I am disappointed by the bad quality of the translation to German, both in therms of grammar and words that have dual meaning. This is somewhat usable but not really something I would enjoy using. Also, the German lady spoke very slowly and overly accurate in pronunciation, probably because otherwise the software would fail. Move on, not much to see here...
What it should say is that I have come to the conclusion that I for myself will never apply for patents on my own, but as an employee of a major company I need to play by their rules... and that means that I need to apply for patents for their sake.
Having to do with patents at work, I have thought a lot about this subject, whether there is still use for patents or not. It is easy to dismiss patents for software, the arguments are all there. It is harder to argument against patents for medicine, even though there are some good arguments. When it comes to mechanical and electrical engineering (my field of work), people still think that small guys' inventions need to be protected from the big corporations by means of patents. There is very little understanding for the reality, which is that there are almost no small guys around that are willing or able to go through the whole process just to be screwed by the big companies anyway. Patents have become a weapon in a war between corporations. Patent trolls are thankfully not a big issue yet, but whether small guys own some patents matters as much as some small firearms will matter in a war fought with tanks and planes.
I am still somewhat undecided when it comes to pharamcy, but for all other areas that I can think of, patents are really hindering innovation and should not be granted anymore.
I have come to the conclusion
Dude, you are not an engineer, it screams from your reply (I wouldn't call it an "answer"). Go, learn som 3D solid modelling package (Pro/E, CATIA, UniGraphics NG, SolidWorks, SolidEdge etc) and then come back, read your reply again and be ashamed.
The same question about "fully featured and easy to use" CAD programs were asked when the OScar project started: http://www.theoscarproject.org/
I answered as you did above. People did not want to hear it. I suspect, they never figured out the difference between CAD, CAM, CFD, FEM versus 3D animation modelling packages (Blender, Maya), 2D vector drawing programs (Inkscape) and MS Paint (to be a bit drastic).
The type of high-visibility OS hardware projects seem to attract only day-dreaming non-engineers, which is what repells real engineers even further (because you have to deal with such people at work already, why having them around during your spare time, too?)...
Otherwise, the OpenLuna project will attract the same kind of day-dreaming non-engineers as the OSCar-project did: http://www.theoscarproject.org/
And it will produce the same results: none.
PS: Actually, I read more or less EXACTLY the same question in the OSCar forum, and the answers were scaring. People were recommending Blender, Inkscape, and the like. They uttered phrases like "using CAD instead of CFD". Jeezus...
Usual response is some blather about alternative energy (easily shown to be inadequate, especially given other environmental constraints)... Then show it
...conservation (law of diminishing returns)... Explain it
...lifestyle changes (kills economy, and besides, won't happen without major force) Prove it
What you do is rhetorics, not a scientific discussion.
I think the guy has just got lost in his own model, which tries to liken such a complex thing as the human civbilisation with a simple physical system, employing a constant relationship between global energy use and the civilisation's accumulated economic productivity. This is just naive...
But talking about physical modelling: Is it not intuitively correct to assume that no system can grown limitless, that there must be an upper bound for everything? Then why does our economy need to grow all the time? Why can't we just be content with a very high output? Does it need to increase all the time? And worse, does the growth need to increase all the time? This is like driving a car very fast not being enough, but we need to accelerate all the time right into infinity. This is not possible according to physics, but according to economics it is not only possible but demanded. Silly... which is exactly why Economics is not a science and because there is no Nobel Prize for economics.
section "Pirate My Book?":
My reaction to seeing other Apress books getting the free, electronic version treatment is: I’m good with you pirating my book! Now, of course, I can’t actively participate in pirating my book but, heck, it’s around on plenty of “free e-book” sites and on RapidShare. There are even links on Twitter to torrents like this. I am happy for you to pirate my book, but I’m NOT A LAWYER, and I can’t guarantee what Apress would do about it – so you’d be doing it off your own back! So, uhm, don’t pirate it?;-) The only condition, of course, if you do is that if you like the book and you think a print copy would be swell to own, please buy one – even if it’s just for someone you know who wants to learn to program!:-)
So the author's main conclusion was to avoid the major publishers.
But then again he writes under the section "Pirate My Book?":
My reaction to seeing other Apress books getting the free, electronic version treatment is: I’m good with you pirating my book! Now, of course, I can’t actively participate in pirating my book but, heck, it’s around on plenty of “free e-book” sites and on RapidShare. There are even links on Twitter to torrents like this. I am happy for you to pirate my book, but I’m NOT A LAWYER, and I can’t guarantee what Apress would do about it – so you’d be doing it off your own back! So, uhm, don’t pirate it?;-) The only condition, of course, if you do is that if you like the book and you think a print copy would be swell to own, please buy one – even if it’s just for someone you know who wants to learn to program!:-)
Hmmm, I wonder how this connects to the alternative ending in Max Payne 2?
I was very glad to see that after having fought through all three difficultiy levels, you got rewarded with an alternative ending in which the bullet missed Mona Sax's heart. She doesn't die, they kiss and the whole game ends on a cautiously optimistic tone.
I always felt that this was how the game was supposed to end, that this was the ultimate reward for Max: finally a slim chance of happiness.
Now they seem to disregard this and cast poor Max once again into darkness and dispair. Hmmm... I don't know...
You are gravely mistaken. Countershaft transmission have been around for a long time, actually longer than planetary gearboxes. They are the typical gear box as invented before Christ. You confuse the recent development of double-clutch transmissions with countershaft technology. I design these things, I know.:-)
Anyway, also in countershaft boxes the gear-pairs can be in constant engagement, what you use is a sort of spline or wet disc couplings to connect them to the torque-carrying shaft. No need to move the actual gear wheels.
I agree with you in that there is no need for complex gearboxes.
But your reply sounds like you consider a planetary gearbox to be simplier than a countershaft gearbox...;-)
And by the way: every gearbox is modulating speed and torque of the shafts with respect to each other. You multiply the one with a certain factor and divide the other by the same factor. That's the way it works.
Yes, that and the possiblitiy of acutally saving some fuel along the way. For the US Army, shipping fuel to all the remote locations where they are waging a war is a logistic nightmare at a huge cost.
However, for more extreme requirements of both high torque AND high speed you might run into limitations of electric machine design, which might force you into adding a smaller gearbox anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of "gliders"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Useful skills in unusual situations: http://www.popularmechanics.co...
Anyone with knowledge of the automotive industry knows that basically every large OEM is onto the same thing:
http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
http://www.greenfleeteurope.co...
(etc.)
I am disappointed by the bad quality of the translation to German, both in therms of grammar and words that have dual meaning. This is somewhat usable but not really something I would enjoy using. Also, the German lady spoke very slowly and overly accurate in pronunciation, probably because otherwise the software would fail. Move on, not much to see here...
Sorry, but the low-Q fine is someone's joke. It's not in the ruling or the article.
Sorry, there is (naturally) nothing in the article or the court ruling about adding an extra fine for low quality. Would have been nice, though. =:)
Ehhh... some cliff hanger there.
What it should say is that I have come to the conclusion that I for myself will never apply for patents on my own, but as an employee of a major company I need to play by their rules... and that means that I need to apply for patents for their sake.
Having to do with patents at work, I have thought a lot about this subject, whether there is still use for patents or not. It is easy to dismiss patents for software, the arguments are all there. It is harder to argument against patents for medicine, even though there are some good arguments. When it comes to mechanical and electrical engineering (my field of work), people still think that small guys' inventions need to be protected from the big corporations by means of patents. There is very little understanding for the reality, which is that there are almost no small guys around that are willing or able to go through the whole process just to be screwed by the big companies anyway. Patents have become a weapon in a war between corporations. Patent trolls are thankfully not a big issue yet, but whether small guys own some patents matters as much as some small firearms will matter in a war fought with tanks and planes.
I am still somewhat undecided when it comes to pharamcy, but for all other areas that I can think of, patents are really hindering innovation and should not be granted anymore. I have come to the conclusion
Thanks, that explains it... No further questions.
Dude, you are not an engineer, it screams from your reply (I wouldn't call it an "answer"). Go, learn som 3D solid modelling package (Pro/E, CATIA, UniGraphics NG, SolidWorks, SolidEdge etc) and then come back, read your reply again and be ashamed.
Dude, are you serious? Have you even used a CAD program (solid modeller with derived 2D drawings) once?
Same discussion and same misguided focus as in the OScar project: http://www.theoscarproject.org/
The OpenLuna project will produce the same results. None.
The same question about "fully featured and easy to use" CAD programs were asked when the OScar project started: http://www.theoscarproject.org/
I answered as you did above. People did not want to hear it. I suspect, they never figured out the difference between CAD, CAM, CFD, FEM versus 3D animation modelling packages (Blender, Maya), 2D vector drawing programs (Inkscape) and MS Paint (to be a bit drastic).
The type of high-visibility OS hardware projects seem to attract only day-dreaming non-engineers, which is what repells real engineers even further (because you have to deal with such people at work already, why having them around during your spare time, too?)...
Exactly!
Otherwise, the OpenLuna project will attract the same kind of day-dreaming non-engineers as the OSCar-project did: http://www.theoscarproject.org/
And it will produce the same results: none.
PS: Actually, I read more or less EXACTLY the same question in the OSCar forum, and the answers were scaring. People were recommending Blender, Inkscape, and the like. They uttered phrases like "using CAD instead of CFD". Jeezus...
Usual response is some blather about alternative energy (easily shown to be inadequate, especially given other environmental constraints)...
...conservation (law of diminishing returns)...
...lifestyle changes (kills economy, and besides, won't happen without major force)
Then show it
Explain it
Prove it
What you do is rhetorics, not a scientific discussion.
I think the guy has just got lost in his own model, which tries to liken such a complex thing as the human civbilisation with a simple physical system, employing a constant relationship between global energy use and the civilisation's accumulated economic productivity. This is just naive...
But talking about physical modelling: Is it not intuitively correct to assume that no system can grown limitless, that there must be an upper bound for everything? Then why does our economy need to grow all the time? Why can't we just be content with a very high output? Does it need to increase all the time? And worse, does the growth need to increase all the time? This is like driving a car very fast not being enough, but we need to accelerate all the time right into infinity. This is not possible according to physics, but according to economics it is not only possible but demanded. Silly... which is exactly why Economics is not a science and because there is no Nobel Prize for economics.
Misquote? Read for yourself:
;-) The only condition, of course, if you do is that if you like the book and you think a print copy would be swell to own, please buy one – even if it’s just for someone you know who wants to learn to program! :-)
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:y8CuWLUgkMkJ:beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/+http://beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a
section "Pirate My Book?":
My reaction to seeing other Apress books getting the free, electronic version treatment is: I’m good with you pirating my book! Now, of course, I can’t actively participate in pirating my book but, heck, it’s around on plenty of “free e-book” sites and on RapidShare. There are even links on Twitter to torrents like this. I am happy for you to pirate my book, but I’m NOT A LAWYER, and I can’t guarantee what Apress would do about it – so you’d be doing it off your own back! So, uhm, don’t pirate it?
Google Cache:
;-) The only condition, of course, if you do is that if you like the book and you think a print copy would be swell to own, please buy one – even if it’s just for someone you know who wants to learn to program! :-)
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:y8CuWLUgkMkJ:beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/+http://beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a
So the author's main conclusion was to avoid the major publishers.
But then again he writes under the section "Pirate My Book?":
My reaction to seeing other Apress books getting the free, electronic version treatment is: I’m good with you pirating my book! Now, of course, I can’t actively participate in pirating my book but, heck, it’s around on plenty of “free e-book” sites and on RapidShare. There are even links on Twitter to torrents like this. I am happy for you to pirate my book, but I’m NOT A LAWYER, and I can’t guarantee what Apress would do about it – so you’d be doing it off your own back! So, uhm, don’t pirate it?
Hmmm, I wonder how this connects to the alternative ending in Max Payne 2? I was very glad to see that after having fought through all three difficultiy levels, you got rewarded with an alternative ending in which the bullet missed Mona Sax's heart. She doesn't die, they kiss and the whole game ends on a cautiously optimistic tone. I always felt that this was how the game was supposed to end, that this was the ultimate reward for Max: finally a slim chance of happiness. Now they seem to disregard this and cast poor Max once again into darkness and dispair. Hmmm... I don't know...
Agreed! :-))
A fascinating topic, actually. It was nice talking to you. :-)
Huge electric machines, unsuitable for cars or trucks.
You are gravely mistaken. Countershaft transmission have been around for a long time, actually longer than planetary gearboxes. They are the typical gear box as invented before Christ. You confuse the recent development of double-clutch transmissions with countershaft technology. I design these things, I know. :-)
Anyway, also in countershaft boxes the gear-pairs can be in constant engagement, what you use is a sort of spline or wet disc couplings to connect them to the torque-carrying shaft. No need to move the actual gear wheels.
I agree with you in that there is no need for complex gearboxes.
;-)
But your reply sounds like you consider a planetary gearbox to be simplier than a countershaft gearbox...
And by the way: every gearbox is modulating speed and torque of the shafts with respect to each other. You multiply the one with a certain factor and divide the other by the same factor. That's the way it works.
Yes, of course because all series hybrid vehicles are similar. (omg)
e p-vehicles-receive-votes-of-confidence-from-sweden -bae-02446/
The Swedish SEP ran for the British FRES program:p e/fres.htm
And by the way the US Army is not the first with that idea:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sep.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/hybriddrive-s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/euro
Unfortunately, recently it was excluded due to (perceived?) lower maturity of the technology than the competitions offers.
Yes, that and the possiblitiy of acutally saving some fuel along the way. For the US Army, shipping fuel to all the remote locations where they are waging a war is a logistic nightmare at a huge cost.
However, for more extreme requirements of both high torque AND high speed you might run into limitations of electric machine design, which might force you into adding a smaller gearbox anyway.
http://drivey.com/