Odd,that the patent office would allow a patent on a military application. If you read the laws concerning patents, you cannot patent anything of national security. Any patent that is granted on inventions used by the government for national security are invalid and unenforceable. I don't recall the actual wording, but that is the net affect. So I wouldn't worry about patents on Atomic bombs, however, anyone considering building one might want to read up on the "Nuclear Boy Scout". Google it. It' hilarious, although I predict he will have health problems someday. Enriching radioactive isotopes in your garage with no shielding isn't terribly farsighted behavior.
Harley's certainly aren't going to win the prize for the most reliable motorcylcle, but that has nothing to do with the fact that so many are "trailer queens" (ie carted around on trailers). The reasons for this are:
1) to keep the mileage low, 2) to keep the cycles clean and pristine without road tar, and chips from flying debris, etc. 3) to show off one's KEWL wheels.
It has nothing to do with reliability, and everything to do with showing off, and maybe a little to do with resale value. That said, both of my Harleys have been very reliable. They've certainly gotten a lot better than the days shortly after Amercian in the 70s took them over and totally trashed them. They've remade themselves and are quite reliable now. Still KZs are probably more reliable, but I'd rather blow my brains out than try to repair a KZ.
It's about time OOo added this feature, sadly I have to wait another half a year for it. Good news though, I had to wait even longer for true regex support.
One of those missing formulas is the formula for calculating a Word95 date, which calculates the wrong date for certain dates as the leap year logic in Word95 (or was it 97) is incorrect. So in order to support OOXML you have to be able to create incorrect dates given any date. Yeah, that's what I want in a word processor. There are other stupid hacks like this, plus there are a number of formulas that need to be supported, but Microsoft hasn't specified in the standard how or what has to be done to support it, so there is no one in the world who can implement an OOXML compatible format EXCEPT Microsoft.
Hmmm... what a useful standard, a standard only one company in the world can implement.
for a group of people to book a flight, and then have everyone on that flight provide ids only from states in the no-fly list. Then repeat that in lots of places. Are airlines really going to want to turn back that many people and risk lots of lawsuits for refunds, bad relations, etc? Of course, it'd be hard to do something like this. The rebel spirit seem to be missing in America today, all the 60's hippies have become the enemy.
Thanks to recent cases, clicking "I agree..." is considered legally binding now according to US legal precedent. There are at least two such famous cases supporting it. However, Google's search service isn't requiring a click or any direct agreement. That isn't to say that none of Google's services have no such explicit agreement. If you explicitly agree to any terms of service on the internet beware...
However, American contract law has changed considerably from the days of old. I was being facetious when I said perhaps I was using the wrong terminology. Judges in America frequently change contracts that appear before them, especially if it is badly written. It's a common practice in America. Which is why most corporations in the US now require arbitration or trial in their home state.
Ok, there are three conditions required for a contract to exist which may be questioned here: agreement, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
The conditions are different in America, there is a six-point check in America and intention to "create legal relations" isn't one of them. If you're going to argue American Law with me at least learn the terminology.
However, I feel that the EULA cases and the ticket cases (primarily those that refer to low-value hire agreements, public transport tickets etc) can be extended to apply in this scenario.
I gave you an American case where this was attempted and failed because of the lack of communication of agreement. Google's contract will be found invalid in a US court until they add a checkbox or some other means of communicating ("I agree..."). Clicking in "search" won't do it. US legal precedent and common law, although you wish to discount it, already state that "implicit" agreement isn't valid. Which part of implicit are you not understanding here? Your ProCD case was a click-through agreement and also a clearly displayed agreement on the package that says by opening "you agree". The contract was displayed to the user and a click to agree given. This is a case of explicit agreement, and while I find it a troubling case it is not applicable here. Google could add something like "by clicking 'search you agree...'" and thus validate the contract, possibly (and depending on the knowledge of the judge probably). All of your argument centers around the supposition of an existing contract. Yes, once you have an existing contract it is easy for one party to change the terms on you without you having to further agree, but without that first explicit agreement, there is no contract. This is where all of your analogies fail.
Holding, recording or storing information on a minor is not prima facie criminal.
It is in MY state, and most, if not all, states in America, without consent. Granted, the information that Google would be storing is potentially anonymous data, which can be linked to an IP and from that it may be possible to discover what my child's true identity is. It may be that no rational prosecutor would try such a case, but this is the US we are talking about. While the child protection laws were intended to protect specific individuals most are not written that way, leaving plenty of room for interpretation. That is the common practice in the US legislatures, after lawyers need to have caviar too.
I would suggest that before you try to present legal argument again, on Slashdot or anywhere else, you perhaps pick up a text book, or do some research beyond Wikipedia. That way you'll save me from my duty.
Back at you. Might, I suggest you start with Black's Law Dictionary. (ducks);')
Microsoft will have to adopt the BluRay or lose the game market. Games will begin making use of the expanded space on the BluRays and also as the boxes get older and the competition upgrades to new machines, XBox will have to adapt or die off. M$ may be able to hold off making a decision for maybe 3 years, but if they do, they may find themselves in a very bad place. This is just posturing on M$'s part, or else, they really are losing grip with reality. I predict a boom in the chair manufacturing market in the Northwest. Lastly as XBoxes HD/DVDs begin to die and there are no replacement parts, the resale value will drop into the negative range. They will become worse than 8-track tape players. XBoxes will become the laughing stock of the gaming world. Those who refuse to learn from history will stubbornly repeat it. I see a new aftermarket for upgrading XBoxes to BluRay... oh wait, that would violate the DMCA. Oops, guess that one is going to backfire...
Sorry, but I'm fairly certain that English contract law doesn't apply to the USA, and it wouldn't be an admissible case, unless it predates 1782, and thus could be considered possible American common law. From what I've seen of cases in USA, visiting a website that doesn't require a login or click-through agreement doesn't rise to the level of the legal technical definition of "genuine consent" or of "agreement" not to mention there is no "consideration" given. Therefore this "contract" doesn't pass three of the six "required" parts that make any contract legally binding. Perhaps I am using the wrong phrases, not being a lawyer and all, but there is a certain level that must be met, and it is a technical legal level, and while there is current precedent for click-through agreements when money changes hand, merely visiting a website and using the pages there haven't yet been shown to meet that level. You may now try to say that this is a unilateral contract to which I would reply that acceptance requires an action. This is the foundation of the law in this country. A contract is not valid if there is no communication of acceptance of the contract. Silence cannot be construed as acceptance. Acceptance cannot be implied nor can the forgoing of communication of acceptance be implied. They are giving it away without consideration or communication of acceptance. Whereas the NYT requires a registration to use their online "service", hence in consideration for your personal information and your communication of agreement, you are granted the "right" to use their "service" and if they have posted on their website the terms of service, you'd better read and agree to them before you use the service. Otherwise you might have agreed to something you didn't intend. Also, the contract has to be legal in all of it's aspects. While I see contracts that include a clause saying that if part of it is invalid the rest isn't, but I don't believe that is supportable. Also, if parts of a contract are "unconscionable", the contract is also invalid. I've seen judges completely rewrite contracts in cases. You never know what you're gonna get.
And if you still insist that you might have a point I direct you to Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y.2001) which totally destroys your bogus argument (i.e. since there is no click through or positive acceptance it is a void and invalid contract).
I think you need to train harder, because I think you're not good enough yet to offer legal analysis, because you don't seem to be aware of the above case, and, in MY state it is illegal to record and store information on minors, and if Google guesses they are tracking my child's internet activity, guess what they are recording and storing information on a person THEY "believe to be a minor", which is a felony in MY state. It might also be considered stalking (yeah this might be a big stretch - but you never know; and no one wants to wind up in court on a sexual deviant case involving a minor - whoooo just ugly; registered sex offender for life, mmm, very bad; who would want to risk getting involved in a case like that; all it takes is for one aggressive prosecutor, and I happen to know at least one down in Georgia).
While EULAs have stood up in court, these have all been click-through or open a sealed envelope agreements. In order for a contract to be binding there has to be a positive recognition by both parties. I find it implausible to believe that merely using Googles search or map services or any service that doesn't require registration will ever be found to be part of a binding agreement in any court in the USA. Not only that, the burden of proof that any particular individual in a household agreed to a contract is going to be on Goggle. Also, I think that if Google uses this patent, they may actually violate Child Protection laws and if I ever catch anyone tracking my child's internet activity I'll prosecute. And if the police won't do anything, I'll hire SCO's lawyers to go after them for 60% of anything they can squeeze out of them. Or some other equally sleazy and hungry litigator.
to always download your e-books onto a blank memory stick. Then you should be able to use the first sale principle. However you'd have to be able to prove that the stick you sold was the original download. Selling a copy of one's book could never be legal without throwing out the Constitution and copyright law around the world. One can't legally sell a copy of one's Harry Potter book that one xeroxed off on that fancy color copier at work either. So people stop whining about not be about to sell copies that they morally and legally shouldn't be doing anyway. Of course, IANAL, and there is that contractual thing that you agree to when you buy a book from these leaches, so that has to be considered too. Or you can get your e-books free from the Gutenberg project. Or you can get a REAL book and not be bothered with this crap. Then you are free to cut it apart and scan it in yourself, you lazy pucks.;')
Obviously, since it is a "plasna" light we are talking about very hot ionized gas, since that is what a plasma is. Yes this tiny light may be hot in a very small and localized area, which must be isolated from other parts of the fixture so as not to melt them. Iron melts at 1812K, so many iron alloys won't work here. In fact I know of no pure metal that would not melt above 2800K except tungsten which melts at 3695K, putting it in first place. TiC ceramic melts at 3313K, and I don't know of any element or compound that would not melt at 5100K, under normal atmospheric conditions. Although I know that the boiling point for diamond is 5100K. The boiling point mind you not the melting point, at this temperature you will evaporate the diamond into a gaseous state. So I doubt this temperature is anything more than a localized temperature in the enclosed gas chamber, if that. It is possible the surface of the tic-tac sized bulb is too hot to touch while lit. Also 5100K is about the temperature on the surface of the Sun, hence this bulb will produce artificial sunlight quite accurately. Fluorescent bulbs are also plasma bulbs, but they use CCT values rather than actual black-body thermal values. Incandescent bulbs are true black-body emitters and the surface temp of the tungsten filaments are about 2700K or better. It may be that the video is mistaken and the 5100K temperature is CCT ("color correlated temperature") and not black-body temperature. If it is the case that the bulb is 5100K CCT then it could be cool to the touch since we are not talking about black-body emissions.
I'm not sure you want to compress just the core, which is *estimated* to be between 10 to 45 times as massive as Earth not just about 10x, instead of the whole planet which is estimated about 318 times as massive.
Me, personally, I'd like to have a point point singularity encased in a graviton isolation sphere suspended on a chain to wear around my neck. Not to mention your back of the envelope math sucks, because I'm pretty sure Euclidean geometry breaks down when dealing with singularities and volume:mass relations are nonlinear. Not to mention that I'm not entirely sure that the mass:volume relation of 1:1 is a valid assumption. It would be my guesstimate that with more mass the volume would decrease and a 10x massive object would shrink logarithmically.
What would be interesting is to compress Hydrogen to it's liquid-metal state, like the core of Jupiter and place it inside a Buckyball.
I see potential for this Hydrogen-Buckyball in creating a new energy storage system. You could create long string-like buckyballs filled with Hydrogen, and line them up in a plane and encase them in a thin plate with oxygen or fluorine or some other electron hungry element and bang you've got a Hydrogen Ion battery. So now don't any of you greedy Corporate B!@#$$#S try and patent it, because it's now public domain and the prior art is/. archived!
Or perhaps you could accelerate the Hydrogen Buckyballs to near light speed and slam them into each other at a steady rates to make a pulsed fusion reactor that could be used a a clean source of energy or even as engines for interstellar travel.
The question is, how many nanotube failures does it take until the muscle ceases to function and your evil robot has systemic failure?
Also, it seems to me they are pumping in too much energy, if they are getting 70% back when it contracts. I'm pretty sure our muscles don't work that way, alhough our bodies do give off substantial heat loses, and that may be one cause. It would seem to me they could better conserve energy by looking for the minimum energy required to get the sufficient expansion, thus negating the lossy feedback circuit of reclaiming energy. THey are expending energy X, and the muscle returns.7X minus about 1 to 5% loss through heat and/or work expended yielding a loss of energy of 1-5%. Then they want to sotre that energy somewhere, expending more work and heat transfer giving a net expenditure of.3X +.05X +.05X. So they are losing 32% to 40% instead of 30% with each muscle contraction. If 30% of the current is sufficient to power the muscle then why waste that other 2% to 10%? One could have a muscle that is 233% more effiecient if 30% is enough power to drive the muscle.
I'm not sure what components they are having problems shrinking. Maybe they just are shopping in the wrong places.
I have a pair of hearing aids that do real-time programatically controlled DSP. The PCB in the hearing aid is so freaking small you need a microscope to work on it. I know this because I took one apart. The PCB is like 1/8" by 1/4" max. I've seen entire computers-on-a-chip smaller than a quarter. You could build an entire NAV system in something 2" wide and 6" long easily. I've seen micro-helicopters in the 4-6" range. So, I'm confused on what parts they are trying to shrink. Perhaps, they are only talking about one component: the solar charging array. But I can tell you this, if I ever see a bat flying in the daytime, I'm gonna blow that sucka from the sky! They'd be better off building a bird-of-prey, and if they need 12' how about building a Condor.
Re:Happy pi day everyone!!
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Julius Ceasar, in which case beware the Ides of March.
I will be celebrating Snake Saturday in NKC, MO with the rest of the Irish drunks , and the only Pi I'll be contemplating will be green.
No one seems to notice the tongue-in-cheek of this post? I mean "razor thin" and MacBook Air?
Seriously, if you open up a PC and power it up and it works thew way it's supposed to, how could
TSA people say it isn't a PC? I think this whole article is a troll, I mean sure these TSA people
love to pick on people but to say they don't recognize a PC when they see it working. They even
patted down my 2yo daughter, because they probably are pedophiles on top of everything else.
Maybe we were singled out to prove they are racially profiling. I think she was the only Caucasian
blonde baby on the flight. She could of had a bomb in her diaper, except she wasn't wearing a diaper.
I suppose she could of had a bomb in a cavity. Yet they still can't seem to catch the people sneaking
bombs and knifes and guns on to test the security.
Hmmm... maybe they need to take a whole new approach?
One thing that is important these days is to not piss of the TSA and checking clerks when flying,
they love to demonstrate their power to make you miss your flight.
Yes, isn't that what I said, militia. However they can only be raised to protect themselves from threats and dangers, they can't keep "standing" militias. They can raise them for things like "riots in Miami", "floods in New Orleans", etc. But can't just keep a militia of say 10,000 if there isn't an existing threat or attack. A standing army and navy are different from the ability to call up a militia/army/navy. Syntax is important here. I'm trying to make it clear there is a major difference between a state which is subordinate to a federal government and an independent country subordinate to a union of countries.
Yes, you said foreign relations, that covers a lot of territory, so I threw that clarification in, because you were trying to say that states and EU countries were so alike. Countries in the EU can raise standing armies and enter into treaties, whereas individual US states cannot do those things (among other powers). Another power the countries of the EU can do is to confer titles of nobility. Something, no US state can do.
restricted people's ability to build clone machines back in the day.
The same Apple that restricted what software could run on their machines. The same Apple that restricted...
Nothing new here, this is Apple's secret formula to ensure they never have more than 3-5% market share of anything they do in the long term. I remember a time when Apple was very popular, but due to their complete lack of business acumen doomed their ability to take over the hardware and software markets. They could of taken the computer world by storm and buried IBM and Microsoft, but they have no clue how to market long term. Short term marketing and hype they've got down, but I didn't buy an iPhone, because, I know the end result, which we are now starting to see more clearly. Some people might say I was psychic, o which I would say know your history and you won't be doomed to repeat it.
Same ol' Apple. It's comforting to know I can rely on them to be consistent. Isn't Steve Jobs at the helm again?
Even individuals states in the USA can have their own armies, called "State Defense Forces". Although only half (25) of the states have such an army, they do exist, and all state legislatures have authorized the creation and maintenance of such forces. A final argument might be that unlike EU countries, individual states in the USA do not partake in foreign affairs and do not have foreign delegates. This might be true to an extent, but border-states, such as California and Texas, certainly must deal with some level of foreign affairs.
Hmmm... you might want to take more than a brief gander at a document called the US Constitution. It specifically grants to the Federal government and denies the state governments the right to raise an army and navy and to enter into treaties with foreign governments. While states do have rights to internal protections and international business, they cannot raise just armies or enter into agreements like say NAFTA.
See Article I section 10 to wit:
"no state shall... keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace... enter into an agreement... with a foreign power". States can raise militias to defend themselves against attack or invasion only. There are other differences between the states of the USA and the countries of the EU, but I'll leave that to the/. readers as an exercise.
And what makes you think humanity will still exist in hundreds or thousands of years? It may be we will die off in 50 years, or we could be destroyed by an ELE sooner, say in the year 2018. There is intellligence in the Universe, and I'm not speaking of the Human race. It may be the Universe was created by a superior being, or not. We may never know. It is arrogant to assume we will someday figure it out, and that we will survive that long. It's also arrogant to dismiss the possibility that the Universe wasn't created by a superior being, just because all religions are based on "mythology". Who is to say that some people did or did not communicate with higher life forms. Science doesn't answer these questions for us yet, hence they have no real place in talking about the science of the creation of the Universe. God is a possibility beyond our current ability to prove or disprove. Therefore, we should neither accept nor reject the religions of the World as being true, until someone can come up with a provable or disprovable scientific method of testing those hypotheses. But we should reject all those theories which can be proven to be false (ie Universe 10000 years old, etc).
That FAQ is the FSF's FAQ hosted on gnu.org. This is the official interpretation and the one that would have to be used in any court proceeding. Sure a judge may rule anything, and they have, but this is the official and **correct** interpretation of that section of the GPL v2. Certainly it would be nice if it hadn't been open to multiple interpretations. Another good reason to use GPL v3 going forward. Lastly, I know where to write to they have contact information on their webpage. I still think the original poster didn't do his homework before slashdotting this company, I don't see anything wrong with what they have done, but I'm no client so can't say whether they are or aren't in compliance and this kind of controversy and behavior from F/OSS developers/maintainers does the entire F/OSS community no good in relations to corporate and commercial relations. I know several companies that have used F/OSS software but haven't read or understood the GPL completely, and I have had to instruct them in what their obligations are. They have all been cooperative and ready to make the proper changes and accreditation once informed. I'm more of a person who likes to trust that people are willing to do the right thing when they know what it is. This company on the surface appears to be doing the right thing. So, I say "innocent until proven guilty". When I see some proof they might not be fulfilling the GPL then I'll change my verdict to guilty.
I follow your meaning, it was my initial interpretation of the language, but you're wrong. Any one can ask for it.
Here it is:
What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
But, has anyone asked them for the GPL software? After all the GPL software they use is identified very publicly on their website. There is even a main menu subitem linking to the exact filenames of the GPL software they use? While I didn't see any way of downloading from them, it would be a simple matter to Google for the code they use. True, they are obligated under the GPL to give the code to anyone who asks, but has anyone asked? I don't see how the poster has any issue here. They very prominently acknowledge their use of GPL software. There is nothing in the GPL to say you must tell any "potential" customer you use GPL software in your product. The simple test to find out if they are in compliance is to ask for the software that is under GPL that they use, and they use a lot of it. If they refuse then they are non-compliant, if they give it to you, they are not. Pretty basic and black and white. So, to the poster, you want to know what you can do? Have a friend or coworker ask for the code. You'll know soon enough if you have a case or not. This is something you should have done before smearing them here on/.
So now go ahead and mod me down, I don't care because the truth had to be told.
I'm actually surprised Bruce didn't say something similar, but then he's a busy person.
If you sue someone for illegally distributing copyrighted material which you do not own the copyright to and then pocket the money, are you not conspiring to commit piracy by your own actions? Wouldn't this also be slander of title? Fraud? Illegal and improper enrichment? I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me, that the RIAA may be do some criminal activity here. I think the artists should sue them for the max and damages on top.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd ,that the patent office would allow a patent on a military application. If you read the laws concerning patents, you cannot patent anything of national security. Any patent that is granted on inventions used by the government for national security are invalid and unenforceable. I don't recall the actual wording, but that is the net affect. So I wouldn't worry about patents on Atomic bombs, however, anyone considering building one might want to read up on the "Nuclear Boy Scout". Google it. It' hilarious, although I predict he will have health problems someday. Enriching radioactive isotopes in your garage with no shielding isn't terribly farsighted behavior.
Harley's certainly aren't going to win the prize for the most reliable motorcylcle, but that has nothing to do with the fact that so many are "trailer queens" (ie carted around on trailers). The reasons for this are:
1) to keep the mileage low,
2) to keep the cycles clean and pristine without road tar, and chips from flying debris, etc.
3) to show off one's KEWL wheels.
It has nothing to do with reliability, and everything to do with showing off, and maybe a little to do with resale value. That said, both of my Harleys have been very reliable. They've certainly gotten a lot better than the days shortly after Amercian in the 70s took them over and totally trashed them. They've remade themselves and are quite reliable now. Still KZs are probably more reliable, but I'd rather blow my brains out than try to repair a KZ.
It's about time OOo added this feature, sadly I have to wait another half a year for it. Good news though, I had to wait even longer for true regex support.
One of those missing formulas is the formula for calculating a Word95 date, which calculates the wrong date for certain dates as the leap year logic in Word95 (or was it 97) is incorrect. So in order to support OOXML you have to be able to create incorrect dates given any date. Yeah, that's what I want in a word processor. There are other stupid hacks like this, plus there are a number of formulas that need to be supported, but Microsoft hasn't specified in the standard how or what has to be done to support it, so there is no one in the world who can implement an OOXML compatible format EXCEPT Microsoft.
... what a useful standard, a standard only one company in the world can implement.
Hmmm
for a group of people to book a flight, and then have everyone on that flight provide ids only from states in the no-fly list. Then repeat that in lots of places. Are airlines really going to want to turn back that many people and risk lots of lawsuits for refunds, bad relations, etc? Of course, it'd be hard to do something like this. The rebel spirit seem to be missing in America today, all the 60's hippies have become the enemy.
Thanks to recent cases, clicking "I agree ..." is considered legally binding now according to US legal precedent. There are at least two such famous cases supporting it. However, Google's search service isn't requiring a click or any direct agreement. That isn't to say that none of Google's services have no such explicit agreement. If you explicitly agree to any terms of service on the internet beware...
However, American contract law has changed considerably from the days of old. I was being facetious when I said perhaps I was using the wrong terminology. Judges in America frequently change contracts that appear before them, especially if it is badly written. It's a common practice in America. Which is why most corporations in the US now require arbitration or trial in their home state.
The conditions are different in America, there is a six-point check in America and intention to "create legal relations" isn't one of them. If you're going to argue American Law with me at least learn the terminology.
I gave you an American case where this was attempted and failed because of the lack of communication of agreement. Google's contract will be found invalid in a US court until they add a checkbox or some other means of communicating ("I agree
It is in MY state, and most, if not all, states in America, without consent. Granted, the information that Google would be storing is potentially anonymous data, which can be linked to an IP and from that it may be possible to discover what my child's true identity is. It may be that no rational prosecutor would try such a case, but this is the US we are talking about. While the child protection laws were intended to protect specific individuals most are not written that way, leaving plenty of room for interpretation. That is the common practice in the US legislatures, after lawyers need to have caviar too.
Back at you. Might, I suggest you start with Black's Law Dictionary. (ducks)
Microsoft will have to adopt the BluRay or lose the game market. Games will begin making use of the expanded space on the BluRays and also as the boxes get older and the competition upgrades to new machines, XBox will have to adapt or die off. M$ may be able to hold off making a decision for maybe 3 years, but if they do, they may find themselves in a very bad place. This is just posturing on M$'s part, or else, they really are losing grip with reality. I predict a boom in the chair manufacturing market in the Northwest. Lastly as XBoxes HD/DVDs begin to die and there are no replacement parts, the resale value will drop into the negative range. They will become worse than 8-track tape players. XBoxes will become the laughing stock of the gaming world. Those who refuse to learn from history will stubbornly repeat it. I see a new aftermarket for upgrading XBoxes to BluRay ... oh wait, that would violate the DMCA. Oops, guess that one is going to backfire...
Sorry, but I'm fairly certain that English contract law doesn't apply to the USA, and it wouldn't be an admissible case, unless it predates 1782, and thus could be considered possible American common law. From what I've seen of cases in USA, visiting a website that doesn't require a login or click-through agreement doesn't rise to the level of the legal technical definition of "genuine consent" or of "agreement" not to mention there is no "consideration" given. Therefore this "contract" doesn't pass three of the six "required" parts that make any contract legally binding. Perhaps I am using the wrong phrases, not being a lawyer and all, but there is a certain level that must be met, and it is a technical legal level, and while there is current precedent for click-through agreements when money changes hand, merely visiting a website and using the pages there haven't yet been shown to meet that level. You may now try to say that this is a unilateral contract to which I would reply that acceptance requires an action. This is the foundation of the law in this country. A contract is not valid if there is no communication of acceptance of the contract. Silence cannot be construed as acceptance. Acceptance cannot be implied nor can the forgoing of communication of acceptance be implied. They are giving it away without consideration or communication of acceptance. Whereas the NYT requires a registration to use their online "service", hence in consideration for your personal information and your communication of agreement, you are granted the "right" to use their "service" and if they have posted on their website the terms of service, you'd better read and agree to them before you use the service. Otherwise you might have agreed to something you didn't intend. Also, the contract has to be legal in all of it's aspects. While I see contracts that include a clause saying that if part of it is invalid the rest isn't, but I don't believe that is supportable. Also, if parts of a contract are "unconscionable", the contract is also invalid. I've seen judges completely rewrite contracts in cases. You never know what you're gonna get.
And if you still insist that you might have a point I direct you to Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y.2001) which totally destroys your bogus argument (i.e. since there is no click through or positive acceptance it is a void and invalid contract).
I think you need to train harder, because I think you're not good enough yet to offer legal analysis, because you don't seem to be aware of the above case, and, in MY state it is illegal to record and store information on minors, and if Google guesses they are tracking my child's internet activity, guess what they are recording and storing information on a person THEY "believe to be a minor", which is a felony in MY state. It might also be considered stalking (yeah this might be a big stretch - but you never know; and no one wants to wind up in court on a sexual deviant case involving a minor - whoooo just ugly; registered sex offender for life, mmm, very bad; who would want to risk getting involved in a case like that; all it takes is for one aggressive prosecutor, and I happen to know at least one down in Georgia).
While EULAs have stood up in court, these have all been click-through or open a sealed envelope agreements. In order for a contract to be binding there has to be a positive recognition by both parties. I find it implausible to believe that merely using Googles search or map services or any service that doesn't require registration will ever be found to be part of a binding agreement in any court in the USA. Not only that, the burden of proof that any particular individual in a household agreed to a contract is going to be on Goggle. Also, I think that if Google uses this patent, they may actually violate Child Protection laws and if I ever catch anyone tracking my child's internet activity I'll prosecute. And if the police won't do anything, I'll hire SCO's lawyers to go after them for 60% of anything they can squeeze out of them. Or some other equally sleazy and hungry litigator.
to always download your e-books onto a blank memory stick. Then you should be able to use the first sale principle. However you'd have to be able to prove that the stick you sold was the original download. Selling a copy of one's book could never be legal without throwing out the Constitution and copyright law around the world. One can't legally sell a copy of one's Harry Potter book that one xeroxed off on that fancy color copier at work either. So people stop whining about not be about to sell copies that they morally and legally shouldn't be doing anyway. Of course, IANAL, and there is that contractual thing that you agree to when you buy a book from these leaches, so that has to be considered too. Or you can get your e-books free from the Gutenberg project. Or you can get a REAL book and not be bothered with this crap. Then you are free to cut it apart and scan it in yourself, you lazy pucks. ;')
Obviously, since it is a "plasna" light we are talking about very hot ionized gas, since that is what a plasma is. Yes this tiny light may be hot in a very small and localized area, which must be isolated from other parts of the fixture so as not to melt them. Iron melts at 1812K, so many iron alloys won't work here. In fact I know of no pure metal that would not melt above 2800K except tungsten which melts at 3695K, putting it in first place. TiC ceramic melts at 3313K, and I don't know of any element or compound that would not melt at 5100K, under normal atmospheric conditions. Although I know that the boiling point for diamond is 5100K. The boiling point mind you not the melting point, at this temperature you will evaporate the diamond into a gaseous state. So I doubt this temperature is anything more than a localized temperature in the enclosed gas chamber, if that. It is possible the surface of the tic-tac sized bulb is too hot to touch while lit. Also 5100K is about the temperature on the surface of the Sun, hence this bulb will produce artificial sunlight quite accurately. Fluorescent bulbs are also plasma bulbs, but they use CCT values rather than actual black-body thermal values. Incandescent bulbs are true black-body emitters and the surface temp of the tungsten filaments are about 2700K or better. It may be that the video is mistaken and the 5100K temperature is CCT ("color correlated temperature") and not black-body temperature. If it is the case that the bulb is 5100K CCT then it could be cool to the touch since we are not talking about black-body emissions.
I'm not sure you want to compress just the core, which is *estimated* to be between 10 to 45 times as massive as Earth not just about 10x, instead of the whole planet which is estimated about 318 times as massive.
/. archived!
Me, personally, I'd like to have a point point singularity encased in a graviton isolation sphere suspended on a chain to wear around my neck.
Not to mention your back of the envelope math sucks, because I'm pretty sure Euclidean geometry breaks down when dealing with singularities and volume:mass relations are nonlinear. Not to mention that I'm not entirely sure that the mass:volume relation of 1:1 is a valid assumption. It would be my guesstimate that with more mass the volume would decrease and a 10x massive object would shrink logarithmically.
What would be interesting is to compress Hydrogen to it's liquid-metal state, like the core of Jupiter and place it inside a Buckyball.
I see potential for this Hydrogen-Buckyball in creating a new energy storage system. You could create long string-like buckyballs filled with Hydrogen, and line them up in a plane and encase them in a thin plate with oxygen or fluorine or some other electron hungry element and bang you've got a Hydrogen Ion battery. So now don't any of you greedy Corporate B!@#$$#S try and patent it, because it's now public domain and the prior art is
Or perhaps you could accelerate the Hydrogen Buckyballs to near light speed and slam them into each other at a steady rates to make a pulsed fusion reactor that could be used a a clean source of energy or even as engines for interstellar travel.
The question is, how many nanotube failures does it take until the muscle ceases to function and your evil robot has systemic failure?
.7X minus about 1 to 5% loss through heat and/or work expended yielding a loss of energy of 1-5%. Then they want to sotre that energy somewhere, expending more work and heat transfer giving a net expenditure of .3X + .05X + .05X.
Also, it seems to me they are pumping in too much energy, if they are getting 70% back when it contracts.
I'm pretty sure our muscles don't work that way, alhough our bodies do give off substantial heat loses, and that may be one cause. It would seem to me they could better conserve energy by looking for the minimum energy required to get the sufficient expansion, thus negating the lossy feedback circuit of reclaiming energy. THey are expending energy X, and the muscle returns
So they are losing 32% to 40% instead of 30% with each muscle contraction. If 30% of the current is sufficient to power the muscle then why waste that other 2% to 10%? One could have a muscle that is 233% more effiecient if 30% is enough power to drive the muscle.
I'm not sure what components they are having problems shrinking. Maybe they just are shopping in the wrong places.
I have a pair of hearing aids that do real-time programatically controlled DSP. The PCB in the hearing aid is so freaking small you need
a microscope to work on it. I know this because I took one apart. The PCB is like 1/8" by 1/4" max. I've seen entire
computers-on-a-chip smaller than a quarter. You could build an entire NAV system in something 2" wide and 6" long easily.
I've seen micro-helicopters in the 4-6" range. So, I'm confused on what parts they are trying to shrink. Perhaps,
they are only talking about one component: the solar charging array. But I can tell you this, if I ever see a bat flying
in the daytime, I'm gonna blow that sucka from the sky! They'd be better off building a bird-of-prey, and if they need 12'
how about building a Condor.
Julius Ceasar, in which case beware the Ides of March.
I will be celebrating Snake Saturday in NKC, MO with the rest of the Irish drunks , and the only Pi I'll be contemplating will be green.
No one seems to notice the tongue-in-cheek of this post? I mean "razor thin" and MacBook Air? Seriously, if you open up a PC and power it up and it works thew way it's supposed to, how could TSA people say it isn't a PC? I think this whole article is a troll, I mean sure these TSA people love to pick on people but to say they don't recognize a PC when they see it working. They even patted down my 2yo daughter, because they probably are pedophiles on top of everything else. Maybe we were singled out to prove they are racially profiling. I think she was the only Caucasian blonde baby on the flight. She could of had a bomb in her diaper, except she wasn't wearing a diaper. I suppose she could of had a bomb in a cavity. Yet they still can't seem to catch the people sneaking bombs and knifes and guns on to test the security. Hmmm... maybe they need to take a whole new approach? One thing that is important these days is to not piss of the TSA and checking clerks when flying, they love to demonstrate their power to make you miss your flight.
Yes, isn't that what I said, militia. However they can only be raised to protect themselves from threats and dangers, they can't keep "standing" militias. They can raise them for things like "riots in Miami", "floods in New Orleans", etc. But can't just keep a militia of say 10,000 if there isn't an existing threat or attack. A standing army and navy are different from the ability to call up a militia/army/navy. Syntax is important here. I'm trying to make it clear there is a major difference between a state which is subordinate to a federal government and an independent country subordinate to a union of countries.
Yes, you said foreign relations, that covers a lot of territory, so I threw that clarification in, because you were trying to say that states and EU countries were so alike. Countries in the EU can raise standing armies and enter into treaties, whereas individual US states cannot do those things (among other powers). Another power the countries of the EU can do is to confer titles of nobility. Something, no US state can do.
restricted people's ability to build clone machines back in the day.
...
The same Apple that restricted what software could run on their machines.
The same Apple that restricted
Nothing new here, this is Apple's secret formula to ensure they never have more than 3-5% market share of anything they do in the long term. I remember a time when Apple was very popular, but due to their complete lack of business acumen doomed their ability to take over the hardware and software markets. They could of taken the computer world by storm and buried IBM and Microsoft, but they have no clue how to market long term. Short term marketing and hype they've got down, but I didn't buy an iPhone, because, I know the end result, which we are now starting to see more clearly. Some people might say I was psychic, o which I would say know your history and you won't be doomed to repeat it.
Same ol' Apple. It's comforting to know I can rely on them to be consistent. Isn't Steve Jobs at the helm again?
Hmmm... you might want to take more than a brief gander at a document called the US Constitution. It specifically grants to the Federal government and denies the state governments the right to raise an army and navy and to enter into treaties with foreign governments. While states do have rights to internal protections and international business, they cannot raise just armies or enter into agreements like say NAFTA.
See Article I section 10 to wit: "no state shall
And what makes you think humanity will still exist in hundreds or thousands of years? It may be we will die off in 50 years, or we could be destroyed by an ELE sooner, say in the year 2018. There is intellligence in the Universe, and I'm not speaking of the Human race. It may be the Universe was created by a superior being, or not. We may never know. It is arrogant to assume we will someday figure it out, and that we will survive that long. It's also arrogant to dismiss the possibility that the Universe wasn't created by a superior being, just because all religions are based on "mythology". Who is to say that some people did or did not communicate with higher life forms. Science doesn't answer these questions for us yet, hence they have no real place in talking about the science of the creation of the Universe. God is a possibility beyond our current ability to prove or disprove. Therefore, we should neither accept nor reject the religions of the World as being true, until someone can come up with a provable or disprovable scientific method of testing those hypotheses. But we should reject all those theories which can be proven to be false (ie Universe 10000 years old, etc).
That FAQ is the FSF's FAQ hosted on gnu.org. This is the official interpretation and the one that would have to be used in any court proceeding. Sure a judge may rule anything, and they have, but this is the official and **correct** interpretation of that section of the GPL v2. Certainly it would be nice if it hadn't been open to multiple interpretations. Another good reason to use GPL v3 going forward. Lastly, I know where to write to they have contact information on their webpage. I still think the original poster didn't do his homework before slashdotting this company, I don't see anything wrong with what they have done, but I'm no client so can't say whether they are or aren't in compliance and this kind of controversy and behavior from F/OSS developers/maintainers does the entire F/OSS community no good in relations to corporate and commercial relations. I know several companies that have used F/OSS software but haven't read or understood the GPL completely, and I have had to instruct them in what their obligations are. They have all been cooperative and ready to make the proper changes and accreditation once informed. I'm more of a person who likes to trust that people are willing to do the right thing when they know what it is. This company on the surface appears to be doing the right thing. So, I say "innocent until proven guilty". When I see some proof they might not be fulfilling the GPL then I'll change my verdict to guilty.
But, has anyone asked them for the GPL software? /.
After all the GPL software they use is identified very publicly on their website. There is even a main menu subitem linking to the exact filenames of the GPL software they use?
While I didn't see any way of downloading from them, it would be a simple matter to Google for the code they use.
True, they are obligated under the GPL to give the code to anyone who asks, but has anyone asked?
I don't see how the poster has any issue here. They very prominently acknowledge their use of GPL software.
There is nothing in the GPL to say you must tell any "potential" customer you use GPL software in your product.
The simple test to find out if they are in compliance is to ask for the software that is under GPL that they use, and they use a lot of it. If they refuse then they are non-compliant, if they give it to you, they are not. Pretty basic and black and white.
So, to the poster, you want to know what you can do? Have a friend or coworker ask for the code. You'll know soon enough if you have a case or not. This is something you should have done before smearing them here on
So now go ahead and mod me down, I don't care because the truth had to be told.
I'm actually surprised Bruce didn't say something similar, but then he's a busy person.
If you sue someone for illegally distributing copyrighted material which you do not own the copyright to and then pocket the money, are you not conspiring to commit piracy by your own actions? Wouldn't this also be slander of title? Fraud? Illegal and improper enrichment? I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me, that the RIAA may be do some criminal activity here. I think the artists should sue them for the max and damages on top.