I think Thinkgeek sold a laser projected keyboard at one point (or maybe they still do). I think the common complaint is that there is zero tactile response (since you're essentially tapping on a bit of tabletop) and the key press detection isn't very good.
LED lamps for pico projectors are much smaller and cheaper (especially for projectors that only need a throw distance of about 4 inches like in this concept) than projector lamps.
You see dozens of concept phones and they're always cool or super-capable in some way. But it's easy to create a cool concept when you don't have to consider real world limitations like battery life, cost, size limitations, etc. This phone concept is no different. It is packed with every phone fantasy the Mozilla community had. Of course it's going to be cool. But it's also telling that the Mozilla Labs people also have no intent for actually making one.
Why is it a bailout? Why do people just generically call things they don't like a bailout? A bailout implies just a handout to keep something from failing. This doesn't sound like a bailout. This sounds like a an investment, and for that money, we'll get a more powerful supercomputer and the knowledge and research and know-how that comes with it.
This has just been the product of one of the stupidest cases of over-reactions of all time on all sides.
Japan's holding a Chinese fishing captain who was fishing off of waters claimed by both Japan and China. Japan refuses to release the captain, so China asks for an informal ban on rare earth exports to Japan for the rest of the month. Both sides are being driven to some completely meaningless conflict by hardliners. China's hardliners see no reason to back down because they want to flex their muscles. Japan's hardliners see no reason to back down because they think they can benefit politically in future elections. And all of this because they can't agree how to settle a case about a fishing boat.
One of the specifically noted exception to American Trademark Fair Use is that you can use a competitor's name in an advertisement as a way of comparing your product with theirs. Since the whole point of trademarks is to inform customers about the source and quality of a product, the whole trademark infrastructure is geared toward benefiting the customer. So we want want companies to say "My brand X is better than brand Y!". Buckyballs, if Zen Magnets don't back down and this goes to court, have no case.
Righthaven's business model is that it finds people who copied a particular newspaper article, then track down the copyright owners of the article, purchase the rights to it and then turn around and sue the person they found. That seems like an abuse. In any case, copying a newspaper article (as noted by the judge here) for non-commercial and informational use may be a fair use under the multi-part fair use factor test.
Remember, one factor for the fair use doctrine is the amount that was copied. For example, if only a small portion is copied (as would be when links are shared via facebook), then that tends to support a finding of fair use. On the other hand, if the entire article is copied, then that factor tends to weigh against the defendant when making a case for fair use (as noted in the judge's decision here, actually).
The people that Righthaven are suing are people who copied and pasted an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal article onto their own website. One of the defendants was Sharon Angle, the Republican nominee who copied and rehosted a copy of the LVR-J's article about herself on her campaign website. Righthaven isn't suing people for merely copying an article link, but the whole article itself, that's the difference.
I think the point has been made, by myself and others, that what the newspaper actually invited was sharing a link to the article, and not the actual contents of the article itself.
It's an interesting issue to bring up. Because of technology advancing so quickly, these issues are still yet unresolved. You gotta remember, a lot of judges aren't tech-savvy and there's a gap between the technological knowledge of a court and the issues that pop up nowadays. (For instance, a few years ago, no websites would have links to share on social networking sites like facebook or twitter.) Case in point, judicial districts still use antiquated technology to function. The New York Judicial Courts, for instance, still mandate the use of WordPerfect as its preferred format.
As far as the difference between sharing the article and sharing a link to the article, I think the most appropriate slashdot appropriate analogy would be the difference between a memory location and a pointer to a memory location.
Sorry, I confused the parties. I meant that the question is whether Klerks had a meritorious defense, not Righthaven (the copyright troll in question).
I just want to note that the Righthaven v. Klerks decision linked to in the article should actually be read on fairly narrow grounds. The whole issue of Righthaven is whether to vacate a default judgment entered against Righthaven. In order to vacate the default judgment, the defendant had to show that they 1) weren't culpable in defaulting, 2) they had a meritorious defense to the original case, and 3) not vacating the default judgment will prejudice the defendant.
The whole part about the implicit license to copy and fair use was applied only to the question of whether Righthaven had a meritorious defense. However, it does not mean that the defense is a winning defense, merely that it wouldn't be laughed out of court if they asserted it. I don't think this really offers that much precedent beyond the narrow scope of the motion.
In any case, while I disagree with Righthaven (and I agree with the judge on the matter of fair use), something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me. Practically all websites allow users to right click (except for Dr. Ann de Wees Allen) and copy the content from their webpages - that doesn't seem like it means that everything is offered on the web with an implied license to copy. Rather, the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
I'm sure an interactive tablet might be helpful, but when I was young and CD-ROMs were the new rage, my parents bought me a similar type of interactive science software with all sorts of interactive animations and stuff. One or two animations is fine, but you'll be surprised how much time watching an animation or interactive applet will take up while learning. You're dependent on the content creator's pace to learn when you use animations and interactive applets, whereas if you just read the thing, you're dependent on your own.
When I was going to school, some people with laptops were playing games in class, too. Does this mean employers should avoid graduates from the classes of 2002-2008 as well?
I don't think I'm going to get Civilization V. The last time I played Civilization, I sat down at 9 AM and got up again at about 6 AM of the next day, having completely forgotten to eat or sleep.
Oh, who am I kidding? I'll be the first one at the counter.
Slashdot Mirror
They mean community driven as in the Mozilla community contributed ideas for the phone.
I think Thinkgeek sold a laser projected keyboard at one point (or maybe they still do). I think the common complaint is that there is zero tactile response (since you're essentially tapping on a bit of tabletop) and the key press detection isn't very good.
LED lamps for pico projectors are much smaller and cheaper (especially for projectors that only need a throw distance of about 4 inches like in this concept) than projector lamps.
You see dozens of concept phones and they're always cool or super-capable in some way. But it's easy to create a cool concept when you don't have to consider real world limitations like battery life, cost, size limitations, etc. This phone concept is no different. It is packed with every phone fantasy the Mozilla community had. Of course it's going to be cool. But it's also telling that the Mozilla Labs people also have no intent for actually making one.
Why is it a bailout? Why do people just generically call things they don't like a bailout? A bailout implies just a handout to keep something from failing. This doesn't sound like a bailout. This sounds like a an investment, and for that money, we'll get a more powerful supercomputer and the knowledge and research and know-how that comes with it.
Did anyone else picture the Beagle Boys doing this when you read the article?
This has just been the product of one of the stupidest cases of over-reactions of all time on all sides.
Japan's holding a Chinese fishing captain who was fishing off of waters claimed by both Japan and China. Japan refuses to release the captain, so China asks for an informal ban on rare earth exports to Japan for the rest of the month. Both sides are being driven to some completely meaningless conflict by hardliners. China's hardliners see no reason to back down because they want to flex their muscles. Japan's hardliners see no reason to back down because they think they can benefit politically in future elections. And all of this because they can't agree how to settle a case about a fishing boat.
You're absolutely correct. Clearly, I should coffee up before I post.
Well, unless what you're posting is, in fact, fact, I think.
Er, not exception, but example (I need coffee).
One of the specifically noted exception to American Trademark Fair Use is that you can use a competitor's name in an advertisement as a way of comparing your product with theirs. Since the whole point of trademarks is to inform customers about the source and quality of a product, the whole trademark infrastructure is geared toward benefiting the customer. So we want want companies to say "My brand X is better than brand Y!". Buckyballs, if Zen Magnets don't back down and this goes to court, have no case.
I'm talking about the hysteria going away, not the tablets themselves. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not.
I'm not saying it's not going to sell. I'm saying I'm waiting for the breathless superlatives to die down.
I'm seriously waiting for this tablet hysteria to die down. In 2007/2008, it was netbooks and nowadays we barely hear a peep about them.
Righthaven's business model is that it finds people who copied a particular newspaper article, then track down the copyright owners of the article, purchase the rights to it and then turn around and sue the person they found. That seems like an abuse. In any case, copying a newspaper article (as noted by the judge here) for non-commercial and informational use may be a fair use under the multi-part fair use factor test.
There is no property rights to trademarks. The purpose of Trademarks is to prevent consumers from being mislead or confused.
Remember, one factor for the fair use doctrine is the amount that was copied. For example, if only a small portion is copied (as would be when links are shared via facebook), then that tends to support a finding of fair use. On the other hand, if the entire article is copied, then that factor tends to weigh against the defendant when making a case for fair use (as noted in the judge's decision here, actually).
The people that Righthaven are suing are people who copied and pasted an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal article onto their own website. One of the defendants was Sharon Angle, the Republican nominee who copied and rehosted a copy of the LVR-J's article about herself on her campaign website. Righthaven isn't suing people for merely copying an article link, but the whole article itself, that's the difference.
I think the point has been made, by myself and others, that what the newspaper actually invited was sharing a link to the article, and not the actual contents of the article itself.
It's an interesting issue to bring up. Because of technology advancing so quickly, these issues are still yet unresolved. You gotta remember, a lot of judges aren't tech-savvy and there's a gap between the technological knowledge of a court and the issues that pop up nowadays. (For instance, a few years ago, no websites would have links to share on social networking sites like facebook or twitter.) Case in point, judicial districts still use antiquated technology to function. The New York Judicial Courts, for instance, still mandate the use of WordPerfect as its preferred format.
As far as the difference between sharing the article and sharing a link to the article, I think the most appropriate slashdot appropriate analogy would be the difference between a memory location and a pointer to a memory location.
Sorry, I confused the parties. I meant that the question is whether Klerks had a meritorious defense, not Righthaven (the copyright troll in question).
I just want to note that the Righthaven v. Klerks decision linked to in the article should actually be read on fairly narrow grounds. The whole issue of Righthaven is whether to vacate a default judgment entered against Righthaven. In order to vacate the default judgment, the defendant had to show that they 1) weren't culpable in defaulting, 2) they had a meritorious defense to the original case, and 3) not vacating the default judgment will prejudice the defendant.
The whole part about the implicit license to copy and fair use was applied only to the question of whether Righthaven had a meritorious defense. However, it does not mean that the defense is a winning defense, merely that it wouldn't be laughed out of court if they asserted it. I don't think this really offers that much precedent beyond the narrow scope of the motion.
In any case, while I disagree with Righthaven (and I agree with the judge on the matter of fair use), something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me. Practically all websites allow users to right click (except for Dr. Ann de Wees Allen) and copy the content from their webpages - that doesn't seem like it means that everything is offered on the web with an implied license to copy. Rather, the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
I'm sure an interactive tablet might be helpful, but when I was young and CD-ROMs were the new rage, my parents bought me a similar type of interactive science software with all sorts of interactive animations and stuff. One or two animations is fine, but you'll be surprised how much time watching an animation or interactive applet will take up while learning. You're dependent on the content creator's pace to learn when you use animations and interactive applets, whereas if you just read the thing, you're dependent on your own.
When I was going to school, some people with laptops were playing games in class, too. Does this mean employers should avoid graduates from the classes of 2002-2008 as well?
Constellation was defunded (although Congress may block this), but Obama singled out Orion to be repurposed an escape module for the ISS.
I don't think I'm going to get Civilization V. The last time I played Civilization, I sat down at 9 AM and got up again at about 6 AM of the next day, having completely forgotten to eat or sleep.
Oh, who am I kidding? I'll be the first one at the counter.