The Henan provincial government declared that 100,000 vocational and university students would be sent on three-month internships at Foxconn’s Shenzhen plants.
At one vocational school in Zhengzhou, wrote Hu Yinan, students were informed of the government’s requirement after the summer semester had begun, and that “all those who refuse would have to drop out.”
The point is that the river downstream from where you pump the water to the plant has less water. When a city pumps the water from a river, the water also ends up eventually in the clouds, but that doesn't fill the river downstream from the pump. Maybe it is because most rain falls in the ocean... but even if all rain ended up back in the same river, downstream of the pump you'd have less water than without any pump.
Actually it is quite easy to prove that there is a god.
Maybe god doesn't exist in our universe, but you have to agree that among all possible universes there is one in which there is a god. Therefore, there is a god.
Once I have the only copy of some work, then even if I don't own the copyright, I can control the right to copy. For example, not letting anyone copy it.
For old books, the library of congress should have a copy, and as long as they don't try to make money of their monopoly, all should be ok.
Copyright is a social contract, in which the Government grants a monopoly for a limited amount of time over the publishing of a work for profit, in exchange for a social good, the eventual transfer of that work into the public domain.
No, I don't think I'm wrong. At least not in this point. "public domain" is a term that defines what happens to work when it isn't under copyright "Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited" (thus sayeth the all-knowing wikipedia). So, before government granted anyone the right to own the copyright, everything was in the public domain. So, the exchange isn't "I give you copyright, you put it in the public domain", because it is already in the public domain before these laws were invented. Instead it is "I give you copyright for a limited time, you create the work and distribute it"
Disney, et al. have perverted this social contract into a pseudo-property right, and have the full force of the threat of PMITA prison to try to keep people from sharing things, against evidence that people who share actually buy MORE copyrighted materials from publishers.
This whole thing is a mess, but I think it's important to know the original reasons things were set up so we can do it right when we set it up all over again after the collapse of the US in the next few years.
Here I agree (well, to some of what you said). "The people/elected government" made a contract with Walt Disney that he'd make cute movies about a mouse and make money distributing it for 56 years (28+28). But then, when the 56 years were over, the property of the people wasn't returned to them. Instead a new contract was made between the Disney company and politicians, that they will allow the company to keep holding what isn't hers, and in exchange the company will donate funds to the politicians pockets.
Bah! None of the commenters got what I wanted to say, which means I wasn't clear.
When you don't give someone a right to own a copyright, but they still want to control that right, they put the original work under lock and key so that no one has access to it, and thus they do control the right to copy. "If you wana copy, you pay a zillion somethings, and if you allow anyone else to copy from you, you know what will happen to you..."
So you are right that the government gives the copyright to the creator so that for a limited time she can gain some money from the work. But it isn't just in order for the artist to make money. Why would the government care so much for someone to make money? The idea is to allow the artist to make money so that she'll distribute her work for others to enjoy it, instead of just showing it to her friends. And, of course to give an incentive to create more works.
So, when (and if) the work goes into public domain, you have to make sure that there are available copies for everybody to copy from, otherwise the owner will restrict access to their exclusive physical copies.
The benefit of giving someone the copyright is so that they can distribute copies to everybody (for a cost, of course, if they so desire), without fear that it might be copied. Whereas if someone has the only copy, but can not get a copyright, then they will prevent anyone from obtaining the document. So, even if something is in the public domain, you don't automatically get a right to have access to the work in order to copy it.
Protection from access can by via lock (royal society), or can be attempted by trying to give you access only if you sign some agreement (JSTOR). I think also under some conditions, the original work is under public domain, but a derivative (say retranslation, or new photo, or some such) gets a new copyright.
So, it isn't just important that the a work is in the public domain, but that many people actually have copies of it.
Is it a score (20) of 8k by 8k projectors, or a score of projectors, totaling 8k by 8k. And how exactly do you divide 8k x 8k by 20? 8k / 4 = 2k, 8k / 5 = 1.6k, so they have projectors that have a resolution of 2000 x 1600. Impressive if right - vs 1920x1080 projectors.
Hmmmm? You don't store copies of your data in remote locations? What about a fire?
I think a backup scheme must store data remotely. Leave one copy with your parents (upstairs), and one with a friend in australia (I guess across the street...)
But in my defense, I said the same on the 2nd day of the incedent, when the Japanese Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare announced that they decided to change the law allowing workers to be exposed to 250 millisieverts instead of 100 millisieverts....
I think the biggest mistake in the handling of the disaster was to leave the plant in the hands of the company. While it might be true that they know their plant best, once an incident like this happens, one should immediately bring the best people in the world or maybe Japan to handle the disaster. These should have basically unlimited funds and resources which in the end would probably be paid by the company. The reactor is or can affect a huge area, and it shouldn't just being the hands of the power company to fix it. These people could drop by with good radiation suits and possibly a portable diesel generator. Basically the nuclear fire brigade made up of specially trained Feynmans and McGyvers.
Yes, I think you are right. And the cloud layer has some obvious photoshop artifacts.. strange. (go left from panama, you'll hit a cloud with w hole, and a bit further left, another cloud with a hole. These two clouds and the region around them are pixel copies of each other. That was pointed to in a comment on gizmodo)
Oh, gizmodo is horrible. First it took me to the german site, which didn't have the article. Then, after lots of manipulation (click the little 'US' label on the left top), I got to the article, but couldn't figure out how to close the stupid window that covers half of the cool image they're talking about.
I think we agree - nuclear plants, as well as any other plant that can create a 20km uninhabitable zone around it should have safety system out the wazoo, and what people think is *acceptably* safe is not the standard by which things should be judged.
Just to be a pain in the butt, I did a 5 minute search on flight safety. The wikipedia article on air safety says that the deaths per billion journeys is 117 for flights, and 40 for cars, and deaths per billion hours is 130 for cars and 31 for flights. So if your drive to the airport is more than 1/4 of the time the flight would take you might be right. The deaths per billion km (or miles) is the number people usually use, but that would be driving cross country instead of taking the plane. And your average car ride is still safer than the average plane ride, but only because it is so much shorter in time and especially distance...
When cars came out, they were also considered unsafe, and had very strict safety requirements: "Each vehicle was expected to have a team of three in control; the driver, the fireman - to stoke the engine - and the flagman, whose job was to walk 60 yards in front waving a red flag to warn horse-drawn traffic of the machine's approach.", with a speed limit of speed of 2mph in towns and 4mph in the country. (This is from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10987606).
I don't think it is a bad idea to by quite cautionary with new technology for the first 100 years, till we have all the consequences of the once in an X years events figured out....
What you are saying is that nuclear isn't different from any other really dangerous plant one can think of. But I really don't understand you. It is kinda weird - you seem to believe your opinion so strongly you don't listen or think (sorry not really a fair comment...). Isn't it obvious that if you have a dangerous plant, then you shouldn't build it inside a population center. Imagine Tokyo was inside the 30km radius of this plant. Do you know the logistical nightmare of evacuating a city that size?
You can erect small town with 10k people 5km away from the plant, with an electric train going back and forth, and you won't have many "road deaths".
If coal plants emit so many dangerous chemicals, or radioactive ones, and if these are really absorbed by the body and cause damage (because this is what really counts), then one needs to really control the emission of coal plants. If fertilizer plants have a tendency to explode, then you need to deal with that, too. Nuclear, however, are special because the energy density of the fuel is so big, and because the byproducts are so hard to handle. Look how hard of a time they are having getting this plant under control.
And I promise you that if all the fertilizer plants, or coal plants were held to the same safety standard as nuclear plants, we'd have much less example of such big disasters, and on the other hand, if nuclear plants were held to the same standard as the worst fertilizer plant in india or africa, then or planet would get uninhabitable quite quickly.
But look - a nuclear accident is happening in front of our eyes. It is one of the worst in history till now, and it isn't contained yet. It is obvious that things could have been done better. This plant was handled nowhere near perfect. We need to look carefully and understand what went wrong. If someone told us that a nuclear accident would happen once in 100,000 years, then they were obviously wrong.
So, I think you have to agree that we have to learn from what has happened, right after we finishing making sure that the danger is gone. It is also somewhat strange to say how little danger there is from this accident, while people are still putting their lives at risk to make sure that the damage is contained.
Well, but if the alternative is to just raise the gas tax, then the only way I understand this tax is trying to not give fuel efficient cars a gas benefit. Or giving them less of a benefit.
Electricity is one of the easiest commodities to transport. Your workers can get paid a bit more, and live away from a big population center. You also don't build big chemical plants in population centers. And giving an example of something else that blew up doesn't make nuclear plants any safer. People live downstream of dams because the dams were put into place after the cities. And living by a river used to be extremely convenient - for water and transport.
Exactly. Build it in a really safe place. You don't want bad things to happen to it. (Well, except for the "near a population center". I'd drop that, just to be safe).
Except that you have much better control about where (or whether) to build a nuclear powerplant than a town. And to protect from a Tsunami, you don't need high walls, you just need to live on a hill, or for a nuclear powerplant, on a mountain.
Slashdot Mirror
You read this part, right?
The Henan provincial government declared that 100,000 vocational and university students would be sent on three-month internships at Foxconn’s Shenzhen plants.
At one vocational school in Zhengzhou, wrote Hu Yinan, students were informed of the government’s requirement after the summer semester had begun, and that “all those who refuse would have to drop out.”
The point is that the river downstream from where you pump the water to the plant has less water.
When a city pumps the water from a river, the water also ends up eventually in the clouds, but that doesn't fill the river downstream from the pump.
Maybe it is because most rain falls in the ocean... but even if all rain ended up back in the same river, downstream of the pump you'd have less water than without any pump.
Actually it is quite easy to prove that there is a god.
Maybe god doesn't exist in our universe, but you have to agree that among all possible universes there is one in which there is a god.
Therefore, there is a god.
It depends on what your definition of is is.
Because one of your secrets is how many secrets you have.
Who said "I don't like any of your secrets, but I will fight to the death for your right to have them" ?
Once I have the only copy of some work, then even if I don't own the copyright, I can control the right to copy. For example, not letting anyone copy it.
For old books, the library of congress should have a copy, and as long as they don't try to make money of their monopoly, all should be ok.
Wrong
Copyright is a social contract, in which the Government grants a monopoly for a limited amount of time over the publishing of a work for profit, in exchange for a social good, the eventual transfer of that work into the public domain.
No, I don't think I'm wrong. At least not in this point. "public domain" is a term that defines what happens to work when it isn't under copyright
"Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited" (thus sayeth the all-knowing wikipedia). So, before government granted anyone the right to own the copyright, everything was in the public domain. So, the exchange isn't "I give you copyright, you put it in the public domain", because it is already in the public domain before these laws were invented. Instead it is "I give you copyright for a limited time, you create the work and distribute it"
Disney, et al. have perverted this social contract into a pseudo-property right, and have the full force of the threat of PMITA prison to try to keep people from sharing things, against evidence that people who share actually buy MORE copyrighted materials from publishers.
This whole thing is a mess, but I think it's important to know the original reasons things were set up so we can do it right when we set it up all over again after the collapse of the US in the next few years.
Here I agree (well, to some of what you said). "The people/elected government" made a contract with Walt Disney that he'd make cute movies about a mouse and make money distributing it for 56 years (28+28). But then, when the 56 years were over, the property of the people wasn't returned to them. Instead a new contract was made between the Disney company and politicians, that they will allow the company to keep holding what isn't hers, and in exchange the company will donate funds to the politicians pockets.
Bah! None of the commenters got what I wanted to say, which means I wasn't clear.
When you don't give someone a right to own a copyright, but they still want to control that right, they put the original work under lock and key so that no one has access to it, and thus they do control the right to copy. "If you wana copy, you pay a zillion somethings, and if you allow anyone else to copy from you, you know what will happen to you..."
So you are right that the government gives the copyright to the creator so that for a limited time she can gain some money from the work. But it isn't just in order for the artist to make money. Why would the government care so much for someone to make money? The idea is to allow the artist to make money so that she'll distribute her work for others to enjoy it, instead of just showing it to her friends. And, of course to give an incentive to create more works.
So, when (and if) the work goes into public domain, you have to make sure that there are available copies for everybody to copy from, otherwise the owner will restrict access to their exclusive physical copies.
I bet that wasn't clear either.
Then why are classical scores under copyright? Why do we need musopen.org?
The benefit of giving someone the copyright is so that they can distribute copies to everybody (for a cost, of course, if they so desire), without fear that it might be copied. Whereas if someone has the only copy, but can not get a copyright, then they will prevent anyone from obtaining the document. So, even if something is in the public domain, you don't automatically get a right to have access to the work in order to copy it.
Protection from access can by via lock (royal society), or can be attempted by trying to give you access only if you sign some agreement (JSTOR).
I think also under some conditions, the original work is under public domain, but a derivative (say retranslation, or new photo, or some such) gets a new copyright.
So, it isn't just important that the a work is in the public domain, but that many people actually have copies of it.
I don't get the math....
Is it a score (20) of 8k by 8k projectors, or a score of projectors, totaling 8k by 8k.
And how exactly do you divide 8k x 8k by 20?
8k / 4 = 2k, 8k / 5 = 1.6k, so they have projectors that have a resolution of 2000 x 1600. Impressive if right - vs 1920x1080 projectors.
Iran also had a system like this for their uranium enrichment, I think.
Because if they killed Bin Laden and kept quiet, terrorists all over the world would sleep well knowing that Bin Laden's data is safe.
Hmmmm? You don't store copies of your data in remote locations? What about a fire? I think a backup scheme must store data remotely. Leave one copy with your parents (upstairs), and one with a friend in australia (I guess across the street...)
But in my defense, I said the same on the 2nd day of the incedent, when the Japanese Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare announced that they decided to change the law allowing workers to be exposed to 250 millisieverts instead of 100 millisieverts....
I think the biggest mistake in the handling of the disaster was to leave the plant in the hands of the company. While it might be true that they know their plant best, once an incident like this happens, one should immediately bring the best people in the world or maybe Japan to handle the disaster. These should have basically unlimited funds and resources which in the end would probably be paid by the company. The reactor is or can affect a huge area, and it shouldn't just being the hands of the power company to fix it. These people could drop by with good radiation suits and possibly a portable diesel generator. Basically the nuclear fire brigade made up of specially trained Feynmans and McGyvers.
WOOSH for me, I guess....
Yes, I think you are right. And the cloud layer has some obvious photoshop artifacts.. strange. (go left from panama, you'll hit a cloud with w hole, and a bit further left, another cloud with a hole. These two clouds and the region around them are pixel copies of each other. That was pointed to in a comment on gizmodo)
Oh, gizmodo is horrible. First it took me to the german site, which didn't have the article. Then, after lots of manipulation (click the little 'US' label on the left top), I got to the article, but couldn't figure out how to close the stupid window that covers half of the cool image they're talking about.
But, to the subject: Isn't it fairly obvious why the russian image looks better? Look: compare the NASA image: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2429 to the russian one: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/application/weather/elektro/earth_disk1_1.jpg One obvious difference - in the NASA image, clouds have no shadow, in the russian one they do. That makes the NASA image look flat, and the russian one jump out in 3D. Why that is, I'm not sure.
Just to be a pain in the butt, I did a 5 minute search on flight safety. The wikipedia article on air safety says that the deaths per billion journeys is 117 for flights, and 40 for cars, and deaths per billion hours is 130 for cars and 31 for flights. So if your drive to the airport is more than 1/4 of the time the flight would take you might be right. The deaths per billion km (or miles) is the number people usually use, but that would be driving cross country instead of taking the plane. And your average car ride is still safer than the average plane ride, but only because it is so much shorter in time and especially distance...
When cars came out, they were also considered unsafe, and had very strict safety requirements: "Each vehicle was expected to have a team of three in control; the driver, the fireman - to stoke the engine - and the flagman, whose job was to walk 60 yards in front waving a red flag to warn horse-drawn traffic of the machine's approach.", with a speed limit of speed of 2mph in towns and 4mph in the country. (This is from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10987606).
I don't think it is a bad idea to by quite cautionary with new technology for the first 100 years, till we have all the consequences of the once in an X years events figured out....
If coal plants emit so many dangerous chemicals, or radioactive ones, and if these are really absorbed by the body and cause damage (because this is what really counts), then one needs to really control the emission of coal plants. If fertilizer plants have a tendency to explode, then you need to deal with that, too. Nuclear, however, are special because the energy density of the fuel is so big, and because the byproducts are so hard to handle. Look how hard of a time they are having getting this plant under control. And I promise you that if all the fertilizer plants, or coal plants were held to the same safety standard as nuclear plants, we'd have much less example of such big disasters, and on the other hand, if nuclear plants were held to the same standard as the worst fertilizer plant in india or africa, then or planet would get uninhabitable quite quickly.
But look - a nuclear accident is happening in front of our eyes. It is one of the worst in history till now, and it isn't contained yet. It is obvious that things could have been done better. This plant was handled nowhere near perfect. We need to look carefully and understand what went wrong. If someone told us that a nuclear accident would happen once in 100,000 years, then they were obviously wrong.
So, I think you have to agree that we have to learn from what has happened, right after we finishing making sure that the danger is gone. It is also somewhat strange to say how little danger there is from this accident, while people are still putting their lives at risk to make sure that the damage is contained.
Well, but if the alternative is to just raise the gas tax, then the only way I understand this tax is trying to not give fuel efficient cars a gas benefit. Or giving them less of a benefit.
Electricity is one of the easiest commodities to transport. Your workers can get paid a bit more, and live away from a big population center. You also don't build big chemical plants in population centers. And giving an example of something else that blew up doesn't make nuclear plants any safer. People live downstream of dams because the dams were put into place after the cities. And living by a river used to be extremely convenient - for water and transport.
Exactly. Build it in a really safe place. You don't want bad things to happen to it. (Well, except for the "near a population center". I'd drop that, just to be safe).
Yes, basically it is a way to additionally tax fuel efficient vehicles. Something like an anti-fuel-efficiency tax.
Except that you have much better control about where (or whether) to build a nuclear powerplant than a town. And to protect from a Tsunami, you don't need high walls, you just need to live on a hill, or for a nuclear powerplant, on a mountain.