If they're presenting it then you can be assured that it is already patent pending.
Which means its been in the lab for about 2 years already.. so in another 8 it might be on the market - but it'll be (more) boring by then, so it won't.
Current copyright practice violates every amendment..
1. Used to quash free speech. 2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA. 3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house. 4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable. 5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal. 6. There's no due process in civil cases. 7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it. 8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity. 9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want. 10. redundant much? 11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples. 12. Lobbying undermines. 13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves. 14. Lobbying. 15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote. 16. No property tax for copyright? 17. Lobbying. 18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law. 19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah. 20.Lobbying. 21.See 18. 22.Lobbying. 23.Lobbying. 24.Lobbying. 25.Lobbying. 26.Lobbying. 27.Did I mention Lobbying?
As someone who actually owns a VR headset (two 640x480 displays and head tracking) I can tell you that the problem isn't motion sickness. The problem is that the displays are not immersive enough. They make no secret of this... people, like me, just prefer not to acknowledge they know what they're getting.. "equivalent to a 62-inch screen at 9 feet." And that's really true. When you put it on you really do see a big monitor on the other side of the room.. a big black room. When you look up, or down, you see the real world.. so you try not to do that. I got the little "Immersive Eyeshield".. so when you look up, or down, you don't see the real world, you see more black. So, as fucking awesome as the VR920 is, for the price, it doesn't put me in the virtual world. In order to do that I guess they need some sort of curved display that covers all the viewing angles of my eyes. I don't know if you need any eye tracking, but it'd be good if you could I bet.
Have you been living under a rock? There's a dozen stories a week about assholes making money selling crap in Second Life. The most successful chick makes money decorating virtual houses. Yawn. Next you'll be asking if anyone really makes a living blogging. Catch the fuck up dude.
Yeah, you're a retard. The scary thing about Second Life is that the entire economy is based on DRM. And all the value now is based on shit that is server side. It's really not that mysterious, this stuff is called software. All these business people in Second Life are software developers.
The purpose of the manned space program is PR - and I don't mean the "national prestige" stuff of yesteryear. What I mean is that the American tax payer doesn't really wanna fork a whole lot of money to such basic research as space probes. After all, they already pay into a national science foundation, why can't space science get it's funding out of that? NASA is a separate agency because science isn't the goal.. it's a means to an end. What's the end? "Space". It's the lofty concept of where we're going and who we are. It's leadership of the human race.. and Americans like to feel they are blazing the trail. It's not about national prestige, it's about national purpose.
There's been exactly one other thing that has been as popular in the mainstream consciousness as manned space flight.. and no, it's not those little rovers on Mars, although they come close.. it's this whole exoplanet business. If the planet hunters can find earth-like planets, or even just promise to, that could be sufficiently interesting to joe-six-pack to get a whole chunk of the NASA budget, and even a few increases. But they've gotta pitch it as "exploration", not "science".
The reason why all these anti-Ares stories are in the news is because some bozos suggested that an alternative stack could be made from existing shuttle hardware. Some no-so bozos then fleshed out the details and proposed it as a serious contender. This is attractive to some people because a lot of jobs are involved with making the current shuttle hardware and if you can reuse it all then maybe some people will keep those jobs.
Whether it is false economy or not, I don't know, but it's clearly political.. as is everything NASA does..
Except that kids who have a life time dream of being a games programmer typically have more productive alternatives to fall back on than kids who wanna be rock stars.
Yes, you can forget the technical effectiveness arguments though. The government's response is "does that mean we shouldn't try?" They've got nothing to lose.
What can't you understand about a daycare being a business? What can't you understand about them doing trade and that trademarks are about restricting trade.
This is why the USA is in such a fucking mess. Idiots there don't even understand english, let alone the law.
No fucking shit. We know it's a RICO case.. it's right there in the freakin' summary. What I called bullshit on was the claim that by seizing the gang's trademark they would somehow be able to prevent the gang members from wearing jackets with the logo on it. Trademark law doesn't work like that. You can use a trademark to stop trade using a registered mark.. not to stop people from wearing a jacket.
Are you just stupid or what? Selling T-shirts with a logo on them that you are not authorized to use may well be something someone could be sued for. Wearing one of these T-shirts is not trade and therefore Trademark law has nothing to say about it.
Ummm... no. Really. Tell me you don't believe that, please. "If you can put it on a t-shirt, then it's free speech." isn't just a witty one liner ya know. Trademarks control trade. It may be illegal to sell a t-shirt with someone else's logo on it, but there's no law against wearing one.
While he occasionally manages to pass on common sense to people who are confused by propaganda, he still manages to pass on the propaganda! Where this journalist is saying that TSA policies are not there to catch terrorists, they're just there to make people feel better, Schneier is giving advice on how to improve the policies to catch terrorists. They're not interested in catching terrorists Bruce!
He rocks the boat, but he never connects the dots.
I love it when Americans make the tipping analogy, because it's so apt. You are aware that the American system of tipping is insane, right? The rest of the world think you're all fuckin' nuts when you go on about this stuff. There's nothing normal about refusing to pay your staff a reasonable rate and then demanding the customer get involved in compensating them.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're presenting it then you can be assured that it is already patent pending.
Which means its been in the lab for about 2 years already.. so in another 8 it might be on the market - but it'll be (more) boring by then, so it won't.
Hint: I don't mod myself.
I was joking.
Current copyright practice violates every amendment..
1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?
As someone who actually owns a VR headset (two 640x480 displays and head tracking) I can tell you that the problem isn't motion sickness. The problem is that the displays are not immersive enough. They make no secret of this... people, like me, just prefer not to acknowledge they know what they're getting.. "equivalent to a 62-inch screen at 9 feet." And that's really true. When you put it on you really do see a big monitor on the other side of the room.. a big black room. When you look up, or down, you see the real world.. so you try not to do that. I got the little "Immersive Eyeshield".. so when you look up, or down, you don't see the real world, you see more black. So, as fucking awesome as the VR920 is, for the price, it doesn't put me in the virtual world. In order to do that I guess they need some sort of curved display that covers all the viewing angles of my eyes. I don't know if you need any eye tracking, but it'd be good if you could I bet.
Have you been living under a rock? There's a dozen stories a week about assholes making money selling crap in Second Life. The most successful chick makes money decorating virtual houses. Yawn. Next you'll be asking if anyone really makes a living blogging. Catch the fuck up dude.
Yeah, you're a retard. The scary thing about Second Life is that the entire economy is based on DRM. And all the value now is based on shit that is server side. It's really not that mysterious, this stuff is called software. All these business people in Second Life are software developers.
I heard Jaron Lanier saying "dude, pass the bong."
There's nothing to sell in virtual worlds
Wow. So all those people in Second Life are selling what? They've got a bigger economy then some small countries.
Was anyone waiting for this? Or interested in this?
Anyone?
Bueller?
The purpose of the manned space program is PR - and I don't mean the "national prestige" stuff of yesteryear. What I mean is that the American tax payer doesn't really wanna fork a whole lot of money to such basic research as space probes. After all, they already pay into a national science foundation, why can't space science get it's funding out of that? NASA is a separate agency because science isn't the goal.. it's a means to an end. What's the end? "Space". It's the lofty concept of where we're going and who we are. It's leadership of the human race.. and Americans like to feel they are blazing the trail. It's not about national prestige, it's about national purpose.
There's been exactly one other thing that has been as popular in the mainstream consciousness as manned space flight.. and no, it's not those little rovers on Mars, although they come close.. it's this whole exoplanet business. If the planet hunters can find earth-like planets, or even just promise to, that could be sufficiently interesting to joe-six-pack to get a whole chunk of the NASA budget, and even a few increases. But they've gotta pitch it as "exploration", not "science".
The reason why all these anti-Ares stories are in the news is because some bozos suggested that an alternative stack could be made from existing shuttle hardware. Some no-so bozos then fleshed out the details and proposed it as a serious contender. This is attractive to some people because a lot of jobs are involved with making the current shuttle hardware and if you can reuse it all then maybe some people will keep those jobs.
Whether it is false economy or not, I don't know, but it's clearly political.. as is everything NASA does..
Except that kids who have a life time dream of being a games programmer typically have more productive alternatives to fall back on than kids who wanna be rock stars.
I'll give you a hint: it's the other "n" word.
Yes, you can forget the technical effectiveness arguments though. The government's response is "does that mean we shouldn't try?" They've got nothing to lose.
All hail the mighty dollar.
So long as we're talking about likely.
More likely the entire story is the product of some blog writer's bong-hitting musing and Slashdot picked it up because they do no fact checking.
Are you a retard?
What can't you understand about a daycare being a business? What can't you understand about them doing trade and that trademarks are about restricting trade.
This is why the USA is in such a fucking mess. Idiots there don't even understand english, let alone the law.
No fucking shit. We know it's a RICO case.. it's right there in the freakin' summary. What I called bullshit on was the claim that by seizing the gang's trademark they would somehow be able to prevent the gang members from wearing jackets with the logo on it. Trademark law doesn't work like that. You can use a trademark to stop trade using a registered mark.. not to stop people from wearing a jacket.
Are you just stupid or what? Selling T-shirts with a logo on them that you are not authorized to use may well be something someone could be sued for. Wearing one of these T-shirts is not trade and therefore Trademark law has nothing to say about it.
For fuck sake, what's wrong with you people?
Ummm... no. Really. Tell me you don't believe that, please. "If you can put it on a t-shirt, then it's free speech." isn't just a witty one liner ya know. Trademarks control trade. It may be illegal to sell a t-shirt with someone else's logo on it, but there's no law against wearing one.
I'm not aware of any law that can prevent a particular logo from appearing on a jacket.
This sounds like pipe dream bullshit.
1. It's trivial to get around airport security.
2. Everyone knows this.
3. There hasn't been any hijackings.
Therefore:
4. There is no-one attempting hijackings.
But you knew that already. Everything Bruce says is common knowledge. Do you really need him to reaffirm it?
While he occasionally manages to pass on common sense to people who are confused by propaganda, he still manages to pass on the propaganda! Where this journalist is saying that TSA policies are not there to catch terrorists, they're just there to make people feel better, Schneier is giving advice on how to improve the policies to catch terrorists. They're not interested in catching terrorists Bruce!
He rocks the boat, but he never connects the dots.
I love it when Americans make the tipping analogy, because it's so apt. You are aware that the American system of tipping is insane, right? The rest of the world think you're all fuckin' nuts when you go on about this stuff. There's nothing normal about refusing to pay your staff a reasonable rate and then demanding the customer get involved in compensating them.