If I only had mod points! I thought of the same thing immediately.

Remember, stay with Fiona Wallice as your therapist, because going to a different therapist would be a breach of her intellectual property =)

You're confusing hardness, strength, and toughness; it's easy to do, considering that laymen use these terms loosely and interchangeably. The researchers in the article were almost certainly using the technical definitions, which are roughly as follows:

Hardness is a measure of how well a material resists deformation. Typical hardness tests involve things like seeing what it will scratch/what scratches it (Mohs scale) or how deeply a probe will dent it under a given load (Rockwell scale). It's used as an indication of wear resistance, and steels used for cutting tools or stamping dies often have high hardness.

Strength is a measure of how much stress (force divided by cross sectional area) is required to permanently deform (yield strength) or break (ultimate strength) a sample of the material. Strength is widely used in engineering design to make sure there is enough material (cross sectional area) to safely handle a given load (force).

Toughness is the energy required to break a sample of the material. This can be found by integrating the area under the stress/strain curve of a tensile test (work = force x distance) or measured directly with purpose-built tools (Izod or Charpy impact test).

Hardness is correlated with strength, and can be used as a non-destructive estimate of strength for finished parts. In contrast, the toughness of samples with the same strength will vary depending on the brittleness of the samples. Ductile samples will stretch a large amount (high strain) before failing and so will have higher toughness than brittle materials of equal strength which won't stretch as far (low strain) before failing.

Given those definitions it's easy to see that even if spider silk had lower strength than steel it could easily have the same or higher toughness if it can stretch far enough. Since spider silk is actually comparable in strength to premium steels and has much better elongation before failure (stretches to 4x original length) I'd expect its toughness to be much higher than steel.

Which I'd rather be smacked in the head with is an entirely different question, that has to to with suitability as a weapon. The steel bar is likely to be denser (therefore heavier) and stiffer than a same-size block of spider silk, so it would probably do more damage to my head at equal speeds. I don't know how the spider silk would do for hardness in bulk, but with better toughness it would likely take more of a beating while keeping its original shape; on the other hand a well-used steel pipe would probably work better as a threat than a new-looking spider silk baton. On the gripping hand, a blackjack made with spider silk would be pretty cool, and I definitely wouldn't want to get hit with one. Pick your poison, I guess.

At least the judge is giving broad hints that NYCL ought to be using the Google brief as notes for his own arguments. It sounds like the judge is open to the ideas Google laid out, but would rather hear them from Mr. Beckerman instead.

That made my day, thanks =)

If they started actually doing that, I'd be tempted to take a sabbatical to collect the UXO $^)

There's a long and distinguished history in the USAF of delivering massive ordnance bombs via cargo planes (see the daisy cutter and MOAB as examples). If you can open the rear hatch, roll it out, and achieve a margin of error smaller than the blast radius, then you're golden. In today's age of GPS-guided munitions that is a much lower threshold to cross than it's ever been.

Maybe, but I think he was cribbing from the bible:

You were asking the wrong organization. ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) licenses playback of music in public places, at least in the U.S.A. The RIAA is more of a marketing/lobbying/lawsuit factory designed to fight for the interests of the publishers, very different goals. I probably shouldn't be surprised that no-one there sent you over to ASCAP, but I still have a naive hope that industry insiders would at least know the other heavy hitters in their own industry...

On a circle the furthest a point can be from another point is at the other end of a diameter from it. A diameter also is the combination of two radii at 180degrees to one another. I can point you to a definition of diametric that means "completely opposed : being at opposite extremes (e.g. 'in diametric contradiction to his claims')".

When Slur used the term "diametrically-opposed" he implied one or all of these meanings, that metaphorically the suspension of habeus corpus and due process is as far from America's founding principles as possible, and/or facing the opposite direction.

Great reply, I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this. I'm adding you to my friends list so I can boost the score on your comments; I hope all of your posts have this much insight. I think we agree in principle, and that our differences on this issue are due to perspective.

At risk of invoking class warfare rhetoric, I think my concerns on the issue stem from looking for balance on a different scale: risk of unscrupulous publishers defrauding the public vs risk of unscrupulous public figures (politicians, celebrities, corporations, state agencies) using the law to silence critics.

Granting everyone protection under the shield laws would greatly favor the "speaker of truth", democratizing the ability of amateurs to engage in the public dialog and expose wrongdoings without the barrier of being vetted by a central authority. Unfortunately, there's no way for a court to distinguish a moral blogger with a confidential source of damaging truth from an unscrupulous twit broadcasting lies to his twitter followers. One provides a public service, the other damages an innocent public figure's reputation. Conversely, an innocent public figure should be able to discredit a lying publisher by demanding they provide proof or retract the lie; however, unscrupulous public figures use their wealth to silence truthful critics, defraud the public, and use the law to cover their crimes. They deserve none of the protections nor privileges they abuse.

My personal prediction is that this will get balanced out by public figures growing thicker skins, bloggers with no evidence beyond the word of a confidential informant will become warier of publishing, and coverage by shield laws will be determined by criteria like the judge used: journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest. In a just world the same criteria would be used for employees of major news outlets; if you don't have notes, independent research, or actual confidentiality agreements with your source then you get no protection under shield laws. In that same perfect world the protections journalists receive wouldn't be meted out by those who most need public scrutiny; the conflict of interest is too great.

I think it's reasonable for bloggers to push for leveling of the journalistic playing field, and I hope that those who take their roles as amateur journalists seriously get the respect they deserve.

I'm torn on this topic. You give a list that's fairly hit-and-miss on special privileges:

I'm in favor of open carry being legal everywhere, and in many US jurisdictions it is. I also wasn't aware that the Firefighter's authority to enter burning buildings or prevent civilians to enter them derived from anything more than moral authority - they don't want you to die. I'll have to study up on that, as it would make sense to shield them from lawsuits brought on by idiots (it only takes one)...

Then you come back with probably the best point I've read so far in the thread:

And yet, while agreeing with you, I find myself conflicted on the topic. Carrying guns and 100gal/min hoses to peoples houses is one thing, and I'm happy to regulate that. With journalism we're talking about restricting the right to have an opinion and speak the truth. We should always be protected against fraud, especially when the speaker has a position of unique knowledge or authority. On the other hand, what special position can most bloggers claim to have? And in a case where the truth of the message isn't in question, why should the government get to say who is and isn't performing a public service (and therefore deserving of protection)? I can see problems arising if the message is anti-government (or anti-public-servant, same thing effectively)...