Are you for real? If linux equivalent to windows in every way, do you really believe people would continue to put up with this product activation crap? Do you think OEMs would continue packaging windows, if linux were the same in every way?
In an issue of wired there wss a scientist who made a very outrageous but very interesting claim. He said that oil is not the remains of organisms but from where life sprung. He thinks that the earth is brimming with an endless (almost) supply of oil, and that the pockets will refill. It might take more time than we have to refill, he says, but whether we can access it or not, the earth is filled with oil. He supports his idea by saying that the reason oil has compounds found in organic cells is not because oil is decomposed organic matter, but that life came from the oil. He also notes that those same chemicals can be found in space by seeing that the spectral signature of some cloud in space, a type of cloud that might turn into a planet given a strong enough grabitional force to orbit, indicates that the cloud has that very molecule in it. Which suggests that earth came from such a cloud. Which supports the ides that it is filled with oil.
That's an interesting point. They say at the core of Jupiter is Hydrogen that is so cold and under so much pressure, that it becomes an alkali metal. Hydrogen is in the same group as the alkali metals (1 electron in outer shell), but it does not behave at all like the alkali metals. But under the conditions at the core, it does act like you'd expect. I wonder if it would be possible to gain energy from hydrogen on jupiter considering the enormous energy used just to retrieve it. A ship can't just hover there and collect hydrogen without eating the profits. Of course, maybe you can slingshot in or something, a la 2010.
Whether it happens on a conscious level or not is open for debate, but that's how people operate too. Whether it's evolution or whatever, the only reason people might do something good is that it will benefit them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not machiavellian or anything, and I don't use this as the guiding principle of my actions. I do something good because I think it's the right thing to do. But as an afterthought, I know that the only reason I thought that action was good was because it would help me. That's why you try to return a favor to someone who's nice. And both parties will often each get more than they gave. If my rambling was even remotely interesting to you read about Game Theory here.
I wasn't calling McMaster a liar. I was just showing how your definition of a quack can be applied to any word for absurd results. You were basically saying that if no one gives credence to someones ideas, then the ideas are now more believable.
Yes, as I read more I learned about his engine. Seems very credible. But like what I said before, this energy source sounds like it won't really provide much of an advantage. We don't want lighter batteries, because we don't want batteries at all. But you're definitely right, that Hydrogen, as an energy _medium_ is a great move.
A "Liar" is merely an honest man whose claims haven't come true yet.
I suppose, then, being considered a "quack" automatically qualifies you to be a genius? There have been *alot* more "quacks" who truly were "quacks" than "quacks" who were geniuses.
Nitrogen wouldn't be burned at all. The nitrous oxide the petro creates is not from the nitrogen in the air. Oxygen has a *much* higher affinity for hydrogen than for nitrogen. Nitrogen would spectate.
Besides, you can get the same results using that many solar panels to charge a battery. Hydrogen, like a battery, is not the source of the energy. It's just the medium. A battery would work just as well.
The difference is, with hydrogen, the only thing you can get out of it is what you put into it to actually make it. With gasoline, you're tapping into a source of energy which can yield more than you put in. Unless you can find pockets of pure hydrogen, or unless there's a substance which takes very little energy to free the hydrogen in it, you will only be getting what you put in. Of course, there is no such substance, because if it took less energy to free the hydrogen, then that means oxygen has a stronger pull on it than this other molecule. And since oxygen is so prevalent, there isn't much chance of the hydrogen hiding. Not that it's impossible at all, after all beneath the surface there isn't any atmospheric oxygen, but I haven't heard of any such thing.
So basically, all the energy which is powering the engine is solar energy. Since the end product is the same as the starting material, he is not getting energy from anywhere else but the sun. Which is a fine idea, but we already have solar cells. You may as well use a battery.
Okay, at some time in the past, someone said to himself, "hey, if we can electrolize water to get hydrogen and oxygen, we can then take the hydrogen and use it as a fuel! infinite energy from water." The problem is that when you burn (combustion) hydrogen, you end up with water, which is what you started with. So to say you had a net positive gain, that you got more energy back then you put into it, violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's like claiming you have a perpetual motion machine, because all you need is a cup of water to power it, a cup of water which will never run out since it's also the byproduct. It's like trying to build a water pump that is operated by a water mill. Have it pump water up ten feet, let it fall and spin the mill, which will then operate the pump to pump it back up.
But he's not claiming that. He seems to admit and understand that the energy is coming from the sun. However, under perfect efficiency you will still only get the enerdy that the panels were exposed to. And like I said, you may as well use a battery.
Thing is, corporations aren't designed to protect the rights of citizens. Corporations exist to make money. That's not something I regret, it's just a reality.
However, the sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, and the fact that congressmen are so desperate for another term, that they'll do anything for the corporations which fund their campaigns, is the real factor to blame here. Congressmen should be free to decide how they choose, like a judge. Most of these people are reasonably intelligent, but are also severly biased.
I'm not saying it's a legitimate argument or not, but have you considered the possibility the "THEIR income" is money that they didn't deserve. When incomes are being protected by legal measures, we should consider whether those legal measures are valid. In Sodom, as the story goes, if someone punched you hard enough to make you bleed, you'd have to pay him for the service of bloodletting. Sure, it's an extreme example, but you should be aware that what we have arbitrary measures (not natural, unregulated) deciding who pays whom for what, then it's not so simple as saying that he is stealing THEIR income. Basically he is arguing against the law which makes them get anything at all for their lyrics (I can't even imagine how).
And just because anyone can publish the lyrics does not mean that anyone can perform them. It just seems very bizarre to think that you can't publish lyrics.
I completely agree with your conclusion, but you should be aware that fair use only applies to people who have actually purchased the product. I think the key point here is whether or not a copyright of a song only applies to it's performance.
Commercialism is about choice. Some people are not willing to tolerate such insidious advertisements, and may hurt sales. Of course if that were true, advertising wouldn't be so pervasive, but that doesn't mean we can't object to it, just like I won't pay 3 dollars for a bottle of water, doesn't mean they're changing their price, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to just pay for it. People wouldn't tolerate compulsory Coca-Cola tatoos at birth just because "Commercialism is what keeps society going." Why don't you think about what you've heard before you repeat them next time, ey?
you're a fool. That's not what fair use is about. If they made a law that said it's illegal to rip and distribute movies to other people that's fine. But the DMCA makes illegal things which *might* be used to circumvent the protection. And besides, nowhere in the DMCA does it say that companies have to provide an acceptable alternative to satisfy the rights of fair use. They don't have to offer that.
I don't have a real problem with copy protections. Corporations are not there to protect your rights, it's a free market, they can sell the products however they want.
The problem lies in the fact that fighting it is now illegal, and only because of the money they pay the lawmakers.
Slashdot Mirror
it's free.
Are you for real? If linux equivalent to windows in every way, do you really believe people would continue to put up with this product activation crap? Do you think OEMs would continue packaging windows, if linux were the same in every way?
In an issue of wired there wss a scientist who made a very outrageous but very interesting claim. He said that oil is not the remains of organisms but from where life sprung. He thinks that the earth is brimming with an endless (almost) supply of oil, and that the pockets will refill. It might take more time than we have to refill, he says, but whether we can access it or not, the earth is filled with oil. He supports his idea by saying that the reason oil has compounds found in organic cells is not because oil is decomposed organic matter, but that life came from the oil. He also notes that those same chemicals can be found in space by seeing that the spectral signature of some cloud in space, a type of cloud that might turn into a planet given a strong enough grabitional force to orbit, indicates that the cloud has that very molecule in it. Which suggests that earth came from such a cloud. Which supports the ides that it is filled with oil.
That's an interesting point. They say at the core of Jupiter is Hydrogen that is so cold and under so much pressure, that it becomes an alkali metal. Hydrogen is in the same group as the alkali metals (1 electron in outer shell), but it does not behave at all like the alkali metals. But under the conditions at the core, it does act like you'd expect. I wonder if it would be possible to gain energy from hydrogen on jupiter considering the enormous energy used just to retrieve it. A ship can't just hover there and collect hydrogen without eating the profits. Of course, maybe you can slingshot in or something, a la 2010.
Whether it happens on a conscious level or not is open for debate, but that's how people operate too. Whether it's evolution or whatever, the only reason people might do something good is that it will benefit them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not machiavellian or anything, and I don't use this as the guiding principle of my actions. I do something good because I think it's the right thing to do. But as an afterthought, I know that the only reason I thought that action was good was because it would help me. That's why you try to return a favor to someone who's nice. And both parties will often each get more than they gave. If my rambling was even remotely interesting to you read about Game Theory here.
I wasn't calling McMaster a liar. I was just showing how your definition of a quack can be applied to any word for absurd results. You were basically saying that if no one gives credence to someones ideas, then the ideas are now more believable.
Yes, as I read more I learned about his engine. Seems very credible. But like what I said before, this energy source sounds like it won't really provide much of an advantage. We don't want lighter batteries, because we don't want batteries at all. But you're definitely right, that Hydrogen, as an energy _medium_ is a great move.
Maybe you're both right. There's something called Alane, aka Aluminum Hydride (AlH3).
A "Liar" is merely an honest man whose claims haven't come true yet.
I suppose, then, being considered a "quack" automatically qualifies you to be a genius? There have been *alot* more "quacks" who truly were "quacks" than "quacks" who were geniuses.
Nitrogen wouldn't be burned at all. The nitrous oxide the petro creates is not from the nitrogen in the air. Oxygen has a *much* higher affinity for hydrogen than for nitrogen. Nitrogen would spectate.
Besides, you can get the same results using that many solar panels to charge a battery. Hydrogen, like a battery, is not the source of the energy. It's just the medium. A battery would work just as well.
The difference is, with hydrogen, the only thing you can get out of it is what you put into it to actually make it. With gasoline, you're tapping into a source of energy which can yield more than you put in. Unless you can find pockets of pure hydrogen, or unless there's a substance which takes very little energy to free the hydrogen in it, you will only be getting what you put in. Of course, there is no such substance, because if it took less energy to free the hydrogen, then that means oxygen has a stronger pull on it than this other molecule. And since oxygen is so prevalent, there isn't much chance of the hydrogen hiding. Not that it's impossible at all, after all beneath the surface there isn't any atmospheric oxygen, but I haven't heard of any such thing.
But that's called a battery, or at least it does the same thing a battery does. So what's the benefit of using water?
So basically, all the energy which is powering the engine is solar energy. Since the end product is the same as the starting material, he is not getting energy from anywhere else but the sun. Which is a fine idea, but we already have solar cells. You may as well use a battery.
Okay, at some time in the past, someone said to himself, "hey, if we can electrolize water to get hydrogen and oxygen, we can then take the hydrogen and use it as a fuel! infinite energy from water." The problem is that when you burn (combustion) hydrogen, you end up with water, which is what you started with. So to say you had a net positive gain, that you got more energy back then you put into it, violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's like claiming you have a perpetual motion machine, because all you need is a cup of water to power it, a cup of water which will never run out since it's also the byproduct. It's like trying to build a water pump that is operated by a water mill. Have it pump water up ten feet, let it fall and spin the mill, which will then operate the pump to pump it back up.
But he's not claiming that. He seems to admit and understand that the energy is coming from the sun. However, under perfect efficiency you will still only get the enerdy that the panels were exposed to. And like I said, you may as well use a battery.
I've got two 75 GB 75GXP drives in a raid 0 configuration running for about a month. Everything is fine so far.
Thing is, corporations aren't designed to protect the rights of citizens. Corporations exist to make money. That's not something I regret, it's just a reality.
However, the sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, and the fact that congressmen are so desperate for another term, that they'll do anything for the corporations which fund their campaigns, is the real factor to blame here. Congressmen should be free to decide how they choose, like a judge. Most of these people are reasonably intelligent, but are also severly biased.
And just because anyone can publish the lyrics does not mean that anyone can perform them. It just seems very bizarre to think that you can't publish lyrics.
I completely agree with your conclusion, but you should be aware that fair use only applies to people who have actually purchased the product. I think the key point here is whether or not a copyright of a song only applies to it's performance.
Most artists are not in a position to negotiate such "priveleges." If demanded, the contract would simply be denied.
Well, the key point is that it's heavily based on faith.
I'm talking about a PC's hard drive.
Commercialism is about choice. Some people are not willing to tolerate such insidious advertisements, and may hurt sales. Of course if that were true, advertising wouldn't be so pervasive, but that doesn't mean we can't object to it, just like I won't pay 3 dollars for a bottle of water, doesn't mean they're changing their price, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to just pay for it. People wouldn't tolerate compulsory Coca-Cola tatoos at birth just because "Commercialism is what keeps society going." Why don't you think about what you've heard before you repeat them next time, ey?
you're a fool. That's not what fair use is about. If they made a law that said it's illegal to rip and distribute movies to other people that's fine. But the DMCA makes illegal things which *might* be used to circumvent the protection. And besides, nowhere in the DMCA does it say that companies have to provide an acceptable alternative to satisfy the rights of fair use. They don't have to offer that.
I don't have a real problem with copy protections. Corporations are not there to protect your rights, it's a free market, they can sell the products however they want.
The problem lies in the fact that fighting it is now illegal, and only because of the money they pay the lawmakers.
it says that it must be hooked up on a "home network." Is it possible to use your hard drive for storage space?
verbing funs life. verbing weirds language.