The real issue is that everything that is published on the internet is considered fair game. It was a only a few stories back where we were getting in an uproar because a reasonable judge said, maybe summarizing an article with a link might be a violation of copyright. Would the newspaper have been in the clear if they had summarized the post with a link to the full post, even if the same damage was caused?
Posner wasn't reasonable when he came up with that idea. And yes, IMO, if the newspaper had simply summarized the post with a link to the myspace page, they'd have been in the clear. Not just on copyright violation (which probably happened, but the damages for copyright violation aren't set up for this kind of thing), but on the various other possible claims people have brought up. There's an enormous difference between an article "Resident's Daughter Disses Town on Myspace" and "Dear Editor, Town Sucks, signed, Resident's Daughter".
As for num lock, I routinely set the CMOS on any machine I use to force it *off*. And I never use it - there's a perfectly good set of numbers right above the QWERTY.
Don't look now, but I think there's some kids on your lawn.
But where, exactly, would the batteries that can push 60 kilowatts go? I don't think they would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata with this magical imaginary computer.
I have a battery rated for 62.5A @11.1V. I could easily fit 100 of them within the trunk of my Mazda Miata, with lots of room to spare, which gets you about 70kW. Granted, for only two minutes, but in fact a few hundred could fit in the Miata... (the battery is 16mmx44mmx141mm and weighs about 200g. )
What I'd like to know is why aren't there any custom motors operating higher than 3-phase around 400V? Would also like to know why we are so low on electronics experts that most are still stuck using DC motors...
I imagine the voltage limitation has to do with preventing arcing between the windings. But so-called "DC brushless" motors aren't DC motors in the conventional sense; they're more like 3-phase AC motors run with actively switched DC instead of AC.
I visited this site. There was nothing on the site to suggest it was parody. It looked like a site serving those with a Lego fetish.
In which case, if the blocks were actually Lego brand interlocking plastic blocks, sounds like nominative fair use. It's permitted to use a trademark to describe the item the trademark referred to.
Lithium-Ion batteries are dangerous because of very low internal resistance. ie. They can dump a large amount of current in a very short time.
Nope, that's not it either. Low internal resistance is a good thing, well correlated to power (not energy) density. Lithium ion batteries are mostly dangerous because they're flammable; short them out or overcharge them and they'll catch fire. If they merely got hot they'd be a lot less dangerous.
Not quite as trivial to produce as ethanol, but vastly better as a portable fuel (better energy density, doesn't suck up water, not as aggressive a solvent).
This is because it isn't under the Act at all, nor should it be. It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such. The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.
The copyright act actually DOES provide penalties for falsely attaching a copyright notice. But they are _criminal_ penalties -- 17 USC 506 (c) provides for a $2500 fine for anyone who does so. But there's no private right of action and good luck actually getting a prosecutor involved.
I wouldn't be surprised if growing corn, soy, wheat, or other food crops has a net negative carbon dioxide emission because plant photosynthesis consumes carbon dioxide. Meat, on the other hand...
Since the food crops are (by definition) eaten and digested (and the indigestible part often burned or composted), the CO2 they consume goes right back into the atmosphere in the short term. Leaving the net positive emissions of any fossil fuels used in their cultivation.
I'm concerned with spreading fear -- healthy fear, not misinformation.
Let's look at your wiktionary definition of ration. "To portion out, especially during a shortage of supply."
The cap creates the (permanent) shortage of supply. The permits to emit are the way the supply is portioned out. Now, technically speaking, it is CO2 emissions being rationed, not energy... but there's a strong relationship between the two.
So nothing will ever become more efficient or clean than it is now? Your Slashdot cred has been revoked for lack of technological imagination. HTH, HAND.
Now that the definition of clean has been changed so that not just byproducts like SOx, NOx, and CO are defined as "dirty", but CO2 -- the end product of complete combustion of any hydrocarbon with oxygen -- is also defined as dirty, the answer is that no, we cannot make certain things more "clean". And we're up against a wall with efficiency in many cases also.
To reduce CO2 emissions without energy rationing, you need a lot more non-CO2 containing sources. Nuclear... forget it, politically it just isn't going to happen. Hydro -- the large sources are tapped and environmentalists hate it anyway. Wind on the scale needed is both technologically and politically challenging. Solar... well, the Bureau of Land Management has basically said "forget it" to building solar thermal in the desert southwest, for instance, so it's another case of environmentalists not liking ANY energy source.
Where did you find them explaining that everyone will have to ration energy? What does starving have to do with energy? It's further down the slope of environmental consciousness vs the economy but you are doing no one a service by claiming it is utter self-annihilation when it's not that bad.
What do you think the "cap" part of "cap and trade" means? Capping CO2 emissions means capping energy use, in the absence of significant carbon-free sources -- and since neither nuclear, solar, nor wind, nor any other carbon-free source is in any position to take up the slack, things look pretty grim. And the caps are designed to be ratcheted DOWN.
As for what starving has to do with energy... uhh, you realize it takes energy to grow and distribute that food, right? And I don't mean just solar.
And to be clear, if you read the article, it's obvious that the engineers working on this are SERIOUS and have thought of just about anything that slashdot readers have come up with.
Thought of, but not tried yet (because they're the boring kind of engineer who considers every possibility and worries about life safety, not the cavalier "hey, try this" type that only kills people, oh, 40% of the time). My idea was to just push on the window (evenly) until the gap opens; it's made to take pressure after all. This is basically the "air bladder" idea, which they haven't tried yet. My other idea was to construct a pressure chamber around the outside of the window and evacuate it, but that's probably not practical.
The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech. Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man?
Because prosecutors don't like the decision and see this as a way of nibbling away at its edge. The Supreme Court decision involved a case where there were no children at all. In this case, there's pornography and there's children (or images thereof), though the children themselves were not abused or exploited. So they figure if it gets to the Supreme Court (which it likely won't anyway), the justices might jump the other way. And having muddied the basis for the original decision, they're closer to getting it overturned.
How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?! Really, MS needs to learn that those who actually buy their products in-box (not from OEMs) are going to be people who are their valuable customers who are going to have a lot of influence.
Snow Leopard is an oddity, though; most Apple OS releases are $130, not $30. And Windows 7 should be a more major upgrade compared to XP (Vista? What's that?) than Snow Leopard is compared to Leopard. Besides, they aren't direct competitors. Where Microsoft competes with Apple is on initial PC purchase; once they've gone and not bought a Mac, there's no competition on OS upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
Posner wasn't reasonable when he came up with that idea. And yes, IMO, if the newspaper had simply summarized the post with a link to the myspace page, they'd have been in the clear. Not just on copyright violation (which probably happened, but the damages for copyright violation aren't set up for this kind of thing), but on the various other possible claims people have brought up. There's an enormous difference between an article "Resident's Daughter Disses Town on Myspace" and "Dear Editor, Town Sucks, signed, Resident's Daughter".
Don't look now, but I think there's some kids on your lawn.
Someone should get him a subscription to the Philadelphia Inquirer. That'll cure him of that belief.
(Serious, making paraphrasing illegal? You know, that First Amendment thingy isn't just a placeholder)
Except that where a reporter has other journalists to report on his plight, you would have no such help and would simply disappear into the system.
I have a battery rated for 62.5A @11.1V. I could easily fit 100 of them within the trunk of my Mazda Miata, with lots of room to spare, which gets you about 70kW. Granted, for only two minutes, but in fact a few hundred could fit in the Miata...
(the battery is 16mmx44mmx141mm and weighs about 200g. )
Yeah, my first thought on this was whether perhaps those were the requirements to get the things inside every AT&T-style NSA listening room.
I imagine the voltage limitation has to do with preventing arcing between the windings. But so-called "DC brushless" motors aren't DC motors in the conventional sense; they're more like 3-phase AC motors run with actively switched DC instead of AC.
No, the Slashdot editors just got around to noticing. Make more sense now?
In which case, if the blocks were actually Lego brand interlocking plastic blocks, sounds like nominative fair use. It's permitted to use a trademark to describe the item the trademark referred to.
Oops, it's the MON which is 78.
Nope, that's not it either. Low internal resistance is a good thing, well correlated to power (not energy) density. Lithium ion batteries are mostly dangerous because they're flammable; short them out or overcharge them and they'll catch fire. If they merely got hot they'd be a lot less dangerous.
The price is your ass. They won't arrange to have it violated in Federal Prison if you co-operate.
When Congress is involved, in many cases doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. This is the wrong thing.
And an RON of what, 78?
The copyright act actually DOES provide penalties for falsely attaching a copyright notice. But they are _criminal_ penalties -- 17 USC 506 (c) provides for a $2500 fine for anyone who does so. But there's no private right of action and good luck actually getting a prosecutor involved.
It means "fuck you". Literally, "Hope That Helps, Have A Nice Day".
Since the food crops are (by definition) eaten and digested (and the indigestible part often burned or composted), the CO2 they consume goes right back into the atmosphere in the short term. Leaving the net positive emissions of any fossil fuels used in their cultivation.
I'm concerned with spreading fear -- healthy fear, not misinformation.
Let's look at your wiktionary definition of ration.
"To portion out, especially during a shortage of supply."
The cap creates the (permanent) shortage of supply. The permits to emit are the way the supply is portioned out. Now, technically speaking, it is CO2 emissions being rationed, not energy... but there's a strong relationship between the two.
Now that the definition of clean has been changed so that not just byproducts like SOx, NOx, and CO are defined as "dirty", but CO2 -- the end product of complete combustion of any hydrocarbon with oxygen -- is also defined as dirty, the answer is that no, we cannot make certain things more "clean". And we're up against a wall with efficiency in many cases also.
To reduce CO2 emissions without energy rationing, you need a lot more non-CO2 containing sources. Nuclear... forget it, politically it just isn't going to happen. Hydro -- the large sources are tapped and environmentalists hate it anyway. Wind on the scale needed is both technologically and politically challenging. Solar... well, the Bureau of Land Management has basically said "forget it" to building solar thermal in the desert southwest, for instance, so it's another case of environmentalists not liking ANY energy source.
What do you think the "cap" part of "cap and trade" means? Capping CO2 emissions means capping energy use, in the absence of significant carbon-free sources -- and since neither nuclear, solar, nor wind, nor any other carbon-free source is in any position to take up the slack, things look pretty grim. And the caps are designed to be ratcheted DOWN.
As for what starving has to do with energy... uhh, you realize it takes energy to grow and distribute that food, right? And I don't mean just solar.
And energy rationing, by this name or any other, spells death for the economy. They might as well call it the "starve and freeze" bill.
Well, if they have two 200mg Motrins that got stuck together, that's OK. But if they have one 400mg Motrin, strip search them and toss them in jail.
Makes perfect sense, right?
(of course, many schools realized this was silly. So now they'll suspend a student for having the 200mg Motrins also...)
Thought of, but not tried yet (because they're the boring kind of engineer who considers every possibility and worries about life safety, not the cavalier "hey, try this" type that only kills people, oh, 40% of the time). My idea was to just push on the window (evenly) until the gap opens; it's made to take pressure after all. This is basically the "air bladder" idea, which they haven't tried yet. My other idea was to construct a pressure chamber around the outside of the window and evacuate it, but that's probably not practical.
Because prosecutors don't like the decision and see this as a way of nibbling away at its edge. The Supreme Court decision involved a case where there were no children at all. In this case, there's pornography and there's children (or images thereof), though the children themselves were not abused or exploited. So they figure if it gets to the Supreme Court (which it likely won't anyway), the justices might jump the other way. And having muddied the basis for the original decision, they're closer to getting it overturned.
Snow Leopard is an oddity, though; most Apple OS releases are $130, not $30. And Windows 7 should be a more major upgrade compared to XP (Vista? What's that?) than Snow Leopard is compared to Leopard. Besides, they aren't direct competitors. Where Microsoft competes with Apple is on initial PC purchase; once they've gone and not bought a Mac, there's no competition on OS upgrades.