If I'm reading the patent right, they've actually applied for protection of the UAC popup system that appears in Vista and Win7. There's no unqualified patent on user account privilege escalation. Indeed, "su" would be explicitly outwith this patent's claims, as it's specifically about bringing up an interface to escalate when the system determines that escalation will be required, not about escalating manually before the task is attempted.
Top marks to the Groklaw article for providing a thorough explanation for how they can't get a patent on something they're not trying to get a patent for.
Actually, you use the Xbox Live service at Microsoft's invitation, on the terms of a seperate contract you establish with them when you pay the subscription (the Xbox Live terms of service). It has nothing to do with the contract of sale of the console itself. If they wanted to, they could have a term banning you from going on Live if the console's horizontal instead of vertical. It's a breach of that contract, so they're entitled to follow through on the penalty outlined in that contract, provided there is no local law which supercedes that contract term.
You're carrying "a bunch of water into orbit" either way, it's just you're carrying it as stochiometric liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in one instance (this is what the Shuttle uses as fuel for orbital manouvering), and water in the other. In fact there's a slight benefit, due to relativity, in not adding the chemical potential energy to the fuel (hydrolysing it) until you're in orbit.
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
The shuttle's main engines use liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen as fuel anyway, so there's no disadvantage in shipping it into space as water and converting it to fuel in situ versus separating the gases and compressing them on the ground.
They used to be called "unmetered" plans, because you paid a flat rate instead of being billed per-MB or per minute as in the dial-up WAP days. "Unlimited" sounds better.
I don't see how using an unlocked GSM handset makes a difference. For example, even on SIM-only plans, most UK mobile companies explicitly forbid tethering, and T-Mo, as about the only one that permits it, requires a £5/month extra fee (which admittedly comes with a bump to the "fair use" level of data transfer).
Actually there's no hard-and-fast standard for capitalisation of the abbreviation of "bits" and "bytes". There's an IEEE recommendation on the subject, but if you follow it, you should only use "B" for bytes of unspecified size, and "o" for eight-bit bytes. Thus there's a hard core of technically literate, but perverse, souls who favour the lower case, for consistency with the SI units.
"Gag effects" can be quite fun, though, and I'll always take 90 minutes of vertigo and manhandling my "duck" reflex over 3 hours of robots arguing about matrices and sparks when it comes to winding down my brain on a Friday night. My Bloody Valentine also showed occasional flashes of what might be possible, from an artistic perspective, once you start playing around with depth: one dialogue scene was staged as though for the theatre, using the 3D to support the movement of the characters through the space to great effect.
More to the point, broadcast TV can't carry polarisation information in any of the current specs. Polarisation and shutter based 3D displays will be supported by new broadcast standards, but they'll work by broadcasting a stereo video image and leaving it up to the receiving equipment to convert it into anaglyph, polarisation, or shutter controlled 3D
They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years. Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content. It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario.
No, but the guy who's afraid that such a person is on the flight will be. These persons will be detected and prevented from boarding, thus they avoid the imagined risk. It's added value for the neurotic!
The idea that there's a special chemical signal for "fear in relation to criminal acts" seems to come out of absolutely nowhere. Shouldn't there be some research into whether such a chemical signal exists before device development occurs? If it's not a magic detector of latent emotion or the cause of emotion so I'm not sure how much better it would be than noticing which people "look a bit afraid". It's going to be just as susceptible to picking up people who find flying difficult or are worried about being falsely accused of being a terrorist because they look funny.
Incidentally, the idea of frequency doubling for therapy is a real thing. IIRC, you put dyes into the target. Then you illuminate with light which is relatively long-wavelength, so that tissues are transparent to it. The dye does two-photon absorption of this light and then dumps that high energy into the target.
have is been demonstrated that these machines damage organisms in regular usage
Actually, that's what the article opens with: there are conflicting experimental reports (none involving extra heads or hair falling out, mind you) it seeks to clarify. Worth reading IMO.
The OP's statement was that "the safe level... is none", on the basis that it's resonant and thus can "build up" to an arbitrarily dangerous level regardless of exposure, the impression being that (as in Star Trek) you can just energetically tap something once, the right way, and it'll shake itself to pieces. That's what I had a problem with. I don't have an issue with "building up" energy, because not only does it happen with resonant processes, it happens with thermal processes too: if you dump in energy faster than it can be dissipated, you'll excite any given mode. Resonant processes just happen to be more efficient.
And, to conclude the thought, the resonant mode in this paper is not one (like that which can break a bridge, or a wine glass) for which there are few modes to couple to and thus lose the energy. That's why there's a critical amplitude below which the frequency does not cause "bubbles".
Slashdot Mirror
Perfectly good examples of prior art that the author of that article skipped in favour of a content-less rant.
If I'm reading the patent right, they've actually applied for protection of the UAC popup system that appears in Vista and Win7. There's no unqualified patent on user account privilege escalation. Indeed, "su" would be explicitly outwith this patent's claims, as it's specifically about bringing up an interface to escalate when the system determines that escalation will be required, not about escalating manually before the task is attempted.
Top marks to the Groklaw article for providing a thorough explanation for how they can't get a patent on something they're not trying to get a patent for.
Actually, you use the Xbox Live service at Microsoft's invitation, on the terms of a seperate contract you establish with them when you pay the subscription (the Xbox Live terms of service). It has nothing to do with the contract of sale of the console itself. If they wanted to, they could have a term banning you from going on Live if the console's horizontal instead of vertical. It's a breach of that contract, so they're entitled to follow through on the penalty outlined in that contract, provided there is no local law which supercedes that contract term.
You're carrying "a bunch of water into orbit" either way, it's just you're carrying it as stochiometric liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in one instance (this is what the Shuttle uses as fuel for orbital manouvering), and water in the other. In fact there's a slight benefit, due to relativity, in not adding the chemical potential energy to the fuel (hydrolysing it) until you're in orbit.
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
The shuttle's main engines use liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen as fuel anyway, so there's no disadvantage in shipping it into space as water and converting it to fuel in situ versus separating the gases and compressing them on the ground.
They used to be called "unmetered" plans, because you paid a flat rate instead of being billed per-MB or per minute as in the dial-up WAP days. "Unlimited" sounds better.
I don't see how using an unlocked GSM handset makes a difference. For example, even on SIM-only plans, most UK mobile companies explicitly forbid tethering, and T-Mo, as about the only one that permits it, requires a £5/month extra fee (which admittedly comes with a bump to the "fair use" level of data transfer).
Actually there's no hard-and-fast standard for capitalisation of the abbreviation of "bits" and "bytes". There's an IEEE recommendation on the subject, but if you follow it, you should only use "B" for bytes of unspecified size, and "o" for eight-bit bytes. Thus there's a hard core of technically literate, but perverse, souls who favour the lower case, for consistency with the SI units.
"Gag effects" can be quite fun, though, and I'll always take 90 minutes of vertigo and manhandling my "duck" reflex over 3 hours of robots arguing about matrices and sparks when it comes to winding down my brain on a Friday night. My Bloody Valentine also showed occasional flashes of what might be possible, from an artistic perspective, once you start playing around with depth: one dialogue scene was staged as though for the theatre, using the 3D to support the movement of the characters through the space to great effect.
And all cops are in a CIA, and INTERPOL is a FBI, and there's an NSA in North Korea.
I'm sure that movie studios are spitting with rage over home 3D. It's about the only qualitative USP that cinema has over home theatre right now.
More to the point, broadcast TV can't carry polarisation information in any of the current specs. Polarisation and shutter based 3D displays will be supported by new broadcast standards, but they'll work by broadcasting a stereo video image and leaving it up to the receiving equipment to convert it into anaglyph, polarisation, or shutter controlled 3D
I imagine that the people who couldn't see 3D didn't stick around to see the phone-in number after the show.
Wouldn't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory? I say, put her in the LHC and see what happens.
They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years. Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content. It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario.
The C4 3D thing will use the same "ColorCode" kind of glasses.
No, but the guy who's afraid that such a person is on the flight will be. These persons will be detected and prevented from boarding, thus they avoid the imagined risk. It's added value for the neurotic!
The idea that there's a special chemical signal for "fear in relation to criminal acts" seems to come out of absolutely nowhere. Shouldn't there be some research into whether such a chemical signal exists before device development occurs? If it's not a magic detector of latent emotion or the cause of emotion so I'm not sure how much better it would be than noticing which people "look a bit afraid". It's going to be just as susceptible to picking up people who find flying difficult or are worried about being falsely accused of being a terrorist because they look funny.
I dunno, standing up in front of everyone and stating the bleeding obvious like it's some sort of startling revelation sounds like a councillor too.
I meant the actual research article.
Incidentally, the idea of frequency doubling for therapy is a real thing. IIRC, you put dyes into the target. Then you illuminate with light which is relatively long-wavelength, so that tissues are transparent to it. The dye does two-photon absorption of this light and then dumps that high energy into the target.
Actually, that's what the article opens with: there are conflicting experimental reports (none involving extra heads or hair falling out, mind you) it seeks to clarify. Worth reading IMO.
The OP's statement was that "the safe level... is none", on the basis that it's resonant and thus can "build up" to an arbitrarily dangerous level regardless of exposure, the impression being that (as in Star Trek) you can just energetically tap something once, the right way, and it'll shake itself to pieces. That's what I had a problem with. I don't have an issue with "building up" energy, because not only does it happen with resonant processes, it happens with thermal processes too: if you dump in energy faster than it can be dissipated, you'll excite any given mode. Resonant processes just happen to be more efficient.
And, to conclude the thought, the resonant mode in this paper is not one (like that which can break a bridge, or a wine glass) for which there are few modes to couple to and thus lose the energy. That's why there's a critical amplitude below which the frequency does not cause "bubbles".