Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face [prosecution] if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography... and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
What that equates to is if child porn is reported to the ISP/webhost, they have to then report it to the Australian police quickly or face penalties. This isn't some ridiculous content-policing scheme...
Balderdash. There is only one problem with what you say the law "equates to" -- it DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS. By the very language of the law, any ISP who gives general access to the internet is "aware" that he gives access to various newshosts which include groups and postings falling into the kiddie porn category. This is "reasonable grounds to believe" their service "can be used" to access kiddie porn. PERIOD. Either they have to try to block ALL POSSIBLE newshosts, and ALL PROXY HOSTS, etc, etc, also (an utterly impractical idea), or they face prosecution.
I.e., this law criminalizes all ISPs. Why should we be surprised? It is the goal of the state to "have something" in reserve on every citizen, so they can make life Hell for anyone they may choose to, for any reason.
Just because kiddie porn is the fashionable boogeyman of the times does not mean that insane and useless laws should be enacted. Participating in kiddie porn is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
To the clueless morons who mod-ed me troll, there is no demonstration whatsoever that second hand smoke causes cancer. Because people with open minds read this as well as clueless morons, I will explain.
There is some weak indication of a correlation, but correlation is not cause, and it is certainly nothing close to proven fact, so there is nothing to admit to.
The reason you see those "no trucks over XXX pounds" signs is exactly because the amount of wear and tear on the road is proportional to vehicle weight.
Actually, it's worse than that. Wear is proportional to a greater-than-unity power of the axle weight, multiplied by the number of axles.
Did you run on 100% ethanol, or an ethanol-gasoline mix?
One gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTU of energy; a gallon of ethanol only 84,400. Ethanol does have a high octane rating, though, so it might allow an otto cycle engine to be tuned more efficiently.
As far as economics, ethanol is only competitive with gasoline when it is heavily subsidized - both by outright cash subsidies for producers, and by tax breaks on retail sales. If it can be manufactured from waste materials which would otherwise be discarded, however, some of this cost difference can be made up.
The downside of ethanol is that it has a much lower volumetric energy density than gasoline, so range for a given fuel tank size is cut way down.
Biodiesel is quite near to gasoline in energy density. Add the far higher thermal efficiency of a diesel engine than a spark ignition engine burning either gasoline or ethanol, and you actually achieve increased range.
We know with adequate research spending it can be achieved...
Ahem. We know no such thing. Not in an engineering and economic sense. Certainly we have proven we can achieve fusion reactions in the lab; this has been done for many years now; but we just don't know if we'll ever be able to make sustained and safe reactions which have a high enough energy return to be worth doing. And yes, cost matters. If it bankrupts the entire world to make enough energy to run one town for a year, that would not help anyone, even the one town, because it would be the planetary end of civilization.
It can be... done before going to Mars, for comparable price...
Oh really. And you know this... how? Guesswork?
I am a big proponent of trying A LOT harder and more urgently to perfect fusion power, but let's have a little realism here.
We need copyright to protect Linux and Open Source in general
Maybe we do if copyright is the law of the land, but we wouldn't if it wasn't. Some of us believe copyright laws are a bullying abomination, and not in accord with natural law.
Aha. "Depriving" someone of a sale
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If you buy a Coke instead of a Pepsi, you just deprived Pepsi of a sale.
Bull. I didn't deprive them of anything. I made a choice favoring their competitor. They can't "lose" a sale they never made. They may be unhappy, but they should get over it.
I agree with your conclusions 100% in principle, but the example is no good as an analogy. I will give you one that is more applicable:
Buck Rogers builds a duplicative liquid synthesizing machine. Whenever you pour in a sample of any liquid, it can produce an unlimited quantity of that liquid for very low expense per unit of liquid.
Now I legally purchase an ounce of Pepsi, pour it into the machine, and cause the machine to produce 1000 gallons of a liquid which is indistinguishable from Pepsi. I drink some of the produced liquid, and sell the rest.
The question is, does Pepsi have a case against me? Obviously they do in US law, but I submit that they do not have a case in natural law. To tell me I cannot do what I just did is restraint of free human activity. I did not steal any physical material which they own, and if the law attempts to criminalize me for stealing some fiction in the form of "intellectual property", the law should be rethought.
My message to intellectual property law is "get over it". You have been overtaken by technology. Adapt or disappear.
people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)
I'd like to believe that, truly, but seeing that your statement contains its own annoying little disclaimer, I'm just not buying it.
I think it's more like, "Up til now, despicable tyrants haven't had nuclear weapons, so the planet has been lucky."
OK, some of the USSR regimes were close, but they didn't have that added fillip of gross mouth-foaming insanity at the top. Even Pakistan doesn't compare.
Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says?
I don't agree with all the Bush policies either, and CERTAINLY not all the tactics and strategies, but what is the basis for this? The rap is just the opposite - that Bush says what he is going to do and then does it, even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.
Part of the mac's allure is it's stylish looks. This is just as dumb as putting a PC in a mac mini case.
I'm not following the logic. Agree completely on the Mac Mini looks, and even more, the unmatched form factor. Actually, it would be very cool indeed to put a PC in a Mac Mini "case". One is not going to have any luck doing this, though, because there is no PC with a small enough form factor. Not a Mini ITX, not even a Nano ITX.
The shuttle was equally as small [as the Mac Mini]
Man, you must have found some wicked strong crack. I have a Shuttle, and it measures 7.25x11x7.75", which is 618 cubic inches. The Mac Mini is 6.5x6.5x2, which is 84.5 cubic inches.
The Shuttle is 7.3 times the size of the Mac Mini.
Even my custom Mini ITX system is 8.5x11x2.5", which is 234 cubic inches -- way, way bigger than the Mac Mini.
It's very simple. There is no PC even remotely comparable to the Mac Mini. Period.
No, actually I am not the one being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise.
1) The leaking hydrogen can be ignited by a tiny, almost invisible spark or discharge. The cover takes a torch or other significant flame to ignite. There is no comparison. No amount of static electricity discharge on the cover will set it on fire.
2) The "vast majority" of the leakage is not necessarily the issue. Have you considered that small holes get chafed or otherwise develop in the gas cells? That results in a small area of combustible mixture near the leak. It only takes a tiny amount of leaking hydrogen set aflame to burn through the gas cell, with the disastrous result seen on Hindenburg.
3) You conveniently fail to address the fact that the gas valves were known to leak, causing significant combustible mixture concentrations.
4) You conveniently fail to address the fact that onboard eyewitnesses place the origin of the fire within the airship, not on the surface.
5) You conveniently igore the fact that the outer cover was so far from the phenomenally flammable material that you paint it, that chunks of carbon in the exhaust of the engines burned holes in it, yet did not set it alight.
OK, so you disagree with a large majority of airship historians and technologists. The fact that the energy required to ignite hydrogen is many orders of magnitude less than that required to ignite the cover does not seem to register. You seem unconcerned that leakage of hydrogen through the gas cells to the tune of tens of thousands of liters per day was an accepted design parameter, and that the gas valves were known to stick open, and therefore that flammable gas mixtures were to be found outside the gas cells in normal operation. I got it. You're welcome to your opinion.
Rather than pointlessly and repetitively correct your errors in the incorrect naming of the company and spelling of the airship's name, and so on, I'll just point to where the real point of contention (fabric vs hydrogen flammability) has already been dealt with:
The outer cover fabric was not treated as you seem to think it was. There were separate coats of clear dope, dope with powdered aluminum pigment, and dope with powdered iron oxide pigment. The coats dried separately. The two powders are not mixed. They are separated from each other. They are separately embedded in dope matrix. There is no "rocket fuel" mixture. When ignited, such a composite burns at less than 1 cm/s. That is not very fast.
The major flaw of the design was far from the fabric. The major flaw of the design was the highly flammable lifting gas.
I don't know what "real" experts you are talking about, but I can assure you that the combined weight of airship historians and technical experts, when this matter was hashed out on the airship mailing list at length, comes down in their considered opinion heavily on the side I and have represented.
Not sure, but it works out (given the partially empty gas cells at the time due to valving to compensate for weight of fuel burned) to roughly 12 metric tons mass of hydrogen vs roughly 15 tons mass of fabric and coating in the gas cells and outer cover. Hydrogen being some 3 times the heating value of the best liquid fuels, and treated cotton fabric being substantially lower in heating value than liquid fuels, the heat released by the burning hydrogen was several times as much as that released by the burning fabric.
Where is the explosive increase in pressure? Newton's first law would tend to suggest that combustion of hydrogen and air would create forces to push in a particular direction. I don't have any figures, hence the hand-waving, but I haven't seen anyone take on this viewpoint.
This has been dealt with satisfactorily on the airship discussion list, but it would take me some time to track down the citations. As I recall, there are two factors at work.
1) Hydrogen plus air yields steam. Steam is much denser than hydrogen at any given temperature, and this works in opposition to the reduction in density (hence increase in pressure or volume) due to the heating.
2) There was no effective containment that could have stood up for more than milliseconds against the heat. The expansion just dissipated essentially freely into the atmosphere.
1) There is no "Graf Zeppelin" company. There was Zeppelin Luftschiffbau GmbH.
2) Experiments HAVE been done with actual material from Hindenburg, whether you have seen them or not. No "duh" is necessary. The results are as has been described by Mr. Foxwell and myself.
3) Everyone knew that the fabric was flammable. All varieties of it on all airships were flammable in approximately the same degree. As long as the airships were filled with hydrogen, I think the feeling was "so what, are you kidding me, with all that hydrogen gas aboard we should worry about some cotton fabric?"
4) It's not exactly true that no one is saying the hydrogen didn't burn. That claim was made by Dr. Bain at one time. It is so preposterous that he is not saying it any more.
5) It has been well established that the fabric does not burn particularly rapidly.
6) Leaking/escaping hydrogen gas being orders of magnitude easier to set alight than the covering, it is self evident that the hydrogen set the covering afire, and not vice versa. As, indeed, eyewitnesses aboard saw.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to be a big fan of C++ Builder but it was completely unusable.
Care to have another go at that statement?
In the url I posted above, remove the extra space added from posting between "0,39020" and "390,39190538,00" to view the article
Or Plan B, insert a proper hyperlink in your post, like this:
SuSE Linux gets desktop search
I have been wondering why there doesn't seem to be anything like Proxomitron for linux.
Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face [prosecution] if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography ... and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
...
What that equates to is if child porn is reported to the ISP/webhost, they have to then report it to the Australian police quickly or face penalties. This isn't some ridiculous content-policing scheme
Balderdash. There is only one problem with what you say the law "equates to" -- it DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS. By the very language of the law, any ISP who gives general access to the internet is "aware" that he gives access to various newshosts which include groups and postings falling into the kiddie porn category. This is "reasonable grounds to believe" their service "can be used" to access kiddie porn. PERIOD. Either they have to try to block ALL POSSIBLE newshosts, and ALL PROXY HOSTS, etc, etc, also (an utterly impractical idea), or they face prosecution.
I.e., this law criminalizes all ISPs. Why should we be surprised? It is the goal of the state to "have something" in reserve on every citizen, so they can make life Hell for anyone they may choose to, for any reason.
Just because kiddie porn is the fashionable boogeyman of the times does not mean that insane and useless laws should be enacted. Participating in kiddie porn is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Who cares how good the picture is if the content sucks?
Who cares how good the content is if the picture sucks?
To the clueless morons who mod-ed me troll, there is no demonstration whatsoever that second hand smoke causes cancer. Because people with open minds read this as well as clueless morons, I will explain.
There is some weak indication of a correlation, but correlation is not cause, and it is certainly nothing close to proven fact, so there is nothing to admit to.
we don't admit second-hand smoking causes cancer
Have you stopped beating your wife?
The reason you see those "no trucks over XXX pounds" signs is exactly because the amount of wear and tear on the road is proportional to vehicle weight.
Actually, it's worse than that. Wear is proportional to a greater-than-unity power of the axle weight, multiplied by the number of axles.
Anyway you look at it, this program in Brazil rocks. I am envious.
Did you run on 100% ethanol, or an ethanol-gasoline mix?
One gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTU of energy; a gallon of ethanol only 84,400. Ethanol does have a high octane rating, though, so it might allow an otto cycle engine to be tuned more efficiently.
As far as economics, ethanol is only competitive with gasoline when it is heavily subsidized - both by outright cash subsidies for producers, and by tax breaks on retail sales. If it can be manufactured from waste materials which would otherwise be discarded, however, some of this cost difference can be made up.
The downside of ethanol is that it has a much lower volumetric energy density than gasoline, so range for a given fuel tank size is cut way down.
Biodiesel is quite near to gasoline in energy density. Add the far higher thermal efficiency of a diesel engine than a spark ignition engine burning either gasoline or ethanol, and you actually achieve increased range.
We know it's the future.
...
... done before going to Mars, for comparable price ...
... how? Guesswork?
A lot of us certainly hope it is.
We know with adequate research spending it can be achieved
Ahem. We know no such thing. Not in an engineering and economic sense. Certainly we have proven we can achieve fusion reactions in the lab; this has been done for many years now; but we just don't know if we'll ever be able to make sustained and safe reactions which have a high enough energy return to be worth doing. And yes, cost matters. If it bankrupts the entire world to make enough energy to run one town for a year, that would not help anyone, even the one town, because it would be the planetary end of civilization.
It can be
Oh really. And you know this
I am a big proponent of trying A LOT harder and more urgently to perfect fusion power, but let's have a little realism here.
We need copyright to protect Linux and Open Source in general
Maybe we do if copyright is the law of the land, but we wouldn't if it wasn't. Some of us believe copyright laws are a bullying abomination, and not in accord with natural law.
If you buy a Coke instead of a Pepsi, you just deprived Pepsi of a sale.
Bull. I didn't deprive them of anything. I made a choice favoring their competitor. They can't "lose" a sale they never made. They may be unhappy, but they should get over it.
I agree with your conclusions 100% in principle, but the example is no good as an analogy. I will give you one that is more applicable:
Buck Rogers builds a duplicative liquid synthesizing machine. Whenever you pour in a sample of any liquid, it can produce an unlimited quantity of that liquid for very low expense per unit of liquid.
Now I legally purchase an ounce of Pepsi, pour it into the machine, and cause the machine to produce 1000 gallons of a liquid which is indistinguishable from Pepsi. I drink some of the produced liquid, and sell the rest.
The question is, does Pepsi have a case against me? Obviously they do in US law, but I submit that they do not have a case in natural law. To tell me I cannot do what I just did is restraint of free human activity. I did not steal any physical material which they own, and if the law attempts to criminalize me for stealing some fiction in the form of "intellectual property", the law should be rethought.
My message to intellectual property law is "get over it". You have been overtaken by technology. Adapt or disappear.
people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)
I'd like to believe that, truly, but seeing that your statement contains its own annoying little disclaimer, I'm just not buying it.
I think it's more like, "Up til now, despicable tyrants haven't had nuclear weapons, so the planet has been lucky."
OK, some of the USSR regimes were close, but they didn't have that added fillip of gross mouth-foaming insanity at the top. Even Pakistan doesn't compare.
Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says?
I don't agree with all the Bush policies either, and CERTAINLY not all the tactics and strategies, but what is the basis for this? The rap is just the opposite - that Bush says what he is going to do and then does it, even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.
Part of the mac's allure is it's stylish looks. This is just as dumb as putting a PC in a mac mini case.
I'm not following the logic. Agree completely on the Mac Mini looks, and even more, the unmatched form factor. Actually, it would be very cool indeed to put a PC in a Mac Mini "case". One is not going to have any luck doing this, though, because there is no PC with a small enough form factor. Not a Mini ITX, not even a Nano ITX.
The shuttle was equally as small [as the Mac Mini]
Man, you must have found some wicked strong crack. I have a Shuttle, and it measures 7.25x11x7.75", which is 618 cubic inches. The Mac Mini is 6.5x6.5x2, which is 84.5 cubic inches.
The Shuttle is 7.3 times the size of the Mac Mini.
Even my custom Mini ITX system is 8.5x11x2.5", which is 234 cubic inches -- way, way bigger than the Mac Mini.
It's very simple. There is no PC even remotely comparable to the Mac Mini. Period.
Die, you drooling moronic forehead-less pig-eyed insult-to-cockroaches clueless idiotic pseudo-pedantic brainless hairy armpit-scratching tongue-hanging-out witless immeasurably-low-IQ waste of protoplasm.
I'm the third guy with a linux laptop, and I didn't write them, so I guess there must be more guys :-)
No, actually I am not the one being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise.
1) The leaking hydrogen can be ignited by a tiny, almost invisible spark or discharge. The cover takes a torch or other significant flame to ignite. There is no comparison. No amount of static electricity discharge on the cover will set it on fire.
2) The "vast majority" of the leakage is not necessarily the issue. Have you considered that small holes get chafed or otherwise develop in the gas cells? That results in a small area of combustible mixture near the leak. It only takes a tiny amount of leaking hydrogen set aflame to burn through the gas cell, with the disastrous result seen on Hindenburg.
3) You conveniently fail to address the fact that the gas valves were known to leak, causing significant combustible mixture concentrations.
4) You conveniently fail to address the fact that onboard eyewitnesses place the origin of the fire within the airship, not on the surface.
5) You conveniently igore the fact that the outer cover was so far from the phenomenally flammable material that you paint it, that chunks of carbon in the exhaust of the engines burned holes in it, yet did not set it alight.
OK, so you disagree with a large majority of airship historians and technologists. The fact that the energy required to ignite hydrogen is many orders of magnitude less than that required to ignite the cover does not seem to register. You seem unconcerned that leakage of hydrogen through the gas cells to the tune of tens of thousands of liters per day was an accepted design parameter, and that the gas valves were known to stick open, and therefore that flammable gas mixtures were to be found outside the gas cells in normal operation. I got it. You're welcome to your opinion.
Rather than pointlessly and repetitively correct your errors in the incorrect naming of the company and spelling of the airship's name, and so on, I'll just point to where the real point of contention (fabric vs hydrogen flammability) has already been dealt with:
The outer cover fabric was not treated as you seem to think it was. There were separate coats of clear dope, dope with powdered aluminum pigment, and dope with powdered iron oxide pigment. The coats dried separately. The two powders are not mixed. They are separated from each other. They are separately embedded in dope matrix. There is no "rocket fuel" mixture. When ignited, such a composite burns at less than 1 cm/s. That is not very fast.
Actual experiment, not supposition
The major flaw of the design was far from the fabric. The major flaw of the design was the highly flammable lifting gas.
I don't know what "real" experts you are talking about, but I can assure you that the combined weight of airship historians and technical experts, when this matter was hashed out on the airship mailing list at length, comes down in their considered opinion heavily on the side I and have represented.
What's that in hogsheads and furlongs?
Not sure, but it works out (given the partially empty gas cells at the time due to valving to compensate for weight of fuel burned) to roughly 12 metric tons mass of hydrogen vs roughly 15 tons mass of fabric and coating in the gas cells and outer cover. Hydrogen being some 3 times the heating value of the best liquid fuels, and treated cotton fabric being substantially lower in heating value than liquid fuels, the heat released by the burning hydrogen was several times as much as that released by the burning fabric.
Where is the explosive increase in pressure? Newton's first law would tend to suggest that combustion of hydrogen and air would create forces to push in a particular direction. I don't have any figures, hence the hand-waving, but I haven't seen anyone take on this viewpoint.
This has been dealt with satisfactorily on the airship discussion list, but it would take me some time to track down the citations. As I recall, there are two factors at work.
1) Hydrogen plus air yields steam. Steam is much denser than hydrogen at any given temperature, and this works in opposition to the reduction in density (hence increase in pressure or volume) due to the heating.
2) There was no effective containment that could have stood up for more than milliseconds against the heat. The expansion just dissipated essentially freely into the atmosphere.
1) There is no "Graf Zeppelin" company. There was Zeppelin Luftschiffbau GmbH.
2) Experiments HAVE been done with actual material from Hindenburg, whether you have seen them or not. No "duh" is necessary. The results are as has been described by Mr. Foxwell and myself.
3) Everyone knew that the fabric was flammable. All varieties of it on all airships were flammable in approximately the same degree. As long as the airships were filled with hydrogen, I think the feeling was "so what, are you kidding me, with all that hydrogen gas aboard we should worry about some cotton fabric?"
4) It's not exactly true that no one is saying the hydrogen didn't burn. That claim was made by Dr. Bain at one time. It is so preposterous that he is not saying it any more.
5) It has been well established that the fabric does not burn particularly rapidly.
6) Leaking/escaping hydrogen gas being orders of magnitude easier to set alight than the covering, it is self evident that the hydrogen set the covering afire, and not vice versa. As, indeed, eyewitnesses aboard saw.