The lawyers don't care whether the long term effect of suing their Client's Customers is good or bad.
They've convinced their Clients this legal service and the lawyers are rackin' up the billable hours.
Realize that an organization (any organization) becomes less self-aware (right hand knows what left hand is doing) as it becomes larger. Once it gets to a certain size, behaviour becomes fragmented--you'll often see one department working at cross purposes to another in the same company.
Ask anybody who's ever worked for the government (even a city government), or a Fortune 100 company.
The answer to the question "Why do they do something that is clearly self destructive?" is that there is no "they", and the folks that are doing the suing know *exactly* what they're doing.
My wife and I have dogs, cats, and intermittantly, the more ephemeral hamsters and fish. Setting aside the philosophical discussions for a moment, their behaviour suggests they have memory and personality. Suggests it well enough that even if it's not really there, it's close enough to fool us.
We love them.
The thing about most types of pets is that we will watch all but the very last ones die.
When the animal dies, the memories are gone. While some of the personality is due to breeding, most of that is gone, too.
Folks, the "clones" in the movies where they run off a new body in a 30-second special effects sequence, then download a lifetime of memories in a bright flash of light are not real. We'll have an economical superluminal vehicle before we get that sort of clone tech.
We will soon be able to cheaply clone the bodies of mammals (including ourselves). This changes nothing--It's simply yet another scam to fleece the bereaved.
When you arrive home and that little furry rocket zips around the room so happy to see you that he can't stand still, pet his head and rub his belly and tell him he's a good dog.
Don't pretend if that one breaks you can go out and buy another one just like it.
I bought one of these a while ago. It works like a champ--even let us copy to DVD the Disney VHS tapes my wife bought.
If the broadcast flag causes an issue, I'll buy one of these.
YMMV--We have all analog equipment--and specifically avoid upgrading to digital because of the rights restrictions involved.
Even if there were no restrictions, I have NEVER sat down in front of the TV and said to myself--Gee, that TV looks good, but I'd fork over several thousands of dollars if the image would only look AWESOME.
Hell, nobody even buys CDs for the full potential sound quality. Once the snap-crackle-pop of the albums is gone, who cares? Most are mastered in crap fidelity, anyhow. Of course the audiophiles can beat all this with a green marker.
I'm not a mathematician, so maybe one can answer this question?
I know that I can take pretty much any open (e.g. not a ring) topology and document it in a hierarchical model.
Heck, if I'm permitted just a few multiple paths, I can model pretty much any topology with a such a drawing. Think org charts in any large corporation.
Abstraction is necessary for generalization, and models are absolutely necessary. Studying your model instead of your subject is a trap. The article presents a model for review; I guess it's up to the scientfic community to evaluate the applicability of the model to any particular subject.
When a religion says you are a sinner and "deserve to be tortured for all eternity", they're talking about an imaginary torture that ostensibly happens after you're dead.
Inciting people to torture one another in real life is a completely different issue--they might actually do it.
I think about committing crimes now and then. Not that I would do such thing, I enjoy my life outside of prison. But just as a type of mental exercise it's interesting to me while standing in line at a store, noticing where cameras are located, determining blind spots, exit strategies, exposed wiring that could be cut, etc. I then think about how I would improve the system.
Sure, I do the same thing all the time.
It's called "managing your failure modes"--if you're designing a system, you damned well better be thinking about how it's going to fail, and accounting for that.
It's a poor engineer that thinks he's done when the project works like it's supposed to work.
It also needs to break the way it's supposed to break.
We are very goal-oriented. When I'm on a startup NOBODY gives a rat's ass why we're not making production. You make the cars move down the line if you have to hold in the contactors and punch the valves by hand. You use the other hand to fix the bugs in the program. When things work they way they're supposed to, you get to go home. Not before.
This is where the terrorist mindset overlaps with the engineering mindset. I doubt that most terrorists woke up one morning with the desire to kill people and break their stuff. I understand that some folks enjoy doing that just for the sake of doing it, but I'm betting that it's not a primary motivator for your typical terrorist.
The terrorist is trying to accomplish political change. Why the political change has not happened does not get them a ticket home. Making the change happen "by whatever means necessary" permits them to say "done!".
Terrorism has nothing to do, specifically, with killing people and breaking their stuff. Any effective means of producing political change will be defined as "terrorism" by the folks already in power. According to the FBI, Dr. King (killed this date in 1968) was a "terrorist"--not because he terrorized people, but because he was an agent of political change. At the time, though, the word was spelled "Communist".
Free speech zones exist because somebody has decided that public awareness of peaceful protest might be an effective means of instigating political change. But, if nobody sees the protest, the threat is gone.
The degree to which you're aware of this fact determines your ability to choose.
Persuasion is nothing new or necessarily evil. We tend to modify our own environment for our own benefit. That environment often contains people.
Unless you're planning to take action to change the situation, crying about it is a waste of time. If you don't like it, do something about it. Learn to recongize other people trying to get you to do what they want. Use the knowledge to get them to do what you want. If you want them to leave you alone, convince them to do that.
It will hit you like a ton of bricks (if you think you missed it; don't worry; that wasn't it). It will scare the crap out of you (if it seems like something you can handle; that wasn't it.) There will be no question that it's true love (if you're wondering if that was it, that wasn't it).
The corollaries (in parentheses) are useful for keeping you from mistaking something else for true love. But only if self-deception is something you really want to avoid.
That's not a rhetorical question--the answer to it contains useful information.
I met this girl a while back... We really liked each other, and talked about lots of different things. The conversation got to sex, and she wasn't offended talking about it (hey some people are)--We found that we liked the same sort of things. We made out on the couch that evening, but I didn't visit her in her bedroom (we were at her folks' house for Christmas). Next day, she told me she was disappointed; she wanted me to (next evening we did). Continuing to follow this policy of saying what you mean works really, really well for both of us; we've been married for 7 years.
Doing this is very simple! All you need is to know what you want. And to say that respectfully to someone else--and be prepared to accept the answer "no".
Simple does not equal easy! My experience has been this sort of direct communication is really difficult when I'm trying to do something I really shouldn't (good indication that I'm full of BS). With my wife, it's always been as easy as breathing (a good indication this is a good idea).
I also have a very simple test to identify true love. A friend of mine explained that all three of a set of easily observable indicators will be present IFF true love. Again, this test is consistent with my experience, and for most of the happily married people I've asked.
Could this be a legal roadblock to prevent wireless mesh networks?
I remember a couple years ago when a lot of local governments began suggesting that they use public money to build public wireless access for all to share and enjoy. Sort of like public roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc.
A lot of laws very quickly got passed that explicitly prohibited these cities from doing this sort of thing.
I dont' believe it was an issue of government competing with the private sector--there's already laws about (IANAL; chime in if you are one).
Hence the necessity of a new law to prevent the service.
Rule of law means that everybody knows the rules, and can adjust their decisions accordingly. If you have rule of law, then (generally), people have sufficient self control that conflict doesn't occur. Law enforcement (university's disciplinary system, here) is used to mop-up after the small number of folks that can't follow clear rules--or to suppress dissidents.
Rule of law does not mean "laws we like". It just means that everybody knows what to expect, so we can stop worrying about cops and criminals and just go about our business--studying, making money, raising our families, whatever it is we do in life.
Whether the law is good or bad is a separate question, already being discussed here.
Selective application of any broad law is bad because people don't know what to expect.
Retribution against any particular behaviour is no longer determined by social contract (written or simply understood), but by the whims of the wealthy, the connected, or the mob.
So, here's the "law"--and the accused knew it: While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently...
But, the application is not consistent--facebook is out, but physical meetings are in.
No mention in the article of any disciplinary action from attending meetings in "the dungeon". "...the popular Ryerson basement study room engineering students dub The Dungeon..."; "...if we were having trouble, we'd post the question...Exactly what we would say to each other if we were sitting in the Dungeon,"
University's solution? Make the law even more broad: "...any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage, including actions that have a negative effect on the integrity of the learning environment."
This will have the effect of encouraging a culture of secrecy and blurring the line between "cheating" and "collaboration".
As a tool to prepare students for "the real world", academic ethics policies often do more harm than good. This university fails to demonstrate to their students that rule of law can benefit society.
Instead, Ryerson validates their view that the law is arbitrary, the best thing is to do everything in secret, and that there is NO difference between cheating and collaboration. Finally, Ryerson's recent update to their policy validates the view that government exists primarily for the purpose of preserving its own authority--not for the benefit of the governed.
The more hip and cynical/.ers may take perverse pleasure in seeing the last bold lines in print.
From a realistic and practical standpoint, though, I don't believe this is an attitude Ryerson or anybody else trusted with the indoctrination of young citizens should actively seek to promote.
I have been told that to admit anything is to open the company up to liability.
I think here we have the basis of the problem.
IANAL.
I am, however, a paid consultant, and as such, I have a pretty good functional grasp of the concept of liability.
Liability is a catch-all for anything that can leave the company's ass hanging out.
An action on the part of the employee that "exposes the company to liability" would include things like making promises on behalf of the company, taking posession of the Customer's equipment, making technical recommendations to the Customer, modifying (upgrading, repairing) the Customer's property.
All of this is part of the normal course of business, and all these things involve liability for the Vendor.
In addition to the actual cost of doing the work, the Vendor expects some consideration for accepting the liablity.
The Vendor is absolutely right in trying to avoid liability without appropriate consideration.
If somebody asks me to work on their equipment, there will be some sort of contract and payment.
Part of that contract will specify just what happens if I break something, cause loss of production, expose an employee to a hazard, etc.
In this case where the Vendor has taken posession of the Customer's property, the Vendor is already liable.
If the vendor breaks it, loses it, whatever--the vendor is liable to some extent.
In my work, for example, the extent of liability is defined by Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, the UCC, terms of the contract, and the SOPs in place at the plant where I'm working (listed in rough order of priority).
That's why it costs you so much to hire me to come to your shop and fix your machines.
In most cases, you can get one of your smarter electricians to do the job I do.
A lot of what you pay for is my promise that it'll be done right, and the assurance that if it's not done right, I'm on the hook--liable--for what I did.
This is exactly the situation for the case at hand.
Replacing a power button on a laptop does not require 300.00 (cost of the service contract) worth of effort.
It doesn't require $84.00 above the actual cost of repair (per Best Buy, Macedonia, OH) either.
That money pays for Best Buy's liability.
At that point, it's too late to "avoid liability".
The Vendor has already accepted the liability, and taken the consideration (the service contract or the $84.00) for doing that.
That's sorta complicated.
Why not just use dry ice or baking soda & vinegar?
Saves a trip to Wal-Mart (do they still sell pyrodex? Mine dropped their FFL this year.).
Liquid nitrogen is nice, too if you're working in a shop where you can get it.
There's "full" as in "If you put any more crap in this box, I can't get to the crap that's already in there."
And then there's "full" as in "Hey, I can cram more crap into that box!"
I need some of that space to defrag the HDDs on my windows box.
Now, if only there was some filesystem whose performance didn't degrade over time due to fragmentation...
Back when you didn't buy phones, but could only rent them from Ma Bell, they were indestructible.
Simple enlightened self-interest: the folks that manufactured them were responsible for maintaining them.
Dude--(Dude?), They're not all like that.
Bummer if you got burned, but, I can tell you with no uncertainty, that after 7 years, none of that has happened.
I think the trick is to marry your FRIEND.
Why anyone in their right mind would want to spend the rest of their life with someone they would not want to just hang out with is beyond me.
Oh, and the "companionship" gets better;).
The wire is a resistor. All other things being equal, a 100' long resistor has more resistance than a 5' long resistor.
The device at the other end is a motor, and it needs a certain amount of power. Pretty much any electric motor will draw more current at lower voltage when running under the same load. Because of this, your wire is carrying more current than a shorter wire would carry.
Sending this current through a resistor (remember your wire is a resistor) causes it to heat up. And the heat from the resistor increases as the SQUARE of the increase in current. P=I^2R. Yes the resistance increases as the temperature rises, but that's not a major in this case.
The manufacturer tells you that the 100' 20ga wire won't carry the current you require. That's not quite true. It will carry the current, which is the problem--the wire will then heat up and your house will burn down.
After that, it'll stop carrying the current, so in the end they're technically correct.
The failure of the distributors to continue to profit is due to the fact they don't contribute anything.
Once upon a time, a large capital investment and a large continuing expense were required to distribute recorded art.
That's simply not the case anymore.
File sharing software and the infrastructure provided by the internet do not "steal from" the **AA.
They are just new and vastly more effecient distribution methods.
In this context, distributing the old way is just wasteful.
As the old distribution system dies, the remaining components of the arts and entertainment industry will reorganize themselves around the new system that's already in place.
No, it's not going to be some utopia where everything costs nothing and the artists all drive Porsches. It'll be pretty much the same as it was before--a few rock stars make a zillion dollars, most of the artists starve, and the fans wallow in pools of crap with occasional gem here and there. Only distribution has changed; neither human greed nor the failure of the truly great artist to be recognized in his time.
In the floorpan line of a well-known auto manufacturer, the safety folks wanted to test the OSHA safe stopping distance calculation used to place some light curtains.
The way you protect workers from getting killed by a robot (and these things are way stronger than you think, even after seeing it fling rocks) is to put up light curtains around the robot.
The OSHA safe stopping distance calculation is used to prove that the hazardous motion will stop in the time it takes the person to traverse the light curtain and come into contact with the equipment.
So, the safety folks find the robot with the biggest, fastest moving load on the line--the floorpan skin transfer robot.
A floorpan skin is basically a sixty-pound razor blade.
The end effector held onto the floorpan skin with suction cups, which are a cost-effective and reliable method for the process.
The robot guys set up a test, where they got all 6 axes of the robot moving in such a manner that the end effector achieved its maximum possible speed. Not something you'd normally do, but a worst-case scenario for use as safety systems challenge.
We all wanted to see this robot haul ass, so the safety folks had us all standing back...
Robot dude picked up the TP and initiated the path at 100% speed...
Somebody waited for the arm to get to full extension and speed...and stuck their hand into the light curtain.
The robot stopped almost instantly--well within the expected stopping distance. No way that person would have been injured by the robot.
The skin (remember the sixty-pound razor blade) stopped a couple bays over.
Hard clamps were added to the end effector and the test was repeated with improved results.
Slashdot Mirror
They've convinced their Clients this legal service and the lawyers are rackin' up the billable hours.
Realize that an organization (any organization) becomes less self-aware (right hand knows what left hand is doing) as it becomes larger. Once it gets to a certain size, behaviour becomes fragmented--you'll often see one department working at cross purposes to another in the same company.
Ask anybody who's ever worked for the government (even a city government), or a Fortune 100 company.
The answer to the question "Why do they do something that is clearly self destructive?" is that there is no "they", and the folks that are doing the suing know *exactly* what they're doing.
My wife and I have dogs, cats, and intermittantly, the more ephemeral hamsters and fish.
Setting aside the philosophical discussions for a moment, their behaviour suggests they have memory and personality.
Suggests it well enough that even if it's not really there, it's close enough to fool us.
We love them.
The thing about most types of pets is that we will watch all but the very last ones die.
When the animal dies, the memories are gone.
While some of the personality is due to breeding, most of that is gone, too.
Folks, the "clones" in the movies where they run off a new body in a 30-second special effects sequence, then download a lifetime of memories in a bright flash of light are not real.
We'll have an economical superluminal vehicle before we get that sort of clone tech.
We will soon be able to cheaply clone the bodies of mammals (including ourselves).
This changes nothing--It's simply yet another scam to fleece the bereaved.
When you arrive home and that little furry rocket zips around the room so happy to see you that he can't stand still, pet his head and rub his belly and tell him he's a good dog.
Don't pretend if that one breaks you can go out and buy another one just like it.
If the broadcast flag causes an issue, I'll buy one of these.
YMMV--We have all analog equipment--and specifically avoid upgrading to digital because of the rights restrictions involved.
Even if there were no restrictions, I have NEVER sat down in front of the TV and said to myself--Gee, that TV looks good, but I'd fork over several thousands of dollars if the image would only look AWESOME.
Hell, nobody even buys CDs for the full potential sound quality. Once the snap-crackle-pop of the albums is gone, who cares? Most are mastered in crap fidelity, anyhow. Of course the audiophiles can beat all this with a green marker.
OK, if it's going to do that... It's not a 180-degree FOV. It's a 2 Pi steradian FOV.
It's 2 sr FOV
I'm not a mathematician, so maybe one can answer this question? I know that I can take pretty much any open (e.g. not a ring) topology and document it in a hierarchical model. Heck, if I'm permitted just a few multiple paths, I can model pretty much any topology with a such a drawing. Think org charts in any large corporation. Abstraction is necessary for generalization, and models are absolutely necessary. Studying your model instead of your subject is a trap. The article presents a model for review; I guess it's up to the scientfic community to evaluate the applicability of the model to any particular subject.
Do both. He said OR, not XOR.
When a religion says you are a sinner and "deserve to be tortured for all eternity", they're talking about an imaginary torture that ostensibly happens after you're dead.
Inciting people to torture one another in real life is a completely different issue--they might actually do it.
Sure, I do the same thing all the time.
It's called "managing your failure modes"--if you're designing a system, you damned well better be thinking about how it's going to fail, and accounting for that.
It's a poor engineer that thinks he's done when the project works like it's supposed to work.
It also needs to break the way it's supposed to break.
We are very goal-oriented.
When I'm on a startup NOBODY gives a rat's ass why we're not making production.
You make the cars move down the line if you have to hold in the contactors and punch the valves by hand.
You use the other hand to fix the bugs in the program.
When things work they way they're supposed to, you get to go home. Not before.
This is where the terrorist mindset overlaps with the engineering mindset.
I doubt that most terrorists woke up one morning with the desire to kill people and break their stuff. I understand that some folks enjoy doing that just for the sake of doing it, but I'm betting that it's not a primary motivator for your typical terrorist.
The terrorist is trying to accomplish political change.
Why the political change has not happened does not get them a ticket home.
Making the change happen "by whatever means necessary" permits them to say "done!".
Terrorism has nothing to do, specifically, with killing people and breaking their stuff.
Any effective means of producing political change will be defined as "terrorism" by the folks already in power.
According to the FBI, Dr. King (killed this date in 1968) was a "terrorist"--not because he terrorized people, but because he was an agent of political change.
At the time, though, the word was spelled "Communist".
Free speech zones exist because somebody has decided that public awareness of peaceful protest might be an effective means of instigating political change.
But, if nobody sees the protest, the threat is gone.
Persuasion is nothing new or necessarily evil. We tend to modify our own environment for our own benefit. That environment often contains people.
Unless you're planning to take action to change the situation, crying about it is a waste of time. If you don't like it, do something about it. Learn to recongize other people trying to get you to do what they want. Use the knowledge to get them to do what you want. If you want them to leave you alone, convince them to do that.
Some reading to get you started:
Sure:
It will hit you like a ton of bricks (if you think you missed it; don't worry; that wasn't it).
It will scare the crap out of you (if it seems like something you can handle; that wasn't it.)
There will be no question that it's true love (if you're wondering if that was it, that wasn't it).
The corollaries (in parentheses) are useful for keeping you from mistaking something else for true love. But only if self-deception is something you really want to avoid.
Standard disclaimers apply.
No, the Q factor of a resonator tells you how much of the standing wave's energy stays in the cavity.
That's not a rhetorical question--the answer to it contains useful information.
I met this girl a while back...
We really liked each other, and talked about lots of different things.
The conversation got to sex, and she wasn't offended talking about it (hey some people are)--We found that we liked the same sort of things.
We made out on the couch that evening, but I didn't visit her in her bedroom (we were at her folks' house for Christmas).
Next day, she told me she was disappointed; she wanted me to (next evening we did).
Continuing to follow this policy of saying what you mean works really, really well for both of us; we've been married for 7 years.
Doing this is very simple!
All you need is to know what you want.
And to say that respectfully to someone else--and be prepared to accept the answer "no".
Simple does not equal easy!
My experience has been this sort of direct communication is really difficult when I'm trying to do something I really shouldn't (good indication that I'm full of BS).
With my wife, it's always been as easy as breathing (a good indication this is a good idea).
I also have a very simple test to identify true love.
A friend of mine explained that all three of a set of easily observable indicators will be present IFF true love.
Again, this test is consistent with my experience, and for most of the happily married people I've asked.
Could this be a legal roadblock to prevent wireless mesh networks? I remember a couple years ago when a lot of local governments began suggesting that they use public money to build public wireless access for all to share and enjoy. Sort of like public roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc. A lot of laws very quickly got passed that explicitly prohibited these cities from doing this sort of thing. I dont' believe it was an issue of government competing with the private sector--there's already laws about (IANAL; chime in if you are one). Hence the necessity of a new law to prevent the service.
Rule of law does not mean "laws we like". It just means that everybody knows what to expect, so we can stop worrying about cops and criminals and just go about our business--studying, making money, raising our families, whatever it is we do in life.
Whether the law is good or bad is a separate question, already being discussed here.
Selective application of any broad law is bad because people don't know what to expect.
Retribution against any particular behaviour is no longer determined by social contract (written or simply understood), but by the whims of the wealthy, the connected, or the mob.
So, here's the "law"--and the accused knew it:
While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently...
But, the application is not consistent--facebook is out, but physical meetings are in.
No mention in the article of any disciplinary action from attending meetings in "the dungeon".
"...the popular Ryerson basement study room engineering students dub The Dungeon..."; "...if we were having trouble, we'd post the question...Exactly what we would say to each other if we were sitting in the Dungeon,"
University's solution? Make the law even more broad:
"...any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage, including actions that have a negative effect on the integrity of the learning environment."
This will have the effect of encouraging a culture of secrecy and blurring the line between "cheating" and "collaboration".
As a tool to prepare students for "the real world", academic ethics policies often do more harm than good. This university fails to demonstrate to their students that rule of law can benefit society.
Instead, Ryerson validates their view that the law is arbitrary, the best thing is to do everything in secret, and that there is NO difference between cheating and collaboration.
Finally, Ryerson's recent update to their policy validates the view that government exists primarily for the purpose of preserving its own authority--not for the benefit of the governed.
The more hip and cynical /.ers may take perverse pleasure in seeing the last bold lines in print.
From a realistic and practical standpoint, though, I don't believe this is an attitude Ryerson or anybody else trusted with the indoctrination of young citizens should actively seek to promote.
I think here we have the basis of the problem.
IANAL. I am, however, a paid consultant, and as such, I have a pretty good functional grasp of the concept of liability.
Liability is a catch-all for anything that can leave the company's ass hanging out.
An action on the part of the employee that "exposes the company to liability" would include things like making promises on behalf of the company, taking posession of the Customer's equipment, making technical recommendations to the Customer, modifying (upgrading, repairing) the Customer's property.
All of this is part of the normal course of business, and all these things involve liability for the Vendor.
In addition to the actual cost of doing the work, the Vendor expects some consideration for accepting the liablity.
The Vendor is absolutely right in trying to avoid liability without appropriate consideration.
If somebody asks me to work on their equipment, there will be some sort of contract and payment.
Part of that contract will specify just what happens if I break something, cause loss of production, expose an employee to a hazard, etc.
In this case where the Vendor has taken posession of the Customer's property, the Vendor is already liable.
If the vendor breaks it, loses it, whatever--the vendor is liable to some extent.
In my work, for example, the extent of liability is defined by Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, the UCC, terms of the contract, and the SOPs in place at the plant where I'm working (listed in rough order of priority).
That's why it costs you so much to hire me to come to your shop and fix your machines.
In most cases, you can get one of your smarter electricians to do the job I do.
A lot of what you pay for is my promise that it'll be done right, and the assurance that if it's not done right, I'm on the hook--liable--for what I did.
This is exactly the situation for the case at hand.
Replacing a power button on a laptop does not require 300.00 (cost of the service contract) worth of effort. It doesn't require $84.00 above the actual cost of repair (per Best Buy, Macedonia, OH) either.
That money pays for Best Buy's liability.
At that point, it's too late to "avoid liability".
The Vendor has already accepted the liability, and taken the consideration (the service contract or the $84.00) for doing that.
What your being asked to do is called "fraud".
That's sorta complicated. Why not just use dry ice or baking soda & vinegar? Saves a trip to Wal-Mart (do they still sell pyrodex? Mine dropped their FFL this year.). Liquid nitrogen is nice, too if you're working in a shop where you can get it.
And then there's "full" as in "Hey, I can cram more crap into that box!"
I need some of that space to defrag the HDDs on my windows box.
Now, if only there was some filesystem whose performance didn't degrade over time due to fragmentation...
Back when you didn't buy phones, but could only rent them from Ma Bell, they were indestructible. Simple enlightened self-interest: the folks that manufactured them were responsible for maintaining them.
Dude--(Dude?), They're not all like that. Bummer if you got burned, but, I can tell you with no uncertainty, that after 7 years, none of that has happened. I think the trick is to marry your FRIEND. Why anyone in their right mind would want to spend the rest of their life with someone they would not want to just hang out with is beyond me. Oh, and the "companionship" gets better ;).
Simple anwer is Voltage Drop.
The wire is a resistor.
All other things being equal, a 100' long resistor has more resistance than a 5' long resistor.
The device at the other end is a motor, and it needs a certain amount of power.
Pretty much any electric motor will draw more current at lower voltage when running under the same load.
Because of this, your wire is carrying more current than a shorter wire would carry.
Sending this current through a resistor (remember your wire is a resistor) causes it to heat up.
And the heat from the resistor increases as the SQUARE of the increase in current. P=I^2R.
Yes the resistance increases as the temperature rises, but that's not a major in this case.
The manufacturer tells you that the 100' 20ga wire won't carry the current you require.
That's not quite true.
It will carry the current, which is the problem--the wire will then heat up and your house will burn down.
After that, it'll stop carrying the current, so in the end they're technically correct.
Once upon a time, a large capital investment and a large continuing expense were required to distribute recorded art.
That's simply not the case anymore.
File sharing software and the infrastructure provided by the internet do not "steal from" the **AA.
They are just new and vastly more effecient distribution methods.
In this context, distributing the old way is just wasteful.
As the old distribution system dies, the remaining components of the arts and entertainment industry will reorganize themselves around the new system that's already in place.
No, it's not going to be some utopia where everything costs nothing and the artists all drive Porsches.
It'll be pretty much the same as it was before--a few rock stars make a zillion dollars, most of the artists starve, and the fans wallow in pools of crap with occasional gem here and there.
Only distribution has changed; neither human greed nor the failure of the truly great artist to be recognized in his time.
Exactly the point I was coming here to make.
The way you protect workers from getting killed by a robot (and these things are way stronger than you think, even after seeing it fling rocks) is to put up light curtains around the robot.
The OSHA safe stopping distance calculation is used to prove that the hazardous motion will stop in the time it takes the person to traverse the light curtain and come into contact with the equipment.
So, the safety folks find the robot with the biggest, fastest moving load on the line--the floorpan skin transfer robot. A floorpan skin is basically a sixty-pound razor blade.
The end effector held onto the floorpan skin with suction cups, which are a cost-effective and reliable method for the process.
The robot guys set up a test, where they got all 6 axes of the robot moving in such a manner that the end effector achieved its maximum possible speed.
Not something you'd normally do, but a worst-case scenario for use as safety systems challenge.
We all wanted to see this robot haul ass, so the safety folks had us all standing back...
Robot dude picked up the TP and initiated the path at 100% speed...
Somebody waited for the arm to get to full extension and speed...and stuck their hand into the light curtain.
The robot stopped almost instantly--well within the expected stopping distance.
No way that person would have been injured by the robot.
The skin (remember the sixty-pound razor blade) stopped a couple bays over.
Hard clamps were added to the end effector and the test was repeated with improved results.