Pretty sure that making a safe consumer friendly car means adding features, not removing. Sure, they can take away performance, but consumers expect a lot out of a car these days. For one hting, if I recall, the Roadster has rather limited range. There's a reason why even the Volt has an engine.
Sure, but my gas pedal is not a button on a pad. It is a pedal. Huge difference. I can feel where a pedal is and know when I'm pushing it.
Or operate a sewing machine?
Again, a single pedal. Easy to find with the foot.
Those all require moving a foot around in order to operate them.
No, your foot stays in teh same place, for the most part and you control by varying pressure, rather than manipulating on/off buttons. Not even comparable to this foot pad we're talking about.
It's actually pretty easy.
Looking at the video, no it is not. How am I supposed to find and press the little diamond for the arrow buttons with my foot? There's no tactile feedback. And it is small.
What's wrong with this one is that it's too big/bulky and expensive for what I'd need.
For foot controls, big is exactly what you need. Feet have very little precision, especially wearing shoes.
I suspect they've never actually used it themselves either. I mean, the precision you'd need with your feet is incredible. THere's no way I could hit those tiny diamond cursor buttons without looking. Hell, even looking I would probably have a hard time with shoes on. This has to be a joke.
Looks extremely awkward to use. Was hopping it was more of a gesture based thing. Moving your foot around and hitting locations on a pad without looking just seems difficult.
It depends on what the copyright holder's end-game is. In Microsoft's case, they realize that most people who are caught in the net didn't realize they had a dodgy copy of Windows. (Most people who install pirated windows for their own use are smart enough to avoid the GA check.)
Nonsense. I have never bought a copy of windows and have been hit by GA checks several times. A couple times I let it slip in the updates other times it was enabled by default and I had to install a crack after installation. Also, upgrading hardware can trigger the GA failure.
Most of them bought the computer from a hole-in-the wall computer firm which has secretly resold the same copy of Windows 100s of times, and assumed everything was legit. Microsoft isn't after the end user, they're after the computer shops. The reason for giving lenient terms is that they want you to roll on the place you bought it. Once MS gets the name of the shop from you, *then* the laser-bearing lawyer sharks are released, but on the shop, not the user.
I'm curious, at what stage of buying a windows license do they let you report the source of the bad copy?
The RIAA et al. have a different endgame. Instead of targeting the supply, they're going after the demand. Mostly because, unlike most pirated Windows, most people who download songs illegally know/should know that it's dodgy as fuck. Even then, the big name cases have all pretty much been people who have *also* shared the files in p2p networks.
They get you for the sharing, not for possession, just like with pirating software. They can't claim much in "damages" for simple possession. If you download an album, they're only out a theoretical $10. If you share it, they can say you contributed to X number of OTHER people getting illegal copies, costing them a theoretical X times $10, where X is some made up number.
I'm sure that making you agree to not upload illegal music is just a legal formality. Ultimately Google does not care. They have no incentive to actually scan your collection for illegal copies of music. It woudl be a waste of their resources and they'd only risk pissing off customers.
Not likely. Besides, there's no way for them to know for sure that you don't own the music in the MP3. And there are so many people with at least some illegal music that there's no reason to single one person out.
Skype? Gotomeeting? There are various services for conference calls. Goto meeting does use a Java client, but it is webstart or whatever. It downloads a client, but it is not really "intalled" on my computer.
I do a lot of conference calls through Skype actually, but almost always with people I already know and already have Skype accounts. Rarely am I going to do a conference call with random, new people. Skype is very convenient for this because we're already using it for everything else, IM, screensharing, etc. And for as much as the new SKype interface sucks (I don't use it), I doubt an in browser solution is going to be something I want to use on a day to day basis. A browser based solution might be good for one-off chats, but it isn't a something I'm going to build my workflow around. I've tried it before with things like Campfire. I liked Campfire, but it j ust wasn't convenient to run all the time.
The point is, if Google wants to take on Skype, they need to make it quick and easy for people to use, and installing another client is a barrier.
They'll get casual users, but for anyone who uses it on a day to day basis, an installed client is almost always superior. Now, if Google did a native client AND an in browser client for quick one-off chats, great. Kind of like I use Gmail w/ IMAP for day to day stuff but like having teh gmail web interface for when I'm away from my own computer.
Don't worry about it. You're being paranoid. Even if they could detect that you have some illegal music, they really don't care unless you're actively trading it. Look at how companies handle pirated software, for example. Microsoft can tell if your WIndows isn't "genuine" and yet the worst thing they do is cripple your copy and give you a rather polite message about making it genuine. That's the worst I would ever expect from a "honeypot." At worst they're going to say "Hey, we think this song is not genuine, would you like to buy a fresh copy to ensure you're legit?" They're not going to call the FBI on your ass for having an illegal copy of Twisted Sister on your hard drive. It just isn't going to happen.
Between Skype, Yahoo, Gtalk, and yes, even AIM, chances are I already have a service in common with someone I might want to chat with. Hell, I even have a Facebook account that I don't actively use if it comes down to that. And they do have an in browser chat or I can setup Adium to use Facebook IM, though it kinda sucks. For voice I would normally just use a phone. Crazy, I know.
Now, kid's games I can see targeting one sex or another. My daughters had a Barbie game on the PC and they loved it. No boy would want to play it, however.
I just can't wait for the web bubble to burst so we can go back to having traditional software again.
We never stopped using traditional software. At least those of us on platforms with good traditional software that integrates well with the system.
The world has never really been the same since we developed this "everything is a web page" model.
We never did. THere's just a lot of people who don't understand the concept of "careful what you wish for." People who don't really understand how powerful traditional software and how most web apps would set us back 15 years in terms of usability. Yay! Wuldn't it be great if we could edit photos with a web app. Sure... if you want software with the performance and capabilities of some freeware app from 1995.
. In a lot of ways, I don't find web-pages to actually be a good replacement for a traditional applications; the interface usability has greatly suffered.
The document model is terrible for applications.
(Yes, there are still some things which don't run as web pages... who knows, maybe we'll get good old-fashioned native clients pulling in data from the cloud, and there will be unicorns and bunnies and all will be good.)
Dropbox, Gmail IMAP, half the apps on your phone. Oddly enough, iPhone and Android are proving that people really do want native apps, even when they pull all their data from the Internet.
I know Google has this whole web-based vision where everything is accessed through the browser, but I'd rather see this as a stand-alone app
First of all, it isn't an app. It is an API for building apps. Second, you can do this in a standalone app. ANd you can probably do it better. There are libraries for video, audio, and peer to peer communication.
Javascript doesn't have Peer to Peer communication. Normally you're not allowed to make JS connections to anything but the server the JS came from. And even then, you can only make HTTP connections. And you certainly can't listen for incoming connections from peers. And then there's the lack of access to audio and video inputs.... So, there are many reasons why WebRTC is required.
On a side issue, I get tired of the way almost every native program downloaded (for windows at least) needs to have a front end installer. It should be self-contained and the exe should work right off the bat. Browser 'apps' don't have that issue.
Yes, one of my favorite things about using a Mac. Hardly any installers. Even MS Office 2008 for OS X can technically be copied from one system's/Applications to another. Though they do have an installer to make copying the files easier. Maybe it installs so fonts too? Not sure.
He may be right about the costs, but that doesn't answer the original problem of the many people who don't access to decent care when it comes to things that lay somewhere between emergency and routine checkup. Whether the fundamental problem is lack of insurance coverage or cost of healthcare in general, the fact remains that many people don't have access to decent healthcare, anecdotes about how your own friends love their healthcare notwithstanding.
Unless you have some kind of existing medical condition. In which case you're likely uninsurable on your own. It isn't even that it is expensive. They just won't offer you a policy at all. Many people are in this boat.
When you're older, have a career. An older person without health insurance is making poor decisions.
God forbid you try to start your own small business or work freelance. Or are just unemployed but still need medical care.
Worst case, there are free clinics (there's one in my town open every Wednesday) and a hospital can't turn anyone away.
A hospital can most certainly turn you away if your condition is not critical. They're only obligated to stabilize you and send you on your way.
This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
The system is horribly broken. The article is most certainly not a troll. I know so many people without proper medical coverage it is scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure that making a safe consumer friendly car means adding features, not removing. Sure, they can take away performance, but consumers expect a lot out of a car these days. For one hting, if I recall, the Roadster has rather limited range. There's a reason why even the Volt has an engine.
r. Now make a RegularCar, that I can buy for 75k,
WTF? 75k? That's a luxury car. GIve me something under $20k. I assume you mean USD.
Wow, and I thought that building a laptop that could only run a web browser was dumb. A game console that only runs Chrome. Now that's just absurd. ;-)
Must not drive a car much huh?
Sure, but my gas pedal is not a button on a pad. It is a pedal. Huge difference. I can feel where a pedal is and know when I'm pushing it.
Or operate a sewing machine?
Again, a single pedal. Easy to find with the foot.
Those all require moving a foot around in order to operate them.
No, your foot stays in teh same place, for the most part and you control by varying pressure, rather than manipulating on/off buttons. Not even comparable to this foot pad we're talking about.
It's actually pretty easy.
Looking at the video, no it is not. How am I supposed to find and press the little diamond for the arrow buttons with my foot? There's no tactile feedback. And it is small.
What's wrong with this one is that it's too big/bulky and expensive for what I'd need.
For foot controls, big is exactly what you need. Feet have very little precision, especially wearing shoes.
What cruel person would give something like this to a person who has had their feet amputated? You insensitive clod.
Hmm, escape and enter foot pedals. Like gas and break. Perfect.
I suspect they've never actually used it themselves either. I mean, the precision you'd need with your feet is incredible. THere's no way I could hit those tiny diamond cursor buttons without looking. Hell, even looking I would probably have a hard time with shoes on. This has to be a joke.
Looks extremely awkward to use. Was hopping it was more of a gesture based thing. Moving your foot around and hitting locations on a pad without looking just seems difficult.
It depends on what the copyright holder's end-game is. In Microsoft's case, they realize that most people who are caught in the net didn't realize they had a dodgy copy of Windows. (Most people who install pirated windows for their own use are smart enough to avoid the GA check.)
Nonsense. I have never bought a copy of windows and have been hit by GA checks several times. A couple times I let it slip in the updates other times it was enabled by default and I had to install a crack after installation. Also, upgrading hardware can trigger the GA failure.
Most of them bought the computer from a hole-in-the wall computer firm which has secretly resold the same copy of Windows 100s of times, and assumed everything was legit. Microsoft isn't after the end user, they're after the computer shops. The reason for giving lenient terms is that they want you to roll on the place you bought it. Once MS gets the name of the shop from you, *then* the laser-bearing lawyer sharks are released, but on the shop, not the user.
I'm curious, at what stage of buying a windows license do they let you report the source of the bad copy?
The RIAA et al. have a different endgame. Instead of targeting the supply, they're going after the demand. Mostly because, unlike most pirated Windows, most people who download songs illegally know/should know that it's dodgy as fuck. Even then, the big name cases have all pretty much been people who have *also* shared the files in p2p networks.
They get you for the sharing, not for possession, just like with pirating software. They can't claim much in "damages" for simple possession. If you download an album, they're only out a theoretical $10. If you share it, they can say you contributed to X number of OTHER people getting illegal copies, costing them a theoretical X times $10, where X is some made up number.
I'm sure that making you agree to not upload illegal music is just a legal formality. Ultimately Google does not care. They have no incentive to actually scan your collection for illegal copies of music. It woudl be a waste of their resources and they'd only risk pissing off customers.
Not likely. Besides, there's no way for them to know for sure that you don't own the music in the MP3. And there are so many people with at least some illegal music that there's no reason to single one person out.
And what about voice conferencing and video?
Skype? Gotomeeting? There are various services for conference calls. Goto meeting does use a Java client, but it is webstart or whatever. It downloads a client, but it is not really "intalled" on my computer.
I do a lot of conference calls through Skype actually, but almost always with people I already know and already have Skype accounts. Rarely am I going to do a conference call with random, new people. Skype is very convenient for this because we're already using it for everything else, IM, screensharing, etc. And for as much as the new SKype interface sucks (I don't use it), I doubt an in browser solution is going to be something I want to use on a day to day basis. A browser based solution might be good for one-off chats, but it isn't a something I'm going to build my workflow around. I've tried it before with things like Campfire. I liked Campfire, but it j ust wasn't convenient to run all the time.
The point is, if Google wants to take on Skype, they need to make it quick and easy for people to use, and installing another client is a barrier.
They'll get casual users, but for anyone who uses it on a day to day basis, an installed client is almost always superior. Now, if Google did a native client AND an in browser client for quick one-off chats, great. Kind of like I use Gmail w/ IMAP for day to day stuff but like having teh gmail web interface for when I'm away from my own computer.
Don't worry about it. You're being paranoid. Even if they could detect that you have some illegal music, they really don't care unless you're actively trading it. Look at how companies handle pirated software, for example. Microsoft can tell if your WIndows isn't "genuine" and yet the worst thing they do is cripple your copy and give you a rather polite message about making it genuine. That's the worst I would ever expect from a "honeypot." At worst they're going to say "Hey, we think this song is not genuine, would you like to buy a fresh copy to ensure you're legit?" They're not going to call the FBI on your ass for having an illegal copy of Twisted Sister on your hard drive. It just isn't going to happen.
Between Skype, Yahoo, Gtalk, and yes, even AIM, chances are I already have a service in common with someone I might want to chat with. Hell, I even have a Facebook account that I don't actively use if it comes down to that. And they do have an in browser chat or I can setup Adium to use Facebook IM, though it kinda sucks. For voice I would normally just use a phone. Crazy, I know.
Now, kid's games I can see targeting one sex or another. My daughters had a Barbie game on the PC and they loved it. No boy would want to play it, however.
So, you have your answer right there.
I just can't wait for the web bubble to burst so we can go back to having traditional software again.
We never stopped using traditional software. At least those of us on platforms with good traditional software that integrates well with the system.
The world has never really been the same since we developed this "everything is a web page" model.
We never did. THere's just a lot of people who don't understand the concept of "careful what you wish for." People who don't really understand how powerful traditional software and how most web apps would set us back 15 years in terms of usability. Yay! Wuldn't it be great if we could edit photos with a web app. Sure... if you want software with the performance and capabilities of some freeware app from 1995.
. In a lot of ways, I don't find web-pages to actually be a good replacement for a traditional applications; the interface usability has greatly suffered.
The document model is terrible for applications.
(Yes, there are still some things which don't run as web pages ... who knows, maybe we'll get good old-fashioned native clients pulling in data from the cloud, and there will be unicorns and bunnies and all will be good.)
Dropbox, Gmail IMAP, half the apps on your phone. Oddly enough, iPhone and Android are proving that people really do want native apps, even when they pull all their data from the Internet.
People install this kind of stuff and forget about it. It is not a big deal.
Packaging it in Chrome means that you get a significant user base without requiring people to install *another* client.
And what's wrong with installing a client? You'd rather have to keep a tab open for your chat/video client to work?
I know Google has this whole web-based vision where everything is accessed through the browser, but I'd rather see this as a stand-alone app
First of all, it isn't an app. It is an API for building apps. Second, you can do this in a standalone app. ANd you can probably do it better. There are libraries for video, audio, and peer to peer communication.
Javascript doesn't have Peer to Peer communication. Normally you're not allowed to make JS connections to anything but the server the JS came from. And even then, you can only make HTTP connections. And you certainly can't listen for incoming connections from peers. And then there's the lack of access to audio and video inputs.... So, there are many reasons why WebRTC is required.
How does this challenge Skype? Someone still has to write the damn software, you know. It isn't like you couldn't write a "skype killer" before this.
On a side issue, I get tired of the way almost every native program downloaded (for windows at least) needs to have a front end installer. It should be self-contained and the exe should work right off the bat. Browser 'apps' don't have that issue.
Yes, one of my favorite things about using a Mac. Hardly any installers. Even MS Office 2008 for OS X can technically be copied from one system's /Applications to another. Though they do have an installer to make copying the files easier. Maybe it installs so fonts too? Not sure.
Ding, we have a winner.
He may be right about the costs, but that doesn't answer the original problem of the many people who don't access to decent care when it comes to things that lay somewhere between emergency and routine checkup. Whether the fundamental problem is lack of insurance coverage or cost of healthcare in general, the fact remains that many people don't have access to decent healthcare, anecdotes about how your own friends love their healthcare notwithstanding.
buy your own. It costs the same as an iPod.
Unless you have some kind of existing medical condition. In which case you're likely uninsurable on your own. It isn't even that it is expensive. They just won't offer you a policy at all. Many people are in this boat.
When you're older, have a career. An older person without health insurance is making poor decisions.
God forbid you try to start your own small business or work freelance. Or are just unemployed but still need medical care.
Worst case, there are free clinics (there's one in my town open every Wednesday) and a hospital can't turn anyone away.
A hospital can most certainly turn you away if your condition is not critical. They're only obligated to stabilize you and send you on your way.
This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
The system is horribly broken. The article is most certainly not a troll. I know so many people without proper medical coverage it is scary.
LOL. PHP as a comparison for readability. $That's->rich();