Then maybe we'll give it to the people that make out product actually worth something.
If windows didn't run all the "windows compatable" software where do you think they'd be? And here they are stiffing the very people who are trying to make the user experience better.
"Also there is no universal theory of gravity both Newton and Einstien struggled with it for years but have never said they understood it, so your implication that laws of conservation were made to explain gravity is a low blow to get your point across."
When did I even come close to saying that?
I said specifically: "The "Laws" don't address the one way principle that people like to use against these kinds of ideas to dismiss them." Stating that something is not addressed is a far cry from implying that they were made to explain it. Kinda opposite if you ask me.
Next time read the post before hitting the submit button.
Oh, and when you addressed the higher matter to energy conversions did you forget about the battery example I made so you wouldn't have to explain that one either? What's the by product of using a battery? A rechargable battery that you can then restore to working order with power input. So if this is possible with a chemical process why not with magnetic? How hard do you have to twist your brain to avoid the similarities between energy storage and retrieval with a battery and a magnet. Just because some say that magnets cannot store and dispense energy doesn't work with the fact that they can produce work by themselves. And just because we cannot currently extract that energy in a slow/continuous enough process to draw out the fundamental nature of its stored energy doesn't mean that it cannot be done and still be within the "laws" that we all believe in now.
"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
"Lenz's law simply states that, like Newton's law of an "equal and opposite reaction," there's an opposing force counter-acting the force in play. It's like the opposite reaction of an astronaut falling towards a planet: inertia. Neither force is created, nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Idiot troll"
So how hard were these laws faught before it was the common standard taught to us? These laws do not address where forces like magnets and gravity come into play and if they could ever be tapped or not. Just because they haven't been made into laws before doesn't preclude them from ever being added to the established laws as footnotes. If we discover that the magnet like the sun degrades over time because it uses stored energy this would be all common place in a few generations and magnetic generators would be standard. If we learn to tap the constant pull from magnets and use them to create work but at the cost of the magnetic pull over time, this would stay within the "laws" and everybody would be fine with it. You use a resource until it's depleated and no one argues over it and claims that they are the greatest scientific voyer ever and can prove the underpinnings of the universe obey their assumptions and not the theories of others. Until ot was proven imagine someone claiming that they could take a gallon of liquid and move an object 30 miles. The energy stored in gasoline just had an easier method of extraction and left a more altered residual. Now take a rechargable battery in the tesla raodster that can move a vehicle a couple hundred miles and doesn't leave an empty tank, but a depleted battery that can be recharged with invisible electrons and go again without adding an observable amount of mass. This is no fantasy of the loose minded but a natural extension of the valid science applied in the persuit of extracting energy from material properties and interactions, fusion, nuculear reactions, charged states, magnetism. Just because we understand some part of our environment doesn't mean that we know the rules of the whole game. Black holes that have been discovered still don't follow the rules of thermodynamics since they absorb energy and do not release it in the same amount unless you count gravity as energy, which it that case you can't say that gravity will never let us convert it back to energy that we can use. The "Laws" don't address the one way principle that people like to use against these kinds of ideas to dismiss them. And just because poeple haven't done something before should be no excuse why some shouldn't try. Remember that every major scientific advancement was not done in the past, but the present for the experimenter. Before it was known and accepted. Not after everybody thought it was allowed.
The standard is already being set by the people. Physical and electronic records verifiable by open process and contained in a completely sealed box with tamper detection.
"But there has been no solution to this short of raising prices and charging users more so the isp can afford additional bandwidth."
Or perhaps the ISPs could not make record profits and send CEOs to resorts with multimillion dollar bonuses and instead spend some money on the infrastructure that supports their business model. You know, to be in business tomorrow.
Try playing back a live stream with a 10 min lag. Even with a looped tape you cannot then fast forward or rewind to catch up with the live stream or go back to the beginning of the show. That's the multitasking of a DVR.
Double deck or million deck it's impossible with tape.
With a dual head machine how can you be watching a live stream and hit a button to pause it and begin recording, wait 30 min and start playback where you paused while still recording the live stream? The problem with any physical device is the transition from recording to playback over a physical medium. If the tape is winding around a core how do you access the beginning of the 30 min you have already recorded while still recording, how do you fast forward the previous playback on that tape while still recording in realtime on that same tape? Even dual tape systems can't pause a live stream and let you skip around, rewinding and fast forwarding at will while still recording that live stream.
And to address any further arguments on this, try it! With any multi-tape multi-head system, start out by viewing live tv. Pause for 3 min, do whatever you want with any tape/head. Then try and play back that recording with a 3 min lag behind realtime, keeping playing that 3 min lag with realtime for 12 hours without inturruption in viewing or recording. You should have been able to watch a 12hr marathon uninturrupted and have a 12hr recording without any breaks in the stream.
Can you do it? Didn't think so. Even the simple playback of live tv with a 3 min lag is impossible for a VCR to do.
Could you watch a live stream and then pause it while continuing to record the live signal and resume playback while still recording and skip sections such as commercials until you caught back up with the live stream?
Instant replay was a VCR that was on site, not consumer controllable. Big difference in the device. YOU could not rewind and replay live tv and neither could they. On site, it was a camera signal to VCR. Not until it left the broadcast station was it TV. And after that you had no control other than to turn the channel.
Could you record one program and watch another previously recorded program at the same time? Could you pause a live signal and keep recording while you answered the phone or went to the bathroom?
That's the main difference between a DVR and a VCR. Multitasking recording and playback at the same time, not just passing through the signal for realtime viewing while recording something else.
The "watching one program" part of DVRs is not just passing through a signal that the tv then displayed. It is the timewarping method of being able to record a program to the device and watch another previously recorded program from that same device at the same time.
The part about "Comments are owned by the Poster." is interesting since if the poster later wants the comment removed it puts forums in a difficult place. Either they remove it, at the request of the owner since they own it or if they refuse then they take responsibility for showing all the other posts as well. There's a reason that forums put that there. This wouldn't apply to others posting about you but if you had some dumbass comments that you would rather be forgotten, this company could put some pressure on the forums in this manner.
"Let's be very clear," Paoli said. "It has been fostered by a single company -- IBM. If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."
Business as usual? With all the corruption we've seen on the process, business as usual seems kinda sucky for the people when left in the hands of Microsoft.
I would go so far as to say that IBM actually used the proper cahnnels for these efforts as well. I would also like to point out that Microsoft did these exact same things and more.
Voting for or against something is actually the important part of holding a vote.
Lobbying national bodies is the standard for attempting to have your products considered.
Both Microsoft and IBM did these things, so why is Microsoft whining about them when they stepped over some lines on this subject and IBM didn't.
"In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."
notice the "false claim" and "implied to be factual" parts.
even the law websites out there classify libel as: "A false and defamatory statement concerning another." Notice again the "false" part.
Couldn't they just obfuscate the file on the ipod during the file transfer? The same way that apple does with itunes. Third party utilities have been out for a long time addressing this since the songs weren't meant to be accessable for retrieval once they were transfered to the ipod without itunes letting them. As long as the ipod can play the file they are ok.
Adding a piece of software to run on the ipod seems like the most obvious method of doing this since it would allow access to the file by the firmware but prevent retrieval and copying from the device without the ad supporting softwares approval. The two pieces, one on the computer to display ads and download -> transfer to the ipod, and the ipod add-on to enable the altered file to play back. The ipod add on could also update an ad database when connected and display them as album art during playback for more exposure.
And it's not even a close call issue in any grey area. it's flat out threats and slander.
FTA: "According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit, entitled "Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said.
The plaintiff, a respected Stanford University graduate identified only as "Doe I" in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became more menacing.
Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator, the court papers said."
Law Students? Anyone hiring these people needs to seriously check their own ethics.
I think that was the argument presented by the parent poster. That because the C&D letter is part of Due Process, making it private and not public they were violating the due process openness.
The ignoring of a C&D letter is only an issue if the actions come out in court to be supported as illegal. Like if they were actually infringing on the rights of another. If they weren't infringing, then ignoring the C&D letter had no meaning. The publishing of the letter should have no consequence if it is within the legal rights of the sender to defend their property.
Some final thoughts:
How do these rulings effect the rights of the person showing the letter to their lawyer or asking for comment by other parties concerned with the compliance of the letter?
If it's copyrighted, can they link to a public copy of the document if they file it with a court? Some courts allow viewing of documents online as a matter of public record unless it is sealed.
Good points. But to play devils advocate to some people out there, why shouldn't they? Insurance companies already ask if you drink and the frequency. This sounds kinda valid since it obviously increases the risk to their policy. Health insurance asks for physical records and habits since the choice to drink also increases your own health risks.
Slashdot Mirror
Short answer, no.
This is favoritism. Microsoft doesn't even have this ability to stop the resale of their software.
And remember, beware the leopard.
Bow!
Then maybe we'll give it to the people that make out product actually worth something.
If windows didn't run all the "windows compatable" software where do you think they'd be? And here they are stiffing the very people who are trying to make the user experience better.
Did you even read the post?
"Also there is no universal theory of gravity both Newton and Einstien struggled with it for years but have never said they understood it, so your implication that laws of conservation were made to explain gravity is a low blow to get your point across."
When did I even come close to saying that?
I said specifically:
"The "Laws" don't address the one way principle that people like to use against these kinds of ideas to dismiss them." Stating that something is not addressed is a far cry from implying that they were made to explain it. Kinda opposite if you ask me.
Next time read the post before hitting the submit button.
Oh, and when you addressed the higher matter to energy conversions did you forget about the battery example I made so you wouldn't have to explain that one either? What's the by product of using a battery? A rechargable battery that you can then restore to working order with power input. So if this is possible with a chemical process why not with magnetic? How hard do you have to twist your brain to avoid the similarities between energy storage and retrieval with a battery and a magnet. Just because some say that magnets cannot store and dispense energy doesn't work with the fact that they can produce work by themselves. And just because we cannot currently extract that energy in a slow/continuous enough process to draw out the fundamental nature of its stored energy doesn't mean that it cannot be done and still be within the "laws" that we all believe in now.
"but with gravity energy cannot be created, only destroyed."
So where are your laws of conservation now?
FTA:
"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
Sincerely,
Ron"
"Lenz's law simply states that, like Newton's law of an "equal and opposite reaction," there's an opposing force counter-acting the force in play. It's like the opposite reaction of an astronaut falling towards a planet: inertia. Neither force is created, nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Idiot troll"
So how hard were these laws faught before it was the common standard taught to us?
These laws do not address where forces like magnets and gravity come into play and if they could ever be tapped or not. Just because they haven't been made into laws before doesn't preclude them from ever being added to the established laws as footnotes. If we discover that the magnet like the sun degrades over time because it uses stored energy this would be all common place in a few generations and magnetic generators would be standard. If we learn to tap the constant pull from magnets and use them to create work but at the cost of the magnetic pull over time, this would stay within the "laws" and everybody would be fine with it. You use a resource until it's depleated and no one argues over it and claims that they are the greatest scientific voyer ever and can prove the underpinnings of the universe obey their assumptions and not the theories of others. Until ot was proven imagine someone claiming that they could take a gallon of liquid and move an object 30 miles. The energy stored in gasoline just had an easier method of extraction and left a more altered residual. Now take a rechargable battery in the tesla raodster that can move a vehicle a couple hundred miles and doesn't leave an empty tank, but a depleted battery that can be recharged with invisible electrons and go again without adding an observable amount of mass. This is no fantasy of the loose minded but a natural extension of the valid science applied in the persuit of extracting energy from material properties and interactions, fusion, nuculear reactions, charged states, magnetism. Just because we understand some part of our environment doesn't mean that we know the rules of the whole game. Black holes that have been discovered still don't follow the rules of thermodynamics since they absorb energy and do not release it in the same amount unless you count gravity as energy, which it that case you can't say that gravity will never let us convert it back to energy that we can use. The "Laws" don't address the one way principle that people like to use against these kinds of ideas to dismiss them. And just because poeple haven't done something before should be no excuse why some shouldn't try. Remember that every major scientific advancement was not done in the past, but the present for the experimenter. Before it was known and accepted. Not after everybody thought it was allowed.
The standard is already being set by the people. Physical and electronic records verifiable by open process and contained in a completely sealed box with tamper detection.
"But there has been no solution to this short of raising prices and charging users more so the isp can afford additional bandwidth."
Or perhaps the ISPs could not make record profits and send CEOs to resorts with multimillion dollar bonuses and instead spend some money on the infrastructure that supports their business model. You know, to be in business tomorrow.
Just a thought.
Try playing back a live stream with a 10 min lag. Even with a looped tape you cannot then fast forward or rewind to catch up with the live stream or go back to the beginning of the show. That's the multitasking of a DVR.
Double deck or million deck it's impossible with tape.
Try it.
With a dual head machine how can you be watching a live stream and hit a button to pause it and begin recording, wait 30 min and start playback where you paused while still recording the live stream? The problem with any physical device is the transition from recording to playback over a physical medium. If the tape is winding around a core how do you access the beginning of the 30 min you have already recorded while still recording, how do you fast forward the previous playback on that tape while still recording in realtime on that same tape? Even dual tape systems can't pause a live stream and let you skip around, rewinding and fast forwarding at will while still recording that live stream.
And to address any further arguments on this, try it!
With any multi-tape multi-head system, start out by viewing live tv. Pause for 3 min, do whatever you want with any tape/head. Then try and play back that recording with a 3 min lag behind realtime, keeping playing that 3 min lag with realtime for 12 hours without inturruption in viewing or recording. You should have been able to watch a 12hr marathon uninturrupted and have a 12hr recording without any breaks in the stream.
Can you do it? Didn't think so. Even the simple playback of live tv with a 3 min lag is impossible for a VCR to do.
Could you watch a live stream and then pause it while continuing to record the live signal and resume playback while still recording and skip sections such as commercials until you caught back up with the live stream?
I think not.
Instant replay was a VCR that was on site, not consumer controllable. Big difference in the device. YOU could not rewind and replay live tv and neither could they. On site, it was a camera signal to VCR. Not until it left the broadcast station was it TV. And after that you had no control other than to turn the channel.
Again, someone missing the point about VCRs.
Could you record one program and watch another previously recorded program at the same time? Could you pause a live signal and keep recording while you answered the phone or went to the bathroom?
That's the main difference between a DVR and a VCR. Multitasking recording and playback at the same time, not just passing through the signal for realtime viewing while recording something else.
I think you missed the point.
The "watching one program" part of DVRs is not just passing through a signal that the tv then displayed. It is the timewarping method of being able to record a program to the device and watch another previously recorded program from that same device at the same time.
VCR single tasking != DVR multitasking
Very good point.
The other side of the coin is even here on slashdot.
At the bottom of the page it says:
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc."
The part about "Comments are owned by the Poster." is interesting since if the poster later wants the comment removed it puts forums in a difficult place. Either they remove it, at the request of the owner since they own it or if they refuse then they take responsibility for showing all the other posts as well. There's a reason that forums put that there. This wouldn't apply to others posting about you but if you had some dumbass comments that you would rather be forgotten, this company could put some pressure on the forums in this manner.
Holly crap!
FTA:
"Let's be very clear," Paoli said. "It has been fostered by a single company -- IBM. If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."
Business as usual? With all the corruption we've seen on the process, business as usual seems kinda sucky for the people when left in the hands of Microsoft.
I would go so far as to say that IBM actually used the proper cahnnels for these efforts as well. I would also like to point out that Microsoft did these exact same things and more.
Voting for or against something is actually the important part of holding a vote.
Lobbying national bodies is the standard for attempting to have your products considered.
Both Microsoft and IBM did these things, so why is Microsoft whining about them when they stepped over some lines on this subject and IBM didn't.
Uh, no.
"In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."
notice the "false claim" and "implied to be factual" parts.
even the law websites out there classify libel as: "A false and defamatory statement concerning another." Notice again the "false" part.
Couldn't they just obfuscate the file on the ipod during the file transfer? The same way that apple does with itunes. Third party utilities have been out for a long time addressing this since the songs weren't meant to be accessable for retrieval once they were transfered to the ipod without itunes letting them. As long as the ipod can play the file they are ok.
Adding a piece of software to run on the ipod seems like the most obvious method of doing this since it would allow access to the file by the firmware but prevent retrieval and copying from the device without the ad supporting softwares approval. The two pieces, one on the computer to display ads and download -> transfer to the ipod, and the ipod add-on to enable the altered file to play back. The ipod add on could also update an ad database when connected and display them as album art during playback for more exposure.
And it's not even a close call issue in any grey area. it's flat out threats and slander.
FTA:
"According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit, entitled "Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said.
The plaintiff, a respected Stanford University graduate identified only as "Doe I" in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became more menacing.
Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator, the court papers said."
Law Students? Anyone hiring these people needs to seriously check their own ethics.
I think that was the argument presented by the parent poster. That because the C&D letter is part of Due Process, making it private and not public they were violating the due process openness.
The ignoring of a C&D letter is only an issue if the actions come out in court to be supported as illegal. Like if they were actually infringing on the rights of another. If they weren't infringing, then ignoring the C&D letter had no meaning. The publishing of the letter should have no consequence if it is within the legal rights of the sender to defend their property.
Some final thoughts:
How do these rulings effect the rights of the person showing the letter to their lawyer or asking for comment by other parties concerned with the compliance of the letter?
If it's copyrighted, can they link to a public copy of the document if they file it with a court? Some courts allow viewing of documents online as a matter of public record unless it is sealed.
That kinda talk just got you on the DHS watchlist buddy.
Remember remember the... (CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION)
The state of reason.
(Sorry, just had to.)
Good points. But to play devils advocate to some people out there, why shouldn't they?
Insurance companies already ask if you drink and the frequency. This sounds kinda valid since it obviously increases the risk to their policy. Health insurance asks for physical records and habits since the choice to drink also increases your own health risks.