Why aren't companies liable for failing to prevent obscene phone calls? How about flyers for adult video stores left on cars in the company parking lot? Are they liable if some moron plants a hidden camera in the women's bathroom?
If it happens persistantly. If there's no way of doing your job without avoiding it. If the company knew about it and could have stopped it. If they chose not to.
in that case, I think it'd apply too. But that's not the issue anyway; the issue is pornography in inboxen that could be prevented with filters, or a no-image policy on the corporate mail system, or any number of other ways.
If someone regularly sent me pornographic photos to my company address - and they weren't writing to me personally, but as an employee, I'd expect the company to help me stop it. If they refuse, I think they'e liable
1)The UK's new and shiny anti-spam legislation will only protect personal inboxes, not those of businesses. This effectively means that workers have not legal protection against inbox pornography
2) Anyone with a corporate email address that's been around for a while is likely to get 90% spam or more, assuming the company doesn't filter their mail. Especially as these are often unmunged on the web.
3) You have to read your email to do your job.
In other words, employees have no choice but to look at porn in order to do their work. In that situation, the primary duty of the company is to care for their employees. My university account gets tonnes of explicit email, some of which (like bestiality) is still sort of illegal in the UK. If I had to read it to do my job, i'd be pretty pissed off.
Long run, I hope companies will try and pass any incurred costs to the spammers themselves via civil action. Hopefully, it'll help unite the business community against spam.
As an idea, these expressways are a fairly good way of transporting humans. They travel at constant speed, so there should be no obvious difference to the traveller, no matter what the speed is. Of course, in reailty we'd experience air resistence; try sticking your head out of the window on a car going at 70mph. but there may be some way of reducing this in enclosed tunnels, like blowing air at the same velocity as the floor is moving.
In Asimov's vision (I think), the different-speed strips were parallel to each other, not serial like this French version. This meant that you's step to the side to go onto a faster strip, and keep going until you hit the fastest one, which could be several hundred miles an hour. As the differential in speed between the strip you are on and those near is never more than about 1mph, you won't do yourself any serious damage by falling over. see diagram:
---->---7mph->--
---->---8mph->--
---->---9mph->--
etc.
This structure makes them easier to 'network'. The only danger, I suppose, is if a strip breaks then the speed-differential between it and then next one could be massive.
I suppose any serious implementation would use some kind of semiconductor thang to decrease friction, and on a wide scale could be very energy efficient. These things are probably more useful to society than a Segway, but you'd have to design a city around them from the ground up, so I doubt they'll change the way we live just yet.
The 'kids' discworld book is "The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents", a psuedo-pied piper story. TThis one, "the Last Hero", is a 'Discword fable', a story rather than a novel, but not for kids, for everybody. Especially as some of the underlying concepts are quite hard to understand
This book is, while different, magic.
Any hardcore discworld fan has seen so many pictures of the disc that they learn to treat and particular illustration as a suggestion, and it's no different here. Nevertheless, the art really brings this particular story to life, with some stunning pictures. Pratchett essentially runs 2 sub-plots in "The Last Hero". The heroes destroying a world that grew up and stopped believing in them inspire real pathos, albeit in a humorous way. On the other hand, the story of the Ankh-Morporker's attempt to save the world is one of exploration and generally much lighter. Both are woven together to create an end that doesn't make you think but makes you sigh. A must for Discworld fans
one more step towards total integration
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In the last 2-3 years or so, all our lines are becoming blurred, and it't useful just to stop and look at how much has changed so quickly.
Just 7 years ago very few people had a moblie phone, they were huge bricks with a battery life of 20 minutes. The digital camera was unheard of, the internet was just entering the mainstream (everyone said it would never catch on), and nobody had a CD writer.
Now we all have our digicam-watches, TiVos, DVD/TV/sound system players/recorders, Internet fridges (order food online as you use it), and miblie phones that can do pretty much enything you want except act as a sextoy [watch this space!].
The boundries between different technologies are becoming nonexistent. Different technologies are more cross-compatible. We are rapidly acheiving a situation where everything can talk to everything else.
As this trend increases, the total personal device (phone/pc/watch/camera/whatever) will evolve. It will do everything, go everywhere with you. It will interact with all the other devices in your life, making things easier and more personal. The electronic walls will change shade as you go into a public buliding, billboards will only advertise things you want. It'll be a better world.
These phones are a step in that direction. Which is, IMHO, very cool.
It's a pity that the anonymizers are dying. There are a whole number of pressures on them:
* The dryup in advertising revenue. A lot of these site's revenue was from the banners they add in on the webpages you viewed using them. The global slowdown has cut all advertising budgets, so they lose out.
* As someone pointed out, the nature of anonymizing sites is that they dont advertise much themselves, so no mass audience.
* A lot of these sites were used in schools and libraries who blocked certain URLS. People used the anonymizers to get round the blocks. However, the sysadmins got wise to this and blocked the major anonymous web services. So much of the key audience is cut out.
It's a pity, though. Next time I want to ogle at goatpr0n at the public library, my trusty safeWeb will be gone.
The Chandrasekhar limit is the mass over which a star's gravity can overcome electron degeneracy pressure. This pressure is a consequence of the exclusion principle, caused when electron waveforms are restricted.
Any star greater than the limit, originally 1.4 suns (later recalculated to 1.2 suns), will collapse past white Dwarf stage to a SuperNova. What happens then depends again on the mass of the star, but that is not the Chandrasekhar Limit.
Since the Crusoe launch, the one of the most important things for notebooks is power consumption. While the Intel chips are hogs for power/waste heat, the Transmeta chips run cooler, albeit on a totally different archetecture.
Where are these new AMD chips compared to the above lot? Between the 2? The same as Intel?
From my POV, a laptop that can compile a piece of code in 5 minutes instead of 10 is of limited use if the battery dies after 30 seconds
There is a big issue about how the first cells formed. And this does nothing whatsoever to help it.
In fact, it all sounds a bit flukey to me. Microbes evolve on Mars, hitch a lift to earth, love it here and thrive and become higher life until Slashdotters are born. Over on Mars, meanwhile, everything goes pearshaped, they don't become multicellular and the planet dies.
Surely, Microbes evolving on Earth, with all the right conditons for sustinance of Carbon-based life, is more likely. Why do scientists feel the need to deliberatley complicate matters?
Why SuSe 7? It clearly doesn't deserve a full release number. Answer: RedHat 7. There ares still people out there who think all version numbers are on an absolute scale, and JoeBlox Linux version 8 will be newer/more up-to-date than Suse 6.5. Better to go for a number that sounds like its 'keeping up' with RedHat.
If Napster had the RIAA wetting itself, these new developments probably mean they need to buy new underwear.
The whole "Shutting down Napster" thing is something of a Red Herring. Allow me to pose a few questions and you will see why.
1)How much money per album/single do bands get? 2)How much does it cost to record an album? 3)How much do record companies make from an album/single? 4) What, in fact, are record companies for?
Bands get very little money per CD sold. Rolayties rarely run to as much as £1 (US$1.50). Recording is expensive, but not prohibitivly so. The biggest bar-to-entry into the music industry is getting signed by a company. Why? Because record labels do the distribution and the promotion. They also get most of the money. If you don't have a label, you have to be <b>very</b> lucky.
OK, now picture a new scenario. I record my songs for £1000 (US$1500). I sign up to an online distributer. They sell my songs for download for 35p (50c). I get 90% of that, £3.80 (US$5.40 ) for a 12-track album. I'm richer, the service is richer, the consumer is richer, the record company loses.
That is, perhaps, the future of music. The RIAA is scared that it will be cut out as the middleman. If a service come about where performers could sell direct to the public, it is bound to be a hit. I'm sure many of the big-boys would swich to it, were it not for their slave-contracts with the record companies.
The system would require separate uploader (artist)and downloader (customer) registration, but I'm sure it's the way forward. The RIAA know this, and want in on it. That is why they will persue their competitors, like Napster. THey want to be the only companies capable of offereing ths service, to keep tying bands into their contracts at less favourable terms.
Will it work? I think so, unfortunatly. The commercialzation of the Inernat may be inevitable, but we don't have to like it.
If I own a song, and so does my friend, I can persumably give him a copy legally.
If he loses his CD, or scratches it to CD hell, does he still own the copyright? Can I give him a tape of the CD he bought leagally?
And what if he breaks his CD and then sells it? Does the buyer have the right to obtain from a mate the a copy of the working version? And does the seller have to destroy any copies he has made for himself? He certainly can't sell them on!
Can anyone see where I'm going here? If I go out and buy a bunch of fubarred CDs for a penny, I can legally download all the MP3 tracks from them.
What implications does this have?Well now I actually come to write it down, very few. But it does illustrate the gray area copyright is. But stealing is still stealing.
When it somes to it, 98% of Napster users were stealing. As pointed out in the body, the Judge didn't order the Napster service to stop, only that it isn't "abused" (although would you call illegal mp3 trading on Napser abuse?).
In light of this, how can we critisise the Judge's desision. The Law is the Law, and its a Judge's job to uphold it.
I mourn Napster's death, and will miss my 3-a-daydownloads. But I never let myself think it was anything other than stealing.
Ignoring the pun, minaturization is a big issue(groans etc...).
Many of the above suggestions for an alternative input device rely on a touch-screen keyboard or something of that ilk. This is, IMHO, entirely the wrong way to go. Although these devices would be less deep than a keyboard, they would still take up the same area. This does not allow much scope for minaturization. It kind of defeats the object.
For various reasons, voice recognition will not be a practical solution for a long time. Nintendo are not releasing the Voice-controlled Pikachu game in the UK because they can't handle the accent range. One day, maybe voice control will be the norm. But not today.
What I propose is an entirely new manual input method. The Keyboard layout we know and love was desinged to SLOW typing, to stop typewriters getting jammed when the letters hit each other. Its time we rethought the keyboard from the ground up.
Phonetic keyboards (like they use in coartrooms) get by with very few keys, because they are designed to be used fast. They use simultaneous keypresses to allow fast, efficient typing.
Why do we not employ a varient for keypboards, especially for those of palmtops. Handholds, 2 buttons for each finger, tracking device for the thumbs? The system would not be entirely phonetic (we need to spell words sometimes), and it would enable massive minaturization of the palmtop.
Sure it would mean retraining everybody, but it would be worth it. It's a brave New World we have the chance to make, one without keyboards.
Under UK law, you can't register your name as a Trademark. The test case, a few years back, was when the Presley Estate tried to sue a small memerobelia shop called "Elvisly Yours". They lost, on the grounds that "Elvis Presely" cannot be a trademark.
OTOH, the estate of Princess Diana did manage to get her name registered, but I think they used some way round the standard law. Something to do with a "seal of approval" using her name.
If you do want to protect your name, the best thing to do is to set up a company named after you. This should also protect the domain name better than just being called that name. Even this is frought(sp?) with difficulties. Harrods once sued a Mr Harood (I think) for trading under his own name. I don't remember the outcome, though.
A lot of the fuss about cybersquatters seems to hinge around what is a 'legitimate use' for a domain name.
For example, say I wanted to make a fan-pic site of Julia Roberts (not that i have the time or inclination). That would be a fair use of the name, and I doubt she'd be able to win it back. Things get a bit complicated if I'm only holding the domain for ransom, however.
As I understand it, cybersquatting laws in the US are not applicable to individuals, only to companies. This is, AFAIK, technically the case in the UK too. However, I know one author won her name back recently in court.
The company I work for (One of the biggest European online traders) has been cybersqatted like mad. We are sure that people have set up non-trading companies to stop us being able to get the domains back.
The real issue is of the legal status of domain names. I don't see why they shouldn't be a commodity like, say, number plates. Just because I have a number plate on my car with J R0838TS doesn't mean that Julia Roberts has the right to sue me, or win my plate that I paid for. As long as I'm not pretending I'm Julia Roberts (pretty hard considering....) I'm not doing anything wrong.
Now I know the legal status of domain names is contentious anyway, and the Law is effectivly being written by these rulings. It just seems to me that if you didn't buy it, you shouldn't get it.
"This is going to revolutionize the way people think about confining light." Trapping light invites all sorts of intriguing questions, Fink points out. For instance, if you light a candle in a room lined with perfect mirrors, would the room stay illuminated even after the flame is extinguished? You could try putting a cat in a box of perfect mirrors, getting it to blow out the candle, asking it if it's light or not, and working out if it's dead or alive:) Arieh
Slashdot Mirror
Why aren't companies liable for failing to prevent obscene phone calls? How about flyers for adult video stores left on cars in the company parking lot? Are they liable if some moron plants a hidden camera in the women's bathroom?
If it happens persistantly.
If there's no way of doing your job without avoiding it.
If the company knew about it and could have stopped it.
If they chose not to.
in that case, I think it'd apply too. But that's not the issue anyway; the issue is pornography in inboxen that could be prevented with filters, or a no-image policy on the corporate mail system, or any number of other ways.
If someone regularly sent me pornographic photos to my company address - and they weren't writing to me personally, but as an employee, I'd expect the company to help me stop it. If they refuse, I think they'e liable
1)The UK's new and shiny anti-spam legislation will only protect personal inboxes, not those of businesses. This effectively means that workers have not legal protection against inbox pornography
2) Anyone with a corporate email address that's been around for a while is likely to get 90% spam or more, assuming the company doesn't filter their mail. Especially as these are often unmunged on the web.
3) You have to read your email to do your job.
In other words, employees have no choice but to look at porn in order to do their work. In that situation, the primary duty of the company is to care for their employees. My university account gets tonnes of explicit email, some of which (like bestiality) is still sort of illegal in the UK. If I had to read it to do my job, i'd be pretty pissed off.
Long run, I hope companies will try and pass any incurred costs to the spammers themselves via civil action. Hopefully, it'll help unite the business community against spam.
As an idea, these expressways are a fairly good way of transporting humans. They travel at constant speed, so there should be no obvious difference to the traveller, no matter what the speed is. Of course, in reailty we'd experience air resistence; try sticking your head out of the window on a car going at 70mph. but there may be some way of reducing this in enclosed tunnels, like blowing air at the same velocity as the floor is moving.
In Asimov's vision (I think), the different-speed strips were parallel to each other, not serial like this French version. This meant that you's step to the side to go onto a faster strip, and keep going until you hit the fastest one, which could be several hundred miles an hour. As the differential in speed between the strip you are on and those near is never more than about 1mph, you won't do yourself any serious damage by falling over. see diagram:
---->---7mph->--
---->---8mph->--
---->---9mph->--
etc.
This structure makes them easier to 'network'. The only danger, I suppose, is if a strip breaks then the speed-differential between it and then next one could be massive.
I suppose any serious implementation would use some kind of semiconductor thang to decrease friction, and on a wide scale could be very energy efficient. These things are probably more useful to society than a Segway, but you'd have to design a city around them from the ground up, so I doubt they'll change the way we live just yet.
The 'kids' discworld book is "The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents", a psuedo-pied piper story. TThis one, "the Last Hero", is a 'Discword fable', a story rather than a novel, but not for kids, for everybody. Especially as some of the underlying concepts are quite hard to understand
This book is, while different, magic.
Any hardcore discworld fan has seen so many pictures of the disc that they learn to treat and particular illustration as a suggestion, and it's no different here. Nevertheless, the art really brings this particular story to life, with some stunning pictures.
Pratchett essentially runs 2 sub-plots in "The Last Hero". The heroes destroying a world that grew up and stopped believing in them inspire real pathos, albeit in a humorous way. On the other hand, the story of the Ankh-Morporker's attempt to save the world is one of exploration and generally much lighter. Both are woven together to create an end that doesn't make you think but makes you sigh.
A must for Discworld fans
In the last 2-3 years or so, all our lines are becoming blurred, and it't useful just to stop and look at how much has changed so quickly.
Just 7 years ago very few people had a moblie phone, they were huge bricks with a battery life of 20 minutes. The digital camera was unheard of, the internet was just entering the mainstream (everyone said it would never catch on), and nobody had a CD writer.
Now we all have our digicam-watches, TiVos, DVD/TV/sound system players/recorders, Internet fridges (order food online as you use it), and miblie phones that can do pretty much enything you want except act as a sextoy [watch this space!].
The boundries between different technologies are becoming nonexistent. Different technologies are more cross-compatible. We are rapidly acheiving a situation where everything can talk to everything else.
As this trend increases, the total personal device (phone/pc/watch/camera/whatever) will evolve. It will do everything, go everywhere with you. It will interact with all the other devices in your life, making things easier and more personal. The electronic walls will change shade as you go into a public buliding, billboards will only advertise things you want. It'll be a better world.
These phones are a step in that direction. Which is, IMHO, very cool.
* The dryup in advertising revenue. A lot of these site's revenue was from the banners they add in on the webpages you viewed using them. The global slowdown has cut all advertising budgets, so they lose out.
* As someone pointed out, the nature of anonymizing sites is that they dont advertise much themselves, so no mass audience.
* A lot of these sites were used in schools and libraries who blocked certain URLS. People used the anonymizers to get round the blocks. However, the sysadmins got wise to this and blocked the major anonymous web services. So much of the key audience is cut out.
It's a pity, though. Next time I want to ogle at goatpr0n at the public library, my trusty safeWeb will be gone.
The Chandrasekhar limit is the mass over which a star's gravity can overcome electron degeneracy pressure. This pressure is a consequence of the exclusion principle, caused when electron waveforms are restricted.
Any star greater than the limit, originally 1.4 suns (later recalculated to 1.2 suns), will collapse past white Dwarf stage to a SuperNova. What happens then depends again on the mass of the star, but that is not the Chandrasekhar Limit.
Ah, at last. I'll be able to run att those DOS apps that I haven't been able to use since Win95.
If Microsoft themselves can't write a DOS emulatior, it's about time someone else did.
Since the Crusoe launch, the one of the most important things for notebooks is power consumption. While the Intel chips are hogs for power/waste heat, the Transmeta chips run cooler, albeit on a totally different archetecture.
Where are these new AMD chips compared to the above lot? Between the 2? The same as Intel?
From my POV, a laptop that can compile a piece of code in 5 minutes instead of 10 is of limited use if the battery dies after 30 seconds
This idea sounds all well and good, but we are talking about slavery here!
How can we allow poor, innocent bacteria to work our chips for us? What did they do to deserve it?
Remember, we have a responsibility to lover life forms. Don't buy these chips, they are evil.
On a different note, I wonder whether they are resistent to antibiotics. It would be great to destroy someone's hardware by giving it medicine.
There is a big issue about how the first cells formed. And this does nothing whatsoever to help it.
In fact, it all sounds a bit flukey to me. Microbes evolve on Mars, hitch a lift to earth, love it here and thrive and become higher life until Slashdotters are born. Over on Mars, meanwhile, everything goes pearshaped, they don't become multicellular and the planet dies.
Surely, Microbes evolving on Earth, with all the right conditons for sustinance of Carbon-based life, is more likely. Why do scientists feel the need to deliberatley complicate matters?
Why SuSe 7? It clearly doesn't deserve a full release number.
Answer: RedHat 7. There ares still people out there who think all version numbers are on an absolute scale, and JoeBlox Linux version 8 will be newer/more up-to-date than Suse 6.5. Better to go for a number that sounds like its 'keeping up' with RedHat.
If Napster had the RIAA wetting itself, these new developments probably mean they need to buy new underwear.
The whole "Shutting down Napster" thing is something of a Red Herring. Allow me to pose a few questions and you will see why.
1)How much money per album/single do bands get?
2)How much does it cost to record an album?
3)How much do record companies make from an album/single?
4) What, in fact, are record companies for?
Bands get very little money per CD sold. Rolayties rarely run to as much as £1 (US$1.50). Recording is expensive, but not prohibitivly so. The biggest bar-to-entry into the music industry is getting signed by a company. Why? Because record labels do the distribution and the promotion. They also get most of the money. If you don't have a label, you have to be <b>very</b> lucky.
OK, now picture a new scenario. I record my songs for £1000 (US$1500). I sign up to an online distributer. They sell my songs for download for 35p (50c). I get 90% of that, £3.80 (US$5.40
) for a 12-track album. I'm richer, the service is richer, the consumer is richer, the record company loses.
That is, perhaps, the future of music. The RIAA is scared that it will be cut out as the middleman. If a service come about where performers could sell direct to the public, it is bound to be a hit. I'm sure many of the big-boys would swich to it, were it not for their slave-contracts with the record companies.
The system would require separate uploader (artist)and downloader (customer) registration, but I'm sure it's the way forward. The RIAA know this, and want in on it. That is why they will persue their competitors, like Napster. THey want to be the only companies capable of offereing ths service, to keep tying bands into their contracts at less favourable terms.
Will it work? I think so, unfortunatly. The commercialzation of the Inernat may be inevitable, but we don't have to like it.
What's to stop me setting up a Napster-like sefver in Iraq?
If I own a song, and so does my friend, I can persumably give him a copy legally.
If he loses his CD, or scratches it to CD hell, does he still own the copyright? Can I give him a tape of the CD he bought leagally?
And what if he breaks his CD and then sells it? Does the buyer have the right to obtain from a mate the a copy of the working version? And does the seller have to destroy any copies he has made for himself? He certainly can't sell them on!
Can anyone see where I'm going here? If I go out and buy a bunch of fubarred CDs for a penny, I can legally download all the MP3 tracks from them.
What implications does this have?Well now I actually come to write it down, very few. But it does illustrate the gray area copyright is. But stealing is still stealing.
When it somes to it, 98% of Napster users were stealing. As pointed out in the body, the Judge didn't order the Napster service to stop, only that it isn't "abused" (although would you call illegal mp3 trading on Napser abuse?).
In light of this, how can we critisise the Judge's desision. The Law is the Law, and its a Judge's job to uphold it.
I mourn Napster's death, and will miss my 3-a-daydownloads. But I never let myself think it was anything other than stealing.
Bit tricky, of course. The DVLA would never issue it, and the police would pull you for it. Julia wouldn't have to worry about it...
Some people wouldn't know a good allegory if it bit them on the bum.)
Ignoring the pun, minaturization is a big issue(groans etc...).
Many of the above suggestions for an alternative input device rely on a touch-screen keyboard or something of that ilk. This is, IMHO, entirely the wrong way to go. Although these devices would be less deep than a keyboard, they would still take up the same area. This does not allow much scope for minaturization. It kind of defeats the object.
For various reasons, voice recognition will not be a practical solution for a long time. Nintendo are not releasing the Voice-controlled Pikachu game in the UK because they can't handle the accent range. One day, maybe voice control will be the norm. But not today.
What I propose is an entirely new manual input method. The Keyboard layout we know and love was desinged to SLOW typing, to stop typewriters getting jammed when the letters hit each other. Its time we rethought the keyboard from the ground up.
Phonetic keyboards (like they use in coartrooms) get by with very few keys, because they are designed to be used fast. They use simultaneous keypresses to allow fast, efficient typing.
Why do we not employ a varient for keypboards, especially for those of palmtops. Handholds, 2 buttons for each finger, tracking device for the thumbs? The system would not be entirely phonetic (we need to spell words sometimes), and it would enable massive minaturization of the palmtop.
Sure it would mean retraining everybody, but it would be worth it. It's a brave New World we have the chance to make, one without keyboards.
yours,
Arieh
Under UK law, you can't register your name as a Trademark. The test case, a few years back, was when the Presley Estate tried to sue a small memerobelia shop called "Elvisly Yours". They lost, on the grounds that "Elvis Presely" cannot be a trademark.
OTOH, the estate of Princess Diana did manage to get her name registered, but I think they used some way round the standard law. Something to do with a "seal of approval" using her name.
If you do want to protect your name, the best thing to do is to set up a company named after you. This should also protect the domain name better than just being called that name. Even this is frought(sp?) with difficulties. Harrods once sued a Mr Harood (I think) for trading under his own name. I don't remember the outcome, though.
yours,
Arieh
A lot of the fuss about cybersquatters seems to hinge around what is a 'legitimate use' for a domain name.
For example, say I wanted to make a fan-pic site of Julia Roberts (not that i have the time or inclination). That would be a fair use of the name, and I doubt she'd be able to win it back. Things get a bit complicated if I'm only holding the domain for ransom, however.
As I understand it, cybersquatting laws in the US are not applicable to individuals, only to companies. This is, AFAIK, technically the case in the UK too. However, I know one author won her name back recently in court.
The company I work for (One of the biggest European online traders) has been cybersqatted like mad. We are sure that people have set up non-trading companies to stop us being able to get the domains back.
The real issue is of the legal status of domain names. I don't see why they shouldn't be a commodity like, say, number plates. Just because I have a number plate on my car with J R0838TS doesn't mean that Julia Roberts has the right to sue me, or win my plate that I paid for. As long as I'm not pretending I'm Julia Roberts (pretty hard considering....) I'm not doing anything wrong.
Now I know the legal status of domain names is contentious anyway, and the Law is effectivly being written by these rulings. It just seems to me that if you didn't buy it, you shouldn't get it.
yours,
Arieh
"This is going to revolutionize the way people think about confining light." Trapping light invites all sorts of intriguing questions, Fink points out. For instance, if you light a candle in a room lined with perfect mirrors, would the room stay illuminated even after the flame is extinguished? You could try putting a cat in a box of perfect mirrors, getting it to blow out the candle, asking it if it's light or not, and working out if it's dead or alive :) Arieh