Do you know, that's actually a really good idea...
I don't know how you'd go about it, but the concept is impressive. Whilst people will always reinvent the wheel, and anything you create is bound to be created again at some point so the individual isn't that important at this point it is much faster if the first person to have an idea shares it... It would be a very cool collaborative resource, could have a big impact on the pace of technological change...
Hmm....
Of course there is a great deal of rubbish that would end up out there - not all ideas are viable or even good:)
The rewards could be fame / kudos rather than just purely monetary.. But I suspect it would have to be on a national level - some government sets up the mechanism and creates / alters the relevant laws.
Maybe...
If you removed patents and copyright in favour of a national single idea registry. Any individual or any company wishing to use any idea in the database must pay a nominal fee... Which could be distributed around the relevant idea providers... Some idea spamming protection and maybe purely non-transferable individual rather than corporate ownership to prevent infinite lockup or buying and selling.
Have an upper limit on the fee to the registry for any item being created, no matter the number of ideas it incorporates. You could stick songs and films in there too, so that if you wanted to watch a film / burn it to disk or buy a dvd or song you pay a single fee for that (manufacturing extra) to the registry and that gets back to the artists. Interestingly it makes cinemas into manufacturers - in that they provide the value add experience, rather than having exclusive rights to it. (If that means the death of cinema I don't know, but I believe it could exist in the value add game).
In this hypothetical country items like DRM would be a thing of the past - since they would be protecting nothing (no copyright, just the registry) and all items could be made by anyone without legal harassment fear if they pay the fee to the registry (same with the software, source on the registry). Want an iPod? Simply find a manufacturer who will make you one from the registry - the finish and how well manufactured it is depends on the manufacturer, and I'd imagine they will develop reputations for either quality or cheapness - a lot like supermarket chains do.
Companies would become manufacturers - since ideas and designs would all be about the people creating. Manufacturing costs would be factored into the cost of items. No more loss leaders since you would lose out due to other companies being able to build it.
It occurs to me that it might prevent some really large complex items being designed etc because there would be no additional investment from companies unable to recoup through licensing etc. But I believe that smaller companies or individuals and groups would do better from the simple and effective licensing in play.. Items like Linux and it's size and complexity show that people are willing to put in a great deal of time and effort for the pure pleasure of creation. So I can foresee that a large project could easily be designed, and streamlined manufacturing would also mean a larger variety of devices etc. Total availability of all software means that there isn't any lock-in that can be done - as in DRM on the iPod drives hardware sales due to iTunes being a really popular music site - any manufacturer can make an iPod-alike... Also code on the registry would tend to be really clean, since only good code would be reused, and reuse means the creator can make money - plus it would be cheaper to reuse than to create anew....
It's kind of interesting, it's a lot like reality, in that the only time an idea is private and yours alone is when it's in your head, the rest of the time it's out in the open - you have no control, but at least with this system sharing your ideas, inventions and creativity would be beneficial.
Anyhow, is just me thinking on paper so to speak - and I'd imagine that entrenched interests would make this nigh on impossible to achieve.. But it's a nice daydream - thanks:)
I don't think that it's clear that we want to reward people like writers, musicians, film makers just so they can have a living doing that (I think that you made your assumption and I don't believe it is correct). The world does not owe such people a living (not me, not you, not x star), and yet not the people who work in a factory assembling trainers.. It either owes everyone or it owes nobody. It can't owe everyone, since that means that nothing you can do can alter the outcome (well technically it could but pretty much everyone would agree that was nonsensical), work hard or don't work, you get the same... So it means it must owe nobody - including writers, film stars, singers etc. They don't deserve a free living, not a single person does. Everyone has to work for a living..
You are owed a living precisely on what you do... Ideas, inventions, songs, films, all are part of the same thing... Something insubstantial something you can only get value from through sharing...
Copyright and ideas is a bit like a amusement park - it only has value if there are people buying tickets to experience the rides (or listening to the song, or watching the film etc). If you don't want anyone to partake in the amusement, it's simple, don't sell any tickets... In the same way, don't tell anyone your idea and they won't gain off your mental sweat. Of course neither will you... If the gates to the amusement park aren't opened, then the park never makes any money, never improves, just falls into disrepair..
It's not so much that you want to be able to copy anything and everything (at least I don't - pirating, it's for the weak willed) - if I am that desperate for content I will just create it myself.... It's just that computers are a great deal like minds, if you copy something be it an mp3 or an idea between two of them then both can still have the original - it's a copy, you can't move the original... No value is lost through the copy, merely a reduction in scarcity - but in order for you to sell an idea you must reduce it's scarcity, and hence it's value. An idea in the mind of 1 is entirely valueless, once it has been shared it can be valuable - but it's the sharing that is the value, not the idea.
If the sellers are working under an old paradigm then why exactly should they be protected? Can you honestly say that what they are doing is so vital to life that they must be protected no matter the cost? That the continuing accelerating cost of creation should be upped even more just to try and protect a few? We could spend a lot of time and effort developing a new and fair paradigm, but why? It seems that the people who's very livelihoods depend on the new paradigm aren't going for it, why should those who don't depend on it save them from themselves? Maybe it's time for them sellers being unfairly treated by the world they want to sell into, to finally admit that they should either adapt or die. Same as in a forest, if a giant tree falls then hundreds of smaller plants and saplings will spring up where it's shadow used to be. If the monolithic companies cannot cope, then LET THEM FALL. Smaller, more agile companies will spring up because there is still value there, you are selling something that the people of this world want - you do not need to be protected to do this.
You are impinging on people, the very thing that makes them them, their thoughts. The harm you are doing is incalculable.. Not mention destroying that which you wish to exploit. Continuing copyright makes it harder and harder to create as time goes on, possible infringement, court costs, having to license out everything that's slightly similar. You are polluting the very well you draw life from... It's a closed system - there's no alien market, there are no aliens creating new sights and sounds. You only have that which we all bring. Stop making it harder to grow, to experiment, to mature, TO CREATE!
And finally, on the spit in their face comment... Feel free to do so. But don't be surprised if you end up in hospital.. I have no i
Don't give your idea away. Don't waste time creating it. It's not worth it to society or you to create the idea, so why bother. Someone else out there will find a way to do it.
If you cannot live and do something, then don't do it. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, just because you cannot see a way to do it, doesn't mean that nobody can see a way to do it.
Ideas are not something you spend hours building brick by brick like a house. They happen at the speed of thought, they happen when something is detrimental to you, or when you can imagine something more. By definition they could always help you - it's just that you lack the ability or the drive to implement the thoughts into the concrete beneficial form. It is perfectly possible to gain a living off your ideas if they are valuable - it just might not be as easy, but then something doesn't have to be easy to be worthwhile, does it?
"The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted." - I love the disney description:), and I agree.
With regards to the democracy thing, I obviosuly wasn't entirely clear, my apologies. I meant that saying you are a democratic organisation only means that you use democracy within your organisiation, not that 'outsiders' can vote and decide for you. A tyrant is not a democracy of one, because his vote applies to more than himself. Just because an organisiation is democratic does not mean it has to do the will of the planet. It should do the majority will of the group, not humans everywhere. I objected to the fact you felt that as it was 'democratic' it should do the will of all humans everywhere. That's not the point.
I know the water analogy was not accurate, I'd hoped you'd get my point inspite of that.. I know it's not the same, it's information not something physical, no nothing is 'taken'. I agree, if you want to keep something private or just for yourself, keep it to yourself. Don't sell it to other people.
BUT - within the law it does make some sense. But there's no moral comeback for unilaterally using the sweat from another's brow. Yes they were stupid enough to release it to the world, and you could 'punish' them for that stupidity, but morally taking advantage of someone isn't quite acceptable.
Ignoring the taxes and breathing, they are a seperate entity to the issue of copyright. Breathing could easily be argued to be a fair exchange. Taxes, well I don't wish to start on them.
"Then they probably shouldn't have said "equality" in their list of causes. Or they should have clarified they're only interested in equality for them compared to large corporations. That's not much of an equality from my perspective." - In their 'list of causes' I would understand equality to mean their correcting of an inequality they see. I believe it's an unwarranted extension to the meaning to assume global inclusion of all inequalities. You couldn't even begin to start to think about the level of inequality globally... Software? Copyright? How about food? Your argument that they ought not mention equality in, what appears to me to be, a very limited domain seems somewhat hypocritical. You are using a computer which puts you well above the equality line...
"Sure, they can look out for themselves. And the second they pretend that they're looking out for more themselves by using vague, grandious language, I'll call them out on it because it's fun for me to do. Oh, and it's me looking out for myself." - My entire argument is that you are placing spin and biased interpretation on a simplistic list of words. Words that most people would see as being limited to the group itself, not to humanity as a whole.
">I believe copyright has no justification, that patents have no justification, but I had to call you on the points because they were (in my opinion) not true.
So, now truth is subjective. Interesting..." - Actually I was acknowledging that I'm not perfect and could be proven wrong. I was taking it on faith that you believed them to be true - else why would you write them? I believe those points to be not true, you believe (or believed) them to be true. I have enough doubt to, in general, acknowledge I could be wrong..
I disagree that their PR was a load of bullshit. It didn't impress me, granted, but it didn't appear to be outright lies. Yes they may have assumed, or hoped that people would spin it to their benefit, but on the face of it, considered dispassionately it's not actually untrue, or even too blatently spun.
I agree entirely with your closing paragraph, I've never seen the value in copyright, that was never my point. And I apologise if I missed your original point - it appeared to me to be an argument against both the organisation and on copyright.
"Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion)."
I disagree with copyright, I don't think it serves a purpose. But this statement is false. It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal. The issue of legal costs of enforcing it is a different matter, and that does limit some unequally. Equality does not mean no exclusion. You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition, people can't come in and raid your fridge anytime they want. But I'd argue that it is equal, equal opportunity, you too can lock your door and have your private space, you too can copyright your software and have your private code. Work against the system by all means, but don't pretend it's something it's not - that won't fix anything and is just going to slow you down.
"Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms)." - Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing. People from another country cannot vote in your elections. Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote. Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote. As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.
"Being honest means being fair" - No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.
"And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work" as I mentioned before, fairness is relative, if I got a cup of water from the bottom of a well (long climb etc, lots of work to get it) and you feel you should be able take the water from me and drink it or sell / give it to another? That's your idea of fairness? Weird. Personally I believe that if I've worked hard to get a cup of water I should be able to drink it, or give it to a person of my chosing, not have you take it and do with it as you wish. Now, the water is a finite resource, true, but if it were a pipe, or pump so it wasn't finite (for the purpose of the visualisation). Would you then be happy to take the pump and do as you will with it?
Fairness in software is the ability to do it yourself. Nowhere is it written that you should have a free ride. To be able to use another's time for your own benefit (although I dislike the fact we keep re-inventing the wheel). Now, I appreciate the good work that the open source community puts out, I love the fact that it's under an open license. BUT it does not mean that I have to do the same, nor that there is something wrong with me not doing the same. I won't get into software patents because I believe they are very wrong and they *somewhat* hinder the ability to DIY.
"They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors)." - they are a group working against what they perceive to be the inequality they are facing. They are not a campaigning group out to ensure equality for all. Nor are
I think you are making the same mistake that many people do:
Not understanding what you mean when you say 'Evolution'.
You see evolution is demonstrable fact, you can see it occur all the time all around you. However, the Theory of Evolution (what I believe you are talking about) as proposed by Darwin in his Origin of the Species is something else. It's a theory that proposes how life progressed from a single celled organism to our current myriad of species. (And yes speciation has been observed - at least within non-breedable boundries).
I agree with what you say about macro continental drift - There is evidence to say it occured, but you can't be 100% sure. I don't believe in it, but I think it is the most likely explanation. It's a theory about how events long past occured - it doesn't require belief...
If you think of evolution as micro-continental drift and Darwin's Theory of evolution as macro-continental drift you'd be pretty much there. The theory matches the evidence, although there are some holes where available evidence doesn't fully back up the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is useless, it means that reality is messy. It might be that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, but its currently the best fit, and indeed the most valuable fit for the scientific goal of prediction.
My final point is 'Where's the value?' If Intelligent Design is correct then one of two things are true - either the intelligence followed a plan / formula etc or just did stuff on a whim. If the intelligence did it on a whim you cannot predict anything from it, you could spontaneously turn into a cat tomorrow and it would fit the theory perfectly - whilst simultaneously being useless for prediction or further learning. If however, the intelligence followed a plan, then that plan can be exposed, the evidence however would point to the intelligence's plan being something very akin to darwin's Theory of Evolution; this being the case why not use the theory of evolution until something better comes to explain it? Either its the intelligence's mind, or its physical process, the end result is the same...
Not that I feel you need to change your mind or anything, I just find that honest attempts to understand both sides are better - and the confusion over evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution is commonly used to say evolution is false and unprovable, its only the Theory of Evolution that unprovable. That's an aside as to the mechanism whereby life does evolve, which is different to the evolution itself.
But lets change this situation to something closer to reality:
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a flight at some point. Incidentally, your entire family is going to be flying on a plane at some point. In order to possibly try to prevent it we need to stomp on the freedom and the rights of everybody in this country, including you and your family. Also it is almost a given that your family will be directly negatively affected by this - your daughters ex-boyfriend has made a call to the terrorist burning hotline in a fit of jealous rage, so she'll be vanishing soon. We'd like you to decide whether we should give you the illusion of security. And make it quick, you never know when they could strike again"
Even if you give up every right you ever have and become a slave to your government, you will not have made terrorism impossible, it will still be able to happen, and the side effect is that you will be living in fear like you wouldn't believe every damned day of your life, because that guy you just cut up? Might call the 'Witch / Terrorist buring hotline' with your license plate. You run a sucessful business? Your competitor can get the competative edge, whilst you are in solitary for planning to blow up a turnpike.
You need to ask yourself, IF these actions are taken will it solve the problem? Could you think of a way of doing it anyway? The answer is almost invariably NO, it wouldn't solve anything, but it would harm you. Remember the old saw: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How would ANY new laws bring back your dead loved ones? How would fewer rights bring them back either? How would living in a constant state of fear honor their memory? And most importantly, how would surrendering everything stop it happening again? Sure you can stop / make much harder a particular attack vector, but there are always new ways to do something... If you are alive, you are at risk, the only way to be safe is to die.
One last thing, how would you like to know that your innocent wife was locked up on death row about to die as an innocent casualty of the war on terror. That your new laws to protect your wife actually killed her? Because all this 'so some innocents will be caught in the net, its worth it to protect the rest of us' is fine, until you or those you love are the innocents lost for the cause....
The cable is attached to a weight that rests on the earths surface, (or on the ocean). This weight weighs much more than any climber that is to go up the ribbon, in fact it weighs more than the cable can support, so if it was over a hole the ribbon would fall to earth, however because the earth's surface will support any weight that the ribbon does not the system is in equilibrium.
The ribbon exerts a constant tension on the base anchor weight - so if it is cut, the now unbalanced ribbon will not just hover there, it will fly off, the cable will not return to be re-attached since it will be pulled out of the atmosphere (frictional forces on the ribbon through atmosphere) and the entire system will eventually burn up in re-entry (loss of orbital momentum due to dragging 100k km of ribbon through atmosphere).
When a climber is attached to the ribbon and starts to climb the tension between the ribbon and the base anchor reduces by the exact weight of the climber (plus its force due to acceleration, vertically and laterally). If there was no tension in the cable it would be impossible to attach a climber. There MUST be tension in the ribbon at the base for this to be useful in anyway.
If there was no tension in the base then pulling on the cable for a climber to climb would bring the cable crashing down, since the only force the climber could act against would be the inertia of the system, and that means accelerating it towards the ground.
Dropping the climber immediately will only accelerate the ribbons climb out of atmosphere because there will be less gravatational pull on the ribbon.
You don't need an army of lawyers, since this is on a per purchase base the total value (especially with most software) that would be lost due to a violation of the agreement is less than £5000.
Last time I checked, £5000 is the upper limit for the small claims courts, which would cost you a meagre £250 (last time I checked)+ your time to bring a case against that vendor. Now the vendor automatically has to pay someone to go there, there is a very real possibility that they will lose, plus you can add to the judgement your costs assocaited with bringing the lawsuit.
And the final, best part, is that IF that lawsuit is deemed to have any merit, even if you lose, then the party you are sueing cannot ask for the legal costs.
Of couse IANAL, but the details are available online:
Software piracy is not a valid term. It should be copyright violation - and it is a copyright violation. Its just that copyright violation is not as headline catching as piracy. Of course now language usage is changing and piracy is starting to enter the dictionaries - I myself will not use it and will correct people who talk about it without understanding but thats an aside.
Incase you aren't aware copyright is the creation of artificial scarcity in order to increase the value of something.
Technically gold, diamonds, cars etc are only valuable because they are scarce. There is not an infinite readily available supply of it. Air on the other hand is readily available (at the moment) and thus has no value. Water is infinite (well close enough for my purposes) but it is not readily available, hence you pay for it to brought to you - not for the water itself.
Now anything digital is inherently infinite and readily available, simply because you can copy it and have another identical copy, to be copied again etc. Software is digital, there is no escaping that. And without the benefit of copyright the software creators would have no right to be 'fairly' compensated, simply because it is an infinite resource ONCE CREATED. Our economies have moved (in general) from item based economies to information based economies. Information does not want to be free as some people would say, but it is an infinite resource, the original cannot be adversly affected just because it is copied (Sure if you were attempting to measure value according to scarcity then it would reduce - but that is not true value, that is artifical value).
Copyright is a recognition that our economies work better when we work for personal greed (greed may be too strong of a word, but its the cause).
We (as a society - or nation look at it how you will) agreed to copyright as a method of rewarding those who are inventive, creative or just plain dedicated. There is nothing wrong with copyright and copyright enforcement - there is no ethical or moral justification for violating the laws of the society that you live in. If you want to be able to freely copy all music then get yourself elected leader of the country and change the laws.
All that being said... I however dislike certain items. All crimes / violations of laws need to be punished, but there should also be degrees of punishment, and they should be relevant to the crime. In the states you *can* (depends on sentencing) go to prison for longer and be more financially punished for violating the DMCA than for murdering someone - for taking their life in the ultimate unreversable act.
To my mind that seems a wrong bias - that greed has been allowed to overtake the benefit, that the contract between society and the copyright 'owners' has become decidedly biased towards to the copyright 'owners'.
"If you were a developer whose livelihood depended on people purchasing your software, I'm sure you'd see this issue very differently." - goldspider.
Yes, you do see it with greedy eyes - but from the other side. When you are violating copyright on somebody else's hard work, you are being greedy, if you want something, work for it, contribute to society for it - don't leech.
Conversely as a software developer you need to recognise that you are making money from what you are doing on a contract with society, not a right. Not a physical item you have sweated to create and then give to someone in exchange for something (yes software development is hard but it doesn't result in a physical item). In order to effectively make money from an infinite source you must never let anybody take it home. Once you let someone take it home, you are relying on a contract with society. MMORPGs are a good example of it. They are software programs (inifinite) that are never copied thus engineering scarcity.. a service.
Apologies for the extremely long post, but I feel that the current models are far more stifling that nourishing.
Z.
P.S. I am a software developer and a customer (not consumer, I am not forced to buy) so I see both sides.
Including things like ticket, method of payment, meal choice etc..
Its the fact that the EU is agreeing to allow airlines pass that information to the US. It is essentially a temporary deal until proper legislation can be brought in to support it. Unlike the US the EU has Data Protection laws that make it illegal to maintain personally identifiable data on someone without: a) registering with the data protection registrar, b) having good reason for having that data (and permission), c) maintaining security of that data, d) keeping the data no longer than necessary and e) not sharing the data without permission (aside from legal considerations) Also data on you is available for a nominal fee and should they have no reason for holding the data then they can be prosecuted (I believe it can be a criminal offence - although I'm not sure, that might just be if you don't register...), and you have the right to alter inncorrect data (although you might need a court to decide what is correct).
This tends to allieviate privacy concerns, and without this deal / legistlation the information could not legally be passed to the US.
Being a citizen in a country that is a member of the EU, I much prefer the Data Protection laws to nothing, it gives me a legal recourse into my credit record, into idiot companies sharing personal data on the web, etc.
I concede I wasn't the most polite, but as they say two wrongs don't make a right.
Second his examples were completely wrong.
The car pulls a trailer, ok, then he discards the exact opposite force the trailer exerts on the car. But sod that, you didn't mention that. The acceleration of the car and trailer causes the trailer to resist with exactly the force attributed to intertia and friction. The car pulls the trailer, the trailer pulls back, the forces are identical, its merely that the forces the trailer exerts are due to the fact that the car is accelerating the trailer, hence the trailer moves.
At the anchor point, where he states: "The anchor is not pulled by the swung object, the anchor PULLS the swung object." Are you trying to deny the fact that what he states is wrong?. The base of the tether (at the anchor) does not care where the force that is pulling on the anchor comes from, be it due to altering the velocity of the counterweight, or due to a rocket, the force is there it is real, it is pulling on the anchor. If the anchor was not being pulled upon but could pull then a singe grain of sand would be sufficient to stop the 50tonnes of tension in the cable. Now I know that to be not true, as do you, I hope. I feel I should also point out that I did state in my comment that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I never claimed it did, so right on the money there, idiot.
Nice ending comment, all I can say is ditto.
In summary, he was technically and absolutely wrong in some areas, the ones I mentioned. You also were technically correct in some, but lack the ability to read the comment first.
Sorry, didn't mean that you pump up the nano-tubes, I meant that the article / company states the construction material as a carbon-nanotube and epoxy resin.
It has a weight to length ratio of 7.5Kg per kilometre. Yes the pressure would be excessive, but I wasn't sure what you meant by pumping it up. True its easy to take fuel to the top, but the main arguement was that it wasn't necessary.
If the CM is outside of geosynch then the entire tether will fly away. If the CM is inside of geosynch then the entire tether will fall to earth (without outside help).
Conceded on the mass point, but since the anchor is actually a floating platform its not fully attached to the planet.
However just considering the centre of mass for the object assuming it is not attached to the earth (hence the calculations make sense). The mass that can reasonably be attributed to the entire tether system is the weight of the tether, cars, counterweights etc, and the amount of the ground anchor that it actively supports and isn't supported by the Earth. This maintains an EXACT CM on geosynch, because if it were outside then the tether wouldn't move (assuming fixed length and zero elasticity) it would just have a higher tension on the base, which brings more of the mass of the anchor into the equation and balances the CM on geonsynch exactly.
If the system is in a state of balance, ie with tension in the cable then as long as the climbing car stays below that level of tension (ie the base always has tension) the system will not fall down and no corrective thrusters are needed.
It is a self balancing system, using the fact that the mass of the anchor need not be considered in the balance unless it is directly supported by the tether.
The counterweight is just a long ribbon of the same material.
Launching it requires a rocket launch to past geosynch orbit, reeling out the tether (1mm^2 cross-sectional area) as it launches, the rocket doesn't have to go much past 35k km (geosynch), well at least not the full 65k km, more like 10-25k km before the cable will self unwind to the full extension.
Then a tiny robot (likely solar powered) will crawl up this tiny thread and stick another layer on. And another, and another until it has counterweight capability and strength to lift a 22 tonne lift car and 14 tonnes of cargo. The initial launch is difficult, BUT after that it is just materials and robots... 3 days a piece, after a year it'll be ready... Each robot can haul slightly more cable than the previous robot, which in turn increases its loadbearing capability, and thus more heavier cable... etc...
Everytime you send something up you steal rotational momentum from the Earth. Nothing is taken from the counterweight, the counterweight will not move.
Read other posts (I've made a few on this topic) to have it explained.
Material weighs in at 7.5kg per kilometre, thats pretty light.
Secondly the tension on the base of the cable, in excess of 36 tonnes means that these puturbations of which you speak will not be at all an issue.
The thrusters are not necessary, the tension engages weight in the anchor, which essentially means that if there is 36tonnes of tension on the rope then 36 tonnes of the base mass is included in the centre of mass calculations, if there is only 1gram of tension then only 1gram of the base mass is included in the centre of mass calculations.
This means that as long as there is tension in the cable at the point it attaches to the anchor then the cables centre of mass is always at the exact point of geosynch.
If the cable is under 36 tonnes of tension at the base then you could easily lift 10 tonnes at an acceleration of 10m/s^2 (ie 2gs), The tension is the flexibility in v and r, because there is a second element in the equation and that is that the mass of the anchor if not held up by the orbital tether will be held up by the Earth, thus its self governing...
READ ARTICLE..
And try to think the whole exercise out.
Z.
P.S. Just noticed that one of your base assumptions was wrong, that gravity and centripetal force have to cancel, they don't because the anchor can be supported by the Earth OR by the tether... Sigh.
I have to say, I'm most impressed with this post. It has got to be the most worthwhile in the whole discussion, if I had mod points right now (plus hadn't posted 10 other times in this thread) I'd be modding this up.
It doesn't require torque (at least not in the way you seem to be saying), its angular momentum about the centre of rotation, in this case the earth. Which means that it will start to pull the cable back along the rotation of the Earth, however the tension in the cable will attempt to put the cable to rightangles to the planet, thus if you go slow enough it will work fine, you are just stealing momentum from the rotation of the planet. Thus the flexible cable isn't an issue...
Your high-school physics do not override newtons' laws.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The car is pulling on the trailer, and the trailer is pulling (with exactly the same force) on the car. Hence the car is pulling the trailer, AND the trailer is pulling the car, however the car wins, it has power, and the trailer is only pulling back with friction and inertia... Its just that you don't understand the force interactions.
The reason why people say there is no centrifugal force is that it is not a force, its an acceleration. However any damned force, centripetal included, always has an opposite.
If the anchor was not pulled by the swung object then it could not pull the swung object, and if you think about it, it makes sense..
Erm, actually he was pretty much right, he neglected to realise that the majority of the 'anchoring' occurs due to gravity acting on the tether, hence a meagre 50tonne anchor would work perfectly.
The cable's purpose is for the elevator to traverse, true, but to do that it has to be under tension, and it has to be pulling up with more than the weight of the elevator. the cable is 100,000km long, geo synch is at 35,000km, that's 65,000 km of cable BEYOND the geosynch point to create the tension in the cable. the Centre of mass is exactly at geonsynch, but the other end of the cable is miles beyond geonsynch. If the cable stopped at geosynch it would just immediately fall to earth...
So to paraphrase, 'unfortunatly you are absolutely wrong'... Mainly because 65,000km, nearly twice the distance from earth is not 'slightly' at all....
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know, that's actually a really good idea...
:)
:)
I don't know how you'd go about it, but the concept is impressive. Whilst people will always reinvent the wheel, and anything you create is bound to be created again at some point so the individual isn't that important at this point it is much faster if the first person to have an idea shares it... It would be a very cool collaborative resource, could have a big impact on the pace of technological change...
Hmm....
Of course there is a great deal of rubbish that would end up out there - not all ideas are viable or even good
The rewards could be fame / kudos rather than just purely monetary.. But I suspect it would have to be on a national level - some government sets up the mechanism and creates / alters the relevant laws.
Maybe...
If you removed patents and copyright in favour of a national single idea registry. Any individual or any company wishing to use any idea in the database must pay a nominal fee... Which could be distributed around the relevant idea providers... Some idea spamming protection and maybe purely non-transferable individual rather than corporate ownership to prevent infinite lockup or buying and selling.
Have an upper limit on the fee to the registry for any item being created, no matter the number of ideas it incorporates. You could stick songs and films in there too, so that if you wanted to watch a film / burn it to disk or buy a dvd or song you pay a single fee for that (manufacturing extra) to the registry and that gets back to the artists. Interestingly it makes cinemas into manufacturers - in that they provide the value add experience, rather than having exclusive rights to it. (If that means the death of cinema I don't know, but I believe it could exist in the value add game).
In this hypothetical country items like DRM would be a thing of the past - since they would be protecting nothing (no copyright, just the registry) and all items could be made by anyone without legal harassment fear if they pay the fee to the registry (same with the software, source on the registry). Want an iPod? Simply find a manufacturer who will make you one from the registry - the finish and how well manufactured it is depends on the manufacturer, and I'd imagine they will develop reputations for either quality or cheapness - a lot like supermarket chains do.
Companies would become manufacturers - since ideas and designs would all be about the people creating. Manufacturing costs would be factored into the cost of items. No more loss leaders since you would lose out due to other companies being able to build it.
It occurs to me that it might prevent some really large complex items being designed etc because there would be no additional investment from companies unable to recoup through licensing etc. But I believe that smaller companies or individuals and groups would do better from the simple and effective licensing in play.. Items like Linux and it's size and complexity show that people are willing to put in a great deal of time and effort for the pure pleasure of creation. So I can foresee that a large project could easily be designed, and streamlined manufacturing would also mean a larger variety of devices etc. Total availability of all software means that there isn't any lock-in that can be done - as in DRM on the iPod drives hardware sales due to iTunes being a really popular music site - any manufacturer can make an iPod-alike... Also code on the registry would tend to be really clean, since only good code would be reused, and reuse means the creator can make money - plus it would be cheaper to reuse than to create anew....
It's kind of interesting, it's a lot like reality, in that the only time an idea is private and yours alone is when it's in your head, the rest of the time it's out in the open - you have no control, but at least with this system sharing your ideas, inventions and creativity would be beneficial.
Anyhow, is just me thinking on paper so to speak - and I'd imagine that entrenched interests would make this nigh on impossible to achieve.. But it's a nice daydream - thanks
Z.
I don't think that it's clear that we want to reward people like writers, musicians, film makers just so they can have a living doing that (I think that you made your assumption and I don't believe it is correct). The world does not owe such people a living (not me, not you, not x star), and yet not the people who work in a factory assembling trainers.. It either owes everyone or it owes nobody. It can't owe everyone, since that means that nothing you can do can alter the outcome (well technically it could but pretty much everyone would agree that was nonsensical), work hard or don't work, you get the same... So it means it must owe nobody - including writers, film stars, singers etc. They don't deserve a free living, not a single person does. Everyone has to work for a living..
You are owed a living precisely on what you do... Ideas, inventions, songs, films, all are part of the same thing... Something insubstantial something you can only get value from through sharing...
Copyright and ideas is a bit like a amusement park - it only has value if there are people buying tickets to experience the rides (or listening to the song, or watching the film etc). If you don't want anyone to partake in the amusement, it's simple, don't sell any tickets... In the same way, don't tell anyone your idea and they won't gain off your mental sweat. Of course neither will you... If the gates to the amusement park aren't opened, then the park never makes any money, never improves, just falls into disrepair..
It's not so much that you want to be able to copy anything and everything (at least I don't - pirating, it's for the weak willed) - if I am that desperate for content I will just create it myself.... It's just that computers are a great deal like minds, if you copy something be it an mp3 or an idea between two of them then both can still have the original - it's a copy, you can't move the original... No value is lost through the copy, merely a reduction in scarcity - but in order for you to sell an idea you must reduce it's scarcity, and hence it's value. An idea in the mind of 1 is entirely valueless, once it has been shared it can be valuable - but it's the sharing that is the value, not the idea.
If the sellers are working under an old paradigm then why exactly should they be protected? Can you honestly say that what they are doing is so vital to life that they must be protected no matter the cost? That the continuing accelerating cost of creation should be upped even more just to try and protect a few? We could spend a lot of time and effort developing a new and fair paradigm, but why? It seems that the people who's very livelihoods depend on the new paradigm aren't going for it, why should those who don't depend on it save them from themselves? Maybe it's time for them sellers being unfairly treated by the world they want to sell into, to finally admit that they should either adapt or die. Same as in a forest, if a giant tree falls then hundreds of smaller plants and saplings will spring up where it's shadow used to be. If the monolithic companies cannot cope, then LET THEM FALL. Smaller, more agile companies will spring up because there is still value there, you are selling something that the people of this world want - you do not need to be protected to do this.
You are impinging on people, the very thing that makes them them, their thoughts. The harm you are doing is incalculable.. Not mention destroying that which you wish to exploit. Continuing copyright makes it harder and harder to create as time goes on, possible infringement, court costs, having to license out everything that's slightly similar. You are polluting the very well you draw life from... It's a closed system - there's no alien market, there are no aliens creating new sights and sounds. You only have that which we all bring. Stop making it harder to grow, to experiment, to mature, TO CREATE!
And finally, on the spit in their face comment... Feel free to do so. But don't be surprised if you end up in hospital.. I have no i
There's a very simple answer to this.
Don't give your idea away. Don't waste time creating it. It's not worth it to society or you to create the idea, so why bother. Someone else out there will find a way to do it.
If you cannot live and do something, then don't do it. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, just because you cannot see a way to do it, doesn't mean that nobody can see a way to do it.
Ideas are not something you spend hours building brick by brick like a house. They happen at the speed of thought, they happen when something is detrimental to you, or when you can imagine something more. By definition they could always help you - it's just that you lack the ability or the drive to implement the thoughts into the concrete beneficial form. It is perfectly possible to gain a living off your ideas if they are valuable - it just might not be as easy, but then something doesn't have to be easy to be worthwhile, does it?
Z.
"The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted." - I love the disney description :), and I agree.
With regards to the democracy thing, I obviosuly wasn't entirely clear, my apologies. I meant that saying you are a democratic organisation only means that you use democracy within your organisiation, not that 'outsiders' can vote and decide for you. A tyrant is not a democracy of one, because his vote applies to more than himself. Just because an organisiation is democratic does not mean it has to do the will of the planet. It should do the majority will of the group, not humans everywhere. I objected to the fact you felt that as it was 'democratic' it should do the will of all humans everywhere. That's not the point.
I know the water analogy was not accurate, I'd hoped you'd get my point inspite of that.. I know it's not the same, it's information not something physical, no nothing is 'taken'. I agree, if you want to keep something private or just for yourself, keep it to yourself. Don't sell it to other people.
BUT - within the law it does make some sense. But there's no moral comeback for unilaterally using the sweat from another's brow. Yes they were stupid enough to release it to the world, and you could 'punish' them for that stupidity, but morally taking advantage of someone isn't quite acceptable.
Ignoring the taxes and breathing, they are a seperate entity to the issue of copyright. Breathing could easily be argued to be a fair exchange. Taxes, well I don't wish to start on them.
"Then they probably shouldn't have said "equality" in their list of causes. Or they should have clarified they're only interested in equality for them compared to large corporations. That's not much of an equality from my perspective." - In their 'list of causes' I would understand equality to mean their correcting of an inequality they see. I believe it's an unwarranted extension to the meaning to assume global inclusion of all inequalities. You couldn't even begin to start to think about the level of inequality globally... Software? Copyright? How about food? Your argument that they ought not mention equality in, what appears to me to be, a very limited domain seems somewhat hypocritical. You are using a computer which puts you well above the equality line...
"Sure, they can look out for themselves. And the second they pretend that they're looking out for more themselves by using vague, grandious language, I'll call them out on it because it's fun for me to do. Oh, and it's me looking out for myself." - My entire argument is that you are placing spin and biased interpretation on a simplistic list of words. Words that most people would see as being limited to the group itself, not to humanity as a whole.
">I believe copyright has no justification, that patents have no justification, but I had to call you on the points because they were (in my opinion) not true.
So, now truth is subjective. Interesting..." - Actually I was acknowledging that I'm not perfect and could be proven wrong. I was taking it on faith that you believed them to be true - else why would you write them? I believe those points to be not true, you believe (or believed) them to be true. I have enough doubt to, in general, acknowledge I could be wrong..
I disagree that their PR was a load of bullshit. It didn't impress me, granted, but it didn't appear to be outright lies. Yes they may have assumed, or hoped that people would spin it to their benefit, but on the face of it, considered dispassionately it's not actually untrue, or even too blatently spun.
I agree entirely with your closing paragraph, I've never seen the value in copyright, that was never my point. And I apologise if I missed your original point - it appeared to me to be an argument against both the organisation and on copyright.
"Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion)."
I disagree with copyright, I don't think it serves a purpose. But this statement is false. It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal. The issue of legal costs of enforcing it is a different matter, and that does limit some unequally. Equality does not mean no exclusion. You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition, people can't come in and raid your fridge anytime they want. But I'd argue that it is equal, equal opportunity, you too can lock your door and have your private space, you too can copyright your software and have your private code. Work against the system by all means, but don't pretend it's something it's not - that won't fix anything and is just going to slow you down.
"Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms)." - Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing. People from another country cannot vote in your elections. Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote. Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote. As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.
"Being honest means being fair" - No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.
"And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work" as I mentioned before, fairness is relative, if I got a cup of water from the bottom of a well (long climb etc, lots of work to get it) and you feel you should be able take the water from me and drink it or sell / give it to another? That's your idea of fairness? Weird. Personally I believe that if I've worked hard to get a cup of water I should be able to drink it, or give it to a person of my chosing, not have you take it and do with it as you wish. Now, the water is a finite resource, true, but if it were a pipe, or pump so it wasn't finite (for the purpose of the visualisation). Would you then be happy to take the pump and do as you will with it?
Fairness in software is the ability to do it yourself. Nowhere is it written that you should have a free ride. To be able to use another's time for your own benefit (although I dislike the fact we keep re-inventing the wheel). Now, I appreciate the good work that the open source community puts out, I love the fact that it's under an open license. BUT it does not mean that I have to do the same, nor that there is something wrong with me not doing the same. I won't get into software patents because I believe they are very wrong and they *somewhat* hinder the ability to DIY.
"They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors)." - they are a group working against what they perceive to be the inequality they are facing. They are not a campaigning group out to ensure equality for all. Nor are
I think you are making the same mistake that many people do:
:)
Not understanding what you mean when you say 'Evolution'.
You see evolution is demonstrable fact, you can see it occur all the time all around you. However, the Theory of Evolution (what I believe you are talking about) as proposed by Darwin in his Origin of the Species is something else. It's a theory that proposes how life progressed from a single celled organism to our current myriad of species. (And yes speciation has been observed - at least within non-breedable boundries).
I agree with what you say about macro continental drift - There is evidence to say it occured, but you can't be 100% sure. I don't believe in it, but I think it is the most likely explanation. It's a theory about how events long past occured - it doesn't require belief...
If you think of evolution as micro-continental drift and Darwin's Theory of evolution as macro-continental drift you'd be pretty much there. The theory matches the evidence, although there are some holes where available evidence doesn't fully back up the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is useless, it means that reality is messy. It might be that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, but its currently the best fit, and indeed the most valuable fit for the scientific goal of prediction.
My final point is 'Where's the value?' If Intelligent Design is correct then one of two things are true - either the intelligence followed a plan / formula etc or just did stuff on a whim. If the intelligence did it on a whim you cannot predict anything from it, you could spontaneously turn into a cat tomorrow and it would fit the theory perfectly - whilst simultaneously being useless for prediction or further learning. If however, the intelligence followed a plan, then that plan can be exposed, the evidence however would point to the intelligence's plan being something very akin to darwin's Theory of Evolution; this being the case why not use the theory of evolution until something better comes to explain it? Either its the intelligence's mind, or its physical process, the end result is the same...
Not that I feel you need to change your mind or anything, I just find that honest attempts to understand both sides are better - and the confusion over evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution is commonly used to say evolution is false and unprovable, its only the Theory of Evolution that unprovable. That's an aside as to the mechanism whereby life does evolve, which is different to the evolution itself.
Enjoy
Of course I'd want my family to live.
But lets change this situation to something closer to reality:
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a flight at some point. Incidentally, your entire family is going to be flying on a plane at some point. In order to possibly try to prevent it we need to stomp on the freedom and the rights of everybody in this country, including you and your family. Also it is almost a given that your family will be directly negatively affected by this - your daughters ex-boyfriend has made a call to the terrorist burning hotline in a fit of jealous rage, so she'll be vanishing soon. We'd like you to decide whether we should give you the illusion of security. And make it quick, you never know when they could strike again"
Even if you give up every right you ever have and become a slave to your government, you will not have made terrorism impossible, it will still be able to happen, and the side effect is that you will be living in fear like you wouldn't believe every damned day of your life, because that guy you just cut up? Might call the 'Witch / Terrorist buring hotline' with your license plate. You run a sucessful business? Your competitor can get the competative edge, whilst you are in solitary for planning to blow up a turnpike.
You need to ask yourself, IF these actions are taken will it solve the problem? Could you think of a way of doing it anyway? The answer is almost invariably NO, it wouldn't solve anything, but it would harm you. Remember the old saw: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How would ANY new laws bring back your dead loved ones? How would fewer rights bring them back either? How would living in a constant state of fear honor their memory? And most importantly, how would surrendering everything stop it happening again? Sure you can stop / make much harder a particular attack vector, but there are always new ways to do something... If you are alive, you are at risk, the only way to be safe is to die.
One last thing, how would you like to know that your innocent wife was locked up on death row about to die as an innocent casualty of the war on terror. That your new laws to protect your wife actually killed her? Because all this 'so some innocents will be caught in the net, its worth it to protect the rest of us' is fine, until you or those you love are the innocents lost for the cause....
barawn, that is just wrong.
The cable is attached to a weight that rests on the earths surface, (or on the ocean). This weight weighs much more than any climber that is to go up the ribbon, in fact it weighs more than the cable can support, so if it was over a hole the ribbon would fall to earth, however because the earth's surface will support any weight that the ribbon does not the system is in equilibrium.
The ribbon exerts a constant tension on the base anchor weight - so if it is cut, the now unbalanced ribbon will not just hover there, it will fly off, the cable will not return to be re-attached since it will be pulled out of the atmosphere (frictional forces on the ribbon through atmosphere) and the entire system will eventually burn up in re-entry (loss of orbital momentum due to dragging 100k km of ribbon through atmosphere).
When a climber is attached to the ribbon and starts to climb the tension between the ribbon and the base anchor reduces by the exact weight of the climber (plus its force due to acceleration, vertically and laterally). If there was no tension in the cable it would be impossible to attach a climber. There MUST be tension in the ribbon at the base for this to be useful in anyway.
If there was no tension in the base then pulling on the cable for a climber to climb would bring the cable crashing down, since the only force the climber could act against would be the inertia of the system, and that means accelerating it towards the ground.
Dropping the climber immediately will only accelerate the ribbons climb out of atmosphere because there will be less gravatational pull on the ribbon.
Z.
Short, sweet and to the point :)
Z.
P.S. Lol
In the UK....
You don't need an army of lawyers, since this is on a per purchase base the total value (especially with most software) that would be lost due to a violation of the agreement is less than £5000. Last time I checked, £5000 is the upper limit for the small claims courts, which would cost you a meagre £250 (last time I checked)+ your time to bring a case against that vendor. Now the vendor automatically has to pay someone to go there, there is a very real possibility that they will lose, plus you can add to the judgement your costs assocaited with bringing the lawsuit.
And the final, best part, is that IF that lawsuit is deemed to have any merit, even if you lose, then the party you are sueing cannot ask for the legal costs.
Of couse IANAL, but the details are available online:
www.courtservice.gov.uk
I both agree with you, and disagree.
Software piracy is not a valid term. It should be copyright violation - and it is a copyright violation. Its just that copyright violation is not as headline catching as piracy. Of course now language usage is changing and piracy is starting to enter the dictionaries - I myself will not use it and will correct people who talk about it without understanding but thats an aside.
Incase you aren't aware copyright is the creation of artificial scarcity in order to increase the value of something.
Technically gold, diamonds, cars etc are only valuable because they are scarce. There is not an infinite readily available supply of it. Air on the other hand is readily available (at the moment) and thus has no value. Water is infinite (well close enough for my purposes) but it is not readily available, hence you pay for it to brought to you - not for the water itself.
Now anything digital is inherently infinite and readily available, simply because you can copy it and have another identical copy, to be copied again etc.
Software is digital, there is no escaping that. And without the benefit of copyright the software creators would have no right to be 'fairly' compensated, simply because it is an infinite resource ONCE CREATED.
Our economies have moved (in general) from item based economies to information based economies. Information does not want to be free as some people would say, but it is an infinite resource, the original cannot be adversly affected just because it is copied (Sure if you were attempting to measure value according to scarcity then it would reduce - but that is not true value, that is artifical value).
Copyright is a recognition that our economies work better when we work for personal greed (greed may be too strong of a word, but its the cause).
We (as a society - or nation look at it how you will) agreed to copyright as a method of rewarding those who are inventive, creative or just plain dedicated. There is nothing wrong with copyright and copyright enforcement - there is no ethical or moral justification for violating the laws of the society that you live in. If you want to be able to freely copy all music then get yourself elected leader of the country and change the laws.
All that being said...
I however dislike certain items. All crimes / violations of laws need to be punished, but there should also be degrees of punishment, and they should be relevant to the crime. In the states you *can* (depends on sentencing) go to prison for longer and be more financially punished for violating the DMCA than for murdering someone - for taking their life in the ultimate unreversable act.
To my mind that seems a wrong bias - that greed has been allowed to overtake the benefit, that the contract between society and the copyright 'owners' has become decidedly biased towards to the copyright 'owners'.
"If you were a developer whose livelihood depended on people purchasing your software, I'm sure you'd see this issue very differently." - goldspider.
Yes, you do see it with greedy eyes - but from the other side. When you are violating copyright on somebody else's hard work, you are being greedy, if you want something, work for it, contribute to society for it - don't leech.
Conversely as a software developer you need to recognise that you are making money from what you are doing on a contract with society, not a right. Not a physical item you have sweated to create and then give to someone in exchange for something (yes software development is hard but it doesn't result in a physical item).
In order to effectively make money from an infinite source you must never let anybody take it home. Once you let someone take it home, you are relying on a contract with society. MMORPGs are a good example of it. They are software programs (inifinite) that are never copied thus engineering scarcity.. a service.
Apologies for the extremely long post, but I feel that the current models are far more stifling that nourishing.
Z.
P.S. I am a software developer and a customer (not consumer, I am not forced to buy) so I see both sides.
Airlines keep the information, obviously.
Including things like ticket, method of payment, meal choice etc..
Its the fact that the EU is agreeing to allow airlines pass that information to the US. It is essentially a temporary deal until proper legislation can be brought in to support it. Unlike the US the EU has Data Protection laws that make it illegal to maintain personally identifiable data on someone without:
a) registering with the data protection registrar,
b) having good reason for having that data (and permission),
c) maintaining security of that data,
d) keeping the data no longer than necessary and
e) not sharing the data without permission (aside from legal considerations)
Also data on you is available for a nominal fee and should they have no reason for holding the data then they can be prosecuted (I believe it can be a criminal offence - although I'm not sure, that might just be if you don't register...), and you have the right to alter inncorrect data (although you might need a court to decide what is correct).
This tends to allieviate privacy concerns, and without this deal / legistlation the information could not legally be passed to the US.
Being a citizen in a country that is a member of the EU, I much prefer the Data Protection laws to nothing, it gives me a legal recourse into my credit record, into idiot companies sharing personal data on the web, etc.
Z.
Ok.
I concede I wasn't the most polite, but as they say two wrongs don't make a right.
Second his examples were completely wrong.
The car pulls a trailer, ok, then he discards the exact opposite force the trailer exerts on the car. But sod that, you didn't mention that. The acceleration of the car and trailer causes the trailer to resist with exactly the force attributed to intertia and friction. The car pulls the trailer, the trailer pulls back, the forces are identical, its merely that the forces the trailer exerts are due to the fact that the car is accelerating the trailer, hence the trailer moves.
At the anchor point, where he states:
"The anchor is not pulled by the swung object, the anchor PULLS the swung object."
Are you trying to deny the fact that what he states is wrong?. The base of the tether (at the anchor) does not care where the force that is pulling on the anchor comes from, be it due to altering the velocity of the counterweight, or due to a rocket, the force is there it is real, it is pulling on the anchor. If the anchor was not being pulled upon but could pull then a singe grain of sand would be sufficient to stop the 50tonnes of tension in the cable. Now I know that to be not true, as do you, I hope. I feel I should also point out that I did state in my comment that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I never claimed it did, so right on the money there, idiot.
Nice ending comment, all I can say is ditto.
In summary, he was technically and absolutely wrong in some areas, the ones I mentioned. You also were technically correct in some, but lack the ability to read the comment first.
Thanks for replying.
Z.
Sorry, didn't mean that you pump up the nano-tubes, I meant that the article / company states the construction material as a carbon-nanotube and epoxy resin.
It has a weight to length ratio of 7.5Kg per kilometre. Yes the pressure would be excessive, but I wasn't sure what you meant by pumping it up. True its easy to take fuel to the top, but the main arguement was that it wasn't necessary.
If the CM is outside of geosynch then the entire tether will fly away. If the CM is inside of geosynch then the entire tether will fall to earth (without outside help).
Conceded on the mass point, but since the anchor is actually a floating platform its not fully attached to the planet.
However just considering the centre of mass for the object assuming it is not attached to the earth (hence the calculations make sense).
The mass that can reasonably be attributed to the entire tether system is the weight of the tether, cars, counterweights etc, and the amount of the ground anchor that it actively supports and isn't supported by the Earth. This maintains an EXACT CM on geosynch, because if it were outside then the tether wouldn't move (assuming fixed length and zero elasticity) it would just have a higher tension on the base, which brings more of the mass of the anchor into the equation and balances the CM on geonsynch exactly.
If the system is in a state of balance, ie with tension in the cable then as long as the climbing car stays below that level of tension (ie the base always has tension) the system will not fall down and no corrective thrusters are needed.
It is a self balancing system, using the fact that the mass of the anchor need not be considered in the balance unless it is directly supported by the tether.
Z.
Cheers :).
Z.
The counterweight is just a long ribbon of the same material.
Launching it requires a rocket launch to past geosynch orbit, reeling out the tether (1mm^2 cross-sectional area) as it launches, the rocket doesn't have to go much past 35k km (geosynch), well at least not the full 65k km, more like 10-25k km before the cable will self unwind to the full extension.
Then a tiny robot (likely solar powered) will crawl up this tiny thread and stick another layer on. And another, and another until it has counterweight capability and strength to lift a 22 tonne lift car and 14 tonnes of cargo. The initial launch is difficult, BUT after that it is just materials and robots... 3 days a piece, after a year it'll be ready... Each robot can haul slightly more cable than the previous robot, which in turn increases its loadbearing capability, and thus more heavier cable... etc...
Z.
Grandparent was wrong.
Everytime you send something up you steal rotational momentum from the Earth. Nothing is taken from the counterweight, the counterweight will not move.
Read other posts (I've made a few on this topic) to have it explained.
Z.
Firstly.
READ ARTICLE.
Material weighs in at 7.5kg per kilometre, thats pretty light.
Secondly the tension on the base of the cable, in excess of 36 tonnes means that these puturbations of which you speak will not be at all an issue.
The thrusters are not necessary, the tension engages weight in the anchor, which essentially means that if there is 36tonnes of tension on the rope then 36 tonnes of the base mass is included in the centre of mass calculations, if there is only 1gram of tension then only 1gram of the base mass is included in the centre of mass calculations.
This means that as long as there is tension in the cable at the point it attaches to the anchor then the cables centre of mass is always at the exact point of geosynch.
If the cable is under 36 tonnes of tension at the base then you could easily lift 10 tonnes at an acceleration of 10m/s^2 (ie 2gs),
The tension is the flexibility in v and r, because there is a second element in the equation and that is that the mass of the anchor if not held up by the orbital tether will be held up by the Earth, thus its self governing...
READ ARTICLE..
And try to think the whole exercise out.
Z.
P.S. Just noticed that one of your base assumptions was wrong, that gravity and centripetal force have to cancel, they don't because the anchor can be supported by the Earth OR by the tether... Sigh.
Gah.
Cable weighs less than paper, chance for destruction 0%.
READ ARTICLE.
Z.
No.
Read article.
No asteroid intended.
Instead it is the other 65,000km of ribbon that will counterweight the tether.
And even if the rock was used it would fly away if the cable was cut, snapped or anything. It wouldn't hit the ground....
Plus I'm a little suspicious of your 53% shear force... I suspect your calcs are out..
Z.
No.
Read article.
Article mentions that there is no need to have a counterweight, the other 65,000km of the cable will be sufficient to counterweight.
Z.
I have to say, I'm most impressed with this post. It has got to be the most worthwhile in the whole discussion, if I had mod points right now (plus hadn't posted 10 other times in this thread) I'd be modding this up.
Z.
It doesn't require torque (at least not in the way you seem to be saying), its angular momentum about the centre of rotation, in this case the earth. Which means that it will start to pull the cable back along the rotation of the Earth, however the tension in the cable will attempt to put the cable to rightangles to the planet, thus if you go slow enough it will work fine, you are just stealing momentum from the rotation of the planet. Thus the flexible cable isn't an issue...
Z.
Your high-school physics do not override newtons' laws.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The car is pulling on the trailer, and the trailer is pulling (with exactly the same force) on the car. Hence the car is pulling the trailer, AND the trailer is pulling the car, however the car wins, it has power, and the trailer is only pulling back with friction and inertia... Its just that you don't understand the force interactions.
The reason why people say there is no centrifugal force is that it is not a force, its an acceleration. However any damned force, centripetal included, always has an opposite.
If the anchor was not pulled by the swung object then it could not pull the swung object, and if you think about it, it makes sense..
Getting tired of these posts...
Z.
Erm, actually he was pretty much right, he neglected to realise that the majority of the 'anchoring' occurs due to gravity acting on the tether, hence a meagre 50tonne anchor would work perfectly.
The cable's purpose is for the elevator to traverse, true, but to do that it has to be under tension, and it has to be pulling up with more than the weight of the elevator. the cable is 100,000km long, geo synch is at 35,000km, that's 65,000 km of cable BEYOND the geosynch point to create the tension in the cable. the Centre of mass is exactly at geonsynch, but the other end of the cable is miles beyond geonsynch. If the cable stopped at geosynch it would just immediately fall to earth...
So to paraphrase, 'unfortunatly you are absolutely wrong'... Mainly because 65,000km, nearly twice the distance from earth is not 'slightly' at all....
Z.