Been a while since I did out the equations, but basically, every time you stress an object above it's endurance limit, (aka fatigue limit) which is in its elastic region, you form microfractures. These microfractures propogate every time you stress the material.
It's fairly easy to figure out the lifespan, from a ballpark figure, anyway. If you test the number of cycles to failure right at the endurance limit, for the most part, if you double the stress, you half the life. (and if you have both types of stress, you have about.75 times the life... I'll skip the details and qualifications, which would require me to check my notes).
BTW, you can tell how something failed. Grab a paperclip, and bend it back and forth (you might need a pair of pliers to keep the bend at the same point) until it breaks. Examine the end. You will notice 2 different surface types. One that looks shiny and flat, the other that looks dull and bumpy. The dull and bumpy parts (probably one on either side of the clip in the same direction you were bending it) are where the fractures propogated. Once the fractures went far enough, the next time you bent it, you exceeded the yield strength of the material, and you got a brittle yeild failure. Just like if you shatter glass. That's the center, flat section. (here, if you don't want to try for yourself)
This looks like it might be useful if you're still interested in more detail. As opposed to hating me for actually explaining in this much detail.
Problem: That's a 2000 dictionary. They often change words to make it match current (mis)use. For example, around 1990, they (Webster) changed the definition of assult weapon to remove the requirement that it be capable of burst and fully automatic fire (which is actually required for a true assult rifle). Etc. etc. So, is that a modern definition, changed because people keep using it, or is that an old definition, which actually should be there? Anyone have a circa 1980 dictionary?
"But if that limit was raised to what people do go, wouldn't they just speed more than it?"
Possibly, depending on what the 'natural' speed of the road is. If most people are confortable doing 70, probably... but if you raise it to 80, most will most likely still be doing 70.
Example: When the 55mph speed limit first went into effect, Mass. had a problem. Mass drivers were still doing 65+ on the roads. The problem was that the Dept. of Public Works (or whatever it's called here) would lose federal funding if the average speed on 55mph posted roads was over something like 62.5mph (whatever it was, we were way over it).
Solution? Post some old farm roads, and general back road style state highways as 55mph. Most people still did the old speed (35, 45 or so), driving the average way down. Funding kept.
Well, until they changed the rules, anyway, and they started enforcing. Thing is, as hard as it is to beleive, Mass Drivers have less accidents per million miles driven than the rest of the US. I'm guessing because we're predictible. Choose the absolute most agressive move you think we can make, and that's what we're gonna do.
Funny, most of the 'ricers' around where I am (Southeastern Mass) are hispanic (Brazillian, specifically, based on the flags). (and before you go of on me, I'm Portuguese... close enough.)
'Ricer' refers to a particular style of decor and vehicle modifications first pioneered by some males maybe in SoCal for use in imported cars, specifically but not exclusivly Hondas. It has since become a generic term for someone who mods their car primarily visually, with very few if any useful engine/power modifications. In the same way 'hacker' got massivly perverted, 'ricer' did as well.
And you may have complaints about my definition of ricer, but I don't care. I've never, and I do mean never, before this conversation, heard the term used in the way you describe. It's always been used to point out some idiot (often, but not exclusivly, hispanic) who has stickers, spoilers, and mods that make the car look rediculous, and probably reduce the performance of the thing.
It is by caffine alone I set my mind in motion
It is by the Coca-Cola that my mind acquires speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning
It is by caffine alone I set my mind in motion.
And don't quote me on that, it's not mine, either.
If "millions" are breaking some law "each and every day", it's a good indication the law is a bad idea No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
"All it means is people will do whatever they can get away with. People speed all the time. Traffic generally flows (at least in my area) around 10 mph above the posted speed limit. Does this mean the law is a bad idea?"
As is, yes, it does. There's a speed for any given road called the 85th percent speed (or something similar). No matter what the speed limit is, 85% of the people will be uncomfortable driving at a different speed (it's defined as the speed 85% of the people drive at on a given road). It's a known fact that deviating speed away from this has the proven effect of increasing the rate of accidents. Hence, the law (a too-low speed limit for a given road) is bad.
Further, because this occurs constantly, on roads I could easily do 90 on in my Ram pickup, safely, people tend to assume that the speed limits are arbirtary - and they're quite justified in doing so, as they are - and for all intents and purposes, ignore them. Which means when a speed limit really DOES need to be changed for some reason (oncoming nasty turn, ice, or something), it is ignored, causing accidents.
In other words, making a law that people will probably ignore generally applicable makes matters worse. It's human nature, and laws can't change that.
"Should we get repeal the speed limit laws, just because nobody follows them?"
Yes. Or, at the least, alter them so that people no longer violate them. Different licences for different speeds, perhaps, with slow licences forced to stay in the right lane on highways.
Of course not - maybe increase the speed limit (i.e. rework the law to be practical), but not eliminate it altogether.
Which is, for all intents and purposes (to go back to the actual point), eliminating it. There's no way to stop millions of people from violating this law. That means it is a bad law, and should be eliminated (or in this case, never passed in the first place). All this kind of thing serves to do is make a country totalatarian.
"If you are against it because you feel it will inevitably expand into unethical extremes"
The mere existance of it takes it to 'unethical extremes'. Look how the DMCA, etc. were interpreted in the US.
Any law... ANY... will be exploited by the power hungry (read: nearly anyone in politics, most if not all corporations, etc.) There are more examples of that then the most powerful computer could count. And it won't take any time... The abuse occurs as soon after it is passed as feasibly possible.
As for censorship... I don't think anyone is complaining the law is designed for censorship. People are complaining because it ignores the fundamental idea of property rights.
"So, it's a matter of a technical difference in the way information is stored?"
The differance is an artifact of the effective monopoly large media organizations have on large numbers of eyes. If, say, the New York Times says something about me, then nothing I can do can reach even a small fraction of the number of people their paper does.
That being said, it is quite obvious that this proposal is a massive free speach violation. If I put out a pamphlet, it's stupid to force me to put out another one, at my cost, because you disagree with my views. Get your own pamphlet. Stop taking my property to try to dispute my views.
Very simple concept. I don't understand why the Europens don't get it, as it's been explained dozens of times. Free speech does not imply making others pay for your speech.
While I don't think that CP and IP rights are moral questions or technical ones (they're legal... length of the rights would be moral, and the current length is highly immoral, but that's tangental), I have one big question for you.
Enlightened solutions? MORAL questions?...and you want the politicians to decide these?
Technical experts are a much better choice to answer moral questions. At least they are not known to be corrupt, so we might have a chance.
1) Money is considered a form of speech. This has been done by the Supreme Court... and think about things like 'Put your money where your mouth is'. Or if you want to publish pamphlets, you need to pay for the printing. This isn't so much of a problem, but when combined with
2) Corporations are granted the same rights as people
You start to get some real serious problems. Corps should have no freedom of speech, etc. etc. They aren't people, they're a legal construction. That would help out the problem A LOT, don't you think?
As I recall, in Massachusetts, any accident involving any publicly owned vehicle (police cars, etc.) are automatically the non-government vehicle's fault.
You can't get something 'more brittle'. Brittle is an absolute: If something is brittle, it breaks before it bends. Materials that are ductile bend before breaking... that's a variable. The more it can bend before fracture, the more ductile something is.
The phrase you're looking for is 'more ductile'. (sorry, just trying to enter the "pedant of the year" contest - plus, my material science teacher was quite adamant about that distinction.)
Use a CO2 cartridge and a box with a releif valve, and the HD will survive the vacuum by the simple expediant of never being in one.
When I saw 'hard disk' in the discussion, I just remember my old roommate, who got one new 7200 RPM hard drive. Just twisting it, you could see the gyroscopic effect... So why not combine two components into one, hmm?
(no, I'm not serious, I think a nice flash card would work better, too)
You missed something important: He goes to Rensselaer.
I applied there when I was looking (their scholarship couldn't compete with a full tuition scholarship...). It's not an easy place, from what I gathered. He would have had a lot of uncertainty about the decision (after all, allowing them to take him to court could result in MORE damages), and it would take years... What do you think that stress, over the years it would have taken, would have done to his GPA? Plus the time required just to respond to this stuff is non-trivial, and he'd have to go to court all the time...
No, the way the legal system is set up, he made the right decision. What needs to be done is he should take his code, hand it off (he's not guilty of infringement, remember?), and have the person he hands it off to* get an injunction to prevent the RIAA from suing.
* I'm thinking maybe the EFF/FSF could get together, release a 'hey, search your collage campus for information you need!' package.
Massachusetts state law (as of the last time I looked, 3 years ago) states:
Every male between the ages of 18 and 45 (55 if the person has served in the military), and every female between 18 and 35 (45 with military service) is a member of the state militia.
As a member of the militia, when you are called to service, Mass state law requires you to bring your own firearm.
This state is schizophrenic, sometimes...
Oh, and to respond to the idiot you replied to: The militia was never abolished, because the National Guard is not a STATE MILITIA. Itâ(TM)s federal, and one of the groups the whole idea of the militia was designed to protect the US citizens from. If you donâ(TM)t like it, fine, but donâ(TM)t lie about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Been a while since I did out the equations, but basically, every time you stress an object above it's endurance limit, (aka fatigue limit) which is in its elastic region, you form microfractures. These microfractures propogate every time you stress the material.
It's fairly easy to figure out the lifespan, from a ballpark figure, anyway. If you test the number of cycles to failure right at the endurance limit, for the most part, if you double the stress, you half the life. (and if you have both types of stress, you have about .75 times the life... I'll skip the details and qualifications, which would require me to check my notes).
BTW, you can tell how something failed. Grab a paperclip, and bend it back and forth (you might need a pair of pliers to keep the bend at the same point) until it breaks. Examine the end. You will notice 2 different surface types. One that looks shiny and flat, the other that looks dull and bumpy. The dull and bumpy parts (probably one on either side of the clip in the same direction you were bending it) are where the fractures propogated. Once the fractures went far enough, the next time you bent it, you exceeded the yield strength of the material, and you got a brittle yeild failure. Just like if you shatter glass. That's the center, flat section. (here, if you don't want to try for yourself)
This looks like it might be useful if you're still interested in more detail. As opposed to hating me for actually explaining in this much detail.
Problem: That's a 2000 dictionary. They often change words to make it match current (mis)use. For example, around 1990, they (Webster) changed the definition of assult weapon to remove the requirement that it be capable of burst and fully automatic fire (which is actually required for a true assult rifle). Etc. etc. So, is that a modern definition, changed because people keep using it, or is that an old definition, which actually should be there? Anyone have a circa 1980 dictionary?
They're all scum. Term limits would limit the scum to doing short term damage. Right now, they can do short and long term damage.
Possibly, depending on what the 'natural' speed of the road is. If most people are confortable doing 70, probably... but if you raise it to 80, most will most likely still be doing 70.
Example: When the 55mph speed limit first went into effect, Mass. had a problem. Mass drivers were still doing 65+ on the roads. The problem was that the Dept. of Public Works (or whatever it's called here) would lose federal funding if the average speed on 55mph posted roads was over something like 62.5mph (whatever it was, we were way over it).
Solution? Post some old farm roads, and general back road style state highways as 55mph. Most people still did the old speed (35, 45 or so), driving the average way down. Funding kept.
Well, until they changed the rules, anyway, and they started enforcing. Thing is, as hard as it is to beleive, Mass Drivers have less accidents per million miles driven than the rest of the US. I'm guessing because we're predictible. Choose the absolute most agressive move you think we can make, and that's what we're gonna do.
(obligatory) Probably not you, if you start glowing...
'Ricer' refers to a particular style of decor and vehicle modifications first pioneered by some males maybe in SoCal for use in imported cars, specifically but not exclusivly Hondas. It has since become a generic term for someone who mods their car primarily visually, with very few if any useful engine/power modifications. In the same way 'hacker' got massivly perverted, 'ricer' did as well.
And you may have complaints about my definition of ricer, but I don't care. I've never, and I do mean never, before this conversation, heard the term used in the way you describe. It's always been used to point out some idiot (often, but not exclusivly, hispanic) who has stickers, spoilers, and mods that make the car look rediculous, and probably reduce the performance of the thing.
It is by caffine alone I set my mind in motion
It is by the Coca-Cola that my mind acquires speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning
It is by caffine alone I set my mind in motion.
And don't quote me on that, it's not mine, either.
Yes, it is.
"All it means is people will do whatever they can get away with. People speed all the time. Traffic generally flows (at least in my area) around 10 mph above the posted speed limit. Does this mean the law is a bad idea?"
As is, yes, it does. There's a speed for any given road called the 85th percent speed (or something similar). No matter what the speed limit is, 85% of the people will be uncomfortable driving at a different speed (it's defined as the speed 85% of the people drive at on a given road). It's a known fact that deviating speed away from this has the proven effect of increasing the rate of accidents. Hence, the law (a too-low speed limit for a given road) is bad.
Further, because this occurs constantly, on roads I could easily do 90 on in my Ram pickup, safely, people tend to assume that the speed limits are arbirtary - and they're quite justified in doing so, as they are - and for all intents and purposes, ignore them. Which means when a speed limit really DOES need to be changed for some reason (oncoming nasty turn, ice, or something), it is ignored, causing accidents.
In other words, making a law that people will probably ignore generally applicable makes matters worse. It's human nature, and laws can't change that.
"Should we get repeal the speed limit laws, just because nobody follows them?"
Yes. Or, at the least, alter them so that people no longer violate them. Different licences for different speeds, perhaps, with slow licences forced to stay in the right lane on highways.
Of course not - maybe increase the speed limit (i.e. rework the law to be practical), but not eliminate it altogether.
Which is, for all intents and purposes (to go back to the actual point), eliminating it. There's no way to stop millions of people from violating this law. That means it is a bad law, and should be eliminated (or in this case, never passed in the first place). All this kind of thing serves to do is make a country totalatarian.
The mere existance of it takes it to 'unethical extremes'. Look how the DMCA, etc. were interpreted in the US.
Any law... ANY... will be exploited by the power hungry (read: nearly anyone in politics, most if not all corporations, etc.) There are more examples of that then the most powerful computer could count. And it won't take any time... The abuse occurs as soon after it is passed as feasibly possible.
As for censorship... I don't think anyone is complaining the law is designed for censorship. People are complaining because it ignores the fundamental idea of property rights.
The differance is an artifact of the effective monopoly large media organizations have on large numbers of eyes. If, say, the New York Times says something about me, then nothing I can do can reach even a small fraction of the number of people their paper does.
That being said, it is quite obvious that this proposal is a massive free speach violation. If I put out a pamphlet, it's stupid to force me to put out another one, at my cost, because you disagree with my views. Get your own pamphlet. Stop taking my property to try to dispute my views.
Very simple concept. I don't understand why the Europens don't get it, as it's been explained dozens of times. Free speech does not imply making others pay for your speech.
Enlightened solutions? MORAL questions? ...and you want the politicians to decide these?
Technical experts are a much better choice to answer moral questions. At least they are not known to be corrupt, so we might have a chance.
1) Money is considered a form of speech. This has been done by the Supreme Court... and think about things like 'Put your money where your mouth is'. Or if you want to publish pamphlets, you need to pay for the printing. This isn't so much of a problem, but when combined with
2) Corporations are granted the same rights as people
You start to get some real serious problems. Corps should have no freedom of speech, etc. etc. They aren't people, they're a legal construction. That would help out the problem A LOT, don't you think?
Always loved that quote. Something about being a mechanical engineer who's good at weapons design.
As I recall, in Massachusetts, any accident involving any publicly owned vehicle (police cars, etc.) are automatically the non-government vehicle's fault.
And, if it gets hot, you feed power INTO the generator, and use the 116 foot tall fan to cool off. You have to look at all the benefits.
Heck with that, man, for geek women, I'd cook something nice. You like Jerk Chicken? :)
Can I come over to play?
The phrase you're looking for is 'more ductile'. (sorry, just trying to enter the "pedant of the year" contest - plus, my material science teacher was quite adamant about that distinction.)
You saw that James Bond movie too, I see? Anyone remember the name?
You're missing the point. You give the modified controller to your opponent.
I prefer the space aliens idea. More realistic.
When I saw 'hard disk' in the discussion, I just remember my old roommate, who got one new 7200 RPM hard drive. Just twisting it, you could see the gyroscopic effect... So why not combine two components into one, hmm?
(no, I'm not serious, I think a nice flash card would work better, too)
I applied there when I was looking (their scholarship couldn't compete with a full tuition scholarship...). It's not an easy place, from what I gathered. He would have had a lot of uncertainty about the decision (after all, allowing them to take him to court could result in MORE damages), and it would take years... What do you think that stress, over the years it would have taken, would have done to his GPA? Plus the time required just to respond to this stuff is non-trivial, and he'd have to go to court all the time...
No, the way the legal system is set up, he made the right decision. What needs to be done is he should take his code, hand it off (he's not guilty of infringement, remember?), and have the person he hands it off to* get an injunction to prevent the RIAA from suing.
* I'm thinking maybe the EFF/FSF could get together, release a 'hey, search your collage campus for information you need!' package.
Every male between the ages of 18 and 45 (55 if the person has served in the military), and every female between 18 and 35 (45 with military service) is a member of the state militia.
As a member of the militia, when you are called to service, Mass state law requires you to bring your own firearm.
This state is schizophrenic, sometimes...
Oh, and to respond to the idiot you replied to: The militia was never abolished, because the National Guard is not a STATE MILITIA. Itâ(TM)s federal, and one of the groups the whole idea of the militia was designed to protect the US citizens from. If you donâ(TM)t like it, fine, but donâ(TM)t lie about it.
Was I the only one who saw 'fruit machine' and thought of this?