To legally bear the HDMI logo, you need to be certified. But makers in the $2-$4 market often break the rules. Not saying that the cable won't work, but buyer beware. Don't trust the logo if it doesn't look like the HDMI association could figure out where to mail a cease-and-decist letter.
What's hilarious is demanding to the salesperson why they are selling a black-market and un-certified product. Blood drained from the face of the salesperson when I interrupted his speal with "so if this cheap one isn't certified (pointing at the HDMI logo on the package), why are you facilitating violation of trademark law?"
it is FORBIDDEN to make reference to a HDMI version number for cables
I told the sales rep at Best buy that, that there was no connector difference between 1.3 and 1.4, the difference was in the features supported by the devices. But he persisted to argue that the more expensive cable was "1.4 compatible" while the cheaper one wasn't. He even carried on when I began loudly stating how much his argument made no sense, and why.
Of course, this was the same twit who tried to convince me that gold-plating the connector makes OPTICAL cables better.;)
Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".
That's debatable, and several courts have allowed things like location trackers without warrant, and the searching of cell phones and computers. There's a new bill in the works to explicitly require warrants for electronic surveillance.
Apple had the data on the device and included it in a readable format in backups to your sync machine, but they weren't "collecting" it in any meaningful sense of the word. The info wasn't being sent back to Apple or to third parties without consent, it was used as a cache to speed local operations. Is caching now considered collecting?
Good question. It seems the bill forbids the company from collecting the data from the phone, but there's nothing stating that the phone can't keep on recording that data.
The police are using a law not designed for them. They know it, and the writers knew it, but that didn't stop them from using it for purposes for which it was not intended. Hopefully the court recognizes this too...
Actually it's just an evolution of some ideas they've been poking around with tethering DSs to the Wii. There were a few games where you could use the DS as a Wiimote, and you had your own individual screen info.
a) proof requires a frame of reference to even understand it -- namely experience -- you can't grok something you haven't experienced. This is like someone telling the blind man that he can understand color.
The people applying for the prize obviously think there's a quantifiable effect, or they wouldn't be applying.
b) What constitutes iron-clad proof anyways? Proof is relative. What you accept for "proof" depends on your spiritual maturity. To a spiritual idiot there is no such proof BY their definition. To a true skeptic, they would be intrigued that the answer could either way.
The evidence IS there, for a real scientist to consider, IF they are able to open their eyes for a moment. I haven't seen any evidence that Randi is tired of being blind.
So your argument is that Randi is trying to prevent the acknowledgement of proof that by definition cannot be proven. I'm sorry but that is stupid.
He doesn't test the unquantifiable. That's in the requirements. There has to be a quantifiable effect, or you shouldn't bother to apply for the prize.
Randi makes no judgement on the possibility of any para-normal science. He just says "show me that your claim that it affects the material world is demonstrable". Show him that in a double-blind test, you can demonstrate a reproducible, quantifiable effect of your "power". If your power has no material effect, he doesn't care either way.
That's not actually true. Lots of them have followed through, and they've all failed. The JREF even does live tests at the annual TAM conference in Vegas. Many applicants DO back out, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have been tested. Their case files are held at the JREF library - anyone interested in researching the topic should have no problem getting access.
I stand corrected. I was just reading through their forums, and seeing the back and forth over things like test procedures, failures and suggestions for improvements to test methods, etc.
An interesting read. You can tell who believes their powers, and who is just there to fail spectacularly and then claim the test itself is flawed in order to play victim.
If magnets should have any health benefits, then all magnets of the same strength would be similarily beneficial.
It's like the speaker wire thing.
Sure. But the problem is that 1.5 Teslas is NOT the magnetic output of the trinkets they sell in "natural cures" stores. Those are weak refrigerator magnets.
1.5 Teslas is the output of your standard $1,000,000 MRI.
You CAN get rare earth magnets that can output 1 T over a very small area, but I guarantee you they aren't selling those in the stores attached to bracelets.
If I had to investigate every Tom, Dick, and Stupid who showed up at my door demanding that I prove that their stick can't find gold, I'd put in some pretty stringent rules to qualify too. You have to prove you're serious if you want to be considered. You have to be able to do something concrete (find things, affect materials in a detectable way, etc).
These aren't just there to frustrate "true believers", they're there to weed out the claimants who "feel" their claims are justified, but haven't put any effort into documenting them.
Hence the majority of people who walk away bitching about "the process" rather than actually putting any effort in.
On the other hand, might as well patent it, even if you have no intention of using it. Apple does that a lot. Comes up with an idea, patents it, and then never uses it. But it does ensure that anyone who DOES use it, owes Apple a chunk of change.
Being a magician and a skeptic often go hand-in-hand, Houdini was well-famed as both. One of his main focuses was people purporting to talk to the spirit world. I believe he even went so far as offer a personal reward for someone who could show proof of someone communicating with the dead.
James Randi's foundation offers a million dollar prize to anyone who can show ESP or other "spirit" powers in a double-blind test. No-one has yet to actually apply and follow through. They usually back out at the last second and claim the test is flawed.
The art of deception and misdirection is all part of a magician's trade. How exactly did Penn & Teller become the deciding factor on whether magnets are beneficial to health?
They don't claim to be. They do however, claim to be the masters of the art of deception and misdirection. The whole idea of their TV show was "it takes a thief to catch a thief", namely someone well versed in deception and misdirection has a better chance of spotting when someone ELSE is using those same techniques to sell, say refrigerator magnets as medical cures...
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate.
My copy of Steam disagrees. The App Store is just another delivery method for software.
You might as well try to make the same complaint about Ubuntu's Package Manager... Is it the dominant method for installing software on a Ubuntu machine? Yes. Is it guarded jealously by Ubuntu managers intent on preventing conflict, but ultimately preventing me from installing the latest and greatest? Yup. Is it the ONLY method? God no.
The company bought the rights to the code, and has been making internal contributions to it for years. They (claim to have) pruned out any external contributions, so they become 100% the "original author".
Copyright is not perpetual. Disney may keep getting it extended, but it does expire eventually.
10 years is barely what even the original copyright was good for.
If there's no expiry date in the contract you agree to, then as long as you continue to use the service (the gpl'd code), then you are continuously agreeing to abide by the terms of the contract.
There's no abandonment clause.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple will fix the exploit when it comes out anyway. My point was that jailbreaking the latest minor patch isn't really ./-worthy news...
Meh, call me when it jailbreaks iOS 5 without needing tethering.
To legally bear the HDMI logo, you need to be certified. But makers in the $2-$4 market often break the rules. Not saying that the cable won't work, but buyer beware. Don't trust the logo if it doesn't look like the HDMI association could figure out where to mail a cease-and-decist letter.
What's hilarious is demanding to the salesperson why they are selling a black-market and un-certified product. Blood drained from the face of the salesperson when I interrupted his speal with "so if this cheap one isn't certified (pointing at the HDMI logo on the package), why are you facilitating violation of trademark law?"
it is FORBIDDEN to make reference to a HDMI version number for cables
I told the sales rep at Best buy that, that there was no connector difference between 1.3 and 1.4, the difference was in the features supported by the devices. But he persisted to argue that the more expensive cable was "1.4 compatible" while the cheaper one wasn't. He even carried on when I began loudly stating how much his argument made no sense, and why.
Of course, this was the same twit who tried to convince me that gold-plating the connector makes OPTICAL cables better. ;)
Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".
That's debatable, and several courts have allowed things like location trackers without warrant, and the searching of cell phones and computers. There's a new bill in the works to explicitly require warrants for electronic surveillance.
Apple had the data on the device and included it in a readable format in backups to your sync machine, but they weren't "collecting" it in any meaningful sense of the word. The info wasn't being sent back to Apple or to third parties without consent, it was used as a cache to speed local operations. Is caching now considered collecting?
Good question. It seems the bill forbids the company from collecting the data from the phone, but there's nothing stating that the phone can't keep on recording that data.
Unless they have a warrant from law enforcement. Then they can ignore the request to delete.
That's covered under a different bill.
http://franken.senate.gov/files/docs/110614_The_Location_Privacy_Protection_Act_of_2011_One_pager.pdf
The police are using a law not designed for them. They know it, and the writers knew it, but that didn't stop them from using it for purposes for which it was not intended. Hopefully the court recognizes this too...
Of course, they also released the Virtual Boy (or whatever that thing was called) and that was a trainwreck.
Headache-inducing, no good game lineup, and you had to sit in an awkward position non-stop to play it. That was a mistake from the beginning.
Actually it's just an evolution of some ideas they've been poking around with tethering DSs to the Wii. There were a few games where you could use the DS as a Wiimote, and you had your own individual screen info.
This one seems more tilt-motion controlled rather than the fuller range the wiimote handled. I doubt anyone will swing this at their TV.
a) proof requires a frame of reference to even understand it -- namely experience -- you can't grok something you haven't experienced. This is like someone telling the blind man that he can understand color.
The people applying for the prize obviously think there's a quantifiable effect, or they wouldn't be applying.
b) What constitutes iron-clad proof anyways? Proof is relative. What you accept for "proof" depends on your spiritual maturity. To a spiritual idiot there is no such proof BY their definition. To a true skeptic, they would be intrigued that the answer could either way.
The evidence IS there, for a real scientist to consider, IF they are able to open their eyes for a moment. I haven't seen any evidence that Randi is tired of being blind.
So your argument is that Randi is trying to prevent the acknowledgement of proof that by definition cannot be proven. I'm sorry but that is stupid.
He doesn't test the unquantifiable. That's in the requirements. There has to be a quantifiable effect, or you shouldn't bother to apply for the prize.
Randi makes no judgement on the possibility of any para-normal science. He just says "show me that your claim that it affects the material world is demonstrable". Show him that in a double-blind test, you can demonstrate a reproducible, quantifiable effect of your "power". If your power has no material effect, he doesn't care either way.
That's not actually true. Lots of them have followed through, and they've all failed. The JREF even does live tests at the annual TAM conference in Vegas. Many applicants DO back out, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have been tested. Their case files are held at the JREF library - anyone interested in researching the topic should have no problem getting access.
I stand corrected. I was just reading through their forums, and seeing the back and forth over things like test procedures, failures and suggestions for improvements to test methods, etc.
An interesting read. You can tell who believes their powers, and who is just there to fail spectacularly and then claim the test itself is flawed in order to play victim.
If magnets should have any health benefits, then all magnets of the same strength would be similarily beneficial.
It's like the speaker wire thing.
Sure. But the problem is that 1.5 Teslas is NOT the magnetic output of the trinkets they sell in "natural cures" stores. Those are weak refrigerator magnets. 1.5 Teslas is the output of your standard $1,000,000 MRI. You CAN get rare earth magnets that can output 1 T over a very small area, but I guarantee you they aren't selling those in the stores attached to bracelets.
If I had to investigate every Tom, Dick, and Stupid who showed up at my door demanding that I prove that their stick can't find gold, I'd put in some pretty stringent rules to qualify too. You have to prove you're serious if you want to be considered. You have to be able to do something concrete (find things, affect materials in a detectable way, etc). These aren't just there to frustrate "true believers", they're there to weed out the claimants who "feel" their claims are justified, but haven't put any effort into documenting them. Hence the majority of people who walk away bitching about "the process" rather than actually putting any effort in.
On the other hand, might as well patent it, even if you have no intention of using it. Apple does that a lot. Comes up with an idea, patents it, and then never uses it. But it does ensure that anyone who DOES use it, owes Apple a chunk of change.
Being a magician and a skeptic often go hand-in-hand, Houdini was well-famed as both. One of his main focuses was people purporting to talk to the spirit world. I believe he even went so far as offer a personal reward for someone who could show proof of someone communicating with the dead.
James Randi's foundation offers a million dollar prize to anyone who can show ESP or other "spirit" powers in a double-blind test. No-one has yet to actually apply and follow through. They usually back out at the last second and claim the test is flawed.
The art of deception and misdirection is all part of a magician's trade. How exactly did Penn & Teller become the deciding factor on whether magnets are beneficial to health?
They don't claim to be. They do however, claim to be the masters of the art of deception and misdirection. The whole idea of their TV show was "it takes a thief to catch a thief", namely someone well versed in deception and misdirection has a better chance of spotting when someone ELSE is using those same techniques to sell, say refrigerator magnets as medical cures...
NATO doesn't exclusively represent "the west". If you're going to nitpick, then "The US and Israel". Happy?
on Iran? Stuxnet was a deliberate attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
My copy of Steam disagrees. The App Store is just another delivery method for software.
You might as well try to make the same complaint about Ubuntu's Package Manager... Is it the dominant method for installing software on a Ubuntu machine? Yes. Is it guarded jealously by Ubuntu managers intent on preventing conflict, but ultimately preventing me from installing the latest and greatest? Yup. Is it the ONLY method? God no.
The company bought the rights to the code, and has been making internal contributions to it for years. They (claim to have) pruned out any external contributions, so they become 100% the "original author". Copyright is not perpetual. Disney may keep getting it extended, but it does expire eventually. 10 years is barely what even the original copyright was good for.
If there's no expiry date in the contract you agree to, then as long as you continue to use the service (the gpl'd code), then you are continuously agreeing to abide by the terms of the contract. There's no abandonment clause.