Of course, if you're locked into their software already and these are the new terms for the next version which you have to have because they are dropping support for your present one, well, you were a complete loon to lock yourself in to begin with.
Unless he's suggesting we return to manual labour.
Well, it is the "Dystopian Farm project". Of course, the architects wouldn't have to do any of that manual labor: they'd be busy designing more of these remarkably ugly things.
> Why won't they release specs? I know nothing about graphics hardware. Would releasing > the specs expose them to corporate espionage of some sort?
It might expose them to lawsuits and/or cancellation of licenses. Many of these outfits don't own all of the "IP" in their chips and/or drivers. They license it from other companies and in doing so agree to some truly amazing restrictions.
Except that the patches existed to make the kernel compatible with their closed-source code. Without the source for that code there was no way to know why the patches did what they did and so no way to safely "update" it.
Something that gives the customer the freedom to modify the product as they want, but prohibits them from creating derivative works...
"Modifying the product" is "creating derivative works". You want to grant them permission to create derivatives but not grant them permission to distribute copies of either the original or the derivatives. You may also want to require them to keep the source code confidential. I strongly suggest that you consult a copyright attorney with experience with software licensing.
I'll give you that. It shouldn't be to hard for the gadget to poke your muscles in such a way as to make it most likely that you will move at right angles to the bullet's trajectory (down, for example: it could just trip you).
> However, I do not believe senators like this care what me or any of the "little people" > think.
They care very much what you think if and only if they become convinced that a substantial number of you will decide who to vote for based on how they vote on the issue in question.
> The Devil is in the details. *But* it is well understood details. And if you know the > details you can predict the trajectory quite accurately.
And snipers do so: that's why they hit their targets. Thus you only need to know the bullet's trajectory precisely enough to know that it is most likely aimed at you to make it a good idea to dodge in any direction or throw yourself on the ground. Except that you can't react that fast, so this gadget does it for you. Yes, you might jump into the path of the bullet, but it is more likely that you will jump out of it as it is likely that the sniper is good at his job and has sent the bullet right at your center of mass.
> Maybe the bullet detected by the suit was going to pass two feet to the left of you.
And maybe it was going to pass right through your center of mass. In fact, its most probable path was right through your center of mass, since that was where the sniper was aiming and it is likely that he knows his job. From that it follows that moving in any direction reduces your chance of gettin hit.
> First of all, there's accuracy. You don't want your VIP actually walking to intercept > the bullet.
The sniper is going to aim for your center of mass. Moving in any direction will reduce the probability that the bullet will hit you. A common reflex among veterans is to react to a loud bang or the whistle of an incoming mortar round by falling to the ground. This thing could save your life by simply tripping you.
> Second, size. If your radar is so precise as to detect a bullet even 500 yards away, > it's gotta be pretty big.
Not as big as you think, and it is not going to be attached to you.
> Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give somebody a patent for an idea if > they haven't addressed so many key issues.
I don't think there is anything in patent law about "addressing key issues".
They also have to successfully pull off the "framing" part. The authorities are not unfamiliar with the idea that their informants may be lying for the reward.
Slashdot Mirror
Mushrooms. Very special mushrooms. The kind the architect was eating when he came up with this.
These things do look a bit like fungi anyway.
> Can't the customer just cross out the relevant lines in the proposed contract and say,
> "fuck you"?
I would think that the fact that a vendor would even attempt to impose such terms would be sufficient reason to look for an alternative.
Unless he *didn't sign*.
This is not about "consumer" law. It is about contracts between businesses.
Of course, if you're locked into their software already and these are the new terms for the next version which you have to have because they are dropping support for your present one, well, you were a complete loon to lock yourself in to begin with.
Well, it is the "Dystopian Farm project". Of course, the architects wouldn't have to do any of that manual labor: they'd be busy designing more of these remarkably ugly things.
> Yes... the API gives some insight into what the hardware is doing... but not enough to
> reverse engineer the product.
They may have licensed some of that magic sauce from other companies under terms that their lawyers interpret as barring them from releasing the API.
Have you filed a complaint yet?
> Why won't they release specs? I know nothing about graphics hardware. Would releasing
> the specs expose them to corporate espionage of some sort?
It might expose them to lawsuits and/or cancellation of licenses. Many of these outfits don't own all of the "IP" in their chips and/or drivers. They license it from other companies and in doing so agree to some truly amazing restrictions.
Except that the patches existed to make the kernel compatible with their closed-source code. Without the source for that code there was no way to know why the patches did what they did and so no way to safely "update" it.
"Modifying the product" is "creating derivative works". You want to grant them permission to create derivatives but not grant them permission to distribute copies of either the original or the derivatives. You may also want to require them to keep the source code confidential. I strongly suggest that you consult a copyright attorney with experience with software licensing.
I'll give you that. It shouldn't be to hard for the gadget to poke your muscles in such a way as to make it most likely that you will move at right angles to the bullet's trajectory (down, for example: it could just trip you).
> However, I do not believe senators like this care what me or any of the "little people"
> think.
They care very much what you think if and only if they become convinced that a substantial number of you will decide who to vote for based on how they vote on the issue in question.
For that we pay fuel taxes.
"Falling down" is an excellent move when being shot at and is done by infantrymen everywhere.
> The Devil is in the details. *But* it is well understood details. And if you know the
> details you can predict the trajectory quite accurately.
And snipers do so: that's why they hit their targets. Thus you only need to know the bullet's trajectory precisely enough to know that it is most likely aimed at you to make it a good idea to dodge in any direction or throw yourself on the ground. Except that you can't react that fast, so this gadget does it for you. Yes, you might jump into the path of the bullet, but it is more likely that you will jump out of it as it is likely that the sniper is good at his job and has sent the bullet right at your center of mass.
The US munitions regulations that Zimmermann was arguing with were repealed many years ago.
> Maybe the bullet detected by the suit was going to pass two feet to the left of you.
And maybe it was going to pass right through your center of mass. In fact, its most probable path was right through your center of mass, since that was where the sniper was aiming and it is likely that he knows his job. From that it follows that moving in any direction reduces your chance of gettin hit.
> First of all, there's accuracy. You don't want your VIP actually walking to intercept
> the bullet.
The sniper is going to aim for your center of mass. Moving in any direction will reduce the probability that the bullet will hit you. A common reflex among veterans is to react to a loud bang or the whistle of an incoming mortar round by falling to the ground. This thing could save your life by simply tripping you.
> Second, size. If your radar is so precise as to detect a bullet even 500 yards away,
> it's gotta be pretty big.
Not as big as you think, and it is not going to be attached to you.
> Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give somebody a patent for an idea if
> they haven't addressed so many key issues.
I don't think there is anything in patent law about "addressing key issues".
This isn't about polarization.
> It seems if you had a backpack or something...
A hat. A big, wide hat, covered with solar cells. Prevent skin cancer and save the world at the same time.
Of course, unless Apple sells it it won't be cool.
n/t
it adds another channel.
This is not about polarization.
They also have to successfully pull off the "framing" part. The authorities are not unfamiliar with the idea that their informants may be lying for the reward.