An improved user interface is only 5 years away...
on
Surfing the Web Haptically
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This seems to rate right up there with speech recognition as one of those technologies whose advent has been only 5 years away for the past 15 years.
That being said, it is really sad to think that there have been few really innovative and memorable improvements to the human-computer interface since the original Macintosh in 1984. (Yes I know Messr. Jobs got it from Xerox - cool your jets flamers. The Mac was the first widely available GUI system. Facts are facts.)
Not only is it time to start thinking more seriously about using the 4 other senses besides sight to enhance the human-computer interface (no pr0n jokes, please - I'm serious) but it is also high time to realize that not everyone has the use of their eyes. This type of interface improvement can do wonders for the visually impaired computer users among us. I'd like to see more improvements of this type.
A 1 X 1 gfx MIGHT BE a spacer -- then again, it could be a web bug (IMHO, it is more likely to be a web bug - I haven't seen too many tables that need anything moved by only 1 pixel). Although I agree - everything 1 X 1 is not NECESSARILY bad, but how effective is something 1 X 1 as a presentation item on a web page? Remember, HTML is primarily used for data presentation, not data formatting. That's XML's territory.
I don't use IE because the sysadmins at my work have tweaked it so much and restricted the ability to shut off cookies and java/jscript. I do resaearch that has to be kept confidential - if I can't take minimum steps to protect that confidentiality, I can't use the software.
I have noticed that when I log into Excite, some pages I view have been loading a 1 X 1 Applet that is transmitting information (at least time spent on the page) back to servers. As far as I am concerned the only uses for a 1 X 1 ANYTHING on a web page are no good.
I have not yet grabbed the applet and tried to decompile it (mostly for lack of time), so I do not know exactly what it is doing in addition to sending time information, but it struck me as extremely obnoxious.
I am stuck using Win98 and Netscape 4.7 at work, so I cannot use a more enlightened browser that selectively grants/denies JavaScript and Java access by domain name. So...I am stuck being watched to a certain extent.
Is it just me or is anyone else sick and tired of being treated like some company's asset? I am tired of the companies I deal with trying to suck every possible dime out of the relationship they have with me -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to selling my personal information.
Granted that the Supreme Court has severely limited privacy rights in automobiles (for example, the police can search anywhere within the driver's "wingspan", an area which apparently includes the trunk, despite the driver's (in)ability to reach into the trunk while sitting in the driver's seat), and also granted that drunk driving is stupid, callous, and an extreme hazard to innocent bystanders and other motorists, but this is just a little too intrusive for my taste.
I think the manufacturer itself recognizes this because the article states it is designed to give police "probable cause" to make a stop. HEL-LO! We're putting a device in your car that essentially searches the content of your body and then notifies a police cruiser in the area electronically so he can have "probable cause"???!!!
I AM a lawyer, but DON'T do criminal law. However, I believe the proper order is:
Get probable cause; THEN
Stop and search.
This places the search first and the establishment of probable cause second. The fact that a private party and not the Gov't is respoonsible for conducting the search is essentially a sham in my humble legal opinion.
There may be circumstances where this is warranted -- as a condition for continued driving privileges after a drunk driving conviction (not using the device to obtain the conviction in the first place, of course) being one of those circumstances. However, there I analogize the device as simply an improvement on the devices already available that lock the ignition until the driver blows into a breathalyzer and proves to be below the legal limit. Again, I am only aware of these ignition lock devices being used after a properly obtained conviction.
If you go down this road, you will have to make it illegal to remove the device and/or tamper with it. I predict an increased demand for used cars.
I had to take a second look at this one...even MS isn't thickheaded enough to challenge MTV (Music Television) in a head-to-head trademark war. Even MSN TV may be too close for comfort for MTV. This trademark issue might become interesting - especially if MSN starts streaming music videos.
Along with the JavaScript exploit someone else mentioned, I found these choice comments from other site "users":
What others are saying:
TIM R, on WEST 15 STREET says, "Susan and I love your site.
Thanks for giving out our home address!"
JERRY S, on CENTRAL PARK WEST says, "Hi Jerry Seinfeld
here. I live at 211 Central Pk. West and was born 4/29/54 I'm a
stand-up comic, but I don't think this site is very funny! Now
everyone knows I'm a registered democrat! "
WILLIAM D, on GREENWICH STREET says, "Please remove
my data from your database!"
Other issues aside, with quality control like this, I wonder how much of this information is accurate.
Not to sound like a broken record (although I doubt anyone is interested in my comments enough to read all my previous posts, but you never know...) but the only way to get practices like this to end is to become involved.
From reading the article, it seems like the "identification" portion of the pirate hunt process is flawed. I suspect that the reason this person was accused was either because
The person processing the information miscopied the IP address; or
the IP address was spoofed.
Cases like this are prime for exposing the inherent dangers of relying on IP addresses (or any other electronic address for that matter) as identifiers. The people affected must take the time to address the issues head-on. In this case, and IMHLO (the L is for Legal) a little detailed information of how networks operate applied in the right area would shine the great light of knowledge and understanding into some very dark legal corners.
Police officer, fireman... generally any civil service position for which there is an exam and strict requirements as to how people are hired and/or fired. Firing someone in violation of those requirements can be a taking of property (your job) in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution
The company made accommodations, including workstation adjustments,
new chairs, modified work schedules and a gym membership. She filed additional claims several years later when her condition
worsened and the company granted her an extended leave.
In 1997, the company contemplated voice recognition technology and reassignment as alternatives but ultimately concluded they
were not viable.
Working in a particular job is not a right (most times), but the employer should not be able to decide unilaterally what accommodations they will make and which ones they will not. What you are essentially saying is that people who are otherwise talented and effective in their jobs can be forced to find other jobs when they are injured BECAUSE of the one they chose? Keep in mind that their choice of new jobs will now be severely limited because of the injury.
Why couldn't she dictate her stories to a secretary? I always thought the most important skills for good writing were the ability to think clearly and to have a mastery of the language in which you write.
By the way, I know a LOT of civil servants who will be able to tell you that working in SOME jobs IS a right....in certain jobs, even a Constitutional right.
This is, in my humble legal opinion, a very bad decision. The majority ignores that the disability claimed (carpal tunnel syndrome) prevented her from performing in her chosen profession in the manner in which she used to perform, that is, by doing her own typing of stories. The majority instead looks to see if CTS affected her life activities as a whole, which I believe is an improperly broad test.
If this is the law, it means that if you are disabled in a way that affects your work, you as a worker are at risk of losing your job unless that same disability affects a substantial part of your entire life's activities. Bottom line - you had better be SERIOUSLY hurt or you are out of luck.
The ADA was enacted to make sure employers provided reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. Letting the employer off the hook in this case, where the employer determined that accommodations were not available and most importantly, where the job was a substantial cause of the disability may be an exercise in legal reasoning, but it certainly isn't justice.
Read the article - especially where it says the employer considered voice recognition (and other options) but then decided NOT to give those options to the reporter. Think about it again.
In order to get a patent, you have to enable someone of ordinary skill in the area to actually BUILD your invention. You haven't provided enough detail for how your "gray goo" works to enable someone skilled in the Gray Goo art to practice your "invention." If someone else comes up with the specifics, they will be able to patent the process.
As we have seen time and time again, retrictions on any computer system are not foolproof. Inevitably, any restrictions placed on Internet content by other countries must be implemented by software or hardware. People in those locations will find ways around or ways to defeat blocking technologies.
This ultimately means that although global access to any information on the Internet may be slowed, it will not be completely eliminated. Censorship efforts like these will certainly claim victims along the way, but are ultimately doomed to failure.
You have stolen RIGHTS. There is no such thing as "physical" property. Property is a legal construct.
As for legal rights, there is NO difference between intellectual property and other forms which may attach to physical objects.
Lastly, infringement, from Black's Law Dictionary: "A trespass...used esp. of invasions of rights secured by patents, copyrights... " Trespass: unlawful interference with one's rights. Steal : The commission of theft. Theft: the taking of property without the owner's consent.
It is all the same. You have TAKEN a COPY without the owner's permission. By copying "your" file the other is stealing from THE COPYRIGHT OWNER!!!
Stop stating what the "law" is until you get a law degree and pass a bar exam. You are seriously misstating the law and are using words with very precise definitions in twisted and plainly wrong ways.
Isn't that what the SDMI is all about? It is my understanding that it is currently impossible to "brand" music in this manner so that the "brand" cannot be removed.
Additionally, copyright law gives the creator of the music to control its replication, subject to fair use by the purchaser. If Napster can build a way to track and verify who holds legal copies and allows only those people to "share" (which is obviously not its intended purpose - why "share" something with someone who already has what you are "sharing"?) then it would have no problems at all. It could claim fair uses among those using the service because those people would legally have copies already.
Face the truth - Napster is the equivalent of a huge cassette tape duplicator that hands out copies of copyrighted material for free. That has never been allowed before and cannot become the rule simply because the format has changed. Paper, 8-track, vinyl, cassette, CD, DVD - the format does not matter. The copyright holder controls the content. People cannot steal content and that is what Napster was allowing.
Is it any coincidence that Napster's usage has dropped off precipitously since it started filtering copyrightred material? All those users wanted to get property for nothing. Plain and simple.
Too often people confuse their rights in content with their rights to access content. The two are completely separate and apart from each other.
The DeCSS case is about the ability of a manufacturer to control a proprietary means of accessing content in DVD format. In my opinion, too bad for the manufacturer in choosing to protect its control mechanism as a trade secret. Trade secrets are only good so long as they are secret. Reverse engineering is an accepted method of properly discovering trade secrets. They should have gotten patents which offer stronger protection, even against reverse engineering, but they got greedy and wanted to keep their rights exclusive past the limited term a patent gives you.
As for Napster (yes, I know I will get flamed and/or modded down for this - I have enough Karma to take the hit because it is the TRUTH), since when is it "sharing" when you make another copy of copyrighted material that you do not own? People have been ripping off artists for years. 20 years ago it was by making bootleg cassettes. Now that the digital format has come of age, why does the ease with which something can be stolen convert "stealing" to "sharing"?
Don't get me wrong -- I believe it is a fair use for someone who has already purchased the music to convert it to any format they want and make back up copies for their own use. HOWEVER, when you make a copy of a song in a digital format that you did not buy, it is stealing. Plain and simple.
Cringely makes a very astute observation: How did MS manage to avoid having all those VBS viruses tagged as MS Windows viruses or MS Outlook viruses instead of "email" viruses?
Who says I wouldn't leave Dell? I told them to take a hike and didn't buy their laptop. Then I went to IBM and faced the same problem. So I decided to stay with my tried and true Macintosh PowerBook and put Linux on my work laptop as a dual boot box.
I REALLY wish that non-lawyers (especially ACs) would stop spreading misinformation about legal issues. This is NOT a Microsoft victory. The trial court gets the case back on August 12 instead of the case staying with the Appeals Court for reconsideration of appeals issues.
The Gov't's loss means that they have to wait until Aug. 12 (10 days - big whoop) for the trial court to get it back - they had asked for it immediately.
As for WinXP, that is a separate suit entirely. It has nothing to do with the Gov't's antitrust suit, although many of the same actions and laws are involved. MS may get seriously burned there because a private company is suing them alleging WinXP infringes 4 of its patents. A federal court may not like the antitrust issues against MS, but patents are a whole different area. Courts have no problems preventing the sale of allegedly infringing products.
Low Demand??? I BEGGED them to send me either a Latitude with Linux pre-loaded or a blank box with no OS. They flat-out REFUSED. They would only ship with MS Win2000 or WinME preinstalled and REFUSED to provide me with information so I could obtain a refund for the unused Windows license.
Maybe if they actually sold to people who asked for Linux they would find that demand isn't as low as they think.
This is the height of hypocracy for Dell. They are known for custom building boxes to order and for having the lowest inventory levels in the industry (5 days). Tell me they can't slap a hard drive with Linux in as easily as they can load more RAM. Excuse me while I barf.
It is fixed in the RAM - copyright attaches. It is irrelevant that the copy is easily destroyed. paper is easily burned, video and audiotape too. At the instant it is fixed, the copyright is there.
I find your assertion to be, at best, disingenious
I find your assertions to be clouded by your cynicism. Remember: A patent gives you offensive rights - the inventor is the only one who can police and enforce them. An inventor who is not willing to police his rights should choose publication in a professional journal instead of a patent because an unenforced patent merely serves to teach others about the invention.
As for a company asserting that you violated its patent, if it does you can also bet that its patent counsel has done a LOT of research before making that claim. If you had any idea what it takes to become a patent attorney, you would know that someone who worked that hard would not make frivolous claims and risk their license. There are only about 26,000 patent attorneys AND agents in the United States. This is NOT an area for the average practicioner.
I think that if you look into things, you will find that although you may think someone's fees are exhorbitant, in most cases they fairly reflect the quality of service and experience provided. And if you want to sue on your own patent, you will find there are many who will be very flexible in billing arrangements even to the point of working on a contingent fee basis for someone with a solid patent and a meritorious claim.
IMHO, I think you will find patent attorneys as a group to be the best of the best: professionals who care deeply about their clients, the law, and the technology within their practice area.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, it is really sad to think that there have been few really innovative and memorable improvements to the human-computer interface since the original Macintosh in 1984. (Yes I know Messr. Jobs got it from Xerox - cool your jets flamers. The Mac was the first widely available GUI system. Facts are facts.)
Not only is it time to start thinking more seriously about using the 4 other senses besides sight to enhance the human-computer interface (no pr0n jokes, please - I'm serious) but it is also high time to realize that not everyone has the use of their eyes. This type of interface improvement can do wonders for the visually impaired computer users among us. I'd like to see more improvements of this type.
A 1 X 1 gfx MIGHT BE a spacer -- then again, it could be a web bug (IMHO, it is more likely to be a web bug - I haven't seen too many tables that need anything moved by only 1 pixel). Although I agree - everything 1 X 1 is not NECESSARILY bad, but how effective is something 1 X 1 as a presentation item on a web page? Remember, HTML is primarily used for data presentation, not data formatting. That's XML's territory.
I don't use IE because the sysadmins at my work have tweaked it so much and restricted the ability to shut off cookies and java/jscript. I do resaearch that has to be kept confidential - if I can't take minimum steps to protect that confidentiality, I can't use the software.
I have not yet grabbed the applet and tried to decompile it (mostly for lack of time), so I do not know exactly what it is doing in addition to sending time information, but it struck me as extremely obnoxious.
I am stuck using Win98 and Netscape 4.7 at work, so I cannot use a more enlightened browser that selectively grants/denies JavaScript and Java access by domain name. So...I am stuck being watched to a certain extent.
Is it just me or is anyone else sick and tired of being treated like some company's asset? I am tired of the companies I deal with trying to suck every possible dime out of the relationship they have with me -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to selling my personal information.
I think the manufacturer itself recognizes this because the article states it is designed to give police "probable cause" to make a stop. HEL-LO! We're putting a device in your car that essentially searches the content of your body and then notifies a police cruiser in the area electronically so he can have "probable cause"???!!!
I AM a lawyer, but DON'T do criminal law. However, I believe the proper order is:
- Get probable cause; THEN
- Stop and search.
This places the search first and the establishment of probable cause second. The fact that a private party and not the Gov't is respoonsible for conducting the search is essentially a sham in my humble legal opinion.There may be circumstances where this is warranted -- as a condition for continued driving privileges after a drunk driving conviction (not using the device to obtain the conviction in the first place, of course) being one of those circumstances. However, there I analogize the device as simply an improvement on the devices already available that lock the ignition until the driver blows into a breathalyzer and proves to be below the legal limit. Again, I am only aware of these ignition lock devices being used after a properly obtained conviction .
If you go down this road, you will have to make it illegal to remove the device and/or tamper with it. I predict an increased demand for used cars.
I had to take a second look at this one...even MS isn't thickheaded enough to challenge MTV (Music Television) in a head-to-head trademark war. Even MSN TV may be too close for comfort for MTV. This trademark issue might become interesting - especially if MSN starts streaming music videos.
What others are saying:
TIM R, on WEST 15 STREET says, "Susan and I love your site.
Thanks for giving out our home address!"
JERRY S, on CENTRAL PARK WEST says, "Hi Jerry Seinfeld
here. I live at 211 Central Pk. West and was born 4/29/54 I'm a
stand-up comic, but I don't think this site is very funny! Now
everyone knows I'm a registered democrat! "
WILLIAM D, on GREENWICH STREET says, "Please remove
my data from your database!"
Other issues aside, with quality control like this, I wonder how much of this information is accurate.
From reading the article, it seems like the "identification" portion of the pirate hunt process is flawed. I suspect that the reason this person was accused was either because
Cases like this are prime for exposing the inherent dangers of relying on IP addresses (or any other electronic address for that matter) as identifiers. The people affected must take the time to address the issues head-on. In this case, and IMHLO (the L is for Legal) a little detailed information of how networks operate applied in the right area would shine the great light of knowledge and understanding into some very dark legal corners.
Police officer, fireman ... generally any civil service position for which there is an exam and strict requirements as to how people are hired and/or fired. Firing someone in violation of those requirements can be a taking of property (your job) in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution
The company made accommodations, including workstation adjustments, new chairs, modified work schedules and a gym membership. She filed additional claims several years later when her condition worsened and the company granted her an extended leave. In 1997, the company contemplated voice recognition technology and reassignment as alternatives but ultimately concluded they were not viable.
Working in a particular job is not a right (most times), but the employer should not be able to decide unilaterally what accommodations they will make and which ones they will not. What you are essentially saying is that people who are otherwise talented and effective in their jobs can be forced to find other jobs when they are injured BECAUSE of the one they chose? Keep in mind that their choice of new jobs will now be severely limited because of the injury.
Why couldn't she dictate her stories to a secretary? I always thought the most important skills for good writing were the ability to think clearly and to have a mastery of the language in which you write.
By the way, I know a LOT of civil servants who will be able to tell you that working in SOME jobs IS a right....in certain jobs, even a Constitutional right.
If this is the law, it means that if you are disabled in a way that affects your work, you as a worker are at risk of losing your job unless that same disability affects a substantial part of your entire life's activities. Bottom line - you had better be SERIOUSLY hurt or you are out of luck.
The ADA was enacted to make sure employers provided reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. Letting the employer off the hook in this case, where the employer determined that accommodations were not available and most importantly, where the job was a substantial cause of the disability may be an exercise in legal reasoning, but it certainly isn't justice.
By the way, the reporter is a SHE, not a HE...
On the other hand, if properly configured....
In order to get a patent, you have to enable someone of ordinary skill in the area to actually BUILD your invention. You haven't provided enough detail for how your "gray goo" works to enable someone skilled in the Gray Goo art to practice your "invention." If someone else comes up with the specifics, they will be able to patent the process.
This ultimately means that although global access to any information on the Internet may be slowed, it will not be completely eliminated. Censorship efforts like these will certainly claim victims along the way, but are ultimately doomed to failure.
As for legal rights, there is NO difference between intellectual property and other forms which may attach to physical objects.
Lastly, infringement, from Black's Law Dictionary: "A trespass...used esp. of invasions of rights secured by patents, copyrights... " Trespass: unlawful interference with one's rights. Steal : The commission of theft. Theft: the taking of property without the owner's consent.
It is all the same. You have TAKEN a COPY without the owner's permission. By copying "your" file the other is stealing from THE COPYRIGHT OWNER!!!
Stop stating what the "law" is until you get a law degree and pass a bar exam. You are seriously misstating the law and are using words with very precise definitions in twisted and plainly wrong ways.
Additionally, copyright law gives the creator of the music to control its replication, subject to fair use by the purchaser. If Napster can build a way to track and verify who holds legal copies and allows only those people to "share" (which is obviously not its intended purpose - why "share" something with someone who already has what you are "sharing"?) then it would have no problems at all. It could claim fair uses among those using the service because those people would legally have copies already.
Face the truth - Napster is the equivalent of a huge cassette tape duplicator that hands out copies of copyrighted material for free. That has never been allowed before and cannot become the rule simply because the format has changed. Paper, 8-track, vinyl, cassette, CD, DVD - the format does not matter. The copyright holder controls the content. People cannot steal content and that is what Napster was allowing.
Is it any coincidence that Napster's usage has dropped off precipitously since it started filtering copyrightred material? All those users wanted to get property for nothing. Plain and simple.
The DeCSS case is about the ability of a manufacturer to control a proprietary means of accessing content in DVD format. In my opinion, too bad for the manufacturer in choosing to protect its control mechanism as a trade secret. Trade secrets are only good so long as they are secret. Reverse engineering is an accepted method of properly discovering trade secrets. They should have gotten patents which offer stronger protection, even against reverse engineering, but they got greedy and wanted to keep their rights exclusive past the limited term a patent gives you.
As for Napster (yes, I know I will get flamed and/or modded down for this - I have enough Karma to take the hit because it is the TRUTH), since when is it "sharing" when you make another copy of copyrighted material that you do not own? People have been ripping off artists for years. 20 years ago it was by making bootleg cassettes. Now that the digital format has come of age, why does the ease with which something can be stolen convert "stealing" to "sharing"?
Don't get me wrong -- I believe it is a fair use for someone who has already purchased the music to convert it to any format they want and make back up copies for their own use. HOWEVER, when you make a copy of a song in a digital format that you did not buy, it is stealing. Plain and simple.
Cringely makes a very astute observation: How did MS manage to avoid having all those VBS viruses tagged as MS Windows viruses or MS Outlook viruses instead of "email" viruses?
Who says I wouldn't leave Dell? I told them to take a hike and didn't buy their laptop. Then I went to IBM and faced the same problem. So I decided to stay with my tried and true Macintosh PowerBook and put Linux on my work laptop as a dual boot box.
The Gov't's loss means that they have to wait until Aug. 12 (10 days - big whoop) for the trial court to get it back - they had asked for it immediately.
As for WinXP, that is a separate suit entirely. It has nothing to do with the Gov't's antitrust suit, although many of the same actions and laws are involved. MS may get seriously burned there because a private company is suing them alleging WinXP infringes 4 of its patents. A federal court may not like the antitrust issues against MS, but patents are a whole different area. Courts have no problems preventing the sale of allegedly infringing products.
Maybe if they actually sold to people who asked for Linux they would find that demand isn't as low as they think.
This is the height of hypocracy for Dell. They are known for custom building boxes to order and for having the lowest inventory levels in the industry (5 days). Tell me they can't slap a hard drive with Linux in as easily as they can load more RAM. Excuse me while I barf.
Now maybe the Court can get down to business and consider the remedies to be imposed. Finally, a Microsoft delay tactic has failed.
It is fixed in the RAM - copyright attaches. It is irrelevant that the copy is easily destroyed. paper is easily burned, video and audiotape too. At the instant it is fixed, the copyright is there.
I find your assertions to be clouded by your cynicism. Remember: A patent gives you offensive rights - the inventor is the only one who can police and enforce them. An inventor who is not willing to police his rights should choose publication in a professional journal instead of a patent because an unenforced patent merely serves to teach others about the invention.
As for a company asserting that you violated its patent, if it does you can also bet that its patent counsel has done a LOT of research before making that claim. If you had any idea what it takes to become a patent attorney, you would know that someone who worked that hard would not make frivolous claims and risk their license. There are only about 26,000 patent attorneys AND agents in the United States. This is NOT an area for the average practicioner.
I think that if you look into things, you will find that although you may think someone's fees are exhorbitant, in most cases they fairly reflect the quality of service and experience provided. And if you want to sue on your own patent, you will find there are many who will be very flexible in billing arrangements even to the point of working on a contingent fee basis for someone with a solid patent and a meritorious claim.
IMHO, I think you will find patent attorneys as a group to be the best of the best: professionals who care deeply about their clients, the law, and the technology within their practice area.