I'll admit to not being an expert in this area, but here's an interesting essay explaining why film's "resolution" is not directly comparable to that of digital sensors
To further show how much in arms this is...
First, read this comment for a little better info.
Second, this is perhaps the very reason that professional photographers are all over the map with where they stand on using digital versus film. Last I was aware, it was about a 50/50 split along who used what; however, reasons varied more greatly.
Some professional photographers use digital and claim its better; others use it b/c its the latest & greatest tech; yet others use it because it's what they can afford & play with. Others on the other side claim its inferior, reverse the same arguments, add some others. In other words, not even the professionals have decided completely that digital is worth it.
Personally, I'd wait until digital has gotten to the 35 megapixel range before really doing a comparison. Right now, when I'm shooting, I carry around my 6 MP digital for taking a lot of shots in supplement to my SLR, and my Minolta SLR (with lots of film) for the more serious shots and momento shots. (I easily burn 2GB of data on the digital and roughly 7 rolls of film when I'm taking pictures for events that are just a couple hours.)
Lastly, I have a hard time finding film to be binary in nature for all kinds of film. It may be for certain kinds of black & white film, but I'm not convinced per color. Author has a good argument, but still misses, IMHO, as a single CCD sensor typically cannot pick up a whole lot either; digital really uses several individual sensors to build a single pixel, so his argument breaks down as well.
Also, I would think the chemical nature of film would lead better towards blending wrt color than the sensory nature of CCDs in digital.
That is a bunch of B.S. An $80000 Canon digital camera would be a high end EOS 1d with some really nice lenses. Right now they have 20 megapixels and can have the picture blown up to poster size while remaining photo quality. I know of no 35 mm camera that can do that at the same ASA range. Now my medium format and full-format camera can blow the EOS 1-D out of the water, but that is only because a large amount of film real-estate. Digital cameras also have greater color range and flexibility from any single film I can think of.
First, 35mm film is equivalent to over 30 megapixels. So even that EOS 1-D is still over 10 megapixels short of the film for quality.
Second, 35mm film has been used by many professional cameras for decades to do larger than poster size. I could easily have that done with any of the pictures taken from my Minolta SLR that my grandfather purchased back in the 1950's.
I think people in general are just getting more used to noise, all the time, and to get their attention you have to keep stepping it up.
On the other hand, they could just stop for a short time, and then go back to the old ways. It'd have the same effect - getting people's attention - but without the "having to step it up" requirement.
The Wright Brothers also had lots of things to pull from that already flew. Birds, insects, etc. Hell, even those seeds that fall like little helicopter blades have natural wing shaped leaves to help them slow down/disperse away from the tree from which they could have gotten data.
True, but at the same time they don't help themselves on re-entry. If they performed slow re-entry (ex: SpaceShip One), then one of their two failures would not have occurred as the heat would not have built up. And the design that made it possible was taken from nature.
There aren't any naturally occurring animals or phenomena from which to figure out space travel/launch/re-rentry. I'm not saying the safety record is stellar (yukyuk), but getting off the ground is a little less complex than getting off the planet (and back).
True. However, that still doesn't mean they are doing it the best way. Their re-entry method, as mentioned above, is certainly not the best way. It is the fastest, though but at a cost.
It kinda reminds me of cleaning things up. The fastest way is not always the best way. Sometimes you have to take your time to do it right. In this case, it could be argued that NASA by having high-speed re-entry is doing it the fast way, and needs to take some time and re-evaluate it to slow down and make it safer.
That does, incidentally, also require a re-design of the space vehicles that are used.
The politicians will be on the second ship, along with the telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, advertising account executives, and other 'essential' personel.
.
Don't forget all the middle managers...and the fact that we're building the second ship first, prepping it first, and ships one and three will be a few light years behind it...
Someone got revenge for the utility not burying the cable. Perhaps the installers got tired of burying the cable whilst out in the country, and just laid it on the side of the road on a farmer's plot, and said farmer got annoyed they didn't bury it and shot it up. (Guessing it was in the country given (a) it's in Ohio, which has a lot of farm land, and (b) you'd have to be so far away to not hear the gun shots...though it is near Cleveland that they're talking about...so may be not...).)
Perhaps the cable companies will sit up and start burying their cables now.
Microsoft has been known to choose the worst algorithms to implement things (see US DoJ vs. MS AntiTrust trial), so it's not surprising that Microsoft's first attempt at a user-mode sound driver implementation causes performance problems. It's also likely linked to the DRM that Microsoft had to put in to appease the various studios.
Wouldn't be surprised if a similar link was found with video playback as the video drivers are also user-mode in Vista too, and are also DRM encumbered.
Yes - I would be; however, that would only encourage them to further raise the rates to do so, and break down the "Net Neutrality" fight. However, there is still the dilemma of how to do it and really win.
Highway speed limits were originally set at 55 mph as a fuel conservation measure. Later they were raised to 65, but not higher because of public safety concerns.
So what about the states that have a max speed limit of 70? (Michigan, West Virginia, Washington, etc.) It's hardly a "public safety".
No Linus wrote Linux as a reimplementation of BSD, during the period that AT&T sued to stop the distribution of BSD. Had BSD not been held up in court, there would have been no need to rewrite BSD from scratch using inferior networking code.
Actually, if you read Linus' own book - Just For Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary - you'd find out that he wrote Linux as (a) a method for learning x86 Assembly for the i386 processor, (b) as a way to get into his school account over dial-up, and (c) as a re-implementation of Minix. It was also highly coupled with Minix for a while until around version 0.10, or shortly thereafter.
When you mention the relation between 1934 and 1998 I must think you are looking at the US graph, and not the graph of the global temperature.
And I do not understand why pulling core samples from different places is a bad thing, it is the only way I can think of, to study the past in that amount of detail, Scientist can explain how they gather the information from the core samples and it sounds very logical to me, they can tell generaly how hot or cold that year was from the cycles of the seasons etc for those samples.
To start with, i didn't quote any data, and quite rightfully agreed with the GP. The major point I was pulling from the quote of the GP was the following:
The bigger story I see in TFA's graphs is: we're looking at an increase of less than 1 degree C per century.
Second, core samples can (a) only tell so much, and (b) can be very misleading because they only give a small set of data. There is a lot we don't know about those time periods. We can extrapolate some information - like this tree grew more this year, or there was a fire, etc. But there is very little that can be had. Tree growth also does not necessarily mean a warmer year.
So the relationship that "Global Warming" advocates try to put there is not necessarily there. Core samples are really of limited use, and pretending that they can provide more use than that is really just as stupid as crying out that there is a major issue when we cannot prove one.
Third, for all we know we're in the peak of a fifty, one hundred, two hundred, five hundred, one thousand, or ten thousand year cycle. However, we cannot say that is the case until we have data from several cycles. You cannot extrapolate a full cycle from a portion of a single cycle. (Any one that tells you otherwise needs to get their degree revoked.)
If you would rather not belive it and just wait and see what happens that would be up to you, but when data like that tends to lead many groups of scientists to the fact that people have been cauing the temperature of our plant to raise and can show it to use on graphs so that anyone can understand it, and somehow people still want to say we dont have enough data, then maybe some just dont want to listen.
It's not a matter of believing in "Global Warming" or not. We cannot say one way or the other whether it is happening. There just simply is not enough data to say. Come back in a few hundred years and we'll talk about it then.
Trying to predict what will happen when the temperature raises might be hard to do, but we should all atleast agree that maybe it is worth looking in to once you look at the data.
Trying to predicate what will happen when the temperatures go up is worth looking into. But claiming that we know the cause of or can do anything about it is ridiculous. That said, we still need to be good stewards - cut down on emissions, recycle, etc.
There's good points to both sides of the arguments - "Global Warming" advocates want us to be better stewards (good), but claim something that cannot be proven do strike fear in people to get them to do so (bad). (I won't call it FUD because we can't yet prove it one way or the other; but it doesn't fall far from it - and will more likely pose the same issue as "the boy who cried wolf" if & when it is provable to be true.) A lot of "Anti-Global Warming" advocates simply want us to do nothing (bad), and are pointing out that "Global Warming" can't be shown to exist for certain (good).
That said - I really don't fall in either camp. I'll neither claim it exists, nor that it does not - because it will be a long time past my lif
Ok, so 1998 was still the warmest - but not by more than a tiny fraction of a degree over 1934, and separated by a decrease to 1800s-era temps.
The bigger story I see in TFA's graphs is: we're looking at an increase of less than 1 degree C per century.
Perhaps that's why there's so many that find "Global Warming" to be a myth.
Personnally, I think we still don't have enough accurate data measured to say one way or the other as we still have to figure out the cycles of the earth - and no, pulling core samples from various things won't tell you that. We need to be actively recording ourselves for a lot longer time period. Thus far, we have about a century's worth of data, but even then, the early data is susceptible to more errors and/or not complete. So, probably somewhere around 2250 can we start talking about real Global Warming and have enough data that most will actually believe it.
BTW, that doesn't mean we shouldn't control emissions, recycle, etc. We should. Believing in "Global Warming" and believing we must be "Good Stewards of our Resources" are not mutually inclusive - or mutually exclusive.
you won't see Windows Xp/Vista start up any faster
So not even quantum mechanics (the fundamentals behind quantum computing) can solve the problems with Windows? Guess Microsoft will have to go live in another dimension to get a good product out the door.
Google's home page today looks almost identical to the way it looked years ago. This is where Google's simplicity is apparently hurting it in the long-term, as new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings--such as increased storage options, additions to Google Maps, and tweaks to Google Image Search--right in front of their faces like they do with other sites.
True, the second one hasn't really changed much - only a few extra clicky's for new stuff they've added. However, the first one is changes all the time - namely due to content changes (news, etc.) - and is completely customizable for those with a Google Account (gmail, google calendar, etc.).
And every so often, the first one comes up when you simply type in "www.google.com", though it is usually the second. You can still flip between them using the link in the upper right hand corner just to the left of "Sign in" - click on "iGoogle" to go to the first one, and "Classic Home" to revert back.
Producing hydrocarbon fuels is more efficient than producing ethanol, del Cardayre adds, because the former packs about 30 percent more energy per gallon. And it takes less energy to produce, too. The ethanol produced by yeast needs to be distilled to remove the water, so ethanol production requires 65 percent more energy than hydrocarbon production does.
you may realize that after everything is up and running the price would actually be better than ethanol because it doesn't need to be processed.
Yields in agriculture are nearly always measured on a yearly basis as that's normally the production period. The yearly part is normally taken for granted
That's really not that efficient, considering that a single gas station can go through 2900 gallons in a few days. So that is roughly 1 acre per gas station - already you're looking at needing something like 200+ thousand acres - and a scale of production on an every few day basis.
So figure it takes a week for a gas station to go through 2,000 (it doesn't - it's shorter actually, so this is likely a best case). That would take 52 acres to support a single gas station for a year of gas. Now, figuring that there are 200,000 gas stations in the US (likely more) - that's 10,400,000 acres of land. Or, using Wikipedia to find the size of an acre, Texas, Alaska, the United States, India, and Russia...
10,400,000 acres * 4,046.8564224 sq meters/acre = 42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters / 678,051,000 sq. meters = 62.071004678055190538764783180026 land masses the size of the US State of Texas
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 1,717,855,000 sq. meters = 24.499918091433793888308384584264 land masses the size of the US State of Alaska.
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 9,631,420,000 sq. meters = 4.3697924909265715751156111975181 land masses the size of the United States
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 3,166,414,000 sq. meters = 13.29178900578382990979701327748 land masses the size of India
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 17,075,400,000 sq. meters = 2.4647918521943849045995994237324 land masses the size of Russia
That's a lot of land area - and just to support the United States. Now factor in the rest of the world and it is simply not feasible. Surely, it is a way to offset some usage, but it is not sustainable.
The RIAA might find it particularly troubling that the students are coming in armed with substantial expert witness declarations attacking the entire underpinning of the RIAA's case, that the students are finding each other and banding together, and that the Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat -- as an expert witness -- for the BU students.
Why would this surprise anyone? They're trying to sue a group of people that are part of a single organization. Not only are they relatively close together, but the organization is going to look over the stuff first, and it would be ripe for them to put together a class action in return. IANAL, but even an idiot should be able to figure that one out.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is just my opinion & foresight. I could be wrong.
More likely than not, J&J is going to lose this one and lose it bad. Not only is the red cross symbol not associated with J&J in the public mind - it's associated with the Red Cross in the public mind; a very important factor - but it's also dealing with an organization that has been using it for over 100 years and doing so without license from J&J (at least according to the article).
Some in the discussions here on/. noted that there was an agreement. However, TFA states:
The lawsuit contends that the charter did not empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business
That is not speaking of an agreement with J&J and ARC, but talking about ARC's Congressional Charter. J&J might be able to claim interference, but will not likely win on such grounds. (Again, IANAL.)
About the only thing that could really make J&J win would be if they had a contract with ARC pertaining to ARC's use of the red cross mark. If so, then they could win. If not, they will likely lose it with either (a) ARC gaining the mark, and J&J having to license it from ARC, (b) the mark becoming public domain, or (c) ARC and J&J being granted joint ownership of the mark.
'c' would be similar to what Prison Fellowship Ministries and Salvation Army have worked out with respect to the mark "Angel Tree" mark that both use for Christmas time events. They have an agreement (contract/license/etc.) between them stating who owns it and granting each the right to use it. Why? Because Prison Fellowship registered it (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state= 8mk45q.2.13), and Salvation Army had been using it for a long time prior; thus the agreement was struck so Salvation Army could continue using it. (Probably a royalty free usage. I don't know though.)
Any how...IANAL but that's my prediction. Not good for J&J though.
Also, for those claiming that ARC's use of the mark was based on Switzerland's flag and that The Red Cross is based in Switzerland...Check out these Wikipedia articles: ARC and the International. The article on J&J might also be of interest - as the ARC and J&J articles put ARC being founded 5 years before J&J - something that would also be very important and would cause J&J to lose.
The articles put first use by a RC agent in 1864, along with the Geneva Convention that founded the group that became the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which ARC is essentially the US arm of. Also see per the red cross symbol.
It really does not look good for J&J - because a lot of that predates J&J quite a bit.
Going a step back, why were so many able to boil water? Fossil fuels. Coal, then oil, then natural gas
Fossil fuels have practically nothing to do with it. Wood and various kinds of oils extracted from plants (ex: olive oil) were used for burning and cooking long before Coal and petrol were discovered.
And production would not have been much of a problem. For example, the greeks were known to use lots of olive oil to coat themselves with as well as for various other uses. They basically used oil like most Americans use Sun screen or tanning lotions (quantity-wise).
That doesn't mean that once fossil fuels came around that it didn't become more convenient, but they wouldn't have had much impact on boiling water.
I'd take a guess, which would probably be pretty accurate, that fossils fuels were mostly limited to company usage for a long, long time. So they made a difference in production of goods, not in home usage - which is where boiling water for tea/coffee/etc would have been.
I'd even guess that fossil fuels had more impact on obesity due to use as a heating element in the winter than it did with boiling water; as it became cheaper and easier to keep a whole building/house warmer.
Yeah, that explains why all those Linux(TM) distributions can't use the trademark "Linux" - after all, almost all of them patch the Linux kernel. Or why the distributions have to rename KDE or GNOME. Or any other piece of open source software.
Actually, all those guys have to get a license for the Linux trademark from Linus - or whoever Linus appointed to manage the trademark. It's just that there are not that many strings attached to said license.
Mozilla is certainly free to license their Firefox trademarks how they like, and if someone does not want to abide by that license, then they will not be able to use the trademark. In this case, it appears that Debian was not willing to abide by Mozilla's terms, so they gave up their license and renamed it to IceWeasel.
Vietnam stopped using Chinese characters about 300 years ago. Yes, you still see them on temples, but pretty much everything else uses latin characters with tone marks.
As TFS said, it affects more than just Chinese. The tone marks are also encapsulated in the UTF-8 and other Unicode standards. So, even European, Mid-East, SWA, and African languages are effected. This would be a major roadblock for the international community - especially those who use languages other than English.
I don't think there ever was an "impound and destroy" precedent in patent law. It is completely ridiculous, and the only reason I see them doing it is so they have a starting point for a haggle-structure. You start with something completely preposterous, and any further proposal will come over as somewhat reasonable.
Another reader mentioned Polaroid v. Kodak. This also happened to Atari with Tetris[1]. They thought they had the rights to produce it but then they did not due to some craftiness of the Soviets. So they had a few hundred thousand copies (million copies?!) that then had to be destroyed. This was out of copyright instead of patents, but it's still there.
[1]See the BBC Special on Tetris (I think the title is "Tetris:From Russia with Love") - I'd link the YouTube/GooTube, but can't get to it at the moment.
Yes, and no. It depends on what you can prove about your knowledge of the material.
For example, if you buy a car from someone and it later turns out to be stolen then if you can prove you did not know it was stolen when you bought it or anytime thereafter until the police informed you, then you may be able to not be charged. However, the police will still seize the car from you. If you cannot prove that, then you will be charged as well. (Remember the Family Matters episode where the eldest son, Eddy Winslow, buys a stereo for his car, which turns out to be stolen, and then he tells his dad and loses his car too but avoids any other punishment?)
Since he already removed the offending material (or so he claims), it may be similar but will come down to what he can prove. If so, it could be that his computer may be seized depending on if they can legally do that - e.g. in Canada they can; however, I do not believe it can be done permanently in the U.S - at least in most jurisdictions.
Slashdot Mirror
First, read this comment for a little better info.
Second, this is perhaps the very reason that professional photographers are all over the map with where they stand on using digital versus film. Last I was aware, it was about a 50/50 split along who used what; however, reasons varied more greatly.
Some professional photographers use digital and claim its better; others use it b/c its the latest & greatest tech; yet others use it because it's what they can afford & play with. Others on the other side claim its inferior, reverse the same arguments, add some others. In other words, not even the professionals have decided completely that digital is worth it.
Personally, I'd wait until digital has gotten to the 35 megapixel range before really doing a comparison. Right now, when I'm shooting, I carry around my 6 MP digital for taking a lot of shots in supplement to my SLR, and my Minolta SLR (with lots of film) for the more serious shots and momento shots. (I easily burn 2GB of data on the digital and roughly 7 rolls of film when I'm taking pictures for events that are just a couple hours.)
Lastly, I have a hard time finding film to be binary in nature for all kinds of film. It may be for certain kinds of black & white film, but I'm not convinced per color. Author has a good argument, but still misses, IMHO, as a single CCD sensor typically cannot pick up a whole lot either; digital really uses several individual sensors to build a single pixel, so his argument breaks down as well.
Also, I would think the chemical nature of film would lead better towards blending wrt color than the sensory nature of CCDs in digital.
Second, 35mm film has been used by many professional cameras for decades to do larger than poster size. I could easily have that done with any of the pictures taken from my Minolta SLR that my grandfather purchased back in the 1950's.
It kinda reminds me of cleaning things up. The fastest way is not always the best way. Sometimes you have to take your time to do it right. In this case, it could be argued that NASA by having high-speed re-entry is doing it the fast way, and needs to take some time and re-evaluate it to slow down and make it safer.
That does, incidentally, also require a re-design of the space vehicles that are used.
Someone got revenge for the utility not burying the cable. Perhaps the installers got tired of burying the cable whilst out in the country, and just laid it on the side of the road on a farmer's plot, and said farmer got annoyed they didn't bury it and shot it up. (Guessing it was in the country given (a) it's in Ohio, which has a lot of farm land, and (b) you'd have to be so far away to not hear the gun shots...though it is near Cleveland that they're talking about...so may be not...).)
Perhaps the cable companies will sit up and start burying their cables now.
Microsoft has been known to choose the worst algorithms to implement things (see US DoJ vs. MS AntiTrust trial), so it's not surprising that Microsoft's first attempt at a user-mode sound driver implementation causes performance problems. It's also likely linked to the DRM that Microsoft had to put in to appease the various studios.
Wouldn't be surprised if a similar link was found with video playback as the video drivers are also user-mode in Vista too, and are also DRM encumbered.
Yes - I would be; however, that would only encourage them to further raise the rates to do so, and break down the "Net Neutrality" fight. However, there is still the dilemma of how to do it and really win.
See also: 0.10 history, 0.02 & 0.03 history, 0.01 history
To start with, i didn't quote any data, and quite rightfully agreed with the GP. The major point I was pulling from the quote of the GP was the following:
That said, first take a look at this post.
Second, core samples can (a) only tell so much, and (b) can be very misleading because they only give a small set of data. There is a lot we don't know about those time periods. We can extrapolate some information - like this tree grew more this year, or there was a fire, etc. But there is very little that can be had. Tree growth also does not necessarily mean a warmer year. So the relationship that "Global Warming" advocates try to put there is not necessarily there. Core samples are really of limited use, and pretending that they can provide more use than that is really just as stupid as crying out that there is a major issue when we cannot prove one.
Third, for all we know we're in the peak of a fifty, one hundred, two hundred, five hundred, one thousand, or ten thousand year cycle. However, we cannot say that is the case until we have data from several cycles. You cannot extrapolate a full cycle from a portion of a single cycle. (Any one that tells you otherwise needs to get their degree revoked.)
It's not a matter of believing in "Global Warming" or not. We cannot say one way or the other whether it is happening. There just simply is not enough data to say. Come back in a few hundred years and we'll talk about it then.
Trying to predicate what will happen when the temperatures go up is worth looking into. But claiming that we know the cause of or can do anything about it is ridiculous. That said, we still need to be good stewards - cut down on emissions, recycle, etc.
There's good points to both sides of the arguments - "Global Warming" advocates want us to be better stewards (good), but claim something that cannot be proven do strike fear in people to get them to do so (bad). (I won't call it FUD because we can't yet prove it one way or the other; but it doesn't fall far from it - and will more likely pose the same issue as "the boy who cried wolf" if & when it is provable to be true.) A lot of "Anti-Global Warming" advocates simply want us to do nothing (bad), and are pointing out that "Global Warming" can't be shown to exist for certain (good).
That said - I really don't fall in either camp. I'll neither claim it exists, nor that it does not - because it will be a long time past my lif
Personnally, I think we still don't have enough accurate data measured to say one way or the other as we still have to figure out the cycles of the earth - and no, pulling core samples from various things won't tell you that. We need to be actively recording ourselves for a lot longer time period. Thus far, we have about a century's worth of data, but even then, the early data is susceptible to more errors and/or not complete. So, probably somewhere around 2250 can we start talking about real Global Warming and have enough data that most will actually believe it.
BTW, that doesn't mean we shouldn't control emissions, recycle, etc. We should. Believing in "Global Warming" and believing we must be "Good Stewards of our Resources" are not mutually inclusive - or mutually exclusive.
True, the second one hasn't really changed much - only a few extra clicky's for new stuff they've added. However, the first one is changes all the time - namely due to content changes (news, etc.) - and is completely customizable for those with a Google Account (gmail, google calendar, etc.).
And every so often, the first one comes up when you simply type in "www.google.com", though it is usually the second. You can still flip between them using the link in the upper right hand corner just to the left of "Sign in" - click on "iGoogle" to go to the first one, and "Classic Home" to revert back.
So figure it takes a week for a gas station to go through 2,000 (it doesn't - it's shorter actually, so this is likely a best case). That would take 52 acres to support a single gas station for a year of gas. Now, figuring that there are 200,000 gas stations in the US (likely more) - that's 10,400,000 acres of land. Or, using Wikipedia to find the size of an acre, Texas, Alaska, the United States, India, and Russia...
10,400,000 acres * 4,046.8564224 sq meters/acre = 42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters / 678,051,000 sq. meters = 62.071004678055190538764783180026 land masses the size of the US State of Texas
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 1,717,855,000 sq. meters = 24.499918091433793888308384584264 land masses the size of the US State of Alaska.
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 9,631,420,000 sq. meters = 4.3697924909265715751156111975181 land masses the size of the United States
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 3,166,414,000 sq. meters = 13.29178900578382990979701327748 land masses the size of India
42,087,306,792.96 sq. meters/ 17,075,400,000 sq. meters = 2.4647918521943849045995994237324 land masses the size of Russia
That's a lot of land area - and just to support the United States. Now factor in the rest of the world and it is simply not feasible. Surely, it is a way to offset some usage, but it is not sustainable.
More likely than not, J&J is going to lose this one and lose it bad. Not only is the red cross symbol not associated with J&J in the public mind - it's associated with the Red Cross in the public mind; a very important factor - but it's also dealing with an organization that has been using it for over 100 years and doing so without license from J&J (at least according to the article).
Some in the discussions here on
About the only thing that could really make J&J win would be if they had a contract with ARC pertaining to ARC's use of the red cross mark. If so, then they could win. If not, they will likely lose it with either (a) ARC gaining the mark, and J&J having to license it from ARC, (b) the mark becoming public domain, or (c) ARC and J&J being granted joint ownership of the mark.
'c' would be similar to what Prison Fellowship Ministries and Salvation Army have worked out with respect to the mark "Angel Tree" mark that both use for Christmas time events. They have an agreement (contract/license/etc.) between them stating who owns it and granting each the right to use it. Why? Because Prison Fellowship registered it (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state
Any how...IANAL but that's my prediction. Not good for J&J though.
Also, for those claiming that ARC's use of the mark was based on Switzerland's flag and that The Red Cross is based in Switzerland...Check out these Wikipedia articles: ARC and the International. The article on J&J might also be of interest - as the ARC and J&J articles put ARC being founded 5 years before J&J - something that would also be very important and would cause J&J to lose.
The articles put first use by a RC agent in 1864, along with the Geneva Convention that founded the group that became the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which ARC is essentially the US arm of. Also see per the red cross symbol.
It really does not look good for J&J - because a lot of that predates J&J quite a bit.
And production would not have been much of a problem. For example, the greeks were known to use lots of olive oil to coat themselves with as well as for various other uses. They basically used oil like most Americans use Sun screen or tanning lotions (quantity-wise).
That doesn't mean that once fossil fuels came around that it didn't become more convenient, but they wouldn't have had much impact on boiling water.
I'd take a guess, which would probably be pretty accurate, that fossils fuels were mostly limited to company usage for a long, long time. So they made a difference in production of goods, not in home usage - which is where boiling water for tea/coffee/etc would have been.
I'd even guess that fossil fuels had more impact on obesity due to use as a heating element in the winter than it did with boiling water; as it became cheaper and easier to keep a whole building/house warmer.
Mozilla is certainly free to license their Firefox trademarks how they like, and if someone does not want to abide by that license, then they will not be able to use the trademark. In this case, it appears that Debian was not willing to abide by Mozilla's terms, so they gave up their license and renamed it to IceWeasel.
Like it or not, that's how trademarks work.
As always - IANAL.
Buy a Wii or PS3. They both run Linux and do games without any modifications necessary.
[1]See the BBC Special on Tetris (I think the title is "Tetris:From Russia with Love") - I'd link the YouTube/GooTube, but can't get to it at the moment.
Yes, and no. It depends on what you can prove about your knowledge of the material.
For example, if you buy a car from someone and it later turns out to be stolen then if you can prove you did not know it was stolen when you bought it or anytime thereafter until the police informed you, then you may be able to not be charged. However, the police will still seize the car from you. If you cannot prove that, then you will be charged as well. (Remember the Family Matters episode where the eldest son, Eddy Winslow, buys a stereo for his car, which turns out to be stolen, and then he tells his dad and loses his car too but avoids any other punishment?)
Since he already removed the offending material (or so he claims), it may be similar but will come down to what he can prove. If so, it could be that his computer may be seized depending on if they can legally do that - e.g. in Canada they can; however, I do not believe it can be done permanently in the U.S - at least in most jurisdictions.
Again, IANAL so take this with a grain of salt.