You might want to read up on the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Before they can be "spanked in court", seriously or otherwise, they must be proven to have ignored a takedown order.
> You seem to be advocating that there is naturally both a start and a stop to > advanced species.
To become invisible to SETI a species need not stop existing. It need only stop using narrowband radio. Perhaps 100 years from now we will still be here but will be using only UWB (or perhaps we will have given up radio entirely in favor of something much better).
> You really think a bit of light reflecting off the Earth is going to be more > disruptive than 14 straight days of sunlight?
In the absence of an atmosphere to scatter it that sunlight will not affect observations at all. Do you think that the Hubble only works when it is in the Earth's shadow?
> How about putting one of these in a container the size of a breadbox, and > mounting it above a septic tank in a small village or country farm. Have it > charge a battery as it feeds off the methane produced?
That would be silly. Such applications have no need for the tiny size and therefor no need to pay the extra costs required to achieve it.
Re:Article close to pure crapola!
on
Two Tiny Gas Turbines
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> Methinks some press agent was drinking while on duty.
Methinks some slashdotters have reading comprehension problems. The BBC article which mentions 95% is about a Swiss generator, not a turbine. 95% is quite reasonable for a small generator. The article only mentions turbines in passing, noting that one could be used to drive the generator.
> Now, efficiency is one of those numbers that people play fast and loose with, > so who knows what they actually mean...
It is fairly clear that they mean that the efficiency of the generator at converting mechanical energy into electical energy is 95%. The BBC article where the 95% number appears mentions gas turbines only in passing, noting that one could be used to drive the generator (which is what the article is about, despite what the Slashdot summary says).
A gas turbine is a heat engine and is limited by Carnot efficiency. However, the machine described as being 95% efficient in the BBC article is not a gas turbine. It's a generator.
Slashdot Mirror
It will keep ordinary users from copying. That is its purpose.
> ...they get seriously spanked in court.
You might want to read up on the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Before they can be "spanked in court", seriously or otherwise, they must be proven to have ignored a takedown order.
You might want to read the DMCA.
> why bother? They'll be dead from the nearby nuclear wastes and nuclear winter
> in a short period of time anyway.
From one or two bombs? Right. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did everyone in Japan die? Was there a "nuclear winter"?
Hint: the "nuclear winter" scenario depends on the US and the USSR detonating tens of thousands of fusion bombs.
> It's sure not for South Korea's benefit (they've all but begged us to remove
> them).
Let's see some evidence to support this claim.
> ...or even worse, another Dark Ages.
You mean a period of social stagnation affecting only part of one continent for a few centuries? That's not so terrible.
> You seem to be advocating that there is naturally both a start and a stop to
> advanced species.
To become invisible to SETI a species need not stop existing. It need only stop using narrowband radio. Perhaps 100 years from now we will still be here but will be using only UWB (or perhaps we will have given up radio entirely in favor of something much better).
Except that it is beginning to look like most stars have planets. If so the total is more like a trillion planets.
The subject is _intelligent_ life. Where did Britney Spears come in?
> You really think a bit of light reflecting off the Earth is going to be more
> disruptive than 14 straight days of sunlight?
In the absence of an atmosphere to scatter it that sunlight will not affect observations at all. Do you think that the Hubble only works when it is in the Earth's shadow?
> Can't you just merge it with your lot?
Sure, but it would cost him money. The county will probably eventually "regularize" the parcels by merging them. Let them do it on their dime.
I saw Fox news once when I was visiting my father. I'd rank it somewhere below Radio Moscow in the 1960s on a "fair and balanced" scale.
I have the good fortune to not have the foggiest notion as to what the Daily Show is.
I believe I have heard of the Evening News, though. It stars Walter Cronkite, right?
> how is it possible to feature a story with glaring errors.
New here, aren't you?
> How about putting one of these in a container the size of a breadbox, and
> mounting it above a septic tank in a small village or country farm. Have it
> charge a battery as it feeds off the methane produced?
That would be silly. Such applications have no need for the tiny size and therefor no need to pay the extra costs required to achieve it.
> Methinks some press agent was drinking while on duty.
Methinks some slashdotters have reading comprehension problems. The BBC article which mentions 95% is about a Swiss generator, not a turbine. 95% is quite reasonable for a small generator. The article only mentions turbines in passing, noting that one could be used to drive the generator.
> Yeah, as someone ^ pointed out, its all about the mass.
No, it is _not_ all about the mass. It also about the square of the radius. If you are really an aeronautical engineer you can do the math.
> The Swiss turbine...
Read the damned article. The Swiss device is a generator, not a turbine.
> To say nothing of using one of these for dental work, as alluded to in the
> article.
Perhaps you should read the BBC article. Hint: it isn't about gas turbines.
> Now, efficiency is one of those numbers that people play fast and loose with,
> so who knows what they actually mean...
It is fairly clear that they mean that the efficiency of the generator at converting mechanical energy into electical energy is 95%. The BBC article where the 95% number appears mentions gas turbines only in passing, noting that one could be used to drive the generator (which is what the article is about, despite what the Slashdot summary says).
A gas turbine is a heat engine and is limited by Carnot efficiency. However, the machine described as being 95% efficient in the BBC article is not a gas turbine. It's a generator.
The BBC article is about a _generator_, not a turbine. 95% is quite reasonable for a small generator.
The BBC article is about a generator, not a turbine. The article merely mentions in passing that it could be powered by a turbine.
He's their agent. It's up to them to control him.
Patent infringement is a tort, not a crime.