We already have "interoperability" exemptions to copyright. This is an ideal example of why they were put in. User demand for a specific version of the product which the original maker refuses to support.
Thank you for correcting me! I only verified her claim not the larger claim of inventing the term, I should know better!/. please bury my original comment!
The weight of your average rat is about 1/4kg which would mean 0.25 watts @ 1watt/kg and 2.5 watts @ 10watts/kg involved in the study. The 20 watts/kg is the FCC limit, not the exposure levels used in the study.
SpaceX was started that way, it's profitability now comes from the average $72 million dollar fee for launching a rocket (17 last year).
SolarCity started that way, it's technically losing money right now due to leasing but that is ending and going to a direct sales model so it will become profitable quickly. It also generates large amounts of cash from the leasing while providing depreciation on the panels they've leased - after about 10-12 years those leases become pure profit for them. The long term outlook is very good and free of subsidies.
You call it cronyism, I call it governments investing in the future. He's reduced the costs dramatically - on rocket launches alone he's saved the US Air Force over $325 million PER LAUNCH. That's massive. If he can do the same for boring tunnels - you're looking at cheaper subways, hyperloops, easier deployment of broadband, etc. He's done more for the public good than 99% of the cronies that look to exploit the government.
Not irrelevant but CIRA (Canada's registry) did the same sort of thing a long time ago and it works just fine. Just saves people from having to pay stupid fees for privacy protection.
Those were hooked up to large propane tanks. If you look the canister that sits on top of the rifle is absent in the video and they're hiding the fact that the hoses are detached. Likely just to make it easier to shoot the advertising.
The actual canister appears to be your standard 1lbs BernzOmatic propane cylinder painted black.
- He sold his first investment to Compaq for $22mil
- his second company merged with what is now known as PayPal which he made $165mil from
- SpaceX sits just above profitability on over $1 billion in revenues
- SolarCity used a capital heavy model to lease panels so they will provide ongoing tax/cash benefits to Tesla long into the future (and are now switching to a non-lease model to increase short term profitability/decrease capital outlay)
Telsa is about the only struggle going on and entirely related to the Gigafactory's inability to mass produce batteries. There's part of the process that they're having to do manually while they fix the automation problems and that's dragging things down/costing the company a lot of money.
The Boring Company/OpenAI/Neurolinks/Hyperloop are pet projects that may lead to something in the future but they're research on a small scale compared to the rest the companies he's involved with.
Exactly right - but now he's got $9 million in profits to put towards solving the Model 3 production problems or funding the research on whatever else is actually important.
He's not going to sell them anywhere he's not allowed. This is a publicity stunt to get government procurement attention around the world and make a quick buck. The actual flame throwers he's selling are actually more of a blow torch... they only go 5' at most (more like 2-3') and don't have a concentrated stream/lasting liquid that continues to burn. You can already buy $900 ones that go 25' or $1600 ones that go 50' from other companies that are far more harmful. What he's done is sell something a farmer might use to clear brush, a fire department might use for controlled buns... but mostly for people to buy to make dumb youtube videos and then put it on a shelf.
You could probably do more damage with a culinary butane torch that you can pick up at your local walmart.
Yes, and they aren't trying to hide that fact. They aren't making the claim that any exposure level is carcinogenic. What they've done though is *possibly* shown that it has the potential to be carcinogenic in large enough exposure levels. Further research will need to be done, first to replicate their results, then to see if any sort of pattern in terms of exposure length vs exposure amount vs frequency of exposure, etc. can be determined for safe exposure levels.
It's like saying UV radiation isn't carcinogenic because you went out in the sun. The level of exposure, duration, etc. contribute to the likelihood of developing melanoma. Without testing where those boundaries are or even if there are such boundaries, you can't know what reasonably safe levels of exposure there are.
Entirely possible - however in this case highly unlikely. The reason that line exists at all is because with scripting you *need* the ability to load images off screen. A basic animation that you don't want something as heavy as video or a canvas element is done that way. Something simple, like loading a logo with negative values so that it starts off screen and gradually makes it's way on screen. That's an expected function and there's no reason any developer should think they can't do that in a browser.
The simple answer is that they'll make it opt-in so that the developer controls it and the user can override it but the user will have to expect some things will break if they do.
An img element has a current request and a pending request. The current request is initially set to a new image request. The pending request is initially set to null. The current request is usually referred to as the img element itself.... In a browsing context where scripting is disabled, user agents may obtain images immediately or on demand. In a browsing context where scripting is enabled, user agents must obtain images immediately.
The Sahara naturally floods with salt water as the Earth's wobble moves it away from the sun. You can actually find whale bones there because it becomes an ideal calving area for them.
This happens about every 20,000 years naturally. However, what you're missing is what would happen if you did that today. Because we're on the opposite end of the cycle (Earth's wobble has the Sahara closer to the sun) you'd get huge amounts of evaporation. This would intensify storms hitting North America and likely increase their frequency.
Allowing opt-in by the user to override the default is completely fine. The browser complies with the user's preferences which fits with the User>Developer>Browser paradigm. The way the proposal is setup is that it would be opt-out, ie: break the standard in favour of speed
I actually talked with one of the people who are proposing this and he agreed that it does break the standard. His view was that the standard could be rewritten to accommodate it or the proposal could be changed to opt-in, which would allow developers or users to decide which elements were lazy loaded. I think he's underestimating how much it would break to make it work with the standard. Since there are no downsides to an opt-in system that's probably where it'll end up.
As posted before, you need to continue reading the paragraph, click on the link where you'll find the "not required" means quirks mode/non-standard compliant user agents can do whatever they want but a standards compliant one must follow the rendering specified in the standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way just move the server/code to Canada.
We already have "interoperability" exemptions to copyright. This is an ideal example of why they were put in. User demand for a specific version of the product which the original maker refuses to support.
There's also a reference to "Open Source File" in 1993's BYTE magazine but it's unclear what it's referencing.
Thank you for correcting me! I only verified her claim not the larger claim of inventing the term, I should know better! /. please bury my original comment!
If there's documentation of this out there link it! Better to get it straight now before it all gets lost to time.
It was a certification mark originally
For anyone who has any doubt about this claim:
Here's the truth: https://web.archive.org/web/19...
We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. `Open source', contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.
The weight of your average rat is about 1/4kg which would mean 0.25 watts @ 1watt/kg and 2.5 watts @ 10watts/kg involved in the study. The 20 watts/kg is the FCC limit, not the exposure levels used in the study.
SpaceX was started that way, it's profitability now comes from the average $72 million dollar fee for launching a rocket (17 last year).
SolarCity started that way, it's technically losing money right now due to leasing but that is ending and going to a direct sales model so it will become profitable quickly. It also generates large amounts of cash from the leasing while providing depreciation on the panels they've leased - after about 10-12 years those leases become pure profit for them. The long term outlook is very good and free of subsidies.
You call it cronyism, I call it governments investing in the future. He's reduced the costs dramatically - on rocket launches alone he's saved the US Air Force over $325 million PER LAUNCH. That's massive. If he can do the same for boring tunnels - you're looking at cheaper subways, hyperloops, easier deployment of broadband, etc. He's done more for the public good than 99% of the cronies that look to exploit the government.
Not irrelevant but CIRA (Canada's registry) did the same sort of thing a long time ago and it works just fine. Just saves people from having to pay stupid fees for privacy protection.
Those were hooked up to large propane tanks. If you look the canister that sits on top of the rifle is absent in the video and they're hiding the fact that the hoses are detached. Likely just to make it easier to shoot the advertising.
The actual canister appears to be your standard 1lbs BernzOmatic propane cylinder painted black.
Business failures?
- He sold his first investment to Compaq for $22mil
- his second company merged with what is now known as PayPal which he made $165mil from
- SpaceX sits just above profitability on over $1 billion in revenues
- SolarCity used a capital heavy model to lease panels so they will provide ongoing tax/cash benefits to Tesla long into the future (and are now switching to a non-lease model to increase short term profitability/decrease capital outlay)
Telsa is about the only struggle going on and entirely related to the Gigafactory's inability to mass produce batteries. There's part of the process that they're having to do manually while they fix the automation problems and that's dragging things down/costing the company a lot of money.
The Boring Company/OpenAI/Neurolinks/Hyperloop are pet projects that may lead to something in the future but they're research on a small scale compared to the rest the companies he's involved with.
Seems pretty successful to me.
Exactly right - but now he's got $9 million in profits to put towards solving the Model 3 production problems or funding the research on whatever else is actually important.
In some ways that might not be a bad thing: http://my.lpg-apps.org/uploads...
They've got all sorts of warnings/etc. on appropriate use. In the end though, what he's really sold is a very expensive weed torch.
Seriously.
It's just this sort of thing (bought at any walmart/hardware store): https://images-na.ssl-images-a...
Put into this Airsoft battle rifle: https://www.evike.com/images/l...
He's not going to sell them anywhere he's not allowed. This is a publicity stunt to get government procurement attention around the world and make a quick buck. The actual flame throwers he's selling are actually more of a blow torch... they only go 5' at most (more like 2-3') and don't have a concentrated stream/lasting liquid that continues to burn. You can already buy $900 ones that go 25' or $1600 ones that go 50' from other companies that are far more harmful. What he's done is sell something a farmer might use to clear brush, a fire department might use for controlled buns... but mostly for people to buy to make dumb youtube videos and then put it on a shelf.
You could probably do more damage with a culinary butane torch that you can pick up at your local walmart.
Hair Dryer - https://globalnews.ca/news/400...
Yes, and they aren't trying to hide that fact. They aren't making the claim that any exposure level is carcinogenic. What they've done though is *possibly* shown that it has the potential to be carcinogenic in large enough exposure levels. Further research will need to be done, first to replicate their results, then to see if any sort of pattern in terms of exposure length vs exposure amount vs frequency of exposure, etc. can be determined for safe exposure levels.
This is how a scientist describes uncertainty.
It's like saying UV radiation isn't carcinogenic because you went out in the sun. The level of exposure, duration, etc. contribute to the likelihood of developing melanoma. Without testing where those boundaries are or even if there are such boundaries, you can't know what reasonably safe levels of exposure there are.
Entirely possible - however in this case highly unlikely. The reason that line exists at all is because with scripting you *need* the ability to load images off screen. A basic animation that you don't want something as heavy as video or a canvas element is done that way. Something simple, like loading a logo with negative values so that it starts off screen and gradually makes it's way on screen. That's an expected function and there's no reason any developer should think they can't do that in a browser.
The simple answer is that they'll make it opt-in so that the developer controls it and the user can override it but the user will have to expect some things will break if they do.
HTML5 does specify this sort of thing:
An img element has a current request and a pending request. The current request is initially set to a new image request. The pending request is initially set to null. The current request is usually referred to as the img element itself. ...
In a browsing context where scripting is disabled, user agents may obtain images immediately or on demand. In a browsing context where scripting is enabled, user agents must obtain images immediately.
That only applies of scripting is off. If scripting is on (default) it *must* immediately replace (render) the image when it's downloaded.
The Sahara naturally floods with salt water as the Earth's wobble moves it away from the sun. You can actually find whale bones there because it becomes an ideal calving area for them.
This happens about every 20,000 years naturally. However, what you're missing is what would happen if you did that today. Because we're on the opposite end of the cycle (Earth's wobble has the Sahara closer to the sun) you'd get huge amounts of evaporation. This would intensify storms hitting North America and likely increase their frequency.
Allowing opt-in by the user to override the default is completely fine. The browser complies with the user's preferences which fits with the User>Developer>Browser paradigm. The way the proposal is setup is that it would be opt-out, ie: break the standard in favour of speed
I actually talked with one of the people who are proposing this and he agreed that it does break the standard. His view was that the standard could be rewritten to accommodate it or the proposal could be changed to opt-in, which would allow developers or users to decide which elements were lazy loaded. I think he's underestimating how much it would break to make it work with the standard. Since there are no downsides to an opt-in system that's probably where it'll end up.
As posted before, you need to continue reading the paragraph, click on the link where you'll find the "not required" means quirks mode/non-standard compliant user agents can do whatever they want but a standards compliant one must follow the rendering specified in the standard.