People don't use wrenches on cars any more, unless they actually enjoy it. Cars are no longer built with the expectation that the owner will have to perform more than the most basic of essential tasks like filling the various containers with petrol, oil, or water. They run much more reliably, and a lot of the parts which needed the most attention - carburetor, distributor - have been replaced by computerised systems which work longer and more reliably and if they do break can't be repaired without a extensive training and specialised equipment. The only use most people have for a wrench now is occasional plumbing work, tightening seals when things start to leak or unblocking U-bends.
As for microphones... they exist, but no longer in the old style of the featured icons. They are now all either hidden inside of things (phones, laptops), or of the ball-on-a-stick design.
You missed a plan: Global unification. Either peacefully (A few centuries of globalised communications and travel might do it) or not-so-peacefully (Nuke 'em all, then disband the military).
Every political debate about climate change countermeasures comes down to the same fundamental conflict:
Politician: "My advisers inform me that if we do not take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there will be serious global climate repercussions."
Public: "Well, reduce emissions then."
Politician: "This does mean some unavoidable increase in gas prices, but -"
Public: "FUCK THE CLIMATE! Give us cheap gas!"
People are happy to do something to help reduce emissions, providing this something doesn't involve any expense or inconvenience for them personally. Politicians know this. There is a big public demand to exploit every drop of oil that can be found in order to keep gas prices down, and it's very difficult for anyone hoping to get elected again to go against that.
I've seen one sofa destroyed by repeated floppings of a very heavy person eventually buckling a spring, but the main cause of upholtery-ruining in my experience is pets. Cats, if given the choice between a scratching post and a satisfyingly smooth fake-leather couch, go for the latter.
I ran into a few good tellings-off too. Due to some mental health issues, I felt compelled to repair things at school. I couldn't leave something broken, so I always had a few tools on me. Screwdrivers, multitool, tape, glue. The only reason I didn't get expelled was that the school had a unit specialising in supporting students with such issues, and the teachers there were willing to argue strongly on my behalf.
For your own use, no. But if you sell or even give away something you've repaired, which turns out to be dangerous, at the very least you face civil liability - and possibly criminal negligence, in addition to whatever penalties come from violating safety standards in your jurisdiction. Even if your repair is perfectly safe and to a professional standards, many countries require certification to work on anything using mains electricity, and if you're not certified (Which a hobbyist is unlikely to be) it can still be an offense to give away something you have repaired yourself.
The DMCA actually has a specific provision just for macrovision - to avoid trademark issues, it refers to the technology as 'automatic gain control copy control technology'. But it means macrovision. The DMCA mandates that all (analog) video recorders recognise the macrovision signal and refuse to record. Regardless of that, the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are not limited only to digital technologies.
In the US, the DMCA would be the appropriate law. Outside of the US, there are often similar laws. In the EU, for example, there is the European Union Copyright Directive (or more precisely, the member countries' implimentations of the EUCD) which bans drm-circumvention technology in a similar manner.
Religious nutjobs as such don't, but they do heavily overlap with the anti-regulation faction of conservative, who are involved. They oppose net neutrality on the grounds that it means more regulation, and they view more regulation as intrinsicly bad.
The religious nutjobs do sometimes like to mutter a line about copyright infringement being theft and thus sinful, but it's so far down their long list of priorities that they hardly ever even think about it. They have a hundred things they consider more important and worthy of their attention. The only thing they are really concerned about on the internet is pornography, which does draw their ire more intensely.
They did, for two good reasons. Or more precisely, they put a 'use macrovision for this bit' flag on DVDs and required (via the CSS licence) that all players macrovision-protect the output if that flag is set.
Firstly, because DVDs came out long before DVD-recorders. At the time, the only way for a home user to record was on VCR. Requiring macrovision meant no renting DVDs and making tapes from them, or copying DVDs to tape to give to friends. Completly useless on expert pirates, but enough to deter the casual semi-technical pirate before file sharing took off. There was a downside to this, though: A lot of older TVs didn't have AV inputs, and DVD players don't usually have RF outputs. With macrovision making it impossible to just use a VCR as the interface between the two, a lot of people had to spend substantial money replacing old televisions just so they would be able to function with the DRM. A trend-setter there!
Secondly, macorvision was (and still is) the de facto way to mark a video signal as do-not-copy. A lot of equipment, even when there is no technical reason, will refuse to record if it detects macrovision in the signal. Things like PC video capture cards.
I can think of two good reasons to keep it secret:
1. Political embarassment. The TSA isn't popular already, and a scandal like that could mean congressional enquiries, sackings and cut budgets.
2. Liability. If the irradiated passangers/workers don't know they have been exposed, they can't sue you when they later develop cancer.
I visited the US once, a few years ago, and made the mistake of trying to watch a movie on TV there. It was unwatchable. Every ten minutes or so, a break for five minutes of advertising. Completly ruined the mood.
I was also surprised by the number of pharmacutical adverts I saw. Over here in the UK, direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs is prohibited.
Slight modification to improve the plan: Don't just add it to general taxes. Instead, make it a tax that applies only to those households which own a television. That's how us brits fund the BBC, and it works very well here. Lots of money is raised, but at the same time people who don't watch TV don't feel offended that they are being forced to pay for someone else's entertainment.
The system does face one recent threat though: With a lot more people watching programs on iPlayer and the internet replacing TVs, there is a risk that licensing for TVs as a seperate device may become ineffective.
But the networks also get paid from the other side, by their advertisers. That is the purpose of a network: They are essentially the managers and middlemen that coordinate between advertisers, distributors and studios. Sometimes with co-ownership of some elements.
You mean Macrovision? That's been around since the days of the VCR. It's always been a minor annoyance for home users, but anyone who can solder to veroboard would have no problem making a device to remove the macrovision protection. So it never really deterred pirates at all. The only people it could have worked on were those who rented tapes and made a personal copy for their collection, but weren't concerned enough to go and buy a macrovision remover. Widely available, even though quite illegal post-DMCA.
Because DVDs are encrypted. To play a DVD (Without breaking the encryption, which is illegal in most of the world) requires a license from the DVDCCA, who then supply the appropriate key. This license imposes a number of conditions regarding what a DVD player may and may not do, one of which is respecting the can't-skip-this feature. It also requires players respect region lockout, specifies some anti-tamper requirements, prohibits digital outputs without encryption (only video, SPDIF is fine) and things like that. The DVDCCA has gotten quite lax in enforcement now because they realise that with CSS broken there isn't much point.
Blu-ray runs in exactly the same manner. If you want to (legally) play, you need a license. The license mandates the rest of the DRM, such as requiring HDCP on output.
If they found a machine had a dodgy resistor and was over-irradiating people, I suspect this discovery would be classified secret for 'national security' reasons. You'd never hear about it. Maybe it already happened.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't use wrenches on cars any more, unless they actually enjoy it. Cars are no longer built with the expectation that the owner will have to perform more than the most basic of essential tasks like filling the various containers with petrol, oil, or water. They run much more reliably, and a lot of the parts which needed the most attention - carburetor, distributor - have been replaced by computerised systems which work longer and more reliably and if they do break can't be repaired without a extensive training and specialised equipment. The only use most people have for a wrench now is occasional plumbing work, tightening seals when things start to leak or unblocking U-bends.
As for microphones... they exist, but no longer in the old style of the featured icons. They are now all either hidden inside of things (phones, laptops), or of the ball-on-a-stick design.
I've got an old ultrasonic TV remote. No TV to go with it any more.
You missed a plan: Global unification. Either peacefully (A few centuries of globalised communications and travel might do it) or not-so-peacefully (Nuke 'em all, then disband the military).
Every political debate about climate change countermeasures comes down to the same fundamental conflict:
Politician: "My advisers inform me that if we do not take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there will be serious global climate repercussions."
Public: "Well, reduce emissions then."
Politician: "This does mean some unavoidable increase in gas prices, but -"
Public: "FUCK THE CLIMATE! Give us cheap gas!"
People are happy to do something to help reduce emissions, providing this something doesn't involve any expense or inconvenience for them personally. Politicians know this. There is a big public demand to exploit every drop of oil that can be found in order to keep gas prices down, and it's very difficult for anyone hoping to get elected again to go against that.
I've seen one sofa destroyed by repeated floppings of a very heavy person eventually buckling a spring, but the main cause of upholtery-ruining in my experience is pets. Cats, if given the choice between a scratching post and a satisfyingly smooth fake-leather couch, go for the latter.
I ran into a few good tellings-off too. Due to some mental health issues, I felt compelled to repair things at school. I couldn't leave something broken, so I always had a few tools on me. Screwdrivers, multitool, tape, glue. The only reason I didn't get expelled was that the school had a unit specialising in supporting students with such issues, and the teachers there were willing to argue strongly on my behalf.
Even the metals aren't worth much. PCBs aren't made with gold any more.
Undertaker, perhaps.
For your own use, no. But if you sell or even give away something you've repaired, which turns out to be dangerous, at the very least you face civil liability - and possibly criminal negligence, in addition to whatever penalties come from violating safety standards in your jurisdiction. Even if your repair is perfectly safe and to a professional standards, many countries require certification to work on anything using mains electricity, and if you're not certified (Which a hobbyist is unlikely to be) it can still be an offense to give away something you have repaired yourself.
Handegg.
The DMCA actually has a specific provision just for macrovision - to avoid trademark issues, it refers to the technology as 'automatic gain control copy control technology'. But it means macrovision. The DMCA mandates that all (analog) video recorders recognise the macrovision signal and refuse to record. Regardless of that, the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are not limited only to digital technologies.
In the US, the DMCA would be the appropriate law. Outside of the US, there are often similar laws. In the EU, for example, there is the European Union Copyright Directive (or more precisely, the member countries' implimentations of the EUCD) which bans drm-circumvention technology in a similar manner.
Religious nutjobs as such don't, but they do heavily overlap with the anti-regulation faction of conservative, who are involved. They oppose net neutrality on the grounds that it means more regulation, and they view more regulation as intrinsicly bad.
The religious nutjobs do sometimes like to mutter a line about copyright infringement being theft and thus sinful, but it's so far down their long list of priorities that they hardly ever even think about it. They have a hundred things they consider more important and worthy of their attention. The only thing they are really concerned about on the internet is pornography, which does draw their ire more intensely.
They did, for two good reasons. Or more precisely, they put a 'use macrovision for this bit' flag on DVDs and required (via the CSS licence) that all players macrovision-protect the output if that flag is set.
Firstly, because DVDs came out long before DVD-recorders. At the time, the only way for a home user to record was on VCR. Requiring macrovision meant no renting DVDs and making tapes from them, or copying DVDs to tape to give to friends. Completly useless on expert pirates, but enough to deter the casual semi-technical pirate before file sharing took off. There was a downside to this, though: A lot of older TVs didn't have AV inputs, and DVD players don't usually have RF outputs. With macrovision making it impossible to just use a VCR as the interface between the two, a lot of people had to spend substantial money replacing old televisions just so they would be able to function with the DRM. A trend-setter there!
Secondly, macorvision was (and still is) the de facto way to mark a video signal as do-not-copy. A lot of equipment, even when there is no technical reason, will refuse to record if it detects macrovision in the signal. Things like PC video capture cards.
I can think of two good reasons to keep it secret:
1. Political embarassment. The TSA isn't popular already, and a scandal like that could mean congressional enquiries, sackings and cut budgets.
2. Liability. If the irradiated passangers/workers don't know they have been exposed, they can't sue you when they later develop cancer.
I visited the US once, a few years ago, and made the mistake of trying to watch a movie on TV there. It was unwatchable. Every ten minutes or so, a break for five minutes of advertising. Completly ruined the mood.
I was also surprised by the number of pharmacutical adverts I saw. Over here in the UK, direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs is prohibited.
Whenever the ad for Go Compare comes on in this house, everyone tries to pounce the remote and hit mute.
Slight modification to improve the plan: Don't just add it to general taxes. Instead, make it a tax that applies only to those households which own a television. That's how us brits fund the BBC, and it works very well here. Lots of money is raised, but at the same time people who don't watch TV don't feel offended that they are being forced to pay for someone else's entertainment.
The system does face one recent threat though: With a lot more people watching programs on iPlayer and the internet replacing TVs, there is a risk that licensing for TVs as a seperate device may become ineffective.
But the networks also get paid from the other side, by their advertisers. That is the purpose of a network: They are essentially the managers and middlemen that coordinate between advertisers, distributors and studios. Sometimes with co-ownership of some elements.
You mean Macrovision? That's been around since the days of the VCR. It's always been a minor annoyance for home users, but anyone who can solder to veroboard would have no problem making a device to remove the macrovision protection. So it never really deterred pirates at all. The only people it could have worked on were those who rented tapes and made a personal copy for their collection, but weren't concerned enough to go and buy a macrovision remover. Widely available, even though quite illegal post-DMCA.
Android means Droidwall. You can block access to 3g, wifi or both on a per-app level with that.
I don't know about ultraounds, but MRI does cost more. A lot more.
Unless they were exceptionally well made, it'd just come across as snobish and condescending.
Because DVDs are encrypted. To play a DVD (Without breaking the encryption, which is illegal in most of the world) requires a license from the DVDCCA, who then supply the appropriate key. This license imposes a number of conditions regarding what a DVD player may and may not do, one of which is respecting the can't-skip-this feature. It also requires players respect region lockout, specifies some anti-tamper requirements, prohibits digital outputs without encryption (only video, SPDIF is fine) and things like that. The DVDCCA has gotten quite lax in enforcement now because they realise that with CSS broken there isn't much point.
Blu-ray runs in exactly the same manner. If you want to (legally) play, you need a license. The license mandates the rest of the DRM, such as requiring HDCP on output.
If they found a machine had a dodgy resistor and was over-irradiating people, I suspect this discovery would be classified secret for 'national security' reasons. You'd never hear about it. Maybe it already happened.