We already have a "piracy code of conduct" it's called The Law. ISPs should not be conducting vigilante operations at the whim of private enterprises. If copyright holders wish to stop a user from file-sharing they must take that user to court and deal with them under the judicial oversight of the courts.
Brilliant idea! You just put every would-be independent musician out of business. With them you took every startup, small, and medium business which produces anything currently protected by IP laws.
Without some low cost protective measures, no matter how much you want to dispute it, that's the reality you're ensuring. If you believe your use is non-infringing, you should be required to prove it, and not the other way around. An IP rights holder should not be expected to take thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of people to court to protect their property. Period. The onus should be on the consumer, not the owner.
Like it or not, the current "draconian" system exists exactly because so many are abusing. If people would stop stealing and abusing, the other side would once again relax. Unfortunately, because the majority believe they have the right to steal, everyone suffers. If you want to fix the system, kick every pirate you know in the nuts a couple of times per day and things will correct it self. As is, every DCMA related complaint you have is a direct result of pirates stealing shit left and right. Fix the problem, pirates, and everything else will follow.
So do you have any real solutions to the cause, or just want to complain about the effect? Seriously, other than draconian clubbing or offenders, what other solutions exist?
Something to keep in mind, as smart phones become more common, so is WIFI radiation exposure right next to your head. That's going to be roughly 4x as much TX power right next to your ear where the skull is less likely to stop it all.
Actually that's not likely. If the runway tolerances are so tight, you wouldn't be trying to land there, let alone autoland there. You're talking about a runway which has +- 1m for the airplane to safely remain within. Someone would be looking for a different runway. Generally speaking, on small planes land on such runways.
the broad side of a barn from 20 paces, let alone a man-sized target.
I think you missed the part where the 20 paces concept is bullshit. It didn't happen. There's only one account where it can even be verified it ever happened at those extended distances. And as you suggest, people did miss a lot, even at the five to ten foot distances. Ya I know, hard to believe, but shooting scared with a pistol is hard. Just the same, at those close ranges, many did score a hit.
Most of the people that had really bad reputations as gun fighters tended to shoot people in the back or when the other person was unprepared and/or unprovoked. The occasions when it was truly a duel in the street was it self extremely rare and gloried by Hollywood. Simply put, duels were fairly rare. Duels at distances greater than spitting distance were all but myth. Despite this, people did miss and multiple shots were not uncommon.
Just the same, he who drew first always had the advantage. And its not just me saying so - its brain science. It takes longer to react than it does to initiate. Of course, once that first shot is fired, and you missed, it can go either way. But it doesn't change the fact the initiated had the slight advantage up until that point.
Its widely believed the 20 paces myth was a carry over from the Gentlemanly duels of days before where people typically did not die and more often than not the exchange scared the offending party into a retraction and apology. It was fairly rare for someone to die in these exchanges.
Agreed. Someone who draws first would (theoretically) be the one who DIDN'T think they could win, and as such would prolly be a little more nervous than the other guy.
Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.
I guess theoretically. But factually, the one who draws first likely knows its an advantage and would therefore attempt to draw first - especially if its known your opponent is not only fast but accurate.
I don't care if it is illegal, the government is in the wrong trying to enforce such laws
It seems you're more than happy to work for zero compensation, and plan to do so for the rest of your life. If this is not true, you're a hypocrite. So which is it? You'll never and have never accepted a paycheck and therefore your argument may have a tiny glimmer of legitimacy or you're full of crap and everyone should ignore you?
Its an extremely well documented fact that he who goes first has a significant advantage because its takes a very long time for someone to react. Its brain science. The person reacting is at a time disadvantage of ~1/4 second! That's why people can literally remove a cocked gun from your hand faster than you can pull the trigger. Literally! The sad thing is, it works every time so long as you don't screw up. Why? Because he who is reacting is a lot slower. It takes your brain that long to simply tell your body to START reacting. If his conclusions are even close to being accurate, disarming someone would be a crap shoot at best; and its not, so long as you're properly skilled.
Additionally, history even proves he's wrong. Historically, he who draws first, so long as he's accurate, wins a gunfight. Period. And, contrary to the movies, they would typically stand fairly close together, around five to ten feet. Any further, and most people would miss. So it was none of that 20-50 paces apart crap (40-100 total) you see in movies.
In short, I think this research is complete bullshit as a huge body of evidence directly contradicts his findings, as least as it relates to gunfights. Simply put, he's absolutely wrong because that's not what he tested. Hollywood does it for drama - not historical accuracy, or any similarity to reality. Brain science says he's wrong. Martial arts says he's wrong. History says he's wrong. My money is on him being wrong.
I am entitled to it. I (being a member of the People) just voluntarily allow only you (the content creator) to manage it for a limited period of time.
Not until the copyright expires. I have no problem with reasonable copyright terms but this is yet another straw man as its completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. Excessive copyright terms are not justification to steal something today. So contrary to your flawed assertion, no you absolutely are not entitled to it as you see fit, on your terms and no other.
allow people to pay a reasonable licensing fee by choice for the content they provide
This is a straw man used time and time again. Even several studies prove otherwise. People steal just because they can and its usually driven by a sense of self entitlement. In other words, you have it, I want it, therefore you should give it to me, without any regard for its cost. Why pay $0.99 for a song when I'm not only entitled to it, but can receive that entitlement for free?
At the end of the day, people are stealing because they can and the price is seemingly not an issue. And saying they wouldn't have otherwise payed for it is also a straw man as most studies indicate somewhere between 10%-25% who stole it would have otherwise purchased it. And for smaller businesses, taking a loss of 10%-25% can be a make or break deal. While not in any studies I've read, I strongly suspect that if the sense of self entitlement were addressed, that percentage would likely rise.
From what I've read on this, Google devs are under NDA and can't just willy-nilly discuss the issues with the public. But they -do- have good reason for what they've done and they aren't just covering their ears and ignoring everyone.
There are many ways around that. Often companies approach this in one of three ways. One, make someone unknown to the outside world use a non-company email address and explore the issue with those more knowledgeable without fully letting the cat out of the bag. Or two, privately email one or more of the knowledgeable developers, politely state the sensitivity of the issue due to an NDA and ask for general guidance based on general details. Or three, hire one or more of these guys for a short consulting gig and officially extend the NDA.
Google chose a forth option which appears to make no one happy. I think the fact that Google chose the path least traveled speaks loudly about Google in general. Others seem to agree.
I love how they blast Google for not being willing to meet halfway, but they're doing exactly the same thing.
It doesn't appear that's the case. It seems Google coded a bunch stuff without consulting other, more knowledgeable kernel developers. Google then announces what they've done and throw it over the wall. The feedback is the design stinks and is very fragile. They also ask why Google didn't leverage the existing infrastructure which is already working, and which seems to have been in place long before Google started, which addresses their very issue. Nokia via their Linux/OMAP ARM efforts don't seem to have trouble using the existing infrastructure.
Google responds by saying the existing infrastructure isn't a complete solution for their needs. The kernel guys ask why Google didn't simply update the existing code to address their specific needs rather than add poorly conceived new code/interfaces. Even the Linux/Nokia guys step forward and state the existing infrastructure is plenty useful and powerful and is easily able to address Google's need with only minor changes. Furthermore, the general consensus is that the required changes can be made such that its fully compatible with their userspace applications.
Google response? Who gives a shit?!?!? We don't need it upstream. Let everyone else fend for themselves. We don't care if it ads bloat and is unusable for anyone else.
Now the kernel guys are left with unmaintained code, which nobody wants, which exists only to add bloat to the kernel, which benefits nobody but Google. Seems to me, Google doesn't care to meet in the middle and they've made it very clear its Google's way or no way. And as result, Android's kernel is more bloated because of it. Seems like a lose-lose for everybody while highlighting just how huge Google's ego can be.
A book is an investment of my time to read it, and for that I want something well written and not a steamy pile of crud. The publisher wades through the 85% crap sent in to find the 1% of the remaining 15% that is worth publishing.
That's true for general stories, but not true for text books, trade manuals, technical how tos, education series, etc. That's because they generally approach authors they believe are capable for authoring the material. They then require samples, gratis, up front. So their investment is nearly zero up front and they have a sense of what the material will look like. They provide high level feedback to redirect as needed; so as to better target the intended audience. They then carrot the author to complete the material on a deadline in exchange for a very small payment (third world hourly rates) and a pittance of a royalty over time.
Now as for the 1% argument, they generally use interns and other extremely cheap labor to go though the bulk to find interesting material which is then provided upstream. The people capable of making a decision actually see a tiny percept of the overall noise. As such, their costs are extremely low here too.
As was originally stated, the bulk of their costs are in advertising and printing.
Believe what you want but you're ignoring basic physics.
Learn the difference between static and dynamic friction. Here's a hint, brakes work off of friction. Learn what the impact of brake glazing will do to braking performance. Learn what the heating of brakes will do to braking performance. And this is all just off the top of my head.
There is a radar component which gives course corrections to the interceptor. The missile was there, "missiling". The interceptor was, well, intercepting. But without a radar to give course corrections during the interception flight, it can't hit the missile. As such, both can "perform as expected", and still fail to result in an interception.
That, of course, doesn't mean everything worked as planned.
Basic math seems to support that conclusion. An 80% reduction of velocity, from 28 MPH is roughly 5.6 MPH. Based on that, it does not any other factors should be assumed.
Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.
Not likely. Most anything that penetrates vehicle armor today is gong to cut through that stuff like like air. Things that take out vehicle armor include high velocity penetrator rounds and shape charges. Shape charges work by super heating copper alloy and pushing through armor. Its literally hot butter through a knife. Penetrator rounds work by going a couple thousand feet per second, combined with a small frontal area of a super hardened projectile. There is no indication this material will have any affect in this area.
On the other hand, unlike what you see in the movies, being shot while wearing a bullet proof vest typically results in black and purple bruises at best and more typically broken bones. Basically these vests prevent penetration. But even though it stops penetration, the blunt force trauma is still transfered! Think of a heavy aluminum baseball bat hitting, full swing, for every bullet stopped. And THAT force can very likely be significantly reduced using this material.
As for military applications, ceramic plates are typically used but those plates don't cover your entire body; else it would seriously inhibit mobility. That's why so many want to see Dragon Skin issued to soldiers. Which is to say, it completely stops the transfer of energy in addition to the projectile. Additionally, Dragon Skin is more effective as stopping nade shrapnel than is traditional ballistic armors.
Just the same, a lot of force is still transferred though both the anti-ballistic materials and traditional ceramic plates. Again, this may serve as a complimentary technology.
People, especially bikers, getting hit by cars in my town is a problem,
Which completely proves my point. A localized issue does not make a world problem. Nor does it make a newsworthy item to resounding over and over again. You're "point" completely supports EXACTLY my point.
Overall, worldwide, people are not mindlessly being mowed down left and right. Overall, worldwide, there was never a bird/windmill problem.
The fake-degree guy got fired from his job not for performing badly but for having a fake degree. What does this say about people who have a real degree that they didn't notice a difference in performance or at the very least that it took so long to find out?
Far too often I run into people who have degrees, who know absolutely nothing. Far too often having a degree is simply used as a socially acceptable means to discriminate against those who do not. I've spoken with many who said I shouldn't look at it that way. Think of it as a character test to show who can follow through and who have proved they want something bad enough. When I ask, what about those who were excluded and are now actively punished because they had a broken home, a sick parent, minor legal issues, so on and so on, they should be punished for the rest of their life? In some of these cases, they actually proved more character than any degree can reflect. People generally change the subject after that.
The simple fact is, I've know far too many people without a degree who mop the floor with those who do have a degree, but it doesn't stop the discrimination. I'm not talking about doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. A medical equipment salesmen needs a degree? So how's that art history degree helping with that? It doesn't. And BTW, I really met this guy and he absolutely agrees his degree is of no use for his job. His degree simply opened the door for him. Okay, so maybe they have that barrier to ensure the salesmen is an effective communicator? A degree doesn't indicate that in the least and wouldn't you figure that out during an interview?
Hell, if you ever watch various shows were they do simple interviews on the street, they interview teachers, college students, lawyers, brokers, etc. (different cities and different shows, different people), and the vast majority of the time they can't answer the most basic of questions. For the majority of people, a degree is something they have to complete and put behind them, not something they need to retain and carry with them. And the sad thing, its not that they only pick the people with the stupid answers. They just pick the people who provide the most entertaining of answers. The vast majority of people incorrectly answer the questions.
Far too often I see people with completely unrelated degrees get a pass simply because they have a degree. Simple fact is, the rule of the day is its a socially acceptable excuse to discriminate in non-specialized, non-technical fields. So if you have a degree, any degree, you'll get a pass. And since discrimination is everywhere and most don't even use their degree, you can certainly understand why some may be willing to look the other way to obtain a fake degree. After all, its simply breaking down an artificial barrier. At the end of the day, did he perform the work to acceptable standards? If the answer is yes, it highlights the fact that a degree is simply not required for the job; no matter how important some people wish to make themselves appear.
just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue,
Not really jumping in the middle of the specific exchange here, but the majority absolutely do not have a clue. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good. Popular used be large codpieces and long, curly, falic toes on the end of your shoe. Popular was putting lead in your food, on your skin, and in your hair.
To suggest that popular is somehow correct or in the right is to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Even today, superior products often lose out to superior advertising. And everyone in advertising knows it.
Popular is about marketing and pandering. Having a clue is about knowledge and an education. The first is easy. The second, few Americans know anything about. To say the majority are completely clueless is an accurate statement. In fact, even our forefathers would completely agree. It was so important to them, to exclude the clueless, they as much said so right in the US Constitution. Since that time, various amendments have been made which have drastically empowered the clueless, which in turn has allowed the government to completely run amuck; contrary to our forefather's best efforts and wishes. The fact that such things were even allowed to take place pretty proves cluelessness is very much alive and well.
On a different note, the impression I always got was that the magnitude of the issue was played up by NIMBYs and anti-environmentalists who were finding their previous arguments of "but they're ugly" and "but I'm invested in the status quo" to be unpersuasive. They used the bird thing to try to drag environmentalists along with them, and it worked to an extent, but not for very long.
That's my point. Its a problem that simply didn't exist. Having a wide spread problem is different from saying it never happens. People get hit by cars but it doesn't mean its a wide spread problem. To say it does, is to manifest a problem which simply doesn't exist.
The other issues you mention would have ALL been addressed through simply market economics. Birds and bird nests are bad for most mechanical structures. Their fecal material more quickly erodes paint. Birds being struck likely cause damage to relatively fragile and expensive blades. Depending on the design, nests can become fire hazards. So on and so on. Simply put, there has never been a real problem here.
That's not a migratory bird which is the central complaint behind the issue. There is a difference between an occasional bird hitting a windmill and it being a problem worth discussion.
I'm not saying birds don't ever get hit. And I'm not saying its impossible. Statistically it would be very unlikely for it to never happen. Birds run into buildings too. That doesn't mean come migration time thousands of birds spontaneously join mid morning meetings though windows. In other words, there simply isn't an issue.
If its such a problem with windmills, all buildings need to be torn down. All aircraft must be grounded. All construction and logging must stop. These are all areas which are affected to some degree with bird habitat and bird strikes. But just because an occasional strike, building impact, or bird ingestion occurs doesn't mean its even worth the time it takes for us to write this exchange; unless you're prepared to explain how we can better protect aircraft, windows, and logging.
The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20%
It may be a niche but that price in an electric car is likely to be like purchasing a $35,000 - $40,000 vehicle which burns fossil fuels, once you include savings of fuel of oil over a reasonable lifespan. That does help a bit, especially if leasing these become an option.
Just some quick math, assuming 15k miles/year and 16mpg and $3.00/g. Plus, ~$200 in oil changes per year, assuming 2000 miles between. Over five years that's a fuel cost of roughly $15,000 over five years. Compare that to an electric vehicle's cost of ~$0.02 per mile, or roughly $1500 over five years. The difference in ownership is ~13,500 over five years. So buying a fossil car worth $50,000 is roughly the same as buying an all electric car worth $36,500. While that's still a low of money, that suddenly puts it into price range for a lot more people, especially if they becomes available on lease.
Granted, at the end of that five years, you may need a new battery pack, but from what I read that's likely to be several thousand dollars and likely an improved pack with additional range and capacity.
Again, those are just some fun numbers and not meant to be taken as hard number to bank on. Just the same, I hope it shows that the higher expense associated with an all electric vehicle can be significantly offset by fossil fuel savings.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
Its my understanding that the bird strike issue NEVER existed and that it was completely fabricated by environmentalist. The simply fact is, the blades on the majority of windmills are large and turn at low RPMs. In fact, if they turn too fast, they'll destroy themselves. The old windmills used for centuries on farms and ranches are a much greater threat and yet I've never heard a peep about their use.
Remember, tip speed is everything to a windmill. That many sound ominous but let's think about that for a second. For a windmill to be efficient, it must be fairly large in size. That means large and lengthy blades. With large blades come extremely large forces. Most windmills target 30 (very large) - 100 (smaller "home" unit)RPM. At those speeds, you can actually watch the tip spinning. But because the blade is so long, the tip speed is still very high. Since the primary complaint from environmentalists is directed at commercial wind farms, for this discussion we can generally ignore the ones running faster 60 RPM or so.
The reality is, most (all that I've seen; two) studies on the subject indicate that windmills are a natural scarecrow and tend to keep birds at a distance. Furthermore, because of their relatively low RPMs, its relatively easy for even the most hapless of birds to stay clear of the rotating blades. In fact, its these rotating blades, combined with the generated noise, which does wonders to drive them away.
At the end of the day, unless you want to be eating grass and nuts out of your fecal/grass adobe hut, just ignore the crackpots and those who would ignorantly repeat their crack-pottery.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have a "piracy code of conduct" it's called The Law. ISPs should not be conducting vigilante operations at the whim of private enterprises. If copyright holders wish to stop a user from file-sharing they must take that user to court and deal with them under the judicial oversight of the courts.
Brilliant idea! You just put every would-be independent musician out of business. With them you took every startup, small, and medium business which produces anything currently protected by IP laws.
Without some low cost protective measures, no matter how much you want to dispute it, that's the reality you're ensuring. If you believe your use is non-infringing, you should be required to prove it, and not the other way around. An IP rights holder should not be expected to take thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of people to court to protect their property. Period. The onus should be on the consumer, not the owner.
Like it or not, the current "draconian" system exists exactly because so many are abusing. If people would stop stealing and abusing, the other side would once again relax. Unfortunately, because the majority believe they have the right to steal, everyone suffers. If you want to fix the system, kick every pirate you know in the nuts a couple of times per day and things will correct it self. As is, every DCMA related complaint you have is a direct result of pirates stealing shit left and right. Fix the problem, pirates, and everything else will follow.
So do you have any real solutions to the cause, or just want to complain about the effect? Seriously, other than draconian clubbing or offenders, what other solutions exist?
Something to keep in mind, as smart phones become more common, so is WIFI radiation exposure right next to your head. That's going to be roughly 4x as much TX power right next to your ear where the skull is less likely to stop it all.
I'm just say'n...
1m in plane landings may be catastrophic,
Actually that's not likely. If the runway tolerances are so tight, you wouldn't be trying to land there, let alone autoland there. You're talking about a runway which has +- 1m for the airplane to safely remain within. Someone would be looking for a different runway. Generally speaking, on small planes land on such runways.
old-fashioned pistol dueling
I see, I originally took that to mean within the greater Western gunfighter context. After you clarification, I see where you're coming from now.
Agreed.
Q: Why do you always shoot people in the back?
A: How else would I do it? Do I look stupid??
LOL. Ya, he's got a point.
the broad side of a barn from 20 paces, let alone a man-sized target.
I think you missed the part where the 20 paces concept is bullshit. It didn't happen. There's only one account where it can even be verified it ever happened at those extended distances. And as you suggest, people did miss a lot, even at the five to ten foot distances. Ya I know, hard to believe, but shooting scared with a pistol is hard. Just the same, at those close ranges, many did score a hit.
Most of the people that had really bad reputations as gun fighters tended to shoot people in the back or when the other person was unprepared and/or unprovoked. The occasions when it was truly a duel in the street was it self extremely rare and gloried by Hollywood. Simply put, duels were fairly rare. Duels at distances greater than spitting distance were all but myth. Despite this, people did miss and multiple shots were not uncommon.
Just the same, he who drew first always had the advantage. And its not just me saying so - its brain science. It takes longer to react than it does to initiate. Of course, once that first shot is fired, and you missed, it can go either way. But it doesn't change the fact the initiated had the slight advantage up until that point.
Its widely believed the 20 paces myth was a carry over from the Gentlemanly duels of days before where people typically did not die and more often than not the exchange scared the offending party into a retraction and apology. It was fairly rare for someone to die in these exchanges.
Agreed. Someone who draws first would (theoretically) be the one who DIDN'T think they could win, and as such would prolly be a little more nervous than the other guy.
Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.
I guess theoretically. But factually, the one who draws first likely knows its an advantage and would therefore attempt to draw first - especially if its known your opponent is not only fast but accurate.
You can read my other post as to why he's absolutely wrong about gunfights.
I don't care if it is illegal, the government is in the wrong trying to enforce such laws
It seems you're more than happy to work for zero compensation, and plan to do so for the rest of your life. If this is not true, you're a hypocrite. So which is it? You'll never and have never accepted a paycheck and therefore your argument may have a tiny glimmer of legitimacy or you're full of crap and everyone should ignore you?
That's what I thought.
And I also question the entire theory.
Its an extremely well documented fact that he who goes first has a significant advantage because its takes a very long time for someone to react. Its brain science. The person reacting is at a time disadvantage of ~1/4 second! That's why people can literally remove a cocked gun from your hand faster than you can pull the trigger. Literally! The sad thing is, it works every time so long as you don't screw up. Why? Because he who is reacting is a lot slower. It takes your brain that long to simply tell your body to START reacting. If his conclusions are even close to being accurate, disarming someone would be a crap shoot at best; and its not, so long as you're properly skilled.
Additionally, history even proves he's wrong. Historically, he who draws first, so long as he's accurate, wins a gunfight. Period. And, contrary to the movies, they would typically stand fairly close together, around five to ten feet. Any further, and most people would miss. So it was none of that 20-50 paces apart crap (40-100 total) you see in movies.
In short, I think this research is complete bullshit as a huge body of evidence directly contradicts his findings, as least as it relates to gunfights. Simply put, he's absolutely wrong because that's not what he tested. Hollywood does it for drama - not historical accuracy, or any similarity to reality. Brain science says he's wrong. Martial arts says he's wrong. History says he's wrong. My money is on him being wrong.
First example video I found on YoueTube
I am entitled to it. I (being a member of the People) just voluntarily allow only you (the content creator) to manage it for a limited period of time.
Not until the copyright expires. I have no problem with reasonable copyright terms but this is yet another straw man as its completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. Excessive copyright terms are not justification to steal something today. So contrary to your flawed assertion, no you absolutely are not entitled to it as you see fit, on your terms and no other.
allow people to pay a reasonable licensing fee by choice for the content they provide
This is a straw man used time and time again. Even several studies prove otherwise. People steal just because they can and its usually driven by a sense of self entitlement. In other words, you have it, I want it, therefore you should give it to me, without any regard for its cost. Why pay $0.99 for a song when I'm not only entitled to it, but can receive that entitlement for free?
At the end of the day, people are stealing because they can and the price is seemingly not an issue. And saying they wouldn't have otherwise payed for it is also a straw man as most studies indicate somewhere between 10%-25% who stole it would have otherwise purchased it. And for smaller businesses, taking a loss of 10%-25% can be a make or break deal. While not in any studies I've read, I strongly suspect that if the sense of self entitlement were addressed, that percentage would likely rise.
From what I've read on this, Google devs are under NDA and can't just willy-nilly discuss the issues with the public. But they -do- have good reason for what they've done and they aren't just covering their ears and ignoring everyone.
There are many ways around that. Often companies approach this in one of three ways. One, make someone unknown to the outside world use a non-company email address and explore the issue with those more knowledgeable without fully letting the cat out of the bag. Or two, privately email one or more of the knowledgeable developers, politely state the sensitivity of the issue due to an NDA and ask for general guidance based on general details. Or three, hire one or more of these guys for a short consulting gig and officially extend the NDA.
Google chose a forth option which appears to make no one happy. I think the fact that Google chose the path least traveled speaks loudly about Google in general. Others seem to agree.
I love how they blast Google for not being willing to meet halfway, but they're doing exactly the same thing.
It doesn't appear that's the case. It seems Google coded a bunch stuff without consulting other, more knowledgeable kernel developers. Google then announces what they've done and throw it over the wall. The feedback is the design stinks and is very fragile. They also ask why Google didn't leverage the existing infrastructure which is already working, and which seems to have been in place long before Google started, which addresses their very issue. Nokia via their Linux/OMAP ARM efforts don't seem to have trouble using the existing infrastructure.
Google responds by saying the existing infrastructure isn't a complete solution for their needs. The kernel guys ask why Google didn't simply update the existing code to address their specific needs rather than add poorly conceived new code/interfaces. Even the Linux/Nokia guys step forward and state the existing infrastructure is plenty useful and powerful and is easily able to address Google's need with only minor changes. Furthermore, the general consensus is that the required changes can be made such that its fully compatible with their userspace applications.
Google response? Who gives a shit?!?!? We don't need it upstream. Let everyone else fend for themselves. We don't care if it ads bloat and is unusable for anyone else.
Now the kernel guys are left with unmaintained code, which nobody wants, which exists only to add bloat to the kernel, which benefits nobody but Google. Seems to me, Google doesn't care to meet in the middle and they've made it very clear its Google's way or no way. And as result, Android's kernel is more bloated because of it. Seems like a lose-lose for everybody while highlighting just how huge Google's ego can be.
A book is an investment of my time to read it, and for that I want something well written and not a steamy pile of crud. The publisher wades through the 85% crap sent in to find the 1% of the remaining 15% that is worth publishing.
That's true for general stories, but not true for text books, trade manuals, technical how tos, education series, etc. That's because they generally approach authors they believe are capable for authoring the material. They then require samples, gratis, up front. So their investment is nearly zero up front and they have a sense of what the material will look like. They provide high level feedback to redirect as needed; so as to better target the intended audience. They then carrot the author to complete the material on a deadline in exchange for a very small payment (third world hourly rates) and a pittance of a royalty over time.
Now as for the 1% argument, they generally use interns and other extremely cheap labor to go though the bulk to find interesting material which is then provided upstream. The people capable of making a decision actually see a tiny percept of the overall noise. As such, their costs are extremely low here too.
As was originally stated, the bulk of their costs are in advertising and printing.
Believe what you want but you're ignoring basic physics.
Learn the difference between static and dynamic friction. Here's a hint, brakes work off of friction. Learn what the impact of brake glazing will do to braking performance. Learn what the heating of brakes will do to braking performance. And this is all just off the top of my head.
There is a radar component which gives course corrections to the interceptor. The missile was there, "missiling". The interceptor was, well, intercepting. But without a radar to give course corrections during the interception flight, it can't hit the missile. As such, both can "perform as expected", and still fail to result in an interception.
That, of course, doesn't mean everything worked as planned.
Basic math seems to support that conclusion. An 80% reduction of velocity, from 28 MPH is roughly 5.6 MPH. Based on that, it does not any other factors should be assumed.
Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.
Not likely. Most anything that penetrates vehicle armor today is gong to cut through that stuff like like air. Things that take out vehicle armor include high velocity penetrator rounds and shape charges. Shape charges work by super heating copper alloy and pushing through armor. Its literally hot butter through a knife. Penetrator rounds work by going a couple thousand feet per second, combined with a small frontal area of a super hardened projectile. There is no indication this material will have any affect in this area.
On the other hand, unlike what you see in the movies, being shot while wearing a bullet proof vest typically results in black and purple bruises at best and more typically broken bones. Basically these vests prevent penetration. But even though it stops penetration, the blunt force trauma is still transfered! Think of a heavy aluminum baseball bat hitting, full swing, for every bullet stopped. And THAT force can very likely be significantly reduced using this material.
As for military applications, ceramic plates are typically used but those plates don't cover your entire body; else it would seriously inhibit mobility. That's why so many want to see Dragon Skin issued to soldiers. Which is to say, it completely stops the transfer of energy in addition to the projectile. Additionally, Dragon Skin is more effective as stopping nade shrapnel than is traditional ballistic armors.
Just the same, a lot of force is still transferred though both the anti-ballistic materials and traditional ceramic plates. Again, this may serve as a complimentary technology.
People, especially bikers, getting hit by cars in my town is a problem,
Which completely proves my point. A localized issue does not make a world problem. Nor does it make a newsworthy item to resounding over and over again. You're "point" completely supports EXACTLY my point.
Overall, worldwide, people are not mindlessly being mowed down left and right. Overall, worldwide, there was never a bird/windmill problem.
Your own link proves there is no such limit. The value is changed on a per hardware basis. Period.
Any more FUD or just pure bullshit you wish to push?
The fake-degree guy got fired from his job not for performing badly but for having a fake degree. What does this say about people who have a real degree that they didn't notice a difference in performance or at the very least that it took so long to find out?
Far too often I run into people who have degrees, who know absolutely nothing. Far too often having a degree is simply used as a socially acceptable means to discriminate against those who do not. I've spoken with many who said I shouldn't look at it that way. Think of it as a character test to show who can follow through and who have proved they want something bad enough. When I ask, what about those who were excluded and are now actively punished because they had a broken home, a sick parent, minor legal issues, so on and so on, they should be punished for the rest of their life? In some of these cases, they actually proved more character than any degree can reflect. People generally change the subject after that.
The simple fact is, I've know far too many people without a degree who mop the floor with those who do have a degree, but it doesn't stop the discrimination. I'm not talking about doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. A medical equipment salesmen needs a degree? So how's that art history degree helping with that? It doesn't. And BTW, I really met this guy and he absolutely agrees his degree is of no use for his job. His degree simply opened the door for him. Okay, so maybe they have that barrier to ensure the salesmen is an effective communicator? A degree doesn't indicate that in the least and wouldn't you figure that out during an interview?
Hell, if you ever watch various shows were they do simple interviews on the street, they interview teachers, college students, lawyers, brokers, etc. (different cities and different shows, different people), and the vast majority of the time they can't answer the most basic of questions. For the majority of people, a degree is something they have to complete and put behind them, not something they need to retain and carry with them. And the sad thing, its not that they only pick the people with the stupid answers. They just pick the people who provide the most entertaining of answers. The vast majority of people incorrectly answer the questions.
Far too often I see people with completely unrelated degrees get a pass simply because they have a degree. Simple fact is, the rule of the day is its a socially acceptable excuse to discriminate in non-specialized, non-technical fields. So if you have a degree, any degree, you'll get a pass. And since discrimination is everywhere and most don't even use their degree, you can certainly understand why some may be willing to look the other way to obtain a fake degree. After all, its simply breaking down an artificial barrier. At the end of the day, did he perform the work to acceptable standards? If the answer is yes, it highlights the fact that a degree is simply not required for the job; no matter how important some people wish to make themselves appear.
just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue,
Not really jumping in the middle of the specific exchange here, but the majority absolutely do not have a clue. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good. Popular used be large codpieces and long, curly, falic toes on the end of your shoe. Popular was putting lead in your food, on your skin, and in your hair.
To suggest that popular is somehow correct or in the right is to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Even today, superior products often lose out to superior advertising. And everyone in advertising knows it.
Popular is about marketing and pandering. Having a clue is about knowledge and an education. The first is easy. The second, few Americans know anything about. To say the majority are completely clueless is an accurate statement. In fact, even our forefathers would completely agree. It was so important to them, to exclude the clueless, they as much said so right in the US Constitution. Since that time, various amendments have been made which have drastically empowered the clueless, which in turn has allowed the government to completely run amuck; contrary to our forefather's best efforts and wishes. The fact that such things were even allowed to take place pretty proves cluelessness is very much alive and well.
On a different note, the impression I always got was that the magnitude of the issue was played up by NIMBYs and anti-environmentalists who were finding their previous arguments of "but they're ugly" and "but I'm invested in the status quo" to be unpersuasive. They used the bird thing to try to drag environmentalists along with them, and it worked to an extent, but not for very long.
That's my point. Its a problem that simply didn't exist. Having a wide spread problem is different from saying it never happens. People get hit by cars but it doesn't mean its a wide spread problem. To say it does, is to manifest a problem which simply doesn't exist.
The other issues you mention would have ALL been addressed through simply market economics. Birds and bird nests are bad for most mechanical structures. Their fecal material more quickly erodes paint. Birds being struck likely cause damage to relatively fragile and expensive blades. Depending on the design, nests can become fire hazards. So on and so on. Simply put, there has never been a real problem here.
That's not a migratory bird which is the central complaint behind the issue. There is a difference between an occasional bird hitting a windmill and it being a problem worth discussion.
I'm not saying birds don't ever get hit. And I'm not saying its impossible. Statistically it would be very unlikely for it to never happen. Birds run into buildings too. That doesn't mean come migration time thousands of birds spontaneously join mid morning meetings though windows. In other words, there simply isn't an issue.
If its such a problem with windmills, all buildings need to be torn down. All aircraft must be grounded. All construction and logging must stop. These are all areas which are affected to some degree with bird habitat and bird strikes. But just because an occasional strike, building impact, or bird ingestion occurs doesn't mean its even worth the time it takes for us to write this exchange; unless you're prepared to explain how we can better protect aircraft, windows, and logging.
The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20%
It may be a niche but that price in an electric car is likely to be like purchasing a $35,000 - $40,000 vehicle which burns fossil fuels, once you include savings of fuel of oil over a reasonable lifespan. That does help a bit, especially if leasing these become an option.
Just some quick math, assuming 15k miles/year and 16mpg and $3.00/g. Plus, ~$200 in oil changes per year, assuming 2000 miles between. Over five years that's a fuel cost of roughly $15,000 over five years. Compare that to an electric vehicle's cost of ~$0.02 per mile, or roughly $1500 over five years. The difference in ownership is ~13,500 over five years. So buying a fossil car worth $50,000 is roughly the same as buying an all electric car worth $36,500. While that's still a low of money, that suddenly puts it into price range for a lot more people, especially if they becomes available on lease.
Granted, at the end of that five years, you may need a new battery pack, but from what I read that's likely to be several thousand dollars and likely an improved pack with additional range and capacity.
Again, those are just some fun numbers and not meant to be taken as hard number to bank on. Just the same, I hope it shows that the higher expense associated with an all electric vehicle can be significantly offset by fossil fuel savings.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
Its my understanding that the bird strike issue NEVER existed and that it was completely fabricated by environmentalist. The simply fact is, the blades on the majority of windmills are large and turn at low RPMs. In fact, if they turn too fast, they'll destroy themselves. The old windmills used for centuries on farms and ranches are a much greater threat and yet I've never heard a peep about their use.
Remember, tip speed is everything to a windmill. That many sound ominous but let's think about that for a second. For a windmill to be efficient, it must be fairly large in size. That means large and lengthy blades. With large blades come extremely large forces. Most windmills target 30 (very large) - 100 (smaller "home" unit)RPM. At those speeds, you can actually watch the tip spinning. But because the blade is so long, the tip speed is still very high. Since the primary complaint from environmentalists is directed at commercial wind farms, for this discussion we can generally ignore the ones running faster 60 RPM or so.
The reality is, most (all that I've seen; two) studies on the subject indicate that windmills are a natural scarecrow and tend to keep birds at a distance. Furthermore, because of their relatively low RPMs, its relatively easy for even the most hapless of birds to stay clear of the rotating blades. In fact, its these rotating blades, combined with the generated noise, which does wonders to drive them away.
At the end of the day, unless you want to be eating grass and nuts out of your fecal/grass adobe hut, just ignore the crackpots and those who would ignorantly repeat their crack-pottery.
Example, this windmill is completely out of control because of a failed braking system.
Here's a properly functioning wind mill farm - likely operating near peak. Notice an airplane could almost fly between the blades, let alone a tiny bird.