Why hasn't someone created 911 video chat for mobile phones yet.
1. On freeways/highways during some traffic accidents, you can have more than 30 to 90 people calling 911 to report the same exact accident, thus overwhelming the 911 call center and sometimes the local cell towers also. Having some of those people place video calls would only compound this issue. 2. Phone cameras are front-facing and back-facing, and for most users that can actually do video chatting, it's far from having become second nature to them yet. For instance, there needs to be plenty of light, the phone camera can't be moving too quickly, and the user needs to know where to point which end of the phone towards, while still being able to talk to it. 3. Bandwidth issues (not everyone has 4G service/high-speed wifi service, or even a mobile data service, and if even they did, it doesn't work everywhere the same yet) 4. Hardware issues (even among smartphones that can do video calling over 4G, all those 4G phones are not created equal. Some of those phones are vastly underpowered and will crash when doing video-calling. And the user may even have to pull out the battery and reboot their phone, before they can even make a normal phone call after that.) 5. Battery issues (video two-way calling is very power hungry, this issue alone could cost some lives if the battery gets depleted before all the most pertinant information gets relayed to the operator). 6. State and Local governments would have to get involved to make sure the technology worked on their end as well, and those are notorious for being slow to accept/adopt new infrastructure. 7. And last but not least, 911-video chat could become the new chat roulette where 2 out of every 3 video calls that would get to 911 would be a guy fondling his penis in front of his phone camera.
Now don't get me wrong, video calling to 911 is coming, but there are still many issues that need to be dealt with before it gets here.
The article specifically mentions "continuous verification", implying a workplace/business environment, where motions of the pointer are probably repetitive enough for the software to pick up on.
The article also implies a country where the workers can't sue their employers for giving them the carpal tunnel syndrome.
After all if Pavlov were alive today, he'd argue that the seemingly insignificant penalty of getting a login screen requiring a password every time a small variation in behavior occurred would eventually condition the behavior of the computer operator and perhaps would probably cause even more employees than usual that get repetitive strain injuries as a result of their work.
1. The Microsoft patent grant for C# is more permissive than the patent grant for Java.
Are you a lawyer? I've been reading the promise Microsoft made, and it's all gibberish to me. And I doubt that even the original lawyer who drafted it would actually understand what he had written.
There is also http://www.viki.com (which is legal and which is licensed to distribute its content internationally).
Once you turn off Viki's chat room, which gives a bad first impression, it's actually pretty decent. And for me, it's perfect since I was mostly watching Hulu for the same anime and the same Korean dramas anyway.
in the UK at least, they're already criminals (section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to gather any data howsoever if unauthorised).
So if I post a blog in the UK for everyone to see, but I don't explicitly authorize anyone to view it (the authorization is just implicit), then the Googlebot would be committing a crime by going through it and indexing it? Is that what you're saying?
This satisfies the idea that the creator has control of the copy number (and hence meaning to the word copyright) and yet I have complete control over my copy including sharing it.
Complete control? And what about those of us with no iTunes account, no iPhone, and no iPad. Could you really give me or sell me your purchased music (assuming you really wanted to for some reason)?
Why? Had Google sold Sketchup to Autodesk, then it would have been very bad news for the consumer. Trimble actually seems to be the perfect fit for Sketchup. Sketchup is much more likely to survive and thrive in an environment like Trimble than inside Google.
So the Vatican has been shown to be corrupt in its financial dealings, and what is their reaction? Hunt down the whistleblowers, rather than punish the ones doing the actual crime! It's the same kind of thinking--what threatens the Church, in their view, is not the failure to do the morally proper thing. It's whomever exposes their leadership for the arrogant crimes they commit under the guise of being holy.
I don't understand how Catholics can sanctify these dirty old men as the self-appointed leaders of their faith.
What nationality are you? Are you American? It's not like the US treats its whistle-blowers on the banking system, or on the military any better. How can you sanctify the leadership of your country (whatever that term "sanctify" means to you when you used it for Catholics)?
And if you're of another nationality, I bet I can find similar examples from whichever country you come from. And no, I'm not catholic, I'm not christian, and I don't even believe in god. I just wanted to respond to your obvious fallacy of lumping everyone as one individual.
Any measuring cup will tell you a number line can be very intuitive. Stacking objects, filling a container; many everyday tasks are perfect physical examples of a number line.
May be for you they're "everyday tasks" and everyday physical objects, but for indigenous people in a very remote village in Papua New Guinea -- that may not be the case. I know. I also find it hard to believe that such a village wouldn't have plastic containers for something like water at the very least, but perhaps they have organic gourds and wooden scoops that are as plentiful as plastic is in our own society.
That same trick was successfully used to hunt me down during paintball (in the particular type of game we were playing, each side had a President with no paintball gun, I was one of those Presidents, and the objective was for one team to eventually shoot the other side's President to win the game).
Does that really mean that I couldn't count beyond 4, or 5, or 6? I hope not. Usually, if the rest of my team gets killed off, I just keep my head down, and hope no one sees me. Sticking my head out for too long when a group approaches me, to make sure I count them all, is not always the most optimal strategy.
And bear in mind, this is just paintball I'm talking about, if the people hunting me down had real guns and if this was a real life and death situation, I'd probably be a thousand times more paranoid, and a thousand times more ineffective at counting those people hunting me.
As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Google Voice Search came long before Siri, so no, Siri wasn't the first, nor was it the second, or even the third for that matter. 2. Siri still relies on Google Search for most its results, so it's just a voice recognition component, that all of us with Android phones have had for years. 3. Google Voice Search is considered better than Siri, at least according to Steve Wozniac (perhaps, he has an axe to grind, I don't know). 4. Google Voice Search also uses natural language processing, but actually, it goes much farther than that. My Google Voice (my voice mail which basically uses the same technology) actually uses contextual information to transcribe the voice mails I receive. In other words, if you call my Google Voice at different times and from different locations, with the same exact recorded garbbled message, it will transcribe and interpret the message differently. The most noticeable example being that if you call my voice mail on New Years eve and play the same recorded garbbled message, Google's transcript will show that you're wishing me Happy New Years, but if you call me on another day, depending on the day and what other voice mails Google has processed that day from other users -- it will transcribe the message as something completely different.
Theses sort of cases are really hurting the customer, banks have no reason to invest in a serious authentication scheme for online banking. It's a joke, my bank uses a password and some random question about me. At the very least they need to offer a true two factor solution, preferably token or certificate based.
I know it's customary not to read the article, but seriously, please read the article before making these kinds of assumptions. This bank actually had good 2-factor token-based security. German banks usually do. The judge made the right call in this case.
And yes, I do realize that there are lousy banks out there. I know at least one major bank in the US that has super shitty security (even worse than your bank). Thankfully, not all US banks are that bad, it's a mixed-bag really. Sometimes, the blame can be placed squarely with the bank, and sometimes, the blame can be placed squarely with the user.
In this case, the judge clearly took into account the security measures taken by the bank before issuing a verdict against the user. This is as it should be. Fraud can only be dampened down only when incompetency is penalized, regardless of its origin.
I think that DRM would be fine if it was implemented in an open/universal system.
Why would it be fine? Do you think universal DRM would actually start preventing piracy?
Besides, I think this model of yours has already been tried before.
Microsoft really did want *everyone* to use their DRM. Amazon does want to become the go-between for *all* the transactions happening on the inter-tubes. And the MPAA/RIAA organizations across the world do want *everyone* to become a dues-paying member of their organizations (whether they want it, or not).
Certainly, that would explain why they're pushing so hard at trying to get legislation passed to collect the revenues/fines/taxes on behalf of even their non-members. What would you suggest they do differently, that they haven't tried yet? Mandate that they all get along? Create a UN body in charge of that DRM? Penalize anyone who tries to roll their own DRM solution? What exactly?
Part of the problem is also running unlicensed Windows, since those people that do -- don't get the security updates (or they may just turn off updates because they don't want to be tracked, or have some of their functionality remotely shut down). At least with Linux, there isn't much of an issue there. If someone wants to stop paying RedHat/Fedora, they can just switch to Cent OS. That's it.
And really, this wouldn't be a problem for the rest of us, except that those zombie PCs can affect the rest of us, even those of us that run legitimate copies of everything. This is just like when some parents decide to not vaccinate their children, or decide to use antibiotics for every little cold (without finishing the prescription). This is technically their decision, but then again, their decision can adversely affect the rest of us.
And then there's the ethical issue of monitoring those who have not consented to be part of the study, but are friends with those who have.
That's the same issue that most people already have with texts and emails.
If I text you or email you something, I have no idea if you're going to download that message unto your work cell phone, or your work laptop, and besides even if you do own your own cell phone and your own account, I have no guarantee that you won't forward my texts or my emails to others anyway.
I thought OpenOffice was a decent piece of software, but it's still based on prior definitions of what a documenting software has been, rather than what it could be.
That's one of the reasons I love Google Docs and Google Calendar. Those projects do not try to replicate Word and Outlook, they only compete obliquely with them.
You're assuming that what you were "told in confidence" is something that we didn't know already.
Now as a software developer, I don't mean to imply that I know everything, I do not. It's just that as specialist in one type of technology, I often get approached by non-specialists who truly believe that their ideas are novel and original (when they're really not).
And for me least, I can't speak for everyone, but for me, signing every NDA I run across (without getting financially compensated for it) would be tantamount to legal and financial suicide. When someone tries to tell me something "in confidence", even without an NDA, I usually ask them not to. This way, if by happenstance I end up using an idea similar enough to the one they had, they can't claim that I got it from them.
Some programmers won't even sign on unless they DO get to sign an NDA, or else they know it's going to be a waste of their time.
You mean most programmers won't even sign on unless they get to sign a contract, which includes both an agreement for compensation and an NDA. That agreement for compensation is very important. Don't expect us to sign an NDA, just so we can give you free technical advice.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it will be someone in the Middle East.
Why hasn't someone created 911 video chat for mobile phones yet.
1. On freeways/highways during some traffic accidents, you can have more than 30 to 90 people calling 911 to report the same exact accident, thus overwhelming the 911 call center and sometimes the local cell towers also. Having some of those people place video calls would only compound this issue.
2. Phone cameras are front-facing and back-facing, and for most users that can actually do video chatting, it's far from having become second nature to them yet. For instance, there needs to be plenty of light, the phone camera can't be moving too quickly, and the user needs to know where to point which end of the phone towards, while still being able to talk to it.
3. Bandwidth issues (not everyone has 4G service/high-speed wifi service, or even a mobile data service, and if even they did, it doesn't work everywhere the same yet)
4. Hardware issues (even among smartphones that can do video calling over 4G, all those 4G phones are not created equal. Some of those phones are vastly underpowered and will crash when doing video-calling. And the user may even have to pull out the battery and reboot their phone, before they can even make a normal phone call after that.)
5. Battery issues (video two-way calling is very power hungry, this issue alone could cost some lives if the battery gets depleted before all the most pertinant information gets relayed to the operator).
6. State and Local governments would have to get involved to make sure the technology worked on their end as well, and those are notorious for being slow to accept/adopt new infrastructure.
7. And last but not least, 911-video chat could become the new chat roulette where 2 out of every 3 video calls that would get to 911 would be a guy fondling his penis in front of his phone camera.
Now don't get me wrong, video calling to 911 is coming, but there are still many issues that need to be dealt with before it gets here.
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
Here is the link to the Groklaw updates about this case.
It would have been a lot slimper and less confusing if Slashdot had just linked to that in the first place.
The article specifically mentions "continuous verification", implying a workplace/business environment, where motions of the pointer are probably repetitive enough for the software to pick up on.
The article also implies a country where the workers can't sue their employers for giving them the carpal tunnel syndrome.
After all if Pavlov were alive today, he'd argue that the seemingly insignificant penalty of getting a login screen requiring a password every time a small variation in behavior occurred would eventually condition the behavior of the computer operator and perhaps would probably cause even more employees than usual that get repetitive strain injuries as a result of their work.
May be, he was just hiding the porn from his wife.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
1. The Microsoft patent grant for C# is more permissive than the patent grant for Java.
Are you a lawyer? I've been reading the promise Microsoft made, and it's all gibberish to me. And I doubt that even the original lawyer who drafted it would actually understand what he had written.
There is also http://www.viki.com (which is legal and which is licensed to distribute its content internationally).
Once you turn off Viki's chat room, which gives a bad first impression, it's actually pretty decent. And for me, it's perfect since I was mostly watching Hulu for the same anime and the same Korean dramas anyway.
in the UK at least, they're already criminals (section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to gather any data howsoever if unauthorised).
So if I post a blog in the UK for everyone to see, but I don't explicitly authorize anyone to view it (the authorization is just implicit), then the Googlebot would be committing a crime by going through it and indexing it? Is that what you're saying?
This satisfies the idea that the creator has control of the copy number (and hence meaning to the word copyright) and yet I have complete control over my copy including sharing it.
Complete control? And what about those of us with no iTunes account, no iPhone, and no iPad. Could you really give me or sell me your purchased music (assuming you really wanted to for some reason)?
To the detriment of all of us
Why? Had Google sold Sketchup to Autodesk, then it would have been very bad news for the consumer. Trimble actually seems to be the perfect fit for Sketchup. Sketchup is much more likely to survive and thrive in an environment like Trimble than inside Google.
So the Vatican has been shown to be corrupt in its financial dealings, and what is their reaction? Hunt down the whistleblowers, rather than punish the ones doing the actual crime! It's the same kind of thinking--what threatens the Church, in their view, is not the failure to do the morally proper thing. It's whomever exposes their leadership for the arrogant crimes they commit under the guise of being holy.
I don't understand how Catholics can sanctify these dirty old men as the self-appointed leaders of their faith.
What nationality are you? Are you American? It's not like the US treats its whistle-blowers on the banking system, or on the military any better. How can you sanctify the leadership of your country (whatever that term "sanctify" means to you when you used it for Catholics)?
And if you're of another nationality, I bet I can find similar examples from whichever country you come from. And no, I'm not catholic, I'm not christian, and I don't even believe in god. I just wanted to respond to your obvious fallacy of lumping everyone as one individual.
I thought that was what the confessional was for.
Any measuring cup will tell you a number line can be very intuitive. Stacking objects, filling a container; many everyday tasks are perfect physical examples of a number line.
May be for you they're "everyday tasks" and everyday physical objects, but for indigenous people in a very remote village in Papua New Guinea -- that may not be the case. I know. I also find it hard to believe that such a village wouldn't have plastic containers for something like water at the very least, but perhaps they have organic gourds and wooden scoops that are as plentiful as plastic is in our own society.
That same trick was successfully used to hunt me down during paintball (in the particular type of game we were playing, each side had a President with no paintball gun, I was one of those Presidents, and the objective was for one team to eventually shoot the other side's President to win the game).
Does that really mean that I couldn't count beyond 4, or 5, or 6? I hope not. Usually, if the rest of my team gets killed off, I just keep my head down, and hope no one sees me. Sticking my head out for too long when a group approaches me, to make sure I count them all, is not always the most optimal strategy.
And bear in mind, this is just paintball I'm talking about, if the people hunting me down had real guns and if this was a real life and death situation, I'd probably be a thousand times more paranoid, and a thousand times more ineffective at counting those people hunting me.
Yes, that would be my vote too.
As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Google Voice Search came long before Siri, so no, Siri wasn't the first, nor was it the second, or even the third for that matter.
2. Siri still relies on Google Search for most its results, so it's just a voice recognition component, that all of us with Android phones have had for years.
3. Google Voice Search is considered better than Siri, at least according to Steve Wozniac (perhaps, he has an axe to grind, I don't know).
4. Google Voice Search also uses natural language processing, but actually, it goes much farther than that. My Google Voice (my voice mail which basically uses the same technology) actually uses contextual information to transcribe the voice mails I receive. In other words, if you call my Google Voice at different times and from different locations, with the same exact recorded garbbled message, it will transcribe and interpret the message differently. The most noticeable example being that if you call my voice mail on New Years eve and play the same recorded garbbled message, Google's transcript will show that you're wishing me Happy New Years, but if you call me on another day, depending on the day and what other voice mails Google has processed that day from other users -- it will transcribe the message as something completely different.
Thank you. The entire paper is actually a very good read.
Theses sort of cases are really hurting the customer, banks have no reason to invest in a serious authentication scheme for online banking. It's a joke, my bank uses a password and some random question about me. At the very least they need to offer a true two factor solution, preferably token or certificate based.
I know it's customary not to read the article, but seriously, please read the article before making these kinds of assumptions. This bank actually had good 2-factor token-based security. German banks usually do. The judge made the right call in this case.
And yes, I do realize that there are lousy banks out there. I know at least one major bank in the US that has super shitty security (even worse than your bank). Thankfully, not all US banks are that bad, it's a mixed-bag really. Sometimes, the blame can be placed squarely with the bank, and sometimes, the blame can be placed squarely with the user.
In this case, the judge clearly took into account the security measures taken by the bank before issuing a verdict against the user. This is as it should be. Fraud can only be dampened down only when incompetency is penalized, regardless of its origin.
I think that DRM would be fine if it was implemented in an open/universal system.
Why would it be fine? Do you think universal DRM would actually start preventing piracy?
Besides, I think this model of yours has already been tried before.
Microsoft really did want *everyone* to use their DRM. Amazon does want to become the go-between for *all* the transactions happening on the inter-tubes. And the MPAA/RIAA organizations across the world do want *everyone* to become a dues-paying member of their organizations (whether they want it, or not).
Certainly, that would explain why they're pushing so hard at trying to get legislation passed to collect the revenues/fines/taxes on behalf of even their non-members. What would you suggest they do differently, that they haven't tried yet? Mandate that they all get along? Create a UN body in charge of that DRM? Penalize anyone who tries to roll their own DRM solution? What exactly?
Part of the problem is also running unlicensed Windows, since those people that do -- don't get the security updates (or they may just turn off updates because they don't want to be tracked, or have some of their functionality remotely shut down). At least with Linux, there isn't much of an issue there. If someone wants to stop paying RedHat/Fedora, they can just switch to Cent OS. That's it.
And really, this wouldn't be a problem for the rest of us, except that those zombie PCs can affect the rest of us, even those of us that run legitimate copies of everything. This is just like when some parents decide to not vaccinate their children, or decide to use antibiotics for every little cold (without finishing the prescription). This is technically their decision, but then again, their decision can adversely affect the rest of us.
And then there's the ethical issue of monitoring those who have not consented to be part of the study, but are friends with those who have.
That's the same issue that most people already have with texts and emails.
If I text you or email you something, I have no idea if you're going to download that message unto your work cell phone, or your work laptop, and besides even if you do own your own cell phone and your own account, I have no guarantee that you won't forward my texts or my emails to others anyway.
I thought OpenOffice was a decent piece of software, but it's still based on prior definitions of what a documenting software has been, rather than what it could be.
That's one of the reasons I love Google Docs and Google Calendar. Those projects do not try to replicate Word and Outlook, they only compete obliquely with them.
Watch his name appear on the TSA No-Fly-List any day now.
You're assuming that what you were "told in confidence" is something that we didn't know already.
Now as a software developer, I don't mean to imply that I know everything, I do not. It's just that as specialist in one type of technology, I often get approached by non-specialists who truly believe that their ideas are novel and original (when they're really not).
And for me least, I can't speak for everyone, but for me, signing every NDA I run across (without getting financially compensated for it) would be tantamount to legal and financial suicide. When someone tries to tell me something "in confidence", even without an NDA, I usually ask them not to. This way, if by happenstance I end up using an idea similar enough to the one they had, they can't claim that I got it from them.
Some programmers won't even sign on unless they DO get to sign an NDA, or else they know it's going to be a waste of their time.
You mean most programmers won't even sign on unless they get to sign a contract, which includes both an agreement for compensation and an NDA. That agreement for compensation is very important. Don't expect us to sign an NDA, just so we can give you free technical advice.