... because we all know how uncumbersome a 2-inch camera is going to feel strapped onto the inside of your wrist.
You know, you'd probably get used to it... and it will probably get smaller over time.
But, as someone with a fair few wrist watches, I actually have a watch that weighs in at around 300 grams, and one or two that weigh in at around 200 grams.
It takes surprisingly little time to go from "holy crap is this thing heavy" to not even noticing it.
And, in this case, you can go around pointing your wrist like Spider Man going *pchew* *pchew*. At least, I would.;-)
P.S. How on earth are we going to separate the crazies from people who are just on the phone now?!!:)
Are they mutually exclusive?
You can be crazy and on the phone too.
Hell, if the crazies ever figure out to put a fake bluetooth headset on (a real one would actually allow them to control your mind;-), then nobody will notice them any more until they do something really special.
Did the contract you signed to purchase the car explicitly say you have the right to resell the car and all of its components?
But since we already have right of first sale, the presumption has always been that it is our property, and that we are free to sell it.
This would literally change it so that everything is essentially licensed, and you don't own it.
And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary.
This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
I got a couple calls from these guys. I couldn't understand them then, either.
No kidding... usually it's terrible line quality, terrible English skills, and some idiot saying he's "from the windows service provider and there's a problem with my computer".
A friend's father in law got taken by one of these last year -- he immediately re-imaged the PC, told his father in law to cancel his credit cards, and then proceeded to give him a stern lecture on such things.
I sat my parents down a couple of years ago and gave them a good lesson on being skeptical about such things. It's saved them a few times.
Brainstorming exists to give dumb people a false sense of ownership over the smart guy's ideas.
Clearly, you've never seen smart people brainstorming.
Years ago, the dev team I worked on white boarded everything, and usually did our design by locking ourselves in a room until we'd fleshed out what we were doing. We called it the Screeching Howler Monkey method.
Everybody contributed, we listened to the various ideas and weighed them. Looked at what worked and what didn't work, and decided on what we could do.
If you really believe brainstorming is for the benefit of the dumb people, you're doing it with the wrong people.
In my experience, any working team needs to be able to do this.
Science as a whole would be hurt by efforts like this to make scientists even less accountable for how they conduct research.
Is this about being less accountable, or muddying the waters by attacking the process of science by which people work through to their final conclusion?
Part of the process is to take a contrary position to try to poke holes in your argument... if some lawyer latches onto something from that process, and focuses on it instead of the final results, they can do a really good job of muddying the waters and making it look like the conclusions aren't justified.
This could also have the effect of causing universities to expend huge amounts of resources to defend the process in court -- and I can guarantee you that big pharma and oil companies can bury almost any university in legal actions to make it impossible for them .
I think science as a whole would be hurt by having the day-to-day process constantly opened up to lawyers and people with a vested interest in getting different results.
Your research will be the basis on which another party is penalized by the legal system. In its defense, the party believes it has the right to see your research in order to mount a defense. Isn't this how it is supposed to work? If the defense tries to poke holes in research during the trial, I'm sure the other side will call the scientists or expert witnesses to defend their research.
Because then instead of doing peer-reviewed science, you can easily get someone with an agenda who is going to bully the scientists into engaging in stupid petty legal games.
You can see the data, but unless you have evidence of some conspiracy by the scientists involved, what does this serve?
Otherwise you're just doing science by a judge and jury, and if you can convince a court that, say, evolution doesn't have enough supporting math -- well, then you can declare it invalidated. The idea of who has the most lawyers deciding scientific outcomes is absurd.
I don't see the benefit in allowing the legal system to decide how the process of science works. In fact, it seems like it would be a great detriment to it.
LOL, I wonder just how many of us have installed it from floppies?
It's only within the last 3-5 years that I threw out the 100 or so Slackware floppies from the very first time I installed Linux way back in '92 or '93 -- a 0.99a kernel, a huge pile of floppies, and the best fun to be had at the time.
Ah... installing Slackware with X-windows onto a 486-DX33 with 8MB of RAM and 320MB HDD. Good times that was.
Xv for porn^H^H^H^Himages, slip to multi-task on a dialup connection, xdvi to preview output from LaTeX, gcc for coding, netscape for the few wbe sites that existed, usenet, ftp, and all the goodies to go along with it. I still remember the sheer awesome of having that environment.
At one point, my computer had more CPU and RAM than the Sun workstations my friend could access at school... of course, we had it tough, we only had VT100 access to old VAXen and printers with green-bar paper. And the DOS/Windows machines of the day were largely useless and crashy.
The fact that everything is now mostly three orders of magnitude bigger is kind of amusing in retrospect. But at the time, it was some pretty cool stuff.
Knowing UNIX and C got me my first job out of school. I may need to spool up a VM to put this on, my Ubuntu box is getting a little creaky and I've been hearing some things that make me want to find another distro anyway.
But they still couldn't direct the flight path well enough to bring it down safely in, say, Arizona. That's close enough to "uncontrolled" for me.
Do you want to impact with the ground at those speeds, or impact with the water... I'm betting the former is a splat and a crater, and the latter is a splash and a wave.
Methinks survivability of the splash is better than the splat.
In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource.
Sugar can be produced exceedingly cheap.
If you can take something that's cheap to produce like sugar and turn that into electricity, then you have cheap, renewable electricity.
Judging by how cheap rum is in Cuba (who make some fantastic rum for those of you who can't go there), growing sugar isn't exactly taxing. Let the sun do the work, and harvest it.
If they can argue that carbonizing C_6 H_12 O_6 into carbon with high temperature still allows them to call it a "sugar battery", I argue that my elemental alchemist's transformation into plutonium can also be called a sugar battery.
If you can actually do it, then by all means, patent your nuclear sugar battery.
It's the making it that's the hard part.
Hell, TFA even says "In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource."
If you can make plutonium out of sugar, then I bet you'll be a rich man, because gold would be trivial.
The US government was suppressing free speech in this case. If you don't think so ask your self this question: Would he be in jail if he hadn't made that movie? We know the answer to that is no.
No, but the attention around him brought his parole officer's attention back to him and the fact that he was both using an alias and the internet (against the explicit terms of his parole) is the actual violation.
Are you seriously suggesting they fabricated a parole violation in order to arrest him?
Or, maybe, just maybe, he is being arrested because he's actually in violation of his parole conditions? From this
Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to âoeuse, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.â
So, it sounds like he has breached both of those conditions since he apparently told the press about both of those things.
Does it need to be a conspiracy by the government to suppress his free speech? Or is he maybe actually an idiot with prior history with the law who did something stupid?
I figure the only you can prove yourself right, mister AC, is to make your own film, and see if they make up charges against you. Otherwise you're mostly talking out of your ass.
The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world, but at the same time simply enforcing the law, as all evidence indeed suggests Nakoula violated the terms of his probation
Obama can't be seen as punishing him for exercising free speech.
Anybody who believes that is going to subsequently demand than anybody who says anything equally inflammatory be equally punished. And if those hypothetical people haven't broken their parole, nothing at all will happen.
It needs to be clear, this guy is being arrested only because he violated the terms of his parole in terms of using an alias or the internet. But it's essentially unrelated to the film and that has to be made clear.
There is simply no way the US government can be seen to be suppressing free speech. The last thing Obama wants to do is use this to his advantage. Because the reality is, that he isn't being punished for free speech -- he's being punished because he's a shady guy who violated his parole.
You were not the boss, so your opinion really didn't mean shit.
In that context, I absolutely agree... that doesn't change the fact that his code was utter crap.
Some places are just more willing to sell utter crap if it makes the quarter.
But an amazing amount of companies can't always correlate long-term costs associated with a project and the like.
I've seen projects at many places where once the sales guys have cleared their cheque, nobody keeps tabs on what it really cost to deliver what was sold. And I know for a fact that in many places, it ended up costing more in the long run than the revenue.
First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.
I'm sure it's not true in every case, but I've definitely seen cases of this.
Had a co-worker years ago who could crank out huge volumes of code, so management loved him.
The problem was, his code was absolutely un-maintainable crap, and he didn't like to go back and fix things. So first you needed to cajole him for a long time to even do it, and then he would do a half-assed job and go back to whatever he was finding fun at the moment.
He didn't follow any procedures, didn't bother with testing, documentation, or sometimes even putting his code in the the version control stuff -- which meant he didn't always even had the version he was trying to fix as it had long since been updated in place. In some cases, he created more work for the people around him than the value of his code.
In a lot of ways, I always found him to be a liability, since he refused to adhere to even the most basic standards we had.
But, to the best of my knowledge, he's still there writing large volumes of lousy code, and I'm not there any more. So clearly how I perceived things had nothing to do with how management did.
Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!
Are you thinking of Puerto Rico by chance?
Portugal is not under any US jurisdiction whatsoever. Seriously, look at a map.
Slashdot Mirror
Why am I suddenly thinking of "Citizen CIA" by the Dropkick Murphys?
Yes, let's get a bunch of people to help them build something better to spy on us with.
LOL, for some of us, the hand moving is part of talking.
I work from home, and on conference calls, I pace around and gesture as I'm speaking -- I simply couldn't not do it.
Though, admittedly, I don't preclude the possibility that I'm also crazy. ;-)
You know, you'd probably get used to it ... and it will probably get smaller over time.
But, as someone with a fair few wrist watches, I actually have a watch that weighs in at around 300 grams, and one or two that weigh in at around 200 grams.
It takes surprisingly little time to go from "holy crap is this thing heavy" to not even noticing it.
And, in this case, you can go around pointing your wrist like Spider Man going *pchew* *pchew*. At least, I would. ;-)
Are they mutually exclusive?
You can be crazy and on the phone too.
Hell, if the crazies ever figure out to put a fake bluetooth headset on (a real one would actually allow them to control your mind ;-), then nobody will notice them any more until they do something really special.
But since we already have right of first sale, the presumption has always been that it is our property, and that we are free to sell it.
This would literally change it so that everything is essentially licensed, and you don't own it.
And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary.
This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
No kidding ... usually it's terrible line quality, terrible English skills, and some idiot saying he's "from the windows service provider and there's a problem with my computer".
A friend's father in law got taken by one of these last year -- he immediately re-imaged the PC, told his father in law to cancel his credit cards, and then proceeded to give him a stern lecture on such things.
I sat my parents down a couple of years ago and gave them a good lesson on being skeptical about such things. It's saved them a few times.
So this is also an attempt to enforce morality?
Wow, the Philippines is sounding pretty regressive.
Clearly, you've never seen smart people brainstorming.
Years ago, the dev team I worked on white boarded everything, and usually did our design by locking ourselves in a room until we'd fleshed out what we were doing. We called it the Screeching Howler Monkey method.
Everybody contributed, we listened to the various ideas and weighed them. Looked at what worked and what didn't work, and decided on what we could do.
If you really believe brainstorming is for the benefit of the dumb people, you're doing it with the wrong people.
In my experience, any working team needs to be able to do this.
Is this about being less accountable, or muddying the waters by attacking the process of science by which people work through to their final conclusion?
Part of the process is to take a contrary position to try to poke holes in your argument ... if some lawyer latches onto something from that process, and focuses on it instead of the final results, they can do a really good job of muddying the waters and making it look like the conclusions aren't justified.
This could also have the effect of causing universities to expend huge amounts of resources to defend the process in court -- and I can guarantee you that big pharma and oil companies can bury almost any university in legal actions to make it impossible for them .
I think science as a whole would be hurt by having the day-to-day process constantly opened up to lawyers and people with a vested interest in getting different results.
Because then instead of doing peer-reviewed science, you can easily get someone with an agenda who is going to bully the scientists into engaging in stupid petty legal games.
You can see the data, but unless you have evidence of some conspiracy by the scientists involved, what does this serve?
Otherwise you're just doing science by a judge and jury, and if you can convince a court that, say, evolution doesn't have enough supporting math -- well, then you can declare it invalidated. The idea of who has the most lawyers deciding scientific outcomes is absurd.
I don't see the benefit in allowing the legal system to decide how the process of science works. In fact, it seems like it would be a great detriment to it.
Except they're doing business in other countries, and subject to the laws there. They're international entities.
I'd like to see the US court try to inform the German court they don't have jurisdiction.
My guess is that wouldn't get very far.
LOL, I wonder just how many of us have installed it from floppies?
It's only within the last 3-5 years that I threw out the 100 or so Slackware floppies from the very first time I installed Linux way back in '92 or '93 -- a 0.99a kernel, a huge pile of floppies, and the best fun to be had at the time.
Ah ... installing Slackware with X-windows onto a 486-DX33 with 8MB of RAM and 320MB HDD. Good times that was.
Xv for porn^H^H^H^Himages, slip to multi-task on a dialup connection, xdvi to preview output from LaTeX, gcc for coding, netscape for the few wbe sites that existed, usenet, ftp, and all the goodies to go along with it. I still remember the sheer awesome of having that environment.
At one point, my computer had more CPU and RAM than the Sun workstations my friend could access at school ... of course, we had it tough, we only had VT100 access to old VAXen and printers with green-bar paper. And the DOS/Windows machines of the day were largely useless and crashy.
The fact that everything is now mostly three orders of magnitude bigger is kind of amusing in retrospect. But at the time, it was some pretty cool stuff.
Knowing UNIX and C got me my first job out of school. I may need to spool up a VM to put this on, my Ubuntu box is getting a little creaky and I've been hearing some things that make me want to find another distro anyway.
Do you want to impact with the ground at those speeds, or impact with the water ... I'm betting the former is a splat and a crater, and the latter is a splash and a wave.
Methinks survivability of the splash is better than the splat.
Ummm ... whoosh?
From TFA:
Sugar can be produced exceedingly cheap.
If you can take something that's cheap to produce like sugar and turn that into electricity, then you have cheap, renewable electricity.
Judging by how cheap rum is in Cuba (who make some fantastic rum for those of you who can't go there), growing sugar isn't exactly taxing. Let the sun do the work, and harvest it.
If you can actually do it, then by all means, patent your nuclear sugar battery.
It's the making it that's the hard part.
Hell, TFA even says "In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource."
If you can make plutonium out of sugar, then I bet you'll be a rich man, because gold would be trivial.
In America, first you get the sugar then you get the power, then you get the women.
No, but the attention around him brought his parole officer's attention back to him and the fact that he was both using an alias and the internet (against the explicit terms of his parole) is the actual violation.
Are you seriously suggesting they fabricated a parole violation in order to arrest him?
Or, maybe, just maybe, he is being arrested because he's actually in violation of his parole conditions? From this
So, it sounds like he has breached both of those conditions since he apparently told the press about both of those things.
Does it need to be a conspiracy by the government to suppress his free speech? Or is he maybe actually an idiot with prior history with the law who did something stupid?
I figure the only you can prove yourself right, mister AC, is to make your own film, and see if they make up charges against you. Otherwise you're mostly talking out of your ass.
Obama can't be seen as punishing him for exercising free speech.
Anybody who believes that is going to subsequently demand than anybody who says anything equally inflammatory be equally punished. And if those hypothetical people haven't broken their parole, nothing at all will happen.
It needs to be clear, this guy is being arrested only because he violated the terms of his parole in terms of using an alias or the internet. But it's essentially unrelated to the film and that has to be made clear.
There is simply no way the US government can be seen to be suppressing free speech. The last thing Obama wants to do is use this to his advantage. Because the reality is, that he isn't being punished for free speech -- he's being punished because he's a shady guy who violated his parole.
OK, I know I'm being a bit of a pedant ... but it's listening, it's already silent. ;-)
That being said, this sucks ... the amount of actual science we do seem to keep falling. But we've got money to teach Creationism in schools.
I want an apology for the fact that they've decided my 2.5 year old iPad isn't getting an iOS upgrade.
That's way too short of a life to decide to abandon it. Telling your early adopters "tough luck" isn't a great idea.
In that context, I absolutely agree ... that doesn't change the fact that his code was utter crap.
Some places are just more willing to sell utter crap if it makes the quarter.
But an amazing amount of companies can't always correlate long-term costs associated with a project and the like.
I've seen projects at many places where once the sales guys have cleared their cheque, nobody keeps tabs on what it really cost to deliver what was sold. And I know for a fact that in many places, it ended up costing more in the long run than the revenue.
I'm sure it's not true in every case, but I've definitely seen cases of this.
Had a co-worker years ago who could crank out huge volumes of code, so management loved him.
The problem was, his code was absolutely un-maintainable crap, and he didn't like to go back and fix things. So first you needed to cajole him for a long time to even do it, and then he would do a half-assed job and go back to whatever he was finding fun at the moment.
He didn't follow any procedures, didn't bother with testing, documentation, or sometimes even putting his code in the the version control stuff -- which meant he didn't always even had the version he was trying to fix as it had long since been updated in place. In some cases, he created more work for the people around him than the value of his code.
In a lot of ways, I always found him to be a liability, since he refused to adhere to even the most basic standards we had.
But, to the best of my knowledge, he's still there writing large volumes of lousy code, and I'm not there any more. So clearly how I perceived things had nothing to do with how management did.
Are you thinking of Puerto Rico by chance?
Portugal is not under any US jurisdiction whatsoever. Seriously, look at a map.
No, those are arsecs. ;-)