17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be: any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!) Note, too the "based on the...use" clause, which IMHO also legitimizes sharing/downloading MP3 or other audio files, provided you make use of an audio CD-R by burning those files onto it or sharing those files off of it.
802.3af provides power handshaking to solve 2 problems. First, ensure power is not delivered to devices which aren't designed to accept 48VDC to avoid blowing them up. Second, and optionally, negotiate limited power draw so the PSE doesn't have to budget a full 15W to every attached PD. If you're going to have unique connections specifically for delivering power, and going to allow every port to deliver full power, why go the trouble and expense of doing 802.3af-like negotiation?
Devices come with wall warts for a few different reasons - it's cheaper/easier to meet safety standards that way because the device itself is strictly low voltage, it's easy to internationalize your product by including different AC adapters, and it reduces size/weight/power dissipation of the device itself. Your suggestion doesn't improve on any of these areas.
In regard to efficiency, how does delivering a nominal 48 VDC to devices help efficiency? Most modern electronics need 3.3, 5.0, 12.0 or some combination of similar voltages to operate. Having an efficient 120VAC to 48VDC converter powering multiple devices doesn't solve anything - you're still left with the devices having to further step down the voltage, either through inefficient linear regulators or with more expensive switching DC-DC converters (which could have been done just as efficiently and no more expensively by simply starting with 120VAC in the first place). Where is this increased efficiency? You're suggesting taking a cheap and reasonably efficient AC stepdown transformer/DC regulator matched to a device's specific need (have you ever looked at the range of voltages those various adapters provide?) and replacing it with a more expensive, but no more efficient (and probably less efficient) system.
Why not just design all devices to take a nominal 13.4 VDC from a "cigarette lighter" outlet, and use _that_ already existing and common system for low power delivery? Then you can have a power strip of such outlets driven by a single efficient switching supply. There would still be internal conversions losses, but at least that way, you can also use the devices in the car.
Then why bother at all? There's a perfectly good high power distribution system already in place, which is commonly used to deliver up to 2000 W to a single outlet. What advantage would having another unique system have over either 802.3af (or 802.3at, when ready) or the existing AC system?
but this:
"We can reuse and/or extend the probe/negotiation phase to provide additional power levels, let's say up to 150W (approximately 4A max)..."
definitely won't work. The power (actually current) limitation is due to the size of the wires and current carrying capacity of the "RJ-type" connectors which must be assumed. One cannot safely provide anywhere close to 150 W of power. There is a new specification in progress (802.3at, aka PoEPlus) to allow delivering more power, but the practical limits are on the order of 30 W using 2 pair, 45 W using all 4 pair.
the Olympics should have a "morals" clause for competitors - no convicted felons, spammers, malware authors, domain squatters, or history of any other anti-social activities which indicate moral turpitude.
that doesn't answer the situation. "Jeep" was vernacular for some military vehicles, dating back to WW1, according to the Wikipedia article. This is not the case of Apple using a fruit name for a computer, but one where the word was already in public domain use in relation to the same class of products (motor vehicles).
given "It's called genericization, or "genericide." If a word becomes used often enough by the public regardless of branding, the courts can declare a trademark a generic word.Heroin, Allen wrenches, and I think Spandex (Hence the new name Lycra) are all examples of this. "
How is it that Daimler-Chrysler has a trademark on "Jeep," which started as a generic term used by servicemen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep#The_origin_of_th e_term_jeep )? How does one go about taking a term in general public use, and turning it into private property?
When I want to go forward or backward in Time...
on
No Time Travel, Sorry
·
· Score: 5, Funny
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. If you didn't understand what I meant, then why do you presume to correct me?
is to be "things you can physically protect," how does that jive with the fact that completely independent discovery/invention can run afoul of existing utility patents?
It seems to me that the most basic problem with the patent system is that patents can be written in language which no one, even if "skilled in the art" (as is supposed to be the case, but obviously isn't) can clearly understand unambiguously. That causes at least two problems - patent examiners are left befuddled, leading to undeserved patents issued. Secondly, and even more importantly, since patents are supposed to force disclosure to benefit the public (after the patent term expires), having a bunch of claims buried in obfuscating language defeats the purpose.
Of course it doesn't, rights are not given or guaranteed by the Constitution, rights exist by themselves completely independent of any legal document. The Constitution merely affirms those rights, and in addition affirms those rights which aren't specifically listed (see the 9th Amendment).
is that vulnerabilities in the Windows world are quickly exploited, leading to significant damage, while there are no known (or at least well known) exploits on Mac OS, and likewise no known damage.
So, yes, the real world has proven that same type of potential exploit in the two platforms can legitimately be viewed as a serious problem in Windows (because damage can and does occur) but theoretical in Mac OS (because damage has not occurred).
" If the website with the copywritten material didn't have permission to post / republish it, it's obviously illegal. That's uncontroversial, and not what the issue here is about."
It is not "obviously illegal."
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be: any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each (as of 1/10/06).
A reasonable interpretation of the above is that distributing copyrighted musical recordings for noncommercial use on these audio CD-R discs is perfectly legal. Copying such recordings is an ordinary part of the process of "using" these discs. The law makes no mention of the media path used to make these copies - and there's little to distinguish between IDE (CD to CD-R drive), SPDIF (CD to audio CD recorder), or TCP/IP (CD on server to CD-R drive).
Then there's this: "The size of the actual
silicon plays an important role in
yield. A smaller design, holding all
other factors equal, will increase
yield for two primary reasons. First,
the smaller the die the more that
can fit on a wafer thus giving more
yielded parts for a given number of
wafers. Second, the actual per part
yield is a function of area where
smaller area is better since there is
less chance that a random defect
will land on the silicon rendering
the part inoperative."- http://www.cadence.com/company/newsroom/articles/D esign_Yield_Cost_Model_eedesign_June04.pdf
When I first read the headline I thought it said a 45mm chip, which is considerably less impressive.
Not really. Creating a >2000 mm^2 chip without any flaws, with the expectation of being able to eventually make a profit on them in the consumer market, would be quite an accomplishment. Such a large die area would not only result in low yields, but present serious obstacles in power consumption and heat dissipation.
For comparison, the Pentium IV 600 series has a 135 mm^2 die area. If I'm not mistaken, yields fall exponentially, so no only would they be able to produce only 6% as many chips on a wafer, but could also expect a greatly lower number of working ones from the total.
for the fact that for 1993 (one year prior to Apple's introduction of the PowerPC Macs, so contemporaneous with the decision process for the move to a RISC CPU), market shares were:
HP PA-RISC 31% Sun SPARC 25% MIPS 20% IBM RS/6000 12% (the architecture upon which the PowerPC was based)
I don't think most people consider "middle of the pack" to be a dominant position.
A related point is that we probably needn't worry about inventing a device that annihilates the entire Universe, either. If such a device could exist, it probably would have already been invented elsewhere, and we wouldn't be here thinking about it.
That is not a valid argument. There's a possiblity we _are_ the only ones here. There's a possibility that it hasn't been invented yet (someone has to be first). There's the chance that if it has been invented, it happened such a short time ago or so far away that the event horizon has not yet reached us.
How you choose to claim "probably" is unknown, since none of these probabilities are known.
I think you're actually being serious, citing Miller. LOL. It was decided (based on incorrect facts), based on supposed unsuitablility of short barreled shotguns for military purposes.
OTOH, a much more recent case, while not decided on this basis, includes this unequivocal opinion:
. . . "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const. Amdt. I ("Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble").... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community. . .."
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)
"actually, the prohibition does apply to the states, thanks to the 14th amendment."
Huh? Are you arguing that "equal protection" requires that all states have the same laws? What's the purpose of State government in that case?
"which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it."
Cites, please. SCOTUS has never decided a 2nd Amendment case based on an individual vs. collective right argument.
Not that clear language has ever stopped the Supremes from saying that black is white. I point to the frequent abuse of the Commerce Clause as adequate demonstration of just how disingenuous their decisions can be.
even though interpreting that clause requires only a basic understanding of the English language.
"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it."
Slashdot Mirror
Copy all the CDs you want, legally!
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Note, too the "based on the...use" clause, which IMHO also legitimizes sharing/downloading MP3 or other audio files, provided you make use of an audio CD-R by burning those files onto it or sharing those files off of it.
802.3af provides power handshaking to solve 2 problems. First, ensure power is not delivered to devices which aren't designed to accept 48VDC to avoid blowing them up. Second, and optionally, negotiate limited power draw so the PSE doesn't have to budget a full 15W to every attached PD. If you're going to have unique connections specifically for delivering power, and going to allow every port to deliver full power, why go the trouble and expense of doing 802.3af-like negotiation?
Devices come with wall warts for a few different reasons - it's cheaper/easier to meet safety standards that way because the device itself is strictly low voltage, it's easy to internationalize your product by including different AC adapters, and it reduces size/weight/power dissipation of the device itself. Your suggestion doesn't improve on any of these areas.
In regard to efficiency, how does delivering a nominal 48 VDC to devices help efficiency? Most modern electronics need 3.3, 5.0, 12.0 or some combination of similar voltages to operate. Having an efficient 120VAC to 48VDC converter powering multiple devices doesn't solve anything - you're still left with the devices having to further step down the voltage, either through inefficient linear regulators or with more expensive switching DC-DC converters (which could have been done just as efficiently and no more expensively by simply starting with 120VAC in the first place). Where is this increased efficiency? You're suggesting taking a cheap and reasonably efficient AC stepdown transformer/DC regulator matched to a device's specific need (have you ever looked at the range of voltages those various adapters provide?) and replacing it with a more expensive, but no more efficient (and probably less efficient) system.
Why not just design all devices to take a nominal 13.4 VDC from a "cigarette lighter" outlet, and use _that_ already existing and common system for low power delivery? Then you can have a power strip of such outlets driven by a single efficient switching supply. There would still be internal conversions losses, but at least that way, you can also use the devices in the car.
Then why bother at all? There's a perfectly good high power distribution system already in place, which is commonly used to deliver up to 2000 W to a single outlet. What advantage would having another unique system have over either 802.3af (or 802.3at, when ready) or the existing AC system?
definitely won't work. The power (actually current) limitation is due to the size of the wires and current carrying capacity of the "RJ-type" connectors which must be assumed. One cannot safely provide anywhere close to 150 W of power. There is a new specification in progress (802.3at, aka PoEPlus) to allow delivering more power, but the practical limits are on the order of 30 W using 2 pair, 45 W using all 4 pair.
the Olympics should have a "morals" clause for competitors - no convicted felons, spammers, malware authors, domain squatters, or history of any other anti-social activities which indicate moral turpitude.
then it's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."
that doesn't answer the situation. "Jeep" was vernacular for some military vehicles, dating back to WW1, according to the Wikipedia article. This is not the case of Apple using a fruit name for a computer, but one where the word was already in public domain use in relation to the same class of products (motor vehicles).
How is it that Daimler-Chrysler has a trademark on "Jeep," which started as a generic term used by servicemen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep#The_origin_of_th e_term_jeep )? How does one go about taking a term in general public use, and turning it into private property?
I just flip the page. Same with Newsweek.
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. If you didn't understand what I meant, then why do you presume to correct me?
It seems to me that the most basic problem with the patent system is that patents can be written in language which no one, even if "skilled in the art" (as is supposed to be the case, but obviously isn't) can clearly understand unambiguously. That causes at least two problems - patent examiners are left befuddled, leading to undeserved patents issued. Secondly, and even more importantly, since patents are supposed to force disclosure to benefit the public (after the patent term expires), having a bunch of claims buried in obfuscating language defeats the purpose.
to say that the "The bits ... encoded by whether the tubules are erect (open circuit) or bent-over" are based on Viagra.
"the Constitution guarantees no right..."
Of course it doesn't, rights are not given or guaranteed by the Constitution, rights exist by themselves completely independent of any legal document. The Constitution merely affirms those rights, and in addition affirms those rights which aren't specifically listed (see the 9th Amendment).
So, yes, the real world has proven that same type of potential exploit in the two platforms can legitimately be viewed as a serious problem in Windows (because damage can and does occur) but theoretical in Mac OS (because damage has not occurred).
you quoted a claim that there is an unsubstantiated, unnamed hole. You really should try critical thought sometime.
was an "alternative" operating system. Why is a hole which was patched 6 months ago news? No harm, no foul.
It is not "obviously illegal."
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each (as of 1/10/06).
A reasonable interpretation of the above is that distributing copyrighted musical recordings for noncommercial use on these audio CD-R discs is perfectly legal. Copying such recordings is an ordinary part of the process of "using" these discs. The law makes no mention of the media path used to make these copies - and there's little to distinguish between IDE (CD to CD-R drive), SPDIF (CD to audio CD recorder), or TCP/IP (CD on server to CD-R drive).
IANAL, and all that...
No actually, yields do not fall exponentially. If they did, nothing made today would work at all. Yields are largely independent of feature size
I was speaking of die size, not feature size.
Turns out, I was correct - yield is an exponential function of die size.
All yield models discussed at http://www.semiconfareast.com/test-yield-models.ht m express yields as powers of e.
Then there's this: "The size of the actual silicon plays an important role in yield. A smaller design, holding all other factors equal, will increase yield for two primary reasons. First, the smaller the die the more that can fit on a wafer thus giving more yielded parts for a given number of wafers. Second, the actual per part yield is a function of area where smaller area is better since there is less chance that a random defect will land on the silicon rendering the part inoperative."- http://www.cadence.com/company/newsroom/articles/D esign_Yield_Cost_Model_eedesign_June04.pdf
...which also supports my statement.
The file at http://www.riaa.com/images/pics/pic2.jpg, which is served by their web site?
Not really. Creating a >2000 mm^2 chip without any flaws, with the expectation of being able to eventually make a profit on them in the consumer market, would be quite an accomplishment. Such a large die area would not only result in low yields, but present serious obstacles in power consumption and heat dissipation.
For comparison, the Pentium IV 600 series has a 135 mm^2 die area. If I'm not mistaken, yields fall exponentially, so no only would they be able to produce only 6% as many chips on a wafer, but could also expect a greatly lower number of working ones from the total.
HP PA-RISC 31%
Sun SPARC 25%
MIPS 20%
IBM RS/6000 12% (the architecture upon which the PowerPC was based)
I don't think most people consider "middle of the pack" to be a dominant position.
That is not a valid argument. There's a possiblity we _are_ the only ones here. There's a possibility that it hasn't been invented yet (someone has to be first). There's the chance that if it has been invented, it happened such a short time ago or so far away that the event horizon has not yet reached us.
How you choose to claim "probably" is unknown, since none of these probabilities are known.
OTOH, a much more recent case, while not decided on this basis, includes this unequivocal opinion:
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)
Huh? Are you arguing that "equal protection" requires that all states have the same laws? What's the purpose of State government in that case?
"which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it."
Cites, please. SCOTUS has never decided a 2nd Amendment case based on an individual vs. collective right argument.
Not that clear language has ever stopped the Supremes from saying that black is white. I point to the frequent abuse of the Commerce Clause as adequate demonstration of just how disingenuous their decisions can be.