There really is no such thing as "International Law", per se. There are treaties that many of the players agree upon- but if they can't or won't agree upon it, that treaty doesn't apply- PERIOD. There is no Sovereignty over the US, save that which the Constitution grants to the Government by way of the approval of the people. If the Constitution prohibits our signing a given treaty, that's it- we don't agree to it. We can't, legally. Any Congress or President that does so is guilty of Treason.
Funny that, the FCC DOES regulate what they can and can't do- just like they do with everything else communications related.
It's just some pinhead decided that Cable was actually different because it's "private" and broadcast is public so they're held to different standards of conduct. Never mind that there's NO real regulation on who can/can't get cable or satellite past the usual credit stuff- so it's intrinsically "public". Kids have credit cards these days. How hard would it be for a kid with a parent who didn't give a damn to set themselves up with cable or satellite and get porn feeds? Not very hard at all, if you must know.
Really? Do they force you to sit down and watch broadcast TV? Is there laws requiring X number of hours of broadcast TV watching?
No?
You can halt broadcast TV. Turn the channel or turn the damn set off.
You paid to watch TV when you bought your set. You pay to watch TV by way of allowing them to stream a bunch of ads to you every so often.
It's a double standard and you should see it as such. (No, I'm not proposing that we should be showing the Playboy Channel over the normal airwaves, but it's hypocrisy to say that one is actually different than the other based on you're paying for one versus the other- or that you have to go out of your way to get cable (You have to do that with TV as well...).)
Honestly, if she's holding out as a "punishment" then you probably ought to call her on it- or at the very least have your own "punishment" ready for her when she does put out. Something along the lines of Cumfy cuffs or even silk ropes comes to mind. I'll leave the exact details to the rest of the sick minds out there (Why give out ALL my secrets, right?)
...have left me unimpressed. I'd rather play my GameCube or the PS2- and there's a lot more to offer in those playgrounds than Microsoft has come to bear. The only game I might be cajoled into considering buying an XBox of an XBox Next over would be Shenmue 3 if it ever comes out.
Think embedded systems, like printers, server appliances, etc.
It's an extreme low-power Athlon XP intended for things like I do for a living. I'd love to see a PC-104+ system or an EBX with PC-104+ expansion with one of these on the board. I'd love to see something along those lines without need of a fansink and extended temperature ranges.
As others have pointed out, it's BLUE that fades fastest. But, what everyone has missed in this discussion is that CCFL backlight lifespan, the lifetime for the backlighting used by LCD monitors isn't much better than the blue OLED material. Average lifespan for a CCFL tube is something on the order of 10-15k hours (uh, the average lifespan for the blue OLED material is 10k hours...) and the premium tubes tend to have about 30k hours of lifespan- and you're not likely to see the premium tubes in most applications.
To put this all in perspective:
(OLEDs) 24 hours in a day. 10k hours of average usable continuous runtime. 416 days of average usable continuous runtime. 1.14 years of average usable continuous runtime.
(CCFL backlit LCDs) 24 hours in a day. 10-15k hours of average usable continuous runtime. 416-625 days of average usable continuous runtime. 1.14-1.71 years of average usable continuous runtime.
The low-end is more likely than the high-end on LCDs based on my personal experience. Without cut-off, etc. your LCD panel will be effectively dying or dead within about 12-14 months, just like an OLED display panel. If the cost of an OLED display is dirt cheap, which one do you think will win out.
The lifetime is actually on a par with most of the average CCFL tube backlights (10-15k hours with some of the premium ones going for up to 30k hours...).
So... If you run your LCD monitor without blanking, etc., you can expect the thing to start fading somewhere after about 10 or so months and dead sometime in the first quarter of the next year- just like OLEDs.
Unless you've got deep pockets, the Patents themselves are only as good as your lawyers that you can afford to defend them (and the legal fees to do so...). Unless you're one of the big players, you don't have the resources to take on any infringers save players that are your own size. Unless the Patent is for something simplistic, the people that would bother to reverse engineer the technology are in the X lb gorilla size class (where "X" is a suitable multiple of 100...) and therefore have more legal and financial resources than you can normally bring to bear. Eolas is an exception where some deep pockets took a lame patent that probably should have never been granted and attacked even deeper pockets- all they did was pursue the alleged infringement by Microsoft at some point. They wouldn't have been able to afford the pursuit of the case had they needed to worry about, oh, say, products or even customers.
Since when does ANY software vendor do a Patent search unless they're filing for a Patent themselves? For that matter, does anyone do such a thing before implementing things unless they're filing for a Patent.
Yet another "think tank" with it's head up their collective arse.
Okay, that gets the ease-of-use, but security's another issue altogether. WEP is insecure at ANY keyspace size because of design flaws in the scheme. It remains to be seen if WPA will be any better. While it avoids all the dumb as dirt things they did in WEP, it could suffer some of the same problems that LEAP and it's ilk recently suffered.
Security is NOT one of Microsoft's watch-words to begin with, and thinking that it's secure just because it uses WPA or anything else is folly- especially in the context of a company that flatly didn't give security much more than a passing thought in the design of their main product lines.
Even IF you're a set-top box maker, it's nigh impossible to obtain this ephemeral product- my previous employer TRIED to obtain an eval copy and got nada in return. Hell, they didn't return our e-mail or mail inquiries. At least Intervideo TRIED to send us something (That was pretty much worthless to us at the time- built against Red Hat 5.2? For IA's and other embedded devices? Riiight.)
A mobile DVD player is still something like $300 or more. It's another device that I'd have to lug around on a road trip or business trip.
My laptop happens to have a DVD drive in it- it can serve very nicely in both a portable computer AND a DVD player, if I've got software for that task.
If I use Linux in the laptop, I have to "violate" the DMCA (Circumvention for interoperability is perfectly legal, per the DMCA. Since there is NO legal players available for sale for Linux, they can't really close that loophole...). If I run Windows, I have numerous choices, including products from the companies that "made" Linux players (Little clue for you, gang: Intervideo's toy when I got a copy for eval required the use of Red Hat 5.2 (go figure) and Cyberlink wouldn't give me the time of day for LinDVD when I was working on embedded devices... They DON'T really have product to use in pretty much any contexts.).
They're not using Patent, they're using Copyright
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 1
In the claims that they used to get takedowns in both cases, they used Copyright laws in the respective countries to get the resultant action.
It's not Patents they're defending, it's the DRM system, which is a whole different ballgame.
Nice supposition. In my case, I can say the same thing as the parent poster, but I can assure you that I do not download things all the same. I do occasionally watch movies, but I've pretty much kept to either local bands or the old stuff I already have. I don't buy their expensive trash for the large part- and I'm quite sure that the bulk of the loss is due to people being fed up with being handed garbage for anywhere from $15 to $20 per pop.
Better yet- your thinking is wrong. It's the public's "IP", we, through the US government, have granted the artists and producers a time limited monopoly on the production and initial distribution of the works in question. It's not taking something other than stepping on the monopoly they were given. The term is "infringement" and I do not care how many times someone tries to equate it with theft I will keep pointing out that there is a very specific and definite legal and actual distinction between infringement and theft.
In theft, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've taken away the thing I've stolen from you and deprived you of the use thereof.
In infringement, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've merely taken away potential profits from the initial distribution of the item in question. You may/may not have ever even seen the profits in question- and you still have the item at your disposal to garner profits from other potential customers. It's only when it gets in the large (the ratio of people infringing to the ratio of people buying) that it really becomes more of an issue- and as far as the law is concerned, it's still not theft even then.
Oh, by the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with the game argument. It's not piracy that makes the games suck- it's the insistence on "sure" bets that produce formulaic games. The big players you're defending here will not take a chance on something new and different that may/may not sell- so long as all the people out there keep buying the same crap time and time again, they'll keep churning it out because it's a "sure thing".
They're typically NOT salaried- which means hourly pay. However, the law usually wasn't followed anyhow- most IT contractors and consultants don't get overtime pay, just flat pay for hours worked.
Uh, XFree86 has never been GPLed or LGPLed. It's under an MIT/X11 license variant since it's inception- I know, I had to license code modifications to the Utah-GLX source base under that license. What transpired was that the guy in charge of the XFree86 project changed the license to more of a BSD-ish license that requires advertising, etc. This made the newly licensed version incompatible on a licensing level with any GPLed OS- you can use it, you just can't distribute the new version of XFree86 with a Linux distribution without the prospects of possible legal hassles, etc.
Do you even KNOW how the current models came about? Do you even KNOW if this stuff's undocumented? Do you even KNOW if it's unreviewed? Do you even KNOW if it's unrepeated?
"Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda.
If you've never reviewed the data, how do you know it's junk science?
If you've never attempted to reproduce it, how do you know it's junk science?
You Don't.
Bet you didn't know that the CFC (Freon) research is pretty much junk science- but everyone, probably even you, accepted it as fact. No review, no repeatability or data to truly back up a far-fetched theory (Mother nature dumps more chlorine into the upper atmosphere daily than man ever did with CFC's...).
People ARE documenting this. People are reviewing the work in question. And, people HAVE repeated it and other devices.
You might want to surf the net in places other than just/., or perhaps go to the library and get out a bit. Oh, and before accusing someone of talking out of one's arse, you should be very, very certain you're not the one actually doing it.
Something with extremely high permeability that soaks all the force lines into itself. Commonly called Mu Metal, it's a nickle-iron alloy with some copper and molybdenum in the mix. It's magnetically "soft" meaning it the force lines like/want to be in the metal and stay there. Mu metal will stop fields just short of.1 Tesla in strength dead in their tracks.
This has been an off and on discussion topic in the inventor's communities for some time now. Many people trying to reproduce (some apparently successful...) the device for some time now.
He's not using it in the same mode of operation that we typically do with a motor. He and several others have come up with some designs that have amazing modes of operation and hard to believe efficiencies- but there's been numerous reproductions of the devices in question and some fairly extensive testing to back the work up.
It remains to be seen if these motors are as claimed, but if they hit the market and show up good, it's time to re-think what we call the "laws" of Physics because they don't account for this.
What happens with two magnets repelling each other? Do they eventually wear out? No? If you levitate one on top of the other, the magnets are doing work in the form of a repulsion of the magnet on top (It's tendency will be to fall per gravity's attraction)- they're doing work at a rate sufficient to hold the magnet airborne a given distance.
Where does the energy come from to levitate the magnets? The magnets? Nope. They'll keep on going until you disturb the order present in the magnets by way of a more intense magnetic field, heating up the material past it's curie point, or giving it a sudden, violent impact. Minato's device is little different from the levitating magnets in what is going on.
Slashdot Mirror
There really is no such thing as "International Law", per se. There are treaties that many of the players agree upon- but if they can't or won't agree upon it, that treaty doesn't apply- PERIOD. There is no Sovereignty over the US, save that which the Constitution grants to the Government by way of the approval of the people. If the Constitution prohibits our signing a given treaty, that's it- we don't agree to it. We can't, legally. Any Congress or President that does so is guilty of Treason.
Funny that, the FCC DOES regulate what they can and can't do- just like they do with everything else communications related.
It's just some pinhead decided that Cable was actually different because it's "private" and broadcast is public so they're held to different standards of conduct. Never mind that there's NO real regulation on who can/can't get cable or satellite past the usual credit stuff- so it's intrinsically "public". Kids have credit cards these days. How hard would it be for a kid with a parent who didn't give a damn to set themselves up with cable or satellite and get porn feeds? Not very hard at all, if you must know.
Really? Do they force you to sit down and watch broadcast TV? Is there laws requiring X number of hours of broadcast TV watching?
No?
You can halt broadcast TV. Turn the channel or turn the damn set off.
You paid to watch TV when you bought your set. You pay to watch TV by way of allowing them to stream a bunch of ads to you every so often.
It's a double standard and you should see it as such. (No, I'm not proposing that we should be showing the Playboy Channel over the normal airwaves, but it's hypocrisy to say that one is actually different than the other based on you're paying for one versus the other- or that you have to go out of your way to get cable (You have to do that with TV as well...).)
Honestly, if she's holding out as a "punishment" then you probably ought to call her on it- or at the very least have your own "punishment" ready for her when she does put out. Something along the lines of Cumfy cuffs or even silk ropes comes to mind. I'll leave the exact details to the rest of the sick minds out there (Why give out ALL my secrets, right?)
...have left me unimpressed. I'd rather play my GameCube or the PS2- and there's a lot more to offer in those playgrounds than Microsoft has come to bear. The only game I might be cajoled into considering buying an XBox of an XBox Next over would be Shenmue 3 if it ever comes out.
Think embedded systems, like printers, server appliances, etc.
It's an extreme low-power Athlon XP intended for things like I do for a living. I'd love to see a PC-104+ system or an EBX with PC-104+ expansion with one of these on the board. I'd love to see something along those lines without need of a fansink and extended temperature ranges.
...as you'd think.
As others have pointed out, it's BLUE that fades fastest. But, what everyone has missed in this discussion is that CCFL backlight lifespan, the lifetime for the backlighting used by LCD monitors isn't much better than the blue OLED material. Average lifespan for a CCFL tube is something on the order of 10-15k hours (uh, the average lifespan for the blue OLED material is 10k hours...) and the premium tubes tend to have about 30k hours of lifespan- and you're not likely to see the premium tubes in most applications.
To put this all in perspective:
(OLEDs)
24 hours in a day.
10k hours of average usable continuous runtime.
416 days of average usable continuous runtime.
1.14 years of average usable continuous runtime.
(CCFL backlit LCDs)
24 hours in a day.
10-15k hours of average usable continuous runtime.
416-625 days of average usable continuous runtime.
1.14-1.71 years of average usable continuous runtime.
The low-end is more likely than the high-end on LCDs based on my personal experience. Without cut-off, etc. your LCD panel will be effectively dying or dead within about 12-14 months, just like an OLED display panel. If the cost of an OLED display is dirt cheap, which one do you think will win out.
The lifetime is actually on a par with most of the average CCFL tube backlights (10-15k hours with some of the premium ones going for up to 30k hours...).
So... If you run your LCD monitor without blanking, etc., you can expect the thing to start fading somewhere after about 10 or so months and dead sometime in the first quarter of the next year- just like OLEDs.
Unless you've got deep pockets, the Patents themselves are only as good as your lawyers that you can afford to defend them (and the legal fees to do so...). Unless you're one of the big players, you don't have the resources to take on any infringers save players that are your own size. Unless the Patent is for something simplistic, the people that would bother to reverse engineer the technology are in the X lb gorilla size class (where "X" is a suitable multiple of 100...) and therefore have more legal and financial resources than you can normally bring to bear. Eolas is an exception where some deep pockets took a lame patent that probably should have never been granted and attacked even deeper pockets- all they did was pursue the alleged infringement by Microsoft at some point. They wouldn't have been able to afford the pursuit of the case had they needed to worry about, oh, say, products or even customers.
Since when does ANY software vendor do a Patent search unless they're filing for a Patent themselves? For that matter, does anyone do such a thing before implementing things unless they're filing for a Patent.
Yet another "think tank" with it's head up their collective arse.
Okay, that gets the ease-of-use, but security's another issue altogether. WEP is insecure at ANY keyspace size because of design flaws in the scheme. It remains to be seen if WPA will be any better. While it avoids all the dumb as dirt things they did in WEP, it could suffer some of the same problems that LEAP and it's ilk recently suffered.
Security is NOT one of Microsoft's watch-words to begin with, and thinking that it's secure just because it uses WPA or anything else is folly- especially in the context of a company that flatly didn't give security much more than a passing thought in the design of their main product lines.
Ohm my, that was bad. But then I'm a glutton for punishment- I'm just asking for moh.
No? Then it's not really available for Linux in the same sense as WinDVD and PowerDVD is for Windows, now is it?
Even IF you're a set-top box maker, it's nigh impossible to obtain this ephemeral product- my previous employer TRIED to obtain an eval copy and got nada in return. Hell, they didn't return our e-mail or mail inquiries. At least Intervideo TRIED to send us something (That was pretty much worthless to us at the time- built against Red Hat 5.2? For IA's and other embedded devices? Riiight.)
A mobile DVD player is still something like $300 or more. It's another device that I'd have to lug around on a road trip or business trip.
My laptop happens to have a DVD drive in it- it can serve very nicely in both a portable computer AND a DVD player, if I've got software for that task.
If I use Linux in the laptop, I have to "violate" the DMCA (Circumvention for interoperability is perfectly legal, per the DMCA. Since there is NO legal players available for sale for Linux, they can't really close that loophole...). If I run Windows, I have numerous choices, including products from the companies that "made" Linux players (Little clue for you, gang: Intervideo's toy when I got a copy for eval required the use of Red Hat 5.2 (go figure) and Cyberlink wouldn't give me the time of day for LinDVD when I was working on embedded devices... They DON'T really have product to use in pretty much any contexts.).
In the claims that they used to get takedowns in both cases, they used Copyright laws in the respective countries to get the resultant action.
It's not Patents they're defending, it's the DRM system, which is a whole different ballgame.
Nice supposition. In my case, I can say the same thing as the parent poster, but I can assure you that I do not download things all the same. I do occasionally watch movies, but I've pretty much kept to either local bands or the old stuff I already have. I don't buy their expensive trash for the large part- and I'm quite sure that the bulk of the loss is due to people being fed up with being handed garbage for anywhere from $15 to $20 per pop.
Better yet- your thinking is wrong. It's the public's "IP", we, through the US government, have granted the artists and producers a time limited monopoly on the production and initial distribution of the works in question. It's not taking something other than stepping on the monopoly they were given. The term is "infringement" and I do not care how many times someone tries to equate it with theft I will keep pointing out that there is a very specific and definite legal and actual distinction between infringement and theft.
In theft, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've taken away the thing I've stolen from you and deprived you of the use thereof.
In infringement, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've merely taken away potential profits from the initial distribution of the item in question. You may/may not have ever even seen the profits in question- and you still have the item at your disposal to garner profits from other potential customers. It's only when it gets in the large (the ratio of people infringing to the ratio of people buying) that it really becomes more of an issue- and as far as the law is concerned, it's still not theft even then.
Oh, by the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with the game argument. It's not piracy that makes the games suck- it's the insistence on "sure" bets that produce formulaic games. The big players you're defending here will not take a chance on something new and different that may/may not sell- so long as all the people out there keep buying the same crap time and time again, they'll keep churning it out because it's a "sure thing".
They're typically NOT salaried- which means hourly pay. However, the law usually wasn't followed anyhow- most IT contractors and consultants don't get overtime pay, just flat pay for hours worked.
Uh, XFree86 has never been GPLed or LGPLed. It's under an MIT/X11 license variant since it's inception- I know, I had to license code modifications to the Utah-GLX source base under that license. What transpired was that the guy in charge of the XFree86 project changed the license to more of a BSD-ish license that requires advertising, etc. This made the newly licensed version incompatible on a licensing level with any GPLed OS- you can use it, you just can't distribute the new version of XFree86 with a Linux distribution without the prospects of possible legal hassles, etc.
Do you even KNOW how the current models came about?
Do you even KNOW if this stuff's undocumented?
Do you even KNOW if it's unreviewed?
Do you even KNOW if it's unrepeated?
"Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda.
If you've never reviewed the data, how do you know it's junk science?
If you've never attempted to reproduce it, how do you know it's junk science?
You Don't.
Bet you didn't know that the CFC (Freon) research is pretty much junk science- but everyone, probably even you, accepted it as fact. No review, no repeatability or data to truly back up a far-fetched theory (Mother nature dumps more chlorine into the upper atmosphere daily than man ever did with CFC's...).
People ARE documenting this. People are reviewing the work in question. And, people HAVE repeated it and other devices.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/casimir.htm
/., or perhaps go to the library and get out a bit. Oh, and before accusing someone of talking out of one's arse, you should be very, very certain you're not the one actually doing it.
You might want to surf the net in places other than just
Something with extremely high permeability that soaks all the force lines into itself. Commonly called Mu Metal, it's a nickle-iron alloy with some copper and molybdenum in the mix. It's magnetically "soft" meaning it the force lines like/want to be in the metal and stay there. Mu metal will stop fields just short of .1 Tesla in strength dead in their tracks.
This has been an off and on discussion topic in the inventor's communities for some time now. Many people trying to reproduce (some apparently successful...) the device for some time now.
t icExp/ericvogels/3_m1.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/magne
http://www.fdp.nu/thebook/default.asp
That's just a few of the sites by researchers...
He's not using it in the same mode of operation that we typically do with a motor. He and several others have come up with some designs that have amazing modes of operation and hard to believe efficiencies- but there's been numerous reproductions of the devices in question and some fairly extensive testing to back the work up.
It remains to be seen if these motors are as claimed, but if they hit the market and show up good, it's time to re-think what we call the "laws" of Physics because they don't account for this.
What happens with two magnets repelling each other? Do they eventually wear out? No? If you levitate one on top of the other, the magnets are doing work in the form of a repulsion of the magnet on top (It's tendency will be to fall per gravity's attraction)- they're doing work at a rate sufficient to hold the magnet airborne a given distance.
Where does the energy come from to levitate the magnets? The magnets? Nope. They'll keep on going until you disturb the order present in the magnets by way of a more intense magnetic field, heating up the material past it's curie point, or giving it a sudden, violent impact. Minato's device is little different from the levitating magnets in what is going on.