And who pays for the pilots with permanent eye damage? Not like they can continue flying planes. In many countries the taxpayers and/or insurance policy holders would end up paying.
Insurance is a numbers game. There are something like 300,000 planes registered in the US, and that's not incuding the military (or rest of world of course). If it costs $50k to replace the windows on an airplane (could be more or less depending on the plane and depending on whether you value the passengers' eyes, too). That's a shit ton of insurance payments before it becomes worth it. I think the airlines should be more worried about maintaining the planes so that they don't kill everyone on board (including the pilots) than freak about what is so far an overblown problem.
I don't know about you, but I value my eyesight highly. So the fewer assholes and kids going around with powerful lasers the better.
Yeah, that was my (and many other's) point. To summarize, it's a behavioral problem, not a technical one. The solution is fewer assholes, not fewer lasers or magical windows.
Well... I used to work for @Home Network until some brain dead execs bought Excite and Blue Mountain Arts and threw away a great business. The average coax portion of the HFC network served ~400 homes, with the Canadians (Rogers & Shaw) pushing it up to ~1000. And the statistics of shared networks are that not everyone uses it at once - for most streaming today it's about 10-20% of homes on average.
But even if it were 50% or more, there would be PLENTY of bandwidth, given that they have already converted most of the content to H.264 and opened up a bunch of frequencies for DOCSIS data. If you allocated all of the channels (and by channels that's 6Mhz bands up to about 1Ghz for decent coax plant) that's 150 channels x 40Mbps = 6Gbps shared. That's enough for streaming a 1080p H.264 stream to all of those homes, or much more likely streaming that to 10-20% of those homes along with misc downloads, web browsing, occasional 2+ stream in one home, etc, with a lot to spare for the occasional spike.
How much more education does someone need than a required warning label stuck on every laser product that clearly says "WARNING: AVOID DIRECT CONTACT WITH EYES."
Claiming people don't understand that shining a laser into an airplane cockpit is dangerous is about as realistic as claiming most people who smoke never read the giant warning on every pack of cigarettes.
Not to mention, can you imagine the cost of replacing every aircraft window with polarized glass? I mean, have there actually been *any* confirmed cases of a plane crashing due to a laser strike? If not, I'm pretty sure the airlines are not all going to jump at the chance to spend millions of dollars on upgrades, especially when things like *bird* strikes are 100x more dangerous...
Putting people in jail is nothing more than revenge against someone who didn't understand what they were doing in the first place. If they actually understood it and realized the danger and the risk (legal) they wouldn't have done it.
So, people who commit crimes did it because they didn't realize it was bad/dangerous/against the law? Wow, you are one naive person. Not a SINGLE person I know would be clueless enough not to understand shining a bright laser into a cockpit isn't dangerous. I mean, it clearly warns against shining in anyone's eyes on the device itself. It's like claiming people smoke because they don't know it's harmful.
Besides, if that was actually true and it was just an educational issue, enforcing the law and publishing the investigation and punishment as widely as possible would seem to be a great solution.
I honestly think Jobs was a major douche in a lot of ways and have never been a huge Apple fan. But come on. Apple completely set the direction for the current smartphone market (large screen capacitive touch UIs) and also kickstarted and dominates the now massive tablet computing market.
I don't personally think Samsung, etc, should be injuncted from selling similar products just because they look and behave similarly to Apple's in many ways. But to pretend they didn't copy the basic design is absurd.
Actually, no, there are a LOT more than 2-3 solutions...
The major reason for usage capping is not the backbone costs of all of that bandwidth, it's oversubscription; the cable companies can't provide unlimited guaranteed bandwidth to everyone all the time.
However, they do have an absolutely MASSIVE pipe coming into your home, even if it is shared - the problem is they are using almost all of it to send you 799 TV channels you aren't watching while you are tuned to the 800th. If they just dumped the traditional broadcast system to use ALL of the available frequencies for IP-based video, the whole oversubscription problem would go away.
Of course, then they might actually start having a backbone issue, but that's a nice scalable problem they have been continuously solving for decades...
...for the Chinese government to come in and do some hard core strike breaking any day now. Workers of the world flee in terror!
Ah, the irony of "The People's Party". Seriously, now, why do we even bother calling China a Communist country any more, it should just officially be changed to a "Totalitarian Bureaucratic Oligarchy".
So you are trying to state as fact something posted to a conspiracy theory site who's major source of information on the topic is *Natural News* (one of the most unscientific piles of crap in the "natural health" movement)? Heh. I mean this is a guy who thinks vaccinations and proven cancer treatments are evil plots of the government.
Did you read the original "documents" that Natural News used as "proof"? It was $12,000 pledged for a study in 1976 (36 years ago) by Philip Morris. Oh yeah, a massive financial tie and some amazing journalism, he's SO busted! And the rest of the article goes down from there, stating questionable assertions and somehow making sweeping conclusions that don't have anything to do with the facts.
And you make the same overgeneralization that everyone else did with the study, just in a different way. Rather than attributing conclusions to a very focused study that were never stated, you attributed vague alleged individual research ties from 4 decades ago as somehow being a giant conspiracy theory involving the thousands of faculty and researchers at a large university.
Sorry, but it really makes your argument look like an ad hominem, and not even a very strong one...
Sorry, I did notice that section of the article but forgot to address it. Partly that's a bit of scientific he-said she-said that I don't have the expertise to evaluate, but the other part is I don't really trust the reporter.
Yep, he also quoted the "Columbia Foundation" response as fact refuting the study, which is about like quoting Fox News as fact that Obama is a muslim terrorist.
Exactly what I was thinking when I read it - he basically seems to think that scientific studies are done to push their findings and make hard conclusions, rather than experiments that publish their findings. It was the ridiculous new media he's a part of that made the assumptions and conclusions he has issue with.
It's almost amazing how horrible his understanding of scientific studies are when he talks about how it was "narrowly defined" (generally a GOOD thing!) and "isolates the findings from a larger context (also important to good science - the worst studies are the ones that try to make sweeping conclusions based on their results).
Basically, don't knock the study, it was just a summary of collected data that was very clear about what it was saying. Knock the clueless journalists and pundits (of which BIttman is clearly one) for pretending it was any more than that.
Cheese is made from enzymes, traditionally found in rennet, which was traditionally extracted from animal stomachs. Rennet is a complex of enzymes that coagulates proteins in the milk.
Sour cream, buttermilk, and yogurt are made from bacteria, which oxidize sugars during the metabolic process of fermentation. They are two COMPLETELY different biochemical processes. And while it is true that some cheeses undergo fermentation as well, that's the exception rather than the rule.
Just because the ancient Romans didn't understand biochemistry and mis-named cheese based on their assumption it was being fermented doesn't make it scientifically accurate.
I don't know a single person that doesn't bike because they have to wear a helmet. And I suspect anyone that reports such is just looking for a socially acceptable reason for their lack of exercise.
I'd never bike if I had to wear a helmet! And I stopped driving once they made seat belts mandatory. In fact, I stopped walking as well after a cop told me I had to wear pants outside. Now I pretty much just sit at home doing nothing. But at least I don't have to wear pants.
Unlikely. A large part of the US nuclear arsenal is actually on submarines these days. And if you really think a "cyber" attack could be so effective that not only the US but the entire NATO infrastructure could be permanently disabled (which is absurd outside of sci-fi) don't worry... the Brits still allow their subs to launch nukes at the discretion of the crew, yay!
So, a good enough attack would basically ensure the end of the world, so point #4 is pretty much moot.
And I think what you are not getting is that it's Motorola's *option* to have the injunction enforced (or as the 9th circuit said, the injunction is "not self-enforcing" as Morotola has to put up a $300M bond to cover damages to Microsoft in the event it's reversed). And the US court absolutely has a right to tell *Motorola* not to enforce it *if* they feel doing so, as they said, "frustrated [the district court’s] ability to adjudicate issues properly before it”.
Actually, another poster already provided a reasonable analogy: if a child's mom forbids him from doing something and he goes over to a friend's house where his friend's mother ignores that and allows it, that doesn't mean his mother isn't going to punish him for breaking her rule when he gets home. If it's "my house, my rules" you're best off obeying the rules where you live.
No, I'm suggesting if you really care about it you can go read up on international contract law and the various agreements and treaties signed between different countries. I don't pretend to have read that many details of it, but I also don't pretend I somehow know more than the judges and legal experts who *have*.
My newsletter has been suspended indefinitely, as the UN has a much better one that can be found at uncitral.org
And as the article said, the US court wasn't telling German courts to do anything, anyway. They told *Motorola* they couldn't enforce the injunction in Germany because the lawsuit was still being decided in the US. I'd imagine if Motorola wanted to drop the US suit they could feel free to enforce the German injunction, but that would be moronic as their potential gain in the US is orders of magnitude greater.
Motorola sued Microsoft in a Washington state court. For an RTFA Troll, you really didn't RTFA (or even if you did, you still want to play armchair lawyer...)
It's not a PATENT dispute at the core, it's a CONTRACT dispute, and Morotola sued about the breach in the US. International contract law is a huge, complicated area, so I'm going to have to assume a Federal judge knows more about the field than a bunch of armchair contract lawyers on slashdot - especially when both of the countries who entered into the contract are American, making the jurisdiction pretty obvious.
And Microsoft has already stated/admitted they borrowed major parts of the design language from the King Country Metro system maps in Seattle (hence the name Metro, get it?)
Slashdot Mirror
And who pays for the pilots with permanent eye damage? Not like they can continue flying planes. In many countries the taxpayers and/or insurance policy holders would end up paying.
Insurance is a numbers game. There are something like 300,000 planes registered in the US, and that's not incuding the military (or rest of world of course). If it costs $50k to replace the windows on an airplane (could be more or less depending on the plane and depending on whether you value the passengers' eyes, too). That's a shit ton of insurance payments before it becomes worth it. I think the airlines should be more worried about maintaining the planes so that they don't kill everyone on board (including the pilots) than freak about what is so far an overblown problem.
I don't know about you, but I value my eyesight highly. So the fewer assholes and kids going around with powerful lasers the better.
Yeah, that was my (and many other's) point. To summarize, it's a behavioral problem, not a technical one. The solution is fewer assholes, not fewer lasers or magical windows.
Well... I used to work for @Home Network until some brain dead execs bought Excite and Blue Mountain Arts and threw away a great business. The average coax portion of the HFC network served ~400 homes, with the Canadians (Rogers & Shaw) pushing it up to ~1000. And the statistics of shared networks are that not everyone uses it at once - for most streaming today it's about 10-20% of homes on average.
But even if it were 50% or more, there would be PLENTY of bandwidth, given that they have already converted most of the content to H.264 and opened up a bunch of frequencies for DOCSIS data. If you allocated all of the channels (and by channels that's 6Mhz bands up to about 1Ghz for decent coax plant) that's 150 channels x 40Mbps = 6Gbps shared. That's enough for streaming a 1080p H.264 stream to all of those homes, or much more likely streaming that to 10-20% of those homes along with misc downloads, web browsing, occasional 2+ stream in one home, etc, with a lot to spare for the occasional spike.
How much more education does someone need than a required warning label stuck on every laser product that clearly says "WARNING: AVOID DIRECT CONTACT WITH EYES."
Claiming people don't understand that shining a laser into an airplane cockpit is dangerous is about as realistic as claiming most people who smoke never read the giant warning on every pack of cigarettes.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Not to mention, can you imagine the cost of replacing every aircraft window with polarized glass? I mean, have there actually been *any* confirmed cases of a plane crashing due to a laser strike? If not, I'm pretty sure the airlines are not all going to jump at the chance to spend millions of dollars on upgrades, especially when things like *bird* strikes are 100x more dangerous...
Putting people in jail is nothing more than revenge against someone who didn't understand what they were doing in the first place. If they actually understood it and realized the danger and the risk (legal) they wouldn't have done it.
So, people who commit crimes did it because they didn't realize it was bad/dangerous/against the law? Wow, you are one naive person. Not a SINGLE person I know would be clueless enough not to understand shining a bright laser into a cockpit isn't dangerous. I mean, it clearly warns against shining in anyone's eyes on the device itself. It's like claiming people smoke because they don't know it's harmful.
Besides, if that was actually true and it was just an educational issue, enforcing the law and publishing the investigation and punishment as widely as possible would seem to be a great solution.
I honestly think Jobs was a major douche in a lot of ways and have never been a huge Apple fan. But come on. Apple completely set the direction for the current smartphone market (large screen capacitive touch UIs) and also kickstarted and dominates the now massive tablet computing market.
I don't personally think Samsung, etc, should be injuncted from selling similar products just because they look and behave similarly to Apple's in many ways. But to pretend they didn't copy the basic design is absurd.
Actually, no, there are a LOT more than 2-3 solutions...
The major reason for usage capping is not the backbone costs of all of that bandwidth, it's oversubscription; the cable companies can't provide unlimited guaranteed bandwidth to everyone all the time.
However, they do have an absolutely MASSIVE pipe coming into your home, even if it is shared - the problem is they are using almost all of it to send you 799 TV channels you aren't watching while you are tuned to the 800th. If they just dumped the traditional broadcast system to use ALL of the available frequencies for IP-based video, the whole oversubscription problem would go away.
Of course, then they might actually start having a backbone issue, but that's a nice scalable problem they have been continuously solving for decades...
...for the Chinese government to come in and do some hard core strike breaking any day now. Workers of the world flee in terror!
Ah, the irony of "The People's Party". Seriously, now, why do we even bother calling China a Communist country any more, it should just officially be changed to a "Totalitarian Bureaucratic Oligarchy".
Yeah, but the question was how much time it took her to level this character to 85, not how long she's been playing.
So you are trying to state as fact something posted to a conspiracy theory site who's major source of information on the topic is *Natural News* (one of the most unscientific piles of crap in the "natural health" movement)? Heh. I mean this is a guy who thinks vaccinations and proven cancer treatments are evil plots of the government.
Did you read the original "documents" that Natural News used as "proof"? It was $12,000 pledged for a study in 1976 (36 years ago) by Philip Morris. Oh yeah, a massive financial tie and some amazing journalism, he's SO busted! And the rest of the article goes down from there, stating questionable assertions and somehow making sweeping conclusions that don't have anything to do with the facts.
And you make the same overgeneralization that everyone else did with the study, just in a different way. Rather than attributing conclusions to a very focused study that were never stated, you attributed vague alleged individual research ties from 4 decades ago as somehow being a giant conspiracy theory involving the thousands of faculty and researchers at a large university.
Sorry, but it really makes your argument look like an ad hominem, and not even a very strong one...
Yeah, there is a way of knowing, as the link in the article says the account was created in Sept 2011...
Sorry, I did notice that section of the article but forgot to address it. Partly that's a bit of scientific he-said she-said that I don't have the expertise to evaluate, but the other part is I don't really trust the reporter.
Yep, he also quoted the "Columbia Foundation" response as fact refuting the study, which is about like quoting Fox News as fact that Obama is a muslim terrorist.
Exactly what I was thinking when I read it - he basically seems to think that scientific studies are done to push their findings and make hard conclusions, rather than experiments that publish their findings. It was the ridiculous new media he's a part of that made the assumptions and conclusions he has issue with.
It's almost amazing how horrible his understanding of scientific studies are when he talks about how it was "narrowly defined" (generally a GOOD thing!) and "isolates the findings from a larger context (also important to good science - the worst studies are the ones that try to make sweeping conclusions based on their results).
Basically, don't knock the study, it was just a summary of collected data that was very clear about what it was saying. Knock the clueless journalists and pundits (of which BIttman is clearly one) for pretending it was any more than that.
But weighing the box won't tell you anything (no, a cat's soul does NOT weigh 21 grams). I think it's more the equivalent of smelling the box.
No, seriously, go look it up.
Cheese is made from enzymes, traditionally found in rennet, which was traditionally extracted from animal stomachs. Rennet is a complex of enzymes that coagulates proteins in the milk.
Sour cream, buttermilk, and yogurt are made from bacteria, which oxidize sugars during the metabolic process of fermentation. They are two COMPLETELY different biochemical processes. And while it is true that some cheeses undergo fermentation as well, that's the exception rather than the rule.
Just because the ancient Romans didn't understand biochemistry and mis-named cheese based on their assumption it was being fermented doesn't make it scientifically accurate.
I don't know a single person that doesn't bike because they have to wear a helmet. And I suspect anyone that reports such is just looking for a socially acceptable reason for their lack of exercise.
I'd never bike if I had to wear a helmet! And I stopped driving once they made seat belts mandatory. In fact, I stopped walking as well after a cop told me I had to wear pants outside. Now I pretty much just sit at home doing nothing. But at least I don't have to wear pants.
Sure, but given most (US at least) carriers stick you with a 2 year contract when you buy an iPhone, it sure as hell isn't one of them.
No, the EU actually forbid calling products cheese that are not made from fermented milk.
I seriously doubt that's true, as cheese generally has *nothing* to do with fermentation.
I know you're an AC but I have to reply...
Unlikely. A large part of the US nuclear arsenal is actually on submarines these days. And if you really think a "cyber" attack could be so effective that not only the US but the entire NATO infrastructure could be permanently disabled (which is absurd outside of sci-fi) don't worry... the Brits still allow their subs to launch nukes at the discretion of the crew, yay!
So, a good enough attack would basically ensure the end of the world, so point #4 is pretty much moot.
And I think what you are not getting is that it's Motorola's *option* to have the injunction enforced (or as the 9th circuit said, the injunction is "not self-enforcing" as Morotola has to put up a $300M bond to cover damages to Microsoft in the event it's reversed). And the US court absolutely has a right to tell *Motorola* not to enforce it *if* they feel doing so, as they said, "frustrated [the district court’s] ability to adjudicate issues properly before it”.
Actually, another poster already provided a reasonable analogy: if a child's mom forbids him from doing something and he goes over to a friend's house where his friend's mother ignores that and allows it, that doesn't mean his mother isn't going to punish him for breaking her rule when he gets home. If it's "my house, my rules" you're best off obeying the rules where you live.
In case you want to RTFO (I thought it was interesting): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/28/1235352.pdf
No, I'm suggesting if you really care about it you can go read up on international contract law and the various agreements and treaties signed between different countries. I don't pretend to have read that many details of it, but I also don't pretend I somehow know more than the judges and legal experts who *have*.
My newsletter has been suspended indefinitely, as the UN has a much better one that can be found at uncitral.org
And as the article said, the US court wasn't telling German courts to do anything, anyway. They told *Motorola* they couldn't enforce the injunction in Germany because the lawsuit was still being decided in the US. I'd imagine if Motorola wanted to drop the US suit they could feel free to enforce the German injunction, but that would be moronic as their potential gain in the US is orders of magnitude greater.
Motorola sued Microsoft in a Washington state court. For an RTFA Troll, you really didn't RTFA (or even if you did, you still want to play armchair lawyer...)
It's not a PATENT dispute at the core, it's a CONTRACT dispute, and Morotola sued about the breach in the US. International contract law is a huge, complicated area, so I'm going to have to assume a Federal judge knows more about the field than a bunch of armchair contract lawyers on slashdot - especially when both of the countries who entered into the contract are American, making the jurisdiction pretty obvious.
Here's a starting point if you really care... http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1980CISG.html
And Microsoft has already stated/admitted they borrowed major parts of the design language from the King Country Metro system maps in Seattle (hence the name Metro, get it?)
Hmm, maybe this developer DID THE SAME?
Yeah, that's barely enough to target a nuke, let alone a cruise missile. The CIA will be highly disappointed.