In all honesty, commercial airliners are all I have seen prices quoted for. I wasn't exactly trying to shop around.
But as my reply was to a person who simply did not know where airplanes are located, I don't think shopping around for the best price is an important step just right this moment.:}
The problem with recording video is that you actually have to capture the photons to do that. Capture the photons on the recording media, and they are no longer available for the eye to 'see'.
That would only be a problem if the photons you wish to record are in the form of a concentrated laser beam being sent directly into your pupal.
If that situation was happening however, odds are you will be very thankful that your version of the device actually blocks said photons to prevent blinding you.
Currently however, only a small percentage of the photons are sent in a direction that they can enter your pupal. All the rest hit the area around the eye (and your face, and everything else in the way) and are 'wasted' as heat. From the images of this contact lens and it's position, it could only record those photons anyway, since it does not cover your pupal or block vision in any way to be privy to those photons.
It's at the airport, waiting on you to spend the 1.5 million dollars on it. I would also imagine pilot training as well would have an additional cost, even if only of time.
How in the hell can you trademark having a group of people quack?!?
I'd take the question one step further.
The company claiming trademark has already openly admitted that the people they are suing are not the ones that made the quack sound.
If I purchase a duck call, which I can at most any sports store or department store including Walmart, where the specific and Only function of that duck call is to produce a duck sound, then me purchasing it and using it as intended can not possibly open me up to litigation. I didn't make the thing!! They need to be pressing suit against the company that made the duck call, at which point prior art will toss the case aside (I didn't check, but I'd bet money the company making the duck calls has been doing so and can show papers of incorporation dated LONG before this patent was granted.)
If you have a patent over using a spoon to put food in your mouth, your beef (sorry) is with the people who MAKE SPOONS, not the ones buying them at the store whom are given the impression they are legal (else why sell them at Walmart)
Software development is a lot like a having a baby. 1 woman, 9 months = 1 baby. You can't add 8 more women to the equation and get a baby in one month.
An "external force" is just Apple's term for the black shirted people who believe that everything that Apple makes is wonderful. It is what other companies call their 'customers'." writes Nick Farrell.'
No, an "external force" is an end user putting the device in an oven at 350 degrees, or driving a nail through the battery.
Both are actions that no manufacturer should be held responsible short of specifically stating one can do such a thing when you can't.
"External forces" do exist, no matter how much you hate one company or another.
While I wouldn't trust Apples own investigation into which end of the spectrum the problem lies, just because you hate Apple does not mean that other end of the spectrum does not exist.
I am not making any claims to which end of things the exploding batteries from Apple falls under. I would tend to suspect only a very small percentage of complaints are from end users abusing their products, and most likely the batteries actually are failing under normal use, but I have no more data to go on than anyone else.
But to claim that it is not physically possible for an end user to abuse their device, and state that 100% of all such failures can not be the cause of anything other than Apple, is just stupid and dishonest.
Of course this is an Apple story, so I will just sit back and wait for the Troll mods and accusations of 'blaming users' or 'defending Apple' or some other crap I haven't done...
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
The former is when you have a license from the government (Known as incorporating), and the later does not. There is no other difference between the two.
There is a better way: hold people accountable for the actions of their computers.
Why stop there? Lets just hold people accountable for the actions of all sorts of things they have no control over!
The car mechanic put faulty tires on your car, and they blow out on the road? Clearly that is your fault, and one deserving of an attempted vehicular manslaughter charge and years in prison. The expectation of having knowledge above and beyond a specialist is obviously a requirement for getting your drivers license.
Buffer overflow in the kernel of [windows|linux|osx] that allowed a script kiddie to root your OS? So obviously your own fault that it doesn't even need discussion.
Seeing as you posted to slashdot, you clearly are using one of those pieces of software, which by your own admission is your own fault for being able to harm others. Guess that means you should go turn yourself in to the authorities now. Don't worry, we'll wait.
They accuse Google of dropping them out of their search results (or at least lowering their pagerank) if they ask Google to remove their articles from Google News. So the accusation is abuse of a dominant position.
That's even more hilarious!
They tell Google to stop linking to their stuff, and then are honestly surprised that Google stops linking to their stuff?!
To use a similar (but totally unrelated) comparison: If you stole money from me, and then later asked me for a beer, don't be so surprised when, despite the fact you have never stolen a beer from me, and despite the fact beer is different than money, I still do not loan you a beer.
I can see the reaction now, "He's hiding something. He must be a terrorist!" Then when those papers are revealed, "he is a terrorist!"
What is ironic and eating at me, I could swear I remember seeing a slashdot article where some TSA droid was harassing another airline customer. Except in this one, the TSA guy told reporters that it was the fact the person was carrying a copy of the bill of rights, and some cash, and he was flagged for additional inspection because of those two items alone. He was also quoted as saying only a criminal would need or want to reference the law in such detail. I want to say the guy worked in a different sector of government or something like that. He gave the reason he was carrying the cash, and it was related to his job.
Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?
The post you replied to did answer that question.
In case you wanted to hear the answer from more than one person however: No. YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
Originally the founders of this country implemented exactly such a law, referred to as the Second Amendment. The federal government has for many decades however past a lot of illegal laws to prevent us honest citizens from hunting the federal terrorists down and killing them, as is written in our law. That combined with the fact, if you don't use your rights, you lose them, leaves the second amendment toothless and worthless.
When your options for your internet connection top out below 10mbps, does it matter that your LAN can only do 22? Or 144?
Yes, it matters.
It might not be needed for you, if all you use your PCs for is to use the internet, but not talk to each other heavily.
Others however have an internal autonomous network of machines that all talk to each other and only occasionally out to the internet.
Running a fileserver to play videos on your multiple entertainment PC devices on TVs, tossing large files around, running onsite+online backups... None of those things need an internet connection at all to do, yet there is a slight noticeable difference between doing them at 11mbit and doing them at 1000.
The prisoners will be executed either way, might as well make them contribute some good to society to offset whatever they were sentenced to death for.
But I think it is safe to say 98% of the people on this planet do not label as 'bad' the crime of having a compatible organ and being near the police at the exact moment one of the rich and powerful people controlling them happens to need an organ to live.
That is the only 'crime' here. You also seem to forget they specifically said they only use people on death row in prison. That is a stated fact you can not deny. If they were doing this to only 'bad' people it might have room for argument, but they have admitted it is NOT done to bad people, only death row criminals. For the more dense people out there, that means speaking out against the government, not being 'bad'. True 'bad' criminals get hired by the govt., not arrested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_offences_that_attract_jail_terms_in_China
I bet you also think being 16 years old and playing WoW is a crime WELL worth being put to death for simply because some rich ass wanted a new lung.
All encryption is breakable. At least by proxy of the fact your body and bones are also breakable. The US has tortured before, as well as for less. Either one of those facts alone will work.
This is still ignoring the fact that there was an outright and provable LIE in their training video.
"Downloading music is stealing." That is a lie.
If I purchase a track from iTunes, I am authorized to store and listen to that song. The artist has been compensated, and would agree that I have not stolen anything from him or her.
Would you feel equally comfortable making a statement of law such as "Murder is perfectly OK" in one of your training videos?
As far as I am aware, it is not a crime to lie about the laws for the general public. But some might question the morality of doing so. And it is a down right crappy thing to do.
What would be wrong with saying "Downloading or listening to music while at work is against the policy"
It would have the same effect of producing the results desired from the workers (From the point of view of management), but it would not be teaching people to title a legal act as a crime. In fact, the first time one of these people DO as they are trained, and accuse a person of a crime which is provable with receipt did not happen, hello slander lawsuit with the punitive damages!
And even at 0.5%, you're grossly overestimating the people who need to run 16-bit apps. Any Win16 app is at least a decade old and is no longer supported by the company that published it -- assuming they still exist! If you have mission critical processes relying on such software, you're insane.
Actually I think relying on a 16 bit app released by a company that hasn't been in business for enough time to not be able to release a newer version which was 32 bit, and not formulating and executing a migration plan LONG ago, is insane.
Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.
Well, look at the up side. We only have to hide in fear from the machines for one year, and then the series will get canceled by Fox at season two and humanity will be safe once again!
No, comadore64_love has spouted this same lie in every apple related post, and it has been pointed out time and time again it is not true and a lie.
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
Not to mention apple only charged for every Other version, something I wish MS would have concidered doing like with 95 -> 98 or 2k -> XP. Alas, MS choose to charge for those too, making them more extensive.
Just because comodore64_love last purchased windows 95 and now is running a pirated XP and pirated versions between, that does not mean they are free upgrades.
And if he is willing to pirate windows up to XP to claim they are free, why not just pirate macos the same way and say they are free too?
It is nothing but a troll, and those that keep modding proven lies as insightful are clearly gaming the system
If the system were regulated with laws allowing the consumer to inquire exactly what's in the substances they buy, the system would be worlds safer.
Sadly ours is a country where the general mindset is still one where putting innocent[1] people in prisons to be tortured and murdered is not only acceptable but desired and required, I can't see selling 'safety' and 'saving lives' being considered anything but opposing their goals.
[1] Innocent, not as in 'not having broken a law', but innocent as having performed no action which harmed any person in any way.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan.
So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?
A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan.
So if I chop your nuts off, you become a woman? Do you forget a lifetime of experiences being male? Do you have to change the little 'M' on your driver's license to an 'F'?
Since when has a male without testicles been able to produce ova? Or equally, since when has a woman with ovaries removed been able to produce sperm?
Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.
In a sense, they are doing it in the order of observe then theorize.
We have had a good 50-60 years worth of observations that are unexplainable with current theory. After that, they came up with these string theories.
Sadly, since one can't directly observe the things that the string theories describe, and at least last time i paid any attention, we couldn't even indirectly observe them! That is a dead end. Ok, dead end isn't a fair description. It's more like a very long and dark tunnel we are moving through. It May be a dead end, or it may empty out into something great. From where we are at right now in that tunnel, it's all pitch black ahead and we do not know what lies there. I'll let the string theorists worry about making that trip however;}
That's why observations such as this one from LISA are so important. They let us refine theories made on the past 60ish years of observations that we have no theory for!
For some reason, android completely slipped my mind. And I was unaware of that aspect of their summer of code contest. I would definitely say that does count.
Slashdot Mirror
1.5 million will buy you a fricking skybus.
In all honesty, commercial airliners are all I have seen prices quoted for.
I wasn't exactly trying to shop around.
But as my reply was to a person who simply did not know where airplanes are located, I don't think shopping around for the best price is an important step just right this moment. :}
The problem with recording video is that you actually have to capture the photons to do that. Capture the photons on the recording media, and they are no longer available for the eye to 'see'.
That would only be a problem if the photons you wish to record are in the form of a concentrated laser beam being sent directly into your pupal.
If that situation was happening however, odds are you will be very thankful that your version of the device actually blocks said photons to prevent blinding you.
Currently however, only a small percentage of the photons are sent in a direction that they can enter your pupal. All the rest hit the area around the eye (and your face, and everything else in the way) and are 'wasted' as heat. From the images of this contact lens and it's position, it could only record those photons anyway, since it does not cover your pupal or block vision in any way to be privy to those photons.
Where is my flying car?
It's at the airport, waiting on you to spend the 1.5 million dollars on it.
I would also imagine pilot training as well would have an additional cost, even if only of time.
How in the hell can you trademark having a group of people quack?!?
I'd take the question one step further.
The company claiming trademark has already openly admitted that the people they are suing are not the ones that made the quack sound.
If I purchase a duck call, which I can at most any sports store or department store including Walmart, where the specific and Only function of that duck call is to produce a duck sound, then me purchasing it and using it as intended can not possibly open me up to litigation. I didn't make the thing!!
They need to be pressing suit against the company that made the duck call, at which point prior art will toss the case aside (I didn't check, but I'd bet money the company making the duck calls has been doing so and can show papers of incorporation dated LONG before this patent was granted.)
If you have a patent over using a spoon to put food in your mouth, your beef (sorry) is with the people who MAKE SPOONS, not the ones buying them at the store whom are given the impression they are legal (else why sell them at Walmart)
Software development is a lot like a having a baby. 1 woman, 9 months = 1 baby. You can't add 8 more women to the equation and get a baby in one month.
Aww... But, can we at least try? ;}
An "external force" is just Apple's term for the black shirted people who believe that everything that Apple makes is wonderful. It is what other companies call their 'customers'." writes Nick Farrell.'
No, an "external force" is an end user putting the device in an oven at 350 degrees, or driving a nail through the battery.
Both are actions that no manufacturer should be held responsible short of specifically stating one can do such a thing when you can't.
"External forces" do exist, no matter how much you hate one company or another.
While I wouldn't trust Apples own investigation into which end of the spectrum the problem lies, just because you hate Apple does not mean that other end of the spectrum does not exist.
I am not making any claims to which end of things the exploding batteries from Apple falls under. I would tend to suspect only a very small percentage of complaints are from end users abusing their products, and most likely the batteries actually are failing under normal use, but I have no more data to go on than anyone else.
But to claim that it is not physically possible for an end user to abuse their device, and state that 100% of all such failures can not be the cause of anything other than Apple, is just stupid and dishonest.
Of course this is an Apple story, so I will just sit back and wait for the Troll mods and accusations of 'blaming users' or 'defending Apple' or some other crap I haven't done...
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
The former is when you have a license from the government (Known as incorporating), and the later does not.
There is no other difference between the two.
There is a better way: hold people accountable for the actions of their computers.
Why stop there? Lets just hold people accountable for the actions of all sorts of things they have no control over!
The car mechanic put faulty tires on your car, and they blow out on the road?
Clearly that is your fault, and one deserving of an attempted vehicular manslaughter charge and years in prison.
The expectation of having knowledge above and beyond a specialist is obviously a requirement for getting your drivers license.
Buffer overflow in the kernel of [windows|linux|osx] that allowed a script kiddie to root your OS?
So obviously your own fault that it doesn't even need discussion.
Seeing as you posted to slashdot, you clearly are using one of those pieces of software, which by your own admission is your own fault for being able to harm others.
Guess that means you should go turn yourself in to the authorities now. Don't worry, we'll wait.
They accuse Google of dropping them out of their search results (or at least lowering their pagerank) if they ask Google to remove their articles from Google News. So the accusation is abuse of a dominant position.
That's even more hilarious!
They tell Google to stop linking to their stuff, and then are honestly surprised that Google stops linking to their stuff?!
To use a similar (but totally unrelated) comparison: If you stole money from me, and then later asked me for a beer, don't be so surprised when, despite the fact you have never stolen a beer from me, and despite the fact beer is different than money, I still do not loan you a beer.
I can see the reaction now, "He's hiding something. He must be a terrorist!" Then when those papers are revealed, "he is a terrorist!"
What is ironic and eating at me, I could swear I remember seeing a slashdot article where some TSA droid was harassing another airline customer. Except in this one, the TSA guy told reporters that it was the fact the person was carrying a copy of the bill of rights, and some cash, and he was flagged for additional inspection because of those two items alone.
He was also quoted as saying only a criminal would need or want to reference the law in such detail.
I want to say the guy worked in a different sector of government or something like that. He gave the reason he was carrying the cash, and it was related to his job.
Sadly, google is giving me no love on finding it.
Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?
The post you replied to did answer that question.
In case you wanted to hear the answer from more than one person however:
No. YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
Originally the founders of this country implemented exactly such a law, referred to as the Second Amendment.
The federal government has for many decades however past a lot of illegal laws to prevent us honest citizens from hunting the federal terrorists down and killing them, as is written in our law.
That combined with the fact, if you don't use your rights, you lose them, leaves the second amendment toothless and worthless.
When your options for your internet connection top out below 10mbps, does it matter that your LAN can only do 22? Or 144?
Yes, it matters.
It might not be needed for you, if all you use your PCs for is to use the internet, but not talk to each other heavily.
Others however have an internal autonomous network of machines that all talk to each other and only occasionally out to the internet.
Running a fileserver to play videos on your multiple entertainment PC devices on TVs, tossing large files around, running onsite+online backups... None of those things need an internet connection at all to do, yet there is a slight noticeable difference between doing them at 11mbit and doing them at 1000.
I think you forgot the most important new feature.
It has a removable battery!
The prisoners will be executed either way, might as well make them contribute some good to society to offset whatever they were sentenced to death for.
But I think it is safe to say 98% of the people on this planet do not label as 'bad' the crime of having a compatible organ and being near the police at the exact moment one of the rich and powerful people controlling them happens to need an organ to live.
That is the only 'crime' here. You also seem to forget they specifically said they only use people on death row in prison. That is a stated fact you can not deny.
If they were doing this to only 'bad' people it might have room for argument, but they have admitted it is NOT done to bad people, only death row criminals.
For the more dense people out there, that means speaking out against the government, not being 'bad'. True 'bad' criminals get hired by the govt., not arrested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_offences_that_attract_jail_terms_in_China
I bet you also think being 16 years old and playing WoW is a crime WELL worth being put to death for simply because some rich ass wanted a new lung.
offers completely unbreakable encryption.
Is there such a thing?
Geeks talking about encryption is pretty funny.
All encryption is breakable. At least by proxy of the fact your body and bones are also breakable.
The US has tortured before, as well as for less. Either one of those facts alone will work.
Or to make the point using humor: http://xkcd.com/538/
This is still ignoring the fact that there was an outright and provable LIE in their training video.
"Downloading music is stealing." That is a lie.
If I purchase a track from iTunes, I am authorized to store and listen to that song. The artist has been compensated, and would agree that I have not stolen anything from him or her.
Would you feel equally comfortable making a statement of law such as "Murder is perfectly OK" in one of your training videos?
As far as I am aware, it is not a crime to lie about the laws for the general public. But some might question the morality of doing so. And it is a down right crappy thing to do.
What would be wrong with saying "Downloading or listening to music while at work is against the policy"
It would have the same effect of producing the results desired from the workers (From the point of view of management), but it would not be teaching people to title a legal act as a crime.
In fact, the first time one of these people DO as they are trained, and accuse a person of a crime which is provable with receipt did not happen, hello slander lawsuit with the punitive damages!
You can't just dump stuff on it, it's not a big slab of concrete. It's a series of tubes!
And even at 0.5%, you're grossly overestimating the people who need to run 16-bit apps. Any Win16 app is at least a decade old and is no longer supported by the company that published it -- assuming they still exist! If you have mission critical processes relying on such software, you're insane.
Actually I think relying on a 16 bit app released by a company that hasn't been in business for enough time to not be able to release a newer version which was 32 bit, and not formulating and executing a migration plan LONG ago, is insane.
Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.
Well, look at the up side. We only have to hide in fear from the machines for one year, and then the series will get canceled by Fox at season two and humanity will be safe once again!
No, comadore64_love has spouted this same lie in every apple related post, and it has been pointed out time and time again it is not true and a lie.
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
Not to mention apple only charged for every Other version, something I wish MS would have concidered doing like with 95 -> 98 or 2k -> XP. Alas, MS choose to charge for those too, making them more extensive.
Just because comodore64_love last purchased windows 95 and now is running a pirated XP and pirated versions between, that does not mean they are free upgrades.
And if he is willing to pirate windows up to XP to claim they are free, why not just pirate macos the same way and say they are free too?
It is nothing but a troll, and those that keep modding proven lies as insightful are clearly gaming the system
If the system were regulated with laws allowing the consumer to inquire exactly what's in the substances they buy, the system would be worlds safer.
Sadly ours is a country where the general mindset is still one where putting innocent[1] people in prisons to be tortured and murdered is not only acceptable but desired and required, I can't see selling 'safety' and 'saving lives' being considered anything but opposing their goals.
[1] Innocent, not as in 'not having broken a law', but innocent as having performed no action which harmed any person in any way.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan.
So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?
A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan.
So if I chop your nuts off, you become a woman? Do you forget a lifetime of experiences being male? Do you have to change the little 'M' on your driver's license to an 'F'?
Since when has a male without testicles been able to produce ova?
Or equally, since when has a woman with ovaries removed been able to produce sperm?
Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.
In a sense, they are doing it in the order of observe then theorize.
We have had a good 50-60 years worth of observations that are unexplainable with current theory.
After that, they came up with these string theories.
Sadly, since one can't directly observe the things that the string theories describe, and at least last time i paid any attention, we couldn't even indirectly observe them! That is a dead end. ;}
Ok, dead end isn't a fair description. It's more like a very long and dark tunnel we are moving through. It May be a dead end, or it may empty out into something great. From where we are at right now in that tunnel, it's all pitch black ahead and we do not know what lies there.
I'll let the string theorists worry about making that trip however
That's why observations such as this one from LISA are so important. They let us refine theories made on the past 60ish years of observations that we have no theory for!
It's cute for a little while. But your body's not evolved to stare at your hands for eight hours, or touch the object of your gaze for the same.
I wish that excuse would have worked back in school when we had to use pen/pencil and paper for eight hours straight in the exact same position.
For some reason, android completely slipped my mind.
And I was unaware of that aspect of their summer of code contest. I would definitely say that does count.
Thank you for the information!