Like something out of Bond
on
Peephole Displays
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I seem to remember seeing something like this in a gadget-oriented genre, like a Bond film, for maps. It's a pretty cool idea, since it's not much different than using a magnifying lens.
In fact, when you think about it, this is a real-world application of a virtual device that implements a real-world tool. Check out The Movable Filter as a User Interface Tool : essentially a magnifying lens with "logical filters". Now that's been moved back into the real world again.
Who needs new ideas when there are so many good ones that haven't been used already?
Yes, yes. A bit of ranting is merited -- at least, about the general political context. But if you'd read the article closely, you'd have seen that it mentions a retroactively imposed tariff:
Toy Biz had good cause to pursue this line. Having its action figures declared toys would mean a hefty reimbursement of past duties, though the company declines to give specifics on how much was at stake.
The law is no longer in effect, so you've already gotten your wish without having to huff at your elected official (at least this time -- and might I suggest that a threatened vote to his/her major party opponent might be taken more seriously?).
And to everyone who's missed it, the author of the WSJ article obviously had a great time writing it. Notice the opening and closing quotes -- he's obviously asked some "get a life" type questions of people who missed their chance to be taken seriously. Sit back, enjoy the read. And get worked up about something that's actually important the next time.
...the streets just cleared up from the European première. I'm right around the block from the Rex theatre where it showed, and there were cars everywhere for hours on end. Before the viewing, I had to wade through two arrondissements whose traffic was screwed up by this. Amazingly, people weren't honking their horns for once.
Off-topic, and yet somehow on. I couldn't resist posting, even though it'll get lost on the second page.
Oh, and in case you wondered, no I didn't get to see it. Yet.
I'd understood Gateway's stated business goal as being "get back to the basics" of what made them popular: targeting the consumer, and focusing on direct sales. I'm not clear how either seeling cycles to corporate clients or continuing its stores fits into that. Perhaps this is a way to subsidize their stores.
I'd think it'd be more interesting to see them do some serious research into exploiting this type of service. Lord knows that hardware R&D is dead.
Like, what about selling this as an on-demand service to consumers? What about this as a distinguishing factor for people into video editing or rendering? Those aren't necessarily lossless applications, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion). It'd be cool to be able to have an on-demand render farm for small-budget indie movie releases, no?
I don't know if it's so much the industry has the government in its pocket, as the government is happy to let things appear this way. Money flows in, the industry seems to get what it wants.
My opinion is that the industry's latest push just happens to mesh well with the government's search to control information flow. Starting with populist (and popular) devices/media seems to me an ideal way to get the hooks in.
Think about Clear Channel's ownership of almost all major radio stations. Or the way that the HDTV selloff (giveaway) went. It's much more than a simple who-owns-what, because the who (and how few) counts more than the what.
No, it's a question of being the same as US voters. The primaries ended up with a conservative (Chirac, the eventual winner) and a very conservative (Le Pen, the almost-fascist) because people stayed home and didn't vote in record numbers.
There were TV interviews all over the place on the day of elections with people out enjoying the sun (it was a beautiful, sunny Sunday). To the last, their comments were along the lines of "it wouldn't matter if I went, anyway."
Wonder how many thought that afterwards? Especially with the Left in a panic, telling people to vote for the lesser of the two evils.
There was recently a program on French TV (within the last week) with a segment about video surveillance in Monaco. Apparently, there are cameras all over the place -- effectively, the entirety of the public areas are covered in this mostly-a-country.
Of course, the rich walking around the place just love it. "Keeps the riff-raff off the streets, don't you know," et al. And even the non-moneyed people seemed to be happy, with many commenting how safe and secure they felt.
The most amazing quote came when the show turned to a security officer, who said something along these lines: "We aren't interested in keeping tabs on your every movement. We only take note when there's something out of the ordinary, and people seem to really like it. Besides, everyone knows that only criminals have something to fear from being watched." (Emphasis mine, though of course it's not an exact quote anyway.)
Whoa.
With gated communities so popular and the ever-increasing wealth gap (especially in the US), would it really be any surprise if something like this came to pass in the US? The attitudes are already present, the tension between have's and have-not's already high. And I think it's safe to say that the have's tend to have more clout when it comes to public policy.
Imagine it starting in Washington, DC: "oh, it's for the safety of the diplomats, your elected officials, etc." Then, in select areas of large cities -- not high-crime mind you, just those that the officials want to "keep safe". Then...?
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to remember seeing something like this in a gadget-oriented genre, like a Bond film, for maps. It's a pretty cool idea, since it's not much different than using a magnifying lens.
In fact, when you think about it, this is a real-world application of a virtual device that implements a real-world tool. Check out The Movable Filter as a User Interface Tool : essentially a magnifying lens with "logical filters". Now that's been moved back into the real world again.
Who needs new ideas when there are so many good ones that haven't been used already?
The law is no longer in effect, so you've already gotten your wish without having to huff at your elected official (at least this time -- and might I suggest that a threatened vote to his/her major party opponent might be taken more seriously?).
And to everyone who's missed it, the author of the WSJ article obviously had a great time writing it. Notice the opening and closing quotes -- he's obviously asked some "get a life" type questions of people who missed their chance to be taken seriously. Sit back, enjoy the read. And get worked up about something that's actually important the next time.
A company in Sweden conducted tests with a stratospheric balloon. They broke 300 km (187+ miles).
Not entirely salient, but a reminder that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
...the streets just cleared up from the European première. I'm right around the block from the Rex theatre where it showed, and there were cars everywhere for hours on end. Before the viewing, I had to wade through two arrondissements whose traffic was screwed up by this. Amazingly, people weren't honking their horns for once.
Off-topic, and yet somehow on. I couldn't resist posting, even though it'll get lost on the second page.
Oh, and in case you wondered, no I didn't get to see it. Yet.
I'd understood Gateway's stated business goal as being "get back to the basics" of what made them popular: targeting the consumer, and focusing on direct sales. I'm not clear how either seeling cycles to corporate clients or continuing its stores fits into that. Perhaps this is a way to subsidize their stores.
I'd think it'd be more interesting to see them do some serious research into exploiting this type of service. Lord knows that hardware R&D is dead.
Like, what about selling this as an on-demand service to consumers? What about this as a distinguishing factor for people into video editing or rendering? Those aren't necessarily lossless applications, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion). It'd be cool to be able to have an on-demand render farm for small-budget indie movie releases, no?
I don't know if it's so much the industry has the government in its pocket, as the government is happy to let things appear this way. Money flows in, the industry seems to get what it wants.
My opinion is that the industry's latest push just happens to mesh well with the government's search to control information flow. Starting with populist (and popular) devices/media seems to me an ideal way to get the hooks in.
Think about Clear Channel's ownership of almost all major radio stations. Or the way that the HDTV selloff (giveaway) went. It's much more than a simple who-owns-what, because the who (and how few) counts more than the what.
It's a question of scale
No, it's a question of being the same as US voters. The primaries ended up with a conservative (Chirac, the eventual winner) and a very conservative (Le Pen, the almost-fascist) because people stayed home and didn't vote in record numbers.
There were TV interviews all over the place on the day of elections with people out enjoying the sun (it was a beautiful, sunny Sunday). To the last, their comments were along the lines of "it wouldn't matter if I went, anyway."
Wonder how many thought that afterwards? Especially with the Left in a panic, telling people to vote for the lesser of the two evils.
"When you switch operating systems, millions of programs no longer work. The person next door can't help you."
I never had a problem like that with Windows.
Oh, and more seriously, "millions" of programs?
There was recently a program on French TV (within the last week) with a segment about video surveillance in Monaco. Apparently, there are cameras all over the place -- effectively, the entirety of the public areas are covered in this mostly-a-country.
Of course, the rich walking around the place just love it. "Keeps the riff-raff off the streets, don't you know," et al. And even the non-moneyed people seemed to be happy, with many commenting how safe and secure they felt.
The most amazing quote came when the show turned to a security officer, who said something along these lines: "We aren't interested in keeping tabs on your every movement. We only take note when there's something out of the ordinary, and people seem to really like it. Besides, everyone knows that only criminals have something to fear from being watched." (Emphasis mine, though of course it's not an exact quote anyway.)
Whoa.
With gated communities so popular and the ever-increasing wealth gap (especially in the US), would it really be any surprise if something like this came to pass in the US? The attitudes are already present, the tension between have's and have-not's already high. And I think it's safe to say that the have's tend to have more clout when it comes to public policy.
Imagine it starting in Washington, DC: "oh, it's for the safety of the diplomats, your elected officials, etc." Then, in select areas of large cities -- not high-crime mind you, just those that the officials want to "keep safe". Then...?