Which is a particularly interesting distinction, when you consider that distribution is a right covered by copyright (and so a distribution license clearly makes sense), while "use" is not (so wtf do I need a "use license" for again?)...
Well, that's the core take-away from this story. We don't yet know how the case will play out, and I certainly don't claim to understand their theory on the anti-trust angle well enough to speculate. But either way, this speaks to the ethical stance of a company.
A company that takes what it needs/wants, knowing what is expected in return; doesn't give what is expected; is caught and convicted; and then challenges the validity of the agreement under which they were allowed to take what they want, with the implied conclusion that they should be allowed to take what they want anyway while giving nothing back.
If you claim it's an insurance problems... well that's already solved, as you already get a discount if your car has certain safety features
On your health insurance? Really? Who's your carrier?
Or were you not aware that accident victims sometimes need medical care, which (if they don't carry good health coverage) puts a burden on public funds?
You're thinking of copyright concepts. This is a trademark issue. Trademark has nothing to do with being creative or original -- it only has to do with distinctive identification of goods and/or services.
In short, there's no reason Orion couldn't be a protected mark. The court found that it is, and I see no particular reason to think they'd get this wrong. That being the case, telling them they can't advertise under that mark is pretty much normal operation of trademarks.
Requiring negative adwords seems a bit punitive ("since you've chosen to profit off confusion, you now must take extra care to eliminate confusion")... not sure if that's common, but what do you expect when you don't bother to show up?
That's beside the point. It doesn't matter if he's technically correct; we were talking about whether he could believe what he said to be true. The most interesting form of the question is, could you prove that he didn't believe it, because if so then those calling for a perjury charge would stand a chance of getting one.
So my comment has nothing to do with what you or I know; it has to do with what he knows. The fact is that the industry around technical books does use the term "programming UNIX" as a shorthand for what we know as "programming with the languages and utilities commonly found in a UNIX environment".
All he would have to do to counter your point that there are no books on "programming UNIX" is point to titles like Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, or Advanced UNIX Programming, or The Art of UNIX Programming -- all real titles. Go check Amazon if you think not.
And yes, those of us who know the technologies understand what this really means -- but the question is, can we prove that Darl knows how to draw those distinctions? The fact is, he probably doesn't. Could he plausibly consider these books on how to "program UNIX"? Yes, he could.
Of course, a quick Amazon search shows titles like Professional Linux Programming and Beginning Linux Programming as well. This falsifies his claim that there are no books on programming Linux, but he can easily claim never to have seen such a thing. Maybe he doesn't use Amazon. Maybe his bookstore doesn't happen to have those titles. Maybe when he was browsing the shelf, he overlooked them. Hell, even if he said "I've never been to a bookstore, I was speaking hypothetically about what I believe to be true", that would probably be enough.
So to everyone yelling about lying under oath, be sure you can answer this: What is truth? Don't waste your time on charges that won't stick. If you can't find shadier things he's done than this, then you're not really trying.
It seems what he said is that there aren't books on how to program Linux. It might not be so hard to weasle out an interpretation in which he could plausibly believe that to be true.
The only statement I think one might be able to pin him on, is the claim that they have evidence of System V code in Linux (assuming they don't, which seems fair at this point). But even that could be subject to interpretations that favor stupidity over malice.
Well, if the OP's dichotomy -- either the information can be used in any way the company sees fit, or it can't be used at all -- were valid, then the difference would be this:
The consumer would know if he/she's more likely to get cancer.
So there would be a bias in the market from the buyers' end -- those who seek coverage would be disproportionately expensive to cover.
Even that needn't be the end of private insurance, though. It would probably result in insurance carriers getting more clever about the packages they offer; and it would probably drive rates up, but by how much (and whether by enough to end private insurance altogether) would depend on numbers we can't really predict.
Note that many Americans (like me) are covered under group plans. This means limited choices for me (those choices being the result of negotiation between my employer and the insurance company) and limited information for them (I think maybe they get to know that I'm not a smoker; other than that my premiums are based only on group rates).
So, no... by no means is the OP's thesis correct. Non-socialistic models can still work even with greater predictive medical information.
First, copyright is a federal law; there is no "in most states"; a given action is either a copyright violation everywhere in the U.S., or nowhere in the U.S.; "in most states" doesn't happen.
Beyond that, I'm afraid you're mistaken both about what constitutes "making a copy" (it has nothing to do with whether the uploader "is still claiming rights"), and about what the law says (copyright-holder authorization is not always required to make a copy).
If I rip a CD to my computer, a copy is made; this has nothing to do with any additional party being involved to receive the copy. Giving the copy to someone else is a separate action (probably falls under distribution), also governed by copyright law (but also not as an absolutely exclusive right).
Now, fair use is a complicated test to apply to a given action in deciding whether that act could be infringement, but certain classes of act are well-established as being fair use. I'm allowed to make backups, place-shift, time-shift, and format-shift. If I use newer technologies to implement my backups, that isn't supposed to matter; the criteria of fair use should apply the same, so long as the effect(s) of my actions are the same.
So: If the service really does what it says it does, then EMI is probably in the legal wrong everywhere in the U.S. If the service "cheats" and uses the stored material as a basis for an illegal file-sharing system, then they would be liable for infringement. Whether the individuals uploading music into the system would also be liable could well be debated, and while I know what I think the answer "should" be I'm not sure how it would play out.
That last point in mind, I would be hesitant to use this service unless I were offered either contractual protection (we, the service, agree to indemnify and defend the customer against claims of copyright infringement arising from our actions) or technical protection (I can encrypt the data before I store it).
Same is true from Vancouver and Toronto. It also means (and I think this is why it's done) that they can send flights to any U.S. airport (not just international ones), since the receiving airport doesn't have to be prepared to do customs checks.
But it also has a downside. At Toronto, there is (or at least, was a few years ago) only a single line for all passengers traveling into the U.S. If you weren't aware of this procedure and thought "there's no reason I'd possibly need more than a 2-hour layover", then good luck to you. (To be fair, there were accomodating about it and I made my flight in the end, but only barely.)
But it's beside the point that the GP was making. Even though in this case the check is done before you fly, the purpose is to enforce U.S. import laws -- not to protect the flight (which is what airport security is for).
Keep in mind that while he doesn't say so explicitely, the author means "software that meets the FSF's definition of 'free'" when he says "free software" -- not merely "software released under a license that people associate with free software".
You can see this when he talks about GLPv2 -- when talking about the code-signing requirement, he acknowledges that it wouldn't hinder GLPv2, but says that still the code wouldn't be "free software".
My gut reaction is to agree that the NDA thing has a FUD feel to it, but it's hard to say. Given enough code that uses an SDK, can I construct information about the SDK? Probably. You'd probably have to be careful what you spell out in the comments, at any rate...
But here's the bigger question I have about this story -- and it reflects my general disinterest in GPLv3: Who ever claimed that the iPhone was meant to be a general-purpose computing platform?
The FSF often takes a tone that sounds extreme to me. At least when talking about software for a general-purpose computer, I can see where their coming from. But really, if I don't control every aspect of my iPhone then it controls me? So, like, my little Samsung cell phone, for which I have no ability to program at all, must be dominating me entirely!
So a satelite impact will definitely cause its next orbit to hit the Earth. Any satelite impact, from any angle? And yet we don't expect that a moderate push would deflect it back off of a collision course?
Perhaps I need more information, but off hand, I have my doubts about this. I also note it's the kind of claim that can't be practically falsified in the common perception. The odds are either 1:450 or 1:45,000 -- but who is ever going to experience a difference between the two?
If you were "adding noise" in the sense of analog processing, that would be true.
Since you can digitally manipulate the noise that's already there, you aren't so much "adding" noise as "replacing" the existing noise (which may not really be noise, as it may contain information) with new noise (which you know to be random).
As to others' questions about whether anybody's really encoding information in the background noise... I don't know. I'm guessing anyone here who claims to be able to tell us one way or the other, also doesn't know.
"You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage."
Well, you can imagine it all you like; but that will be up to the market.
For my part: if my ISP signs on (and can't or doesn't provide for an opt-out), then I'm changing ISP's. If I can find no ISP that meets my requirement, I'll do wtihout broadband. I will not pay extortion to the record labels in compensation for illegal activity in which I don't engage, especially knowing that the real victims of such activity (the artists) won't get anything for it, either directly (through increased fees) or indirectly (by tolerating ads).
Everyone opposed to this deal: do the same thing. Make sure the competitive advantage goes to ISP's that don't sign on for this garbage. Don't say "yeah, I don't like it, but I'll put up with it"; either stay with it because you think it's good, or get away from it.
Think you can't live without your ISP? Nonsense. Your ISP can't live without you (collectively). Don't let them bolster the labels' interest, for their perceived benefit, at your expense.
The labels can scheme all they want, but this is a case where the market truly has the power.
Yes, but what that really means is that he got locked into an assumption about what the technology was "for" and failed to see that sound reproduction (1) was more useful even in those applications where automatic transcription might have a purpose, and (2) could also be put to other applications.
Ever heard it said that having an idea and/or technical skill is only a small part of what is required to successfully invent? Ever wonder why?
Edison had the vision to advance from a neat trick to a practically useful invention, even in the face of opposition from others in the field; he deserves the credit he got.
de Martinville deserves to be referenced as a footnote for the advances he made (but whose real value he failed to see).
That the administration does not give its Constitutional obligations proper regard in some cases, does not nullify those obligations. This is one of the most obvious forms of "two wrongs don't make a right".
The Constitution trumps treaties. Any country signing a treaty with the U.S. would do well to understand that.
The only question that would affect the applicability of that fact to this discussion is: Do the WTO rulings that the U.S. is ignoring in fact voilate the U.S. constitution? On that point I am ill informed to comment.
Unmanned vehicles very rarely, if ever, crash into pedestrians because the driver is drunk, putting on makeup, or talking on a cell phone. Several different species of car have crashed specifically for this reason.
The question isn't whether they pose new or different risks, but rather whether they pose a higher risk than the background noise. Posts that enumerate nightmare scenarios are nothing but useless scaremongering.
"I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty of other reasons to keep this thing from flying."
My point exactly. If your real concern isn't safety, yet you choose to talk up the perceived safety risks, then you're trying to bolster your position with FUD.
"Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you."
So can a car, but I doubt we'll be outlawing those.
I'm not really convinced either way on the safety of this plan. The FAA will decide whether it's safe enough to approve, and while I don't know that I can trust their judgement 100%, it's far from the first time my safety has been impacted by their decisions.
So, pending more information, I'm not alarmed by the "crashing drones" issue.
Depends, I suppose, on the mindset of the potential buyers.
It's hard for me to predict the behavior of someone whom we've already stipulated is acting irrationally, and I'd hold that bidding on this patent is irrational. Think about it for a minute: Why would I sell a patent? To displace risk? Maybe I'd believe that if the circumstances were a bit different. The way this one looks to me:
If I've got a patent in inventory, I suppose I'm going to look for the best way to profit from it. If I don't have the resources to make and market the invention, perhaps I'll try to license it. If I'm unprincipled, then I might wait quietly for the market to start using the patent, then sweep in with legal claims to extort a piece of the action from the market...
But if the market doesn't develop, what do I do? Why, I sell the patent! Of course, I'll have to misrepresent it's scope to make it look "usable" to a potential buyer, but if I can find just one or two bidders then I get my paycheck and they can go make fools of themselves in court.
Satelite TV doesn't meet the needs of every TV viewer; it's still considered to be in competition with cable, even though some viewers (those in some apartments; or located such that they can't get a good view of the sky in the right direction) can't use it.
The government's role in approving mergers is not designed to ensure that you personally will have multiple choices of product to meet your individual needs; it's to promote competition in the market as a whole. Internet streaming radio is a valid factor in the market.
Regardless, there are options other than sat radio for use in your car. Such as AM, FM and high-def; and arguably tape, CD, and iPod. When someone looks at a presented list of options, picks the one that doesn't apply to him or her and complains about that one... that just sounds like someone wanting to complain.
Actually, mechanical work is force by distance. Work is not the same thing as energy (it's the transfer of energy), and even at that mechanical work is just one type of work.
A flashlight may have no moving parts, but it does spend energy. That energy cannot be described in terms of force times distance. (I suppose you can get cute and counter that a flashlight has a switch, but surely we all know that the energy of flipping the switch isn't what powers a typical flashlight...)
That said, what you're trying to get at is partially true. Stepping from theory to practice, enforcing a temperature gradiant requires a constanct energy input and maintaining pressure does not. Entropy does ensure that you will eventually have to spend energy to make your pressure gradiant stay put, but we have some control over when and where we exert the effort to create and maintain a pressure vessel.
That's what the GP was saying when he said we know more reliable ways to deal with pressure gradiants. And GP is correct that nature tries to break them down, just like temperature gradiants.
Really smart AV software wouldn't make assumptions about the contents of the file (eliminating #3), would always check for exceptions (eliminating #2), and would treat a processing exception pretty much like a virus (neutralizing #1).
Very little software in practice is that smart. But with AV, you know you're at war with the file you're scanning. Any AV vendor caught by this should be embarrased.
Actually, the reason you would buy the "music only" CDR media is because you want to use it with a device programmed to only use "music only" CDR media.
Although it's physically identical to a data CDR, the "media type" tags on a "music only" CDR are different. Also, "music only" CDR's qualify as a "digital music recording medium" (or something to that effect) under the current copyright law, which does make them subject to certain sections of the law that protect the user from copyright suits. Whether those provisions protect you fron anything that wouldn't already fall under fair use is probably debatable, but speciifc wording that "no suit can be brought" against what you're doing will always be better protection than general fair use claims.
In other words, the lawmakers envisioned a world where recorders that meet certain requirements and media that meet certain requirements could be used just like tapes and tape decks in a home recording setting. Of course, those recorders never caught on (at least among anyone I know), rendering the media useless... but hey, if anyone ever said the crafters of modern copyright law were on top of things, they lied.
By contrast, the Canadian scheme (tax all CDR purchases), while it avoids the pitfalls that keep the U.S. system from doing anything useful, forces every computer user who stores data on a CDR to pay for music they aren't buying.
Which is exactly the same problem we'd have with this "broadband tax". Sure, it sounds great if you're taking in a huge volume of music all the time -- $5/month for all you want (assuming you only want music controled by the RIAA, presumably). Most people aren't taking in $5/month every month. A lot of people aren't taking in $5/month, period. Or, a lot of people would still rather buy the CD, because they might like the cover art or the book that accompanies the CD, etc.; and none of that would be covered by this tax.
So while I think you're missing a few details about the historical situation, your conclusion seems to agree with mine. The broadband tax is a stupid idea to suit the desires of the few at the expense of the many.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a particularly interesting distinction, when you consider that distribution is a right covered by copyright (and so a distribution license clearly makes sense), while "use" is not (so wtf do I need a "use license" for again?)...
Well, that's the core take-away from this story. We don't yet know how the case will play out, and I certainly don't claim to understand their theory on the anti-trust angle well enough to speculate. But either way, this speaks to the ethical stance of a company.
A company that takes what it needs/wants, knowing what is expected in return; doesn't give what is expected; is caught and convicted; and then challenges the validity of the agreement under which they were allowed to take what they want, with the implied conclusion that they should be allowed to take what they want anyway while giving nothing back.
Bunch of children.
Oui.
If you claim it's an insurance problems... well that's already solved, as you already get a discount if your car has certain safety features
On your health insurance? Really? Who's your carrier?
Or were you not aware that accident victims sometimes need medical care, which (if they don't carry good health coverage) puts a burden on public funds?
You're thinking of copyright concepts. This is a trademark issue. Trademark has nothing to do with being creative or original -- it only has to do with distinctive identification of goods and/or services.
In short, there's no reason Orion couldn't be a protected mark. The court found that it is, and I see no particular reason to think they'd get this wrong. That being the case, telling them they can't advertise under that mark is pretty much normal operation of trademarks.
Requiring negative adwords seems a bit punitive ("since you've chosen to profit off confusion, you now must take extra care to eliminate confusion")... not sure if that's common, but what do you expect when you don't bother to show up?
That's beside the point. It doesn't matter if he's technically correct; we were talking about whether he could believe what he said to be true. The most interesting form of the question is, could you prove that he didn't believe it, because if so then those calling for a perjury charge would stand a chance of getting one.
So my comment has nothing to do with what you or I know; it has to do with what he knows. The fact is that the industry around technical books does use the term "programming UNIX" as a shorthand for what we know as "programming with the languages and utilities commonly found in a UNIX environment".
All he would have to do to counter your point that there are no books on "programming UNIX" is point to titles like Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, or Advanced UNIX Programming, or The Art of UNIX Programming -- all real titles. Go check Amazon if you think not.
And yes, those of us who know the technologies understand what this really means -- but the question is, can we prove that Darl knows how to draw those distinctions? The fact is, he probably doesn't. Could he plausibly consider these books on how to "program UNIX"? Yes, he could.
Of course, a quick Amazon search shows titles like Professional Linux Programming and Beginning Linux Programming as well. This falsifies his claim that there are no books on programming Linux, but he can easily claim never to have seen such a thing. Maybe he doesn't use Amazon. Maybe his bookstore doesn't happen to have those titles. Maybe when he was browsing the shelf, he overlooked them. Hell, even if he said "I've never been to a bookstore, I was speaking hypothetically about what I believe to be true", that would probably be enough.
So to everyone yelling about lying under oath, be sure you can answer this: What is truth? Don't waste your time on charges that won't stick. If you can't find shadier things he's done than this, then you're not really trying.
It seems what he said is that there aren't books on how to program Linux. It might not be so hard to weasle out an interpretation in which he could plausibly believe that to be true.
The only statement I think one might be able to pin him on, is the claim that they have evidence of System V code in Linux (assuming they don't, which seems fair at this point). But even that could be subject to interpretations that favor stupidity over malice.
Well, if the OP's dichotomy -- either the information can be used in any way the company sees fit, or it can't be used at all -- were valid, then the difference would be this:
The consumer would know if he/she's more likely to get cancer.
So there would be a bias in the market from the buyers' end -- those who seek coverage would be disproportionately expensive to cover.
Even that needn't be the end of private insurance, though. It would probably result in insurance carriers getting more clever about the packages they offer; and it would probably drive rates up, but by how much (and whether by enough to end private insurance altogether) would depend on numbers we can't really predict.
Note that many Americans (like me) are covered under group plans. This means limited choices for me (those choices being the result of negotiation between my employer and the insurance company) and limited information for them (I think maybe they get to know that I'm not a smoker; other than that my premiums are based only on group rates).
So, no... by no means is the OP's thesis correct. Non-socialistic models can still work even with greater predictive medical information.
First, copyright is a federal law; there is no "in most states"; a given action is either a copyright violation everywhere in the U.S., or nowhere in the U.S.; "in most states" doesn't happen.
Beyond that, I'm afraid you're mistaken both about what constitutes "making a copy" (it has nothing to do with whether the uploader "is still claiming rights"), and about what the law says (copyright-holder authorization is not always required to make a copy).
If I rip a CD to my computer, a copy is made; this has nothing to do with any additional party being involved to receive the copy. Giving the copy to someone else is a separate action (probably falls under distribution), also governed by copyright law (but also not as an absolutely exclusive right).
Now, fair use is a complicated test to apply to a given action in deciding whether that act could be infringement, but certain classes of act are well-established as being fair use. I'm allowed to make backups, place-shift, time-shift, and format-shift. If I use newer technologies to implement my backups, that isn't supposed to matter; the criteria of fair use should apply the same, so long as the effect(s) of my actions are the same.
So: If the service really does what it says it does, then EMI is probably in the legal wrong everywhere in the U.S. If the service "cheats" and uses the stored material as a basis for an illegal file-sharing system, then they would be liable for infringement. Whether the individuals uploading music into the system would also be liable could well be debated, and while I know what I think the answer "should" be I'm not sure how it would play out.
That last point in mind, I would be hesitant to use this service unless I were offered either contractual protection (we, the service, agree to indemnify and defend the customer against claims of copyright infringement arising from our actions) or technical protection (I can encrypt the data before I store it).
Same is true from Vancouver and Toronto. It also means (and I think this is why it's done) that they can send flights to any U.S. airport (not just international ones), since the receiving airport doesn't have to be prepared to do customs checks.
But it also has a downside. At Toronto, there is (or at least, was a few years ago) only a single line for all passengers traveling into the U.S. If you weren't aware of this procedure and thought "there's no reason I'd possibly need more than a 2-hour layover", then good luck to you. (To be fair, there were accomodating about it and I made my flight in the end, but only barely.)
But it's beside the point that the GP was making. Even though in this case the check is done before you fly, the purpose is to enforce U.S. import laws -- not to protect the flight (which is what airport security is for).
Keep in mind that while he doesn't say so explicitely, the author means "software that meets the FSF's definition of 'free'" when he says "free software" -- not merely "software released under a license that people associate with free software".
You can see this when he talks about GLPv2 -- when talking about the code-signing requirement, he acknowledges that it wouldn't hinder GLPv2, but says that still the code wouldn't be "free software".
My gut reaction is to agree that the NDA thing has a FUD feel to it, but it's hard to say. Given enough code that uses an SDK, can I construct information about the SDK? Probably. You'd probably have to be careful what you spell out in the comments, at any rate...
But here's the bigger question I have about this story -- and it reflects my general disinterest in GPLv3: Who ever claimed that the iPhone was meant to be a general-purpose computing platform?
The FSF often takes a tone that sounds extreme to me. At least when talking about software for a general-purpose computer, I can see where their coming from. But really, if I don't control every aspect of my iPhone then it controls me? So, like, my little Samsung cell phone, for which I have no ability to program at all, must be dominating me entirely!
So a satelite impact will definitely cause its next orbit to hit the Earth. Any satelite impact, from any angle? And yet we don't expect that a moderate push would deflect it back off of a collision course?
Perhaps I need more information, but off hand, I have my doubts about this. I also note it's the kind of claim that can't be practically falsified in the common perception. The odds are either 1:450 or 1:45,000 -- but who is ever going to experience a difference between the two?
If you were "adding noise" in the sense of analog processing, that would be true.
Since you can digitally manipulate the noise that's already there, you aren't so much "adding" noise as "replacing" the existing noise (which may not really be noise, as it may contain information) with new noise (which you know to be random).
As to others' questions about whether anybody's really encoding information in the background noise... I don't know. I'm guessing anyone here who claims to be able to tell us one way or the other, also doesn't know.
...?
Notoriously possessing apples?
Ah, but not everyone. From the summary:
"You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage."
Well, you can imagine it all you like; but that will be up to the market.
For my part: if my ISP signs on (and can't or doesn't provide for an opt-out), then I'm changing ISP's. If I can find no ISP that meets my requirement, I'll do wtihout broadband. I will not pay extortion to the record labels in compensation for illegal activity in which I don't engage, especially knowing that the real victims of such activity (the artists) won't get anything for it, either directly (through increased fees) or indirectly (by tolerating ads).
Everyone opposed to this deal: do the same thing. Make sure the competitive advantage goes to ISP's that don't sign on for this garbage. Don't say "yeah, I don't like it, but I'll put up with it"; either stay with it because you think it's good, or get away from it.
Think you can't live without your ISP? Nonsense. Your ISP can't live without you (collectively). Don't let them bolster the labels' interest, for their perceived benefit, at your expense.
The labels can scheme all they want, but this is a case where the market truly has the power.
Yes, but what that really means is that he got locked into an assumption about what the technology was "for" and failed to see that sound reproduction (1) was more useful even in those applications where automatic transcription might have a purpose, and (2) could also be put to other applications.
Ever heard it said that having an idea and/or technical skill is only a small part of what is required to successfully invent? Ever wonder why?
Edison had the vision to advance from a neat trick to a practically useful invention, even in the face of opposition from others in the field; he deserves the credit he got.
de Martinville deserves to be referenced as a footnote for the advances he made (but whose real value he failed to see).
That the administration does not give its Constitutional obligations proper regard in some cases, does not nullify those obligations. This is one of the most obvious forms of "two wrongs don't make a right".
The Constitution trumps treaties. Any country signing a treaty with the U.S. would do well to understand that.
The only question that would affect the applicability of that fact to this discussion is: Do the WTO rulings that the U.S. is ignoring in fact voilate the U.S. constitution? On that point I am ill informed to comment.
Unmanned vehicles very rarely, if ever, crash into pedestrians because the driver is drunk, putting on makeup, or talking on a cell phone. Several different species of car have crashed specifically for this reason.
The question isn't whether they pose new or different risks, but rather whether they pose a higher risk than the background noise. Posts that enumerate nightmare scenarios are nothing but useless scaremongering.
"I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty of other reasons to keep this thing from flying."
My point exactly. If your real concern isn't safety, yet you choose to talk up the perceived safety risks, then you're trying to bolster your position with FUD.
Knock it off, and get on with the real debate.
"Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you."
So can a car, but I doubt we'll be outlawing those.
I'm not really convinced either way on the safety of this plan. The FAA will decide whether it's safe enough to approve, and while I don't know that I can trust their judgement 100%, it's far from the first time my safety has been impacted by their decisions.
So, pending more information, I'm not alarmed by the "crashing drones" issue.
Depends, I suppose, on the mindset of the potential buyers.
It's hard for me to predict the behavior of someone whom we've already stipulated is acting irrationally, and I'd hold that bidding on this patent is irrational. Think about it for a minute: Why would I sell a patent? To displace risk? Maybe I'd believe that if the circumstances were a bit different. The way this one looks to me:
If I've got a patent in inventory, I suppose I'm going to look for the best way to profit from it. If I don't have the resources to make and market the invention, perhaps I'll try to license it. If I'm unprincipled, then I might wait quietly for the market to start using the patent, then sweep in with legal claims to extort a piece of the action from the market...
But if the market doesn't develop, what do I do? Why, I sell the patent! Of course, I'll have to misrepresent it's scope to make it look "usable" to a potential buyer, but if I can find just one or two bidders then I get my paycheck and they can go make fools of themselves in court.
Satelite TV doesn't meet the needs of every TV viewer; it's still considered to be in competition with cable, even though some viewers (those in some apartments; or located such that they can't get a good view of the sky in the right direction) can't use it.
The government's role in approving mergers is not designed to ensure that you personally will have multiple choices of product to meet your individual needs; it's to promote competition in the market as a whole. Internet streaming radio is a valid factor in the market.
Regardless, there are options other than sat radio for use in your car. Such as AM, FM and high-def; and arguably tape, CD, and iPod. When someone looks at a presented list of options, picks the one that doesn't apply to him or her and complains about that one... that just sounds like someone wanting to complain.
Energy is force by distance
Actually, mechanical work is force by distance. Work is not the same thing as energy (it's the transfer of energy), and even at that mechanical work is just one type of work.
A flashlight may have no moving parts, but it does spend energy. That energy cannot be described in terms of force times distance. (I suppose you can get cute and counter that a flashlight has a switch, but surely we all know that the energy of flipping the switch isn't what powers a typical flashlight...)
That said, what you're trying to get at is partially true. Stepping from theory to practice, enforcing a temperature gradiant requires a constanct energy input and maintaining pressure does not. Entropy does ensure that you will eventually have to spend energy to make your pressure gradiant stay put, but we have some control over when and where we exert the effort to create and maintain a pressure vessel.
That's what the GP was saying when he said we know more reliable ways to deal with pressure gradiants. And GP is correct that nature tries to break them down, just like temperature gradiants.
Really smart AV software wouldn't make assumptions about the contents of the file (eliminating #3), would always check for exceptions (eliminating #2), and would treat a processing exception pretty much like a virus (neutralizing #1).
Very little software in practice is that smart. But with AV, you know you're at war with the file you're scanning. Any AV vendor caught by this should be embarrased.
"So if I have a container that is cold, condensation will appear on the container."
Yes... Unless the container is surrounded by very dry air, as could be arranged by picking when and where I seal it in a ziploc bag.
Seems to me that for your argument to make sense, they'd have to demand that you not put your liquids in a sealed bag of any sort.
Actually, the reason you would buy the "music only" CDR media is because you want to use it with a device programmed to only use "music only" CDR media.
Although it's physically identical to a data CDR, the "media type" tags on a "music only" CDR are different. Also, "music only" CDR's qualify as a "digital music recording medium" (or something to that effect) under the current copyright law, which does make them subject to certain sections of the law that protect the user from copyright suits. Whether those provisions protect you fron anything that wouldn't already fall under fair use is probably debatable, but speciifc wording that "no suit can be brought" against what you're doing will always be better protection than general fair use claims.
In other words, the lawmakers envisioned a world where recorders that meet certain requirements and media that meet certain requirements could be used just like tapes and tape decks in a home recording setting. Of course, those recorders never caught on (at least among anyone I know), rendering the media useless... but hey, if anyone ever said the crafters of modern copyright law were on top of things, they lied.
By contrast, the Canadian scheme (tax all CDR purchases), while it avoids the pitfalls that keep the U.S. system from doing anything useful, forces every computer user who stores data on a CDR to pay for music they aren't buying.
Which is exactly the same problem we'd have with this "broadband tax". Sure, it sounds great if you're taking in a huge volume of music all the time -- $5/month for all you want (assuming you only want music controled by the RIAA, presumably). Most people aren't taking in $5/month every month. A lot of people aren't taking in $5/month, period. Or, a lot of people would still rather buy the CD, because they might like the cover art or the book that accompanies the CD, etc.; and none of that would be covered by this tax.
So while I think you're missing a few details about the historical situation, your conclusion seems to agree with mine. The broadband tax is a stupid idea to suit the desires of the few at the expense of the many.