That sounds like a bad ruling. If the expert was right, then the jury was right. If the expert was wrong, then the defense should have shown them side-by-side to show the differences. Either way, the subsequent judges shouldn't be ruling on the facts unless the defense tried to compare the games, but the lower judge improperly excluded it.
A read of the opinion you linked to, and I think the appeal was wrong. The appellant judge should have ruled that the expert opinion on the similarity of the games be inadmissable, and return the case to the lower court for a re-hearing. Given the testimony (allowed at the time) that the games were identical, and without anything to contradict it, the jury ruled they were identical. Overturning the entire case because one piece of testimony was given improperly should result in a re-trial, not an overturn. If the plaintiff were told that witness was excluded for that reason, he could have proven his point another way. That the lower court made an error in allowing it doesn't change the facts.
Call me when they have an eye-facing camera that deduces focal distance, and adjusts the image depth to match, so you don't have to change focus to see the projected image
Why the hate? Wearable computers have been a techie dream for 30 years. Then, when it gets close, the Luddites come out of the closet to spread hate. And I don't understand why.
So the smartphone in your pocket will know when you turn your head? If you've got to put in a powerful chip to run the display, the additional sensors aren't that much more (money, power or space). Also, if you write an app to use these, and the phone teathered to it doesn't have all the same sensors, how is your app going to work? Having them all in the glasses makes app writing more predictable. Google Glass does the same.
Judges rule on matters of law, juries on facts of the case. If it's overturned by a judge, that means there was some legal problem with the first trial.
You really have reading comprehension problems, don't you? Where did I suggest that?
When you suggested that making aircraft available would necessarily result in poor maintenance of aircraft. If the regulations work now, why would you think they'd fail if a new R22 cost $20k?
You can't get to work without a car. At least in large cities with established mass transit. In Dallas, I tried to replace my 15 minute drive with a bus. The "optimal" path (verified with a person on their help line) was 3 busses, 2 transfers, and about 2 hours. The one time my car broke down in high school, I ran to the nearest bus stop (about 1/2 mile) and waited for 2 hours for a bus. Then took 2+ hours from that point to replace a 30 minute car trip.
If someone can't afford a Cadilac, they'll take whatever gets them there. If they could afford a helicopter, they can also afford a car. So if they have trouble keeping up with the maintenance of the helicopter, they can sell it and drive. Someone with a car in bad shape doesn't have that option. Spending 6 more hours a day commuting to take the bus doesn't seem like an option to most people. Having helicopters accessible to the 10%, rather than 1% isn't going to have any of the effects you assert. But yes, if everyone was given a free 206LT (or pick your favorite twin turbine helicopter), and the inspections were no more than cars, there's be lots of trouble. But cutting the cost of helicopters by half (capital and expenses) wouldn't have nearly the effect you assert.
Some people just can't do it no matter what. It's something that requires real physical aptitude, and just like not everyone is able to master something like skating or skiing or bicycling, not everyone is able to fly a helicopter.
I've never met anyone who wanted to learn skating or riding who couldn't pick it up. So I don't get the analogy. As for flying, it's one of those things that anyone who would be bad at it would probably find out their first time in one. The high-strung panicky people (I've ridden with many in cars) would, without an instructor dampening their inputs, get a boom strike and kill themselves pretty quickly. Especially in a Robinson (every death in a new R66 so far was from a boom strike, last I read up on it).
One of the questions I was answering was "have they built one yet" to which the answer is yes, at least one. Your addition of "probably only one (demo) adds nothing to the point in question.
I just hope my personal situation will allow me to one day build a house. Building a slant-roof, rather than a "normal" peaked one will allow the entire roof to point towards the sun, increasing the available surface for solar, and putting in a solar water heater (more efficient than an electric driven from solar), and other things to maximize return (such as a dedicated battery room, open only to the outside, firewalled from the living area, and well vented). There are so many little things that don't cost much when done the first time that don't work out nearly as well when a rennovation.
For minor installations, "expensive as fuck" is a 0-day ROI. I could finance the install and pay less next month than if I don't, and continue that "pay less" indefinitely. I'll be doing so as soon as my personal situation allows.
Good chefs will put in sacrificial dishes to outgas water as things cook to adjust for the oven. I have no idea what the heat transfer rates are for both burners, but when cooking with gas, I can feel a large amount of hear convecting around the pot, as the hot air travels around the object intended to be heated.
R22s are the most difficult to operate and most dangerous,
Yet are one of the most popular training helicopters, and around here are (by far) the most popular for agricultural use.
There's no way that most of the population could handle operating an aircraft (in 3 dimensions rather than 2) safely.
So you are saying that the pilot licensing program passes a large number of unsafe pilots?
Don't forget the atrociously poor maintenance that many cars have. With personal helicopters, they'd be falling out of the air left and right, running into each other, falling on buildings; it'd be a bloodbath.
Most of the operating cost per hour of aircraft is amortized maintenance, not fuel or other direct costs. You are suggesting that maintenance rules should be lowered when the incompetent fliers are allowed?
I would LOVE to have my own Robinson R22 but I can't afford to operate it let alone actually buy one.
$100 to $150 an hour. Given you go about 100 miles in that hour, that's about $1 per mile. The IRS claims $0.56 per mile for cars, and I've seen elsewhere a higher number. So that puts the operating cost of an R22 right about the total cost of ownership of a car. My problem with it is the inability to find convenient locations to land near my destinations.
There are companies that do it for "free" (you pay them a percentage your average power bill over some number of years back). So $0 up front, reduced recurring, and total ownership after some fixed term.
For me, the power savings would be more than the finance cost of the install, and I've not seen any that break that.
And as some of the early systems are nearing "lifetime" ages given in the on install, they are finding that the resilience of the systems was understated. Maintenance and replacement costs are lower than expected, improving the cost benefits.
The amount of developed land in the US is enough to provide for the US. My question with regards to Nevada, is why are you powering all of Africa from Nevada? Wouldn't it make sense to have more, smaller, distributed plants providing power more locally?
A solar plant on every house would power the world, with power to spare. We don't need to develop a single acre more than already done to provide 100% of the world's energy needs.
3% of the US is "developed land" (about 3*10^11 m^2). Others here have said that it's about 1 kWh per day per m^2. At 30 days per month, 30 kWh per m^2 times 300,000,000,000 makes for a sizable chunk of power. If all developed land were covered with panels, we'd be able to power the country, day and night, we'd just need to create some energy storage. Yes, it's possible to replace all coal plants in the US with PV solar, with just the addition of some night storage, with no additional land development.
As the ration of development to power seems steady, it will also scale nicely. And we can keep all the other renewables as well.
There are plenty of locations with hydro storage for night (actually, the hydro plant I visited in China takes baseload at night (where it's run higher than demand), then feeds the grid in the day to supplement baseload). But the timing is irrelevant to the feasibility. For residential, I'm saving up now to build a full off-grid system (with batteries), and I'd recommend everyone use solar+local storage where practical. Then your issues all go away, but cost is higher. Clouds do more to scatter than absorb (at least the common white fluffies), so the amount of energy striking the ground, in aggregate, is not greatly affected.
So, the answer is, we should detach generation from transmission, and charge for those separately, as grid-tied solar will have much more transmission without generation (from a power company's perspective). In the middle of a sunny day, the houses will generate power, and the industries will consume it. Then at night, the houses will consume, and the power company must generate. Balance those out, and peaks are greatly reduced, as is base load. That will cut generation requirements, but could complicate transmission requirements.
The issue isn't being treated as a multi-factor problem. Total sum is only one part. Getting it to the right place at the right time is more complex, so complex, we used to pay Enron billions to make the problem worse.
You are wrong. I could do it today. How? You have a super-cap taking the charge as fast as gasoline. Then you have the super-cap trickle-charge the lead acid batteries. Nothing fancy, and nothing that can't be done today. The only issue is cost, not technical.
Swapping batteries is an idiotic idea. Anyone who has ever exchanged a propane or other gas cylinder can attest to this.
I'm currently in a tank swapping scheme. It works great. I'm charged something like a premium of 10% over cheapest LPG-only purchase, and that's more than enough to make up for their occasionally having to retire one of my cylinders if it's old or damaged. And no, they don't accept the guy that re-filled it himself for 20 years and has 6-generations old valves (illegal to refill) and rusted (illegal) tank.
A trivial issue with batteries would be to have them track use and you'd be pro-rata charged for the expected life left in the battery. As it deceases by 5% per year, and you fill up 50 times in a year, you'd pay for.05/50=.001, or about $10 on a $10,000 pack for every swap. If you charged it yourself 30 times before your next swap, then you'd get a $300 bill for the swap, but get "new" batteries in the deal.
I don't know what exchanges you use, but your presumed problems are not systemic, and may only be local. Bottle swaps are common here, and work much better than you imply. One of the delivery services will sell you a new bottle if you don't already have one, and guarantees they'll always take back their bottles, even if standards change (with valves, it's usually a few years of adoption time, slow and easy to absorb such costs for a swap service, much easier than someone on a budget hit with an unexpected re-purchase of a bottle). So what problems are you insinuating there are in your area for bottle exchanges? Or are there no problems, but you are insinuating there are to smear electric while avoiding fact?
Taxis? Never "refuel" again. How? Have inductive recharge stations at every taxi stand. Sitting there, reading the paper waiting for a fare to come out of the hotel/airport? You car is charging. Your cab company will be sent the bill for that charge, aggregated with the others. And you'll never need to charge again.
And trucks are better suited for battery swaps than cars (larger, more uniform bodies, fleet owned), so they "refuel" by swapping in sets of charged batteries, charged at a slow rate. Many trucks are on set routes. Also, trucks have more specific rules on rest, and could probably charge at truck stops without issue. They have to have the rest time anyway.
Seriously, every objection is a justification for not liking them, not a real hurdle.
School taxes that tax you for the act of "using" land? They are unrelated to whether you have a student in the household, but don't tax you for not using the school.
Slashdot Mirror
The adoption is state sanctioned, and a party to the contract. They weren't in this case, so they looked at it lated and didn't like it.
That sounds like a bad ruling. If the expert was right, then the jury was right. If the expert was wrong, then the defense should have shown them side-by-side to show the differences. Either way, the subsequent judges shouldn't be ruling on the facts unless the defense tried to compare the games, but the lower judge improperly excluded it.
A read of the opinion you linked to, and I think the appeal was wrong. The appellant judge should have ruled that the expert opinion on the similarity of the games be inadmissable, and return the case to the lower court for a re-hearing. Given the testimony (allowed at the time) that the games were identical, and without anything to contradict it, the jury ruled they were identical. Overturning the entire case because one piece of testimony was given improperly should result in a re-trial, not an overturn. If the plaintiff were told that witness was excluded for that reason, he could have proven his point another way. That the lower court made an error in allowing it doesn't change the facts.
Call me when they have an eye-facing camera that deduces focal distance, and adjusts the image depth to match, so you don't have to change focus to see the projected image
Why the hate? Wearable computers have been a techie dream for 30 years. Then, when it gets close, the Luddites come out of the closet to spread hate. And I don't understand why.
It's very hard to illegally record someone.
Yeah, but it's unicorn poo.
So the smartphone in your pocket will know when you turn your head? If you've got to put in a powerful chip to run the display, the additional sensors aren't that much more (money, power or space). Also, if you write an app to use these, and the phone teathered to it doesn't have all the same sensors, how is your app going to work? Having them all in the glasses makes app writing more predictable. Google Glass does the same.
Judges rule on matters of law, juries on facts of the case. If it's overturned by a judge, that means there was some legal problem with the first trial.
You really have reading comprehension problems, don't you? Where did I suggest that?
When you suggested that making aircraft available would necessarily result in poor maintenance of aircraft. If the regulations work now, why would you think they'd fail if a new R22 cost $20k?
You can't get to work without a car. At least in large cities with established mass transit. In Dallas, I tried to replace my 15 minute drive with a bus. The "optimal" path (verified with a person on their help line) was 3 busses, 2 transfers, and about 2 hours. The one time my car broke down in high school, I ran to the nearest bus stop (about 1/2 mile) and waited for 2 hours for a bus. Then took 2+ hours from that point to replace a 30 minute car trip.
If someone can't afford a Cadilac, they'll take whatever gets them there. If they could afford a helicopter, they can also afford a car. So if they have trouble keeping up with the maintenance of the helicopter, they can sell it and drive. Someone with a car in bad shape doesn't have that option. Spending 6 more hours a day commuting to take the bus doesn't seem like an option to most people. Having helicopters accessible to the 10%, rather than 1% isn't going to have any of the effects you assert. But yes, if everyone was given a free 206LT (or pick your favorite twin turbine helicopter), and the inspections were no more than cars, there's be lots of trouble. But cutting the cost of helicopters by half (capital and expenses) wouldn't have nearly the effect you assert.
Some people just can't do it no matter what. It's something that requires real physical aptitude, and just like not everyone is able to master something like skating or skiing or bicycling, not everyone is able to fly a helicopter.
I've never met anyone who wanted to learn skating or riding who couldn't pick it up. So I don't get the analogy. As for flying, it's one of those things that anyone who would be bad at it would probably find out their first time in one. The high-strung panicky people (I've ridden with many in cars) would, without an instructor dampening their inputs, get a boom strike and kill themselves pretty quickly. Especially in a Robinson (every death in a new R66 so far was from a boom strike, last I read up on it).
One of the questions I was answering was "have they built one yet" to which the answer is yes, at least one. Your addition of "probably only one (demo) adds nothing to the point in question.
TFA has some video of working units.
You could always try reading TFA before asking basic questions.
I just hope my personal situation will allow me to one day build a house. Building a slant-roof, rather than a "normal" peaked one will allow the entire roof to point towards the sun, increasing the available surface for solar, and putting in a solar water heater (more efficient than an electric driven from solar), and other things to maximize return (such as a dedicated battery room, open only to the outside, firewalled from the living area, and well vented). There are so many little things that don't cost much when done the first time that don't work out nearly as well when a rennovation.
For minor installations, "expensive as fuck" is a 0-day ROI. I could finance the install and pay less next month than if I don't, and continue that "pay less" indefinitely. I'll be doing so as soon as my personal situation allows.
How much to melt one micron of snow and have the inch sitting on top of it slide off on the lubricated bottom layer?
Good chefs will put in sacrificial dishes to outgas water as things cook to adjust for the oven. I have no idea what the heat transfer rates are for both burners, but when cooking with gas, I can feel a large amount of hear convecting around the pot, as the hot air travels around the object intended to be heated.
R22s are the most difficult to operate and most dangerous,
Yet are one of the most popular training helicopters, and around here are (by far) the most popular for agricultural use.
There's no way that most of the population could handle operating an aircraft (in 3 dimensions rather than 2) safely.
So you are saying that the pilot licensing program passes a large number of unsafe pilots?
Don't forget the atrociously poor maintenance that many cars have. With personal helicopters, they'd be falling out of the air left and right, running into each other, falling on buildings; it'd be a bloodbath.
Most of the operating cost per hour of aircraft is amortized maintenance, not fuel or other direct costs. You are suggesting that maintenance rules should be lowered when the incompetent fliers are allowed?
I would LOVE to have my own Robinson R22 but I can't afford to operate it let alone actually buy one.
$100 to $150 an hour. Given you go about 100 miles in that hour, that's about $1 per mile. The IRS claims $0.56 per mile for cars, and I've seen elsewhere a higher number. So that puts the operating cost of an R22 right about the total cost of ownership of a car. My problem with it is the inability to find convenient locations to land near my destinations.
There are companies that do it for "free" (you pay them a percentage your average power bill over some number of years back). So $0 up front, reduced recurring, and total ownership after some fixed term.
For me, the power savings would be more than the finance cost of the install, and I've not seen any that break that.
And as some of the early systems are nearing "lifetime" ages given in the on install, they are finding that the resilience of the systems was understated. Maintenance and replacement costs are lower than expected, improving the cost benefits.
The amount of developed land in the US is enough to provide for the US. My question with regards to Nevada, is why are you powering all of Africa from Nevada? Wouldn't it make sense to have more, smaller, distributed plants providing power more locally?
A solar plant on every house would power the world, with power to spare. We don't need to develop a single acre more than already done to provide 100% of the world's energy needs.
3% of the US is "developed land" (about 3*10^11 m^2). Others here have said that it's about 1 kWh per day per m^2. At 30 days per month, 30 kWh per m^2 times 300,000,000,000 makes for a sizable chunk of power. If all developed land were covered with panels, we'd be able to power the country, day and night, we'd just need to create some energy storage. Yes, it's possible to replace all coal plants in the US with PV solar, with just the addition of some night storage, with no additional land development. As the ration of development to power seems steady, it will also scale nicely. And we can keep all the other renewables as well.
We'll see how those assertions work in real life, as the Mazda 6 with ultracaps reach those ages.
There are plenty of locations with hydro storage for night (actually, the hydro plant I visited in China takes baseload at night (where it's run higher than demand), then feeds the grid in the day to supplement baseload). But the timing is irrelevant to the feasibility. For residential, I'm saving up now to build a full off-grid system (with batteries), and I'd recommend everyone use solar+local storage where practical. Then your issues all go away, but cost is higher. Clouds do more to scatter than absorb (at least the common white fluffies), so the amount of energy striking the ground, in aggregate, is not greatly affected.
So, the answer is, we should detach generation from transmission, and charge for those separately, as grid-tied solar will have much more transmission without generation (from a power company's perspective). In the middle of a sunny day, the houses will generate power, and the industries will consume it. Then at night, the houses will consume, and the power company must generate. Balance those out, and peaks are greatly reduced, as is base load. That will cut generation requirements, but could complicate transmission requirements.
The issue isn't being treated as a multi-factor problem. Total sum is only one part. Getting it to the right place at the right time is more complex, so complex, we used to pay Enron billions to make the problem worse.
Swapping batteries is an idiotic idea. Anyone who has ever exchanged a propane or other gas cylinder can attest to this.
I'm currently in a tank swapping scheme. It works great. I'm charged something like a premium of 10% over cheapest LPG-only purchase, and that's more than enough to make up for their occasionally having to retire one of my cylinders if it's old or damaged. And no, they don't accept the guy that re-filled it himself for 20 years and has 6-generations old valves (illegal to refill) and rusted (illegal) tank.
.05/50= .001, or about $10 on a $10,000 pack for every swap. If you charged it yourself 30 times before your next swap, then you'd get a $300 bill for the swap, but get "new" batteries in the deal.
A trivial issue with batteries would be to have them track use and you'd be pro-rata charged for the expected life left in the battery. As it deceases by 5% per year, and you fill up 50 times in a year, you'd pay for
I don't know what exchanges you use, but your presumed problems are not systemic, and may only be local. Bottle swaps are common here, and work much better than you imply. One of the delivery services will sell you a new bottle if you don't already have one, and guarantees they'll always take back their bottles, even if standards change (with valves, it's usually a few years of adoption time, slow and easy to absorb such costs for a swap service, much easier than someone on a budget hit with an unexpected re-purchase of a bottle). So what problems are you insinuating there are in your area for bottle exchanges? Or are there no problems, but you are insinuating there are to smear electric while avoiding fact?
And the fleet vehicles have other solutions...
Taxis? Never "refuel" again. How? Have inductive recharge stations at every taxi stand. Sitting there, reading the paper waiting for a fare to come out of the hotel/airport? You car is charging. Your cab company will be sent the bill for that charge, aggregated with the others. And you'll never need to charge again.
And trucks are better suited for battery swaps than cars (larger, more uniform bodies, fleet owned), so they "refuel" by swapping in sets of charged batteries, charged at a slow rate. Many trucks are on set routes. Also, trucks have more specific rules on rest, and could probably charge at truck stops without issue. They have to have the rest time anyway.
Seriously, every objection is a justification for not liking them, not a real hurdle.
School taxes that tax you for the act of "using" land? They are unrelated to whether you have a student in the household, but don't tax you for not using the school.