Um no it's not. You are correct that the light falling on a cone(retinal pixel) is much less than that emitted by a conventional display pixel. If you look at a 40Watt light bulb, there is far less than that amount of power falling on your retina because it goes in all directions and only a fraction of it goes in your eye. For arguements sake, lets just assume a conventional display pixel at full brightness lands 1nW of power on your retina. This would mean a focused light (laser) of 1nW could be used to illuminate that pixel directly. Now since the laser is scanning 1 million pixels, it only spends 1/1000000 of it's time on that area of the retina. This means it delivers 1/1000000 of its power to that area. That means it would need to be 1M times as powerful to scan the whole image. In this example that gives a 1 mW laser. The point is that the laser does have to be a million times the intensity of the light required to paint a single pixel on the retina because it is scanning - it needs to be high enough intensity to light 1000000 pixels.
Is 1mW enough? A 5mW laser pointer can be harmful to your eye and that's not focused directly on your retina (beams do diverge a bit).
I just raised the point of a harmful failure mode for the device. It is a real concern. Doing the math with real values may indicate the gizmo is safe, but if no one has done that it should be considered unsafe.
The Fine Article indicates that the product is made in Washington. What does Customs have to do with that? Why not go after the manufacturer instead of this little toy store?
"Plus, the laser's output is being spread across the entire retina, not focusing on a single spot."
So when the scanning mechanism (moving mirrors) stop functioning you get a burnt spot on your retina. Remember, if you're doing a Megapixel display, the laser is 1,000,000 times as much power as a single pixel requires. When the scanner breaks, how long do they have to detect the fault and shut off the laser before damage is done? Perhaps it can be done, but determining failure modes and implementing fast and effective diagnostics is tricky business (it's part of my job).
At least with DPL a broken mirror wouldn't hurt and you can use non-laser light which is safer.
I've been waiting for Sarge for a couple months now. I don't know why they can't freeze it, give people 2 weeks to fix bugs or get cut, then release what's available. Those other packages could still be obtained from testing after Sarge is "stable". IMHO, they really are looking quite bad. Just freeze, fix, ship, and move on.
Yes, teaching people how to make code look correct while doing something wrong is a valuable skill for everyday honest folks. I'd like to take the class and then write banking software....
Since the browser sends a string to the server (indicating browser type and stuff), why not include my terms in the string including "your servers response to this http request indicates your acceptance of these terms". Any response by the server then means they agree.
I've been considering an unusual idea. Source code is the natural language to describe a software patent. If source code is only a description of the patent, and an executable running on a machine (which seems to be required to complete the "patented device") is required to be a violation... Wouldn't software distributed only as source code be non-infringing?
As I recall, you are also free to use patented stuff in your own home without paying for it - only commercial use would actually infringe.
IANAL, and while this seems like an attempt to weasle around the system I rather like it.
"The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next-generation video device," he said."
I think he means: 'the critical mass has to come from windows'. Why? No technical reason, it's just because people at MS will have a temper tamtrum if this doesn't go their way.
Clicking the button can have 2 effects that are both significant. 1) it could mean you agree with the terms of the EULA. 2) it WILL install the software. To me, the only clear intent is to install the software. It does not compare to signing a contract - which does nothing other than confirm your acceptance of the contract. Intent when signing a contract is a lot more clear than clicking a dual-purpose button. I bet if you did a poll, most people would not even be aware of the "contractual significance" of the button - Ya, real clear.
I never mean I accept the EULA - I just click the button to get software to install. You may ask why I click something that says "I agree" when I don't. That's easy - because it's how I install the software that I bought and own. I have not agreed to not-install it if I don't like the EULA.
If you want a contract with someone, have them sign a contract [not install your software].
Clicking the button can have 2 effects that are both significant. 1) it could mean you agree with the terms of the EULA. 2) it WILL install the software. To me, the only clear intent is to install the software. It does not compare to signing a contract - which does nothing other than confirm your acceptance of the contract. Intent when signing a contract is a lot more clear than clicking a dual-purpose button. I bet if you did a poll, most people would not even be aware of the "contractual significance" of the button - Ya, real clear.
I never mean I accept the EULA - I just click the button to get software to install. You may ask why I click something that says "I agree" when I don't. That's easy - because it's how I install the software that I bought and own. I have not agreed to not-install it if I don't like the EULA.
If you want a contract with someone, have them sign a contract.
The article mentions a need for higher resolution. As I understand it, previous efforts were only 1280x720 or something else less than 1920x1080. I can't imagine getting better resolution on television than in the theater - that's just stupid. So does that NDA cover disclosing the resolution? How about the compression method?
Actually it would be nice if someone ELSE could answer these questions so this guy doesn't need to worry about his NDA.
What makes the "I agree" button binding? The EULA. What makes the EULA binding? The button. We have a circular problem here.
What if I disagree with the eula? Now I want to reverse engineer the software or for whatever reason want to see what happens when I click the "I agree" button? If I don't agree with the terms of the EULA, that means that I don't accept the line that says "clicking 'I agree' indicates you accept this agreement". Therefore, clicking it doesn't mean I agree.
Just ask the plaintif if they can decisively say weather or not they have a valid contract with the judge. Notice that with EULAs the company apparently enters into contracts with any number of people without even knowing who they are. How absurd.
So what we're really talking about is independants. I go to my day job and I'm a professional, but when I do a side project at home I'm an independant - not an amateur. If I'm doing something outside my field as a side project I'd be an amateur, but if I take a new job in another field I'd be "entry level".
I believe the article should use the word "independant" instead of "amateur".
If money was no problem, I'd just make a really fantastic replica of the painting (indistinguishable even by experts) and hang it on the wall with regular security and lock all the originals in one nice secure vault.
If you give the executable to someone, you must provide code. If you provide code, it must be under a GPL license. Connolly seems to be claiming (possibly so) that he did neither. Ownership of the new code (not the existing GPLed bits) belongs to the creator, who presubably assigned that ownership to Connolly in this case.
Now, since the code was HTML and Connolly's server distributed it to people looking at the pages... that may be a real problem for him now that I think about it. OTOH, did it really hand out the changes to the code?
Could this be a case of the server spitting out hardcoded HTML and then claiming theft of that? That would be like claiming copyright on the form of a text. If that is his claim, then he'd be arguing that the output of a GPLed program is a derivative work. In that case, wouldn't all his web pages with programmatic modifications have to be GPLed? My thoughts are drifting way off here...
Because the GPL offers you the freedom to do what you like with the code for your own use. This is not something granted by the GPL, it's preserved by the GPL. Forcing you to release derivative works is absurd. Everyone who's ever done an experimental modification of GPLed code would be obligated to distribute that modification. People customize stuff all the time. Who exactly should they distribute those customizations to and as you asked "Why?".
"I wonder when we'll see a P2P virus. All it would do is install itself and quietly connect to the various P2P networks, making available for distribution any audio or video files the user has."
That's very interesting. People are really determined to cause the internet to be locked down aren't they? It will take legislative action that dictates certain things to ISPs, but don't think there will always be a neat hack to stick it to those darn **AA people. They're playing by a different set of rules - the same ones people keep ignoring with P2P. Not to say you're one of those people, but someone reading probably is. Continued circumvention of those rules will only lead to their tightening.
"This means that even if it could be definitively said that Sakic created a derivative work of the code that he'd written for Furthermore, Connolly has no legal recourse for preventing its distribution or use."
This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from his employer and put it under GPL.
IANAL, but people need to follow owership and distribution very closely. If there was no contract my limited understanding of these issues breaks down in a hurry - I would assume without proper assignment he can do whatever because it's actually his code but again IANAL.
It bothers me to see GPL proponents getting too carried away and assuming that the public has a right to use anything that came from GPLed work. I doubt the guy is right, but it would NOT be because of the GPL. It looks to me like it comes down to pure ownership in this case because Connelly never distributed any code.
I would argue that if you know it is turned on and you don't know how to turn it off, you are Willingly sharing. Disabling the software altogether or turning off the computer is certainly within your capability even if you don't know how to turn off the feature.
Agreed. For a terrorist, they'd be shooting several miles at a target the size of... your eye. There are 4 targets that need to be hit to completely blind the pilot and copilot. Doesn't sound like an easy task to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Um no it's not. You are correct that the light falling on a cone(retinal pixel) is much less than that emitted by a conventional display pixel. If you look at a 40Watt light bulb, there is far less than that amount of power falling on your retina because it goes in all directions and only a fraction of it goes in your eye. For arguements sake, lets just assume a conventional display pixel at full brightness lands 1nW of power on your retina. This would mean a focused light (laser) of 1nW could be used to illuminate that pixel directly. Now since the laser is scanning 1 million pixels, it only spends 1/1000000 of it's time on that area of the retina. This means it delivers 1/1000000 of its power to that area. That means it would need to be 1M times as powerful to scan the whole image. In this example that gives a 1 mW laser. The point is that the laser does have to be a million times the intensity of the light required to paint a single pixel on the retina because it is scanning - it needs to be high enough intensity to light 1000000 pixels.
Is 1mW enough? A 5mW laser pointer can be harmful to your eye and that's not focused directly on your retina (beams do diverge a bit).
I just raised the point of a harmful failure mode for the device. It is a real concern. Doing the math with real values may indicate the gizmo is safe, but if no one has done that it should be considered unsafe.
The Fine Article indicates that the product is made in Washington. What does Customs have to do with that? Why not go after the manufacturer instead of this little toy store?
So when the scanning mechanism (moving mirrors) stop functioning you get a burnt spot on your retina. Remember, if you're doing a Megapixel display, the laser is 1,000,000 times as much power as a single pixel requires. When the scanner breaks, how long do they have to detect the fault and shut off the laser before damage is done? Perhaps it can be done, but determining failure modes and implementing fast and effective diagnostics is tricky business (it's part of my job).
At least with DPL a broken mirror wouldn't hurt and you can use non-laser light which is safer.
When did you last see a dentist?
I've been waiting for Sarge for a couple months now. I don't know why they can't freeze it, give people 2 weeks to fix bugs or get cut, then release what's available. Those other packages could still be obtained from testing after Sarge is "stable". IMHO, they really are looking quite bad. Just freeze, fix, ship, and move on.
Yes, teaching people how to make code look correct while doing something wrong is a valuable skill for everyday honest folks. I'd like to take the class and then write banking software....
Since the browser sends a string to the server (indicating browser type and stuff), why not include my terms in the string including "your servers response to this http request indicates your acceptance of these terms". Any response by the server then means they agree.
The system must be broken...
As I recall, you are also free to use patented stuff in your own home without paying for it - only commercial use would actually infringe.
IANAL, and while this seems like an attempt to weasle around the system I rather like it.
I think he means: 'the critical mass has to come from windows'. Why? No technical reason, it's just because people at MS will have a temper tamtrum if this doesn't go their way.
Clicking the button can have 2 effects that are both significant. 1) it could mean you agree with the terms of the EULA. 2) it WILL install the software. To me, the only clear intent is to install the software. It does not compare to signing a contract - which does nothing other than confirm your acceptance of the contract. Intent when signing a contract is a lot more clear than clicking a dual-purpose button. I bet if you did a poll, most people would not even be aware of the "contractual significance" of the button - Ya, real clear.
I never mean I accept the EULA - I just click the button to get software to install. You may ask why I click something that says "I agree" when I don't. That's easy - because it's how I install the software that I bought and own. I have not agreed to not-install it if I don't like the EULA.
If you want a contract with someone, have them sign a contract [not install your software].
I never mean I accept the EULA - I just click the button to get software to install. You may ask why I click something that says "I agree" when I don't. That's easy - because it's how I install the software that I bought and own. I have not agreed to not-install it if I don't like the EULA.
If you want a contract with someone, have them sign a contract.
Actually it would be nice if someone ELSE could answer these questions so this guy doesn't need to worry about his NDA.
What if I disagree with the eula? Now I want to reverse engineer the software or for whatever reason want to see what happens when I click the "I agree" button? If I don't agree with the terms of the EULA, that means that I don't accept the line that says "clicking 'I agree' indicates you accept this agreement". Therefore, clicking it doesn't mean I agree.
Just ask the plaintif if they can decisively say weather or not they have a valid contract with the judge. Notice that with EULAs the company apparently enters into contracts with any number of people without even knowing who they are. How absurd.
Was that a joke? The whole point of the X prize was to show that it can be done without government funding.
I feel stupid now.
Thanks... ;-)
I believe the article should use the word "independant" instead of "amateur".
If money was no problem, I'd just make a really fantastic replica of the painting (indistinguishable even by experts) and hang it on the wall with regular security and lock all the originals in one nice secure vault.
Now, since the code was HTML and Connolly's server distributed it to people looking at the pages... that may be a real problem for him now that I think about it. OTOH, did it really hand out the changes to the code?
Could this be a case of the server spitting out hardcoded HTML and then claiming theft of that? That would be like claiming copyright on the form of a text. If that is his claim, then he'd be arguing that the output of a GPLed program is a derivative work. In that case, wouldn't all his web pages with programmatic modifications have to be GPLed? My thoughts are drifting way off here...
Oh ya, IANAL
Because the GPL offers you the freedom to do what you like with the code for your own use. This is not something granted by the GPL, it's preserved by the GPL. Forcing you to release derivative works is absurd. Everyone who's ever done an experimental modification of GPLed code would be obligated to distribute that modification. People customize stuff all the time. Who exactly should they distribute those customizations to and as you asked "Why?".
That's very interesting. People are really determined to cause the internet to be locked down aren't they? It will take legislative action that dictates certain things to ISPs, but don't think there will always be a neat hack to stick it to those darn **AA people. They're playing by a different set of rules - the same ones people keep ignoring with P2P. Not to say you're one of those people, but someone reading probably is. Continued circumvention of those rules will only lead to their tightening.
This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from his employer and put it under GPL.
IANAL, but people need to follow owership and distribution very closely. If there was no contract my limited understanding of these issues breaks down in a hurry - I would assume without proper assignment he can do whatever because it's actually his code but again IANAL.
It bothers me to see GPL proponents getting too carried away and assuming that the public has a right to use anything that came from GPLed work. I doubt the guy is right, but it would NOT be because of the GPL. It looks to me like it comes down to pure ownership in this case because Connelly never distributed any code.
IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.
And therefore it would be eye-safe.
I would argue that if you know it is turned on and you don't know how to turn it off, you are Willingly sharing. Disabling the software altogether or turning off the computer is certainly within your capability even if you don't know how to turn off the feature.
Agreed. For a terrorist, they'd be shooting several miles at a target the size of... your eye. There are 4 targets that need to be hit to completely blind the pilot and copilot. Doesn't sound like an easy task to me.