They are not just claiming better visibility but substantial power savings. That would be a boon to any laptop, provided the screen met or exceeded specs in other areas.
Not to mention that the answer to the question is obviously "yes" in the strict sense that there has to be someone out there who wants a Kindle with a built in light.
In terms of the implication of "do enough people want a light to be a profitable venture?" the answer can only be, "nobody knows at this point, we'll wait and see," although assuredly Amazon must have some confidence that the economics will work out.
Overall, it's just a stupid idea that Slashdot (cough timothy cough) has that the topics benefit from being kickstarted with a question, no matter how silly. It makes the summary read like the introduction to a middle school term paper.
More significanty, there was a study done in 2010 which indicated, contrary to expectations, that reading on a (backlit) iPad is actually easier than reading on a Kindle. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that Amazon looked at that, followed up with their own studies, and ultimately decided to hedge their bets.
...unless you have a gun and shoot the other guy dead when he defends himself against your attack, then it's okay.
What, you doubt that version of events? You doubt that Zimmerman, who admittedly followed the kid and confronted him, was the aggressor?
Maybe Zimmerman was innocently keeping an eye on a suspicious, dark, menacing, hoodie-wearing black thug, who flew into a Skittles-crazed Ebonic-profanity laced attack when merely asked about his whereabouts, and fully deserved, therefore, to get gunned down like a sub-human animal? Well, maybe so. Maybe that's exactly what happened.
Let's have a court of law make a determination, is all people are saying.
The outrage in this case is because most people believe, if a person, particularly a child, is shot dead in the street, that there should be an accounting before a court of law for that death unless the evidence is overwhelming that no crime took place. Your race-baiting crime stats are irrelevant to the sense of fundamental injustice that people feel about an unaccounted death. If your child was killed while walking home from the store, you would want the perpetrator brought to justice regardless of whether his racial makeup fit into some convenient narrative you seem to think is so important.
Everyone on Slashdot is a "content creator" in that we make submissions and write comments that draw readers to the site, and we do it for free. And Slashdot makes money off us. And by posting here, you seem to be okay with that.
It could be something subtle, non-markup-language-related like inserting zero-width space characters within the text or replacing the Latin letter "O" with the identical looking Cyrillic letter "O" in a kind of individualized code. Unless you know the exact code, or someone "diffs" two copies of the text to determine what's being done, you can't strip it. And, instead of going through a lot of trouble and potential risk to get a watermark-free copy to disperse, you might as well just tell your friend to download a rip from any one of billions of websites. Hardcore pirates have used stolen credit cards anyway, so they're not going to care about some silly watermark.
Although, I suspect we will soon be finding out what happens when Amazon et al add a term to their license saying that you agree to allow them to automatically delete any books from their, er, your device that have an "invalid" watermark, meaning anyone's watermark but yours.
My feeling is that it is similar to the FBI Anti-Piracy Warning being at the front of every video. Piracy is still illegal whether or not there's an FBI Anti-Piracy Warning at the front of the video, so it doesn't have to be there. But by placing it in an unskippable chapter, the IP rights holder precludes the possibility of someone asserting the defense of "I didn't know" to a sympathetic jury. Similarly, by reiterating their already existing rights in their EUA, Facebook is preventing people from saying they had no idea they needed permission to steal their trademarks, which is already actionable whether or not they get you to agree to it.
And keep in mind that, for the words where there trademark is legitimate, they don't have a blanket ownership of the word, but one based upon a certain trademark classes. Parse their language carefully: Contrary to what you are asserting, they don't attempt to forbid people from using the word "wall" without permission, only the trademark "wall." As a builder, you would not normally have a conflict with "wall" as a Facebook trademark in the ordinary course of business. That doesn't begin to pass the laugh test.
Authors are as a class people who are in love with words, specifically their own. When they write a novel, they want the reader to consume it from beginning to end, not missing a single word. So for them, there isn't much joy in pouring a significant amount of work into a target hypertext segment where 90% of the readers will miss it. And if it's going to be skipped over anyway, why waste time polishing their words? What's the point of them coming up with a secondary narrative flow that is in no way essential to the plot? On the other hand, if the hyperlinks are essential, meaning the reader is obliged to click on every link to get a full understanding of the plot, then at best it's no longer a novel, but a puzzle or gimmick. (Which are fine endeavors, no doubt, but the cross-section of high quality puzzle-creators and good novelists is rather small, and the people who care to do both at once, even smaller. (Think of parentheses as proto-hypertext, for instance. How many authors can successfully place parentheses within parentheses, without the whole exercise turning into a mess (and how many would even attempt such foolishness)?)) And at worst you have an exercise in tedium, both in terms of reading and in terms of creation.
No question that Samsung is trying to piggyback off the success of the Apple design, but CONFUSE? How does that work? I accidentally bought a $500 Samsung tablet with the word "SAMSUNG" printed in all caps on the front and the back, thinking it was an Apple. Those tricksters!!
It remains to be seen if the Medfield SOC can eke out similar battery life to an ARM powered tablet. From the little I've read on that front, the signs are mixed at best. But otherwise I totally agree. If W8/Medfield meets its goals, it will probably do the same thing to WOA that Pentium did to the Alpha/MIPS/PPC versions of WNT.
If by saying "interact...with a traditional desktop paradigm" I somehow gave you the impression that I thought somehow Metro apps could be made to work lik Windows 7 type apps, I apologize. What I meant was, to quote from your same link, "Windows on ARM will have the desktop as an option for Internet Explorer, the Office apps and various system functions, such as the control panel, file management and other built-in features of Windows," and that that familiar paradigm is a selling point for WOA devices.
Metro is also part of Windows 8. So:
If you're doing Windows desktop management, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet If you're running a traditional windows app (to the extent that you can, i.e.Office), the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet. If you're running a Metro style app, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet.
iOS (currently) doesn't make that claim with respect to OSX.
Why are uninformed FUD comments like this getting modded up? The blogpost clearly states that WOA devices will be unequivocally labelled to strongly distinguish them from traditional x86/64 devices.
WOA is not an attempt to replace Windows with a gimped version of itself. It's meant to be another member of the Windows family, like Windows Server, Windows Phone, etc., that extends the basic Windows paradigm to devices where it does not have significant market share. It is basically a rearchitected Windows CE that takes into account the rise of iOS.
iOS is derived from OSX, but you wouldn't expect to run an OSX application on iOS. So Joe Q Public is already primed to the idea that top-tier desktop applications won't run on WOA, and from reading the article, it seems that the marketing of the tablet devices will make that abundantly clear. Windows 8 Desktop is the successor to Windows 7 and WOA is something different, a competitor to iOS that has a Windows-esque look and feel.
Where WOA claims to have an advantage over iOS is, first, that it will allow users interact with the device with a traditional desktop paradigm, if they choose. Secondly, WOA apps, unlike iOS apps, will be also able to be run on your traditional desktop/laptop, making for a much more integrated total experience. And thirdly and most importantly, MS Office.
However, if the concept of being able to "up-run" your tablet apps on your desktop proves fruitful, there's no engineering reason why Apple couldn't do the same thing. And of course, once Apple did do it, suddenly up-running your apps would be the most awesomeish thing ever.
I do agree that the whole concept is a pointlessly complex way of accomplishing what a properly implemented inheritance tax could accomplish more cheaply, but:
Ok, I'm a middle class person, I have 50k invested in a 401k
From the article:
For individuals and married couples who earn, say, more than $2.2 million in income, or own $5.7 million or more in publicly traded securities (representing the top 0.1 percent of families), the appreciation in their publicly traded stock and securities would be “marked to market” and taxed annually as if they had sold their positions at year’s end, regardless of whether the securities were actually sold.
So, you, a middle class person with less than $5.7 million in publicly traded securities, would not be affected.
Something which is comprised of living things is by class inheritance alive. Hence mules via their cells. And corporations via their "citizens united."
Unless they're brutal, bloodthirsty warriors with some primitive sense of honor. Then they resemble black people with maybe some ridges on their forehead or something.
How is this "treason"? The US government actively sought to encourage trade and investment between US and China, and IBM followed suit. If the US wanted to forbid business with China, we would've done so the same way we continued to embargo Cuba for many years.
Furthermore, selling for less so you can make more down the road, is part of good business strategy, no different from when milk goes on sale at the local supermarket, or when you change jobs to take a lower paying position in a growing company, or when software companies offer academic discounts, or when a credit card has an interest-free teaser rate.
In many states, vicarious liability which extends to the owner of the vehicle is already the law. Your brother gets into an accident driving your car, you can get sued as well. It seems rather straightforward to me that the owner of the autonomous vehicle will be in the first instance liable for an accident involving the car, although if it can be proven that the product is defective, then the manufacturer will be on the hook as well.
Aside from that, I disagree with your conclusion. Eventually, the autocar's CPU will far outpace human reaction times, and a human with hands on the wheel will be superfluous at best, but more likely a detriment. Operator insurance rates will continue to rise while the purely automatic insurance rate will drop as the autocar's programming is further improved. After that there will be no steering wheel -- it will be considered too dangerous to allow the human passenger any control over the machine.
People will of course remain resistant for a while to the concept of surrendering control to the vehicle. Until they realize that they can get stone drunk without having to worry about breaking DUI laws, and jabber away, perfectly safely, on their mobile phones.
Re:Why so much disbelief in aliens among scientist
on
Exoplanet Count Tops 700
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's not really good reason to believe they don't exist. A galactic spanning civilization, for one, would only be visible, as you say, across the galaxy. Not across the entire universe. And secondly, as of right now it is only a pipe dream that a couple thousand more years of history will spread us across the stars. We might just as easily blow ourselves up, retreat into a cyber-singularity, or just run out of gas, so to speak.
But anyway, I agree that it's likely that microbial life of various sorts is abundant. And on the other end, I've always felt that it is only a kind of cellular chauvinism that prevents us from thinking of stellar objects as life forms. They grow, they mantain homeostasis, they sometimes reproduce in a fashion, they consume, they die.
In what way does this differ from IP-based location services? IOW, would that be prior art? And if not, does that mean that all of the IP-based geolocation now being done, even via a standard PC/browser, e.g. by Google, etc., is subject to this patent?
Slashdot Mirror
They are not just claiming better visibility but substantial power savings. That would be a boon to any laptop, provided the screen met or exceeded specs in other areas.
I did think for a second that the summary stated the First Officer was fapping for 75 minutes instead of the maximum 40.
Not to mention that the answer to the question is obviously "yes" in the strict sense that there has to be someone out there who wants a Kindle with a built in light.
In terms of the implication of "do enough people want a light to be a profitable venture?" the answer can only be, "nobody knows at this point, we'll wait and see," although assuredly Amazon must have some confidence that the economics will work out.
Overall, it's just a stupid idea that Slashdot (cough timothy cough) has that the topics benefit from being kickstarted with a question, no matter how silly. It makes the summary read like the introduction to a middle school term paper.
More significanty, there was a study done in 2010 which indicated, contrary to expectations, that reading on a (backlit) iPad is actually easier than reading on a Kindle. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that Amazon looked at that, followed up with their own studies, and ultimately decided to hedge their bets.
What, you doubt that version of events? You doubt that Zimmerman, who admittedly followed the kid and confronted him, was the aggressor?
Maybe Zimmerman was innocently keeping an eye on a suspicious, dark, menacing, hoodie-wearing black thug, who flew into a Skittles-crazed Ebonic-profanity laced attack when merely asked about his whereabouts, and fully deserved, therefore, to get gunned down like a sub-human animal? Well, maybe so. Maybe that's exactly what happened.
Let's have a court of law make a determination, is all people are saying.
The outrage in this case is because most people believe, if a person, particularly a child, is shot dead in the street, that there should be an accounting before a court of law for that death unless the evidence is overwhelming that no crime took place. Your race-baiting crime stats are irrelevant to the sense of fundamental injustice that people feel about an unaccounted death. If your child was killed while walking home from the store, you would want the perpetrator brought to justice regardless of whether his racial makeup fit into some convenient narrative you seem to think is so important.
Everyone on Slashdot is a "content creator" in that we make submissions and write comments that draw readers to the site, and we do it for free. And Slashdot makes money off us. And by posting here, you seem to be okay with that.
It could be something subtle, non-markup-language-related like inserting zero-width space characters within the text or replacing the Latin letter "O" with the identical looking Cyrillic letter "O" in a kind of individualized code. Unless you know the exact code, or someone "diffs" two copies of the text to determine what's being done, you can't strip it. And, instead of going through a lot of trouble and potential risk to get a watermark-free copy to disperse, you might as well just tell your friend to download a rip from any one of billions of websites. Hardcore pirates have used stolen credit cards anyway, so they're not going to care about some silly watermark.
Although, I suspect we will soon be finding out what happens when Amazon et al add a term to their license saying that you agree to allow them to automatically delete any books from their, er, your device that have an "invalid" watermark, meaning anyone's watermark but yours.
My feeling is that it is similar to the FBI Anti-Piracy Warning being at the front of every video. Piracy is still illegal whether or not there's an FBI Anti-Piracy Warning at the front of the video, so it doesn't have to be there. But by placing it in an unskippable chapter, the IP rights holder precludes the possibility of someone asserting the defense of "I didn't know" to a sympathetic jury. Similarly, by reiterating their already existing rights in their EUA, Facebook is preventing people from saying they had no idea they needed permission to steal their trademarks, which is already actionable whether or not they get you to agree to it.
And keep in mind that, for the words where there trademark is legitimate, they don't have a blanket ownership of the word, but one based upon a certain trademark classes. Parse their language carefully: Contrary to what you are asserting, they don't attempt to forbid people from using the word "wall" without permission, only the trademark "wall." As a builder, you would not normally have a conflict with "wall" as a Facebook trademark in the ordinary course of business. That doesn't begin to pass the laugh test.
Authors are as a class people who are in love with words, specifically their own. When they write a novel, they want the reader to consume it from beginning to end, not missing a single word. So for them, there isn't much joy in pouring a significant amount of work into a target hypertext segment where 90% of the readers will miss it. And if it's going to be skipped over anyway, why waste time polishing their words? What's the point of them coming up with a secondary narrative flow that is in no way essential to the plot? On the other hand, if the hyperlinks are essential, meaning the reader is obliged to click on every link to get a full understanding of the plot, then at best it's no longer a novel, but a puzzle or gimmick. (Which are fine endeavors, no doubt, but the cross-section of high quality puzzle-creators and good novelists is rather small, and the people who care to do both at once, even smaller. (Think of parentheses as proto-hypertext, for instance. How many authors can successfully place parentheses within parentheses, without the whole exercise turning into a mess (and how many would even attempt such foolishness)?)) And at worst you have an exercise in tedium, both in terms of reading and in terms of creation.
No question that Samsung is trying to piggyback off the success of the Apple design, but CONFUSE? How does that work? I accidentally bought a $500 Samsung tablet with the word "SAMSUNG" printed in all caps on the front and the back, thinking it was an Apple. Those tricksters!!
It remains to be seen if the Medfield SOC can eke out similar battery life to an ARM powered tablet. From the little I've read on that front, the signs are mixed at best. But otherwise I totally agree. If W8/Medfield meets its goals, it will probably do the same thing to WOA that Pentium did to the Alpha/MIPS/PPC versions of WNT.
If by saying "interact...with a traditional desktop paradigm" I somehow gave you the impression that I thought somehow Metro apps could be made to work lik Windows 7 type apps, I apologize. What I meant was, to quote from your same link, "Windows on ARM will have the desktop as an option for Internet Explorer, the Office apps and various system functions, such as the control panel, file management and other built-in features of Windows," and that that familiar paradigm is a selling point for WOA devices.
Metro is also part of Windows 8. So:
If you're doing Windows desktop management, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet
If you're running a traditional windows app (to the extent that you can, i.e.Office), the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet.
If you're running a Metro style app, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet.
iOS (currently) doesn't make that claim with respect to OSX.
Why are uninformed FUD comments like this getting modded up? The blogpost clearly states that WOA devices will be unequivocally labelled to strongly distinguish them from traditional x86/64 devices.
WOA is not an attempt to replace Windows with a gimped version of itself. It's meant to be another member of the Windows family, like Windows Server, Windows Phone, etc., that extends the basic Windows paradigm to devices where it does not have significant market share. It is basically a rearchitected Windows CE that takes into account the rise of iOS.
iOS is derived from OSX, but you wouldn't expect to run an OSX application on iOS. So Joe Q Public is already primed to the idea that top-tier desktop applications won't run on WOA, and from reading the article, it seems that the marketing of the tablet devices will make that abundantly clear. Windows 8 Desktop is the successor to Windows 7 and WOA is something different, a competitor to iOS that has a Windows-esque look and feel.
Where WOA claims to have an advantage over iOS is, first, that it will allow users interact with the device with a traditional desktop paradigm, if they choose. Secondly, WOA apps, unlike iOS apps, will be also able to be run on your traditional desktop/laptop, making for a much more integrated total experience. And thirdly and most importantly, MS Office.
However, if the concept of being able to "up-run" your tablet apps on your desktop proves fruitful, there's no engineering reason why Apple couldn't do the same thing. And of course, once Apple did do it, suddenly up-running your apps would be the most awesomeish thing ever.
The argument is not that it's a bad thing, but that it's a thing he should be properly taxed on.
Not everyone believes that taxation is inherently punitive.
I do agree that the whole concept is a pointlessly complex way of accomplishing what a properly implemented inheritance tax could accomplish more cheaply, but:
From the article:
So, you, a middle class person with less than $5.7 million in publicly traded securities, would not be affected.
Nonsense, of course there are things we can do about it. Gigantic beach umbrellas. In space.
Something which is comprised of living things is by class inheritance alive. Hence mules via their cells. And corporations via their "citizens united."
Unless they're brutal, bloodthirsty warriors with some primitive sense of honor. Then they resemble black people with maybe some ridges on their forehead or something.
How is this "treason"? The US government actively sought to encourage trade and investment between US and China, and IBM followed suit. If the US wanted to forbid business with China, we would've done so the same way we continued to embargo Cuba for many years.
Furthermore, selling for less so you can make more down the road, is part of good business strategy, no different from when milk goes on sale at the local supermarket, or when you change jobs to take a lower paying position in a growing company, or when software companies offer academic discounts, or when a credit card has an interest-free teaser rate.
http://www.circuitcellar.com/
http://www.2600.com/
http://www.linux-magazine.com/ (Linux Pro)
That's not what mechanical transmission means. It means typing the content of the book out yourself.
In many states, vicarious liability which extends to the owner of the vehicle is already the law. Your brother gets into an accident driving your car, you can get sued as well. It seems rather straightforward to me that the owner of the autonomous vehicle will be in the first instance liable for an accident involving the car, although if it can be proven that the product is defective, then the manufacturer will be on the hook as well.
Aside from that, I disagree with your conclusion. Eventually, the autocar's CPU will far outpace human reaction times, and a human with hands on the wheel will be superfluous at best, but more likely a detriment. Operator insurance rates will continue to rise while the purely automatic insurance rate will drop as the autocar's programming is further improved. After that there will be no steering wheel -- it will be considered too dangerous to allow the human passenger any control over the machine.
People will of course remain resistant for a while to the concept of surrendering control to the vehicle. Until they realize that they can get stone drunk without having to worry about breaking DUI laws, and jabber away, perfectly safely, on their mobile phones.
That's not really good reason to believe they don't exist. A galactic spanning civilization, for one, would only be visible, as you say, across the galaxy. Not across the entire universe. And secondly, as of right now it is only a pipe dream that a couple thousand more years of history will spread us across the stars. We might just as easily blow ourselves up, retreat into a cyber-singularity, or just run out of gas, so to speak.
But anyway, I agree that it's likely that microbial life of various sorts is abundant. And on the other end, I've always felt that it is only a kind of cellular chauvinism that prevents us from thinking of stellar objects as life forms. They grow, they mantain homeostasis, they sometimes reproduce in a fashion, they consume, they die.
In what way does this differ from IP-based location services? IOW, would that be prior art? And if not, does that mean that all of the IP-based geolocation now being done, even via a standard PC/browser, e.g. by Google, etc., is subject to this patent?
Apparently it's been "not a real word" since at least 1806.