For the same reason that you don't want to fill up your gas tank, presumably... more than likely because you need to get somewhere right now, but don't have enough fuel, and don't have enough money to fill all the way to the top at the moment.
The heavier the battery, the more power the battery is going to need to move the entire car. The bigger the battery, the larger the car has to be. Owing to the typical densities of the materials used in building a car, size does not have to impact weight (an outer shell can be largely hollow, for instance), as much as weight will impact size.
Weight is the fundamentally more important factor. Size is important for practical reasons, but weight is important for physical ones.
A nice idea, but what if you didn't want to do a complete charge up for whatever reason? It would be a significant headache for swapping stations to have to carry batteries of many different levels of charge.
Great... now if they can build an infrastructure of recharging stations or at least be able to promise to build one, all over the country where you can juice up your car to 90% full or better inside of 5 minutes, we'll have a winner.
If I don't call attention to myself, I should have the expectation that no one will remember tomorrow where I walked today
Agreed... but the problem is that when you are going out into public, you *ARE* doing something that could conceivably draw attention to yourself, even without you meaning to. What if, for example, somebody happened to think you were good looking, or whatnot?
In public, you have no inalienable right to privacy. Get over it. You want privacy? Stay on your own property and don't ever leave.
They don't enforce the law, but they certainly can and *DO* suspend your insurance if you are found to be "in breach" of the terms of the insurance during an accident claim, which includes doing things that are against the law (such as driving with undue attention to the road [using a handheld cell phone while driving], excessive speeding, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc).
I mean, I suppose they can disqualify any athlete who violates the rules, but what do they do with a fan?
In particular, what do they do with a fan from out of the country who attends the opening ceremonies, takes photos, and then returns home to upload them to his website or blog? The person's already out of the country, so what could they do?
The last two paragphs, above, are *NOT* from the paper I quoted... I mistyped </blockquote> in my response at the end of what I intended to quote, and as a result it simply put the remainder of my post into the quote.
Slashdot really needs a window of opportunity to edit posts that are accidentally sent... even if only a couple of minutes wide.
For what it's worth, you might find this paper enlightening. In particular, in the section on copyright...
Yet, the more significant difficulty with copyright involves the fact that magic tricks
themselves cannot be copyrighted. A magician could conceivably copyright the dramatic aspects
of his show, and he could copyright a written description of the method behind an illusion, so
that his written description of the method could not be precisely reproduced. But the magician
could not copyright the method itself. The law excludes it emphatically: "In no case does
copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery regardless of the form in which it
is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."[USC 102(b)] Copyright law thus fails to
protect the most common expression of magicians' intellectual property -- live stage
performance -- as well as magicians most valuable creations -- the modus operandi behind each
illusion.
At best, Teller's copyright claim hinges on the similarity of Dogge's presentation to Teller's... and does *NOT* impact Dogge's ability to sell a kit and the secrete to do the trick.
That said, however, I think Dogge should have taken Teller's offer to keep quiet about the trick, since I think it is unlikely Dogge will sell any copies of his kit. The reason I believe this is because of the amount that Dogge is asking for, which is large enough that only professional magicians are liable to take an interest in it. But professional magicians are liable to respect Teller's position as the inventor of the trick, and effectively ostracize Dogge for trying to profit from a trick that he did not create.
What's been copyrighted is the pantomime associated with the trick. Although pantomime can be copyrighted, I think that there's a few things to consider with that. For myself, I think both parties are being a bit stupid here; I think that Dogge is unlikely to make any actual money off of this, but I also think that Teller does not, and should not, have any sort of copyright claim against Dogge, and here's why:
1. Teller tried to buy Dogge out to not sell the trick to anyone else. Only when Dogge scoffed at the amount of the offer (allegedly the price of a single kit is what was offered) did Teller persue the copyright angle. As a copyright case alone, this sequence of actions is very incriminating for Teller, since it reveals that Teller's ultimate reason for objecting to this is not because he has been copied but because Dogge is selling a secret to a trick he invented. Teller may be understandably upset about this, but if he was smart enough to invent this trick, then he is smart enough to invent new ones.
2. The amount that Dogge is asking for the secret to the trick is not paltry... and is liable only to be paid by another professional magician. The problem is that it's unlikely that any honorable magician would send money to Dogge for the trick because they likely also realize that Dogge was not the inventor of the trick. Dogge is shooting himself in the foot with his choice of actions, and is unlikely to receive any payments for this.
3. Although the trick is the same as Tellers, Teller's claim is that he copyrighted the pantomime of the trick, and not the trick itself (which is uncopyrightable). This may be fine, except that we do not know how similar Dogge's routine is to Teller's in terms of the actions performed. The only similarity may be the net effect of the routine, and Dogge may not have actually copied any of Teller's motions. It's also possibly arguable that one should not be able to copyright the entire set of pantomime sequences that have a particular net effect, at least not without enumerating every possible combination of them. I would speculate that there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of ways that this trick could be preformed, even though the actual secret behind the trick is the same in each, and no two of them would be remotely similar except in the underlying secret to the trick (which would not be pantomime and would thus not be copyrightable).
4. Magicians have been figuring out how other magicians do their tricks and copying them for hundreds of years. This paper is interesting, and explains in fair detail how magcians have traditionally protected their investment in their works without relying on IP law. This paragraph, in particular, sums up why I don't think Teller should be allowed to persue this from a copyright angle:
Yet, the more significant difficulty with copyright involves the fact that magic tricks themselves cannot be copyrighted. A magician could conceivably copyright the dramatic aspects of his show, and he could copyright a written description of the method behind an illusion, so that his written description of the method could not be precisely reproduced. But the magician could not copyright the method itself. The law excludes it emphatically: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work" (USC 102b). Copyright law thus fails to protect the most common expression of magiciansâ(TM) intellectual property -- live stage performance -- as well as magiciansâ(TM) most valuable creation -- the modus operandi behind each
illusion.
There's a certain amount of discrepancy required to qualify as being distinct from a patented device. Differing by only a single minor component is inadequate.
Pantomine acts, yes.... the question is, just how similar is this guy's routine to Teller's? We have no video link to the guy's performance, so we don't know.
Bearing in mind here that Teller actually initially offered this guy cash in exchange for keeping the trick secret, it seems that this is really far more about Teller not wanting the secret to a trick that he came up with being sold or distributed by somebody else than it is likely an actual issue of something copyrightable being copied without permission.
I'm pretty sure that the NIMBY crowd are going to remain silent on it, but still... I'm sure that somebody's going to come up with some reason why these shouldn't go up.
It doesn't matter what he says... what matters is what copyright says. What matters even more is what a judge says.
I like Penn and Teller, but personally I'm rooting for this guy. Not just because he's the underdog in this case, but because what he is doing is absolutely no different than what other magicians have been doing to eachother for hundreds of years.
The claim against FOX was with respect to violation of the magician's code of honor to not reveal how their tricks are done.
This code enjoys no legal protection, however, and the lawsuit against FOX for that show failed.
Nonetheless, magicians could actually enjoy some legal protection for their tricks under trade secret status.
However, trade secrets do not enjoy any protection at all against being reverse engineered by somebody who did not know the secret.
The only allegation that would have had even the slightest chance of succeeding was to show that the masked magician in FOX's show had misappropriated trade secrets he did not own for broadcast.
Imitation is a form of flattery. He should take it as such, or simply decide to not show off what he doesn't want people to copy. Magicians have been figuring out how other magicians do their tricks for centuries. Unless the secret was actually misappropriated (which means he would have actually broken the law to acquire it), the copier has done absolutely nothing wrong here.
I've been accused of that before. Sorry, I can be a bit literal-minded.
Anyway, why don't you simply RTFA?
I would have thought it obvious that I did... the above summary certainly didn't mention anything about Apple's policies.
I guess the policy you are looking for is "it wonâ(TM)t boot so we wonâ(TM)t repair it"
Yep... but as the machine not booting seemed the actual problem that necessitated repair in the first place, it had not occurred to me that this was actually all there was to it... I had instead figured that the article was missing some details on the policy.
...they didn't even have an argument on why they were refusing
Actually, they did... it just wasn't a very good argument.
Their argument basically amounted to the company simply adhering to its own policies... although admittedly the article was sketchy on what policies those were that would actually deny the repair.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason that you don't want to fill up your gas tank, presumably... more than likely because you need to get somewhere right now, but don't have enough fuel, and don't have enough money to fill all the way to the top at the moment.
Weight is the fundamentally more important factor. Size is important for practical reasons, but weight is important for physical ones.
A nice idea, but what if you didn't want to do a complete charge up for whatever reason? It would be a significant headache for swapping stations to have to carry batteries of many different levels of charge.
Great... now if they can build an infrastructure of recharging stations or at least be able to promise to build one, all over the country where you can juice up your car to 90% full or better inside of 5 minutes, we'll have a winner.
Agreed... but the problem is that when you are going out into public, you *ARE* doing something that could conceivably draw attention to yourself, even without you meaning to. What if, for example, somebody happened to think you were good looking, or whatnot?
In public, you have no inalienable right to privacy. Get over it. You want privacy? Stay on your own property and don't ever leave.
They don't enforce the law, but they certainly can and *DO* suspend your insurance if you are found to be "in breach" of the terms of the insurance during an accident claim, which includes doing things that are against the law (such as driving with undue attention to the road [using a handheld cell phone while driving], excessive speeding, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc).
I mean, I suppose they can disqualify any athlete who violates the rules, but what do they do with a fan?
In particular, what do they do with a fan from out of the country who attends the opening ceremonies, takes photos, and then returns home to upload them to his website or blog? The person's already out of the country, so what could they do?
How do they destroy digital pictures that have been uploaded elsewhere moments after taking the photos?
The last two paragphs, above, are *NOT* from the paper I quoted... I mistyped </blockquote> in my response at the end of what I intended to quote, and as a result it simply put the remainder of my post into the quote.
Slashdot really needs a window of opportunity to edit posts that are accidentally sent... even if only a couple of minutes wide.
What's been copyrighted is the pantomime associated with the trick. Although pantomime can be copyrighted, I think that there's a few things to consider with that. For myself, I think both parties are being a bit stupid here; I think that Dogge is unlikely to make any actual money off of this, but I also think that Teller does not, and should not, have any sort of copyright claim against Dogge, and here's why:
1. Teller tried to buy Dogge out to not sell the trick to anyone else. Only when Dogge scoffed at the amount of the offer (allegedly the price of a single kit is what was offered) did Teller persue the copyright angle. As a copyright case alone, this sequence of actions is very incriminating for Teller, since it reveals that Teller's ultimate reason for objecting to this is not because he has been copied but because Dogge is selling a secret to a trick he invented. Teller may be understandably upset about this, but if he was smart enough to invent this trick, then he is smart enough to invent new ones.
2. The amount that Dogge is asking for the secret to the trick is not paltry... and is liable only to be paid by another professional magician. The problem is that it's unlikely that any honorable magician would send money to Dogge for the trick because they likely also realize that Dogge was not the inventor of the trick. Dogge is shooting himself in the foot with his choice of actions, and is unlikely to receive any payments for this.
3. Although the trick is the same as Tellers, Teller's claim is that he copyrighted the pantomime of the trick, and not the trick itself (which is uncopyrightable). This may be fine, except that we do not know how similar Dogge's routine is to Teller's in terms of the actions performed. The only similarity may be the net effect of the routine, and Dogge may not have actually copied any of Teller's motions. It's also possibly arguable that one should not be able to copyright the entire set of pantomime sequences that have a particular net effect, at least not without enumerating every possible combination of them. I would speculate that there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of ways that this trick could be preformed, even though the actual secret behind the trick is the same in each, and no two of them would be remotely similar except in the underlying secret to the trick (which would not be pantomime and would thus not be copyrightable).
4. Magicians have been figuring out how other magicians do their tricks and copying them for hundreds of years. This paper is interesting, and explains in fair detail how magcians have traditionally protected their investment in their works without relying on IP law. This paragraph, in particular, sums up why I don't think Teller should be allowed to persue this from a copyright angle:
There's a certain amount of discrepancy required to qualify as being distinct from a patented device. Differing by only a single minor component is inadequate.
... as they make sure that this sort of thing is not being used to train future terrorirsts.
I thought that to confirm any in-app purchase, you had to re-enter your password for your Apple ID.
Is this not the case with some apps?
How about you wait and see what a judge decides?
Pantomine acts, yes.... the question is, just how similar is this guy's routine to Teller's? We have no video link to the guy's performance, so we don't know.
Bearing in mind here that Teller actually initially offered this guy cash in exchange for keeping the trick secret, it seems that this is really far more about Teller not wanting the secret to a trick that he came up with being sold or distributed by somebody else than it is likely an actual issue of something copyrightable being copied without permission.
And I suppose as a result of this we are about to find out if that copyright should have ever been awarded in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that the NIMBY crowd are going to remain silent on it, but still... I'm sure that somebody's going to come up with some reason why these shouldn't go up.
It doesn't matter what he says... what matters is what copyright says. What matters even more is what a judge says.
I like Penn and Teller, but personally I'm rooting for this guy. Not just because he's the underdog in this case, but because what he is doing is absolutely no different than what other magicians have been doing to eachother for hundreds of years.
The claim against FOX was with respect to violation of the magician's code of honor to not reveal how their tricks are done.
This code enjoys no legal protection, however, and the lawsuit against FOX for that show failed.
Nonetheless, magicians could actually enjoy some legal protection for their tricks under trade secret status.
However, trade secrets do not enjoy any protection at all against being reverse engineered by somebody who did not know the secret.
The only allegation that would have had even the slightest chance of succeeding was to show that the masked magician in FOX's show had misappropriated trade secrets he did not own for broadcast.
Imitation is a form of flattery. He should take it as such, or simply decide to not show off what he doesn't want people to copy. Magicians have been figuring out how other magicians do their tricks for centuries. Unless the secret was actually misappropriated (which means he would have actually broken the law to acquire it), the copier has done absolutely nothing wrong here.
Oh.... and you can't copyright an idea.
To patent it, you must publish it. A magician does not reveal his secrets.
I've been accused of that before. Sorry, I can be a bit literal-minded.
I would have thought it obvious that I did... the above summary certainly didn't mention anything about Apple's policies.
Yep... but as the machine not booting seemed the actual problem that necessitated repair in the first place, it had not occurred to me that this was actually all there was to it... I had instead figured that the article was missing some details on the policy.
Actually, they did... it just wasn't a very good argument.
Their argument basically amounted to the company simply adhering to its own policies... although admittedly the article was sketchy on what policies those were that would actually deny the repair.