In addition google gets yet another metric (a click) making a measurable event that they may find a way to charge for. (Hey even negative feed back to the advertiser is worth something).
Nope. There are quite a few different methods to accomplish this. For what apple wants to do with it the Panel method is probably what they "patented".
Panel System: This is the most likely use of 3D without glasses. What happens is that a thin screen is placed in front of the TV which as the same function as glasses would. It polarizes the images and causes the right and left eye to receive different images. This would create a 3D effect without any glasses at all.
Apple finds ways to patent things that are already out there by simply taking something designed for projection rooms and putting it on a phone or a computer.
They then have a large portfolio of indefensible patents which look good on paper, but as soon as they try to enforce them they lose big time.
Apple recently put a whole bunch of patents at risk of being declared invalid when they tried to exercise them against Nokia. See Here and also Here.
Why? This would mean that American online companies would no longer be competitive with those in other countries.
Actually it means the tracking will all move overseas, just like the cold calling at dinner time.
But the tracking isn't done by the people you buy from. So the American online companies will continue to sell at the same rate, and the trackers will simply move.
After all, the chances of me (knowingly) buying my next computer or sweatshirt from some company in India is slim to none.
Maybe they have figured out that making you sit thru an ad on the web just pisses you off and makes you angry at them, and nobody listens to them anyway.
If the user bails out before the ad completely streams its a pretty good sign of negative advertising.
If I see one more "Skip this Welcome Page" I'm going to scream. I close them arbitrarily. If they have sound I never go back to that site.
I'm not convinced the ones doing the tracking are the ones manufacturing the products.
I mean, I've worked in manufacturing and the stiffs in those places are the same ones you go fishing or golfing with. They are just not all that awesome when it comes to knowing exactly what their customers want.
The tracking companies may be amassing a pile of data about you, but since all they do is sell data, (again to the pointy-haired bosses of the manufacturers) they aren't in a position to detect or service any major trends with products or services. (The obvious exception being Google).
So you end up with something like Google and the government.
The first simply shows you Ads without telling the payer much about you (practically nothing), and the second is largely incompetent, staffed by people who don't care and who have no reason to look you up in their own databases unless you do something ELSE to attract your attention.
But Ford, or Sears, or Safeway, or Dell could really care less about you till you are ready to buy something.
Up to 40% of the mass of the our sun is the usually quoted cut off for red dwarfs. That is still a pretty sizable object. Two or three of these add up to our sun.
Five to one or twenty to one, you still have a significant amount of mass.
Then, as you mention, you have to add all the hard to detect planets for another small fraction. (If weren't seeing the star you can bet they weren't measuring its wobble). Admittedly its probably a small addition relative to the stars themselves.
So your big solution is to move the problem one degree of separation from the artist, to a patron, who is then faced with the same problem of unauthorized reproduction?
Somehow, it seems you haven't thought this through very well.
You still haven't explained why you should not own your own work. Or how anyone will have money to buy your work if no one can own anything.
The 60s are over my friend. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" has been pretty well discredited as a recipe for getting anything done.
I hope they don't merge the chair right in, otherwise we'll have to say problem is intermelded with chair, keyboard, and desk!
Horatio Cane prefers to stand while flinging photos and zooming into a reflection bouncing off of spent brass ejecting from the suspect's Glock to count the warts on the suspect cheek from behind, and across the street.
I mean, we all know copyright doesn't guarantee revenue.
But we also know that someone giving away your material for free PRECLUDES revenue.
So we are right back to the very reason for copyright, aren't we?!
If you had a body of work that included a bunch of stories and books, wouldn't you want your surviving spouse to be able to download a copy of Atlantis word processor, and sign up with Amazon or Barnes & Noble and make a little money selling ebooks of your long dormant work?
How many authors (or family there of) are contemplating this now for their long ago works, laying dormant for many tens of years?
After all, it was probably dormant simply because it was uneconomic to reprint it.
Ebooks open a lot of possibility. Make an ebook in a few hours and sell it for 99 cents to Nook and Kindle and Kobo owners.
The copyright holders may not be able to afford a printing, but with the advent of ebooks and self publishing on Amazon, Barns and Noble, etc, a book that costs NOTHING to produce and can be sold for 99 cents, and still make a profit.
Just when the means to earn an income from these uneconomic works appears on the horizon, someone decides your works were abandoned.
(I'm not arguing for life plus 70 or what ever it is this week. Seems to me life plus 10 would be enough, but that is merely splitting hairs. Reasonable people can disagree about the duration. The copyright term was far shorter in the past).
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about. If I said your rights should be abridged...
No. Copyright is not a "right" in the sense that freedom of speech is a right, or the right of self-defense; it is an arbitrary creation of government.
Its an arbitrary creation of PEOPLE.
Without it, what you right is mine to copy and sell the instant I get my hands on it.
The alcohol is rather indiscriminate at killing cells. Bacteria evolving to be resistant to it would be equivalent to people's skulls becoming resistant to bullets.
Now the article suggests that it could either be caused by the hygiene or the chemicals used in the cleaners.
Now if this study was well done and had some control groups, say other forms of cleaners, we might learn something we didn't already know.
Quoting from the Abstract:
Results: In analyses adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, creatinine levels, family income, and educational attainment,... compared urinary bisphenol A (BPA) and triclosan with serum cytomegalovirus antibody levels
So by measuring urinary bisphenol A they have a built in "control group" of sorts. Since BPA is not cleared rapidly from the body according to studies cited in the full paper, this allows them to gauge the amount of exposure to these chemicals. They then compared exposure levels to diagnosed infections and allergies.
The study had nothing to do with soap use or any specific products. Simply measuring the levels of long-lived chemicals in the blood and correlating that with diagnosis.
Conclusions: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA and triclosan may negatively impact human immune function as measured by CMV antibody levels and allergy/hayfever diagnosis, respectively, with differential consequences based on age.
So rather than your assertion that "the immune system is targeting harmless compounds" the facts are that the immune system is not functioning up to par (depressed CMV antibody levels) thereby allowing higher levels of allergy/hayfever.
Antibacterial soap does not contain antibiotics. It contains simpler chemicals (alcohol, etc) which kill cells on contact. Antibiotics are more specific
But the GP's point remains. Bacteria will evolve to be less sensitive to these chemicals over time. After all, the chemicals couldn't be all that harsh if putting them on your skin does no immediate harm.
Yes, very interesting how LITTLE new and shocking information was actually in the documents.
The biggest "crime" revealed so far is that diplomats talk frankly among themselves, and apparently don't care if a buck private in the army reads their mail.
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians,
Oh, PLEASE! Do grow up.
Do you not think Canadians are doing the same?
With Canuckistan being the gateway of choice why wouldn't the US watch closely? Its not like Canadians are paying any attention to who they allow in or what organizations they give their blessing to.
The unsurprising facts that the Saudi's were funding most terrorism was as unsurprising as the fact that they fear Iran, and that China hacked Google.
We all knew this, or suspected it. That our diplomats talk frankly among themselves is nothing more than I would suspect.
That there are idiots here on/. that believe this should not be the case is the only surprise I've seen about this whole episode.
What I want to know is how a buck private managed to get his hands on diplomatic traffic. If heads must roll surely the chain of command that allowed THAT should be first to feel the knife.
Why is the military privy to diplomatic traffic at all? Why would it be on a computer entrusted to a private?
Slashdot Mirror
You might be on to something here...
In addition google gets yet another metric (a click) making a measurable event that they may find a way to charge for. (Hey even negative feed back to the advertiser is worth something).
Google has also announced they have a way to filter out BAD advertisers in their search result: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/being-bad-to-your-customers-is-bad-for.html
So that's two wins for google in the same week.
Nope.
There are quite a few different methods to accomplish this.
For what apple wants to do with it the Panel method is probably what they "patented".
Panel System: This is the most likely use of 3D without glasses. What happens is that a thin screen is placed in front of the TV which as the same function as glasses would. It polarizes the images and causes the right and left eye to receive different images. This would create a 3D effect without any glasses at all.
Apple finds ways to patent things that are already out there by simply taking something designed for projection rooms and putting it on a phone or a computer.
They then have a large portfolio of indefensible patents which look good on paper, but as soon as they try to enforce them they lose big time.
Apple recently put a whole bunch of patents at risk of being declared invalid when they tried to exercise them against Nokia. See Here and also Here.
Why? This would mean that American online companies would no longer be competitive with those in other countries.
Actually it means the tracking will all move overseas, just like the cold calling at dinner time.
But the tracking isn't done by the people you buy from. So the American online companies will continue to sell at the same rate, and the trackers will simply move.
After all, the chances of me (knowingly) buying my next computer or sweatshirt from some company in India is slim to none.
If a the ads with then youtube video max out your bandwidth, maybe you should take a close look at your network.
I'll get right on that, as soon as I untangle that sentence. Ouch!
Maybe they have figured out that making you sit thru an ad on the web just pisses you off and makes you angry at them, and nobody listens to them anyway.
If the user bails out before the ad completely streams its a pretty good sign of negative advertising.
If I see one more "Skip this Welcome Page" I'm going to scream. I close them arbitrarily. If they have sound I never go back to that site.
I'm afraid your referential opacity places you squarely in the realm of dim matter.
I'm not convinced the ones doing the tracking are the ones manufacturing the products.
I mean, I've worked in manufacturing and the stiffs in those places are the same ones you go fishing or golfing with. They are just not all that awesome when it comes to knowing exactly what their customers want.
The tracking companies may be amassing a pile of data about you, but since all they do is sell data, (again to the pointy-haired bosses of the manufacturers) they aren't in a position to detect or service any major trends with products or services. (The obvious exception being Google).
So you end up with something like Google and the government.
The first simply shows you Ads without telling the payer much about you (practically nothing), and the second is largely incompetent, staffed by people who don't care and who have no reason to look you up in their own databases unless you do something ELSE to attract your attention.
But Ford, or Sears, or Safeway, or Dell could really care less about you till you are ready to buy something.
Teeny tiny is a relative term.
Up to 40% of the mass of the our sun is the usually quoted cut off for red dwarfs. That is still a pretty sizable object.
Two or three of these add up to our sun.
An interesting visual of relative solar system masses is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size
Five to one or twenty to one, you still have a significant amount of mass.
Then, as you mention, you have to add all the hard to detect planets for another small fraction. (If weren't seeing the star you can bet they weren't measuring its wobble). Admittedly its probably a small addition relative to the stars themselves.
So your big solution is to move the problem one degree of separation from the artist, to a patron, who is then faced with the same problem of unauthorized reproduction?
Somehow, it seems you haven't thought this through very well.
You still haven't explained why you should not own your own work. Or how anyone will have money to buy your work if no one can own anything.
The 60s are over my friend. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" has been pretty well discredited as a recipe for getting anything done.
I hope they don't merge the chair right in, otherwise we'll have to say problem is intermelded with chair, keyboard, and desk!
Horatio Cane prefers to stand while flinging photos and zooming into a reflection bouncing off of spent brass ejecting from the suspect's Glock to count the warts on the suspect cheek from behind, and across the street.
Does it come with sunglasses?
I fail to see your point here.
Guttenberg, by publishing these works usurped control.
I mean, we all know copyright doesn't guarantee revenue.
But we also know that someone giving away your material for free PRECLUDES revenue.
So we are right back to the very reason for copyright, aren't we?!
If you had a body of work that included a bunch of stories and books, wouldn't you want your surviving spouse to be able to download a copy of Atlantis word processor, and sign up with Amazon or Barnes & Noble and make a little money selling ebooks of your long dormant work?
How many authors (or family there of) are contemplating this now for their long ago works, laying dormant for many tens of years?
After all, it was probably dormant simply because it was uneconomic to reprint it.
Ebooks open a lot of possibility. Make an ebook in a few hours and sell it for 99 cents to Nook and Kindle and Kobo owners.
There is Abandoned and there is Uneconomic.
The copyright holders may not be able to afford a printing, but with the advent of ebooks and self publishing on Amazon, Barns and Noble, etc, a book that costs NOTHING to produce and can be sold for 99 cents, and still make a profit.
Just when the means to earn an income from these uneconomic works appears on the horizon, someone decides your works were abandoned.
(I'm not arguing for life plus 70 or what ever it is this week. Seems to me life plus 10 would be enough, but that is merely splitting hairs. Reasonable people can disagree about the duration. The copyright term was far shorter in the past).
>
No. Copyright is not a "right" in the sense that freedom of speech is a right, or the right of self-defense; it is an arbitrary creation of government.
Its an arbitrary creation of PEOPLE.
Without it, what you right is mine to copy and sell the instant I get my hands on it.
The alcohol is rather indiscriminate at killing cells. Bacteria evolving to be resistant to it would be equivalent to people's skulls becoming resistant to bullets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest
Mr BadCarAnalogy guy, it that you?
Bacteria are about as likely to evolve resistance to anti-bacterial soap as we are to evolve resistance to being run over by a bus.
Give us some time. We haven't been driving buses all that long.
If bacteria can live under 4000 feet of volcanic rock I suspect that over the long haul, its the soap that doesn't stand a chance.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2003/Dec03/bacteria.htm
Now the article suggests that it could either be caused by the hygiene or the chemicals used in the cleaners.
Now if this study was well done and had some control groups, say other forms of cleaners, we might learn something we didn't already know.
Quoting from the Abstract:
Results: In analyses adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, creatinine levels, family income, and educational attainment, ... compared urinary bisphenol A (BPA) and triclosan with serum cytomegalovirus antibody levels
So by measuring urinary bisphenol A they have a built in "control group" of sorts. Since BPA is not cleared rapidly from the body according to studies cited in the full paper, this allows them to gauge the amount of exposure to these chemicals. They then compared exposure levels to diagnosed infections and allergies.
The study had nothing to do with soap use or any specific products. Simply measuring the levels of long-lived chemicals in the blood and correlating that with diagnosis.
That is not the Opposite of the GP's statement.
If anything you've proven his point.
Further, I think you misread the article.
Conclusions: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA and triclosan may negatively impact human immune function as measured by CMV antibody levels and allergy/hayfever diagnosis, respectively, with differential consequences based on age.
So rather than your assertion that "the immune system is targeting harmless compounds" the facts are that the immune system is not functioning up to par (depressed CMV antibody levels) thereby allowing higher levels of allergy/hayfever.
Antibacterial soap does not contain antibiotics. It contains simpler chemicals (alcohol, etc) which kill cells on contact. Antibiotics are more specific
But the GP's point remains. Bacteria will evolve to be less sensitive to these chemicals over time. After all, the chemicals couldn't be all that harsh if putting them on your skin does no immediate harm.
Yes, very interesting how LITTLE new and shocking information was actually in the documents.
The biggest "crime" revealed so far is that diplomats talk frankly among themselves, and apparently don't care if a buck private in the army reads their mail.
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians,
Oh, PLEASE! Do grow up.
Do you not think Canadians are doing the same?
With Canuckistan being the gateway of choice why wouldn't the US watch closely? Its not like Canadians are paying any attention to who they allow in or what organizations they give their blessing to.
Real Men with testosterone weeping out of every pore.
More likely flowing in thru every needle. There are no drug tests in the Tour de Kremlin.
The unsurprising facts that the Saudi's were funding most terrorism was as unsurprising as the fact that they fear Iran, and that China hacked Google.
We all knew this, or suspected it. That our diplomats talk frankly among themselves is nothing more than I would suspect.
That there are idiots here on /. that believe this should not be the case is the only surprise I've seen about this whole episode.
What I want to know is how a buck private managed to get his hands on diplomatic traffic. If heads must roll surely the chain of command that allowed THAT should be first to feel the knife.
Why is the military privy to diplomatic traffic at all? Why would it be on a computer entrusted to a private?
Unbelievable.