Wow, the govt in AU can appropriate copyrighted material and negotiate payment later? This has a number of great uses outside of getting free M$ software.
Imagine a govt library that has every book, newspaper, magazine, etc in its catalogue, all without paying for it! Or better yet, a govt website with mp3s of every song ever written, all free for the download...the end user might be in trouble though.
Now, wasn't that more interesting than the obligatory SCO bashing in the other posts?
There seems to be a lot of complaints about targeted advertising, but may I remind you of the alternative?
Broadly distributed ads try to reach everyone, whether they're interested in or able to use the product. I'm a guy, but I still have to sit through tampon commercials on TV.
A targeted ad will at least be something I'm remotely interested in, if the targeters have done their job. If I spend a week surfing sneaker sites, odds are good that ads from Nike or Reebok will interest me.
I believe that you can't really avoid advertising, it's the background noise of modern life. So if I have to see a given amount of advertising, I would much prefer that it be about something interesting to me.
Advertisers are going to continue advertising whether you like it or not. Why wouldn't you want a "filter" that only delivers the stuff that you might like?
By the way, if you surf for pr0n, maybe you would prefer non-targeted ads, especially if the significant other is around.
Any one else think it's odd that a privacy group is complaing about a service that isn't available to the public yet? I'm all for privacy, but let's pick the reasonable battles. It will be repeated ad nauseum here, but you don't HAVE to sign up for Gmail.
I would much rather that privacy groups spend their finite resources fighting the stuff we don't have the option of avoiding, Big Government and such.
Seems like any other organization, privacy groups have to justify their existence by creating problems where none exist.
Seems to me that if they give you a free gig of space, some targeted ads aren't too much to pay. Why not use some other mail and store it on your PC if you feel this is too invasive?
I would say that wave piercing catamarans are also more stable than monohulls. Take a look at sailing hulls. When a monohull is beating, it often rolls about 30 to 40 degrees to leeward. By comparison, a catamaran only rolls about 5 to 10 degrees.
You're right on the money. Crew adds flexibility to a warship, and increases its capacity to deal with damage more effectively than all the automated systems. What happens if the automatic systems fail?
The penalty for additional crew is greater operating expense (salaries and such) plus more space used on the ship for food, plumbing, beds, etc. The weight saved on supplies can be used for more weapons, sensors, powerplant or servers;-)
This design is typical of modern Pentagon "best case" designs. Damage control? Who would dare attack a US warship? (USS Cole, USS Stark)
The advantages of a dual hull in a ship of this size outweigh the disadvantages. A multihull rocks less in rough seas, giving it a more stable platform for operating helicopters, maintaining satellite links, launching weapons, etc.
It's also more maneuverable due to having its twin screws so widely separated. Forward on one screw and reverse on the other and the ship comes about in its own length (pretty much).
The ship also doesn't need to be ballasted in the same manner as a monohull, because of the inherent stability of its broad beam.
The disadvantages include the inability to right itself if capsized and a more complex compartment layout.
Such a cooler would work with any pot material, just with different efficiencies.
Ideally, you want the outside pot to be a good thermal insulator and the inside pot to be a good thermal conductor. That way, the heat consumed by evaporation is drawn from the contents inside rather than the outside air. Maybe a copper pot inside some sort of oversize thermos with a porous cover would be ideal...of course, such materials probably aren't available cheaply where they're using these;-)
Which war the game is set in has very little relevance to the enjoyment of the gaming experience. Haven't you played and enjoyed FPS games like Quake or Half-Life that aren't based on historical campaigns? The engine and gameplay mechanics are all that matter.
About the only use a historical setting has is to help teenagers justify the purchase to their parents (But Mom, it's educational...). Older historical eras (pre WW1) aren't very enjoyable in an FPS, mostly because it's such a pain to watch your musket reload between shots;-)
As to the plethora of Vietnam themed games, I find the game industry moves as a herd, and next year it probably will be Desert Storm. After that, who knows? A realtime simulation of Iraq right now?
Gold Medal goes to Star Trek II, with Kirk and Khan in a battle of wits in the Mutari (sp?) Nebula. The most compelling space battle because you knew the personalities involved, and they played a role in the outcome.
Silver would have to be Return of the Jedi, the final battle scene where the super star destroyer crashes into the Death Star. The Star Wars series has the best mix of small/fast fighters and big/slow capital ships.
Bronze goes to the Last Starfighter, everyone loves the impossible odds, one against a thousand type battles.
Among computer games, the Homeworld series stands tall with varied ships, true 3d and pretty explosions.
I would make one refinement to the billiard ball analogy: When the balls make a sound or heat up from internal friction, that energy is "stolen" from the kinetic energy of the balls, thereby reducing their monentum by some tiny degree.
With the collision of 2 hydrogen nuclei, the energy comes from, as you say, the reduction in binding forces. It is not a product of reduction in momentum.
While I'm splitting hairs, I would also point out another problem with tritium: It is quite radioactive. In very small quantities it is used in those perpetually illuminated watch hands, where the radiation emmisions excite phosphor to create a glow that lasts for years.
I do not mean to argue, merely refine my understanding. I am the first to admit that I am no Einstein, but I like to think I understand the basic principles involved.
The conservation of momentum is true for Newtonian physics. What happens in fusion is that two deuterium nuclei collide and fuse to form a helium nucleus, liberating energy stored in the nuclear bonds and releasing energy proportional to the mass consumed. The momentum of the two hydrogen nuclei is conserved in the normal manner. The billiard ball analogy holds true but doesn't reveal where energy produced comes from.
Why, you use the energy from the initial reaction to sustain the fusion. The lasers are merely an igniter, only used (hopefully) to start the reaction.
True, but we're talking about a matter/energy conversion here. The mass of the reactants is reduced by the fusion process, and that "lost" mass is converted to energy at the rate of Einstein's famous equation:
E=mc^2
Where E is energy produced, m is mass "consumed" and c is the speed of light.
Conservation of energy is not violated as the reaction liberates energy stored in the nuclei of the reactant atoms. More precisely, it produces more energy than it takes to start the reaction.
Nothing is wrong with this statement. You are probably referring to the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states, more or less, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The confusion with nuclear reactions, fission and fusion, is that the reaction liberates energy stored in the nuclei of the reactants. No energy is being created, but more energy (hopefully) is harnessed than was used to start the reaction.
Think of a spark plug in a piston engine. It releases a fairly small amout of energy to start a reaction that releases a larger amount of energy stored in the fuel/air mixture.
Fusion will be a Good Thing once the bugs are ironed out.
The whole planet was settled without a single airplane, air travel merely makes it more convenient to reach far off places.
The analogy with driving a car and owning a gun was meant to show that we need to be careful who does those things, just as we need to be cautious who travels on aircraft.
This doesn't necessarily limit your fundamental right to travel, merely one medium of travel. Just as driving a car or owning a gun requires a little background check to prevent crazies from killing others, so must air travellers be willing to show that they are not going to take the plane for a final ride. Seems prudent to me.
The government is very good at closing the gate after the horse is out, not so good at keeping the horse from getting away in the first place. Terrorists aren't going to use airplanes again because we're expecting it. Where would the terror in that be? They will attack in ways that we haven't imagined yet, to maximize the fear effect. The problem is, homeland security has enough trouble using security measures where we've seen attacks before, let alone places that are still seen as safe. Who would have tolerated increased airport security before 9/11?
It's easy to look down on uninformed people who want to learn how to use the Internet, and complain that they are the ones ruining it for all of us. You could instead take the opportunity to teach these newbies how to protect themselves online. Why did you sell him a PC with no firewall or antivirus? There are free versions of each available, so I see it as partly your responsibility for selling a machine that was so wide open to attack.
As to Internet usage being a priviledge rather than a right, I couldn't disagree more. It is this sort of elitist rhetoric that gives all of us geeks a bad name. The Internet is for all of us, not just the few that you or anyone else determines is worthy of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, the govt in AU can appropriate copyrighted material and negotiate payment later? This has a number of great uses outside of getting free M$ software.
Imagine a govt library that has every book, newspaper, magazine, etc in its catalogue, all without paying for it! Or better yet, a govt website with mp3s of every song ever written, all free for the download...the end user might be in trouble though.
Now, wasn't that more interesting than the obligatory SCO bashing in the other posts?
There seems to be a lot of complaints about targeted advertising, but may I remind you of the alternative?
Broadly distributed ads try to reach everyone, whether they're interested in or able to use the product. I'm a guy, but I still have to sit through tampon commercials on TV.
A targeted ad will at least be something I'm remotely interested in, if the targeters have done their job. If I spend a week surfing sneaker sites, odds are good that ads from Nike or Reebok will interest me.
I believe that you can't really avoid advertising, it's the background noise of modern life. So if I have to see a given amount of advertising, I would much prefer that it be about something interesting to me.
Advertisers are going to continue advertising whether you like it or not. Why wouldn't you want a "filter" that only delivers the stuff that you might like?
By the way, if you surf for pr0n, maybe you would prefer non-targeted ads, especially if the significant other is around.
Any one else think it's odd that a privacy group is complaing about a service that isn't available to the public yet? I'm all for privacy, but let's pick the reasonable battles. It will be repeated ad nauseum here, but you don't HAVE to sign up for Gmail.
I would much rather that privacy groups spend their finite resources fighting the stuff we don't have the option of avoiding, Big Government and such.
Seems like any other organization, privacy groups have to justify their existence by creating problems where none exist.
Seems to me that if they give you a free gig of space, some targeted ads aren't too much to pay. Why not use some other mail and store it on your PC if you feel this is too invasive?
I would say that wave piercing catamarans are also more stable than monohulls. Take a look at sailing hulls. When a monohull is beating, it often rolls about 30 to 40 degrees to leeward. By comparison, a catamaran only rolls about 5 to 10 degrees.
You're right on the money. Crew adds flexibility to a warship, and increases its capacity to deal with damage more effectively than all the automated systems. What happens if the automatic systems fail?
;-)
The penalty for additional crew is greater operating expense (salaries and such) plus more space used on the ship for food, plumbing, beds, etc. The weight saved on supplies can be used for more weapons, sensors, powerplant or servers
This design is typical of modern Pentagon "best case" designs. Damage control? Who would dare attack a US warship? (USS Cole, USS Stark)
The advantages of a dual hull in a ship of this size outweigh the disadvantages. A multihull rocks less in rough seas, giving it a more stable platform for operating helicopters, maintaining satellite links, launching weapons, etc.
It's also more maneuverable due to having its twin screws so widely separated. Forward on one screw and reverse on the other and the ship comes about in its own length (pretty much).
The ship also doesn't need to be ballasted in the same manner as a monohull, because of the inherent stability of its broad beam.
The disadvantages include the inability to right itself if capsized and a more complex compartment layout.
Wow, gives new meaning to wardriving. Or would it be warsailing in this case?
Such a cooler would work with any pot material, just with different efficiencies.
;-)
Ideally, you want the outside pot to be a good thermal insulator and the inside pot to be a good thermal conductor. That way, the heat consumed by evaporation is drawn from the contents inside rather than the outside air. Maybe a copper pot inside some sort of oversize thermos with a porous cover would be ideal...of course, such materials probably aren't available cheaply where they're using these
Which war the game is set in has very little relevance to the enjoyment of the gaming experience. Haven't you played and enjoyed FPS games like Quake or Half-Life that aren't based on historical campaigns? The engine and gameplay mechanics are all that matter.
;-)
About the only use a historical setting has is to help teenagers justify the purchase to their parents (But Mom, it's educational...). Older historical eras (pre WW1) aren't very enjoyable in an FPS, mostly because it's such a pain to watch your musket reload between shots
As to the plethora of Vietnam themed games, I find the game industry moves as a herd, and next year it probably will be Desert Storm. After that, who knows? A realtime simulation of Iraq right now?
Gold Medal goes to Star Trek II, with Kirk and Khan in a battle of wits in the Mutari (sp?) Nebula. The most compelling space battle because you knew the personalities involved, and they played a role in the outcome.
Silver would have to be Return of the Jedi, the final battle scene where the super star destroyer crashes into the Death Star. The Star Wars series has the best mix of small/fast fighters and big/slow capital ships.
Bronze goes to the Last Starfighter, everyone loves the impossible odds, one against a thousand type battles.
Among computer games, the Homeworld series stands tall with varied ships, true 3d and pretty explosions.
Well put.
I would make one refinement to the billiard ball analogy: When the balls make a sound or heat up from internal friction, that energy is "stolen" from the kinetic energy of the balls, thereby reducing their monentum by some tiny degree.
With the collision of 2 hydrogen nuclei, the energy comes from, as you say, the reduction in binding forces. It is not a product of reduction in momentum.
While I'm splitting hairs, I would also point out another problem with tritium: It is quite radioactive. In very small quantities it is used in those perpetually illuminated watch hands, where the radiation emmisions excite phosphor to create a glow that lasts for years.
At rosk of being labelled a Slashbot:
.5 terawatts
;-)
500 trillion watts = 500 million kilowatts = 500 thousand megawatts = 500 gigawatts =
Enough power here for 413 modified DeLoreans
I do not mean to argue, merely refine my understanding. I am the first to admit that I am no Einstein, but I like to think I understand the basic principles involved.
The conservation of momentum is true for Newtonian physics. What happens in fusion is that two deuterium nuclei collide and fuse to form a helium nucleus, liberating energy stored in the nuclear bonds and releasing energy proportional to the mass consumed. The momentum of the two hydrogen nuclei is conserved in the normal manner. The billiard ball analogy holds true but doesn't reveal where energy produced comes from.
Speed of light is used as a constant to equate the units:
E, energy in g.m^2/s^2
m, mass in g
c, speed of light in m/s, squared to m^2/s^2
Motion of the particles is irrelevant to this, Einstein's equation governs ALL nuclear reactions, fission and fusion.
Why, you use the energy from the initial reaction to sustain the fusion. The lasers are merely an igniter, only used (hopefully) to start the reaction.
True, but we're talking about a matter/energy conversion here. The mass of the reactants is reduced by the fusion process, and that "lost" mass is converted to energy at the rate of Einstein's famous equation:
E=mc^2
Where E is energy produced, m is mass "consumed" and c is the speed of light.
Conservation of energy is not violated as the reaction liberates energy stored in the nuclei of the reactant atoms. More precisely, it produces more energy than it takes to start the reaction.
Nothing is wrong with this statement. You are probably referring to the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states, more or less, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The confusion with nuclear reactions, fission and fusion, is that the reaction liberates energy stored in the nuclei of the reactants. No energy is being created, but more energy (hopefully) is harnessed than was used to start the reaction.
Think of a spark plug in a piston engine. It releases a fairly small amout of energy to start a reaction that releases a larger amount of energy stored in the fuel/air mixture.
Fusion will be a Good Thing once the bugs are ironed out.
The whole planet was settled without a single airplane, air travel merely makes it more convenient to reach far off places.
The analogy with driving a car and owning a gun was meant to show that we need to be careful who does those things, just as we need to be cautious who travels on aircraft.
This doesn't necessarily limit your fundamental right to travel, merely one medium of travel. Just as driving a car or owning a gun requires a little background check to prevent crazies from killing others, so must air travellers be willing to show that they are not going to take the plane for a final ride. Seems prudent to me.
The government is very good at closing the gate after the horse is out, not so good at keeping the horse from getting away in the first place. Terrorists aren't going to use airplanes again because we're expecting it. Where would the terror in that be? They will attack in ways that we haven't imagined yet, to maximize the fear effect. The problem is, homeland security has enough trouble using security measures where we've seen attacks before, let alone places that are still seen as safe. Who would have tolerated increased airport security before 9/11?
It's easy to look down on uninformed people who want to learn how to use the Internet, and complain that they are the ones ruining it for all of us. You could instead take the opportunity to teach these newbies how to protect themselves online. Why did you sell him a PC with no firewall or antivirus? There are free versions of each available, so I see it as partly your responsibility for selling a machine that was so wide open to attack. As to Internet usage being a priviledge rather than a right, I couldn't disagree more. It is this sort of elitist rhetoric that gives all of us geeks a bad name. The Internet is for all of us, not just the few that you or anyone else determines is worthy of it.