"They were out in public. There is no legal expectation of privacy in public. Privacy can be expected in a private settomg, but not in public"
It's only "public" if, well, there's public around. There is (or should be) a perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy if there is no one around. Looking into someone's windows from the sidewalk is legal, looking into windows from behind a bush is being a "peeping tom." Hidden cameras are a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording people with non-obvious cameras goes well beyond any small loss of privacy which occurs when simply being observed by another person.
Of course, the actual point, which seems to have gone over people's heads, is that the argument "the end justifies the means" is easily invalidated by reductio ad adsurdum.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
to delegate it's authority, especially not to unelected bureaucrats. The entire mass of regulation is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's one of those areas where the powers that be (all 3 branches) have simply chosen to ignore the Constitution (as if the Supremes stating that "Black is White" makes it so.), breaking the system of checks and balances in the process.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.James Madison
both use 405 nm lasers, and the shortage of blue lasers means production is affected for both camps. The article certainly seems to be an attempt to spin this shortage in HD-DVD's favor, no mention of delays in those devices.
Much of the delay for Blu-Ray players is because Sony, one of the few manufacturers of these lasers, is keeping production for the PS3. Other Blu-Ray manufacturers are stuck without lasers.
I don't see anything to indicate that this will benefit the HD-DVD camp - they've got laser shortages, too. It's only a matter of Blu-ray player availability being heavily weighted toward the PS3.
If anything, this may favor the Blu-ray camp - HD-DVD players are priced around US$500, and you'll be able to get a Blu-ray player (the PS3) for about the same price, and get an advanced game system as a free part of the deal.
"English as a second language" classes you would get to the point where you can understand the language. Burning an AAC to CD results in quality identical to playing the AAC directly, even though you're "converting it to something else."
When you buy a CD, you're giving up quality, since it's not as good as the (probably 24 bit/96 KHz or better) masters. So what? You get what you pay for. If you want CD quality, buy a CD and use uncompressed or lossless compression.
What iTMS offers is the ability to buy individual tracks - so someone can buy a single track for $.99 instead of a CD for $15. In exchange, you get lower quality. It's a choice.
If you want to take that $.99 track into something other than iTunes/iPod, you can, with no further loss of quality (you retain all of the quality you paid for). Just burn a CD, then use uncompressed or lossless on the other device. It's a choice.
If you take that CD from iTunes and recompress it, you get quality less than the original, just as you do if you compress from a regular CD. You've made a choice to trade quality for smaller files.
you have the option of saving the bitstream in uncompressed (i.e..wav) or lossless format, with exactly the same quality you paid for.
iTunes gives users the opportunity (by making a CD) to get full quality non-DRM copies of the music they purchase. It's a bit disingenuous to cry about lost quality when the user decides that they want to then use lossy compression on that content.
Copy LP to cassette, you lose quality. Copy CD to mp3, you lose quality. There's no rule which says digital copies must be equal or less in size than the original - that's a choice. Which do you want, smaller size or higher quality?
is the "CO2 taking as long as 20,000 years to be restored to it's natural level" phrase, as if man is not a part of nature.
If one is to point to a "natural level" of CO2, then let's consider all of the CO2 which has been bound into dead plants buried in the ground. Any increase in CO2 levels caused by mankind pales in comparison to the decrease in "natural" atmospheric levels cause by plant life over millions of years. Mankind is simply releasing CO2 which plants have already removed from the atmosphere.
except what you say simply doesn't match the facts given. You apparently didn't read either the article or the post to which you were responding.
If the virus were present on some kind of master disk image, that image would have been used by multiple stations on the production line. The article specifically references a single station. The only thing that fits that claim is that iPods were being mounted as drives on Windows PCs during production, and one of those stations got a virus. It sounds like, instead of using a high speed disk duplicator, they are connecting iPods to Windows PCs and running some program.
I'm not sure how current iPods are shipped, but it used to be that they all came formatted for the Mac (HFS), and iPods to be used with Windows had to be reformatted for FAT (the process was made somewhat invisible to the user by iTunes, though). If that's still the case, using Windows PCs in production makes even less sense. And how does a Windows virus end up on an HFS volume, and how could that possibly infect an end user's Windows computer, since Windows can't (natively) mount an HFS disk?
"it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer " and "Very few units actually went through that particular station"
Why is a Windows machine ever connected to an iPod during manufacturing? I'd think for a high volume product like the iPod, there would be dedicated disk duplicators to format/populate the drives, and testing would likewise be done with purpose-designed hardware. Using a Windows PC to do either seems like a crude, inefficient way to do things.
you chose the wrong Wikipedia entry to cite. This one is the correct one.
Hint: try calling a number in a different area code from a landline without dialing 1 first. A fully qualified telephone number does not begin with the area code, it begins with the country code, which for the US is "1."
phone numbers in the US (with minor exceptions of local significance, like 911 and 411) always start with 1. It's a common convention to not include the 1 when giving someone a number, but it is implicit.
They may be insightful in the choice of companies/technologies they purchase, but not particularly in inventiveness. They're much like Microsoft - they buy technologies that have been shown to be "just good enough" to be successful in the marketplace, then try to "proprietary-ize" them to lock customers in.
Delivering multiple media across a network is neither original or insightful, and was being done in practice long before 2000.
That there's progress being made in wireless but not wired? State of the art isn't even close - multi OC-192 vs. ~100 mpbs.
That bandwidth needs are static, so by increasing link speeds we can catch up? LOL.
That you expect the laws of physics to be broken? The RF spectrum is by it's very nature shared. There are some technologies which make more efficient use of a given spectrum (CDMA, OFDM), but they still must content with physical reality - increasing the number of communications channels decreases bandwidth.
Or are you simply being sarcastic, since you haven't a clue about the technology or physics, and are therefore unable to reply with anything intelligent?
the point that the world is migrating to a wireless platform Uh, no.
That would be saying that people want to move from switches back to hubs. Wireless provides convenience, but the tradeoff is that it is, and will always be, a shared medium. The more devices you have, the slower they go. And that includes the neighbor's devices. That's not a problem with wired networks, where it's possible to have every port be full wirespeed.
Wireless connectivity supplements, it doesn't replace, hardwired connections.
As long as it's conceptually possible to come up with a falsifying experiment, even if it's wildly impractical, it's still a scientific theory. We may yet come up with ways to test the theory.
So what you're saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a religion, it's a theory, since one only need travel to Milliway's to see if they serve spaghetti to determine it's truthfulness?
used linear regulators, which are quite different. Using a linear regulator to go from 12 to 5 volts is extremely inefficient (40% or less). Point of load designs use high efficiency switchers, which waste much less power as heat, but are also more expensive.
It's a bit frustrating to look for exactly what Google is proposing - the article cites a Google document - "High-Efficiency Power Supplies for Home Computers and Servers," which isn't found with a Google search!
Slashdot Mirror
"They were out in public. There is no legal expectation of privacy in public. Privacy can be expected in a private settomg, but not in public"
It's only "public" if, well, there's public around. There is (or should be) a perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy if there is no one around. Looking into someone's windows from the sidewalk is legal, looking into windows from behind a bush is being a "peeping tom." Hidden cameras are a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording people with non-obvious cameras goes well beyond any small loss of privacy which occurs when simply being observed by another person.
Of course, the actual point, which seems to have gone over people's heads, is that the argument "the end justifies the means" is easily invalidated by reductio ad adsurdum.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
killed everyone in that particular city as a way of eliminating the killer. With such surefire results, who would argue against it?
is VXWorks, from Wind River ( http://www.windriver.com/ ). It's a *nix-like real-time OS.
You have Star Trek confused with Star Wars (the ATT "Death Star" logo).
the phones aren't Verizon's, they belong to the customer.
If they want to send me advertising, it might be OK with me if they also subsidize my airtime, say with 2 minutes of usage credit for every ad.
Regardless, I'll still make a concerted effort to avoide buying from these spammers.
that is, if something on the Internet is in the public domain, someone better tell the RIAA and the rest of the courts.
to delegate it's authority, especially not to unelected bureaucrats. The entire mass of regulation is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's one of those areas where the powers that be (all 3 branches) have simply chosen to ignore the Constitution (as if the Supremes stating that "Black is White" makes it so.), breaking the system of checks and balances in the process.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.James Madison
it's just carbon compounds.
both use 405 nm lasers, and the shortage of blue lasers means production is affected for both camps. The article certainly seems to be an attempt to spin this shortage in HD-DVD's favor, no mention of delays in those devices.
Much of the delay for Blu-Ray players is because Sony, one of the few manufacturers of these lasers, is keeping production for the PS3. Other Blu-Ray manufacturers are stuck without lasers.
I don't see anything to indicate that this will benefit the HD-DVD camp - they've got laser shortages, too. It's only a matter of Blu-ray player availability being heavily weighted toward the PS3.
If anything, this may favor the Blu-ray camp - HD-DVD players are priced around US$500, and you'll be able to get a Blu-ray player (the PS3) for about the same price, and get an advanced game system as a free part of the deal.
"English as a second language" classes you would get to the point where you can understand the language. Burning an AAC to CD results in quality identical to playing the AAC directly, even though you're "converting it to something else."
When you buy a CD, you're giving up quality, since it's not as good as the (probably 24 bit/96 KHz or better) masters. So what? You get what you pay for. If you want CD quality, buy a CD and use uncompressed or lossless compression.
What iTMS offers is the ability to buy individual tracks - so someone can buy a single track for $.99 instead of a CD for $15. In exchange, you get lower quality. It's a choice.
If you want to take that $.99 track into something other than iTunes/iPod, you can, with no further loss of quality (you retain all of the quality you paid for). Just burn a CD, then use uncompressed or lossless on the other device. It's a choice.
If you take that CD from iTunes and recompress it, you get quality less than the original, just as you do if you compress from a regular CD. You've made a choice to trade quality for smaller files.
you have the option of saving the bitstream in uncompressed (i.e. .wav) or lossless format, with exactly the same quality you paid for.
iTunes gives users the opportunity (by making a CD) to get full quality non-DRM copies of the music they purchase. It's a bit disingenuous to cry about lost quality when the user decides that they want to then use lossy compression on that content.
Copy LP to cassette, you lose quality. Copy CD to mp3, you lose quality. There's no rule which says digital copies must be equal or less in size than the original - that's a choice. Which do you want, smaller size or higher quality?
is the "CO2 taking as long as 20,000 years to be restored to it's natural level" phrase, as if man is not a part of nature.
If one is to point to a "natural level" of CO2, then let's consider all of the CO2 which has been bound into dead plants buried in the ground. Any increase in CO2 levels caused by mankind pales in comparison to the decrease in "natural" atmospheric levels cause by plant life over millions of years. Mankind is simply releasing CO2 which plants have already removed from the atmosphere.
Free the CO2!
except what you say simply doesn't match the facts given. You apparently didn't read either the article or the post to which you were responding.
If the virus were present on some kind of master disk image, that image would have been used by multiple stations on the production line. The article specifically references a single station. The only thing that fits that claim is that iPods were being mounted as drives on Windows PCs during production, and one of those stations got a virus. It sounds like, instead of using a high speed disk duplicator, they are connecting iPods to Windows PCs and running some program.
I'm not sure how current iPods are shipped, but it used to be that they all came formatted for the Mac (HFS), and iPods to be used with Windows had to be reformatted for FAT (the process was made somewhat invisible to the user by iTunes, though). If that's still the case, using Windows PCs in production makes even less sense. And how does a Windows virus end up on an HFS volume, and how could that possibly infect an end user's Windows computer, since Windows can't (natively) mount an HFS disk?
if it made sense. The article specifically stated, and I quoted: "Very few units actually went through that particular station"
If the virus were on a PC used to make a master image, one would expect very many units to be affected.
"it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer " and "Very few units actually went through that particular station"
Why is a Windows machine ever connected to an iPod during manufacturing? I'd think for a high volume product like the iPod, there would be dedicated disk duplicators to format/populate the drives, and testing would likewise be done with purpose-designed hardware. Using a Windows PC to do either seems like a crude, inefficient way to do things.
you chose the wrong Wikipedia entry to cite. This one is the correct one.
Hint: try calling a number in a different area code from a landline without dialing 1 first. A fully qualified telephone number does not begin with the area code, it begins with the country code, which for the US is "1."
phone numbers in the US (with minor exceptions of local significance, like 911 and 411) always start with 1. It's a common convention to not include the 1 when giving someone a number, but it is implicit.
They may be insightful in the choice of companies/technologies they purchase, but not particularly in inventiveness. They're much like Microsoft - they buy technologies that have been shown to be "just good enough" to be successful in the marketplace, then try to "proprietary-ize" them to lock customers in.
Delivering multiple media across a network is neither original or insightful, and was being done in practice long before 2000.
"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
So, that means you can't use virtual memory, and can't even use modern processors (which emulate the X86 instruction set in a microcore).
That there's progress being made in wireless but not wired? State of the art isn't even close - multi OC-192 vs. ~100 mpbs.
That bandwidth needs are static, so by increasing link speeds we can catch up? LOL.
That you expect the laws of physics to be broken? The RF spectrum is by it's very nature shared. There are some technologies which make more efficient use of a given spectrum (CDMA, OFDM), but they still must content with physical reality - increasing the number of communications channels decreases bandwidth.
Or are you simply being sarcastic, since you haven't a clue about the technology or physics, and are therefore unable to reply with anything intelligent?
the point that the world is migrating to a wireless platform
Uh, no.
That would be saying that people want to move from switches back to hubs. Wireless provides convenience, but the tradeoff is that it is, and will always be, a shared medium. The more devices you have, the slower they go. And that includes the neighbor's devices. That's not a problem with wired networks, where it's possible to have every port be full wirespeed.
Wireless connectivity supplements, it doesn't replace, hardwired connections.
So what you're saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a religion, it's a theory, since one only need travel to Milliway's to see if they serve spaghetti to determine it's truthfulness?
used linear regulators, which are quite different. Using a linear regulator to go from 12 to 5 volts is extremely inefficient (40% or less). Point of load designs use high efficiency switchers, which waste much less power as heat, but are also more expensive.
It's a bit frustrating to look for exactly what Google is proposing - the article cites a Google document - "High-Efficiency Power Supplies for Home Computers and Servers," which isn't found with a Google search!
ASCII pinups.