I believe reflectivity is frequency-dependent. A material that highly reflects light might barely reflect milimeter waves, and vice-versa. So you'd need to asses whether or not the boat-store versions would do the trick.
I believe their rationalization is "screw the rules, I have money".
But I don't think (I could be wrong) people can live that way. I suspect everyone, except maybe some true psychopaths, eventually feels the need to find a way to excuse their behavior as morally commendable, or at least permissible.
I disagree. The ranks of the wealthy are filled with those how managed to get the rules applied mostly to their competitors and not to themselves.
(To be fair, I think we're all tempted to act like that. But some of the super-rich have been extraordinarily good and/or lucky in achieving biased enforcement of rules meant for everyone.)
If I recall, the reason a judge first upheld EULA's many years ago is that act of copying a program's content from the hard drive to main memory was considered "copying", and thus required the consent of the copyright holder. (I could be wrong - I heard this a long time ago.)
So anyway, if that's true, nothing astonishes me any more regarding what's considered fair use and what isn't.
I programmed a Cell processor (for HPC, not gaming) a few years ago, and it was definitely a pain in the butt compared to just targeting a multi-core x86.
The problem, at least back then, was that you had to write explicit code to have the various cores communicate with each other (DMA transfers, etc.)
I imagine compilers/libraries/SDK's have improved the situation since then, but really the modest performance premium offered by the chip just wasn't worth the hassle.
Seems to me that if they're claiming copyright on your video, and claim to have reviewed it, and they're receiving *your* ad revenue, then they're guilty of fraud.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
His patent is about as valid as 99.999% of all computer-related patents from the last 25 years. Maybe if he sues the entire planet into oblivion, someone will admit how screwed up software patents are.
Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?
Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?
But how do you enforce this without at least a core set of laws? For example:
Me: I want to kick puppies. Community: No, our private laws don't allow that. Me: I'll do it anyway. Try to stop me! You can't, because you don't believe in violence-enforced legal systems.
or...
Me: I want to kick puppies. Community: No, our private laws don't allow that. Me: I'm actually my own community. In my private laws, that's allowed. So go pound sand.
Of all the solutions that seem workable to me, the one that seems most likely to scratch the itch you're describing is federalism. Which the U.S. sort of had until the south lost the civil war.
It's not that a company's price fluctuates with the state of its patent portfolio. The problem is that 3 patents, which should have never been issued in the first place, terrorized inventors and suppressed innovation for multiple years. This is squarely an indictment of the USPTO and of the Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe reflectivity is frequency-dependent. A material that highly reflects light might barely reflect milimeter waves, and vice-versa. So you'd need to asses whether or not the boat-store versions would do the trick.
Hey, thanks for that great writeup. I seem to never have mod points when I'd want to use them.
I'm really confused. I thought Issa was a completely evil bad-guy. Is this just pandering on his part, or does he actually have some virtue?
Well, at least in my area we have two high-speed providers competing for my business: Cox, and Verizon FiOS.
Does Verizon require having a landline telephone? Do people without a landline have the same choice?
I haven't had one since 2002.
I don't believe they require it, but I could be wrong.
Well, at least in my area we have two high-speed providers competing for my business: Cox, and Verizon FiOS.
That makes one of us...
We can't really tell you what's "acceptable". That ultimately depends on what you're using it for.
Maybe the right question is, are you getting a worse ratio-vs.-price situation than is found in most markets in your country?
Or are you asking whether or not the provided is in breach of the law because they're offering something so bad that their advertising is deceptive?
I believe their rationalization is "screw the rules, I have money".
But I don't think (I could be wrong) people can live that way. I suspect everyone, except maybe some true psychopaths, eventually feels the need to find a way to excuse their behavior as morally commendable, or at least permissible.
How could those lawyers live with themselves? What rationalizing did they have to twist their minds with to keep the pretense of humanity?
I disagree. The ranks of the wealthy are filled with those how managed to get the rules applied mostly to their competitors and not to themselves.
(To be fair, I think we're all tempted to act like that. But some of the super-rich have been extraordinarily good and/or lucky in achieving biased enforcement of rules meant for everyone.)
If I recall, the reason a judge first upheld EULA's many years ago is that act of copying a program's content from the hard drive to main memory was considered "copying", and thus required the consent of the copyright holder. (I could be wrong - I heard this a long time ago.)
So anyway, if that's true, nothing astonishes me any more regarding what's considered fair use and what isn't.
Doesn't seem too long ago that I was having the same questions about Netscape Navigator 4.5.
So how did you get a coma in the first place?
I programmed a Cell processor (for HPC, not gaming) a few years ago, and it was definitely a pain in the butt compared to just targeting a multi-core x86.
The problem, at least back then, was that you had to write explicit code to have the various cores communicate with each other (DMA transfers, etc.)
I imagine compilers/libraries/SDK's have improved the situation since then, but really the modest performance premium offered by the chip just wasn't worth the hassle.
Seems to me that if they're claiming copyright on your video, and claim to have reviewed it, and they're receiving *your* ad revenue, then they're guilty of fraud.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
His patent is about as valid as 99.999% of all computer-related patents from the last 25 years. Maybe if he sues the entire planet into oblivion, someone will admit how screwed up software patents are.
Ah, how I love my afternoon fantasies...
Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?
Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?
The Judge has received some re-election funds from the MPAA
Just because you don't like the ruling, doesn't necessarily mean it's contrary to the law.
That being said, the MPAA and RIAA have been instrumental in writing the laws, so...
But how do you enforce this without at least a core set of laws? For example:
Me: I want to kick puppies.
Community: No, our private laws don't allow that.
Me: I'll do it anyway. Try to stop me! You can't, because you don't believe in violence-enforced legal systems.
or...
Me: I want to kick puppies.
Community: No, our private laws don't allow that.
Me: I'm actually my own community. In my private laws, that's allowed. So go pound sand.
Of all the solutions that seem workable to me, the one that seems most likely to scratch the itch you're describing is federalism. Which the U.S. sort of had until the south lost the civil war.
Are you arguing for the complete absence of laws? Or that we only adopt laws that are agreed upon by every member of society?
I'm assuming you mean something more moderate.
What do you mean by that?
It's not that a company's price fluctuates with the state of its patent portfolio. The problem is that 3 patents, which should have never been issued in the first place, terrorized inventors and suppressed innovation for multiple years. This is squarely an indictment of the USPTO and of the Congress.
No.
The point was valid, but I generally don't mod up anonymous postings.
They must have seen the Southpark episode aboot Canadians. I'd be pissed too, eh?
Ignore last line of parent post please. I'm a lousy writer, and Slashdot still lacks an "edit" button.