This development is really a matter of combining existing offshore wind energy expertise and spar or tension leg platform (TLP) technology already well used by the oil & gas industry.
I had this concept going through my mind over two years ago. I've got a stack of papers and specs accumulated looking at the details of the technolgy. I was intending (dreaming) of starting a company to develop a proposal to place a wind turbine field in Bass Strait. Such a venture might be useful in offsetting the impact of Steve Brack's enormous desalination project./*shudder*/
I think all the technology is well developed and in place. The problem is that it is distributed amongst several disparate industry groups, and just needs to be successfuly combined, which is more of a human resource problem than anything technical.
Good on these Norwegians for pursuing this. I hope they are successful. /*I'm a Mech Eng and closet greenie (actually more of an Olduvai doomer) and work in the O&G engineering and construction industry.*/
I think the context of this discussion was abundantly clear. We were talking about a quantity of material. In such a case, it is quite obvious that mass is the type of unit in discussion.
For the majority of the population, this is the default interpretation, and is the context of my criticism of the GP (he was talking about buying quantities of groceries). Traditionally, groceries were weighed out using balance scales, which is entirely acceleration neutral. Other, later dispensing/metering technologies are calibrated against known masses. The definition of gravity is never something that is negotiated in the context of custody transfer of materials.
Pound-force (lbf) will be more commonly used in the engineering community for engineering type topics. This use was not the topic of discussion in the GP post, and where ever I"ve seen it used in engineering circles (I'm a Mech Eng), its usage is usually qualified as either lbm or lbf.
Aside from the use of slugs and poundals (which are uniquely US units, essentially used to clarify the duplicate use of a term), the international pound is defined with respect to mass.
Or do you buy your produce "by the pound", but allow the grocer to define the gravity it's measured against? I'm convinced you must be an ignorant tit. Pounds, grams, kilograms etc are units of mass, which are entirely independent of gravity.
Gallons, litres etc, are entirely independent of density. If you wanted to assure an amount of energy transfer in a fuel sale, you'd sell fuel by mass.
Not sure quite how you track down a security flaw for free. Methinks that the software companies interested in patching to mitigate the exploits in their software will not consider their inhouse resources as cost-free.
The best a software company might hope for by not bidding (or losing) is using the information as a bit of help if narrowing down the search, or more probably, becoming aware of the potential exploit in the first instance.
I know a guy who did this with his extended family. He said it's amazing how driving attitudes and general care changed when the insured were also the (significant) "shareholders". Additionally, during the time he had this arrangement in operation, they actually ended up with so much money they decided to distribute dividends.
This was in Australia, where the insurance scope was for the insured vehicle and third party property damage. Third party injury etc is covered under a compulsory basis, usually paid with the annual registration fees.
I guess that this is how insurance companies actually start. They would then on-sell the risks they couldn't manage to a reinsurance company.
While the computers have experienced hiccups in the past, a system-wide reboot typically solved the problem, mission managers said. OMG, let's just power cycle the ISS, shall we? Should fix the problem...
Thus it often seems to one party that the exchange benefits them, (example: Native americans trading land to Europeans for beads), when in reality its a horribly bad idea. You're confusing lack of long-term strategic business planning with short term trading decisions. At the time of the exchange, both parties placed more value on the goods they were to receive rather than the goods they were handing over. Buyer's remorse does not negate this reality.
My original comment was directed at the previous posters assertion that you have to be selfish to be successful in business. This is definitely not the case. You have to be sure to look after your self interests, else you'll trade your way to oblivion. You can't be selfish, else you won't find people to trade with.
Have a read of the definition of selfish. You'll find that a key point is the lack of regard for other's interests. If you lack this regard, you'll never be able to identify your customer's needs, hence, you'll not be able to locate your customers.
Business is a series of market transactions. By definition, market based transactions involve mutual benefit of both parties, else the transactions won't take place.
If you can demonstrate a sustainable selfish business model, then you're not running a business at all, you're running organised crime.
As in all projects, when you let the scope blow out, then the costs blow out proportionately. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the initial scope was to topple Saddam Hussein. Scope then changed to include installation of democracy.
Nobody wrote up a scope change request, let alone getting it signed off...
The point is to keep 80% of the recyclable waste from hitting the landfill. If a policy framework can do this, then things are better off. You'll always get dickheads who will circumvent such rules to save a few bucks. However, if a simple and easy recycling method is available (and advertised on the item) then chances are, the majority of people will work with the system
The reason why the editing time is so high (and probably why so much interesting data embedded) is because people never start from a fresh template copy. They pick up from the last job and hack it to suit the next.
This happens all the time, and in badly checked documents, you can often find whole paragraphs that are entirely unrelated to the subject. I see it all the time in purchase specifications and requisitions that get created in the industry that I work in.
A good reason to abandon formatted word-processing documents and return to plain text files.
In the US (or other net importers), there will always be a local company who is the distributor and who profits from the sale of the imported goods. If they benefit from the distribution of goods, then they should also wear some of the costs associated with disposal/clean-up for the goods' end-of-life waste.
In such a case, it would seem that, in purchasing and using boxed software (or perhaps even downloaded software) from a retailer, that there would have to be two contracts formed. One between the retailer and purchaser, and one between the software publisher and the purchaser.
It would seem some respects unfair, but in others, quite reasonable to expect the retailer to accept return of an opened product on the basis of EULA non-acceptance. I'm not sure what is the usual EULA terms, but perhaps the software publisher agrees to refund the purchase price and not impose that burden on the retailer.
If such were the case, then a concerted campaign of purchasing retailed boxed software, with deliberate intention to return to the publisher citing non-acceptance of the EULA terms, could be used to give the publisher a cashflow problem. The publisher would lose by the difference between the wholesale and retail price. Hmm... protest action idea forming.
This is exactly the problem. The penetration of.doc files (and the general public's lack of savvy regarding electronic files) form part of the momentum behind the MS monopoly. People still don't transmit "final print" documents as PDF, despite the plethora of open source, freeware & shareware implementations of PDF file creation and viewing utilities.
ODF (or OOXML) will remain a niche file-format for a long time to come. Unless applications default out-of-the-box to saving in ODF or OOXML, then not much will change for a decade at least. It has taken that long for PDF to become a household name.
Do you really think MS will lead the charge on setting up apps to behave like this?
IANAL, but legally, your first port of call for recourse should be with Walmart, since they are the vendors of the software. If they have an agreement with the software makers to manage warranty claims, then that is another story.
If some software offered for sale by Walmart does not meed advertised claims, then it is reasonable that you should pursue a claim against Walmart (either for return/refund or rectification).
I'm guessing that it comes down to this: the store sells you the hard copy of the software, but the right to use the software - i.e. copy it into your computer's memory or onto its hard drive - can only be granted by the software maker. IANAL, but as a customer, if I buy a sofware CD from a vendor, then I own that copy of the software, and under copyright law, am allowed to do any action that would normally be expected in using the copy of that software (i.e. loading it onto a computer). This right is not granted by the software maker, it is (or should be) a right that is embodied in conventional property rights.
These are the same rights that allow me to read any book that I purchase. As an owner of the copy, I also get to lend it to friends to read.
It is copyright law that obviously prevents me from making and/or distributing copies of the CD (or book). Again, this is no contract with the author or software vendor. This is law.
I would contend that since there is no consideration offered or accepted in relation to the EULA, then the EULA is not a valid or enforceable contract. I don't know if this line of argument has ever been contested, perhaps some IAAL's can respond.
I would have thought that applies to any boxed software (or software for which you make payment before receiving the installation files (and presumably EULA files).
I thougth that contracts required consideration (at least under English law) to be binding. Since the software purchase contract is separated from the EULA, how can the EULA be still binding/enforcable? Also, since the software purchase contract is usually with a vendor who isn't party to the EULA, then the consideration for supply of the software is further separated from the EULA.
Of course, the buyer purchases the software/hardware based on its utility, as advertised by the vendor, so if it does not meet the advertised utility, then I would presume a claim against the vendor is fair-game.
Since the vendor has received consideration, and has supplied the goods (CD or download of software), I don't see how they have any other rights or claims against the customer other than those embodied under conventional copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
This development is really a matter of combining existing offshore wind energy expertise and spar or tension leg platform (TLP) technology already well used by the oil & gas industry.
/*shudder*/
/*I'm a Mech Eng and closet greenie (actually more of an Olduvai doomer) and work in the O&G engineering and construction industry.*/
I had this concept going through my mind over two years ago. I've got a stack of papers and specs accumulated looking at the details of the technolgy. I was intending (dreaming) of starting a company to develop a proposal to place a wind turbine field in Bass Strait. Such a venture might be useful in offsetting the impact of Steve Brack's enormous desalination project.
I think all the technology is well developed and in place. The problem is that it is distributed amongst several disparate industry groups, and just needs to be successfuly combined, which is more of a human resource problem than anything technical.
Good on these Norwegians for pursuing this. I hope they are successful.
Exactly. Your information wants to be free.
I think the context of this discussion was abundantly clear. We were talking about a quantity of material. In such a case, it is quite obvious that mass is the type of unit in discussion.
For the majority of the population, this is the default interpretation, and is the context of my criticism of the GP (he was talking about buying quantities of groceries). Traditionally, groceries were weighed out using balance scales, which is entirely acceleration neutral. Other, later dispensing/metering technologies are calibrated against known masses. The definition of gravity is never something that is negotiated in the context of custody transfer of materials.
Pound-force (lbf) will be more commonly used in the engineering community for engineering type topics. This use was not the topic of discussion in the GP post, and where ever I"ve seen it used in engineering circles (I'm a Mech Eng), its usage is usually qualified as either lbm or lbf.
Aside from the use of slugs and poundals (which are uniquely US units, essentially used to clarify the duplicate use of a term), the international pound is defined with respect to mass.
Gallons, litres etc, are entirely independent of density. If you wanted to assure an amount of energy transfer in a fuel sale, you'd sell fuel by mass.
No problem. Microsoft has just bought out the company who developed the frickin' laser beams. Ballmer's ballistic chairs are now suitably equipped.
Not sure quite how you track down a security flaw for free. Methinks that the software companies interested in patching to mitigate the exploits in their software will not consider their inhouse resources as cost-free.
The best a software company might hope for by not bidding (or losing) is using the information as a bit of help if narrowing down the search, or more probably, becoming aware of the potential exploit in the first instance.
I know a guy who did this with his extended family. He said it's amazing how driving attitudes and general care changed when the insured were also the (significant) "shareholders". Additionally, during the time he had this arrangement in operation, they actually ended up with so much money they decided to distribute dividends.
This was in Australia, where the insurance scope was for the insured vehicle and third party property damage. Third party injury etc is covered under a compulsory basis, usually paid with the annual registration fees.
I guess that this is how insurance companies actually start. They would then on-sell the risks they couldn't manage to a reinsurance company.
What Microsoft Could Learn from ISS and Linux
We can only hope...
My original comment was directed at the previous posters assertion that you have to be selfish to be successful in business. This is definitely not the case. You have to be sure to look after your self interests, else you'll trade your way to oblivion. You can't be selfish, else you won't find people to trade with.
Have a read of the definition of selfish. You'll find that a key point is the lack of regard for other's interests. If you lack this regard, you'll never be able to identify your customer's needs, hence, you'll not be able to locate your customers.
Business is a series of market transactions. By definition, market based transactions involve mutual benefit of both parties, else the transactions won't take place.
If you can demonstrate a sustainable selfish business model, then you're not running a business at all, you're running organised crime.
As in all projects, when you let the scope blow out, then the costs blow out proportionately. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the initial scope was to topple Saddam Hussein. Scope then changed to include installation of democracy.
Nobody wrote up a scope change request, let alone getting it signed off...
The point is to keep 80% of the recyclable waste from hitting the landfill. If a policy framework can do this, then things are better off. You'll always get dickheads who will circumvent such rules to save a few bucks. However, if a simple and easy recycling method is available (and advertised on the item) then chances are, the majority of people will work with the system
...palm lifedrive... You mean this is a real product name? Does it get hairy with overuse?I hope she's got her MAC filter active, else she'll allow connections you might not be so keen on.
The reason why the editing time is so high (and probably why so much interesting data embedded) is because people never start from a fresh template copy. They pick up from the last job and hack it to suit the next.
This happens all the time, and in badly checked documents, you can often find whole paragraphs that are entirely unrelated to the subject. I see it all the time in purchase specifications and requisitions that get created in the industry that I work in.
A good reason to abandon formatted word-processing documents and return to plain text files.
Consumers will take advantage of it if landfill operators refuse to accept, and recycling firms charge to accept the waste.
Then the consumer will see that using the manufacturer's recycling scheme is advanatageous.
In the US (or other net importers), there will always be a local company who is the distributor and who profits from the sale of the imported goods. If they benefit from the distribution of goods, then they should also wear some of the costs associated with disposal/clean-up for the goods' end-of-life waste.
In such a case, it would seem that, in purchasing and using boxed software (or perhaps even downloaded software) from a retailer, that there would have to be two contracts formed. One between the retailer and purchaser, and one between the software publisher and the purchaser.
It would seem some respects unfair, but in others, quite reasonable to expect the retailer to accept return of an opened product on the basis of EULA non-acceptance. I'm not sure what is the usual EULA terms, but perhaps the software publisher agrees to refund the purchase price and not impose that burden on the retailer.
If such were the case, then a concerted campaign of purchasing retailed boxed software, with deliberate intention to return to the publisher citing non-acceptance of the EULA terms, could be used to give the publisher a cashflow problem. The publisher would lose by the difference between the wholesale and retail price. Hmm... protest action idea forming.
This is exactly the problem. The penetration of .doc files (and the general public's lack of savvy regarding electronic files) form part of the momentum behind the MS monopoly. People still don't transmit "final print" documents as PDF, despite the plethora of open source, freeware & shareware implementations of PDF file creation and viewing utilities.
ODF (or OOXML) will remain a niche file-format for a long time to come. Unless applications default out-of-the-box to saving in ODF or OOXML, then not much will change for a decade at least. It has taken that long for PDF to become a household name.
Do you really think MS will lead the charge on setting up apps to behave like this?
IANAL, but legally, your first port of call for recourse should be with Walmart, since they are the vendors of the software. If they have an agreement with the software makers to manage warranty claims, then that is another story.
If some software offered for sale by Walmart does not meed advertised claims, then it is reasonable that you should pursue a claim against Walmart (either for return/refund or rectification).
These are the same rights that allow me to read any book that I purchase. As an owner of the copy, I also get to lend it to friends to read.
It is copyright law that obviously prevents me from making and/or distributing copies of the CD (or book). Again, this is no contract with the author or software vendor. This is law.
I would contend that since there is no consideration offered or accepted in relation to the EULA, then the EULA is not a valid or enforceable contract. I don't know if this line of argument has ever been contested, perhaps some IAAL's can respond.
I would have thought that applies to any boxed software (or software for which you make payment before receiving the installation files (and presumably EULA files).
I thougth that contracts required consideration (at least under English law) to be binding. Since the software purchase contract is separated from the EULA, how can the EULA be still binding/enforcable? Also, since the software purchase contract is usually with a vendor who isn't party to the EULA, then the consideration for supply of the software is further separated from the EULA.
Of course, the buyer purchases the software/hardware based on its utility, as advertised by the vendor, so if it does not meet the advertised utility, then I would presume a claim against the vendor is fair-game.
Since the vendor has received consideration, and has supplied the goods (CD or download of software), I don't see how they have any other rights or claims against the customer other than those embodied under conventional copyright law.
Don't date a girl who's phone is connected to the same exchange...