This isn't to use for a mobile phone while driving.[etc]
I imagined that. Would one be able to stop Jane/Joe Average using it this way and keep their hands on the wheel?
This is an interface for a wearable computer (which may also be a phone) when you need to give it visual input.
Somehow make sense in a mobile device not primarily used as a phone while you are "imaginary interfacing". Don't take me wrong, I'm not dismissive on the idea (on the contrary), but I fail to see a remarkable impact of the applications as proposed by the TFA.
Without a visual feedback on what you are drawing and the time persistence of what you are drawing I really doubt that one would be able to achieve notable results. Think:
1. how many times you are sketching something that's good even in a very rough form? (no visual feedback won't let you do more)
2. how many times is that you don't need the rough sketch to last more than 2 mins? (or whatever the "visual memory" persistence is)
Maybe I'm biased by my engineering way of thinking: in it's "pure imaginary" incarnation, this is rather a solution seeking for a problem. In it's non-imaginary form, I imagine there are cheaper and less sophisticated means to achieve it.
Finally, trying hard to find real-life applications also involving smart phones, some/.-ers suggested Sign Language translation. Now, this does make better sense to me.
Design a "hands free" for a mobile with this interface...
The problem having a small interface to interact with the touch-screen of a mobile is real... but I fail to see how this is actually a solution.
Write, "Please stop sucking cock and do these blood tests, bitch!":-) That includes the word please!
Better still, redesign the blood test form to include the above phrase, put a tick box in front of it, put a tick in the box and only after that send it to the printing press. Problem is solved with an one-off trivial investment... or is it?
[CSIRO] argues they have been selling devices that infringe its patents.
then
"There is another limit which is we only hold patents in 19 countries and so there are many countries where we don't hold patents including Russia and China.
A possible interpretation:
* if the manufacturer of the "offending chip" is in China, CSIRO will never stand a chance to get royalties from the chip manufacturer. So, it goes after the "buyers" of the chip, in countries where they can. Is it fair? Well... I think it may be, see my next point...
*...IANAL, but selling products using a patented technology but in breach with the licensing (when your - US, I mean - very law says the patent is protected), seems to me close to the act of selling stolen goods
If the parallel is right (might not be), then usually...:
a....the buyer (of stolen good) is off-the-hook - thus Verizon customers don't need to pay for what they purchased
b.... the seller need to support the damages and stop sourcing the goods from the thieves. Which means CSIRO may finish by having AT&T/Verizon/others forcing their chip supplier to get a license on the technology or loose the supplying contract
Does it make sense? Is it fair? Is it legally sound? I don't know, happy to receive some other opinions (before letting the time/East Texas courts come with an answer).
If maintaining the set of DOS batch files doesn't create you nightmares, go for it!
Might not be a problem at the start, but as they grow in number and complexity... the probability of nightmare approaches 1.
Besides, if something goes wrong while testing, without the ability to debug/trace the execution, how can you make sure it is the product that's going the wrong way or, instead, your scripts have bugs somewhere?
Neither is pornography evil nor is everything involving bare primary or secondary sexual features pornography. Man I wish the United States would just hit puberty already and get over their paralyzing fear of sex.
They did... long time ago, during 1960-es (just rent the "Hair" movie).
But... well.. d'you know the difference between a little boy and an old man? The former thinks his willy's just for peeing, the later is damn'd sure about. I reckon after a certain age he's so sure that he'd happily preach his truth quite aggressively.
This government is demonstrating it is still in the dark ages, where idiotic canned morals and ethics based on superstitious and largely fictional books still dictate the rules of state.
...
By the way, IRISH MORONS: Sex is good. Violence is bad. Imposed government/social censorship is MORONIC.
Agree in the main points of your post. What I'm however puzzled about, what does the reference to Irish/Ireland has to do with the MORONITY (or is it moronisness? whatever) of the situation. D'you care to elaborate?
Not having any relation with Ireland/Irish people, it is hard to me to see/understand how being a moron relates with the nationality or a certain cultural space, that's why I'm asking
granted summary judgment to the RIAA on several of the key issues in the case:
[snip] holding not only Lime Wire, but also its 87% shareholder (Lime Group) and its CEO and sole director, to be liable as well.
Huh? "Acute attack of common-sense" in regarding corporation laws or... WTF? (IANAL, thus I gave up reading the PDF)
I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.
First, thank you for the link, it is interesting (have no mod points, sorry).
Second, is any relation between the program aimed at young hip tech-savvy viewers and the demographic statistic of the persons included in the survey? (did you try to imply or suggest something)?
And third (that's the last one I promise)... hmmm... there is something that's hidden in the bottom of the article. It reads (the emphasis is mine):
So although only 11% of people currently choose to use any form of technological (non-supervision based) internet filter to protect children from inappropriate material online, and only 37% have computers that children use, the Government continues to push this line when justifying their plan to enforce a mandatory filter on the entire population.
Like what? The gov acting in the name of the 63% which don't let their children browse the internet?
With legitimate doubts remaining about how effective the filter will be at blocking offensive content (and how else it will affect the net), it could be argued that this is a cynical exploitation of people’s technological ignorance. Senator Kate Lundy seems to confirm this view. In a question on her website she was asked: “Will the filter give parents a false sense of security in protecting their children?”
Her answer?
“I think there is a risk of this, yes.”
Assuming your answer is, "I don't!!", then your position is essentially that there should be no censorship in any form of media.
I don't and indeed I'm on the position that there should be no censorship on any form of media.
That's because I don't know (more precisely, I don't admit as valid the existence) any kind of media that can cause harm by itself.
Either:
the harm was done before (or with the purpose of) creating the media - and then the people that have done it need to be found/prosecuted (except of possibly acting as an evidence, the resulted media is of no relevance to the matter) or
no harm was done before the publishing and the (potential but not guaranteed) use of the media/information in a harmful way (as a consequential action) would need – only if/when occurring – be prosecuted
For me, censorship is like the government/law enforcement bodies coming to me with the lame excuse that "I cannot do anything to protect you if you don't allow me to censor you - as well as anybody - the way I think and this without your knowledge, much less your approval". Of course, my non-acceptance of being nanny-ed by the gov would have the logical consequence of me replying to them "Did I ever asked you to protect me from information published on media? Let this be my responsibility, mate, I'm mature enough to handle it!"
Please note that I'm referring to "information published in/on media" and not about personal information - I still consider the right to privacy as fundamental, even if neither the Australian constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Right mention something about its protection.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
Nope, Internet is not quite like other media, at the extent that all the other media require a physical support for the information.
Thus, any censorship of other media will result in somebody, not affiliated with the government, in Australia knowing about the censorship: in extreme, the censorship of that item may be made public and, possibly, debated if necessary.
By contrast, Conroy's scheme assumes censoring the Internet without anyone's knowledge (at least no one affiliated with the gov, or law enforcement), letting you defenseless in the matter of exercising your control over the power. Not that the power one simply citizen would be quite remarkable, but if you give it away - so small as it would be - you remain with what?
The above letting aside that I take pride of being able to take care of what I'm doing or suffer the consequences. I don't need my own mother to take care anymore of my actions, why should I trust the government to do nanny me???
The opposition Liberal Party are finally getting their act together and the Labour Government doesn't want to feed them any issues to debate, so filtering is on hold.
Try greens (if you dare): at least, in regards with Internet Filtering, they seem more reasonable to me
Sure, less likely they'd win the election but maybe, while passing their votes to labor, they'll also pass their point of view in regards to Internet filtering.
Perhaps I'm exposing my own ignorance (because I've never felt the need to use Tor myself) but that strikes me as surprising if it's true. And something that even savvy internet users might not think about.
The sawy internet users are kindly invited to read the paper on weaknesses of BitTorrent over Tor to reduce their level of ignorance. There are 2 passive ways and an active way (running a Tor exit node) to exploit "BT leaks" (not really leaks since it wasn't designed with security/privacy in mind).
Your responsibility as a teacher/trainer/coach is toward the kids and not towards the olympic committee.
And, based on your question, I think you are about to fail them: if you raised the question only with 2 months in advance and expect to make a kid (that doesn't know to write a "Hello world" in any language) suddenly so highly competitive that the speed of execution is the main discriminant.
But again, no wonder... what can I expect from someone turning to Slashdot to get answers that are going to influence the life of some kids!
Still off-topic - only as an exercise to debunk "scare tactics" in argumentations (don't take me for a fool easy to scare - i'm not pushing towards voting greens, I only asked: "Instead of trying to scare the s*t out of me, why don;t you come with suggesting alternatives?" I see you did, thank you for it, but again don't expect me to suddenly fall on my back of scare)
Why do you think that greens coming over will demolish the mining giants?
Is it likely that China will find cheaper coal or iron ore anywhere else? Or do you think they'll invade Australia if the greens come to power?
Granted, the miners will be impacted, but I don't reckon the impact as "Yet another world crisis".
This is a resolution by a virtually unanimous parliament, but it is not formally binding for the Commission.If they want to ignore us, they technically can.Then we will have to fight on.
And once we do get access to the documents, the fight over the content of the agreement will begin in earnest. This was a big win, but it was only a battle. Most of the war remains.
This is completely incorrect. The European Parliament have demanded that the European Commission make public the nature of its discussions in the ACTA negotiations, and the EU Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern that the treaty might be incompatible with existing EU law, but the parliament have not passed any resolutions regarding the content of the treaty itself (not least because it's secret, so they don't know what it says).
The process through which the ACTA has be created is highly suspect but it does its opponents no service if those who campaign against it can't present an accurate case.
The resolution does not call for ACTA to scrapped, however. Instead, negotiations should center only on more effective "counterfeiting" enforcement. As Engström put it in a blog post on the new resolution, "If there is to be an ACTA agreement, the parliament wants it to be about combating goods counterfeiting (i.e., fake Rolexes and hand bags, fake Viagra on the net, fake cigarettes that are even more harmful that proper ones, etc.). It should not be about restricting our fundamental civil liberties on the net... Today is a day when it feels good to be a Pirate in the European Parliament."
To be noted that the ACTA treaty will need to be ratified by the EU Parliament, thus it seems that there are still hopes in regarding this.
Are you suggesting I should let down my rights only because the mining giants would suffer?
If you are not, can you come with a suggestion on how to get rid of Internet censorship without voting greens? (I'd be happy to hear one, given we are in an electoral year).
If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?
To answer to this specific question: it is called "Limited warranty", more specific the "Fitness to the purpose" disclaimer.
If a customer is stupid enough to still insist paying for something it was publicly warned is not fit for a certain purpose, I reckon the supplier should be even more stupid not to take the money and provide the goods.
This is not to say that ozzies should accept a minister that persists in making stupid decision (but if they do, they'll worth their faith).
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interface for a wearable computer (which may also be a phone) when you need to give it visual input.
Now, give computer visual input sounds better.
I imagine that the "pilots" of MQ-9 reapers can now "go mobile" and do their job using an iPhone.
This isn't to use for a mobile phone while driving.[etc]
I imagined that. Would one be able to stop Jane/Joe Average using it this way and keep their hands on the wheel?
This is an interface for a wearable computer (which may also be a phone) when you need to give it visual input.
Somehow make sense in a mobile device not primarily used as a phone while you are "imaginary interfacing". Don't take me wrong, I'm not dismissive on the idea (on the contrary), but I fail to see a remarkable impact of the applications as proposed by the TFA.
Without a visual feedback on what you are drawing and the time persistence of what you are drawing I really doubt that one would be able to achieve notable results. Think:
1. how many times you are sketching something that's good even in a very rough form? (no visual feedback won't let you do more)
2. how many times is that you don't need the rough sketch to last more than 2 mins? (or whatever the "visual memory" persistence is)
Maybe I'm biased by my engineering way of thinking: in it's "pure imaginary" incarnation, this is rather a solution seeking for a problem. In it's non-imaginary form, I imagine there are cheaper and less sophisticated means to achieve it.
Finally, trying hard to find real-life applications also involving smart phones, some /.-ers suggested Sign Language translation. Now, this does make better sense to me.
Design a "hands free" for a mobile with this interface...
The problem having a small interface to interact with the touch-screen of a mobile is real... but I fail to see how this is actually a solution.
Write, "Please stop sucking cock and do these blood tests, bitch!" :-) That includes the word please!
Better still, redesign the blood test form to include the above phrase, put a tick box in front of it, put a tick in the box and only after that send it to the printing press. Problem is solved with an one-off trivial investment... or is it?
then
A possible interpretation: ...IANAL, but selling products using a patented technology but in breach with the licensing (when your - US, I mean - very law says the patent is protected), seems to me close to the act of selling stolen goods
* if the manufacturer of the "offending chip" is in China, CSIRO will never stand a chance to get royalties from the chip manufacturer. So, it goes after the "buyers" of the chip, in countries where they can. Is it fair? Well... I think it may be, see my next point...
*
If the parallel is right (might not be), then usually...: ...the buyer (of stolen good) is off-the-hook - thus Verizon customers don't need to pay for what they purchased
... the seller need to support the damages and stop sourcing the goods from the thieves. Which means CSIRO may finish by having AT&T/Verizon/others forcing their chip supplier to get a license on the technology or loose the supplying contract
a.
b.
Does it make sense? Is it fair? Is it legally sound? I don't know, happy to receive some other opinions (before letting the time/East Texas courts come with an answer).
If maintaining the set of DOS batch files doesn't create you nightmares, go for it!
Might not be a problem at the start, but as they grow in number and complexity... the probability of nightmare approaches 1.
Besides, if something goes wrong while testing, without the ability to debug/trace the execution, how can you make sure it is the product that's going the wrong way or, instead, your scripts have bugs somewhere?
Virgin in the UK used to refuse support until you connected a Mac or Windows box directly. Routers were 'not supported'.
From which I understood: the only virgin in the UK is soooo kinky
Mandatory disclaimer: emacs excluded.
That the end of the hamster wheel as we know it.
Pity of all the effort, science and passion others put into it... So long to you, deep and hamster-wheel inspired phylosophy of life...
Neither is pornography evil nor is everything involving bare primary or secondary sexual features pornography. Man I wish the United States would just hit puberty already and get over their paralyzing fear of sex.
They did... long time ago, during 1960-es (just rent the "Hair" movie).
But... well.. d'you know the difference between a little boy and an old man? The former thinks his willy's just for peeing, the later is damn'd sure about. I reckon after a certain age he's so sure that he'd happily preach his truth quite aggressively.
This government is demonstrating it is still in the dark ages, where idiotic canned morals and ethics based on superstitious and largely fictional books still dictate the rules of state.
By the way, IRISH MORONS: Sex is good. Violence is bad. Imposed government/social censorship is MORONIC.
Agree in the main points of your post. What I'm however puzzled about, what does the reference to Irish/Ireland has to do with the MORONITY (or is it moronisness? whatever) of the situation. D'you care to elaborate?
Not having any relation with Ireland/Irish people, it is hard to me to see/understand how being a moron relates with the nationality or a certain cultural space, that's why I'm asking
granted summary judgment to the RIAA on several of the key issues in the case:
[snip]
holding not only Lime Wire, but also its 87% shareholder (Lime Group) and its CEO and sole director, to be liable as well.
Huh? "Acute attack of common-sense" in regarding corporation laws or... WTF? (IANAL, thus I gave up reading the PDF)
[...]you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue
So, who is this Sue?
I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.
First, thank you for the link, it is interesting (have no mod points, sorry).
Second, is any relation between the program aimed at young hip tech-savvy viewers and the demographic statistic of the persons included in the survey? (did you try to imply or suggest something)?
And third (that's the last one I promise)... hmmm... there is something that's hidden in the bottom of the article. It reads (the emphasis is mine):
So although only 11% of people currently choose to use any form of technological (non-supervision based) internet filter to protect children from inappropriate material online, and only 37% have computers that children use, the Government continues to push this line when justifying their plan to enforce a mandatory filter on the entire population.
Like what? The gov acting in the name of the 63% which don't let their children browse the internet?
With legitimate doubts remaining about how effective the filter will be at blocking offensive content (and how else it will affect the net), it could be argued that this is a cynical exploitation of people’s technological ignorance. Senator Kate Lundy seems to confirm this view. In a question on her website she was asked:
“Will the filter give parents a false sense of security in protecting their children?”
Her answer?
“I think there is a risk of this, yes.”
Assuming your answer is, "I don't!!", then your position is essentially that there should be no censorship in any form of media.
I don't and indeed I'm on the position that there should be no censorship on any form of media. That's because I don't know (more precisely, I don't admit as valid the existence) any kind of media that can cause harm by itself. Either:
For me, censorship is like the government/law enforcement bodies coming to me with the lame excuse that "I cannot do anything to protect you if you don't allow me to censor you - as well as anybody - the way I think and this without your knowledge, much less your approval". Of course, my non-acceptance of being nanny-ed by the gov would have the logical consequence of me replying to them "Did I ever asked you to protect me from information published on media? Let this be my responsibility, mate, I'm mature enough to handle it!"
Please note that I'm referring to "information published in/on media" and not about personal information - I still consider the right to privacy as fundamental, even if neither the Australian constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Right mention something about its protection.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
Nope, Internet is not quite like other media, at the extent that all the other media require a physical support for the information. Thus, any censorship of other media will result in somebody, not affiliated with the government, in Australia knowing about the censorship: in extreme, the censorship of that item may be made public and, possibly, debated if necessary.
By contrast, Conroy's scheme assumes censoring the Internet without anyone's knowledge (at least no one affiliated with the gov, or law enforcement), letting you defenseless in the matter of exercising your control over the power. Not that the power one simply citizen would be quite remarkable, but if you give it away - so small as it would be - you remain with what?
The above letting aside that I take pride of being able to take care of what I'm doing or suffer the consequences. I don't need my own mother to take care anymore of my actions, why should I trust the government to do nanny me???
The opposition Liberal Party are finally getting their act together and the Labour Government doesn't want to feed them any issues to debate, so filtering is on hold.
Try greens (if you dare): at least, in regards with Internet Filtering, they seem more reasonable to me
Greens tell Labor to abandon net filter and start again
Sure, less likely they'd win the election but maybe, while passing their votes to labor, they'll also pass their point of view in regards to Internet filtering.
Perhaps I'm exposing my own ignorance (because I've never felt the need to use Tor myself) but that strikes me as surprising if it's true. And something that even savvy internet users might not think about.
The sawy internet users are kindly invited to read the paper on weaknesses of BitTorrent over Tor to reduce their level of ignorance. There are 2 passive ways and an active way (running a Tor exit node) to exploit "BT leaks" (not really leaks since it wasn't designed with security/privacy in mind).
http://www.physorg.com/news190482866.html
Your responsibility as a teacher/trainer/coach is toward the kids and not towards the olympic committee.
And, based on your question, I think you are about to fail them: if you raised the question only with 2 months in advance and expect to make a kid (that doesn't know to write a "Hello world" in any language) suddenly so highly competitive that the speed of execution is the main discriminant.
But again, no wonder... what can I expect from someone turning to Slashdot to get answers that are going to influence the life of some kids!
Still off-topic - only as an exercise to debunk "scare tactics" in argumentations (don't take me for a fool easy to scare - i'm not pushing towards voting greens, I only asked: "Instead of trying to scare the s*t out of me, why don;t you come with suggesting alternatives?" I see you did, thank you for it, but again don't expect me to suddenly fall on my back of scare)
Why do you think that greens coming over will demolish the mining giants?
Is it likely that China will find cheaper coal or iron ore anywhere else? Or do you think they'll invade Australia if the greens come to power?
Granted, the miners will be impacted, but I don't reckon the impact as "Yet another world crisis".
This is completely incorrect. The European Parliament have demanded that the European Commission make public the nature of its discussions in the ACTA negotiations, and the EU Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern that the treaty might be incompatible with existing EU law, but the parliament have not passed any resolutions regarding the content of the treaty itself (not least because it's secret, so they don't know what it says).
The process through which the ACTA has be created is highly suspect but it does its opponents no service if those who campaign against it can't present an accurate case.
Signals of common-sense still exists
To be noted that the ACTA treaty will need to be ratified by the EU Parliament, thus it seems that there are still hopes in regarding this.
Are you suggesting I should let down my rights only because the mining giants would suffer?
If you are not, can you come with a suggestion on how to get rid of Internet censorship without voting greens? (I'd be happy to hear one, given we are in an electoral year).
If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?
To answer to this specific question: it is called "Limited warranty", more specific the "Fitness to the purpose" disclaimer.
If a customer is stupid enough to still insist paying for something it was publicly warned is not fit for a certain purpose, I reckon the supplier should be even more stupid not to take the money and provide the goods.
This is not to say that ozzies should accept a minister that persists in making stupid decision (but if they do, they'll worth their faith).