Imagine a more subtle approach: thanks to their filesharing app, the RIAA can link IP addresses to name/address data. Then mine IP addresses from other p2p networks, and rather than having to go through the tedious process of getting the name/address data out of the ISP, the RIAA can just look it up in their own database.
What would prevent the RIAA from including a routine that searches your entire HD for music files, then reports the list to the RIAA/bills you automatically for all songs that you have no license for?
Probably not; you'd need some kind of arbitration, otherwise the cores would interfere with each other's communication to the rest of the system. A 'virtual machine' approach would be much easier to accomplish.
Where do you get that idea? Monopoly is quite a popular game over here.
If you want to have fun with Monopoly, try playing with more than one board. We used to do this with a Dutch and an American board, laid down side-by-side. Odd or even dice rolls would determine whether you would take a right turn or go straight on (and onto the other board), and we had a 10% loss when exchanging money from Dutch to US (and vv). Complicates things no end. Other rule changes are also fun (have everyone play two 'pawns', allow more than 4 houses/1 hotel on a street, etc)
If you want to reach people, here's a few things you can do to improve your site:
1. build a start page that discusses just the basics 2. create a table of contents for your site. Currently, you overload your readers with loads of links to random pages. As a result it takes a long time to get a good idea of what you're talking about. You need to bring stucture to the site. Sample TOC: 1. Basics 2. In-depth discussion 3. Comparison with other technologies 4. Reactions to reader feedback etc. Pick up a book on 'how to write' from the library to give you more ideas.
Leverage doesn't help you in this case: the force may increase, but the distance will decrease proportionally so the amount of work (defined as force * distance traveled) you do stays the same. Yes, I publicly admit I find your site impenetrable. You can react to this in two ways: 1. insult me 2. try to find out why, and improve your site
#1 doesn't work. As for #2: I'm a writer. I'm supposed to know about these things, so maybe you can learn something.
"not much of a hurdle"? Your site is an impenetrable mess. Never mind; I can't be arsed to work this out for myself. Try calculating how much energy you can recover from a car's suspension; there's no way that'll be enough to power the car. So in the end you're just moving the pollution problem from the car to the source of your compressed nitrogen. This is no different from the proposed hydrogen (combustion or fuel cell) engines.
Before starting to rave about auto makers suppressing blah blah etc, apply some basic physics to the idea. Using the suspension to provide power won't work. Any energy you can recover when the suspension is compressed (bump) needs to be put back in when the suspension extends (hole). Hydraulic and pneumatic suspensions all use pumps, ie. they consume power rather than providing it. The rest of the ideas on that page don't seem any better than that.
Engine technology has advanced a bit more than you suggested, especially for supersonic aircraft. Chief example is the F-22 that can fly supersonic without afterburner. Actually, the P.1A prototypes for the English Electric Lightning could supercruise back in 1954, albeit only in a 'clean' (no weapons) configuration.
Turbojets have no fan, they just have a compressor before the combustor.
The hardware is the same (a series of 'propeller blades' on a shaft driven by a turbine), so in that sense they're identical. The only difference between a turbojet and a turbofan engine is where the air goes once it exits the fan/compressor: does it all go through the combustion chamber (turbojet) or is part of it led straight out the back of the engine (tubofan).
For turbojets, inlet air has to be subsonic just like for a turbofan.
Actually, Apple *has* survived as a hardware company for years. IIRC System 7.1 was the first OS release that wasn't free, and Apple didn't do badly in those days.
OTOH, for every G5 they sell, they get to keep 25% of $2k, which is $500. And software may have a low marginal cost, but the R&D required to produce a new version, especially when you're actually (gasp) building something innovative, isn't free. I've seen estimates that Apple spent 'hundreds of millions' on Copland, for instance.
...or Apple might have gone bankrupt, because nobody would be paying $lots for Mac hardware, whose high profit margins have financed lots of R&D over the years.
China's airfore consists of 20-30 year old Russia planes in various states of maintenance. Most of its airforce is rubbish, yes. But China has a sizable force (several hundreds) of Su-27 derivatives which are very capable aircraft, and is building more of those every day. China is also stationing lots of long-range missile batteries along the coast facing Taiwan, and it's building a fleet of amphibious ships. www.strategypage.com seems to be of the opinion that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2010.
It's quite possible to have a capitalist system in place under a totalitarian government, you know. I thought that's exactly what I was saying. your implication that capitalism --> freedom If I gave that impression, something was lost in translation. The GP implied that China isn't Communist any more, and I tried to say that while that's correct as far as their economic policy goes, the structure and style of their government has changed little from the bad old days when everybody called them Communists (even if their implementation differed from Marx' theories, yada yada), so in that sense the Chinese government can still be called Communist, even if the term 'totalitarian oligarchy' comes closer to the truth.
Yes, the Chinese economy may be becoming ever more capitalist, but it's still a totalitarian state with the typically Communist lack of respect for individual freedom.
Quickly? It's not as if there's a ready supply of companies that can make these parts. The Indians would have to start from scratch, and the lead time on building a state-of-the-art chip fabrication plant is not insignificant. Remember the RAM price hike a few years ago when a critical supplier (one of two in the world IIRC) for some component used in chip fabrication had a fire?
As I write this, the vast majority of the 38 comments are about/.'ing the machine, blah blah blah. I, for one, think it's a neat project, and bow to Buzbee's superior geekdom.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a more subtle approach: thanks to their filesharing app, the RIAA can link IP addresses to name/address data. Then mine IP addresses from other p2p networks, and rather than having to go through the tedious process of getting the name/address data out of the ISP, the RIAA can just look it up in their own database.
What would prevent the RIAA from including a routine that searches your entire HD for music files, then reports the list to the RIAA/bills you automatically for all songs that you have no license for?
And the next step: they introduce their own country, then team up with McDonalds to introduce Snow Crash-style franchulates.
Probably not; you'd need some kind of arbitration, otherwise the cores would interfere with each other's communication to the rest of the system. A 'virtual machine' approach would be much easier to accomplish.
Where do you get that idea? Monopoly is quite a popular game over here.
If you want to have fun with Monopoly, try playing with more than one board. We used to do this with a Dutch and an American board, laid down side-by-side. Odd or even dice rolls would determine whether you would take a right turn or go straight on (and onto the other board), and we had a 10% loss when exchanging money from Dutch to US (and vv). Complicates things no end.
Other rule changes are also fun (have everyone play two 'pawns', allow more than 4 houses/1 hotel on a street, etc)
If you want to reach people, here's a few things you can do to improve your site:
1. build a start page that discusses just the basics
2. create a table of contents for your site. Currently, you overload your readers with loads of links to random pages. As a result it takes a long time to get a good idea of what you're talking about. You need to bring stucture to the site. Sample TOC:
1. Basics
2. In-depth discussion
3. Comparison with other technologies
4. Reactions to reader feedback
etc. Pick up a book on 'how to write' from the library to give you more ideas.
OK, I'll stop the OT now.
Leverage doesn't help you in this case: the force may increase, but the distance will decrease proportionally so the amount of work (defined as force * distance traveled) you do stays the same.
Yes, I publicly admit I find your site impenetrable. You can react to this in two ways:
1. insult me
2. try to find out why, and improve your site
#1 doesn't work. As for #2: I'm a writer. I'm supposed to know about these things, so maybe you can learn something.
"not much of a hurdle"? Your site is an impenetrable mess.
Never mind; I can't be arsed to work this out for myself. Try calculating how much energy you can recover from a car's suspension; there's no way that'll be enough to power the car.
So in the end you're just moving the pollution problem from the car to the source of your compressed nitrogen. This is no different from the proposed hydrogen (combustion or fuel cell) engines.
That does not address the question of how you expect the suspension pistons to expand.
Before starting to rave about auto makers suppressing blah blah etc, apply some basic physics to the idea.
Using the suspension to provide power won't work. Any energy you can recover when the suspension is compressed (bump) needs to be put back in when the suspension extends (hole).
Hydraulic and pneumatic suspensions all use pumps, ie. they consume power rather than providing it.
The rest of the ideas on that page don't seem any better than that.
woo hoo! :starts planning to create Molly:
No.
Engine technology has advanced a bit more than you suggested, especially for supersonic aircraft. Chief example is the F-22 that can fly supersonic without afterburner.
Actually, the P.1A prototypes for the English Electric Lightning could supercruise back in 1954, albeit only in a 'clean' (no weapons) configuration.
Turbojets have no fan, they just have a compressor before the combustor.
The hardware is the same (a series of 'propeller blades' on a shaft driven by a turbine), so in that sense they're identical.
The only difference between a turbojet and a turbofan engine is where the air goes once it exits the fan/compressor: does it all go through the combustion chamber (turbojet) or is part of it led straight out the back of the engine (tubofan).
For turbojets, inlet air has to be subsonic just like for a turbofan.
Actually, Apple *has* survived as a hardware company for years. IIRC System 7.1 was the first OS release that wasn't free, and Apple didn't do badly in those days.
OTOH, for every G5 they sell, they get to keep 25% of $2k, which is $500.
And software may have a low marginal cost, but the R&D required to produce a new version, especially when you're actually (gasp) building something innovative, isn't free.
I've seen estimates that Apple spent 'hundreds of millions' on Copland, for instance.
...or Apple might have gone bankrupt, because nobody would be paying $lots for Mac hardware, whose high profit margins have financed lots of R&D over the years.
That's simple enough: just shoot first.
China's airfore consists of 20-30 year old Russia planes in various states of maintenance.
Most of its airforce is rubbish, yes. But China has a sizable force (several hundreds) of Su-27 derivatives which are very capable aircraft, and is building more of those every day.
China is also stationing lots of long-range missile batteries along the coast facing Taiwan, and it's building a fleet of amphibious ships. www.strategypage.com seems to be of the opinion that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2010.
It's quite possible to have a capitalist system in place under a totalitarian government, you know.
I thought that's exactly what I was saying.
your implication that capitalism --> freedom
If I gave that impression, something was lost in translation. The GP implied that China isn't Communist any more, and I tried to say that while that's correct as far as their economic policy goes, the structure and style of their government has changed little from the bad old days when everybody called them Communists (even if their implementation differed from Marx' theories, yada yada), so in that sense the Chinese government can still be called Communist, even if the term 'totalitarian oligarchy' comes closer to the truth.
And where have you been the last 30 years?
Yes, the Chinese economy may be becoming ever more capitalist, but it's still a totalitarian state with the typically Communist lack of respect for individual freedom.
Agh! If you're going to quote a recipe here, at least use SI units.
Quickly? It's not as if there's a ready supply of companies that can make these parts. The Indians would have to start from scratch, and the lead time on building a state-of-the-art chip fabrication plant is not insignificant.
Remember the RAM price hike a few years ago when a critical supplier (one of two in the world IIRC) for some component used in chip fabrication had a fire?
The computing power density of 1000 homes is a lot lower. 1000 homes + the ground they sit on also cost more to buy/build than the one datacenter.
As I write this, the vast majority of the 38 comments are about /.'ing the machine, blah blah blah.
I, for one, think it's a neat project, and bow to Buzbee's superior geekdom.