Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
Ok, I understand how Apple was distributing without authorization (Invalid GPL), and I understand how the iTunes store adds more restrictions.. But I don't see how you conclude the iTunes store is prohibited by anything in the GPL itself.
In this case, yes, due to the source code problem. I mean in general.
If I make an app and GPL license it, I can put the unsigned binary with source on my website (Maybe even submit it to one of the community app stores for jailbroken users too) Then I can submit that app to the iTunes store and distribute it that way. Lets say in my app is a '?' in the corner with an about page, with the URL to the app webpage I mentioned above.
I would be fully compliant with the GPL, with nothing about the iTunes store there to stop me.
There are other GPL applications in the iTunes store that are in compliance of both the GPL and Apples terms. (I can see how my above example might violate Apples terms, assuming I went with the community app store option)
If I publish a book with copyrighted material in it without permission to do so and Barnes and Nobles sells that book, who is accountable for the copyright violation?
Both are. 'You' in this case would be accountable for willful infringement (3x damages, but there are some other dependencies needing met for that as well), while Apple would only be accountable for infringement.
Also, assuming you are hit with willful infringement instead of just infringement, that would be the grounds for Apple to then press charges against you for acting in bad faith, which ideally would recoup their losses from the prior lawsuit (Which of course never works out that way)
For some reason I'm thinking if you were not charged with willful infringement, then Apple wouldn't have a default winning case against you. I'm not sure exactly how that works.
One would hope all those in the chain of distribution who were tricked or believed the previous link was authorized, would all be able to go after the person whom started the whole thing, but that doesn't sound like it would bode well for those further down the chain from that person after the wealthier ones are done feeding.
If you are in the hosting business, you just try to insure against such things as best as possible, and factor it into your legal budget. Sucks eh?:/
Surely similar techniques to those used to hack wifi/bluetooth devices from miles away (i.e. really nice antennas) would also work here?
You can transmit to the device from far away simply by using the proper antenna and cranking up the power output to it.
'Hearing' the reply from the device you CAN'T replace the antenna or power supply on however, there is only so much one can do and only over a very small range compared to the transmit area. If the pacemaker only transmits 0.5" away at 1mw then from a foot away or more (aka miles) there is nothing you can do at all to receive more of the signal that does not exist.
With that said, there SHOULD be some form of checksum/re-transmit method or verification per packet or per command (Assuming lack of authentication, which is a good assumption for now)
Without getting the ACK signal back from the device, you can't be sure you are communicating. With the checksum/verification response, this would prevent the device from accepting a command until the proper response was given to the device by your transmitter. This response should be based off something that changes and was sent from the pacemaker. So then not hearing that means you can't send a meaningful reply.
This method is used not really for security, but more to assure the proper command was sent, and received in full correctly, before processing it.
A blast of static (IE random RF) would after enough time accidentally match the syntax of a valid command at some point, and you wouldn't want that command actually committed without being sure it was intended.
If there was no copyright, you wouldn't knock off the application. You'd do a digital copy and offer digital copies. That's not possible when selling a physical product.
So you don't feel a CAD file is digital and is instead tangible? How bout a stitch pattern design file?
Copyright does not protect the clothing, ever. So you are comparing your above example to exactly nothing.
If they're building a specific, non-cognizant organism for a specific purpose, ok; if they're going after the whole concept of synthetic life, no.
Neither of those things qualifies for a patent however. The latter less so (0%) than the former (Above 0%when talking about the building process and tools to do so, but still 0% as-is)
There are millions of years of prior art over exactly "synthetic life"
My grandparents did it to make my parents, and my parents did it to made me. That's 6 people showing prior art, two thirds of which were born and done so long before the people filing the patent.
* We must assume that humans, animals, plants, and whatever they created in the lab are all "life" * "Synthetic" is usually used in the sense of synthesis, the combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes.
If Venter cared in any way about having a legit patent to use against getting ripped off, they would have put more effort into making the patent apply to what they have been working on. Instead, they try to cover all life, then expect us to care that they basically just didn't patent their work and now it will get ripped off.
No, it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves and lose whatever credibility they still might have.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the cry-babies or CBS, but I suspect you far over estimated both groups credibility if you think they can get any worse;}
The people shouting *know* that other people can hear them.
Apparently not.
Taking the wifi analogy to this point, those people screaming in your ear really honestly do believe you can't hear them and they are not affecting you in any way shape and form.
Also after screaming directly in your ear from inches away, they seem to get pissed off when they do realize you heard what they screamed into your ear.
No, applying this to wifi clearly shows most people not only DON'T know that other people can hear their shouting, but that somehow people honestly actually believe that no one else but who they are mentally picturing can magically hear them.
By German logic here, I can walk up behind someone and scream into their ear, then sue them for invading my privacy when it becomes apparent they heard me.
The only real difference is the wavelength of the screaming
**Cough**Bullshit**Cough** There's plenty of wifi scanners available that only collect SSID and mac addresses.
**Cough**Bullshit**Cough** Such a program trying to view a MAC address from inside a wifi packet, while ignoring those very packets, would not function at all.
Every single last program that can give you a MAC address from a wifi packet (that the program didn't generate randomly) had to receive and parse that packet, which WILL contain other data in pretty much all cases, even if it's just the ARP request with IP addy in it.
Because of course, a MAC address is fine to collect, but an IP in the same packet frame makes you evil and belonging in prison, says the angry mob.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
Then it's good they never once did that.
This is more comparable to you leaving your front door open, and then beginning to hurl furniture at me as I walk past on the sidewalk, and then you get upset with me for seeing the fact you have furniture.
What if Einstein was right and was simply implying that the movements eventually broke down so far that they were unobservable (similar to Planck's work)?
Well, quote from the original article, which the article in the summary copied, states what Einstein said better:
he believed that it would be impossible in practice to track this motion, given the incredibly short timescales over which the Brownian fluctuations take place
Doesn't sound like Einstein was implying anything at all, but making a statement. A true one back in his day. Heck, it was true right up until these physicists did it (Which I assume was before the news article today)
So for what you attribute to Einstein was actually right, then that means Einstein himself was wrong:} (I don't think he is, but he has been wrong before. And to his credit, he has admitted mistakes before.)
if such a lawsuit won, then vendors would never be able to use custom-but-for-hire solutions again which translates into never using linux again.
But that isn't a bad thing as you say. In fact that is *exactly* what every last contributor to Linux wants, as evidenced by their choice of distribution license, so in fact it is a Good thing.
These companies probably wouldn't think twice about suing any one of us for copyright violations against them. It's only fair they are held to a similar standard. Of course without knowing what companies these are, it's possible this statement might not be correct, but I'd guess that would make them the exception instead of the rule.
I've long thought that THIS is how intelligent life destroys itself. Basically, technology increases until the power to destroy all life can be used by a single insane individual. *snip* There's no way we would know about it, and there's nothing we could do about it.
indeed, this has been predicted as early as the 1950s, and some of our brighter thinkers have even come up with potential solutions 50 years ago.
Unfortunately I think we as a species, or even a collection of nations, will not do what is required to prevent damages and our extinction before it is too late.
The article below by Eric Drexler is specifically in regards to nanotechnology at a level of full remote control or programming ability. We are of course still far off from that, but two things we should agree on are 1) Engineered biology has similar risks to all of humanity, and 2) short of an extinction event, humanity WILL progress with technology.
Protip: You will get more meaningful replies if you stop taking two separate and different things, and claiming they are the same.
iPhone is not iTunes Store iTunes Store is not iPhone
All of your points are true when applied to the iTunes Store, which is their right.
Not a single of your points applies to the iPhone however, the thing you actually purchase.
Wording your post so every last one of your points is applied to both the iPhone and iTunes store, while sneaky, effectively makes each of your points false as-is, because none can be true with the iPhone qualifier.
Once you admit there is a difference between the hardware device called the iPhone which you purchase and own, and the itunes store which is a service apple provides and Should have full control over. I want full control over my own computers too, I cant claim apple doesn't deserve that same right.
Apple has NO control over my iphone, and it is jailbroken, running a full unix environment. and running many free software packages made by others whom also do not want to use the itunes store. We don't have to care what apple does with their store. Well all mostly avoid it.
The jailbroken community has many software repositories, some even sell software and centrally manage your purchase, just like the itunes store, but with more open rules. Apple has not and can not prevent that.
I must admit to buying a few apps, both through the rock repo, and itunes store. But I ran for the longest time on 100% free software, and it was excellent. Even a few of the paid apps were worth it, most on rock but some from itunes, but that was just like sprinkle candies on the excellent.
There is no excuse of 'its too hard' either, because its running one app on your computer (different ones for mac, linux, and windows), a phone reboot, and a few clicks later and you have full access to all the open source community repos, open software store repos, AND get to keep apples itunes store. Its up to which installer you run, to whos rules you play by.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Apple does not run a credit business so it isn't really possible for you to ever have a debt to apple. Thus there is no law forcing them to accept your legal tender that is for debts to a creditor only.
Last I looked, Apple did partner with MBNA bank for credit applications, however going that route your debt would still not be with Apple but with MBNA. And MBNA does accept cash, as required by law.
Your rationality is in error. All you need to protect against patent trolls is to establish copyright date time. Prior art. Thats what I did, and even managed to get the patent office to publish it.
Woah, you got the patent office to accept a copyright, and the copyright office to accept your patent?! That truly is amazing!
Seriously, security is the answer to security. Making it illegal to detect and record open-air RF is like making it illegal to see things.
In Britain it is illegal to receive certain publicly broadcast RF if you do not pay the BBC, and it is actively enforced. (AKA Over the air television)
In USA it is illegal to see certain things, and having done so can easily get you a life sentence in prison. In fact the law requires you to report the fact you saw it, so you will only get a short stay in prison instead of the rest of your life. (AKA Porn of 18+ year old people, but where someone somewhere claims they are under 18... Or a cartoon, stick figure drawing, or story describing such a picture as well...)
There is already too many bad ideas for them to draw on, but don't think the law being totally out of touch with reality will have any effect on them being made, passed, and enforced:{
And once everyone had a replicator - everyone would replicate the newest, coolest, best car.
And nobody would pay for it.
And the people who design cars wouldn't have money to keep designing cars. And all of the advancement and innovation that we've seen since the first car and now would grind to a halt.
Why? That makes no sense.
You are trying to claim a car maker would not design cars unless they can get money. Yet they too will have a replicator.
Why would anyone care about large collections of paper and metal when you can simply reproduce the item you would be purchasing with said money anyway?
It's not like the car designer would be without home or food or anything. Why WOULDN'T he (or she) do what they love doing when they don't have to worry about surviving?
$33, rs-232 control of the chip and the chip speaks to ODBII: ISO 15765-4 CAN, SAE J1850 PWM, SAE J1850 VPW, ISO 9141-2, ISO 14230-4 and SAE J1939 protocols
You set the chip up with what to monitor and/or control (Similar in style to sending AT commands to a modem) and then it does the work of giving you the data stream.
Build your own standalone test gear, with or without a PC interface.
Googling for "ODB-II Connectors" was how I found the jack ends with pins to solder to. They varied in price a bit so where I purchased from 2 years ago no doubt isn't the cheapest now.
I'm not sure it's so simple. The world moves on, but certain things don't. *snip* You can't change the dynamics of human-to-human and human-to-world interaction.
Really? So what exactly is posting to slashdot called, compared to say 15 years ago when the internet didn't exist?
Of course no one is crediting Apple with creating the Internet or anything, but it's a far cry from technology not being able to change the dynamics of human to human interactions as you claim...
I'd say technology has changed human to human interactions as well as human to world ones, first with the technology of bulk mail, then voice communications, and again with the internet.
Or more specifically: Whatever's driving the control-axle will be fighting whatever's driving the main axle, so it has to be as powerful as the main motor. In which case, why not just use that in the first place?
Actually he says it does not act against the control axle. It only needs enough torque to defeat gravity resisting that metal ring gears weight.
A tiny radio controlled car motor can clearly be driven to fast speeds at enough torque to defeat gravity resisting the car from moving, which arguably will weight more than a metal gear piece at this small scale.
And at larger scales with heavier gears and parts, you just scale the small motor up too.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
Ok, I understand how Apple was distributing without authorization (Invalid GPL), and I understand how the iTunes store adds more restrictions.. But I don't see how you conclude the iTunes store is prohibited by anything in the GPL itself.
In this case, yes, due to the source code problem. I mean in general.
If I make an app and GPL license it, I can put the unsigned binary with source on my website (Maybe even submit it to one of the community app stores for jailbroken users too)
Then I can submit that app to the iTunes store and distribute it that way. Lets say in my app is a '?' in the corner with an about page, with the URL to the app webpage I mentioned above.
I would be fully compliant with the GPL, with nothing about the iTunes store there to stop me.
There are other GPL applications in the iTunes store that are in compliance of both the GPL and Apples terms.
(I can see how my above example might violate Apples terms, assuming I went with the community app store option)
Or am I just not getting something?
If I publish a book with copyrighted material in it without permission to do so and Barnes and Nobles sells that book, who is accountable for the copyright violation?
Both are. 'You' in this case would be accountable for willful infringement (3x damages, but there are some other dependencies needing met for that as well), while Apple would only be accountable for infringement.
Also, assuming you are hit with willful infringement instead of just infringement, that would be the grounds for Apple to then press charges against you for acting in bad faith, which ideally would recoup their losses from the prior lawsuit (Which of course never works out that way)
For some reason I'm thinking if you were not charged with willful infringement, then Apple wouldn't have a default winning case against you. I'm not sure exactly how that works.
One would hope all those in the chain of distribution who were tricked or believed the previous link was authorized, would all be able to go after the person whom started the whole thing, but that doesn't sound like it would bode well for those further down the chain from that person after the wealthier ones are done feeding.
If you are in the hosting business, you just try to insure against such things as best as possible, and factor it into your legal budget. Sucks eh? :/
Surely similar techniques to those used to hack wifi/bluetooth devices from miles away (i.e. really nice antennas) would also work here?
You can transmit to the device from far away simply by using the proper antenna and cranking up the power output to it.
'Hearing' the reply from the device you CAN'T replace the antenna or power supply on however, there is only so much one can do and only over a very small range compared to the transmit area.
If the pacemaker only transmits 0.5" away at 1mw then from a foot away or more (aka miles) there is nothing you can do at all to receive more of the signal that does not exist.
With that said, there SHOULD be some form of checksum/re-transmit method or verification per packet or per command (Assuming lack of authentication, which is a good assumption for now)
Without getting the ACK signal back from the device, you can't be sure you are communicating.
With the checksum/verification response, this would prevent the device from accepting a command until the proper response was given to the device by your transmitter. This response should be based off something that changes and was sent from the pacemaker. So then not hearing that means you can't send a meaningful reply.
This method is used not really for security, but more to assure the proper command was sent, and received in full correctly, before processing it.
A blast of static (IE random RF) would after enough time accidentally match the syntax of a valid command at some point, and you wouldn't want that command actually committed without being sure it was intended.
If there was no copyright, you wouldn't knock off the application. You'd do a digital copy and offer digital copies. That's not possible when selling a physical product.
So you don't feel a CAD file is digital and is instead tangible?
How bout a stitch pattern design file?
Copyright does not protect the clothing, ever. So you are comparing your above example to exactly nothing.
If they're building a specific, non-cognizant organism for a specific purpose, ok; if they're going after the whole concept of synthetic life, no.
Neither of those things qualifies for a patent however.
The latter less so (0%) than the former (Above 0%when talking about the building process and tools to do so, but still 0% as-is)
There are millions of years of prior art over exactly "synthetic life"
My grandparents did it to make my parents, and my parents did it to made me. That's 6 people showing prior art, two thirds of which were born and done so long before the people filing the patent.
* We must assume that humans, animals, plants, and whatever they created in the lab are all "life"
* "Synthetic" is usually used in the sense of synthesis, the combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes.
If Venter cared in any way about having a legit patent to use against getting ripped off, they would have put more effort into making the patent apply to what they have been working on.
Instead, they try to cover all life, then expect us to care that they basically just didn't patent their work and now it will get ripped off.
Allowing them to get a temporary monopoly to use or licence elements of the fruit of their R&D
If they were actually patenting something they invented or worked on for a year (or ideally 15 years) then there wouldn't be as much of an issue.
It's the fact they patented not a method but a thing, and a thing they didn't create.
No, it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves and lose whatever credibility they still might have.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the cry-babies or CBS, but I suspect you far over estimated both groups credibility if you think they can get any worse ;}
The people shouting *know* that other people can hear them.
Apparently not.
Taking the wifi analogy to this point, those people screaming in your ear really honestly do believe you can't hear them and they are not affecting you in any way shape and form.
Also after screaming directly in your ear from inches away, they seem to get pissed off when they do realize you heard what they screamed into your ear.
No, applying this to wifi clearly shows most people not only DON'T know that other people can hear their shouting, but that somehow people honestly actually believe that no one else but who they are mentally picturing can magically hear them.
By German logic here, I can walk up behind someone and scream into their ear, then sue them for invading my privacy when it becomes apparent they heard me.
The only real difference is the wavelength of the screaming
**Cough**Bullshit**Cough** There's plenty of wifi scanners available that only collect SSID and mac addresses.
**Cough**Bullshit**Cough** Such a program trying to view a MAC address from inside a wifi packet, while ignoring those very packets, would not function at all.
Every single last program that can give you a MAC address from a wifi packet (that the program didn't generate randomly) had to receive and parse that packet, which WILL contain other data in pretty much all cases, even if it's just the ARP request with IP addy in it.
Because of course, a MAC address is fine to collect, but an IP in the same packet frame makes you evil and belonging in prison, says the angry mob.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
Then it's good they never once did that.
This is more comparable to you leaving your front door open, and then beginning to hurl furniture at me as I walk past on the sidewalk, and then you get upset with me for seeing the fact you have furniture.
What if Einstein was right and was simply implying that the movements eventually broke down so far that they were unobservable (similar to Planck's work)?
Well, quote from the original article, which the article in the summary copied, states what Einstein said better:
he believed that it would be impossible in practice to track this motion, given the incredibly short timescales over which the Brownian fluctuations take place
Doesn't sound like Einstein was implying anything at all, but making a statement. A true one back in his day. Heck, it was true right up until these physicists did it (Which I assume was before the news article today)
So for what you attribute to Einstein was actually right, then that means Einstein himself was wrong :}
(I don't think he is, but he has been wrong before. And to his credit, he has admitted mistakes before.)
if such a lawsuit won, then vendors would never be able to use custom-but-for-hire solutions again which translates into never using linux again.
But that isn't a bad thing as you say. In fact that is *exactly* what every last contributor to Linux wants, as evidenced by their choice of distribution license, so in fact it is a Good thing.
These companies probably wouldn't think twice about suing any one of us for copyright violations against them. It's only fair they are held to a similar standard. Of course without knowing what companies these are, it's possible this statement might not be correct, but I'd guess that would make them the exception instead of the rule.
I've long thought that THIS is how intelligent life destroys itself. Basically, technology increases until the power to destroy all life can be used by a single insane individual.
*snip*
There's no way we would know about it, and there's nothing we could do about it.
indeed, this has been predicted as early as the 1950s, and some of our brighter thinkers have even come up with potential solutions 50 years ago.
Unfortunately I think we as a species, or even a collection of nations, will not do what is required to prevent damages and our extinction before it is too late.
The article below by Eric Drexler is specifically in regards to nanotechnology at a level of full remote control or programming ability. We are of course still far off from that, but two things we should agree on are 1) Engineered biology has similar risks to all of humanity, and 2) short of an extinction event, humanity WILL progress with technology.
http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Chapter_12.html#section07of10
There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.
So we'll be fine in the basement right?
That depends on how deep your bottomless pit really is.
If you can toss a one watt radio transmitter down there and actually lose signal, you're probably safe :D
Protip: You will get more meaningful replies if you stop taking two separate and different things, and claiming they are the same.
iPhone is not iTunes Store
iTunes Store is not iPhone
All of your points are true when applied to the iTunes Store, which is their right.
Not a single of your points applies to the iPhone however, the thing you actually purchase.
Wording your post so every last one of your points is applied to both the iPhone and iTunes store, while sneaky, effectively makes each of your points false as-is, because none can be true with the iPhone qualifier.
Once you admit there is a difference between the hardware device called the iPhone which you purchase and own, and the itunes store which is a service apple provides and Should have full control over. I want full control over my own computers too, I cant claim apple doesn't deserve that same right.
Apple has NO control over my iphone, and it is jailbroken, running a full unix environment. and running many free software packages made by others whom also do not want to use the itunes store.
We don't have to care what apple does with their store. Well all mostly avoid it.
The jailbroken community has many software repositories, some even sell software and centrally manage your purchase, just like the itunes store, but with more open rules. Apple has not and can not prevent that.
I must admit to buying a few apps, both through the rock repo, and itunes store. But I ran for the longest time on 100% free software, and it was excellent. Even a few of the paid apps were worth it, most on rock but some from itunes, but that was just like sprinkle candies on the excellent.
There is no excuse of 'its too hard' either, because its running one app on your computer (different ones for mac, linux, and windows), a phone reboot, and a few clicks later and you have full access to all the open source community repos, open software store repos, AND get to keep apples itunes store. Its up to which installer you run, to whos rules you play by.
for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Apple does not run a credit business so it isn't really possible for you to ever have a debt to apple. Thus there is no law forcing them to accept your legal tender that is for debts to a creditor only.
Last I looked, Apple did partner with MBNA bank for credit applications, however going that route your debt would still not be with Apple but with MBNA. And MBNA does accept cash, as required by law.
Well you know what they say - The only true secure computer, is one encased in cement with no cables to the outside.
I guess a blue screened server is as close as one can get using software ;}
Pretty sneaky there Microsoft, one-uping Linux on security!
Your rationality is in error. All you need to protect against patent trolls is to establish copyright date time.
Prior art. Thats what I did, and even managed to get the patent office to publish it.
Woah, you got the patent office to accept a copyright, and the copyright office to accept your patent?!
That truly is amazing!
Seriously, security is the answer to security. Making it illegal to detect and record open-air RF is like making it illegal to see things.
In Britain it is illegal to receive certain publicly broadcast RF if you do not pay the BBC, and it is actively enforced.
(AKA Over the air television)
In USA it is illegal to see certain things, and having done so can easily get you a life sentence in prison. In fact the law requires you to report the fact you saw it, so you will only get a short stay in prison instead of the rest of your life.
(AKA Porn of 18+ year old people, but where someone somewhere claims they are under 18... Or a cartoon, stick figure drawing, or story describing such a picture as well...)
There is already too many bad ideas for them to draw on, but don't think the law being totally out of touch with reality will have any effect on them being made, passed, and enforced :{
I can't walk out on my porch and yell sensitive information then fine you for having heard it.
Well, unless you live in Germany ;}
Then you can fine them for having heard you, and the Government will demand they turn over at least one ear to verify what was heard!
And once everyone had a replicator - everyone would replicate the newest, coolest, best car.
And nobody would pay for it.
And the people who design cars wouldn't have money to keep designing cars. And all of the advancement and innovation that we've seen since the first car and now would grind to a halt.
Why? That makes no sense.
You are trying to claim a car maker would not design cars unless they can get money.
Yet they too will have a replicator.
Why would anyone care about large collections of paper and metal when you can simply reproduce the item you would be purchasing with said money anyway?
It's not like the car designer would be without home or food or anything. Why WOULDN'T he (or she) do what they love doing when they don't have to worry about surviving?
If the effect is predicted to be small you may need thousands of monkeys. Animal rights groups would have a fit over this.
I suppose we could use thousands of animal rights group activists instead of monkeys. Kill two birds with one cellphone!
http://www.elmelectronics.com/obdic.html
Check out the ELM327 chip on that page.
$33, rs-232 control of the chip and the chip speaks to ODBII: ISO 15765-4 CAN, SAE J1850 PWM, SAE J1850 VPW, ISO 9141-2, ISO 14230-4 and SAE J1939 protocols
You set the chip up with what to monitor and/or control (Similar in style to sending AT commands to a modem) and then it does the work of giving you the data stream.
Build your own standalone test gear, with or without a PC interface.
Googling for "ODB-II Connectors" was how I found the jack ends with pins to solder to. They varied in price a bit so where I purchased from 2 years ago no doubt isn't the cheapest now.
Have fun
I'm not sure it's so simple. The world moves on, but certain things don't.
*snip*
You can't change the dynamics of human-to-human and human-to-world interaction.
Really? So what exactly is posting to slashdot called, compared to say 15 years ago when the internet didn't exist?
Of course no one is crediting Apple with creating the Internet or anything, but it's a far cry from technology not being able to change the dynamics of human to human interactions as you claim...
I'd say technology has changed human to human interactions as well as human to world ones, first with the technology of bulk mail, then voice communications, and again with the internet.
Or more specifically: Whatever's driving the control-axle will be fighting whatever's driving the main axle, so it has to be as powerful as the main motor. In which case, why not just use that in the first place?
Actually he says it does not act against the control axle. It only needs enough torque to defeat gravity resisting that metal ring gears weight.
A tiny radio controlled car motor can clearly be driven to fast speeds at enough torque to defeat gravity resisting the car from moving, which arguably will weight more than a metal gear piece at this small scale.
And at larger scales with heavier gears and parts, you just scale the small motor up too.