It knows when... You're happy [hooray!] Or sad [aw!] Or fightened [eek!] Or mad[rats!] Or excited [wow!] Or glad [hey!] ....
So it's basically, a visual interjection detector. Nifty.
While I can see how it might be perceived as such, I might suggest that it may only be seen that way by people who haven't found the Q&A style of stackoverflow helpful at some point.
In fact, the very reason that they gave for why it was felt acceptable to have a ban on cell phone unlocking (the alleged wide availability of unlocked cell phones as alternatives for consumers) is the very reason that it should *NOT* be illegal for consumers to unlock cell phones.
Because by creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the modern culture that regularly uses such technologies at all.
It might not be immediately obvious, but it's certainly not rocket science either. I only wish more people could see it.
What I would have preferred is some up-front honesty.... if the press release had contained only just a *COUPLE* of simple factual elements that are, in fact, incredibly relevant, and not so laden with scientific terminology as to confound a layman reader, that I could have realized what they were talking about immediately.
The skepticism behind my opening point remains I initially had a very strong hunch that there's nothing particularly promising here with regards to high temperature superconductors, and my inability to find particulars about it only fueled that belief. It turns out that one of the tiny picture accompanying an abstract magnifies to a graph showing conductivity vs temperature, and completely answered my original questions.... but only validated my original skepticism, since the it exhibits superconductivity only below about 25K.
One, I just wanted to know whether or not the new material was even superconductive at appreciable temperatures.
Two, I wanted to know the highest temperature it was superconductive up to.
That's not that much information to ask for. Someone else here pointed out that one of the small pictures below the original article abstract contained a graph showing conductivity vs temperature, and magnifying it answered both questions.
Turns out that my intuition about the viability of this as any sort of promising breakthrough was right (although I admit being wrong about it being just theoretically designed). This isn't really exciting news at all. It's only operational as a superconductor at up to not even 25K.
The press release linked to in the summary contains absolutely no details about where you could even *find* such a paper. Another poster provided a link to a full paper, which appears to be behind a paywall, but even that visible abstract contained only the following data:
Significant progress has been achieved in fabricating high-quality bulk and thin-film iron-based superconductors. In particular, artificial layered pnictide superlattices offer the possibility of tailoring the superconducting properties and understanding the mechanism of the superconductivity itself. For high-field applications, large critical current densities (Jc) and irreversibility fields (Hirr) are indispensable along all crystal directions. On the other hand, the development of superconducting devices such as tunnel junctions requires multilayered heterostructures. Here we show that artificially engineered undoped Ba-122/Co-doped Ba-122 compositionally modulated superlattices produce ab-aligned nanoparticle arrays. These layer and self-assemble along c-axis-aligned defects and combine to produce very large Jc and Hirr enhancements over a wide angular range. We also demonstrate a structurally modulated SrTiO3(STO)/Co-doped Ba-122 superlattice with sharp interfaces. Success in superlattice fabrication involving pnictides will aid the progress of heterostructured systems exhibiting new interfacial phenomena and device applications.
Nothing in that abstract mentions anything about temperature. But even the abstract you quoted only appears to describe manufacturing details, not operational temperatures.
Not exactly all I could possibly want there... as the article seems to be behind a paywall, and thus no more informative on the matter than the article that was mentioned in the summary.
The lack of specifics about the material's properties, such as actual operating range, and in particular, whether or not the material exhibits all of the characteristic phenomena that actual superconductors do suggests to me that this article is about something that has only been theoretically designed, and not actually built and its properties analyzed in a lab.
They still serve more public benefit than the alternative. I don't advocate for one minute how copyright terms have been lengthened to durations that are absurdly beyond anything that is in line with the purpose that copyright originally served. But copyright's fundamental purpose still remains intact, so long as people adhere to it.
If (or when, perhaps) they don't., alternatives will certainly be used... ones which are even more self-serving than what we have seen in the past, again, motivated only by what is perceived as immediate gain over long term benefits to society, and are certain to cause a net negative availability (per capita, at least) of works in the future.
Disregarding what they want won't make it go away... it will only make them fight ever harder for ever more control. And it is a fight that society pays the price for. All because all the parties that are involved in the dispute are too damn shortsighted to see what they will leave behind in the centuries to come.
So you think that a law that in your words 3/4 of the citizenry disobeys is somehow a just law?
I think that 3/4 of the citizenry are too shortsighted to realize the long-term benefits of actually adhering to the principles of copyright (or perhaps even more importantly the long-term consequences upon society when they don't) and are instead too obsessed with having whatever they want at that exact moment.
Do you have a court case to show somebody being sued for singing happy birthday to somebody that they personally knew, was not for any direct or indirect commercial benefit, and when the singing was not ever deliberately intended for the enjoyment of others who may have been in the vicinity?
I mean, I can't find a court case to show that it's legal for me to have a hard boiled egg for breakfast tomorrow either... that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Well, if you read my very first post on the subject here at the top of this thread, you'll find that this was actually *VERY* a key objection I had to the text they are using in the alerts, albeit not an objection to system as a general concept.
You can't necessarily offer that guarantee when the content maker somehow prevents people from accessing their content in the first place except under terms that they strictly control. Sure such technologies can be hacked, but not everybody is going to necessarily make use of such hacks, and the net result will still be a reduction of widespread availability of such works.
Hey, I'm not saying that content distributors are particularly happy about it... and there's probably no small number of them that would prefer that such extended keeping of home-recorded content be considered an infringement of copyright.
Wishing doesn't make it so, however. It's not. As long as such content is utilized strictly in the context of private home viewing only.
Slashdot Mirror
It knows when...
You're happy [hooray!]
Or sad [aw!]
Or fightened [eek!]
Or mad[rats!]
Or excited [wow!]
Or glad [hey!]
.... So it's basically, a visual interjection detector. Nifty.
It has happened... in the past 20 years even. But yeah... it's *exceptionally* rare.
While I can see how it might be perceived as such, I might suggest that it may only be seen that way by people who haven't found the Q&A style of stackoverflow helpful at some point.
This is in Canada.
There's more than one "opposing party".
*THIS* planet? Which other one would you go to?
In fact, the very reason that they gave for why it was felt acceptable to have a ban on cell phone unlocking (the alleged wide availability of unlocked cell phones as alternatives for consumers) is the very reason that it should *NOT* be illegal for consumers to unlock cell phones.
Because by creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the modern culture that regularly uses such technologies at all.
It might not be immediately obvious, but it's certainly not rocket science either. I only wish more people could see it.
[nt]
Guilty as charged. The press release didn't particularly help matters since it was mentioning high temperature superconductivity.
[nt]
That's... pretty much about it. Yep.
Who will come after me? For what?
What I would have preferred is some up-front honesty.... if the press release had contained only just a *COUPLE* of simple factual elements that are, in fact, incredibly relevant, and not so laden with scientific terminology as to confound a layman reader, that I could have realized what they were talking about immediately.
The skepticism behind my opening point remains I initially had a very strong hunch that there's nothing particularly promising here with regards to high temperature superconductors, and my inability to find particulars about it only fueled that belief. It turns out that one of the tiny picture accompanying an abstract magnifies to a graph showing conductivity vs temperature, and completely answered my original questions.... but only validated my original skepticism, since the it exhibits superconductivity only below about 25K.
I wanted two things.
One, I just wanted to know whether or not the new material was even superconductive at appreciable temperatures.
Two, I wanted to know the highest temperature it was superconductive up to.
That's not that much information to ask for. Someone else here pointed out that one of the small pictures below the original article abstract contained a graph showing conductivity vs temperature, and magnifying it answered both questions.
Turns out that my intuition about the viability of this as any sort of promising breakthrough was right (although I admit being wrong about it being just theoretically designed). This isn't really exciting news at all. It's only operational as a superconductor at up to not even 25K.
Thanks. I didn't notice those pics.
Hmmm... so, superconductive at about 25K.
So in other words, nothing remotely resembling a real superconductor breakthrough.
My vaporware comment stands.
Nothing in that abstract mentions anything about temperature. But even the abstract you quoted only appears to describe manufacturing details, not operational temperatures.
Not exactly all I could possibly want there... as the article seems to be behind a paywall, and thus no more informative on the matter than the article that was mentioned in the summary.
The lack of specifics about the material's properties, such as actual operating range, and in particular, whether or not the material exhibits all of the characteristic phenomena that actual superconductors do suggests to me that this article is about something that has only been theoretically designed, and not actually built and its properties analyzed in a lab.
They still serve more public benefit than the alternative. I don't advocate for one minute how copyright terms have been lengthened to durations that are absurdly beyond anything that is in line with the purpose that copyright originally served. But copyright's fundamental purpose still remains intact, so long as people adhere to it.
If (or when, perhaps) they don't., alternatives will certainly be used... ones which are even more self-serving than what we have seen in the past, again, motivated only by what is perceived as immediate gain over long term benefits to society, and are certain to cause a net negative availability (per capita, at least) of works in the future.
Disregarding what they want won't make it go away... it will only make them fight ever harder for ever more control. And it is a fight that society pays the price for. All because all the parties that are involved in the dispute are too damn shortsighted to see what they will leave behind in the centuries to come.
I think that 3/4 of the citizenry are too shortsighted to realize the long-term benefits of actually adhering to the principles of copyright (or perhaps even more importantly the long-term consequences upon society when they don't) and are instead too obsessed with having whatever they want at that exact moment.
Do you have a court case to show somebody being sued for singing happy birthday to somebody that they personally knew, was not for any direct or indirect commercial benefit, and when the singing was not ever deliberately intended for the enjoyment of others who may have been in the vicinity?
I mean, I can't find a court case to show that it's legal for me to have a hard boiled egg for breakfast tomorrow either... that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Well, if you read my very first post on the subject here at the top of this thread, you'll find that this was actually *VERY* a key objection I had to the text they are using in the alerts, albeit not an objection to system as a general concept.
When I receive any such actual alert, you can be sure I will.
You can't necessarily offer that guarantee when the content maker somehow prevents people from accessing their content in the first place except under terms that they strictly control. Sure such technologies can be hacked, but not everybody is going to necessarily make use of such hacks, and the net result will still be a reduction of widespread availability of such works.
Hey, I'm not saying that content distributors are particularly happy about it... and there's probably no small number of them that would prefer that such extended keeping of home-recorded content be considered an infringement of copyright.
Wishing doesn't make it so, however. It's not. As long as such content is utilized strictly in the context of private home viewing only.