I know that a company must defend its trademark (as McDonald's aggressively does) in order to maintain their monopoly on a trademark. Case in point, McD's went after this vegetarian place in Santa Cruz called "McDharma's" and they changed their name to "Dharma's" [http://dharmaland.com/history/sentinel.html]).
Is there something similar in requiring defense of a copyright? AFAIK, they copyright of "Happy Birthday" hasn't been defended much - if at all.
Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it,
It is just a way to create a lock in. In your example of a Canon lens, it probably won't fit on Nikon body.
Trust me, you don't spend thousands on camera equipment without realizing that your lenses won't fit on Nikons or Leicas or whatever. This wasn't my point; Canon didn't say "you can only put this lens on a Canon" (they didn't say it, but it's true, but not because that's how it's licensed - it's a physical mounting issue, and someone could probably build a camera body which would take the EF mount lens).
My point was the question: Is there another example, other than media, of something produced with a license which states that you can't use the product except in a single or limited application?
Limitations due to legalities don't count ("may only be used in off-road applications").
Eg (though media so doesn't count for my question) - you can buy sheet music for a song; they don't say that you can only play it on one guitar (though as it's copyrighted, you can't photocopy it for a friend, though your friend can borrow it for a while, and you can sell it {if you didn't keep a copy!}, etc).
I'm sitting here trying to find something "interesting" to write - I figured it shouldn't be too tough to find something "fair use"-ish aside from printed and viewable media - and I'm coming up dry.
Is there anything else you can buy in the world, where there are such restrictions placed on its use? Stuff that's reasonably easy to duplicate, and has potential for such abuse, that it has protections?
Looking around my (typically messy) desk, I see... hmm, my camera. Ok, I can pay $1300 for a lens on my DSLR.. Canon doesn't say "dude you can't put that on any other camera". Nope. Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it, and canon doesn't say that I can't do what I want with the results of the pics.
Ah, there's a clip loaded with.22's (well, this is the country, and the other day a coyote tried to get at my chickens!). Remington doesn't say that I can only put these in their rifle. I bought the bullets, I can do what I want with them, as far as the originating company is concerned (Uncle Sam may disagree with me, of course, but you won't see Remington getting involved in that).
So, is there anything produced where the manufacturer places specific use restrictions (not "suggestions", like a recipe which calls [let me exercise "fair use" in an excerpt here] for "1 bar (8 oz.) NESTLÉ CHOCOLATIER(TM) 62% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar, broken into sections" or "2/3 cup LIBBY'S® 100% Pure Pumpkin" as though something else is going to ruin the recipe - they're not denying you the right, or ability, to use their recipe unless you use their product!) other than media?
Perhaps the special thing about media is that the company wants to sell you not "listen to this song" or "watch this movie" but "listen to this song only on this one thing". There's a clash between what the consumer believes himself to be buying, and what the company claims to be selling.
a little globe which pops up above the car (vandalism target I suppose) would do the job; you couldn't tell which way the lens is pointing inside it, sort of like the hemispherical camera modules hanging from ceilings in some spots.
There have been a number of mentions of the police-car-cameras which are supposed to videotape the indicents; and how it's pretty simple for the camera to be turned off/obscured etc.
How about a camera which tracks the cop himself?
Let's mount the lens on the roof of the car, pointing forwards by default (where the cop is approaching/chasing). If the cop gets out of the car, the camera tracks the cop, including extending upwards to keep a proper vantage point and maintain a view, so that if the cop gets into... trouble, someone back at base can immediately send more backup.
I don't know. Ever seen a "modern human" from 40,000 years ago? I doubt they'd look much beter. Besides, almost all the pics I've seen of H. sapiens neanderthalus; I can't say they look much worse than modern men (personal bias).
Who knows, maybe their women would clean up reasonably well.
Besides, look around next time you go out - it's amazing who manages to get a mate (...looks in mirror...)
Or, perhaps, somewhat super-humans, which h. sapiens sapiens then realized were better than them; as with modern man, you try to kill anything off which may be the slightest concern or competition.
Btw, "Greenland" was never lush with vegetation (it was at best barely habitable) during the viking age. The name was an advertising thing, to help the "colonists" to hire help...
Actually, this is a myth which dates from the time before it was "remembered" that the AD900-1200 time frame was warmer. Don't forget the "little ice age" (1400-1800 or so, depending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age) probably wiped out most everyone's memory of warmer times.
Also, I think you should consider Greenland today as "barely habitable"; from the slightest effort of research you'll find that it was literally habitable back then.
That same URL mentions "The Viking colonies in Greenland, however, clearly died out (in the 1400's) because they could no longer grow enough food there", which means that life was easier (and greener) before; from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period we find "The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north".
Finally:
The name Greenland (Grønland) has its roots in this colonization and is widely attributed to Erik the Red (the Inuit call it Kalaallit Nunaat, "Our Land"), and there has been speculation on its meaning. Some have argued that the coasts in question were literally green at the time due to the medieval climate optimum, in as much as the Viking settlers practised some form of an agrarian economy. Others have suspected that the name was in part a promotional effort to lure people into settling there by making it sound more attractive. The condition of Greenland in the 10th century may have been more hospitable than today.
directly shows the controversy.
Personally, I favor the "Greenland was greener then" hypothesis; I think that the other argument (advertising) will fall out of favor the warmer the world (and Greenland) gets.
Let's combine that hypothetical event with a hypothetical future cultural takeover and we get..... Tauntaun Wontons!
Just bring a package of wonton skins along with you on your next perimeter patrol - if things go too badly, gut your tauntaun with your light saber, carve it up a bit, wrap some in a wonton skin, and then use the light saber to boil some water.
While I personally don't doubt that we're affecting the global climate, I do question the immediacy of Polar Bear Extinction.
Now, I like polar bears as much as the next guy, and I'm happy to use them as an excuse to stop everything just in case, but my scientific skeptic side comes in and has to ask: during the warm period from AD900-1200, the Earth was as warm, or warmer, than it is now. As everyone knows, Greenland was actually "green" then (well, at least around the southern edges), and as warm as it is today, it's still not "green" yet.
If Greenland was green then, why didn't the polar bears die off a thousand years ago?
Really, I want to know.
In other news, Baidu.com linked to Chinese gov't
on
Google and the CIA?
·
· Score: 1
Stunning allegations today have surfaced linking Baidu.com, a Beijing-based company which currently runs China's most popular search engine, with elements of the Chinese government and military.
Back in '98 when I first started using Google, one of the first things I thought of was - "These guys have to be funded by the NSA", especially as there was no indication of any sort of business model, company structure (or much of an existence at all) or financial backing, and the obvious application of seeing what people are looking for.
I realize that the point of this (TFA) is about trying to make things more intuitive and natural. But, as others have pointed out in other words, interfaces are a natural aspect of life.
I have an interface in front of me right now. I have pen, paper; I've got a camera... if I want to record a visual of something, I have to pick up my camera. Never mind that the camera has one of these "non-intuitive interfaces" that we (rather, the article) are trying to remove, I still have to do something to get it done. Anything that I do interfaces with reality.
One of the goals of the iconic desktop originally was to duplicate the real desktop in some fashion to make things simpler for humans to interact with their work on a computer, so that there wouldn't be too much of a translation layer to build between real and virtual work. Similarly, some try to implement handwriting recognition to remove the interface of the keyboard from the writing process.... until they realize that geeks like us can't write for crap and can type ten times faster as well.
Regardless, of course, there's got to be some way to tell the computer that you actually want to resize the strange hand-like object on that screen the guy had (I think it was a hand, my sound was off and I lost interest rapidly) rather than add to the drawing. There's got to be some way to change modes, as he did between drawing the outline, getting it filled in, and then moving it around - that's all interface. Sure, it looked sweet that there wasn't any menu pull-down happening, no mouse, but really, you've got a pretty damn simple application that can be manipulated in this fashion.
Do anything complex, and you'll have to have a more complex interface suddenly.
Even talking to a computer would be an interface..... a pretty complex one, though definitely one that could be considered intuitive, if you could use your chosen language for commanding it rather than some cryptic "ok, list the files, sort by date then name.... uh.... ok that one no that shit fucking computer where's my mouse"
I have a server (web, mail, etc) which I just had crap out on me; I didn't think about checking the disk logs until after I'd tried to install FC6rc2, failed miserably (blaming it on the "rc2" part), then failed to install FC5.... finally realized it was my boot disk dying.
Anyways, my honest question is this - when a new "FC" comes out, is it really ready for real, for running on production systems?
I really needed my system back up ASAP, and decided to go with FC5 instead of using the rc2 or waiting for the real FC6, because I figured FC5 was fine for my uses (really a headless server, unless the s*** hits the fan and I have to put a monitor on it). Did I do the right thing with using FC5? I probably could've used a different distro, but so far I've only used RH9 and FC4 (until this new FC5 install).
I think it's more like if GM et al had something inherently wrong with their engines, and someone came along with a much better part to replace in the engine to make it work well. Later, GM shipped proper parts which didn't detonate so easily, and the aftermarket part wasn't needed any more.
It wouldn't be wrong for GM to make the modification. However, it would be wrong for them to disallow aftermarket parts; when automakers did try and refuse to honor their warrantees if consumers had made any modifications (including replacing faulty OEM parts), we ended up the the Magnussen-Moss Act which made them play more fairly. With M$, we have to rely on the anti-monopoly laws at the present.
Note though that I'm not claiming that these are identical situations - personally I don't think it's unreasonable to try and lock down your OS to keep outside stuff from fucking it up - I strongly encourage such an effort.
I have a 17" (HP ZD7000) which I got as a occasionally transportable desktop replacement, as I work primarily from home and occasionally go to "the office" (where I end up mainly talking to people and rarely do any dev). I have the laptop on a custom stand, with the 17" (1650x1050 brightview) screen right next to my old 20" tube in a dual-head setup. The pixels are differently sized, but that's ok, I just keep windows on one display or the other. This unit was the most laptop I could get with my company's $2k budget at the time.
Buying this was a mistake, for a few reasons:
The laptop is noisy - fan is always running, though luckily the heastsink fins weren't too tough to get out and clean, so the fan doesn't have to run at max all the time. (This can almost be considered a "plus" during wintertime, but in summer around here it's a killer.)
On this particular model, the trackpad really sucks - I've never had trouble with trackpads, though this has little to do with the size of the unit. I use an external mouse 99.9% of the time, so this ends up not being much of an issue
Most importantly, the laptop doesn't come close to fitting in my motorcycle's luggage (I don't have a topbox, just the side bags). I used to be able to put two 14" in one side and other luggage in the other; now I strap the laptop to the top of the pillion when I need to travel with it; it's inconvenient because it doesn't lock that way.
The weight of the unit (about 4.5Kg) doesn't bother me as I only move it occasionally. If I regularly engaged in air travel, I'd never buy such a unit.
If I were to do over again, I'd get the smallest, lightest (but hopefully not very expensive) laptop I could for the occasional travel time, and build up a quiet yet powerful desktop.
We already know he's got his head up his ass, so with his feet stuck in his mouth, which is part of his head, which is up his ass..... damn, that's getting right convoluted!
That's because the Egyptian snakes known as asps can't get into the internet's tubes, because those tubes are "filled with enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
However:
Googling asp gets "about 3,990,000,000".
Googling asp egyptian snake gets "about 475,000".
Clearly, if you go through the initial results (google asp), you should find some which mention an Egyptian snake. Eventually. Behind, of course, enormous amounts of material. Though, actually, right next to the "about x,xxx,xxx,xxx results for asp" Google does provide a handy link called [definition] which points right at the snake.
I haven't seen a properly relevant posting here yet.
From TFA:
"has lost a bid to claim the word as a trademark for unsolicited e-mails...
We do not object to use of this slang term to describe (unsolicited commercial e-mail)," the company said on its Web site, "although we do object to the use of the word "spam" as a trademark and to the use of our product image in association with that term."
They don't like the idea of anyone else having "spam" in a trademarked name; they were trying to assert trademark for unsolicited email (and thus be able to protect such a trademark). No doubt, they have a trademark for the (not-so) Spiced Ham, and the EU isn't questioning that. They just denied Spam's request for trademark over spam emails.
Such waves would travel at the speed of light except that they are slowed down slightly by the effects of the insulating material surrounding the wire. Speeds of one-third to more than one-half the speed of light are typical.
In more ordinary media, such as certain commercial single-mode optical fiber products, the propagation velocity of a signal is 68 percent of c or 205,000km/s...
In comparison, electric waves or signals in commonly used copper wire travel at speeds between 55 percent and 80 percent of c.
So don't take it for granted that just because an electric signal doesn't travel at c in copper that it's slower than light in fiber!
On a barely-related tangent: As someone who put up with a satellite internet connection for 4 years, I can state authoratatively that the speed of light isn't nearly quick enough for a variety of purposes....
Slashdot Mirror
So is the EULA printed really small on the pennies somewhere and I just haven't noticed?
Now now, let's give them some credit, and *hope* it doesn't get that bad, and give that exponent a negative:
2.315x10^-6 Hz
---------^
Is there something similar in requiring defense of a copyright? AFAIK, they copyright of "Happy Birthday" hasn't been defended much - if at all.
My point was the question: Is there another example, other than media, of something produced with a license which states that you can't use the product except in a single or limited application?
Limitations due to legalities don't count ("may only be used in off-road applications").
Eg (though media so doesn't count for my question) - you can buy sheet music for a song; they don't say that you can only play it on one guitar (though as it's copyrighted, you can't photocopy it for a friend, though your friend can borrow it for a while, and you can sell it {if you didn't keep a copy!}, etc).
Is there anything else you can buy in the world, where there are such restrictions placed on its use? Stuff that's reasonably easy to duplicate, and has potential for such abuse, that it has protections?
Looking around my (typically messy) desk, I see... hmm, my camera. Ok, I can pay $1300 for a lens on my DSLR.. Canon doesn't say "dude you can't put that on any other camera". Nope. Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it, and canon doesn't say that I can't do what I want with the results of the pics.
Ah, there's a clip loaded with .22's (well, this is the country, and the other day a coyote tried to get at my chickens!). Remington doesn't say that I can only put these in their rifle. I bought the bullets, I can do what I want with them, as far as the originating company is concerned (Uncle Sam may disagree with me, of course, but you won't see Remington getting involved in that).
So, is there anything produced where the manufacturer places specific use restrictions (not "suggestions", like a recipe which calls [let me exercise "fair use" in an excerpt here] for "1 bar (8 oz.) NESTLÉ CHOCOLATIER(TM) 62% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar, broken into sections" or "2/3 cup LIBBY'S® 100% Pure Pumpkin" as though something else is going to ruin the recipe - they're not denying you the right, or ability, to use their recipe unless you use their product!) other than media?
Perhaps the special thing about media is that the company wants to sell you not "listen to this song" or "watch this movie" but "listen to this song only on this one thing". There's a clash between what the consumer believes himself to be buying, and what the company claims to be selling.
Maybe he just keys in the OS from the front panel... is his name "Seymour"?
a little globe which pops up above the car (vandalism target I suppose) would do the job; you couldn't tell which way the lens is pointing inside it, sort of like the hemispherical camera modules hanging from ceilings in some spots.
How about a camera which tracks the cop himself?
Let's mount the lens on the roof of the car, pointing forwards by default (where the cop is approaching/chasing). If the cop gets out of the car, the camera tracks the cop, including extending upwards to keep a proper vantage point and maintain a view, so that if the cop gets into ... trouble, someone back at base can immediately send more backup.
Who knows, maybe their women would clean up reasonably well.
Besides, look around next time you go out - it's amazing who manages to get a mate (...looks in mirror...)
Or, perhaps, somewhat super-humans, which h. sapiens sapiens then realized were better than them; as with modern man, you try to kill anything off which may be the slightest concern or competition.
Also, I think you should consider Greenland today as "barely habitable"; from the slightest effort of research you'll find that it was literally habitable back then.
That same URL mentions "The Viking colonies in Greenland, however, clearly died out (in the 1400's) because they could no longer grow enough food there", which means that life was easier (and greener) before; from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period we find "The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north".
Finally:
directly shows the controversy.Personally, I favor the "Greenland was greener then" hypothesis; I think that the other argument (advertising) will fall out of favor the warmer the world (and Greenland) gets.
Just bring a package of wonton skins along with you on your next perimeter patrol - if things go too badly, gut your tauntaun with your light saber, carve it up a bit, wrap some in a wonton skin, and then use the light saber to boil some water.
Scrumptious!
My point was, I keep seeing these dire predictions of polar bears dying out in the next 50 years...
Now, I like polar bears as much as the next guy, and I'm happy to use them as an excuse to stop everything just in case, but my scientific skeptic side comes in and has to ask: during the warm period from AD900-1200, the Earth was as warm, or warmer, than it is now. As everyone knows, Greenland was actually "green" then (well, at least around the southern edges), and as warm as it is today, it's still not "green" yet.
If Greenland was green then, why didn't the polar bears die off a thousand years ago?
Really, I want to know.
Stunning allegations today have surfaced linking Baidu.com, a Beijing-based company which currently runs China's most popular search engine, with elements of the Chinese government and military.
Maybe I got the wrong agency.
I have an interface in front of me right now. I have pen, paper; I've got a camera... if I want to record a visual of something, I have to pick up my camera. Never mind that the camera has one of these "non-intuitive interfaces" that we (rather, the article) are trying to remove, I still have to do something to get it done. Anything that I do interfaces with reality.
One of the goals of the iconic desktop originally was to duplicate the real desktop in some fashion to make things simpler for humans to interact with their work on a computer, so that there wouldn't be too much of a translation layer to build between real and virtual work. Similarly, some try to implement handwriting recognition to remove the interface of the keyboard from the writing process.... until they realize that geeks like us can't write for crap and can type ten times faster as well.
Regardless, of course, there's got to be some way to tell the computer that you actually want to resize the strange hand-like object on that screen the guy had (I think it was a hand, my sound was off and I lost interest rapidly) rather than add to the drawing. There's got to be some way to change modes, as he did between drawing the outline, getting it filled in, and then moving it around - that's all interface. Sure, it looked sweet that there wasn't any menu pull-down happening, no mouse, but really, you've got a pretty damn simple application that can be manipulated in this fashion.
Do anything complex, and you'll have to have a more complex interface suddenly.
"Computer... Computer... (McCoy hands Scotty the mouse) Aye. Hello computer." -- Scotty
Even talking to a computer would be an interface..... a pretty complex one, though definitely one that could be considered intuitive, if you could use your chosen language for commanding it rather than some cryptic "ok, list the files, sort by date then name.... uh.... ok that one no that shit fucking computer where's my mouse"
Anyways, my honest question is this - when a new "FC" comes out, is it really ready for real, for running on production systems?
I really needed my system back up ASAP, and decided to go with FC5 instead of using the rc2 or waiting for the real FC6, because I figured FC5 was fine for my uses (really a headless server, unless the s*** hits the fan and I have to put a monitor on it). Did I do the right thing with using FC5? I probably could've used a different distro, but so far I've only used RH9 and FC4 (until this new FC5 install).
It wouldn't be wrong for GM to make the modification. However, it would be wrong for them to disallow aftermarket parts; when automakers did try and refuse to honor their warrantees if consumers had made any modifications (including replacing faulty OEM parts), we ended up the the Magnussen-Moss Act which made them play more fairly. With M$, we have to rely on the anti-monopoly laws at the present.
Note though that I'm not claiming that these are identical situations - personally I don't think it's unreasonable to try and lock down your OS to keep outside stuff from fucking it up - I strongly encourage such an effort.
Buying this was a mistake, for a few reasons:
The weight of the unit (about 4.5Kg) doesn't bother me as I only move it occasionally. If I regularly engaged in air travel, I'd never buy such a unit.
If I were to do over again, I'd get the smallest, lightest (but hopefully not very expensive) laptop I could for the occasional travel time, and build up a quiet yet powerful desktop.
We already know he's got his head up his ass, so with his feet stuck in his mouth, which is part of his head, which is up his ass..... damn, that's getting right convoluted!
As for the first, you can always use google or whatever - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS
However:
-
Googling asp gets "about 3,990,000,000".
-
Googling asp egyptian snake gets "about 475,000".
Clearly, if you go through the initial results (google asp), you should find some which mention an Egyptian snake. Eventually. Behind, of course, enormous amounts of material. Though, actually, right next to the "about x,xxx,xxx,xxx results for asp" Google does provide a handy link called [definition] which points right at the snake.Whatever.
OTOH, http://www.itarchitect.com/article/NMG20010416S000 6 states:
So don't take it for granted that just because an electric signal doesn't travel at c in copper that it's slower than light in fiber!
On a barely-related tangent: As someone who put up with a satellite internet connection for 4 years, I can state authoratatively that the speed of light isn't nearly quick enough for a variety of purposes....