Err... Yes - and if you actually read the article you linked, it's saying that if you edit the sound to be different than video, then you get effects that differ from the sound when listened to. In real life - when the sight and video are not intentionally disturbed - it helps.
Moores law is hitting a wall - and sharply limits the possibility of simply improving the speed of increasing the performance of single-core processors.
Interestingly however, one alternative - in addition to magical as-yet-unthought of technology is single purpose cores that remain switched off most of the time, and are only powered up to do a specific task very efficiently.
That's not required under my reading. The full text of the original law referred to is 'use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; '
It is quite arguable that VPNing into a virtual screen of a terminal is in fact compliant with the law - as long as it does not allow >1 person to view it at once.
It specifically refers in the body of the judgement to not putting libraries that had digitised books at an advantage' - so you can't digitise a book, and show it to more than one person at once. (unless you have more than one physical copy). If the physical copy goes away, so does your right to show it. It's not clear you have the right in that case to keep the digital copy.
It is several times noted that it's a 1:1 based on physical books. One of the most important reasons for digitisation would be to protect physical books from being lost. Digital books, of course, can be backed up.
The judgement does not quite help with that - if a paper book is disposed of, destroyed, or catches fire - you lose the right to at the least display it - it is not clear to me that you have any right to retain the digital copy.
"use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; "
This has some problems. If you digitise your collection, can you only provide access at the site you digitised it at? At any building in the same complex? At any building managed by the same entity as the original digiser? At any library with inter-library loan arrangements with the first library?
The judgement diddn't address this, they just said the fundamental right existed.
Another major hole in the judgement is 'by communication' - unless this is separately defined - one could imagine it being OK to connect (with DRM) to some dedicated terminal which provided copies of books via your phone or tablet.
The judgement also notes that it's free for national lawmakers to permit libraries to print or give digital copies - if the original publisher is properly compensated - even if the original publisher declines this. This could vastly free up access to some books where the publisher is unidentifiable.
In this case - the broadcast arm of the BBC only has the rights to broadcast certain shows in certain locations. It is violating the copyright of the original provider to use them outside agreed borders of those locations. If you are accessing the BBC via a VPN in the UK - you are in fact violating the copyright terms - even if you are accessing a free service.
As to the point raised by a commenter - yes, of course you should be able to pay for access - but this access can't (apart from BBC self-produced content) be assumed by the BBC, it would need to be separately negotiated by the BBC.
There is a difference between no identifying information, and no information. Rips of DVDs, for example, would be information - but they would not contain any identification other than the program used to make them, and the DVDs in question.
'This is where I think we get in trouble with forensic science. Certain things, like finger prints and DNA, can exonerate a suspect but we have seen enough analysis around here to know that it is a fallacy to think that these things prove guilt. it only proves guilt if we assume the probability of guilt is 100% initially. When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.'
However, in this case, they were comparing not against a database of millions, but one of several possibilities.
This relies on the GPL 'you can't distribute at all if you can't comply with the licence' - if you distribute with a binary blob (effectively) that you have no rights to in your allegedly GPL codebase - then you're in violation of the GPL.
You can then come into compliance with the GPL in principle by supplying source for that blob. It is possible that the only way that compliance could be done is to release the whole of minecraft under the GPL - but the impossibilty of that does not factor into the legality of distributing.
The only way you can be forced to release source code is for a judge to compel you to release source code, after a copyright suit. They are probably more likely to assess financial damages - rather than compelling release of source code. I'm not aware of any compulsory release of source code ever happening.
The cop cameras will presumably have evidential and tamper resistant design. if you're concerned about off-camera and camera broken incidents - it would be interesting if you could also purchase one of them.
Every second of video GPS timestamped, and the GPS logs extracted and used to index the video.
Privacy is a hard topic. To a degree - I find the fact a police officer, who could have arrested someone was on the scene - makes the case rather different from that of a random surveillance camera.
My starting point would be that all video from cameras while the cop is in a public place have a much, much, much lower threshold for access.
18 petabytes a year isn't much. Taking the assumption above that there are 5000 cameras working at once. They are paid around $35/hour. This would make the wage bill 1.5 billion. Budget is $5B - so this seems order of magnitude right. 18 petabytes, on amazon redshifts '$1000/tbyear' is only $18M. It seems quite plausible to get that to $5m without trying really hard.
Perhaps more important than storage, is access. It should be possible to say 'show me a list of officers and car cameras within 1000 yards of 1 WTC between 8Am and 9am last friday'.
And yes - this implies the cameras must have GPS too.
'Patents are supposed to be for inventions, not just "useful things".'
Quite.
Patents were originally meant to be a trade - you got protection in exchange for showing how your device worked that may take months or years to reinvent.
You should never, ever be able to get a patent for being the first to come up with a problem, and doing the obvious solution.
This is especially the case if that solution took you less time than a full and proper patent search to see if that solution was already patented.
If that is the case, the patent system is _completely_broken_.
I can see the argument for patents that have some extreme and brilliant novelty to them. But patents that are basically obvious restatements of the problem that the designer was facing - followed by the obvious solution - should result in the applicant getting set on fire.
They are _a_ bottleneck. lithium-ion batteries are quite adequate for 10 or 20 minute flights in a small drone. 3 minutes flight at 60km/h takes you 3km. Taking for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - this needs around 60 drone stations to cover the entirety of London.
Each drone can do 10 deliveries an hour - 180 a day, 65000/year. The network can do 4 million deliveries per year. The cost per drone is perhaps pessimistically, 1000 pounds. They need to survive a week or so to easily recoup their losses.
The shuttle had several very near accidents in its run. NASAs current criteria for man-rating would - for astronauts that fly six times a year be safer at work than: A) Deep sea fishermen B) Lumberjacks C) Librarians.
Hint: It's not the first two. (actual figures from US statistics).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Eben Christopher Upton is a Technical Director and ASIC architect for Broadcom. He is also a founder and former trustee of the Raspberry Pi Foundation, and now CEO of the Raspberry PI trading company.[4] He is also responsible for the overall software and hardware architecture of the Raspberry Pi device.[5][6]
By a not too unreasonable extension of the theory that allows the judge to compel microsoft to deliver things they control on a computer in another country - I see no reason exactly the same would not apply to compelling them to deliver a personalised update to one particular computer and deliver access to that computer - wherever in the world it was, and whoever owned it.
SLS is not expensive because it's so damn big. SLS is expensive because it's so damn expensive.
It has been a goal for many in the space community to hit $1000/lb for space launchers. SLS will beat that. Unfortunately - in the wrong way - by exceeding it for the cost of the actual fuelled rocket on the ground. (At the flight rates that NASA is projecting - on the high end of likely for the first several flights).
For the cost of the SLS program up to first launch, you can lift around 5500 tons to LED - using the published per-flight cost of Falcon Heavy.
"If you have a linux machine on the net, file transfer/sharing is not a problem"
Well - yes. And no. Having a linux machine (or any OS of course) on the net has issues. You need to admin it, even if you're in the hospital for 6 months, make sure it's not broken into and used to do malicious stuff,... And either you are running this machine at home, or you are paying for a server somewhere, which is considerably more than dropbox. (admittedly with a lot more features).
You distribute compiled code with GPL integrated, without complying with the GPL.
If this is discovered, then your customer has no right at all under the GPL to your whole code, and the GPL can never give them any rights.
The only way you can come into compliance with the GPL is to distribute sources for the whole blob - but in practice what has to happen to compel you to do this is for you to either decide that it is easier doing this than going to court - or for an author of the GPL code (or for the FSF where authorship has been assigned) to take court action for violating the licence - and then for the court to as the penalty require the release of source code. The court is much more likely to go for financial damages - as that's what they know.
"* they did pretty much all of the things you would like to see (such as reversing the direction and making sure the thrust reverses).
* they seem to have done a thoughtful and careful job, including testing in vacuum."
Read the article carefully.
They did not actually test in vaccum. They tested at atmospheric pressure, because they did not have suitable vacuum rated amplifiers. Spending half a page explaining how the vacuum system worked, only to have a throwaway line later in the paper (search on electrolytic) that they diddn't actually use it is at best shoddy writing.
To quote from an earlier post I made on this. The net torque is zero - yes. The problem is that because the 'vacuum' chamber wasn't part of the measured system, you can exert torques against it without issue. Convection can do this and distort the measurement.
A major reason why this can't be true - or if it is it's bigger than any Nobel Prize-winners discovery in history, and maybe all of them: The reported thrust in the NASA paper is 0.4N/kW. Power = force * velocity. If you put this on a railway car going at 10m/s, then you get 0.4W*10m/s = 4W out for 1000W in. If the car is going at 100m/s, it's 40W. At 3000m/s, 1200W. You take 1000W of this to run the engine, and you now have 200W of free energy. This can be arbitrarily scaled up.
If it works, it is not only a space drive, it's a perpetual motion machine that needs no fuel and emits energy.
It is not yet in orbit. (or rather - at the moment, propulsive manouvers are dominant - you can technically say you're in orbit if you jump off the ground, and not be wrong) Protip - orbits aren't triangular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - is a two minute animation from ESA explaining the manoevers.
10th sep - it begins its first orbit at 30km - and about 14 day period. After about half an orbit, on the 17th of Sep or so it is tilted 80 degrees and still remains in a 30km orbit. After a complete orbit, it then moves into 20km orbit, and around Oct 10, 10km.
The reason given for not testing under vacuum is the unavailability of vacuum qualified amplifiers. This is a very poor excuse - literally an hour is enough to make a vacuum sealed can into which you can put an amplifier. You add a water-bottle and a fan, and you're good for some time. Flushing the chamber with helium would have been a good and very fast step. Turning the vacuum pump on, to pump out 1/3 of the air similarly.
Slashdot Mirror
Err...
Yes - and if you actually read the article you linked, it's saying that if you edit the sound to be different than video, then you get effects that differ from the sound when listened to.
In real life - when the sight and video are not intentionally disturbed - it helps.
Moores law is hitting a wall - and sharply limits the possibility of simply improving the speed of increasing the performance of single-core processors.
Interestingly however, one alternative - in addition to magical as-yet-unthought of technology is single purpose cores that remain switched off most of the time, and are only powered up to do a specific task very efficiently.
That's not required under my reading.
The full text of the original law referred to is 'use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; '
It is quite arguable that VPNing into a virtual screen of a terminal is in fact compliant with the law - as long as it does not allow >1 person to view it at once.
It specifically refers in the body of the judgement to not putting libraries that had digitised books at an advantage' - so you can't digitise a book, and show it to more than one person at once.
(unless you have more than one physical copy).
If the physical copy goes away, so does your right to show it.
It's not clear you have the right in that case to keep the digital copy.
Reading lightly the judgement at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d... - a number of issues are raised.
It is several times noted that it's a 1:1 based on physical books.
One of the most important reasons for digitisation would be to protect physical books from being lost.
Digital books, of course, can be backed up.
The judgement does not quite help with that - if a paper book is disposed of, destroyed, or catches fire - you lose the right to at the least display it - it is not clear to me that you have any right to retain the digital copy.
"use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; "
This has some problems.
If you digitise your collection, can you only provide access at the site you digitised it at?
At any building in the same complex?
At any building managed by the same entity as the original digiser?
At any library with inter-library loan arrangements with the first library?
The judgement diddn't address this, they just said the fundamental right existed.
Another major hole in the judgement is 'by communication' - unless this is separately defined - one could imagine it being OK to connect (with DRM) to some dedicated terminal which provided copies of books via your phone or tablet.
The judgement also notes that it's free for national lawmakers to permit libraries to print or give digital copies - if the original publisher is properly compensated - even if the original publisher declines this.
This could vastly free up access to some books where the publisher is unidentifiable.
In this case - the broadcast arm of the BBC only has the rights to broadcast certain shows in certain locations.
It is violating the copyright of the original provider to use them outside agreed borders of those locations.
If you are accessing the BBC via a VPN in the UK - you are in fact violating the copyright terms - even if you are accessing a free service.
As to the point raised by a commenter - yes, of course you should be able to pay for access - but this access can't (apart from BBC self-produced content) be assumed by the BBC, it would need to be separately negotiated by the BBC.
There is a difference between no identifying information, and no information.
Rips of DVDs, for example, would be information - but they would not contain any identification other than the program used to make them, and the DVDs in question.
'This is where I think we get in trouble with forensic science. Certain things, like finger prints and DNA, can exonerate a suspect but we have seen enough analysis around here to know that it is a fallacy to think that these things prove guilt. it only proves guilt if we assume the probability of guilt is 100% initially. When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.'
However, in this case, they were comparing not against a database of millions, but one of several possibilities.
one failure in 13 launches.
This relies on the GPL 'you can't distribute at all if you can't comply with the licence' - if you distribute with a binary blob (effectively) that you have no rights to in your allegedly GPL codebase - then you're in violation of the GPL.
You can then come into compliance with the GPL in principle by supplying source for that blob. It is possible that the only way that compliance could be done is to release the whole of minecraft under the GPL - but the impossibilty of that does not factor into the legality of distributing.
The only way you can be forced to release source code is for a judge to compel you to release source code, after a copyright suit.
They are probably more likely to assess financial damages - rather than compelling release of source code.
I'm not aware of any compulsory release of source code ever happening.
The cop cameras will presumably have evidential and tamper resistant design.
if you're concerned about off-camera and camera broken incidents - it would be interesting if you could also purchase one of them.
Every second of video GPS timestamped, and the GPS logs extracted and used to index the video.
Privacy is a hard topic.
To a degree - I find the fact a police officer, who could have arrested someone was on the scene - makes the case rather different from that of a random surveillance camera.
My starting point would be that all video from cameras while the cop is in a public place have a much, much, much lower threshold for access.
18 petabytes a year isn't much.
Taking the assumption above that there are 5000 cameras working at once.
They are paid around $35/hour. This would make the wage bill 1.5 billion. Budget is $5B - so this seems order of magnitude right.
18 petabytes, on amazon redshifts '$1000/tbyear' is only $18M.
It seems quite plausible to get that to $5m without trying really hard.
Perhaps more important than storage, is access.
It should be possible to say 'show me a list of officers and car cameras within 1000 yards of 1 WTC between 8Am and 9am last friday'.
And yes - this implies the cameras must have GPS too.
'Patents are supposed to be for inventions, not just "useful things".'
Quite.
Patents were originally meant to be a trade - you got protection in exchange for showing how your device worked that may take months or years to reinvent.
You should never, ever be able to get a patent for being the first to come up with a problem, and doing the obvious solution.
This is especially the case if that solution took you less time than a full and proper patent search to see if that solution was already patented.
If that is the case, the patent system is _completely_broken_.
I can see the argument for patents that have some extreme and brilliant novelty to them.
But patents that are basically obvious restatements of the problem that the designer was facing - followed by the obvious solution - should result in the applicant getting set on fire.
They are _a_ bottleneck.
lithium-ion batteries are quite adequate for 10 or 20 minute flights in a small drone.
3 minutes flight at 60km/h takes you 3km.
Taking for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - this needs around 60 drone stations to cover the entirety of London.
Each drone can do 10 deliveries an hour - 180 a day, 65000/year.
The network can do 4 million deliveries per year.
The cost per drone is perhaps pessimistically, 1000 pounds.
They need to survive a week or so to easily recoup their losses.
The shuttle had several very near accidents in its run.
NASAs current criteria for man-rating would - for astronauts that fly six times a year be safer at work than:
A) Deep sea fishermen
B) Lumberjacks
C) Librarians.
Hint: It's not the first two.
(actual figures from US statistics).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Eben Christopher Upton is a Technical Director and ASIC architect for Broadcom. He is also a founder and former trustee of the Raspberry Pi Foundation, and now CEO of the Raspberry PI trading company.[4] He is also responsible for the overall software and hardware architecture of the Raspberry Pi device.[5][6]
'One spectacular explosion' - One explosion would be 92% reliability. (one failure in 12 launches)
By a not too unreasonable extension of the theory that allows the judge to compel microsoft to deliver things they control on a computer in another country - I see no reason exactly the same would not apply to compelling them to deliver a personalised update to one particular computer and deliver access to that computer - wherever in the world it was, and whoever owned it.
SLS is not expensive because it's so damn big.
SLS is expensive because it's so damn expensive.
It has been a goal for many in the space community to hit $1000/lb for space launchers.
SLS will beat that.
Unfortunately - in the wrong way - by exceeding it for the cost of the actual fuelled rocket on the ground.
(At the flight rates that NASA is projecting - on the high end of likely for the first several flights).
For the cost of the SLS program up to first launch, you can lift around 5500 tons to LED - using the published per-flight cost of Falcon Heavy.
"If you have a linux machine on the net, file transfer/sharing is not a problem"
Well - yes. ...
And no.
Having a linux machine (or any OS of course) on the net has issues.
You need to admin it, even if you're in the hospital for 6 months, make sure it's not broken into and used to do malicious stuff,
And either you are running this machine at home, or you are paying for a server somewhere, which is considerably more than dropbox.
(admittedly with a lot more features).
You distribute compiled code with GPL integrated, without complying with the GPL.
If this is discovered, then your customer has no right at all under the GPL to your whole code, and the GPL can never give them any rights.
The only way you can come into compliance with the GPL is to distribute sources for the whole blob - but in practice what has to happen to compel you to do this is for you to either decide that it is easier doing this than going to court - or for an author of the GPL code (or for the FSF where authorship has been assigned) to take court action for violating the licence - and then for the court to as the penalty require the release of source code.
The court is much more likely to go for financial damages - as that's what they know.
"* they did pretty much all of the things you would like to see (such as reversing the direction and making sure the thrust reverses).
* they seem to have done a thoughtful and careful job, including testing in vacuum."
Read the article carefully.
They did not actually test in vaccum. They tested at atmospheric pressure, because they did not have suitable vacuum rated amplifiers.
Spending half a page explaining how the vacuum system worked, only to have a throwaway line later in the paper (search on electrolytic) that they diddn't
actually use it is at best shoddy writing.
To quote from an earlier post I made on this.
The net torque is zero - yes.
The problem is that because the 'vacuum' chamber wasn't part of the measured system, you can exert torques against it without issue. Convection can do this and distort the measurement.
A major reason why this can't be true - or if it is it's bigger than any Nobel Prize-winners discovery in history, and maybe all of them:
The reported thrust in the NASA paper is 0.4N/kW.
Power = force * velocity.
If you put this on a railway car going at 10m/s, then you get 0.4W*10m/s = 4W out for 1000W in.
If the car is going at 100m/s, it's 40W.
At 3000m/s, 1200W.
You take 1000W of this to run the engine, and you now have 200W of free energy.
This can be arbitrarily scaled up.
If it works, it is not only a space drive, it's a perpetual motion machine that needs no fuel and emits energy.
It is not yet in orbit. (or rather - at the moment, propulsive manouvers are dominant - you can technically say you're in orbit if you jump off the ground, and not be wrong)
Protip - orbits aren't triangular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - is a two minute animation from ESA explaining the manoevers.
10th sep - it begins its first orbit at 30km - and about 14 day period. After about half an orbit, on the 17th of Sep or so it is tilted 80 degrees and still remains in a 30km orbit.
After a complete orbit, it then moves into 20km orbit, and around Oct 10, 10km.
Doh - in addition - the full article is available - http://www.libertariannews.org...
The reason given for not testing under vacuum is the unavailability of vacuum qualified amplifiers.
This is a very poor excuse - literally an hour is enough to make a vacuum sealed can into which you can put an amplifier.
You add a water-bottle and a fan, and you're good for some time.
Flushing the chamber with helium would have been a good and very fast step.
Turning the vacuum pump on, to pump out 1/3 of the air similarly.