They might but I hope Google doesn't actually plan to enforce trivial patents. The system is so messed up that even if a company doesn't want to patent stupid stuff, they have to just to avoid getting sued later or at the very least have something to throw back when they do get sued over stupid stuff.
Actually, it is easier for Apache license to be converted to LGPL but it is not completely impossible to do the reverse. To do the reverse, they would have to contact everyone who has made commits to see if they are willing to dual license their potion of the code. Any code that they can't get permission for they will have to rewrite.
You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
I will agree that privacy should be default. Companies should not be collecting data on you without your express permission. That said, they shouldn't have give you service either.
Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You are not given a real choice with the TSA. Considering how integral flight is to today's society, the choice between not flying and getting felt up and/or irradiated is not a real choice. You can't go to another airport/terminal that is willing to treat its customers better because the TSA is government enforced. If you remove the requirement, the TSA would probably disappear and be replace with private counterparts that treat the airlines' customers much more reasonably. If enough people feel like they need to be felt up in order to feel safe, airports will probably start getting sectioned off so those people can go through separate security lines and use separate planes in a separate parts of the airport.
Google's services are optional and easy to avoid. Most if not all of their services you can get from other companies. Nothing is forcing companies to collect your data. They could choose to use a different business model is they thought they could get a reasonable chunk of the market. You do not have to stop using the Internet to avoid Google. Currently, you do have to avoid the airport in order to avoid the TSA.
The advantage of these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction. The problem with these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction - and for almost every company out there, they benefit from the protection of a country's laws more than they suffer from them.
Sealand failed because anyone who hosted data there was wide open to the whim of Roy Bates - and if you didn't like his whim, you had no recourse. This will be no different.
We trust computers to fly us around in metal tubes 35,000 feet above the earth at speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and are comfortable with the fact that, statistically speaking, we're going to be just fine. Of course it needs a little work before it's perfected, but nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect.>
Exactly, in the case for self-driving cars, the AI just needs to be statistically as safe or safer than human drivers for me to accept them. Actually, considering the advantages, I would even accept almost as safe as human drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time these cars hit the mass market one of the three would be true.
How about don't lend that much money to someone who you can be pretty sure won't pay the money back?
I support that statement 100%. But the problem is with the federal government; banks have to make those loans because politicians don't have the spine to tell a student "No".
That is why the government needs to stop manipulating markets. They just end up causing bubbles that eventually pop.
There's also the attitude on the institution side, that they can loan someone $60k for a degree in basket weaving and reasonably expect to get it back. This has to stop as well, but I don't know how to fix it.
Start by restructuring most universities' athletic departments. Most rely on funds from the university to get by. Rutgers University students are paying an extra $1,000 each year to fund football. University of Colorado-Boulder actually had to postpone firing their football coach a few years ago because the athletic department was still repaying the loan it took out to fire the previous football coach.
You can't realistically shut all these athletic departments down, but you ought to be able to put a halt to sending a guy on his way with an extra $3 million in his account.
I was under the impression that the sports, especially football, were net positive because they helped get donations to the school. That said, I never understood why some people are promised huge chunks of money for doing a bad job and getting fired.
Kickstarter backers will mature, but it's not a bubble, there will not be a burst, but the project vetting process will improve as revenue increases for Kickstarter, as well as the maturity of the backers. It's an evolution, not a bubble. Saturation? Maybe.
I would assume Kickstarter would start doing some kind of background check and creating a scoring algorithm to be a decent indicator of risk. For example, the more money involved, the greater the risk. The more successful projects a group has completed, the lower the risk. The less experience someone has at the type of project he is advocating, the greater the risk. At that point, people can support a project without going in blind.
1. On freeways/highways during some traffic accidents, you can have more than 30 to 90 people calling 911 to report the same exact accident, thus overwhelming the 911 call center and sometimes the local cell towers also. Having some of those people place video calls would only compound this issue.
I am not sure why anyone would be streaming video to emergency services for a accident unless they were with someone who was hurt by the accident. That said, I guess there wouldn't be anything stopping that from happening.
2. Phone cameras are front-facing and back-facing, and for most users that can actually do video chatting, it's far from having become second nature to them yet. For instance, there needs to be plenty of light, the phone camera can't be moving too quickly, and the user needs to know where to point which end of the phone towards, while still being able to talk to it.
I doubt those people would even use the feature.
3. Bandwidth issues (not everyone has 4G service/high-speed wifi service, or even a mobile data service, and if even they did, it doesn't work everywhere the same yet)
While there could be bandwidth issues, I would assume the app would monitor the connection and fall back to voice with the option of sending pictures if the network is not fast enough.
4. Hardware issues (even among smartphones that can do video calling over 4G, all those 4G phones are not created equal. Some of those phones are vastly underpowered and will crash when doing video-calling. And the user may even have to pull out the battery and reboot their phone, before they can even make a normal phone call after that.)
It is better to have it for those that can use it than to not have it at all. I think the Google market lets the developers restrict downloads to the phones that they support.
5. Battery issues (video two-way calling is very power hungry, this issue alone could cost some lives if the battery gets depleted before all the most pertinant information gets relayed to the operator).
The app could monitor the battery and fallback to voice with the option of sending pictures if the battery falls below a certain threshold.
7. And last but not least, 911-video chat could become the new chat roulette where 2 out of every 3 video calls that would get to 911 would be a guy fondling his penis in front of his phone camera.
Considering the amount of data the emergency center would be receiving automatically by the app, if 2 out of 3 emergency video calls were naked pranks, 2 out of 3 emergency video callers would be arrested and/or fined. I am sure such a problem would end fairly quickly.
This seems like a great way to get alumni to donate when they eventually do start making good money. The affected alumni are not going to harbor any resentment at all.
The ironic thing here is that Google has themselves copyrighted many of their APIs and only give access to them if you pay them. For example, Google Search API.
I pretty sure you are paying for use of the implementation of the API. Not the API itself.
Slashdot Mirror
No, poison can be painless. Car crashes can be slow and painful.
I realize some poisons are quick and painless but most people associate poison with sickness and death.
Why are so many people online so foul mouthed?
Does that help if the power lines are hit?
For whatever reason is far more terrifying to die from poison than, e.g., dying in a car accident, or getting shot in the face.
A quick and painless death is preferable to a slow and painful one.
I doubt that is true but at least China is honest about their policies and intentions.
The real problem is that they can if the want to. The patent office needs a hard kick to the butt.
They might but I hope Google doesn't actually plan to enforce trivial patents. The system is so messed up that even if a company doesn't want to patent stupid stuff, they have to just to avoid getting sued later or at the very least have something to throw back when they do get sued over stupid stuff.
The patent office needs to stop awarding idiotic patents. Anything plus a computer/mobile should not equal a patent.
Actually, it is easier for Apache license to be converted to LGPL but it is not completely impossible to do the reverse. To do the reverse, they would have to contact everyone who has made commits to see if they are willing to dual license their potion of the code. Any code that they can't get permission for they will have to rewrite.
Sounds like a interesting project.
Actually, martial law is in effect but undeclared. You think government officials would admit to martial law?
I think it is more likely that you are getting beaten by the predecessor and the current.
You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
I will agree that privacy should be default. Companies should not be collecting data on you without your express permission. That said, they shouldn't have give you service either.
Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You are not given a real choice with the TSA. Considering how integral flight is to today's society, the choice between not flying and getting felt up and/or irradiated is not a real choice. You can't go to another airport/terminal that is willing to treat its customers better because the TSA is government enforced. If you remove the requirement, the TSA would probably disappear and be replace with private counterparts that treat the airlines' customers much more reasonably. If enough people feel like they need to be felt up in order to feel safe, airports will probably start getting sectioned off so those people can go through separate security lines and use separate planes in a separate parts of the airport.
Google's services are optional and easy to avoid. Most if not all of their services you can get from other companies. Nothing is forcing companies to collect your data. They could choose to use a different business model is they thought they could get a reasonable chunk of the market. You do not have to stop using the Internet to avoid Google. Currently, you do have to avoid the airport in order to avoid the TSA.
The advantage of these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction. The problem with these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction - and for almost every company out there, they benefit from the protection of a country's laws more than they suffer from them.
Sealand failed because anyone who hosted data there was wide open to the whim of Roy Bates - and if you didn't like his whim, you had no recourse. This will be no different.
A good article on Sealand: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/28/2909303/sealand-havenco-doomed-data-haven-history
If you outright bought the boat, the only whim would be your own. Of course, true pirates could also come back to the high seas.
We trust computers to fly us around in metal tubes 35,000 feet above the earth at speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and are comfortable with the fact that, statistically speaking, we're going to be just fine. Of course it needs a little work before it's perfected, but nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect.>
Exactly, in the case for self-driving cars, the AI just needs to be statistically as safe or safer than human drivers for me to accept them. Actually, considering the advantages, I would even accept almost as safe as human drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time these cars hit the mass market one of the three would be true.
Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Google's services?
How about don't lend that much money to someone who you can be pretty sure won't pay the money back?
I support that statement 100%. But the problem is with the federal government; banks have to make those loans because politicians don't have the spine to tell a student "No".
That is why the government needs to stop manipulating markets. They just end up causing bubbles that eventually pop.
There's also the attitude on the institution side, that they can loan someone $60k for a degree in basket weaving and reasonably expect to get it back. This has to stop as well, but I don't know how to fix it.
Start by restructuring most universities' athletic departments. Most rely on funds from the university to get by. Rutgers University students are paying an extra $1,000 each year to fund football. University of Colorado-Boulder actually had to postpone firing their football coach a few years ago because the athletic department was still repaying the loan it took out to fire the previous football coach.
You can't realistically shut all these athletic departments down, but you ought to be able to put a halt to sending a guy on his way with an extra $3 million in his account.
I was under the impression that the sports, especially football, were net positive because they helped get donations to the school. That said, I never understood why some people are promised huge chunks of money for doing a bad job and getting fired.
I worked when I was in college. The problem is that most of it was not directly related to my field.
Kickstarter backers will mature, but it's not a bubble, there will not be a burst, but the project vetting process will improve as revenue increases for Kickstarter, as well as the maturity of the backers. It's an evolution, not a bubble. Saturation? Maybe.
I would assume Kickstarter would start doing some kind of background check and creating a scoring algorithm to be a decent indicator of risk. For example, the more money involved, the greater the risk. The more successful projects a group has completed, the lower the risk. The less experience someone has at the type of project he is advocating, the greater the risk. At that point, people can support a project without going in blind.
1. On freeways/highways during some traffic accidents, you can have more than 30 to 90 people calling 911 to report the same exact accident, thus overwhelming the 911 call center and sometimes the local cell towers also. Having some of those people place video calls would only compound this issue.
I am not sure why anyone would be streaming video to emergency services for a accident unless they were with someone who was hurt by the accident. That said, I guess there wouldn't be anything stopping that from happening.
2. Phone cameras are front-facing and back-facing, and for most users that can actually do video chatting, it's far from having become second nature to them yet. For instance, there needs to be plenty of light, the phone camera can't be moving too quickly, and the user needs to know where to point which end of the phone towards, while still being able to talk to it.
I doubt those people would even use the feature.
3. Bandwidth issues (not everyone has 4G service/high-speed wifi service, or even a mobile data service, and if even they did, it doesn't work everywhere the same yet)
While there could be bandwidth issues, I would assume the app would monitor the connection and fall back to voice with the option of sending pictures if the network is not fast enough.
4. Hardware issues (even among smartphones that can do video calling over 4G, all those 4G phones are not created equal. Some of those phones are vastly underpowered and will crash when doing video-calling. And the user may even have to pull out the battery and reboot their phone, before they can even make a normal phone call after that.)
It is better to have it for those that can use it than to not have it at all. I think the Google market lets the developers restrict downloads to the phones that they support.
5. Battery issues (video two-way calling is very power hungry, this issue alone could cost some lives if the battery gets depleted before all the most pertinant information gets relayed to the operator).
The app could monitor the battery and fallback to voice with the option of sending pictures if the battery falls below a certain threshold.
7. And last but not least, 911-video chat could become the new chat roulette where 2 out of every 3 video calls that would get to 911 would be a guy fondling his penis in front of his phone camera.
Considering the amount of data the emergency center would be receiving automatically by the app, if 2 out of 3 emergency video calls were naked pranks, 2 out of 3 emergency video callers would be arrested and/or fined. I am sure such a problem would end fairly quickly.
This seems like a great way to get alumni to donate when they eventually do start making good money. The affected alumni are not going to harbor any resentment at all.
The ironic thing here is that Google has themselves copyrighted many of their APIs and only give access to them if you pay them. For example, Google Search API.
I pretty sure you are paying for use of the implementation of the API. Not the API itself.
The best filesystem to survive a crash is a filesystem designed for an operating system that is expected to crash: NTFS.
I don't know if I should laugh or ask what evidence that you have NTFS is the "best".