Re:English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 1
There are 2 thoughts there, thats why there are commas.
That's lovely. Moronic, but lovely. Here, try this. Here's the full sentence:
Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the principle theme of the Peeters report."
What is the *subject* of this sentence?
English was my worst subject in school
Quelle suprise (That's French for 'No shit?').
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth...
It took me three tries to figure out what this sentence was saying. The authors of Plane Simple Truth are known as the Peeters report?
They have to take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. However, if there is a counter claim then they can reinstate it since it has then become a problem for the courts.
Where does this notion come from?
They do not *have to* take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. The DMCA says that if you get a takedown notice, and comply with it, you get to enjoy the law's safe harbor protection against civil action. You're not required to comply with a takedown, even a legitimate one, you just open yourself to lawsuits if you don't. Similarly, if you don't comply with the counter-takedown claim, you again open yourself to additional legal action. The DMCA neither requires you to comply with a takedown notice nor with a counter-takedown notice. YouTube doesn't "have to take it down." They chose to take it down based upon claims that in many cases facially constitution perjury.
However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not
That is absolutely false. YouTube isn't required to do anything of the sort. What the DMCA says is that if you're issued a takedown notice, and you comply, then you're shielded from certain actions by the DMCA. If you don't comply, well, you just don't have the DMCA's protection against further possible legal troubles. Similarly, if you take down content in compliance with a takedown notice, and then receive an counter-takedown notice, and comply with that, then you are likewise shielded against certain liabilities by the DCMA. If you choose to ignore the counter-takedown notice, then again, you're simply no longer shielded by the DCMA.
But in neither case does the DCMA *require you* to comply. It just says that if you don't, you're legally vulnerable. YouTube isn't required by law to heed takedown notices, justified or not. They're just taking advantage of the DCMA's ass-covering provisions when they do heed them.
In the case of a completely unjustified, facially invalid takedown notice, it's entirely reasonable to criticize them for complying with it. No law *requires* them to do so.
Yeah, the midichlorians really threw the spirituality/mythology themes under the bus.
Not just that. The Force used to be an egalitarian concept. Dirt farmer on Tatooine, aristocrat, smuggler, it didn't matter. You could *learn* the Force. Obi Wan even offers to teach *Han* how to use it.
The midichlorian changed it from being a mark of aristocracy, a bloodline. If you aren't born one of the chosen, you're cut off from it. Tough luck. It's the exact opposite of how it started out.
You *do* have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, like if there's a *fire*.
I really wish more of the people who quote that phrase as a limit on free speech realized that it was an argument made by the Supreme Court justifying the criminal prosecution of a man who was handing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
Here's why it's not about free speech: you don't have the right to speak using someone else's property. Not because of some bogus rationale made up to support a heinous miscarriage of justice.
I don't know what happened to the guy in the first story, but the charges in that Carlisle case were dropped:
'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"
Then help support the change from copper wire in your house to copper clad aluminum or other abundant metal. the problem with aluminum wiring was the corrosion problem as aluminum corrodes fast,
That's completely false.
The problem with aluminum wiring is that it has a way larger coefficient of thermal expansion than copper does. That expansion would loosen screw connections, which would increase resistance, which would make the wire hotter, so the screw connection gets looser, and then you'd get fires.
Or, it would heat up, try to expand, but the portion under the screw head or clamp couldn't get larger, so it would bulge out from the fitting. Then, later on when there's not as much load, it contracts, but now a portion of it is lying outside the connector, so you've a bit of a gap. Sparking, heating, later rinse repeat, and then you'd get fires.
Tilt the sail. In one direction, it will increase your tangential velocity, and raise your orbit. In another direction, it will decrease your tangential velocity, and lower your orbit.
.. The plans for heel-strike generation follow successful trials last year at a bridge in the Midlands where generators converted energy from trains passing above into electricity powering a flood detector.'
That couldn't possibly be more efficient than just plugging the flood detector into the same source that powers the trains.
Probably the one they already use to charge violators such as Howard Stern, as well as the That's a much lower threshold, and they get to regulate that based upon time of day: you can say things at night when children aren't likely to be listening that you can't say during the day when violators' station of origin, up to US$250K per incident.
Wrong. Those are indecency statutes, not obscenity ones.
Again, if the FCC is drawing the line at obscenity over a free broadcast network, then that is *more lenient* than the current situation, not less.
That's a trivial statement. Courts rule on obvious matters all the time; the fact that a given individual might be ignorant as to what's obvious from a legal standpoint is completely irrelevant both to the definition and to the rulings.
No, it's not. Note that pornography is entirely legal and protected speech. For something to be obscene, it has to meet all three of those criteria, not just one. Sex is certainly not obscene, and most depictions of sex are also not obscene.
Yes. A work must meet *all three* criteria, not just one, which means obscene material is few and far between. There was one case where a store owner was on trial for selling obscene movies, until the store's receipts showed that most of the customers were people in the local community, which meant that what he was selling no longer met criteria #1.
Again, obscenity isn't protected speech. The FCC gets to regulate broadcast networks. You *already* can't broadcast obscene material on radio or television (not cable, not satellite, free *broadcast* television), a ham radio, a walkie-talkie, or anything that falls under their jurisdiction, and court cases show that they can go after even *indecent* material, not just obscenity.
They already do this. You can't broadcast obscene material on ABC, either. They even take it *beyond* obscenity there. Drawing the line at obscenity is a *liberalization* of current practice.
I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:
1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest 2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law 3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Such material isn't protected speech. I think it should be, but there you go: it's hardly surprising that the FCC doesn't want it on a freely-accessible broadcast network. It's an infinitely more reasonable position for them to take than if they were demanding that providers filter "indecent" material, which is a) protected speech and b) has no strict legal definition.
and the mechanism for resizing the text input box making a choice arbitrarily (or optimizing for UI simplicity) among the usable possibilities is probably the correct design decision.
Why? I can't imagine that a text input box that arbitrarily changes size on the fly as I type would be anything but visually distracting and annoying. It's quite unlike any other thing that people read, from books to Chick tracts to this comment field I'm entering text into right now. I've never seen a text editor on any OS do that (of course, someone will now point out several); why is breaking with such a fundamental expectation of how text entry works, and providing additional visual distraction to the task of text entry, "probably the correct design decision"? If it were, I'd think someone else would have come to that conclusion by now.
But at 10G, the crew's probably not going to be conscious to operated that manual system. 10G is enough to cause G-induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) in anyone, even physically fit, properly trained, and prepared personnel. Even fighter aircraft, where the pilot is in a properly reclined position and is wearing a g-suit, limit maneuvering to 9g, because after that, that pilot's asleep.
Well, kinda. An IC engine is running most efficiently when it's cramming as much air and fuel into its cylinders as it can, burning as much fuel as it can, because if it's *not* doing that, then you're carrying around more engine than you need.
So, all else being equal, if you want to optimize for fuel efficiency, you go for an underpowered engine. Yes, acceleration will suck, but the engine will be spending proportionally more time at peak efficiency, because you have to keep the thing floored just to pull away from a stoplight. Take a look at cars that have optimized for fuel efficiency; things like the Geo Metro could get 50mpg 15 years ago, because they had lawnmower engines in them. Sure, you've got to run them flat-out to do anything with them, but when doing that you're in the most efficient operating regime for that engine.
A 400-horsepower engine that you never take above 3000rpm is going to kill you in terms of mileage, because you're barely straining it, and you're hauling around a lot of dead weight.
Now, increases in *specific power* mean you can improve fuel economy, because now for a given design peak power, you can use a smaller plant. But modifications that simply increase peak power are going to waste fuel, all else being equal.
Yeah, your guess sucks. Advances in engine technology have been utterly remarkable over the past several decades, to the point where Honda can squeeze well over 200 horsepower out of a naturally-aspirated 2-liter 4-cylinder engine. Specific power has increased by incredible amounts since the cars the poster was referring to.
Cars have gained ridiculous amounts of weight since the 1960s, but that's not because of the engines.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 2 thoughts there, thats why there are commas.
That's lovely. Moronic, but lovely. Here, try this. Here's the full sentence:
Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the principle theme of the Peeters report."
What is the *subject* of this sentence?
English was my worst subject in school
Quelle suprise (That's French for 'No shit?').
Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth...
It took me three tries to figure out what this sentence was saying. The authors of Plane Simple Truth are known as the Peeters report?
They have to take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. However, if there is a counter claim then they can reinstate it since it has then become a problem for the courts.
Where does this notion come from?
They do not *have to* take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. The DMCA says that if you get a takedown notice, and comply with it, you get to enjoy the law's safe harbor protection against civil action. You're not required to comply with a takedown, even a legitimate one, you just open yourself to lawsuits if you don't. Similarly, if you don't comply with the counter-takedown claim, you again open yourself to additional legal action. The DMCA neither requires you to comply with a takedown notice nor with a counter-takedown notice. YouTube doesn't "have to take it down." They chose to take it down based upon claims that in many cases facially constitution perjury.
However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not
That is absolutely false. YouTube isn't required to do anything of the sort. What the DMCA says is that if you're issued a takedown notice, and you comply, then you're shielded from certain actions by the DMCA. If you don't comply, well, you just don't have the DMCA's protection against further possible legal troubles. Similarly, if you take down content in compliance with a takedown notice, and then receive an counter-takedown notice, and comply with that, then you are likewise shielded against certain liabilities by the DCMA. If you choose to ignore the counter-takedown notice, then again, you're simply no longer shielded by the DCMA.
But in neither case does the DCMA *require you* to comply. It just says that if you don't, you're legally vulnerable. YouTube isn't required by law to heed takedown notices, justified or not. They're just taking advantage of the DCMA's ass-covering provisions when they do heed them.
In the case of a completely unjustified, facially invalid takedown notice, it's entirely reasonable to criticize them for complying with it. No law *requires* them to do so.
Can it handle 14-bit RAW files of the sort that Picasa 2.0 chokes on?
They have a M.U.L.E. I hope they're prepared for space pirates.
Yeah, the midichlorians really threw the spirituality/mythology themes under the bus.
Not just that. The Force used to be an egalitarian concept. Dirt farmer on Tatooine, aristocrat, smuggler, it didn't matter. You could *learn* the Force. Obi Wan even offers to teach *Han* how to use it.
The midichlorian changed it from being a mark of aristocracy, a bloodline. If you aren't born one of the chosen, you're cut off from it. Tough luck. It's the exact opposite of how it started out.
You *do* have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, like if there's a *fire*.
I really wish more of the people who quote that phrase as a limit on free speech realized that it was an argument made by the Supreme Court justifying the criminal prosecution of a man who was handing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
Here's why it's not about free speech: you don't have the right to speak using someone else's property. Not because of some bogus rationale made up to support a heinous miscarriage of justice.
I don't know what happened to the guy in the first story, but the charges in that Carlisle case were dropped:
Then help support the change from copper wire in your house to copper clad aluminum or other abundant metal. the problem with aluminum wiring was the corrosion problem as aluminum corrodes fast,
That's completely false.
The problem with aluminum wiring is that it has a way larger coefficient of thermal expansion than copper does. That expansion would loosen screw connections, which would increase resistance, which would make the wire hotter, so the screw connection gets looser, and then you'd get fires.
Or, it would heat up, try to expand, but the portion under the screw head or clamp couldn't get larger, so it would bulge out from the fitting. Then, later on when there's not as much load, it contracts, but now a portion of it is lying outside the connector, so you've a bit of a gap. Sparking, heating, later rinse repeat, and then you'd get fires.
Tilt the sail. In one direction, it will increase your tangential velocity, and raise your orbit. In another direction, it will decrease your tangential velocity, and lower your orbit.
.. The plans for heel-strike generation follow successful trials last year at a bridge in the Midlands where generators converted energy from trains passing above into electricity powering a flood detector.'
That couldn't possibly be more efficient than just plugging the flood detector into the same source that powers the trains.
I'm impressed that for once dad's butt prevented the release of toxic g-
They hired Stephen King to do level design?
Probably the one they already use to charge violators such as Howard Stern, as well as the That's a much lower threshold, and they get to regulate that based upon time of day: you can say things at night when children aren't likely to be listening that you can't say during the day when violators' station of origin, up to US$250K per incident.
Wrong. Those are indecency statutes, not obscenity ones.
Again, if the FCC is drawing the line at obscenity over a free broadcast network, then that is *more lenient* than the current situation, not less.
That's a trivial statement. Courts rule on obvious matters all the time; the fact that a given individual might be ignorant as to what's obvious from a legal standpoint is completely irrelevant both to the definition and to the rulings.
You think thats clear?
Yes. Again, *all fucking three criteria* must be met. Taken as a whole, all together, there's hardly anything that qualifies.
Who decides what has or lacks serious artistic value?
Um...the court does, just like the court decides the other facts that are brought before it.
Does Mein Kampf? Does Catcher in the Rye? What about the US Constitution?
That's a big, obvious, you-can't-possible-be-serious "no" to all three.
Sex is obscene
No, it's not. Note that pornography is entirely legal and protected speech. For something to be obscene, it has to meet all three of those criteria, not just one. Sex is certainly not obscene, and most depictions of sex are also not obscene.
You call that clear?
Yes. A work must meet *all three* criteria, not just one, which means obscene material is few and far between. There was one case where a store owner was on trial for selling obscene movies, until the store's receipts showed that most of the customers were people in the local community, which meant that what he was selling no longer met criteria #1.
Again, obscenity isn't protected speech. The FCC gets to regulate broadcast networks. You *already* can't broadcast obscene material on radio or television (not cable, not satellite, free *broadcast* television), a ham radio, a walkie-talkie, or anything that falls under their jurisdiction, and court cases show that they can go after even *indecent* material, not just obscenity.
first establish censoring on a free network,
They already do this. You can't broadcast obscene material on ABC, either. They even take it *beyond* obscenity there. Drawing the line at obscenity is a *liberalization* of current practice.
I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:
1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Such material isn't protected speech. I think it should be, but there you go: it's hardly surprising that the FCC doesn't want it on a freely-accessible broadcast network. It's an infinitely more reasonable position for them to take than if they were demanding that providers filter "indecent" material, which is a) protected speech and b) has no strict legal definition.
and the mechanism for resizing the text input box making a choice arbitrarily (or optimizing for UI simplicity) among the usable possibilities is probably the correct design decision.
Why? I can't imagine that a text input box that arbitrarily changes size on the fly as I type would be anything but visually distracting and annoying. It's quite unlike any other thing that people read, from books to Chick tracts to this comment field I'm entering text into right now. I've never seen a text editor on any OS do that (of course, someone will now point out several); why is breaking with such a fundamental expectation of how text entry works, and providing additional visual distraction to the task of text entry, "probably the correct design decision"? If it were, I'd think someone else would have come to that conclusion by now.
But at 10G, the crew's probably not going to be conscious to operated that manual system. 10G is enough to cause G-induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) in anyone, even physically fit, properly trained, and prepared personnel. Even fighter aircraft, where the pilot is in a properly reclined position and is wearing a g-suit, limit maneuvering to 9g, because after that, that pilot's asleep.
Well, kinda. An IC engine is running most efficiently when it's cramming as much air and fuel into its cylinders as it can, burning as much fuel as it can, because if it's *not* doing that, then you're carrying around more engine than you need.
So, all else being equal, if you want to optimize for fuel efficiency, you go for an underpowered engine. Yes, acceleration will suck, but the engine will be spending proportionally more time at peak efficiency, because you have to keep the thing floored just to pull away from a stoplight. Take a look at cars that have optimized for fuel efficiency; things like the Geo Metro could get 50mpg 15 years ago, because they had lawnmower engines in them. Sure, you've got to run them flat-out to do anything with them, but when doing that you're in the most efficient operating regime for that engine.
A 400-horsepower engine that you never take above 3000rpm is going to kill you in terms of mileage, because you're barely straining it, and you're hauling around a lot of dead weight.
Now, increases in *specific power* mean you can improve fuel economy, because now for a given design peak power, you can use a smaller plant. But modifications that simply increase peak power are going to waste fuel, all else being equal.
Yeah, your guess sucks. Advances in engine technology have been utterly remarkable over the past several decades, to the point where Honda can squeeze well over 200 horsepower out of a naturally-aspirated 2-liter 4-cylinder engine. Specific power has increased by incredible amounts since the cars the poster was referring to.
Cars have gained ridiculous amounts of weight since the 1960s, but that's not because of the engines.