However, if one can simply program their DVR to record every single show, they're not likely to buy it, especially if they can transfer the show to tape or DVD-R afterwards.
That's why DVDs should contain content with additional value beyond what airs on TV. For example, I've recorded from TV and subsequently watched every episode of Futurama and most episodes of Stargate: SG-1, but I still own both series on DVD, in part because the DVDs have added features (like commentary tracks and other extras) that by themselves are almost worth the cost of the DVDs.
When VHS was the only thing going, the rare TV series available on videotape didn't have extra content, but it didn't have to, because the only serious competition was the same series as it aired on TV. Yes, some people would actually tape and save an entire series, but the quality was much lower, the commercials were firmly entrenched on tape along with the show, and the media was prone to degrade over time (or be eaten by the VCR). Now that the PVR provides a medium of roughly TV quality with commercials removed and that is transferable to another more-or-less permanent medium, the industry must face facts and add value to their product in order to keep up. Litigating their way out of providing the public with something of value above the competition is just laziness.
That said, I do agree that the best solution is to explicitly codify what we're allowed to do with TV programming. I hope it'll happen eventually, but it'll take a lot more public awareness of DRM issues before the outcry over unrecordable content and unskippable commercials is enough to counteract Hollywood's deep pockets.
I agree, proxy is probably a more appropriate analogy, because once you're done with a book you check out through OhioLink, it goes back to the originating library.
What's best is when they put the sensor on the inside of a window at about ass-height. If your RFID card is in your wallet in your back pocket, all you have to do is press your ass up against the window to get into the building.
Sometimes I wish that were true, because copyright law (in the US and many other countries) is bound up in international treaties, making it a lot harder to change the law to something sane.
The other thing about the 100k number is that they were comparing two UMD movies, released when there was already widespread adoption of the PSP, to the first DVD movie. I mean, when there's only one DVD movie out, how many people are going to rush out and buy the movie and a (still very expensive at the time) DVD player when there's no guarantee the medium won't flop?
Why would people be *more* likely to buy an overpriced low-quality version of a movie that they can only watch on their PSP when they could just buy the DVD and watch it on their fantabulous home theater system?
Any high sales at the moment are probably solely due to novelty. Once the novelty wears off, sales will drop off (rather dramatically, I'm guessing). In any case, this isn't going to be a cash cow for Hollywood, as the studios will be less likely to sell a DVD for every UMD they sell of the same movie.
After reading the law more closely, the thing about Wal-Mart doesn't apply. When I was first made known about the bill (before it had been signed into law), that was one of the scenarios told to me, and I believed it to be true without reading the bill closely enough. Sorry:(
(1) "Audiovisual recording function" means the capability of a device to record or transmit a motion picture or any part of a motion picture by means of any technology existing on, or developed after, the effective date of this section.
(2) "Facility" means a movie theater.
(B) No person, without the written consent of the owner or lessee of the facility and of the licensor of the motion picture, shall knowingly operate an audiovisual recording function of a device in a facility in which a motion picture is being shown.
(C) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of motion picture piracy, a misdemeanor of the first degree on the first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense.
(D) This section does not prohibit or restrict a lawfully authorized investigative, law enforcement, protective, or intelligence gathering employee or agent of the government of this state or a political subdivision of this state, or of the federal government, when acting in an official capacity, from operating an audiovisual recording function of a device in any facility in which a motion picture is being shown.
(E) Division (B) of this section does not limit or affect the application of any other prohibition in the Revised Code. Any act that is a violation of both division (B) of this section and another provision of the Revised Code may be prosecuted under this section, under the other provision of the Revised Code, or under both this section and the other provision of the Revised Code.
HISTORY: 150 v H 179, 1, eff. 3-9-04; 150 v S 57, 1, eff. 3-9-04.
After a somewhat more careful reading, the Wal-Mart thing doesn't appear to apply (it states that "facility" refers to a movie theater specifically). But this would apparently cover things like a news team doing investigative reporting about, say, health code violations at a theater's concession stand.
Other states have laws regarding the same thing (enforcing specific penalties for operating a camera in a movie theater) but Ohio's is particularly draconian. Virginia, for example, makes clear that they didn't intend the lobby, hallways, or other such areas to be included, and in most states with these laws it's always a misdemeanor (though obviously, federal copyright law still applies).
The Ohio law was a rider on another bill (I don't remember the topic off-hand) that would have been political suicide to veto or vote against.
It's already illegal in Ohio to operate a camera phone (or any other video camera) in a movie theater, even in the lobby. For that matter, this applies in any business where a copyrighted work is being shown - such as Wal-Mart if they're showing movies on their TVs. You don't even have to record from the copyrighted material to get arrested and charged - just turn on the record function and you're guilty (and it's a felony on the second offense). What's more, the business owner is allowed to detain you until the police arrive.
The "New Kind of Math" introduced in the book is an interesting perspective on high school trig, but the author has centuries of precedent to overcome in getting his methods applied there. In particular, conventional trig concepts like angle, sine/cosine, etc., are so pervasive throughout actual science and engineering that it would require reinventing higher science and engineering. Not a pretty thought, as it would mean a divide between the scientists and engineers learning this new method and the ones who learned it the normal way - a divide in a language that's supposed to be universal.
On the other hand, who would it benefit? A bunch of high school students taught by an instructor who hates calculators? Trig is cake compared to some of the things you have the opportunity to wrap your head around in college (calculus, for starters).
The book doesn't magically make 3 * sqrt(2) into a rational number, and the concepts contained therein aren't useful in the real world until you go from quadrance back to actual length. That requires using the square root, which, in general, yields irrational numbers as its result.
WTF are you talking about? The dog can't go more than about 120 feet.
Your example was "They could walk onto a grid-equipped train, ride to Cucamonga and continue their mission."
The dog example is intended to refute the significance of your statement, because the robot is still restricted to the area covered by the grid, just like my parents' dog is confined to the area covered by the run.
And those cables are not designed to be tethers. It's a very simple word. Why do you insist on trying to impart new meaning on it?
Are you denying that cables that can't hoist the connected robot are tethers, too? Because there's ample precedent for "tether" being applied in both situations. The reason "tether" is used is because, for all practical purposes, it limits the range of the robot, much as a conventional tether limits the range of whatever it's attached to.
Also, all I said was
The practical benefit of a robot being "untethered" isn't simply the lack of a tether, but rather that the power source and control logic are contained onboard. That isn't the case here, so even though there's no literal tether, the robot functions for all practical purposes as if it were tethered.
The original Anonymous Coward you replied to in the first place, who said, "It receives power and control signals from the grid of electrodes it walks on... therefore it is not 'untethered' ", was someone else.
The definition you quoted defies the usage of the word "tether" in terms of robotics. A tether on a robot is (almost) never used specifically to limit the robot's movement (though usually it has that effect, and is an obstacle that a roboticist tries to overcome or reduce).
Certainly, a better term would be "umbilical", since it delivers power and control information to the robot, but the term "tether" is still common in robotics.
I guess I'll have to bow to your fantastically enormous level of expertise on the subject. Huh, some guy on teh Intarweb says I'm wrong, so I guess I must be wrong.
These robots could walk circles around a post forever and never get tangled up or run out of line.
A tether can easily be designed to accomplish the same goal.
They could walk onto a grid-equipped train, ride to Cucamonga and continue their mission.
My parents' dog could go a hundred feet down to a tree in the backyard, take a dump, and come back, the whole time on a 20 foot leash attached with a pulley to a line that went between the tree and the house. For all practical purposes, the same thing.
If one of them fell off a cliff, you would have to climb down to retrieve it because there's NO TETHER.
There are a lot of tethered robots that can't be hoisted by their tether, because the tether is designed to carry power and control signals rather than lift the robot.
The practical benefit of a robot being "untethered" isn't simply the lack of a tether, but rather that the power source and control logic are contained onboard. That isn't the case here, so even though there's no literal tether, the robot functions for all practical purposes as if it were tethered.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if one can simply program their DVR to record every single show, they're not likely to buy it, especially if they can transfer the show to tape or DVD-R afterwards.
That's why DVDs should contain content with additional value beyond what airs on TV. For example, I've recorded from TV and subsequently watched every episode of Futurama and most episodes of Stargate: SG-1, but I still own both series on DVD, in part because the DVDs have added features (like commentary tracks and other extras) that by themselves are almost worth the cost of the DVDs.
When VHS was the only thing going, the rare TV series available on videotape didn't have extra content, but it didn't have to, because the only serious competition was the same series as it aired on TV. Yes, some people would actually tape and save an entire series, but the quality was much lower, the commercials were firmly entrenched on tape along with the show, and the media was prone to degrade over time (or be eaten by the VCR). Now that the PVR provides a medium of roughly TV quality with commercials removed and that is transferable to another more-or-less permanent medium, the industry must face facts and add value to their product in order to keep up. Litigating their way out of providing the public with something of value above the competition is just laziness.
That said, I do agree that the best solution is to explicitly codify what we're allowed to do with TV programming. I hope it'll happen eventually, but it'll take a lot more public awareness of DRM issues before the outcry over unrecordable content and unskippable commercials is enough to counteract Hollywood's deep pockets.
And in the next scene, the RIAA and Roddy McDowall exchange the sort of greetings one is accustomed to seeing between good friends.
I agree, proxy is probably a more appropriate analogy, because once you're done with a book you check out through OhioLink, it goes back to the originating library.
You used 87 bullets and shot 4350 pounds of meat, but you could only carry 200 pounds back to the wagon.
Libraries aren't peer-to-peer. They use the server-client model.
Just what I was thinking! "Pretty good"? Bah. Weird Al rules!
Jobs is in a great position.
Actually, he has the RIAA in a great position. Namely, over a barrel.
What's best is when they put the sensor on the inside of a window at about ass-height. If your RFID card is in your wallet in your back pocket, all you have to do is press your ass up against the window to get into the building.
Sometimes I wish that were true, because copyright law (in the US and many other countries) is bound up in international treaties, making it a lot harder to change the law to something sane.
The last time I heard someone say that a smaller increase was the same thing as a decrease, they were talking about taxes. And they were in Congress.
The other thing about the 100k number is that they were comparing two UMD movies, released when there was already widespread adoption of the PSP, to the first DVD movie. I mean, when there's only one DVD movie out, how many people are going to rush out and buy the movie and a (still very expensive at the time) DVD player when there's no guarantee the medium won't flop?
534 pages, 437 of which contain a table of all the keyboard shortcuts.
Why would people be *more* likely to buy an overpriced low-quality version of a movie that they can only watch on their PSP when they could just buy the DVD and watch it on their fantabulous home theater system?
Any high sales at the moment are probably solely due to novelty. Once the novelty wears off, sales will drop off (rather dramatically, I'm guessing). In any case, this isn't going to be a cash cow for Hollywood, as the studios will be less likely to sell a DVD for every UMD they sell of the same movie.
After reading the law more closely, the thing about Wal-Mart doesn't apply. When I was first made known about the bill (before it had been signed into law), that was one of the scenarios told to me, and I believed it to be true without reading the bill closely enough. Sorry :(
After a somewhat more careful reading, the Wal-Mart thing doesn't appear to apply (it states that "facility" refers to a movie theater specifically). But this would apparently cover things like a news team doing investigative reporting about, say, health code violations at a theater's concession stand.
Other states have laws regarding the same thing (enforcing specific penalties for operating a camera in a movie theater) but Ohio's is particularly draconian. Virginia, for example, makes clear that they didn't intend the lobby, hallways, or other such areas to be included, and in most states with these laws it's always a misdemeanor (though obviously, federal copyright law still applies).
The Ohio law was a rider on another bill (I don't remember the topic off-hand) that would have been political suicide to veto or vote against.
It's already illegal in Ohio to operate a camera phone (or any other video camera) in a movie theater, even in the lobby. For that matter, this applies in any business where a copyrighted work is being shown - such as Wal-Mart if they're showing movies on their TVs. You don't even have to record from the copyrighted material to get arrested and charged - just turn on the record function and you're guilty (and it's a felony on the second offense). What's more, the business owner is allowed to detain you until the police arrive.
The "New Kind of Math" introduced in the book is an interesting perspective on high school trig, but the author has centuries of precedent to overcome in getting his methods applied there. In particular, conventional trig concepts like angle, sine/cosine, etc., are so pervasive throughout actual science and engineering that it would require reinventing higher science and engineering. Not a pretty thought, as it would mean a divide between the scientists and engineers learning this new method and the ones who learned it the normal way - a divide in a language that's supposed to be universal.
On the other hand, who would it benefit? A bunch of high school students taught by an instructor who hates calculators? Trig is cake compared to some of the things you have the opportunity to wrap your head around in college (calculus, for starters).
The book doesn't magically make 3 * sqrt(2) into a rational number, and the concepts contained therein aren't useful in the real world until you go from quadrance back to actual length. That requires using the square root, which, in general, yields irrational numbers as its result.
WTF are you talking about? The dog can't go more than about 120 feet.
... therefore it is not 'untethered' ", was someone else.
Your example was "They could walk onto a grid-equipped train, ride to Cucamonga and continue their mission."
The dog example is intended to refute the significance of your statement, because the robot is still restricted to the area covered by the grid, just like my parents' dog is confined to the area covered by the run.
And those cables are not designed to be tethers. It's a very simple word. Why do you insist on trying to impart new meaning on it?
Are you denying that cables that can't hoist the connected robot are tethers, too? Because there's ample precedent for "tether" being applied in both situations. The reason "tether" is used is because, for all practical purposes, it limits the range of the robot, much as a conventional tether limits the range of whatever it's attached to.
Also, all I said was
The practical benefit of a robot being "untethered" isn't simply the lack of a tether, but rather that the power source and control logic are contained onboard. That isn't the case here, so even though there's no literal tether, the robot functions for all practical purposes as if it were tethered.
The original Anonymous Coward you replied to in the first place, who said, "It receives power and control signals from the grid of electrodes it walks on
Just a bit northwest of Cincinnati.
The definition you quoted defies the usage of the word "tether" in terms of robotics. A tether on a robot is (almost) never used specifically to limit the robot's movement (though usually it has that effect, and is an obstacle that a roboticist tries to overcome or reduce).
Certainly, a better term would be "umbilical", since it delivers power and control information to the robot, but the term "tether" is still common in robotics.
Even with weasel words you're wrong.
I guess I'll have to bow to your fantastically enormous level of expertise on the subject. Huh, some guy on teh Intarweb says I'm wrong, so I guess I must be wrong.
These robots could walk circles around a post forever and never get tangled up or run out of line.
A tether can easily be designed to accomplish the same goal.
They could walk onto a grid-equipped train, ride to Cucamonga and continue their mission.
My parents' dog could go a hundred feet down to a tree in the backyard, take a dump, and come back, the whole time on a 20 foot leash attached with a pulley to a line that went between the tree and the house. For all practical purposes, the same thing.
If one of them fell off a cliff, you would have to climb down to retrieve it because there's NO TETHER.
There are a lot of tethered robots that can't be hoisted by their tether, because the tether is designed to carry power and control signals rather than lift the robot.
The practical benefit of a robot being "untethered" isn't simply the lack of a tether, but rather that the power source and control logic are contained onboard. That isn't the case here, so even though there's no literal tether, the robot functions for all practical purposes as if it were tethered.
Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information.
And by "people" they mean people with funny names like RIAA, MPAA, BSA, FCC, FBI....