However extravagant the audio media monopolies are represented - they're economically dwarfed by the telecom organizations.
Telco companies may be bigger but they are not as well connected because their main "product" isn't lobbyism. I am not suprised that these rights management abominations get away with everything they ask for in our corrupt political systems.
On the other side, usually the telcos are national companies: guess who the UK government is most likely to give preference in hearing their plea? To British Telecom (UK) or to Sony BMG (Japan)?
The world is a complex place. If your threshold for "OMG they want to control us" is someone warning you that something is probably unhealthy, you'll have conspiracy theories from cradle to grave.
Not that I mind conspiracy theories (they may be good fun and sometimes make an enjoyable movie - when/if taken with lots of beer and over-salted popcorn), but I think I should have included a hint of sarcasm in my prev post.
Other than that?... Hmmm. Oh, yes... Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. To elaborate:
- if the "acceptable safe levels/limits" of dioxin are legislated to be 1200 lower than what one is exposed now...
-... and if one, no matter what, actually have little chances to reduce the level of exposure
-... then the definition of the legislated "safe limit" is just plain stupid (well... at least pointless).
In support for my premises above, here is the relevant quote:
EPA’s “reanalysis” noted that these low-level exposures are all but unavoidable because dioxins are widespread in the environment, break down very slowly, build up in the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of animals, especially in fat. As a consequence, exposures begin in the womb when dioxins cross the placenta, and newborn infants begin to ingest them from the very first days of life.
Yeap. As the wars on terror/drugs lose momentum, there need to be something else to keep us scared and forget about Net Neutrality, Gulf spill, health care (whatever).
Long leave "War on Dioxin".
actually surviving that environment can be an advantage.
Surviving? In what sense?
If in the ad literam sense , I don't think the parents send the kids to school with the purpose of making them fit to eat bugs in a survival challenge.
If metaphorically speaking, I seem to see a distinction between survival and development. To use the metaphor track, the veterans in every war survived, even after loosing limbs/sight/etc - I really doubt the experience worth for them as individuals. To put in another way: since when is the school an experimental ground for an enhanced/accelerated evolutionary selection? (eugenics, anyone?)
Last but not least: a wise person can play stupid, for a long time if necessary, but never vice versa. Consequence: if survival would be in the scope of education, better hire a teacher that can play the evil (but knows when to stop) and get rid of bad teachers. Even yesterday is late to do it!
You know what? I think I'm going to look specifically for (other) software patents and start implementing them... supplementary, I reckon that improving some of their methods may be possible: if this would happen, it will be a funny case for the patent holder to demonstrate that "exercising her/his temporary monopoly right to stop me publishing the code is about promoting innovation".
But customer of both Optus and Telstra will be unable to opt-out.
that is not true... they CAN go somewhere else.
Like what? Take their home and leave the community? (fyi: that's the only downside in my eyes of the area I'm living: everything in communications is Telstra only - the only wire is Telstra's optical fiber, no mobile but Telstra's has coverage. Cannot install a satellite dish - would cast a shadow on my solar panels).
True but there are many other ISPs. So your 'opt out' in that situation is churning to another ISP
Not all of us can do. Example:
– in the present - residents in the Telstra's Smart Communities - wired with Optical Fiber to the premises, all the comm infrastructure (phone and Digital TV included) is owned by Telstra, no other ISP can get into
– in the future - who is going to operate the NBN for the remote areas? Will they be able to churn?
Another thing that upsets me: I'm not able to know what are the entries in the black-list (and no, I'm not referring to KP). TFA states:
The use of a standardised block page notification, which will allow ISPs to notify users that the content that have requested has been blocked, and how to see a review of the block
Now, that would allow a sense of control from anyone on: what's in the blacklist and why. But until this would become operational^^^, my situation of being "mandatory opted-in by my ISP" is not pleasant at all.
^^^ my very strong preference would still be no filter
The next choice (fallback) - an opt-out (default is "Filter on") approach available to all Internet consumers individually. But this creates an interesting problem: "filter an Internet connection" or "filter a user"? (i.e. "Think of your children: what do they see on internet" taken together with "Think of you searching something on WikiLeaks")
independent software development in general (including a large chunk of FOSS) is doomed.
Only in countries silly enough to allow software patents...
And the ones stupid enough to accept the crap ACTA will feed on their throat... actually, for those will be even worse: no allowing their software developers to patent but preventing them to use methods already patented in US.
Since when patents are allowed to shift the pain of proving infringement (in this case running the code) in tramping the author's of the code right to free speech?
Since about 1790. When the first patent act was written. If the patent is on a method, publishing explicit steps on how to perform the method along with an invitation to do so can be considering inducing someone to infringe the patent.
Yeah? IANAL - thus, as an engineer, I cannot think like a lawyer - but the description of the patent itself is what?
Is it an interdiction to perform the describe method because you are the first to describe it? Does it make sense? I mean does it make common-sense? Would you expect that from a law meant to promote invention/discovery?
Nope, but his post is viewable by the entire world. And someone could infringe in the US, where the patent is, by using his code.
And somebody can kill using the knife I'm buttering my toast.
Since when patents are allowed to shift the pain of proving infringement (in this case running the code) in tramping the author's of the code right to free speech?
I seem to remember that the code related with encryption methods where "exported" world wide in late '90 printed as a book (free speech) as well as distributed as extra info to DNS queries.
Also the take down notice doesnt specifically show "what code infringes their patent" so a lawyer would then ask them to be more specific.
From TFA the patents are: 6,990,453 and 7,627,477.
Also, TFA details the guy's attempt to see how this is applicable in Holland.
Just to be sure I asked around for advice, including help from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) and the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). They forwarded my questions to Bits of Freedom a Dutch organisation for digital rights.
After a good conversation with Ot van Daalen (from Bits Of Freedom) he suggested I contact Arnoud Engelfriet, a Dutch ICT lawyer and patent attorney with a lot of knowledge about software patents.
If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore.
I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
What is the purpose of you getting on/.? Newsworthiness or things that are quite far from common-sense?
Are you that driven by the news-hunger to accept unfairness?
So, to pick a number, it might cost a remote service station $80k to install a single generator-backed rapid charge station (including installation, signage, fancy Toyota-approved hardware, profit, etc).
...I'd think that $80k would still a pretty big chunk of money for such a remote place, which brings up a pretty big catch-22: There won't be demand until facilities exist, and facilities won't exist until there is demand.
Well, my guess is: not too soon. I mean: how many times you think someone would choose to drive in remote locations using a car with a mileage of 50-100 m per full-tank? Not only that, but also be in a hurry and ask for a rapid charge? (I reckon this translates into: what do you think is the ratio of fools/stupids into the population?)
Some charger manufacturers claim amazingly short charge times of 30 minutes or less. With well-balanced cells and operating at moderate room temperatures, nickel-cadmium batteries designed for fast charging can indeed be charged in a very short time. This is done by simply dumping in a high charge current during the first 70% of the charge cycle.
In the second phase of the charge cycle, the charge current must be lowered. The efficiency to absorb charge is progressively reduced as the battery moves to a higher state-of-charge. If the charge current remains too high in the later part of the charge cycle, the excess energy turns into heat and high cell pressure. Eventually, venting will occur, releasing oxygen and hydrogen. Not only do the escaping gases deplete the electrolyte, they are highly flammable!
Proper gearing will give you all the torque you need to get up any incline with even the tiniest motor.
Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.
But for retail locations and gas stations, the 62.5 kW power requirements of each charger should not be impossible to accommodate in all but the remotest of locations.
In addition, even the remotest location can accommodate it: just install a generator burning gas (I'm kidding but only half-kidding: remote locations in which you can currently refill your tank will have petrol and a generator will consume less per kWh generated than the car's petrol engine...be it only because it doesn't need to change gears/etc).
Slashdot Mirror
However extravagant the audio media monopolies are represented - they're economically dwarfed by the telecom organizations.
Telco companies may be bigger but they are not as well connected because their main "product" isn't lobbyism. I am not suprised that these rights management abominations get away with everything they ask for in our corrupt political systems.
On the other side, usually the telcos are national companies: guess who the UK government is most likely to give preference in hearing their plea? To British Telecom (UK) or to Sony BMG (Japan)?
Now we're especially pleased... because we're able to show tangibly why we released the PS3 with the power it has
Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing
Sort of saying: "We are sooo pleased we are now able to sell you something that will harm you, without investing any further", eh?
The world is a complex place. If your threshold for "OMG they want to control us" is someone warning you that something is probably unhealthy, you'll have conspiracy theories from cradle to grave.
Not that I mind conspiracy theories (they may be good fun and sometimes make an enjoyable movie - when/if taken with lots of beer and over-salted popcorn), but I think I should have included a hint of sarcasm in my prev post.
Other than that?... Hmmm. Oh, yes... Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. To elaborate: ... ... and if one, no matter what, actually have little chances to reduce the level of exposure ... then the definition of the legislated "safe limit" is just plain stupid (well... at least pointless).
- if the "acceptable safe levels/limits" of dioxin are legislated to be 1200 lower than what one is exposed now
-
-
In support for my premises above, here is the relevant quote:
EPA’s “reanalysis” noted that these low-level exposures are all but unavoidable because dioxins are widespread in the environment, break down very slowly, build up in the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of animals, especially in fat. As a consequence, exposures begin in the womb when dioxins cross the placenta, and newborn infants begin to ingest them from the very first days of life.
Yeap. As the wars on terror/drugs lose momentum, there need to be something else to keep us scared and forget about Net Neutrality, Gulf spill, health care (whatever).
Long leave "War on Dioxin".
actually surviving that environment can be an advantage.
Surviving? In what sense?
If in the ad literam sense , I don't think the parents send the kids to school with the purpose of making them fit to eat bugs in a survival challenge.
If metaphorically speaking, I seem to see a distinction between survival and development. To use the metaphor track, the veterans in every war survived, even after loosing limbs/sight/etc - I really doubt the experience worth for them as individuals. To put in another way: since when is the school an experimental ground for an enhanced/accelerated evolutionary selection? (eugenics, anyone?)
Last but not least: a wise person can play stupid, for a long time if necessary, but never vice versa. Consequence: if survival would be in the scope of education, better hire a teacher that can play the evil (but knows when to stop) and get rid of bad teachers. Even yesterday is late to do it!
You know what? I think I'm going to look specifically for (other) software patents and start implementing them... supplementary, I reckon that improving some of their methods may be possible: if this would happen, it will be a funny case for the patent holder to demonstrate that "exercising her/his temporary monopoly right to stop me publishing the code is about promoting innovation".
Cannot agree more. If you can stand to the end: this is where showing solidarity in any form may count.
But customer of both Optus and Telstra will be unable to opt-out.
that is not true ... they CAN go somewhere else.
Like what? Take their home and leave the community? (fyi: that's the only downside in my eyes of the area I'm living: everything in communications is Telstra only - the only wire is Telstra's optical fiber, no mobile but Telstra's has coverage. Cannot install a satellite dish - would cast a shadow on my solar panels).
True but there are many other ISPs. So your 'opt out' in that situation is churning to another ISP
Not all of us can do. Example:
– in the present - residents in the Telstra's Smart Communities - wired with Optical Fiber to the premises, all the comm infrastructure (phone and Digital TV included) is owned by Telstra, no other ISP can get into
– in the future - who is going to operate the NBN for the remote areas? Will they be able to churn?
Another thing that upsets me: I'm not able to know what are the entries in the black-list (and no, I'm not referring to KP). TFA states:
The use of a standardised block page notification, which will allow ISPs to notify users that the content that have requested has been blocked, and how to see a review of the block
Now, that would allow a sense of control from anyone on: what's in the blacklist and why. But until this would become operational^^^, my situation of being "mandatory opted-in by my ISP" is not pleasant at all.
^^^ my very strong preference would still be no filter
The next choice (fallback) - an opt-out (default is "Filter on") approach available to all Internet consumers individually. But this creates an interesting problem: "filter an Internet connection" or "filter a user"? (i.e. "Think of your children: what do they see on internet" taken together with "Think of you searching something on WikiLeaks")
Mod parent up "Informative" - a good example on the pains ones need to take to stand for themselves.
independent software development in general (including a large chunk of FOSS) is doomed.
Only in countries silly enough to allow software patents...
And the ones stupid enough to accept the crap ACTA will feed on their throat... actually, for those will be even worse: no allowing their software developers to patent but preventing them to use methods already patented in US.
Why was the parent moded Troll???
Since when patents are allowed to shift the pain of proving infringement (in this case running the code) in tramping the author's of the code right to free speech?
Since about 1790. When the first patent act was written. If the patent is on a method, publishing explicit steps on how to perform the method along with an invitation to do so can be considering inducing someone to infringe the patent.
Yeah? IANAL - thus, as an engineer, I cannot think like a lawyer - but the description of the patent itself is what?
Is it an interdiction to perform the describe method because you are the first to describe it? Does it make sense? I mean does it make common-sense? Would you expect that from a law meant to promote invention/discovery?
Does Dmitry Sklyarov ring any bell to you?
Even then, code is speech until you run it. Are we now to limit free speech by government order to protect their patents?
By that logic you could freely distribute an infringing program as long as you don't run it. So yes, free speech is limited in some way.
All over again the ITAR/encryption controversy in the 96-97, except that now is in regards with patent law.
...can't he just throw the C&D in the garbage and forget about it?
If you read TFA, that's exactly what he is asking himself.
Four: a patent is not valid for the entire world.
Nope, but his post is viewable by the entire world. And someone could infringe in the US, where the patent is, by using his code.
And somebody can kill using the knife I'm buttering my toast.
Since when patents are allowed to shift the pain of proving infringement (in this case running the code) in tramping the author's of the code right to free speech?
I seem to remember that the code related with encryption methods where "exported" world wide in late '90 printed as a book (free speech) as well as distributed as extra info to DNS queries.
Also the take down notice doesnt specifically show "what code infringes their patent" so a lawyer would then ask them to be more specific.
From TFA the patents are: 6,990,453 and 7,627,477.
Also, TFA details the guy's attempt to see how this is applicable in Holland.
Just to be sure I asked around for advice, including help from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) and the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). They forwarded my questions to Bits of Freedom a Dutch organisation for digital rights.
After a good conversation with Ot van Daalen (from Bits Of Freedom) he suggested I contact Arnoud Engelfriet, a Dutch ICT lawyer and patent attorney with a lot of knowledge about software patents.
If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore. I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
What is the purpose of you getting on /.? Newsworthiness or things that are quite far from common-sense?
Are you that driven by the news-hunger to accept unfairness?
So, to pick a number, it might cost a remote service station $80k to install a single generator-backed rapid charge station (including installation, signage, fancy Toyota-approved hardware, profit, etc).
...I'd think that $80k would still a pretty big chunk of money for such a remote place, which brings up a pretty big catch-22: There won't be demand until facilities exist, and facilities won't exist until there is demand.
Well, my guess is: not too soon. I mean: how many times you think someone would choose to drive in remote locations using a car with a mileage of 50-100 m per full-tank? Not only that, but also be in a hurry and ask for a rapid charge?
(I reckon this translates into: what do you think is the ratio of fools/stupids into the population?)
Some charger manufacturers claim amazingly short charge times of 30 minutes or less. With well-balanced cells and operating at moderate room temperatures, nickel-cadmium batteries designed for fast charging can indeed be charged in a very short time. This is done by simply dumping in a high charge current during the first 70% of the charge cycle.
In the second phase of the charge cycle, the charge current must be lowered. The efficiency to absorb charge is progressively reduced as the battery moves to a higher state-of-charge. If the charge current remains too high in the later part of the charge cycle, the excess energy turns into heat and high cell pressure. Eventually, venting will occur, releasing oxygen and hydrogen. Not only do the escaping gases deplete the electrolyte, they are highly flammable!
Proper gearing will give you all the torque you need to get up any incline with even the tiniest motor.
Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.
The question is how fast you'll be climbing.
At maximum torque? Never! :D
But for retail locations and gas stations, the 62.5 kW power requirements of each charger should not be impossible to accommodate in all but the remotest of locations.
In addition, even the remotest location can accommodate it: just install a generator burning gas (I'm kidding but only half-kidding: remote locations in which you can currently refill your tank will have petrol and a generator will consume less per kWh generated than the car's petrol engine...be it only because it doesn't need to change gears/etc).
The airship is more economical and can stay in the air for 12 hours, longer than helicopters or airplanes already in use,
so the Also,
The airship is more economical and can stay in the air for 12 hours
What?!? What's preventing it to stay longer?
... welcome our robotic beer-fetching overlords.