At least until you see a production model. Not to mention this VW is even smaller than the EV of this article with a freaking one cylinder engine. The production model is going to be twice that size, so you can safely bet it's not going to get 238 mpg, and it's a hybrid gas/electric to boot!
It's a two seat, four wheel motorcycle with a cover. One seat in front and one in back. Still an interesting vehicle
The rumor is true! Betelgeuse is going to Supernova soon. Within probably the next thousand years, or maybe 100,000 years. But soon. Sure it's only 10MYO give or take but it's a Rock Star in the Universe of Stars. It's lived hard and fast and will burn fast in a blaze of glory. In fact it may already have gone Supernova. Of course on a Cosmic scale even a 100,000 years is the blink of an eye. So it's going to go and go soon. When it goes it'll be brighter than the Moon. But it'll be 500 odd years before we know it's gone.
One gallon of gasoline has 115000 BTU of usable energy. One KWH has 3413 BTU of usable energy. Thus one gallon of gasoline has 33.69KWH of energy. Therefore the 56KWH battery pack has 1.6 gallons of gasoline and can push the vehicle at 60MPH for 248 miles. That means the two engine EV car gets 155 MPG. Oh damn you're right, who'd ever want to drive something that gets 155 MPG at highway speeds! What a worthless hunk of junk! I'd rather go drive in my gas powered car that gets 150mph on the highway... oh wait, they don't make one of those.
Now tell me which car are you driving that gets you 248 miles on 3 gallons of gasoline. Because I want to buy one. That would mean my car could go more than 1500miles on a tank of gas. I know, I get about 300. Why I could go anywhere in the US one one tank of gas (18 US Gal), from where I live, for $48 in my car at $3/g ($72 @ $4), or on a trip to New Orleans and back (I spent $350 in gas on my last trip there).
This car's battery pack is equal to about 12 gallons of gas in my car. Sure there are cars out now that are about double what I get, making it about 6-8 gallons best case scenario for gas. Your 3 gallon estimate is just bunk.
Lastly, a full tank of gasoline is about 150-200 kilos. So you have some valid points. Batteries are definitely heaver and they don't weigh any less when discharged, not like an empty gas tank. However gasoline has greater volume than batteries, and gas engines also take up more volume. Also, the electric motors are about 500 kilos less in weight than gas engine. So they added weight in batteries and reduced weight in engine. This car as a gas powered with a full tank would be heavier than the electric version, and about the same empty. So this race car has room for two passengers, and not much else. A lot like a corvette. Sure they used a high tech frame and lightweight body, but they could have made a custom bodyshell that had room for cargo, like the corvette. The batteries are about 3x heavier than gas and of about equal volume.
My source on those energy numbers came from those dummies over at Oak Ridge so they probably haven't got a clue about energy.
Damn, I can't end it in an exclamation point without breaking out of the super secret unbreakable spycode. What's really indecent is we have people making decisions so far out of whack with modern acceptable speech. Thank God they only understand English, or Jean Luc Picard would have been censored for saying Merde!
So it's ok to say Merde on TV , but not +h?t, $#*!, or A++hol@ or even d?*!h@ad. Sometimes saying ball+ is ok, but you can't say I think he hurt his ball+ on that play.
Maybe we just need to replace [ie get rid of] all the censors. I for one enjoy the occasional wardrobe malfunction on a nice firm, well shaped body and language doesn't offend me too much. Although, I generally don't play my George Carlin videos while my child is up..
Well it would be the end of it, except the city has taken the binding arbitration ruling to court to have it thrown out. What it boils down to in the end is one of two things:
1) Does the city feel it's worthhile to fire her and either:
a) pay out a settlement from the resulting wrongful discharge, et al lawsuit,
b) are convinced she won't find some hired gun foaming at the mouth to make mega-bucks suing a retarded local government;
OR
2) Does the city deluded think they can win a wrongful discharge suit, even after ignoring (in an act of civil contempt) and failing to obey the legally binding arbitration which specifically said they can't fire her for this stupid joke to her friends or the public ( I don't know what her setting was on this FB stupidity)?
In any event for Dana we have
3) Profit!!!!
Why settle for a measly pension when you can squeeze the blood out of the city and take everyone's pension!?
Umm, yes, because of the H2 in H2O. You use a regular water hose on an incendiary bomb, it rips the hydrogen or oxygen off and makes the fire even worse. While a very fine mist of water sprayed on a potassium fire may put it out.It does so by suffocating the oxygen in the air at a faster rate than the reaction of potassium and water is creating free hydrogen. The chemical reaction of potassium and H2O creates potassium hydroxide and free hydrogen which boils off. The free hydrogen then reacts with the oxygen in the air and ignites. Congratulations you're now feeding a fire by giving it water! Whoo hoo! Although, I wouldn't rule out the O in H2O as being a catalyst either. I'm sure, I could come up with some combinations where oxygen is freed by a chemical fire being feed water. You know just from a mad-scientist perspective.
Except Shakespeare was a) rich and b) made money from the people who came to his performances; and kings and queens and lesser royals paid Mozart to do his work. As were all the famous painters also paid and supported by rich people. Before there was radio and TV and phonographs you had to go to where the entertainment was or pay it to come to you. Then there were those artists who lived a live in poverty for their art. Odd as it may sound many artists are not willing to do that though. Art and creativity will not die, ever, but the ability of those not gifted in art and creativity will lose out if everyone stops paying for it.
Believe it or not artists have to eat, drink and sleep somewhere too. That all takes money, if they worked full time making art for you thankless hordes demanding only free entertainment then when would they ever have time to make money in order to eat and survive? And if what they are doing is not worth anything to you, why should they share it with you? Go make your own f***ing art and amuse yourself.
Not that, I'm saying giving it away or letting "piracy" happen is going to have an impact on the income of artists. With the internet trading of music and video, many people will get for free things they might have bought were it not for the ease of just taking it. Some will wind up buying the originals from the artists, some will not wind up buying anything, and some will just discard it. What the net effect will be, I can't say, as most everyone from both sides are lying vociferously.
As long as the internet exists solely as wire, your scenario has merit. Once people start building their own wireless networks, how do you propose to shutdown the airwaves without sucking out the atmosphere. Now to show my age, I will quote the first intelligent computer: "The only winning move is not to play".
Now of course you are neglecting the possibility of building an underground internet. One that does not use any of the regular servers. One already exists, I won't give the details here. But it's not hard to find. At least not for anyone who really, well, and truly is a computer geek.There are many paths to circumvent "the Man". The internet is just a bunch of servers running an application that allows other machines to relay data over a wire carrying electric current or light or sound waves.
It would be a matter of absurd simplicity to turn a dozen shortwave radios, spread out over a large distance into a wireless internet root DNS system. Now, I must state in conclusion, I find the whole idea of uploading copyrighted works for worldwide download to be very unfair and simply wrong from a moral and ethical standpoint.
Now if you come back and say but the copyright protection is too long, what about those 1920 blues songs and 1950s Musical movies (like Oklahoma!), I really want to share? I say, if that's what you want to share why are you uploading P. Diddy songs from 2009, and Disney movies from 2010? I can agree copyright is too long now. 56 years was a decent, but long, number. 35 years is probably more fair. Seven is a joke and totally unfair to authors.
You do have to hand over two hard copies of your work, if it is published, to the copyright office and pay them to get a registered copyright ($35 and up depending on how you do it and what options you choose). If your work is unpublished, then there is no need to submit two hardcopies, but don't quote me on that - there may be exceptions to the "no hard copy required rule".
Since w are talking about published works, then the LOC has a copy of them. Not sure how long the hard copy rule has been in existence. That'd be a research project, which I'd rather not undertake at this time.
BTW, there's actually fines and punishments for not depositing a published copyrighted work (even if you don't register). even though it's not required to file a registration.
These "giant plumes" are total hyperbole. A few miles is NOTHING in the context of a body of water the size of the Gulf of Mexico.
Agreed, one oil plume 10x3x0.057 miles long is nothing. Now, multiply that by a 1000 and you have 1700 cubic miles of oil slicks spread across the Gulf which is 559,000 cubic miles big. In other words more than enough to form a single slick running the entire North-South length of the Gulf one mile wide and one mile deep, but leaving a whopping 99.7% of the Gulf oil free. Of course, it's not even that bad, because I'm sure the plumes aren't that size on average and I used that one size as the average, and even that plume is probably not that big on average, just the maximum. Then it's not pure oil either. We don't really really need that 0.7% of living sea anyway.
Besides, there's the current down there that will pick up the oil and spread it along the Gulf Stream, around Florida and up the coast, over the North Atlantic and down along Europe, then back across the Atlantic to the Caribbean. Plenty of ocean to spread it out and share the load. No worries.
The largest bore diameter for oil rigs, and it makes no difference land or sea, is 36 inches (natural gas 42). Even Wikipedia gets this one right. This guy, the author of TFA, should read there once in a while. He might learn something. That is not to say the entire bore is that diameter. The way it's done is you drill a hole to a certain depth, then you insert a pipe and fix it in place - this is called the conductor casing. Then you drill a smaller diameter hole to another depth and insert another pipe and concrete in between - this is the surface casing to prevent contamination from the oil. Then you have the intermediate, liner and finally the production casings ( this is the one you see in the video). Smaller holes and sucessive casing may be added later The smallest hole for oil drilling is 5 inches. The 36-42 inch hole doesn't go all the way down to the oil. Consider the mini-dome "top hat" sitting on the floor now is 5 feet in diameter, we can pretty much call bullshit on the pipe being 5 feet in diameter. Even barring the fact no one has ever made one that size.
Further more, the largest proportion in that video shows natural gas leaking forcefully and the oil not as much. Still 5000 barrels -> 210,000 gallons a day for 23 days yields about 5 million gallons of oil, so far. Given we've got an oil slick about the size of Texas, I've gotta call bullshit on that figure too. Hell we've got oil covered birds in Florida! Give me a break, I don't believe this nutjob, but I sure as hell don't believe the media outlets either!
First off, if you can prove a chain of title for the code you wrote before joining them, then that code is yours. Examples of proof would be:you registered the code with the copyright office, you distributed the code someplace, you mailed yourself a copy in a certified letter and it's never been opened, you've had a copy of the code notarized. any of those will stand up in a court, and no sane business or lawyer would launch a case based on that. However, as Groklaw has shown, there is no shortage of insane idiots willing to sue over things they know they don't own. On a further note, your copyright cannot be transfered to them simply by you letting them use it to develop with. Copyright can only be transfered by the execution of a writing. Some states have stricter requirements. Like California.
Secondly, any code you've added to that code since you joined your company is likely to be found work-for-hire and you don't own it. While, I say likely, take that as meaning: "I wouldn't touch your code with someone else's 10 foot pole". You screwed up by not specifically listing your code when you got hired. I have always done this.
Third, as long as the company isn't distributing the code, like in a product they make, they do not have to release it under GPL. The specific "GPL" licenses vary in regards to that, so you need to look to the license of each piece to draw a conclusion.
Lastly, the company cannot and does not own the whole thing. Any GPLed code belongs to it's author. They cannot claim it as their own, only the modifications you made to it. Also, your original code is yours, but the problem is can you actually prove what code is yours? Without proof you have nothing, especially if the company says you didn't bring in any code of your own. Do you have proof they asked you to develop this code, that you had already written?
Disclaimer, "Dude you need to talk to a lawyer. and I ain't one."
These would come in quite handy in extreme environments. Well at least extreme in regards to motion. Very useful in say a rough terrain spy vehicle. With a device like this expensive, heavy, shock protection for a normal hard drive would not be necessary. It would come in quite handy in blackboxes, and such. In other words there is certainly a market out there beyond gadgeters. It would be a nice feature in a AI car, you could pack a lot of rules and patterns in and retrieve them in rapid succession. Oh, yeas, I see uses for this that would make it worth the high cost. You could just strap this into your lightweight self-driving EV prototype and gain a huge boost over your competitors.
While I agree with your premise. Your example sucks. For one thing, when I go to the grocery store, I usually look for the cheapest brand of food, with the same ingredients. Canned corn is canned corn. The only thing that brand names might have is genetically altered corn, and hence, I'd be more likely to shun a name-brand due to that. Furthermore, name brands are more hurtful now too. For example, I shun *ALL* Sony products. If I get one as a gift I return it to the store and get something different. NAme brand works both ways. With the advent of the Internet, it is even more precarious.
I do think we still need patents, but we need new rules to set definitive rules to narrow what a novel and useful invention is. Example: lithium ion batteries was novel, all the variant chemical combinations of making them are not.
1) All of the parties involved admit that Apple denied being the owner of the phone and that the guy who "found" the phone tried to return it to the owner. But the owner refused to take it. I'd say he made a reasonable and just effort to return it to them. What was he supposed to do shove it up their respective ___?
2) This is the potential flaw one, the other is a definite flaw. What is the time limit for "reasonable time" . Was it reasonable for them to disassemble the phone which Apple denied owning, in hopes of finding out what it really was? For all they knew it could have been a terrorist bomb. Was it unreasonable to disassemble it? Maybe. But once they had it apart, they were pretty sure it was an apple prototype. Only then would Apple admit they owned it. I'd say, Apple is at fault here. If he had left it there, it's quite possible it would have sat in a San Mateo property locker for the next 50 years. And we'd be missing all this entertainment now.
traditionally, journalists had extra privileges was because they worked for large litigious media outlets who wouldn't put up with that horseshit, and the government was rightfully wary. These days, not so much.
Wow! Who knew Benjamin Franklin was a large litigious media outlet! Actually the only horseshit here is people claiming that the only reason for the journalistic protection is because it's something Mega-corporations wanted. Do yourself and all of us a favor, pick up a middle high school or high school U.S.A, history book and learn something about the Constitution before spouting more of this horseshit. How the hell this ever got modded insightful doesn't reflect well on the current state of education in the USA. Damn this stuff was, like, required to be remembered to get to the next grade when I was in school. Granted, I'm an old Fu__. But not as old as the peace and love radicals from the 60s who sold out and gave us such wonderful things like the RIAA and MPAA, the wars in Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, and such other nonsense like no child left behind. The people teaching my daughter today just about scare me to death. I have a good mind to pull her out and educate her myself, and no I'm not some religious nutjob or Birther or commie liberal. I'm happily (or un-, depending on you point of view) in the middle. Just a geek, and long time tearerapartus whatmakesittickasaurus.
They didn't buy the phone itself. They bought the story.
1) Wrong. They paid $5000, and got the actual device itself.
They paid $5000 for a device that Apple denied being the owner of. Who the true owner was, was unknown. It was an odd device. There's no indication they intended to keep it. They are in a unique position to seek out the true owner and return it. I see nothing criminal here. Not that that case can't be made.
The finder wanted to return the phone to its rightful owner and couldn't confirm it was Apple and didn't trust that the bartender wouldn't just sell it once he realized it was valuable.
2) A thief would say that. And we know he's a thief because he sold the device that he didn't actually own.
Except you're leaving out one small detail. Apple has confirmed your "thief's" story. Therefore Apple has admitted to denying owning the phone. Ergo, Apple in that act could be considered to have abandoned the phone. Ergo, since the true owner abandoned the phone, Gizmodo was under no rule of law to return it to them. Apple abandoned it and admits they abandoned it. Due to their super-paranoid culture. They've pretty much told their employees to act this way. It is well documented.
When Gizmodo bought the story, he asked them to take on the task of returning the phone to it's rightful owner -- which they did. The phone was returned before the police were involved. Rather than entrusting the phone to a 3rd party such as the bartender at the bar where the phone was found, the finder believed a 3rd party like Gizmodo was more likely to be trustworthy and more likely to be able to ascertain the true owner. It's not an unreasonable assumption to have made.
You're in fantasy land now. If the possessor of the phone's intention was to use Gizmodo to find the true owner of the phone, why did he ask and receive $5000 from Gizmodo?
You're joking here right? I mean this guy knew it was some wierd kind of Apple phone, or clone, or hack. He knew, or should have known Gizmodo would salivate over such a thing. Only a fool wouldn't try to turn a profit on something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place (although perhaps somewhat immoral). If I find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk no amount of finder's keepers laws is going to convince me I have an obligation to find the owner (not that I wouldn't make some effort). If I find a Morgan silver dollar buried in the sand, I'm not taking out an ad in the paper to find the owner.
As for the rest of your rant, I can only suspect you are a senior Apple exec, or Darl McBride twisting the facts to fit your reality.
The last time this volcano erupted it was from mid Dec 1821 to January 1823 which is one year plus two partial months. However, the ash phase was intermittent for about 8 months. I've been seeing numbers all over the map on this subject. Still in eight months all the European airlines would be bust. US airlines would survive, but prices would go through the roof.
While, I agree that the corporate test result may be not the best and most reliable source, I disagree with your analysis.
First. the damage from the ash is unlikely, but not impossible, to mess with the tolerances of any moving parts in the engines, in the why you're writing of. Ergo, the rest of your discussion is meaningless.
Now, what I see the potential harm from is:
1. Abrasive sandblasting of the fans, stripping off the precisely formed aerodynaics, causing turbulent airflow and worse,
2. hot molten glass blasting the rear components of the engines,
3. hot molten glass melting the inner surface components of the engine,
4. volcanic ash reducing the burn efficiency of the engines, and hence the power output, and hence airspeed,
5. hot molten glass preventing ignition of the air/fuel mixture, and hence loss of power,
6 hot molten glass projectiles punching holes in the engine parts,
7. hot molten glass clogging engine parts.
Now, the effect of number 5 is documented. However, the questions that should be asked and answered are:
1. how dense is the ash,
2. at what altitudes is the ash,
3. is the ash sufficiently damaging at commercial altitudes,
4. what length of time in this ash cloud is safe,
5. what is the uniformity of the ash cloud.
Now, if the ash cloud isn't uniform, that makes it even more dangerous. There is no logical reason to conclude it is uniform, but it is likely a Brownian motion artifact and hence likely has some random uniformity. But also, likely unpredictable. Only a test of the entire cloud and afterward closely monitoring the cloud near the source as it continues can produce reliable data as to the safety of flying through it.
Simply testing the established routes is pointless, as the air in those routes will be different an hour after testing.Simply said. One route at one point in time may be perfectly safe, and at another time disastrous.
Lastly, the engines in commercial aircraft are more complex than military fighter engines. Unless they've stripped one down after the flight, they couldn't know if there was damage. I am skeptical they've had time to strip one down. I'd like to see pictures, too.
While it's also true that people are stupid (as in large groups are easily manipulated to do stupid things they wouldn't usually do), an individual may be very smart.
Equally, volcanoes are less polluting, but an individual volcano may be very polluting, like this volcano's sister, which was responsible for the deaths of thousands in Europe and maybe even as far away as Japan (indirectly of course), as a result of it's eruption in 1783 (Laki). Although this type of pollution is probably mostly short term. Some of our pollution is very long term.
Krakatoa, is another example of a very polluting volcano.
I believe that you're wrong about S02 being a green compound. That's the poisonous crap spewed by American factories responsible for the Acid Rain that killed most of the Adirondack Lakes. SO2 is right up there with NO2 as atmospheric pollutants. Certainly SO2 is an atmospheric by-product of volcanoes, but there's already too much in the atmosphere now. Sure it's great for Aunt Emmy's Roses, but bad for Aunt Emmy and her animals. While even NO2 is a natural by-product of lightning, thanks to industrialization, we already have more than enough of that in the atmosphere, too.
Iceland is falling! Iceland IS falling! Iceland is FALLING! All over Europe. Although some will most likely reach Alaska. Thank God Mrs Palin isn't governor anymore. She'd have probably called out the National Guard to attack Iceland.
Interesting and informative. But are your implying there is any disk, outside of SAS drives, that could last this long? While, disc drives, aren't rated like this, I'd like to see you make any, equivalent to the quoted device, OTC SATA last for that many writes, That's well outside the MTBF for any commercial SATA drive.
Slashdot Mirror
At least until you see a production model. Not to mention this VW is even smaller than the EV of this article with a freaking one cylinder engine. The production model is going to be twice that size, so you can safely bet it's not going to get 238 mpg, and it's a hybrid gas/electric to boot!
It's a two seat, four wheel motorcycle with a cover. One seat in front and one in back. Still an interesting vehicle
The rumor is true! Betelgeuse is going to Supernova soon. Within probably the next thousand years, or maybe 100,000 years. But soon. Sure it's only 10MYO give or take but it's a Rock Star in the Universe of Stars. It's lived hard and fast and will burn fast in a blaze of glory. In fact it may already have gone Supernova. Of course on a Cosmic scale even a 100,000 years is the blink of an eye. So it's going to go and go soon. When it goes it'll be brighter than the Moon. But it'll be 500 odd years before we know it's gone.
I'd rather go drive in my gas powered car that gets 150mph on the highway ... oh wait, they don't make one of those.
Correction: I'd rather go drive in my gas powered car that gets 150mpg on the highway ... oh wait, they don't make one of those.
One gallon of gasoline has 115000 BTU of usable energy. One KWH has 3413 BTU of usable energy. Thus one gallon of gasoline has 33.69KWH of energy. Therefore the 56KWH battery pack has 1.6 gallons of gasoline and can push the vehicle at 60MPH for 248 miles. That means the two engine EV car gets 155 MPG. Oh damn you're right, who'd ever want to drive something that gets 155 MPG at highway speeds! What a worthless hunk of junk! I'd rather go drive in my gas powered car that gets 150mph on the highway ... oh wait, they don't make one of those.
Now tell me which car are you driving that gets you 248 miles on 3 gallons of gasoline. Because I want to buy one. That would mean my car could go more than 1500miles on a tank of gas. I know, I get about 300. Why I could go anywhere in the US one one tank of gas (18 US Gal), from where I live, for $48 in my car at $3/g ($72 @ $4), or on a trip to New Orleans and back (I spent $350 in gas on my last trip there).
This car's battery pack is equal to about 12 gallons of gas in my car. Sure there are cars out now that are about double what I get, making it about 6-8 gallons best case scenario for gas. Your 3 gallon estimate is just bunk.
Lastly, a full tank of gasoline is about 150-200 kilos. So you have some valid points. Batteries are definitely heaver and they don't weigh any less when discharged, not like an empty gas tank. However gasoline has greater volume than batteries, and gas engines also take up more volume. Also, the electric motors are about 500 kilos less in weight than gas engine. So they added weight in batteries and reduced weight in engine. This car as a gas powered with a full tank would be heavier than the electric version, and about the same empty. So this race car has room for two passengers, and not much else. A lot like a corvette. Sure they used a high tech frame and lightweight body, but they could have made a custom bodyshell that had room for cargo, like the corvette. The batteries are about 3x heavier than gas and of about equal volume.
My source on those energy numbers came from those dummies over at Oak Ridge so they probably haven't got a clue about energy.
$#*! all tho+@ $#*!?%& ^*#m$#*!?%& moth@^$#*!?%& mother$#*!@^+ a%d th@ $#*!?%& moth@^$#*!?%& ho^+@$#*!?%& ho^+@ th@y $#*!?%& ^od@ ?% o%.
Damn, I can't end it in an exclamation point without breaking out of the super secret unbreakable spycode. What's really indecent is we have people making decisions so far out of whack with modern acceptable speech. Thank God they only understand English, or Jean Luc Picard would have been censored for saying Merde!
So it's ok to say Merde on TV , but not +h?t, $#*!, or A++hol@ or even d?*!h@ad. Sometimes saying ball+ is ok, but you can't say I think he hurt his ball+ on that play.
Maybe we just need to replace [ie get rid of] all the censors. I for one enjoy the occasional wardrobe malfunction on a nice firm, well shaped body and language doesn't offend me too much. Although, I generally don't play my George Carlin videos while my child is up..
Well it would be the end of it, except the city has taken the binding arbitration ruling to court to have it thrown out. What it boils down to in the end is one of two things:
1) Does the city feel it's worthhile to fire her and either:
a) pay out a settlement from the resulting wrongful discharge, et al lawsuit,
b) are convinced she won't find some hired gun foaming at the mouth to make mega-bucks suing a retarded local government;
OR
2) Does the city deluded think they can win a wrongful discharge suit, even after ignoring (in an act of civil contempt) and failing to obey the legally binding arbitration which specifically said they can't fire her for this stupid joke to her friends or the public ( I don't know what her setting was on this FB stupidity)?
In any event for Dana we have
3) Profit!!!!
Why settle for a measly pension when you can squeeze the blood out of the city and take everyone's pension!?
Umm, yes, because of the H2 in H2O. You use a regular water hose on an incendiary bomb, it rips the hydrogen or oxygen off and makes the fire even worse. While a very fine mist of water sprayed on a potassium fire may put it out.It does so by suffocating the oxygen in the air at a faster rate than the reaction of potassium and water is creating free hydrogen. The chemical reaction of potassium and H2O creates potassium hydroxide and free hydrogen which boils off. The free hydrogen then reacts with the oxygen in the air and ignites. Congratulations you're now feeding a fire by giving it water! Whoo hoo! Although, I wouldn't rule out the O in H2O as being a catalyst either. I'm sure, I could come up with some combinations where oxygen is freed by a chemical fire being feed water. You know just from a mad-scientist perspective.
Except Shakespeare was a) rich and b) made money from the people who came to his performances; and kings and queens and lesser royals paid Mozart to do his work. As were all the famous painters also paid and supported by rich people. Before there was radio and TV and phonographs you had to go to where the entertainment was or pay it to come to you. Then there were those artists who lived a live in poverty for their art. Odd as it may sound many artists are not willing to do that though. Art and creativity will not die, ever, but the ability of those not gifted in art and creativity will lose out if everyone stops paying for it.
Believe it or not artists have to eat, drink and sleep somewhere too. That all takes money, if they worked full time making art for you thankless hordes demanding only free entertainment then when would they ever have time to make money in order to eat and survive? And if what they are doing is not worth anything to you, why should they share it with you? Go make your own f***ing art and amuse yourself.
Not that, I'm saying giving it away or letting "piracy" happen is going to have an impact on the income of artists. With the internet trading of music and video, many people will get for free things they might have bought were it not for the ease of just taking it. Some will wind up buying the originals from the artists, some will not wind up buying anything, and some will just discard it. What the net effect will be, I can't say, as most everyone from both sides are lying vociferously.
As long as the internet exists solely as wire, your scenario has merit. Once people start building their own wireless networks, how do you propose to shutdown the airwaves without sucking out the atmosphere. Now to show my age, I will quote the first intelligent computer: "The only winning move is not to play".
Now of course you are neglecting the possibility of building an underground internet. One that does not use any of the regular servers. One already exists, I won't give the details here. But it's not hard to find. At least not for anyone who really, well, and truly is a computer geek.There are many paths to circumvent "the Man". The internet is just a bunch of servers running an application that allows other machines to relay data over a wire carrying electric current or light or sound waves.
It would be a matter of absurd simplicity to turn a dozen shortwave radios, spread out over a large distance into a wireless internet root DNS system. Now, I must state in conclusion, I find the whole idea of uploading copyrighted works for worldwide download to be very unfair and simply wrong from a moral and ethical standpoint.
Now if you come back and say but the copyright protection is too long, what about those 1920 blues songs and 1950s Musical movies (like Oklahoma!), I really want to share? I say, if that's what you want to share why are you uploading P. Diddy songs from 2009, and Disney movies from 2010? I can agree copyright is too long now. 56 years was a decent, but long, number. 35 years is probably more fair. Seven is a joke and totally unfair to authors.
You do have to hand over two hard copies of your work, if it is published, to the copyright office and pay them to get a registered copyright ($35 and up depending on how you do it and what options you choose). If your work is unpublished, then there is no need to submit two hardcopies, but don't quote me on that - there may be exceptions to the "no hard copy required rule".
Since w are talking about published works, then the LOC has a copy of them. Not sure how long the hard copy rule has been in existence. That'd be a research project, which I'd rather not undertake at this time.
BTW, there's actually fines and punishments for not depositing a published copyrighted work (even if you don't register). even though it's not required to file a registration.
These "giant plumes" are total hyperbole. A few miles is NOTHING in the context of a body of water the size of the Gulf of Mexico.
Agreed, one oil plume 10x3x0.057 miles long is nothing. Now, multiply that by a 1000 and you have 1700 cubic miles of oil slicks spread across the Gulf which is 559,000 cubic miles big. In other words more than enough to form a single slick running the entire North-South length of the Gulf one mile wide and one mile deep, but leaving a whopping 99.7% of the Gulf oil free. Of course, it's not even that bad, because I'm sure the plumes aren't that size on average and I used that one size as the average, and even that plume is probably not that big on average, just the maximum. Then it's not pure oil either. We don't really really need that 0.7% of living sea anyway.
Besides, there's the current down there that will pick up the oil and spread it along the Gulf Stream, around Florida and up the coast, over the North Atlantic and down along Europe, then back across the Atlantic to the Caribbean. Plenty of ocean to spread it out and share the load. No worries.
Just to update this post. The Miami Herald reports the pipe in 21 inches in diameter.
The largest bore diameter for oil rigs, and it makes no difference land or sea, is 36 inches (natural gas 42). Even Wikipedia gets this one right. This guy, the author of TFA, should read there once in a while. He might learn something. That is not to say the entire bore is that diameter. The way it's done is you drill a hole to a certain depth, then you insert a pipe and fix it in place - this is called the conductor casing. Then you drill a smaller diameter hole to another depth and insert another pipe and concrete in between - this is the surface casing to prevent contamination from the oil. Then you have the intermediate, liner and finally the production casings ( this is the one you see in the video). Smaller holes and sucessive casing may be added later The smallest hole for oil drilling is 5 inches. The 36-42 inch hole doesn't go all the way down to the oil. Consider the mini-dome "top hat" sitting on the floor now is 5 feet in diameter, we can pretty much call bullshit on the pipe being 5 feet in diameter. Even barring the fact no one has ever made one that size.
Further more, the largest proportion in that video shows natural gas leaking forcefully and the oil not as much. Still 5000 barrels -> 210,000 gallons a day for 23 days yields about 5 million gallons of oil, so far. Given we've got an oil slick about the size of Texas, I've gotta call bullshit on that figure too. Hell we've got oil covered birds in Florida! Give me a break, I don't believe this nutjob, but I sure as hell don't believe the media outlets either!
First off, if you can prove a chain of title for the code you wrote before joining them, then that code is yours. Examples of proof would be :you registered the code with the copyright office, you distributed the code someplace, you mailed yourself a copy in a certified letter and it's never been opened, you've had a copy of the code notarized. any of those will stand up in a court, and no sane business or lawyer would launch a case based on that. However, as Groklaw has shown, there is no shortage of insane idiots willing to sue over things they know they don't own. On a further note, your copyright cannot be transfered to them simply by you letting them use it to develop with. Copyright can only be transfered by the execution of a writing. Some states have stricter requirements. Like California.
Secondly, any code you've added to that code since you joined your company is likely to be found work-for-hire and you don't own it. While, I say likely, take that as meaning: "I wouldn't touch your code with someone else's 10 foot pole". You screwed up by not specifically listing your code when you got hired. I have always done this.
Third, as long as the company isn't distributing the code, like in a product they make, they do not have to release it under GPL. The specific "GPL" licenses vary in regards to that, so you need to look to the license of each piece to draw a conclusion.
Lastly, the company cannot and does not own the whole thing. Any GPLed code belongs to it's author. They cannot claim it as their own, only the modifications you made to it. Also, your original code is yours, but the problem is can you actually prove what code is yours? Without proof you have nothing, especially if the company says you didn't bring in any code of your own. Do you have proof they asked you to develop this code, that you had already written?
Disclaimer, "Dude you need to talk to a lawyer. and I ain't one."
These would come in quite handy in extreme environments. Well at least extreme in regards to motion. Very useful in say a rough terrain spy vehicle. With a device like this expensive, heavy, shock protection for a normal hard drive would not be necessary. It would come in quite handy in blackboxes, and such. In other words there is certainly a market out there beyond gadgeters. It would be a nice feature in a AI car, you could pack a lot of rules and patterns in and retrieve them in rapid succession. Oh, yeas, I see uses for this that would make it worth the high cost. You could just strap this into your lightweight self-driving EV prototype and gain a huge boost over your competitors.
DOH! There goes my secret R&D weapon!
Unfortunately, I see no where to buy one of these. Thank goodness Amazon still has one of Super Talent's 128 GB 3.0 USB RAIDDrive flashdrives! Whew!
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Talent-RAIDDrive-Flash-STU28GSRK/dp/B0037FU7AI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1273175768&sr=8-1
While I agree with your premise. Your example sucks. For one thing, when I go to the grocery store, I usually look for the cheapest brand of food, with the same ingredients. Canned corn is canned corn. The only thing that brand names might have is genetically altered corn, and hence, I'd be more likely to shun a name-brand due to that. Furthermore, name brands are more hurtful now too. For example, I shun *ALL* Sony products. If I get one as a gift I return it to the store and get something different. NAme brand works both ways. With the advent of the Internet, it is even more precarious.
I do think we still need patents, but we need new rules to set definitive rules to narrow what a novel and useful invention is. Example: lithium ion batteries was novel, all the variant chemical combinations of making them are not.
I see two potential flaws in your logic.
1) All of the parties involved admit that Apple denied being the owner of the phone and that the guy who "found" the phone tried to return it to the owner. But the owner refused to take it. I'd say he made a reasonable and just effort to return it to them. What was he supposed to do shove it up their respective ___?
2) This is the potential flaw one, the other is a definite flaw. What is the time limit for "reasonable time" . Was it reasonable for them to disassemble the phone which Apple denied owning, in hopes of finding out what it really was? For all they knew it could have been a terrorist bomb. Was it unreasonable to disassemble it? Maybe. But once they had it apart, they were pretty sure it was an apple prototype. Only then would Apple admit they owned it. I'd say, Apple is at fault here. If he had left it there, it's quite possible it would have sat in a San Mateo property locker for the next 50 years. And we'd be missing all this entertainment now.
traditionally, journalists had extra privileges was because they worked for large litigious media outlets who wouldn't put up with that horseshit, and the government was rightfully wary. These days, not so much.
Wow! Who knew Benjamin Franklin was a large litigious media outlet! Actually the only horseshit here is people claiming that the only reason for the journalistic protection is because it's something Mega-corporations wanted. Do yourself and all of us a favor, pick up a middle high school or high school U.S.A, history book and learn something about the Constitution before spouting more of this horseshit. How the hell this ever got modded insightful doesn't reflect well on the current state of education in the USA. Damn this stuff was, like, required to be remembered to get to the next grade when I was in school. Granted, I'm an old Fu__. But not as old as the peace and love radicals from the 60s who sold out and gave us such wonderful things like the RIAA and MPAA, the wars in Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, and such other nonsense like no child left behind. The people teaching my daughter today just about scare me to death. I have a good mind to pull her out and educate her myself, and no I'm not some religious nutjob or Birther or commie liberal. I'm happily (or un-, depending on you point of view) in the middle. Just a geek, and long time tearerapartus whatmakesittickasaurus.
1) Wrong. They paid $5000, and got the actual device itself.
They paid $5000 for a device that Apple denied being the owner of. Who the true owner was, was unknown. It was an odd device. There's no indication they intended to keep it. They are in a unique position to seek out the true owner and return it. I see nothing criminal here. Not that that case can't be made.
2) A thief would say that. And we know he's a thief because he sold the device that he didn't actually own.
Except you're leaving out one small detail. Apple has confirmed your "thief's" story. Therefore Apple has admitted to denying owning the phone. Ergo, Apple in that act could be considered to have abandoned the phone. Ergo, since the true owner abandoned the phone, Gizmodo was under no rule of law to return it to them. Apple abandoned it and admits they abandoned it. Due to their super-paranoid culture. They've pretty much told their employees to act this way. It is well documented.
You're in fantasy land now. If the possessor of the phone's intention was to use Gizmodo to find the true owner of the phone, why did he ask and receive $5000 from Gizmodo?
You're joking here right? I mean this guy knew it was some wierd kind of Apple phone, or clone, or hack. He knew, or should have known Gizmodo would salivate over such a thing. Only a fool wouldn't try to turn a profit on something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place (although perhaps somewhat immoral). If I find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk no amount of finder's keepers laws is going to convince me I have an obligation to find the owner (not that I wouldn't make some effort). If I find a Morgan silver dollar buried in the sand, I'm not taking out an ad in the paper to find the owner.
As for the rest of your rant, I can only suspect you are a senior Apple exec, or Darl McBride twisting the facts to fit your reality.
The last time this volcano erupted it was from mid Dec 1821 to January 1823 which is one year plus two partial months. However, the ash phase was intermittent for about 8 months. I've been seeing numbers all over the map on this subject. Still in eight months all the European airlines would be bust. US airlines would survive, but prices would go through the roof.
While, I agree that the corporate test result may be not the best and most reliable source, I disagree with your analysis.
First. the damage from the ash is unlikely, but not impossible, to mess with the tolerances of any moving parts in the engines, in the why you're writing of. Ergo, the rest of your discussion is meaningless.
Now, what I see the potential harm from is:
1. Abrasive sandblasting of the fans, stripping off the precisely formed aerodynaics, causing turbulent airflow and worse,
2. hot molten glass blasting the rear components of the engines,
3. hot molten glass melting the inner surface components of the engine,
4. volcanic ash reducing the burn efficiency of the engines, and hence the power output, and hence airspeed,
5. hot molten glass preventing ignition of the air/fuel mixture, and hence loss of power,
6 hot molten glass projectiles punching holes in the engine parts,
7. hot molten glass clogging engine parts.
Now, the effect of number 5 is documented. However, the questions that should be asked and answered are:
1. how dense is the ash,
2. at what altitudes is the ash,
3. is the ash sufficiently damaging at commercial altitudes,
4. what length of time in this ash cloud is safe,
5. what is the uniformity of the ash cloud.
Now, if the ash cloud isn't uniform, that makes it even more dangerous. There is no logical reason to conclude it is uniform, but it is likely a Brownian motion artifact and hence likely has some random uniformity. But also, likely unpredictable. Only a test of the entire cloud and afterward closely monitoring the cloud near the source as it continues can produce reliable data as to the safety of flying through it.
Simply testing the established routes is pointless, as the air in those routes will be different an hour after testing.Simply said. One route at one point in time may be perfectly safe, and at another time disastrous.
Lastly, the engines in commercial aircraft are more complex than military fighter engines. Unless they've stripped one down after the flight, they couldn't know if there was damage. I am skeptical they've had time to strip one down. I'd like to see pictures, too.
Well, certainly true, but misleading.
While it's also true that people are stupid (as in large groups are easily manipulated to do stupid things they wouldn't usually do), an individual may be very smart.
Equally, volcanoes are less polluting, but an individual volcano may be very polluting, like this volcano's sister, which was responsible for the deaths of thousands in Europe and maybe even as far away as Japan (indirectly of course), as a result of it's eruption in 1783 (Laki). Although this type of pollution is probably mostly short term. Some of our pollution is very long term.
Krakatoa, is another example of a very polluting volcano.
I believe that you're wrong about S02 being a green compound. That's the poisonous crap spewed by American factories responsible for the Acid Rain that killed most of the Adirondack Lakes. SO2 is right up there with NO2 as atmospheric pollutants. Certainly SO2 is an atmospheric by-product of volcanoes, but there's already too much in the atmosphere now. Sure it's great for Aunt Emmy's Roses, but bad for Aunt Emmy and her animals. While even NO2 is a natural by-product of lightning, thanks to industrialization, we already have more than enough of that in the atmosphere, too.
Iceland is falling!
Iceland IS falling!
Iceland is FALLING!
All over Europe. Although some will most likely reach Alaska. Thank God Mrs Palin isn't governor anymore. She'd have probably called out the National Guard to attack Iceland.
Interesting and informative. But are your implying there is any disk, outside of SAS drives, that could last this long? While, disc drives, aren't rated like this, I'd like to see you make any, equivalent to the quoted device, OTC SATA last for that many writes, That's well outside the MTBF for any commercial SATA drive.