How critical is the key fact that is missing. If he is saying the Township is not doing a good job and is criticising their actions in relation to this case then he is fine. If he is libelling individual, identifiable, people and/or breaking accepted laws in any other way then he should be held accountable.
If it is the former then his comments are no different to thousands of letters published in local newspapers all over the world every week criticising decisions and governance - a process that is well accepted to be *part* of the democratic system, and indeed a vital one. If it is the latter then the blogger has fallen into the now very well defined trap of thinking you are unidentifiable online, and thus can say or do whatever you like.
Fair enough, I didn't RTFA because it is a blog. In that case the submissions impression that this is some initiative through wikipedia is misleading. This is all in the hands of the FSF and how long it takes then to agree on a new version could be anyone's guess. Given it is 5 years since the last version I won't hold my breath.
Presuming that the GFDL doesn't allow commutation with the CC licence then this change (if true, since the only source in the submission is a blog) won't make any difference unless wikipedia is wiped and they start again. Everything up until today on wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, so that content will always be under the GFDL, because that is the licence the contributors agreed to when they submitted content (apart from a few who have made statements releasing their work of more restrictions, such as PD), and that licence can't be revoked or replaced by a CC-BY-SA licence without their permission (all hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them).
That is not a surprise, I would expect more time would be devoted to the wording of their press release than the research. Greenpeace have become a thoroughly discredited organisation, interested more in their own verbosity and charitable revenue generation than in finding constructive and progressive ways to make the world a better place.
...it is called hotmail, and was (at least when I last was last there 4 years ago) a disaster zone, which included a page as part of the signup process where you were given the choice of what kind of junk mail you wanted emailed to you.
That (at least the text on wikipedia) is in the context of our own solar system (and the rare earth hypothesis generally is not a very strongly scientific area, it is a bit too "we haven't yet seen anything like us so we *must* be special")
The evidence brought forth by this science is looking at the current (relative) stars that are forming and finding what percentage are likely to have moon formation occurring at around the time that our moon was formed. The figure is surprisingly low - but like most cutting edge astronomy the errors are large and numerous.
The most important thing about the electronic world is that, unlike the real world, there are very little laws or conventions. Western powers have been too busy taking bungs from music cartels for legislation on downloading mp3s to actually have time to make any real difference.
Were the Chinese up to no good? Possibly - but who can blame them - the internet is a incredibly easy place to play dirty tricks and have absolutely no repercussions. In the world of international dirty tricks there is very little that you could normally do to cause trouble that didn't involve significant risks on the world stage (espionage, corporate theft, political interference). The internet is one vast playground which is completely risk free. Do what you like, and if anyone complains just say it wasn't us. The Russians did it a couple of months ago against Estonia.
The people we elect to represent us and our interests should have been working to create a world wide communication network that could not be corrupted or used against us, not taking dirty money to allow corporations to attempt to paint a mum who uploaded a short clip of her son dancing to a song as being a shoplifting thief.
We aren't interested in letting you become gatekeepers for our entire lives. Since you so very stupidly jettisoned playforsure neither are any media companies interested in you either, as that little case proved, your words and assurances are worthless - MS, you are a busted flush, now sod off and let some creative people on the stage who can actually make a difference.
And by that I don't really mean HD -> SS, rather we are currently in a capacity transition. With burgenoning digital music collections, DVD collections and the coming of HiDef video as a mainstream resource amongst other things the capacity requirements will soon shoot up. At the moment SS drives can come close to touching the standard HD entry level machines on a laptop, 60-80 GB. Fine for web browsing and general tasks, but as the above listed capacity intense activities continue to grow and the HD capacities can transition to hold them (500 GB - 1 TB is moving towards sensible options in the next wee while) - that leaves the SS drives behind again.
SS drives will always hold a niche for the ultra-portables and the light low performance laptops - but they are not going to be able to move into mid range laptops+ - and certainly not likely to make it into desktops unless it is part of an ultra quiet setup.
To be honest I wouldn't expect this latest bunch of zealots to be so on the nose - they are much more devious. What is more likely is that they will claim that this is Scientists involved in a cover-up & attempting to suppress scientific "facts" by withdrawing them.
The real danger with the "ID" mob isn't that they are throwing bibles at people - it is precisely that they are not. They don't want bibles anywhere near the textbooks due to the US constituation - so instead they have attempted to metamorphosis into a pseudoscience to spread their religious message. Thankfully it has spectacularly failed to work.
is creating an important new operating system
You really have to wonder if the people writing these articles - and this is the NYT as well - have a clue. I mean words can't really describe how flawed it is to suggest a website API (and as the parent points out, a simplistic & fairly inadequate one compared to others) equates to an OS. It seems that the journo's are happy to get caught up in "beliefs" that - when you actually sit down and say "hang on, lets genuinely have a look at the facts here" - sums up to be a big pile of vacuous SFA. Someone needs to fire a bolt of reality into this lot, we (on here) are all happy to point out the basic truth that it is a bubble and it will burst, but it goes beyond that now - even the supposed objective commentators are blowing air into the bubble.
As for MS's purchase - we all know they have more money than sense - but I didn't realise it was that much.
On a few of the Swat 4 levels with some emotive content (kidnapped female with sicko kidnapper - religious sect who we don't know much about until we go down to the basement in a gruesome environment and find a lot of shallow kids graves) they got close. The first time I played them the were generating relatively sincere emotive responses - of course on replay it is lost because you know what is coming.
Facebook won't be around in 20-25 years - it is a fad. The biggest laugh of all is all the people in the "kewl media" who think it is worth tens of billions of dollars.
Despite having around a dozen modern games installed on my machine at the moment (and that ranges from Civ4, through HL2 and ending up at Simpson's Hit & run) I just spent the last two hours playing Lemmings. Enjoyable, engaging, straightforward and fun. I can play it while running 5 other things & it doesn't take over my system. I don't know what the "kidz" today would make of a basic 2D game like Lemmings - it would be interesting to see if games of that time really have something special, or if I am just being nostalgic.
kind of, but not really. The more common energy gap amongst organic luminescent molecules is in the 500-700 region, just conveniently the way everything is. Photon energy wise 430 nm isn't a vast degree bigger than 500 nm, (2.88 vs 2.48 eV). To push the energy gap larger so that emission is pulled to the blue things have to be added to the more standard compounds for electrically pumped light creation - light pumped light creation aka laser dyes all across the visible (and beyond) spectrum have been around for many years.
Your three points are relatively valid, but the rest of the text is just a bit of sony bashing for no real reason.
High end luxury products that look good and are bought by people to show off is a very very well established early base of almost any mass market product (most especially electronics). It has nothing to do with Sony (Samsung are working towards the exact same thing, target Q1 2009) or the technology (virtually every piece of consumer electronics technology invented in the post war period, and even before, has a début like this).
It is a good point, if this was a fundamental problem then that is what they would probably look to do. The way things are changing in the oled world means it is unlikely to be worth the investment of time and manpower. Fundamentally the blue lifetimes are not limited, it is just more refinement is needed. Lifetimes have increased from tens to hundreds of hours to 1,000 hours and to now around the 10,000 hours mark. Blue materials (generally) are newer as they are harder to get (it is easier to red-shift emission, that is just throwing away energy - it is harder to blue-shift things, that is having to force a higher energy out) - hence development on blue materials is a few years behind red and green.
At the moment a lot of the oled work is still a good number of years away from high volume commercialisation - but everyone is working in that direction, it just takes a lot of time to get it right.
It actually does make a lot of sense. Current OLED's have the same limitations of size as LCD (namely everything is restricted by the largest shadow mask you can use) as they are vacuum deposited small molecules. Even with this limitation you have much superior contrast ratios (the screen itself luminescences, it is not filtering a backlight) and perfect 180x180 degree visibility (lcd have made some progress in that department but they still aren't all that good). Plasmas consume a lot of electricity and have some questionable reliability issues.
With future technologies in the pipeline (namely polymer oleds and dendrimer oleds) that allow solution deposition - a process very similar to standard inkjet printing - then the size limitation disappears and an oled Tv 100" big can be manufactured if you want it - it all just takes time.
Lifespans are at acceptable consumer grade (25,000-50,000 hours+ - equivalent to a modern CRT). The big manufacturers don't put these into production lines without the consumer lifespans being hit - part of the reason that it has taken until 2007 for oleds to move beyond mp3 display screens
Polymer OLED's (a different technology from what Sony are using) are a bit behind, CDT were reporting blue lifetimes of 6,000-10,000 hours (red and green are fine). That is a bit understandable though, as polymer oled technology is newer and less well developed than small molecule vacuum deposition oleds (what sony and almost everyone else are using).
Slashdot Mirror
How critical is the key fact that is missing. If he is saying the Township is not doing a good job and is criticising their actions in relation to this case then he is fine. If he is libelling individual, identifiable, people and/or breaking accepted laws in any other way then he should be held accountable.
If it is the former then his comments are no different to thousands of letters published in local newspapers all over the world every week criticising decisions and governance - a process that is well accepted to be *part* of the democratic system, and indeed a vital one. If it is the latter then the blogger has fallen into the now very well defined trap of thinking you are unidentifiable online, and thus can say or do whatever you like.
Fair enough, I didn't RTFA because it is a blog. In that case the submissions impression that this is some initiative through wikipedia is misleading. This is all in the hands of the FSF and how long it takes then to agree on a new version could be anyone's guess. Given it is 5 years since the last version I won't hold my breath.
Presuming that the GFDL doesn't allow commutation with the CC licence then this change (if true, since the only source in the submission is a blog) won't make any difference unless wikipedia is wiped and they start again. Everything up until today on wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, so that content will always be under the GFDL, because that is the licence the contributors agreed to when they submitted content (apart from a few who have made statements releasing their work of more restrictions, such as PD), and that licence can't be revoked or replaced by a CC-BY-SA licence without their permission (all hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them).
That is not a surprise, I would expect more time would be devoted to the wording of their press release than the research. Greenpeace have become a thoroughly discredited organisation, interested more in their own verbosity and charitable revenue generation than in finding constructive and progressive ways to make the world a better place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7118452.stm
The sites were targeting IE exploits.
They bought it 10 years ago - and I was talking about 4 years ago.
...it is called hotmail, and was (at least when I last was last there 4 years ago) a disaster zone, which included a page as part of the signup process where you were given the choice of what kind of junk mail you wanted emailed to you.
That (at least the text on wikipedia) is in the context of our own solar system (and the rare earth hypothesis generally is not a very strongly scientific area, it is a bit too "we haven't yet seen anything like us so we *must* be special")
The evidence brought forth by this science is looking at the current (relative) stars that are forming and finding what percentage are likely to have moon formation occurring at around the time that our moon was formed. The figure is surprisingly low - but like most cutting edge astronomy the errors are large and numerous.
The most important thing about the electronic world is that, unlike the real world, there are very little laws or conventions. Western powers have been too busy taking bungs from music cartels for legislation on downloading mp3s to actually have time to make any real difference.
Were the Chinese up to no good? Possibly - but who can blame them - the internet is a incredibly easy place to play dirty tricks and have absolutely no repercussions. In the world of international dirty tricks there is very little that you could normally do to cause trouble that didn't involve significant risks on the world stage (espionage, corporate theft, political interference). The internet is one vast playground which is completely risk free. Do what you like, and if anyone complains just say it wasn't us. The Russians did it a couple of months ago against Estonia.
The people we elect to represent us and our interests should have been working to create a world wide communication network that could not be corrupted or used against us, not taking dirty money to allow corporations to attempt to paint a mum who uploaded a short clip of her son dancing to a song as being a shoplifting thief.
We aren't interested in letting you become gatekeepers for our entire lives. Since you so very stupidly jettisoned playforsure neither are any media companies interested in you either, as that little case proved, your words and assurances are worthless - MS, you are a busted flush, now sod off and let some creative people on the stage who can actually make a difference.
And by that I don't really mean HD -> SS, rather we are currently in a capacity transition. With burgenoning digital music collections, DVD collections and the coming of HiDef video as a mainstream resource amongst other things the capacity requirements will soon shoot up. At the moment SS drives can come close to touching the standard HD entry level machines on a laptop, 60-80 GB. Fine for web browsing and general tasks, but as the above listed capacity intense activities continue to grow and the HD capacities can transition to hold them (500 GB - 1 TB is moving towards sensible options in the next wee while) - that leaves the SS drives behind again.
SS drives will always hold a niche for the ultra-portables and the light low performance laptops - but they are not going to be able to move into mid range laptops+ - and certainly not likely to make it into desktops unless it is part of an ultra quiet setup.
Didn't Google help define the idea of 2.0? Gmail (which was much more than any other webmail when it launched), Ajax, Google Documents, ....
To be honest I wouldn't expect this latest bunch of zealots to be so on the nose - they are much more devious. What is more likely is that they will claim that this is Scientists involved in a cover-up & attempting to suppress scientific "facts" by withdrawing them.
The real danger with the "ID" mob isn't that they are throwing bibles at people - it is precisely that they are not. They don't want bibles anywhere near the textbooks due to the US constituation - so instead they have attempted to metamorphosis into a pseudoscience to spread their religious message. Thankfully it has spectacularly failed to work.
You really have to wonder if the people writing these articles - and this is the NYT as well - have a clue. I mean words can't really describe how flawed it is to suggest a website API (and as the parent points out, a simplistic & fairly inadequate one compared to others) equates to an OS. It seems that the journo's are happy to get caught up in "beliefs" that - when you actually sit down and say "hang on, lets genuinely have a look at the facts here" - sums up to be a big pile of vacuous SFA. Someone needs to fire a bolt of reality into this lot, we (on here) are all happy to point out the basic truth that it is a bubble and it will burst, but it goes beyond that now - even the supposed objective commentators are blowing air into the bubble.
As for MS's purchase - we all know they have more money than sense - but I didn't realise it was that much.
On a few of the Swat 4 levels with some emotive content (kidnapped female with sicko kidnapper - religious sect who we don't know much about until we go down to the basement in a gruesome environment and find a lot of shallow kids graves) they got close. The first time I played them the were generating relatively sincere emotive responses - of course on replay it is lost because you know what is coming.
Facebook won't be around in 20-25 years - it is a fad. The biggest laugh of all is all the people in the "kewl media" who think it is worth tens of billions of dollars.
Despite having around a dozen modern games installed on my machine at the moment (and that ranges from Civ4, through HL2 and ending up at Simpson's Hit & run) I just spent the last two hours playing Lemmings. Enjoyable, engaging, straightforward and fun. I can play it while running 5 other things & it doesn't take over my system. I don't know what the "kidz" today would make of a basic 2D game like Lemmings - it would be interesting to see if games of that time really have something special, or if I am just being nostalgic.
I wouldn't count on it. I can't believe that the only reason ~ 40-50% of IE users are still with V6 is because of the WGA.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000087000024243507000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
The link is a nice paper on the trouble that adding the extras creates (and a interesting way around it from a few of the big names). That is where you are correct in syaing they have to hunt for more stable compounds. I will only take a small quote from the paper under the heading of fair use, it nicely explains the situation:
The study of blue organic electrophosphorescence (EP) has focused predominantly on the use of electron-withdrawing fluorine atoms to shift the molecular triplet state to the higher energies required. For example, external quantum efficiencies exceeding 10% have been demonstrated using fluorinated phenyl-pyridine complexes. There are drawbacks to using this technique, namely that the saturated blue phosphorescence required for many display applications may not be achievable through fluorination. In addition, the large electronegativity of the fluorine atom may destabilize the molecule, making it electrochemically reactive, leading to potentially short device operational lifetimes. Both of these challenges underscore the need for fluorine-free, deep blue emitting phosphors. Source: Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 243507 (2005), R. J. Holmes et al. - ©2005 American Institute of Physics.
Your three points are relatively valid, but the rest of the text is just a bit of sony bashing for no real reason.
High end luxury products that look good and are bought by people to show off is a very very well established early base of almost any mass market product (most especially electronics). It has nothing to do with Sony (Samsung are working towards the exact same thing, target Q1 2009) or the technology (virtually every piece of consumer electronics technology invented in the post war period, and even before, has a début like this).
It is a good point, if this was a fundamental problem then that is what they would probably look to do. The way things are changing in the oled world means it is unlikely to be worth the investment of time and manpower. Fundamentally the blue lifetimes are not limited, it is just more refinement is needed. Lifetimes have increased from tens to hundreds of hours to 1,000 hours and to now around the 10,000 hours mark. Blue materials (generally) are newer as they are harder to get (it is easier to red-shift emission, that is just throwing away energy - it is harder to blue-shift things, that is having to force a higher energy out) - hence development on blue materials is a few years behind red and green.
At the moment a lot of the oled work is still a good number of years away from high volume commercialisation - but everyone is working in that direction, it just takes a lot of time to get it right.
It actually does make a lot of sense. Current OLED's have the same limitations of size as LCD (namely everything is restricted by the largest shadow mask you can use) as they are vacuum deposited small molecules. Even with this limitation you have much superior contrast ratios (the screen itself luminescences, it is not filtering a backlight) and perfect 180x180 degree visibility (lcd have made some progress in that department but they still aren't all that good). Plasmas consume a lot of electricity and have some questionable reliability issues. With future technologies in the pipeline (namely polymer oleds and dendrimer oleds) that allow solution deposition - a process very similar to standard inkjet printing - then the size limitation disappears and an oled Tv 100" big can be manufactured if you want it - it all just takes time.
Lifespans are at acceptable consumer grade (25,000-50,000 hours+ - equivalent to a modern CRT). The big manufacturers don't put these into production lines without the consumer lifespans being hit - part of the reason that it has taken until 2007 for oleds to move beyond mp3 display screens Polymer OLED's (a different technology from what Sony are using) are a bit behind, CDT were reporting blue lifetimes of 6,000-10,000 hours (red and green are fine). That is a bit understandable though, as polymer oled technology is newer and less well developed than small molecule vacuum deposition oleds (what sony and almost everyone else are using).