I'm not sure that's implied. Even if the travel is a dimensional jump, the question remains of what spacial location you would "naturally" assume if you jumped forward or backward in time. In a relativistic universe of curved spacetime, I would still maintain that "one following the forces of gravity" is the most reasonable answer.
The time machine is affected by gravity because gravity bends spacetime, and the time machine does interact with spacetime even if it is not interacting (directly) with other matter.
Gravity isn't like other forces. Consider how dark matter is theorized to interact.
To clarify, you're pointing out that the time machine must account for Earth's gravity as well. I admit I glossed over this point.
If we assume that the time machine does not interact with proximate matter during the trip, then we do need to solve this problem. (And while that assumption isn't a slam dunk, it's probably one that most SF authors would rather work with than without, if they've really thought it through.)
But it's a much easier problem to solve than the "lost in space" issue. One solution would be to suppose that the time machine is traveling at orbital velocity relative to the Earth during the trip through time. Granted at the Earth's surface that's insanely fast (17686mph, a bit over the 88mph launch speed in BTTF), but that's open to some interpretation (regarding the time factor in your velocity) when you are traveling through time.
In any event, all the time machine needs to do is replace a single force - that of the ground offsetting its own weight - during the trip. That's much more plausible than calculating the new relative location in the Universe of a particular spot on the Earth at a different time.
Well, according to Einstein's description of gravity this may not be such an issue as you think. The Earth's movements are, after all, governed by gravity. Now gravity doesn't so much "curve" an object's course, as it bends spacetime around the object's path (which is a straight line).
And you're here on the Earth's surface, so you're moving along the same line. You hop in your car, start deviating from the straight-line path by 88mph, and then... what, exactly?
Your post (and many people's intuition) assumes that you suddenly change velocity in all dimensions, so that you move in time but stay at a fixed position in space. The problem is, the concept of a "fixed point in space" is a figment of human imagination; there's no such thing. A fixed point in space implies a prefered frame of reference, and there simply is no such thing.
So what spacial trajectory does the time machine follow? Well, why would it not continue moving at 88mph deviation from the straight-line path through curved spacetime that it's already following - that being the same line being followed by the Earth?
Gravity would cause the time machine to "follow" the Earth as it moved through time. Not the Earth's gravity, as many other posters have suggested, but rather the Sun's gravity and the other various forces that move the Earth.
There are many, many, many problems with time-travel fiction, but the idea that you would be lost in space just isn't one of them.
Hmm... how much energy does time travel take? What makes you sure this is cheaper than a booster?
Even if it is, finding a more efficient path through spacetime does not necessarily violate conservation of energy.
First: False.
Second: Irrelevant.
If you'd rather blame Congress instead of the IRS, blame Congress instead of the IRS. In the context of this conversation, the degree to which you're wrong won't matter. What matters is OP blaming the company that is following the law as written.
If ever the phrase "citation needed" applied... especially as you imply knowledge of the case beyond waht was proven (i.e. you imply that the kid didn't buy it from "some guy")...
But that doesn't really matter. Eevn if the kid is lying and stole it himself, if his story is that he bought it from some guy, then his testimony to that effect is evidence. Not the strongest evidence, but if there's no evidence to the contrary, then his story is what the judge has to go by in determining probation terms. So the question still stands: how (in the story as the kid told it) did he meet "some guy" and arrange to receive the motorcycle?
If it works out that he's finding his probation overly restrictive due to details of a lie he told to try to mitigate his responsiblity, well that's just poetic justice.
Yeah, but that's just the thing - by what standard do you get to claim they're "cheating" the system, when they are following the rules that are written? I take a deduction for mortgage interest; is that "cheating" becasue it reduces what I pay, or is it just making use of the favorable (to me) provisions of the law? If it's the latter (and I fail to see how it could be otherwise), then how is what Google is doing any different?
If the IRS doesn't intend this to be legal, then they need to change the statutes and/or regulations; otherwise any money "lost" in this way is their fault.
At least to me, TFA's mention of the rather large budget gap faced by the U.S. backfired. I suppose it was meant to say "why are they avoiding making payments that are so badly needed", but what it really conveys is "this is a meaningless drop in the bucket compared to the overall problem, and the government needs to focus on the real issues that have it so short-funded". I mean really, if you subtract 60B from 1.4T, do you know what you get? You get 1.4T.
It's tough to research this case based on the information given, so I suppose we'll all just have to guess; but I don't believe the judge just arbitrarily decided to put these restrictions on the kid if they were truly unrelated to the crime.
How did he arrange to receive the stolen motorcycle (which, btw, is not a bicycle; it's likely a lot more valuable and the crimes involved in stealing it were likely a lot more serious in nature)? I bet his end of the deal was brokered over the Internet.
Does that make the restrictions "reasonable"? Well, there's two sides to that. Any probation is still less restrictive than imprisonment, which would be a legitimate option. But if you argue that the court might not realize just how much restriction it's imposing, that may be so.
Either way, I fail to be outraged at the level TFA is trying to incite through its selective reporting of information on a topic where I can't research the missing details myself.
I'll lead by saying that I don't really support the Pirate Party's agenda of setting up a copyright haven, but if you want to understand their strategy here:
They could set up a full bank of modems cheaper, but then those modems are in a country where what they are being used for is illegal. The point of a move like this is to make a single, centralized raid to disable the entire system impossible (assuming the authorities constrain themselves to legal means). Just because a modem bank isn't on the Internet doesn't mean the facility can't be raided, the server shut down and seized, etc.
Also, anyone who sets up a dish (essentially adding the sat to their network) can then connect their network to the Internet, and voila, the sat is on the Internet. Yes, each person doing that is likely doing something illegal, but a given raid can then only take out one of many possible access paths - not the entire operation at one stroke. Really, that's the nature of this type of operation anyway - the end users are most likely violating their local laws to the extent that they transfer copyright-protected material, but to do anything about it you have to go after them one by one a la the RIAA cases in the U.S.A.
Right, the problem in a nutshell is one of cost-benefit.
It's pretty clear to most of us that the cost of a "just drop it" approach on vaccines outweighs the benefits. It may depend on the school's situation, but it appears the immediate costs of a "just drop it" approach on WiFi are not so significant as the benefits (especially if we weigh in the arguably self-inflicted psychosomatic effects on those who believe Wi-Fi or similar radiation sources are dangerous). It's possible that some other issue will come up in the future that's somewhere in between, and that may be a tough one.
Of course, I said the immediate costs are low to highlight the point where I disagree with the OP. In the long term, dropping the Wi-Fi issue avoids addressing the education problem, which can make future battles that much harder.
You think school WiFi is as important to the childrens' well-being (and/or that of their society) as immunications?
If not, find a better argument.
Uh... it's a bit unclear if you're understanding the situation here.
"If my doctor was that stupid I wouldn't listen to them either."
If your doctor were how stupid? The only mention of doctors here is that the doctors say there is no medical basis for a ban. Based on the rest of your post, surely you mean to criticize the people who ignore the doctors' advice and ban WiFi anyway - which is exactly what GP said - right?
Oh, and for the record, doctors do advise strict limits on sun exposure now. That's what sunscreen is for.
Interesting game plan.
Too bad, because right up until then you seemed like a reasonable, if perhaps misinformed, individual; but now you come across as an anti-IP troll with a revisionist agenda.
Your selective quoting notwithstanding, the 1790 copyright act specifically prescribes liability for various not-for-profit copying actions, as has every copyright act since.
You're the one who tried to mince words about "intent", and you're the one who's trying to pretend that the distinction of criminal remedies matters in this conversation, so don't tell me you're not interested in drawing those distinctions. If you can't be bothered to recognize that copyright historically implemented virtually all of its intent through civil, rather than criminal, remedies, then you shouldn't be making statements of fact about the history of copyright law.
In your attempt not to conflate things, you're drawing nonexistant distinctions. You can't separate licenses from copyright. If not for copyright I wouldn't need a license, and if I don't have a license I'm at risk of violating copyright.
Copyright law doesn't specify the terms under which you may distribute my work other than to say that you need to license the work from me. I do have a lot of flexibility to put terms in the license agreement, though, which effectively have the force of copyright law behind them. If you don't like, or can't technically implement, the terms of my license, then you don't sign on. If you do sign on, then failure to adhere to the license will lead to liability under copyright law.
The reason you don't see regional restrictions on licenses involving a broadcast antenna is that nobody in their right mind would license content under those terms; they'd have no way to comply. The limitation is technical, not legal, in nature.
But when the medium does allow for regional control - such as cable, sat, or (most notably for this conversation) the Internet - regional licensing is not rare at all, and it absolutely does carry the force of copyright law (since distributing outside your region would mean distributing without a valid license from the copyright holder).
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson
