Og course, the Segway is probably better engineered, since Clive Sinclair was better at the basic concepts than ensuring good build quality. The main problem with both is that people feel a bit self concious driving them.
Really the best way to make money from something like this is to come up with as many clever ideas as possible to make it work, patent them, and hope to recoup the loss of a failed vehicle through licencing the components.
TV shows I've downloaded range from good quality SVCD recodes of a signal nabbed straight from the setallite wildfeed, to poor quality low bitrate Divx files produced from VHS with poor sound quality and station identifiers obscuring the screen.
Presumably a DVD is the same. You can't determine which sort you'll get until you buy it. As it is, the cost is so small that most people wouldn't have minded if it was a cmacorder job.
True. There's only so much data you can get to a graphics card in a given amount of time. Add to this the fact that most cards now do T&L onboard, the CPU is reduced to a blitter. Physics and AI do require a lot of CPU juice, but these are targetted
A lot of the other tasks that require processor power might do better with two slower processors than one fast one.
In 1981, there was plenty of scope for a rival on with MS-DOS compatibility, as well as direct competition for the IBM PC from Apple, amongst others.
If Microsoft had been less competitive back then, or their competitors moreso, we may have seen IBM or Apple have a monopoly. They certainly didn't have the power to push competitors out of the market until they introduced Windows.
I'm not so sure there is a great principle involved here. The OS is a component just like any other. It would be just as hard to get a laptop without the screen (Screen manufacturers also make most money from new PCs). They probably could offer it without Windows, or without a screen, but so few people want it that way that they don't bother selling it. Sure, there's more choice with screens, the lack of competition for Windows is the fault of the market more than anything else. MS didn't always have a monopoly. The market gave it to them.
It's a shame that they don't sell it without Windows, but there's no law that says you can't modify the complete unit by removing the OS. Hell, if you do this, the warantee on the hardware is still valid, which is more than you can say if you replace any other component.
Yep. If I expect security, I'll damn well use a cable. I'll probably rely on the cryptographic security actually, but if you want to try and break it, then I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and have you arrested.
The number of people who can broadcast on a spectrum is limited. The number of people who can receive the signal is not limited. Therefore, it's unethical to prevent me from receiving it. If more people use their product, it doesn't cost them any more. They're creating artificial scarcity.
Obviously, this would scupper their business model, but before satellite television, they didn't have this business model in the first place. They are not automatically morally entitled to make money. If they don't want it, then the same spectrum can be sold to someone else who is willing to allow everyone to share.
This method has worked perfectly well for terrestrial transmissions. Why should it not work just as well for other spectra?
So, they send the information to my home, without my permission. It bounces around my dish, causing interference, and then they have the audacity to say that I'm not allowed to apply mathematical operations on this noise!?
If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?
Buying political influence is a lot harder in the UK due to restrictions on political donations. Of course, a well funded organisation can make more noise generally, and can spend more time simply getting their point across.
TOTP is really just a symptom of the main problem that also affects radio stations - Who decides whether a new release gets radio play?
How about a restriction, simply applying any extensions only to new works. This prevents any selfish profiteering since no change to the law would have any effect for about 70 years. Any corporation genuinely feels that they have a right to their work in 96 years time or an artist who feels entitled to copyright 71 years after he dies is probably motivated by more than self interest.
As far as I can tell (it's harder to find information on than US law) EU copyright law is life+70, or publication+70 years for anonymous works. I think works for hire are still based on the life of the individual who created them.
Logically, for harmonisation, US law should be the same. Disney might actually back this. Mickey Mouse would stay in copyright for 70 years after Walt Disney's death.
Actually, that's something I meant to mention. From my point of view, they're a telephone company! They make money selling a telephone service, and the information was supplied for this purpose.
It's all about whether they can sell customer's account information.
They may not be able to target me directly, and don't have all the information about me, but how does that stop them from saying what they want to say?
This is like saying that laws against stealing blank paper are a violation of freedom of speech because they prevent me from printing.
I'm all in favour of Nike winning this. I feel my "All emnployees of Nike are rapists and murderers" advertising campaign will be a huge success.
But seriously, most of the few exisiting restrictions on freedom of speech cover freedom of honest speech. The classic example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of dishonesty, so is libel and so is truth in advertising
Personally, I think the only solution to London's overcrowding would be to reduce the number of people in London.
How is this different from the work of others?
on
Going Cyberpunk
·
· Score: 1
I believe Kevin Reading at the University of Warwick started with a similar chip. While this was perceived by many to be a publicity stunt, others pointed out that it could be the first step towards improved quality prosthetics.
My understanding is that this chip has recently been upgraded, such that he bcan not only turn on the light in his study, but can also use this to control his TV. The main purpose though is to allow him to send neural messages.
Of course, I personally am critical of this device. Parts of it are trivial, and it's a debasement of science, but the ability to fire lasers out of his eyes sounds downrightr dangerous, even if these are only low power beams. They could still be used to blind someone.
After all, the RIAA and MPAA can probably outspend the IEEE by about 500 to one or more.
Don't be so sure.
The IEEE not only has a large number of fairly wealthy engineers, but it also has some very wealthy corporate members such as Intel, and the rest of the semiconductor industry. Chips are in everything. I know I have a few in my car, all my media and computer equipment, my mobile phone, my cordless answerphone, my watch, and my credit card. These people don't want to have to spend money on adding a chips to prevent piracy. Especially when they know it isn't going to work.
She's not out to settle. She's out to make a point. That software licences non-legal.
It's unlikely that she bought the software without knowing it had a license. Most of us would have ignored it. She went to the effort rejecting it and asking for her money back. She was probably 99% sure that this is what would happen, but she had to do it to prove that the licence terms were not being upheld.
People out to prove something on principle are extremely expensive to buy off. Not impossible. Most people will cave given enough money. But what will that buy the software industry? Someone else can then try the same thing. They can't buy everyone off.
Given that free software tends to be able to run on more efficient 64 bits architectures
Well, I'd rather just upgrade my memory than my entire system. I don't need the speed of a 64 bit architecture, but for many apps, lots of memory is nice.
Selling free code - as in free software - is highly encouraged by the Free Software Foundation. The GPL gives me permission to sell you a copy of the application for any price I like. I could sell you the Linux Kernel for $1000 if you were willing to pay for it. I just can't stop you from making copies and selling them.
Slashdot Mirror
The Isle of Man is technically not part of the UK, IIRC. It's a constitutional oddity, similar to the Channel Islands.
It even has its own tld (.im)
This costs several times the price though.
Og course, the Segway is probably better engineered, since Clive Sinclair was better at the basic concepts than ensuring good build quality. The main problem with both is that people feel a bit self concious driving them.
Really the best way to make money from something like this is to come up with as many clever ideas as possible to make it work, patent them, and hope to recoup the loss of a failed vehicle through licencing the components.
Bootlegs have unpredictable quality.
TV shows I've downloaded range from good quality SVCD recodes of a signal nabbed straight from the setallite wildfeed, to poor quality low bitrate Divx files produced from VHS with poor sound quality and station identifiers obscuring the screen.
Presumably a DVD is the same. You can't determine which sort you'll get until you buy it. As it is, the cost is so small that most people wouldn't have minded if it was a cmacorder job.
I think Taco and Hemos had a fight. They're ignoring each other now, and refusing to read each others posts.
True. There's only so much data you can get to a graphics card in a given amount of time. Add to this the fact that most cards now do T&L onboard, the CPU is reduced to a blitter. Physics and AI do require a lot of CPU juice, but these are targetted
A lot of the other tasks that require processor power might do better with two slower processors than one fast one.
In 1981, there was plenty of scope for a rival on with MS-DOS compatibility, as well as direct competition for the IBM PC from Apple, amongst others.
If Microsoft had been less competitive back then, or their competitors moreso, we may have seen IBM or Apple have a monopoly. They certainly didn't have the power to push competitors out of the market until they introduced Windows.
I'm not so sure there is a great principle involved here. The OS is a component just like any other. It would be just as hard to get a laptop without the screen (Screen manufacturers also make most money from new PCs). They probably could offer it without Windows, or without a screen, but so few people want it that way that they don't bother selling it. Sure, there's more choice with screens, the lack of competition for Windows is the fault of the market more than anything else. MS didn't always have a monopoly. The market gave it to them.
It's a shame that they don't sell it without Windows, but there's no law that says you can't modify the complete unit by removing the OS. Hell, if you do this, the warantee on the hardware is still valid, which is more than you can say if you replace any other component.
Phillips starts a tenuous DMCA lawsuit against the reverse engineers
Yep. If I expect security, I'll damn well use a cable. I'll probably rely on the cryptographic security actually, but if you want to try and break it, then I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and have you arrested.
The number of people who can broadcast on a spectrum is limited. The number of people who can receive the signal is not limited. Therefore, it's unethical to prevent me from receiving it. If more people use their product, it doesn't cost them any more. They're creating artificial scarcity.
Obviously, this would scupper their business model, but before satellite television, they didn't have this business model in the first place. They are not automatically morally entitled to make money. If they don't want it, then the same spectrum can be sold to someone else who is willing to allow everyone to share.
This method has worked perfectly well for terrestrial transmissions. Why should it not work just as well for other spectra?
So, they send the information to my home, without my permission. It bounces around my dish, causing interference, and then they have the audacity to say that I'm not allowed to apply mathematical operations on this noise!?
If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?
Buying political influence is a lot harder in the UK due to restrictions on political donations. Of course, a well funded organisation can make more noise generally, and can spend more time simply getting their point across.
TOTP is really just a symptom of the main problem that also affects radio stations - Who decides whether a new release gets radio play?
How about a restriction, simply applying any extensions only to new works. This prevents any selfish profiteering since no change to the law would have any effect for about 70 years. Any corporation genuinely feels that they have a right to their work in 96 years time or an artist who feels entitled to copyright 71 years after he dies is probably motivated by more than self interest.
As far as I can tell (it's harder to find information on than US law) EU copyright law is life+70, or publication+70 years for anonymous works. I think works for hire are still based on the life of the individual who created them.
Logically, for harmonisation, US law should be the same. Disney might actually back this. Mickey Mouse would stay in copyright for 70 years after Walt Disney's death.
Actually, that's something I meant to mention. From my point of view, they're a telephone company! They make money selling a telephone service, and the information was supplied for this purpose.
It's all about whether they can sell customer's account information.
They may not be able to target me directly, and don't have all the information about me, but how does that stop them from saying what they want to say?
This is like saying that laws against stealing blank paper are a violation of freedom of speech because they prevent me from printing.
I'm all in favour of Nike winning this. I feel my "All emnployees of Nike are rapists and murderers" advertising campaign will be a huge success.
But seriously, most of the few exisiting restrictions on freedom of speech cover freedom of honest speech. The classic example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of dishonesty, so is libel and so is truth in advertising
Yes. That would be a good idea.
Personally, I think the only solution to London's overcrowding would be to reduce the number of people in London.
I believe Kevin Reading at the University of Warwick started with a similar chip. While this was perceived by many to be a publicity stunt, others pointed out that it could be the first step towards improved quality prosthetics.
My understanding is that this chip has recently been upgraded, such that he bcan not only turn on the light in his study, but can also use this to control his TV. The main purpose though is to allow him to send neural messages.
Of course, I personally am critical of this device. Parts of it are trivial, and it's a debasement of science, but the ability to fire lasers out of his eyes sounds downrightr dangerous, even if these are only low power beams. They could still be used to blind someone.
After all, the RIAA and MPAA can probably outspend the IEEE by about 500 to one or more.
Don't be so sure.
The IEEE not only has a large number of fairly wealthy engineers, but it also has some very wealthy corporate members such as Intel, and the rest of the semiconductor industry. Chips are in everything. I know I have a few in my car, all my media and computer equipment, my mobile phone, my cordless answerphone, my watch, and my credit card. These people don't want to have to spend money on adding a chips to prevent piracy. Especially when they know it isn't going to work.
Yes.
Okay, I'll be less glib. You are allowed to make temporary copies of segments of data on the disc for the purpose of legal usage (e.g. watching it)
In principle, they would only be obligated to refund you for the entire purchase.
She's not out to settle. She's out to make a point. That software licences non-legal.
It's unlikely that she bought the software without knowing it had a license. Most of us would have ignored it. She went to the effort rejecting it and asking for her money back. She was probably 99% sure that this is what would happen, but she had to do it to prove that the licence terms were not being upheld.
People out to prove something on principle are extremely expensive to buy off. Not impossible. Most people will cave given enough money. But what will that buy the software industry? Someone else can then try the same thing. They can't buy everyone off.
Given that free software tends to be able to run on more efficient 64 bits architectures
Well, I'd rather just upgrade my memory than my entire system. I don't need the speed of a 64 bit architecture, but for many apps, lots of memory is nice.
Nitpick:
Selling free code - as in free software - is highly encouraged by the Free Software Foundation. The GPL gives me permission to sell you a copy of the application for any price I like. I could sell you the Linux Kernel for $1000 if you were willing to pay for it. I just can't stop you from making copies and selling them.