You seem to be talking about retinal scanners -- iris recognition is considerably less intrusive. I don't know about retinal scans being harmful, but I'm quite sure iris recognition isn't.
(At least, in the superficial physical sense).
Best keyboard IMNSHO is the TouchStream
on
Review of Das Keyboard
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Still -- several years after they stopped making them.
Seriously, if someone could point me to a better keyboard that's under 4000 USD, I'd pay a significant finder's fee. Until you've used a really good keyboard you don't appreciate just how much they're worth...
(It puzzles me how people who work with computers all day seldom think to try anything beyond a $20 keyboard.)
In Switzerland it seems to be standard. To access my UBS account online I need: my online account card, a card reader, my "agreement number" (which is unrelated to any of my account numbers) and a six digit PIN.
Imagine being able to mouse and type more or less simultaneously.
This is what the Fingerworks TouchStream does, and it's a huge benefit. (Particularly for coding... moving blocks of code around is much easier when you can highlight/drag/drop using the mouse with minimal delay and effort).
Also, you need to customise it to get the full benefit -- and, boy, those things are customisable.
Anyway, I take issue with the headline. Multitouch has not hit the mainsteam when 99.999% of computer users are still on a standard keyboard and mouse. Worse, they don't even realise there are much better alternatives...
People are usually surprised at how much the touchstream costs. They think of a keyboard and mouse as a $30 afterthought. There's no real choice in the current market so nobody thinks about it, and low cost wins...
I point out that the input devices are kind of crucial to the whole experience... if you can get a better one it can be worth as much as any other component in the system.
You need to invest some effort in them... I'd say that's why they weren't a commercial success. That and the fact that people don't realise they're ridiculously limited by current technology.
But for programming at least they're vastly better than standard keyboard+mouse... I've been using one for coding for three years now.
As it happens I am from the UK. But UK and US trademark law are very similar AFAIK. (In fact I'm not aware of any major differences anywhere in the world).
Wikipedia has some detail but to be honest I'm not all that interested:)
I don't think that's relevant; it's evidence for the argument, not a direct part of it.
The argument presented says that such adverts are useful because many people who search for a brand are actually looking for the product, not the brand.
This is also not relevant to whether they're legal. Given my understanding of trademark law, they are, but of course that carries the usual weight of an IANAL comment on slashdot:)
If memory is settable -- and that is certainly a requirement -- then it's possible to set it all to zero at the flick of a switch. Hence, rebooting.
Also: it's possible to recover the state of current RAM a surprising amount of time after the user switched off the machine. (Well, okay, tens of seconds, at least).
I suppose if it became a problem you could always encrypt it on powerdown...
Still seems awfully close. If it were to be verifiable based on past observations, you would still have to go and look them up in the database. That's a statement about the future.
Likewise, the presence of the digital watch is a statement that if you did X you would observe Y. This is a statement about the future in that it constrains the set of possibilities for the future.
I think part of his argument is that new things are coming along that are fundamentally different from TV... even if they appeal at the same level of sophistication.
The difference being that they're interactive; and, however slowly, people might start to build something.
I was going to make a comment about such statistics being next to meaningless. ("What if nobody watched TV" is similar to "what if we didn't have any wars" or "what if all religions suddenly settled their differences"). Then I RTFA. And I'm not entirely convinced but I really hope he's right.
He making a compelling case for the end of the TV era. Can you feel it coming? Just think what it might mean...
"Regardless of if an outcome can ever be reached."
That's what I said... too much time on their hands;)
I have nothing against philosophy, in fact I enjoy these discussions, but there are far more important questions in the real world. I thought I'd throw in a bit of perspective...
Physics is the application of mathematics to reality. Physics never "proves" something; it creates models that match reality to an increasing degree of accuracy. That's fine, and it works well.
Mathematical models can have arbitrary complexity and don't have to reflect reality at all. In fact the beauty of mathematics is that a mathematical model is self-contained with no reference to the real world. You don't need to prove it... it just is, because you defined it.
My major objections to software patents are twofold: software development is almost always incremental, which means new "inventions" are rarely big leaps; and whatever you create, something can be created around it, which means that patenting something blocks everything down the road.
But I think the question of what should and should not be patentable can be answered on purely empirical grounds... the whole point of the patent system is to benefit society, after all. Does it? If not, change it.
In most cases I expect patenting software and mathematics to be damaging to society. So, what should be allowed is very restrictive.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be talking about retinal scanners -- iris recognition is considerably less intrusive. I don't know about retinal scans being harmful, but I'm quite sure iris recognition isn't.
(At least, in the superficial physical sense).
Still -- several years after they stopped making them.
Seriously, if someone could point me to a better keyboard that's under 4000 USD, I'd pay a significant finder's fee. Until you've used a really good keyboard you don't appreciate just how much they're worth ...
(It puzzles me how people who work with computers all day seldom think to try anything beyond a $20 keyboard.)
In Switzerland it seems to be standard. To access my UBS account online I need: my online account card, a card reader, my "agreement number" (which is unrelated to any of my account numbers) and a six digit PIN.
Four dimensions.
In a GPS system the precise time is also a free variable to be determined from the satellite transmissions, so you need >=4 satellites.
...is on ars technica.
Touchpad > mouse because touchpad == keyboard.
Imagine being able to mouse and type more or less simultaneously.
This is what the Fingerworks TouchStream does, and it's a huge benefit. (Particularly for coding ... moving blocks of code around is much easier when you can highlight/drag/drop using the mouse with minimal delay and effort).
You need to learn to use it.
Also, you need to customise it to get the full benefit -- and, boy, those things are customisable.
Anyway, I take issue with the headline. Multitouch has not hit the mainsteam when 99.999% of computer users are still on a standard keyboard and mouse. Worse, they don't even realise there are much better alternatives...
People are usually surprised at how much the touchstream costs. They think of a keyboard and mouse as a $30 afterthought. There's no real choice in the current market so nobody thinks about it, and low cost wins...
I point out that the input devices are kind of crucial to the whole experience ... if you can get a better one it can be worth as much as any other component in the system.
You need to invest some effort in them ... I'd say that's why they weren't a commercial success. That and the fact that people don't realise they're ridiculously limited by current technology.
But for programming at least they're vastly better than standard keyboard+mouse ... I've been using one for coding for three years now.
As it happens I am from the UK. But UK and US trademark law are very similar AFAIK. (In fact I'm not aware of any major differences anywhere in the world).
Wikipedia has some detail but to be honest I'm not all that interested :)
I don't think that's relevant; it's evidence for the argument, not a direct part of it.
The argument presented says that such adverts are useful because many people who search for a brand are actually looking for the product, not the brand.
This is also not relevant to whether they're legal. Given my understanding of trademark law, they are, but of course that carries the usual weight of an IANAL comment on slashdot :)
That has to be a metaphor for something.
Doesn't matter.
If memory is settable -- and that is certainly a requirement -- then it's possible to set it all to zero at the flick of a switch. Hence, rebooting.
Also: it's possible to recover the state of current RAM a surprising amount of time after the user switched off the machine. (Well, okay, tens of seconds, at least).
I suppose if it became a problem you could always encrypt it on powerdown...
UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
Was that really necessary? :p
Still seems awfully close. If it were to be verifiable based on past observations, you would still have to go and look them up in the database. That's a statement about the future.
Likewise, the presence of the digital watch is a statement that if you did X you would observe Y. This is a statement about the future in that it constrains the set of possibilities for the future.
(How the heck did you get modded offtopic?)
I think part of his argument is that new things are coming along that are fundamentally different from TV ... even if they appeal at the same level of sophistication.
The difference being that they're interactive; and, however slowly, people might start to build something.
Eh. Who knows?
I was going to make a comment about such statistics being next to meaningless. ("What if nobody watched TV" is similar to "what if we didn't have any wars" or "what if all religions suddenly settled their differences"). Then I RTFA. And I'm not entirely convinced but I really hope he's right.
He making a compelling case for the end of the TV era. Can you feel it coming? Just think what it might mean...
"Regardless of if an outcome can ever be reached."
That's what I said ... too much time on their hands ;)
I have nothing against philosophy, in fact I enjoy these discussions, but there are far more important questions in the real world. I thought I'd throw in a bit of perspective...
Er, no.
Physics is the application of mathematics to reality. Physics never "proves" something; it creates models that match reality to an increasing degree of accuracy. That's fine, and it works well.
Mathematical models can have arbitrary complexity and don't have to reflect reality at all. In fact the beauty of mathematics is that a mathematical model is self-contained with no reference to the real world. You don't need to prove it... it just is, because you defined it.
I think it's a very narrow view to say that because it's logically inconsistent it isn't useful.
Most (if not all) religions have issues with logic, but that's not a reason to ignore them.
Starting from nothing, making one logically-inconsistent statement then avoiding completely a whole class of problems seems to be quite a win ;)
Interesting!
My major objections to software patents are twofold: software development is almost always incremental, which means new "inventions" are rarely big leaps; and whatever you create, something can be created around it, which means that patenting something blocks everything down the road.
But I think the question of what should and should not be patentable can be answered on purely empirical grounds ... the whole point of the patent system is to benefit society, after all. Does it? If not, change it.
In most cases I expect patenting software and mathematics to be damaging to society. So, what should be allowed is very restrictive.
Hum. Doesn't "empirically verifiable" === "tells us something about the future"?
That's nonsense. Whether you can patent mathematics is a matter for lawmakers and lawyers. It has nothing to do with philosophy.
And if you disagree one way or the other, you're free to lobby. Laws don't spring up from nowhere.
The idea that you can "believe in" logical positivism is new to me :)... I suppose this is because I am not a philosopher. Hum.
Different ideas and ways of thinking -- particularly contradictory ones -- can provide useful ways of looking at the world.
Isn't it about time we gave up on all this internally-consistent nonsense? I'll take happiness any day.
It is not the case that I feel the need to base my life on a self-consistent and provably optimal set of beliefs.
In fact, AFAIK nobody has succeeded to do this yet. Certainly 99.999% of people don't even try.
Logical positivism suggest another way of looking at a problem. I find that helpful.
AFAICT you can patent anything you like these days.
Anyway I hardly think this discussion -- since there is no actual answer in sight -- will have a huge impact on any legal framework.