I don't think I'd want to do it in something that looked like that
Are you afraid of what the tabloids would print in the caption under the scandalous picture of you inside of a terribly un-stylish vehicle or something?
Now, if somebody would make a hybrid minivan,
I dunno. Somehow, I think you lose a lot fewer geek cred points being seen with the homebrew EV + pusher than in a mini-van.
No, but I am not the one making an assertion that it is. Like poker, the rule is: you're the one who raised the pot, so you're the first one to show down.
Part 15 devices, which covers most of the so-called "intentional radiator" unlicensed devices, operate at such low power levels as to have absolutely no conceivable health impact. When you start getting into possible impacts on safety depends on which band you're talking about. Amateurs need to start actually doing checks when they exceed 500 watts on frequencies lower than 8 MHz, with a gradual reduction down to 50 watts at 28 MHz, then staying at 50 watts for the entirety of VHF and gradually rising from there up to 250 watts by the top of UHF. If you exceed those power levels, you are responsible for doing the calculations to insure that your antenna is far enough away from people to be safe (that is, power below those levels is presumed to be safe).
Amateurs generally are allowed up to 1.5 kW (though some bands, modes and situations allow less). By way of comparison, CB radios use 4 watts, unlicensed FRS radios transmit half a watt.
The gist of my comment was, and remains, that radiating enough RF to have any potential impact on biology (note that I said "radiate," not "generate." Microwave ovens generate lots of power, but they don't radiate it outside of the confines of the box) requires an FCC license (in areas governed by the FCC, at least).
If you're operating high-powered RF equipment, you're legally required to do it a certain distance from other people.
You're also legally required to obtain FCC license to do it. That's the difference between that and the instant case of the home chemist. In the case of an amateur radio license, you need to pass a written examination in order to demonstrate that you know what you're doing so as to not cause interference (or harm to yourself or others, if the power is high enough).
That may be true, but a typographical error can still result in incorrect grammar, which when the original comment is about the school system, is tremendously ironic.
Damn. Why do I need to explain this stuff to a stupid AC?
Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.
I don't think any reasonable observer would come to the conclusion that the IOC is sponsoring the video. That is the confusion that trademark protection is designed to avoid.
They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.
I would suggest that the IOC is as complicit with the Chinese human rights record as the Vatican was with Hitler's. Whether that is a level that garners outrage or not is something that is indeed worthy of debate, but orthogonal to the issue here.
Telltale claims that they are going to make use of the wiimote's special capabilities. Of course, every game writer claims that, but if they do, then you're wrong, and that would justify a price difference.
Go read my post again. Officially, it's not supported.
For an adventure game, a mouse would likely be better.
Telltale claims that they're going to make use of the Wiimote's unique capabilities. If that's true, then that might, in and of itself, justify the price difference.
I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.
There'd be no suit. The poster of the video should engage in the DMCA counter-claim procedure with YouTube, which should result in the video's restoration. Since the originator of the complaint should know damn well that they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing before a judge, it's likely to end right there.
A trademark's purpose is to allow someone selling Coca-Cola to prevent someone else from selling "I can't believe it's not Coca-Cola" and benefiting from the former's good name and marketing efforts unjustly via consumer confusion.
It is not trademark infringement to use a company's trademark to specifically identify that company's product in the context of criticism of that company's actions. Parody or not. I can opine that Microsoft is evil or Windows XP is crap without any fear that I am infringing their trademark doing it.
acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.
What evidence do we have that that is true other than the word of the Chinese government that is currently running the place?
I've heard this said a couple of times in this thread and just wonder if there is any independent evidence that really suggests that it's true. Film of Tibetan children smiling and waving Chinese flags does not count.
Given that you can't (officially) use a Wiimote on a Windows box, I would hazard a guess that it's probably better on the Wii. Thus the discount for the crappier platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I'd want to do it in something that looked like that
Are you afraid of what the tabloids would print in the caption under the scandalous picture of you inside of a terribly un-stylish vehicle or something?
Now, if somebody would make a hybrid minivan,
I dunno. Somehow, I think you lose a lot fewer geek cred points being seen with the homebrew EV + pusher than in a mini-van.
That looks ridiculous.
It's ugly because it's homemade. Hate on the implementation, not the idea.
I think a much better solution is a diesel generator on a trailer
Read the linked article.
1. Sufficiently powerful generators would be unreasonably heavy and expensive.
2. A pusher is far more efficient due to the reduced number of energy conversions required.
You should read the site I linked. A pusher is more efficient, if nothing else.
I'd love to see a disruptive-technology electric car emerge from small companies, but I don't think it will happen.
I do.
Remember tho in the US, power companies aren't allowed to be profitable.
really? I had no idea.
He might break even in 5 years.
Electric cars last a lot longer, and I owned my last (traditional IC engine) car for 10 years. So in my book, that's a win.
I would love an electric car. But a few times a year, I drive from the Bay Area to San Diego. This is the perfect solution to the problem.
No, but I am not the one making an assertion that it is. Like poker, the rule is: you're the one who raised the pot, so you're the first one to show down.
Part 15 devices, which covers most of the so-called "intentional radiator" unlicensed devices, operate at such low power levels as to have absolutely no conceivable health impact. When you start getting into possible impacts on safety depends on which band you're talking about. Amateurs need to start actually doing checks when they exceed 500 watts on frequencies lower than 8 MHz, with a gradual reduction down to 50 watts at 28 MHz, then staying at 50 watts for the entirety of VHF and gradually rising from there up to 250 watts by the top of UHF. If you exceed those power levels, you are responsible for doing the calculations to insure that your antenna is far enough away from people to be safe (that is, power below those levels is presumed to be safe).
Amateurs generally are allowed up to 1.5 kW (though some bands, modes and situations allow less). By way of comparison, CB radios use 4 watts, unlicensed FRS radios transmit half a watt.
The gist of my comment was, and remains, that radiating enough RF to have any potential impact on biology (note that I said "radiate," not "generate." Microwave ovens generate lots of power, but they don't radiate it outside of the confines of the box) requires an FCC license (in areas governed by the FCC, at least).
If you're operating high-powered RF equipment, you're legally required to do it a certain distance from other people.
You're also legally required to obtain FCC license to do it. That's the difference between that and the instant case of the home chemist. In the case of an amateur radio license, you need to pass a written examination in order to demonstrate that you know what you're doing so as to not cause interference (or harm to yourself or others, if the power is high enough).
That may be true, but a typographical error can still result in incorrect grammar, which when the original comment is about the school system, is tremendously ironic.
Damn. Why do I need to explain this stuff to a stupid AC?
Yes, but you usually get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.
Except if you, say, come in to put out a fire in the air conditioning and then discover a chem lab in the basement.
I don't this this science stuff is going to be a problem
Apparently that grammar stuff isn't a problem anymore right now.
Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.
I don't think any reasonable observer would come to the conclusion that the IOC is sponsoring the video. That is the confusion that trademark protection is designed to avoid.
They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.
I would suggest that the IOC is as complicit with the Chinese human rights record as the Vatican was with Hitler's. Whether that is a level that garners outrage or not is something that is indeed worthy of debate, but orthogonal to the issue here.
Of course in this case, it is 99.999% likely that step 5 will be omitted.
Telltale claims that they are going to make use of the wiimote's special capabilities. Of course, every game writer claims that, but if they do, then you're wrong, and that would justify a price difference.
People them on Windows boxes all the time.
Go read my post again. Officially, it's not supported.
For an adventure game, a mouse would likely be better.
Telltale claims that they're going to make use of the Wiimote's unique capabilities. If that's true, then that might, in and of itself, justify the price difference.
I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.
There'd be no suit. The poster of the video should engage in the DMCA counter-claim procedure with YouTube, which should result in the video's restoration. Since the originator of the complaint should know damn well that they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing before a judge, it's likely to end right there.
What I don't understand why Google is just killing every video that get a copyright claim.
Because the DMCA says that if they don't, they'd be responsible for contributory infringement. The DMCA procedure immunizes them from liability.
A trademark's purpose is to allow someone selling Coca-Cola to prevent someone else from selling "I can't believe it's not Coca-Cola" and benefiting from the former's good name and marketing efforts unjustly via consumer confusion.
It is not trademark infringement to use a company's trademark to specifically identify that company's product in the context of criticism of that company's actions. Parody or not. I can opine that Microsoft is evil or Windows XP is crap without any fear that I am infringing their trademark doing it.
But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second",
then everybody would sell their stock into the toilet.
acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.
What evidence do we have that that is true other than the word of the Chinese government that is currently running the place?
I've heard this said a couple of times in this thread and just wonder if there is any independent evidence that really suggests that it's true. Film of Tibetan children smiling and waving Chinese flags does not count.
Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.
Says who, exactly? The very same Chinese government that took over?
Given that you can't (officially) use a Wiimote on a Windows box, I would hazard a guess that it's probably better on the Wii. Thus the discount for the crappier platform.
Whoosh.