It's telling you leave out the rest of the sentence...
And pointing out the errors in peoples' train of thought and lack of logic isn't denegrating, it's educating. True, at some points I could be more PC, but by and large, the EM-fanfappers are an annoying lot, insensitive to logic and rational argumentation. And if you feel hurt by my direct way of communicating, it's mainly your own problem. Compared to posting something sceptical on an EM-fanfapper forum, and getting the flack there, you'll see that my reactions are actually mild and moderate in comparison.
Besides, you do not *need* to feel involved or addressed when I talk about EM-fanfappers, after all, I don't with their 'pathosceptic' neither.
It IS a perpetuum mobile, if the EM drive would work as advertised. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis or wheel, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
It's bullocks.
However, the advantages you describe (not having to take your fuel with you) can be found with a Solar/laser/Lightsail. with the not so minor advantage that that actually works.
I've already responded several times to this question to others, but I, once again, will repeat it here:
In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim of the EM drive would be true. You just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis or wheel, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile and/or free energy machine.
True, it's normal to have some bias, as a human being, towards something you really want. But logic and rationality should temper that, and there is very little of that to be seen with some (notably, the EM fanfappers).
I mean, I'm all FOR space exploration and science, scientific discovery and technological inventions. Myself, I've sponsored the LightSail of the Planetary society, because I think it's worthwhile. Some may see that as wasted money, and depending on your view, that's a valid remark, but it's not for me, since I *DO* want that project to happen. I don't have to give account on what I spend my own money for my own longings and wishes.
But, even though I would also love and wish that people could travel to the stars with a microwave strapped to their rocket... it's just bullocks. Imho, it does a DISSERVICE to that wish, as long as you want that wish to become an actual reality. Claiming something equivalent to tooth-fairy magic will propel humanity to the stars is ridiculous and doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the table.
Reality is, the only feasible way to get to the stars on the short (well, medium) run, is by solar/lasersails. A project like Starchip *might* be feasible within this century. A human ship, even when imagining new energysources and technology, will still take hundreds of years at best. Tooth-fairy magic aka, the EM drive) will bring you nowhere in a trillion years, that's the difference.
Ergo, if people wish and long for space exploration and startravel, they should rather promote and sponsor things like the Lightsail and more realistic - or at least plausible - systems, instead of fanfapping about the most implausible nonsense out there. Magical thinking and promoting any crackpottery that comes along under the guise (and platitude-use) of "you have to be open minded" (- until your brain falls out - ) is *detrimental* to science and progress, NOT a help.
Serviscope_minor is right. Look, what do you NOT understand? It's claimed the EM drive gives an indefinitely constant thrust for a constant energy-input as a reactionless drive. In that case, it IS a over unity/perpetuum mobile. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
The fact of the matter is, the kinetic energy is the SQUARE of the velocity, so at a certain point, it will surpass the energy you use to generate thrust with the EM drive in the first place. At that moment, the EM drive can act as a free energy machine or a perpetuum mobile (the two are not exactly the same, but it doesn't matter, since you can get both once you have netto surplus energy.
I've made the same argument with a post to another poster.
Then again, I've been doing this from the start of the whole 'EM-drive' nonsense years ago, and I keep seeing the same arguments and questions - sometimes from exactly the same people. It's getting depressing.
1)The 'empirical testing' has showed nothing that isn't FAR more likely to be explained by a measure error than by a breaking of all known physics. The fact that Tajmar found NO force anymore merely by inverting the direction of the device is strongly indicative of that. After all, if it were a reactionless device, the direction (left, right, upwards, downwards,...) would not matter in measuring the force if that force would really be due to the 'resonance of microwaves', as claimed. It *does* make a difference if you envisage external influences, like magnetic fields or thermal expansion. Also indicative of this is the fact that Eagleworks measures, for the same input, 40 to 128 mN. That means, for the same experiment with the same input, one gets a diverengence of more than 60% for the outcome.
2)It violates not only CoM, but also CoE, and that merely by a microwave oven... It's impossible for that to be true, not simply because it violates the most basic laws of physics, but also because if it *were* true, we would have observed such a thing (at such low energies) already ages ago.
3)It IS a perpetuum mobile. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
There is no way around this. If you have reactionless drive with constant thrust, you can ALWAYS get more energy out of it, because its kinetic energy is the square of it's velocity. So whatever energy you put in, at a certain moment, you'll get *more*, and that more can then be used to drive itself (and more). Ergo, you have your wonderful and amazing free energy and perpetuum mobile machine.
Luckily, you seem to agree such a machine is nonsense. Unfortunately, you do not realise that a reactionless drive with constant thrust (which is what is claimed here) DOES make a perpetuum mobile/over unity device.
That doesn't matter. This is also an always-recurring (faulty) argument of EM fans: you have to put energy in it, so it can't be a perpetual motion machine.
False.
A perpetuum mobile does not require that you put 'no' energy in it, it is sufficient that it provides MORE energy than you put in it. If you have a netto surplus, thus, you get more energy-output then one has put in there in total, it breaks CoE and you have a perpetuum mobile (and a 'free energy' machine). This holds true, even if you have to pour vast quantities of energy in it, as long as you get *more* out then you put in the system.
Hear, hear! So many people do not realise this. Nay, they are even convinced Newton was 'proved wrong' by Einstein (well, the laws). This is not the case, as you correctly point out. Newtons laws are as valid as ever, however, only in its own restricted field and context, under certain conditions, thus. That's why GR didn't refute Newtons' gravitional laws, but rather *incorporate* them, as a special case.
The same case will be if we ever find a 'theory of everything': this theory will not 'invalidate' the GR, but rather incorporate it. It wont suddenly allow for a breaking of CoE and CoM as the EM drive pertains to do, rather it will be better in (extreme) instances where our current laws break down, like in the singularity of a black hole. It won't suddenly contradict the observations we've made for the past 400 years. GR will remain valid in its own set of references, however, just as it is now.
I'm surprised this 'EM' drive keeps popping up again and again, like some sort of recurring infectuous disease. It's clear it can't work as advertised (as a reactionless drive). You also correctly conclude the device would amount to also being a perpetuum mobile device, since it doesn't only breaks CoM, but also CoE. I also subscribe to your idea about the 'don't be as open minded that your brain falls out'; I've said exactly the same to all those EM-fanfappers out there that think saying 'be open minded' to whatever crackpottery is somehow conductive to the advancement of science. It isn't. Science needs some minimum limits, or one would waste all your time, effort and money on an infinite myriad of crackpot-ideas and nonsensical postulations.
That said, I'm getting so tired of this immer-recurring nonsense about the EM drive, I'm beginning to think it might be better to spend the efforts/time/money on it, so we can finally put this idiotic meme-like assertion of a working reactionless drive and free energy-machine behind us. No doubt a new one will emerge, with again lots of fanfappers around it in the future, but at least we'll be rid of such constant nonsense in the media for some years.
"As an aerospace engineer, I can assure you that this is something that shouldn't have happened."
Pheww! Lucky you are an aerospace engineer, or we wouldn't have known that! We were all thinking that exploding rockets were just part of the normal routine! Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Obv... I mean, Aerospace Engineer!
I know the term. But I happen to disagree with it.
That's why I said, Gods as in: the Greek Gods. Contrary to our contemporary idea about god, the Greek gods were full of flaws, and knew things like envy, revenge, pettiness, and all other 'human' emotions, good and bad. Including hubris.;-)
They didn't differ from humans on a psychological and emotional level, thus... only they had vast powers exceeding anything a human had back than, and immortal life.
We currently already have vast powers. With things we consider 'normal' today, one would easily have gotten God-status in ancient Greek times. Something like a nuclear bomb that could destroy a city in the blink of an eye would only have been considered a god's power back then. All our scientific advancement has brought tremendous power, be it good (medicines) or bad (weapons).
No, we already succeeded on the powerlevel, and this will only continue. There is, at least in principle, no limit to scientific knowledge and technological progression.This leaves only immortality, but with stemcell-research and parabiosis, etc., it's only a matter of time we'll get lifespans of hundreds, and maybe thousands of years as well.
So, as I said, we're pretty close to 'Gods' as the ancient Greek envisioned them.
But true to some extend. As a whole, there is a lot more flamebait, trolling, and "Look at what I dare to say!" (but anonymously) -posts coming from Anonymous Cowards than from people under a regular nickname.
I know, I know. In principle, it's the arguments that count, and not who says it. And it's a fine principle. Only, there is no real reason not to say it under your regular nick, if you're convinced enough to say it in the first place. The fact one doesn't, can have several reasons, but all of them don't seem that praiseworthy to me. One reason could be one is a lazy ass who can't be bothered registering for a one-time comment. But that's a false reason in most instances, since many AC actually come back and comment again and again, and there is no reason why one wouldn't register a nick once, if it's for continuous use on a site you're posting on regularly anyway.
Another reason, is reputation. And more precisely, the fear of losing it. That points to a defect in character, though, since it means you're afraid of saying your own opinion because of the (bad) rap you would get from it. I guess this is where the 'coward' comes into the AC.
A third reason is just liking to be a troll, or finding pleasure in flamebaiting, without giving the opportunity to others to 'get back' on 'your' nick. It hangs together with 'shadenfreude'; either towards other posters, or towards - as is in this case - the person of the topic in question. Which in this case is Elon Musk. And indeed, as one can see, the majority of AC's are often negative and derisive against Elon Musk or his projects. But one lacks the guts to do the same under ones' own name/nick. It's the flair and taste of impunity that makes it extra sweet, it's like kicking someone without any chance of the person knowing who did it. Those kind of things appeal to the lowest in human nature, but yet it's often used, even in more serious r/l situations, as is shown by the Taharrush in Cologne.
While it starkly differs in level, it's the same principles: indulgement of base desires because of little fear of any consequences.
While there is always *some* restrictions on businesses even in a free market (child labor in the West is not allowed for instance), those restrictions normally do not involve price-settings on a private company running a for profit businesses in the free market.
In this instance, it's just a matter of demand and supply. As other have pointed out, it does not make sense to complain about this. People not wanting to pay "3 times more" could just as well ordered a regular taxi-service.
And if that regular one still asked more money: what are they complaining about?
Imagine, then, that Uber didn't exist. Then all people wanting to leave with a taxi would need to pay that regular taxi-service, who asks even more than Uber.
So... why is this a topic? why are they complaining? there is NO logical grounds for it. Whether they have to pay higher prices to uber due to higher demand, the fact is and remains that without Uber, they would need to pay *even more*. So shut the fuck up, I'd say to those whiners.
Because it would invariably clash with free speech, and make an even greater legal mess of things than it already is, and would fly in the face of all former legal precedents.
Any discussion needs a reasonable premise, otherwise there is no sense to it. So if your stance is: "well, it *could* be possible" - in a absolute stance of hypothetical possibilities, than I'll answer as I always do: in an unlimited universe, everything is possible. It's also possible that aliens land on Earth and zap everyone to death who even speaks of copyright. It's possible that God, or the Spaghettimonster, makes a new law that prohibits any IP-laws, except for his own commandments. It's possible Trump wins and makes looking at the sky a capital offence since he patented or copyrighted air (and made the necessary laws for that).
So in that absolute stance, everything 'could'. In a more normal viewpoint, considering precedents and legal ramifications, what you suggest 'couldn't'. If you start making/saying an address illegal, one can as well make saying a name illegal, or a word that describes something specific. After all, as long as it's defining a particular object or something of that object (like the place), one could follow the same reasoning. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to go that route, not even politicians who are in the pocket of corporations.
That said, I'm already amazed the EU court was already stupid enough to go as far as they did.
"It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel"
Ermm, no, it's exactly the same. Why the heck would it be illegal to say the address of a brothel? I'm not following you.
Maybe you want to infer the difference lays in the legality of the original object, but that was the point I was making: it doesn't, normally.
To have a better example than a brothel, let's say drugs (which is more common to be illegal). Now then, imagine a journalist writing that in this and that dancing (including the address) one could buy drugs, would any judge rule that he was 'buying drugs' by providing the address of those dancings? Would he say "well, you made that article for profit, and thus it was for you to make sure if there was any drugs being dealt or not, and since there was, you're now guilty of drug-buying yourself."
I don't think there's any democracy where this would fly.
EVEN if there was, in some country, a law against 'facilitating' drug-use, and one was of the opinion this factual reporting was doing exactly that - and mind the implications such a thing would have on free speech - then still it would be hard to argue he was buying drugs when he didn't, but only gave addresses.
Similarly, if you want to make a sensible - well, I mean an internal logical one - case against giving a link, you would need to do it based on a different law, like 'facilitating copy-right infringement'. Countries are free to make those laws (not that I'm a proponent of that neither, but at least it would make more logical sense), but with some safeguards, I guess one could make such a terrible law. But saying, like now, that a link itself is copy-right infringement is absurd. Nothing has been copied.
"the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
Nowhere is it mentioned whether or not there has to be a commercial incentive to speak of copyright(-infringement). It's actually nonsensical to claim so. If I write a book, and you copy it verbatim and *give it away for free*.... you think that is not copyright-infringement?
I very much doubt such a premise, yet the court here came up with that.. pulling it out of their ass, clearly.
But this case goes further than that. A link, on itself, does not constitute a copyright-infringement: no copy has been made by the link. Those who made the copyright violation is the party that put it on the site. The link itself is merely a reference to it. If I say: there and there you can find a physical book to read, am now infringing copyright, if the book was made without authorization, but wasn't made by me? In the physical world, no court would even dream claiming that, yet they claim it without thinking if exactly the same happens 'digitally' on the internet.
It just doesn't matter. A link is a reference, an address, it's NOT a copy of an original work. Even a link to a place where a work is shown which is violating copyright, isn't a copy of that work on itself. Just like, when I give you the address of the library, the shelf/booknumber and reference to a particular book isn't violating copyright, EVEN if the book itself would be an unauthorized copy.
In that case, they should make a law that prohibits *facilitating* infringement, and put up some safeguards, like it has to be done willfully, purposefully and knowingly (in a reasonable manner) that it was infringement and intended as such, with commercial intent, etc.
What it is NOT, is copyright-infringement on itself. A link does *not* constitute (a copy of) the original good; it's a mere reference. You have not copied the work if you put a link to it, therefore the link itself can not be copyright-infringement. A copyright violation does not handle *how* or *why*, and *with what ease* such a violation may be possible, but just the fact of unauthorized copying of the original work. As long as it's not copied - and it wasn't copied by the site which placed the link - there is no copyright-infringement.
It's so clear-cut, yet you always have people (not talking about you) that invent the most outrageous things just to dispute the logically obvious.
I'm not a proponent of making a 'facilitate copy-infringement' law neither to be honest; I think it's a bad way to go. But at least it would make sense, from a logical viewpoint. Now it doesn't. One basically claims infringement of copyright where no copy, nor infringement, was even made (by the party concerned).
Slashdot Mirror
It's telling you leave out the rest of the sentence...
And pointing out the errors in peoples' train of thought and lack of logic isn't denegrating, it's educating. True, at some points I could be more PC, but by and large, the EM-fanfappers are an annoying lot, insensitive to logic and rational argumentation. And if you feel hurt by my direct way of communicating, it's mainly your own problem. Compared to posting something sceptical on an EM-fanfapper forum, and getting the flack there, you'll see that my reactions are actually mild and moderate in comparison.
Besides, you do not *need* to feel involved or addressed when I talk about EM-fanfappers, after all, I don't with their 'pathosceptic' neither.
No, it is.
It IS a perpetuum mobile, if the EM drive would work as advertised. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis or wheel, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
It's bullocks.
However, the advantages you describe (not having to take your fuel with you) can be found with a Solar/laser/Lightsail. with the not so minor advantage that that actually works.
I've already responded several times to this question to others, but I, once again, will repeat it here:
In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim of the EM drive would be true. You just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis or wheel, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile and/or free energy machine.
True, it's normal to have some bias, as a human being, towards something you really want. But logic and rationality should temper that, and there is very little of that to be seen with some (notably, the EM fanfappers).
I mean, I'm all FOR space exploration and science, scientific discovery and technological inventions. Myself, I've sponsored the LightSail of the Planetary society, because I think it's worthwhile. Some may see that as wasted money, and depending on your view, that's a valid remark, but it's not for me, since I *DO* want that project to happen. I don't have to give account on what I spend my own money for my own longings and wishes.
But, even though I would also love and wish that people could travel to the stars with a microwave strapped to their rocket... it's just bullocks. Imho, it does a DISSERVICE to that wish, as long as you want that wish to become an actual reality. Claiming something equivalent to tooth-fairy magic will propel humanity to the stars is ridiculous and doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the table.
Reality is, the only feasible way to get to the stars on the short (well, medium) run, is by solar/lasersails. A project like Starchip *might* be feasible within this century. A human ship, even when imagining new energysources and technology, will still take hundreds of years at best. Tooth-fairy magic aka, the EM drive) will bring you nowhere in a trillion years, that's the difference.
Ergo, if people wish and long for space exploration and startravel, they should rather promote and sponsor things like the Lightsail and more realistic - or at least plausible - systems, instead of fanfapping about the most implausible nonsense out there. Magical thinking and promoting any crackpottery that comes along under the guise (and platitude-use) of "you have to be open minded" (- until your brain falls out - ) is *detrimental* to science and progress, NOT a help.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Serviscope_minor is right. Look, what do you NOT understand? It's claimed the EM drive gives an indefinitely constant thrust for a constant energy-input as a reactionless drive. In that case, it IS a over unity/perpetuum mobile. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
The fact of the matter is, the kinetic energy is the SQUARE of the velocity, so at a certain point, it will surpass the energy you use to generate thrust with the EM drive in the first place. At that moment, the EM drive can act as a free energy machine or a perpetuum mobile (the two are not exactly the same, but it doesn't matter, since you can get both once you have netto surplus energy.
Correct.
I've made the same argument with a post to another poster.
Then again, I've been doing this from the start of the whole 'EM-drive' nonsense years ago, and I keep seeing the same arguments and questions - sometimes from exactly the same people. It's getting depressing.
The errors of thought made herein:
1)The 'empirical testing' has showed nothing that isn't FAR more likely to be explained by a measure error than by a breaking of all known physics. The fact that Tajmar found NO force anymore merely by inverting the direction of the device is strongly indicative of that. After all, if it were a reactionless device, the direction (left, right, upwards, downwards,...) would not matter in measuring the force if that force would really be due to the 'resonance of microwaves', as claimed. It *does* make a difference if you envisage external influences, like magnetic fields or thermal expansion. Also indicative of this is the fact that Eagleworks measures, for the same input, 40 to 128 mN. That means, for the same experiment with the same input, one gets a diverengence of more than 60% for the outcome.
2)It violates not only CoM, but also CoE, and that merely by a microwave oven... It's impossible for that to be true, not simply because it violates the most basic laws of physics, but also because if it *were* true, we would have observed such a thing (at such low energies) already ages ago.
3)It IS a perpetuum mobile. It does not matter if it requires energy; that's not the defining characteristic. As long as you get MORE energy out of it than you put in, it IS a perpetuum mobile, and, by extension, a free energy machine. In fact, it's fairly easy to make one, if the claim would be true: you just need two EM-drives spinning on (the arms of) an axis, in space, let's say. You put an initial small amount of electricity in it, and it gets spinning, where the axis is connected to a generator. Do note that accelerating with constant thrust without loosing propellant, the 'arms' kinetic energy grows proportional to *the square* of the velocity. At some point the kinetic energy can be shown to exceed the work done by the reactionless thrusters and thus the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile.
There is no way around this. If you have reactionless drive with constant thrust, you can ALWAYS get more energy out of it, because its kinetic energy is the square of it's velocity. So whatever energy you put in, at a certain moment, you'll get *more*, and that more can then be used to drive itself (and more). Ergo, you have your wonderful and amazing free energy and perpetuum mobile machine.
Luckily, you seem to agree such a machine is nonsense. Unfortunately, you do not realise that a reactionless drive with constant thrust (which is what is claimed here) DOES make a perpetuum mobile/over unity device.
That doesn't matter. This is also an always-recurring (faulty) argument of EM fans: you have to put energy in it, so it can't be a perpetual motion machine.
False.
A perpetuum mobile does not require that you put 'no' energy in it, it is sufficient that it provides MORE energy than you put in it. If you have a netto surplus, thus, you get more energy-output then one has put in there in total, it breaks CoE and you have a perpetuum mobile (and a 'free energy' machine). This holds true, even if you have to pour vast quantities of energy in it, as long as you get *more* out then you put in the system.
And such a system does not exist.
Hear, hear! So many people do not realise this. Nay, they are even convinced Newton was 'proved wrong' by Einstein (well, the laws). This is not the case, as you correctly point out. Newtons laws are as valid as ever, however, only in its own restricted field and context, under certain conditions, thus. That's why GR didn't refute Newtons' gravitional laws, but rather *incorporate* them, as a special case.
The same case will be if we ever find a 'theory of everything': this theory will not 'invalidate' the GR, but rather incorporate it. It wont suddenly allow for a breaking of CoE and CoM as the EM drive pertains to do, rather it will be better in (extreme) instances where our current laws break down, like in the singularity of a black hole. It won't suddenly contradict the observations we've made for the past 400 years. GR will remain valid in its own set of references, however, just as it is now.
Hear, hear.
I'm surprised this 'EM' drive keeps popping up again and again, like some sort of recurring infectuous disease. It's clear it can't work as advertised (as a reactionless drive). You also correctly conclude the device would amount to also being a perpetuum mobile device, since it doesn't only breaks CoM, but also CoE. I also subscribe to your idea about the 'don't be as open minded that your brain falls out'; I've said exactly the same to all those EM-fanfappers out there that think saying 'be open minded' to whatever crackpottery is somehow conductive to the advancement of science. It isn't. Science needs some minimum limits, or one would waste all your time, effort and money on an infinite myriad of crackpot-ideas and nonsensical postulations.
That said, I'm getting so tired of this immer-recurring nonsense about the EM drive, I'm beginning to think it might be better to spend the efforts/time/money on it, so we can finally put this idiotic meme-like assertion of a working reactionless drive and free energy-machine behind us. No doubt a new one will emerge, with again lots of fanfappers around it in the future, but at least we'll be rid of such constant nonsense in the media for some years.
For a moment there, I thought you meant blowjob. Which, of course, $7k would also be more than enough for...
"As an aerospace engineer, I can assure you that this is something that shouldn't have happened."
Pheww! Lucky you are an aerospace engineer, or we wouldn't have known that! We were all thinking that exploding rockets were just part of the normal routine! Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Obv... I mean, Aerospace Engineer!
Well.. feel free to start your own space-company based on your superior technology! ;-)
I know the term. But I happen to disagree with it.
That's why I said, Gods as in: the Greek Gods. Contrary to our contemporary idea about god, the Greek gods were full of flaws, and knew things like envy, revenge, pettiness, and all other 'human' emotions, good and bad. Including hubris. ;-)
They didn't differ from humans on a psychological and emotional level, thus... only they had vast powers exceeding anything a human had back than, and immortal life.
We currently already have vast powers. With things we consider 'normal' today, one would easily have gotten God-status in ancient Greek times. Something like a nuclear bomb that could destroy a city in the blink of an eye would only have been considered a god's power back then. All our scientific advancement has brought tremendous power, be it good (medicines) or bad (weapons).
No, we already succeeded on the powerlevel, and this will only continue. There is, at least in principle, no limit to scientific knowledge and technological progression.This leaves only immortality, but with stemcell-research and parabiosis, etc., it's only a matter of time we'll get lifespans of hundreds, and maybe thousands of years as well.
So, as I said, we're pretty close to 'Gods' as the ancient Greek envisioned them.
But true to some extend. As a whole, there is a lot more flamebait, trolling, and "Look at what I dare to say!" (but anonymously) -posts coming from Anonymous Cowards than from people under a regular nickname.
I know, I know. In principle, it's the arguments that count, and not who says it. And it's a fine principle. Only, there is no real reason not to say it under your regular nick, if you're convinced enough to say it in the first place. The fact one doesn't, can have several reasons, but all of them don't seem that praiseworthy to me. One reason could be one is a lazy ass who can't be bothered registering for a one-time comment. But that's a false reason in most instances, since many AC actually come back and comment again and again, and there is no reason why one wouldn't register a nick once, if it's for continuous use on a site you're posting on regularly anyway.
Another reason, is reputation. And more precisely, the fear of losing it. That points to a defect in character, though, since it means you're afraid of saying your own opinion because of the (bad) rap you would get from it. I guess this is where the 'coward' comes into the AC.
A third reason is just liking to be a troll, or finding pleasure in flamebaiting, without giving the opportunity to others to 'get back' on 'your' nick. It hangs together with 'shadenfreude'; either towards other posters, or towards - as is in this case - the person of the topic in question. Which in this case is Elon Musk. And indeed, as one can see, the majority of AC's are often negative and derisive against Elon Musk or his projects. But one lacks the guts to do the same under ones' own name/nick. It's the flair and taste of impunity that makes it extra sweet, it's like kicking someone without any chance of the person knowing who did it. Those kind of things appeal to the lowest in human nature, but yet it's often used, even in more serious r/l situations, as is shown by the Taharrush in Cologne.
While it starkly differs in level, it's the same principles: indulgement of base desires because of little fear of any consequences.
While there is always *some* restrictions on businesses even in a free market (child labor in the West is not allowed for instance), those restrictions normally do not involve price-settings on a private company running a for profit businesses in the free market.
In this instance, it's just a matter of demand and supply. As other have pointed out, it does not make sense to complain about this. People not wanting to pay "3 times more" could just as well ordered a regular taxi-service.
And if that regular one still asked more money: what are they complaining about?
Imagine, then, that Uber didn't exist. Then all people wanting to leave with a taxi would need to pay that regular taxi-service, who asks even more than Uber.
So... why is this a topic? why are they complaining? there is NO logical grounds for it. Whether they have to pay higher prices to uber due to higher demand, the fact is and remains that without Uber, they would need to pay *even more*. So shut the fuck up, I'd say to those whiners.
"This raises the inevitable question. If we ever could clone a prehistoric species...should we?"
Of course.
Because we humans are gods (in the Greek sense of the word).
Never heard of it.
And isn't it a bit presumptuous for Samsung to call back a whole galaxy?
I mean, I know they are a big company, but still...what ego. They are still lightyears away to have that kind of (gas)cloud.
*kcon-kcon* ,frawd der"
"?ereht si ohw"
"!naiga
I find it shocking that you find it shocking that little people (this includes dwarfs and midgets, I assume) respect others!
In fact, I find it disrespectful to call them 'little people'. :-p
Because it would invariably clash with free speech, and make an even greater legal mess of things than it already is, and would fly in the face of all former legal precedents.
Any discussion needs a reasonable premise, otherwise there is no sense to it. So if your stance is: "well, it *could* be possible" - in a absolute stance of hypothetical possibilities, than I'll answer as I always do: in an unlimited universe, everything is possible. It's also possible that aliens land on Earth and zap everyone to death who even speaks of copyright. It's possible that God, or the Spaghettimonster, makes a new law that prohibits any IP-laws, except for his own commandments. It's possible Trump wins and makes looking at the sky a capital offence since he patented or copyrighted air (and made the necessary laws for that).
So in that absolute stance, everything 'could'. In a more normal viewpoint, considering precedents and legal ramifications, what you suggest 'couldn't'. If you start making/saying an address illegal, one can as well make saying a name illegal, or a word that describes something specific. After all, as long as it's defining a particular object or something of that object (like the place), one could follow the same reasoning. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to go that route, not even politicians who are in the pocket of corporations.
That said, I'm already amazed the EU court was already stupid enough to go as far as they did.
"It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel"
Ermm, no, it's exactly the same. Why the heck would it be illegal to say the address of a brothel? I'm not following you.
Maybe you want to infer the difference lays in the legality of the original object, but that was the point I was making: it doesn't, normally.
To have a better example than a brothel, let's say drugs (which is more common to be illegal). Now then, imagine a journalist writing that in this and that dancing (including the address) one could buy drugs, would any judge rule that he was 'buying drugs' by providing the address of those dancings? Would he say "well, you made that article for profit, and thus it was for you to make sure if there was any drugs being dealt or not, and since there was, you're now guilty of drug-buying yourself."
I don't think there's any democracy where this would fly.
EVEN if there was, in some country, a law against 'facilitating' drug-use, and one was of the opinion this factual reporting was doing exactly that - and mind the implications such a thing would have on free speech - then still it would be hard to argue he was buying drugs when he didn't, but only gave addresses.
Similarly, if you want to make a sensible - well, I mean an internal logical one - case against giving a link, you would need to do it based on a different law, like 'facilitating copy-right infringement'. Countries are free to make those laws (not that I'm a proponent of that neither, but at least it would make more logical sense), but with some safeguards, I guess one could make such a terrible law. But saying, like now, that a link itself is copy-right infringement is absurd. Nothing has been copied.
And it still makes no sense.
Copyright:
"the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
Nowhere is it mentioned whether or not there has to be a commercial incentive to speak of copyright(-infringement). It's actually nonsensical to claim so. If I write a book, and you copy it verbatim and *give it away for free*.... you think that is not copyright-infringement?
I very much doubt such a premise, yet the court here came up with that.. pulling it out of their ass, clearly.
But this case goes further than that. A link, on itself, does not constitute a copyright-infringement: no copy has been made by the link. Those who made the copyright violation is the party that put it on the site. The link itself is merely a reference to it. If I say: there and there you can find a physical book to read, am now infringing copyright, if the book was made without authorization, but wasn't made by me? In the physical world, no court would even dream claiming that, yet they claim it without thinking if exactly the same happens 'digitally' on the internet.
I don't think this was missed.
It just doesn't matter. A link is a reference, an address, it's NOT a copy of an original work. Even a link to a place where a work is shown which is violating copyright, isn't a copy of that work on itself. Just like, when I give you the address of the library, the shelf/booknumber and reference to a particular book isn't violating copyright, EVEN if the book itself would be an unauthorized copy.
In that case, they should make a law that prohibits *facilitating* infringement, and put up some safeguards, like it has to be done willfully, purposefully and knowingly (in a reasonable manner) that it was infringement and intended as such, with commercial intent, etc.
What it is NOT, is copyright-infringement on itself. A link does *not* constitute (a copy of) the original good; it's a mere reference. You have not copied the work if you put a link to it, therefore the link itself can not be copyright-infringement. A copyright violation does not handle *how* or *why*, and *with what ease* such a violation may be possible, but just the fact of unauthorized copying of the original work. As long as it's not copied - and it wasn't copied by the site which placed the link - there is no copyright-infringement.
It's so clear-cut, yet you always have people (not talking about you) that invent the most outrageous things just to dispute the logically obvious.
I'm not a proponent of making a 'facilitate copy-infringement' law neither to be honest; I think it's a bad way to go. But at least it would make sense, from a logical viewpoint. Now it doesn't. One basically claims infringement of copyright where no copy, nor infringement, was even made (by the party concerned).