I think the company would argue that, and possibly win. Every employment contract I have ever seen has a line in there about "other duties as directed". If the manager asked you to improve it, and you did it while on the clock, it would probably come under that clause. On the other hand, if you saw something you thought could be improved and worked on it in your own time, that is yours.
The world has changed. The old copyright model doesn't work well anymore, and pretty soon it won't work at all. There are a few ways that you can make money writing: 1/ Try to use the existing system and be good/popular enough that people are going to buy hard copies anyway. 2/ Release one work as an example of your quality, and start a kickstarter for each subsequent work. If you are good enough, over time your reputation and readership will build and you will be able to raise the kickstarter levels. 3/ Release it with a donation nag screen on the front (or at the end might be better), and hope that it is good enough to inspire a donation. 4/ Start a website, post your work, and depend on ad revenue. 5/ Find somebody who wants the work done, and contract with them.
1/ is a dying model
2/ probable future for discrete works, novels, albums, movies etc.
3/ and 4/ useable for most works
5/ eg journalism, in-house technical manuals, etc.
What you can't do is hide in a cabin writing your masterpiece, and then demand the world owes you for it. The world didn't ask you to write it, you chose to.
You absolutely do have the right to choose as you have and not release it, but then the question of revenue is moot.
Depends how you define meat. Many people limit it to beef, mutton, pork, goat, and poultry. Basically warm blooded animals. You can avoid eating these with no problems, you just have to eat a lot of fish or insects. The AU aborigines you mention lived in a pretty tough environment and ate damn near anything that wasn't actually poisonous. Insects, and for the coastal tribes fish and shellfish, were a significant part of their diet. (Insects are actually a very good source of protein.)
If you are just monitoring multiple data streams, whether they are video or just status panels, multiple monitors can be useful. But if you are working on something you tend to use one to work on and one for reference. The utility of a third or fourth monitor is very small unless your main screens are also very small.
If it's emergency only use, why not fill the cannisters with ultrapure butane and save the catalyst anyway? I have a catalytic soldering iron that I buy (what claims to be) ultrapure butane for. It isn't that much more expensive, and the tip has lasted a lot longer than the first one that I used ordinary butane for.
It's too laggy if you use geostationary satellites. 36000km each way is too far.
I have read articles that claim you could run a swarm of LEO satellites at 500 - 800 km high that talk to each other with lasers, and the ground with microwaves. Basically a mesh network in space. In remote areas you would beat wired speeds. Of course you need a lot of satellites for coverage, and a microwave transceiver for each connection to the swarm-net. Everything needs to know where everything else is (to point the lasers and antennas), so I think the ground stations would have to be stationary, at least in the beginning.
"Claytons" was a spirit style drink that didn't actually contain any alcohol. ie, you could drink "Claytons and Soda" or "Claytons on the rocks" all night and still drive home. It was targeted at designated drivers and others who couldn't drink but still wanted to socialise. They ran a massive ad campaign for a few years in Oz - "The drink you have when you're not having a drink" and it became a generic (mildly insulting) term that implied something wasn't real, or didn't have the content it should have.
Sorry, slight misunderstanding there. I thought you meant they used the battery voltage itself as a reference. That wouldn't work.
Using the battery to power a reference circuit is exactly what they do.
That's not why alternators won't run without a battery. The older generators were fine because they used fixed magnets. Alternators need a battery to supply a current to the primary winding. Also, I've never heard of an alternator that uses the battery as a voltage reference. It would either chase the voltage down until the battery was flat, or up until it overcharged it.
Yeah but it's the control and knowledge that makes the diference. Ever actually watched a top chef? He/she knows where everything is up to, what needs to speed up or slow down to bring it all together and deliver a bunch of meals simultaneously. It looks like an absolute mess until about a minute before it all goes on the table. That's what actually makes a top chef. Just about anybody can learn to cook a single item perfectly. Controlling a kitchen to get 20 perfect meals to go out together to a group is a high level skill. And in a top restaurant the chef is running a bunch of them in parallel.
I had a 76 datsun that ran fine without a battery. You had to jump start it, but there must have been enough capacitance in the system to run the alternator, and let that power everything. Of course, it could run at an insanely low voltage. I measured the starting voltage one day (when the battery was dying), and it was 3 volts across the battery terminals as it kicked the engine over and started. (struggled a bit, but made it)
If they talked to each other they could play your preferences wherever you are. Think of the fun when you are visiting family and the TV starts playing. "Is that yours?" "Nope, not mine. Dad?" "Never seen it before" "Uncle Fred have you been watching this stuff?" "Uh-uh, not me, I don't like midgets" All together : "GRAAAANDMAAAA!!! "
And you are still missing the point that a solution has to be practical. Of course economics is a hard constraint, do you think you can fix things by singing kumbaya? If you want to change things you need to be realistic, and economics is (amongst other things) the study of the allocation of resources.
Also he didn't claim they were equivalent problems. He claimed that the ozone solutions were implemented because the science was sound, the theory was consistant, the experiments repeatable, and the solutions proposed were achievable within economic constraints. He then suggested that AGW proponents would do better if they aimed towards the same standards.
The problem with that, is that it is a MBTF of 60, not a disposable guaranteed 60 and die. That means there will be a significant percentage that fail in the first few shots and some that last for a couple of hundred.
This would be interesting. Printing rocket pistols would be much easier than printing traditional firearms. The gyrojet had way less stress on the barrel, and was a moderately effective weapon. Expensive to fire these days though:) Wikipedia says $100 per round.
Paragraph seven says they are not creating a database of owners, and that data is purged after two years. In related news, the Brooklyn bridge is for sale cheap.
That might work on commercial printers, but it would never get into any of the open-source printers like reprap and it's descendents. And even if it did, it would have to be in the software/firmware. So download the software anonymously, keep a copy , print a bunch of inocuous stuff that you keep, anonymously download and install the software again, print the "bad" stuff, then re-install the original copy of the software. Repeat as needed.
And you don't think that spending a shitload of time, resources and effort on a war with zero return benefit might have had something to do with the recession? Money is just numbers in a bank, the war pissed away a lot of lives and real resources that can't be recreated by adding more zeros to MIC bank accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the company would argue that, and possibly win. Every employment contract I have ever seen has a line in there about "other duties as directed". If the manager asked you to improve it, and you did it while on the clock, it would probably come under that clause.
On the other hand, if you saw something you thought could be improved and worked on it in your own time, that is yours.
The world has changed. The old copyright model doesn't work well anymore, and pretty soon it won't work at all.
There are a few ways that you can make money writing:
1/ Try to use the existing system and be good/popular enough that people are going to buy hard copies anyway.
2/ Release one work as an example of your quality, and start a kickstarter for each subsequent work. If you are good enough, over time your reputation and readership will build and you will be able to raise the kickstarter levels.
3/ Release it with a donation nag screen on the front (or at the end might be better), and hope that it is good enough to inspire a donation.
4/ Start a website, post your work, and depend on ad revenue.
5/ Find somebody who wants the work done, and contract with them.
1/ is a dying model
2/ probable future for discrete works, novels, albums, movies etc.
3/ and 4/ useable for most works
5/ eg journalism, in-house technical manuals, etc.
What you can't do is hide in a cabin writing your masterpiece, and then demand the world owes you for it. The world didn't ask you to write it, you chose to.
You absolutely do have the right to choose as you have and not release it, but then the question of revenue is moot.
"This!"
Depends how you define meat. Many people limit it to beef, mutton, pork, goat, and poultry. Basically warm blooded animals.
You can avoid eating these with no problems, you just have to eat a lot of fish or insects.
The AU aborigines you mention lived in a pretty tough environment and ate damn near anything that wasn't actually poisonous.
Insects, and for the coastal tribes fish and shellfish, were a significant part of their diet. (Insects are actually a very good source of protein.)
Parrots can be trained to shit on command, or to fly to specific spot to shit. But they are probably smarter than cows.
If you are just monitoring multiple data streams, whether they are video or just status panels, multiple monitors can be useful. But if you are working on something you tend to use one to work on and one for reference. The utility of a third or fourth monitor is very small unless your main screens are also very small.
If it's emergency only use, why not fill the cannisters with ultrapure butane and save the catalyst anyway?
I have a catalytic soldering iron that I buy (what claims to be) ultrapure butane for. It isn't that much more expensive, and the tip has lasted a lot longer than the first one that I used ordinary butane for.
Also, it should be said that chemical -> electric -> kinetic is fairly common in large systems; see e.g. diesel-electric transmission.
If you are talking about diesel-electric trains, that would be: Chemical -> Kinetic -> Electric -> Kinetic.
I'm betting that he coasted to almost a stop and then tried to pull off the side of the road.
It's too laggy if you use geostationary satellites. 36000km each way is too far.
I have read articles that claim you could run a swarm of LEO satellites at 500 - 800 km high that talk to each other with lasers, and the ground with microwaves.
Basically a mesh network in space. In remote areas you would beat wired speeds.
Of course you need a lot of satellites for coverage, and a microwave transceiver for each connection to the swarm-net.
Everything needs to know where everything else is (to point the lasers and antennas), so I think the ground stations would have to be stationary, at least in the beginning.
Put on your robe and wizard hat.
"Claytons" was a spirit style drink that didn't actually contain any alcohol. ie, you could drink "Claytons and Soda" or "Claytons on the rocks" all night and still drive home. It was targeted at designated drivers and others who couldn't drink but still wanted to socialise.
They ran a massive ad campaign for a few years in Oz - "The drink you have when you're not having a drink" and it became a generic (mildly insulting) term that implied something wasn't real, or didn't have the content it should have.
Sorry, slight misunderstanding there. I thought you meant they used the battery voltage itself as a reference. That wouldn't work.
Using the battery to power a reference circuit is exactly what they do.
That's not why alternators won't run without a battery. The older generators were fine because they used fixed magnets. Alternators need a battery to supply a current to the primary winding.
Also, I've never heard of an alternator that uses the battery as a voltage reference. It would either chase the voltage down until the battery was flat, or up until it overcharged it.
Yeah but it's the control and knowledge that makes the diference. Ever actually watched a top chef?
He/she knows where everything is up to, what needs to speed up or slow down to bring it all together and deliver a bunch of meals simultaneously.
It looks like an absolute mess until about a minute before it all goes on the table.
That's what actually makes a top chef. Just about anybody can learn to cook a single item perfectly. Controlling a kitchen to get 20 perfect meals to go out together to a group is a high level skill.
And in a top restaurant the chef is running a bunch of them in parallel.
I had a 76 datsun that ran fine without a battery. You had to jump start it, but there must have been enough capacitance in the system to run the alternator, and let that power everything.
Of course, it could run at an insanely low voltage. I measured the starting voltage one day (when the battery was dying), and it was 3 volts across the battery terminals as it kicked the engine over and started. (struggled a bit, but made it)
That wasn't deliberately generous, it's just really hard to get that last little bit out.
If they talked to each other they could play your preferences wherever you are. Think of the fun when you are visiting family and the TV starts playing.
"Is that yours?"
"Nope, not mine. Dad?"
"Never seen it before"
"Uncle Fred have you been watching this stuff?"
"Uh-uh, not me, I don't like midgets"
All together : "GRAAAANDMAAAA!!! "
And you are still missing the point that a solution has to be practical. Of course economics is a hard constraint, do you think you can fix things by singing kumbaya?
If you want to change things you need to be realistic, and economics is (amongst other things) the study of the allocation of resources.
Also he didn't claim they were equivalent problems.
He claimed that the ozone solutions were implemented because the science was sound, the theory was consistant, the experiments repeatable, and the solutions proposed were achievable within economic constraints.
He then suggested that AGW proponents would do better if they aimed towards the same standards.
The problem with that, is that it is a MBTF of 60, not a disposable guaranteed 60 and die.
That means there will be a significant percentage that fail in the first few shots and some that last for a couple of hundred.
This would be interesting. Printing rocket pistols would be much easier than printing traditional firearms. :) Wikipedia says $100 per round.
The gyrojet had way less stress on the barrel, and was a moderately effective weapon. Expensive to fire these days though
Paragraph seven says they are not creating a database of owners, and that data is purged after two years. In related news, the Brooklyn bridge is for sale cheap.
That might work on commercial printers, but it would never get into any of the open-source printers like reprap and it's descendents.
And even if it did, it would have to be in the software/firmware. So download the software anonymously, keep a copy , print a bunch of inocuous stuff that you keep, anonymously download and install the software again, print the "bad" stuff, then re-install the original copy of the software.
Repeat as needed.
And you don't think that spending a shitload of time, resources and effort on a war with zero return benefit might have had something to do with the recession?
Money is just numbers in a bank, the war pissed away a lot of lives and real resources that can't be recreated by adding more zeros to MIC bank accounts.
I've never understood the aversion to eating horse. It's basically just a tall skinny cow, so what's the problem?