I would also like to point out that the cited page about promissory estoppel did in fact use the word gratuitous, but then went on to explain situations that meet the definition of consideration on the part of the promissee.

Their actual example is clearly a case in which there was to be consideration on both sides.

Perhaps it is not a good example.

There is a lot of gray here. For example, some "public" licenses promise that a work will remain in the public domain. Not all do.

Real-world example: rights to the Java programming language were "purchased" by Oracle while the license was public domain. However, Oracle chose to make later versions not entirely public domain. The original license was not sufficient to guarantee the whole product would be public domain in perpetuity.

There is currently no law in the U.S. which requires something in the public domain to remain that way, unless it is so stipulated in the license. There are a number of famous cases in which something that was once public domain is no longer, even though that thing remained otherwise unchanged.

EFF and others are working to change that. But until it is changed, the concept of Promissory Estoppel only applies in some cases of public domain licensing.

That is indeed a different matter.

No, I'm not. You missed the whole point of my last post.

It doesn't matter how popular usage changes. The technical definition will remain the same.

And the technical definition is the "correct" definition, since it is the one used to MEASURE the attribute.

Care to explain why you had to ask?

Google is your friend. (Sometimes, anyway.) So is Wikipedia.

Will you at least attempt to read and understand the goddamned article? Look at the last sentence I quoted. It says In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.

Do you STILL need to have that explained to you again?

No, I'm saying it's incorrect because it's not the correct definition RIGHT NOW.

Common usage of words changes all the time. But that doesn't make the technical definition of the word any different.

For example: people now use the word "schizophrenia" to mean something that is completely different from the actual, technical meaning of the word. But it's technical meaning still hasn't changed at all. People are using it incorrectly, and it will continue to be incorrect as long as they use it that way.

Common usage aside, the technical definition of resolution hasn't changed, and it's not going to. So you can use it however you want, but yes, you'll still be wrong.

That doesn't make be wrong. It doesn't contradict anything I said. I only implied that most people under most circumstances wouldn't be able to see much if any difference.

I didn't say they wouldn't sell.

Says who? IANAL, but there's a hole in your reasoning. And that gaping hole is: putting something in the public domain is NOT a "contract"!!! By definition a contract, by ancient common law and still today, requires "consideration" on both sides. When you put something in the public domain, you receive no consideration. So it's not a contract by any stretch of the imagination. To quote the article you referenced:

Note the second sentence. Particularly the part about "promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee". That is a description of "consideration". In the case of placing your private works in the public domain, there is seldom any consideration. So there is no "expectation" of return on the part of the donor, which as your own article stipulates is necessary for promissory estoppel to occur.

Which helicopter-type craft are perfectly capable of doing.

Wrong on both counts.

First, your revisionist history does not match recorded history. Most of the people you call deniers have ALWAYS labeled themselves skeptics. There are some just plain disbelievers, who disbelieve based on faith. But the majority of them follow the actual science.

Second, most of these skeptics are NOT right-wing religious fanatics.

Both of these myths have been promoted by the True Believers: the alarmists who can't back up their claims with real science.

The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out.

It's really quite hilarious.

You didn't read far enough, wise guy.

Just as I wrote earlier.

NO.

Pixel density is measured in pixels per inch. THAT is the relation between pixels and physical size, just like physical density is a relationship between mass and size. It is an "intrinsic" property, meaning it doesn't matter how big your bar of gold is, it still has the same density.

Resolution, which today is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Centimeter), is also an intrinsic property, in that sense. The resolution of your screen has nothing at all to do with its size. A screen that is 1 inch square can easily have the same resolution, in PPI, as a screen that is 120" diagonally. It makes no difference. However, if they did have the same resolution, the SIZE in pixels of the 120" unit would be vastly greater.

You are arguing exactly the case that I was explaining is wrong. Resolution is size-independent.

1080p is a DISPLAY SIZE measured in pixels. (Plus the 'p' part, which is a different matter entirely). My telephone is 720p. But because my phone is small, its resolution, in PPI, is far higher than most televisions.

This was the whole point I was getting at originally. What most people (and even manufacturers) CALL "resolution" isn't. It's a misuse of the word. Resolution is a ratio, it has a scientific definition, it is measurable, and it has nothing to do with total number of pixels on a screen.

Almost but not quite. Dot pitch is a measure used on CRT screens. And it is, on a color screen, the distance between dots of the same color, just as you say.

On modern pixel-based displays, however, the resolution is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Pixels Per Cm), which is not a distance but a ratio. Still the same basic idea.

No, that isn't waht it means. What you are describing is the SIZE, in pixels, of the display.

In order to get the actual resolution, you divide the number of pixels in a given linear distance by that distance; the result is Pixels Per Inch or PPI. Notice the "per" in there: that means it is a ratio, not a simple scalar number like your SIZE is.

In practice, not all displays have square pixels. In that case some math trickery is used to come up with the "effective" PPI, which is your resolution, as opposed to the size.

Don't misuse the word then try to tell me it "always has been". That's just plain false. "Never was" would be closer to the truth.