The Chinese have already located a lead ore smelter less than 10 kilometers from his school anyway, so some old lead solder is the least of his worries except that the local officials don't give a crap and his peasant parents don't know what is going on at the nearby smelter or why it is bad for their single child (under that great one child policy) until their kid finally makes it to a state hospital with lots of lead related developmental brain damage. In short, the Chinese are doing a bang up job of pissing in their own pool already, so a few more discarded electronics from Europe and the United States isn't going to make much of a difference.
The trouble with water injection is that it fouls the oil, so unless you also have some sort of oil and water separator you are going to be changing your oil often or reducing your mileage as sludges build up in your engine or both.
You do realize that such an ocular system, which undoubtedly works well for the limited needs of the shrimp, may have accompanying disadvantages for complex land based life forms such as humans. The human vision system while not optimized for certain specialized uses, such as the aforementioned shrimp, is never the less a very decent general purpose system that has served our species well for eons. It is likely that our current system of vision, especially when compared to the possible trade-offs for increased capabilities (less general intelligence capabilities as more of the brain and nervous system is devoted to complex autonomous image processing for example), is fairly close to optimal given the other constraints of our bodies. Besides, for those situations where a particular aptitude is useful but not always desirable, night vision for example, human intelligence has allowed us to construct external enhancement devices that we can turn on or off at will. Animals which have developed night vision naturally as part of a nocturnal lifestyle cannot turn that feature on or off at will and thus are at a disadvantage during the daytime whereas humans are more generally adaptable. It is fairly clear that innate intelligence is among the very best, if not the best, of the natural abilities that have developed under evolutionary pressure. How else to explain why humans have dominated the earth and essentially escaped the natural system that once controlled them?
It would be nice to see some of the more recent advances in materials science, of which there have been many since the 1970s when the last prototypes were built, applied to the Space Activity Suit concept. It really does offer some rather compelling advantages over the rigid body and fixed volume suits currently in use.
You forgot to mention that if people sign up during the early registration period they can attend this exciting conference for the low price of $9,999.99 per attendee but for a limited time only and space is limited. In fact the conference would probably look something like this one, PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans to secure green cards for immigrants, where a group of unscrupulous fatcat attorney/consultants describe in detail yet another scheme to screw the middle class in this country.
The article is an advertisement disguised as news. That describes about 99% of the so called "content" in the trade rags these days. The entire magazines are nothing but open advertisements and "articles" which are really stealth ads written by public relations firms and submitted to publishers as "press hits" masquerading as news.
there's no way to verify the sender like you'd have with an old fashioned incoming phone call via a fixed line. It would be possible to use public key cryptography, with certificates issued and maintained by the carriers through trusted roots, and digital signatures to make spoofing impossible or at least highly impractical.
The short answer is because the government has the guns. It is important to remember that all powers of any government are backed up by the implicit (or sometimes explicit) threat of overwhelming violence against those who do not submit (rarely physical, although it does sometimes come to that). Those who advocate more taxes, more government, and more regulation would do well to remember that.
can the judge deny their voluntary dismissal and still hand down judgment? If it is not then that is how it should be. The original purpose of the courts (back before there was fire) was to provide people with an alternative to the field of battle, where one risked life and limb, for resolving disputes. However, even as a less lethal substitute for battle the rules had to at least approximate what happens in combat. If an army attacks but then attempts to flee the field when the battle turns against them then it is the privilege of the opponent left in command of the field to decide whether to let them go or ride them down and hack them to pieces. Similarly, if the defendant is successful in their defense then they should be entitled to pursue the losing party for damages. To the victor go the spoils.
The threat of lawsuit is only a credible threat if it is backed by a willingness to actually battle it out Normally that would be true. However in these cases the amount of the proposed settlement, approximately $3,000 US Dollars or so, is just low enough that simply showing up in court with an attorney would probably cost more. The settlements are rigged to be just enough to discourage court appearances, irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, while just high enough to fund the filing of new lawsuits once an economy of scale has been achieved by the RIAA and its members. The primary purpose of these lawsuits is to generate fear through spamigation. The recovery of statutory damages is merely icing on the cake when they are able to get them.
It depends upon who is asking. If the US government is asking then they are likely to get at least some of what they want (or all of it for simple requests) because they have deep pockets and carry a big stick. If a private American citizen is attempting to recover money that he or she lost in a scam or some other private matter and that private citizen is just an ordinary American (not famous and not a politician or a CEO) then it is still pay to play because the US government is unlikely to use their political capital or cash to help you pursue a private matter against a foreign person in a foreign country.
You can trust me on that one, I've tried. I've even had so much as the name of the person to prosecute. Nothing came out of it. Despite including our federal police and interpol. Nothing came of it because you did not sweeten the pot for local law enforcement, politicians, and judges with large bribes. If one wants justice or even just to get something done in a -stan country then one has to grease the wheels of the local economy or in other words its pay (more than your opponent) to play. This is how much of the world outside of the United States, Britain, and Western Europe functions, it is practically impossible to get things done or at least done quickly if bribes are not involved.
Basically, while trucks & SUVs can better protect the passengers in the event of a collision, they're more likely to get into collisions. But your chances of surviving the collision in the SUV are enhanced at the expense of a greater chance of death to occupants in the other vehicle. So you may not get into as many collisions with the passenger car but they will tend to be more serious when you do. Would you rather have fewer collisions but a higher chance of death when they do occur or more collisions that you are more likely to walk away from? A vehicle can be replaced, but as far as anyone can prove we only live once.
It takes a lot of energy to spin up a flywheel with enough stored energy to accelerate the car as rapidly as a high horsepower internal combustion engine could. Also, it might be the case that several rapid accelerations are required in a brief interval of time which would deplete the energy stored in the flywheel before it could be restored by cruising for a while at speed. There is also the problem that a spun up flywheel acts as a gyroscope (which effects turning) AND if that flywheel ever breaks loose or in any other way transfers all of its stored energy into a stationary object (like in an accident) then the damage could be substantial. In fact the flywheel concept was used as an effective weapon by many of the remote controlled robots in the BattleBots competitions.
The use of a gyroscope in the form a flywheel will add substantial complexity (and cost) to the vehicle because it will be necessary, as you have already said, to mount the flywheel gyroscope on a gimbal to allow for turns which means some sort of proportional electro-mechanical or computer based system will be required to control the hydraulically actuated gimbal. In Formula One racing, where performance is an issue and cost is generally not, such a system might be feasible provided that it could be made reliable. However, in passenger cars, where cost is generally always an issue (if not the most important issue) one has to ask if the advantage of regenerative braking with flywheel stored energy to assist in subsequent starts is really worth the complexity and cost of an added drive train system when compared to how much fuel is saved. This is a problem with hybrids in general, the savings are generally not worth the costs if one does not consider the utility derived from being green or helping the environment and concentrates solely on costs which are easily translated into dollars in or out of the consumer's pocket.
The other possibility that you mentioned is the pneumatic engine or air compressor. The problem here is the noise generated by escaping compressed air. This issue will be immediately familiar to anyone who lives near a freeway off-ramp and regularly hears the Jake Brakes of heavy trucks slowing down from freeway speeds. Alternatively, if you have ever had street repairs outside your home early in the morning then you know well how unpleasant the sound of a jackhammer, which works on the same principle, can be. It probably would be possible to muffle the air exhaust, but that would result in yet more weight and probably reduce the efficiency of the resulting pneumatically driven acceleration in the same way that restricting your engine exhaust with a muffler and catalytic converter saps some of your horsepower. The Ford motor company built a concept truck a few years back (with Tonka decals) that included an regenerative compressed air engine braking system like this and it sounded a lot like a jackhammer when it was used.
All the crush space between my bumper and me will do me absolutely no good if the first thing to hit the other vehicle is my windshield pillar because the rest of the car goes *under* the other vehicle In fact, this is precisely why heavy trucks (the ones with air brakes and separate detachable trailers) have a safety bar on the rear on the trailer, to prevent the underside of the trailer deck from being the first solid object to contact the windshield pillar of the typical passenger car in a rear end collision. The safety bar was added to reduce fatalities which occurred because of the height difference in rear end accidents (usually the fault of the passenger car drivers following too closely). The lifted SUVs and pickup trucks that are commonly encountered on southern California freeways present many of the same dangers to more typical passenger cars.
The requirements to obtain the safe harbor are specified in an AND relationship (or all applicable requirements must be met) and I was interested in the 4th requirement specifically:
not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity If the ISP monitors file sharing traffic and then uses those records as part of a profile to serve targeted ads during subsequent web browsing sessions (which generate revenue for the ISP) then isn't that directly benefiting from an infringing activity? It seems to me that it could be argued in this way. So, the RIAA could still sue and argue that ISPs do not qualify for the safe harbor when they inspect packets in such a way that it directly benefits the ISP by allowing that "infringing" packet to pass through. Perhaps this has already been argued in court (IANAL)?
Then why haven't AT&T, Verizon, and QWest been sued by the RIAA members for facilitating copyright infringement when they should be filtering, monitoring, and blocking? A major point of "common carrier" laws was to codify in a formal legal definition that it was technically impossible (or at least highly infeasible) to filter and monitor communications which travel over a shared network. If one is NOT a common carrier then it implies that one is legally responsible for what happens on one's network. That is why ISPs (Comcast is skating on thin ice here) have to be careful that they do not wander off the reservation in search of more targeted advertising dollars because the courts may rule that if they can scan content to target advertising or prejudice packets then they can filter for copyright infringement as well and be held liable if they do not. IMHO the ISPs would be wise to NOT filter and remain behind the common carrier shield, but it may take a lawsuit or two to scare the ISP suits into listening to their techs and lawyers on this issue.
Excuse me, but it is an obvious non-sequitur to conclude that because natural monopolies exist, for which free market solutions are either not optimal or not possible, that free market is broken. Nobody is forcing you to purchase cable television service. If you don't like the price or don't want the service then don't buy it (I don't). It really is that simple. As for barriers to entry they are usually temporary and not as durable as people think. How did Google come out of a college research project to become a billion dollar corporation? They were not the first search engine company and their competitors at the time had a stranglehold on the marketplace, but Google survived to surpass them because they brought a superior product to market. Markets can work if people are willing to let them.
Everyone whined it was too expensive. Now D&D 4E is over $100 for the PHB/DMG/MM basic set (no pun intended), though of course you can find it online for cheaper. Well, with the weak US dollar, $100 isn't quite what it used to be or at least it sure seems like a lot less now than it did in 2004 when GURPS 4th edition was released.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese have already located a lead ore smelter less than 10 kilometers from his school anyway, so some old lead solder is the least of his worries except that the local officials don't give a crap and his peasant parents don't know what is going on at the nearby smelter or why it is bad for their single child (under that great one child policy) until their kid finally makes it to a state hospital with lots of lead related developmental brain damage. In short, the Chinese are doing a bang up job of pissing in their own pool already, so a few more discarded electronics from Europe and the United States isn't going to make much of a difference.
The trouble with water injection is that it fouls the oil, so unless you also have some sort of oil and water separator you are going to be changing your oil often or reducing your mileage as sludges build up in your engine or both.
Brilliant!
Yes. Thank you for your cooperation.
How else to explain why they have not already been Slashdotted?
You do realize that such an ocular system, which undoubtedly works well for the limited needs of the shrimp, may have accompanying disadvantages for complex land based life forms such as humans. The human vision system while not optimized for certain specialized uses, such as the aforementioned shrimp, is never the less a very decent general purpose system that has served our species well for eons. It is likely that our current system of vision, especially when compared to the possible trade-offs for increased capabilities (less general intelligence capabilities as more of the brain and nervous system is devoted to complex autonomous image processing for example), is fairly close to optimal given the other constraints of our bodies. Besides, for those situations where a particular aptitude is useful but not always desirable, night vision for example, human intelligence has allowed us to construct external enhancement devices that we can turn on or off at will. Animals which have developed night vision naturally as part of a nocturnal lifestyle cannot turn that feature on or off at will and thus are at a disadvantage during the daytime whereas humans are more generally adaptable. It is fairly clear that innate intelligence is among the very best, if not the best, of the natural abilities that have developed under evolutionary pressure. How else to explain why humans have dominated the earth and essentially escaped the natural system that once controlled them?
It would be nice to see some of the more recent advances in materials science, of which there have been many since the 1970s when the last prototypes were built, applied to the Space Activity Suit concept. It really does offer some rather compelling advantages over the rigid body and fixed volume suits currently in use.
You forgot to mention that if people sign up during the early registration period they can attend this exciting conference for the low price of $9,999.99 per attendee but for a limited time only and space is limited. In fact the conference would probably look something like this one, PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans to secure green cards for immigrants, where a group of unscrupulous fatcat attorney/consultants describe in detail yet another scheme to screw the middle class in this country.
The short answer is because the government has the guns. It is important to remember that all powers of any government are backed up by the implicit (or sometimes explicit) threat of overwhelming violence against those who do not submit (rarely physical, although it does sometimes come to that). Those who advocate more taxes, more government, and more regulation would do well to remember that.
It depends upon who is asking. If the US government is asking then they are likely to get at least some of what they want (or all of it for simple requests) because they have deep pockets and carry a big stick. If a private American citizen is attempting to recover money that he or she lost in a scam or some other private matter and that private citizen is just an ordinary American (not famous and not a politician or a CEO) then it is still pay to play because the US government is unlikely to use their political capital or cash to help you pursue a private matter against a foreign person in a foreign country.
It takes a lot of energy to spin up a flywheel with enough stored energy to accelerate the car as rapidly as a high horsepower internal combustion engine could. Also, it might be the case that several rapid accelerations are required in a brief interval of time which would deplete the energy stored in the flywheel before it could be restored by cruising for a while at speed. There is also the problem that a spun up flywheel acts as a gyroscope (which effects turning) AND if that flywheel ever breaks loose or in any other way transfers all of its stored energy into a stationary object (like in an accident) then the damage could be substantial. In fact the flywheel concept was used as an effective weapon by many of the remote controlled robots in the BattleBots competitions.
Lets take each of your proposals in turn:
The use of a gyroscope in the form a flywheel will add substantial complexity (and cost) to the vehicle because it will be necessary, as you have already said, to mount the flywheel gyroscope on a gimbal to allow for turns which means some sort of proportional electro-mechanical or computer based system will be required to control the hydraulically actuated gimbal. In Formula One racing, where performance is an issue and cost is generally not, such a system might be feasible provided that it could be made reliable. However, in passenger cars, where cost is generally always an issue (if not the most important issue) one has to ask if the advantage of regenerative braking with flywheel stored energy to assist in subsequent starts is really worth the complexity and cost of an added drive train system when compared to how much fuel is saved. This is a problem with hybrids in general, the savings are generally not worth the costs if one does not consider the utility derived from being green or helping the environment and concentrates solely on costs which are easily translated into dollars in or out of the consumer's pocket.
The other possibility that you mentioned is the pneumatic engine or air compressor. The problem here is the noise generated by escaping compressed air. This issue will be immediately familiar to anyone who lives near a freeway off-ramp and regularly hears the Jake Brakes of heavy trucks slowing down from freeway speeds. Alternatively, if you have ever had street repairs outside your home early in the morning then you know well how unpleasant the sound of a jackhammer, which works on the same principle, can be. It probably would be possible to muffle the air exhaust, but that would result in yet more weight and probably reduce the efficiency of the resulting pneumatically driven acceleration in the same way that restricting your engine exhaust with a muffler and catalytic converter saps some of your horsepower. The Ford motor company built a concept truck a few years back (with Tonka decals) that included an regenerative compressed air engine braking system like this and it sounded a lot like a jackhammer when it was used.
Then why haven't AT&T, Verizon, and QWest been sued by the RIAA members for facilitating copyright infringement when they should be filtering, monitoring, and blocking? A major point of "common carrier" laws was to codify in a formal legal definition that it was technically impossible (or at least highly infeasible) to filter and monitor communications which travel over a shared network. If one is NOT a common carrier then it implies that one is legally responsible for what happens on one's network. That is why ISPs (Comcast is skating on thin ice here) have to be careful that they do not wander off the reservation in search of more targeted advertising dollars because the courts may rule that if they can scan content to target advertising or prejudice packets then they can filter for copyright infringement as well and be held liable if they do not. IMHO the ISPs would be wise to NOT filter and remain behind the common carrier shield, but it may take a lawsuit or two to scare the ISP suits into listening to their techs and lawyers on this issue.
Excuse me, but it is an obvious non-sequitur to conclude that because natural monopolies exist, for which free market solutions are either not optimal or not possible, that free market is broken. Nobody is forcing you to purchase cable television service. If you don't like the price or don't want the service then don't buy it (I don't). It really is that simple. As for barriers to entry they are usually temporary and not as durable as people think. How did Google come out of a college research project to become a billion dollar corporation? They were not the first search engine company and their competitors at the time had a stranglehold on the marketplace, but Google survived to surpass them because they brought a superior product to market. Markets can work if people are willing to let them.
and run through the steam tunnels...
So black hole all traffic from China. If you have no customers there then why bother with their robots?