Interesting idea for an alternate pointing device, but do you really want to point your forehead where you want to mouse? I dunno about you all but this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, whiplash anyone?
Also, do use geeks really need to make this sort of fashion statement? Some kind of Silicon Valley, "I'm married to my tech-obsession" thing, ala Hindu tradition.
All levity aside, I see how this device could help people, such as paraplegics. Although, I'm thinking that the related technology many of us are more interested in is the ability to mouse with eye movement, as I believe the US Air Force already uses with considerable sophistication, or even better, pointing/typing through brain waves.
"prohibited by court order from using cell phones, the Internet, computers, video games and fax machines."
That's pretty harsh for a technofile. Hell, I'm thinking the worse punishment would not be to put this poor sod in jail, but to continue his parole with these prohibitions. It's enough to drive a geek insane!
And really, I can see why (given current technology) cell phones and video games were restricted. But, geeze...fax machines? How is this guy supposed to hack eBay with/from a fax machine?
>>"I've always been
bothered by Microsoft's habit of naming things using common words."
Naming a product after an easily recognizable, representative
word, even be it a common word, just makes sense for any company trying to sell
said product.
Granted, in the extreme, I think our shared concern is that
Microsoft names their products after common words, such as Windows and Office,
and then trying to bar anyone else from selling a commercial (software) product
is a bit draconian. In the extreme, it's
kind of like patenting the color black, air, or in an actual example, the hyper
link.
While I'm sure most of us here will agree that case was without merit, I'm glad Judge Backock, in dismissing the case, has furthered the precedent(s) which he sites.
Law has little place laying guilt (or regulating) where we (society/parents) should teach right from wrong.
Can law ever teach the criminal, their parents, or the entertainment industry to do the right thing, what ever that is?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting idea for an alternate pointing device, but do you really want to point your forehead where you want to mouse? I dunno about you all but this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, whiplash anyone?
Also, do use geeks really need to make this sort of fashion statement? Some kind of Silicon Valley, "I'm married to my tech-obsession" thing, ala Hindu tradition.
All levity aside, I see how this device could help people, such as paraplegics. Although, I'm thinking that the related technology many of us are more interested in is the ability to mouse with eye movement, as I believe the US Air Force already uses with considerable sophistication, or even better, pointing/typing through brain waves.
"prohibited by court order from using cell phones, the Internet, computers, video games and fax machines."
That's pretty harsh for a technofile. Hell, I'm thinking the worse punishment would not be to put this poor sod in jail, but to continue his parole with these prohibitions. It's enough to drive a geek insane!
And really, I can see why (given current technology) cell phones and video games were restricted. But, geeze...fax machines? How is this guy supposed to hack eBay with/from a fax machine?
>>"I've always been bothered by Microsoft's habit of naming things using common words." Naming a product after an easily recognizable, representative word, even be it a common word, just makes sense for any company trying to sell said product. Granted, in the extreme, I think our shared concern is that Microsoft names their products after common words, such as Windows and Office, and then trying to bar anyone else from selling a commercial (software) product is a bit draconian. In the extreme, it's kind of like patenting the color black, air, or in an actual example, the hyper link.
While I'm sure most of us here will agree that case was without merit, I'm glad Judge Backock, in dismissing the case, has furthered the precedent(s) which he sites.
Law has little place laying guilt (or regulating) where we (society/parents) should teach right from wrong.
Can law ever teach the criminal, their parents, or the entertainment industry to do the right thing, what ever that is?