I think Anonymous Coward is just having some fun with ya'll and trying to get a rise out of you. No one would likely really be that bizarrely obtuse and stubborn on such a subject.
Apple's design input (and financial support) into ARM goes back to the 1980's.
From wikipedia...
"In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[27][28][29] which became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[30]
The new Apple-ARM work would eventually evolve into the ARM6, first released in early 1992. Apple used the ARM6-based ARM610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA. In 1994,"
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
by Charliemopps (1157495) Alter Relationship on Friday May 02, 2014 @10:52AM (#46899181)
"I'm generally a Google fan"http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
The problem with various transplant approaches is that they don't cure type 2 diabetes, since it's the reactive cells in the body that are resistant to insulin, rather then the insulin producing cells not working.
And in type 1 diabetes, the autoimmune reaction will destroy any transplanted cells over time, just as it did the original cells.
I think the future is in polymer encapsulated islet cells, where transplanted islets (hopefully grown from the patient's own dwindling supply) are coated in a polymer that allows insulin out and O2/nuetrients in, but selectively blocks antibody's.
Actually, there is disclosure on this. It is stated outright at the bottom of the article (One does need to read the whole thing to find out...)
From the article:
"Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy."
Actually, many folks misread this section of the DMCA. The DMCA allows an individual to circumvent copy protection for thier own use through the "fair use" provision.
What it prohibits is the disemination of knowlege and tools on how to circumvent copy protection.
Anyone is free to do anything they want to rid themselves of any copy protection on media they own...as long as they keep the knowlege of it entirely to themselves. (There are some exceptions for encryption research and, to a lesser extent security research, as well)
If they follow the original proposal, there will not be a location requirement for 911, just a requirement for 911 connectivity. That is, if you dial 911 on a VoIP phone you will get a 911 operator...but you will still need to tell that operator your location.
Some VoIP vendors may impliment a primary residence that gets displayed to 911 operators, but this would be optional.
Currently if you dial 911 on a VoIP phone, you will only get a 911 operator if your VoIP vendor has implimented the feature voluntarily.
A quick, but important, correction (just in case we have a cadre of folks who want to communicate with subs)...
Communicating with submarines at depth requires extremely low frequencies not high frequencies.
(This also means a lower bandwidth folks...sorry)
A cable card is a hardware card, issued by your cable provider, that allows the decoding of cable channels that are broadcast with encryption.
I don't believe any of the large cable companies are currently issuing cable cards, but they are supposed to start issuing them by the end of 2006.
Cable cards are required for any third party hardware to decode encrypted channels on third party hardware. Pretty much all extra content (HBO, Pay-Per-View, etc.) is encrypted, and most of the cable companies are concidering, or already have, started to encrypt non-extra content as well (that is any content above "basic-cable" level).
The "emergency brake" is really just a parking break or "hill holding break" (designed to hold a car on a hill while engaging a manual transmission). Generally, enough force cannot be applied by the "emrgency brakes" to slow down a rapidly moving car without significant stopping distance.
The "emergency break" also has the added disadvantage of ususally being attached to only two wheel breaks. Because of this, when applied at higher speeds, they tend to spin the car (usful for sheading speed only if you are an expert and have the road clearence - also usefull for "cool bootlegger moves").
Since the term half-life is the time it takes for one half of a pile of material to convert to another more stable material, well really.... this would be 3/4 life 1. The first would be half the material, and the second would be a half of what was left (or a quarter of the original amount).
My what a useless, off-topic, post I have created!
Oddly enough, the young-kids programing on the Disney Channel does not have any commercials during the shows and only has commercials for other programming between the shows. I don't know how they do it, but they put out a very high quality product as well.
Instead of LASIK, you could also go with Photorefractive keratectomy. This is a proceedure with similar results (for a smaller subset of problems). Rather slicing a flap out of the cornea, it etches small lines in the cornea which cause it to reshape.
There is a slower recovery time, but the main advantage over LASIK is that it does not siginificantly weaken the cornea (and is accepted by the military, police departments, etc.)
Re:Manufacturing tolerances for full 1080i support
on
CableCARDs and HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there is one manufacturer that has a full 1080i/p DLP chip in a readily availible projector.
Once there is a large enough dataset of pictures (and that really is the key to making more then a travelog), I like the idea of combining something like this with a satalite imaging service so you can feel like you are really zooming in.
To me it has the potential to help provide context to the places that you here about on the news or that students are assigned to research. Plus, it's just plain neat!
Actually, because of the need to keep corporate customers who are on on the software assurance plan happy (short and sweet definition: they pay for three years worth of upgrades at a pop), Microsoft absolutly does not want to push back the upgrade cycle too far.
If the cycle goes beyond three years, then it becomes cheaper for corporate customers to buy the full version of a product and Microsoft loses out on a near-perpetual revenue stream.
For this reason, it is likely that Microsoft will release an interem "Windows XP Plus" (probably not very compelling) prior to Longhorn, so that the corporate customers feel like they got thier money worth...
Sure, how this avoids the near-fate of mp3.com is that it never streams out more then the number of copies owned by the sender (unlike mp3.com which relied on on an unproovable establishment of the reciver owning the music instead of the sender).
You are right in that, it might not avoid the compulsary 3.5 cent per song compulsary licensing fee, however. Interestingly enough, Cringly may have (sort of) actually pointed out one exception. Change the word shareholder to the word employee, and you can get a coompulsary license excemption under USC Title 17 Sec. 114 (d) (II & iv) if you are transmitting to your employees at thier place of employment: "a transmission within a business establishment, confined to its premises or the immediately surrounding vicinity;" is excepmted. Ok, so perhaps this is only a mental excercise...
Otherways of being exemted from the digital transmission compulsary licensing:
Transmit the music recoded to matahmatically recreate the waveform of the music, thus constituting an analog, non-fcc licensed transmission, which is excempt.
Transmit only music videos that are properly purchased by the sender. Music videos fall under AV laws and are fully rentable/loanable. (folks don't have to watch if they don't want).
At the very worst, if wanting to avoid any possiblilty of an infringement suit, just get enough people to donate $150 million to start the thing up and run it as a not-for-profit lending library. Again, streaming the audio and limiting the number of streams per song to the owned number to avoid a legal restrictions there.
That's why you don't lend or sell the CD or any fixed copy of the song. You stream the song.
USC Title 17, Section 109 does not apply to:
"a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product"
Not true. Under this scheme you never copy it to the users computer. You streeeeam it to a single point. Remember, one copy in memory is legal...as long as it is not "fixed".
It is no different than any corporation that has a library of CD's for check out. (and no different from a Blockbuster video, or a used CD store) As long as o one makes copies of the CD's, everything is legal. In this sceme no copies are made beyond what has been paid for.
So for profit is fine in this instance.
Just never have out more then is owned at one time and you are free and clear.
There is a way something sort of like this could work. It would require a far more substantial up front cost, however.
Imagine a corporation does an IPO and raises, say $150 million. They use that $150 million to buy 100 copies each of the top 5000 CD's, and maybe 25 copies each of another 100,000 CD's. Each CD probably has around 10 tracks. So this corporation now owns around 30 million song tracks.
No RIAA control of the music, and no copyright violation so far.
Then they sell a "library type" subscription to folks for a buck a month or whatever or just only allow shareholds to log in and keep it free (in this case, perhaps, bandwidth could be paid for by interst on excess capital or music could be served via a distributed network).
Then they either:
1) Let people borrow any song from the library that they want to listen to and, as long as all the owned copies are not currently "checked out" folks can listen to whatever they want whenever they want.
Or, to expand on the idea
2) Let people que up a song list and, as copies the songs they want become avialible, they get streamed in. That way you never violate copyright, folks get to hear exactly what they want (like a personal radio station) and you even avoid broadcast fees, because it's just an individual listening to a single owned copy of a song. No different, legally, then going to the library and checking out a CD really.
Past constitutional interpretation and legislation has lead to greater restrictions on the free speech of minors to some degree (primarily in restricting the sales of obscene material). But it is not true that this proposed video game legislation merely extends what is already prohibited by law.
Laws restricting viewing of material as portrayed in the regulated games do not currently exist for most other mediums. Movie age restriction are industry imposed, not legislated (although the movie industry imposed those restrictions to avoid possible legislation). Books depicting the exact same material are completely unrestricted.
I'm not saying that this isn't an important social issue. Decent descriptions on the game boxes, and parental involvement should definitely happen. It's just that this legislation would take away a right (privilege?) that does, indeed, exist now for other mediums.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Anonymous Coward is just having some fun with ya'll and trying to get a rise out of you. No one would likely really be that bizarrely obtuse and stubborn on such a subject. Apple's design input (and financial support) into ARM goes back to the 1980's. From wikipedia... "In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[27][28][29] which became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[30] The new Apple-ARM work would eventually evolve into the ARM6, first released in early 1992. Apple used the ARM6-based ARM610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA. In 1994,"
Good! (Score:3, Insightful) by Charliemopps (1157495) Alter Relationship on Friday May 02, 2014 @10:52AM (#46899181) "I'm generally a Google fan" http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Next question.
Nice!
The problem with various transplant approaches is that they don't cure type 2 diabetes, since it's the reactive cells in the body that are resistant to insulin, rather then the insulin producing cells not working. And in type 1 diabetes, the autoimmune reaction will destroy any transplanted cells over time, just as it did the original cells. I think the future is in polymer encapsulated islet cells, where transplanted islets (hopefully grown from the patient's own dwindling supply) are coated in a polymer that allows insulin out and O2/nuetrients in, but selectively blocks antibody's.
Actually, there is disclosure on this. It is stated outright at the bottom of the article (One does need to read the whole thing to find out...) From the article: "Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy."
Actually, many folks misread this section of the DMCA. The DMCA allows an individual to circumvent copy protection for thier own use through the "fair use" provision.
What it prohibits is the disemination of knowlege and tools on how to circumvent copy protection.
Anyone is free to do anything they want to rid themselves of any copy protection on media they own...as long as they keep the knowlege of it entirely to themselves. (There are some exceptions for encryption research and, to a lesser extent security research, as well)
If they follow the original proposal, there will not be a location requirement for 911, just a requirement for 911 connectivity. That is, if you dial 911 on a VoIP phone you will get a 911 operator...but you will still need to tell that operator your location. Some VoIP vendors may impliment a primary residence that gets displayed to 911 operators, but this would be optional. Currently if you dial 911 on a VoIP phone, you will only get a 911 operator if your VoIP vendor has implimented the feature voluntarily.
A quick, but important, correction (just in case we have a cadre of folks who want to communicate with subs)... Communicating with submarines at depth requires extremely low frequencies not high frequencies. (This also means a lower bandwidth folks...sorry)
A cable card is a hardware card, issued by your cable provider, that allows the decoding of cable channels that are broadcast with encryption. I don't believe any of the large cable companies are currently issuing cable cards, but they are supposed to start issuing them by the end of 2006. Cable cards are required for any third party hardware to decode encrypted channels on third party hardware. Pretty much all extra content (HBO, Pay-Per-View, etc.) is encrypted, and most of the cable companies are concidering, or already have, started to encrypt non-extra content as well (that is any content above "basic-cable" level).
The "emergency brake" is really just a parking break or "hill holding break" (designed to hold a car on a hill while engaging a manual transmission). Generally, enough force cannot be applied by the "emrgency brakes" to slow down a rapidly moving car without significant stopping distance. The "emergency break" also has the added disadvantage of ususally being attached to only two wheel breaks. Because of this, when applied at higher speeds, they tend to spin the car (usful for sheading speed only if you are an expert and have the road clearence - also usefull for "cool bootlegger moves").
Since the term half-life is the time it takes for one half of a pile of material to convert to another more stable material, well really.... this would be 3/4 life 1. The first would be half the material, and the second would be a half of what was left (or a quarter of the original amount). My what a useless, off-topic, post I have created!
Oddly enough, the young-kids programing on the Disney Channel does not have any commercials during the shows and only has commercials for other programming between the shows. I don't know how they do it, but they put out a very high quality product as well.
Instead of LASIK, you could also go with Photorefractive keratectomy. This is a proceedure with similar results (for a smaller subset of problems). Rather slicing a flap out of the cornea, it etches small lines in the cornea which cause it to reshape. There is a slower recovery time, but the main advantage over LASIK is that it does not siginificantly weaken the cornea (and is accepted by the military, police departments, etc.)
Barco D-Cine Premiere DP100
Once there is a large enough dataset of pictures (and that really is the key to making more then a travelog), I like the idea of combining something like this with a satalite imaging service so you can feel like you are really zooming in.
To me it has the potential to help provide context to the places that you here about on the news or that students are assigned to research. Plus, it's just plain neat!
Actually, because of the need to keep corporate customers who are on on the software assurance plan happy (short and sweet definition: they pay for three years worth of upgrades at a pop), Microsoft absolutly does not want to push back the upgrade cycle too far.
If the cycle goes beyond three years, then it becomes cheaper for corporate customers to buy the full version of a product and Microsoft loses out on a near-perpetual revenue stream.
For this reason, it is likely that Microsoft will release an interem "Windows XP Plus" (probably not very compelling) prior to Longhorn, so that the corporate customers feel like they got thier money worth...
Sounds like you read Heinlein's "The moon is a Harsh Mistress", eh.
Great book...and good use of moon base launched rocks...
Well, darn it all anyway then!
Thanks for helping me play out this line of reasoning a bit!
(and for ignoring my gross spelling and gramatical errors as they compounded with the lateness of the hour).
Sure, how this avoids the near-fate of mp3.com is that it never streams out more then the number of copies owned by the sender (unlike mp3.com which relied on on an unproovable establishment of the reciver owning the music instead of the sender).
You are right in that, it might not avoid the compulsary 3.5 cent per song compulsary licensing fee, however. Interestingly enough, Cringly may have (sort of) actually pointed out one exception. Change the word shareholder to the word employee, and you can get a coompulsary license excemption under USC Title 17 Sec. 114 (d) (II & iv) if you are transmitting to your employees at thier place of employment: "a transmission within a business establishment, confined to its premises or the immediately surrounding vicinity;" is excepmted. Ok, so perhaps this is only a mental excercise...
Otherways of being exemted from the digital transmission compulsary licensing:
Transmit the music recoded to matahmatically recreate the waveform of the music, thus constituting an analog, non-fcc licensed transmission, which is excempt.
Transmit only music videos that are properly purchased by the sender. Music videos fall under AV laws and are fully rentable/loanable. (folks don't have to watch if they don't want).
But, hey it is indeed late...
At the very worst, if wanting to avoid any possiblilty of an infringement suit, just get enough people to donate $150 million to start the thing up and run it as a not-for-profit lending library. Again, streaming the audio and limiting the number of streams per song to the owned number to avoid a legal restrictions there.
That's why you don't lend or sell the CD or any fixed copy of the song. You stream the song.
USC Title 17, Section 109 does not apply to:
"a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product"
Not true. Under this scheme you never copy it to the users computer. You streeeeam it to a single point. Remember, one copy in memory is legal...as long as it is not "fixed".
It is no different than any corporation that has a library of CD's for check out. (and no different from a Blockbuster video, or a used CD store) As long as o one makes copies of the CD's, everything is legal. In this sceme no copies are made beyond what has been paid for.
So for profit is fine in this instance.
Just never have out more then is owned at one time and you are free and clear.
There is a way something sort of like this could work. It would require a far more substantial up front cost, however.
Imagine a corporation does an IPO and raises, say $150 million. They use that $150 million to buy 100 copies each of the top 5000 CD's, and maybe 25 copies each of another 100,000 CD's. Each CD probably has around 10 tracks. So this corporation now owns around 30 million song tracks.
No RIAA control of the music, and no copyright violation so far.
Then they sell a "library type" subscription to folks for a buck a month or whatever or just only allow shareholds to log in and keep it free (in this case, perhaps, bandwidth could be paid for by interst on excess capital or music could be served via a distributed network).
Then they either:
1) Let people borrow any song from the library that they want to listen to and, as long as all the owned copies are not currently "checked out" folks can listen to whatever they want whenever they want.
Or, to expand on the idea
2) Let people que up a song list and, as copies the songs they want become avialible, they get streamed in. That way you never violate copyright, folks get to hear exactly what they want (like a personal radio station) and you even avoid broadcast fees, because it's just an individual listening to a single owned copy of a song. No different, legally, then going to the library and checking out a CD really.
Past constitutional interpretation and legislation has lead to greater restrictions on the free speech of minors to some degree (primarily in restricting the sales of obscene material). But it is not true that this proposed video game legislation merely extends what is already prohibited by law.
Laws restricting viewing of material as portrayed in the regulated games do not currently exist for most other mediums. Movie age restriction are industry imposed, not legislated (although the movie industry imposed those restrictions to avoid possible legislation). Books depicting the exact same material are completely unrestricted.
I'm not saying that this isn't an important social issue. Decent descriptions on the game boxes, and parental involvement should definitely happen. It's just that this legislation would take away a right (privilege?) that does, indeed, exist now for other mediums.