If the DVD-ROM manufacturer paid a license fee to sell the drive, aren't they getting their money from DeCSS users?
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. That most DVD-ROM owners use DeCSS (the name of the "illegal" CSS decryptor)? I'm not sure about that... I think the majority of DVD-ROM owners use it to read DVD-ROMs, CD-ROMS, and legally play DVD videos (either directly from the video-out port of the DVD player, or through some proprietary software.)
If the Phillips, etc. get their money from the drive manufacturer, and they get their money from the disc producer, why is it so important that they also get their money from the software producer?
I don't think that Phillips owns CSS. It's held by a consortium, which itself is heavily controlled by the movie studios. If the studios couldn't control CSS, they'd just create something that they could control. And the issue for licensing CSS has never been about making tons of money... Rather, it's just a way for the studios to control who gets to play their videos, and to insure that any manufacturer looking to build commercial DVD players has to sign a long contract promising not to build region-free players, etc.
The existence of CSS is also great for large electronics companies like Phillips, who have the clout to enter into sweetheart CSS licensing deals for almost nothing, knowing that 3rd party software products and smaller companies can't easily compete with them (can't get a license from the CSS consortium.)
See my reply to the other individual who failed to take tense into account in my comment
I took a look at the tense of your comment, but I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Is there something else I'm missing?
Many of these findings were made by Judge Jackson back in April 2000. Note that the appeals court, in setting aside Jackson's remedy, did not set aside his findings. The convicted criminal remains convicted even while his case is on appeal, or his sentence is being determined.
A quick look at Microsoft's contributions on OpenSecrets.org shows that they continued to contribute considerable sums to candidates and to political parties, well into the second half of that year.
I'm getting sick of this temporary copy rubbish - it's really a bit of a stretch
Yes, I find it amusing that courts are willing to gloss over the technical details and stretch common-sense "real world analogy" reasoning to some aspects of copyright law (eg, linking and framing a copyrighted image that resides on somebody else's public web server constitutes a violation, because it looks like you've displayed the image yourself) while at the same time resorting to the gritty technical details for other aspects (temporary RAM copies, etc.)
He's combining a couple of issues here... Granted I imagine the unlicensed manufacturers are also violating the CSS copyrights, but that's not what they care about in this case
No, I realize that's not what this case is about. The previous poster lost me here:
The difference here is that the folks they are going after are making money "stealing" Phillips's technology, unlike a certain sixteen year old kid from Norway
Which seemed to imply that the only difference between the DeCSS crowd and these rip-off manufacturers was that the latter were making money. But clearly there are many fundamental differences. I suppose it was just hyperbole, but it's an issue that doesn't need any more confusion. Thanks for answering.
The difference here is that the folks they are going after are making money "stealing" Phillips's technology, unlike a certain sixteen year old kid from Norway... While I don't agree with everything they do with their patents (region encoding is complete bullshit theivery....glad I don't live in the UK and have to pay $30 per DVD)
Somebody clear this up for me. I was not aware that CSS, which is the mechanism for enforcing region-coding, was protected by a patent. Rather, I was under the impression that individuals who manufacture CSS workarounds are in violation of various copyright laws, not patents. Are the DeCSS folks actually being accused patent violation as well?
If the RIAA is currently losing money on CDs due to illegal copying (pirating is a ridiculous term), then it seems only reasonable that, if they can prevent this copying, the revenue they'd previously been losing should rightfully belong to them.
They're a bunch of private companies, they can set prices wherever they want. However, the fact that they're only losing $0.32 per CD is certainly an eye-opener... Considering that CD prices have run as high as $18 in the past (and they've still sold like hotcakes.) If customers have to eat that additional 32 cents so their CDs will play in car CD players and computers, it seems it'd be worthwhile.
Or, on the other hand, the record companies could completely screw things up for their customers-- encouraging them to take their business elsewhere (or more likely) start downloading and burning un-copyprotected MP3s.
As I understand it, Microsoft has been "convicted" of both being a monopoly, and abusing their monopoly status. By two courts. What hasn't been decided is the remedy-- and it looks like MS got to "cop a plea" to avoid that stage. Still, if a prisoner is convicted, then bails out before their sentencing hearing, they're still convicted.
I recently saw the modern version of this old chestnut on Fox's 24, where the Good Guys (a powerful and secretive yet benevolent government organization, hm) were unable to track down the exact physical location of a cell phone before the desperate-to-found caller was cut off.
I recently read an interview with 24's creators. When asked how much law enforcement and intelligence agencies cooperated in the writing of the show, they said something like "We've got a great relationship with the government. We pay our taxes and they leave us alone." So don't expect enormous amounts of realism from that show (eg, people running around shouting classified info over cell and cordless phones.)
The only way nowadays to guarantee that people actually see ads it to integrate them INTO the content that people actually WANT to see...
Integrating ads isn't the only way to make money. Better advertising sometimes works, too. Make ads into stories. Make them funny and entertaining. Other countries do this, and enjoy a much higher viewer enjoyment of ads. I doubt this would seriously increase ad costs... but it might require a different sort of advertising industry. American TV advertising has been made sluggish by American's addiction to TV and our willingness to sit through anything in order to get to the next plot installment.
SOMEBODY has to pay for your content... if it's not the advertisers, it's gonna be you, directly out of your pocket. What's the worst of these two evils?
I might be willing to pay not to watch ads, but it depends how much it'd cost. I'm curious how much an average viewer would have to pay in order to compensate the networks for the ability to skip their share of the advertising.
Re:You didn't sign a contract to give back true ID
on
Sun Joins RFID Program
·
· Score: 1
Similarly, you can allow them to irradiate your possessions with radio frequency signals. But you don't have to give back the signals they expect.
Well, unless you've agreed not to screw with the signals, as part of your RF credit card contract. Presumably there'd be a no-tampering clause somewhere or other in there, so if you did go through a checkout line and mess with the checkout system in any way, you'd get in trouble.
If a publisher chooses to hand out copies of their work on the street, and tell them they can only use them for XYZ, and the people that receive them violate that they are in fact doing something wrong.
In theory you're right. If I tell somebody that they can't publicly display my work, then they can't. However, if some 3rd party tells them to display the work, then is the 3rd party responsible?
If you take a look at the decision itself, around page 19 you can see where the argument becomes patchy. Essentially, the court establishes that displaying an image on a computer monitor constitutes a display, and that the image's being available to the public makes it a public display.
Which is all good.
Then the court addresses the key question. Who's responsible for making the image available to the public? The person who places it on a public webserver, which is designed to hand out images to web-browsers (and has the capability to decide under what conditions it wishes to hand the image out), or the person who links to the image?
This is where the argument gets glib, and in my mind, overly broad:
No cases have addressed the issue of whether inline linking of framing violates a copyright owner's public display rights. However, in
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., the court found that the owner of an internet site infringed a magazine publisher's copyrights by displaying copyrighted images on its web site. The defendant, Webbworld, downloaded material from certain newsgroups, discarded the text and retained the images, and made those images available to its internet subscribers. Playboy owned copyrights to many of the images Webbworld retained and displayed. The court found that Webbworld violated Playboy's exclusive right to display its copyrighted works, nothing that allowing subscribers to view copyrighted works on their computer monitors while online was a display...
Although Arriba [the defendant] does not download Kelly's images to its own server but, rather, imports them directly from other web sites, the situation is analogous to Webbworld. By allowing the public to view Kelly's copyrighted works while visiting Arriba's web site, Arriba created a public display of Kelly's works. (the italics are mine)
Essentially, the court is admitting that, though the defendant never stored or reproduced the images themselves, by pointing to a public resource they have "allowed the public to view" it. I would argue that by making something public in the first place, the author has allowed the public to view it. It's analogous to placing a book in the library, and being extremely upset when somebody adds it to the card catalog, or cites it in a bibliography.
The problem with the case is that this broad (and under-explored) legal step opens the door for all sorts of ugly anti-linking decisions. If I can't link to inline images, then what about normal hyperlinks like this one? By the precedent set in this case, I'm 100% responsible for allowing the public to access this site. I may enjoy other protections, such as fair use, but the culpability for "allowing the public to access" that web page winds up being my own, not the person who chooses to give it out on a public webserver.
Well, when you print a book out and hope that nobody types the text and posts it online it's no different. Everything is publically accessible...
That is absolutely retarded. If I post a print of my artwork up on the side of my art gallery, you don't have the right to take it make a duplicate of the print and post it on the side of your gallery.
I think both of your analogies are flawed. If I take your book and make a copy of it to post or hand out, I'm actually violating your copyright. You have no control over what I do once it leaves your hands, which is precisely the justification for things like copyright law, to protect against that sort of behavior.
If, on the other hand, you have absolute yes/no authority to allow or disallow every single download of your content, then you don't need the protection of copyright law to prevent some types of use (clearly, copyright is still important to prevent further duplication, but that's a different issue.) Some burden should rest on you. If a publisher chooses to hand out copies of their work on the street, they're essentially granting use rights to the people they hand them out to. I don't think they should be able to sue the recipients for possessing their work, or for using it as toilet paper, etc.
The moral here? If you hand out your freakin' artwork to anyone in the world (without even signing it, for god's sake), expect to see it turning up in the most unlikely places.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I deliberately configure a vending machine to hand out product to anyone for no cost, then I stick that vending machine in a public place, who am I to whine about "morality and integrity" when people take free snacks? I made by bed and now I have to lie in it.
The same is true of any publically accessable HTTP server. If you want to protect your documents, use something as simple as a cookie or one-time links. Don't whine because you created a resource that was designed to hand out information to anyone.
To me, in the rental world, this simply doesn't seem economically practical.
But who said that this is intended to benefit the rental world? The movie studios have no problem cutting Blockbuster and rental outlets out of their equation, if it means they can directly collect something like $2 off of each DVD "rental". It also obviates the need for all of the infrastructure of video rental. These discs can be sold in your neighborhood Barnes & Noble next to the music section.
Look around for some creationism research papers. As with any topic you will have to search sift through the zealots. But there are quite a few who go out of their way to be as objective as possible.
What you're talking about is generally called Intelligent Design Theory. And the "serious" papers I've seen, while scientifically acceptable, are generally simple critiques of evolution, not positive arguments for Creationism or IDT. Generally these criticisms are based on "missing links" in the evolution theory. The discovery posted in this rticle helps to fill in some of those missing links. Presumably there'll be others.
Yeah, and just like the power companies make people who use more electricity pay more. And the same as gas companies make you pay more if you use more gas.
The difference, of course, being that increased power usage requires increased power generation. Increased gas usage requires increased gas production (or distribution.) Broadband, on the other hand, is generally a fixed resource that ISPs possess in a static block. If they're using less than the bandwidth than they have available, they're not saving any money. It's only when they go over their limits that they run into problems.
That's not to say they can't charge more to heavy users... But I would imagine that right now heavy users are their biggest evangelists. Most people I know don't just decide to get a cable modem... They do it because somebody they know is an early adopter and convinced them that this expensive (and apparently unnecessary) convenience is worth paying for. Now a lot of those customers will be better off going with DSL.
I doubt they will be getting many people to willing start paying $80/month.
I'm also sure that in many newly Cable-modemified areas of the US, cable lines and upstream connections will remain well below capacity for a while to come.
So if they discover a gene that permits them to do something interesitng, like grow you a third arm... they can patent that.
Unfortunately, very few genetic discoveries thus far enjoy the certainty-of-use you describe. Most gene patents claim a slight correlation to a certain condition (eg, people born with this gene have a 3% greater chance of developing an ulcer), etc. They are far from providing specific applications. What they represent is the protection of a costly process of discovery (ie, the ability to sequence DNA using expensive equipment) and scientific experimentation (eg, when generations of mice are bred without this gene, how do they act?)
The above process is very expensive, and some would argue that the results arrived at need to be protected, no matter how weak the actual patent claims. As far as I can see, this would be similar to early 20th century atomic researchers "patenting" the heavier elements and their isotopes along with their applications ("this patented Uranium isotope, when struck with a neutron, be made to fission...") Certainly these researchers required enormous resources to detect, isolate, and understand the elements that they were working with. That does not mean that they (or the governments and corporations they worked for) should necessarily enjoy a long-term monopoly on their discoveries simply because they were the first with the right equipment to examine natural processes.
What the public doesn't get is that real users of the boxes hardly ever pause live TV because they hardly ever watch live TV.
"Hardly ever" is a little bit strong. I watch live TV fairly regularly, even if I sometimes do it at a twenty minute delay. And even when I'm watching something live, I constantly use the pause button, in situations where most people would use the Mute button (ie, the phone rings). It's just become a reflex. It's not a useless capability, and most people really do use it. They don't necessarily want to pay $400 for it, though.
My question is how this will work with an ethernet-like collison detection system that AFAIK cable modems use.
Current cable modems have separate downlink and uplink signals, running on different frequencies. Only the uplink signal has any need for collision detection; the downlink signal all comes from one source (router or switch), so there's no need to worry about collisions.
I can't claim I have a good idea of what they're trying to do here. But if they're proposing a system that can run over a broadband line, with a separate downlink and uplink, then they would simply apply the new modulations to the downlink. You might also find some way to apply the technique to the uplink, but it's nowhere near as important.
If they're proposing something closer to Ethernet, then they'll need to rebuild the system from scratch. I have no idea what they'll do to avoid collision problems.
DVHS features much higher bitrates than DVDs and is able to support HDTV resolutions
The question is, how many movies released in the next say, three years will be released in HDTV? For the non-HDTV releases, will the increased bitrates be noticed by a large number of people? It strikes me that three or four years is about the limit, before the next generation of DVD players start to arrive.
I think DVHS sounds great for a small number of high-end Home Theatre enthusiast... But those people do not a broad market make.
They are truly amazing organs, regulating erythropoesis as well as cleaning your blood of urea. I'll bet they've not managed to replicate both functions.
That's true, but if they could develop something that works nearly as well as external dialysis machines, a lot of people will be better off. I'm sort of curious how a simple scaffold can encourage these organs to fully develop, but it's clear that even partially developed organs/tissue can do a lot for us. What about cloned bone-marrow transplants?
This company is the same one that claimed to have cloned human embryos, so we're already aware of their preference of press releases to peer-reviewed journals.
Actually, they released their original results for that claim in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right about the same time as it hit the major news outlets. Few people actually bothered to look at the details.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. People have been working on growing organs on scaffolds for a while now. They've been working up from simple parts like ears to more complex things. At the same time, there've been demonstrations of stem cells "beating" like heart tissue. How functional these kidneys are is what we should all be asking.
WTF? They advertise "always on" IP. That means that they must have a 1:1 IP to cable box ratio, right?
A friend of mine had a Verizon DSL line, which forced him to use PPP-over-Ethernet. It included a piece of (Windows) software that took care of "signing him on", and establishing a PPP connection. If he didn't use his connection for a while, it would sign him out, and the software would automatically sign him back in the next time he connected. A system like that doesn't necessarily require a 1:1 address to computer ratio. Technically, it's not "always on", but I doubt Verizon makes a distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. That most DVD-ROM owners use DeCSS (the name of the "illegal" CSS decryptor)? I'm not sure about that... I think the majority of DVD-ROM owners use it to read DVD-ROMs, CD-ROMS, and legally play DVD videos (either directly from the video-out port of the DVD player, or through some proprietary software.)
If the Phillips, etc. get their money from the drive manufacturer, and they get their money from the disc producer, why is it so important that they also get their money from the software producer?
I don't think that Phillips owns CSS. It's held by a consortium, which itself is heavily controlled by the movie studios. If the studios couldn't control CSS, they'd just create something that they could control. And the issue for licensing CSS has never been about making tons of money... Rather, it's just a way for the studios to control who gets to play their videos, and to insure that any manufacturer looking to build commercial DVD players has to sign a long contract promising not to build region-free players, etc.
The existence of CSS is also great for large electronics companies like Phillips, who have the clout to enter into sweetheart CSS licensing deals for almost nothing, knowing that 3rd party software products and smaller companies can't easily compete with them (can't get a license from the CSS consortium.)
I took a look at the tense of your comment, but I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Is there something else I'm missing?
Many of these findings were made by Judge Jackson back in April 2000. Note that the appeals court, in setting aside Jackson's remedy, did not set aside his findings. The convicted criminal remains convicted even while his case is on appeal, or his sentence is being determined.
A quick look at Microsoft's contributions on OpenSecrets.org shows that they continued to contribute considerable sums to candidates and to political parties, well into the second half of that year.
Yes, I find it amusing that courts are willing to gloss over the technical details and stretch common-sense "real world analogy" reasoning to some aspects of copyright law (eg, linking and framing a copyrighted image that resides on somebody else's public web server constitutes a violation, because it looks like you've displayed the image yourself) while at the same time resorting to the gritty technical details for other aspects (temporary RAM copies, etc.)
No, I realize that's not what this case is about. The previous poster lost me here:
Which seemed to imply that the only difference between the DeCSS crowd and these rip-off manufacturers was that the latter were making money. But clearly there are many fundamental differences. I suppose it was just hyperbole, but it's an issue that doesn't need any more confusion. Thanks for answering.Somebody clear this up for me. I was not aware that CSS, which is the mechanism for enforcing region-coding, was protected by a patent. Rather, I was under the impression that individuals who manufacture CSS workarounds are in violation of various copyright laws, not patents. Are the DeCSS folks actually being accused patent violation as well?
They're a bunch of private companies, they can set prices wherever they want. However, the fact that they're only losing $0.32 per CD is certainly an eye-opener... Considering that CD prices have run as high as $18 in the past (and they've still sold like hotcakes.) If customers have to eat that additional 32 cents so their CDs will play in car CD players and computers, it seems it'd be worthwhile.
Or, on the other hand, the record companies could completely screw things up for their customers-- encouraging them to take their business elsewhere (or more likely) start downloading and burning un-copyprotected MP3s.
As I understand it, Microsoft has been "convicted" of both being a monopoly, and abusing their monopoly status. By two courts. What hasn't been decided is the remedy-- and it looks like MS got to "cop a plea" to avoid that stage. Still, if a prisoner is convicted, then bails out before their sentencing hearing, they're still convicted.
I recently read an interview with 24's creators. When asked how much law enforcement and intelligence agencies cooperated in the writing of the show, they said something like "We've got a great relationship with the government. We pay our taxes and they leave us alone." So don't expect enormous amounts of realism from that show (eg, people running around shouting classified info over cell and cordless phones.)
Integrating ads isn't the only way to make money. Better advertising sometimes works, too. Make ads into stories. Make them funny and entertaining. Other countries do this, and enjoy a much higher viewer enjoyment of ads. I doubt this would seriously increase ad costs... but it might require a different sort of advertising industry. American TV advertising has been made sluggish by American's addiction to TV and our willingness to sit through anything in order to get to the next plot installment.
SOMEBODY has to pay for your content... if it's not the advertisers, it's gonna be you, directly out of your pocket. What's the worst of these two evils?
I might be willing to pay not to watch ads, but it depends how much it'd cost. I'm curious how much an average viewer would have to pay in order to compensate the networks for the ability to skip their share of the advertising.
Well, unless you've agreed not to screw with the signals, as part of your RF credit card contract. Presumably there'd be a no-tampering clause somewhere or other in there, so if you did go through a checkout line and mess with the checkout system in any way, you'd get in trouble.
In theory you're right. If I tell somebody that they can't publicly display my work, then they can't. However, if some 3rd party tells them to display the work, then is the 3rd party responsible?
If you take a look at the decision itself, around page 19 you can see where the argument becomes patchy. Essentially, the court establishes that displaying an image on a computer monitor constitutes a display, and that the image's being available to the public makes it a public display. Which is all good.
Then the court addresses the key question. Who's responsible for making the image available to the public? The person who places it on a public webserver, which is designed to hand out images to web-browsers (and has the capability to decide under what conditions it wishes to hand the image out), or the person who links to the image?
This is where the argument gets glib, and in my mind, overly broad:
Essentially, the court is admitting that, though the defendant never stored or reproduced the images themselves, by pointing to a public resource they have "allowed the public to view" it. I would argue that by making something public in the first place, the author has allowed the public to view it. It's analogous to placing a book in the library, and being extremely upset when somebody adds it to the card catalog, or cites it in a bibliography.The problem with the case is that this broad (and under-explored) legal step opens the door for all sorts of ugly anti-linking decisions. If I can't link to inline images, then what about normal hyperlinks like this one? By the precedent set in this case, I'm 100% responsible for allowing the public to access this site. I may enjoy other protections, such as fair use, but the culpability for "allowing the public to access" that web page winds up being my own, not the person who chooses to give it out on a public webserver.
That is absolutely retarded. If I post a print of my artwork up on the side of my art gallery, you don't have the right to take it make a duplicate of the print and post it on the side of your gallery.
I think both of your analogies are flawed. If I take your book and make a copy of it to post or hand out, I'm actually violating your copyright. You have no control over what I do once it leaves your hands, which is precisely the justification for things like copyright law, to protect against that sort of behavior.
If, on the other hand, you have absolute yes/no authority to allow or disallow every single download of your content, then you don't need the protection of copyright law to prevent some types of use (clearly, copyright is still important to prevent further duplication, but that's a different issue.) Some burden should rest on you. If a publisher chooses to hand out copies of their work on the street, they're essentially granting use rights to the people they hand them out to. I don't think they should be able to sue the recipients for possessing their work, or for using it as toilet paper, etc.
The moral here? If you hand out your freakin' artwork to anyone in the world (without even signing it, for god's sake), expect to see it turning up in the most unlikely places.
The same is true of any publically accessable HTTP server. If you want to protect your documents, use something as simple as a cookie or one-time links. Don't whine because you created a resource that was designed to hand out information to anyone.
But who said that this is intended to benefit the rental world? The movie studios have no problem cutting Blockbuster and rental outlets out of their equation, if it means they can directly collect something like $2 off of each DVD "rental". It also obviates the need for all of the infrastructure of video rental. These discs can be sold in your neighborhood Barnes & Noble next to the music section.
Which will expose the fact that many companies don't have very comprehensive opt-out systems. Bastards.
What you're talking about is generally called Intelligent Design Theory. And the "serious" papers I've seen, while scientifically acceptable, are generally simple critiques of evolution, not positive arguments for Creationism or IDT. Generally these criticisms are based on "missing links" in the evolution theory. The discovery posted in this rticle helps to fill in some of those missing links. Presumably there'll be others.
The difference, of course, being that increased power usage requires increased power generation. Increased gas usage requires increased gas production (or distribution.) Broadband, on the other hand, is generally a fixed resource that ISPs possess in a static block. If they're using less than the bandwidth than they have available, they're not saving any money. It's only when they go over their limits that they run into problems.
That's not to say they can't charge more to heavy users... But I would imagine that right now heavy users are their biggest evangelists. Most people I know don't just decide to get a cable modem... They do it because somebody they know is an early adopter and convinced them that this expensive (and apparently unnecessary) convenience is worth paying for. Now a lot of those customers will be better off going with DSL.
I'm also sure that in many newly Cable-modemified areas of the US, cable lines and upstream connections will remain well below capacity for a while to come.
Unfortunately, very few genetic discoveries thus far enjoy the certainty-of-use you describe. Most gene patents claim a slight correlation to a certain condition (eg, people born with this gene have a 3% greater chance of developing an ulcer), etc. They are far from providing specific applications. What they represent is the protection of a costly process of discovery (ie, the ability to sequence DNA using expensive equipment) and scientific experimentation (eg, when generations of mice are bred without this gene, how do they act?)
The above process is very expensive, and some would argue that the results arrived at need to be protected, no matter how weak the actual patent claims. As far as I can see, this would be similar to early 20th century atomic researchers "patenting" the heavier elements and their isotopes along with their applications ("this patented Uranium isotope, when struck with a neutron, be made to fission...") Certainly these researchers required enormous resources to detect, isolate, and understand the elements that they were working with. That does not mean that they (or the governments and corporations they worked for) should necessarily enjoy a long-term monopoly on their discoveries simply because they were the first with the right equipment to examine natural processes.
"Hardly ever" is a little bit strong. I watch live TV fairly regularly, even if I sometimes do it at a twenty minute delay. And even when I'm watching something live, I constantly use the pause button, in situations where most people would use the Mute button (ie, the phone rings). It's just become a reflex. It's not a useless capability, and most people really do use it. They don't necessarily want to pay $400 for it, though.
Current cable modems have separate downlink and uplink signals, running on different frequencies. Only the uplink signal has any need for collision detection; the downlink signal all comes from one source (router or switch), so there's no need to worry about collisions.
I can't claim I have a good idea of what they're trying to do here. But if they're proposing a system that can run over a broadband line, with a separate downlink and uplink, then they would simply apply the new modulations to the downlink. You might also find some way to apply the technique to the uplink, but it's nowhere near as important.
If they're proposing something closer to Ethernet, then they'll need to rebuild the system from scratch. I have no idea what they'll do to avoid collision problems.
The question is, how many movies released in the next say, three years will be released in HDTV? For the non-HDTV releases, will the increased bitrates be noticed by a large number of people? It strikes me that three or four years is about the limit, before the next generation of DVD players start to arrive.
I think DVHS sounds great for a small number of high-end Home Theatre enthusiast... But those people do not a broad market make.
That's true, but if they could develop something that works nearly as well as external dialysis machines, a lot of people will be better off. I'm sort of curious how a simple scaffold can encourage these organs to fully develop, but it's clear that even partially developed organs/tissue can do a lot for us. What about cloned bone-marrow transplants?
Actually, they released their original results for that claim in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right about the same time as it hit the major news outlets. Few people actually bothered to look at the details.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. People have been working on growing organs on scaffolds for a while now. They've been working up from simple parts like ears to more complex things. At the same time, there've been demonstrations of stem cells "beating" like heart tissue. How functional these kidneys are is what we should all be asking.
A friend of mine had a Verizon DSL line, which forced him to use PPP-over-Ethernet. It included a piece of (Windows) software that took care of "signing him on", and establishing a PPP connection. If he didn't use his connection for a while, it would sign him out, and the software would automatically sign him back in the next time he connected. A system like that doesn't necessarily require a 1:1 address to computer ratio. Technically, it's not "always on", but I doubt Verizon makes a distinction.