Inside a Tesla Model S Battery Pack

Post by greglindahl » Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 1:05 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #28

jonah wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears he was serving them off his personal NAS. Whoops.

His copyright notice and explanatory paragraphs make it clear he's trying to keep some level of control over those photographs, while still sharing them with "his community" - which means I feel a little uneasy about having archive.org unilaterally slurp the images up like that... I know it's kind of a losing battle, but "publicly available" does not mean "in public domain".

Post by tokenadult » Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #42

bigiain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His copyright notice and explanatory paragraphs make it clear he's trying to keep some level of control over those photographs, while still sharing them with "his community" - which means I feel a little uneasy about having archive.org unilaterally slurp the images up like that... I know it's kind of a losing battle, but "publicly available" does not mean "in public domain".

I've never seen such an aggressive and hostile copyright notice in a forum signature before. It's not entirely clear that you can even claim copyright over trivial online comments.

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 2:25 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #43

dublinben wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen such an aggressive and hostile copyright notice in a forum signature before. It's not entirely clear that you can even claim copyright over trivial online comments.

It's not entirely clear that you can even claim copyright over trivial online comments. Trivial or not, you have copyright in your own writings, online or off-line. Each participant on HN owns the copyright in the written expression of his or her comments. Similarly, a photographer has copyright in photographs taken by that photographer. See a user profile of a high-karma HN participant https://news.ycombinator.com/u…

Post by dublinben » Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #43

dublinben wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen such an aggressive and hostile copyright notice in a forum signature before. It's not entirely clear that you can even claim copyright over trivial online comments.

It's not entirely clear that you can even claim copyright over trivial online comments. Trivial or not, you have copyright in your own writings, online or off-line. Each participant on HN owns the copyright in the written expression of his or her comments. Similarly, a photographer has copyright in photographs taken by that photographer. See a user profile of a high-karma HN participant https://news.ycombinator.com/u…

Post by oh_sigh » Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 2:56 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #38

hellgas00 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where this myth started, the idea that somehow AC is less dangerous to handle at high voltages over DC. Wall socket AC alternates at ~50Hz, that's an oscillation every 0.02sec, for perspective, the average human reaction time is in the range of 0.15 to 0.3sec [Wikipedia]. There almost no chance that you willingly disengage a circuit once it's made for both high voltage AC or DC. Be careful whenever handling…

That's not a myth, it's a fact and reaction time has nothing to do with it. You're not consciously pulling back, your muscles will simply stop contracting for a short bit after which you (hopefully) disconnect. The DC damage is a condition called 'muscular tetanus'. The main risk with AC at medium voltages (say 40 to 250 V) is that your heart goes haywire. Though those voltages could easily kill you too. Yes, you sho…