I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
The patent system was not designed to stop people copying ideas, it was to stop people copying implementations of ideas.
In software, copyright law already provides that.
There are too many people in the world to give a monopoly to a single person on an idea. There is likely not a single idea you will ever have that someone, somewhere has not thought of before you.
Well I concur it is good that it is in spec that the cables can do that voltage, should have said that in the first place.
Still maintain you need modified cables for 100w simply because while 2m and longer cables can do it you have no means to know how long the cable is attached.... and you _know_ some person will just go 'oh usb' and try to pump out 100w on it otherwise.
So, we all agree, 100w shouldn't be put out on standard cables even if capable because you can't know if it can take it or not.
Because putting out 100w on a _standard_ cable without knowing if a 50cm cable is attached that can't take it _is_ god damn wreckless.
The only solution as you say is a modified cable so you can know. Now what was that you were saying about doing it over existing cabling?
48V is within insulation ratings of all USB3 cables AFAIK.
Assumptions are bad, especially when it comes to electrical safety. I'd say show that every spec compliant existing old cable is designed to do that kind of voltage and still be safety compliant insulation wise.
"She'll be right" is not decent engineering. If all existing compliant cables are rated for that by the spec of the old cables insulation requirements, then that is fine. If not we can't assume some cheap ass manufacturer didn't make a cable with unbelievably questionable insulation.
The 100W extension to USB3 (let's call it USB3.1) will limit power to 43W @ 48V when a plain USB3 cable is used (without any identification, that is).
now remember, he said for 100 watts to go over usb they would require different cables... now you are saying that oh look, to hit 100 watts safely we need a way to identify the cable can take it.... his god damn point.
Dude, where have you been, even youtube puts out 4k resolution streams if the source material is up to it (you better have a fast connection or let it buffer a _lot_ though)
To quote an american slashdotter that posted earlier on this same topic
I'm not sure what difference it would make, you'd be unlikely to go the way of the US. We kill each other more for a variety of social, racial and cultural reasons. The guns aren't really to blame, we have a higher non gun murder rate higher then meany European countries total murder rate. You could also just as easily point out the Swiss and Israel which have a plethora of fully automatic weapons and have a very low murder rate in order to make the opposite argument.
Now for your argument.
regular citizens are shot with their own guns, which is what always happens when inexperienced gun owners try to take the law into their own hands,
So... how do you propose citizens get experience with guns when they cannot own them and legally shoot them on ranges/go hunting etc with their own rifles to get familiarized with it in a safe environment with training?
The lack of availability of firearms also heavily affects the availability of training and experience with firearms. If you don't remove peoples gun rights this is not a problem with the general population. Those interested in firearms will acquire them and get experience with them. Those that aren't interested won't get them anyway.
You can get hunting rifles easily enough anywhere in the world. Part of the reason why they're so unregulated is because they're really not very good at doing anything but shooting deer.
In Australia even air rifles are completely regulated... let alone hunting rifles. Better yet all the regulation came after a _single_ shooting in one state 15 years ago. Since then the anti-gun lobby has been slowly winning, not too long now.
Hell even body armour is illegal, you require a special category firearms license for it that is pretty much impossible to get.
If a group of rioters were to break into my house with the goal of causing physical harm to those that can't effectively fight back, stealing whatever portable things they could find then torching the place, I'd probably want the police to start shooting too. Since you can't really own non-antique firearms in england so you couldn't exactly shoot them yourself.
One would think that when groups of thugs forcibly enter and try to destroy your home you would be entitled to... take measures
If you HONESTLY think that Google is not making money off of Android search?
Please explain how using an android to search google is different than using a web browser on any other platform? So we should now assume that google is responsible for any platform that makes google money? So they are responsible if firefox has a patent suit then? (hell they even pay firefox for defaulting them in the search bar). Are they responsible for lynx since users can use google with it getting them money? Surely you see the idiocy of your arguments.
And I'll leave you to boycott any company that releases OSS code that does not indemnify their users for patent threats... which is practically all OSS. Have fun with closed source proprietary software from large companies only then (hell a fair chunk of them don't even do it).
And yes, I'm such a fanboy for having a pragmatic stance. (sarcasm)
Aside from the phones they make, where is this product?
If releasing android as an open source project is a 'product' then so too are any open source projects that are capable of being used commercially by third parties.
Remember Google isn't doing this so they can hold hands with RMS and dance through the tulips, they are doing this because it MAKES THEM MONEY.
Rather, google is doing this so that people have relatively open phones and the phone manufacturers no longer have control of them any more. Google already datamines all of your searches etc anyway, and already had apps on the iphone etc with similar things as to the droid.
Droid doesn't make much if any profit for google, it's rather like salting the earth for 20km around their base to ensure attackers have a much harder time. (in this case those who would actively block google)
You are treating android like it's just another proprietary for sale by a single vendor os... it isn't. My analogy holds. Also, android is separate from the google apps, which is why completely stock android images don't come with the google tools.
In regards to what you spoke of from msft, some people don't like paying 'protection' money. I'd be far more scared of what microsoft can do once you are under their licensing terms than that of a gpl piece of software. All you do is change the problem from 'random douches can sue us because of bullshit software patents (which can happen to ANY piece of software, only ms will foot the bill if you pay protection money) to 'microsoft can rape us by changing licensing agreements at any time and we are not large enough to negotiate better terms'.
Using gpl software and having patent trolls come after you is seen by many as the lesser of two bad situations.
So.. if I write some random piece of software for my own personal uses, and release it into the world as gplv2 for anyone to use. Then others pick up and use said software and distribute it and one of them gets sued... should I front the costs of all their legal battles? By your logic, yes.
That is pretty retarded. And would stop anyone from releasing any OSS if they were held to your standards, hell I wouldn't want that kind of liability.
The only ones who view android as their product are the phone makers who use android in their products (yes I know google have a couple of their own phones too). Aside from the phones google themselves make they don't make products out of android.
As an example, say apple sues htc which has happened, how does google as a third party have any kind of influence at all on the case? It is between the two parties of the suit.
In the open source world very few if any people indemnify people for software patents, simply because you are opening yourself to essentially unlimited liability
Asking google to open themselves up to that seems pretty selfish and having them sacrifice themselves doesn't serve any useful purpose.
Your hate for google for not protecting everyone seems quite irrational and emotional. They are simply a company making their own tech and giving it away for free.... Yet they are somehow evil for for that... how much of a feeling of entitlement can you get really?
Android is basically useless to you if you want to make a change since you cannot run it on your phone.
Tell that to the masses of people that have ditched the vendor supplied version of android for customized versions.. it is actually pretty darn common amongst young people. Even non-geeks, all it takes is seeing one extra feature they like to convince and having a half hour of spare time.
Wait a second.. you are proposing boycotting google because they have not single handedly disposed of the entirety of software patents?!?
That is just silly. Google has to work with what it has to work with. While it would be ideal if google could single handedly lobby *cough* bribe *cough* enough politicians to remove all software patents it is unrealistic and unfair of you to expect them to do so, same with just handling every existing patent threat only to have thousands more continue to try, patent suits are the symptom, the cause is patent law.
If you truly want FOSS to succeed, then don't boycott google, that achieves nothing, instead educate and rally people together that the very basis of a single person owning an idea in an age where there are six billion of us is absurd.
Google can never match the iPhone experience with Android.
Considering almost all 'new' ios features released in the last two years have been on android six months to a year beforehand, it seems apple is the one playing catch-up there. Even the basic notification system in ios was extremely lacking.
So, not only can Apple compete with free (and do so extremely successfully), with Android, they don't even have to!
This I agree with, who needs to compete when you have a product that people will purchase and praise regardless of flaws.
SO FAR the people trying to make it available elsewhere haven't been sued.
You make it sound like that is a bad thing... patent claims can be made against pretty much any piece of software these days, nothing is immune. If you were to exclude anything capable of having a patent suit against it, you would not be running software.
Why would I do that? There are plenty of open multi-platform languages and frameworks with equally impressive promises of productivity.
Different designs yield different benefits. If you do not expose yourself to varying tech you will never know which is more suited to what. And c# at least doesn't exactly have much of a learning curve if you are familiar with c or java style syntax.
What is the likelihood that the business oriented app I implement in.Net will ever be usable to Ernie Ball?
I'd say pretty darn good. Only a very very small subset which is clearly defined as windows only and not part of standard.net is what you cannot use.
It seems that if multi-platform is one of my criteria, I should stick to things that are truly intended to be multi-platform and avoid those that are meant to lure me into using a single platform feature.
THIS is why you don't see many.net programs not running on windows, linux people just do posix compliant stuff or use cross platform libraries instead of using managed code. There is very much a severe 'it's from microsoft, it will burn' sentiment also. While I understand hesitance in that instance there is nothing technically wrong with using.net for some projects, and some linux apps do in fact use it.
I have a strong preference for native code also, however there is a time and a place for managed code where it can be very beneficial.
I haven't seen a lot of.Net based programs ever running on anything but Windows,
Things written for.net can (so long as certain later windows-only things were not used) typically just straight run on linux. No wine needed. Thanks to mono I never had to touch windows even in my c# units at uni.
Those that employ critical thought do not believe in ideas that are not falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable it cannot be tested and passing/failing tests is how 'evidence' is made. While you never know for certain anything is true you can hope to get closer and closer to the truth by employing more tests.
Most atheists simply accept that there is no logical reason, nor could there ever be, to believe in god (because of the lack of falsifiability)
Re:Blurring is less objectionable
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
my point is that the blurring is less objectionable to the human visual system than the "top 7 rows will all be dark" algorithm that you suggested earlier. It's ideally indistinguishable from imperfect focus in front of the CCD.
If people didn't care about having heavily blurred images... we wouldn't be having this discussion.
People prefer sharp images to blurred ones when it comes to content they want to check out. If they did not the masses would not have said 'this looks like ass' when people started attaching their ps2's to their hdtvs compared with their sd display devices.
I have voiced this before, but what about those of us who have, enjoy, and can afford vehicles that don't get great fuel econ, go fast as hell, and are generally fun to drive?
Get a motorcycle, for the price of a typical car you can get one that will go faster than any car you did not pay the equivalent of multiple homes for.
"We provide you services in exchange for trying to put you into a demographic based from your information" - how can this be described as evil? Seems like a typical business transaction to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
The patent system was not designed to stop people copying ideas, it was to stop people copying implementations of ideas.
In software, copyright law already provides that.
There are too many people in the world to give a monopoly to a single person on an idea. There is likely not a single idea you will ever have that someone, somewhere has not thought of before you.
You know, on account of the fact that stationary reactors are much less likely to crash and spew parts everywhere.
The fact remains you will still need a source of energy in the vehicle whether that be thorium or very good capacitors with batteries.
Right now if you're very unlucky you could always get a fuel tank rupture, something gets lit and you're screwed.
With batteries, you could always get unlucky in a crash and get an electrical short causing an electrical fire.
Same deal with using thorium with heat reactors.
Cars need energy... so long as they store energy, the danger will be there in a crash.
Years ago he posted here on occasion and I even remember seeing small active discussions on rendering technique technical points etc.
It has been ages since I've last seen this, which makes me ponder if he even reads slashdot these days when topics related to him are posted.
Well I concur it is good that it is in spec that the cables can do that voltage, should have said that in the first place.
Still maintain you need modified cables for 100w simply because while 2m and longer cables can do it you have no means to know how long the cable is attached.... and you _know_ some person will just go 'oh usb' and try to pump out 100w on it otherwise.
So, we all agree, 100w shouldn't be put out on standard cables even if capable because you can't know if it can take it or not.
Because putting out 100w on a _standard_ cable without knowing if a 50cm cable is attached that can't take it _is_ god damn wreckless.
The only solution as you say is a modified cable so you can know. Now what was that you were saying about doing it over existing cabling?
48V is within insulation ratings of all USB3 cables AFAIK.
Assumptions are bad, especially when it comes to electrical safety. I'd say show that every spec compliant existing old cable is designed to do that kind of voltage and still be safety compliant insulation wise.
"She'll be right" is not decent engineering. If all existing compliant cables are rated for that by the spec of the old cables insulation requirements, then that is fine. If not we can't assume some cheap ass manufacturer didn't make a cable with unbelievably questionable insulation.
The 100W extension to USB3 (let's call it USB3.1) will limit power to 43W @ 48V when a plain USB3 cable is used (without any identification, that is).
now remember, he said for 100 watts to go over usb they would require different cables... now you are saying that oh look, to hit 100 watts safely we need a way to identify the cable can take it.... his god damn point.
Yes, this is precisely why you have and need free speech zones
do you have cinema resolution source files?
Dude, where have you been, even youtube puts out 4k resolution streams if the source material is up to it (you better have a fast connection or let it buffer a _lot_ though)
To quote an american slashdotter that posted earlier on this same topic
I'm not sure what difference it would make, you'd be unlikely to go the way of the US. We kill each other more for a variety of social, racial and cultural reasons. The guns aren't really to blame, we have a higher non gun murder rate higher then meany European countries total murder rate. You could also just as easily point out the Swiss and Israel which have a plethora of fully automatic weapons and have a very low murder rate in order to make the opposite argument.
Now for your argument.
regular citizens are shot with their own guns, which is what always happens when inexperienced gun owners try to take the law into their own hands,
So... how do you propose citizens get experience with guns when they cannot own them and legally shoot them on ranges/go hunting etc with their own rifles to get familiarized with it in a safe environment with training?
The lack of availability of firearms also heavily affects the availability of training and experience with firearms. If you don't remove peoples gun rights this is not a problem with the general population. Those interested in firearms will acquire them and get experience with them. Those that aren't interested won't get them anyway.
You can get hunting rifles easily enough anywhere in the world. Part of the reason why they're so unregulated is because they're really not very good at doing anything but shooting deer.
In Australia even air rifles are completely regulated... let alone hunting rifles. Better yet all the regulation came after a _single_ shooting in one state 15 years ago. Since then the anti-gun lobby has been slowly winning, not too long now.
Hell even body armour is illegal, you require a special category firearms license for it that is pretty much impossible to get.
If a group of rioters were to break into my house with the goal of causing physical harm to those that can't effectively fight back, stealing whatever portable things they could find then torching the place, I'd probably want the police to start shooting too. Since you can't really own non-antique firearms in england so you couldn't exactly shoot them yourself.
One would think that when groups of thugs forcibly enter and try to destroy your home you would be entitled to... take measures
If you HONESTLY think that Google is not making money off of Android search?
Please explain how using an android to search google is different than using a web browser on any other platform? So we should now assume that google is responsible for any platform that makes google money? So they are responsible if firefox has a patent suit then? (hell they even pay firefox for defaulting them in the search bar). Are they responsible for lynx since users can use google with it getting them money? Surely you see the idiocy of your arguments.
And I'll leave you to boycott any company that releases OSS code that does not indemnify their users for patent threats... which is practically all OSS. Have fun with closed source proprietary software from large companies only then (hell a fair chunk of them don't even do it).
And yes, I'm such a fanboy for having a pragmatic stance. (sarcasm)
Google, unlike your example, releases a product
Aside from the phones they make, where is this product?
If releasing android as an open source project is a 'product' then so too are any open source projects that are capable of being used commercially by third parties.
Remember Google isn't doing this so they can hold hands with RMS and dance through the tulips, they are doing this because it MAKES THEM MONEY.
Rather, google is doing this so that people have relatively open phones and the phone manufacturers no longer have control of them any more. Google already datamines all of your searches etc anyway, and already had apps on the iphone etc with similar things as to the droid.
Droid doesn't make much if any profit for google, it's rather like salting the earth for 20km around their base to ensure attackers have a much harder time. (in this case those who would actively block google)
You are treating android like it's just another proprietary for sale by a single vendor os... it isn't. My analogy holds. Also, android is separate from the google apps, which is why completely stock android images don't come with the google tools.
In regards to what you spoke of from msft, some people don't like paying 'protection' money. I'd be far more scared of what microsoft can do once you are under their licensing terms than that of a gpl piece of software. All you do is change the problem from 'random douches can sue us because of bullshit software patents (which can happen to ANY piece of software, only ms will foot the bill if you pay protection money) to 'microsoft can rape us by changing licensing agreements at any time and we are not large enough to negotiate better terms'.
Using gpl software and having patent trolls come after you is seen by many as the lesser of two bad situations.
So.. if I write some random piece of software for my own personal uses, and release it into the world as gplv2 for anyone to use. Then others pick up and use said software and distribute it and one of them gets sued... should I front the costs of all their legal battles? By your logic, yes.
That is pretty retarded. And would stop anyone from releasing any OSS if they were held to your standards, hell I wouldn't want that kind of liability.
The only ones who view android as their product are the phone makers who use android in their products (yes I know google have a couple of their own phones too). Aside from the phones google themselves make they don't make products out of android.
As an example, say apple sues htc which has happened, how does google as a third party have any kind of influence at all on the case? It is between the two parties of the suit.
In the open source world very few if any people indemnify people for software patents, simply because you are opening yourself to essentially unlimited liability
Asking google to open themselves up to that seems pretty selfish and having them sacrifice themselves doesn't serve any useful purpose.
Your hate for google for not protecting everyone seems quite irrational and emotional. They are simply a company making their own tech and giving it away for free.... Yet they are somehow evil for for that... how much of a feeling of entitlement can you get really?
Android is basically useless to you if you want to make a change since you cannot run it on your phone.
Tell that to the masses of people that have ditched the vendor supplied version of android for customized versions.. it is actually pretty darn common amongst young people. Even non-geeks, all it takes is seeing one extra feature they like to convince and having a half hour of spare time.
Wait a second.. you are proposing boycotting google because they have not single handedly disposed of the entirety of software patents?!?
That is just silly. Google has to work with what it has to work with. While it would be ideal if google could single handedly lobby *cough* bribe *cough* enough politicians to remove all software patents it is unrealistic and unfair of you to expect them to do so, same with just handling every existing patent threat only to have thousands more continue to try, patent suits are the symptom, the cause is patent law.
If you truly want FOSS to succeed, then don't boycott google, that achieves nothing, instead educate and rally people together that the very basis of a single person owning an idea in an age where there are six billion of us is absurd.
Google can never match the iPhone experience with Android.
Considering almost all 'new' ios features released in the last two years have been on android six months to a year beforehand, it seems apple is the one playing catch-up there. Even the basic notification system in ios was extremely lacking.
So, not only can Apple compete with free (and do so extremely successfully), with Android, they don't even have to!
This I agree with, who needs to compete when you have a product that people will purchase and praise regardless of flaws.
And I can get Windows out of my computer. I can't get Google out of my phone.
Sure you can, just most people find the integration more convenient by a long stretch. You can run android without it reporting anything to google.
SO FAR the people trying to make it available elsewhere haven't been sued.
You make it sound like that is a bad thing... patent claims can be made against pretty much any piece of software these days, nothing is immune. If you were to exclude anything capable of having a patent suit against it, you would not be running software.
Why would I do that? There are plenty of open multi-platform languages and frameworks with equally impressive promises of productivity.
Different designs yield different benefits. If you do not expose yourself to varying tech you will never know which is more suited to what. And c# at least doesn't exactly have much of a learning curve if you are familiar with c or java style syntax.
What is the likelihood that the business oriented app I implement in .Net will ever be usable to Ernie Ball?
I'd say pretty darn good. Only a very very small subset which is clearly defined as windows only and not part of standard .net is what you cannot use.
It seems that if multi-platform is one of my criteria, I should stick to things that are truly intended to be multi-platform and avoid those that are meant to lure me into using a single platform feature.
THIS is why you don't see many .net programs not running on windows, linux people just do posix compliant stuff or use cross platform libraries instead of using managed code. There is very much a severe 'it's from microsoft, it will burn' sentiment also. While I understand hesitance in that instance there is nothing technically wrong with using .net for some projects, and some linux apps do in fact use it.
I have a strong preference for native code also, however there is a time and a place for managed code where it can be very beneficial.
I haven't seen a lot of .Net based programs ever running on anything but Windows,
Things written for .net can (so long as certain later windows-only things were not used) typically just straight run on linux. No wine needed. Thanks to mono I never had to touch windows even in my c# units at uni.
That's why it isn't cross-platform.
Mono
Those that employ critical thought do not believe in ideas that are not falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable it cannot be tested and passing/failing tests is how 'evidence' is made. While you never know for certain anything is true you can hope to get closer and closer to the truth by employing more tests.
Most atheists simply accept that there is no logical reason, nor could there ever be, to believe in god (because of the lack of falsifiability)
my point is that the blurring is less objectionable to the human visual system than the "top 7 rows will all be dark" algorithm that you suggested earlier. It's ideally indistinguishable from imperfect focus in front of the CCD.
If people didn't care about having heavily blurred images... we wouldn't be having this discussion.
People prefer sharp images to blurred ones when it comes to content they want to check out. If they did not the masses would not have said 'this looks like ass' when people started attaching their ps2's to their hdtvs compared with their sd display devices.
I have voiced this before, but what about those of us who have, enjoy, and can afford vehicles that don't get great fuel econ, go fast as hell, and are generally fun to drive?
Get a motorcycle, for the price of a typical car you can get one that will go faster than any car you did not pay the equivalent of multiple homes for.
"We provide you services in exchange for trying to put you into a demographic based from your information" - how can this be described as evil? Seems like a typical business transaction to me.