capital investment and maintenance costs.
Why stop there? Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, the list goes on.
Seriously, if you're looking for a good moral compass, you could do worse than heading in the opposite direction of wherever it is France is headed.
They are provably not anything like a poison though.
Everything is like a poison. The difference between a poison and a non-poison is dosage.
You can overdose on water, and die from it. At sufficiently high pressures, oxygen becomes toxic to breathe.
Everything is like a poison.
Or even "You're not using contractions properly, KDN"?
The Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, even though that's an equally clear violation of free speech rights.
WTF?
The claim in the article was 120 watts per *square inch*, not square foot, so '3 or 4' of those lenses *still* doesn't bring you anywhere close. You're gonna need a *big honking lens* to increase the sunlight falling on a single square inch of the panel by a factor of 186, and the panel in the story was something like 11' by 14' in size.
I reiterate: Go calculate the size of the lens you'd need to increase the incident solar radiation on that panel by a factor of 186, figure out how expensive that lens would be, and get back to me.
Now calculate how big a focusing lens you'd have to make to come up with that factor of 186, and then figure out how much size and expense it would add to the system. Then you'll find out that "easily" is a word that doesn't really apply.
Not to mention that TFA made no mention whatsoever of a focusing lens.
Whoa, good catch. According to this article, they're delivering approximately 186 times as much energy from their panels as is actually falling on the panels in the form of incident solar radiation.
Either one hell of a typo, or Nobel prize time.
6 kilowatts per square meter? That's a 'you must be on crack' figure.
Here are some actual numbers:
Note that that's *peak*. Averaged over, say, a year, which includes periods where the sun doesn't shine at all ("night"), as well as periods where it's not high noon on a cloudless day, and average insolation falls quite a bit. This site claims a yearly average for central Australia of 5.89 kilowatt-hours per meter per day, which (if my conversion is right), breaks down to an *average* insolation of 245 watts. So just flat-out double that to get rid of the night time, and you're getting an average value of about 500 watts in one of the sunniest, hottest places on the planet.
You'd probably change your mind about that immediately after the government decides to confiscate your land so the local mall can enlarge its parking lot.
But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous.
Well, sure, but to think that conventional print methods will automagically give you the right information is just ridiculous. Just because something shows up in a book or an article doesn't mean it's correct.
To which people will say "What about peer review?" Well, sure, that's lovely and helpful, but to think that peer review will automagically provide you with the right information is just ridiculous. Look at Bellesiles, who received the Bancroft Prize for his book, Arming America, only to be eventually revealed as a fraud. The plagiarism of historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin went unnoticed for years. Alan Sokal took the piss completely out of the peer-reviewed Social Text in a greatly entertaining fashion, and so on.
Regardless of the method by which you obtain sources, there's no automagic wand you can wave and be assured that those sources are accurate. That's why the more important it is that the information is accurate, the more diligence *you* need to undertake in order to ensure that. If it's a 5th-grade book report, going to the Brittanica or Wikipedia is probably just fine, but if you're looking on how to build a building that won't fall down, you use more reliable methods of scholarship.
I'm not sure how the existence of Google or Wikipedia changes this simple fact of epistemology.
Let's assume they don't hit any overruns and go with their minimum estimate of a half billion dollars. That's for 200 megawatts of generation capacity.
That breaks down to 125 acres and $2.5 million dollars per megawatt.
You can build a Westinghouse AP1000 advanced light water reactor at around $1400 per kilowatt, assuming you build 2 at a site. That includes design, engineering, and licensing for the first two plants. Cost for 200 megawatts would be only 280 million, and would take up far far less than 25,000 acres. GE's advanced boiling water reactors, which are already cranking out megawatts in Japan, could be build in the US for $1300/kilowatt, again assuming two per site.
Nobody builds nuclear reactors that small, of course, so those estimates are really for plants of about 1500 megawatts capacity.
The expenditures for this solar tower are *still* way out of line, even assuming their best-case estimates are correct.
One of the great benefits to society of free speech is it makes it easy to spot the idiots.
If someone's a racist asshole, better for all involved for him to be openly proclaiming his assholishness on a street corner for all to hear than for him to be keeping it to himself in his basement. In either case, his actions will be informed by his racism, but in the former case, that fact is obvious.
The very *existence* of a corporation is regulated influence on the market. A corporation is a *legally-created* entity; absent the laws which allow them to exist, you'd just have a mass of individuals wholly liable for their actions.
That's something I rarely see free-marketers mention.
I followed your link, and it doesn't say what you say it does. Using 'earth flats' for calibration purposes does not entail using the telescope to look at the earth.
PP was correct; focusing earthlight through Hubble would zorch many components.
It's not that there's a virus piggybacked on the .rar, which you infect yourself with by unraring the .rar, it's that they're sending around .rared viruses, which you infect yourself wih if you unrar and then execute them.
Not seeing the problem, aside from the same old 'don't go happy-assing around executing any damn old executable that someone emails you.'
This is nonsense.
Why does it force anyone to not be stupid? Surely you're not talking about MAD, which is not only a grotesque oversimplification of the nuclear strategy pursued during the cold war, but also becomes exponentially less stable a game with each new player at the table.
Let's say a nuclear bomb explodes in Haifa or Tel Aviv tomorrow.
Who do you retaliate against? With only two nuclear powers, it's a relatively easy choice to decide who was responsible.
What about with three? Four? Seven? Some of whom are demonstrably unstable and hostile states?
The concern isn't that North Korea will do something "stupid" with their bombs in an obvious and overt fashion. The concern is that North Korea will do something with their bombs by proxy, or in an attempt to implicate a third party.
It forces all sides to not be stupid.
You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim. Why do you think nukes which can spread that same level of suffering outside his own borders will?
what are we going to do with the waste?
This becomes less significant an issue when you start to realize the piddling amounts of waste produced, and understand that whatever we do with it, it's better than what we're currently doing with the wastes produced in conventional power plants.
The 104 nuclear pants currently operating in the US generate about 2000 tons of high-level waste per year. And that's dense stuff, very tiny in volume, about equal to 15 acre-feet. In 2003, those reactors generated about 800 billion kilowatt-hours, at about 90% capacity. So for every megawatt-hour of energy produced, you're generating 5 pounds of high-level waste.
That is fundamentally trivial. No, not ignorable, but it's nowhere near so big a problem as you make it out to be. Wrap in in concrete or lead, and I would gladly take all the high-level waste produced in the generation of all the electricity I will *ever* use, and keep it in my basement.
Why? 'cause it's a small price to pay to clean up all the crud we're dumping into the air, which is what we do with the waste we produce right now. See, every single kilowatt-hour you get from burning coal, you dump 2.3 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. 800,000 megawatts from coal? You just worsened global warming to the tune of
920,000 tons of carbon dioxide. You're also dumping out sulphur and nitrogen oxides, all sorts of toxic crud. Sure, it gets distributed into the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean it stops killing people. There are thousands of people dying every year as a result of that pollution. And that doesn't count the stuff that actually gets scrubbed out of the emissions. Lead, arsenic, other crud. Radiation comes and goes, but arsenic is forever. What do we do with *that* stuff now, and why is *that* okay?
And, hey, you get radiation emissions with coal, too. Coal's got a lot of thorium in it, and sometimes up to 10ppm of uranium, which in turn contains the standard percentage of U235. Since 1937, burning coal in the US alone has put 145,000 tons of uranium and 357,000 tons of thorium into the atmosphere. The radiation in those isotopes is just as real as the radiation in high-level waste, and rest assured that when you distribute it through the global ecology you cause real cancers that kill real people.
Now, that 145,000 tons of uranium wasted by burning that coal? That includes 10,440 tons of U235, which if fissioned totally would produce 17.6 kilotons per kilogram of energy. That's 193 petawatt hours, or the same as the entire current electrical needs of the United Kingdom for 500 years.
That all went right up the smokestack, 'cause folks don't know what we'd do with the nuclear waste we'd generate if we fissioned it, instead.
It's ridiculous to hold up this technology because we're concerned about the waste it would generate, when the unbelievably greater amounts of lethal waste we're generating now are ignored solely because they're dispersed around the planet rather than being concentrated in a single pit in the ground. No. Fucking. Sense.
That's because the lines reflect the correct proportions. When he sticks them on the screwed-up head, they show up in screwed-up places. In other words, the 'top of head' line reflects where the 'top of head' would be if they eyes were in the middle of the head, like they should be.
The most glaring error in the fabrication of this thing isn't the age, whatever that is, it's that the image of Christ doesn't even begin to indicate the facial proportions of a normal human being. On human faces, the eyes are approximately in the middle of the head; we get the impression that they're higher than that, but that's only because we put so much emphasis on the eyes and mouth, and not so much on the forehead. But, really, the eyes are almost exactly in the middle of the head.
The face depicted on the Shroud simply isn't that of a real person. The eyes are about 2/3rds of the way up, like it's a cartoon, or something drawn/painted by someone who wasn't very conversant with real human anatomy.
Here's a brief, but good depiction of what I'm talking about.
Doesn't matter how old this rag is, it's not a real person pictured on it.
Yes, blood that leaves your body will begin to boil. That's not what we were talking about, which was blood *inside* your body.
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?