I don't want a touch-based desktop, even if it's a direct console to Deep Blue (or whatever is the most powerful supercomputer these days). A desktop's monitor is ideally just at the edge of arm's reach for me, and fingerprint-free. I don't want anyone touching my screen, except maybe tapping with a pencil or pen to point out things. Desktops/laptops are meant to be used with a mouse and keyboard, in my opinion, not poking the screen. That's for tablets and phones.
I seem to recall Android apps having to have the ability to distinguish between tablets and phones, and offer up potentially different UIs for both, each optimized for the amount of screen space available. I don't see why Microsoft can't go the same way, even if it means developers having to work extra to create two different UIs.
It's not horrid on a touch-enabled device. The problem comes when you try to use an interface obviously designed for touch with no touch input. Sure, you can use it with a mouse, but that just feels awkward and weird. Windows 8 is probably going to be amazing on tablets, but i don't see why Microsoft tries to force it on desktop users. In their stead, I would just keep the Windows 7 UI, and put that on top of the upgraded codebase. Or if they want to tie the platforms together so badly, make the OS detect the type of device it is installed on, and use the appropriate interface (Not-Metro for touch-based devices, regular for non-touch-based ones).
Call me crazy, but aren't such consoles meant to replace several of the consoles you're talking about? Like a VCR, DVR, laptop, Apple Mini, Region 1 blu-ray player, Region 2 blu-ray player, etc. That seems to be the point of such media center consoles...
Calling it Amulet while having the form factor of a watch is somewhat misleading, I was thinking how a necklace could possibly have a secure enough interface to the body to measure the required responses.
But that's the least of my worries. Body impedance can be dependent on quite a lot of things, such as hydration, and skin resistance, which is again dependent on many factors, such as the temperature, stress, etc. Could such a small device carry a sophisticated enough algorithm to reliably and quickly account for all these factors to establish the identity? Or would I need to wear the device for months so it can learn all my electrical characteristics? What if I gain implants later on: a pacemaker or artificial heart would significantly alter my impedance, likely requiring a re-calibration.
If these problems can be worked out,the technology has promise. If not, a coordinating watch for a personal area network still seems like a good idea, some way or another...
Spokespeople in their official role are a different matter altogether. What I'm driving it is the comments of third parties being considered part of the advertising, as you said. They are not, in my opinion, and the company pushing the advert should not be held responsible for what unknown people comment on its pages. comments should be owned wholly by the commenters, as they are the only ones who can take true responsibility for what they are saying.
No, you made the accusation: "websites have a very clearly understood social responsibility for the content they host", you have to support your point with evidence and citations. I can support mine that people don't give a crap about social responsibility by showing Facebook usage figures. As for taking responsibility for my website's content, you're right: I don't take any responsibility, since I do not have a personal site (other than a Facebook profile, but that's debatable if it's "personal" as in "my own").
Then please do quote the applicable clause from the Facebook terms and conditions.
Social responsibility is not legally enforceable. Not following it may mean you're an asshole, and people may not use your services. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Facebook, so I think it's safe to say people do not give a shit about social responsibility. As for who takes responsibility? The commenter, naturally. Again, who takes responsibility for something you say on Speakers' Corner, who gets arrested for hate speech? You or Boris Johnson?
Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say?
Why should anyone profit from what you say?
I fail to see how the company profited from derogatory slurs...
In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner?
Yes, to the extent each party knowingly continues to benefit from it.
The whole point in government, being a body representing the people, is that it holds a degree of responsibility for what the people do. Bad government implies bad citizenry, and vice versa.
It doesn't, not in the slightest. The government holds responsibility for its actions towards its electors, but not for all the actions of its people. Otherwise, I could sue your state for any given thing, like trying to slander me. Bad government implies bad politicians, but it has nothing to do with the populace in general.
Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?
Of course. Try spending a minute calling everyone around you to "kill dirty niggers and kikes, especially that Jamal Rosenberg guy at number 27" and see what happens.
Most political speech is necessary, though - which is why the government is responsible for protecting rather than prohibiting it.
That's simple hate speech, prosecutable under law. Connecting this to the article, someone targeted by the "hate speech" on the page could file a complaint and have the court investigate it, but certainly not Facebook or the company itself (who was not a target).
Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say? In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner? Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?
Thanks for the exhaustive correction. I admit that Fair Use slipped my mind, given that based on what I see/read on the internet (my only forum for getting appraised of US law, given that I'm from Europe), certain organisations are doing everything they can to abolish it. Then again, is doing something that is expressly permitted a form of infringement? I'd say not, fair use is fair use, which is not an infringement, but ripping a DVD to HDD and marketing it is. In Hungary, though, such rips are legal as long as you're not drawing a revenue from them, as they would be considered 'backups'. Of course, this requires that you can produce a proof of purchase for your 'backed up' software or movies...
However, I'd argue against "commit" having such implications. For example, random acts of kindness are committed, just like random acts of violence. But let's say you're right, what would you use in its stead?
I'm conflicted on which way to moderate this: on the one hand, it's oversimplified, off-topic trolling, but on the other hand, it's fundamentally correct in saying that the neighboring Arab countries shovel more shit Israel's way than vice versa, and the Israelis just want to be left in peace.
The problem with torrents is usually the payload they carry. Copyright infringement is a crime, no matter the way of committing it. Or were you referring to torrent sites like Piratebay? Because based on this reasoning, such sites are innocent, provided they're not hosting the infringing torrents (which Piratebay, at the very least, doesn't).
That would work, yes, but usually, typing is a distraction. The way I'd use OneNote is by typing up all my analog notes from class at the end of the day (going over it once more and thinking about it while typing helps the brain encode it to long-term storage, and lets you review it and spot mistakes/unclear parts), and only then integrate powerpoints, recordings, etc, then file it into a notebook to use later.
Until tablets can reliably and instantly recognize my abysmal handwriting and understand my on-the-spot abbreviations, digital note-taking will be slower and more error-prone (for me).
Careful, the troll from yesterday may strike here as well, and claim you have no right to correct the summary, as you're not a lawyer...
Anyway, I believe the lawyers are filing the dockets in their own filing cabinets (and that's where they were released from), not filing them as in "submitting them to the court".
If you're going to quote my words, please give full context (since you seem to be so much into context), and include the rest of that paragraph, in which I explain just why I commented what I commented.
I think Prey happens to survive a factory restore. I remember it being already installed after I did a factory reset after a dubiously-gone Android upgrade. And anyway, if you change the lock method to, say, password, from pattern, they won't be able to get into the menu to restore. Although a recovery-mediated reinstall will most likely kill even Prey...
I'm aware that a blocked IMEI can't be circumvented, but that does make one wonder: why aren't telcos already implementing such measures? And what about not using the device on a cellular network? A WLAN-only iPad wouldn't suffer from IMEI-blocking, so there needs to be another way to deter theft for those devices.
Says the Anonymous Coward, who's even afraid to show his handle. You don't know anything about people's usage habits and accounts, or if you're a site admin who does, prove it. You can do that by, say, publishing my IP address. You should be able to access the logs if you're an admin and know exactly who are my "sock puppet" accounts. So go on, prove it to everyone that I'm a dirty, cheating, sock puppet-using troll. I'm waiting. Of course I'll be waiting a long time: if you do have access to those logs, and look up my IP, you'll see only one account uses it: this one.
As for being off topic with my initial comment, I accept that, never denied it either. However, I maintain my point that the summary, as it is now, should never have seen the light of the front page. At the very least, the editor posting it should have looked it over and corrected any mistakes to produce a summary befitting the site.
I'm sure there are many apps out there that offer remote locking, GPS-tracking, and other features. I have Prey installed on my Nexus S, it can report GPS-location, access point names, network structure, etc, display messages, change the lock method, sound an alarm, maybe even wipe the phone, all with a single SMS or web interface setting. This is the only one I know (luckily, I never had to activate it, though), but a quick search of the Android market reveals 1000+ results for anti-theft, I'm sure the App Store has a similar number of hits.
So there's no need for such a registry (although it wouldn't hurt either), people just need to prepare for the worst, and install such an app in time.
I'm not exactly sure if the SMS-activation would work on an iPad, though. Are they capable of receiving SMS, or only 3/4G?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want a touch-based desktop, even if it's a direct console to Deep Blue (or whatever is the most powerful supercomputer these days). A desktop's monitor is ideally just at the edge of arm's reach for me, and fingerprint-free. I don't want anyone touching my screen, except maybe tapping with a pencil or pen to point out things. Desktops/laptops are meant to be used with a mouse and keyboard, in my opinion, not poking the screen. That's for tablets and phones.
I seem to recall Android apps having to have the ability to distinguish between tablets and phones, and offer up potentially different UIs for both, each optimized for the amount of screen space available. I don't see why Microsoft can't go the same way, even if it means developers having to work extra to create two different UIs.
Or they can just ... not install Windows 8, and stick with Windows 7, which'll be even faster on the new, more powerful hardware.
There's always another way, you know.
It's not horrid on a touch-enabled device. The problem comes when you try to use an interface obviously designed for touch with no touch input. Sure, you can use it with a mouse, but that just feels awkward and weird.
Windows 8 is probably going to be amazing on tablets, but i don't see why Microsoft tries to force it on desktop users. In their stead, I would just keep the Windows 7 UI, and put that on top of the upgraded codebase. Or if they want to tie the platforms together so badly, make the OS detect the type of device it is installed on, and use the appropriate interface (Not-Metro for touch-based devices, regular for non-touch-based ones).
Wasn't it the Bhagavad Gíta (?) quote "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds"?
How does one break out of a chroot prison, exactly?
Or, "Hey Bubba, Watch This!"
"I bet you my Nobel Prize and a beer you can't hit the unobtanium sample with the coils on manual!"
[Cue resonance cascade]
Or "Oh crap..". Or "Hey guys? This is pretty weird...".
Call me crazy, but aren't such consoles meant to replace several of the consoles you're talking about? Like a VCR, DVR, laptop, Apple Mini, Region 1 blu-ray player, Region 2 blu-ray player, etc.
That seems to be the point of such media center consoles...
Calling it Amulet while having the form factor of a watch is somewhat misleading, I was thinking how a necklace could possibly have a secure enough interface to the body to measure the required responses.
But that's the least of my worries. Body impedance can be dependent on quite a lot of things, such as hydration, and skin resistance, which is again dependent on many factors, such as the temperature, stress, etc. Could such a small device carry a sophisticated enough algorithm to reliably and quickly account for all these factors to establish the identity? Or would I need to wear the device for months so it can learn all my electrical characteristics? What if I gain implants later on: a pacemaker or artificial heart would significantly alter my impedance, likely requiring a re-calibration.
If these problems can be worked out,the technology has promise. If not, a coordinating watch for a personal area network still seems like a good idea, some way or another...
Spokespeople in their official role are a different matter altogether. What I'm driving it is the comments of third parties being considered part of the advertising, as you said. They are not, in my opinion, and the company pushing the advert should not be held responsible for what unknown people comment on its pages. comments should be owned wholly by the commenters, as they are the only ones who can take true responsibility for what they are saying.
No, you made the accusation: "websites have a very clearly understood social responsibility for the content they host", you have to support your point with evidence and citations. I can support mine that people don't give a crap about social responsibility by showing Facebook usage figures.
As for taking responsibility for my website's content, you're right: I don't take any responsibility, since I do not have a personal site (other than a Facebook profile, but that's debatable if it's "personal" as in "my own").
Then please do quote the applicable clause from the Facebook terms and conditions.
Social responsibility is not legally enforceable. Not following it may mean you're an asshole, and people may not use your services. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Facebook, so I think it's safe to say people do not give a shit about social responsibility.
As for who takes responsibility? The commenter, naturally. Again, who takes responsibility for something you say on Speakers' Corner, who gets arrested for hate speech? You or Boris Johnson?
Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say?
Why should anyone profit from what you say?
I fail to see how the company profited from derogatory slurs...
In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner?
Yes, to the extent each party knowingly continues to benefit from it.
The whole point in government, being a body representing the people, is that it holds a degree of responsibility for what the people do. Bad government implies bad citizenry, and vice versa.
It doesn't, not in the slightest. The government holds responsibility for its actions towards its electors, but not for all the actions of its people. Otherwise, I could sue your state for any given thing, like trying to slander me. Bad government implies bad politicians, but it has nothing to do with the populace in general.
Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?
Of course. Try spending a minute calling everyone around you to "kill dirty niggers and kikes, especially that Jamal Rosenberg guy at number 27" and see what happens.
Most political speech is necessary, though - which is why the government is responsible for protecting rather than prohibiting it.
That's simple hate speech, prosecutable under law. Connecting this to the article, someone targeted by the "hate speech" on the page could file a complaint and have the court investigate it, but certainly not Facebook or the company itself (who was not a target).
Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say? In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner? Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?
And this is +2 Insightful? Are you fucking kidding me?
Thanks for the exhaustive correction. I admit that Fair Use slipped my mind, given that based on what I see/read on the internet (my only forum for getting appraised of US law, given that I'm from Europe), certain organisations are doing everything they can to abolish it.
Then again, is doing something that is expressly permitted a form of infringement? I'd say not, fair use is fair use, which is not an infringement, but ripping a DVD to HDD and marketing it is. In Hungary, though, such rips are legal as long as you're not drawing a revenue from them, as they would be considered 'backups'. Of course, this requires that you can produce a proof of purchase for your 'backed up' software or movies...
However, I'd argue against "commit" having such implications. For example, random acts of kindness are committed, just like random acts of violence. But let's say you're right, what would you use in its stead?
I'm conflicted on which way to moderate this: on the one hand, it's oversimplified, off-topic trolling, but on the other hand, it's fundamentally correct in saying that the neighboring Arab countries shovel more shit Israel's way than vice versa, and the Israelis just want to be left in peace.
The problem with torrents is usually the payload they carry. Copyright infringement is a crime, no matter the way of committing it.
Or were you referring to torrent sites like Piratebay? Because based on this reasoning, such sites are innocent, provided they're not hosting the infringing torrents (which Piratebay, at the very least, doesn't).
That would work, yes, but usually, typing is a distraction. The way I'd use OneNote is by typing up all my analog notes from class at the end of the day (going over it once more and thinking about it while typing helps the brain encode it to long-term storage, and lets you review it and spot mistakes/unclear parts), and only then integrate powerpoints, recordings, etc, then file it into a notebook to use later.
Until tablets can reliably and instantly recognize my abysmal handwriting and understand my on-the-spot abbreviations, digital note-taking will be slower and more error-prone (for me).
Careful, the troll from yesterday may strike here as well, and claim you have no right to correct the summary, as you're not a lawyer...
Anyway, I believe the lawyers are filing the dockets in their own filing cabinets (and that's where they were released from), not filing them as in "submitting them to the court".
If you're going to quote my words, please give full context (since you seem to be so much into context), and include the rest of that paragraph, in which I explain just why I commented what I commented.
I think Prey happens to survive a factory restore. I remember it being already installed after I did a factory reset after a dubiously-gone Android upgrade. And anyway, if you change the lock method to, say, password, from pattern, they won't be able to get into the menu to restore.
Although a recovery-mediated reinstall will most likely kill even Prey...
I'm aware that a blocked IMEI can't be circumvented, but that does make one wonder: why aren't telcos already implementing such measures? And what about not using the device on a cellular network? A WLAN-only iPad wouldn't suffer from IMEI-blocking, so there needs to be another way to deter theft for those devices.
Says the Anonymous Coward, who's even afraid to show his handle. You don't know anything about people's usage habits and accounts, or if you're a site admin who does, prove it. You can do that by, say, publishing my IP address. You should be able to access the logs if you're an admin and know exactly who are my "sock puppet" accounts. So go on, prove it to everyone that I'm a dirty, cheating, sock puppet-using troll. I'm waiting.
Of course I'll be waiting a long time: if you do have access to those logs, and look up my IP, you'll see only one account uses it: this one.
As for being off topic with my initial comment, I accept that, never denied it either. However, I maintain my point that the summary, as it is now, should never have seen the light of the front page. At the very least, the editor posting it should have looked it over and corrected any mistakes to produce a summary befitting the site.
I'm sure there are many apps out there that offer remote locking, GPS-tracking, and other features. I have Prey installed on my Nexus S, it can report GPS-location, access point names, network structure, etc, display messages, change the lock method, sound an alarm, maybe even wipe the phone, all with a single SMS or web interface setting.
This is the only one I know (luckily, I never had to activate it, though), but a quick search of the Android market reveals 1000+ results for anti-theft, I'm sure the App Store has a similar number of hits.
So there's no need for such a registry (although it wouldn't hurt either), people just need to prepare for the worst, and install such an app in time.
I'm not exactly sure if the SMS-activation would work on an iPad, though. Are they capable of receiving SMS, or only 3/4G?