Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game.
Seems like a great opportunity for a blue-tooth headset manufacturer to differentiate their product line. Don't even advertise it as having hearing-aid functionality - if anything promote it as one of those "big ears" gimmicks like in the backs of comic books. If a $100 headset is even just 50% as good as a $5000 super-miniaturised hearing aid, word of mouth will be all it takes for them to being selling like hotcakes within a year.
Why not get fired from one, then go work for the other? Best of both worlds!
Who needs to be fired? Spit in burgers for your day job and moonlight as a TSA agent for all the passenger-probing action you can dish out.
Just be careful not to get the jobs mixed up and start probing the burgers and spitting on the passengers. At least not before somebody dreams up a movie-plot threat that can be prevented by spitting on people...
Because the guys who did the last redesign thought that using javascript was a good idea but weren't experienced enough to realize adding complexity adds bugs. Turn off javascript and you won't have that problem. At slashdot, if it works without javascript then it works better without javascript.
Furthermore, if you disagree with my premise that they are most likely using a basic posphor frequency multiplier to get multi-spectrum coverage out of the monochromatic laser, then perhaps you'd light to inform me what they really are doing. Or perhaps you wouldn't.
Reality check: the world is not RGB. Objects that reflect pure violet light do not reflect any red or blue light. Shine and RGB light on them and they show up black.
And just how many objects in the real world are that monochromatic.?
"Smearing" isn't necessary. Laser televisions works with just 3 lasers, RGB, to fool the eye into seeing white (and all the other colors in whatever ISO gamut the HDTV spec calls out). So all you need is a phosphor with 3 multipliers that work out to have enough coverage in the red, green and blue parts of the spectrum.
I'm just curious how they are making white lights?
LEDs are essentially monochromatic too. You get white light from LEDs by generating UV and using that to excite a phosphor which generates photos at a variety of visible frequencies. Presumably the lasers will work the same way,
Check again. "Allow local data to be set for the current session only" and then hit the "Manage Exceptions" button to enable whitelisting domains for permanent cookie storage.
Just use Ghostery, available for all the popular browsers (IE, Safari, Opera, Firefox, Chrome)
Not really for Chrome. It works sporadically. As in you can load a page and a random subset of trackers will be blocked, hit reload on the same page and a different random subset of trackers gets blocked.
The Ghostery developers blame Google for having a crappy API. They may be right, I don't know. Whatever the reason though it means I only use Chrome for exactly one website, "they" can track me all they want on that one website.
If Wikileaks REALLY cared that this would happen (they didn't) they would have encrypted it with a different symmetric key per recipient, or used a PKI system.
And that's precisely what they did - the file was intended ONLY for The Guardian and they got the password hand-delivered to them. You've confused the "insurance" file with the file that the Guardian's password decrypted.
That The Guardian's individualised file made out into the wild would not have been a problem if they had kept the password to themselves. After all, that's why it was encrypted especially for them in the first place - on the chance that somewhere, somehow it would be intercepted.
Trust me, WL did not give a shit that this would eventually happen.
Given your rather poor understanding of events, I don't think anyone should trust what you have to say about them.
Information wants to be free, and I do appreciate your eagerness to propagate this information, but people will die as a result of these leaked cables.
You've said that twice now. How do you know it to be true? These cables weren't internal CIA reports, most of them were not even classified and those few that were had only the lowest level of classification.
Furthermore, the information was "leaked" by the Guardian's careless publication of a password. Wikileaks officially publishing them now in an easily searchable form means anyone at risk has the ability to check for themselves if their names are mentioned - the bad guys have had the cables since at least last week, if not for the last few months following the publication of the password in February.
It is actually worse. When an off-duty cop gets hired to work for a private employer they should not have any privileges that normal private security would have - i.e. none. Anything else is abuse of power. Sadly, that's not the way it works in the US where off-duty cops get all the privileges and protections that on-duty cops get. I had a friend who was assaulted by a bouncer at a bar - she hit him back and got charged with assaulting an officer because he was an off-duty, out of uniform cop moonlighting as a bouncer.
I should think Oracle would be happy to take that and have case closed. Somehow I doubt actual damages were that high...
I doubt they were even close. But ellison comes across as the kind of guy determined to have the biggest swinging dick at the country club, so it probably isn't about what's fair but instead how hard he can beat on the competition. ORACLE - One Real Asshole Called Larry Ellison.
I am taking a world view, not a US view. This because copyright is a world wide issue. Especially as via Bern every nation have to respect the copyright issued in other nations.
Well, it seems obvious you aren't interested in a reasonable analysis, only in cherry picking. Which, I admit, was obvious to me at the start and I was stupid enough to try to engage anyway. Good luck with that.
Your argument is specious - "the french time frame" is a meaningless distinction. All of the big publishers, regardless of country, have wanted extended copyright duration. Just look at the constant extensions of copyright duration in the US long before the US joined Berne...
# 1790 - copyright lasts 14 years with an optional 14 year extension. Maximum term is 28 years. # 1831 - copyright lasts 28 years with an optional 14 year extension. Maximum term is 42 years. # 1909 - copyright lasts 28 years with an optional 28 year extension. Maximum term is 56 years. Foreign authors granted copyright. # 1962 - existing copyrights extended to 1965. Maximum term extended to 59 years. # 1965 - existing copyrights extended to 1967. Maximum term extended to 61 years. # 1967 - existing copyrights extended to 1968. Maximum term extended to 62 years. # 1968 - existing copyrights extended to 1969. Maximum term extended to 63 years. # 1969 - existing copyrights extended to 1970. Maximum term extended to 64 years. # 1970 - existing copyrights extended to 1971. Maximum term extended to 65 years.
As such, a US publisher was able to pick up a copy of LOTR during a UK visit, and create cheap printings once he got home.
Since foreign authors were granted copyright in 1909 - long before LOTR was written - that claim is incorrect.
King's family is just continuing what King himself did; copyright as much of what he said and wrote as he could, and jealously guard the rights and profits from such work. It doesn't exactly jibe with the image we have of him today, but facts are facts. The man was intent on squeezing out every dime could in this manner.
Was he really "intent on squeezing out every dime" or was it really about controlling his words to prevent them from being misused? I'm not talking about what his survivors do now, but what MLK did himself.
After all, the US copyright system does not really have an equivalent of the continental "moral right" to prevent distortion of the author's intent. So the only way to to get the same effect is to zealously pursue the US property right version of copyright.
There is clearly a typo in what you quoted. If that's not your issue, then I have to assume you are objecting to a colloquial use of a technical term. Big deal. "Coastal areas" is a term that is not strictly defined. Even the state's own website uses the term in a similar fashion with the evac zones corresponding pretty closely to the "Coastal Area Boundaries" of that atlas.
Yes, all of the big ISPs prices vary by region. But WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in china? So far your reasoning, if there is any, has been completely obtuse.
This is what journalism has come to. Writers who can't fucking write.
What, are you 12? Anyone can make a typo, especially one that passes spell-check. You want to blame anyone, blame the editors it's their job to catch those things.
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies).
The major difference being, of course, that just about anyone can see for themselves the pollution caused by man. It doesn't even take something as dastic as the Cuyhoga catching on fire either. Anyone in LA can see the smog and anyone who has lived in LA since the 70s can see the effect of 'sacrifice and prayer' (lol!). It shouldn't be all that hard to distinguish the effects of those environmental policies from some virgin sacrifice to bring a bountiful harvest.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game.
Seems like a great opportunity for a blue-tooth headset manufacturer to differentiate their product line. Don't even advertise it as having hearing-aid functionality - if anything promote it as one of those "big ears" gimmicks like in the backs of comic books. If a $100 headset is even just 50% as good as a $5000 super-miniaturised hearing aid, word of mouth will be all it takes for them to being selling like hotcakes within a year.
This is 2011 - a time when deciding to turn javascript ON is now the question.
Why not get fired from one, then go work for the other? Best of both worlds!
Who needs to be fired? Spit in burgers for your day job and moonlight as a TSA agent for all the passenger-probing action you can dish out.
Just be careful not to get the jobs mixed up and start probing the burgers and spitting on the passengers. At least not before somebody dreams up a movie-plot threat that can be prevented by spitting on people...
By filing suit Theldala Magee made exactly the right move, for me to poop on.
Theldala Magee meet Barbara Streisand.
Why does Slashdot do this?
Because the guys who did the last redesign thought that using javascript was a good idea but weren't experienced enough to realize adding complexity adds bugs.
Turn off javascript and you won't have that problem. At slashdot, if it works without javascript then it works better without javascript.
"Wrong colors" isn't a problem for headlights.
Furthermore, if you disagree with my premise that they are most likely using a basic posphor frequency multiplier to get multi-spectrum coverage out of the monochromatic laser, then perhaps you'd light to inform me what they really are doing. Or perhaps you wouldn't.
Reality check: the world is not RGB. Objects that reflect pure violet light do not reflect any red or blue light. Shine and RGB light on them and they show up black.
And just how many objects in the real world are that monochromatic.?
"Smearing" isn't necessary. Laser televisions works with just 3 lasers, RGB, to fool the eye into seeing white (and all the other colors in whatever ISO gamut the HDTV spec calls out). So all you need is a phosphor with 3 multipliers that work out to have enough coverage in the red, green and blue parts of the spectrum.
I'm just curious how they are making white lights?
LEDs are essentially monochromatic too.
You get white light from LEDs by generating UV and using that to excite a phosphor which generates photos at a variety of visible frequencies. Presumably the lasers will work the same way,
together with putting it in the "developers" section and tagging it with "programming", is highly misleading
So, you are saying that slashdot's weak typing system is a drawback?
Check again.
"Allow local data to be set for the current session only"
and then hit the "Manage Exceptions" button to enable whitelisting domains for permanent cookie storage.
Just use Ghostery, available for all the popular browsers (IE, Safari, Opera, Firefox, Chrome)
Not really for Chrome. It works sporadically. As in you can load a page and a random subset of trackers will be blocked, hit reload on the same page and a different random subset of trackers gets blocked.
The Ghostery developers blame Google for having a crappy API. They may be right, I don't know. Whatever the reason though it means I only use Chrome for exactly one website, "they" can track me all they want on that one website.
If Wikileaks REALLY cared that this would happen (they didn't) they would have encrypted it with a different symmetric key per recipient, or used a PKI system.
And that's precisely what they did - the file was intended ONLY for The Guardian and they got the password hand-delivered to them. You've confused the "insurance" file with the file that the Guardian's password decrypted.
That The Guardian's individualised file made out into the wild would not have been a problem if they had kept the password to themselves. After all, that's why it was encrypted especially for them in the first place - on the chance that somewhere, somehow it would be intercepted.
Trust me, WL did not give a shit that this would eventually happen.
Given your rather poor understanding of events, I don't think anyone should trust what you have to say about them.
Information wants to be free, and I do appreciate your eagerness to propagate this information, but people will die as a result of these leaked cables.
You've said that twice now. How do you know it to be true? These cables weren't internal CIA reports, most of them were not even classified and those few that were had only the lowest level of classification.
Furthermore, the information was "leaked" by the Guardian's careless publication of a password. Wikileaks officially publishing them now in an easily searchable form means anyone at risk has the ability to check for themselves if their names are mentioned - the bad guys have had the cables since at least last week, if not for the last few months following the publication of the password in February.
This is any better or actually any different?
It is actually worse. When an off-duty cop gets hired to work for a private employer they should not have any privileges that normal private security would have - i.e. none. Anything else is abuse of power. Sadly, that's not the way it works in the US where off-duty cops get all the privileges and protections that on-duty cops get. I had a friend who was assaulted by a bouncer at a bar - she hit him back and got charged with assaulting an officer because he was an off-duty, out of uniform cop moonlighting as a bouncer.
I should think Oracle would be happy to take that and have case closed. Somehow I doubt actual damages were that high...
I doubt they were even close. But ellison comes across as the kind of guy determined to have the biggest swinging dick at the country club, so it probably isn't about what's fair but instead how hard he can beat on the competition.
ORACLE - One Real Asshole Called Larry Ellison.
I am taking a world view, not a US view. This because copyright is a world wide issue. Especially as via Bern every nation have to respect the copyright issued in other nations.
Well, it seems obvious you aren't interested in a reasonable analysis, only in cherry picking. Which, I admit, was obvious to me at the start and I was stupid enough to try to engage anyway. Good luck with that.
Your argument is specious - "the french time frame" is a meaningless distinction. All of the big publishers, regardless of country, have wanted extended copyright duration. Just look at the constant extensions of copyright duration in the US long before the US joined Berne...
# 1790 - copyright lasts 14 years with an optional 14 year extension. Maximum term is 28 years.
# 1831 - copyright lasts 28 years with an optional 14 year extension. Maximum term is 42 years.
# 1909 - copyright lasts 28 years with an optional 28 year extension. Maximum term is 56 years. Foreign authors granted copyright.
# 1962 - existing copyrights extended to 1965. Maximum term extended to 59 years.
# 1965 - existing copyrights extended to 1967. Maximum term extended to 61 years.
# 1967 - existing copyrights extended to 1968. Maximum term extended to 62 years.
# 1968 - existing copyrights extended to 1969. Maximum term extended to 63 years.
# 1969 - existing copyrights extended to 1970. Maximum term extended to 64 years.
# 1970 - existing copyrights extended to 1971. Maximum term extended to 65 years.
As such, a US publisher was able to pick up a copy of LOTR during a UK visit, and create cheap printings once he got home.
Since foreign authors were granted copyright in 1909 - long before LOTR was written - that claim is incorrect.
And those moral rights, of french origin under "the rights of the author", is what gave the world its life+something copyright duration.
Since moral rights are not transferable, I say you are full of shit.
King's family is just continuing what King himself did; copyright as much of what he said and wrote as he could, and jealously guard the rights and profits from such work. It doesn't exactly jibe with the image we have of him today, but facts are facts. The man was intent on squeezing out every dime could in this manner.
Was he really "intent on squeezing out every dime" or was it really about controlling his words to prevent them from being misused? I'm not talking about what his survivors do now, but what MLK did himself.
After all, the US copyright system does not really have an equivalent of the continental "moral right" to prevent distortion of the author's intent. So the only way to to get the same effect is to zealously pursue the US property right version of copyright.
Lol. I can not believe you got a +5 for that bit of sophistry. For shame.
There is clearly a typo in what you quoted.
If that's not your issue, then I have to assume you are objecting to a colloquial use of a technical term. Big deal. "Coastal areas" is a term that is not strictly defined. Even the state's own website uses the term in a similar fashion with the evac zones corresponding pretty closely to the "Coastal Area Boundaries" of that atlas.
Yes, all of the big ISPs prices vary by region.
But WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
So far your reasoning, if there is any, has been completely obtuse.
"the cities coastal areas"
This is what journalism has come to. Writers who can't fucking write.
What, are you 12? Anyone can make a typo, especially one that passes spell-check. You want to blame anyone, blame the editors it's their job to catch those things.
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies).
The major difference being, of course, that just about anyone can see for themselves the pollution caused by man. It doesn't even take something as dastic as the Cuyhoga catching on fire either. Anyone in LA can see the smog and anyone who has lived in LA since the 70s can see the effect of 'sacrifice and prayer' (lol!). It shouldn't be all that hard to distinguish the effects of those environmental policies from some virgin sacrifice to bring a bountiful harvest.