By reducing the size of the film; you simply reduce the size of the object.
It's obvious you don't have much real world expericence with holograms. reducing the size of the film (by cutting it in half for example) does NOT reduce the size of the image. It only restricts how much of the image you can see. Think of the holgram as a window you're looking though at an object. If you make your window smaller, it doesn't make the object smaller... just makes it so you can see less without moving relative to the window.
Seriously though, they DON'T have any projection holograms as depicted in the photo. If they did, now THAT would be news!
If you've read their patent you see that they have NO TECHNOLOGY. They're just trying to patent an idea....and one that's been done to death in sci-fi for ages as well.
How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . ..
Or _because_ of the Red Hat announcement, they're saying "Oops, game over. Time to reel in the suckers as fast as we can before we get thrown out of court."
Just got a Canon s9000 and am very pleased. It's a 6 color printer and the no-name ink is MUCH cheaper than HP/etc. You can get a set of *6* ink cartriges on ebay for about $12.:)
The GPL is somthing far different from a common shrink-wrap licence. It's an open offer of a CONTRACT TO REDISTRIBUTE.
If you took any shrink-wrap commercial software and started copying and redistributing it (as SCO is doing with the kernel code), it would be viewed as a copyright violation *IRREGARDLESS* of any shrink-wrap license, EULA etc.
Your southern lawer seems to be overlooking the fact that we're not talking about the price for a copy of Linux. We're talking about the price of REDISTRIBUTION rights for Linux. You CAN'T get a REDISTRIBUTALBE copy anywhere for nothing!
What are you talking about? Win modems were (and still are) significantly cheaper than standalone modems. You can get a winmodem for $5 these days, but a standalone will cost you ten times that!
A very accurate assessment. I used to be more a fan of Randi, until I started reading the articles on his site and realized how extremely biased and unobjective he really is at times. Seeing him pushing statements that don't follow from logic or rational argument, it's fairly easy to see where his preconceptions and biases lie. Such a shame.
It's because you can't get "2 amps" running through a person without a few thousand volts behind it! Yeah... just take that 12v battery and TRY to get an amp running through your body with it.;)
On top of that, if he's assuming thermal equalibrium, the blackbody radiation should be emitted from BOTH sides of the sail _equally_ in the reference frame of the sail. Just because one side of the sail is reflective doesn't mean it's immune to Planck's equation.;)
Yes, the photon pressure gets weaker the further out from the sun you go, but SO DOES THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE of the sun. BOTH the light intensity and the graviataional force fall off as 1/r^2. So if you have enough photon pressure to keep you from falling into the sun near the inner planets, you'd have the same net force at the outer planets. That's one of the interesting points of solar sails. If you have enough area to balance your weight, you can just park it at any distance from the sun you want.
Gotcha. My misunderstanding.:) It's kind of disturbing to see some of the comments on this thread where people are actually actually buying into some rediculous scenarios and seem not to realize that the GPL *IS* copyright law and can't be overridden by private contracts between third parties. As RMS pointed out, the worst that could happen, even to the linux kernel is that any legally offending code would need to be replaced, and that would happen almost immediately.
You're being blinded by your obvious prejudices. He only mentions HURD as one of serveral other viable kernels and only in passing.
His main statements about what SCO is doing and potential code violations:
"But it is no disaster; we discard that material and move on. If there is material in Linux that was contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will learn what it is and replace it."
Just suppose for a moment that SCO is right in that all variations of Unix really are derivative works, and that therefore they own the copyrights...
Bzzt! There is no way in HELL that they can claim to have COPYRIGHTS on all derrivatives! They're claiming DISTRIBUTION rights on derrivatives. Unfortunately for them, the contract is only with certain companies that have made contract with them.
If I've written code and released it for use in OSS, then I alone hold the copyright inlcuding all Intellectual Property rights associated with it and SCO has no claim whatsoever. If the term 'derrivative' was as loose as SCO claims, then it would break all kinds of other IP laws.
I'd go one further and say that it's only a threat to certain parts of code in the Linux kernel.
As RMS pointed out, those lines of code will be immediately replaced or removed. The complaints of SCO don't have presidence over the rest of the kernel code which is clearly protected under copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
Look on the bright side... By the time this technology actually gets invented, this patent will probably already have expired. ;)
It's obvious you don't have much real world expericence with holograms. reducing the size of the film (by cutting it in half for example) does NOT reduce the size of the image. It only restricts how much of the image you can see. Think of the holgram as a window you're looking though at an object. If you make your window smaller, it doesn't make the object smaller... just makes it so you can see less without moving relative to the window.
Where in the world did you get your ideas? Let me guess... you watch every episode of Star Trek ever aired, and think it's real science?
Hey, you even forgot to check the [x]Post Anonymously box. ;)
Not to mention the fact that their web site's 'photos' are _EXTREMELY_ misleading.
Seriously though, they DON'T have any projection holograms as depicted in the photo. If they did, now THAT would be news!
If you've read their patent you see that they have NO TECHNOLOGY. They're just trying to patent an idea. ...and one that's been done to death in sci-fi for ages as well.
Or _because_ of the Red Hat announcement, they're saying "Oops, game over. Time to reel in the suckers as fast as we can before we get thrown out of court."
Just got a Canon s9000 and am very pleased. It's a 6 color printer and the no-name ink is MUCH cheaper than HP/etc. You can get a set of *6* ink cartriges on ebay for about $12. :)
If you took any shrink-wrap commercial software and started copying and redistributing it (as SCO is doing with the kernel code), it would be viewed as a copyright violation *IRREGARDLESS* of any shrink-wrap license, EULA etc.
Excellent analysis, IMHO. This is a sinking ship making a deal to take someone else out with them.
The GPL *IS* the price of redistribution!
What are you talking about? Win modems were (and still are) significantly cheaper than standalone modems. You can get a winmodem for $5 these days, but a standalone will cost you ten times that!
They're zip archive files. You may have to rename the extension to .zip to access them.
A very accurate assessment. I used to be more a fan of Randi, until I started reading the articles on his site and realized how extremely biased and unobjective he really is at times. Seeing him pushing statements that don't follow from logic or rational argument, it's fairly easy to see where his preconceptions and biases lie. Such a shame.
It's because you can't get "2 amps" running through a person without a few thousand volts behind it! Yeah... just take that 12v battery and TRY to get an amp running through your body with it. ;)
Yes, many do, but the VAST MAJORITY don't. Of course, if you actually knew anything about the subject you might know this. ;)
LOL! <sarcasm> Yes, those ham radio antennas use really tightly focused beams. </sarcasm>
True, with the exception of metal foils which are too thin to properly reflect the microwaves.
On top of that, if he's assuming thermal equalibrium, the blackbody radiation should be emitted from BOTH sides of the sail _equally_ in the reference frame of the sail. Just because one side of the sail is reflective doesn't mean it's immune to Planck's equation. ;)
Yes, the photon pressure gets weaker the further out from the sun you go, but SO DOES THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE of the sun. BOTH the light intensity and the graviataional force fall off as 1/r^2. So if you have enough photon pressure to keep you from falling into the sun near the inner planets, you'd have the same net force at the outer planets. That's one of the interesting points of solar sails. If you have enough area to balance your weight, you can just park it at any distance from the sun you want.
Gotcha. My misunderstanding. :) It's kind of disturbing to see some of the comments on this thread where people are actually actually buying into some rediculous scenarios and seem not to realize that the GPL *IS* copyright law and can't be overridden by private contracts between third parties. As RMS pointed out, the worst that could happen, even to the linux kernel is that any legally offending code would need to be replaced, and that would happen almost immediately.
His main statements about what SCO is doing and potential code violations:
"But it is no disaster; we discard that material and move on. If there is material in Linux that was contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will learn what it is and replace it."Bzzt! There is no way in HELL that they can claim to have COPYRIGHTS on all derrivatives! They're claiming DISTRIBUTION rights on derrivatives. Unfortunately for them, the contract is only with certain companies that have made contract with them.
If I've written code and released it for use in OSS, then I alone hold the copyright inlcuding all Intellectual Property rights associated with it and SCO has no claim whatsoever. If the term 'derrivative' was as loose as SCO claims, then it would break all kinds of other IP laws.
Hahaha.... That's just it. They don't own ANY of it. They're just trying to capitalize on a distribution contract.
As RMS pointed out, those lines of code will be immediately replaced or removed. The complaints of SCO don't have presidence over the rest of the kernel code which is clearly protected under copyright law.
Yes, you are remembering incorrectly. ;)