Hi Rick. The Hexacopter has a lot of thrust (and with different sized rotors more thrust and less stamina) but don't confuse "pounds of thrust" with "ability to lift weight other than itself."
The unladen hexacopter can lift less than a six-pack. Here's a google search with lots of cool info including videos: http://tinyurl.com/lweb6bd
Remember that thrust (if it was perfectly vertical) would equal lift, and that the hexacopter itself has a weight that reduces from the thrust. However... with 6 small props it's not all lift, and the end result is that it can't do the job.
The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.
WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.
The point of this is. 1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff. 2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here. 3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.
Ehud helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC:)
Mathematizing the deck chairs on the Titanic...
on
The Math of Gamification
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Ever since FB stopped listing FS checkins, and the world stopped noticing who checks in where on FS, it really means they can arrange their data any way they like.
Perhaps this is their method of convincing their investors they have some Imaginary Property or something. I can't imagine another reason to pretend they have relevance. Like SnapChat, they're a temporary "service" that has nothing but temporary eyeballs.
They just responded to the Mexican's request for information with a redacted report saying: It's located right [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]. Good luck [XXXXXXXXXXXX] your [XXXXXXXXXXXX].
We've watched our server purchases go from 100% Dell to 50% Dell/ 50% HP to 100% 3rd party in the last four years as Dell has become 100% wintel and HP has ratecheted up their pricing without a commensurate increase in performance or reliability.
This happened despite our being a Dell Premiere client, having "direct access" to get bulk deals, delivery, and sometimes even pricing. Dell turned into a Microsoft shop around mid-2012 -- long before it was clear they would eventually be seeking Microsoft "approval" (ownership). We warned them. We pleaded with them. We tried to bargain with them. In the end it was all just stages of coping with the grief as we watched our old friend Dell succumb to dying a slow Microsoftian death.
So _NOW_ they want to introduce a laptop running a 1.5 year old operating system? Anyone thinks this is a great idea? Of course not. They're doing so in order to bid on some government contract that says they have to have diversity. They don't expect to sell any of these -- see the marketing hype around it. It's just there because they need to have such a product.
Next time you're thinking of whether to license YOUR code using GPL or using something that allows MS to use your stuff and give nothing back in return... remember this.
The original post begs the question of "DOES DRM actually deliver revenue to the content owners." It assumes that it does and that therefore there needs to be some mechanism to enable DRM to do so.
As has been pointed out numerous times here on/. as well as techdirt and popehat and reddit and other places, that is NOT the case. The revenue that is gained goes to ENFORCEMENT, goes to HARASSMENT of "illegal downloaders"[sic - downloading is not illegal], but NEVER to the artists who created the content.
A better refinement of the question should read: "What mechanisms could be used to ensure that the creators of content are compensated and their rights are not taken nor abused?" There are quite a few examples (in the sources previously cited) where artists put their content for downloads, and VOLUNTARY DONATIONS bypass the hoarde of middlemen thieves to make the artist wealthy. There are no "technical" mechanisms that can let someone read a book, listen to a song, or view a video that they cannot then make a copy. If you don't allow them to backup that copy, watch/listen/view it on multiple devices including car-audio or smartphone, they will make their own copy and no revenue will be afforded the creator.
A second mechanism is one where the content is EASILY made available for these uses, but incrementally the value-add is to the buyer who chooses to buy that other copy. For example: if I buy a Blu-Ray of BestMovieEver and for another $2 I can download it to my smartphone with chapters, subtitles, and all the features I'd want to see in an original creation (but won't get in a BR-rip) that's worth it.
If I buy a book from AMZ and for another $0 I can get it for my Kindle [reader on my smartphone] for ALL titles and it will NOT be pulled away later [like 1984] then that's a great value. Maybe for another $5 I can get a second copy stamped "Office Library" in big red letters on the softbound cover, so I can keep that in the office to read.
If I get an MP3 or two or three or an album, and for $5 I get a jewel box with a CD for the car, or a poster of the band... those are also value adds.
Key 1: technology will not prevent copying Key 2: giving the content creator the revenue means removing all the thieves from the middle of the process Key 3: getting "revenue" to exist means giving the buyer a "value-add" to purchase more, and thereby an incentive to purchase, rather than today's attempts to dis-incent the copying.
None of your answers are correct under current US law, and you didn't cite a single law or statute as requested.
Merely asserting something doesn't make it so. (I stand by that same standard but since I'm asserting THERE IS NO LAW being broken, there's nothing to cite.)
This is an incorrect understanding of law. There are several types of law. You are apparently only recognising vertical law, but breaking a horizontal law (e.g. a contract) is also against the law and illegal. It may not be a criminal act and breaking a state imposed law, but it is still illegal.
You are misstating the way laws work and "vertical law" or "horizontal law" are as such aspects of property law which is not relevant here.
Contract violations are not a violation of a law and are therefore not unlawful or "illegal."
Again: There's no such thing as illegal downloading. That means there is no law which is broken by the mere act of downloading. If you think differently I ask -- again -- provide such statute or law citation.
>> This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files
> Aaron Swartz says hello...
Aaron Swartz wasn't arrested for downloading files. He was arrested for violating computer access laws. Strike 1. I asked if anyone responded to include a law citation. You didn't. Strike 2.
Illegal requires a violation of a law. There is no law preventing downloading of a file.
This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files. Some have been charged with CIVIL suits for MAKING AVAILABLE these files.
Is it unlawful to download a file? No. Is it unlawful to upload a file? No. Is it unlawful to back up your DVD to a file? No. Is it unlawful to take that backup file and place it on the Internet? No.
Before you turn on the flamethrowers, I ask that if you disagree with any of these statements above, KINDLY include a direct link to a current statute or law that makes any of those four things violate a law.
And if my grandmother hand wheels on her shoes, she'd roller skate down the hill.
Crack pipe posting on slashdot. Must be a slow weekend.
What's next? A map of how different US presidents with all-changed-names would have made us into either HItler-slaves or Battlestar-Galactica Cylon killers?
Score one for the "Yeah slashdot wasted bandwidth on something so stupid it's unbelievable" queue.
It's convenient for political organizations to pretend everyone agrees with them.
As of this writing (January 2013) the United Kingdom still uses MILES to measure distance, MILES PER HOUR to measure speed, STONES and POUNDS and OUNCES to measure weight, and FLUID OUNCES to measure volume.
There is no way that anyone short of a politician would claim that the UK is "Metrified" (or metrificated) and yet they do.
Sorry, I know it's great to paint the US and Liberia as "holdouts". The truth is there are a lot of houldouts that JUST DON'T GET COUNTED.
> In what universe, exactly, did this plan make any sense?
In this universe. They are a company. They provide goods and services. They determined that some of those were not profitable. They ceased providing them. This is what we call simple economic theory. If you prefer slogans think "buy low sell high" and "supply and demand."
Let me know if the small words I used were confusing to you.
1. Nice letter saying "Pay by the end of the month or I'll be forced to file in court." 2. Wait for end of month. 3. File in small claims court the sum of a)what they owe, b)maximum statutory interest, c)filing fees, d)an extra amount that if they will show up (they won't) you'll have to forego 4. Get default judgment when they don't show up 5. Get an order from the court allowing you to garnish their bank account for this amount 6. Provide said order to their bank
That will get you paid. You may even get their attention somewhere between steps 3 and 5.
To work with your analogy, someone gave me a tube. I did not "open it and look inside" (aka use the credit card info or verify it). I put the tube in a marked location and told the world where the tube is.
Now to complete the analogy, inside the tube is NOT the Mona Lisa... because if the painting of the Mona Lisa is in the buried tube, it's not on display at the Louvre in Parise. So instead, what's in the tube isn't the Mona Lisa itself, but rather "directions and instructions to bypass the Louvre security" that one COULD use to get the Mona Lisa were one to be criminally intented.
The mere existence of that information is legal, although it's expected to stay within Louvre staff confines. Telling all your friends "there's a camera above the door, an IR sensor on the ceiling, a breakage sound detector on the far wall" is legal. Writing it down is legal. Putting in a tube is legal. Telling everyone where the tube is is legal. Someone digging up that tube is legal. Someone reading the directions is legal. What is NOT legal is actually USING that information.
Now you could argue that "aha, credit card numbers are NOT easily visible to anyone who visits". This would be true. That doesn't change the nature of the fact that "writing it down, burying it, and showing people where to go get it" are in an of themselves legal actions. The only unlawful parts are "obtaining the information in the first place" [there's a statute for that] or "using that information" [and there's a statute for that also.] The website, links, etc., are all legal acts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Rick. The Hexacopter has a lot of thrust (and with different sized rotors more thrust and less stamina)
but don't confuse "pounds of thrust" with "ability to lift weight other than itself."
The unladen hexacopter can lift less than a six-pack. Here's a google search with lots of cool info including
videos: http://tinyurl.com/lweb6bd
Remember that thrust (if it was perfectly vertical) would equal lift, and that the hexacopter itself has a weight ... with 6 small props it's not all lift, and the end result is that it can't
that reduces from the thrust. However
do the job.
cheers,
E
The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.
WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.
The point of this is.
1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.
Ehud :)
helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC
Ever since FB stopped listing FS checkins, and the world stopped noticing who checks in where on FS,
it really means they can arrange their data any way they like.
Perhaps this is their method of convincing their investors they have some Imaginary Property or something.
I can't imagine another reason to pretend they have relevance. Like SnapChat, they're a temporary "service"
that has nothing but temporary eyeballs.
E
Dirtbags who represent the special interests that pay them.
The NSA tracked it.
They just responded to the Mexican's request for information with a redacted report saying:
It's located right [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX].
Good luck [XXXXXXXXXXXX] your [XXXXXXXXXXXX].
NSA
I fly helicopters. With the doors off when it's hot. The first solo was... terrifying :)
Now it's the greatest thrill in my life.
Great post comparing the things that matter,
E
Yeah, they can.
We've watched our server purchases go from 100% Dell to 50% Dell/ 50% HP to 100% 3rd party in the
last four years as Dell has become 100% wintel and HP has ratecheted up their pricing without a
commensurate increase in performance or reliability.
This happened despite our being a Dell Premiere client, having "direct access" to get bulk deals,
delivery, and sometimes even pricing. Dell turned into a Microsoft shop around mid-2012 -- long
before it was clear they would eventually be seeking Microsoft "approval" (ownership). We warned
them. We pleaded with them. We tried to bargain with them. In the end it was all just stages of
coping with the grief as we watched our old friend Dell succumb to dying a slow Microsoftian death.
So _NOW_ they want to introduce a laptop running a 1.5 year old operating system? Anyone thinks
this is a great idea? Of course not. They're doing so in order to bid on some government contract
that says they have to have diversity. They don't expect to sell any of these -- see the marketing
hype around it. It's just there because they need to have such a product.
Best
E
MS has the LICENSE to use BSD code.
They don't owe BSD anything.
Next time you're thinking of whether to license YOUR code using GPL or using something
that allows MS to use your stuff and give nothing back in return... remember this.
Ehud
$ mc opccrash
E
That's what illiterate people always say.
/trans=(conc)
The original post begs the question of "DOES DRM actually deliver revenue to the content owners." It assumes that it does and that therefore there needs to be some mechanism to enable DRM to do so.
As has been pointed out numerous times here on /. as well as techdirt and popehat and reddit and other places, that is NOT the case. The revenue that is gained goes to ENFORCEMENT, goes to HARASSMENT of "illegal downloaders"[sic - downloading is not illegal], but NEVER to the artists who created the content.
A better refinement of the question should read:
"What mechanisms could be used to ensure that the creators of content are compensated and their rights are not taken nor abused?" There are quite a few examples (in the sources previously cited) where artists put their content for downloads, and VOLUNTARY DONATIONS bypass the hoarde of middlemen thieves to make the artist wealthy. There are no "technical" mechanisms that can let someone read a book, listen to a song, or view a video that they cannot then make a copy. If you don't allow them to backup that copy, watch/listen/view it on multiple devices including car-audio or smartphone, they will make their own copy and no revenue will be afforded the creator.
A second mechanism is one where the content is EASILY made available for these uses, but incrementally the value-add is to the buyer who chooses to buy that other copy. For example: if I buy a Blu-Ray of BestMovieEver and for another $2 I can download it to my smartphone with chapters, subtitles, and all the features I'd want to see in an original creation (but won't get in a BR-rip) that's worth it.
If I buy a book from AMZ and for another $0 I can get it for my Kindle [reader on my smartphone] for ALL titles and it will NOT be pulled away later [like 1984] then that's a great value. Maybe for another $5 I can get a second copy stamped "Office Library" in big red letters on the softbound cover, so I can keep that in the office to read.
If I get an MP3 or two or three or an album, and for $5 I get a jewel box with a CD for the car, or a poster of the band... those are also value adds.
Key 1: technology will not prevent copying
Key 2: giving the content creator the revenue means removing all the thieves from the middle of the process
Key 3: getting "revenue" to exist means giving the buyer a "value-add" to purchase more, and thereby an incentive to purchase, rather than today's attempts to dis-incent the copying.
Good luck.
E
None of your answers are correct under current US law,
and you didn't cite a single law or statute as requested.
Merely asserting something doesn't make it so. (I stand
by that same standard but since I'm asserting THERE IS
NO LAW being broken, there's nothing to cite.)
E
This is an incorrect understanding of law. There are several types of law. You are apparently only recognising vertical law, but breaking a horizontal law (e.g. a contract) is also against the law and illegal. It may not be a criminal act and breaking a state imposed law, but it is still illegal.
You are misstating the way laws work and "vertical law" or "horizontal law" are as such aspects of property law which is not relevant here.
Contract violations are not a violation of a law and are therefore not unlawful or "illegal."
Again: There's no such thing as illegal downloading. That means there is no law which is broken by the mere act of downloading.
If you think differently I ask -- again -- provide such statute or law citation.
E
>> This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files
> Aaron Swartz says hello...
Aaron Swartz wasn't arrested for downloading files. He was arrested for violating computer access laws. Strike 1.
I asked if anyone responded to include a law citation. You didn't. Strike 2.
NB the CFAA has no section on "downloading."
E
Illegal requires a violation of a law. There is no law preventing downloading of a file.
This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files. Some have been charged
with CIVIL suits for MAKING AVAILABLE these files.
Is it unlawful to download a file? No.
Is it unlawful to upload a file? No.
Is it unlawful to back up your DVD to a file? No.
Is it unlawful to take that backup file and place it on the Internet? No.
Before you turn on the flamethrowers, I ask that if you disagree with any of these
statements above, KINDLY include a direct link to a current statute or law that
makes any of those four things violate a law.
Regards and happy easter
Ehud
Tucson AZ US
They left out piratebay.se
It doesn't matter. I and millions of people use google to FIND what WE want,
not what the RIAA wants us to find.
Hey RIAA, like the first response says - fuck off.
E
And if my grandmother hand wheels on her shoes,
she'd roller skate down the hill.
Crack pipe posting on slashdot. Must be a slow weekend.
What's next? A map of how different US presidents with all-changed-names
would have made us into either HItler-slaves or Battlestar-Galactica Cylon
killers?
Score one for the "Yeah slashdot wasted bandwidth on something so stupid
it's unbelievable" queue.
E
You married her for other things. Enjoy them and quit trying to fit a round object into a square hole.
Or divorce her and marry your best gaming buddy. Then your spouse will game with you.
E
It's convenient for political organizations to pretend everyone agrees with them.
As of this writing (January 2013) the United Kingdom still uses MILES to measure distance, MILES PER HOUR to measure speed, STONES and POUNDS and OUNCES to measure weight, and FLUID OUNCES to measure volume.
There is no way that anyone short of a politician would claim that the UK is "Metrified" (or metrificated) and yet they do.
Sorry, I know it's great to paint the US and Liberia as "holdouts". The truth is there are a lot of houldouts that JUST DON'T GET COUNTED.
E
> In what universe, exactly, did this plan make any sense?
In this universe. They are a company. They provide goods and services. They determined
that some of those were not profitable. They ceased providing them. This is what we call
simple economic theory. If you prefer slogans think "buy low sell high" and "supply and demand."
Let me know if the small words I used were confusing to you.
best regards for a happy new year.
Ehud
YEAH BROTHER!
I couldn't believe I read that.
Well said.
I think I will start my dissent to Hell now.
E
1. Nice letter saying "Pay by the end of the month or I'll be forced to file in court."
2. Wait for end of month.
3. File in small claims court the sum of a)what they owe, b)maximum statutory interest, c)filing fees, d)an extra amount that if they will show up (they won't) you'll have to forego
4. Get default judgment when they don't show up
5. Get an order from the court allowing you to garnish their bank account for this amount
6. Provide said order to their bank
That will get you paid. You may even get their attention somewhere between steps 3 and 5.
E
To work with your analogy, someone gave me a tube. I did not "open it and look inside" (aka use the credit card info or verify it).
I put the tube in a marked location and told the world where the tube is.
Now to complete the analogy, inside the tube is NOT the Mona Lisa... because if the painting of the Mona Lisa is in the buried tube, it's not on display at the Louvre in Parise. So instead, what's in the tube isn't the Mona Lisa itself, but rather "directions and instructions to bypass the Louvre security" that one COULD use to get the Mona Lisa were one to be criminally intented.
The mere existence of that information is legal, although it's expected to stay within Louvre staff confines. Telling all your friends "there's a camera above the door, an IR sensor on the ceiling, a breakage sound detector on the far wall" is legal. Writing it down is legal. Putting in a tube is legal. Telling everyone where the tube is is legal. Someone digging up that tube is legal. Someone reading the directions is legal. What is NOT legal is actually USING that information.
Now you could argue that "aha, credit card numbers are NOT easily visible to anyone who visits". This would be true. That doesn't change the nature of the fact that "writing it down, burying it, and showing people where to go get it" are in an of themselves legal actions. The only unlawful parts are "obtaining the information in the first place" [there's a statute for that] or "using that information" [and there's a statute for that also.] The website, links, etc., are all legal acts.
E
No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself.
If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem.
E