1080i60 is really only 30 frames per second. The fact that the TV industry actually managed to dupe the FCC into allowing interlaced standards into HD is, perhaps, one of the biggest snow jobs ever.
The part about 240hz is actually my point - people will gravitate towards the shiny, even if it gets them nothing - as long as it's out there. I just want higher res to be produced for less than a kings ransom so I can use it for computing. I deal with large architectural CAD files (and photography for fun, and some business) and having a 4k or 8k screen really would be fantastic.
I can't decide of you're being sarcastic, or are just a massive troll for big content aggregators/owners.
Cryptography for private communication is keeping private things private. Cryptography for DRM is artificially limiting a commercial product in an attempt to maximize profit. Very, very different applications
Google's desire to limit/oppose DRM is somewhat perpendicular to either of these - they want access so they can provide search services that are as comprehensive as possible, and offer content-relevant advertising. They don't actually care what is in the content, as long as they can align their advertising services with whatever it happens to be.
$1300 for a 4k display. Granted, it's locked to 30Hz, but for most of us 60Hz will be as fast as we need to go (though we'll get more for that god-awful 3D crap they keep trying to push). 4k @ 50 is very close the 2560x1600 30" monitor I have for pixel size, which is fine enough for me at my working distance.
We stalled at 1920x1080 because every moved to TV production. Now that 4k/8k has broken free, we can get over that hump. Not saying there aren't hurdles, but the consumer-limit has been breached and I expect the next to years to result in a shift. Note: there is no material broadcast at 60 frames at 1080, but people are all bonkers over 240Hz displays anyway. They'll be the same ones who wanted 1080p devices to watch their (upscaled) DVDs.
You're limited to radiation, and the cosmic background temp, but that's the only limit. Although inefficient, peltier coolers can be used - the advantage is there is no fluid. Heat pipes are the most common form of heat transport, allowing the evaporation of a liquid in a sealed tube to migrate to the radiator end.
One challenge is the temperatures you're trying to work with. Remember that the temperature of the universe isn't actually 0K, but more like 3K. Liquid helium needs to be 4K or less. That's a slim margin, and at those temps the heat transfer rate is very, very low.
I clicked on the story because I was an engineer involved in the Superfluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/SHOOT/shoot.html) research project back in the early 90s. If you get Helium just above absolute zero, it loses it's viscosity (like a superconductor loses it's resistance). That makes it far easier to transfer the fluid from a storage container/refueling dewar to a spacecraft in service.
I actually like radiative heat transfer - it's very straight forward, much like conduction. Convection problems make me cry.
The AC nailed it. If I had a mod point it would go here. I would expect customized interface (i.e buttons/keyboards) to be high on the list of wants, but this was mostly about small changes to the global shape of a flexible phone case. It's hard to extrapolate an actual USE for the current subject, beyond a simple novelty.
I live in a college town with 25,000 students and a lot of commuter cyclists. This shit happens every. single. day. Everyone in town knows where the students are, and just assumes they're dumb as bricks and not paying attention, which cuts down on the number of incidents - but it's still non-zero.
" You have absolutely no moral right to sit by while the IRS takes a cut of everyone's check under threat of force and then pretend that you can be as capricious in your cuts as a private business that has to fight daily to exist."
For the past 10 years, you and I have gotten a smaller cut taken (the Bush tax cuts) but they have delivered the same service. YOUR representative CHOSE (through inaction) to broker a deal where the FAA will get X% less money, and they have been told to cut expenses across the board. They are forbidden by the same laws YOUR representative passed (or allowed to pass) from reducing hourly wages. By definition, that means fewer hours and reduced services. These changes aren't capricious, they're showing exactly what happens when you cut funds ACROSS THE BOARD as directed by the law.
I'm a private businessman, and have run my own firm for a decade. I've taken a grand total of $1200 in federal money in that time. Before that I worked for a federal contractor for two years, a private firm with no governmental ties for 4 years, and was a federal employee for 9 years. It doesn't matter who I work for, I look to see how I can do more with less - that's good business, no matter who the client is. But at some point, you have to argue that the funds allocated are not sufficient for the task at hand. This isn't lawn care service, this is people travelling at 8/10 the speed of sound in a thin aluminum cylinder 30,000 feet above the ground. If things go wrong, people die.
"Sure, companies won't deliver services if invoices aren't paid, but they usually start out by assuming it is a mistake - they just want their money."
Except that the sequester is basically a letter to the AR department saying, "We are going to stop paying you, and we intend not to pay you in the future either...and here it is in writing." The only way to get paid is to withhold services which are most necessary. In private business, if you accept less money, people will start paying you less. If someone decides they don't want to pay you and you've already delivered the service, you have no leverage.
I would rather have 3 clients who pay, than 5 clients who don't. Non-paying clients don't put food on the table, and I don't put up with bullshit power plays or ego trips. I will bend over backwards to get emergency work out for my regular clients, and they appreciate it. The clients who are always 90-120-150 days out, or who don't pay get "as available" service, higher proposal fees (to compensate me for the bullshit time I spend chasing them down), or just stop responding to their requests for bids.
There are two fights here: The R and D are arguing over who's going to be correct, and they're using the usual dirt to try and make their points. The actual departments are attempting to secure the funding they want/need for the programs they run. They can always do "more" with more money. It's true of government just as it is with a business. I can always provide more, and more complete, and more personal service if you pay me more money. If you pay me less, I'm going to short you on certain items. I'll try to make them peripheral, but I guarantee if you stop paying my invoices I'm going to cut the flow to the high profile services first. Simple business.
You mean the cyclist travelling at half the speed of traffic who swerved suddenly into the path of a car to avoid a sewer grate, or the pedestrian with the ear buds in who stepped into moving traffic away from the crosswalk? I hate distracted drivers, too, but making any sudden move into oncoming traffic without warning is a bad idea even if the driver of a modern 3000lb vehicle with a 100ft stopping distance IS paying attention.
I think the key from the article is that when you are distracted and not looking at the road, your reaction time to things happening in your peripheral vision is longer. They didn't seem to track how long your attention was diverted. I wonder what their results would be if they put drivers through a course where the speed limit changed every 1/2 mile or so (as it does in many residential areas) and required that they stay within +0/-5MPH of the limit at all times. How frequently do you look down to check the speed? How about if you're late and looking at your watch or the dash clock to check the time?
They should really try this study with a touchscreen head unit and selecting a song from a connected audio device. Now THAT's dangerous!
You mean where you have press a soft-button to initiate a call, speak the name, then quickly check the display to see if it's correct, or look to press the soft "cancel" button, or see if it has dialed successfully, or to change to the correct bluetooth, or to change the volume, or to hang up?
Lord help you if you should have to manually tune a touchscreen radio receiver, intialize a podcast, or request a detour from a GPS unit.
I can "voice text" with less interaction than dialing "hands free", and with as little distraction as verifying my speed or the time of day from a non-headsup display.I cannot safely text, read more than a short phrase (6-8 words) on my phone (which is closer to my line of sight than the speedometer), or do any more than absolutely minimum music navigation on my touchscreen head unit (holy shit - finding an album is like asking for death!).
There are very strict rules on false incrimination and defamation, but they posted pictures and personal details claiming (in effect) they were the bombers.
I'm fully aware of the conditions acceptable for use of a firearm, and also of the very, very wide gray line which exists - especially in today's hypersensitive environment.
You and I both know that there are zealots out there in every niche of life. Encouraging people to carry guns to stop criminals (aka "bad guys with guns") is jus the same as suggesting people do their own sleuth work via crowdsourcing. There's going to be someone who goes over the top, even if they really, truly think they are doing good.
For an example of a "good" gun owner, there's a story floating around about the mall shooting last year where an armed citizen had the opportunity to shoot the shooter, but didn't take the shot. Why? Because it was in a mall and there were lots of people around. He was genuinely concerned that if he missed he could hit someone else. Imagine everyone was armed - it only takes one person who throws caution to the wind and takes the shot and misses - into another person - to cause irreversible collateral damage. The first volley of fire from the shooter would have already done it's damage.
If it were me, I'd limit round capacity to 3 rounds in any single firearm for private use. Any existing weapon not complying or not secured in an inspected, logged, BATFE approved explosives magazine would be illegal. I'm still looking for a rational argument which would make that unreasonable. (Note: I'm also a high power rocketry hobbiest, and we're still required to store igniters - nichrome with 100 milligram-size, low speed propellant - in a logged, inspected, and approved magazine). But I digress. The point was that more firearms would increase the likelihood of accidental/collateral damage, just as crowdsourcing detective work increases the likelihood of improper identification of suspects. We're just lucky that latter is less likely to result in an unnecessary fatality.
On the contrary, reading older science fiction and writing a report through a lens of 50 years in the future can be quite useful. What scientific elements of the fiction are true or nearly true today, what parts do we still think are clearly "impossible" (i.e. still science fiction), and which parts do you think might still go either way (and, of course, why)?
I know...mod me down as an anti-gun nut. But at least try to make the connection.
The advantage of crowdsourcing is that you get a shit-ton of information quickly, and it gets disseminated just as quickly. Everybody with a cell phone and a social media account has had this stuff in front of them since the bombing. It's great because it happens so fast, and millions of people being on alert can make for a quicker break in the case. It also has the downside of putting up a lot of false positives.
The NRA's stance is that if everyone had a gun, criminals would know not to so bad stuff and if they did there would be someone right there to stop them. It's basically crowd sourcing police/law enforcement work. Yes, there are now lots more people who can intervene with a criminal who is armed and dangerous. Just as everyone with a cell phone can photograph a scene and post the pictures on line for the world to peruse and instantly identify criminals.
Thing is, the more people who are involved, the higher the likelihood of a false positive. In the case of photos and social media, the mis-identified have a reason to be concerned short term, but once the media self-corrects and the correct criminals are identified their lives will slowly get back to normal. When guns are involved, a mis-identified person or bystander doesn't get a new life when the actual criminal is killed. The "oops" is permanent.
If you don't think there isn't the equivalent of 4chan in the vigilante world, you're sorely mistaken. It's part of the human condition to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence and not everyone will have the forethought or presence of mind not to take out someone who they think is about to cause harm to others.
If we used the NRA method of justice, Salah Eddin Barhoum would have been dead before the FBI even published the photos of the actual bombers.
There may still be a couple of exceptions, but they're all based on the same code, and (again, with some exceptions) nearly all states have moved to statewide blanket codes. The IBC and it's variants are based on the old UBC codes mostly. They're ALL based on ASCE 7 for loads and load factors. NFPA has a competing set of codes, but I think they're mostly being unified with the I codes. NEC is identical to an NFPA number, which is referenced as the electrical code in IBC - they're all the same. States make their own exceptions and changes, but they are relatively minor.
"Farm country," again except in VERY rare cases has the exact same code as big cities - it's just not enforced. In nearly all states the state legislature makes the building code law (again, they all use a national code as a base and modify it to their liking), and it's valid statewide. In the I codes, agricultural buildings are generally exempt from code enforcement. That's why I get to go see all the barn failures in high winds. And the usually get denied by the insurance company because they're not built to any code standard. See - code standards all exist for ag buildings. They're storage, or office, or any of a dozen uses specified in ASCE 7, or a representative load can be calculated by an engineer (which is what the code says you must do BY LAW if your use doesn't fit a defined category). It's not too challenging, but it does take some time and experience. Which, translated to the non-engineer farmer, means money - and there's no money for engineering in farming until you break something enough times that you can't afford to have it fail again.
In some states - even red Virginia, a building official not enforcing the code is a misdemeanor. We still have counties around me with the same attitude as your friend's in Wisconsin, though.
First to market (well usually second to market, actually) will have a huge advantage over the next few. If you're willing to make Google Glass awesome through a great app, you will get mindshare for the future iterations...which will probably have a regular, for-profit marketplace.
Well, that's not exactly what they're doing. They will argue - probably successfully - that they are selling you the glasses. They will lose hands down on the "you can't transfer..." clause. But, they'll still "win" as they are also providing a service - the glass service - separately. If you resell them, the service does not transfer - just the hardware. A quick google (ha!) of EU warranty law didn't turn up whether or not they have to warranty re-sold items to subsequent purchasers for the initial 2 year period.
I don't expect this to last past the initial offering stage, just to keep the glasses from being whored off on ebay. Once they're commonplace you'll be able to transfer them and just sign in with your always-being-tracked gmail account.
Slashdot Mirror
1080i60 is really only 30 frames per second. The fact that the TV industry actually managed to dupe the FCC into allowing interlaced standards into HD is, perhaps, one of the biggest snow jobs ever.
The part about 240hz is actually my point - people will gravitate towards the shiny, even if it gets them nothing - as long as it's out there. I just want higher res to be produced for less than a kings ransom so I can use it for computing. I deal with large architectural CAD files (and photography for fun, and some business) and having a 4k or 8k screen really would be fantastic.
What, that it's a billion dollar operation that's mostly about entertainment and gossip?
Rights restrictions on recognition of the day limited dissemination of the announcement until the day of the event.
I can't decide of you're being sarcastic, or are just a massive troll for big content aggregators/owners.
Cryptography for private communication is keeping private things private. Cryptography for DRM is artificially limiting a commercial product in an attempt to maximize profit. Very, very different applications
Google's desire to limit/oppose DRM is somewhat perpendicular to either of these - they want access so they can provide search services that are as comprehensive as possible, and offer content-relevant advertising. They don't actually care what is in the content, as long as they can align their advertising services with whatever it happens to be.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/12/seiki-50-inch-4k-1300/
$1300 for a 4k display. Granted, it's locked to 30Hz, but for most of us 60Hz will be as fast as we need to go (though we'll get more for that god-awful 3D crap they keep trying to push). 4k @ 50 is very close the 2560x1600 30" monitor I have for pixel size, which is fine enough for me at my working distance.
We stalled at 1920x1080 because every moved to TV production. Now that 4k/8k has broken free, we can get over that hump. Not saying there aren't hurdles, but the consumer-limit has been breached and I expect the next to years to result in a shift. Note: there is no material broadcast at 60 frames at 1080, but people are all bonkers over 240Hz displays anyway. They'll be the same ones who wanted 1080p devices to watch their (upscaled) DVDs.
You're limited to radiation, and the cosmic background temp, but that's the only limit. Although inefficient, peltier coolers can be used - the advantage is there is no fluid. Heat pipes are the most common form of heat transport, allowing the evaporation of a liquid in a sealed tube to migrate to the radiator end.
One challenge is the temperatures you're trying to work with. Remember that the temperature of the universe isn't actually 0K, but more like 3K. Liquid helium needs to be 4K or less. That's a slim margin, and at those temps the heat transfer rate is very, very low.
I clicked on the story because I was an engineer involved in the Superfluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/SHOOT/shoot.html) research project back in the early 90s. If you get Helium just above absolute zero, it loses it's viscosity (like a superconductor loses it's resistance). That makes it far easier to transfer the fluid from a storage container/refueling dewar to a spacecraft in service.
I actually like radiative heat transfer - it's very straight forward, much like conduction. Convection problems make me cry.
You'd be messing with the time-honored tradition of The Vault and all the panic buys that occur as a result.
Riiiight. The same people who don't want background checks are going to just fine with an implanted RFID tag.
I would love to see that conversation take place, if only to watch all of the heads explode.
The AC nailed it. If I had a mod point it would go here. I would expect customized interface (i.e buttons/keyboards) to be high on the list of wants, but this was mostly about small changes to the global shape of a flexible phone case. It's hard to extrapolate an actual USE for the current subject, beyond a simple novelty.
This is as bad as Microsoft running out of Surface tablets.
I live in a college town with 25,000 students and a lot of commuter cyclists. This shit happens every. single. day. Everyone in town knows where the students are, and just assumes they're dumb as bricks and not paying attention, which cuts down on the number of incidents - but it's still non-zero.
" You have absolutely no moral right to sit by while the IRS takes a cut of everyone's check under threat of force and then pretend that you can be as capricious in your cuts as a private business that has to fight daily to exist."
For the past 10 years, you and I have gotten a smaller cut taken (the Bush tax cuts) but they have delivered the same service. YOUR representative CHOSE (through inaction) to broker a deal where the FAA will get X% less money, and they have been told to cut expenses across the board. They are forbidden by the same laws YOUR representative passed (or allowed to pass) from reducing hourly wages. By definition, that means fewer hours and reduced services. These changes aren't capricious, they're showing exactly what happens when you cut funds ACROSS THE BOARD as directed by the law.
I'm a private businessman, and have run my own firm for a decade. I've taken a grand total of $1200 in federal money in that time. Before that I worked for a federal contractor for two years, a private firm with no governmental ties for 4 years, and was a federal employee for 9 years. It doesn't matter who I work for, I look to see how I can do more with less - that's good business, no matter who the client is. But at some point, you have to argue that the funds allocated are not sufficient for the task at hand. This isn't lawn care service, this is people travelling at 8/10 the speed of sound in a thin aluminum cylinder 30,000 feet above the ground. If things go wrong, people die.
"Sure, companies won't deliver services if invoices aren't paid, but they usually start out by assuming it is a mistake - they just want their money."
Except that the sequester is basically a letter to the AR department saying, "We are going to stop paying you, and we intend not to pay you in the future either...and here it is in writing." The only way to get paid is to withhold services which are most necessary. In private business, if you accept less money, people will start paying you less. If someone decides they don't want to pay you and you've already delivered the service, you have no leverage.
I would rather have 3 clients who pay, than 5 clients who don't. Non-paying clients don't put food on the table, and I don't put up with bullshit power plays or ego trips. I will bend over backwards to get emergency work out for my regular clients, and they appreciate it. The clients who are always 90-120-150 days out, or who don't pay get "as available" service, higher proposal fees (to compensate me for the bullshit time I spend chasing them down), or just stop responding to their requests for bids.
The other question is do these works qualify for DMCA protection if they are distributed in an encrypted format?
There are two fights here: The R and D are arguing over who's going to be correct, and they're using the usual dirt to try and make their points. The actual departments are attempting to secure the funding they want/need for the programs they run. They can always do "more" with more money. It's true of government just as it is with a business. I can always provide more, and more complete, and more personal service if you pay me more money. If you pay me less, I'm going to short you on certain items. I'll try to make them peripheral, but I guarantee if you stop paying my invoices I'm going to cut the flow to the high profile services first. Simple business.
You mean the cyclist travelling at half the speed of traffic who swerved suddenly into the path of a car to avoid a sewer grate, or the pedestrian with the ear buds in who stepped into moving traffic away from the crosswalk? I hate distracted drivers, too, but making any sudden move into oncoming traffic without warning is a bad idea even if the driver of a modern 3000lb vehicle with a 100ft stopping distance IS paying attention.
I think the key from the article is that when you are distracted and not looking at the road, your reaction time to things happening in your peripheral vision is longer. They didn't seem to track how long your attention was diverted. I wonder what their results would be if they put drivers through a course where the speed limit changed every 1/2 mile or so (as it does in many residential areas) and required that they stay within +0/-5MPH of the limit at all times. How frequently do you look down to check the speed? How about if you're late and looking at your watch or the dash clock to check the time?
They should really try this study with a touchscreen head unit and selecting a song from a connected audio device. Now THAT's dangerous!
You mean where you have press a soft-button to initiate a call, speak the name, then quickly check the display to see if it's correct, or look to press the soft "cancel" button, or see if it has dialed successfully, or to change to the correct bluetooth, or to change the volume, or to hang up?
Lord help you if you should have to manually tune a touchscreen radio receiver, intialize a podcast, or request a detour from a GPS unit.
I can "voice text" with less interaction than dialing "hands free", and with as little distraction as verifying my speed or the time of day from a non-headsup display.I cannot safely text, read more than a short phrase (6-8 words) on my phone (which is closer to my line of sight than the speedometer), or do any more than absolutely minimum music navigation on my touchscreen head unit (holy shit - finding an album is like asking for death!).
There are very strict rules on false incrimination and defamation, but they posted pictures and personal details claiming (in effect) they were the bombers.
I'm fully aware of the conditions acceptable for use of a firearm, and also of the very, very wide gray line which exists - especially in today's hypersensitive environment.
You and I both know that there are zealots out there in every niche of life. Encouraging people to carry guns to stop criminals (aka "bad guys with guns") is jus the same as suggesting people do their own sleuth work via crowdsourcing. There's going to be someone who goes over the top, even if they really, truly think they are doing good.
For an example of a "good" gun owner, there's a story floating around about the mall shooting last year where an armed citizen had the opportunity to shoot the shooter, but didn't take the shot. Why? Because it was in a mall and there were lots of people around. He was genuinely concerned that if he missed he could hit someone else. Imagine everyone was armed - it only takes one person who throws caution to the wind and takes the shot and misses - into another person - to cause irreversible collateral damage. The first volley of fire from the shooter would have already done it's damage.
If it were me, I'd limit round capacity to 3 rounds in any single firearm for private use. Any existing weapon not complying or not secured in an inspected, logged, BATFE approved explosives magazine would be illegal. I'm still looking for a rational argument which would make that unreasonable. (Note: I'm also a high power rocketry hobbiest, and we're still required to store igniters - nichrome with 100 milligram-size, low speed propellant - in a logged, inspected, and approved magazine). But I digress. The point was that more firearms would increase the likelihood of accidental/collateral damage, just as crowdsourcing detective work increases the likelihood of improper identification of suspects. We're just lucky that latter is less likely to result in an unnecessary fatality.
On the contrary, reading older science fiction and writing a report through a lens of 50 years in the future can be quite useful. What scientific elements of the fiction are true or nearly true today, what parts do we still think are clearly "impossible" (i.e. still science fiction), and which parts do you think might still go either way (and, of course, why)?
I am, thankyouverymuch. 50% reduction in one generation.
I know...mod me down as an anti-gun nut. But at least try to make the connection.
The advantage of crowdsourcing is that you get a shit-ton of information quickly, and it gets disseminated just as quickly. Everybody with a cell phone and a social media account has had this stuff in front of them since the bombing. It's great because it happens so fast, and millions of people being on alert can make for a quicker break in the case. It also has the downside of putting up a lot of false positives.
The NRA's stance is that if everyone had a gun, criminals would know not to so bad stuff and if they did there would be someone right there to stop them. It's basically crowd sourcing police/law enforcement work. Yes, there are now lots more people who can intervene with a criminal who is armed and dangerous. Just as everyone with a cell phone can photograph a scene and post the pictures on line for the world to peruse and instantly identify criminals.
Thing is, the more people who are involved, the higher the likelihood of a false positive. In the case of photos and social media, the mis-identified have a reason to be concerned short term, but once the media self-corrects and the correct criminals are identified their lives will slowly get back to normal. When guns are involved, a mis-identified person or bystander doesn't get a new life when the actual criminal is killed. The "oops" is permanent.
If you don't think there isn't the equivalent of 4chan in the vigilante world, you're sorely mistaken. It's part of the human condition to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence and not everyone will have the forethought or presence of mind not to take out someone who they think is about to cause harm to others.
If we used the NRA method of justice, Salah Eddin Barhoum would have been dead before the FBI even published the photos of the actual bombers.
(nb: I am a gun owner)
There may still be a couple of exceptions, but they're all based on the same code, and (again, with some exceptions) nearly all states have moved to statewide blanket codes. The IBC and it's variants are based on the old UBC codes mostly. They're ALL based on ASCE 7 for loads and load factors. NFPA has a competing set of codes, but I think they're mostly being unified with the I codes. NEC is identical to an NFPA number, which is referenced as the electrical code in IBC - they're all the same. States make their own exceptions and changes, but they are relatively minor.
"Farm country," again except in VERY rare cases has the exact same code as big cities - it's just not enforced. In nearly all states the state legislature makes the building code law (again, they all use a national code as a base and modify it to their liking), and it's valid statewide. In the I codes, agricultural buildings are generally exempt from code enforcement. That's why I get to go see all the barn failures in high winds. And the usually get denied by the insurance company because they're not built to any code standard. See - code standards all exist for ag buildings. They're storage, or office, or any of a dozen uses specified in ASCE 7, or a representative load can be calculated by an engineer (which is what the code says you must do BY LAW if your use doesn't fit a defined category). It's not too challenging, but it does take some time and experience. Which, translated to the non-engineer farmer, means money - and there's no money for engineering in farming until you break something enough times that you can't afford to have it fail again.
In some states - even red Virginia, a building official not enforcing the code is a misdemeanor. We still have counties around me with the same attitude as your friend's in Wisconsin, though.
First to market (well usually second to market, actually) will have a huge advantage over the next few. If you're willing to make Google Glass awesome through a great app, you will get mindshare for the future iterations...which will probably have a regular, for-profit marketplace.
Well, that's not exactly what they're doing. They will argue - probably successfully - that they are selling you the glasses. They will lose hands down on the "you can't transfer..." clause. But, they'll still "win" as they are also providing a service - the glass service - separately. If you resell them, the service does not transfer - just the hardware. A quick google (ha!) of EU warranty law didn't turn up whether or not they have to warranty re-sold items to subsequent purchasers for the initial 2 year period.
I don't expect this to last past the initial offering stage, just to keep the glasses from being whored off on ebay. Once they're commonplace you'll be able to transfer them and just sign in with your always-being-tracked gmail account.