I can't answer the Canada law question... But the club stores are a whole different ball of wax. The key point hinges on that the most the store can do without actually witnessing shoplifting is ask you to leave and make note of your license plate number. If they asked you when you came in if you would consent to a search on the way out, and you refused, they could refuse you access at that point, and if you went in you would be trespassing. A club store can effectively do exactly that. I'm not sure if they do exactly, but they could certainly put wording in the membership agreement that you consent to search. If you refuse the search, they terminate the agreement, and you are out the money you paid for membership (Though they may or may not refund you) and can not shop there anymore. They still would not be able to detain you, but in that case you have other reasons to comply.
Setting off the alarms may count as enough cause for detainment in the legal sense. But that wasn't the case. They wanted to check his receipt as he left for no reason other than that he was leaving with merchandise he had purchased.
They certainly do have a right to make a request of you. But just because they have a right to make that request, doesn't make you are required to comply. If you refuse, they can certainly refuse you access and request you leave. As a classic example, the bouncer at a nightclub.
Now, applying this to the exit screeners... They are certainly within their rights to request to see your receipt. If you refuse, they can ask you to leave, just like the bouncer at the nightclub. So, everything you said is entirely correct.
But none of that gives them any rights to detain you if you refuse their request.
The 6502 may have been faster than the 8080 per megahertz, but it certainly wasn't 1 cycle = 1 instruction. The programming manual for the processor gave timings for all the instructions, and some of them were quite long, especially when you started doing some of the indirect addressing modes.
It was a little vague, but from their description, it sounds like they didn't make it available for others to download, just for themselves to access remotely. Or rather, I should say that's the claim. If that's true or not is another matter.
Not to mention that they are all much longer than your typical open source license, and have many more land mines to worry about tripping over hidden away in the text.
If you count all the subtle variations (For example, BSD license with who gets credit changed) I can see it being 1000+. But that is taking a very strict definition of different FOSS licenses, and not a realistic definition that all those are basically the same thing.
Why does the large number of licenses have to be a management problem? Most the proliferation in business is the usage, not the development of open source, and a bulk of the open source licenses say you can use it however you want, it's only when you distribute it (Modified or unmodified) that you have to start worrying about exactly what is in the license.
Again, in the article, they didn't replace the fan with the ionic breeze. The fan is still there. It moves large amounts of air, and the ionic breeze was taking the air being moved and bringing it directly in contact with the hot surface, rather than the thin insulating layer of air you get with just a fan pointed at a heatsink.
Thus, it is, in fact, a clever new application of the technology and not just a replication of what you have done. Anybody can go to sharper image, and make the connection of "A fan moves air, this moves air silently, so I'll replace a fan with this". It's not exactly rocket science to replace one air mover with another. But that is not what the article was describing at all.
Here's the important bits from the article.
Conventional cooling technologies are limited by a principle called the "no-slip" effect - as air flows over an object, the air molecules nearest the surface remain stationary. The molecules farther away from the surface move progressively faster. This phenomenon hinders computer cooling because it restricts airflow where it is most needed, directly on the chip's hot surface.
The new approach potentially solves this problem by using the ionic wind effect in combination with a conventional fan to create airflow immediately adjacent to the chip's surface, Fisher said.
And if you RTFA, you'd see that this has as much in common with those past articles as a desktop fan pointed at a CPU has with a heatsink with a fan attached.
Where do you see that? The article describes how it works with fans to reduce the effect where the air closest to the chip moves the least. The ionic wind is the "last mile" of cooling, in that description. If you enclose it in something and point a fan at that, you still have the issue that the fan air doesn't move much close to the now enclosed cooling device. Not only that, it would probably make cooling worse by acting as an insulator.
It's historically been 3 volumes, but these days they have volume 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, plus there is the optimization reference, and some changes and notes.
Interesting. I considered the stereo I had it on to be pretty low end. It was a fairly cheap-ish (For the time) integrated tape, radio, CD player with EQ. It was so cheap they had to include an un-powered sub just to make up for the junk speakers which had no bass response.
Digital volume is not a requirement for remote control.
I used to have a stereo that, I kid you not, had a remote controlled volume dial. You hit the volume up or down button, and it had a little motor that turned the volume dial for you. It had the best of both worlds! The only problem was as the thing aged, the motor was starting to cause some audible sound over the speakers when it was changing the volume.
You know, as I read your reply, it occurred to me that whoever made that analogy had it all wrong.
The artists (Whether it be movie makers or musicians) are about getting around on horses. Sure, it can go anywhere, but it's not the quickest mode of transportation. Still, even in modern times there is something quaint about it.
Then there is the MPAA/RIAA/etc. They are the railroads. They gets you over large distances... As long as you want to go where they go.
Where music is now is cars. It's something very personal and easy to use, useful when used responsibly, dangerous when used irresponsibly, and you can go wherever you want with it. Only, it's as if the big railroads were trying to make cars illegal to use because it is possible to cause an accident with one.
If an MTA is sending a bounce error, chances are it is a full RFC compliant MTA that won't get caught in a greylist or this nolisting thing.
When you get a bounce is with open relays, or MTAs that accept right away and then decide to bounce. You should be enoucraging ideas like this, as they lower the number of such bounce messages, not raise them.
I used to do IT work long ago. I inherited the most crappy setup in the world. It was hacked together by contractors who didn't actually pay attention to what they were doing.
Among stupidities such as a proxy firewall with routing enabled and public IP addresses behind it, was a little gem with the mail server. The firewall had a mail proxy set up. Outgoing mail would hit it, and it would attempt to deliver. If it succeeded, it would be sent. If it failed, it would be put in the sendmail queue. Only, sendmail was never running, so it filled up. The solution was, of course, to write a cron job to clear out the sendmail queue on a regular basis. Something like once a day.
I'm sure you can see how RFC complaint that system was. It wasn't the MTA's fault. It was simply mis-configured.
The worst part was it took me awhile to discover this mess. Everyone there just took it for granted that email was unreliable and prone to getting mail lost seemingly at random, so nobody reported any problems losing email.
I'm sure there are many places in the same situation. In fact, when I did greylisting, I found a number of cases where email from some places never made it through the greylist.
The technique in this article actually does sound a little bit more reliable. Though based on the statistics, it seems like it would be just as useful and less prone to errors to create a false second MX record. Or even creating two false MX records with the real one in between.
I have played those sorts of games before and it's not as easy as you might think to relax. It's not just physical relaxation, it's mental relaxation. You can be physically relaxed but still thinking a mile a minute. The relaxation you need is more of a meditative relaxation.
Besides if you are 30, by the time you are 70 it will be 2076 and if you consider all the progress made from 1906 to 1946 it will be at least interesting.
Wow, a post from the future! What's it like in 2036?
How come this doesn't come into anti-trust laws? They are coherently and decidely groups similar agreements to prevent downselling. How is that not collusion against competition for economic benefit?
Because they are not colluding against anything. It is just a different service level tier. ISPs sell bandwidth based on usage pattern. Most residential connections are assumed to be very sporadic usage. So they can oversubscribe their bandwidth heavily without anyone noticing. (Anywhere from 5:1 oversubscription to 20:1 or more.) That lets them offer high bandwidth at a price most people can afford.
On the other hand, if you are going to resell or share your connection, your usage profile is going to be much heavier. Most ISPs aren't against you doing it, they just charge you more, because the end result is more of a load on their network to handle the increased traffic of multiple users. It's not trying to price competition out. The cheap residential links are just offering a discount for a connection that doesn't use all the bandwidth.
Just because you have a DirectX 10 capable card doesn't mean you need DirectX 10. Most of those games/benchmarks are against DirectX 9, and the rest are against OpenGL. It will be a few years before most games require DirectX 10.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't answer the Canada law question... But the club stores are a whole different ball of wax. The key point hinges on that the most the store can do without actually witnessing shoplifting is ask you to leave and make note of your license plate number. If they asked you when you came in if you would consent to a search on the way out, and you refused, they could refuse you access at that point, and if you went in you would be trespassing. A club store can effectively do exactly that. I'm not sure if they do exactly, but they could certainly put wording in the membership agreement that you consent to search. If you refuse the search, they terminate the agreement, and you are out the money you paid for membership (Though they may or may not refund you) and can not shop there anymore. They still would not be able to detain you, but in that case you have other reasons to comply.
Setting off the alarms may count as enough cause for detainment in the legal sense. But that wasn't the case. They wanted to check his receipt as he left for no reason other than that he was leaving with merchandise he had purchased.
They certainly do have a right to make a request of you. But just because they have a right to make that request, doesn't make you are required to comply. If you refuse, they can certainly refuse you access and request you leave. As a classic example, the bouncer at a nightclub.
Now, applying this to the exit screeners... They are certainly within their rights to request to see your receipt. If you refuse, they can ask you to leave, just like the bouncer at the nightclub. So, everything you said is entirely correct.
But none of that gives them any rights to detain you if you refuse their request.
The 6502 may have been faster than the 8080 per megahertz, but it certainly wasn't 1 cycle = 1 instruction. The programming manual for the processor gave timings for all the instructions, and some of them were quite long, especially when you started doing some of the indirect addressing modes.
It was a little vague, but from their description, it sounds like they didn't make it available for others to download, just for themselves to access remotely. Or rather, I should say that's the claim. If that's true or not is another matter.
Not to mention that they are all much longer than your typical open source license, and have many more land mines to worry about tripping over hidden away in the text.
If you count all the subtle variations (For example, BSD license with who gets credit changed) I can see it being 1000+. But that is taking a very strict definition of different FOSS licenses, and not a realistic definition that all those are basically the same thing.
Why does the large number of licenses have to be a management problem? Most the proliferation in business is the usage, not the development of open source, and a bulk of the open source licenses say you can use it however you want, it's only when you distribute it (Modified or unmodified) that you have to start worrying about exactly what is in the license.
Again, in the article, they didn't replace the fan with the ionic breeze. The fan is still there. It moves large amounts of air, and the ionic breeze was taking the air being moved and bringing it directly in contact with the hot surface, rather than the thin insulating layer of air you get with just a fan pointed at a heatsink.
Thus, it is, in fact, a clever new application of the technology and not just a replication of what you have done. Anybody can go to sharper image, and make the connection of "A fan moves air, this moves air silently, so I'll replace a fan with this". It's not exactly rocket science to replace one air mover with another. But that is not what the article was describing at all.
Here's the important bits from the article.
Conventional cooling technologies are limited by a principle called the "no-slip" effect - as air flows over an object, the air molecules nearest the surface remain stationary. The molecules farther away from the surface move progressively faster. This phenomenon hinders computer cooling because it restricts airflow where it is most needed, directly on the chip's hot surface.
The new approach potentially solves this problem by using the ionic wind effect in combination with a conventional fan to create airflow immediately adjacent to the chip's surface, Fisher said.
And if you RTFA, you'd see that this has as much in common with those past articles as a desktop fan pointed at a CPU has with a heatsink with a fan attached.
Where do you see that? The article describes how it works with fans to reduce the effect where the air closest to the chip moves the least. The ionic wind is the "last mile" of cooling, in that description. If you enclose it in something and point a fan at that, you still have the issue that the fan air doesn't move much close to the now enclosed cooling device. Not only that, it would probably make cooling worse by acting as an insulator.
You can download the software developers manual for Intel's line of processors, which covers pretty much everything you ever needed to know, lots you probably didn't, and then some.
It's historically been 3 volumes, but these days they have volume 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, plus there is the optimization reference, and some changes and notes.
Have a blast!
You're mixing up gambits and licenses. Gambits = simple AI for your allies. Licenses = purchased skills.
Interesting. I considered the stereo I had it on to be pretty low end. It was a fairly cheap-ish (For the time) integrated tape, radio, CD player with EQ. It was so cheap they had to include an un-powered sub just to make up for the junk speakers which had no bass response.
Digital volume is not a requirement for remote control.
I used to have a stereo that, I kid you not, had a remote controlled volume dial. You hit the volume up or down button, and it had a little motor that turned the volume dial for you. It had the best of both worlds! The only problem was as the thing aged, the motor was starting to cause some audible sound over the speakers when it was changing the volume.
Apathy
If we don't take care of the customers, maybe they will stop bugging us.
You know, as I read your reply, it occurred to me that whoever made that analogy had it all wrong.
The artists (Whether it be movie makers or musicians) are about getting around on horses. Sure, it can go anywhere, but it's not the quickest mode of transportation. Still, even in modern times there is something quaint about it.
Then there is the MPAA/RIAA/etc. They are the railroads. They gets you over large distances... As long as you want to go where they go.
Where music is now is cars. It's something very personal and easy to use, useful when used responsibly, dangerous when used irresponsibly, and you can go wherever you want with it. Only, it's as if the big railroads were trying to make cars illegal to use because it is possible to cause an accident with one.
If an MTA is sending a bounce error, chances are it is a full RFC compliant MTA that won't get caught in a greylist or this nolisting thing.
When you get a bounce is with open relays, or MTAs that accept right away and then decide to bounce. You should be enoucraging ideas like this, as they lower the number of such bounce messages, not raise them.
I used to do IT work long ago. I inherited the most crappy setup in the world. It was hacked together by contractors who didn't actually pay attention to what they were doing.
Among stupidities such as a proxy firewall with routing enabled and public IP addresses behind it, was a little gem with the mail server. The firewall had a mail proxy set up. Outgoing mail would hit it, and it would attempt to deliver. If it succeeded, it would be sent. If it failed, it would be put in the sendmail queue. Only, sendmail was never running, so it filled up. The solution was, of course, to write a cron job to clear out the sendmail queue on a regular basis. Something like once a day.
I'm sure you can see how RFC complaint that system was. It wasn't the MTA's fault. It was simply mis-configured.
The worst part was it took me awhile to discover this mess. Everyone there just took it for granted that email was unreliable and prone to getting mail lost seemingly at random, so nobody reported any problems losing email.
I'm sure there are many places in the same situation. In fact, when I did greylisting, I found a number of cases where email from some places never made it through the greylist.
The technique in this article actually does sound a little bit more reliable. Though based on the statistics, it seems like it would be just as useful and less prone to errors to create a false second MX record. Or even creating two false MX records with the real one in between.
I have played those sorts of games before and it's not as easy as you might think to relax. It's not just physical relaxation, it's mental relaxation. You can be physically relaxed but still thinking a mile a minute. The relaxation you need is more of a meditative relaxation.
Considering the other article is about a fossil of a mammal found, it's more like...
deadmammals++;
livingmammals--;
deadmammals++;
What does scanning old photographs have to do with DEC?
Besides if you are 30, by the time you are 70 it will be 2076 and if you consider all the progress made from 1906 to 1946 it will be at least interesting.
Wow, a post from the future! What's it like in 2036?
How come this doesn't come into anti-trust laws? They are coherently and decidely groups similar agreements to prevent downselling. How is that not collusion against competition for economic benefit?
Because they are not colluding against anything. It is just a different service level tier. ISPs sell bandwidth based on usage pattern. Most residential connections are assumed to be very sporadic usage. So they can oversubscribe their bandwidth heavily without anyone noticing. (Anywhere from 5:1 oversubscription to 20:1 or more.) That lets them offer high bandwidth at a price most people can afford.
On the other hand, if you are going to resell or share your connection, your usage profile is going to be much heavier. Most ISPs aren't against you doing it, they just charge you more, because the end result is more of a load on their network to handle the increased traffic of multiple users. It's not trying to price competition out. The cheap residential links are just offering a discount for a connection that doesn't use all the bandwidth.
Just because you have a DirectX 10 capable card doesn't mean you need DirectX 10. Most of those games/benchmarks are against DirectX 9, and the rest are against OpenGL. It will be a few years before most games require DirectX 10.