So once again, no matter how you slice it, there are ABSOLUTE, FINITE LIMITS. PERIOD.
So what are they then? Because unless you know exactly what those limits are, and they are small enough to affect the argument, their finiteness is irrelevant. I'm not agreeing with the poster that you are arguing with - but you have not refuted his point. He is claiming that you can provision enough bandwidth to meet the needs that occur. You are arguing that there is a limit without saying whether it prevents that provisioning. Try providing some hard numbers instead of general claims.
Sidenote: I'm going to regret replying this levels deep. Does anyone know of a way to see replies to you post directly in this crappy new slashcode, or do you have to dig down through all of the parent posts each time?
would you be talking about a metric or english shit ton?
I believe, dear boy, that the term you are looking for is imperial. Mistakes like that could lead people to believe that you are from one of the former colonies.
All this reminds me of the situation with shrinkwrap licenses, especially the ones you can't see until you open the box...and here is the Catch-22: "Breaking the shrinkwrap indicates your acceptance of this license."
I love that kind of license. Because no contract can be formed when one party is unaware of it.
An interesting way of looking at it. In a situation where deaths are only avoided by both sides being sensible it makes sense to leave some ambiguity in the definition of who is in the right. If, as you point out, it makes both sides exercise some caution then it seems like a win:win.
I didn't actually make any assumptions - I simply took yours, hence the quotes. Fair is fair, I've gone and checked the article to see what they actually said:
Each horizontal line of the display is 256-thousand pixels of holographic fringe pattern translating to 36Mbytes of information per frame
Which is almost exactly what I said. Conventional TV is 1080p as I pointed out above and the ratio between the two is about 20:1 (assuming compression works equally well on both sources).
While they don't have immunity, under the circumvention clauses they would be liable for a claim of secondary infringement - this would require proving a commercial motive and a knowledge of the distribution. By acting so quickly in the takedown Github are demonstrating that they had no prior knowledge of the infringement and thus protecting themselves in court.
It seems weird (after a quick browse of the FAQs at ChillingEffects) that there is a counter-notice procedure for infringement claims that are in error, but not one for circumvention claims that are in error. It seems very strange that the law was written to offer some benefit of the doubt to the service provider (through safe harbor) for infringement, but that circumvention is treated so differently.
Actually GitHub can have every chance. What they needed to do in this case was simple enough. Contact the owner of the repository and hand over the responsibility to them. If the owner decides that Sony has acted badly and made an incorrect claim then GitHub is cleared of any legal responsibility and can put the work back online.
The procedure is explained at Chilling Effects. Although the DMCA is widely detested, one of the (only?) things that it does get right is that the legal battle is not between Sony and Github. If Github comply then they get to step to one side with any liability.
I thought that sounded a bit weird but the image in the article looked like some bizarre stretched scanline. Just so long as it wouldn't be 1000x bigger then it's fine:)
The Holovideo Cheops system provides six synchronized frame buffers to drive our 256Kx144 display
I infer that holographic resolution takes 1,000 times the bandwidth of conventional video. So, yeah, I think I can think of ways to use this much bandwidth at home.
I observe that your calculation is wrong, and from that I infer that you don't know what infer means / how to use it correctly.
I calculate that conventional video has 1920x1080 or roughly 2M pixels vs 256Kx144 or about 36.8M pixels, or about 20 times greater bandwidth, not about 1000.
Not least because you are wrong - on a straight section of road without any crossing the car has right of way. There are specific exceptions (ie Section 108 in the highway code) for other situations. As for your claim that it is entirely the car drivers fault, take a look about halfway down here on the description of classifying accidents, and then later at the introduction of Home Zones.
Which does seem odd from one point of view, but makes sense from another. In the US you have right of way if you step out in front of a car (possibly not in every state) and they must stop. So the Jaywalking laws are to stop you from abusing that power.
There are no Jaywalking laws in the UK, but if you step onto the road it is your responsibility not to get hit - it is not the responsibility of the car to stop. Of course if they are driving with due care and attention then they shouldn't run you over if they have enough warning, but that is a separate matter.
Crossings are a different kettle of fish: if you stop onto a crossing before a car gets there then it is their responsibility to stop. Doesn't matter about timing or speed. Because this gives you a huge power to stop all traffic on a road, section 18 can be broadly interpreted as "don't be a dick".
It may seem weird at first glance, but it is just a simple asymmetry in responsibility between pedestrian and driver.
As a Brit living in Sweden I can answer some of your question. People over here do care a lot more about internet access than in the UK - they want it to be fast, reliable and work as transparently as possible. You could say that internet access has become much more of a basic commodity over here. It is also used a lot more heavily. Unlike the UK market an unlimited connection means unlimited. There are huge untapped amounts of bandwidth in the backbone because the provisioning model used for building networks over here is very different. They assume that people will use bandwidth that is available to them and don't over-provision to the same level.
Privacy is a slightly different issue and it is much harder to see where the Swedish stand on it. On the one hand everyone over here is in many public government databases and nobody cares about it. There is even a website devoted to looking up peoples addresses and birthdays (and of course being Swedish it gets used to send flowers). On the other hand when people decide that they have a right to privacy on anything it is considered to be absolute. If the media over here is told not to publish a name to avoid compromising someone's privacy then it stays private.
There was a huge backlash over the IPred laws over the same issues (retention of IP traffic and linking it to real world identities). Many Swedish ISPs have already announced similar plans with respect to that law - ways of avoiding compliance to protect people's privacy. This new law is in effect the next salvo in the ongoing fight against the IPred laws and as such there is widespread support for avoiding compliance as much as possible.
I read his argument to be more along the lines that ArXiv is not a "journal" rather than it being a debate about open access. On their main page (the one you linked to) they describe themselves as an e-print repository (i.e a collection of preprints) rather than a Journal.
I'm surprised to see that PLoS-one is peer-reviewed. I thought that it wasn't last time that I checked. Is that a policy that they've changed, or is my memory just crap?
Dude. Seriously. How can you be so close to a working fiendish scheme and yet so far? It's like Dr Evil has resurfaced on the web...
While your scheme is feasible won't it be more straightforward to open a power station, import gas/coal/whatever, sell your free power and then resell the fuel through a subsidiary?
Methinks, perhaps, you misunderstand the principles of grammar... and the meaning that the GP had. In programmers terms the comma binds more tightly than the dash...
Your arguments for why this will fail all presume that the value of credits is fixed. The whole point of the scheme is that the value of credits will increase as time goes on. Partly through scarcity (by reducing the number of credits in the system each year) and partly through pricing (ie increasing the level of fines each year). As the cost of credits is monotonically increasing it will eventually be larger than the cost of upgrading, thus rendering your argument invalid.
I thought four, or five, were patent trolls and two or three were just companies in another area. But in neither case would a warchest of patents dissuade them - they are only a deterrent against companies selling products in your own industry.
There are better indications that the story is bollocks.
Argument: Google is being sued a lot because it doesn't have a big enough patent collection to counter-sue. Evidence: 12 suits.
Let's see... 8/12 are suits by patent trolls or companies in completely different industries. No size of patent pool would dissuade them as they do not produce *anything* in the same industry. 4/12 are relevant.
Conclusion: The size of Google's patent warchest is irrelevant in 66% of cases and the author is an idiot.
I wouldn't take the article as gospel as it appears to repeat what the Warwick guys have claimed. But of course they did not develop the camera that they use. It is in fact an existing commercial product that they use off-the-shelf.
Details (from the real developer) can be found here.
If we were being generous then we could believe Feynman about the usefulness of good philosophy. But poor philosopy would be even more useless. So it's worrying when there is a basic and fundamental mistake in the second paragraph of the review
Induction is one of the two types of logical argument; the other type is deduction.
Either the book is shit and the review faithfully repeats its mistakes, or the review is shit in which case it tells us nothing useful about the book. There are several other forms of inference, of which Abduction springs to mind as an example.
Slashdot Mirror
Creationologists?
So what are they then? Because unless you know exactly what those limits are, and they are small enough to affect the argument, their finiteness is irrelevant. I'm not agreeing with the poster that you are arguing with - but you have not refuted his point. He is claiming that you can provision enough bandwidth to meet the needs that occur. You are arguing that there is a limit without saying whether it prevents that provisioning. Try providing some hard numbers instead of general claims.
Sidenote: I'm going to regret replying this levels deep. Does anyone know of a way to see replies to you post directly in this crappy new slashcode, or do you have to dig down through all of the parent posts each time?
would you be talking about a metric or english shit ton?
I believe, dear boy, that the term you are looking for is imperial. Mistakes like that could lead people to believe that you are from one of the former colonies.
All this reminds me of the situation with shrinkwrap licenses, especially the ones you can't see until you open the box...and here is the Catch-22: "Breaking the shrinkwrap indicates your acceptance of this license."
I love that kind of license. Because no contract can be formed when one party is unaware of it.
Bugger. Tried to mod you funny but hit overrated by accident. Crappy slashdot UI with no way to undo but this...
An interesting way of looking at it. In a situation where deaths are only avoided by both sides being sensible it makes sense to leave some ambiguity in the definition of who is in the right. If, as you point out, it makes both sides exercise some caution then it seems like a win:win.
I didn't actually make any assumptions - I simply took yours, hence the quotes. Fair is fair, I've gone and checked the article to see what they actually said:
Each horizontal line of the display is
256-thousand pixels of holographic fringe pattern translating to 36Mbytes of
information per frame
Which is almost exactly what I said. Conventional TV is 1080p as I pointed out above and the ratio between the two is about 20:1 (assuming compression works equally well on both sources).
While they don't have immunity, under the circumvention clauses they would be liable for a claim of secondary infringement - this would require proving a commercial motive and a knowledge of the distribution. By acting so quickly in the takedown Github are demonstrating that they had no prior knowledge of the infringement and thus protecting themselves in court.
It seems weird (after a quick browse of the FAQs at ChillingEffects) that there is a counter-notice procedure for infringement claims that are in error, but not one for circumvention claims that are in error. It seems very strange that the law was written to offer some benefit of the doubt to the service provider (through safe harbor) for infringement, but that circumvention is treated so differently.
Actually GitHub can have every chance. What they needed to do in this case was simple enough. Contact the owner of the repository and hand over the responsibility to them. If the owner decides that Sony has acted badly and made an incorrect claim then GitHub is cleared of any legal responsibility and can put the work back online.
The procedure is explained at Chilling Effects. Although the DMCA is widely detested, one of the (only?) things that it does get right is that the legal battle is not between Sony and Github. If Github comply then they get to step to one side with any liability.
I thought that sounded a bit weird but the image in the article looked like some bizarre stretched scanline. Just so long as it wouldn't be 1000x bigger then it's fine :)
The Holovideo Cheops system provides six synchronized frame buffers to drive our 256Kx144 display
I infer that holographic resolution takes 1,000 times the bandwidth of conventional video. So, yeah, I think I can think of ways to use this much bandwidth at home.
I observe that your calculation is wrong, and from that I infer that you don't know what infer means / how to use it correctly.
I calculate that conventional video has 1920x1080 or roughly 2M pixels vs 256Kx144 or about 36.8M pixels, or about 20 times greater bandwidth, not about 1000.
[citation needed]
Not least because you are wrong - on a straight section of road without any crossing the car has right of way. There are specific exceptions (ie Section 108 in the highway code) for other situations. As for your claim that it is entirely the car drivers fault, take a look about halfway down here on the description of classifying accidents, and then later at the introduction of Home Zones.
Which does seem odd from one point of view, but makes sense from another. In the US you have right of way if you step out in front of a car (possibly not in every state) and they must stop. So the Jaywalking laws are to stop you from abusing that power.
There are no Jaywalking laws in the UK, but if you step onto the road it is your responsibility not to get hit - it is not the responsibility of the car to stop. Of course if they are driving with due care and attention then they shouldn't run you over if they have enough warning, but that is a separate matter.
Crossings are a different kettle of fish: if you stop onto a crossing before a car gets there then it is their responsibility to stop. Doesn't matter about timing or speed. Because this gives you a huge power to stop all traffic on a road, section 18 can be broadly interpreted as "don't be a dick".
It may seem weird at first glance, but it is just a simple asymmetry in responsibility between pedestrian and driver.
As a Brit living in Sweden I can answer some of your question. People over here do care a lot more about internet access than in the UK - they want it to be fast, reliable and work as transparently as possible. You could say that internet access has become much more of a basic commodity over here. It is also used a lot more heavily. Unlike the UK market an unlimited connection means unlimited. There are huge untapped amounts of bandwidth in the backbone because the provisioning model used for building networks over here is very different. They assume that people will use bandwidth that is available to them and don't over-provision to the same level.
Privacy is a slightly different issue and it is much harder to see where the Swedish stand on it. On the one hand everyone over here is in many public government databases and nobody cares about it. There is even a website devoted to looking up peoples addresses and birthdays (and of course being Swedish it gets used to send flowers). On the other hand when people decide that they have a right to privacy on anything it is considered to be absolute. If the media over here is told not to publish a name to avoid compromising someone's privacy then it stays private.
There was a huge backlash over the IPred laws over the same issues (retention of IP traffic and linking it to real world identities). Many Swedish ISPs have already announced similar plans with respect to that law - ways of avoiding compliance to protect people's privacy. This new law is in effect the next salvo in the ongoing fight against the IPred laws and as such there is widespread support for avoiding compliance as much as possible.
I read his argument to be more along the lines that ArXiv is not a "journal" rather than it being a debate about open access. On their main page (the one you linked to) they describe themselves as an e-print repository (i.e a collection of preprints) rather than a Journal.
I'm surprised to see that PLoS-one is peer-reviewed. I thought that it wasn't last time that I checked. Is that a policy that they've changed, or is my memory just crap?
In natural language there is not a formal description of "binding". The term "binds more tightly" is something from programming.
I'm as surprised as you were that there is a comma operator in C. Hadn't seen that one before...
Dude. Seriously. How can you be so close to a working fiendish scheme and yet so far? It's like Dr Evil has resurfaced on the web...
While your scheme is feasible won't it be more straightforward to open a power station, import gas/coal/whatever, sell your free power and then resell the fuel through a subsidiary?
Methinks, perhaps, you misunderstand the principles of grammar... and the meaning that the GP had. In programmers terms the comma binds more tightly than the dash...
Your arguments for why this will fail all presume that the value of credits is fixed. The whole point of the scheme is that the value of credits will increase as time goes on. Partly through scarcity (by reducing the number of credits in the system each year) and partly through pricing (ie increasing the level of fines each year). As the cost of credits is monotonically increasing it will eventually be larger than the cost of upgrading, thus rendering your argument invalid.
Well I did.... after I hit submit. It must have been the whoooosh sound as I clicked :-(
I thought four, or five, were patent trolls and two or three were just companies in another area. But in neither case would a warchest of patents dissuade them - they are only a deterrent against companies selling products in your own industry.
There are better indications that the story is bollocks.
Argument: Google is being sued a lot because it doesn't have a big enough patent collection to counter-sue.
Evidence: 12 suits.
Let's see... 8/12 are suits by patent trolls or companies in completely different industries. No size of patent pool would dissuade them as they do not produce *anything* in the same industry. 4/12 are relevant.
Conclusion: The size of Google's patent warchest is irrelevant in 66% of cases and the author is an idiot.
It was when I were a lad.
I wouldn't take the article as gospel as it appears to repeat what the Warwick guys have claimed. But of course they did not develop the camera that they use. It is in fact an existing commercial product that they use off-the-shelf.
Details (from the real developer) can be found here.
If we were being generous then we could believe Feynman about the usefulness of good philosophy. But poor philosopy would be even more useless. So it's worrying when there is a basic and fundamental mistake in the second paragraph of the review
Induction is one of the two types of logical argument; the other type is deduction.
Either the book is shit and the review faithfully repeats its mistakes, or the review is shit in which case it tells us nothing useful about the book. There are several other forms of inference, of which Abduction springs to mind as an example.