Right.... that's why it is absolutely none of their business what the woman actually does. But it *IS* their business to make the suggestion, because that is the entire purpose of advertisements. The fact that it happens to be a human being's body that is at hand is entirely immaterial.... Drugs affect the human body too, but you see commercials for different drugs on television all the time.
Yes, actually it does... or at least no more wrong than advertisements in general already are. Suggesting that it should only be acceptable to advertise anti-abortion options when they are willing to adopt the child is approximately equivalent to suggesting that *ANY* commercial advertiser of a product should also be giving away that product for free. In the end, it's just an ad...while it's not the advertiser's business what you actually do after seeing the ad, it actually *IS* their business to deliver the ad in the first place.
So unless a company telling you to go and get a new product is willing to buy it for you, it's none of their business as well?
The entire point of ads is about making suggestions that company thinks you ought to do. While it certainly is none of their business what you actually end up doing, by the very definition of "advertising", it *IS* their business to tell you what they think you should do.
In the general case? Not with any current levels of technology.
We need AI of the level of sophistication to be as adaptable to input that is not expected in a given context as an adult human mind. We're at least 2 decades from there.
No robot ever made so far can clean with the same degree of robustness as a human. Humans are intelligent, and can often adapt to changing circumstances seamlessly. Robots not so much.
How is it "for free" when the manufacturer is paying for it? And why would you charge a customer in the first place if the manufacturer were paying for it anyways? Again, how is this making you treat their customers "better" than others?
You switch the mic on when you want to make a call
Considering that making or receiving calls if what a phone is, you know, actually *FOR*... again, I'm not sure that it is terribly practical. Sure, if all you use your phone for is texting then it probably would be fine for that use-case, but if you have any amount of voice calls to manage, all it does is create an extra step that would be seen as nothing more than making a mute setting the default, and the switch would just get left on.
That explanation seems more like unsubstantiated rumour than anything else. Vague terms like "owners of e-ink IP" are enough that make it suspect, at the very least. To be honest, it reads like a baseless conspiracy theory.
Wow.... that's not just balls of brass, that's balls of freakin' titanium! If it weren't so obviously illegal, I think I'd be impressed by their gumption for trying that.
Yes, I'm aware that what I described is not a pure catch-22 because there is an out, while in a real catch-22 there is not. The out being feature improvement to the point that it offers advantages over alternatives that would justify the expense. My point is that such features have not been forthcoming for eink, so the result feels a lot like a catch-22.
I think that current eink prices are in a catch-22 situation. As I understand. prices are still fairly high because demand isn't high enough to really enable mass production to lower prices, and eink simply does not offer enough advantages over alternatives like oled for most people to justify paying the extra expense.
Having color may help on the latter end, and if so, it is only a matter of time before that ends up impacting the former.
... would certainly be fine for, I can say quite confidently that I would not be in their market.Although the 15 bit color depth is slightly disappointing, it's something that I could live with. However, the resolution needs to be kicked up a notch. Resolution is going to impact readability at close distances, so while this resolution might be fine for things like billboard ads, it's not going to be very good for books that you hold in your hands. Also, I'd want a refresh rate that's probably capable of at least showing full motion video. If I'm going to use a display simply as a reader, I don't want to get distracted by visual artifacts of screen refreshing when I am flipping pages... The page should update the instant that I make the gesture on the device to do so... I should not be able to consciously perceive a delay, particularly since the kinds of things I would want to store on a portable ereader are books that I would as likely as not be quickly skimming for particular information as opposed to simply spending extended time on a single page, and waiting two seconds for each page refresh is not remotely usable (of course, neither is normal epaper refresh speeds IMO... but maybe that's just me).
It's simply too expensive to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases no matter the method and no matter where you do it.
And yet even that is still more viable than waiting around for hundreds of thousands or millions of years for organic lifeforms to turn into fossil fuels. The clear advantage of hydrogen is it's immediate reusability. Of course, if you actually have all of this abundant electricity available to get the hydrogen out of the water, then it probably makes more sense to just transmit the electricity over wires to where it is needed and use easily chargeable batteries where mobile storage is required instead of bothering with hydrogen at all.
...make anyone who didn't already care about it suddenly want to care more, and most of the people that would want to do something to prevent this are powerless to do so because of a lack of economic and/or political influence. Barring completely unprecedented action by everybody, everywhere when it is unrealistic to expect even half if the world to agree on any single thing, this planet is doomed. Enjoy it while it lasts. It's only good for another couple of centuries at most.
Not having much around it to react with does not change how reactive hydrogen actually is. When something is flammable, for example... it does not become less flammable just because there is no notable source of heat in the vicinity, it only becomes less likely to burst into flame at any given moment. Its flammability, however, stays relatively constant.
This is how [copyright] was designed. You need to remember that the sole purpose of copyright was to protect established interests from new technology that would destroy their existing business model
I agree with this statement.... at its core, this is fundamentally true.
It is a law by luddites, for luddites, nothing else. "Promoting the arts and sciences" is pure propaganda.
However, I disagree with this notion. While ultimately I have to agree that the real purpose of inventing copyright was to protect the interests of people who would risk losing control over who would copy their work in an age where copying was facing becoming increasingly simpler to do because of technology like the printing press (previously, natural restrictions such as being error-prone and labour intensive tended to act to discourage higher volume copying), the alternative that those people faced in order to retain such control was to resort to self-censorship, and not attempt to publish at all... or to make the works available to only selected groups of people. It was perceived, however, that wide publication of diverse works would have an enriching effect on society, and so copyright can be seen as not a horribly bad tradeoff. I won't dispute that this could be seen more as a side effect of copyright than explicit incentive for its design, but that doesn't make it a bad one.
It's worth noting, however.... that what we now call DRM is basically a modern form of the kinds of self-censorship that people may have been faced with as an alternative to copyright when it was first being invented. Copyright is clearly in trouble, and I do not know if it will still be around in a hundred years.
I would expect, although I could be wrong, that it is probably more cost effective to simply transmit electricity to where it is needed over power lines, where it can be stored in portable batteries if mobility is needed, than it is to use it to extract hydrogen, ship that, and use it for power generation.
"We live on a planet where hydrogen is super reactive"
Is he suggesting that there are places where hydrogen is *NOT* super-reactive?
Even if you try and take everything else away, since hydrogen won't actually react with anything if there's nothing else around for it to react with, that doesn't really change how reactive hydrogen actually is.
Oh, and as for the energy that it takes to get hydrogen from water... it also takes energy to make fossil fuels... over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, in fact. At least hydrogen is immediately recycled, given the energy to get it out of other substances.
But if you are generating the electricity needed for electrolysis anyways, it probably just makes more sense to transmit that power to where it is needed instead of using it to extract hydrogen and ship that.
Backdating a copy of a work to make it appear as a original could theoretically be prevented in DMCA claims by requiring that any work for which a DMCA claim is made there must already exist an official record that the work actually existed previous to the work that allegedly copied from it. If the only proof that you have of the date is evidence that you offer yourself, then you don't get to make a DMCA claim at all. Typically, this would require going through more "official" channels of copyright registration, rather than relying on implied copyright that exists merely by publishing the work.
You could still allege copyright infringement without official registration.... but in that case, you couldn't use the DMCA until infringement was proven, which wouldn't be until after you have won your case and proven infringement in court.
... then taking a class is not going to change anything. If anything, it is going to teach them how to be *more* deceptive so that they won't get caught.
Buy one of those portable USB charge extenders, plug your phone into that, and the phone will believe it is charging. Unplug it once you have established a set fare.
Slashdot Mirror
Right.... that's why it is absolutely none of their business what the woman actually does. But it *IS* their business to make the suggestion, because that is the entire purpose of advertisements. The fact that it happens to be a human being's body that is at hand is entirely immaterial.... Drugs affect the human body too, but you see commercials for different drugs on television all the time.
Yes, actually it does... or at least no more wrong than advertisements in general already are. Suggesting that it should only be acceptable to advertise anti-abortion options when they are willing to adopt the child is approximately equivalent to suggesting that *ANY* commercial advertiser of a product should also be giving away that product for free. In the end, it's just an ad...while it's not the advertiser's business what you actually do after seeing the ad, it actually *IS* their business to deliver the ad in the first place.
So unless a company telling you to go and get a new product is willing to buy it for you, it's none of their business as well?
The entire point of ads is about making suggestions that company thinks you ought to do. While it certainly is none of their business what you actually end up doing, by the very definition of "advertising", it *IS* their business to tell you what they think you should do.
In the general case? Not with any current levels of technology.
We need AI of the level of sophistication to be as adaptable to input that is not expected in a given context as an adult human mind. We're at least 2 decades from there.
No robot ever made so far can clean with the same degree of robustness as a human. Humans are intelligent, and can often adapt to changing circumstances seamlessly. Robots not so much.
How is it "for free" when the manufacturer is paying for it? And why would you charge a customer in the first place if the manufacturer were paying for it anyways? Again, how is this making you treat their customers "better" than others?
Considering that making or receiving calls if what a phone is, you know, actually *FOR*... again, I'm not sure that it is terribly practical. Sure, if all you use your phone for is texting then it probably would be fine for that use-case, but if you have any amount of voice calls to manage, all it does is create an extra step that would be seen as nothing more than making a mute setting the default, and the switch would just get left on.
Considering a mic is needed for phone calls, I'm not sure how practical that would be
That explanation seems more like unsubstantiated rumour than anything else. Vague terms like "owners of e-ink IP" are enough that make it suspect, at the very least. To be honest, it reads like a baseless conspiracy theory.
Again.... "Made" you. How?
Could you elaborate on how are they forcing you, exactly?
Wow.... that's not just balls of brass, that's balls of freakin' titanium! If it weren't so obviously illegal, I think I'd be impressed by their gumption for trying that.
Yes, I'm aware that what I described is not a pure catch-22 because there is an out, while in a real catch-22 there is not. The out being feature improvement to the point that it offers advantages over alternatives that would justify the expense. My point is that such features have not been forthcoming for eink, so the result feels a lot like a catch-22.
I think that current eink prices are in a catch-22 situation. As I understand. prices are still fairly high because demand isn't high enough to really enable mass production to lower prices, and eink simply does not offer enough advantages over alternatives like oled for most people to justify paying the extra expense.
Having color may help on the latter end, and if so, it is only a matter of time before that ends up impacting the former.
... would certainly be fine for, I can say quite confidently that I would not be in their market.Although the 15 bit color depth is slightly disappointing, it's something that I could live with. However, the resolution needs to be kicked up a notch. Resolution is going to impact readability at close distances, so while this resolution might be fine for things like billboard ads, it's not going to be very good for books that you hold in your hands. Also, I'd want a refresh rate that's probably capable of at least showing full motion video. If I'm going to use a display simply as a reader, I don't want to get distracted by visual artifacts of screen refreshing when I am flipping pages... The page should update the instant that I make the gesture on the device to do so... I should not be able to consciously perceive a delay, particularly since the kinds of things I would want to store on a portable ereader are books that I would as likely as not be quickly skimming for particular information as opposed to simply spending extended time on a single page, and waiting two seconds for each page refresh is not remotely usable (of course, neither is normal epaper refresh speeds IMO... but maybe that's just me).
And yet even that is still more viable than waiting around for hundreds of thousands or millions of years for organic lifeforms to turn into fossil fuels. The clear advantage of hydrogen is it's immediate reusability. Of course, if you actually have all of this abundant electricity available to get the hydrogen out of the water, then it probably makes more sense to just transmit the electricity over wires to where it is needed and use easily chargeable batteries where mobile storage is required instead of bothering with hydrogen at all.
...make anyone who didn't already care about it suddenly want to care more, and most of the people that would want to do something to prevent this are powerless to do so because of a lack of economic and/or political influence. Barring completely unprecedented action by everybody, everywhere when it is unrealistic to expect even half if the world to agree on any single thing, this planet is doomed. Enjoy it while it lasts. It's only good for another couple of centuries at most.
Not having much around it to react with does not change how reactive hydrogen actually is. When something is flammable, for example... it does not become less flammable just because there is no notable source of heat in the vicinity, it only becomes less likely to burst into flame at any given moment. Its flammability, however, stays relatively constant.
The problem I would see with that fix is that it does not prevent false claims from arising in the first place.
I agree with this statement.... at its core, this is fundamentally true.
However, I disagree with this notion. While ultimately I have to agree that the real purpose of inventing copyright was to protect the interests of people who would risk losing control over who would copy their work in an age where copying was facing becoming increasingly simpler to do because of technology like the printing press (previously, natural restrictions such as being error-prone and labour intensive tended to act to discourage higher volume copying), the alternative that those people faced in order to retain such control was to resort to self-censorship, and not attempt to publish at all... or to make the works available to only selected groups of people. It was perceived, however, that wide publication of diverse works would have an enriching effect on society, and so copyright can be seen as not a horribly bad tradeoff. I won't dispute that this could be seen more as a side effect of copyright than explicit incentive for its design, but that doesn't make it a bad one.
It's worth noting, however.... that what we now call DRM is basically a modern form of the kinds of self-censorship that people may have been faced with as an alternative to copyright when it was first being invented. Copyright is clearly in trouble, and I do not know if it will still be around in a hundred years.
I would expect, although I could be wrong, that it is probably more cost effective to simply transmit electricity to where it is needed over power lines, where it can be stored in portable batteries if mobility is needed, than it is to use it to extract hydrogen, ship that, and use it for power generation.
Is he suggesting that there are places where hydrogen is *NOT* super-reactive?
Even if you try and take everything else away, since hydrogen won't actually react with anything if there's nothing else around for it to react with, that doesn't really change how reactive hydrogen actually is.
Oh, and as for the energy that it takes to get hydrogen from water... it also takes energy to make fossil fuels... over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, in fact. At least hydrogen is immediately recycled, given the energy to get it out of other substances.
But if you are generating the electricity needed for electrolysis anyways, it probably just makes more sense to transmit that power to where it is needed instead of using it to extract hydrogen and ship that.
Backdating a copy of a work to make it appear as a original could theoretically be prevented in DMCA claims by requiring that any work for which a DMCA claim is made there must already exist an official record that the work actually existed previous to the work that allegedly copied from it. If the only proof that you have of the date is evidence that you offer yourself, then you don't get to make a DMCA claim at all. Typically, this would require going through more "official" channels of copyright registration, rather than relying on implied copyright that exists merely by publishing the work.
You could still allege copyright infringement without official registration.... but in that case, you couldn't use the DMCA until infringement was proven, which wouldn't be until after you have won your case and proven infringement in court.
Because if not, there is a trivial workaround...
Buy one of those portable USB charge extenders, plug your phone into that, and the phone will believe it is charging. Unplug it once you have established a set fare.