Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place
But failing that, because hey.... we all do things that thought might have been a good idea at the time, and only realized in hindsight that it wasn't particularly as good as one had originally thought, then at least be mature enough to face the consequences of your choices... and that means even if those consequences follow you for the rest of your life. Expecting societty or other people to forget or forgive your past might very well be a nice theoretical ideal, but the truth of the matter is that we live in a far from ideal world. It's not that I particularly condone an unforgiving society, but in the end, only *YOU* can be accountable for what you may have done in your past... including stuff that might not put you in the best light It's not anyone's problem to forget but your own.
The question is not so much what are you going to do to make people forget about the stupid things you might have done in the past as much as it is what are you going to do with the rest of your life in spite of it?
Because really, if you can't do that, and learn how to move past it, then how in the hell do you expect anyone else to?
It's courtesy when listening to the flight attendants provide safety instructions and gate info.
Then why don't they just say that instead of implicating that somehow electronics are to blame?
They say to shut off electronics, when they could just say that they want people to be paying attention during that time, and not be doing anything which distracts them. That would include using electronics... but would also including reading, sleeping, or even talking to the person next to you.
If that were the reason, they would also request that people not read, sleep, or do anything distracting during those periods, but instead to remain alert and listen to instructions.
You are correct, of course... but unfortunately that would require that people actually use the grey matter between their ears to determine whether something might be considered distracting or not, which no small percentage of drivers do not have any real motivation to try to use. "Distracted" driving, by itself, is far too subjective a concept to apply objectively. A driver who is simply daydreaming, for example, can easily be just as big of a danger to others as somebody who is driving intoxicated.
Sadly, laws must be designed so that it is possibly to clearly and unambiguously determine when somebody is breaking them, and must also appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which means that as any new technology comes out which can be dangerous when used in a particular context, a law will have to probably be made to regulate its use in that context.
The upshot of there being an explicit law prohibiting this, however, because of its objectivity, is that anyone doing it could be considered "in breach" of their automobile insurance, which can expedite any disputes over blame that might arise.
I was reminded of a scene that I saw I don't remember how long ago now, I think it was a Dilbert comic, or something similar... where there was some guy's presentation that was totally boring everybody, until he mentions that he has a graph, and then when pulls out a large form cardstock sheet with a colored pie graph and bar chart from his folder and puts it on the easel where he is doing his presentation, he suddenly has the undivided attention of everyone in the room, as they say "oooooooooh" in unison, evidently being completely wowed by the novelty of it.
I wish I could remember where I saw that though... it might have even been a cartoon or comedy on TV.
Anyways... when I saw the words "summarized in a table and a bar graph", it made me think of that.
More specifically, the fact that there is ceremony involved suggests strongly to me that it is not of biological origin. The fact that its practice evidently predates modern civilization itself heavily suggests to me that it is not of any kind of legal origin either.
I think the main reason there wasn't ever penalties imposed for false DMCA takedowns is because they didn't want to harshly penalize what actually could have simply turned out to have been an honest mistake (not that I believe for a second that an honest mistake is what actually happened here... or for that matter, most of the other ridiculous abuses of the DMCA, although bringing up the notion here does bring to the forefront of my mind that I don't really know how they would ever be able to tell, objectively, whether the act was intentional or not to adjudicate an appropriate penalty).
I mean, do they just tax based on destination state, regardless of the buyer? Or is the wording wrong, and they really only mean people who are *IN* America?
If the DRM is unwanted by the authors, then the authors should issue a C&D against WHSmith. WHSMith must either remove DRM from your works before distributing, or, if that approach is incompatible with their preferred distribution model, WHSmith must forfeit their license to create digital copies completely. In the latter case, WHSmith would be entitled a refund of any fees that they paid for such a license. The authors would then have to find an alternative distributor who would not want to put DRM in, or else look into self-publication.
If you stay in one place, what's more, it is no different -- at all -- from a one angle display. That's what you get. One angle
You mean like in real life? If you stay in one place, your eyes are each only getting one angle as well.
With existing 3d films, much of the heedache problem is caused by incorrect eye convergence for what your eye lens is actually focussing on (the distance from you to the screen). This is because they put the left and right images at different points on the screen instead of at the same one, to try to magnify the 3d effect. When you are looking at this type of display, regardless of what is being displayed, both your lens focal distance and eye convergence will actually be the same... you are looking at the distance from you to the screen. Differences between what the left and right eye actually see will add an appearance of depth, and can cause your perception of the image to either jump out of the screen at you (because of a large difference) or not (because of a tiny, or no difference), but because your focal length and eye convergence are actually the same, the headache problem that is caused by stereo film viewing will not occur. If they tried to separate the left and right images on a display like this the way they do in 3d films, the result would just be a blurry picture, and you would not be able to perceive it as 3D at all... much like watching a stereo 3d film without the special glasses.
Now, that said... there is another problem to deal with, which happens any time that a person's eyes suddenly get a new sense of depth. Vertigo. Different people have different measures of vulnerability to this, and this is a problem with existing stereoscopic 3d as well, but tends to be dwarfed by the problems caused by incorrect eye convergence, and will probably become more of an issue as this technology becomes common.
The biggest difference you would notice between a multifaceted display like this and a hologram is that moving your head up and down will not have any effect on your perception of the image depth, where with a hologram it would. Also, if you turned your head sideways, the depth perception would disappear completely.
Also, owing to the difficulty of creating cameras that could produce the kinds of images necessary for this to work, I think that the only types of 3d that we are liable to see from this technology for the immediate future would be computer generated images, and not any regular films.
The biggest difference between this and currently existing stereo "3D" is that if you move around with this kind of technology, then the images that your eyes get will actually change, just as they would in real life... since your eyes are literally receiving the image from a different angle. Unlike in a theater where every single viewer sees the exact same pair of images, with this technology, which images you see would depend on where you are watching the display from. The biggest problem with it, of course, is that unless the display is actually being watched from a lot of different angles, there is going to be a lot of wasted imaging going on, because nobody might be looking at it from a given angle to even appreciate all the different perspectives that the display is actually producing.
I can appreciate the skepticism you may have about this, owing to experiences you may have had with existing stereo "3D" films, but this is really completely different.
Ah.... I think I see where you are confused. The lenses in your eyes would be focused at the distance of the tv screen itself. Not at a the distance of the virtual "3d" image, since that is the distance that it would actually be in focus. When you are in a theater, your eye lenses remain focussed at the distance that corresponds to the distance from you to the screen as well. It is the difference between the two images that your eyes receive that gives your brain the appearance of depth, not optical focal length.
If you have two eyes, you already *HAVE* stereo vision. You experience it because when you are focused on a single point, that point is giving two different images to each eye. This is the way you naturally perceive 3D.
With stereo-viewing that you see in 3d movies, however, it's slightly different. The different images that are coming at your eyes are from forced perspectives that do not correspond to the distance that you are from the screen. Your eyes, seeing only the images that the filter over each presents, tend to try to fuse the two images into one in your mind, and their convergence does not reflect the distance you are actually focused on, which is the screen. This is what causes the headaches.
Each multifaceted pixel on this kind of display is small enough, when viewed at a reasonable distance, to easily be mistaken as a single point by normal visual processing, and different images that it shows at different viewing angles would, in fact, correspond to what you might normally see in something at that distance. Further, unlike stereo viewing, where the viewing perspective is forced into each eye of every viewer, regardless of where they are sitting in the theater, people who are looking at this kind of display from any different position would see something slightly different than you did... going so far as to approximate a course resolution holography (but still easily good enough to pass casual visual observation from distances of more than 3 or 4 feet).
Slashdot Mirror
But seriously... it can't be overstated.
Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place
But failing that, because hey.... we all do things that thought might have been a good idea at the time, and only realized in hindsight that it wasn't particularly as good as one had originally thought, then at least be mature enough to face the consequences of your choices... and that means even if those consequences follow you for the rest of your life. Expecting societty or other people to forget or forgive your past might very well be a nice theoretical ideal, but the truth of the matter is that we live in a far from ideal world. It's not that I particularly condone an unforgiving society, but in the end, only *YOU* can be accountable for what you may have done in your past... including stuff that might not put you in the best light It's not anyone's problem to forget but your own.
The question is not so much what are you going to do to make people forget about the stupid things you might have done in the past as much as it is what are you going to do with the rest of your life in spite of it?
Because really, if you can't do that, and learn how to move past it, then how in the hell do you expect anyone else to?
If I don't own my own genes, then why would any other alleged owner be legally prohibited from taking them from me?
The old "Hockey Night in Canada" theme, once unofficially considered Canada's second national anthem.
Then why don't they just say that instead of implicating that somehow electronics are to blame?
They say to shut off electronics, when they could just say that they want people to be paying attention during that time, and not be doing anything which distracts them. That would include using electronics... but would also including reading, sleeping, or even talking to the person next to you.
If that were the reason, they would also request that people not read, sleep, or do anything distracting during those periods, but instead to remain alert and listen to instructions.
That's not what happens.
Technically speaking,. human beings have an off-switch too.
Although shutting it off would either necessitate surgery or very bloody maiming.
You are correct, of course... but unfortunately that would require that people actually use the grey matter between their ears to determine whether something might be considered distracting or not, which no small percentage of drivers do not have any real motivation to try to use. "Distracted" driving, by itself, is far too subjective a concept to apply objectively. A driver who is simply daydreaming, for example, can easily be just as big of a danger to others as somebody who is driving intoxicated.
Sadly, laws must be designed so that it is possibly to clearly and unambiguously determine when somebody is breaking them, and must also appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which means that as any new technology comes out which can be dangerous when used in a particular context, a law will have to probably be made to regulate its use in that context.
The upshot of there being an explicit law prohibiting this, however, because of its objectivity, is that anyone doing it could be considered "in breach" of their automobile insurance, which can expedite any disputes over blame that might arise.
How do you appeal a SCOTUS decision?
Indeed.
I was reminded of a scene that I saw I don't remember how long ago now, I think it was a Dilbert comic, or something similar... where there was some guy's presentation that was totally boring everybody, until he mentions that he has a graph, and then when pulls out a large form cardstock sheet with a colored pie graph and bar chart from his folder and puts it on the easel where he is doing his presentation, he suddenly has the undivided attention of everyone in the room, as they say "oooooooooh" in unison, evidently being completely wowed by the novelty of it.
I wish I could remember where I saw that though... it might have even been a cartoon or comedy on TV.
Anyways... when I saw the words "summarized in a table and a bar graph", it made me think of that.
As long as they don't require your IP address to be located in the USA as well.
Initially, yes. But it was overturned by the supreme court.
Can you think of any other that they've done that with, or is this an assumption based only on software experiences?
Yes. Primarily owing to the level of organization and involvement of others.
You can, as I said... run your own company however you wish.
You can run your own company on whatever principles you like. Others may prefer to have their employees observing a more professional code of conduct.
More specifically, the fact that there is ceremony involved suggests strongly to me that it is not of biological origin. The fact that its practice evidently predates modern civilization itself heavily suggests to me that it is not of any kind of legal origin either.
I think the main reason there wasn't ever penalties imposed for false DMCA takedowns is because they didn't want to harshly penalize what actually could have simply turned out to have been an honest mistake (not that I believe for a second that an honest mistake is what actually happened here... or for that matter, most of the other ridiculous abuses of the DMCA, although bringing up the notion here does bring to the forefront of my mind that I don't really know how they would ever be able to tell, objectively, whether the act was intentional or not to adjudicate an appropriate penalty).
I mean, do they just tax based on destination state, regardless of the buyer? Or is the wording wrong, and they really only mean people who are *IN* America?
None of what you've just said here is relevant to the question I answered above.
Ceremony.
If the DRM is unwanted by the authors, then the authors should issue a C&D against WHSmith. WHSMith must either remove DRM from your works before distributing, or, if that approach is incompatible with their preferred distribution model, WHSmith must forfeit their license to create digital copies completely. In the latter case, WHSmith would be entitled a refund of any fees that they paid for such a license. The authors would then have to find an alternative distributor who would not want to put DRM in, or else look into self-publication.
The very concept of marriage has religious origins. Otherwise it's just mating for life.
You mean like in real life? If you stay in one place, your eyes are each only getting one angle as well.
With existing 3d films, much of the heedache problem is caused by incorrect eye convergence for what your eye lens is actually focussing on (the distance from you to the screen). This is because they put the left and right images at different points on the screen instead of at the same one, to try to magnify the 3d effect. When you are looking at this type of display, regardless of what is being displayed, both your lens focal distance and eye convergence will actually be the same... you are looking at the distance from you to the screen. Differences between what the left and right eye actually see will add an appearance of depth, and can cause your perception of the image to either jump out of the screen at you (because of a large difference) or not (because of a tiny, or no difference), but because your focal length and eye convergence are actually the same, the headache problem that is caused by stereo film viewing will not occur. If they tried to separate the left and right images on a display like this the way they do in 3d films, the result would just be a blurry picture, and you would not be able to perceive it as 3D at all... much like watching a stereo 3d film without the special glasses.
Now, that said... there is another problem to deal with, which happens any time that a person's eyes suddenly get a new sense of depth. Vertigo. Different people have different measures of vulnerability to this, and this is a problem with existing stereoscopic 3d as well, but tends to be dwarfed by the problems caused by incorrect eye convergence, and will probably become more of an issue as this technology becomes common.
The biggest difference you would notice between a multifaceted display like this and a hologram is that moving your head up and down will not have any effect on your perception of the image depth, where with a hologram it would. Also, if you turned your head sideways, the depth perception would disappear completely.
Also, owing to the difficulty of creating cameras that could produce the kinds of images necessary for this to work, I think that the only types of 3d that we are liable to see from this technology for the immediate future would be computer generated images, and not any regular films.
The biggest difference between this and currently existing stereo "3D" is that if you move around with this kind of technology, then the images that your eyes get will actually change, just as they would in real life... since your eyes are literally receiving the image from a different angle. Unlike in a theater where every single viewer sees the exact same pair of images, with this technology, which images you see would depend on where you are watching the display from. The biggest problem with it, of course, is that unless the display is actually being watched from a lot of different angles, there is going to be a lot of wasted imaging going on, because nobody might be looking at it from a given angle to even appreciate all the different perspectives that the display is actually producing.
I can appreciate the skepticism you may have about this, owing to experiences you may have had with existing stereo "3D" films, but this is really completely different.
Ah.... I think I see where you are confused. The lenses in your eyes would be focused at the distance of the tv screen itself. Not at a the distance of the virtual "3d" image, since that is the distance that it would actually be in focus. When you are in a theater, your eye lenses remain focussed at the distance that corresponds to the distance from you to the screen as well. It is the difference between the two images that your eyes receive that gives your brain the appearance of depth, not optical focal length.
If you have two eyes, you already *HAVE* stereo vision. You experience it because when you are focused on a single point, that point is giving two different images to each eye. This is the way you naturally perceive 3D.
With stereo-viewing that you see in 3d movies, however, it's slightly different. The different images that are coming at your eyes are from forced perspectives that do not correspond to the distance that you are from the screen. Your eyes, seeing only the images that the filter over each presents, tend to try to fuse the two images into one in your mind, and their convergence does not reflect the distance you are actually focused on, which is the screen. This is what causes the headaches.
Each multifaceted pixel on this kind of display is small enough, when viewed at a reasonable distance, to easily be mistaken as a single point by normal visual processing, and different images that it shows at different viewing angles would, in fact, correspond to what you might normally see in something at that distance. Further, unlike stereo viewing, where the viewing perspective is forced into each eye of every viewer, regardless of where they are sitting in the theater, people who are looking at this kind of display from any different position would see something slightly different than you did... going so far as to approximate a course resolution holography (but still easily good enough to pass casual visual observation from distances of more than 3 or 4 feet).