" wouldn't worry a bit about hydrogen in cars for day to day driving. However, paramedics and accident response teams will have to be aware of procedures for dealing with these things, just like with electric cars."
Maybe, maybe not. Hydrogen dissipates very rapidly, and supposedly (i'm not up to testing it) about the only way it will burn you is if you're in the flame. Anything slowly leaking from the tank dissipates too quickly to ignite. But I suppose 2 vehicles stuck together with one burning could ignite any hydrogen tanks that survived the crash.
Race cars have gasoline stored in "bags" inside a reinforced container. The idea, from what I understand, is that if the hard container ruptures, you're *probably* okay.
My coworker, who races lightning stock and legends, refers to it as a fuel cell. Whether or not the term is technically correct, I have heard multiple refer to the setup with that term.
What the no-sense-of-humor poster above you was trying to say is that hydrogen burns cooler than gasolene and does so clearly (invisibly).
What he failed to consider is that while hydrogen dissipates rapidly and needs a dense concentration to ignite, there is a perfectly dense mixture of it in the fuel cell. ANYTHING will explode when supplied with enough energy, even a hydrogen fuel cell. Quite a bit of energy is transferred by going from really fast to not moving in 0.25 seconds, and a lot of energy is transferred when you're rear ended by a tractor trailer at the red light. Just because it may be safer doesn't mean it is perfect. No need for anyone to go hydrogen fanboi on any/.ers
They will probably use a fuel cell, though how they will get pressurized hydrogen into one...
now that i think about it more, i guess that a fuel cell held rigid from that much pressure might as well be made of solid material. Maybe the liquid hydrogen is mixed with water and evaporates as the pressure decreases (fuel is used) with the end result being waste water that is dumped the next time you fill 'er up.
Or, maybe it is a potent hydrogen peroxide mixture (the stuff in wal-mart is only 3%). and they separate the hydrogen by shining a light on the mixture.
Insightful?
If you haven't lived longer than the last 30 or so years, you at least know some history a little better than that. The same president that signed the FOIA into law was the president that was dragged kicking and screaming to the signing table. It isn't knee-jerk reaction, it is established mind-set. Maybe the mind-set needs to be changed, but that would involve not reelecting the same people until they die of old age.
I might be patently wrong if you could give some support, but you seem uninformed.
"public information is just that --public" Gee... how witty. What you don't consider is that any information in the public domain arrived there from somewhere else.Judges don't come into play unless a piece of information is contested. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a nice quote, but too many fail to realize that it is through representation.
An uninformed electorate is one that is not doing its job. If the senate and house don't know what the president is up to and vice versa, they have failed.
The consent of the governed principle means that the government answers to the people. If your electorate can't adequately explain their actions, then replace them. THAT is what the principle means. Either you have a recall election or you simply vote for someone else at the next normal elections, but that is how the process works.
"A gated-community, private club, members-only government is a government that has removed itself from the very public who has consented to place them in power" That is a gross exaggeration of the topic. RTFA. If you had read it, you would have noticed that the state agency sided with the programmer. The town administrators either, as you said, don't want anyone to know about their little paradise, or they are ignorant and falling for FUD, and have let it scare them into stupidity. We both know the judge will force the town to comply with the state office's decree. If we're lucky, he'll fine the town for going against a higher governing body.
That would be interesting in court. I would imagine that the judge would assume, or would hear testimony claiming verbal permission by the tribes being recorded. I would assume, that since they most likely want to get a high quality recording, that they would have the equipment out in the open. I would hope they explained to the tribe what the equipment was for. I would like to think that the people that can appreciate the tribal music can respect the tribe.
As to your first point, I imagine that if a band says "feel free to record", that the illegal recorders have already hit the button and have it on tape. Plus, there's a few thousand witnesses. And how many artists would risk alienating their fanbase like that?
Hm. Still bootleg. While notices are *often* for people with no common sense, they are usually needed to make charges stick. Far too often, ignorance IS an excuse.
I dunno, up until recently my telephone company called me often. Usually, it was to ask if i wanted to switch to a long distance plan that I was already signed up for.
None of that is relevant to the topic. Artists dead and gone aren't giving concerts today.
That copyright was never intended to be perpetual is irrelevant because the recordings are illegal creations and should be destroyed. Copyrighted material is created by an author. Any cd burner and the person controlling the burner are simply the method an author uses to publish their work. If a method not authorized by the author is used, then the person, the record store owner, are in the wrong.
While sad, the Zappa and Hendrix issue is irrelevant.
Did Anais will her writings to anyone? If not, then the local judiciary has control. As unfair as it may seem, if whoever owns the works doesn't want them published, then it sucks to be us, but I'll get over it.
The jefferson and franklin bit are irrelevant too,unless someone unlawfully copied their words during a paid speaking engagement, but since I doubt laws from back then covered that...
The public does not have a right to the music. If we did, then Clapton wouldn't be able to charge for his concerts, because to charge a ticket fee for more than the cost of the venue maintenance would be violating your right to listen. If a band wants you to record their concert the singer would mention it to you when they came onstage, or there would be signs proclaiming "feel free to record this concert!!", or they would be giving or selling live cd's at the venue. If it is the requesite amount of years after the artist's death, then the issue is null.
"And copyright was never intended to serve as a perpeptual right to not be published anymore than they were intended as a right to perpeptual control over publication"
If I make a speech in public, I have little control over whether someone quotes me, etc. If I am being paid to speak or playing in a band, putting on a broadway production, etc, the situation is different. With your mindset, people should be afraid to open their mouth for fear of having their ideas and art stolen from them.
You're doing some assuming by suggesting that it was a low level bureaucrat making the decision. The article mentioned that a high level law enforcement agency sent out a memo to be watchful. If they didn't comply with advice, who do you think would be getting drilled by the next senate commission?
"Unless the information is sensitive in nature then it should be free by default"
Evidently, somebody decided it was sensitive. It doesn't make it impossible to get around. You're assuming again that it would take hours and hours of your time. Who is to say that you can't do a blanket request. Or maybe you won't even be required to fill out request paperwork. It seems to me that FOI requests are mostly for items that people are not yet "sanitized" for public consumption or for items that agencies would have to take the time to peruse files just to find; if it isn't worth your time to fill out a request, it isn't worth some "low level bureaucrat's" time to search for the information.
Like I said, a little bit of hassle won't kill you, and it's for your own protection. Flood plain? Any dams or resevoirs nearby? Can you not understand why law enforcement might not want this information tossed around indiscriminately?
"Ohio society of journalists did a survey earlier this year where they asked for the salary of the superintendant of schools for every community in the state, less than 50% of requests were fullfilled in a timely manner and more than 20% were illegally denied"
They did a survey, or they properly asked the department of education for information? There is a difference. Define a timely manner. Was the time taken untimely by the journalists' standards or by the law's? 20% were illegally denied by whom? Did the administrators deny the requests, or were they denied by secretaries who don't know any better?
Why are you so willing to scrap a system just because of a couple of kinks? Either have patience, or encourage your legislature to fix it.
If the record dealer didn't make the recordings, then he should still get nailed for disribution of stolen or illegal goods. And whoever did the actual recording should get hit too.
I don't think the recording has any copyright protection, since it isn't a sanctioned recording. It should probably be destroyed by law enforcement.
You're a farmer looking for a plot, and you're looking in the city...
Let me help you with your example, since the idea was in the right place. Say you're a prospective homebuyer looking for that new info. Simply ask. If they don't give you the info, then ask why. They will probably say that they give specific information to prospective property buyers when given proof they are buying. So go to your favorite financial institution and get pre-approved for a property loan. Simple as said.
People like to blow things out of proportion, especially when they perceive a barrier. Don't try to make a picket fence out to be a 20 foot concrete wall.
what ever happened to "everything in moderation", or the "happy medium"? Too much of anything is bad. An entirely open society has evils just as bad as a society of secrets.
I agree. There will always be a simple option for buyers. Personally, I like having things combined, especially when I'm in the airport. When I'm trying to pack light and don't want 40 pounds of carry-on, having a PDA that plays video, checks email, and lets me make phone calls is a godsend.
Because companies have comvinced themselves that the rush to innovate doesn't allow enough time to do quality control.
Now we have cellphone companies making miniature PDA systems saying "gee, a cellphone with windows CE... how did we NOT think of virus protection?"
At least the hammer hit them in the head before my phone went zombie and started racking up $500 dollar bills spamming viagra advertisement text messages. And now we have videophones. Imagine having your phone eat up its alread limited bandwidth by sending out miniature banner adds to VOIP numbers and email addresses, and random yahoo messenger profiles,...
The artist isn't getting a chance to sell the concert recording. They weren't even asked. The intent of the person doing the recording doesn't change the fact that the artist needs a say.
The attitude of many artists suggests that they would probably not have any problem with you or me paying the mixer for a live recording. But that same artist will surely have a problem with me burning copies and selling them. And I KNOW the production company is going to have a problem with it. The record store owner should be glad that charges were pressed instead of a civil suit.
"a concert is a one time deal, if i listen to a recording of a concert last night, did the artist lose money because i didnt attend it?
doubtful"
Maybe you couldn't make it to the concert, maybe you just didn't feel like paying 50 bucks for a cheap ticket. That comes down to what you feel is right. But if you paid your friend more than the cost of the CD for it, then we have a problem.
Because the recording shouldn't exist. If the artist wants to have a cd burner farm behind the stage that tosses mixboard recordings into the crowd, then that's fine and great.
You aren't understanding the situation. It isn't the recording of the live performance that has protection. Eric Clapton's live recordings that you can buy off Amazon have the same protection as his studio work. The problem is that with bootlegs, the artists aren't getting a say in whether a recording is made of their concert. If they wanted a live recording of their concert, they would exlicitly allow the listeners to make their own, or publish it themselves and make some more money off of their own efforts Terrible, I know. Why can't more artists take vows of poverty...
When someone who hasn't received permission to records the concert, that makes the recording illegal because it violates the artist's copyright.
When a concert is televised, do you think the networks didn't receive permission to do so? If they didn't, people would be charged, fined, and sued into bankruptsy. It is the same concept, just not on as grand of a scale.
I can understand why the guy had charges brought against him, assuming they were posted notices prohibiting the recording of the concert.
I think that since bootlegs are illegal in the first place, that having a limit on the ban is silly. That simply invites people to wait for the statute of limitations or the copyright to run out, whichever ends up passing first. Then they ebay the cd or dvd for about 50 jillion dollars to rabid collectors. The only way to fight the problem would be to search for huge caches of no-yet-released bootleg recordings.
Whether or not the industry is charging rediculous prices for albums doesn't change the fact that the artist and the company they're contracted to should get the money for their work. You can be certain that the record store owner wasn't sending a check to EMI every month with "your portion from the sale of home-made concert cd's" in the memo block.
Don't our judges have better things to do than striking down laws that actually make sense?
Rats are able to squeeze through tiny holes and I am pretty sure they (the rats)realize this. So, what happens when a rat tries to squeeze through a hole and strips off the backpack, or gets the equipment caught on something and panics.
I have a feeling the technology isn't near usable yet. They didn't mention what method the equipment uses to transmit. Is the signal compact enough that it only needs to send a few bits or even just a tone on a certain frequency to the waiting receiver? I realize we're not trying to send tons of info, but my old 802.11a access point couldn't punch through a smoke filled room. How are they going to get a signal through rubble when there are bound to be chunks of metal everywhere. And the middle of a city is going to have its own sources of radio interference, and that's not taking the tons of electronic gadgets and transmitters that the emergency response and television networks have nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a single proc that high is cool, but I've love to see 2 opturons or xeons overclocked insanely high.
" wouldn't worry a bit about hydrogen in cars for day to day driving. However, paramedics and accident response teams will have to be aware of procedures for dealing with these things, just like with electric cars."
Maybe, maybe not. Hydrogen dissipates very rapidly, and supposedly (i'm not up to testing it) about the only way it will burn you is if you're in the flame. Anything slowly leaking from the tank dissipates too quickly to ignite. But I suppose 2 vehicles stuck together with one burning could ignite any hydrogen tanks that survived the crash.
Race cars have gasoline stored in "bags" inside a reinforced container. The idea, from what I understand, is that if the hard container ruptures, you're *probably* okay.
My coworker, who races lightning stock and legends, refers to it as a fuel cell. Whether or not the term is technically correct, I have heard multiple refer to the setup with that term.
Maybe, instead of a traditional tank or fuel cell, instead distributing it throughout the frame or body.
What the no-sense-of-humor poster above you was trying to say is that hydrogen burns cooler than gasolene and does so clearly (invisibly). What he failed to consider is that while hydrogen dissipates rapidly and needs a dense concentration to ignite, there is a perfectly dense mixture of it in the fuel cell. ANYTHING will explode when supplied with enough energy, even a hydrogen fuel cell. Quite a bit of energy is transferred by going from really fast to not moving in 0.25 seconds, and a lot of energy is transferred when you're rear ended by a tractor trailer at the red light. Just because it may be safer doesn't mean it is perfect. No need for anyone to go hydrogen fanboi on any /.ers
It wasn't an uninformed remark, it was a joke. Try laughing, it will do you good.
They will probably use a fuel cell, though how they will get pressurized hydrogen into one... now that i think about it more, i guess that a fuel cell held rigid from that much pressure might as well be made of solid material. Maybe the liquid hydrogen is mixed with water and evaporates as the pressure decreases (fuel is used) with the end result being waste water that is dumped the next time you fill 'er up. Or, maybe it is a potent hydrogen peroxide mixture (the stuff in wal-mart is only 3%). and they separate the hydrogen by shining a light on the mixture.
When you run head-on into something at 185 will the hydrogen fireball be a different color than a gasolene one?
Perpuality would be bad. But isn't it currently limited to X amount of years after the artist's death?
Insightful? If you haven't lived longer than the last 30 or so years, you at least know some history a little better than that. The same president that signed the FOIA into law was the president that was dragged kicking and screaming to the signing table. It isn't knee-jerk reaction, it is established mind-set. Maybe the mind-set needs to be changed, but that would involve not reelecting the same people until they die of old age.
.Judges don't come into play unless a piece of information is contested. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a nice quote, but too many fail to realize that it is through representation.
I might be patently wrong if you could give some support, but you seem uninformed.
"public information is just that --public" Gee... how witty. What you don't consider is that any information in the public domain arrived there from somewhere else
An uninformed electorate is one that is not doing its job. If the senate and house don't know what the president is up to and vice versa, they have failed.
The consent of the governed principle means that the government answers to the people. If your electorate can't adequately explain their actions, then replace them. THAT is what the principle means. Either you have a recall election or you simply vote for someone else at the next normal elections, but that is how the process works.
"A gated-community, private club, members-only government is a government that has removed itself from the very public who has consented to place them in power"
That is a gross exaggeration of the topic. RTFA. If you had read it, you would have noticed that the state agency sided with the programmer. The town administrators either, as you said, don't want anyone to know about their little paradise, or they are ignorant and falling for FUD, and have let it scare them into stupidity. We both know the judge will force the town to comply with the state office's decree. If we're lucky, he'll fine the town for going against a higher governing body.
my parent goes half the day with 2 positive mods, then gets nailed as flamebait?
That would be interesting in court. I would imagine that the judge would assume, or would hear testimony claiming verbal permission by the tribes being recorded. I would assume, that since they most likely want to get a high quality recording, that they would have the equipment out in the open. I would hope they explained to the tribe what the equipment was for. I would like to think that the people that can appreciate the tribal music can respect the tribe.
As to your first point, I imagine that if a band says "feel free to record", that the illegal recorders have already hit the button and have it on tape. Plus, there's a few thousand witnesses. And how many artists would risk alienating their fanbase like that?
Hm. Still bootleg. While notices are *often* for people with no common sense, they are usually needed to make charges stick. Far too often, ignorance IS an excuse.
I dunno, up until recently my telephone company called me often. Usually, it was to ask if i wanted to switch to a long distance plan that I was already signed up for.
None of that is relevant to the topic. Artists dead and gone aren't giving concerts today.
That copyright was never intended to be perpetual is irrelevant because the recordings are illegal creations and should be destroyed. Copyrighted material is created by an author. Any cd burner and the person controlling the burner are simply the method an author uses to publish their work. If a method not authorized by the author is used, then the person, the record store owner, are in the wrong.
While sad, the Zappa and Hendrix issue is irrelevant.
Did Anais will her writings to anyone? If not, then the local judiciary has control. As unfair as it may seem, if whoever owns the works doesn't want them published, then it sucks to be us, but I'll get over it.
The jefferson and franklin bit are irrelevant too,unless someone unlawfully copied their words during a paid speaking engagement, but since I doubt laws from back then covered that...
The public does not have a right to the music. If we did, then Clapton wouldn't be able to charge for his concerts, because to charge a ticket fee for more than the cost of the venue maintenance would be violating your right to listen. If a band wants you to record their concert the singer would mention it to you when they came onstage, or there would be signs proclaiming "feel free to record this concert!!", or they would be giving or selling live cd's at the venue. If it is the requesite amount of years after the artist's death, then the issue is null.
"And copyright was never intended to serve as a perpeptual right to not be published anymore than they were intended as a right to perpeptual control over publication"
If I make a speech in public, I have little control over whether someone quotes me, etc. If I am being paid to speak or playing in a band, putting on a broadway production, etc, the situation is different. With your mindset, people should be afraid to open their mouth for fear of having their ideas and art stolen from them.
You're doing some assuming by suggesting that it was a low level bureaucrat making the decision. The article mentioned that a high level law enforcement agency sent out a memo to be watchful. If they didn't comply with advice, who do you think would be getting drilled by the next senate commission?
"Unless the information is sensitive in nature then it should be free by default"
Evidently, somebody decided it was sensitive. It doesn't make it impossible to get around. You're assuming again that it would take hours and hours of your time. Who is to say that you can't do a blanket request. Or maybe you won't even be required to fill out request paperwork. It seems to me that FOI requests are mostly for items that people are not yet "sanitized" for public consumption or for items that agencies would have to take the time to peruse files just to find; if it isn't worth your time to fill out a request, it isn't worth some "low level bureaucrat's" time to search for the information.
Like I said, a little bit of hassle won't kill you, and it's for your own protection. Flood plain? Any dams or resevoirs nearby? Can you not understand why law enforcement might not want this information tossed around indiscriminately?
"Ohio society of journalists did a survey earlier this year where they asked for the salary of the superintendant of schools for every community in the state, less than 50% of requests were fullfilled in a timely manner and more than 20% were illegally denied"
They did a survey, or they properly asked the department of education for information? There is a difference. Define a timely manner. Was the time taken untimely by the journalists' standards or by the law's? 20% were illegally denied by whom? Did the administrators deny the requests, or were they denied by secretaries who don't know any better?
Why are you so willing to scrap a system just because of a couple of kinks? Either have patience, or encourage your legislature to fix it.
If the record dealer didn't make the recordings, then he should still get nailed for disribution of stolen or illegal goods. And whoever did the actual recording should get hit too. I don't think the recording has any copyright protection, since it isn't a sanctioned recording. It should probably be destroyed by law enforcement.
You're a farmer looking for a plot, and you're looking in the city...
Let me help you with your example, since the idea was in the right place. Say you're a prospective homebuyer looking for that new info. Simply ask. If they don't give you the info, then ask why. They will probably say that they give specific information to prospective property buyers when given proof they are buying. So go to your favorite financial institution and get pre-approved for a property loan. Simple as said.
People like to blow things out of proportion, especially when they perceive a barrier. Don't try to make a picket fence out to be a 20 foot concrete wall.
what ever happened to "everything in moderation", or the "happy medium"? Too much of anything is bad. An entirely open society has evils just as bad as a society of secrets.
I agree. There will always be a simple option for buyers. Personally, I like having things combined, especially when I'm in the airport. When I'm trying to pack light and don't want 40 pounds of carry-on, having a PDA that plays video, checks email, and lets me make phone calls is a godsend.
Because companies have comvinced themselves that the rush to innovate doesn't allow enough time to do quality control.
...
Now we have cellphone companies making miniature PDA systems saying "gee, a cellphone with windows CE... how did we NOT think of virus protection?"
At least the hammer hit them in the head before my phone went zombie and started racking up $500 dollar bills spamming viagra advertisement text messages. And now we have videophones. Imagine having your phone eat up its alread limited bandwidth by sending out miniature banner adds to VOIP numbers and email addresses, and random yahoo messenger profiles,
The artist isn't getting a chance to sell the concert recording. They weren't even asked. The intent of the person doing the recording doesn't change the fact that the artist needs a say.
The attitude of many artists suggests that they would probably not have any problem with you or me paying the mixer for a live recording. But that same artist will surely have a problem with me burning copies and selling them. And I KNOW the production company is going to have a problem with it. The record store owner should be glad that charges were pressed instead of a civil suit.
"a concert is a one time deal, if i listen to a recording of a concert last night, did the artist lose money because i didnt attend it?
doubtful"
Maybe you couldn't make it to the concert, maybe you just didn't feel like paying 50 bucks for a cheap ticket. That comes down to what you feel is right. But if you paid your friend more than the cost of the CD for it, then we have a problem.
Because the recording shouldn't exist. If the artist wants to have a cd burner farm behind the stage that tosses mixboard recordings into the crowd, then that's fine and great.
You aren't understanding the situation. It isn't the recording of the live performance that has protection. Eric Clapton's live recordings that you can buy off Amazon have the same protection as his studio work. The problem is that with bootlegs, the artists aren't getting a say in whether a recording is made of their concert. If they wanted a live recording of their concert, they would exlicitly allow the listeners to make their own, or publish it themselves and make some more money off of their own efforts Terrible, I know. Why can't more artists take vows of poverty...
When someone who hasn't received permission to records the concert, that makes the recording illegal because it violates the artist's copyright.
When a concert is televised, do you think the networks didn't receive permission to do so? If they didn't, people would be charged, fined, and sued into bankruptsy. It is the same concept, just not on as grand of a scale.
I can understand why the guy had charges brought against him, assuming they were posted notices prohibiting the recording of the concert. I think that since bootlegs are illegal in the first place, that having a limit on the ban is silly. That simply invites people to wait for the statute of limitations or the copyright to run out, whichever ends up passing first. Then they ebay the cd or dvd for about 50 jillion dollars to rabid collectors. The only way to fight the problem would be to search for huge caches of no-yet-released bootleg recordings. Whether or not the industry is charging rediculous prices for albums doesn't change the fact that the artist and the company they're contracted to should get the money for their work. You can be certain that the record store owner wasn't sending a check to EMI every month with "your portion from the sale of home-made concert cd's" in the memo block. Don't our judges have better things to do than striking down laws that actually make sense?
but in he service pack they only specify to not chew on "faces", which simply leaves tons of other options.
Rats are able to squeeze through tiny holes and I am pretty sure they (the rats)realize this. So, what happens when a rat tries to squeeze through a hole and strips off the backpack, or gets the equipment caught on something and panics.
I have a feeling the technology isn't near usable yet. They didn't mention what method the equipment uses to transmit. Is the signal compact enough that it only needs to send a few bits or even just a tone on a certain frequency to the waiting receiver? I realize we're not trying to send tons of info, but my old 802.11a access point couldn't punch through a smoke filled room. How are they going to get a signal through rubble when there are bound to be chunks of metal everywhere. And the middle of a city is going to have its own sources of radio interference, and that's not taking the tons of electronic gadgets and transmitters that the emergency response and television networks have nearby.