It's Eye-Phone! The eye implant which links up to "the cloud" to record everything in your life.
Actually... walking around with a camera on your head is pretty dumb unless you're shooting porn or some youtube skateboarding video.
I don't even care -- I won't likely be using one of those things. I quickly tired of the bluetooth earset thing, though the little jabra speakerphone thing for my car is pretty nice.
Who knows... perceptions change all the time though. The moment some celebrities start strutting around wearing them is the moment a bunch of people change their minds about how it looks.
The future is hard to see but somehow I get visions similar to that scene in "Full Metal Jacket" where the punch line was "It's easy. You just don't lead them as much." Only in the future, it will be starving people in food riots. And the gunner is just thankful he has a government job.
I believe this company has already found itself on anonymous' radar. Watch out for fun on the horizon as I expect them to exploit the finfisher C&C servers for their own gain and to the embarassment of finfisher's customers.
Fact is, we are and we have put too much crap into the air. The weather is changing. With that change, the food supply is in jeopardy. But it's all pretty well timed as everything else seems to be collapsing at a faster rate not the least of which is the economy. Do you think Europe is in a bubble? It's coming for us in the US soon.
The same can be said for using the mail service. There are loads of things they [government] are not supposed to do but for some reason they want to tell themselves that because the medium is different, privacy and the constitution aren't relevant.
And in all of that, isn't it still failing to address the real and core problems? The people? The people who don't grow up right? The collassal collection of single-parent offspring? The offspring of part-time parents who spend the majority of their time on themselves and/or their work? We have serious maturity problems in the culture of the US. We have huge dietary problems made ridiculously worse by subsidies on corn instead of the foods we really need to be healthy.
I'm not trying to say "look over there." I'm saying that other cultures have guns and don't have the problems we have. If it were a world-wide correlation, I might be inclined that there might be a connection. But it's not a "human" failing we're talking about -- it's a US American failing and we need, as a nation, to grow the hell up. We need to stop depending on the government to protect us from things it CAN'T protect us from (ourselves!!). We need to place blame where it belongs.
But let me say this and hope I don't seem too selfish. If I am in a position where having a gun could have saved my own life or that of my family and it was taken from me because someone decided FOR ME that I can't have one, I'm going to blame people like you for that tragedy. *I* can handle guns. I'm ex-military and raised in an area where guns are as natural as knives and forks. I would never allow a situation where an accident could claim the life of anyone "accidentally." If I pull a trigger, it will be 100% intentionally and 100% deadly. It is not my fault if someone else cannot handle things properly and I will not accept that my rights must be forfeit because a collection of jackasses out there can't.
And finally. I will agree that guns are the problem the very first time a judge puts a gun in jail instead of the person behind the trigger. And I will agree with you that guns are the problem the first time you think it is "enough" to simply take guns away from a person who killed another. People absolutely need to be held to account for their mistakes and their problems. But we don't solve problems by punishing EVERYONE for the failings other others.
The fast that revolving door spins, the more circulation of air we get. Okay, so maybe that'll just make the ice caps melt faster, but I'm sure their hearts are in the right place.
What I am saying is exactly what I said -- that restricting a freedom merely because it is "unpopular" is not good.
It's okay -- these days there seems to be some really positive changes developing. Among these:
1. Congress and Senate are getting a bit tired of the executive and its fatherland sekurity department. 2. Polls are showing an increased fear of government over fear of terrorist attacks.
When it comes down to it, (if it comes down to it) there will be a lot of people who will be willing to defend their rights. It didn't look so good only a few years ago, but these days? The odds are looking better.
1. If someone wants to kill themself, I would rather they not use a gun -- a nice heavy-duty wood chipper overlooking an ocean to feed the fish would be better. A lot less to clean up and not a burden on the rest of living society. I think suicide should be 100% allowed especially in this world where the persuit of happiness among many other thigs are severely inhibited.
2. Reducing suicide is not a reason to leave people less able to defend themselves in time of need.
Bottom line? If there was an effective alternative when it comes to self-defense, I would give up the gun issue. Do you have an effective alternative to the self-defense problem? Using the "suicide" argument suggests you would like to defend life, but what about allowing life to defend itself?
There are a lot of culture changes "no one wants." Among these are racially integrated societies. I'm not comparing the two, but I am saying that "unpopular ideas" should not be restricted based on their lack of popularity.
Also, "no one"? Sorry, but while I think they are nut-bags for wanting to draw needless attention to themselves, it does send some important messages not the least of which are "I think concealed carry is better." If I even wated to carry, I believe it is my right under the constitution. I have yet to see a law that is truly above the constitution and I'd love to see cases where a judge actually ruled that restrictions (which are expressly forbidden) on the right to bear arms can be limited while remaining constitutional.
I will concede that point, but people who use their own [registered] gun in a crime of any sort is not as common as those committed with illegal guns.
So how would it help to limit the right to self-defense of innocents against those who have illegal guns?
Also, the very notion that a gun may be legal or illegal (that is to say the government knows you have it or doesn't) is a bit repugnant in my opinion. It's a list that can be used to out gun owners... and put them on a map... or, by elimination, a map of people who are not likely to have/own a gun and are much better targets for home invasion and burglary.
It's not a right granted by the state that people should be allowed to defend themselves -- it's a natural right. And when the bad people are likely to come with guns, I'd like to be able to return fire.
The US culture stops at the US border. We have expectations based on our family, our religion, our neighborhood, our states, our laws and, yes, even and especially our racial/ethnic diversity and distribution.
We have a LOT of prisoners in the US. We have a lot of problems in the US. And increasingly, we have a lot of unhappy people due to factors which, among others, include the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. It's an extremely complex thing which cannot be narrowed down to a single cause. But one thing is for sure -- there are criminals and other dangerous people in the US. If all guns all over the world magically disappeared from literally everyone from the armed services, to the police to the public all over, two things would happen:
1. Alternative weapons would be gathered, collected and fashioned. 2. The people who are not armed with a defense will the the ones who suffer the most and among the first targets.
We know this becase human history has displayed this over and over and over again.
So if the gun-fearful got their wish, very little would actually change. Very little.
Are you saying that if you had a gun in your possession, that it would increase the liklihood that you would become a violent threat to the public? Availability of a thing does not change the character of a person.
There are examples to the contrary as well.
Would you feel safer if police didn't have guns? I would. There is a problem with government having too many guns and the arming of government increases at a ridiculous rate. Did you know the social security administration is an armed government police agency now? I know I was surprised to learn of this.
I don't want to fund research on gun violence either.
The problem ISN'T guns. It's the culture of people. We have a culture of violence in the US as much as we woud like to deny it. We glorify it in so many ways -- in the media, the movies, TV shows and pop music. Without that culture, the interest in guns would decrease with the exception of those who use them as intended -- as tools and defense. And without guns, the violence would change adjust.
Presently, we have beating by hand, foot, bludgeon, knife, sword, gun and by larger things such as automobile. To take away things from people who are innocent is punishment of the innocent. Can that really be justified because a particular means is demonized?
At the end of the day, violence takes many, many forms. To address the problem by separating the means is frivolous.
The purpose of research is to create evidence when we make a case for something we want. We *will* duplicate research programs so that we have an increased chance of getting the results we are paying for. But once those reqults are acquired, no further research is needed.
Wow. Sounds like some sort of button has been pressed to get a response like that.
I speak, of course, in generalities. And because of the generalities, people's behavior and habits have been formed in response. Think of it like this. When the great depression was over, people still saved money and were careful with it.. more careful than we are now. People don't make too many exceptions in their behaviors simply because the threat or problem is [temporarily] resolved.
Also... a demo version doesn't always mean it's even close to the actual experience. The "Torque" obd2 android app proves that.. the "lite" version is not even in the same ballpark as the paid version.
So regardless of the price, if someone wants to try it, they need to have the full version.
Their simulation of pirated copies will undoubtedly reflect diminished sales.
Who the hell would want to play a game like this anyway?! Ridiculous.
Game prices are too high. People don't want to spend any amount of money without knowing what they will get in return. But in the software product world there are "no refunds" which has made the software product business more hostile to the consumer than most others. A mildly educated consumer will be risk averse knowing this.
So certainly they will want to try it before they buy it. But if they like it and their friends like it, they will likely buy it if they can afford it.
Game publishers are just stupid about their products and especially the VALUE of their products. So many completed games simply stop being played and it's no longer useful. Is it really worth the $50+ ? Especially since you can't resell it any longer?
Greed and unrealistic expectations is the game making business's current failure.
Indeed. My suspicion is that the patent application was so bad that there was no choice but to reject it. I "hope" this is a case of a patent examiner actually doing his job properly which includes rejecting bad patents. I suspect this is a case of lawyers submitting garbage and having it approved on the basis that it is too complicated for the patent examiner to understand.
In my neighborhood, I just moved here, I saw something even more alien and spooky.
Children are playing outside. There's often one or more "community balls" laying around outside of various types -- football, basketball and soccer. I always drive slow because of that and always back into my parking spaces too... I saw a little boy on a bicycle almost get backed-into as a driver was pulling out. (That can't happen when backing into a parking spot because when a driver prepares to back in, he has already surveyed the spot for safe parking -- no one there -- and when pulling out, you are facing forward and have a better chance of seeing whatever is out there)
Anyway -- yeah... I have gotten so accustomed to the current norm that seeing something nice out there is a bit weird too... even if it is a pleasant weird.
Can you prove that no evidence was manufactured? Once they go down the road of modifying evidence, everything should be questioned.
And for another thing, text files are the least reliable forms of evidence I can imagine. If they want us to believe a text file, there should be a better way of verifiable logs... you know, something which involves crypto keys connecting the machine to various other things and all that?
And then there's the notion of the right to face one's accuser. Their spy amounts to "secret evidence." I know, this isn't the U.S. But because it's not the U.S. I rather expect a higher standard.
Is it the law or is it the price? And what of the general income of the average buyer? There's a LOT to consider when making comparisons.
I think the countless studies over the subject has concluded the problem has never been about lack of protection (legal or otherwise)and more about the price. The overwhelming success of iTunes should be proof of that and removing DRM made sales go even higher.
My son, thankfully, knows how to play. He is 6. Yes, he plays with the computer. He plays xbox360 occasionally but mostly to watch his videos. Those are carefully metered though. The rest of the time? He is drawing, coloring and creating. Not sure where he got the idea, but I approve. He draws things from his games or imagination, cuts them out and creates scenes and interacts with them. "Paper dolls" I guess but more than that. "Paper action figures" would be more like it. He imagines all sorts of things and loves to run around outside too. But I'm an old fashioned guy and I hope there will be enough "old fashioned boy" in him as he grows up. He'll have the kinds of experiences I enjoyed as a boy... or as much as possible. If I ever teach him to shoot, I wonder how much therapy he will have to go through?
Nice try but no. Actually, that was my first thought as well -- "is this how they will get Christianity into schools?"
Science fiction, as opposed to regular fiction, [and religion] has an element of believability and/or possibility. Androids, warp drives, time travel, body switching and lots more show us how to imagine a future -- most of the time a better future. And we need more of that. Some of the biggest problems come from our present state of stagnation and "incremental advances" which are simply being held back while the market for 'product X' has not quite yet exhausted itself yet.
If someone were to make a list of things we didn't have in the 70s which we have today which are NOT merely incremental advances, I'd be glad to see it. Hey, and why not. Let's see what we can come up with? Reply here with a list off the top of your head.
I'll go with LCD displays as an example. While it's true we had LCDs, it was in development. Then there's DLP. That's really very new without much in the way of precursor technology supporting it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Eye-Phone! The eye implant which links up to "the cloud" to record everything in your life.
Actually... walking around with a camera on your head is pretty dumb unless you're shooting porn or some youtube skateboarding video.
I don't even care -- I won't likely be using one of those things. I quickly tired of the bluetooth earset thing, though the little jabra speakerphone thing for my car is pretty nice.
Who knows... perceptions change all the time though. The moment some celebrities start strutting around wearing them is the moment a bunch of people change their minds about how it looks.
The future is hard to see but somehow I get visions similar to that scene in "Full Metal Jacket" where the punch line was "It's easy. You just don't lead them as much." Only in the future, it will be starving people in food riots. And the gunner is just thankful he has a government job.
"Atomation"
I can't wait for the sequel.
I believe this company has already found itself on anonymous' radar. Watch out for fun on the horizon as I expect them to exploit the finfisher C&C servers for their own gain and to the embarassment of finfisher's customers.
And it's not like the decision makers haven't been informed of the consequences. They just felt the money was better for the moment.
It's literally sickening.
Fact is, we are and we have put too much crap into the air. The weather is changing. With that change, the food supply is in jeopardy. But it's all pretty well timed as everything else seems to be collapsing at a faster rate not the least of which is the economy. Do you think Europe is in a bubble? It's coming for us in the US soon.
The same can be said for using the mail service. There are loads of things they [government] are not supposed to do but for some reason they want to tell themselves that because the medium is different, privacy and the constitution aren't relevant.
And in all of that, isn't it still failing to address the real and core problems? The people? The people who don't grow up right? The collassal collection of single-parent offspring? The offspring of part-time parents who spend the majority of their time on themselves and/or their work? We have serious maturity problems in the culture of the US. We have huge dietary problems made ridiculously worse by subsidies on corn instead of the foods we really need to be healthy.
I'm not trying to say "look over there." I'm saying that other cultures have guns and don't have the problems we have. If it were a world-wide correlation, I might be inclined that there might be a connection. But it's not a "human" failing we're talking about -- it's a US American failing and we need, as a nation, to grow the hell up. We need to stop depending on the government to protect us from things it CAN'T protect us from (ourselves!!). We need to place blame where it belongs.
But let me say this and hope I don't seem too selfish. If I am in a position where having a gun could have saved my own life or that of my family and it was taken from me because someone decided FOR ME that I can't have one, I'm going to blame people like you for that tragedy. *I* can handle guns. I'm ex-military and raised in an area where guns are as natural as knives and forks. I would never allow a situation where an accident could claim the life of anyone "accidentally." If I pull a trigger, it will be 100% intentionally and 100% deadly. It is not my fault if someone else cannot handle things properly and I will not accept that my rights must be forfeit because a collection of jackasses out there can't.
And finally. I will agree that guns are the problem the very first time a judge puts a gun in jail instead of the person behind the trigger. And I will agree with you that guns are the problem the first time you think it is "enough" to simply take guns away from a person who killed another. People absolutely need to be held to account for their mistakes and their problems. But we don't solve problems by punishing EVERYONE for the failings other others.
The fast that revolving door spins, the more circulation of air we get. Okay, so maybe that'll just make the ice caps melt faster, but I'm sure their hearts are in the right place.
I said "I'm not comparing the two."
What I am saying is exactly what I said -- that restricting a freedom merely because it is "unpopular" is not good.
It's okay -- these days there seems to be some really positive changes developing. Among these:
1. Congress and Senate are getting a bit tired of the executive and its fatherland sekurity department.
2. Polls are showing an increased fear of government over fear of terrorist attacks.
When it comes down to it, (if it comes down to it) there will be a lot of people who will be willing to defend their rights. It didn't look so good only a few years ago, but these days? The odds are looking better.
1. If someone wants to kill themself, I would rather they not use a gun -- a nice heavy-duty wood chipper overlooking an ocean to feed the fish would be better. A lot less to clean up and not a burden on the rest of living society. I think suicide should be 100% allowed especially in this world where the persuit of happiness among many other thigs are severely inhibited.
2. Reducing suicide is not a reason to leave people less able to defend themselves in time of need.
Bottom line? If there was an effective alternative when it comes to self-defense, I would give up the gun issue. Do you have an effective alternative to the self-defense problem? Using the "suicide" argument suggests you would like to defend life, but what about allowing life to defend itself?
There are a lot of culture changes "no one wants." Among these are racially integrated societies. I'm not comparing the two, but I am saying that "unpopular ideas" should not be restricted based on their lack of popularity.
Also, "no one"? Sorry, but while I think they are nut-bags for wanting to draw needless attention to themselves, it does send some important messages not the least of which are "I think concealed carry is better." If I even wated to carry, I believe it is my right under the constitution. I have yet to see a law that is truly above the constitution and I'd love to see cases where a judge actually ruled that restrictions (which are expressly forbidden) on the right to bear arms can be limited while remaining constitutional.
I will concede that point, but people who use their own [registered] gun in a crime of any sort is not as common as those committed with illegal guns.
So how would it help to limit the right to self-defense of innocents against those who have illegal guns?
Also, the very notion that a gun may be legal or illegal (that is to say the government knows you have it or doesn't) is a bit repugnant in my opinion. It's a list that can be used to out gun owners... and put them on a map... or, by elimination, a map of people who are not likely to have/own a gun and are much better targets for home invasion and burglary.
It's not a right granted by the state that people should be allowed to defend themselves -- it's a natural right. And when the bad people are likely to come with guns, I'd like to be able to return fire.
The US culture stops at the US border. We have expectations based on our family, our religion, our neighborhood, our states, our laws and, yes, even and especially our racial/ethnic diversity and distribution.
We have a LOT of prisoners in the US. We have a lot of problems in the US. And increasingly, we have a lot of unhappy people due to factors which, among others, include the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. It's an extremely complex thing which cannot be narrowed down to a single cause. But one thing is for sure -- there are criminals and other dangerous people in the US. If all guns all over the world magically disappeared from literally everyone from the armed services, to the police to the public all over, two things would happen:
1. Alternative weapons would be gathered, collected and fashioned.
2. The people who are not armed with a defense will the the ones who suffer the most and among the first targets.
We know this becase human history has displayed this over and over and over again.
So if the gun-fearful got their wish, very little would actually change. Very little.
Are you saying that if you had a gun in your possession, that it would increase the liklihood that you would become a violent threat to the public? Availability of a thing does not change the character of a person.
There are examples to the contrary as well.
Would you feel safer if police didn't have guns? I would. There is a problem with government having too many guns and the arming of government increases at a ridiculous rate. Did you know the social security administration is an armed government police agency now? I know I was surprised to learn of this.
I don't want to fund research on gun violence either.
The problem ISN'T guns. It's the culture of people. We have a culture of violence in the US as much as we woud like to deny it. We glorify it in so many ways -- in the media, the movies, TV shows and pop music. Without that culture, the interest in guns would decrease with the exception of those who use them as intended -- as tools and defense. And without guns, the violence would change adjust.
Presently, we have beating by hand, foot, bludgeon, knife, sword, gun and by larger things such as automobile. To take away things from people who are innocent is punishment of the innocent. Can that really be justified because a particular means is demonized?
At the end of the day, violence takes many, many forms. To address the problem by separating the means is frivolous.
The purpose of research is to create evidence when we make a case for something we want. We *will* duplicate research programs so that we have an increased chance of getting the results we are paying for. But once those reqults are acquired, no further research is needed.
Smoking is good for you.
Wow. Sounds like some sort of button has been pressed to get a response like that.
I speak, of course, in generalities. And because of the generalities, people's behavior and habits have been formed in response. Think of it like this. When the great depression was over, people still saved money and were careful with it.. more careful than we are now. People don't make too many exceptions in their behaviors simply because the threat or problem is [temporarily] resolved.
Also... a demo version doesn't always mean it's even close to the actual experience. The "Torque" obd2 android app proves that.. the "lite" version is not even in the same ballpark as the paid version.
So regardless of the price, if someone wants to try it, they need to have the full version.
Their simulation of pirated copies will undoubtedly reflect diminished sales.
Who the hell would want to play a game like this anyway?! Ridiculous.
Game prices are too high. People don't want to spend any amount of money without knowing what they will get in return. But in the software product world there are "no refunds" which has made the software product business more hostile to the consumer than most others. A mildly educated consumer will be risk averse knowing this.
So certainly they will want to try it before they buy it. But if they like it and their friends like it, they will likely buy it if they can afford it.
Game publishers are just stupid about their products and especially the VALUE of their products. So many completed games simply stop being played and it's no longer useful. Is it really worth the $50+ ? Especially since you can't resell it any longer?
Greed and unrealistic expectations is the game making business's current failure.
Indeed. My suspicion is that the patent application was so bad that there was no choice but to reject it. I "hope" this is a case of a patent examiner actually doing his job properly which includes rejecting bad patents. I suspect this is a case of lawyers submitting garbage and having it approved on the basis that it is too complicated for the patent examiner to understand.
In my neighborhood, I just moved here, I saw something even more alien and spooky.
Children are playing outside. There's often one or more "community balls" laying around outside of various types -- football, basketball and soccer. I always drive slow because of that and always back into my parking spaces too... I saw a little boy on a bicycle almost get backed-into as a driver was pulling out. (That can't happen when backing into a parking spot because when a driver prepares to back in, he has already surveyed the spot for safe parking -- no one there -- and when pulling out, you are facing forward and have a better chance of seeing whatever is out there)
Anyway -- yeah... I have gotten so accustomed to the current norm that seeing something nice out there is a bit weird too... even if it is a pleasant weird.
Can you prove that no evidence was manufactured? Once they go down the road of modifying evidence, everything should be questioned.
And for another thing, text files are the least reliable forms of evidence I can imagine. If they want us to believe a text file, there should be a better way of verifiable logs... you know, something which involves crypto keys connecting the machine to various other things and all that?
And then there's the notion of the right to face one's accuser. Their spy amounts to "secret evidence." I know, this isn't the U.S. But because it's not the U.S. I rather expect a higher standard.
Is it the law or is it the price? And what of the general income of the average buyer? There's a LOT to consider when making comparisons.
I think the countless studies over the subject has concluded the problem has never been about lack of protection (legal or otherwise)and more about the price. The overwhelming success of iTunes should be proof of that and removing DRM made sales go even higher.
Spoken like a fellow older-person.
My son, thankfully, knows how to play. He is 6. Yes, he plays with the computer. He plays xbox360 occasionally but mostly to watch his videos. Those are carefully metered though. The rest of the time? He is drawing, coloring and creating. Not sure where he got the idea, but I approve. He draws things from his games or imagination, cuts them out and creates scenes and interacts with them. "Paper dolls" I guess but more than that. "Paper action figures" would be more like it. He imagines all sorts of things and loves to run around outside too. But I'm an old fashioned guy and I hope there will be enough "old fashioned boy" in him as he grows up. He'll have the kinds of experiences I enjoyed as a boy... or as much as possible. If I ever teach him to shoot, I wonder how much therapy he will have to go through?
Nice try but no. Actually, that was my first thought as well -- "is this how they will get Christianity into schools?"
Science fiction, as opposed to regular fiction, [and religion] has an element of believability and/or possibility. Androids, warp drives, time travel, body switching and lots more show us how to imagine a future -- most of the time a better future. And we need more of that. Some of the biggest problems come from our present state of stagnation and "incremental advances" which are simply being held back while the market for 'product X' has not quite yet exhausted itself yet.
If someone were to make a list of things we didn't have in the 70s which we have today which are NOT merely incremental advances, I'd be glad to see it. Hey, and why not. Let's see what we can come up with? Reply here with a list off the top of your head.
I'll go with LCD displays as an example. While it's true we had LCDs, it was in development. Then there's DLP. That's really very new without much in the way of precursor technology supporting it.
What do you have?