Who would file a complaint to prosecute Mr. Cox under the DMCA? No one. Therefore, Mr. Cox's actions can only be viewed as themselves a troll, an unjustified insult.
Whether or not anyone would file a complaint to prosecute him, he would still be breaking the law, according to the advice he was given. I find it hard to criticise him for not breaking it, and even harder to justify the argument that he should have broken the law to avoid being insulting.
If you don't like the consequences of your laws, then pressure your elected representatives to change them.
The problem is when you film two adjacent scenes on different days - it's going to look a bit strange in the final cut if there are clouds in the sky and puddles everywhere in one scene but then it's gloriously sunny and dry two seconds later.
For an (unintrusive) example, examine the Indy Car chase sequence in Charlie's Angels...:-)
Does that refer to the thousands of/.ers who've spent the last weeks emailing and faxing their representatives, or to "IBM, Intel, Microsoft and others" though? WIAFLW suggests the latter (unfortunately). Forget the/. lobbying group that people have been proposing - what about a/. charity to donate campaign funds to representatives who promise to vote sensibly...:-)
Like the SCSC before it, it will end up on the cutting floor of a supposedly cost-conscious Congress.
That's a good reason for not building it in the USA, but a bad reason for not building it. This is an international collaboration we're talking about. Most of the world's particle physics experiments manage very nicely with no significant US funding at all.
A "mini" black hole has a smaller Schwarzchild radius: the accepted definition of the "size" of a black hole, equivalent to how close to the singularity you can get without being sucked in, never to return.
OK, sorry - pedantically, the rule of thumb should be "it is hard to build a rocket that carries enough fuel to allow it to change its speed by more than the magnitude of its exhaust velocity". The fact that it's change in speed that is limited hopefully clears up the misunderstanding! A longer explanation follows...
OK, the change in speed of a rocket in free space is described by the "rocket equation", which can be derived from the principles of conservation of mass and momentum:
dv = u * ln (M/m)
where dv is the change in the rocket's speed over the course of a "burn", u is the exhaust velocity of the rocket, and M and m are the initial and final masses of the rocket respectively. (Copied from an essay I wrote back as an undergrad, but you should be able to find it in any good classical mechanics textbook)
If you rearrange this equation to find what fraction of the rocket's mass must be fuel in order for its *change* in speed to equal its exhaust velocity, we find:
(M/m) = e^(dv/u) == e
ie the rocket must be 73% fuel, a reasonable figure which justifies the "rule of thmumb".
The exhaust velocity is measured relative to the spacecraft's engine, of course! The spacecraft's velocity is most sensibly measured relative to an observer who was stationary with respect to it when it took off. Of course, thanks to relativity, you can pick any frame you like to measure the velocities in, but the answer stays the same.
It's a matter of exhaust velocity. The higher your exhaust velocity, the more efficiently your engine can turn each ounce of fuel into speed. For a more technical description, see the NASA definition of specific impulse - ion engines have a much higher specific impulse compared to chemical ones.
Also, as a rule of thumb, your engine becomes very inefficient once your spacecraft has exceeded its exhaust velocity. Chemical rocket engines have a maximum exhaust velocity of something like 3km/s - ion engines are more like 10-15km/s.
Of course, that $50-an-hour valuation is only valid if you *do* work during the time that Teflon saves you - if you're anything like me, that's unlikely...:-)
You can't justify SETI by its technological spinoffs; it's like justifying the entire US space programme by Teflon(r) or the whole of Particle Physics by the WWW.
In all these cases it is likely that the same amount of money invested in more directed research would have produced more and better tangible results (in the short term, anyway..).
In my opinion, pure scientific research should be justified only on its own merits. (And, incidentally, I think that SETI is a complete waste of money and clock cycles - spend the money on building warp drives, and your CPU time on "curing cancer".:-) )
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism
WTF does this mean? That because someone posts an article that you *think* (note the key word, as liberals tend to think most anything is racist) is racist, the whole site is bad?
Hm. Since the thoughts in the mind of the accused can never be proved one way or the other, racism is very much in the eye of the beholder...
Have you consider the possibility that the signal loss was due to the increasing distance between the transmitter and receiver? These things tend to happen when the transmitter is flying away from you at Mach 25.
I think you've misunderstood the technology. The projector is fixed in space and the screen spins; the projected image changes with time to match the spinning of the screen and give a constant (3D-effect) image.
To create a recording system based on this technology, you must find the logical reversal of this playback method, and a spinning camera isn't it! Hypothetically, I think you would have to have the spinning screen occupying the same space as the object being filmed, and then record the light *inside* the screen as it spun.
I suppose you could spin a camera around the object and then use heavy computer munging to generate a signal to drive the projector, but frankly you might as well just use CG to start with...:-)
One of the reasons the British military is so much more effective than the French and German militaries is that spending is based on what is best for the job, not on politics.
The result: highly publicised layoffs in the defence sector, and an aerospace industry reduced to making the wings for Airbus 'planes! (Well, nearly...:-) )
What you say is certainly true for enterprise-ware like Oracle, but that doesn't mean that binary compatibility isn't a real issue! The quantity of binary-only distributed Linux software grows daily, but the prospect of providing and supporting versions for even 80% of the installed Linux architectures and kernel and library versions must surely be dissuading manufacturers from porting?
Assuming that the Linux community wants to support closed-source software, surely some solution has to be found to at least ensure that such software works on the majority of the major distributions and versions?
Oracle may be a poor example, but the problem is real.
Slashdot Mirror
Who would file a complaint to prosecute Mr. Cox under the DMCA? No one. Therefore, Mr. Cox's actions can only be viewed as themselves a troll, an unjustified insult.
Whether or not anyone would file a complaint to prosecute him, he would still be breaking the law, according to the advice he was given. I find it hard to criticise him for not breaking it, and even harder to justify the argument that he should have broken the law to avoid being insulting.
If you don't like the consequences of your laws, then pressure your elected representatives to change them.
The problem is when you film two adjacent scenes on different days - it's going to look a bit strange in the final cut if there are clouds in the sky and puddles everywhere in one scene but then it's gloriously sunny and dry two seconds later.
For an (unintrusive) example, examine the Indy Car chase sequence in Charlie's Angels... :-)
Does that refer to the thousands of /.ers who've spent the last weeks emailing and faxing their representatives, or to "IBM, Intel, Microsoft and others" though? WIAFLW suggests the latter (unfortunately). Forget the /. lobbying group that people have been proposing - what about a /. charity to donate campaign funds to representatives who promise to vote sensibly... :-)
Don't you think it's sad that "the kind of good press Nasa needs right now" is "nothing particularly bad happens"?
Like the SCSC before it, it will end up on the cutting floor of a supposedly cost-conscious Congress.
That's a good reason for not building it in the USA, but a bad reason for not building it. This is an international collaboration we're talking about. Most of the world's particle physics experiments manage very nicely with no significant US funding at all.
A "mini" black hole has a smaller Schwarzchild radius: the accepted definition of the "size" of a black hole, equivalent to how close to the singularity you can get without being sucked in, never to return.
Well, it depends on whether you're trying to justify electric propulsion or multi-stage rockets, doesn't it? :-)
(/me thinks that this new slashcode messages feature promotes too many 1-1 arguments...)
Yes, but for doing that, if you live in the states, they can throw you in prison for circumventing a copyright control device.
Neat, huh?
OK, sorry - pedantically, the rule of thumb should be "it is hard to build a rocket that carries enough fuel to allow it to change its speed by more than the magnitude of its exhaust velocity". The fact that it's change in speed that is limited hopefully clears up the misunderstanding! A longer explanation follows...
OK, the change in speed of a rocket in free space is described by the "rocket equation", which can be derived from the principles of conservation of mass and momentum:
dv = u * ln (M/m)
where dv is the change in the rocket's speed over the course of a "burn", u is the exhaust velocity of the rocket, and M and m are the initial and final masses of the rocket respectively. (Copied from an essay I wrote back as an undergrad, but you should be able to find it in any good classical mechanics textbook)
If you rearrange this equation to find what fraction of the rocket's mass must be fuel in order for its *change* in speed to equal its exhaust velocity, we find:
(M/m) = e^(dv/u) == e
ie the rocket must be 73% fuel, a reasonable figure which justifies the "rule of thmumb".
The exhaust velocity is measured relative to the spacecraft's engine, of course! The spacecraft's velocity is most sensibly measured relative to an observer who was stationary with respect to it when it took off. Of course, thanks to relativity, you can pick any frame you like to measure the velocities in, but the answer stays the same.
It's a matter of exhaust velocity. The higher your exhaust velocity, the more efficiently your engine can turn each ounce of fuel into speed. For a more technical description, see the NASA definition of specific impulse - ion engines have a much higher specific impulse compared to chemical ones.
Also, as a rule of thumb, your engine becomes very inefficient once your spacecraft has exceeded its exhaust velocity. Chemical rocket engines have a maximum exhaust velocity of something like 3km/s - ion engines are more like 10-15km/s.
In the UK, the infamous RIP act states that it's up to the accused party to prove that the apparent garbage is *not* encrypted data.
Nah - the pressure in the plasma is a far far greater barrier to containment than gravity.
Yup, that's the kind of poor justifaction for SETI that I'm talking about. :-)
See the gallery and the (bay area) artists themselves. ('ware Flash!)
Actually, this was all in The Standard a couple of months ago...
Of course, that $50-an-hour valuation is only valid if you *do* work during the time that Teflon saves you - if you're anything like me, that's unlikely... :-)
You can't justify SETI by its technological spinoffs; it's like justifying the entire US space programme by Teflon(r) or the whole of Particle Physics by the WWW.
In all these cases it is likely that the same amount of money invested in more directed research would have produced more and better tangible results (in the short term, anyway..).
In my opinion, pure scientific research should be justified only on its own merits. (And, incidentally, I think that SETI is a complete waste of money and clock cycles - spend the money on building warp drives, and your CPU time on "curing cancer". :-) )
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism
WTF does this mean? That because someone posts an article that you *think* (note the key word, as liberals tend to think most anything is racist) is racist, the whole site is bad?
Hm. Since the thoughts in the mind of the accused can never be proved one way or the other, racism is very much in the eye of the beholder...
Have you consider the possibility that the signal loss was due to the increasing distance between the transmitter and receiver? These things tend to happen when the transmitter is flying away from you at Mach 25.
It was a low-res video camera!
I think you've misunderstood the technology. The projector is fixed in space and the screen spins; the projected image changes with time to match the spinning of the screen and give a constant (3D-effect) image.
To create a recording system based on this technology, you must find the logical reversal of this playback method, and a spinning camera isn't it! Hypothetically, I think you would have to have the spinning screen occupying the same space as the object being filmed, and then record the light *inside* the screen as it spun.
I suppose you could spin a camera around the object and then use heavy computer munging to generate a signal to drive the projector, but frankly you might as well just use CG to start with... :-)
One of the reasons the British military is so much more effective than the French and German militaries is that spending is based on what is best for the job, not on politics.
The result: highly publicised layoffs in the defence sector, and an aerospace industry reduced to making the wings for Airbus 'planes! (Well, nearly... :-) )
"These people are being accused, not convicted of a crime."
Ah yes, but the point is that they are being punished as a result of the accusation, not the conviction.
Perhaps the problem is that the legal remedy has been effectively put into the hands of a third party. (Copyright.net, in this case...)
Nah - the sequence converges... :-)
What you say is certainly true for enterprise-ware like Oracle, but that doesn't mean that binary compatibility isn't a real issue! The quantity of binary-only distributed Linux software grows daily, but the prospect of providing and supporting versions for even 80% of the installed Linux architectures and kernel and library versions must surely be dissuading manufacturers from porting?
Assuming that the Linux community wants to support closed-source software, surely some solution has to be found to at least ensure that such software works on the majority of the major distributions and versions?
Oracle may be a poor example, but the problem is real.