June 23rd, 2007 by Walt
I just read in PC Mag that the DVD CCA (DVD Copy Control Association) is proposing an amendment that would make it impossible to make an archival copy of a DVD and then play it back without a valid original being in the drive.
So much for storing DVD content on centralized media servers at home and being able to call up the movie of your choice from any suitably equipped room. So much for making a working copy of a DVD for the kids to use, and not having to worry about them ruining the original. So much for being able to simply make a backup copy of a specially purchased DVD and keeping that original safe.
There is a law that permits home, non-commercial recording of analog material, but it does not extend to video in any manner, so it is a non-player in this mess.
The proposal will enforce the limitations on the hardware level. You can rest assured that shortly after it comes to pass, there will be somebody working to circumvent this. I’m not advocating trying to bypass this, but time after time, whatever scheme they try to come up with is quickly bypassed.
Too bad that once this proposal goes into effect (if approved), your only recourse to continuing to view your DVD content if the DVD gets damaged is to go buy another – at the current selling price, of course. There’s something wrong about this, the way I think I understand the licensing, you’ve paid to view the material, but have to pay again to replace it.
Of course, if you drop your cell phone, expensive camera, if you don’t have insurance, you will need to pony up to replace it. Do I see a new insurance market opening up? Would it be considered legal?
One other thought, what if that DVD that just got damaged beyond use is no longer available? I guess they’d say “tough”… I’d be tempted to say something different, but not printable or proper.
Posted in A-All posts, General Technology | No Comments »
March 10th, 2007 by Walt
After a rather involved study of use of cellular phones in realistic situations, the Mayo Clinic has determined that modern cell phones are unlikely to cause problems in hospitals. This includes tests performed in the emergency department, various ICU departments, among other places of patient care. They didn’t test cell phone use in surgical suites or pediatric ICU’s.
They also tested 192 pieces of equipment normally used in health care. Notes of tests performed in the early 1990s with analog phones that could not reduce power were compared with the latest tests. They also noted that many of the older tests actually had the phones in contact with the equipment that malfunctioned. Also, since then, medical equipment has been made with better shielding. MedPage Today has the story.
My take is that normal precautions be established. This includes simply not placing anything capable of emitting radio frequency signals, that has not been specifically designed to be placed there, on top of critical equipment, or against it. That should be common sense.
Of course, simple common courtesy should be followed. Just as people hate loudmouths talking on cell phones in restaurants, and other public places where mood and ambiance are important, patients and their visitors should not have to listen to blabbermouths on their phones.
It is important to follow the signs and wishes of the hospitals and clinics where you are visiting (or being treated). It is their facility, and if they don’t want cell phones used, they have the say-so. Whether their reasons are for patient safety, or to promote a more restful environment, their rules should be followed.
Posted in A-All posts, General Technology, Health | No Comments »
April 1st, 2006 by Walt
Using a cell phone or mobile phone over a long period raises the risk of malignant brain tumors, according to a new Swedish study published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. (Foodconsumer.org)
Here’s round – well – another round in the bouncing debate on harm caused by cell phone usage. A swedish study has found a 240% increase in incidence of tumors on the same side of the head as the phone is held.
They call “heavy users” as those who use a cell phone for at least one hour each day over a period of 10 years or more.
The study claims the 2005 study used hand-picked participants.
Now we wait to see what flaws this latest study may be claimed to have to skew the results.
I have read convincing arguments in the past for both sides of the harm camp.
A word to the consumer: Beware of the scams that are sure to resurface as a result of this. Metal foils, etc. do not help reduce exposure. Metalic sticky tape, etc. that you place in strategic locations are bunk. Covering the antenna with some “shielding material” is also bunk. As a matter of fact, that most likely reduces the efficiency of the antenna, making the phone use higher power levels to compensate.
If you must talk on the cell phone, stand outside or another place where the signal is stronger so the phone will be able to use lower power levels.
My advice: Play it safe, use hands-free whenever possible, or try to hold the phone in a way that the antenna is as far as possible from your head. Better yet, communicate person to person where possible (I have another rant on cell phone use in public waiting in the wings).
Posted in A-All posts, General Technology, Health | No Comments »
