On the other hand, it really says something about Oracle's "support", if other companies are providing updates for Larry's "Yacht OS" and are winning significant contracts.... to the point where Oracle wants to fight them over it.
It is easy to undercut pricing if you don't have to pay for writing the software or update manuals and can just steal them.
If you look at the articles found by google you will see that only components are being 3d printed. The article claims that the entire shoe, including liner and sole, will be printed in one pass. That claim is doubtful at best. Then there is the discussion about practicality. Sure today's 3-d printing can make shoes like crocs but if they are uncomfortable or wear out in a few hours there is an issue.
Yes they can but they are still restricted to three kinds/colors of photopolymer, Sure one can use two of those materials to combine into a colored hard shell and the other to handle the soft inner lining. What about the sole which would be a third material so there goes the colors. What about the microfiber liner? Take a look at the average running shoe and you will find more than three different materials and many of them probably can not be replicated using photopolymer.
As with most 3D printing hype the products look great but how do they stand up to actual use? I would like to see the results of someone trying to run in those shoes.
In the future, users may be able to print shoes that are tailored to the exact size of their feet, among many possibilities.
Have they looked at the different materials that go into shoes these days? The different parts need to have different qualities. The sole needs to be grippy. The uppers need to be flexible and porous. The insole needs to be cushioning yet supportive. This is done today by using many different materials. Sorry but materials that come out of thermal printers don't have all those qualities and generally don't hold up under the stress shoe are put through. Let's try to be realistic about what this technology can do.
Every tool can be used for bad but that does not mean it is never used for good. Should we take guns away from police because they have been used to kill innocent people? If the request was used for that reason then the person requesting it should be prosecuted.
A possible reason for such a dump would be a suspect's statement that he was not at a certain location at a certain time. Dump the local tower and if his phone shows up he was probably there. Any other people who happened to be connected during that time are ignored by the police. It may not be allowable for the police to ask if a specific phone was connected to a specific tower so they dump the whole tower.
You are assuming that the requests are all coming from the NSA. The only mention of the NSA in the article is in relation to Snowden. There are many other government agencies other than the NSA, including local police, who make these requests. There are many different crimes that might prompt such requests; organized crime, drug dealing, murder, extortion, etc. For example, the first thing done in most murder investigations where a phone is missing is to dump the phone. Even when the phone is available, the history may have been deleted as drug dealers often do.
If all the requests did come from the NSA it might be bad but they didn't. In the end we have no idea how many requests came from the NSA and blaming them for all the requests is invalid. This knee jerk "if it is surveillance it must be the NSA" is getting out of hand.
I was at work so I pulled the first number I found. according to this Verizon had 119.4 million subscribers as of Q3 2013. Therefore 119.4M/202K = 0.17%. Taking into account the number of requests for the same subscriber the numbers are even better.
Verizon has over 1.7 million subscribers in Q4 of 2013. The total number of subpoenas, National Security Letters and warrants is 202k. If every request was for a different subscriber then 12% of the subscribers would be subjects of the requests. That is generally not the case as different types of data and different time periods, different devices, etc could require multiple requests. The numbers don't seem that high to me.
As the article states the Glass had prescription lenses;
I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time.
Changing covenants is not easy by design. Covenants are usually imposed by someone else, usually the local government, to allow the project to go forward. If they were easily changeable by the HOA it would be a bylaw not a covenant.
Covenants can be very difficult to change. In developments, the local government is usually a party to the covenant and must agree, and sometimes pass bylaws, to changing it. The covenant was probably places on the development to keep its rural flavor. Since there is an alternative, burying the cable, I doubt the covenant would be dropped. If it was changeable by the residents it would be a bylaw and not a covenant. There are ways to remove covenants but they are not easy.
Life insurance is much more traceable that an accident. Someone would have to have an interest in the person to take out life insurance and the person insured would know.
I had a computer science prof whose field was computational complexity. No matter what the stated subject was it became a computational complexity course; even the database course.
I know what you are trying to say but you have the terms wrong. Both "opt -out default" and "opt-in system" mean the same thing. In both cases by doing nothing the prospective donor has opted out. Had you said "opt-out system" and "opt-in system" or "opt-in default" and "opt-out default" you would have been correct.
Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed.
There has been a ruling by one low level court official. It is not binding on anyone else. Take a look at the law. The ticket was pulled because the officer could not show that the glass was operating. Using Google glass while in a vehicle is still illegal in California.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, it really says something about Oracle's "support", if other companies are providing updates for Larry's "Yacht OS" and are winning significant contracts.... to the point where Oracle wants to fight them over it.
It is easy to undercut pricing if you don't have to pay for writing the software or update manuals and can just steal them.
If you look at the articles found by google you will see that only components are being 3d printed. The article claims that the entire shoe, including liner and sole, will be printed in one pass. That claim is doubtful at best. Then there is the discussion about practicality. Sure today's 3-d printing can make shoes like crocs but if they are uncomfortable or wear out in a few hours there is an issue.
Yes they can but they are still restricted to three kinds/colors of photopolymer, Sure one can use two of those materials to combine into a colored hard shell and the other to handle the soft inner lining. What about the sole which would be a third material so there goes the colors. What about the microfiber liner? Take a look at the average running shoe and you will find more than three different materials and many of them probably can not be replicated using photopolymer.
As with most 3D printing hype the products look great but how do they stand up to actual use? I would like to see the results of someone trying to run in those shoes.
There is an exception to every rule.
In the future, users may be able to print shoes that are tailored to the exact size of their feet, among many possibilities.
Have they looked at the different materials that go into shoes these days? The different parts need to have different qualities. The sole needs to be grippy. The uppers need to be flexible and porous. The insole needs to be cushioning yet supportive. This is done today by using many different materials. Sorry but materials that come out of thermal printers don't have all those qualities and generally don't hold up under the stress shoe are put through. Let's try to be realistic about what this technology can do.
Every tool can be used for bad but that does not mean it is never used for good. Should we take guns away from police because they have been used to kill innocent people? If the request was used for that reason then the person requesting it should be prosecuted.
A possible reason for such a dump would be a suspect's statement that he was not at a certain location at a certain time. Dump the local tower and if his phone shows up he was probably there. Any other people who happened to be connected during that time are ignored by the police. It may not be allowable for the police to ask if a specific phone was connected to a specific tower so they dump the whole tower.
You are assuming that the requests are all coming from the NSA. The only mention of the NSA in the article is in relation to Snowden. There are many other government agencies other than the NSA, including local police, who make these requests. There are many different crimes that might prompt such requests; organized crime, drug dealing, murder, extortion, etc. For example, the first thing done in most murder investigations where a phone is missing is to dump the phone. Even when the phone is available, the history may have been deleted as drug dealers often do.
If all the requests did come from the NSA it might be bad but they didn't. In the end we have no idea how many requests came from the NSA and blaming them for all the requests is invalid. This knee jerk "if it is surveillance it must be the NSA" is getting out of hand.
I was at work so I pulled the first number I found. according to this Verizon had 119.4 million subscribers as of Q3 2013. Therefore 119.4M/202K = 0.17%. Taking into account the number of requests for the same subscriber the numbers are even better.
Verizon has over 1.7 million subscribers in Q4 of 2013. The total number of subpoenas, National Security Letters and warrants is 202k. If every request was for a different subscriber then 12% of the subscribers would be subjects of the requests. That is generally not the case as different types of data and different time periods, different devices, etc could require multiple requests. The numbers don't seem that high to me.
As the article states the Glass had prescription lenses;
I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time.
Switching glasses can be annoying
LMGTFY
Changing covenants is not easy by design. Covenants are usually imposed by someone else, usually the local government, to allow the project to go forward. If they were easily changeable by the HOA it would be a bylaw not a covenant.
That was just a guess anyway. The point is that covenants are difficult to get rid of.
Covenants can be very difficult to change. In developments, the local government is usually a party to the covenant and must agree, and sometimes pass bylaws, to changing it. The covenant was probably places on the development to keep its rural flavor. Since there is an alternative, burying the cable, I doubt the covenant would be dropped. If it was changeable by the residents it would be a bylaw and not a covenant. There are ways to remove covenants but they are not easy.
Life insurance is much more traceable that an accident. Someone would have to have an interest in the person to take out life insurance and the person insured would know.
Few as simple as causing a seemingly unrelated accident. You may be underestimating the inventiveness of murders.
I had a computer science prof whose field was computational complexity. No matter what the stated subject was it became a computational complexity course; even the database course.
I know what you are trying to say but you have the terms wrong. Both "opt -out default" and "opt-in system" mean the same thing. In both cases by doing nothing the prospective donor has opted out. Had you said "opt-out system" and "opt-in system" or "opt-in default" and "opt-out default" you would have been correct.
I wonder how many more prospective donors will have "accidents".
After a little search.
Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed.
There has been a ruling by one low level court official. It is not binding on anyone else. Take a look at the law. The ticket was pulled because the officer could not show that the glass was operating. Using Google glass while in a vehicle is still illegal in California.
Take a look at the law. It states presence without an interlock. There is no interlock in Glass. It does not matter if it is on or off.
It only matters what the law considers as illegal.
citation?