One that we all know, is 3D projection on a 2D surface. This is what most games currently use.
There is Volumetric 3D. This permits the display of any 3D object that fits within the confines of the display area. Such an image can be viewd from any angle. Think of say of 3D array of highly translucent LEDs. Better methods do exist though, such as at least one that uses pulsed lasers to create individual spheres of plasma suspended in the air.
There is stereoscopic, non-immersive 3D. We should all be familiar with this too, and this is what is currently all the rage. This usually requires special glasses, although there are a few other techniques that can be used. (Unless otherwise noted, none of the rest of these require special glasses.)
We have monoscopic semi-immersive 3D. This exists when there is a 2D screen, where the image changes based on the angle you view the screen from, providing a "window" into 3d scene. This often uses head-tracking technology. The effect would only work for a single viewer at a time.
There is also steroscopic semi-immersive 3D. This is similar to the previous, except that the each eye sees a different image, so one gets both the stereoscopic effect and the immersion effect. This could require special glasses, but it is also entirely possible to do without that. Again this effect would only work for a single viewer at a time.
There are more variations on the above, allowing for an arbitrary but fixed maximum number of viewers.
There is omniscopic semi-immersive 3D. This has the immersion effect (moving the head gives different views), and the stereoscopic effect. Furthermore omniscopic semi-immersive 3D would work in theory for an infinite number of viewers (but the laws of physics do get in the way of achieving that). Holograms can produce this type of image.
Finally we get to full-immersion 3D. This is technology that requires a headset that tracks your head's movement. You can move or rotate you head in any fashion (except for the real world, which has this kind of 3D without a headset), and see the same results as you would intuitively expect based on your experience in the real world. This could be done either monoscopically, or stereoscopically, but in practice, this is almost always done stereoscopically, since if you are going to produce an expensive headset, you might as well spend the bit extra to make it stereoscopic.
Generally not necessary. A surgeon can invent a new procedure, and try it out on you, assuming you give informed consent, and he has a reasonable expectation that it will work better or more likely be successful than the existing procedures. Granted if his expectation was not reasonable he could lose his license, and potentially even be prosecuted if things go sour, but otherwise it is (generally) perfectly legal. The only reason stem cell procedures are different is that the FDA classifies stem cells as a drug.
Indeed many surgical procedures evolve by experimentation, with little or no proper scientific study. Many major new procedures do go through scientific studies, but primarily for ethical reasons (wanting to be sure it is safe) rather than legal requirement. But changes to existing procedures rarely get much if any study unless they seem quite substantial. But it should go without saying that even changes that appear to be relatively minor could cause major problems down the road.
Don't be absurd. The average Us citizen would have trouble making heads or tails of L/100km. We have no intuitive concept of how far 100 km is, but we do have an intuitive concept of the distance of 100 Miles. Similarly, the cost of purchasing say 7.13L of gasoline is something we Americans would have at least some difficulty figuring out, since we quote gasoline prices in USD/Gallon. The cost of purchasing 1.88 gallons is much easier to compute.
The only way the proprosed change would make much sense, is if we started selling Gasoline by the gallon, labeling roads by kilometer, started labeling speeds by km/hour, and squiched car odometers to measure km, rather than miles.
Needless to say such a change would be extremely controversial, cost billions of dollars, and confuse the heck out of most Americans. However, going only partway with the change would actually make things worse.
Agreed. It has been years since there was a visible "Google dance". Hell, often only minutes after I make a forum post, and then search on the topic to double check what I said, my post is the first thing to show up.
I'm not sure what caffeine really is, but it does not sound particularly new to me.
The idea of the Qi project is to have 100% open hardware, but I agree that not everything is open. If it were 100% open hardware the following would need to be met:
the Verilog or VHDL for any chips, would be included
as would the exact masks used to manufacture the chips, including the memory chips
Full specifications sufficient to fabricate the plastic shell, lcd, and any other component used would be included. They must be detailed enough that anybody familiar with fabricating that type of component could theoretically produce an indistinguishable product
The PCB files would be included
I would permit them to omit including instructions for simple well known components like widely available resistors, capacitors, and even LEDs, as long as the requirements for those parts are sufficiently specified, such as value, tolerance, mounting standard, wattage (for resistor), and information about required shape, and and the specific maximum current, and voltage drop for the LED. (There are for example multiple kinds of green LEDs, which have different voltage drops and current requirements, so they are not all inter-compatible).
While I'm sure they have included at least some of that, I doubt they have included all of it. Particularly, I find it very hard to believe that instructions sufficient to recreate the LCD were included. I also tend to doubt that semiconductor masks for all used chips were included, even if they included the VHDL/verilog.
Correct, except to note that there are also some other standards for specailized material, such as comic books, which use the cbz format. That format is trivial: A group of JPEGs or PNG files in zip archive (the viewer should also support GIF and BMP, although those are very rare). The images are displayed in lexical order, and folder names if present are ignored. Viewers should make no attempt to reflow, and should allow zooming in and panning.There are some pseudo-standards for metadata and annotations, but not supporting those is permissible.
Like ePub that format provides no place for DRM, which is a good thing. Both formats implicitly support watermarking included image files allowing for that method of piracy deterrence to still exist, but actual DRM is detrimental to eBook adoption, rather than beneficial. Remember even the music industry has credited Napster and friends for helping to make MP3 players popular. Don't make consumers wait for filesharing of eBooks to become popular so they catch on. ll that is needed is affordable DRM free books compatible with nearly all devices to get eBooks to catch on.
Besides the fact that TV and Bluray players may well be using generalized DSP cores for hardware acceleration.
Bluray players are especially likely to have programmable DSP cores, since they need to support:
MPEG2 (aka H.262) required by DVD-Video and Blu-ray
AVC (aka H.264) required by blu-ray
VC-1 required by blu-ray
quite possibly support for MPEG-4 ASP (a superset of H.263), required to support original DivX videos
Nevertheless, your bluray player probably does not have a web browser, so who cares if it has WebM support. It was never intended for you to play WebM videos by burning them to disc and putting them in your bluray player.
The same logic makes WebM support irrelevant for TVs, Nobody has ever specified a way to transport WebM over coax, composite cables, component cables, s-video, or HDMI. Further very few TV have a web browser, so that is irrelevant.
Thus the only devices likely to have use for WebM acceleration are PCs (where) Intel is very popular, and cell phones. Many of the cell phones powerful enough to support H.264 are Using TI's OMAP processors, which have a general DSP which can be programmed to accelerate WebM.
Having worked very closely with the source, including walking through the entire audio subsystem, I can assure you that the audio was always flash, and the rest of the game was always JS and Canvas, at least for the first day or so. They may have changed things late in the game.
Let us say I wanted to provide an iPad port of a version of GNU Emacs that was released under the GPL V2.
The GPL v2 allows me to distribute a derivative of Emacs only if I can give the users all of the rights the GPL grants. That is Section 7 of the GPLv2 Now when you make an iPad application you basically agree that you will only distribute the application to Apple (who will redistribute it to end users), and that you will not distribute the app in other ways or enable or permit others to do so. Thus my agreement with Apple would not permit me to even permit Apple to distribute the app in other ways. But the GPL says that if I cannot permit the recipient (Apple) the right to distribute in all circumstanced otherwise permiteed by the GPL, then I cannot distribute my Emacs derivative at all. If I cannot distribute the app to Apple, then nobody besides me can ever run the App, kind of defeating the whole point.
That whole thing has nothing to do source code. It is permissible for an iPhone developer to post the source code on their site, since that does not enable others to distribute the app outside the app store, since the only way to build the app is though the SDK, and if they use that they agree to distribute it only though the app store.
Sure, one can distribute source, but the binaries may not be distributed outside the app store.
The license term is:
Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so.
That sounds scary, but posting source code is not distributing the application to third parties, nor does it enable anybody else to do so, as they cannot build the application without the iPhone SDK, which means they agreed to the same restriction, so they could only distribute via the App Store.
The problem is that the resulting binaries are also covered by the GPL if the source is covered by the GPL. Unless the developer is the sole copyright holder of any GPL parts of the code base, when they try to distribute the binary to Apple, they are not able to give Apple the full set of rights, because of the agreement in place with Apple. Thus as a consequence of section 7 of the GPL, it is not permitted for the developer to distribute the application at all. (It is of course different if the developer is the sole copyright holder on the GPL'd portions, as they could give the binary's to Apple under any other license of their chosing).
However, let us pretend for a moment that they worked out a deal with Apple such that they could grant Apple all the needed rights under the GPL. Apple would still be violating the GPL if they distributed it through the app store in the same fashion as all other app store apps because they don't distribute the source, and they place additional restrictions on the binary when they redistribute it, which is not permitted by Section 6 of the GPL.
---
On the other hand, if you have an app under say the revised BSD license, there is no problem with distributing it in the app store, or making the code available on your site.
Lucid dreams though are fundamentally conscious dreams. All dreams involve some level of consciousness, or they would not register at all. Many though have very little consciousness. You are not in the dream making it more like a movie, or you are there but you are not really in control. Dreams go through a whole spectrum though through to basically full consciousness, where you are basically fully alert, you are able to think things through, etc. Any dream where you stopped and though things through would be one with a relatively high level of consciousness.
Now of course I am abusing the term consciousness here, because consciousness implies awareness of surroundings and awareness of self (at least to the maximum level self-awareness occurs in the species in question). In such a state, you are aware of yourself mentally, just like in real life, but as far as physical self-awareness you are only aware of your simulated self, and the same holds true for awareness of surroundings.
Technically such a state could be called "lucid dreaming", but you are correct that generally that term is used for dreams that have both lucidity [1] and awareness of being dreaming.
As for gamers though, while I will not dispute the end effect of having more conscious or even lucid dreams, I will dispute the explanation. Gamers don't have more control over the environment. Games often give the player relatively little control over the environment, and have only relatively course grained control over the character compared to the real world. You are not likely to be able to use your empty gun as a melee weapon, or perform many other improvised actions, such as ducking into a locker to hide from an assailant, or hundreds of other things that one might have a reason to try but the programmers never thought about, or decided was not worth implementing.
[1] Here I am using the original definition of lucidity meaning able to think clearly.
Actually patents should be read in the context of the envelope. The claims and the limitations/clarifications the filer claims in correspondence with the examiner are what really matters, but the body does help explain one implementation of it, and may help classify words that have specific, but different, meanings in different technical fields.
I never said that it did not work in rural areas, but rural areas often require much larger antennas, possible including large towers for mounting the antenna depending on the distance from the city. Those can be significant costs. In the city a a $10 antenna is often more than good enough. Similarly weather is far more likely to affect rural reception than urban reception (although I will admit weather is more like to affect satellite than terrestrial reception).
As for Fox, They are #1 in Nielsen ratings, but that means rather little. Nielsen ratings are biased heavily in favor of Idol type shows, because those have a strong advantage for watching live, rather than using a DVR. The appellation "Little One" would still be appropriate anyway even if it was far and away the #1 network, since it has a smaller prime-time lineup than the others given the earlier news program.
Local TV may be free over the Air, but it really works best in cities and suburbs. Regardless, many people get the local channels through cable anyway.
What I see happening generally with TV, is a move towards everything streaming over the internet. The idea beingyou pay for a service, and it gives you access to on-demand streaming of the entire back-catalog of most prime time TV shows, and other programs that largely follow the same format. Most regular TV shows would be watched in this fashion. On the air date they just appear in the list of streamable programming.
Other programs would support live streams. For example most news programs would have live streams, as would the Weather Channel, sporting events, etc. Those that make sense to also have available on-demand, would be available that way after the live stream is concluded.
Under such a system there would be no such thing as local programming. All sporting events would be national, (although pro sports may insist on black-out regions), and even local news programs would be available nationally, since it would actually be simpler to allow that, and really not add any cost.
Now I recognize that this if it ever happens will take a while. It requires substantial Internet infrastructure upgrades, requires near universal broadband, and it would be opposed by local stations (who would do little besides create the local news broadcasts), the networks (the service would largely replace the networks), producers (thing will change the way funding works, and would definitely really hurt the sales of box sets).
Never the less, we are already gradually heading in this direction, so it is still possible, especially if the networks chose to co-operate, perhaps creating this service as a joint venture among the Big Three and the Little One.
Besides it is really the only chance the Television industry has, since there are already numerous unauthorized TV show streaming sites popping up, and they are far more convenient than tuning in at broadcast time, or even setting up a DVR to tape the shows. All those sites are missing is set-top box support.
For debts, teh government requires that you take treasury notes as payment, like it or not.
Not true. You can refuse legal tender. That is legal. But if you refuse legal tender the debt is no longer valid, so refusing it effectively cancels the debt.
Any creditor has the right to cancel a debt rather than accept repayment.
Please see 31 USC section 5103, which defines all United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes) as legal tender for "all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
So for a debt like a mortgage, the bank must take United States coins. But for deposit, the bank could refuse anything you offer, since it is not required for the bank to accept your money for deposit. (But it would be rather stupid not to accept it).
No. Intellectual Property means nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas covered by one or more of the following:
Patent
Design Patent (yes that is different)
Trade secret
Database Rights
copyright
trademark
Service Mark
Trade dress
Industrial design right
Utility Model
Protected Geographical Indication
Author's rights
Moral rights
Semiconductor Mask Rights
Plant breeder's rights
and others
What do they all have in common?
You might be tempted to say that they involve government granted monopolies over nonphysicals objects/ideas/concepts/etc. You would be wrong. Trade Secrets are not government granted, or at least they need not be; they can be constructed using contract law alone. They are also not necessarily monopolies. Protected Geographical Indications can be used by anybody who meets the requirements, without needing to get a license from some rights-holder, so there is no monopoly.
All they have in common that I know of is that they relate to nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas. So it is very difficult to say anything concretely about "intellectual property" in general, since the laws for each of those are so very different.
error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?
The error is in your thinking. What the GP was saying: The term "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning. Therefore it is not possible for there to exist a person with a clear understanding of the term, as to have a clear understanding requires the existence of a clear meaning.
The argument is valid, but the two premises, namely that clear understanding requires a clear meaning, and that "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning, may still be up for debate.
Please Don't confuse USENET with the general concept of newsgroups. USENET consists of the network of syndicated newsgroups. It is nice, and decentralized, but it does have its cons. Some groups still seem to be doing OK, but it does have its issues.
But it is also possible to have centralized newsgroups. These are groups carried by just one server (or a group of servers controlled by the same party), much like mailing lists or web forums are carried by a single server or group of servers. With just a single server, proper moderation is possible simply by configuring the server as desired. Since the content is not syndicated one does not have the problem of other servers not being configured the same. One gets proper threaded conversation, and unlike mailing lists, there is at least some amount of history presented, so one does not need to search for the web archives which are inferior anyway.
Those sort of advantages are the reason why I use GMANE to read mailing lists.
Really? I know several Windows users who were also Part time GNU/Linux users who have moved to OS X, so they can have something that is easier to use than Windows or a well configured Linux box, for casual use, but also has the full power of a Unix, for serious use.
Finally even if OS X becomes mainstream, because of the Reality Distortion Field, everybody gets to feel smug.
That's my point. If there are very few, they can be run in a very transparent manner and the small number of interested parties (the sysadmins of each computer for example) can verify the security. But as there are more, they inherently become less secure.
That is what I meant by "a network of fully trusted relays simply cannot scale."
Actually while no license is possible for a GPL'd implementation, since I need to give my recipients all needed rights to redistribute, a license would be possible for say a BSD-Licensed product.
I simply sign the agreement, and start selling the implementation. I can even include the source code. As long as I pay any royalties I owe from selling 100001 or more copies of the codec.
But the user's don't get the right to redistribute without also signing the agreement, and doing the same thing.
However MPEG-LA would eventually change the agreement somehow to prevent having multiple entities selling the same "AVC Product", because that basically circumvents their receiving of royalties.
It actually is strictly equivalent to a planetary version of a differential assuming only one of the two control inputs is being used, as the inventor recommends.
The engineering report[1] does not come right out and say this in plain English, but it says if Control 1 is used it becomes a Class-I epicyclic gearset which is equivalent to the simplest possible such gearset, which functions as a differential between the ring and sun.
If control 2 is used it becomes a Class-III epicycic gearset. A Class III epicyclic gearset is equivalent to two simple ring-planet-sun setups where the planet(s) for each are tied together so they rotate the same. Then you hold either both suns fixed, and your inputs are the rings, or hold both rings fixed and your inputs are the suns. Either way, the output is a differential of the inputs.
So he built a really complicated differential. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes. The two classes of epicyclic gear sets it can act as are also strictly equivalent to two configurations of a regular old differential.
The device in the configuration shown in the video is literally taking the constant main engine input and subtracting the control input to result in the output.
The engineer clearly realized that his device was just actually just an overcomplicated version of a standard epicyclic differential when only one of the control inputs is used, which is how the inventor suggests using it.
What I've noticed is that nearly every one of these e-mail replies I've seen publicized has been from a report or rather prominent blogger. I would not be surprised if Jobs had a database of members of the media and prominent blogger, and has email from them highlighted, so he can respond.
Granted I'm not sure how he reliably responds to such e-mails when they come the personal addresses, but perhaps it uses a match by name system. Or perhaps he has all e-mail go to a receptionist of some kind, who can flag messages from media and or other messages that should get Job's attention. I would not be surprised if the addresses are then white-listed, so he can carry on back and forth exchanges if he so chooses, like happened here.
If there are a bunch of small time bloggers who have gotten responses from Steve, proving my theory at least partially incorrect, I'd be interested in links.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many types of 3D.
One that we all know, is 3D projection on a 2D surface. This is what most games currently use.
There is Volumetric 3D. This permits the display of any 3D object that fits within the confines of the display area. Such an image can be viewd from any angle. Think of say of 3D array of highly translucent LEDs. Better methods do exist though, such as at least one that uses pulsed lasers to create individual spheres of plasma suspended in the air.
There is stereoscopic, non-immersive 3D. We should all be familiar with this too, and this is what is currently all the rage. This usually requires special glasses, although there are a few other techniques that can be used. (Unless otherwise noted, none of the rest of these require special glasses.)
We have monoscopic semi-immersive 3D. This exists when there is a 2D screen, where the image changes based on the angle you view the screen from, providing a "window" into 3d scene. This often uses head-tracking technology. The effect would only work for a single viewer at a time.
There is also steroscopic semi-immersive 3D. This is similar to the previous, except that the each eye sees a different image, so one gets both the stereoscopic effect and the immersion effect. This could require special glasses, but it is also entirely possible to do without that. Again this effect would only work for a single viewer at a time.
There are more variations on the above, allowing for an arbitrary but fixed maximum number of viewers.
There is omniscopic semi-immersive 3D. This has the immersion effect (moving the head gives different views), and the stereoscopic effect. Furthermore omniscopic semi-immersive 3D would work in theory for an infinite number of viewers (but the laws of physics do get in the way of achieving that). Holograms can produce this type of image.
Finally we get to full-immersion 3D. This is technology that requires a headset that tracks your head's movement. You can move or rotate you head in any fashion (except for the real world, which has this kind of 3D without a headset), and see the same results as you would intuitively expect based on your experience in the real world. This could be done either monoscopically, or stereoscopically, but in practice, this is almost always done stereoscopically, since if you are going to produce an expensive headset, you might as well spend the bit extra to make it stereoscopic.
Generally not necessary. A surgeon can invent a new procedure, and try it out on you, assuming you give informed consent, and he has a reasonable expectation that it will work better or more likely be successful than the existing procedures. Granted if his expectation was not reasonable he could lose his license, and potentially even be prosecuted if things go sour, but otherwise it is (generally) perfectly legal. The only reason stem cell procedures are different is that the FDA classifies stem cells as a drug.
Indeed many surgical procedures evolve by experimentation, with little or no proper scientific study. Many major new procedures do go through scientific studies, but primarily for ethical reasons (wanting to be sure it is safe) rather than legal requirement. But changes to existing procedures rarely get much if any study unless they seem quite substantial. But it should go without saying that even changes that appear to be relatively minor could cause major problems down the road.
Don't be absurd. The average Us citizen would have trouble making heads or tails of L/100km. We have no intuitive concept of how far 100 km is, but we do have an intuitive concept of the distance of 100 Miles. Similarly, the cost of purchasing say 7.13L of gasoline is something we Americans would have at least some difficulty figuring out, since we quote gasoline prices in USD/Gallon. The cost of purchasing 1.88 gallons is much easier to compute.
The only way the proprosed change would make much sense, is if we started selling Gasoline by the gallon, labeling roads by kilometer, started labeling speeds by km/hour, and squiched car odometers to measure km, rather than miles.
Needless to say such a change would be extremely controversial, cost billions of dollars, and confuse the heck out of most Americans. However, going only partway with the change would actually make things worse.
Agreed. It has been years since there was a visible "Google dance". Hell, often only minutes after I make a forum post, and then search on the topic to double check what I said, my post is the first thing to show up.
I'm not sure what caffeine really is, but it does not sound particularly new to me.
The idea of the Qi project is to have 100% open hardware, but I agree that not everything is open.
If it were 100% open hardware the following would need to be met:
While I'm sure they have included at least some of that, I doubt they have included all of it. Particularly, I find it very hard to believe that instructions sufficient to recreate the LCD were included. I also tend to doubt that semiconductor masks for all used chips were included, even if they included the VHDL/verilog.
Correct, except to note that there are also some other standards for specailized material, such as comic books, which use the cbz format. That format is trivial: A group of JPEGs or PNG files in zip archive (the viewer should also support GIF and BMP, although those are very rare). The images are displayed in lexical order, and folder names if present are ignored. Viewers should make no attempt to reflow, and should allow zooming in and panning.There are some pseudo-standards for metadata and annotations, but not supporting those is permissible.
Like ePub that format provides no place for DRM, which is a good thing. Both formats implicitly support watermarking included image files allowing for that method of piracy deterrence to still exist, but actual DRM is detrimental to eBook adoption, rather than beneficial. Remember even the music industry has credited Napster and friends for helping to make MP3 players popular. Don't make consumers wait for filesharing of eBooks to become popular so they catch on. ll that is needed is affordable DRM free books compatible with nearly all devices to get eBooks to catch on.
Besides the fact that TV and Bluray players may well be using generalized DSP cores for hardware acceleration.
Bluray players are especially likely to have programmable DSP cores, since they need to support:
Nevertheless, your bluray player probably does not have a web browser, so who cares if it has WebM support. It was never intended for you to play WebM videos by burning them to disc and putting them in your bluray player.
The same logic makes WebM support irrelevant for TVs, Nobody has ever specified a way to transport WebM over coax, composite cables, component cables, s-video, or HDMI. Further very few TV have a web browser, so that is irrelevant.
Thus the only devices likely to have use for WebM acceleration are PCs (where) Intel is very popular, and cell phones. Many of the cell phones powerful enough to support H.264 are Using TI's OMAP processors, which have a general DSP which can be programmed to accelerate WebM.
Having worked very closely with the source, including walking through the entire audio subsystem, I can assure you that the audio was always flash, and the rest of the game was always JS and Canvas, at least for the first day or so. They may have changed things late in the game.
Let us say I wanted to provide an iPad port of a version of GNU Emacs that was released under the GPL V2.
The GPL v2 allows me to distribute a derivative of Emacs only if I can give the users all of the rights the GPL grants. That is Section 7 of the GPLv2 Now when you make an iPad application you basically agree that you will only distribute the application to Apple (who will redistribute it to end users), and that you will not distribute the app in other ways or enable or permit others to do so. Thus my agreement with Apple would not permit me to even permit Apple to distribute the app in other ways. But the GPL says that if I cannot permit the recipient (Apple) the right to distribute in all circumstanced otherwise permiteed by the GPL, then I cannot distribute my Emacs derivative at all. If I cannot distribute the app to Apple, then nobody besides me can ever run the App, kind of defeating the whole point.
That whole thing has nothing to do source code. It is permissible for an iPhone developer to post the source code on their site, since that does not enable others to distribute the app outside the app store, since the only way to build the app is though the SDK, and if they use that they agree to distribute it only though the app store.
Sure, one can distribute source, but the binaries may not be distributed outside the app store.
The license term is:
That sounds scary, but posting source code is not distributing the application to third parties, nor does it enable anybody else to do so, as they cannot build the application without the iPhone SDK, which means they agreed to the same restriction, so they could only distribute via the App Store.
The problem is that the resulting binaries are also covered by the GPL if the source is covered by the GPL. Unless the developer is the sole copyright holder of any GPL parts of the code base, when they try to distribute the binary to Apple, they are not able to give Apple the full set of rights, because of the agreement in place with Apple. Thus as a consequence of section 7 of the GPL, it is not permitted for the developer to distribute the application at all. (It is of course different if the developer is the sole copyright holder on the GPL'd portions, as they could give the binary's to Apple under any other license of their chosing).
However, let us pretend for a moment that they worked out a deal with Apple such that they could grant Apple all the needed rights under the GPL. Apple would still be violating the GPL if they distributed it through the app store in the same fashion as all other app store apps because they don't distribute the source, and they place additional restrictions on the binary when they redistribute it, which is not permitted by Section 6 of the GPL.
---
On the other hand, if you have an app under say the revised BSD license, there is no problem with distributing it in the app store, or making the code available on your site.
Lucid dreams though are fundamentally conscious dreams. All dreams involve some level of consciousness, or they would not register at all. Many though have very little consciousness. You are not in the dream making it more like a movie, or you are there but you are not really in control. Dreams go through a whole spectrum though through to basically full consciousness, where you are basically fully alert, you are able to think things through, etc. Any dream where you stopped and though things through would be one with a relatively high level of consciousness.
Now of course I am abusing the term consciousness here, because consciousness implies awareness of surroundings and awareness of self (at least to the maximum level self-awareness occurs in the species in question). In such a state, you are aware of yourself mentally, just like in real life, but as far as physical self-awareness you are only aware of your simulated self, and the same holds true for awareness of surroundings.
Technically such a state could be called "lucid dreaming", but you are correct that generally that term is used for dreams that have both lucidity [1] and awareness of being dreaming.
As for gamers though, while I will not dispute the end effect of having more conscious or even lucid dreams, I will dispute the explanation. Gamers don't have more control over the environment. Games often give the player relatively little control over the environment, and have only relatively course grained control over the character compared to the real world. You are not likely to be able to use your empty gun as a melee weapon, or perform many other improvised actions, such as ducking into a locker to hide from an assailant, or hundreds of other things that one might have a reason to try but the programmers never thought about, or decided was not worth implementing.
[1] Here I am using the original definition of lucidity meaning able to think clearly.
Actually patents should be read in the context of the envelope. The claims and the limitations/clarifications the filer claims in correspondence with the examiner are what really matters, but the body does help explain one implementation of it, and may help classify words that have specific, but different, meanings in different technical fields.
I never said that it did not work in rural areas, but rural areas often require much larger antennas, possible including large towers for mounting the antenna depending on the distance from the city. Those can be significant costs. In the city a a $10 antenna is often more than good enough. Similarly weather is far more likely to affect rural reception than urban reception (although I will admit weather is more like to affect satellite than terrestrial reception).
As for Fox, They are #1 in Nielsen ratings, but that means rather little. Nielsen ratings are biased heavily in favor of Idol type shows, because those have a strong advantage for watching live, rather than using a DVR. The appellation "Little One" would still be appropriate anyway even if it was far and away the #1 network, since it has a smaller prime-time lineup than the others given the earlier news program.
Local TV may be free over the Air, but it really works best in cities and suburbs. Regardless, many people get the local channels through cable anyway.
What I see happening generally with TV, is a move towards everything streaming over the internet.
The idea beingyou pay for a service, and it gives you access to on-demand streaming of the entire back-catalog of most prime time TV shows, and other programs that largely follow the same format. Most regular TV shows would be watched in this fashion. On the air date they just appear in the list of streamable programming.
Other programs would support live streams. For example most news programs would have live streams, as would the Weather Channel, sporting events, etc. Those that make sense to also have available on-demand, would be available that way after the live stream is concluded.
Under such a system there would be no such thing as local programming. All sporting events would be national, (although pro sports may insist on black-out regions), and even local news programs would be available nationally, since it would actually be simpler to allow that, and really not add any cost.
Now I recognize that this if it ever happens will take a while. It requires substantial Internet infrastructure upgrades, requires near universal broadband, and it would be opposed by local stations (who would do little besides create the local news broadcasts), the networks (the service would largely replace the networks), producers (thing will change the way funding works, and would definitely really hurt the sales of box sets).
Never the less, we are already gradually heading in this direction, so it is still possible, especially if the networks chose to co-operate, perhaps creating this service as a joint venture among the Big Three and the Little One.
Besides it is really the only chance the Television industry has, since there are already numerous unauthorized TV show streaming sites popping up, and they are far more convenient than tuning in at broadcast time, or even setting up a DVR to tape the shows. All those sites are missing is set-top box support.
For debts, teh government requires that you take treasury notes as payment, like it or not.
Not true. You can refuse legal tender. That is legal. But if you refuse legal tender the debt is no longer valid, so refusing it effectively cancels the debt.
Any creditor has the right to cancel a debt rather than accept repayment.
Please see 31 USC section 5103, which defines all United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes) as legal tender for "all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
So for a debt like a mortgage, the bank must take United States coins. But for deposit, the bank could refuse anything you offer, since it is not required for the bank to accept your money for deposit. (But it would be rather stupid not to accept it).
No. Intellectual Property means nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas covered by one or more of the following:
What do they all have in common?
You might be tempted to say that they involve government granted monopolies over nonphysicals objects/ideas/concepts/etc. You would be wrong. Trade Secrets are not government granted, or at least they need not be; they can be constructed using contract law alone. They are also not necessarily monopolies. Protected Geographical Indications can be used by anybody who meets the requirements, without needing to get a license from some rights-holder, so there is no monopoly.
All they have in common that I know of is that they relate to nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas. So it is very difficult to say anything concretely about "intellectual property" in general, since the laws for each of those are so very different.
error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?
The error is in your thinking. What the GP was saying: The term "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning. Therefore it is not possible for there to exist a person with a clear understanding of the term, as to have a clear understanding requires the existence of a clear meaning.
The argument is valid, but the two premises, namely that clear understanding requires a clear meaning, and that "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning, may still be up for debate.
Please Don't confuse USENET with the general concept of newsgroups. USENET consists of the network of syndicated newsgroups. It is nice, and decentralized, but it does have its cons. Some groups still seem to be doing OK, but it does have its issues.
But it is also possible to have centralized newsgroups. These are groups carried by just one server (or a group of servers controlled by the same party), much like mailing lists or web forums are carried by a single server or group of servers. With just a single server, proper moderation is possible simply by configuring the server as desired. Since the content is not syndicated one does not have the problem of other servers not being configured the same.
One gets proper threaded conversation, and unlike mailing lists, there is at least some amount of history presented, so one does not need to search for the web archives which are inferior anyway.
Those sort of advantages are the reason why I use GMANE to read mailing lists.
Really? I know several Windows users who were also Part time GNU/Linux users who have moved to OS X, so they can have something that is easier to use than Windows or a well configured Linux box, for casual use, but also has the full power of a Unix, for serious use.
Finally even if OS X becomes mainstream, because of the Reality Distortion Field, everybody gets to feel smug.
That's my point. If there are very few, they can be run in a very transparent manner and the small number of interested parties (the sysadmins of each computer for example) can verify the security. But as there are more, they inherently become less secure.
That is what I meant by "a network of fully trusted relays simply cannot scale."
Actually while no license is possible for a GPL'd implementation, since I need to give my recipients all needed rights to redistribute, a license would be possible for say a BSD-Licensed product.
I simply sign the agreement, and start selling the implementation. I can even include the source code. As long as I pay any royalties I owe from selling 100001 or more copies of the codec.
But the user's don't get the right to redistribute without also signing the agreement, and doing the same thing.
However MPEG-LA would eventually change the agreement somehow to prevent having multiple entities selling the same "AVC Product", because that basically circumvents their receiving of royalties.
It actually is strictly equivalent to a planetary version of a differential assuming only one of the two control inputs is being used, as the inventor recommends.
The engineering report[1] does not come right out and say this in plain English, but it says if Control 1 is used it becomes a Class-I epicyclic gearset which is equivalent to the simplest possible such gearset, which functions as a differential between the ring and sun.
If control 2 is used it becomes a Class-III epicycic gearset. A Class III epicyclic gearset is equivalent to two simple ring-planet-sun setups where the planet(s) for each are tied together so they rotate the same. Then you hold either both suns fixed, and your inputs are the rings, or hold both rings fixed and your inputs are the suns. Either way, the output is a differential of the inputs.
So he built a really complicated differential. Nothing more, nothing less.
[1] http://infinitelyvariabletransmission.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dDrive-Transmission-Report.pdf
Yes. The two classes of epicyclic gear sets it can act as are also strictly equivalent to two configurations of a regular old differential.
The device in the configuration shown in the video is literally taking the constant main engine input and subtracting the control input to result in the output.
The engineer clearly realized that his device was just actually just an overcomplicated version of a standard epicyclic differential when only one of the control inputs is used, which is how the inventor suggests using it.
What I've noticed is that nearly every one of these e-mail replies I've seen publicized has been from a report or rather prominent blogger. I would not be surprised if Jobs had a database of members of the media and prominent blogger, and has email from them highlighted, so he can respond.
Granted I'm not sure how he reliably responds to such e-mails when they come the personal addresses, but perhaps it uses a match by name system. Or perhaps he has all e-mail go to a receptionist of some kind, who can flag messages from media and or other messages that should get Job's attention. I would not be surprised if the addresses are then white-listed, so he can carry on back and forth exchanges if he so chooses, like happened here.
If there are a bunch of small time bloggers who have gotten responses from Steve, proving my theory at least partially incorrect, I'd be interested in links.