I remember when hydroelectric was still hailed as almost an ultimate green tech, "Free energy from water!" Before the whinging about fish, before the land use issues, etc.
I remember a job interview some decades ago, in Tasmania - I was applying for a job at the Hydro-Electric Commission. There was a spot of bother about some dam they wanted to build (I was a poor dumb immigrant and knew nothing of it, Derwent below Hobart or some such). I was asked "would working for a company that builds dams across rivers bother you?"
Blink. My response was "I think I'd prefer an artificial lake to a strip mine".
Kotick said, "The PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum...
Their drop in sales couldn't at all be related to Sony's being identified with the RIAA would it? I've heard young children say "I don't want a Sony because they're bad people". When their behaviour makes it to a childhood meme, you know their brand is in trouble.
Considering their legal performance so far, I'm far from convinced they won't fumble in the supreme court too.
I'm not entirely convinced it was a fumble. Why would defense make such a point of asking whether the statutory maximum of $15,000 (I think it was) per song? It's as if he wanted the completely egregious award so he could push for an appeal.
I've been to Bozeman a couple of times - my father was raised there. Some of the finest people I've ever met. They didn't strike me as the sort who would cave into this sort of nonsense. I would be tremendously surprised if there wasn't a run on the local poultry farm for bulk feathers, and a few barrels of road tar went missing from the road depot. Either that or they'd politely shoot them for asking such personal questions.
Sure they're a bunch of old fashioned redneck loonies, but the people I remember tended to salute the "freedom" and "liberty" stripes of the flag and the "all your rights are belong to us" stripes not so much. Advice? Don't cross 'em. And whoever drafted that silly-ass requirement might want to move away and change his name.
If the girl fell asleep it was after she knew what she was in for and was wasted off her ass, which if true, the artist shouldn't have done the work in the first place.
I'd mod you up if you weren't posting AC. This is the first place I've read that speaks of tattoists as artists with a set of ethics.
I'd never have one myself (nobody dislikes needles like a diabetic) but if my daughter showed up like that I'd (a) believe the artist should lose his license for the reasons you stated, and (b) do everything in my power to convince her she looks fantastic that way, starting with a hug.
What if we built our taller buildings in such a way that we could exploit the temperature difference between the top and the bottom of a very tall column of air? If we could somehow route the heat from the sunny side of the building to the bottom of the column, and the cooler side of the building's heat to the top, could we run turbines from the air pressure escaping from vents at the base? I'd think a half-kilometer column of air could develop a pretty fair whack of tappable kinetic energy out of nothing much more than clever convection. You could build one hell of a Stirling engine that way, too.
Forget the cojones, how about some sanity and common sense?
Now getting back to the topic......
Look folks, this isn't rocket science...
Damn, where are my mod points when I need them? I'll have to settle for putting you on the friends list.
In the interests of brevity you probably omitted the possibility that the greenie-green haters you reference may actually prefer to keep themselves in the public eye as some form of environmental elite. This wouldn't last if green solutions become mainstream, they'd be just like anybody else.
It's extremely annoying to a revolutionary when the establishment gives into their demands without a fight.
Have any of these jackasses considered the consequences of removing all this kinetic energy from those streams? What happens when you harness all that energy and slow down that wind? I'm no genius, but I'm betting the results could be very very bad.
Ok, just checking here -- if you have the A,Q,J,10,9 do you draw another card or fold?
New York already has the most congested airways in the country, and possibly in the world. If these kites are at 30,000 feet, and most commercial airplanes fly around 35,000 feet, how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
Um, I dunno... maybe fly them somewhere else and run a cable to the grid?
But first off, where are we going to get the money to start buying kites? No doubt a fleet of electricity generating kites are going to cost a pretty penny. Second, why would you invest in a new technology when there are other (probably more-efficient) green technologies.
Ok, what - exactly what - is greener than a kite? Or a longer established technology? (cries, weeps bitter tears.)
On the gripping hand, you could have miniature wind turbines attached to the kite, perhaps tap the electrostatic potential between kite and ground (lots of moving air to add or remove charge) and you wouldn't really need to worry about lightning if you designed the thing to vapourise on a strike.
And they'd be pretty too. I'd vote for the Man in the Moon pattern myself.
That makes sense, and I'm rather glad it works that way. I think the official ATO ruling on Use Tax is "Bugger off ya git" which I interpret as meaning it's inapplicable to some overseas purchasers.
If you ask an astrologer a question about the ocean, they'll probably want to know if you're a pisces.
Good jape, got a chuckle out of that.
But it's another stolen word, isn't it? Astronomy is the naming of the stars, Astrology should rightfully be the logical study of the stars, along the lines of the word "Geology". Or it could have gone the other way, I suppose, and I'd have "Planetary Geonomy" on my bookshelf.
MosesJones - I was looking at your quote, and deciding it was interesting. However, I wonder, "What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye?"
I once heard that the scriptural origin of that proverb was "no more than an eye for an eye". It didn't mandate the taking of an eye for an eye, it meant "do not escalate acts of revenge".
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
That is so true. Referring to patents, trademarks, or copyrights as property is a huge mistake.
Doubly true in the use of the word "Piracy". Looks like we've lost that one though. By calling copyright infringement "piracy" we've added an emotional loading to the act that is guaranteed to polarise opinion in the general populace, who often base strong opinions on scanty understanding. Equating a copy to a romantic image of a pirate allows people to step-associate with armed attackers of ships off the African coast today, people who hold ships hostage and kill old people.
Magnificent psychological binding. I wish we'd get off the term, but it's way too late I fear.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when hydroelectric was still hailed as almost an ultimate green tech, "Free energy from water!" Before the whinging about fish, before the land use issues, etc.
I remember a job interview some decades ago, in Tasmania - I was applying for a job at the Hydro-Electric Commission. There was a spot of bother about some dam they wanted to build (I was a poor dumb immigrant and knew nothing of it, Derwent below Hobart or some such). I was asked "would working for a company that builds dams across rivers bother you?"
Blink. My response was "I think I'd prefer an artificial lake to a strip mine".
Worked at that place for 10 years.
Kotick said, "The PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum...
Their drop in sales couldn't at all be related to Sony's being identified with the RIAA would it? I've heard young children say "I don't want a Sony because they're bad people". When their behaviour makes it to a childhood meme, you know their brand is in trouble.
Why would defense make such a point of asking whether the statutory maximum of $15,000 (I think it was) per song?
Erk.
S/per song?/per song was appropriate?/
Apologies.
Considering their legal performance so far, I'm far from convinced they won't fumble in the supreme court too.
I'm not entirely convinced it was a fumble. Why would defense make such a point of asking whether the statutory maximum of $15,000 (I think it was) per song? It's as if he wanted the completely egregious award so he could push for an appeal.
Sure they're a bunch of old fashioned redneck loonies, but the people I remember tended to salute the "freedom" and "liberty" stripes of the flag and the "all your rights are belong to us" stripes not so much. Advice? Don't cross 'em. And whoever drafted that silly-ass requirement might want to move away and change his name.
If the girl fell asleep it was after she knew what she was in for and was wasted off her ass, which if true, the artist shouldn't have done the work in the first place.
I'd mod you up if you weren't posting AC. This is the first place I've read that speaks of tattoists as artists with a set of ethics.
I'd never have one myself (nobody dislikes needles like a diabetic) but if my daughter showed up like that I'd (a) believe the artist should lose his license for the reasons you stated, and (b) do everything in my power to convince her she looks fantastic that way, starting with a hug.
I don't know about any others, but I *always* hide my flawed mathematical constructs from others. That is, when they're not hiding from me...
What if we built our taller buildings in such a way that we could exploit the temperature difference between the top and the bottom of a very tall column of air? If we could somehow route the heat from the sunny side of the building to the bottom of the column, and the cooler side of the building's heat to the top, could we run turbines from the air pressure escaping from vents at the base? I'd think a half-kilometer column of air could develop a pretty fair whack of tappable kinetic energy out of nothing much more than clever convection. You could build one hell of a Stirling engine that way, too.
Really? I've got a nice hot, sunny Outback where you can use.
Hey hang on mate, that's our... that's our...
uh, never mind, carry on then.
Aren't they affiliated with Universal Rescue? I think they had a base in a dormant volcano.
Forget the cojones, how about some sanity and common sense?
Now getting back to the topic......
Look folks, this isn't rocket science...
Damn, where are my mod points when I need them? I'll have to settle for putting you on the friends list.
In the interests of brevity you probably omitted the possibility that the greenie-green haters you reference may actually prefer to keep themselves in the public eye as some form of environmental elite. This wouldn't last if green solutions become mainstream, they'd be just like anybody else.
It's extremely annoying to a revolutionary when the establishment gives into their demands without a fight.
Have any of these jackasses considered the consequences of removing all this kinetic energy from those streams? What happens when you harness all that energy and slow down that wind? I'm no genius, but I'm betting the results could be very very bad.
Ok, just checking here -- if you have the A,Q,J,10,9 do you draw another card or fold?
New York already has the most congested airways in the country, and possibly in the world. If these kites are at 30,000 feet, and most commercial airplanes fly around 35,000 feet, how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
Um, I dunno ... maybe fly them somewhere else and run a cable to the grid?
But first off, where are we going to get the money to start buying kites? No doubt a fleet of electricity generating kites are going to cost a pretty penny. Second, why would you invest in a new technology when there are other (probably more-efficient) green technologies.
Ok, what - exactly what - is greener than a kite? Or a longer established technology? (cries, weeps bitter tears.)
On the gripping hand, you could have miniature wind turbines attached to the kite, perhaps tap the electrostatic potential between kite and ground (lots of moving air to add or remove charge) and you wouldn't really need to worry about lightning if you designed the thing to vapourise on a strike.
And they'd be pretty too. I'd vote for the Man in the Moon pattern myself.
(looks up patent on "Leyden Jar")
Zounds! It's full of ions!
Interesting -- you infer GM et.al. should be allowed to fail, but not Caterpillar? Fine set of double standards you have there.
That makes sense, and I'm rather glad it works that way. I think the official ATO ruling on Use Tax is "Bugger off ya git" which I interpret as meaning it's inapplicable to some overseas purchasers.
I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer...
If you ask an astrologer a question about the ocean, they'll probably want to know if you're a pisces.
Good jape, got a chuckle out of that.
But it's another stolen word, isn't it? Astronomy is the naming of the stars, Astrology should rightfully be the logical study of the stars, along the lines of the word "Geology". Or it could have gone the other way, I suppose, and I'd have "Planetary Geonomy" on my bookshelf.
MosesJones - I was looking at your quote, and deciding it was interesting. However, I wonder, "What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye?"
I once heard that the scriptural origin of that proverb was "no more than an eye for an eye". It didn't mandate the taking of an eye for an eye, it meant "do not escalate acts of revenge".
I could care less about your correction, but I rather doubt it.
No.
Kudos to the original judge for at least realising he'd made a mistake in what the law is, and corrected it somewhat by calling for a retrial.
I wonder if the judge wasn't quite well informed on the public perception of this and thought privately "Thank The Pasta I can duck this ruling!"
You mean you "could not" care less, meaning,..
Please, stop. We've heard that. You are correct on logic, fail on idiom.
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
That is so true. Referring to patents, trademarks, or copyrights as property is a huge mistake.
Doubly true in the use of the word "Piracy". Looks like we've lost that one though. By calling copyright infringement "piracy" we've added an emotional loading to the act that is guaranteed to polarise opinion in the general populace, who often base strong opinions on scanty understanding. Equating a copy to a romantic image of a pirate allows people to step-associate with armed attackers of ships off the African coast today, people who hold ships hostage and kill old people.
Magnificent psychological binding. I wish we'd get off the term, but it's way too late I fear.