No, they are illegally making copies. If you have copyright on some information, and I make an illegal copy, you still have copyright on the information. Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns. The victim may suffer financial losses further down the line, but this is the loss of a hypothetical (money which might have been made later if...), not of actual property.
What SCO are trying to do is to take away the right to control distribution. The only strategy that makes sense if they are trying to have the GPL declared invalid is to try and get GPL'd code placed in the public domain (if they do not acheive this second part, they are guilty of copyright infringement). In this case, they are actually trying to take away the copyright, not make a copy of the software. There is a much stronger case for calling this theft, morally if not legally, than what music pirates do.
Only a nitpick, but the title of the article is "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly".
More importantly, a government department mandating the use of open source software does not mandate zero-competition any more than it does if it mandates the use of only bins with wheels instead of bins without wheels. They are not discriminating against companies, but just choosing to use the most appropriate tool for the job. Anyone is welcome to bid for the contracts to provide those tools. If Microsoft were to provide some open-source software, I'm sure it would be considered along with all the other open-source options.
What is being referred to here as Linux is not one monolithic piece of software. If it were, there would be no need for Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. These companies are competitors in a marketplace. That marketplace is the market for open-source software, which is qualitatively different to closed source software. By choosing open-source rather than closed source, the government is choosing not a different company, but a different market from which to buy its software. This is a market just like any other, which Microsoft, or anyone else is free to join at any time. The government is supposed to buy the best tools for the job. If it feels open-source fits the bill, then to go against that and use Microsoft software would be "Government Waste" and the creation of a "state-imposed monopoly". Open source is not a a company, so all open-source != monopoly. On the other hand, all Microsoft OF COURSE FUCKING == MONOPOLY.
I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but that sounds nothing like what the original poster described. The server wasn't generating HTML, it was generating StarOffice documents. The user would upload a staroffice document, and the server would use it as a template to generate new documents by inserting data into the appropriate places, which was easy to do because staroffice documents are just zipped up XML files. Once the server had inserted the data, the server would zip the files up again and hand out a *staroffice document*. I see no CSS or HTML anywhere in this process.
That is just about the wrongest thing I have ever seen in 5 years of reading slashdot, and that is SAYING SOMETHING!!!
I have a 512k cable line, and I love it. I download absolutely no music or video whatsoever (ok, maybe once a month or something). I mainly use the connection for things like downloading open source software, including linux isos; carrying out Windows Update (have you ever tried doing that over a slow connection? and how are you supposed to keep your machine secure if you can't patch it? eh?); general web browsing (eg. slashdot, news sites, checking train times, buying things), for which a fast, always on connection is like driving a brand new Golf GTi instead of an A-reg lada; email and newsgroups(download the list of newsgroups over a phone line takes forever); gnome-/net-meeting; and a whole bunch of other stuff which I just can't do without nowadays.
I used a telephone line for the internet for years, and it was utter crap. Now, if I don't have broadband access I feel like I'm blind!
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you said. But file-sharing as the only reason for using broadband? Where did that come from?
Whether you would describe GSM as "legacy" depends on your interpretation of the word. I would interpret "legacy" systems as systems you would like to get rid of from a technical point of view, but can't for operational or cost reasons.
GSM is an extremely popular and effective means of providing mobile voice communications and low-bandwidth data comms. UMTS is a way of providing high bandwidth data comms in addition to the same services.
Whether the market for high bandwidth mobile comms picks up or not, there will be a huge ongoing demand for simple mobile voice comms. This demand is already pushing the GSM networks to capacity and will not abate as high bandwidth takes off.
So you have to provide a large amount of voice comms in addition to high bandwidth data, so how do you do this? GSM systems are cheaper than 3G, they are tried and tested, and the networks already exist. They provide an excellent solution for voice comms. If you only wanted voice capacity, I think you would almost certainly choose it over UMTS for technical reasons (not least because "cell breathing" effects, code assignment and the larger number of base stations required for UMTS make for very tricky network planning).
So is this an outmoded system which is lingering because it is too expensive to replace, or is it a technically effective means of providing the large volumes of voice calls we are likely to continue to need for the foreseeable future? I reckon the latter. In fact, with handover problems solved it is an excellent complement to 3G. So no, not a legacy system and not likely to be for a quite some time.
Wishful thinking
on
Cracking GSM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From the Reg article:
Both parties agree that the issue does not affect 3G phones, which use different protocols and security mechanisms than legacy GSM handsets.
I don't have the sales figures to hand, but I don't think GSM can really be called a "legacy" technology yet. IIRC Britain only has one provider 3G service provider, which has had a fraction of the expected number of subscribers.
[RAMBLINGS headwear="tin foil hat"]
I try to avoid thinking like a conspiracy theorist, but if the tin-foil hat fits, wear it.
If SCO are Microsoft puppets, how would they want this all to end?
Say McBride and the rest all have some proposterous amount of money in the bank somewhere and get more once this is all over. Assume also that they've already destroyed their company to get as far as they have (entirely possible, judging by the SCOForum slideshow). What they have acheived is to generate some mighty smelly FUD around Linux and the GPL. Microsoft rubs hands with glee, but what next?
Having all this end up in court would be useless for microsoft. The arguments would be laughed at, code would be replaced in days/weeks, proving the efficacy of open source development, the FUD would disperse, everybody could breathe and the sun would shine once more.
No, what Microsoft would want would be for SCO to go bankrupt before the case ever came to trial. Think about it. That cloud of noxious FUD would never go away. Linux: the product of rampant IP theft by a community of "potty-mouthed malcontents" who, with the help of big bad IBM, betrayed a company which used to be their friend and then ground them into the dust without even having to argue their case in court. I can just imaging Ballmer monkey-dancing aroung in joy at that one. The world's biggest set-up: SCO dead, Linux found laughing with meat-cleaver in hand.
[/RAMBLINGS]
Seriously though, from a FUD perspective it would horrendous if for some reason none of this ever had a chance to be argued out in court.
Although the screenshot of the comment showed both the UNIX and Linux versions, the code sample only shows the linux version. The title says "Linux Kernel Code".
AFAIK they didn't specifically indicate that every line of code showing on that monitor was copied identically, they just say it is an example of "line by line copying". Perhaps they just meant the for loop.
Note that on the screenshot showing the comment, a few lines of linux code were also showing, which did not appear in the UNIX version (even in the amusingly "greeked" part.
I seem to remember a story about how the GPL is technically invalid under German law, because the copyright holder cannot waive his rights. IIRC, this is a quirk of the German law that also means many EULAs are illegal.
I know this is different to the SCO argument, but it's similar. Interesting that this has shown up on a German site first. Probably just coincidence.
My house was burgled last year, and along with my DVD player and my wife's laptop, the bastards nicked my passport.
To make matters worse, on my way to register for my marriage, I managed to leave a birth certificate and the first page of a bank statement in the taxi. The documents never turned up at lost property or with the police. Bloody stupid carelessness, and it gives me nightmares to think who could now have those documents.
Thing is, now the information's out there, what can I do? I cancelled the passport and changed the bank account number, but there's a pretty much complete set of identity documents in my name floating around out there. How can I tell when someone tries to use them?
Sorry. Got carried away by the excellent username.
Absolutely with you, anyway. The simple fact is that I have a broadband internet connection, a good soundcard and a big hard drive. Since I only tend to listen to 2 or 3 tracks on each album I buy, the form of music distribution that makes sense for me is to be able to pay to download a track at a time.
I have now made my home computer 100% free and legal. As far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of bought software or violated ip on it. As nice as this is for my sense of moral well-being, this means that my broadband internet connection, good soundcard and big hard drive are now next to useless for obtaining music. Even though I am more than happy to pay.
I don't have a mac and I don't live in the US so, unless someone can point me to a website that will prove me wrong (I'll be very grateful), I have no option whatsoever for accessing large quantities of non-obscure music (I choose my words carefully) through my internet connection.
When enough people want something, they get it, regardless of the law. Cannabis is illegal. People want it. As a result, IIRC, Britain's black market for cannabis is bigger than it's tourist industry. People are buying the stuff in huge quantities from illegal dealers. It doesn't mean they have no respect for the law. They would happily buy it from legitimate dealers if there were any, even if it involved paying heavy taxes, but there are none. There is no alternative to breaking the law. In such circumstances, sitting in parliament fiddling with legislative details, or picking people off the streets and fining or imprisoning them for owning cannabis, or even tracking down international cartels and incarcerating their leaders is not going to make the blindest bit of difference. It's like trying to stop a hurricane by blowing in the opposite direction.
The *AA can bully and sue as many people as they like, but that approach has never worked anywhere in the world for cannabis.
The *AA have it easy compared to the anti-drug types. They don't want to stop everyone from listening to music. All the *AA wants (or should want) is for people to do it through legal channels and pay. Well, then, if you want to be paid THEN SELL THE FUCKING THING PEOPLE WANT TO PAY FOR!!! I don't want cd's, I want to download tracks. The minute I can, I'll pay whoever offers the service. In the mean time, it's been more than a year since I last bought a cd. My stagnating music collection pains me, but I simply can't bring myself to fork out for a CD. The prices nowadays, I'd rather do without.
Generate a challenge that is a hash code based on the file size - that way when downloading from multiple sources, no need to repeatedly enter in a response.
Defeats the whole point. The file size can be obtained automatically, so if the challenge string can be generated from the file size you don't need a human.
Besides, I think the problem is preventing the *AA from searching rather than from downloading.
Cathedrals are shaped like a cross. If I remember correctly, the parts of the cathedral corresponding to where the unfortunate crucifixee's arms would be are called the transepts, and the part where his body and legs would be is the nave. What I certainly remember correctly (having sung in a number of cathedral choirs) is that the area corresponding to where the head would be is called the quire.
The quire is where the choir sits, but it is also where the clergymen sit (there can be quite a lot in a cathedral).
Considering that most of the people in the choirs in which I sang would probably be considered by the preacher to be in need of a good sermon (choirs are selected for singing ability, not piety), the phrase "preaching to the quire" (ie preaching to the clergymen), seems to capture the intended meaning much better than "preaching to the choir" (ie preaching to a bunch of giggling kids who wouldn't know god if he smote them).
Since quire is pronounced the same as choir, I would hazard a guess (only a guess, mind you) that "preaching to the quire" was the original, and "preaching to the choir" an inevitable corruption.
Actually, according to the dictionary link provided by JaredOfEuropa, the original meaning referred to a Roman punishment for mutinous legions, in which every tenth man was killed. The original meaning would therefore be to reduce by 10%.
I didn't know this myself. I thought it meant reduce to 10% until I read the link. But then I'd have checked that I was right before calling a complete stranger an utter twat.
Re:Help! I need patent advice about this invention
on
TiVo++ from India
·
· Score: 1
I thought it was on shaky moral territory, myself. Then again if, as a skint recently graduated physicist, he manages to squeeze some money out of a system which currently seems to serve only the purpose of further lining the pockets of the already rich, I say good luck to him.
One point is that he had the idea first (hopefully). By patenting the idea, he published it. Although he has made no effort to develop the idea, if someone else does so - well, he still had the idea first, and told everyone about it (coughing up a thousand quid in the process so he could do so without relinquishing ownership of the idea). Doesn't he deserve something for that? And bear in mind that this is what patents were actually invented for: to ensure that individuals with cool ideas had a means of ensuring their reward - at the cost of telling everyone their so that, when the patent expires, the rest of society benefits.
I'd be very surprised if he were to get anything out of this, at least unless this box gets sold in the UK. Nonetheless, it was a cool enough idea for these guys to use it in this rather nifty product, and he did have the idea first. It wouldn't be money for nothing, it'd be money for having, and sharing, a cool idea.
Prior art's a whole other issue though. I guess that one depends heavily on how good your lawyers are.
Help! I need patent advice about this invention!
on
TiVo++ from India
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A mate of mine has a patent on the idea of using SMS to control a video recording device, which it sounds like these people are using - amongst many other cool ideas. I've texted him about this, but I'd like to find out more if you can help.
As I understand it, he obtained the patent for about £1000 in the UK, and has just been waiting to see if someone uses the idea. I don't know how this works. The invention is in India - is this a problem? How do the international patent treaties work? Is it possible to just patent an idea and get some money if and when someone uses the idea? Do you think this is moral? Does anyone know of prior art?
This is one of the least trollish comments I've read on this thread (though that isn't saying much). This guy just described my life spot on. I'm neither American nor fat, but in both cases I can only thank my parents. There but for the grace of god go I.
Considering this is an article about one of the many traditional annual face-stuffing days westerners celebrate, it's hardly trolling to point out how many people have, or think they have, no time to get any excercise.
Stressed-out, over-fed, under-excercised = early death. The solution is not to diet (=less food, but more stress and still no excercise), but to get plenty of excercise (helps with stress, and you can eat all you like because your body turns it into muscle or motion rather than fat).
In my final year at university, I quit smoking and started swimming just under a mile four times a week. It was the best six months of my life - I was relaxed, I had plenty of energy, muscles even started appearing! Then the exams came along, followed by life as a code-monkey, and here I am smoking, lazy, stressed and eating like a vacuum cleaner. Time to resurrect that lapsed gym membership, I think.
Whenever I get hiccups, which happens frequently and is really uncomfortable, the only thing that works FOR ME is to drink a glass of water upside-down (ie bend over and drink from the opposite side of the rim).
Yet every time I start doing this people go "Why bother with that, you should just hold your breath" or "Why don't you just drink a glass of water normally" or "Try elecrocuting your gonads with a car battery" (OK, I made the last one up, but it would probably work).
People can get really argumentative about this as well. Everyone thinks they know the One True Answer To Hiccups.
If you are lucky, there will be a technique that works for you (preferably one that doesn't involve gymnastics or extensive preparation). It won't work for everyone else!!!!
Perhaps this is just a troll, but the teacher was right.
Conservation of energy applies to the entire system, not just to part of it. When compressing the piston, you give it some kinetic energy. Some of this kinetic gets transfered to the the gas molecules. In each collision between the piston and a gas molecule, the gas molecule gains KE and the piston loses it. Conservation of energy is not violated.
On the other hand, a collision between two molecules within the gas cannot give the gas as a whole any more energy than it had to start with, precisely because of the principle of conservation of energy. Answer A is therefore absolutely wrong.
Perfectly elastic collisions are not defined as those which conserve energy as all processes conserve energy when the whole system is considered. Elastic collisions are those which do not result in some of the KE being converted to some form of energy other than kinetic. Usually the other form is heat, but of course on a molecular scale, heat IS kinetic energy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are illegally making copies. If you have copyright on some information, and I make an illegal copy, you still have copyright on the information. Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns. The victim may suffer financial losses further down the line, but this is the loss of a hypothetical (money which might have been made later if...), not of actual property.
What SCO are trying to do is to take away the right to control distribution. The only strategy that makes sense if they are trying to have the GPL declared invalid is to try and get GPL'd code placed in the public domain (if they do not acheive this second part, they are guilty of copyright infringement). In this case, they are actually trying to take away the copyright, not make a copy of the software. There is a much stronger case for calling this theft, morally if not legally, than what music pirates do.
Only a nitpick, but the title of the article is "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly".
More importantly, a government department mandating the use of open source software does not mandate zero-competition any more than it does if it mandates the use of only bins with wheels instead of bins without wheels. They are not discriminating against companies, but just choosing to use the most appropriate tool for the job. Anyone is welcome to bid for the contracts to provide those tools. If Microsoft were to provide some open-source software, I'm sure it would be considered along with all the other open-source options.
What is being referred to here as Linux is not one monolithic piece of software. If it were, there would be no need for Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. These companies are competitors in a marketplace. That marketplace is the market for open-source software, which is qualitatively different to closed source software. By choosing open-source rather than closed source, the government is choosing not a different company, but a different market from which to buy its software. This is a market just like any other, which Microsoft, or anyone else is free to join at any time. The government is supposed to buy the best tools for the job. If it feels open-source fits the bill, then to go against that and use Microsoft software would be "Government Waste" and the creation of a "state-imposed monopoly". Open source is not a a company, so all open-source != monopoly. On the other hand, all Microsoft OF COURSE FUCKING == MONOPOLY.
I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but that sounds nothing like what the original poster described. The server wasn't generating HTML, it was generating StarOffice documents. The user would upload a staroffice document, and the server would use it as a template to generate new documents by inserting data into the appropriate places, which was easy to do because staroffice documents are just zipped up XML files. Once the server had inserted the data, the server would zip the files up again and hand out a *staroffice document*. I see no CSS or HTML anywhere in this process.
Goatse.cx is the sole redeeming feature of CyberPatrol.
Chuckle. It was originally dumbest, but I changed it at the last minute out of politenessaciousosity.
That is just about the wrongest thing I have ever seen in 5 years of reading slashdot, and that is SAYING SOMETHING!!!
I have a 512k cable line, and I love it. I download absolutely no music or video whatsoever (ok, maybe once a month or something). I mainly use the connection for things like downloading open source software, including linux isos; carrying out Windows Update (have you ever tried doing that over a slow connection? and how are you supposed to keep your machine secure if you can't patch it? eh?); general web browsing (eg. slashdot, news sites, checking train times, buying things), for which a fast, always on connection is like driving a brand new Golf GTi instead of an A-reg lada; email and newsgroups(download the list of newsgroups over a phone line takes forever); gnome-/net-meeting; and a whole bunch of other stuff which I just can't do without nowadays.
I used a telephone line for the internet for years, and it was utter crap. Now, if I don't have broadband access I feel like I'm blind!
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you said. But file-sharing as the only reason for using broadband? Where did that come from?
Whether you would describe GSM as "legacy" depends on your interpretation of the word. I would interpret "legacy" systems as systems you would like to get rid of from a technical point of view, but can't for operational or cost reasons.
GSM is an extremely popular and effective means of providing mobile voice communications and low-bandwidth data comms. UMTS is a way of providing high bandwidth data comms in addition to the same services.
Whether the market for high bandwidth mobile comms picks up or not, there will be a huge ongoing demand for simple mobile voice comms. This demand is already pushing the GSM networks to capacity and will not abate as high bandwidth takes off.
So you have to provide a large amount of voice comms in addition to high bandwidth data, so how do you do this? GSM systems are cheaper than 3G, they are tried and tested, and the networks already exist. They provide an excellent solution for voice comms. If you only wanted voice capacity, I think you would almost certainly choose it over UMTS for technical reasons (not least because "cell breathing" effects, code assignment and the larger number of base stations required for UMTS make for very tricky network planning).
So is this an outmoded system which is lingering because it is too expensive to replace, or is it a technically effective means of providing the large volumes of voice calls we are likely to continue to need for the foreseeable future? I reckon the latter. In fact, with handover problems solved it is an excellent complement to 3G. So no, not a legacy system and not likely to be for a quite some time.
From the Reg article:
I don't have the sales figures to hand, but I don't think GSM can really be called a "legacy" technology yet. IIRC Britain only has one provider 3G service provider, which has had a fraction of the expected number of subscribers.
[RAMBLINGS headwear="tin foil hat"]
I try to avoid thinking like a conspiracy theorist, but if the tin-foil hat fits, wear it. If SCO are Microsoft puppets, how would they want this all to end?
Say McBride and the rest all have some proposterous amount of money in the bank somewhere and get more once this is all over. Assume also that they've already destroyed their company to get as far as they have (entirely possible, judging by the SCOForum slideshow). What they have acheived is to generate some mighty smelly FUD around Linux and the GPL. Microsoft rubs hands with glee, but what next?
Having all this end up in court would be useless for microsoft. The arguments would be laughed at, code would be replaced in days/weeks, proving the efficacy of open source development, the FUD would disperse, everybody could breathe and the sun would shine once more.
No, what Microsoft would want would be for SCO to go bankrupt before the case ever came to trial. Think about it. That cloud of noxious FUD would never go away. Linux: the product of rampant IP theft by a community of "potty-mouthed malcontents" who, with the help of big bad IBM, betrayed a company which used to be their friend and then ground them into the dust without even having to argue their case in court. I can just imaging Ballmer monkey-dancing aroung in joy at that one. The world's biggest set-up: SCO dead, Linux found laughing with meat-cleaver in hand.
[/RAMBLINGS]
Seriously though, from a FUD perspective it would horrendous if for some reason none of this ever had a chance to be argued out in court.
Although the screenshot of the comment showed both the UNIX and Linux versions, the code sample only shows the linux version. The title says "Linux Kernel Code".
AFAIK they didn't specifically indicate that every line of code showing on that monitor was copied identically, they just say it is an example of "line by line copying". Perhaps they just meant the for loop.
Note that on the screenshot showing the comment, a few lines of linux code were also showing, which did not appear in the UNIX version (even in the amusingly "greeked" part.
I seem to remember a story about how the GPL is technically invalid under German law, because the copyright holder cannot waive his rights. IIRC, this is a quirk of the German law that also means many EULAs are illegal.
I know this is different to the SCO argument, but it's similar. Interesting that this has shown up on a German site first. Probably just coincidence.
My house was burgled last year, and along with my DVD player and my wife's laptop, the bastards nicked my passport.
To make matters worse, on my way to register for my marriage, I managed to leave a birth certificate and the first page of a bank statement in the taxi. The documents never turned up at lost property or with the police. Bloody stupid carelessness, and it gives me nightmares to think who could now have those documents.
Thing is, now the information's out there, what can I do? I cancelled the passport and changed the bank account number, but there's a pretty much complete set of identity documents in my name floating around out there. How can I tell when someone tries to use them?
Somehow posted to wrong article. How did that happen?
(Scratches head, then vigorously pummels self with own cluebat)
Spammers have ways to get around anti-spam filters, he said, but it's possible to collect patterns from their e-mails and block certain logarithms.
Hand me my cluebat!
Sorry. Got carried away by the excellent username.
Absolutely with you, anyway. The simple fact is that I have a broadband internet connection, a good soundcard and a big hard drive. Since I only tend to listen to 2 or 3 tracks on each album I buy, the form of music distribution that makes sense for me is to be able to pay to download a track at a time.
I have now made my home computer 100% free and legal. As far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of bought software or violated ip on it. As nice as this is for my sense of moral well-being, this means that my broadband internet connection, good soundcard and big hard drive are now next to useless for obtaining music. Even though I am more than happy to pay.
I don't have a mac and I don't live in the US so, unless someone can point me to a website that will prove me wrong (I'll be very grateful), I have no option whatsoever for accessing large quantities of non-obscure music (I choose my words carefully) through my internet connection.When enough people want something, they get it, regardless of the law. Cannabis is illegal. People want it. As a result, IIRC, Britain's black market for cannabis is bigger than it's tourist industry. People are buying the stuff in huge quantities from illegal dealers. It doesn't mean they have no respect for the law. They would happily buy it from legitimate dealers if there were any, even if it involved paying heavy taxes, but there are none. There is no alternative to breaking the law. In such circumstances, sitting in parliament fiddling with legislative details, or picking people off the streets and fining or imprisoning them for owning cannabis, or even tracking down international cartels and incarcerating their leaders is not going to make the blindest bit of difference. It's like trying to stop a hurricane by blowing in the opposite direction.
The *AA can bully and sue as many people as they like, but that approach has never worked anywhere in the world for cannabis.
The *AA have it easy compared to the anti-drug types. They don't want to stop everyone from listening to music. All the *AA wants (or should want) is for people to do it through legal channels and pay. Well, then, if you want to be paid THEN SELL THE FUCKING THING PEOPLE WANT TO PAY FOR!!! I don't want cd's, I want to download tracks. The minute I can, I'll pay whoever offers the service. In the mean time, it's been more than a year since I last bought a cd. My stagnating music collection pains me, but I simply can't bring myself to fork out for a CD. The prices nowadays, I'd rather do without.
Absolutely fucking stupid, the lot of them.
Generate a challenge that is a hash code based on the file size - that way when downloading from multiple sources, no need to repeatedly enter in a response.
Defeats the whole point. The file size can be obtained automatically, so if the challenge string can be generated from the file size you don't need a human.
Besides, I think the problem is preventing the *AA from searching rather than from downloading.
Cathedrals are shaped like a cross. If I remember correctly, the parts of the cathedral corresponding to where the unfortunate crucifixee's arms would be are called the transepts, and the part where his body and legs would be is the nave. What I certainly remember correctly (having sung in a number of cathedral choirs) is that the area corresponding to where the head would be is called the quire.
The quire is where the choir sits, but it is also where the clergymen sit (there can be quite a lot in a cathedral).
Considering that most of the people in the choirs in which I sang would probably be considered by the preacher to be in need of a good sermon (choirs are selected for singing ability, not piety), the phrase "preaching to the quire" (ie preaching to the clergymen), seems to capture the intended meaning much better than "preaching to the choir" (ie preaching to a bunch of giggling kids who wouldn't know god if he smote them).
Since quire is pronounced the same as choir, I would hazard a guess (only a guess, mind you) that "preaching to the quire" was the original, and "preaching to the choir" an inevitable corruption.
Actually, according to the dictionary link provided by JaredOfEuropa, the original meaning referred to a Roman punishment for mutinous legions, in which every tenth man was killed. The original meaning would therefore be to reduce by 10%.
I didn't know this myself. I thought it meant reduce to 10% until I read the link. But then I'd have checked that I was right before calling a complete stranger an utter twat.
I thought it was on shaky moral territory, myself. Then again if, as a skint recently graduated physicist, he manages to squeeze some money out of a system which currently seems to serve only the purpose of further lining the pockets of the already rich, I say good luck to him.
One point is that he had the idea first (hopefully). By patenting the idea, he published it. Although he has made no effort to develop the idea, if someone else does so - well, he still had the idea first, and told everyone about it (coughing up a thousand quid in the process so he could do so without relinquishing ownership of the idea). Doesn't he deserve something for that? And bear in mind that this is what patents were actually invented for: to ensure that individuals with cool ideas had a means of ensuring their reward - at the cost of telling everyone their so that, when the patent expires, the rest of society benefits.
I'd be very surprised if he were to get anything out of this, at least unless this box gets sold in the UK. Nonetheless, it was a cool enough idea for these guys to use it in this rather nifty product, and he did have the idea first. It wouldn't be money for nothing, it'd be money for having, and sharing, a cool idea.
Prior art's a whole other issue though. I guess that one depends heavily on how good your lawyers are.
A mate of mine has a patent on the idea of using SMS to control a video recording device, which it sounds like these people are using - amongst many other cool ideas. I've texted him about this, but I'd like to find out more if you can help.
As I understand it, he obtained the patent for about £1000 in the UK, and has just been waiting to see if someone uses the idea. I don't know how this works. The invention is in India - is this a problem? How do the international patent treaties work? Is it possible to just patent an idea and get some money if and when someone uses the idea? Do you think this is moral? Does anyone know of prior art?
So many questions...
This is one of the least trollish comments I've read on this thread (though that isn't saying much). This guy just described my life spot on. I'm neither American nor fat, but in both cases I can only thank my parents. There but for the grace of god go I.
Considering this is an article about one of the many traditional annual face-stuffing days westerners celebrate, it's hardly trolling to point out how many people have, or think they have, no time to get any excercise.
Stressed-out, over-fed, under-excercised = early death. The solution is not to diet (=less food, but more stress and still no excercise), but to get plenty of excercise (helps with stress, and you can eat all you like because your body turns it into muscle or motion rather than fat).
In my final year at university, I quit smoking and started swimming just under a mile four times a week. It was the best six months of my life - I was relaxed, I had plenty of energy, muscles even started appearing! Then the exams came along, followed by life as a code-monkey, and here I am smoking, lazy, stressed and eating like a vacuum cleaner. Time to resurrect that lapsed gym membership, I think.
Here's what really pisses me off about hiccups.
Whenever I get hiccups, which happens frequently and is really uncomfortable, the only thing that works FOR ME is to drink a glass of water upside-down (ie bend over and drink from the opposite side of the rim).
Yet every time I start doing this people go "Why bother with that, you should just hold your breath" or "Why don't you just drink a glass of water normally" or "Try elecrocuting your gonads with a car battery" (OK, I made the last one up, but it would probably work).
People can get really argumentative about this as well. Everyone thinks they know the One True Answer To Hiccups.
If you are lucky, there will be a technique that works for you (preferably one that doesn't involve gymnastics or extensive preparation). It won't work for everyone else!!!!
I actually reread this to make sure I had understood it right.
Sincerest apologies. And congratulations for convincing your teacher she was in the wrong.
Perhaps this is just a troll, but the teacher was right.
Conservation of energy applies to the entire system, not just to part of it. When compressing the piston, you give it some kinetic energy. Some of this kinetic gets transfered to the the gas molecules. In each collision between the piston and a gas molecule, the gas molecule gains KE and the piston loses it. Conservation of energy is not violated.
On the other hand, a collision between two molecules within the gas cannot give the gas as a whole any more energy than it had to start with, precisely because of the principle of conservation of energy. Answer A is therefore absolutely wrong.
Perfectly elastic collisions are not defined as those which conserve energy as all processes conserve energy when the whole system is considered. Elastic collisions are those which do not result in some of the KE being converted to some form of energy other than kinetic. Usually the other form is heat, but of course on a molecular scale, heat IS kinetic energy.
Heh. Like your sig.
News-Felch!