Aren't trucks and buses responsible for most of the particulate emissions
That might be true on a per vehicle basis, but not likely on a total pollution output. Still, it's missing the point. It's not like the bus drivers and truck drivers can do the same thing with a fuel-efficient car. The size and carrying capacity of those vehicles are required to do the things they are doing, and indeed improvements in fuel efficiency for buses and trucks is desirable even by those who use them. The thing stopping these users from being less polluting is (a) technology is just making such options available now, and (b) more efficiency is expensive (for them). So they may pollute, but there is reasonable justification.
SUV's on the other hand, are entirely unnecessary for most of what they're used for (commuting, groceries, etc.). These things are better done in more fuel-efficient cars, which are actually cheaper. This is the opposite of the bus/truck problem, economics should drive SUV drivers to cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars. It's mainly status symbol, machismo, whatever, that generally keeps them from getting "better" vehicles. The difference with SUVs is that there is no reasonable justification of why they are necessary in most cases. (Yes, sometimes they are necessary and justifiable, but that usually involves living in rural and snowy areas.)
I'm no anti-SUV zealot, but there is clear reasoning why (most) SUVs are bad and unnecessary. Some SUV owners use the "stop telling people how to run their lives" argument, which is basically equivalent to saying "I should be allowed to blow cigarette smoke in your face if I want to, it's a free country". Pollution, health, and effects on environment are everybody's concern.
Is it too much to actually understand the story and that the headlines are indeed correct, not misleading or sensational, and that it could indeed interfere with Ham radio (and other communication systems).
Yes, you must be new here. And new to reading too.
This would only work if it significantly affected the percentage of legal vs illegal files. The problem isn't demonstrating that legal uses are possible, even the RIAA/MPAA apparently admit in court that ~10% of files shared are legal, it's a question of what percentage of files traded are legal. So your hypothetical company would only be "useful" if it could significantly bump the percentage higher.
I think you've got a pretty good summary of the state-of-the-art in Lidar/Ladar, and I agree it'll be a few years before we see something that solves some of these problems (though I see a few promising ones at the experimental stage).
Keep in mind though that you've lumped all "3D devices" or "3D cameras" into Lidars, i.e., time-of-flight (and variations). Short range, small to medium volume, 3D imaging is doing quite well using triangulation and structured light techniques, with much higher precision than Lidar. Markets range from the automotive assembly to scanning shuttles on orbit for return-to-flight. In general, they're good for inspection, 3D modeling (e.g., artifacts), metrology, and close-range navigation. But you're right, long range technology (10's of meters to kilometers) mature enough for military imaging and full-sized vehicle navigation is still a few years away.
Army's newest infantry vehicles, is fitted with a "ladar" scanner, the equivalent of a mounted pair of eyes that see by emitting 400,000 laser and radar beams
Just to correct this, "Ladar" (aka "Lidar", "Laser Radar") does not emit radar signals. It only emits laser pulses and measures the time-of-flight of the light signal (sometimes uses phase shift of laser pulses for better precision). I'm betting the reporter heard "Laser Radar" as "Laser and Radar". Or perhaps they have a separate radar unit.
I'm also curious about the 400,000 points per second. There are some experimental flash (aka scannerless) ladars that get some pretty good rates, but not that many and AFAIK this isn't one of them. The best I can find on the web is that the Stryker Ladars can get up to 60,000 range samples per second. I'm guessing the 400,000 is actually pulses, but it can take many pulses to make a single measurement depending on the type of ladar and the range resolution.
It took me a minute to realize the problem, since "K" is indeed the symbol for Kelvin. Then I realized it was the "degree" that was the problem. Sorry, I had an accident and can't remember anything past 1967 when "degree K" was proper. (=
A billionth of a degree C? Then you could almost freeze water, but I don't think it'd superconduct. On the other hand, more fingers. If you freeze it to a billionth of a degree K, that might suffice.
Then, all of these people will be violating my patents when they do these sorts of things. It'll stop the stupid patents and/or make me rich. Either way, I'm happy.
If it doesn't pan out, I might follow up by patenting "A Method for Patenting Inventions". That should shut the whole patent office down since they would be violating my patent each time they award any patent.
Thanks. You did a much better job that the article at the diffences between the iPod Mini and the 15GB iPod. The article implied it was mostly just the storage and a few appearance changes. It sounds like you do get a fair number of accesories with the Mini that you otherwise wouldn't get.
Well, I think you can run with it, these things are designed to handle the shock (though I'm not sure about life expectancy of the drives). My concern, that they glossed over, was that moving parts means faster battery drain.
Without answering the battery/moving parts problem, it then says "However, if your budget is keeping you from snapping up a larger player, or you do not have much of a digital music library to speak of, then a smaller-capacity hard drive player like the MuVo2 or iPod Mini is a better deal than a flash player." But it doesn't explain why. Batteries would be cheaper in a flash player. If you don't have a big library, small capacity flash players are cheaper than the iPod Mini. How is it a better deal?
While it's true that the iPod Mini compares well with the other players in the article, they didn't say why anyone would chose the Mini (4 GB) rather than pay the extra $50 and get a 15 GB iPod. Even at $299, the full iPod still compares favorably with most of the other players in the article. So why would anyone buy the Mini?
What's really funny about this conversation is that my brother, who works for National Defense, has seen a proposal for a project to develop a geosynchronous LEO satellite. Not that it was feasible. The proposal was from someone who wanted to have it but obviously didn't know squat about orbital mechanics.
Of course, the project didn't get approval as soon as the techies saw it.
It's true that most unknowns make their money at a day job. (I never said they made a living from live shows.) But even with your numbers, a group that only sells 100 CDs over a year will only make $120 from CD sales. I've never known a band that didn't make (net) at least $120 total even on a short tour of a few weeks. It's certainly not a living, but clearly live shows are more profitable than CD sales.
Put another way, suppose you can even sell a thousand CDs a year, making $1200. Then you must be at least popular enough to earn more than $100 per show. Even if you only average $10 profit per show after expenses, which is pretty damn low, you only have to do 120 shows in a year to make it equal to CD sales. It's really incompatable to be selling significant numbers of CDs while not attracting big enough crowds to make at least as much at live shows.
The first one is that by downloading you're not only making a copy but also getting something you didn't have before.
Which makes it equivalent to borrowing a friend's CD and making a copy -- you are getting something you didn't have before. And this is clearly legal, it's why the law was written that way in the first place.
This means downloading is not the same as making a copy, and so section 80 doesn't apply.
No, it doesn't mean any such thing. Downloading is most definitely making a copy of someone else's copy or original, for your own personal use. That is already legal under section 80.
Right now, saying that downloading is legal is pure speculation (i.e. wishful thinking). We'll have a real answer only when the supreme court step in.
No, it's the other way around. It is legal until it is proven to be illegal. There's nothing that says picking your nose is legal, but there's nothing that says it's illegal either. If there is no law explicitly making something illegal, and there is no explicit law against downloading songs from P2P or internet, it is legal until some court interprets a law that says it is illegal.
Add to this that legal experts (e.g., Michael Geist, if you read the zdnet article) and the Copyright Board of Canada say it's legal, it is a fair statement to say it is legal.
But in the end it doesn't really matter if downloading is legal or not.
Well, yes it does, to many of us. I'm perfectly willing to pay a reasonable levy on recordible media (e.g., CD-Rs) if in return I get to download songs (as in William Fisher's proposed system that started this discussion). If it's not legal, I want the levy gone. It is unreasonable, and a conflict of interest, for the music industry to profit (levy) from illegal activities (if downloading is illegal). Furthermore, the legality of downloading is one more brick in the wall against "killing P2P" (as you say). P2P has many legal uses, and one of them is downloading songs. The legality of downloading is important.
The article reportedly quotes Peter Gabriel as saying, "...most artists depended on record sales for up to 60% of their income... Only superstars could afford to give away their music for free, because they had other opportunities for making money."
He seems to be talking about some "mid-level" artists or something. Most "unknowns" make almost nothing off record sales -- they make far more on live shows. Many of them can give the music away for free because it increases their listening audience, who go to their concerts and/or buy their merchandise (including paying for a better quality CD than downloaded mp3s). There's also the "older artist" category like Janis Ian who also get the same increase in audience & sales by giving music away. So it's not just big stars.
I have not read the whole 97 pages of the decision, but it does direct address peer-to-peer. Do a search for "peer-to-peer" in the PDF. It discusses this several times. In particular, it does rule that peer-to-peer downloading (but not uploading/distributing) is legal,
"There is no requirement
in Part VIII that the source copy be a
non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant
whether the source of the track is a pre-owned
recording, a borrowed CD, or a track
downloaded from the Internet.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to slander. Can you point to a reference about this (almost) law allowing gays to have sex with 12 year old boys? The last time I read the Criminal Code of Canada, it was illegal for anyone under 14 to have sex, under 18 if the other person is in a position of trust or authority, and under 18's can't legally have anal sex unless they are married to someone else under 18. A gay man having sex with a 12 year old boy breaks at least two of these laws, and three if they have some authority over them.
So do you actually have some real complaints, or are they all made up?
Funny that. Lower than second world, and yet repeatedly chosen as the best country in the world to live by the UN seven years straight. True, Norway and Sweden beat us out the following few years. Ah, now I get it, slipping into third place made us third world. Hence Norway became first world and Sweden became second world. Got it.
Clearly YANAL. Also, IANAL, but I can read. For some time analysts have said it's legal, but as of last fall even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled it is legal. Uploading (or making songs available), however, is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
That might be true on a per vehicle basis, but not likely on a total pollution output. Still, it's missing the point. It's not like the bus drivers and truck drivers can do the same thing with a fuel-efficient car. The size and carrying capacity of those vehicles are required to do the things they are doing, and indeed improvements in fuel efficiency for buses and trucks is desirable even by those who use them. The thing stopping these users from being less polluting is (a) technology is just making such options available now, and (b) more efficiency is expensive (for them). So they may pollute, but there is reasonable justification.
SUV's on the other hand, are entirely unnecessary for most of what they're used for (commuting, groceries, etc.). These things are better done in more fuel-efficient cars, which are actually cheaper. This is the opposite of the bus/truck problem, economics should drive SUV drivers to cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars. It's mainly status symbol, machismo, whatever, that generally keeps them from getting "better" vehicles. The difference with SUVs is that there is no reasonable justification of why they are necessary in most cases. (Yes, sometimes they are necessary and justifiable, but that usually involves living in rural and snowy areas.)
I'm no anti-SUV zealot, but there is clear reasoning why (most) SUVs are bad and unnecessary. Some SUV owners use the "stop telling people how to run their lives" argument, which is basically equivalent to saying "I should be allowed to blow cigarette smoke in your face if I want to, it's a free country". Pollution, health, and effects on environment are everybody's concern.
Yes, you must be new here. And new to reading too.
This would only work if it significantly affected the percentage of legal vs illegal files. The problem isn't demonstrating that legal uses are possible, even the RIAA/MPAA apparently admit in court that ~10% of files shared are legal, it's a question of what percentage of files traded are legal. So your hypothetical company would only be "useful" if it could significantly bump the percentage higher.
Keep in mind though that you've lumped all "3D devices" or "3D cameras" into Lidars, i.e., time-of-flight (and variations). Short range, small to medium volume, 3D imaging is doing quite well using triangulation and structured light techniques, with much higher precision than Lidar. Markets range from the automotive assembly to scanning shuttles on orbit for return-to-flight. In general, they're good for inspection, 3D modeling (e.g., artifacts), metrology, and close-range navigation. But you're right, long range technology (10's of meters to kilometers) mature enough for military imaging and full-sized vehicle navigation is still a few years away.
Just to correct this, "Ladar" (aka "Lidar", "Laser Radar") does not emit radar signals. It only emits laser pulses and measures the time-of-flight of the light signal (sometimes uses phase shift of laser pulses for better precision). I'm betting the reporter heard "Laser Radar" as "Laser and Radar". Or perhaps they have a separate radar unit.
I'm also curious about the 400,000 points per second. There are some experimental flash (aka scannerless) ladars that get some pretty good rates, but not that many and AFAIK this isn't one of them. The best I can find on the web is that the Stryker Ladars can get up to 60,000 range samples per second. I'm guessing the 400,000 is actually pulses, but it can take many pulses to make a single measurement depending on the type of ladar and the range resolution.
It took me a minute to realize the problem, since "K" is indeed the symbol for Kelvin. Then I realized it was the "degree" that was the problem. Sorry, I had an accident and can't remember anything past 1967 when "degree K" was proper. (=
Read the parent post, it doesn't say "above absolute zero".
A billionth of a degree C? Then you could almost freeze water, but I don't think it'd superconduct. On the other hand, more fingers. If you freeze it to a billionth of a degree K, that might suffice.
That's the fifth element, you boron.
Ouch. It's too early in the morning for jokes like that. My cheeks ran into my eyelids when I tried to laugh.
"A Process to Patent Methods that are Obvious"
"A Process to Patent Methods that have Prior Art"
Then, all of these people will be violating my patents when they do these sorts of things. It'll stop the stupid patents and/or make me rich. Either way, I'm happy.
If it doesn't pan out, I might follow up by patenting "A Method for Patenting Inventions". That should shut the whole patent office down since they would be violating my patent each time they award any patent.
Good point. To correct my previous post, it was indeed a geo-stationary LEO that was proposed.
Thanks. You did a much better job that the article at the diffences between the iPod Mini and the 15GB iPod. The article implied it was mostly just the storage and a few appearance changes. It sounds like you do get a fair number of accesories with the Mini that you otherwise wouldn't get.
Without answering the battery/moving parts problem, it then says "However, if your budget is keeping you from snapping up a larger player, or you do not have much of a digital music library to speak of, then a smaller-capacity hard drive player like the MuVo2 or iPod Mini is a better deal than a flash player." But it doesn't explain why. Batteries would be cheaper in a flash player. If you don't have a big library, small capacity flash players are cheaper than the iPod Mini. How is it a better deal?
While it's true that the iPod Mini compares well with the other players in the article, they didn't say why anyone would chose the Mini (4 GB) rather than pay the extra $50 and get a 15 GB iPod. Even at $299, the full iPod still compares favorably with most of the other players in the article. So why would anyone buy the Mini?
get a sense of humour, or stfu.
Of course, the project didn't get approval as soon as the techies saw it.
Put another way, suppose you can even sell a thousand CDs a year, making $1200. Then you must be at least popular enough to earn more than $100 per show. Even if you only average $10 profit per show after expenses, which is pretty damn low, you only have to do 120 shows in a year to make it equal to CD sales. It's really incompatable to be selling significant numbers of CDs while not attracting big enough crowds to make at least as much at live shows.
Which makes it equivalent to borrowing a friend's CD and making a copy -- you are getting something you didn't have before. And this is clearly legal, it's why the law was written that way in the first place.
This means downloading is not the same as making a copy, and so section 80 doesn't apply.
No, it doesn't mean any such thing. Downloading is most definitely making a copy of someone else's copy or original, for your own personal use. That is already legal under section 80.
Right now, saying that downloading is legal is pure speculation (i.e. wishful thinking). We'll have a real answer only when the supreme court step in.
No, it's the other way around. It is legal until it is proven to be illegal. There's nothing that says picking your nose is legal, but there's nothing that says it's illegal either. If there is no law explicitly making something illegal, and there is no explicit law against downloading songs from P2P or internet, it is legal until some court interprets a law that says it is illegal.
Add to this that legal experts (e.g., Michael Geist, if you read the zdnet article) and the Copyright Board of Canada say it's legal, it is a fair statement to say it is legal.
But in the end it doesn't really matter if downloading is legal or not.
Well, yes it does, to many of us. I'm perfectly willing to pay a reasonable levy on recordible media (e.g., CD-Rs) if in return I get to download songs (as in William Fisher's proposed system that started this discussion). If it's not legal, I want the levy gone. It is unreasonable, and a conflict of interest, for the music industry to profit (levy) from illegal activities (if downloading is illegal). Furthermore, the legality of downloading is one more brick in the wall against "killing P2P" (as you say). P2P has many legal uses, and one of them is downloading songs. The legality of downloading is important.
He seems to be talking about some "mid-level" artists or something. Most "unknowns" make almost nothing off record sales -- they make far more on live shows. Many of them can give the music away for free because it increases their listening audience, who go to their concerts and/or buy their merchandise (including paying for a better quality CD than downloaded mp3s). There's also the "older artist" category like Janis Ian who also get the same increase in audience & sales by giving music away. So it's not just big stars.
So do you actually have some real complaints, or are they all made up?
Funny that. Lower than second world, and yet repeatedly chosen as the best country in the world to live by the UN seven years straight. True, Norway and Sweden beat us out the following few years. Ah, now I get it, slipping into third place made us third world. Hence Norway became first world and Sweden became second world. Got it.
Dammit, how'd that link get in there. Try this one.
Clearly YANAL. Also, IANAL, but I can read. For some time analysts have said it's legal, but as of last fall even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled it is legal. Uploading (or making songs available), however, is illegal.