4) watch Company X's stock value plunge 5) buy up a ton of said stock 6) back off the lawsuit, watch stock value rise back to former levels 7) Profit!!
I had a similar thought -- how is this not just another form of patent trolling? The object is to *profit* from breaking someone else's patent -- that really isn't morally any different from profiting from screwing someone else out of a patent.
I foresee this being used to cost *legit* patents a lot of money, while benefiting no one but the project's founder.
Yeah, always croggles me to see some ginormous Hummer or Suburban that outweighs my truck by 3000 pounds, yet gets "passenger" plates at 1/3 the truck rate!
California, where everything is either fake or done bassackwards:)
I'd think in cases where the objective is unknown or known-unsafe, either because it's full of sniper holes or is about to fall down around you, or when you'd be better off to flush out the surprises rather than discover them in person. Anywhere you really don't want to risk a man and you can't see what you're lobbing that grenade at. Whenever you're already inside a building and there's risk that a grenade might bring it down on your head, yet you can't see what's down that next stairwell. Down holes, into caves, into sewers, anything like that, where it's not an emergency but you need to know what's in there before you commit a soldier's life to it. Cheap little cameras are a lot more expendable. I think the main danger might be getting too dependent on the camera rather than on your own good sense.
For the do-it-now conditions of hot combat, tho, I agree, you won't have the luxury of that much time.
Older cars cost around $50 to register (that's what my '79 Chrysler LeBaron would be if it wasn't non-op'd -- BTW it's for sale, I'd like it to go to someone who would turn it into a show car!) I think that's the minimum fee now.
But about 25 years ago, California voters stupidly decided to soak heavy trucks an extra weight fee -- neglecting to notice that in CA, pickup trucks (even mini-trucks) are classed with 18-wheelers. So my ancient pickup costs about $150/year (about half of that is weight fees), and it keeps creeping upward.
I believe it simply shifts any reasonbly contiguous mass of particles into subspace (that's why it takes your body and your shoes, but leaves the floor behind), where they can explode if they wish and no one will notice.
But this is also why people get stuck in transporters or in warp state whenever there is a subspace explostion -- all that incoming foreign matter screws stuff up.
I'd say it depends on your environment. A weapon whose penetration range is limited to arm's length is probably better when you have only that distressingly thin hull between you and deep space. Provided, of course, the lightsabre's deadman switch is in working order.
Planetside, you don't need to worry about breathing space, but there are other perks and drawbacks of either weapon. If you want to terrorize the native primitives, a distance weapon is a big plus in establishing your godhood. If you just want to participate in that cantina brawl, a lightsabre's short range may be preferable, and as a bonus, it won't ignite the brothel next door.
In fact my first thought after seeing TFA was that this device could readily be used by law enforcement to get around those pesky warrants. Just lob one over the fence and if you're lucky you'll see the perp up to something that you can then bend into probable cause.
Wide open to abuse, should it ever get into civilian LE hands (which it will in due course).
I would argue that the more precautions a given country's military take against hitting "wrong" targets, the longer it takes to win the war. There has to be a balance, or you wind up losing ground especially when an enemy is willing to use civilians as shields.
Is it better to preserve that handful of civilian lives, and lose the entire objective when you're THAT close to winning it -- which in turn would save FUTURE civilian lives?? are the majority of civilians better off if you end the conflict ASAP, even if that means a few civs get killed today? I'm sure experienced commanders consider these things.
"The belief in the concept that the "other side" is evil/bad and 'our side' is good" dates to the first time two rival proto-human tribes duked it out, and probably well before that (considering that chimpanzees also do organized tribal warfare). It's social-animal nature -- "our tribe good, offending tribe bad", whether applied to groups or individuals.
Well, why not lob in an "eyeball grenade" first, and if you don't like the looks of whoever picks it up and throws it back at you, then throw the real thing with zero reaction time left when it hits?
It's not like you can't throw more than one, ya know:)
Yeah, you may lose some element of surprise, but you may also flush out "surprises" you didn't know were lurking.
Efficient in terms of minimal weight from point A to point B. Not so efficient if you need to move significantly more than your own mass, or under less than ideal conditions, or in time compared to distance. (Having biked in extreme wind, rain, and snow conditions, and having hauled heavy loads with a bike, I can attest to that.)
Totally agreed. As the old saw goes, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good." Sometimes good enough is good enough, and "better" is actually worse, or impractical, or unachievable.
This cycles back around to the nominal topic -- sometimes you're better off to NOT rigidly enforce stuff like "no one better touch our trademark". Go through enough motions to keep it secure, yeah, but don't discourage people who WANT to help you promote it. Perfect enforcement is not good law.
[laughing] I had similar thoughts.... and muscle energy isn't even particularly efficient. I wonder how many Kcal it takes for a bicyclist to move, say, a ton of goods for a mile, vs. how many Kcal it takes for a lorry to move the same ton of goods for a mile? remember, the cyclist will have to make many trips, while the lorry makes one.;)
Should also be useful to climatologists, since the ocean currents and their temperature gradients have a profound impact on climate, notably precipitation (frex, El Niño/La Niña).
This isn't the first time such an experiment has been done by any means, but AFAIK it's the first time on this scale. I do find it interesting that rubber ducks seem to have a much better survival rate than more-expensive gadgets (apparently they are both durable and so obviously inedible or tasteless that random critters don't try to lunch or gnaw on them).
Also occurs to me that small recording and GPS-type devices could be inserted without significantly changing the duckies' survival characteristics. Could be a great way to cheaply gather very accurate data on the currents' speed and temperature.
Don't know about any of that... the reason I noticed the death of grandfathering in the first place is because the allowed levels had changed from what they'd been since forever (it's been smogged about 15 times in all) and my truck suddenly got a lot closer to the limit (at least as tested by typically-dirty equipment!)
The '60s muscle cars are probably exempt from smog tests, tho. Originally, any car over 25 years old was exempt. Right about when my truck would have gained that happy status, they changed it to 30 years. I've been told THAT is going to be changed again, tho don't know yet as I wasn't required to smog it this year (it had been on "do it every year, sucker" status for the past 4 years, which I've been told is done for many cars of its age whether they've ever been a "gross polluter" or not).
I don't have anything against clean air, but some parts of the smog testing program are just a waste of consumers' money.:(
Actually, I've asked about calibration etc., and have been repeatedly told, by various shops, that the state is real anal about that. Plus in the past couple years, everyone had to buy new test equipment. But apparently the state's concern does not extend to whether the equipment is clean enough to not itself be a contaminant. (For the record, I've also asked whether dirty equipment could be a factor, and the test owners always say no... well, we disproved that one, didn't we! I'd already suspected; now I'm sure.)
As to grandfathering, that went away a few years ago, and now old vehicles have to pass the same standards as everyone else. I thought this was very unfair, until I discovered that with clean test equipment, my truck's levels test out at only about 1/3rd of the max allowed, rather than hovering right at the top edge.
There are a lot of trademarks that have been lost that way. But I meant lost specifically due to this sort of derivative works, created by fanboys -- NOT due to the use of the word to mean "generic whatever".
[croggling at the thought of "toyota" as the generic word for "automobile"]
Ironically, the shop with clean test equipment is one of the lower-priced ones around! But you betcha, he's got my business henceforth regardless.
Tho much of that lower pricing is probably due to relatively low overhead, since it's located out in an old semi-rural neighbourhood, and the guy owns and lives on the place. I think a couple of his kids work for him, too.
Actually, it does have a catalytic convertor, and CA no longer grandfathers older cars to their original emission standards. It now has to pass the same standards as everyone else, old or new. With the clean test equipment, it came in at about 1/3rd of the allowed pollutants across the board.
When I expressed astonishment that it passed that far under the new regs, the mechanic said that a lot of these old cars actually run cleaner than the new ones, if properly tuned. And I think he'd know -- his shop (the one with CLEAN equipment) is state-approved specifically for the emissions-fixit program. IOW that's a major chunk of his business.
And yes, my truck was designed for unleaded gas, AND for original sale in California (tho was bought in MT).
Yep... same with large markets. Frex, California... you've got 20 million people who know you suck, there are still 20 million other people without a clue.
BTW, am curious about your sig?? tho to my understating, it's literal truth.
My 30 year old pickup, 100% stock, passes California emission tests with flying colours.
Last time I discovered something important, tho -- the readings depend FAR MORE on how clean the test equipment is, than on your vehicle.
In 2006, at a popular test station with well-used equipment, my truck BARELY passed, and then only because the tester knew all the tricks (there are ways to goose marginal vehicles into compliance).
In 2007, at a rarely used and brand-spanking-clean test station, my truck passed with emission levels at only about 1/3rd what the other station's tests showed, without any jiggery-pokery either.
My truck had absolutely NO work, NO tuning, no NOTHING done to it between the two tests, other than an oil change.
You gotta wonder how many billions of consumer dollars have been wasted by dirty test equipment.:(
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot:
4) watch Company X's stock value plunge
5) buy up a ton of said stock
6) back off the lawsuit, watch stock value rise back to former levels
7) Profit!!
I had a similar thought -- how is this not just another form of patent trolling? The object is to *profit* from breaking someone else's patent -- that really isn't morally any different from profiting from screwing someone else out of a patent.
I foresee this being used to cost *legit* patents a lot of money, while benefiting no one but the project's founder.
Yeah, always croggles me to see some ginormous Hummer or Suburban that outweighs my truck by 3000 pounds, yet gets "passenger" plates at 1/3 the truck rate!
California, where everything is either fake or done bassackwards :)
That certainly explains how some of the more-advanced races manage to so-easily disappear ships, and sometimes entire planets.
Something must be done; otherwise eventually we'll ALL wind up in subspace... and it's getting crowded in there!!
I'd think in cases where the objective is unknown or known-unsafe, either because it's full of sniper holes or is about to fall down around you, or when you'd be better off to flush out the surprises rather than discover them in person. Anywhere you really don't want to risk a man and you can't see what you're lobbing that grenade at. Whenever you're already inside a building and there's risk that a grenade might bring it down on your head, yet you can't see what's down that next stairwell. Down holes, into caves, into sewers, anything like that, where it's not an emergency but you need to know what's in there before you commit a soldier's life to it. Cheap little cameras are a lot more expendable. I think the main danger might be getting too dependent on the camera rather than on your own good sense.
For the do-it-now conditions of hot combat, tho, I agree, you won't have the luxury of that much time.
Older cars cost around $50 to register (that's what my '79 Chrysler LeBaron would be if it wasn't non-op'd -- BTW it's for sale, I'd like it to go to someone who would turn it into a show car!) I think that's the minimum fee now.
But about 25 years ago, California voters stupidly decided to soak heavy trucks an extra weight fee -- neglecting to notice that in CA, pickup trucks (even mini-trucks) are classed with 18-wheelers. So my ancient pickup costs about $150/year (about half of that is weight fees), and it keeps creeping upward.
I believe it simply shifts any reasonbly contiguous mass of particles into subspace (that's why it takes your body and your shoes, but leaves the floor behind), where they can explode if they wish and no one will notice.
But this is also why people get stuck in transporters or in warp state whenever there is a subspace explostion -- all that incoming foreign matter screws stuff up.
I'd say it depends on your environment. A weapon whose penetration range is limited to arm's length is probably better when you have only that distressingly thin hull between you and deep space. Provided, of course, the lightsabre's deadman switch is in working order.
Planetside, you don't need to worry about breathing space, but there are other perks and drawbacks of either weapon. If you want to terrorize the native primitives, a distance weapon is a big plus in establishing your godhood. If you just want to participate in that cantina brawl, a lightsabre's short range may be preferable, and as a bonus, it won't ignite the brothel next door.
In fact my first thought after seeing TFA was that this device could readily be used by law enforcement to get around those pesky warrants. Just lob one over the fence and if you're lucky you'll see the perp up to something that you can then bend into probable cause.
Wide open to abuse, should it ever get into civilian LE hands (which it will in due course).
I would argue that the more precautions a given country's military take against hitting "wrong" targets, the longer it takes to win the war. There has to be a balance, or you wind up losing ground especially when an enemy is willing to use civilians as shields.
Is it better to preserve that handful of civilian lives, and lose the entire objective when you're THAT close to winning it -- which in turn would save FUTURE civilian lives?? are the majority of civilians better off if you end the conflict ASAP, even if that means a few civs get killed today? I'm sure experienced commanders consider these things.
And we have another word for soldiers who sit around over-analyzing such situations:
"Casualty."
Debate the appropriateness of this word, in light of the "bad guy" discussion above. ;)
"The belief in the concept that the "other side" is evil/bad and 'our side' is good" dates to the first time two rival proto-human tribes duked it out, and probably well before that (considering that chimpanzees also do organized tribal warfare). It's social-animal nature -- "our tribe good, offending tribe bad", whether applied to groups or individuals.
So... "bad guys".
Well, why not lob in an "eyeball grenade" first, and if you don't like the looks of whoever picks it up and throws it back at you, then throw the real thing with zero reaction time left when it hits?
It's not like you can't throw more than one, ya know :)
Yeah, you may lose some element of surprise, but you may also flush out "surprises" you didn't know were lurking.
Efficient in terms of minimal weight from point A to point B. Not so efficient if you need to move significantly more than your own mass, or under less than ideal conditions, or in time compared to distance. (Having biked in extreme wind, rain, and snow conditions, and having hauled heavy loads with a bike, I can attest to that.)
Totally agreed. As the old saw goes, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good." Sometimes good enough is good enough, and "better" is actually worse, or impractical, or unachievable.
This cycles back around to the nominal topic -- sometimes you're better off to NOT rigidly enforce stuff like "no one better touch our trademark". Go through enough motions to keep it secure, yeah, but don't discourage people who WANT to help you promote it. Perfect enforcement is not good law.
[laughing] I had similar thoughts.... and muscle energy isn't even particularly efficient. I wonder how many Kcal it takes for a bicyclist to move, say, a ton of goods for a mile, vs. how many Kcal it takes for a lorry to move the same ton of goods for a mile? remember, the cyclist will have to make many trips, while the lorry makes one. ;)
Should also be useful to climatologists, since the ocean currents and their temperature gradients have a profound impact on climate, notably precipitation (frex, El Niño/La Niña).
This isn't the first time such an experiment has been done by any means, but AFAIK it's the first time on this scale. I do find it interesting that rubber ducks seem to have a much better survival rate than more-expensive gadgets (apparently they are both durable and so obviously inedible or tasteless that random critters don't try to lunch or gnaw on them).
Also occurs to me that small recording and GPS-type devices could be inserted without significantly changing the duckies' survival characteristics. Could be a great way to cheaply gather very accurate data on the currents' speed and temperature.
Don't know about any of that... the reason I noticed the death of grandfathering in the first place is because the allowed levels had changed from what they'd been since forever (it's been smogged about 15 times in all) and my truck suddenly got a lot closer to the limit (at least as tested by typically-dirty equipment!)
The '60s muscle cars are probably exempt from smog tests, tho. Originally, any car over 25 years old was exempt. Right about when my truck would have gained that happy status, they changed it to 30 years. I've been told THAT is going to be changed again, tho don't know yet as I wasn't required to smog it this year (it had been on "do it every year, sucker" status for the past 4 years, which I've been told is done for many cars of its age whether they've ever been a "gross polluter" or not).
I don't have anything against clean air, but some parts of the smog testing program are just a waste of consumers' money. :(
Actually, I've asked about calibration etc., and have been repeatedly told, by various shops, that the state is real anal about that. Plus in the past couple years, everyone had to buy new test equipment. But apparently the state's concern does not extend to whether the equipment is clean enough to not itself be a contaminant. (For the record, I've also asked whether dirty equipment could be a factor, and the test owners always say no... well, we disproved that one, didn't we! I'd already suspected; now I'm sure.)
As to grandfathering, that went away a few years ago, and now old vehicles have to pass the same standards as everyone else. I thought this was very unfair, until I discovered that with clean test equipment, my truck's levels test out at only about 1/3rd of the max allowed, rather than hovering right at the top edge.
There are a lot of trademarks that have been lost that way. But I meant lost specifically due to this sort of derivative works, created by fanboys -- NOT due to the use of the word to mean "generic whatever".
[croggling at the thought of "toyota" as the generic word for "automobile"]
Ironically, the shop with clean test equipment is one of the lower-priced ones around! But you betcha, he's got my business henceforth regardless.
Tho much of that lower pricing is probably due to relatively low overhead, since it's located out in an old semi-rural neighbourhood, and the guy owns and lives on the place. I think a couple of his kids work for him, too.
Actually, it does have a catalytic convertor, and CA no longer grandfathers older cars to their original emission standards. It now has to pass the same standards as everyone else, old or new. With the clean test equipment, it came in at about 1/3rd of the allowed pollutants across the board.
When I expressed astonishment that it passed that far under the new regs, the mechanic said that a lot of these old cars actually run cleaner than the new ones, if properly tuned. And I think he'd know -- his shop (the one with CLEAN equipment) is state-approved specifically for the emissions-fixit program. IOW that's a major chunk of his business.
And yes, my truck was designed for unleaded gas, AND for original sale in California (tho was bought in MT).
Yep... same with large markets. Frex, California... you've got 20 million people who know you suck, there are still 20 million other people without a clue.
BTW, am curious about your sig?? tho to my understating, it's literal truth.
My 30 year old pickup, 100% stock, passes California emission tests with flying colours.
Last time I discovered something important, tho -- the readings depend FAR MORE on how clean the test equipment is, than on your vehicle.
In 2006, at a popular test station with well-used equipment, my truck BARELY passed, and then only because the tester knew all the tricks (there are ways to goose marginal vehicles into compliance).
In 2007, at a rarely used and brand-spanking-clean test station, my truck passed with emission levels at only about 1/3rd what the other station's tests showed, without any jiggery-pokery either.
My truck had absolutely NO work, NO tuning, no NOTHING done to it between the two tests, other than an oil change.
You gotta wonder how many billions of consumer dollars have been wasted by dirty test equipment. :(
That might explain why to my eye, the two sample images from TFA look like twiddled advertising photos, NOT like fan art.