Posts by Vic 5860 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Dec 2007
> Do you want to see some ageing matron of a Tory MP getting squeezed in a box with 5,000 bugs
Yes. And they can throw in the rest of the pols while they're at it.
> and labelled 'reality'?
I don't care what it's labelled. I shan't be watching it. I'll just be happy it's occurring.
Vic.
> Wouldn't that violate the GPL?
If RH offered access to patches only to customers, yes it would.
If RH offered access to their changelogs - i.e.their patch breakdown - only to customers, then no it wouldn't, so long as the aggregate patchset was available to all.
But it all makes little difference anyway. RH has forced Oracle to do its own homework, and Oracle is now doing it. Either RH will now abandon its rollup policy (which I'd like), or else anyone who needs the info can go and look at ORacle's site.
But Oracle still isn't going to win customers with this, because few people actually *trust* them to do the Right Thing with Linux...
Vic.
> it would still have roughly the same amount of energy available for the same chemical reaction.
If it were atomic or molecular hydrogen, that would be true. But it isn't - it's H+ ions. And they don't burn.
> once you get the hydrogen out with the electrolytic cell it will burn just fine
Yes, but to get the hydrogen out with the cell requires more energy than you will get back from the hydrogen. The cell is a net energy loss.
> I think you're confused
I'm not confused in the slightest. I am merely annoyed that people keep promoting energy sinks as energy sources. This cell idea is an energy sink.
> and another process as the only heat and pressure that these kids need
Yeah, as you seem to have entirely missed the point, the process I was talking about by which you can extract energy from hydrogen ions is nuclear fusion. It worries me that I have to spell it out in such detail.
> I didn't say it was efficient and I agree on that point
You seem to have missed the boat on *how* inefficient it is; the power used to drive the cell would be better put into a simple battery. That would leave much more energy available as electricity. Pumping it through this hydrogen cycle leaves less energy available for use than if it had not been used in the first place.
This isn't a case of "it could be better", it's a case of "it would be better not to bother".
> I will say the amount of energy used to break those bonds is about 123 MJ per kilogram
You're assuming 100% efficiency. This does not occur at all, but in a heat engine - which is in use in this cycle - the absolute maximum efficiency that can be achieved is 1-(Tc/Th), where Tc and Th are measured in kelvin. Given a Th somewhere in the region of 500K - which is probably being a bit generous - and a Tc of around 300K, the absolute maximum efficiency that can be achieved with absolutely ideal, perfect components is 40%. This is being generous, as in practice it's going to be half that. Compare that to >80% efficiency just storing the energy in a battery, and you have a better picture of why this is such a waste of time.
> The fact that inefficiency exists in the system means it isn't perpetual motion or "free energy"
Precisely so. It is, in fact, a *waste* of energy. Significantly more energy would be available if the whole electrolysis thing was just abandoned.
> only 20% or less will come out of the generator.
THat's 20% or so *of the energy put into the generator*. You've already lost ~50% of your energy in the electrolysis cell, leaving around 10% of the inoput energy coming out of the generator. In other words, you have to pump into the system 10 times the amount of energy you get out of the back of it. Alternatively, you could just not bother with the system and use the energy you're feeding it more effectively elsewhere.
> in total the process efficiency might be as high as 10% on a good day.
So why use it? You've got 100% available from the energy source, or 10% of that energy after you've wasted 90% in an electrolysis / heat engine combination. I really fail to see why you are championing a setup that just wastes energy.
> it's an experiment, an interesting way of learning for these kids
And as a bit of fun, that's just fine. As a source of energy, it is very far from it.
Vic.
> isn't really dependent on which material phase
Yes, but we're not talking about material phases, are we? We're talking about whether or not energy can be released from the hydrogen. It's really rather difficult to release energy from hydrogen ions - you need an awful lot of heat and pressure to do that, and that's not available in the middle of Lagos just yet.
> I'm sure there are some hydrogen ions in there
I'm sure that essentially all the hydrogen is ionised.
> no I don't care if they are anions or cations
That's very generous of you. How do you propose to release energy from hydrogen ions? You can't burn them, you know.
> did you miss the bit about them using an electrolytic cell to extract the hydrogen?
No. I just see it for what it is - a *very* inefficient way of storing a small amount of energy developed somewhere else. None of this hydrogen malarkey is helping in the slightest; a simple lead-acid accumulator would be a far better way of storing energy on this scale.
> it pumps energy in to break the molecular bonds and allows the hydrogen to be extracted.
Yes. What you've failed to realise is that the amount of energy used to break those bonds is significantly greater than the energy that will be released once the hydrogen is used - and that's assuming that you haven't just lost it to leakage.
Anything that looks like a "free energy" machine is doomed to failure by way of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Vic.
> I'll vote for the other guy.
I've been voting for the other guy for years. But there's no chance he'll get in[1], and he'd be no better anyway[2].
Vic.
[1] I'm in a staunchly-Labour constituency. My MP was a cabinet minister in the last fiasco. He's an imbecile
[2] I've actually tried various alternatives. I've no particular political affiliation - I just dislike political imbeciles. Sadly, there's one phrase which aptly describes the various choices I get[3]...
[3] Yes, I did consider standing myself on one occasion.
> The NO EXCEPTIONS rule is to stop 'little concessions' from blowing up
I don't have a "NO EXCEPTIONS" rule. I have an "I'll need written authorisation for that" rule.
I occasionally get a frustrated CxO coming to have a shout at me. I'll explain the reason I need authorisation, then leave it to him whether or not the exception happens.
It's amazing how much less likely things are to get authorised when you insist on someone "important" putting it in writing that they are taking responsibility for the action...
Vic.
> it has no real hindrance because you only have to offer your code to the people who
> end up with the end product of your derivative work
This is not true.
[I'm going to quote GPLv2 here, but GPLv3 has similar clauses, albeit with different numbers.]
You have the option to redistribute under section 3(a). This requires a copy of the source to *accompany* every single binary distribution - including downloads and updates. This clause quite clearly only means you need give your source to your downstream recipients (and the licence explicitly states that). Few projects use section 3(a) distribution.
Most projects distribute under Section 3(b). This requires you to make an offer of source - valid for 3 years - to *any third party*. Any. Even those who haven't got your binary.
The third form of distribution is Section 3(c). This is only available to non-commercial distributions, and only where the distributor himself received the code in binary form (e.g. from someone else's 3(b) distribution).
Aside from that quibble, though, I'm with you on your response to the article...
Vic.
> pretty much he lead the jury to their decision
He claimed that the jury was about to find for Samsung, until he had his "a-ha" moment.
If there's to be any semblance of propriety in this case, this verdict needs to be overturned. I've no idea how much of Apple's case was legitimate, and how much bluster, but the jury verdict was such a monster mess it cannot possibly stand...
Vic.
> get off their creative arses and make ads that might actually be amusing/interesting
In days gone by, people would actually discuss ads. Remember the coffee ones with Sharon Maughan and Tony Head? They might have been cheesey, but you'd hear people at work discussing the story. It was good advertising, and tolerable as a result.
Now we get crap ads for kids sweets at midnight...
Vic.
> the consumer wants ad-free viewing
Not really.
Most consumers want a *reasonable* amount of advertising to fund their viewing. They're aware of the funding model.
What consumers don't want is the same mindless shite repeated time after time after fucking time. If the broadcasters were to think of the viewers occasionally, those viewers wouldn't feel the need to try to circumvent the advertising...
Vic.
> New Zealand has a thing called the "Contractual Mistakes Act 1979"
It does. It's a short Act - only 6 pages. Well worth a read. Most importantly, this Act empowers courts, not individuals, to effect changes to contracts after they have been agreed.
> Apple could argue that the mistake wasn't noticed until after the payment was made.
They'd almost certainly fall foul of Section 6(2)(b), since they were made aware of the prices and still accepted them.
[Sorry - I can't quote the section as this machine seems to have decided not to allow me to C&P today...]
Vic.
> they've made three crucial mistakes so far
Four.
The hyper-litigation really isn't going to work out too well. The billion-dollar damages won't materialise, and all the other litigation is going wrong. I'm pretty sure it will end up being a very bad strategy for Apple.
That's not to say that Apple hasn't got stuff it could protect - just that I expect it will lose all that in the noise of frivolous litigation.
Vic.
> Despite common belief there is no licensing (to the DVD owner) involved,
That's not true.
CDPA88 adds a number of restrictions to what you can do with that DVD; your use of it is most definitely licenced by the copyright owner.
That's why you can't buy a DVD and use it for public performance, for example.
Vic.
> I did not run the numbers and I do not own a 911 (unfortunately)
Nor I.
> but 45 minutes to drop the engine seems pretty sharp
Depends.
The 911 is heavily influenced by its Beetle heritage. There are extra supports, but the main mount to the gearbox, is similar, I believe.
I used to be able to do a clutch replacement on a Beetle in about 35 minutes...
Vic.
> Right so how many people would replace a defective turbocharger
I would. As would most of my mates.
> top up the washer fluid but for over 99% of people that's as far as it goes
No. that's as far as it goes for people who've never been in the situation where, if they don't fix it, nobody else will.
Most things are easily fixed if you've a mind to do so. Apple kit is exceptional, in that it is very hard to get into it to fix.
Vic.
> the definition of "theft" was broadened some time back in the UK.
It still doesn't cover copyright infringement.
> It varies wildly with jurisdiction.
It varies a little. I'm unaware of any jurisdiction that considers copyright infringement to be theft, however much various organisations would like you to believe it to be so.
Vic.
> How do oil wells work then?
That depends on the well.
Some are under sufficient pressure that the oil will flow to the surface without pumping
If that is not sufficient, a pump is sent down the shaft, driven from the surface.
> You can pressurize the tanks
No-one sane pressurises the tanks.
> providing the pressure to push the fuel up
Now do some calculations to see how much pressure you'd need to move diesel up the requisite number of floors. Fancy that in a diesel tank?
> The reason not so suck diesel (and other fuels) with a vacuum pump is that you would evaporate
This is not true. The OP was correct - the maximum you can get out of a lift pump is determined by ambient air pressure, and that will only move diesel around 12m if everything is perfect. And nothing is ever perfect...
Vic.
> cannot be fully patented until the device is actually produced.
No.
This precludes the independent inventor from gaining patent protection for something he cannot afford to build; it hands the patent space to those with money.
What needs to happen is that the *current* rules for patent eligibility be observed - is it novel? Is it non-obvious to someone skilled in the art? Is it of a patentable subject matter?
The above rules entirely solve the nonsense we are currently undergoing. But no-one applies them :-(
Vic.
> The whole purpose of patents is to protect ideas, period.
No it isn't.
The purpose of patents is to protect *inventions*.
As soon as you broaden that to ideas - which is what many left-pondians are trying to do - you have a legal method of preventing people from thinking independent thoughts...
Vic.
> If you want to trade in Britain a company should have to have a UK base
But that is trivially worked around.
UK base must buy the services it resells. It buys them from a company in Bermuda, for little less than it sells them for. And the Bermudan company has a strangely-similar name...
The trouble with trying to solve a complex problem with simplistic "solutions" is that you usually end up worse off than when you started.
Vic.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
