It is The Green Hills of Earth. The name of the story -- the book is a compilation of stories in the Future History universe -- is "Gentlemen, Be Seated."
Its important to note that "wrong" does not imply "should be illegal." Also, its not someone else's material -- its someone else's copyright to that material. You can't own an abstract concept.
Furthermore, sharing copyrighted material -- even indiscriminately -- is legal under many circumstances. Fair use, material that the author has stated he wants indiscriminately shared, etc. Even when it's not legal, its not immoral -- the copyright system (at least in the United States) is a practical compromise to encourage artistic innovation. Copyright explicited limited in duration. Though, as someone said earlier, thats not how the laws have worked out. The current system is unquestionably broken and unjust, and disobeying is a reasonable act of civil disobedience.
Even if the laws were more limited, copyright is still a bad idea, partly because its existence as a concept allows for it to be abused to the extent we see today. Also, copyright is a method for limiting the spread of information. Despite its good intention, providing economic incentive for creative works, it is a first stone in the road to hell. Information control is necessary for thought control and that is exactly where the perversions of the copyright concept -- the DMCA, DRM, criminal sentences for copyright infringement, moral rights -- lead. To think of something requires that you copy it in some sense. Books, files and patterns are functionally extensions of our memories and our minds. Thus, the concept that someone can own abstract information or content or control the right to copy it implies that that someone may control your thoughts of that content.
The short stoy: copyright seemed like a good idea at the time, but the levels of abuse we see today make it too dangerous to keep around. There are other incentives, some of them econmic -- look at webcomics like Something Positive -- for creating new works. There is no reason to risk my freedom of expression -- even the expression of someone else's words or thoughts -- or worse, my freedom of thought for a mere economic incentive.
Composites are strong, but composites are very flexible. They don't lend themselves well to control wires although cabling is acceptable if you have slack (which adds weight)... but movement is never a good thing
This is simply incorrect for a couple of reasons. Whether or not composites are strong or stiff depends on the material -- composites like carbon fiber are both very strong and stiff (compared to say aluminum or steel) while composites like kevlar are less stiff but still quite strong. But a composite is just a heterogeneous material, usually a fibers laid in a matrix, so it can have almost any set of properties.
In fact, a composites are generally, anisotropic meaning that their strength and stiffness vary with direction. Think of it this way, if you pull on a strip of filament tape along the strip, its hard to break, but if you pull across the strip, it tears easily. Filament tape and duct tape are fiber composites -- like the carbon fiber in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Aluminum, by comparison, would be equally strong (and stiff) either way. Of course, carbon fiber is much stronger and stiffer than duct tape.
Stiffness and strength should be explained. Stiffness is a material's resistence to deformation under loads. Flexibility is the opposite of stiffness. Most aerospace materials are modeled to act alot like springs -- increasing the load results in proportional change in length. Stiffness in tension and compression (pulling and pushing) is measured using Young's Modulus, E. E is a constant, single scalar for a given alloy (temper, etc) of metal, but changes depending on the orientation of a composite structure. For composites, its described using 0th, 1st or 2nd rank tensors -- depending on how hard my professor wants to make the problem. There's also shear stiffness measured by the shear modulus, G. Both moduli, E and G have units of Pascals.
Strength is the stress -- load per area, given in Pascals-- at which a material fails. There are different definitions of failure, and so different values of strength for a given material -- but one of the most popular ways of looking at it is "when does the material stop acting like a spring. How much force can be applied before it won't return to its original shape?" That's the yield strength of the material and it works for our purposes.
Also note that the density of the material plays are part. Steel is stronger and stiffer than aluminum, but aircraft are made out of aluminum because they must be light. Aluminum has a higher strength to weight ratio than steel. So, pound for pound, its stronger -- but its yield strength, measured in Pascals, is lower.
As it turns out, carbon fiber -- pretty much the definitive composite material in aircraft -- is lighter, stiffer and stronger than aluminum -- the definitive metal. E for carbon fiber (the fiber without a resin matrix) > 200 GPa.
E for aluminum (7075 T65) = 72 GPa. Yield strengths: Carbon fiber >3 GPa. Aluminum ~= 500 MPa Aluminum has a density of about 2.7 g/cc while carbon fiber is more like 2 g/cc. Note that the choice of matrix (the resin that holds it together) and layup of fibers affects the strength and stiffness of the fibers, but these numbers are a good start on raw material properties
Clearly, composites are not necessarily flexible -- in fact, if there's a distinctive property of carbon fiber, its that its very, very stiff. In fact, that is the property my composites professor emphasized in class time and time again -- possibly because its such a pain in the ass to do failure analysis on carbon fiber laminates. Composites are complicated materials.
One last note: flexibility is not necessarily a bad thing. But I'll save you the lecture... check out the Active Aeroelastic Wing F/A-18.
Quoting BlackRookSix's post:
"I'd like to say that you may not completely understand the Chinese context. Not all of us have the same concept of "personal freedoms" that you do. We understand that we must sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for the greater good of the society as a whole. I can only speak for my friends, family and myself, but we give these freedoms happily and in the knowledge that we know that the government that we elected works for the benefit of all in China. Not all of us agree, we all know there are plenty of dissidents who openly voice their opinions, but you must recognise that these can be dangerous people."
You and your Chinese friend may make all of the sacrifices you want, but don't make them for me. Only through your own arrogance can you force others to make the same sacrifices when they do not wish to. What makes a practice "inhuman and dirty" is the assumption that some elses viewpoint is not valid -- notice that in this forum, you're allowed to espouse your view without censorship, whereas, in BlackRookSix's homeland, you can't.
States and societies don't have rights, individuals do. Each Egyption has a right to his or her culture, and respecting that right is the foundation for classical liberal "Western" views. Ignoring or suppressing dissent because "its not our culture" is making the stupid mistake that "our culture is fundamentally right" -- human beings are imperfect and so is anything, including the state, composed of them. American's also make this mistake, but the ability of the government to force it upon anyone is limited by the Constitution (when it is obeyed). Whether or not classical liberal views should be spread by force, thats debatable -- were we to successfully invade Egypt or China or many other nations, there are definitely some people -- specifically their large numbers of political prisonsers -- that should be freed. Of course, for the US government to take such a stance given policies like the Gitmo Concentration Camp* and extraordinary rendition would be quite hypocritical.
Legitimate government exists to allow each individual to act as morally as possible while minimizing the limitation on any else's ability to make moral choices. No government succeeds at this (they're imperfect) and governments like China and Egypt do not even make the attempt. Egyptian and Chinese cultures could thrive just as well in a ideal, western style democracy because the people would be allowed to adopt whatever culture they choose, just not force it on their neighbor.
"Dangerous people." *Shudder* I don't know that, you don't know that and BlackRookSix doesn't know that, either. The only way to know someone is dangerous is if they attempt to materially harm someone. Voicing your dissent is the exact opposite, its an attempt to change people's minds without harming them.
Some of this stiltedness may come from the engineering professors and professionals who advocate exteremely passive writing -- so passive that the paper is unreadable.
I had a discussion with a professor where he advocated writing everything passively. When I pointed out that our tech writing classes had said pretty much the opposite, he countered with "That's how we did at NASA." Note that this professor worked at NASA Langley for decades and pretty much founded its fracture mechanics branch. He is unquestionably brilliant and carries a lot of authority with the students.
Nevermind the huge number of journal papers written in the "passive is best" still. They're a bitch to read and make me hate doing research.
I think internet connections are a public utility. Spreading information is of critical importance to our society -- how can I vote intelligently if I'm uniformed? Also, federal and state governments are increasingly relying on internet portals and forms -- tax filing and Katrina relief come to mind.
I have the oddest feeling that much of the internet infrastructure has been subsidized, as well -- but don't quote me on that.
I agree that a tiered internet is a bad thing... it reminds me of the the castles built along the rivers in Europe for levying taxes on commerce -- highly detrimental to the overall economy.
You're going to need 3 people, by your numbers. 128 min/2 people/hr = 64 min/person/hr > 1 person/hr. Since you need more than an hours worth of time person for two people, you're going to need 3.
... using Flash. And its a subscription music service, and a pretty good one too. though you can't exactly pick which songs you listen, too. http://www.pandora.com/
Depending on who you ask, communism is either a variant of socialism or (if you're asking a Marxist) an economic model that comes after socialism. But definitions vary.
Anyway, there are a few problems with your statement "Socialism doesn't work" and its supporting examples.
1) What exactly is a working economic system? For example, you quote Great Britain as having high unemployment. So? Do people have to have a job that pays money? Many people don't -- stay at home spouses, for instance. I'd say that employment is a secondary or tertiary indicator of how well a economic system works. The major questions should be: Do people get the necessities -- food, shelter, water, healthcare and (in a free, democratic nation) information? Are the people freer -- more able to make and follow their own moral choices -- because of the system? Are the people happy?
The Cananda example you give is better example of failure. If people are dying because of failures of the economic system -- in this case socialized medicine, because Canada, just like nearly everywhere has a hybrid economy of both capitalism and socialism -- then absolutely, that is a system failure. Economic stagnation and unemployment are illdefined, especially the former, and one could argue that stagnation is merely a cynical way of saying "stable" or "in equilibrium."
2)False cause. The fact that socialism or any other economic system exists in a nation does not mean it is the cause of its economic woes, regardless of how one defines "economic woes" or "economic success." The China example comes to mind -- China has the fastest growing economy, at least in part, because it has a huge amount of resources, 1 billion + people, and clearly plenty of capital.
3)We could argue all day whether or not socialism works or not, but in the end, all we have are anecdotal tails of a specifical application of socialism to a particular group of people with a particular set of resources at a particular time. Even if socialism is a cause of economic trouble in these nations, that does not mean it will be in others -- there are too many variables. The examples provide evidence, but not proof and not even strong evidence. Not that strong evidence, such as that generated by scientific experiments, is easy to come by when discussing social and economic issues.
4)There are examples of socialism/communism working, assuming something like "prosperity = success". Take 19th century Utah for example, their brand of communism seemed to work -- in many ways -- there. This one counterexample is all that is needed to falsify "Socialism doesn't work."
Personally, I don't think any particular economic system truly "works" at an acceptable level. And I think the answer is population dependent -- people are strange and complex enough to make predicting their behavior a very risky business.
Yeah, those do ring a bell -- they're all examples of authoritarian communism, not socialism -- though there are similarities. Welfare, social security, now those are brands of socialism.. not that they seem to work well, either. But socialism might work, and giving examples of systems similar to it in some way or another does not mean it will fail.
And appeal to common sense is a fallacy.
If they've got a police force, even if they are somehow private, they have governing powers and should be limitted by our legal restrictions on government -- Bill of Rights, other Amendments, etc. These limitations should apply to any body possessing the force of law -- if its got a police force, its got governing powers.
I generally agree with you on the go somewhere else suggestion -- but what if you've spent three or four years there and thousands of dollars and you then find out that its a "pro-brainwashing" school.
...its Erik Lensherr aka Magneto. He's got the look, the zealous faith and the ability to manipulate magnetism like no other. Depending if he's in good guy mode or bad guy mode he'll either save the world from the evil oil plutocracy by sacrificing himself or use his new fusion generator to turn us all into mutants.
Somebody call the X-men.
Copyrights and licenses are two different things.
We're not talking about software -- where licenses are most relevant -- we're talking about published, thus copyrighted, documents. They may have some sort of license attached, but its doubtful that its a legitimate one given the requirements that a license must meet. Essentially, it must be contract, which has numerous subtle and sometimes mutable requirements that include something like an instrument of agreement. If something like such an instrument wasn't included in the first place, my understanding is there isn't a license or associated rights to revoke.
Copyrighted works can be copied for various purposes -- parody, critical review, and most relevantly, education and research. Also, if the factual material in the letters is used in a textbook, well its just facts, theories and ideas -- which aren't subject to copyright or licensing.
Short story is, yes fair use should apply -- unless a specific provision of copyright law protects the school system outside of fair use. Lemme toss in a helpful website: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter7/7-b.html
Xfoil is good and airfoil data and geometry is easily gotten from nasg.com. You'll probably want to look at it in English.
Abbot and Von Doenhoff is pretty useful, too.
--Fellow ASE student
Slashdot Mirror
That's truly beautiful.
It is The Green Hills of Earth. The name of the story -- the book is a compilation of stories in the Future History universe -- is "Gentlemen, Be Seated."
Its important to note that "wrong" does not imply "should be illegal." Also, its not someone else's material -- its someone else's copyright to that material. You can't own an abstract concept.
Furthermore, sharing copyrighted material -- even indiscriminately -- is legal under many circumstances. Fair use, material that the author has stated he wants indiscriminately shared, etc. Even when it's not legal, its not immoral -- the copyright system (at least in the United States) is a practical compromise to encourage artistic innovation. Copyright explicited limited in duration. Though, as someone said earlier, thats not how the laws have worked out. The current system is unquestionably broken and unjust, and disobeying is a reasonable act of civil disobedience.
Even if the laws were more limited, copyright is still a bad idea, partly because its existence as a concept allows for it to be abused to the extent we see today. Also, copyright is a method for limiting the spread of information. Despite its good intention, providing economic incentive for creative works, it is a first stone in the road to hell. Information control is necessary for thought control and that is exactly where the perversions of the copyright concept -- the DMCA, DRM, criminal sentences for copyright infringement, moral rights -- lead. To think of something requires that you copy it in some sense. Books, files and patterns are functionally extensions of our memories and our minds. Thus, the concept that someone can own abstract information or content or control the right to copy it implies that that someone may control your thoughts of that content.
The short stoy: copyright seemed like a good idea at the time, but the levels of abuse we see today make it too dangerous to keep around. There are other incentives, some of them econmic -- look at webcomics like Something Positive -- for creating new works. There is no reason to risk my freedom of expression -- even the expression of someone else's words or thoughts -- or worse, my freedom of thought for a mere economic incentive.
--sabre86
This is simply incorrect for a couple of reasons. Whether or not composites are strong or stiff depends on the material -- composites like carbon fiber are both very strong and stiff (compared to say aluminum or steel) while composites like kevlar are less stiff but still quite strong. But a composite is just a heterogeneous material, usually a fibers laid in a matrix, so it can have almost any set of properties.
In fact, a composites are generally, anisotropic meaning that their strength and stiffness vary with direction. Think of it this way, if you pull on a strip of filament tape along the strip, its hard to break, but if you pull across the strip, it tears easily. Filament tape and duct tape are fiber composites -- like the carbon fiber in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Aluminum, by comparison, would be equally strong (and stiff) either way. Of course, carbon fiber is much stronger and stiffer than duct tape.
Stiffness and strength should be explained. Stiffness is a material's resistence to deformation under loads. Flexibility is the opposite of stiffness. Most aerospace materials are modeled to act alot like springs -- increasing the load results in proportional change in length. Stiffness in tension and compression (pulling and pushing) is measured using Young's Modulus, E. E is a constant, single scalar for a given alloy (temper, etc) of metal, but changes depending on the orientation of a composite structure. For composites, its described using 0th, 1st or 2nd rank tensors -- depending on how hard my professor wants to make the problem. There's also shear stiffness measured by the shear modulus, G. Both moduli, E and G have units of Pascals.
Strength is the stress -- load per area, given in Pascals-- at which a material fails. There are different definitions of failure, and so different values of strength for a given material -- but one of the most popular ways of looking at it is "when does the material stop acting like a spring. How much force can be applied before it won't return to its original shape?" That's the yield strength of the material and it works for our purposes.
Also note that the density of the material plays are part. Steel is stronger and stiffer than aluminum, but aircraft are made out of aluminum because they must be light. Aluminum has a higher strength to weight ratio than steel. So, pound for pound, its stronger -- but its yield strength, measured in Pascals, is lower.
As it turns out, carbon fiber -- pretty much the definitive composite material in aircraft -- is lighter, stiffer and stronger than aluminum -- the definitive metal. E for carbon fiber (the fiber without a resin matrix) > 200 GPa. E for aluminum (7075 T65) = 72 GPa. Yield strengths: Carbon fiber >3 GPa. Aluminum ~= 500 MPa Aluminum has a density of about 2.7 g/cc while carbon fiber is more like 2 g/cc. Note that the choice of matrix (the resin that holds it together) and layup of fibers affects the strength and stiffness of the fibers, but these numbers are a good start on raw material properties
Clearly, composites are not necessarily flexible -- in fact, if there's a distinctive property of carbon fiber, its that its very, very stiff. In fact, that is the property my composites professor emphasized in class time and time again -- possibly because its such a pain in the ass to do failure analysis on carbon fiber laminates. Composites are complicated materials.
One last note: flexibility is not necessarily a bad thing. But I'll save you the lecture... check out the Active Aeroelastic Wing F/A-18.
--sabre86
Quoting BlackRookSix's post: "I'd like to say that you may not completely understand the Chinese context. Not all of us have the same concept of "personal freedoms" that you do. We understand that we must sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for the greater good of the society as a whole. I can only speak for my friends, family and myself, but we give these freedoms happily and in the knowledge that we know that the government that we elected works for the benefit of all in China. Not all of us agree, we all know there are plenty of dissidents who openly voice their opinions, but you must recognise that these can be dangerous people."
You and your Chinese friend may make all of the sacrifices you want, but don't make them for me. Only through your own arrogance can you force others to make the same sacrifices when they do not wish to. What makes a practice "inhuman and dirty" is the assumption that some elses viewpoint is not valid -- notice that in this forum, you're allowed to espouse your view without censorship, whereas, in BlackRookSix's homeland, you can't.
States and societies don't have rights, individuals do. Each Egyption has a right to his or her culture, and respecting that right is the foundation for classical liberal "Western" views. Ignoring or suppressing dissent because "its not our culture" is making the stupid mistake that "our culture is fundamentally right" -- human beings are imperfect and so is anything, including the state, composed of them. American's also make this mistake, but the ability of the government to force it upon anyone is limited by the Constitution (when it is obeyed). Whether or not classical liberal views should be spread by force, thats debatable -- were we to successfully invade Egypt or China or many other nations, there are definitely some people -- specifically their large numbers of political prisonsers -- that should be freed. Of course, for the US government to take such a stance given policies like the Gitmo Concentration Camp* and extraordinary rendition would be quite hypocritical.
Legitimate government exists to allow each individual to act as morally as possible while minimizing the limitation on any else's ability to make moral choices. No government succeeds at this (they're imperfect) and governments like China and Egypt do not even make the attempt. Egyptian and Chinese cultures could thrive just as well in a ideal, western style democracy because the people would be allowed to adopt whatever culture they choose, just not force it on their neighbor.
"Dangerous people." *Shudder* I don't know that, you don't know that and BlackRookSix doesn't know that, either. The only way to know someone is dangerous is if they attempt to materially harm someone. Voicing your dissent is the exact opposite, its an attempt to change people's minds without harming them.
--sabre86
*Yes, it is a concentration camp.
By "still" I mean "style" -- proofreading is good.
Some of this stiltedness may come from the engineering professors and professionals who advocate exteremely passive writing -- so passive that the paper is unreadable.
I had a discussion with a professor where he advocated writing everything passively. When I pointed out that our tech writing classes had said pretty much the opposite, he countered with "That's how we did at NASA." Note that this professor worked at NASA Langley for decades and pretty much founded its fracture mechanics branch. He is unquestionably brilliant and carries a lot of authority with the students.
Nevermind the huge number of journal papers written in the "passive is best" still. They're a bitch to read and make me hate doing research.
Its good to see something along the lines of COSMIC is still around. But isn't software developed by NASA necessarily public domain?
--sabre86
I think internet connections are a public utility. Spreading information is of critical importance to our society -- how can I vote intelligently if I'm uniformed? Also, federal and state governments are increasingly relying on internet portals and forms -- tax filing and Katrina relief come to mind.
I have the oddest feeling that much of the internet infrastructure has been subsidized, as well -- but don't quote me on that.
I agree that a tiered internet is a bad thing... it reminds me of the the castles built along the rivers in Europe for levying taxes on commerce -- highly detrimental to the overall economy.
--azzk
Yeah, he has. If I can dig up the link to one of his speeches, I'll post it.
You're going to need 3 people, by your numbers. 128 min /2 people/hr = 64 min/person/hr > 1 person/hr. Since you need more than an hours worth of time person for two people, you're going to need 3.
... using Flash. And its a subscription music service, and a pretty good one too. though you can't exactly pick which songs you listen, too. http://www.pandora.com/
Depending on who you ask, communism is either a variant of socialism or (if you're asking a Marxist) an economic model that comes after socialism. But definitions vary. Anyway, there are a few problems with your statement "Socialism doesn't work" and its supporting examples. 1) What exactly is a working economic system? For example, you quote Great Britain as having high unemployment. So? Do people have to have a job that pays money? Many people don't -- stay at home spouses, for instance. I'd say that employment is a secondary or tertiary indicator of how well a economic system works. The major questions should be: Do people get the necessities -- food, shelter, water, healthcare and (in a free, democratic nation) information? Are the people freer -- more able to make and follow their own moral choices -- because of the system? Are the people happy? The Cananda example you give is better example of failure. If people are dying because of failures of the economic system -- in this case socialized medicine, because Canada, just like nearly everywhere has a hybrid economy of both capitalism and socialism -- then absolutely, that is a system failure. Economic stagnation and unemployment are illdefined, especially the former, and one could argue that stagnation is merely a cynical way of saying "stable" or "in equilibrium." 2)False cause. The fact that socialism or any other economic system exists in a nation does not mean it is the cause of its economic woes, regardless of how one defines "economic woes" or "economic success." The China example comes to mind -- China has the fastest growing economy, at least in part, because it has a huge amount of resources, 1 billion + people, and clearly plenty of capital. 3)We could argue all day whether or not socialism works or not, but in the end, all we have are anecdotal tails of a specifical application of socialism to a particular group of people with a particular set of resources at a particular time. Even if socialism is a cause of economic trouble in these nations, that does not mean it will be in others -- there are too many variables. The examples provide evidence, but not proof and not even strong evidence. Not that strong evidence, such as that generated by scientific experiments, is easy to come by when discussing social and economic issues. 4)There are examples of socialism/communism working, assuming something like "prosperity = success". Take 19th century Utah for example, their brand of communism seemed to work -- in many ways -- there. This one counterexample is all that is needed to falsify "Socialism doesn't work." Personally, I don't think any particular economic system truly "works" at an acceptable level. And I think the answer is population dependent -- people are strange and complex enough to make predicting their behavior a very risky business.
Yeah, those do ring a bell -- they're all examples of authoritarian communism, not socialism -- though there are similarities. Welfare, social security, now those are brands of socialism.. not that they seem to work well, either. But socialism might work, and giving examples of systems similar to it in some way or another does not mean it will fail. And appeal to common sense is a fallacy.
If they've got a police force, even if they are somehow private, they have governing powers and should be limitted by our legal restrictions on government -- Bill of Rights, other Amendments, etc. These limitations should apply to any body possessing the force of law -- if its got a police force, its got governing powers. I generally agree with you on the go somewhere else suggestion -- but what if you've spent three or four years there and thousands of dollars and you then find out that its a "pro-brainwashing" school.
...its Erik Lensherr aka Magneto. He's got the look, the zealous faith and the ability to manipulate magnetism like no other. Depending if he's in good guy mode or bad guy mode he'll either save the world from the evil oil plutocracy by sacrificing himself or use his new fusion generator to turn us all into mutants. Somebody call the X-men.
Copyrights and licenses are two different things. We're not talking about software -- where licenses are most relevant -- we're talking about published, thus copyrighted, documents. They may have some sort of license attached, but its doubtful that its a legitimate one given the requirements that a license must meet. Essentially, it must be contract, which has numerous subtle and sometimes mutable requirements that include something like an instrument of agreement. If something like such an instrument wasn't included in the first place, my understanding is there isn't a license or associated rights to revoke. Copyrighted works can be copied for various purposes -- parody, critical review, and most relevantly, education and research. Also, if the factual material in the letters is used in a textbook, well its just facts, theories and ideas -- which aren't subject to copyright or licensing. Short story is, yes fair use should apply -- unless a specific provision of copyright law protects the school system outside of fair use. Lemme toss in a helpful website: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter7/7-b.html
Yes.
Xfoil is good and airfoil data and geometry is easily gotten from nasg.com. You'll probably want to look at it in English. Abbot and Von Doenhoff is pretty useful, too. --Fellow ASE student