uuhm yeah, suffer that's it. how about considering the results of your actions? as an american we use more energy than india and china combined (feel free to compare the numbers). grow the fuck up, you don't want to be comfortable. compare you're life to any other era in in history and tell me that you're suffering. even if you used half the energy you use, you're still wastefull by any other standard.
Shrug. And those countries don't produce diddily-squat (if you subtract the subsidy they get in terms of trade deficits). I'd argue that just to save money - pushing conservation past that is idiocy, and boils down to using an increased amount of resources instead - the USA produces more per unit of energy used than those other countries by far.
And no, the environmental extremists haven't done the damage needed to have caused real suffering yet, except in certain unfortunate rural areas. But they're trying - their BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) policies have pushed California, which conserves more than anywhere else, to the point of considering only providing electricity for part of the day, tearing the infrastructure down to a Third-world country's.
Admittedly energy has been and is wasted here. The majority by far is that simply discarded by
those who have worked to destroy the nuclear power industry.
Is that diesel fuel is more expensive than it need be is because it is taxed more heavily by the federal government, and sometimes by the states. In Florida you end up paying over 18 cents a gallon more.
Why? Because when it looked like diesel cars would get popular a few decades ago, taxes were raised on it so that those people who conserved energy using diesel passenger cars would'nt get any tax benefit from it! I kid you not.
You see, the environmentalist organizations don't really give a damn whether or not resources are conserved or CO2 emissions reduced. No, they want to see people suffer. Until they see people's lives being screwed up, these busibodies don't feel they've done enough to force other people to do enough. How dare people presume that they deserve to be comfortable, for goodness sake!
No, this isn't trying to be flamebait. Over and over, the agenda is given away when environmental radicals, with perfectly straight faces, respond to proposals for gathering energy from sources as clean as geothermal plants with whining that supplying more energy will just keep people from "conserving energy" as they should instead, totally missing the point that the idea is to conserve the resources used in producing the amount of energy needed by society.
Instead it's conserveconserveconserve to reduce the level of comfort and prosperity people should be allowed to enjoy - can't allow them to maintain the same lifestyle simply by using resources more wisely. It's never enough to replace that 75 watt lightbulb with a 15 watt florescent that puts out the same illumination - nope, to properly conserve you have to go to a 5-watt one and squint trying to read in proper uncomfortable twilight.
No, I made the mistake of trying to reply to someone who I assumed had a considerably higher IQ than is clearly the case. Sorry if that caused confusion.
If the ejected cloud is at all complex, a similar complaint about even a plain-vanilla impact wouldn't be unlikely IMHO.
I've seen a professionally offended societal go-gooder upset enough by something they imagined could be seen in an image of a solar flare's glowing burst of gas that they forbade it as a cow-worker's MS Windows wallpaper.
From past interactions with the religious types that might be paranoid about the same thing, I think it's a tossup whether they would blame NASA or that horrible Devil Comet.
sorta not so new death
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 2
The Ampex HS-100 analog disk recorder (used to provide the original slow/stop motion instant replay in TV sports events, back in the 1960s) was a rather dangerous device. It used a heavy 18-inch platter to record up to 30 seconds of video at (I forget) either 1800 or 3600 RPM. Which had an unfortunate tendency to suddenly leave its enclosure at an extremely high speed.
Evidently no human injuries were reported, but a few walls were casualties.
Re:Does it also work for FedEX vehicles?
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 2
Well, if you had the flywheel spinning fast enough to hold a useful amount of energy, it would probably have enough rotational inertia to make steering nearly impossible
With the flywheel hub/axle mounted vertically it would only torque the car when power was being added to or removed from it. Two counterrotating flywheels would cancel even this effect, and the engine mounts would mainly have to deal with changes in the road's incine because the gyroscopic effects would try to keep the car from leaning or pitching up and down.
Mounted sideways, though, those effects would oppose turns and aim the car in unexpected directions when they were attempted.
On the third hand, I'm not sure any of that would apply enough force to matter.
Re:Flywheels are a great solution
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 2
Flywheels would solve almost all of those problems. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, the biggest problem is developing materials that can withstand rotating the the enormous velocities requires. It sounds like fuel cells will come out sooner.
This is more of a problem with vehicles, where the flywheel is subject to tradeoffs between operating at a very high speed to store a lot of energy, practical limits on flywheel size and weight, and the weight of the armor around the flywheel needed to prevent potentally deadly chunks from flying loose if it does disintegrate. I understand they're trying to develop graphite composite flywheels for vehicles.
None of this has to be a huge problem for a fixed installation, however. You could make it massive and fairly fast and put three feet of reinforced concrete around it without too much trouble.
Saw a similar device at the Allen-Bradley offices in Cleveland. Big electrical motor drove a flywheel and generator that powered their mainframes (this was about 1983).
Probably wasn't very efficient - but as well as the UPS function, the inertial damping was extremely effective at eliminating power spikes.
Re:Eco friendly? Wouldn't a LEAD flywheel be bette
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 1
It's hard to tell for sure how much copper is involved. The site linked to, and the press release linked to from there, give 3 possible masses. Well, actually, one mass and two quantities of force - it will weigh a variable amount in pounds under acceleration and zero pounds once in free fall, but will maintain the same mass in kilograms throughout.
Okay, since copper is not a precious metal I'll assume we aren't talking troy pounds. So is the impactor:
770 pounds (349.272 kg)?
771 pounds (349.7256 kg)?
350 kilograms (~771.605 Pounds)?
Naturally, the USA news services that picked up the press release judt dropped the "350 kilogram" number. Hopefully NASA will figure out exactly what it masses before launch. Navigation would go so much better!
It would be interesting if the copper impactor (or an array of smaller ones) could be shaped and/or aimed in such a way as to produce a really pretty display of ejected gasses.
Presumably the plume from the impact would dissipate fairly quickly, but for a while recognisable shapes might be crafted.
And then there are the commercial possibilities, the advertising value of having your company's logo displayed across the sky for all in viewing latitudes to see should be worth a big donation to NASA. Or maybe the initials of someone who has too much money to throw away, like amateur astronaut Dennis Tito, could be tapped to subsidize the mission.
The possibilities are as endless as the bounds of bad taste!
I used the word "illegal" to refer to ruling that Napster was prohibited by contributory copyright law.
No, you simply made a point of fact (including your subject line: "noone said it was wrong/they said it was illegal") that someone had used the word "illegal" to describe Napster.
Yes, some people have said that, or at least I've seen them quoted as saying that. Never did you state that this was your opinion nor that you were referring to anything but what some unstated person said. And you ask me to "clearly define what I think" and admonish me that "We're not mind readers"? I was merely pointing out the definition of the word "illegal" that you noted some one had used was not fixed, and can mean the law does not mention or take account of something (Obviously it is a useless term to use in debate).
I have not in any way stated that because copyright law doesn't say this is ok it must be prohibited.
Nor did I say you did. Why are you taking this so personally?
To answer your numbered questions:
1. "illegal" means "not according to or authorized by law".
2. "unlawful", means "actually contrary to law".
3. The difference between "not according to or authorized by law" and actually contrary to law".
4 & 5 You didn't state these as answerable questions.
I'm at a loss to think of an example of something that is illegal and simultaniously "allowed" as you put it. In fact, I kind of hold the word "illegal" to mean "prohibited by law". Please, enlighten us.
Exactly. Because many people make the assumption that that is what the word means, people trying to stretch some portion of law to "whatever is not explicitly permitted is forbidden" use it to misrepresent the general legal rule I mentioned.
IANAL (and if I'm wrong let someone who is correct me) but this is the explanation someone who is gave me, when I mentioned a busybody city animal control department's announcement that pet snakes were "illegal" because there was no mention at all of them in the local ordinances regulating cats and dogs. Saying something is "illegal", I was told, was a matter of opinion and not of law.
Apparently the word "illegal" can mean anything up to a sick bird if convenient for whoever is using it.
And as you remember, the fibre laid into ocean must also be digged up at about every 80 km, because the equipment used to retransmit the amplified signal is tied to the original speed of that fibre. If I remember correctly, there were news about new technique for amplifying signal speed independent, but I cannot remember where. Maybe Google can...
Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifiers (EDFAs) were invented in 1987. Okay, let's check Google... it serves up this among other things...
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1993
Corning and AT&T offer new submarine fiber-optic components
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The microelectronics unit of AT&T has announced that it will make its next generation ultrahigh reliability undersea lightwave components available to system designers and integrators engaged in fiber-optic cable projects.
At OFC/IOOC '93, an optical conference here, AT&T Microelectronics displayed its key undersea lightwave products, including an ultrahigh reliability wavelength division multiplex (WDM) coupler for erbium doped fiber amplifier applications codeveloped with Corning Incorporated, and a pump laser module that incorporates the first commercial application of a revolutionary chemically vapor-deposited (CVD) diamond submount.
"When you place a critical communications device below the ocean you can't afford to take a risk of failure, and no one in the business has a better track record than AT&T," said Mark McGilvray, submarine lightwave product manager
[...]
And it might be reasonably considered so, since "illegal" means "not according to or authorized by law".
However, at least in the United States, things that are illegal are allowed unless they are unlawful, actually contrary to the law.
The RIAA, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have caught on to this concept, and it looks like they are intent on limiting people to using officially approved means of communication, and limiting freedom of speech to that which can be scanned and censored before or during transmission.
The irritating whining noise from people complaining that other people are using "their" Internet bandwidth for other than the favorite uses of the complainers faded years ago.
They just have to insert their analysed data on the cable being tapped... It's supposed to be able to transfer truckloads of it.
That could work. But there would have to be another tap to read it again, and (much harder) remove the added light before it reached the cable's normal destination, where anyone could see it.
If the NSA had access to the headends of the cable (say if one end was in the USA) it would be a much simpler matter of tapping or monitoring the data before it was multiplexed with a lot of other data and converted into light pulses. Or at worst tapping a land-based fiber by simply entering a manhole or digging down a few feet to the cable.
They have specially trained teams of hyperintelligent octupi down there analysing the data in real time, then the brain waves of the octupi are picked up using a reverse feedback effect of the orbital mind control lasers, which then beam it back down to your brain, where it leaks out into your mobile phone (even when it's switched off and not in the room) and they recover the signal from there.
Unfortunately, the entire budget of the program was wasted due to my rentng a house that possesses $39.49 of cheap but aluminum-foil-backed cellulose insulation, which does little to keep heat out or in but blocked the final link in the chain.
As well as anyone else trying to call me on the cellphone while I'm in the house.
Besides, I'm sure the tap is "thin" -- it just sees the light and sends a copy back to HQ, where they try to extract actual data in software
Using what data channel? They would have to winnow the information down to a tiny percentage of what was transmitted at the tap site (or
install their own undersea cable, which would be too hard to hide for the NSA's taste).
The only way I can see this happening is if the NSA installed their own undersea fiberoptic cable to send it back to themselves on.
Good thing the Ex-Soviet Union didn't have the tech, apparently, or the NSA would have then found their own monitoring cable tapped, and have to install another tap and cable on the USSR's return cable, which would then be tapped by the Reds, and so on, and so on...
- "You've got an anti-anti-antimissle missle? Well, we've got an
anti-anti-anti-antimissle missle!" - Get Smart!
This must be expensive, having to upgrade their equipment at the bottom of the ocean whenever a new generation of transmitter/receiver/multiplexer comes out...
Slashdot Mirror
uuhm yeah, suffer that's it. how about considering the results of your actions? as an american we use more energy than india and china combined (feel free to compare the numbers). grow the fuck up, you don't want to be comfortable. compare you're life to any other era in in history and tell me that you're suffering. even if you used half the energy you use, you're still wastefull by any other standard.
Shrug. And those countries don't produce diddily-squat (if you subtract the subsidy they get in terms of trade deficits). I'd argue that just to save money - pushing conservation past that is idiocy, and boils down to using an increased amount of resources instead - the USA produces more per unit of energy used than those other countries by far.
And no, the environmental extremists haven't done the damage needed to have caused real suffering yet, except in certain unfortunate rural areas. But they're trying - their BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) policies have pushed California, which conserves more than anywhere else, to the point of considering only providing electricity for part of the day, tearing the infrastructure down to a Third-world country's.
Admittedly energy has been and is wasted here. The majority by far is that simply discarded by
those who have worked to destroy the nuclear power industry.
Why? Because when it looked like diesel cars would get popular a few decades ago, taxes were raised on it so that those people who conserved energy using diesel passenger cars would'nt get any tax benefit from it! I kid you not.
You see, the environmentalist organizations don't really give a damn whether or not resources are conserved or CO2 emissions reduced. No, they want to see people suffer. Until they see people's lives being screwed up, these busibodies don't feel they've done enough to force other people to do enough. How dare people presume that they deserve to be comfortable, for goodness sake!
No, this isn't trying to be flamebait. Over and over, the agenda is given away when environmental radicals, with perfectly straight faces, respond to proposals for gathering energy from sources as clean as geothermal plants with whining that supplying more energy will just keep people from "conserving energy" as they should instead, totally missing the point that the idea is to conserve the resources used in producing the amount of energy needed by society.
Instead it's conserveconserveconserve to reduce the level of comfort and prosperity people should be allowed to enjoy - can't allow them to maintain the same lifestyle simply by using resources more wisely. It's never enough to replace that 75 watt lightbulb with a 15 watt florescent that puts out the same illumination - nope, to properly conserve you have to go to a 5-watt one and squint trying to read in proper uncomfortable twilight.
The lifetime promotion expired. Okay, this is like "Unlimited" dial up accounts where the ISP defines "unlimited" as X number of hours a month, right?
No, I made the mistake of trying to reply to someone who I assumed had a considerably higher IQ than is clearly the case. Sorry if that caused confusion.
I've seen a professionally offended societal go-gooder upset enough by something they imagined could be seen in an image of a solar flare's glowing burst of gas that they forbade it as a cow-worker's MS Windows wallpaper.
From past interactions with the religious types that might be paranoid about the same thing, I think it's a tossup whether they would blame NASA or that horrible Devil Comet.
Evidently no human injuries were reported, but a few walls were casualties.
With the flywheel hub/axle mounted vertically it would only torque the car when power was being added to or removed from it. Two counterrotating flywheels would cancel even this effect, and the engine mounts would mainly have to deal with changes in the road's incine because the gyroscopic effects would try to keep the car from leaning or pitching up and down.
Mounted sideways, though, those effects would oppose turns and aim the car in unexpected directions when they were attempted.
On the third hand, I'm not sure any of that would apply enough force to matter.
Flywheels would solve almost all of those problems. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, the biggest problem is developing materials that can withstand rotating the the enormous velocities requires. It sounds like fuel cells will come out sooner.
This is more of a problem with vehicles, where the flywheel is subject to tradeoffs between operating at a very high speed to store a lot of energy, practical limits on flywheel size and weight, and the weight of the armor around the flywheel needed to prevent potentally deadly chunks from flying loose if it does disintegrate. I understand they're trying to develop graphite composite flywheels for vehicles.
None of this has to be a huge problem for a fixed installation, however. You could make it massive and fairly fast and put three feet of reinforced concrete around it without too much trouble.
Saw a similar device at the Allen-Bradley offices in Cleveland. Big electrical motor drove a flywheel and generator that powered their mainframes (this was about 1983).
Probably wasn't very efficient - but as well as the UPS function, the inertial damping was extremely effective at eliminating power spikes.
New use for depleted uranium?
It's hard to tell for sure how much copper is involved. The site linked to, and the press release linked to from there, give 3 possible masses. Well, actually, one mass and two quantities of force - it will weigh a variable amount in pounds under acceleration and zero pounds once in free fall, but will maintain the same mass in kilograms throughout.
Okay, since copper is not a precious metal I'll assume we aren't talking troy pounds. So is the impactor:
770 pounds (349.272 kg)?
771 pounds (349.7256 kg)?
350 kilograms (~771.605 Pounds)?
Naturally, the USA news services that picked up the press release judt dropped the "350 kilogram" number. Hopefully NASA will figure out exactly what it masses before launch. Navigation would go so much better!
Presumably the plume from the impact would dissipate fairly quickly, but for a while recognisable shapes might be crafted.
And then there are the commercial possibilities, the advertising value of having your company's logo displayed across the sky for all in viewing latitudes to see should be worth a big donation to NASA. Or maybe the initials of someone who has too much money to throw away, like amateur astronaut Dennis Tito, could be tapped to subsidize the mission.
The possibilities are as endless as the bounds of bad taste!
After accidently plinking Mars with that probe, hasn't NASA learned to work in the metric system yet?
And is that Avoirdupois or Troy pounds?
No, you simply made a point of fact (including your subject line: "noone said it was wrong/they said it was illegal") that someone had used the word "illegal" to describe Napster.
Yes, some people have said that, or at least I've seen them quoted as saying that. Never did you state that this was your opinion nor that you were referring to anything but what some unstated person said. And you ask me to "clearly define what I think" and admonish me that "We're not mind readers"? I was merely pointing out the definition of the word "illegal" that you noted some one had used was not fixed, and can mean the law does not mention or take account of something (Obviously it is a useless term to use in debate).
Nor did I say you did. Why are you taking this so personally?To answer your numbered questions:
1. "illegal" means "not according to or authorized by law".
2. "unlawful", means "actually contrary to law".
3. The difference between "not according to or authorized by law" and actually contrary to law".
4 & 5 You didn't state these as answerable questions.
Exactly. Because many people make the assumption that that is what the word means, people trying to stretch some portion of law to "whatever is not explicitly permitted is forbidden" use it to misrepresent the general legal rule I mentioned.
IANAL (and if I'm wrong let someone who is correct me) but this is the explanation someone who is gave me, when I mentioned a busybody city animal control department's announcement that pet snakes were "illegal" because there was no mention at all of them in the local ordinances regulating cats and dogs. Saying something is "illegal", I was told, was a matter of opinion and not of law.
Apparently the word "illegal" can mean anything up to a sick bird if convenient for whoever is using it.
Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifiers (EDFAs) were invented in 1987. Okay, let's check Google... it serves up this among other things...
So they've been in use a while too.
Correct. Emacs is for email.
Until the someone inevitably creates a package for Emacs that does something RIAA decides violates copyright, and they have it banned.
they said it was illegal
And it might be reasonably considered so, since "illegal" means "not according to or authorized by law".
However, at least in the United States, things that are illegal are allowed unless they are unlawful, actually contrary to the law.
The RIAA, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have caught on to this concept, and it looks like they are intent on limiting people to using officially approved means of communication, and limiting freedom of speech to that which can be scanned and censored before or during transmission.
Don't go there...
The irritating whining noise from people complaining that other people are using "their" Internet bandwidth for other than the favorite uses of the complainers faded years ago.
Don't start it again, even as a joke.
Please.
They just have to insert their analysed data on the cable being tapped... It's supposed to be able to transfer truckloads of it.
That could work. But there would have to be another tap to read it again, and (much harder) remove the added light before it reached the cable's normal destination, where anyone could see it.
If the NSA had access to the headends of the cable (say if one end was in the USA) it would be a much simpler matter of tapping or monitoring the data before it was multiplexed with a lot of other data and converted into light pulses. Or at worst tapping a land-based fiber by simply entering a manhole or digging down a few feet to the cable.
Unfortunately, the entire budget of the program was wasted due to my rentng a house that possesses $39.49 of cheap but aluminum-foil-backed cellulose insulation, which does little to keep heat out or in but blocked the final link in the chain.
As well as anyone else trying to call me on the cellphone while I'm in the house.
Besides, I'm sure the tap is "thin" -- it just sees the light and sends a copy back to HQ, where they try to extract actual data in software
Using what data channel? They would have to winnow the information down to a tiny percentage of what was transmitted at the tap site (or
install their own undersea cable, which would be too hard to hide for the NSA's taste).
Good thing the Ex-Soviet Union didn't have the tech, apparently, or the NSA would have then found their own monitoring cable tapped, and have to install another tap and cable on the USSR's return cable, which would then be tapped by the Reds, and so on, and so on...
This must be expensive, having to upgrade their equipment at the bottom of the ocean whenever a new generation of transmitter/receiver/multiplexer comes out...
Logically, this should mean:
"Something there's a huge flap over that turns out not to amount to squat in the long run."