I would also like to point out that the cited page about promissory estoppel did in fact use the word gratuitous, but then went on to explain situations that meet the definition of consideration on the part of the promissee.
Their actual example is clearly a case in which there was to be consideration on both sides.
No it is not. In this context, it simply means that by declaring something to be in the public domain, you should reasonably expect people to use it as though it is in the public domain.
There is a lot of gray here. For example, some "public" licenses promise that a work will remain in the public domain. Not all do.
Real-world example: rights to the Java programming language were "purchased" by Oracle while the license was public domain. However, Oracle chose to make later versions not entirely public domain. The original license was not sufficient to guarantee the whole product would be public domain in perpetuity.
There is currently no law in the U.S. which requires something in the public domain to remain that way, unless it is so stipulated in the license. There are a number of famous cases in which something that was once public domain is no longer, even though that thing remained otherwise unchanged.
EFF and others are working to change that. But until it is changed, the concept of Promissory Estoppel only applies in some cases of public domain licensing.
Will you at least attempt to read and understand the goddamned article? Look at the last sentence I quoted. It says In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Do you STILL need to have that explained to you again?
You are seriously suggesting that common use of the word for decades is in fact not a widely accepted definition of the word, but is an incorrect definition of the word because this wasn't a correct definition several decades ago?
No, I'm saying it's incorrect because it's not the correct definition RIGHT NOW.
Common usage of words changes all the time. But that doesn't make the technical definition of the word any different.
For example: people now use the word "schizophrenia" to mean something that is completely different from the actual, technical meaning of the word. But it's technical meaning still hasn't changed at all. People are using it incorrectly, and it will continue to be incorrect as long as they use it that way.
Common usage aside, the technical definition of resolution hasn't changed, and it's not going to. So you can use it however you want, but yes, you'll still be wrong.
That doesn't make be wrong. It doesn't contradict anything I said. I only implied that most people under most circumstances wouldn't be able to see much if any difference.
You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.
Says who? IANAL, but there's a hole in your reasoning. And that gaping hole is: putting something in the public domain is NOT a "contract"!!! By definition a contract, by ancient common law and still today, requires "consideration" on both sides. When you put something in the public domain, you receive no consideration. So it's not a contract by any stretch of the imagination. To quote the article you referenced:
Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisorâ"one who makes a promiseâ"makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promiseeâ"one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detrimentâ"that is, an economic lossâ"ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.
Note the second sentence. Particularly the part about "promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee". That is a description of "consideration". In the case of placing your private works in the public domain, there is seldom any consideration. So there is no "expectation" of return on the part of the donor, which as your own article stipulates is necessary for promissory estoppel to occur.
Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.
Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.
Wrong on both counts.
First, your revisionist history does not match recorded history. Most of the people you call deniers have ALWAYS labeled themselves skeptics. There are some just plain disbelievers, who disbelieve based on faith. But the majority of them follow the actual science.
Second, most of these skeptics are NOT right-wing religious fanatics.
Both of these myths have been promoted by the True Believers: the alarmists who can't back up their claims with real science.
The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out.
Note that for broadcast television standards the use of the word resolution here is a misnomer, though common. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 x 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Furthermore, pixel density is a relation between resolution and physical size, so if you think resolution means pixel density, you learned things the wrong way.
NO.
Pixel density is measured in pixels per inch. THAT is the relation between pixels and physical size, just like physical density is a relationship between mass and size. It is an "intrinsic" property, meaning it doesn't matter how big your bar of gold is, it still has the same density.
Resolution, which today is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Centimeter), is also an intrinsic property, in that sense. The resolution of your screen has nothing at all to do with its size. A screen that is 1 inch square can easily have the same resolution, in PPI, as a screen that is 120" diagonally. It makes no difference. However, if they did have the same resolution, the SIZE in pixels of the 120" unit would be vastly greater.
You are arguing exactly the case that I was explaining is wrong. Resolution is size-independent.
1080p is a DISPLAY SIZE measured in pixels. (Plus the 'p' part, which is a different matter entirely). My telephone is 720p. But because my phone is small, its resolution, in PPI, is far higher than most televisions.
This was the whole point I was getting at originally. What most people (and even manufacturers) CALL "resolution" isn't. It's a misuse of the word. Resolution is a ratio, it has a scientific definition, it is measurable, and it has nothing to do with total number of pixels on a screen.
The relationship between the size of the display and its resolution is the "dot pitch" as in the distance between the pixels.
Almost but not quite. Dot pitch is a measure used on CRT screens. And it is, on a color screen, the distance between dots of the same color, just as you say.
On modern pixel-based displays, however, the resolution is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Pixels Per Cm), which is not a distance but a ratio. Still the same basic idea.
That's exactly what it means: resolution is the number of pixels, always has been. There is no direct relationship between the size of a display and its resolution. If a company wanted to make a 60" display with a resolution of 192x108 pixels, they could.
No, that isn't waht it means. What you are describing is the SIZE, in pixels, of the display.
In order to get the actual resolution, you divide the number of pixels in a given linear distance by that distance; the result is Pixels Per Inch or PPI. Notice the "per" in there: that means it is a ratio, not a simple scalar number like your SIZE is.
In practice, not all displays have square pixels. In that case some math trickery is used to come up with the "effective" PPI, which is your resolution, as opposed to the size.
Don't misuse the word then try to tell me it "always has been". That's just plain false. "Never was" would be closer to the truth.
There is no idea or no concept of "normal" for a distance for a TV. There is a concept of "optimal" for any given resolution, but just because something doesn't fit your use case does not mean it is applied globally. And while you're right there is almost no 4k media in current circulation this is much like the early cases of 3D or the early cases of HD.
No matter what, you're going to have something at least approximately a bell curve. And "normal" is going to surround the peak portion of that curve.
What *I* wrote very definitely and clearly WAS about recording someone at dinner.
So you are way out of line. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular.
I don't blame you. But I'm not one of those people. I'm not particularly impressed by Glass, but neither am I irrationally afraid of it.
I do, however, think there are standards of etiquette that would require you to not record things with it under some circumstances. But that's a behavior issue, not a tech issue.
But what we are going to see is a gradual shift from defining our displays in terms of absolute resolution in favor of pixel density.
It happened a long time ago.
Technically, "resolution" already refers to pixel density. People have come to incorrectly use the word resolution to mean size in pixels, but that's not what it actually means.
"Normal" TV viewing distance can be inferred by simple deduction: it is basically from the couch to the TV, which might be anywhere from 6 feet to maybe 10 feet. It's a pretty rough measure, but it's still a measure. 4 feet is significantly less than "normal", and 14 feet is more.
At the viewing distances and screen size I use, I can certainty see a considerable difference.
What is your screen size and distance? You don't say. And you see the difference between what? Standard definition and HD? Or HD and 4k?
I doubt very much you see the difference between HD and 4k, because while 4k TVs are being sold, there is almost no 4k media being sold. So any difference you might see is a result of artificial upsampling. You're fooling yourself.
Yes, it's being switched. The clapper itself is the switch. Find a picture on the Internet of the whole device, and you'll see that the clapper switches the current between the two batteries. TFA only shows the lower portion. You can't even see the "piles".
I thought the included (pre-installed) Microsoft Windows Defender (or Windows Security Essentials) was already good enough.
Microsoft is rather notorious for not releasing information about known bugs or malware until they damned well please. That means until then, it doesn't get added to Security Essential or Windows Defender until such time, even if the security community knew about it for 2 years.
While 3rd-party solutions can be problematic, as others have mentioned, at the same time they are likely to update their lists of malware considerably faster than Microsoft in many cases.
Soz to burst you bubble but new COBOL programs are written every day, my wife is a COBOL programmer working for a major bank and she's on new projects all the time.
Please read again. I wrote: "... the number of new systems being built to run COBOL..."
And I am sorry to hear your wife works for a bank that is still using COBOL. Still, you are mistaken if you think I don't understand how companies use legacy systems.
Also, I didn't say anything bad about the language. I just implied it is slowly fading. Because... it is.
Really? Why do you think that everybody wearing google glass is spying on you?
Where did you get the idea that I think anything of the kind? I certainly did not write anything like that.
Why is it immoral are wrong for me to wear Glass if I am not recording you?
I really don't know why, since once again that has nothing at all to do with anything I actually wrote.
You are just afraid that someone might be spying on you...
Again I am compelled to ask where you got that idea. It seems to have sprung from your own mind. I certainly did not write any such thing, and I am not "afraid" of the likes of you, camera or no camera.
You don't see the two things as being remotely comparable but you want to ban something that might be abused...
Yet again, I wrote no such thing. That's 4 times now. I don't think -- and didn't say -- they should be banned. I only mentioned that they should not be used improperly or rudely. Why do you seem to have such a huge problem with that idea that your mind made up all this other stuff I supposedly said? Maybe you should go back and read what I *did* write.
The discussion was about recording someone eating dinner in a restaurant, "not kiddie porn". The reason I don't see the two as comparable is because they are not comparable.
And frankly the abuse would be less harmful on average and less common than TOR or Bittorrent.
I don't even know what you mean by that, or what your motivation for writing it is.
Apparently you missed the part about the stick. The carrot and the stick work together to get the donkey to do what is against it's own interests.
Apparently you've never spent time around donkeys. They won't get off their ass for a stick unless that stick is a two-by-four. And you aren't going to be dangling carrots on the end of two-by-fours.
And I hate to tell you this, but the party with the Donkey is not the GOP.
Slashdot Mirror
I would also like to point out that the cited page about promissory estoppel did in fact use the word gratuitous, but then went on to explain situations that meet the definition of consideration on the part of the promissee.
Their actual example is clearly a case in which there was to be consideration on both sides.
Perhaps it is not a good example.
No it is not. In this context, it simply means that by declaring something to be in the public domain, you should reasonably expect people to use it as though it is in the public domain.
There is a lot of gray here. For example, some "public" licenses promise that a work will remain in the public domain. Not all do.
Real-world example: rights to the Java programming language were "purchased" by Oracle while the license was public domain. However, Oracle chose to make later versions not entirely public domain. The original license was not sufficient to guarantee the whole product would be public domain in perpetuity.
There is currently no law in the U.S. which requires something in the public domain to remain that way, unless it is so stipulated in the license. There are a number of famous cases in which something that was once public domain is no longer, even though that thing remained otherwise unchanged.
EFF and others are working to change that. But until it is changed, the concept of Promissory Estoppel only applies in some cases of public domain licensing.
That is indeed a different matter.
No, I'm not. You missed the whole point of my last post.
It doesn't matter how popular usage changes. The technical definition will remain the same.
And the technical definition is the "correct" definition, since it is the one used to MEASURE the attribute.
Care to cite any evidence of that?
Care to explain why you had to ask?
Google is your friend. (Sometimes, anyway.) So is Wikipedia.
We're talking about blue ray, not broadcasting.
Will you at least attempt to read and understand the goddamned article? Look at the last sentence I quoted. It says In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Do you STILL need to have that explained to you again?
You are seriously suggesting that common use of the word for decades is in fact not a widely accepted definition of the word, but is an incorrect definition of the word because this wasn't a correct definition several decades ago?
No, I'm saying it's incorrect because it's not the correct definition RIGHT NOW.
Common usage of words changes all the time. But that doesn't make the technical definition of the word any different.
For example: people now use the word "schizophrenia" to mean something that is completely different from the actual, technical meaning of the word. But it's technical meaning still hasn't changed at all. People are using it incorrectly, and it will continue to be incorrect as long as they use it that way.
Common usage aside, the technical definition of resolution hasn't changed, and it's not going to. So you can use it however you want, but yes, you'll still be wrong.
That doesn't make be wrong. It doesn't contradict anything I said. I only implied that most people under most circumstances wouldn't be able to see much if any difference.
I didn't say they wouldn't sell.
Bingo!
You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.
Says who? IANAL, but there's a hole in your reasoning. And that gaping hole is: putting something in the public domain is NOT a "contract"!!! By definition a contract, by ancient common law and still today, requires "consideration" on both sides. When you put something in the public domain, you receive no consideration. So it's not a contract by any stretch of the imagination. To quote the article you referenced:
Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisorâ"one who makes a promiseâ"makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promiseeâ"one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detrimentâ"that is, an economic lossâ"ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.
Note the second sentence. Particularly the part about "promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee". That is a description of "consideration". In the case of placing your private works in the public domain, there is seldom any consideration. So there is no "expectation" of return on the part of the donor, which as your own article stipulates is necessary for promissory estoppel to occur.
Which helicopter-type craft are perfectly capable of doing.
Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.
Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.
Wrong on both counts.
First, your revisionist history does not match recorded history. Most of the people you call deniers have ALWAYS labeled themselves skeptics. There are some just plain disbelievers, who disbelieve based on faith. But the majority of them follow the actual science.
Second, most of these skeptics are NOT right-wing religious fanatics.
Both of these myths have been promoted by the True Believers: the alarmists who can't back up their claims with real science.
The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out.
It's really quite hilarious.
It's also what's on Wikipedia.
You didn't read far enough, wise guy.
Note that for broadcast television standards the use of the word resolution here is a misnomer, though common. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 x 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Just as I wrote earlier.
Furthermore, pixel density is a relation between resolution and physical size, so if you think resolution means pixel density, you learned things the wrong way.
NO.
Pixel density is measured in pixels per inch. THAT is the relation between pixels and physical size, just like physical density is a relationship between mass and size. It is an "intrinsic" property, meaning it doesn't matter how big your bar of gold is, it still has the same density.
Resolution, which today is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Centimeter), is also an intrinsic property, in that sense. The resolution of your screen has nothing at all to do with its size. A screen that is 1 inch square can easily have the same resolution, in PPI, as a screen that is 120" diagonally. It makes no difference. However, if they did have the same resolution, the SIZE in pixels of the 120" unit would be vastly greater.
You are arguing exactly the case that I was explaining is wrong. Resolution is size-independent.
1080p is a DISPLAY SIZE measured in pixels. (Plus the 'p' part, which is a different matter entirely). My telephone is 720p. But because my phone is small, its resolution, in PPI, is far higher than most televisions.
This was the whole point I was getting at originally. What most people (and even manufacturers) CALL "resolution" isn't. It's a misuse of the word. Resolution is a ratio, it has a scientific definition, it is measurable, and it has nothing to do with total number of pixels on a screen.
The relationship between the size of the display and its resolution is the "dot pitch" as in the distance between the pixels.
Almost but not quite. Dot pitch is a measure used on CRT screens. And it is, on a color screen, the distance between dots of the same color, just as you say.
On modern pixel-based displays, however, the resolution is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Pixels Per Cm), which is not a distance but a ratio. Still the same basic idea.
That's exactly what it means: resolution is the number of pixels, always has been. There is no direct relationship between the size of a display and its resolution. If a company wanted to make a 60" display with a resolution of 192x108 pixels, they could.
No, that isn't waht it means. What you are describing is the SIZE, in pixels, of the display.
In order to get the actual resolution, you divide the number of pixels in a given linear distance by that distance; the result is Pixels Per Inch or PPI. Notice the "per" in there: that means it is a ratio, not a simple scalar number like your SIZE is.
In practice, not all displays have square pixels. In that case some math trickery is used to come up with the "effective" PPI, which is your resolution, as opposed to the size.
Don't misuse the word then try to tell me it "always has been". That's just plain false. "Never was" would be closer to the truth.
There is no idea or no concept of "normal" for a distance for a TV. There is a concept of "optimal" for any given resolution, but just because something doesn't fit your use case does not mean it is applied globally. And while you're right there is almost no 4k media in current circulation this is much like the early cases of 3D or the early cases of HD.
No matter what, you're going to have something at least approximately a bell curve. And "normal" is going to surround the peak portion of that curve.
Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.
Hahaha. I know this feeling well.
:)
I used to spend all kinds of time trying to load high as much as I could by rearranging the load order of drivers, etc. I was pretty good at it.
All these memories will be lost, in time. Like tears in the rain.
And good riddance, I say!
This is not about recording anyone at dinner.
What *I* wrote very definitely and clearly WAS about recording someone at dinner.
So you are way out of line. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular.
I don't blame you. But I'm not one of those people. I'm not particularly impressed by Glass, but neither am I irrationally afraid of it.
I do, however, think there are standards of etiquette that would require you to not record things with it under some circumstances. But that's a behavior issue, not a tech issue.
But what we are going to see is a gradual shift from defining our displays in terms of absolute resolution in favor of pixel density.
It happened a long time ago.
Technically, "resolution" already refers to pixel density. People have come to incorrectly use the word resolution to mean size in pixels, but that's not what it actually means.
At the viewing distances and screen size I use, I can certainty see a considerable difference.
What is your screen size and distance? You don't say. And you see the difference between what? Standard definition and HD? Or HD and 4k?
I doubt very much you see the difference between HD and 4k, because while 4k TVs are being sold, there is almost no 4k media being sold. So any difference you might see is a result of artificial upsampling. You're fooling yourself.
Yes, it's being switched. The clapper itself is the switch. Find a picture on the Internet of the whole device, and you'll see that the clapper switches the current between the two batteries. TFA only shows the lower portion. You can't even see the "piles".
I thought the included (pre-installed) Microsoft Windows Defender (or Windows Security Essentials) was already good enough.
Microsoft is rather notorious for not releasing information about known bugs or malware until they damned well please. That means until then, it doesn't get added to Security Essential or Windows Defender until such time, even if the security community knew about it for 2 years.
While 3rd-party solutions can be problematic, as others have mentioned, at the same time they are likely to update their lists of malware considerably faster than Microsoft in many cases.
Soz to burst you bubble but new COBOL programs are written every day, my wife is a COBOL programmer working for a major bank and she's on new projects all the time.
Please read again. I wrote: "... the number of new systems being built to run COBOL..."
And I am sorry to hear your wife works for a bank that is still using COBOL. Still, you are mistaken if you think I don't understand how companies use legacy systems.
Also, I didn't say anything bad about the language. I just implied it is slowly fading. Because... it is.
Really? Why do you think that everybody wearing google glass is spying on you?
Where did you get the idea that I think anything of the kind? I certainly did not write anything like that.
Why is it immoral are wrong for me to wear Glass if I am not recording you?
I really don't know why, since once again that has nothing at all to do with anything I actually wrote.
You are just afraid that someone might be spying on you...
Again I am compelled to ask where you got that idea. It seems to have sprung from your own mind. I certainly did not write any such thing, and I am not "afraid" of the likes of you, camera or no camera.
You don't see the two things as being remotely comparable but you want to ban something that might be abused...
Yet again, I wrote no such thing. That's 4 times now. I don't think -- and didn't say -- they should be banned. I only mentioned that they should not be used improperly or rudely. Why do you seem to have such a huge problem with that idea that your mind made up all this other stuff I supposedly said? Maybe you should go back and read what I *did* write.
The discussion was about recording someone eating dinner in a restaurant, "not kiddie porn". The reason I don't see the two as comparable is because they are not comparable.
And frankly the abuse would be less harmful on average and less common than TOR or Bittorrent.
I don't even know what you mean by that, or what your motivation for writing it is.
Apparently you missed the part about the stick. The carrot and the stick work together to get the donkey to do what is against it's own interests.
Apparently you've never spent time around donkeys. They won't get off their ass for a stick unless that stick is a two-by-four. And you aren't going to be dangling carrots on the end of two-by-fours.
And I hate to tell you this, but the party with the Donkey is not the GOP.