Here's what happened in Japan when the 2011 tsunami encountered a sea wall that is just a bit too low.
And a story about another town with a double sea wall. The tsunami destroyed the outer sea wall, and came over a 10m seawall to essentially destroy the town.
A sea wall that is lower than a tsunami offers almost no protection.
So many disasters? I count 4 worldwide. SL-1, TMI, Chernobyl, & Fukushima Dai-ichi. 3 of those were at least 25 years ago, and Fk was damaged by a M9 earthquake AND a 15m Tsunami. Only Chernoybl and Dai-ichi released major amounts of radiation. Only Chernobyl caused more than 4 deaths (although Daiichi will almost certainly have many attributed to cancer over the next 20 years).
That the radiation release from Dai-ichi wasn't much worse is a testament to the engineering and safety of nuclear power. This was a first generation reactor built to withstand a M8 quake, yet it took a much larger quake and a tsunami of epic proportions to cause the problems. That's not to downplay the scale of the disaster, it was a disaster, but given circumstances, it could have been far worse if it weren't for good engineering and the workers who stayed to contain it. Had the same thing happened to a Gen III plant with passive safety systems, it would potentially be back in operation now (after months of inspections for hidden damage). In fact, there were Gen II and Gen III reactors operating in Japan, and they're still going (although they didn't get the same level of tsunami and didn't all feel as much impact from the quake).
Those disasters weren't the result of companies unwilling to pay for safety systems, the were the result of designs that didn't have passive safety systems. Chernobyl used an unstable RBMK reactor design. As for cutting corners on safety systems, simple profit. It's far less expensive to pay for the safety systems, than to lose one or more reactors to a disaster. A single disaster bankrupts the company. Loss of the reactor, loss of revenue from generating power, and the cleanup costs. Companies can't afford to cut corners, as even a minor failure is costly and a meltdown (even with no radiation release) is far too costly.
However, if the sea wall was 12 meters high and the tsunami actually 15 meters high, the barrier would have significantly reduced the amount of over run. If you watched the video of the wave hitting Fukashima, you saw a brief leading edge slam into and overrun the sea wall, then a mass of water that was not as high. It is certainly possible that the higher wall would have significantly limited the damage.
No, it wouldn't have. A Tsunami is not like a normal wave. Water would have poured over the sea wall for 15-30 minutes, so it would have risen just as high with the sea wall. A sea wall that is 1ft lower than a tsunami height is of little use, one of 1m-5m lower be of no benefit at all.
Well, in the US, we haven't had an opportunity to find out. Haven't started construction a new reactor since the late 80's because of licensing, environmental, and A-N lawsuits. So, we're left with aging Gen I and Gen II reactors and no newer, safer replacements being built.
The patent covers VFAT, the long-names extension to FAT. Simple way to avoid the patent, don't support long names, only support FAT on your memory cards. Of course, the license fee for VFAT probably isn't very large so that one might not be worth the the tradeoff.
YouTube can't make the decision about whether it's parody, they must take it down when they receive the notice in order to preserve their safe-harbor protection. No discretion is permitted. If the takedown notice is fraudulent (the filing party didn't have rights to the copyright claimed, or they failed to take into account fair use exceptions), you may have recourse against the person/company who filed the takedown notice. But in no case is YouTube to make a determination about the validity of the takedown notice or counter-notice, only that they are compliant with the requirements for notice/counter-notice.
That's not up to YouTube to decide, that's for the courts to decide. YouTube is simply to take it down when they receive a compliant DMCA takedown notice, and restore it when they receive a compliant counter-notice. Everything else it to be settled by the parties in negotiations or on court.
Actually, the content must be put back regardless of whether the claimant files a lawsuit. Once they receive a proper counter-notice, they must put it back (unless it violates their TOS) until they receive a court order to take it down. They are not to make any attempt to determine the validity of the claim/counter-claim, only to follow the procedure.
YouTube doesn't have to evaluate his counter-notice, in fact, they shouldn't. Simply making a counterclaim with an affidavit that you believe you have the rights to use the material gets YouTube off the hook. If they're evaluating the validity of the claims and counterclaims, they're opening themselves up to additional liability. Under DMCA, a provider must take down material when they receive a DMCA takedown notice, and the must restore it after counter-notice. If they're doing anything to evaluate the validity (as opposed to the statutory compliance) of the notices, they're not following the law and have compromised their safe harbor protection.
Which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is unclear? Searching your cell phone without a warrant is a blatantly clear violation.
Still, the power levels are so low, maximum is 1% of a modern microwave oven, and radiated in all directions so that amount actually reaching human tissue doesn't produce enough heat to even feel it, certainly not enough that blood circulation can't remove any excess heat. Therefore, damage from heating is extremely unlikely. And since it's non-ionizing, there is no other known mechanism by which it can cause harm (cancer or other).
I meant to type "clients" (plural, not possessive). Many hundreds of HD's and many dozens of failures over the 15+ years that HDs have had SMART. Only one or two of the failures were predicted by SMART. I'll put my much larger sample, and Google's vastly larger sample up against your friend's/family's machines any day. SMART is NOT a reliable predictor of HD failure and never has been.
The microwave frequency that heats water is 2.45GHz, and no cell phones operate at that frequency, so the effect will be minimal. Also, the transmit power of cell phones it 0.6W or less (usually much less except when you're at the fringe of reception). The power and frequencies are so small that they will probably never be able to establish a correlation, even if there is some small risk. The studies that have been done are sufficient to eliminate it as a real concern, even though we'll never be able to prove there is no connection and will probably never be able to prove there is a correlation.
A government should not be investing in commercializing technologies, that's what businesses are for. Gov't should only fund research to develop technologies to the point that they appear to be viable for commercialization, then let private investors take the risks of actually producing and commercializing the product. We're investing in the wrong things. In some cases, a gov't may invest it or subsidize the development of infrastructure (e.g. roads, communication lines, power lines, railroads, water supply and sewer systems), but never in production facilities that will not be owned and operated by the gov't (e.g. a city water district may build a water and sewage treatment facility that they will operate).
So stop worrying about all the things that contribute so little to the risk that a 350,000 person study can't identify a link. Enjoy your life, and avoid the things with a strong correlation to cancer, like tobacco, excessive UV exposure, high levels of radioactivity, etc.
We don't need more study of a link between cell phone usage and cancer, because repeated studies have shown that any risk is too low to measure even in large studies of long term users, therefore, too low to worry about.
It could be stated that the HDD is more entwined in technology than the FDD was and so it may be more well more than 11 years before we see Magnetic HDD's disappear from the consumer marketplace.
No. If price and capacity are similar, SSD is a complete replacement for HDD. They use the same form factors and same interfaces. FDD survived so long because of existing removable media. CD/DVD drives will persist for the same reason. HDDs have no backward compatibility issues to maintain other than form factor and interface. If/when SSDs approach the price and capacity of HDD, the HDD will die rapidly because the SSD has huge advantages in latency and portable durability, plus advantages in power, weight, and transfer rate.
Don't fly. Write your representatives demanding they abolish the TSA. Do not submit to their tyranny. They are operating in an unconstitutional manner, their methods are completely ineffective against terrorism. Their methods are designed to get "law abiding citizens" to comply with their illegal searches. Civil disobedience and protests are effective.
And why are the spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "porno-scanners" that are proven ineffective for the airports, but using bomb sniffing dogs (which are much cheaper and proven effective) for VIPR? Because it's not about stopping terrorism, it's about control and compliance.
You're missing the point. At those distances and speeds, if you finish your drive with the battery empty, it will have time to recharge before you need to drive again.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish there were an edit button on /. 350, 350, 350, 350. Ok, my fingers seem to have that pattern down now.
I'm pretty sure they haven't been doing science online for 350 years yet.
Here's what happened in Japan when the 2011 tsunami encountered a sea wall that is just a bit too low.
And a story about another town with a double sea wall. The tsunami destroyed the outer sea wall, and came over a 10m seawall to essentially destroy the town.
A sea wall that is lower than a tsunami offers almost no protection.
So many disasters? I count 4 worldwide. SL-1, TMI, Chernobyl, & Fukushima Dai-ichi. 3 of those were at least 25 years ago, and Fk was damaged by a M9 earthquake AND a 15m Tsunami. Only Chernoybl and Dai-ichi released major amounts of radiation. Only Chernobyl caused more than 4 deaths (although Daiichi will almost certainly have many attributed to cancer over the next 20 years).
That the radiation release from Dai-ichi wasn't much worse is a testament to the engineering and safety of nuclear power. This was a first generation reactor built to withstand a M8 quake, yet it took a much larger quake and a tsunami of epic proportions to cause the problems. That's not to downplay the scale of the disaster, it was a disaster, but given circumstances, it could have been far worse if it weren't for good engineering and the workers who stayed to contain it. Had the same thing happened to a Gen III plant with passive safety systems, it would potentially be back in operation now (after months of inspections for hidden damage). In fact, there were Gen II and Gen III reactors operating in Japan, and they're still going (although they didn't get the same level of tsunami and didn't all feel as much impact from the quake).
Those disasters weren't the result of companies unwilling to pay for safety systems, the were the result of designs that didn't have passive safety systems. Chernobyl used an unstable RBMK reactor design. As for cutting corners on safety systems, simple profit. It's far less expensive to pay for the safety systems, than to lose one or more reactors to a disaster. A single disaster bankrupts the company. Loss of the reactor, loss of revenue from generating power, and the cleanup costs. Companies can't afford to cut corners, as even a minor failure is costly and a meltdown (even with no radiation release) is far too costly.
However, if the sea wall was 12 meters high and the tsunami actually 15 meters high, the barrier would have significantly reduced the amount of over run. If you watched the video of the wave hitting Fukashima, you saw a brief leading edge slam into and overrun the sea wall, then a mass of water that was not as high. It is certainly possible that the higher wall would have significantly limited the damage.
No, it wouldn't have. A Tsunami is not like a normal wave. Water would have poured over the sea wall for 15-30 minutes, so it would have risen just as high with the sea wall. A sea wall that is 1ft lower than a tsunami height is of little use, one of 1m-5m lower be of no benefit at all.
Well, in the US, we haven't had an opportunity to find out. Haven't started construction a new reactor since the late 80's because of licensing, environmental, and A-N lawsuits. So, we're left with aging Gen I and Gen II reactors and no newer, safer replacements being built.
A 6m, or even a 12m sea wall would not have helped. The only thing damning about this is the summary.
The patent covers VFAT, the long-names extension to FAT. Simple way to avoid the patent, don't support long names, only support FAT on your memory cards. Of course, the license fee for VFAT probably isn't very large so that one might not be worth the the tradeoff.
And what make you think that's any different than what I said? My original statement is accurate.
YouTube can't make the decision about whether it's parody, they must take it down when they receive the notice in order to preserve their safe-harbor protection. No discretion is permitted. If the takedown notice is fraudulent (the filing party didn't have rights to the copyright claimed, or they failed to take into account fair use exceptions), you may have recourse against the person/company who filed the takedown notice. But in no case is YouTube to make a determination about the validity of the takedown notice or counter-notice, only that they are compliant with the requirements for notice/counter-notice.
IANAL
Thanks for the clarification.
That's not up to YouTube to decide, that's for the courts to decide. YouTube is simply to take it down when they receive a compliant DMCA takedown notice, and restore it when they receive a compliant counter-notice. Everything else it to be settled by the parties in negotiations or on court.
Actually, the content must be put back regardless of whether the claimant files a lawsuit. Once they receive a proper counter-notice, they must put it back (unless it violates their TOS) until they receive a court order to take it down. They are not to make any attempt to determine the validity of the claim/counter-claim, only to follow the procedure.
YouTube doesn't have to evaluate his counter-notice, in fact, they shouldn't. Simply making a counterclaim with an affidavit that you believe you have the rights to use the material gets YouTube off the hook. If they're evaluating the validity of the claims and counterclaims, they're opening themselves up to additional liability. Under DMCA, a provider must take down material when they receive a DMCA takedown notice, and the must restore it after counter-notice. If they're doing anything to evaluate the validity (as opposed to the statutory compliance) of the notices, they're not following the law and have compromised their safe harbor protection.
Which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is unclear? Searching your cell phone without a warrant is a blatantly clear violation.
Thanks for that correction. I had missed that.
Still, the power levels are so low, maximum is 1% of a modern microwave oven, and radiated in all directions so that amount actually reaching human tissue doesn't produce enough heat to even feel it, certainly not enough that blood circulation can't remove any excess heat. Therefore, damage from heating is extremely unlikely. And since it's non-ionizing, there is no other known mechanism by which it can cause harm (cancer or other).
I meant to type "clients" (plural, not possessive). Many hundreds of HD's and many dozens of failures over the 15+ years that HDs have had SMART. Only one or two of the failures were predicted by SMART. I'll put my much larger sample, and Google's vastly larger sample up against your friend's/family's machines any day. SMART is NOT a reliable predictor of HD failure and never has been.
The microwave frequency that heats water is 2.45GHz, and no cell phones operate at that frequency, so the effect will be minimal. Also, the transmit power of cell phones it 0.6W or less (usually much less except when you're at the fringe of reception). The power and frequencies are so small that they will probably never be able to establish a correlation, even if there is some small risk. The studies that have been done are sufficient to eliminate it as a real concern, even though we'll never be able to prove there is no connection and will probably never be able to prove there is a correlation.
A government should not be investing in commercializing technologies, that's what businesses are for. Gov't should only fund research to develop technologies to the point that they appear to be viable for commercialization, then let private investors take the risks of actually producing and commercializing the product. We're investing in the wrong things. In some cases, a gov't may invest it or subsidize the development of infrastructure (e.g. roads, communication lines, power lines, railroads, water supply and sewer systems), but never in production facilities that will not be owned and operated by the gov't (e.g. a city water district may build a water and sewage treatment facility that they will operate).
Very few, and those studies were seriously flawed. They had plenty that showed there was a link, they just never published those studies.
So stop worrying about all the things that contribute so little to the risk that a 350,000 person study can't identify a link. Enjoy your life, and avoid the things with a strong correlation to cancer, like tobacco, excessive UV exposure, high levels of radioactivity, etc.
We don't need more study of a link between cell phone usage and cancer, because repeated studies have shown that any risk is too low to measure even in large studies of long term users, therefore, too low to worry about.
It could be stated that the HDD is more entwined in technology than the FDD was and so it may be more well more than 11 years before we see Magnetic HDD's disappear from the consumer marketplace.
No. If price and capacity are similar, SSD is a complete replacement for HDD. They use the same form factors and same interfaces. FDD survived so long because of existing removable media. CD/DVD drives will persist for the same reason. HDDs have no backward compatibility issues to maintain other than form factor and interface. If/when SSDs approach the price and capacity of HDD, the HDD will die rapidly because the SSD has huge advantages in latency and portable durability, plus advantages in power, weight, and transfer rate.
SMART hasn't predicted a single one of the HD failure's that my client's or I have experienced. SMART is useful, but not at a predictor of failure.
Don't fly. Write your representatives demanding they abolish the TSA. Do not submit to their tyranny. They are operating in an unconstitutional manner, their methods are completely ineffective against terrorism. Their methods are designed to get "law abiding citizens" to comply with their illegal searches. Civil disobedience and protests are effective.
And why are the spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "porno-scanners" that are proven ineffective for the airports, but using bomb sniffing dogs (which are much cheaper and proven effective) for VIPR? Because it's not about stopping terrorism, it's about control and compliance.
You're missing the point. At those distances and speeds, if you finish your drive with the battery empty, it will have time to recharge before you need to drive again.