*Fewer* signs. Not less. If they could be counted individually, you use 'fewer'. (Pet peeve.)
BTW I certainly wouldn't have bothered to write a snail mail about this...
Dromaeosaur is *not* the 'more formal' name for Velociraptors. They are two separate species. In fact each is its own genus, represented by the two 'type species' (i.e. meaning the species whose discovery was first used to identify the genus): Dromaeosaurus albertensis, and Velociraptor mongoliensis. Note that these are both scientific names, and both equally formal.
Now, both of those species happen to fall into a larger grouping of relate fossils called the Dromaeosauridae -- and in that sense they could both be referred to as 'dromaeosaurs' (though not 'Dromaeosaurus'). But that would be a less formal and less specific way to refer to them.
Considering that the article says that readers immediately complained in high numbers to Pogue immediately after the website went live, it appears that the real prices where there for everyone to see before pulling the trigger, so I am still not convinced that we should really be worried about prices being misreported by third parties.
It's unconventional ("we and pogue" would be more idiomatic), but I don't think it's ungrammatical; note that this is a subject, not an object (hence "we", not "us"). Am I missing something? Why would you even assume that styryx was objecting to the grammar?
After all, they are the ones who have to buy the thing. Therefore, ultimately, this particular incident is a complete non-issue. Dishonest advance information can possibly fool somebody into buying something that doesn't do what they think it does, but it can't fool anybody into paying a fake price, because guess who's signing the cheque? So, although people could be misled for a little while, ultimately nobody will ever be hurt by incident like this one (though it may reveal a larger communication problem).
At least, as it concerns Ontario, where there seems to be no right to privacy from being photographed in a public place for commercial purposes. See here.
Either CSIRO's patents are valid, or they aren't. If they aren't, just ignore them. On the other hand, if they are valid (and I haven't seen anybody dispute this yet) -- just pay them! Pay them their money as the law requires and let's get on with it. I don't see what any of this has to do with standardising anything.
I don't agree with much of patent law, but the fact is the law is there. I don't see how the IEEE can require anyone to give up collecting on their patents in order to make a technology part of a standard, and I don't believe that this is normal operating procedure for them, either, despite TFA, because given the crazy state of patent law in which every trivial little idea is owned by somebody, it doesn't make sense that there would *be* any standards in computation.
As I understand it, plenty of other IEEE-approved standards have involved both patents and royalties. (MPEG, anyone?) So why should CSIRO not qualify for the same status? Because it's a government org? What does that have to do with anything?
This is a braindead concern and IMO probably will have no bearing on the approval of 802.11n. Sounds to me like somebody just need an excuse for bureaucracy.
Each one needed about 1015hours to find it's way to my computer. Wait... how many hours?
I put up with a lot for that kind of convenience Well I hope that you didn't mean to type '10-15 hours' for a 500mb and are calling that convenient; this doesn't fit my definition. But due to your typo I can't be sure what you meant.
Laws and "status" are only important if the current government wants to prosecute them.
Obviously, the current government does not. And sadly, I suspect, it will be some time before we get one that does. Actually, direct government action isn't necessary. Citizens can sue for their rights.
And sadly, I suspect, it will be some time before we get one that does.
Because George Carlin was right: the public sucks.
'If it is currently 480mbps, a tenfold increase would take it to 480*2^10 = 480 * 1024 =~ 480gbps.'
Sorry, ten-fold is a synonym for 10 times, not for 10 doublings. What you've just done is a thousand-fold increase.
What's missing from your whole analysis is that when Reznor performs a concert, he is selling what he made. When the label puts out a CD, they are selling what Reznor made. So comparing Reznor's concert % with the label's CD % as if they should be balanced on opposite sides of a scale is fundamentally stupid. Reznor should own the whole damn scale.
At one time in the report, the author talks about blocking "the subscriptions of people who use the internet to share copyright-protected material on a large scale." What does that mean, large scale? One song? Thousands of songs? One MB? Thousand MB? Oh, that's easy. The minute ass-covering lawyers are brought into the mix, the leeway granted by any vague language rapidly approaches zero.
If you choose the option to publish your information publically via Google's services, then Google is >gaspright to publish your information publically via Google's services! How dare they demand this?!?!
...if you set it to its widest angle and find the right focal point. My cheapo Powershot A75 for example, is in focus from 3 feet to infinity whenever I set the focus to 7 feet on the widest angle. Longer lenses can also achieve infinite depths of field quite easily, as long as you add more light. Also, the smaller the diameter of the lens, the more easily it can achieve infinite focus (and conversely the more difficult it is to achieve focal separation), which is why 16mm films use focus-shifting effects so much more rarely than 35mm films.
In fact, infinite depth of field is SO easy to achieve these days (unlike in the days of Citizen Kane, when Orson Welles had to borrow every light on the studio lot to achieve it), that this stuff Sarandon says about layering different films simply makes no sense. This would definitely NOT be required to achieve infinite focus in this day and age. She must be confusing two different goals. I suspect that the layering is going to be used to have much finer control of exactly how much focus or motion blur they put on separate elements (exactly what you would need, BTW, to mimick the sorts of 'motion effects' you see in anime) -- which means this the-frame-is-always-in-focus-for-the-entire-film stuff is probably just not true. I could shoot a film exactly like that with a hi-def camera TOMORROW with absolutely no extra equipment. So something just does not add up here.
Well it's not a crime in the sense of not being against criminal law, therefore any recompense you could seek through the courts would be monetary. How do you know this? Did Google grant themselves this right in the Terms of Service? Because without some legal language protecting Google, I think it clearly is against the law for a vendor to unilaterally reverse a sale after the fact, whether electronic or otherwise.
What they've done isn't a crime (unlike stealing physical products), so monetary compensation is all you're every going to get, and twice what you paid is, lets face it, very very good - although marred somewhat by the fact that they tried to pull that Checkout credit stunt first. With all due respect, I think you're wrong. I think it is a crime. Why does it matter if it's a physical product? They sold you something and then took it away. They took away your ability to play it. That is the same as taking away your physical property -- it was yours and you could use it and now it isn't and you can't. So I think it's exactly the same as a thief taking your car and leaving double its resale value in an envelope on your driveway -- i.e., still a crime, because nobody has the right to force you into an exchange.
Oh right, also -- it's not logistically insane at all for them to contact all content providers -- because they are already in contact with all of them. Otherwise how do they get their cut of the sale price? I'm sure it would a cinch for Google to mail out an offer to all the content providers at once, and then add the list of all who agree to the list of videos that can be unDRMed (after the content providers have been paid extra, of course). At least they would have made the effort to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, the DMCA makes that illegal. I'm not saying that Google need to break the law. But it's their responsibility to fulfil their commitment to a final sale. Even if it means going to the content providers and offering to compensate THEM for the removal of the DRM. THAT'S who Google should be trying to run a compensation deal with. And whatever that costs, Google needs to swallow it. If the content providers agree, the DMCA no longer applies. So Google is pulling a switch on entirely the wrong people.
I not only believe that Google should do this, but I also believe that the law should FORCE them to do this in order to avoid revoking a completed sale to the consumer, which is the greatest evil in this whole situation. In fact, it's quite possible that law already allows for the making of this argument. After all, it's not the consumer's business what is going on between Google and content providers behind the scenes -- they were told they were getting an infinitely playable file, and that's what they should get, whatever Google has to do in order to secure that. (Which means either keep the DRM running or negotiate a removal with its providers -- no other solution will do.)
If Google can't fulfil its legal obligations as a vendor, then a court may ask them compensate the consumers monetarily and that compensation package might look a lot like what they're doing. But that is not for Google to decide; the law doesn't allow the offending party to unilaterally decide what kind of compensation is fair. Nor does that erase the wrong that was done.
Except they didn't?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but google did not SELL videos. They both rented AND sold videos (the latter with a lifetime promise of access, no less).
Would it make it any better if they offered their customers a pony? If somebody stole your record collection, and then offered you double its market value as compensation, would that mean they have done nothing wrong? What if you didn't *want* to sell your collection?
Wrong is wrong. All the compensation in the world doesn't make it otherwise.
If you have invested in time in amassing a collection of Google videos (I know, I know, but hypothetically speaking), neither Google nor anyone else should have the right to reverse that sale at their leisure, forcing you to re-amass the same collection by other means. Even if they compensate you extra -- that isn't the point. A collection-refund-recollection process is not what you signed up for. The only fair thing to do is to offer software to remove the DRM so that everybody can keep whatever they collected. Nothing else even comes close -- not even Google's sweet little maneuver where you cancel a DRM service and threaten Draconian consequences, and then move up the compensation and the disconnection deadline a few days later, so that everyone will talk about how nice they are (gee, being nice is easy, all you have to do is threaten to be a bastard before you do what you were planning to do anyway) -- so that the public will focus on that instead of focusing on the matter at hand: Google just unilaterally revoked thousands of already-completed sales. This is wrong. The amount of compensation is just an attempt to make up for the wrong, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably for the same reason I was modded down for correcting grammar.
*Fewer* signs. Not less. If they could be counted individually, you use 'fewer'. (Pet peeve.) BTW I certainly wouldn't have bothered to write a snail mail about this...
Now, both of those species happen to fall into a larger grouping of relate fossils called the Dromaeosauridae -- and in that sense they could both be referred to as 'dromaeosaurs' (though not 'Dromaeosaurus'). But that would be a less formal and less specific way to refer to them.
Considering that the article says that readers immediately complained in high numbers to Pogue immediately after the website went live, it appears that the real prices where there for everyone to see before pulling the trigger, so I am still not convinced that we should really be worried about prices being misreported by third parties.
After all, they are the ones who have to buy the thing. Therefore, ultimately, this particular incident is a complete non-issue. Dishonest advance information can possibly fool somebody into buying something that doesn't do what they think it does, but it can't fool anybody into paying a fake price, because guess who's signing the cheque? So, although people could be misled for a little while, ultimately nobody will ever be hurt by incident like this one (though it may reveal a larger communication problem).
At least, as it concerns Ontario, where there seems to be no right to privacy from being photographed in a public place for commercial purposes. See here.
Either CSIRO's patents are valid, or they aren't. If they aren't, just ignore them. On the other hand, if they are valid (and I haven't seen anybody dispute this yet) -- just pay them! Pay them their money as the law requires and let's get on with it. I don't see what any of this has to do with standardising anything. I don't agree with much of patent law, but the fact is the law is there. I don't see how the IEEE can require anyone to give up collecting on their patents in order to make a technology part of a standard, and I don't believe that this is normal operating procedure for them, either, despite TFA, because given the crazy state of patent law in which every trivial little idea is owned by somebody, it doesn't make sense that there would *be* any standards in computation. As I understand it, plenty of other IEEE-approved standards have involved both patents and royalties. (MPEG, anyone?) So why should CSIRO not qualify for the same status? Because it's a government org? What does that have to do with anything? This is a braindead concern and IMO probably will have no bearing on the approval of 802.11n. Sounds to me like somebody just need an excuse for bureaucracy.
'If it is currently 480mbps, a tenfold increase would take it to 480*2^10 = 480 * 1024 =~ 480gbps.' Sorry, ten-fold is a synonym for 10 times, not for 10 doublings. What you've just done is a thousand-fold increase.
What's missing from your whole analysis is that when Reznor performs a concert, he is selling what he made. When the label puts out a CD, they are selling what Reznor made. So comparing Reznor's concert % with the label's CD % as if they should be balanced on opposite sides of a scale is fundamentally stupid. Reznor should own the whole damn scale.
Offtopic?! Somebody definitely doesn't know their Aliens references.
Thank you, kdawson. That WILL be all. ......FILE STATUS: CLOSED.
Fucked it up. Never mind.
If you choose the option to publish your information publically via Google's services, then Google is >gaspright to publish your information publically via Google's services! How dare they demand this?!?!
...if you set it to its widest angle and find the right focal point. My cheapo Powershot A75 for example, is in focus from 3 feet to infinity whenever I set the focus to 7 feet on the widest angle. Longer lenses can also achieve infinite depths of field quite easily, as long as you add more light. Also, the smaller the diameter of the lens, the more easily it can achieve infinite focus (and conversely the more difficult it is to achieve focal separation), which is why 16mm films use focus-shifting effects so much more rarely than 35mm films. In fact, infinite depth of field is SO easy to achieve these days (unlike in the days of Citizen Kane, when Orson Welles had to borrow every light on the studio lot to achieve it), that this stuff Sarandon says about layering different films simply makes no sense. This would definitely NOT be required to achieve infinite focus in this day and age. She must be confusing two different goals. I suspect that the layering is going to be used to have much finer control of exactly how much focus or motion blur they put on separate elements (exactly what you would need, BTW, to mimick the sorts of 'motion effects' you see in anime) -- which means this the-frame-is-always-in-focus-for-the-entire-film stuff is probably just not true. I could shoot a film exactly like that with a hi-def camera TOMORROW with absolutely no extra equipment. So something just does not add up here.
Oh right, also -- it's not logistically insane at all for them to contact all content providers -- because they are already in contact with all of them. Otherwise how do they get their cut of the sale price? I'm sure it would a cinch for Google to mail out an offer to all the content providers at once, and then add the list of all who agree to the list of videos that can be unDRMed (after the content providers have been paid extra, of course). At least they would have made the effort to do the right thing.
If you have invested in time in amassing a collection of Google videos (I know, I know, but hypothetically speaking), neither Google nor anyone else should have the right to reverse that sale at their leisure, forcing you to re-amass the same collection by other means. Even if they compensate you extra -- that isn't the point. A collection-refund-recollection process is not what you signed up for. The only fair thing to do is to offer software to remove the DRM so that everybody can keep whatever they collected. Nothing else even comes close -- not even Google's sweet little maneuver where you cancel a DRM service and threaten Draconian consequences, and then move up the compensation and the disconnection deadline a few days later, so that everyone will talk about how nice they are (gee, being nice is easy, all you have to do is threaten to be a bastard before you do what you were planning to do anyway) -- so that the public will focus on that instead of focusing on the matter at hand: Google just unilaterally revoked thousands of already-completed sales. This is wrong. The amount of compensation is just an attempt to make up for the wrong, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.