In the 2008 NEC, nearly all outlets will be required to have combination AFCI and GFCI breakers, as well as shuttered outlets.
A solution in search of a problem. I wonder how much lobbying by the AFCI patent-holders it took to get that one.
The problem with these constantly-updated regulatory codes is that once they've gotten things "good enough", they have to start going looking for ever more marginal "problems" to solve, and damn the expense.
AFCIs. Right. Just how many fires are there which could have been prevented by an AFCI in a house which was even close to up to code in the first place? And what is the point of GFCIs everywhere, other than to tick people off when they trip spuriously on electronics, older refrigerators, and such?
220v takes the same three wires to run as 110v. Two carriers (hot and hot hot) and a ground. There's no neutral in 220v, so you can run either 110v or 220v from the same romex wire - just not at the same time.
US 220V appliances require two hots and a neutral. The current NEC requires a safety ground as well. The appliances typically run heating elements with the 220V, with everything else being 110V.
To be fair, most houses have 220v as well as 110v (check behind your dryer). 220v requires MUCH more expensive wiring
No it doesn't. Ordinary Romex can handle 220V fine; the insulation is rated for 600V. New US 220V wiring costs more because it requires four wires rather than three (two hots, a neutral, and a ground), but that's because it's split phase, not because of the voltage. And it's probably still cheaper than what it would take to deliver the same power with 110V.
GPS was never intended to measure speed. All it does is get position and repeat. Speed is calculated based on change of position over time, which is good for averaging but NOT good for spot measurements.
This is a common misconception. It's entirely false. GPS devices calculate an instantaneous speed directly from the doppler shifts of the satellite signals. The display speed (and position) is indeed filtered, but the speed is not derived from successive position measurements.
And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot.
No, it won't. Global draconian copyright laws will allow them to do MORE of that sort of thing, not less. Piracy is not the reason those things aren't available to the rest of the world (or at least Europe). They simply feel (probably accurately) that they can make more money by distributing separately in each region.
Incorrect. The right to run the software is not one of the exclusive rights included in copyright (see 17 USC 106). Furthermore, the right to make copies incidental to executing the software is specifically permitted to the owner of a copy of the software (17 USC 117). The shiny plastic disc is a copy of the software (17 USC 101). Therefore I have the right to run it.
As for Carbolic Smoke, it clearly doesn't apply (case concerned a company which made an open offer and then refused to honor it), and as such, is a smokescreen.
You don't have to have signed a contract to violate the license agreement - you can still be sued for that, and lose. Did you sign a contract the last time you bought a DVD? Good luck explaining to the court that making copies of it is OK because you never signed a contract.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been successfully sued for violating a license agreement (as opposed to copyright law itself, or the DMCA) included with a movie DVD, so your analogy fails.
"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."
Guilty plea in 3...2...1...
(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)
False. EULA stands for End-User License Agreement. Like the name suggests, its the terms to which you are licensed the software.
I didn't license the software. I bought a copy of it. A nice shiny disc in a shrink-wrapped cardboard package. Apple doesn't even know who has it; I didn't buy it from them. So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
They challenged the EULA and the court favored Apple.
Your reference does not support your claim. Further, in a recent Slashdot article (actually, two, yay dupes), there was a reference to a Groklaw article which showed that Apple's central copyright violation claims do not require EULAs to be valid, though of course Apple claims the EULA violation as well.
And why stop there? The bits on the wire connecting the hard drive to the motherboard? That's another copy right there. And as the bits travel through each additional stage of gates on the way to RAM and/or the CPU? Another copy.
In a surprising outbreak of common sense, the Second Circuit Cablevision remote DVR decision actually declares that sort of thing to be not a new copy for the purpose of copyright law.
So if enough people upload a commute including hard braking, hard acceration, high-G turns, and sections well over 100mph, will that cause them to design an electric car with some serious power?
If I had a nickel every time a robot in one of his stories had the 2nd law "strengthened" because it was too valuable, I'd have like more than 20 cents.
Third law. Only one story, as far as I know -- Runaround. First story in which the laws appeared. It made perfect sense; the laws couldn't be as binary and strictly-ordered as their usual English statement, or the robot would stupidly destroy itself even when a very slight and inconsequential deviation from orders would avoid its destruction. So they added a weighting system, with the unexpected result that the robot followed an equipotential surface when orders conflicted with danger.
In another story (Little Lost Robot), the First Law was altered. But that was in the setup, not the resolution.
As I have posted before, what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications(and hence derivative copies) to the OS by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
Nothing, if EULAs are upheld as overriding the sale of the software; that road leads to all sorts of absurd and obscene consequences. But Apple's argument against Psystar doesn't require EULAs to be valid.
The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded _from_ is a legal copy. So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy. That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.
Fortunately, when dealing with a tactical, self-contained, antimissile system, none of those needs to be important. Any external time measure is irrelevant. What's relevant is that all parts of the system have the same time base. No need to worry about leap seconds, time zones, years, or local noon.
We had a similar problem with an Aegis design, and it was a major headache for us Hardware engineers to try to convince the Systems Engineers that counting in Binary time was more logical than counting in 0.1 second increments. The SEs kept insisting that their computers at home accurately count in seconds and we hardware engineers should be able too.
There's nothing wrong with 0.1 second increments, so long as they're represented as an integer number of deciseconds (or centiseconds or milliseconds) -- just like those computers back home.
In any case, the only way that can be done in any permanent manner is to not give Hezbollah any reason to fire rockets in the first place. Not "occupation".
Yeah, like Hezbollah needs a reason to fire rockets. Not much the Israelis can do -- besides cease to exist -- to eliminate reasons for Hezbollah to fire rockets at them.
Slashdot Mirror
Twist-lock is a plot by the robotic overlords! If we can't yank the plug out quickly, how are we supposed to stop them when they won't turn off!
A solution in search of a problem. I wonder how much lobbying by the AFCI patent-holders it took to get that one.
The problem with these constantly-updated regulatory codes is that once they've gotten things "good enough", they have to start going looking for ever more marginal "problems" to solve, and damn the expense.
AFCIs. Right. Just how many fires are there which could have been prevented by an AFCI in a house which was even close to up to code in the first place? And what is the point of GFCIs everywhere, other than to tick people off when they trip spuriously on electronics, older refrigerators, and such?
US 220V appliances require two hots and a neutral. The current NEC requires a safety ground as well. The appliances typically run heating elements with the 220V, with everything else being 110V.
No it doesn't. Ordinary Romex can handle 220V fine; the insulation is rated for 600V. New US 220V wiring costs more because it requires four wires rather than three (two hots, a neutral, and a ground), but that's because it's split phase, not because of the voltage. And it's probably still cheaper than what it would take to deliver the same power with 110V.
So, will they go the traditional route and block /0 when they shut down?
Well, that's pretty messed up. Now that life is easy, you aren't lazy enough to take advantage of that fact...
The internal ass kicking and ass raping is how they control US on the OUTSIDE.
This is a common misconception. It's entirely false. GPS devices calculate an instantaneous speed directly from the doppler shifts of the satellite signals. The display speed (and position) is indeed filtered, but the speed is not derived from successive position measurements.
No, it won't. Global draconian copyright laws will allow them to do MORE of that sort of thing, not less. Piracy is not the reason those things aren't available to the rest of the world (or at least Europe). They simply feel (probably accurately) that they can make more money by distributing separately in each region.
Incorrect. The right to run the software is not one of the exclusive rights included in copyright (see 17 USC 106). Furthermore, the right to make copies incidental to executing the software is specifically permitted to the owner of a copy of the software (17 USC 117). The shiny plastic disc is a copy of the software (17 USC 101). Therefore I have the right to run it.
As for Carbolic Smoke, it clearly doesn't apply (case concerned a company which made an open offer and then refused to honor it), and as such, is a smokescreen.
It's not a real problem. These rats with their superior maze-following ability will be nerds among rats, and thus will not reproduce in the wild.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been successfully sued for violating a license agreement (as opposed to copyright law itself, or the DMCA) included with a movie DVD, so your analogy fails.
"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."
Guilty plea in 3...2...1...
(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)
That magic piece of plastic is a material object in which a copyrighted work is affixed. In other words, a copy of OS X.
I didn't license the software. I bought a copy of it. A nice shiny disc in a shrink-wrapped cardboard package. Apple doesn't even know who has it; I didn't buy it from them. So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
Your reference does not support your claim. Further, in a recent Slashdot article (actually, two, yay dupes), there was a reference to a Groklaw article which showed that Apple's central copyright violation claims do not require EULAs to be valid, though of course Apple claims the EULA violation as well.
In a surprising outbreak of common sense, the Second Circuit Cablevision remote DVR decision actually declares that sort of thing to be not a new copy for the purpose of copyright law.
So if enough people upload a commute including hard braking, hard acceration, high-G turns, and sections well over 100mph, will that cause them to design an electric car with some serious power?
Third law. Only one story, as far as I know -- Runaround. First story in which the laws appeared. It made perfect sense; the laws couldn't be as binary and strictly-ordered as their usual English statement, or the robot would stupidly destroy itself even when a very slight and inconsequential deviation from orders would avoid its destruction. So they added a weighting system, with the unexpected result that the robot followed an equipotential surface when orders conflicted with danger.
In another story (Little Lost Robot), the First Law was altered. But that was in the setup, not the resolution.
Nothing, if EULAs are upheld as overriding the sale of the software; that road leads to all sorts of absurd and obscene consequences. But Apple's argument against Psystar doesn't require EULAs to be valid.
When we're already in the situation of tyranny tempered by incompetence, the last thing I want is more competence.
The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded _from_ is a legal copy. So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy. That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.
Fortunately, when dealing with a tactical, self-contained, antimissile system, none of those needs to be important. Any external time measure is irrelevant. What's relevant is that all parts of the system have the same time base. No need to worry about leap seconds, time zones, years, or local noon.
There's nothing wrong with 0.1 second increments, so long as they're represented as an integer number of deciseconds (or centiseconds or milliseconds) -- just like those computers back home.
Yeah, like Hezbollah needs a reason to fire rockets. Not much the Israelis can do -- besides cease to exist -- to eliminate reasons for Hezbollah to fire rockets at them.