The patent office received 376,810 patent applications last year. It usually takes about two-and-a-half years for a patent to be processed. About 65 percent of all patents submitted are approved
If it's yours, you can distribute it in any way you see fit.
My sig referencences my brother's band, there are tracks available for download there. They can do this because they own their creations. They also don't mind their music being shared - see the copyright notice.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's your beef with motorcycles?
My only problem with motorcycles is that I don't get to ride them enough. I rode for seven years before I took my car test.
I hate Hummers as much as anyone, and I also hate Harleys that aren't properly muffled (most of them around here in the USA, it seems). But what's the problem with a motorcycle being powerful? If he goes too fast and hits you, he's only going to kill himself, assuming you're in some type of car. Bikes always lose in collisions.
Hmmm. Maybe you're not replying to me? Oh well.
Now, I would agree that there are various other problems with bikes: noise and emissions come to mind immediately.
Maybe it's better on your side of the pond, but over here, Harleys (and only Harleys) seem to be somehow exempt from any type of noise pollution laws. Kids who install noisy mufflers on their Hondas get pulled over by the cops, but Harleys that drive by with absolutely deafening exhausts go unnoticed.
The other big problem with bikes is emissions. Just like SUVs somehow have more lax emissions restrictions than cars, bikes have almost no restrictions. From what I've read, you'd be doing the environment a favor by driving a Hummer H2 to the mall instead of almost any motorcycle, because of the pollutants per mile spewed out by them.
Of course Harleys don't get pulled over! Harleys are Righteous American Motorcycles, ridden by Righteous Americans, not dirty little tin boxes from gook-land, driven by Jap-lovin' sonsabitches. Get with the program, guy!
I don't know what you read or where you read it, but I think you should leave the Hummer at home. It gets about 15-16 mpg on average - this figure will probably be worse on our urban trip to the mall. It's hard to get most bikes to return less than 40 mpg, so as far as CO2 goes, the bike wins.
With other substances, it's not so certain. I'm fairly sure the Hummer has a catalytic converter, in which case it wouldn't produce noticeable levels of CO, HC or NOx. However, a growing number of bikes do have these nowadays (notably, BMWs), so we get either 'some' or 'even less noticeable than the Hummer'.
The problem here, however, is with regulation. Our stupid governments need to regulate these items on bikes (and SUVs) just like they do on cars, and not give any special treatment to anyone. With fuel injection being standard on cars for over twenty years, it's time that it's required on bikes as well, and that their emissions are more inline with small cars. And noise limits should be the same for all vehicles, regardless of size. There's no technical reason these things can't be achieved on bikes, only the monetary reason that it saves costs for the manufacturers.
I have no problem with vehicles being regulated wrt emissions, as long as it is done in a sane and sensible manner. Currently, all regulation is aimed at ensuring vehicles have catalytic converters and run stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures, using fuel injection. This reliance on the 'cat' to sort out any problems between the engine and exhaust has caused engine development to stagnate. It also means that, because CO2 is not officially a 'pollutant', our putative H2 is officially 'greener' than a pre-cat Honda Civic.
More and more bikes are becoming fuel-injected - BMW led the way here, my 1986 K75 has multi-point EFI and so does everything they've made since.
As for noise limits, good luck getting a 300hp direct-injection diesel truck engine to sound like a gently idling Bentley. Bike engines (and exhausts) have been getting quieter, but they will always suffer from being far more exposed than car engines, and also from a much shorter exhaust pipe. Loading bikes up with sound insulation to compensate will just increase weight and aerodynamic profile, reducing fuel economy.
Do you think the freedom to have an obcenely powerful engine between your legs when you are riding on public roads are compareable to the freedom to tinker with software without being sued to bankrupcy? That's a bit of a stretch!
How powerful may an engine be before it becomes 'obscene'? Where would you draw the line? Would you be as supportive of a hypothetical law limiting your encryption keys to 64-bits, or your CPU to 1.5MHz.
The freedom to drive a heavy or powerful vehicle on a public road infringes with your fellow trafficant's safety.
No citizen of any European country has the right/freedom to drive anything at all on a public road. Driving is a privilege, which we earn by proving that we are capable of safely operating a vehicle, ie passing the relevant driving test. Should we subsequently drive in such a manner as to cast doubt upon our safety, the privilege can be withdrawn. In general, the larger and more hazardous vehicles have more difficult and demanding tests associated with them; obtaining a licence to drive a private passenger/light goods vehicle (car) is far easier than for a heavy goods vehicle. Motorcycles have similar restrictions with regard to capacity, power and power-to-weight ratio, with, in the UK at least, three different licencing levels
In Europe we have little love for Hummers and their like. They bring on an inflation in vehicle size and weight, because they are perceived as a threat, and rightly so!
I'm not sure when you gained the authority to speak for the whole of Europe, but assuming you are also speaking for yourself, I agree with you. I would also add that higher fuel prices make such vehicles even more vulgar here than in their own country, and that they are simply too big for most European cities.
You are comparing apples with oranges. On one hand we have the liberty to infringe fellow citizens' physical or perceived safety.
OK, time to explode this myth before we go any further. You seem to agree with ex-Commissioner Bangemann that powerful motorcycles are a threat to the safety of road users. Not so. The 'study' used to back up Marvin's Directive took data from one small (>40 square miles) area of Germany, very popular with bikers for its open, winding roads, over a period of less than three months one summer. Later and wider studies showed the exact opposite - younger and less experienced riders, usually on lower-powered bikes, were more at risk of being involved in an accident.
Note that I say 'being involved in an accident' - not 'injuring another'. Most motorcycle accidents that cause an injury, cause that injury to the rider alone. This further detracts from your argument about 'infringement upon safety'.
On the other hand we have the liberty to infringe on other people's (read: companies') ideas. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the realm of ideas. I, for one, would like to keep those apart.
This reaches to the heart of the software patent argument. As patent law stands, you cannot patent an idea. All you can do is to patent an implementation of said idea. Ergo, an idea cannot currently be infringed upon.
For example, imagine that, in 1854, somebody had patented the idea of reducing the carbon content of cast iron so as to produce steel. However inefficient their method, Henry Bessemer's conversion process would have infringed upon it, and cheap, reliable steel production would have been delayed for twenty years. So yes, let's keep the physical and the imaginary apart.
What is troubling with the attitude of freedom-loving bikers is the strong sense of entitlement. I hope that it is not the dominant attitude among motorcyclists, because it reflects badly on them all!
Entitlement didn't come into it, the reason for uproar was discriminatory treatment. No power restrictions were mooted for any other vehicle, even for learners and 'new drivers'.
The question remains how the general public would have decided, if this issue would have gotten engough media coverage.
As I recall, at the time there was plenty of media coverage. Usually of the 'OMG WTF Killer Bikers!' tabloid type. Much like the current 'NE1 Coud Be A Terorist' tripe boosting advertising rates today.
A couple of motorcyclists special interest groups can't hardly count as representative of public opinion. In fact I would bet that the average european would be in favor of caps on motorcycles. (btw. 100PS = 100HP) Bikers are not exactly popular.
As with the current topic, (software patents) 'public opinion' didn't really exist on the issue after the tabloids and their sheeple had forgotten about it (about a week after the story broke). In fact, the more I think about it, the greater the parallells between these cases. Both are largely about freedom, and neither really catches the public eye. If I didn't read Slashdot, I'd never have heard of this one, if I hadn't read bike mags during that period, I wouldn't have heard about that one either. The average European couldn't give a shit until they are affected by this crap, which is why it's up to bikers (and geeks) to oppose it.
You suspect protection of BMW? Are you kidding? Don't you think that BMW can't easily build >100HP bikes? This makes me especially suspicious. If a corporation goes out of its way and voluntarily abstains from skimming a lucrative market segment, the suspicion arises that maybe, just maybe, this actually may have been an ethical and good choice.
I hold no brief against BMW. I own one of their bikes (K75S) and one of their cars (318i), and in my opinion, they make excellent vehicles. I also believe that their decision to restrict themselves was probably made on safety-related grounds, or at least conservative ones ('100PS should be enough for anyone.')
BMW themselves did not necessarily have to be involved, Germany had and has powerful unions, who would also have an interest in bolstering a domestic industry, to say nothing of large private and corporate shareholders.
As I mentioned above, BMW are now making 100PS+ bikes, the current K1200RS makes 130 bhp (see link in previous post)
It is sad that it happened in the face of huge opposition
So (nearly) did a blanket 100PS power limit on every motorcycle manufactured in or imported into the EC. This was former Commissioner Martin Bangemann's pet project, and it took intensive lobbying from among others, the Motorcycle Action Group and Triumph Motorcycles to slow it down, but it only died when Bangemann himself ceased to be a Commissioner.
This was a virtally unresearched, transparently anti-competitive (Bangemann was trying to protect BMW, who, up until about five years ago, had a similar self-imposed limit) piece of legislation, supported by almost no-one else and more than once rejected by the European Parliament, yet it still took the downfall of its sponsor to kill it.
Moral?
EU Commissioners have far too much power, far too little responsibility, and are too difficult to get rid of.
Incidentally, I'm uncertain whether BMW themselves actually had anything to do with this mess, but shortly afterward, they lifted their self-imposed limit and now make some very nice bikes.
2 of the 5 FCC members are Democrats. 3 are Republicans.
What does that have to do with the price of fish?
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
To explain further, I live in the UK, which currently has a government formed by the 'New Labour' party. Historically, the Labour party has been Socialist in ideology, born as it was from the union movement. Yet this government has gone further down the road of privatisation, especially of public services, than the previous, nominally Capitalist, Conservative party ever dreamed of. The party name no longer tells the whole story, if indeed, it ever did.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
Personally I think device tax is silly way to pay for a public service - it should come out of direct taxation instead.
There are many good reasons for the BBC not to be funded by direct taxation, chief among them is the huge influence over the BBC's posture and programming which that would give to the government of the day. No other country has a national broadcaster which is not completely 0wned by whoever happens to be running that country at that time. For example, the BBC is frequently accused of bias toward the current 'New Labour' government. There may or may not be justification for this, but the mere fact that such accusations are being made shows that bias is not what is expected of the BBC. FWIW, said 'New Labour' government complains with comforting regularity that the BBC is biased against it.
Hey, mine's eight this year. It bootstrapped Gentoo in forty minutes and took six hours to build the rest of the system, including most of KDE, OpenOffice, mplayer and transcode. OpenOffice starts in a heartbeat, Konqueror flies and all whilst transcode is converting from Xvid to DVD at over 80 fps. Rock solid and totally responsive with a load average of 15.
root@homebox root# nmap -sV -P0 www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk
Starting nmap 3.50 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2005-02-09 22:57 GMT
Interesting ports on 205.141.227.197:
(The 1657 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 4.0
Well, that explains it (although it shouldn't)
This is the case for a significant proportion of other.gov.uk sites. Time for Sir Tim to start making a few waves, methinks.
Thanks, I didn't know it had a name:) I originally thought it was put into photos on eBay auctions as an indication of scale, or just to liven up a picture of a rather boring cardboard box. I did hear that anysystem.com have been known to stuff one among the peanuts when packing an order for delivery. I'd like that one to be true, it's just such a cool thing to do.
As far as it being a planchette goes, I can just envisage the seance...
'Place your hands sur la planchette.'
'What planchette?'
'The...yellow thing.'
'You mean the rubber duck?'
Sigh..'Place your hands on the +4 duck of occult significance, please.'
Seriously, though, if Linux can have a penguin, Sun's Java a steaming cup of coffee (coffee, java, geddit?), and anysystem.com a rubber duck, why not a little daemon? Lighten up, world.
The Earth's average distance from the Sun is governed by it's orbital velocity and nothing else
That's only in the current equilibrium, which is a highly simplified version of the general case.
That's why I said 'average distance'.
A flyby of a massive body (like Mars) could certainly affect Earth's orbit.
You'd think so, wouldn't you (I know I would). However, there are a couple of problems. The biggest one, of course, is arranging the fly-by. See previous comment involving unfeasible quantities of nuclear explosive.
More interesting is whether Mars counts as a 'massive body', and what it's effect on Earth would be.(All figures from NASA's Mars Fact Sheet). Let's do the maths:)
Mars has an orbital velocity of 24.13 km/s.
Earth's is 29.78 km/s.
Assuming we are trying to accelerate Mars, it can gain 5.65 km/s, which translates into a KE gain of c. 1E31 J.
Because energy is conserved, Earth must lose the same amount of KE, which, of course, will reduce its orbital velocity - but by how much?
Well, by the ancient formula, E=1/2mv^2, Earth has 5.9736E24kg/2*29780m/s^2 = 2.6488E33 J of KE.
Subtracting the KE 'stolen' by our wayward Martians, we are left with 'only' 2.6388E33 J, ie this transfer has cost Earth.01% of our total KE, giving a 0.1% reduction in orbital velocity. What this would do to the length of a year I'm not sure (maybe somebody whose orbital mechanics is better than mine can tell us), but I doubt it would do more than annoy a few 'perpetual calendar' manufacturers.
This possibility falsifies your claim in general, since the Earth's behavior would, for a while at least, be affected by something other than its orbital velocity.
ITYM 'something changing its orbital velocity'. And changes in velocity are permanent, unless something else acts to change it back. Newton, see?
As for whether we "couldn't affect the orbit of Mars", I think you mean that we're highly unlikely to affect it accidentally while actually trying to give it an atmosphere. I agree, but that misses the point.
If you really mean that we aren't capable of ever affect the orbit of a planet like Mars, then you'll need to refute the paper "Astronomical Engineering: A Strategy For Modifying Planetary Orbits". A plausible economic argument might be made against it...
The paper you cite is interesting (got a link to the full version? I don't feel like paying '$33.93 plus tax' for it:), but assumes Mankind to be far more forward-thinking and philanthropic than it currently appears to be:( Ergo, we can't do it, accidentally or not.
If this were the case, Mars and Earth's orbits would affect each other now.
Mars has 1.86E32 J of KE. Altering that KE is the only way of changing it's orbit. Assuming we wish to change it's velocity by 1%, we would need 1.86E30 J of energy to do so. This equates to 3.9E17 metric tons of TNT. On October 30, 1961, Soviet physicists detonated a 50-megaton bomb, which remains unsurpassed in terms of its yield. You would need 8.9E12 of these bombs to produce that '1%' effect, and that's assuming perfect efficiency in converting explosive energy to orbital velocity.
The Earth's average distance from the Sun is governed by it's orbital velocity and nothing else, for the same reason that the period of a pendulum depends soley upon it's length and the prevailing gravitational field, it's mass having no relevance.
Short answer - We couldn't affect the orbit of Mars, and it would have no effect on that of Earth if we could.
It looks like there's thirteen years worth of prior art here:
Justsystem started selling Ichitaro in August 1985
Matsushita patent number 2,803,236, which was registered with the Japanese patent office in 1998
Note the article says 'registered' not 'granted', so it would appear that 1998 was the start of the patent process, which makes a submarine patent look unlikely.
It is possible, however, that the problematic help system was added after 1998, though the article makes no mention of this.
If somebody has access to the court ruling and can provide a translation, I'm sure things will become a lot clearer.
I have no idea how long the DVD+Rs and DVD+RWs will last.
DVD media should do better than CD, if only because the data layer is completely encapsulated, as opposed to covered in thin lacquer like CDRs. This assumes, of course, that the edges are similarly well sealed. Looking at my (DataWrite 8x plain white printable) DVD+Rs, that seems to be the case - the data layer stops about 1mm short of the edge of the disc.
In the end, you will be able to run those free software from linux on an overpriced sun hardware.
root@beast proc # more cpuinfo
cpu : TI UltraSparc II (BlackBird)
fpu : UltraSparc II integrated FPU
promlib : Version 3 Revision 2
prom : 3.2.30
type : sun4u
ncpus probed : 14
ncpus active : 14
Cpu0Bogo : 671.74
-snip-
root@beast proc # more version
Linux version 2.4.27-sparc (gcc version 3.3.4 20040623 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.4)) #1 SMP Thu Dec 23 03:11:37 GMT 2004
You were saying?
Though I do wish FC-AL and Gigabit Ethernet were supported:)
Basically, yes.
Studios (actually, I'd imagine they outsource this work) have great experience converting film to VHS, DVD, and other mainstream media. They have none at all at using MPEG-4 codecs.
'Scene' rippers take great pride in their work, competing amongst themselves to provide the best quality with limited file sizes. The only 'professional' organisations using MPEG-4 at the moment are outside broadcasters looking to squeeze as much on-the-scene reporting as possible through a limited satellite uplink. The encoding is done in hardware, latency is more important than quality (it's for broadcast news - PAL or NTSC resolution) and it looks crap. Look at vcdquality.com - these are the guys who spend days fine-tuning codecs and bitrates to get the best possible results.
As for 'converting with no loss of quality', which other formats were you thinking of? DVD? Sorry, compressed MPEG-2 video at 2-10Mbps isn't anywhere near film. VHS/SVHS? Don't make me laugh. Laserdisc? Even the hardest-core LD freaks will admit that film is much better.
The 'guy running a few programs off the net' does it for the respect of his peers, because he's good at it, and because he loves it. The studio guy does it to pay the rent. Who do you think is motivated to do a better job?
Run a subscription BitTorrent server. Charge $20/month for membership. Fingerprint torrent files to prevent them from being used by other IP addresses.* Guarantee quality. Employ professional rippers. Provide back catalogue. Don't bother with custom BitTorrent clients. Point people at Mr Cohen's site
Profit.
The Bollywood studios have an opportunity to embrace the technology so feared by their Western cousins. Their production costs tend to be much lower, their business model more fluid. If they get this right, they could ride the bandwidth wave into the next decade, paying less for distribution than the MPAA pay for toilet tissue. Let's hope they can provide a much-needed example
*This is a speed-bump only, but I would imagine that people who have paid for content are less likely to distribute it further than those who have not.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent office received 376,810 patent applications last year. It usually takes about two-and-a-half years for a patent to be processed. About 65 percent of all patents submitted are approved
My sig referencences my brother's band, there are tracks available for download there. They can do this because they own their creations. They also don't mind their music being shared - see the copyright notice.
We'll take it from there.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's your beef with motorcycles?
My only problem with motorcycles is that I don't get to ride them enough. I rode for seven years before I took my car test.
I hate Hummers as much as anyone, and I also hate Harleys that aren't properly muffled (most of them around here in the USA, it seems). But what's the problem with a motorcycle being powerful? If he goes too fast and hits you, he's only going to kill himself, assuming you're in some type of car. Bikes always lose in collisions.
Hmmm. Maybe you're not replying to me? Oh well.
Now, I would agree that there are various other problems with bikes: noise and emissions come to mind immediately.
Maybe it's better on your side of the pond, but over here, Harleys (and only Harleys) seem to be somehow exempt from any type of noise pollution laws. Kids who install noisy mufflers on their Hondas get pulled over by the cops, but Harleys that drive by with absolutely deafening exhausts go unnoticed.
The other big problem with bikes is emissions. Just like SUVs somehow have more lax emissions restrictions than cars, bikes have almost no restrictions. From what I've read, you'd be doing the environment a favor by driving a Hummer H2 to the mall instead of almost any motorcycle, because of the pollutants per mile spewed out by them.
Of course Harleys don't get pulled over! Harleys are Righteous American Motorcycles, ridden by Righteous Americans, not dirty little tin boxes from gook-land, driven by Jap-lovin' sonsabitches. Get with the program, guy!
I don't know what you read or where you read it, but I think you should leave the Hummer at home. It gets about 15-16 mpg on average - this figure will probably be worse on our urban trip to the mall. It's hard to get most bikes to return less than 40 mpg, so as far as CO2 goes, the bike wins.
With other substances, it's not so certain. I'm fairly sure the Hummer has a catalytic converter, in which case it wouldn't produce noticeable levels of CO, HC or NOx. However, a growing number of bikes do have these nowadays (notably, BMWs), so we get either 'some' or 'even less noticeable than the Hummer'.
The problem here, however, is with regulation. Our stupid governments need to regulate these items on bikes (and SUVs) just like they do on cars, and not give any special treatment to anyone. With fuel injection being standard on cars for over twenty years, it's time that it's required on bikes as well, and that their emissions are more inline with small cars. And noise limits should be the same for all vehicles, regardless of size. There's no technical reason these things can't be achieved on bikes, only the monetary reason that it saves costs for the manufacturers.
I have no problem with vehicles being regulated wrt emissions, as long as it is done in a sane and sensible manner. Currently, all regulation is aimed at ensuring vehicles have catalytic converters and run stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures, using fuel injection. This reliance on the 'cat' to sort out any problems between the engine and exhaust has caused engine development to stagnate. It also means that, because CO2 is not officially a 'pollutant', our putative H2 is officially 'greener' than a pre-cat Honda Civic.
More and more bikes are becoming fuel-injected - BMW led the way here, my 1986 K75 has multi-point EFI and so does everything they've made since.
As for noise limits, good luck getting a 300hp direct-injection diesel truck engine to sound like a gently idling Bentley.
Bike engines (and exhausts) have been getting quieter, but they will always suffer from being far more exposed than car engines, and also from a much shorter exhaust pipe. Loading bikes up with sound insulation to compensate will just increase weight and aerodynamic profile, reducing fuel economy.
How powerful may an engine be before it becomes 'obscene'? Where would you draw the line? Would you be as supportive of a hypothetical law limiting your encryption keys to 64-bits, or your CPU to 1.5MHz.
The freedom to drive a heavy or powerful vehicle on a public road infringes with your fellow trafficant's safety.
No citizen of any European country has the right/freedom to drive anything at all on a public road. Driving is a privilege, which we earn by proving that we are capable of safely operating a vehicle, ie passing the relevant driving test. Should we subsequently drive in such a manner as to cast doubt upon our safety, the privilege can be withdrawn. In general, the larger and more hazardous vehicles have more difficult and demanding tests associated with them; obtaining a licence to drive a private passenger/light goods vehicle (car) is far easier than for a heavy goods vehicle. Motorcycles have similar restrictions with regard to capacity, power and power-to-weight ratio, with, in the UK at least, three different licencing levels
In Europe we have little love for Hummers and their like. They bring on an inflation in vehicle size and weight, because they are perceived as a threat, and rightly so!
I'm not sure when you gained the authority to speak for the whole of Europe, but assuming you are also speaking for yourself, I agree with you. I would also add that higher fuel prices make such vehicles even more vulgar here than in their own country, and that they are simply too big for most European cities.
You are comparing apples with oranges. On one hand we have the liberty to infringe fellow citizens' physical or perceived safety.
OK, time to explode this myth before we go any further. You seem to agree with ex-Commissioner Bangemann that powerful motorcycles are a threat to the safety of road users. Not so. The 'study' used to back up Marvin's Directive took data from one small (>40 square miles) area of Germany, very popular with bikers for its open, winding roads, over a period of less than three months one summer. Later and wider studies showed the exact opposite - younger and less experienced riders, usually on lower-powered bikes, were more at risk of being involved in an accident.
Note that I say 'being involved in an accident' - not 'injuring another'. Most motorcycle accidents that cause an injury, cause that injury to the rider alone. This further detracts from your argument about 'infringement upon safety'.
On the other hand we have the liberty to infringe on other people's (read: companies') ideas. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the realm of ideas. I, for one, would like to keep those apart.
This reaches to the heart of the software patent argument. As patent law stands, you cannot patent an idea. All you can do is to patent an implementation of said idea. Ergo, an idea cannot currently be infringed upon.
For example, imagine that, in 1854, somebody had patented the idea of reducing the carbon content of cast iron so as to produce steel. However inefficient their method, Henry Bessemer's conversion process would have infringed upon it, and cheap, reliable steel production would have been delayed for twenty years.
So yes, let's keep the physical and the imaginary apart.
What is troubling with the attitude of freedom-loving bikers is the strong sense of entitlement. I hope that it is not the dominant attitude among motorcyclists, because it reflects badly on them all!
Entitlement didn't come into it, the reason for uproar was discriminatory treatment. No power restrictions were mooted for any other vehicle, even for learners and 'new drivers'.
As I recall, at the time there was plenty of media coverage. Usually of the 'OMG WTF Killer Bikers!' tabloid type. Much like the current 'NE1 Coud Be A Terorist' tripe boosting advertising rates today.
A couple of motorcyclists special interest groups can't hardly count as representative of public opinion. In fact I would bet that the average european would be in favor of caps on motorcycles. (btw. 100PS = 100HP) Bikers are not exactly popular.
As with the current topic, (software patents) 'public opinion' didn't really exist on the issue after the tabloids and their sheeple had forgotten about it (about a week after the story broke). In fact, the more I think about it, the greater the parallells between these cases. Both are largely about freedom, and neither really catches the public eye. If I didn't read Slashdot, I'd never have heard of this one, if I hadn't read bike mags during that period, I wouldn't have heard about that one either. The average European couldn't give a shit until they are affected by this crap, which is why it's up to bikers (and geeks) to oppose it.
You suspect protection of BMW? Are you kidding? Don't you think that BMW can't easily build >100HP bikes? This makes me especially suspicious. If a corporation goes out of its way and voluntarily abstains from skimming a lucrative market segment, the suspicion arises that maybe, just maybe, this actually may have been an ethical and good choice.
I hold no brief against BMW. I own one of their bikes (K75S) and one of their cars (318i), and in my opinion, they make excellent vehicles. I also believe that their decision to restrict themselves was probably made on safety-related grounds, or at least conservative ones ('100PS should be enough for anyone.')
BMW themselves did not necessarily have to be involved, Germany had and has powerful unions, who would also have an interest in bolstering a domestic industry, to say nothing of large private and corporate shareholders.
As I mentioned above, BMW are now making 100PS+ bikes, the current K1200RS makes 130 bhp (see link in previous post)
So (nearly) did a blanket 100PS power limit on every motorcycle manufactured in or imported into the EC. This was former Commissioner Martin Bangemann's pet project, and it took intensive lobbying from among others, the Motorcycle Action Group and Triumph Motorcycles to slow it down, but it only died when Bangemann himself ceased to be a Commissioner.
This was a virtally unresearched, transparently anti-competitive (Bangemann was trying to protect BMW, who, up until about five years ago, had a similar self-imposed limit) piece of legislation, supported by almost no-one else and more than once rejected by the European Parliament, yet it still took the downfall of its sponsor to kill it.
Moral?
EU Commissioners have far too much power, far too little responsibility, and are too difficult to get rid of.
Incidentally, I'm uncertain whether BMW themselves actually had anything to do with this mess, but shortly afterward, they lifted their self-imposed limit and now make some very nice bikes.
What does that have to do with the price of fish?
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
To explain further, I live in the UK, which currently has a government formed by the 'New Labour' party. Historically, the Labour party has been Socialist in ideology, born as it was from the union movement. Yet this government has gone further down the road of privatisation, especially of public services, than the previous, nominally Capitalist, Conservative party ever dreamed of. The party name no longer tells the whole story, if indeed, it ever did.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
There are many good reasons for the BBC not to be funded by direct taxation, chief among them is the huge influence over the BBC's posture and programming which that would give to the government of the day. No other country has a national broadcaster which is not completely 0wned by whoever happens to be running that country at that time. For example, the BBC is frequently accused of bias toward the current 'New Labour' government. There may or may not be justification for this, but the mere fact that such accusations are being made shows that bias is not what is expected of the BBC. FWIW, said 'New Labour' government complains with comforting regularity that the BBC is biased against it.
Sun's OBP is also very nice.
Since Sun seem to be in the mood to open-source things lately, maybe a little prodding could produce results?
Hey, mine's eight this year. It bootstrapped Gentoo in forty minutes and took six hours to build the rest of the system, including most of KDE, OpenOffice, mplayer and transcode. OpenOffice starts in a heartbeat, Konqueror flies and all whilst transcode is converting from Xvid to DVD at over 80 fps. Rock solid and totally responsive with a load average of 15.
It's fun to own a 14-way Sun E4000 :)
We'll discuss the power bill come summer, when I can't offset it against the savings on heating :)
The worst culprit?
The UK's online Job Centre
I wonder why?
Well, that explains it (although it shouldn't)This is the case for a significant proportion of other
Thanks, I didn't know it had a name :) I originally thought it was put into photos on eBay auctions as an indication of scale, or just to liven up a picture of a rather boring cardboard box.
I did hear that anysystem.com have been known to stuff one among the peanuts when packing an order for delivery. I'd like that one to be true, it's just such a cool thing to do.
As far as it being a planchette goes, I can just envisage the seance...
'Place your hands sur la planchette.'
'What planchette?'
'The...yellow thing.'
'You mean the rubber duck?'
Sigh..'Place your hands on the +4 duck of occult significance, please.'
Seriously, though, if Linux can have a penguin, Sun's Java a steaming cup of coffee (coffee, java, geddit?), and anysystem.com a rubber duck, why not a little daemon? Lighten up, world.
That's only in the current equilibrium, which is a highly simplified version of the general case.
That's why I said 'average distance'.
A flyby of a massive body (like Mars) could certainly affect Earth's orbit. :)
You'd think so, wouldn't you (I know I would). However, there are a couple of problems. The biggest one, of course, is arranging the fly-by. See previous comment involving unfeasible quantities of nuclear explosive.
More interesting is whether Mars counts as a 'massive body', and what it's effect on Earth would be.(All figures from NASA's Mars Fact Sheet). Let's do the maths
Mars has an orbital velocity of 24.13 km/s. .01% of our total KE, giving a 0.1% reduction in orbital velocity.
Earth's is 29.78 km/s.
Assuming we are trying to accelerate Mars, it can gain 5.65 km/s, which translates into a KE gain of c. 1E31 J.
Because energy is conserved, Earth must lose the same amount of KE, which, of course, will reduce its orbital velocity - but by how much?
Well, by the ancient formula, E=1/2mv^2, Earth has 5.9736E24kg/2*29780m/s^2 = 2.6488E33 J of KE.
Subtracting the KE 'stolen' by our wayward Martians, we are left with 'only' 2.6388E33 J, ie this transfer has cost Earth
What this would do to the length of a year I'm not sure (maybe somebody whose orbital mechanics is better than mine can tell us), but I doubt it would do more than annoy a few 'perpetual calendar' manufacturers.
This possibility falsifies your claim in general, since the Earth's behavior would, for a while at least, be affected by something other than its orbital velocity.
ITYM 'something changing its orbital velocity'. And changes in velocity are permanent, unless something else acts to change it back. Newton, see?
As for whether we "couldn't affect the orbit of Mars", I think you mean that we're highly unlikely to affect it accidentally while actually trying to give it an atmosphere. I agree, but that misses the point. :(
If you really mean that we aren't capable of ever affect the orbit of a planet like Mars, then you'll need to refute the paper "Astronomical Engineering: A Strategy For Modifying Planetary Orbits". A plausible economic argument might be made against it...
The paper you cite is interesting (got a link to the full version? I don't feel like paying '$33.93 plus tax' for it:), but assumes Mankind to be far more forward-thinking and philanthropic than it currently appears to be
Ergo, we can't do it, accidentally or not.
Mars has 1.86E32 J of KE. Altering that KE is the only way of changing it's orbit. Assuming we wish to change it's velocity by 1%, we would need 1.86E30 J of energy to do so. This equates to 3.9E17 metric tons of TNT.
On October 30, 1961, Soviet physicists detonated a 50-megaton bomb, which remains unsurpassed in terms of its yield. You would need 8.9E12 of these bombs to produce that '1%' effect, and that's assuming perfect efficiency in converting explosive energy to orbital velocity.
The Earth's average distance from the Sun is governed by it's orbital velocity and nothing else, for the same reason that the period of a pendulum depends soley upon it's length and the prevailing gravitational field, it's mass having no relevance.
Short answer - We couldn't affect the orbit of Mars, and it would have no effect on that of Earth if we could.
Justsystem started selling Ichitaro in August 1985
Matsushita patent number 2,803,236, which was registered with the Japanese patent office in 1998
Note the article says 'registered' not 'granted', so it would appear that 1998 was the start of the patent process, which makes a submarine patent look unlikely.
It is possible, however, that the problematic help system was added after 1998, though the article makes no mention of this.
If somebody has access to the court ruling and can provide a translation, I'm sure things will become a lot clearer.
DVD media should do better than CD, if only because the data layer is completely encapsulated, as opposed to covered in thin lacquer like CDRs. This assumes, of course, that the edges are similarly well sealed. Looking at my (DataWrite 8x plain white printable) DVD+Rs, that seems to be the case - the data layer stops about 1mm short of the edge of the disc.
Is it right for you? I have no idea, but I know someone who can advise you :)
Yes. $1 per GB, available, backed up data-centre style, warrantied etc.
I read TFA yesterday, and did consider submitting it, but I don't like repeating myself.
So, it seems there is an emerging rental market in CPU time. Maybe I can work out a way to make my E4K pay its way?
root@beast proc # more cpuinfo
cpu : TI UltraSparc II (BlackBird)
fpu : UltraSparc II integrated FPU
promlib : Version 3 Revision 2
prom : 3.2.30
type : sun4u
ncpus probed : 14
ncpus active : 14
Cpu0Bogo : 671.74
-snip-
root@beast proc # more version
Linux version 2.4.27-sparc (gcc version 3.3.4 20040623 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.4)) #1 SMP Thu Dec 23 03:11:37 GMT 2004
You were saying? :)
Though I do wish FC-AL and Gigabit Ethernet were supported
Bah. I'll be impressed when it's self aware.
Studios (actually, I'd imagine they outsource this work) have great experience converting film to VHS, DVD, and other mainstream media. They have none at all at using MPEG-4 codecs.
'Scene' rippers take great pride in their work, competing amongst themselves to provide the best quality with limited file sizes. The only 'professional' organisations using MPEG-4 at the moment are outside broadcasters looking to squeeze as much on-the-scene reporting as possible through a limited satellite uplink. The encoding is done in hardware, latency is more important than quality (it's for broadcast news - PAL or NTSC resolution) and it looks crap. Look at vcdquality.com - these are the guys who spend days fine-tuning codecs and bitrates to get the best possible results.
As for 'converting with no loss of quality', which other formats were you thinking of? DVD? Sorry, compressed MPEG-2 video at 2-10Mbps isn't anywhere near film. VHS/SVHS? Don't make me laugh. Laserdisc? Even the hardest-core LD freaks will admit that film is much better.
The 'guy running a few programs off the net' does it for the respect of his peers, because he's good at it, and because he loves it. The studio guy does it to pay the rent.
Who do you think is motivated to do a better job?
Profit.
The Bollywood studios have an opportunity to embrace the technology so feared by their Western cousins. Their production costs tend to be much lower, their business model more fluid. If they get this right, they could ride the bandwidth wave into the next decade, paying less for distribution than the MPAA pay for toilet tissue. Let's hope they can provide a much-needed example
*This is a speed-bump only, but I would imagine that people who have paid for content are less likely to distribute it further than those who have not.