Wouldn't you want law enforcement to investigate something like this? Whether he was prosecuted or not would be a different question, but if something looks sexually explicit towards children, then isn't that to be investigated?
If the article is correct, however, and the scenes and things were edited in and not performed live in front of the kids, well that is for the attorneys to work out (and most likely the charges will be dropped).
I'm pretty sure that faking a rape on you tube would also get the police involved. It's just not a smart thing to do.
Did you think anyone is going to spend millions to billions doing the research for a pat on the head and a thanks well done ?
Yes, they will. The process that the patent covers is based on research from 1984 and includes work from Boston University and the University of Illinois. It was BP/Dupont who patented the process even though they didn't do the research. As it turns out, the original work was done by grad students (so they got to pay to do the research instead of being paid to do it).
Saying you don't have a FB account isn't too smart if your really do. All they have to do is check and if you do have one, then you've been caught in a lie. Not good for a job applicant or recertification. A better approach would be to give them your facebook account but not the correct password. Then if they actually tried to get on your facebook account you can say that you simply changed your password. If you really want to be honest, give them the real password and then go change it. Or, better yet, take your FB page off-line until after hired.
I took my information directly from the GPL3 FAQ. Also, there is a significant difference between re-selling a piece of software, say LibreOffice and a device that uses embeded GPL'd code. One of the reasons GPL3 changed the language was to deal with different definitions of distribute under different jurisdictions. GPL3 uses the terms propagate and convey with regards to what people generically call distribution.
If an app store or amazon were unsure, particularly with different versions of open source licensing, they could always just put a link to the developer's web site to download the source. That would seem to meet the concerns involved with the license and would keep them from also having to host the source code.
>>>The main manufactures pretty much used a 650x or an 808x processor.
Also Motorola's 68000 series, which was the basis for the PC's main competition: Apple Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga. And Sega Genesis. The computers eventually migrated from the 68060 (last in the line) to Motorola/IBM's new PowerPC.
6502 was a bit of a deadend. It had a LOT of use in the 70s and 80s, but never moved higher than 16 bit (in the Super Nintendo and Apple GS). That was a shame.
I agree with that, but those were second generation. Initially, other than the hobbyist computers, it was 650x or 808x (Apple, Commodore Vic20/65 for the 650x and IBM and numerous clones for the 808x).
The GPL specifically states that it does not over-ride US law. To sell something through the app store you sign a contract. Said contract trumps GPL. You as the developer now have full responsibility for the GPL. Amazon, or Apple, or whomever, do not have to make the source code available. The GPL requires that the source code IS available. Your contract with them dictates that you are responsible for that (although not in those words).
You could only sue Microsoft and win if your software was illegally sold through their store if and only if, they were the one selling it there or should have known that the seller is not the owner. Otherwise, your recourse is to have Microsoft cease selling your software and seek damages from the person who actually violated your copyright.
If Walmart unknowingly sells pirated CDs or DVDs who do the studios go after, Walmart or the pirates? If they want to win, they go after the pirates. Walmart is still out the money they paid and has to quit selling the product, but, if they acted in good faith they are not liable. If however, they knew or should have known, then they would be liable but for different reasons.
It has already been ruled by the FSF that if I distribute a GPL'd program and do not make any changes to it, that it suffices that the source code is available from the previous link in the chain. Otherwise, a lot of Ubuntu derivatives that simply link to the Ubuntu repositories are in violation of the GPL (they aren't).
I think a strong argument can be made that the app stores are not distributors, in addition to being retailers. There's no middle man here, the app store is the primary distribution method for the app. It's not like they're just selling a DVD, or a product that comes preinstalled with a piece of software. There's just he developer and the distributor. Since I believe that like iPhones, WP7 phones can *only* install app store apps, there is no other possible means for distribution.
But, that doesn't change that the app store is the retailer (and yes retailers are distributors). Let's say that I am an indy band and produce my own CD and submit it to Amazon to sell, even as the sole retailer. If it turns out that I infringed on somebody else's copyright in my music. Who is liable? Me or Amazon? If I self-publish a book through Amazon and it turns out that I plagiarised part or even all of it, who is liable? Me or Amazon. In both case, it is me.
Now, if I produce a piece of software, whether to install install on a pc or a phone and I copy somebody else's work or violate the license agreement of somebody else's work, who is liable? The short answer is I am. I am the one who holds the license to my own work and if I violated somebody else's license, I am liable. Amazon, or Apple, or Microsoft, unless they make you sign over the license of your work, are not the owners and therefore are not liable (there are a few ways they could be, such as if they paid you to produce it, etc., but that is not the case in the discussion).
Just because there is effectively only one consumer outlet for your product does not shift the liability to the retailer. A good attorney for the person or entity that was infringed upon will try and hold the retailer liable, but the courts have already ruled on that numerous times.
To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.
This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.
I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The store is not the distributor, they are the retailer. You can buy Ubuntu DVDs online, that does not make the person selling it responsible for the gpl, unless they are the ones who also put it together, in which case they are a developer.
If I repackage LibreOffice and call it MyOffice and I sell it to people online or in a retail store, I as the developer are responsible for adhering to the GPL or whatever licensing agreements of the components use, not the retailer.
Open source projects are fond of using "Free as in beer" as their slogan. You can go into the grocery store and by a case of it. If you then go and drink it all and do something stupid or even criminal, the grocery store is not responsible, nor is the brewery. On the other hand, let's say the beer was tainted with something. Again, the grocery store isn't responsible, but this time the brewery is.
GPL software works the same way. It is not the retailer (grocery store in the example above) that is responsible for ensuring the licenses are followed it is the author/developer. At most, if Amazon or anybody else was selling software that turned out to be in violation, they would need to pull it off their shelves (website), but they themself would not be liable or in violation of anything.
Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?
It is not a violation of the GPL to sell open source software. Many places do it. If Amazon sells it, they do not have to give you one piece of source code. They are the retailer. It is the manufacturer/developer of the software that is responsible for complying with the license agreements for the code they used, not the retailer.
Whatever operating system that IBM chose for the IBM PC and that Compaq would have chosen so they would have been compatible (along with all of the other clones) would have been the dominant operating system. It wasn't MS-DOS that caused the penetration of PCs, it was the penetration of PCs that caused the proliferation of Microsoft operating systems. And, IBM almost went CP/M which would mean there wouldn't be a Microsoft today, at least not the one we know.
As for settling on some other architecture, there wasn't one. The main manufactures pretty much used a 650x or an 808x processor. Sure there were a few z80s but not in the business world which is what drove pc adoption. You have to remember that the IBM PC/XT with it's 10MB hard drive was the price of a good used car. It wasn't until the clone makers drove the price point below $2,000 that the PC took off in other than business markets. The Apple II could be had for around $1,000 at the time, which is why schools sucked them up. But when the Mac came out, it was significantly more expensive.
Saying that Microsoft caused the market penetration is like saying gasoline engines caused the market penetration of the automobile. Henry Ford almost went with a diesel engine on his assembly lines. If he had pioneered relatively inexpensive mass produced diesel powered cars, that is what we would all be driving today. However, Ford standardized on a gasoline engine and so did everybody else to remain competitive.
That's not quite true. Intel chips would simply be running a different OS, most likely IBM's PC-DOS or PC OS/2. Or maybe even a different third party like GEOS.
As for DRM, all of these companies are reacting defensively to protect their business. It makes perfect sense to put-up walls around themselves & their hardware, rather than embrace an open format that turns Hardware into commodities. That's the mistake IBM made with the PC, and Apple almost made with their Mac clones.
Of course it was that mistake that IBM made (and Apple with the Apple II) that is why we all use what used to be called pc compatible computers today. It wasn't Intel that benefited from that mistake, it was Microsoft itself.
Microsoft, Acer, Samsung, HTC, LG, and Nokia. Those are all big names, although--to be fair--LG may not continue with WP7. With or without LG, that's a fair number to call "a lot."
It's not how many manufacturers will put out a WP 7 phone. It's how many manufactures will put out WP 7 phones. With the exception of Nokia which has now committed to WP 7 for their product line, none of the others you list have. They may be big names and they may even release a phone or two for WP 7, but there is no where the emphasis in their product offerings like there is for Android.
Currently, phones are not like PCs, where Microsoft has the market locked in. There are many alternative operating system for phones and Microsoft is just one of them. I am sure that they will put some nifty features into WP 7, but they still have only one major manufacture making phones for them Nokia. The others make phones that run WP 7, but it is not their bread and butter. Of those companies you listed, how many Android phones do they release versus WP 7? If their Android offerings are doing very well, which they are, why would the divert resources from that market to try and market WP 7, particularly now that any hype the use to sell WP 7 phones will benefit their competitor Nokia.
Maybe Nokia/Microsoft will become the next Apple/iPhone, but it isn't likely.
To create a laser, you need to excite the atoms in the medium. So with an anti-laser, does that mean the atoms are depressed? Maybe they need a little atomic prozaic.
Actually, the OP is correct. the matte black paint does absorb all of the light. If you look at the other side of what ever it is painted on, you no longer see the laser light. It doesn't even have to be matte black paint. It can be any color paint you want.
Proof of concept: Take a piece of poster board and paint it whatever opaque color you want. Place a light meter on the unpainted side. Shine a laser on the painted side and record the change in light as detected by the meter. If there isn't any, then the painted poster board absorbed all of the laser light.
When I used to do black and white photography, I used to use nega-light all the time when loading film into cartridges. The difference was that instead of black poster board, I used a black cloth sack. It effectively absorbed all of the visible light that hit it. It was much more impressive than only being able to absorb one specific wavelength of light at a time.
If it was a hoax, the perpetrators could be charged under SEC rules with trying to manipulate the market. That would not bode well for them. Another alternative is that it wasn't a hoax, but Nokia made them an offer for their shares they couldn't refuse or if they were employees a severance package they couldn't refuse.
What's more likely, a group perpetrated a hoax and publicly admitted it knowing they could now be charged in the legal system or it wasn't a hoax and they were bought off?
Telling people they cannot use an electronic device in your store is not discrimination. No one is banning anybody from reading anything in these coffee shops. They are banning the use of electronic devices. You are still free to bring your bible or koran and sit and read. You are not free to come in and turn on your ipad, kindle, nook, laptop. Just like you are not free to where your roller skates or use your skateboard while in the store. Nobody is discriminating against any person.
If they banned the Kindle but not the Nook, then that might be problematic (probably still legal). A Kindle is not the same as a paperback or a newspaper or magazine. It can hold hundreds of books and articles and can download more on the fly. They didn't actually just band the Kindle, but laptops, too. In effect, they are banning the conduct of using electronic devices while in their store that they want to be a place that people congregate and actually talk/discuss.. Now if only restaurants would ban cell phones.
So is it the kinect that you are claiming is revolutionary or the software or what? Don't get me wrong, it is very useful in your field, but are you ready to state that it is revolutionary -- that it will change robotics forever? The kinect is less than six months old. Isn't it a bit early to make that claim?
I am not trying to marginalize anything. If anything, I am trying to do just the opposite. As you are well aware, robotics is a complicated thing. Saying a a new device, being put to use for something other than what it was designed, is revolutionary when it has only been available for a few months seems to be stretching it. What happens if it turns out that the kinect has design problems that don't show up for the first few months? What if there is a show stopper (like those damn capacitors on ASUS motherboards that leaked after 9 months)? Three or four months is an awfully short period of time to say that the device has changed robotics forever.
I do believe that the kinect will probably be revolutionary. That it will change things forever. But for it to be declared revolutionary right now, means, by definition, that it has changed things forever.
A different example may help explain why I am cautios. Back when the Prius was first introduced it, too, was called revolutionary. It was going to change automobiles forever. A few other companies made hybrids, but for the most part, they didn't make the change they were supposed to. But, six months after the Prius was introduced, it was thought to be revolutionary.
The kinect is in a similar situation. It has great potential to be revolutionary. It most likely will be, but at only a few months in, it really is hard to make the claim that it has forever changed robotics. This is not to diminish what it can do or what knowledgeable people with it may be able to make it do, but until we are done talking about what it can do and show that it actually has done, it hasn't changed the face of robotics.
Until that point, it only has the potential to be revolutionary.
The submitter messed up two of the basic details of this story - the number is actually 295, not 250, and this value is as of 2007, rather than the implied present day.
(I know, I must be new here.)
Maybe it was 250 and after all of the meaningless comments on slashdot about it, it actually increased to 295?
You have my permission to count this as one of the meaningless comments.
But wait, now that we know this hasn't the sum of stored knowledge increased? And now that we know it has increased, doesn't that make it increase again? And wait, now that we know it increased again, doesn't that make it increase again? When will it ever end?
The said coffee shops in the articles are doing this for very good business reasons. They have found that when people camp out at a table or booth for hours working on their laptop or reading a kindle, they don't get much revenue.
I bet they haven't found anything out. The only difference between coffee shop employees and burger flippers is that the former tend to way[sic] less, be more attractive, and wear slightly less horrid clothes.
I would also suggest that, during quiet periods, having a few people in is better than being empty. Even if they aren't buying anything, they might attract passing trade due to the herd instinct. No scholarly studies, but I've walked past pubs with nobody in on the assumption that if it's empty there must be something wrong.
And if it is your store, you are welcome to do that. However, in this case, it being their store, they are welcome to run it the way they want. They might not make the best decision. They might not make the most efficient decision. They might not make a decision you or I or anybody else agrees with. But, ultimately it is their decision to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't you want law enforcement to investigate something like this? Whether he was prosecuted or not would be a different question, but if something looks sexually explicit towards children, then isn't that to be investigated?
If the article is correct, however, and the scenes and things were edited in and not performed live in front of the kids, well that is for the attorneys to work out (and most likely the charges will be dropped).
I'm pretty sure that faking a rape on you tube would also get the police involved. It's just not a smart thing to do.
Wha ???
Did you think anyone is going to spend millions to billions doing the research for a pat on the head and a thanks well done ?
Yes, they will. The process that the patent covers is based on research from 1984 and includes work from Boston University and the University of Illinois. It was BP/Dupont who patented the process even though they didn't do the research. As it turns out, the original work was done by grad students (so they got to pay to do the research instead of being paid to do it).
Why just facebook? Why not linkedln or myspace?
Saying you don't have a FB account isn't too smart if your really do. All they have to do is check and if you do have one, then you've been caught in a lie. Not good for a job applicant or recertification. A better approach would be to give them your facebook account but not the correct password. Then if they actually tried to get on your facebook account you can say that you simply changed your password. If you really want to be honest, give them the real password and then go change it. Or, better yet, take your FB page off-line until after hired.
I took my information directly from the GPL3 FAQ. Also, there is a significant difference between re-selling a piece of software, say LibreOffice and a device that uses embeded GPL'd code. One of the reasons GPL3 changed the language was to deal with different definitions of distribute under different jurisdictions. GPL3 uses the terms propagate and convey with regards to what people generically call distribution.
If an app store or amazon were unsure, particularly with different versions of open source licensing, they could always just put a link to the developer's web site to download the source. That would seem to meet the concerns involved with the license and would keep them from also having to host the source code.
>>>The main manufactures pretty much used a 650x or an 808x processor.
Also Motorola's 68000 series, which was the basis for the PC's main competition: Apple Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga. And Sega Genesis. The computers eventually migrated from the 68060 (last in the line) to Motorola/IBM's new PowerPC.
6502 was a bit of a deadend. It had a LOT of use in the 70s and 80s, but never moved higher than 16 bit (in the Super Nintendo and Apple GS). That was a shame.
I agree with that, but those were second generation. Initially, other than the hobbyist computers, it was 650x or 808x (Apple, Commodore Vic20/65 for the 650x and IBM and numerous clones for the 808x).
The GPL specifically states that it does not over-ride US law. To sell something through the app store you sign a contract. Said contract trumps GPL. You as the developer now have full responsibility for the GPL. Amazon, or Apple, or whomever, do not have to make the source code available. The GPL requires that the source code IS available. Your contract with them dictates that you are responsible for that (although not in those words).
You could only sue Microsoft and win if your software was illegally sold through their store if and only if, they were the one selling it there or should have known that the seller is not the owner. Otherwise, your recourse is to have Microsoft cease selling your software and seek damages from the person who actually violated your copyright.
If Walmart unknowingly sells pirated CDs or DVDs who do the studios go after, Walmart or the pirates? If they want to win, they go after the pirates. Walmart is still out the money they paid and has to quit selling the product, but, if they acted in good faith they are not liable. If however, they knew or should have known, then they would be liable but for different reasons.
It has already been ruled by the FSF that if I distribute a GPL'd program and do not make any changes to it, that it suffices that the source code is available from the previous link in the chain. Otherwise, a lot of Ubuntu derivatives that simply link to the Ubuntu repositories are in violation of the GPL (they aren't).
I think a strong argument can be made that the app stores are not distributors, in addition to being retailers. There's no middle man here, the app store is the primary distribution method for the app. It's not like they're just selling a DVD, or a product that comes preinstalled with a piece of software. There's just he developer and the distributor. Since I believe that like iPhones, WP7 phones can *only* install app store apps, there is no other possible means for distribution.
But, that doesn't change that the app store is the retailer (and yes retailers are distributors). Let's say that I am an indy band and produce my own CD and submit it to Amazon to sell, even as the sole retailer. If it turns out that I infringed on somebody else's copyright in my music. Who is liable? Me or Amazon? If I self-publish a book through Amazon and it turns out that I plagiarised part or even all of it, who is liable? Me or Amazon. In both case, it is me.
Now, if I produce a piece of software, whether to install install on a pc or a phone and I copy somebody else's work or violate the license agreement of somebody else's work, who is liable? The short answer is I am. I am the one who holds the license to my own work and if I violated somebody else's license, I am liable. Amazon, or Apple, or Microsoft, unless they make you sign over the license of your work, are not the owners and therefore are not liable (there are a few ways they could be, such as if they paid you to produce it, etc., but that is not the case in the discussion).
Just because there is effectively only one consumer outlet for your product does not shift the liability to the retailer. A good attorney for the person or entity that was infringed upon will try and hold the retailer liable, but the courts have already ruled on that numerous times.
To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.
This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.
I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The store is not the distributor, they are the retailer. You can buy Ubuntu DVDs online, that does not make the person selling it responsible for the gpl, unless they are the ones who also put it together, in which case they are a developer.
If I repackage LibreOffice and call it MyOffice and I sell it to people online or in a retail store, I as the developer are responsible for adhering to the GPL or whatever licensing agreements of the components use, not the retailer.
Open source projects are fond of using "Free as in beer" as their slogan. You can go into the grocery store and by a case of it. If you then go and drink it all and do something stupid or even criminal, the grocery store is not responsible, nor is the brewery. On the other hand, let's say the beer was tainted with something. Again, the grocery store isn't responsible, but this time the brewery is.
GPL software works the same way. It is not the retailer (grocery store in the example above) that is responsible for ensuring the licenses are followed it is the author/developer. At most, if Amazon or anybody else was selling software that turned out to be in violation, they would need to pull it off their shelves (website), but they themself would not be liable or in violation of anything.
Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?
It is not a violation of the GPL to sell open source software. Many places do it. If Amazon sells it, they do not have to give you one piece of source code. They are the retailer. It is the manufacturer/developer of the software that is responsible for complying with the license agreements for the code they used, not the retailer.
Whatever operating system that IBM chose for the IBM PC and that Compaq would have chosen so they would have been compatible (along with all of the other clones) would have been the dominant operating system. It wasn't MS-DOS that caused the penetration of PCs, it was the penetration of PCs that caused the proliferation of Microsoft operating systems. And, IBM almost went CP/M which would mean there wouldn't be a Microsoft today, at least not the one we know.
As for settling on some other architecture, there wasn't one. The main manufactures pretty much used a 650x or an 808x processor. Sure there were a few z80s but not in the business world which is what drove pc adoption. You have to remember that the IBM PC/XT with it's 10MB hard drive was the price of a good used car. It wasn't until the clone makers drove the price point below $2,000 that the PC took off in other than business markets. The Apple II could be had for around $1,000 at the time, which is why schools sucked them up. But when the Mac came out, it was significantly more expensive.
Saying that Microsoft caused the market penetration is like saying gasoline engines caused the market penetration of the automobile. Henry Ford almost went with a diesel engine on his assembly lines. If he had pioneered relatively inexpensive mass produced diesel powered cars, that is what we would all be driving today. However, Ford standardized on a gasoline engine and so did everybody else to remain competitive.
That's not quite true. Intel chips would simply be running a different OS, most likely IBM's PC-DOS or PC OS/2. Or maybe even a different third party like GEOS.
As for DRM, all of these companies are reacting defensively to protect their business. It makes perfect sense to put-up walls around themselves & their hardware, rather than embrace an open format that turns Hardware into commodities. That's the mistake IBM made with the PC, and Apple almost made with their Mac clones.
Of course it was that mistake that IBM made (and Apple with the Apple II) that is why we all use what used to be called pc compatible computers today. It wasn't Intel that benefited from that mistake, it was Microsoft itself.
Microsoft, Acer, Samsung, HTC, LG, and Nokia. Those are all big names, although--to be fair--LG may not continue with WP7. With or without LG, that's a fair number to call "a lot."
It's not how many manufacturers will put out a WP 7 phone. It's how many manufactures will put out WP 7 phones. With the exception of Nokia which has now committed to WP 7 for their product line, none of the others you list have. They may be big names and they may even release a phone or two for WP 7, but there is no where the emphasis in their product offerings like there is for Android.
Currently, phones are not like PCs, where Microsoft has the market locked in. There are many alternative operating system for phones and Microsoft is just one of them. I am sure that they will put some nifty features into WP 7, but they still have only one major manufacture making phones for them Nokia. The others make phones that run WP 7, but it is not their bread and butter. Of those companies you listed, how many Android phones do they release versus WP 7? If their Android offerings are doing very well, which they are, why would the divert resources from that market to try and market WP 7, particularly now that any hype the use to sell WP 7 phones will benefit their competitor Nokia.
Maybe Nokia/Microsoft will become the next Apple/iPhone, but it isn't likely.
There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources...
Really, no economic barriers? I guess they haven't heard of those big oil companies. Do the researchers not think that they would be an obstacle?
To create a laser, you need to excite the atoms in the medium. So with an anti-laser, does that mean the atoms are depressed? Maybe they need a little atomic prozaic.
All energy is eventually dissipated as heat.
Actually, the OP is correct. the matte black paint does absorb all of the light. If you look at the other side of what ever it is painted on, you no longer see the laser light. It doesn't even have to be matte black paint. It can be any color paint you want.
Proof of concept: Take a piece of poster board and paint it whatever opaque color you want. Place a light meter on the unpainted side. Shine a laser on the painted side and record the change in light as detected by the meter. If there isn't any, then the painted poster board absorbed all of the laser light.
When I used to do black and white photography, I used to use nega-light all the time when loading film into cartridges. The difference was that instead of black poster board, I used a black cloth sack. It effectively absorbed all of the visible light that hit it. It was much more impressive than only being able to absorb one specific wavelength of light at a time.
If it was a hoax, the perpetrators could be charged under SEC rules with trying to manipulate the market. That would not bode well for them. Another alternative is that it wasn't a hoax, but Nokia made them an offer for their shares they couldn't refuse or if they were employees a severance package they couldn't refuse.
What's more likely, a group perpetrated a hoax and publicly admitted it knowing they could now be charged in the legal system or it wasn't a hoax and they were bought off?
Telling people they cannot use an electronic device in your store is not discrimination. No one is banning anybody from reading anything in these coffee shops. They are banning the use of electronic devices. You are still free to bring your bible or koran and sit and read. You are not free to come in and turn on your ipad, kindle, nook, laptop. Just like you are not free to where your roller skates or use your skateboard while in the store. Nobody is discriminating against any person.
If they banned the Kindle but not the Nook, then that might be problematic (probably still legal). A Kindle is not the same as a paperback or a newspaper or magazine. It can hold hundreds of books and articles and can download more on the fly. They didn't actually just band the Kindle, but laptops, too. In effect, they are banning the conduct of using electronic devices while in their store that they want to be a place that people congregate and actually talk/discuss.. Now if only restaurants would ban cell phones.
So is it the kinect that you are claiming is revolutionary or the software or what? Don't get me wrong, it is very useful in your field, but are you ready to state that it is revolutionary -- that it will change robotics forever? The kinect is less than six months old. Isn't it a bit early to make that claim?
I am not trying to marginalize anything. If anything, I am trying to do just the opposite. As you are well aware, robotics is a complicated thing. Saying a a new device, being put to use for something other than what it was designed, is revolutionary when it has only been available for a few months seems to be stretching it. What happens if it turns out that the kinect has design problems that don't show up for the first few months? What if there is a show stopper (like those damn capacitors on ASUS motherboards that leaked after 9 months)? Three or four months is an awfully short period of time to say that the device has changed robotics forever.
I do believe that the kinect will probably be revolutionary. That it will change things forever. But for it to be declared revolutionary right now, means, by definition, that it has changed things forever.
A different example may help explain why I am cautios. Back when the Prius was first introduced it, too, was called revolutionary. It was going to change automobiles forever. A few other companies made hybrids, but for the most part, they didn't make the change they were supposed to. But, six months after the Prius was introduced, it was thought to be revolutionary.
The kinect is in a similar situation. It has great potential to be revolutionary. It most likely will be, but at only a few months in, it really is hard to make the claim that it has forever changed robotics. This is not to diminish what it can do or what knowledgeable people with it may be able to make it do, but until we are done talking about what it can do and show that it actually has done, it hasn't changed the face of robotics.
Until that point, it only has the potential to be revolutionary.
The submitter messed up two of the basic details of this story - the number is actually 295, not 250, and this value is as of 2007, rather than the implied present day.
(I know, I must be new here.)
Maybe it was 250 and after all of the meaningless comments on slashdot about it, it actually increased to 295?
You have my permission to count this as one of the meaningless comments.
But wait, now that we know this hasn't the sum of stored knowledge increased? And now that we know it has increased, doesn't that make it increase again? And wait, now that we know it increased again, doesn't that make it increase again? When will it ever end?
I bet they haven't found anything out. The only difference between coffee shop employees and burger flippers is that the former tend to way[sic] less, be more attractive, and wear slightly less horrid clothes.
I would also suggest that, during quiet periods, having a few people in is better than being empty. Even if they aren't buying anything, they might attract passing trade due to the herd instinct. No scholarly studies, but I've walked past pubs with nobody in on the assumption that if it's empty there must be something wrong.
And if it is your store, you are welcome to do that. However, in this case, it being their store, they are welcome to run it the way they want. They might not make the best decision. They might not make the most efficient decision. They might not make a decision you or I or anybody else agrees with. But, ultimately it is their decision to make.
Well, actually Office was available for the Mac in 1990 and not for Windows until 1992 (version 3.0) was the first Windows version.