Notifications from my phone, with some level of reply options for text/e-mail; pedometer/exercise monitoring; weather; call screening (arguably already included in notifications); basic navigation with haptic feedback; calendar.
These are all things that my Pebble does to a greater or lesser extent already, although I sometime chafe at its limitations (early adopter blues), except the replies to notifications.
Lots of people seem to be saying they don't want another device and that people should just use their phones for all of these things. I, however, work in a professional setting and having access to certain types of information in a subtle, non-intrusive manner is very valuable to me. It a client meeting it is unspeakable rude and disrespectful to pull out my phone to see why it has been blowing up on my hip. Glancing at watch, not so much. In court (IAAL), pulling out a phone is absolutely verboten. Glancing at a watch? No problem.
Outside of the professional setting, being able to get timely, informative information quickly an subtly without looking like a doofus, staring at my phone all the time, is great. I don't have to fumble with my phone or my fitbit or any other number of gadgets I may have in my pocket or my briefcase/messenger bag/murse/bag-o-tricks.
Smart watches (or watches of any type) may not be for everyone, but I like non-smart watches, really like smart watches if they are done at least reasonably well (like the Pebble), and would love to have a smart watch truly "done right". I don't know if the Apple Watch will, in fact, be "done right", but it will be interesting to see what it's really like once it's in the wild.
Ah, but that is what protective orders and motions to seal the record. There are many tools available to deal with and protect the confidentiality of sensitive information. Sensitivity of information, however, is not (in 99.9% of ordinary circumstances) a viable legal justification for ex parte communications. Mind you, I'm not saying that ex parte communicatinos about substantive issues in a case are never appropriate. It is just that it is an extremely disfavored practice as, at a minimum, it creates an appearance of impropriety. At worst it represents a violation of procedural due process rights, potentially resulting in either a mistrial or subsequent overturning of the case.
As I said before, none of us on the outside of this case truly know what is going on here, so much of this is just wild ass guessing, but on the basis of a career doing precisely this kind of work, it certainly looks highly anomalous from the outside.
IAAL... (15 years of business litigation experience)
While we cannot know for certain the reasons for the ex parte conference until (and if) the record is unsealed, the existence of trade secrets or business strategies are not ordinarily reasons for ex parte communications with the judge. Instead either a) the parties agree to a protective order limiting the use and dissemination of the sensitive information, or b) the judge enters such a protective order over the objections of one or both parties.
Also, even if the judge is chiding one set of attorneys for behaviors, tactics, or even the inadvisability of proceeding with a case, this is not something that is routinely done outside of the presence of opposing counsel.
While I do not know why the judge decided to hold and exp parte meeting with defense counsel, none of the reasons I have hear advanced are anything resembling routine behavior in business litigation, even where potential trade secrets and other sensitive (but non-national security) information is involved.
As a photographer, I have to call B.S. on this. Film or digital, virtual or otherwise, Head shots and other non-journalistic photos are manipulated in a million different ways: choice of lighting, choice of depth of field, use of make-up, use of mocked-up backgrounds, etc. Whether this is done with Photoshop or actual props, lights, make-up, etc. makes no difference. As such the AP's arbitrary choice to apply their policy to non-journalistic shots is ridiculous.
People are repeatedly asking: "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is easy (although, like life, not always simple). Retouching of photo-journalistic shots (i.e. pictures that either carry editorial content or are intended to represented an accurate depiction of a reported-upon event or location) should be vigorously guarded from manipulation to the greatest extent possible. Pictures presented for non-editorial (ex. public relations, identification, etc...) purposes need not bear the same scrutiny unless the change is such that it renders the picture clearly deceptive (ex. Portraying a picture of a person 20 years ago as a current shot).
Rules are good, but they are not a substitute for sound editorial judgment.
Let me start by saying I AM a lawyer and I practice in employment law. While it is true that some jurisdictions do give strict or hightened scruitiny to restrictve covenants (i.e. non-coompete and non-solicitation provision) in employment agreements, other states are "right to contact" states in which, unless a contract is for an illegal purpose or the parties lack sufficient capacity to form a contract, the contract is enforceable.
Making generalizations over the legal issues regarding employment issues is extremely dangerous as different states can can vary wildly in what is permissible / enforeceable and what is not.
Your story sounds much like mine. I did about 10 years of "enthusiastic ameture" film photogrpahy before putting down the SLR (due to lack of time and money) for about 15 years. In the interrgnum, I did snapshots with various film and compact digicams, until playing with an Olympus e-10 a couple of years ago, which reignited my interest in art photography with a digital bent. I then purchased a Nikon 8700 as a first step, but as my interest grew, I quickly outgrew the 8700. About a year ago I took the plunge an bought a Kinica Minolta 7D, some decent glass and Photoshop CS and have been immersed ever since. It's a grand (if expensive) love affair.;)
Hear, hear, my friend. Much of the technological penis measuring between the digital and analog camps here is pretty much irrelevant. Bad S/N ratio.
While it is true tha 35mm film still holds a technical resolution over eqivalent digital competitors, a number of dSLRs hold an advantage in sharpness, "grain" and color fidelity. Plus digital workflow is a savior for many professionals.
All of that aside, the test of the art is the result and not the instrumentality that created it. I have seen many a print from a 6mp dSLR, at up to 16" x 20", that rivaled (if they were not indistinguishable to all but close examination with a loupe) from 35mm film shots. Results like this, IMHO, render much of the argumetns of technical superiority between mediums pretty much irrelevant.
In short, I agree with your sentiment. Stop navel gazing and go make art!:)
You are missing an important legal distinction. Despite the assertions of the RIAA, what is at issue is not property, but rather intellectual property.
Under U.S. intelectual property laws (at least as they exist up to now... the RIAA is pushing for some pretty scary chnages in the law) various items which may receive protection under U.S. statutory trademark and/or copyright laws (and in some cases comon law copyrights and/or trademarks are subject to deined set of rights which are assigned to the "owners" of these registered or otherwise protected pieces of intellectual property. These set of rights conferred upon the "owners" is not the same as the rights which inure to owners of actual physical property (be it personal or real property.)
I find myself absolutely floored when I hear the RIAA and its minions speakinf of "theft" of their "property". Under traditional U.S. intellectual property law, there is no such thing as "theft" of intellectual property. Instead there may be infringement upon the rights of the "owners" of the intellectual property rights, which caries civil penatties under the laws. But theft is a strager to the entire schema of traditional intellectual property law.
What is scary, though, is the RIAA and some of its lackeys in Congress are attempting to do (and in fact have done) several things which threaten to radically change the face of intellectual property in the U.S. First of all they have already successfully sought to significantly lenghten the time period for which works may receive protection under Copyright laws,thus permitting corporations which buy up, extort away or otherwise aquire these rights to protect their "property" in near perpetuity, continuing to use this "property" to make money for them long beyond the lifetime of the protected property's author/composer,etc...'s death. (The time period for which copyrights were originally granted under the common law tradition).
By far the most disturbing change sought by "Big Media", though is the redefinition of intellectual property into a model far more like that traditional property. The results of this effort would be far reaching. Any violation of the owners property rights would then be criminal in nature, thather than civil. The concept of expiration of intellectual property rights would disappear, permitting Big Media to have near feudal control over much of the creative content generated in this company. Most significanty, any concept of users of protected content having any onwership interst in music, movies, books, etc. that they "purchase" would disapper. The "owners" of the intellectual property would have undisputed ownership and control of use of any reproduction of the protected content. (Poof! No argument that you "own" the CD that you just "purchased"! Al you have is a limited license which permits you only to do precisely what they say you can do with that protected content.)
Perhaps the most disturbing repercussion of this redefinitin of intellectual property is that it has the potential to end the concept of "fair use" which is the lynch pin of what permits libraries to operate, what permits people to create mixed tapes from their CD's (BTW there IS a legal debate as to whether you in fact have the right to rip those sames CD's into MP3 or OGG files. If RIAA gest its way, the answer wil be "NO"), and to tape or TIVO shows and wahtch them later. If traditional intellectual paradigms are replaced by traditional property ones, these "fair uses" which have preiously been carved out in the law will cease to exist and would only be permissible with the explicit permission of the content owner (aka Big Media).
These are things that should conern everyone in this country. Litteraly, Big Media is on a crusade to take away the rights of content users. That is you and me and Aunt Sally and everyone else. They are seeking to have it their way, all of the time. This is nont only a shame but it is contradition to the very foundation of our notions of the nature of intellectual
I agree. On this particular issue both the political left and right were united in supporting controlling telemarketing because telemarketing is so unpopular with the majority of the public.
Many on the political right, however, have on many occasions objected strenuously to the differentiation between commercial speech and the speech of individuals. The objection is even more vociferous when it comes to political donations, particularly from corporate doners. The argument of money equals speach has long been a rallying cry of the political right, for fairly obvious reasons.
Moreover, much of the political right has also made continuous hay of "judicial activism" on the part of the Courts. It is worth noting that this "judicial activism" war cry only comes out when the result does not fit with their agenda. (Go back and read the the property takings cases authored by Jusices Scalia and Rhenquist in the late '80's. Where was the outcry againt "judicial activism" on the part of the political right when those cases were issued?)
I fear, however, that we're starting to drift off topic. The real point of my original post (despite the political overtones and the tongue-in-cheek proletariat reference) was that there is definitely a benefit to the differentiation between commecial and individual speech and I am glad the pendulum of judicial (and to a lesser extent political) opinion seems to again be swinging towards a position of upholding and even strengthening that deliniation.
It is refreshing to see the Courts stepping forward to reassert the legal precedent that free speach does not equal unlimited commercial speach. With the continuing growth of political influence of coporations both in the U.S. and world wide and the increasing rights granted to the these coporate entities, a clear delinitation of the the rights of individuals (as guaranteed by the Constitution) vs. the rights that have been accorded to corporations (largely as a result of campaign contributions... giving rise to the related debate of does $ = speach in the political arena)is certainly called for. Despite the cat calls of the much of the right wing of american politics decrying the "black robed tyranny" of the american judiciary, I for one am glad to see the legal system prtecting the rights of individuals and refusing to water down the rights granted to individuals by affording equal footing to artifical entites such as corporations! Three Cheers for the proletariot!;)
I certainly agree. The biggest problem with GSM in the U.S. is coverage. I've been with VoiceStream/T-Mobile for about two years now. I love the wide variety of phones available for GSM services. (I have or have had a SE T-68, Danger/Sidekick, a SE P-800 and a Motorola MPX-200). The CDMA carriers have only just recently caught onto the need to have more than basic vanilla phones for their services.
Generally I have also found the U.S. GSM carrieres to have more reasonable data pricing plans than the CDMA carriers (although ATTW's new all you can eat EDGE plan is still a bit cher for my tastes).
With any luck the ATTW-Cingular merger will help plug the coverage hoes that have long plagued U.S. GSM service and speed up the roll-out of new 3G services.:fingers crossed:
Unfortunatly, all we can do at this time is sit back and wait to see what comes of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Notifications from my phone, with some level of reply options for text/e-mail; pedometer/exercise monitoring; weather; call screening (arguably already included in notifications); basic navigation with haptic feedback; calendar. These are all things that my Pebble does to a greater or lesser extent already, although I sometime chafe at its limitations (early adopter blues), except the replies to notifications. Lots of people seem to be saying they don't want another device and that people should just use their phones for all of these things. I, however, work in a professional setting and having access to certain types of information in a subtle, non-intrusive manner is very valuable to me. It a client meeting it is unspeakable rude and disrespectful to pull out my phone to see why it has been blowing up on my hip. Glancing at watch, not so much. In court (IAAL), pulling out a phone is absolutely verboten. Glancing at a watch? No problem. Outside of the professional setting, being able to get timely, informative information quickly an subtly without looking like a doofus, staring at my phone all the time, is great. I don't have to fumble with my phone or my fitbit or any other number of gadgets I may have in my pocket or my briefcase/messenger bag/murse/bag-o-tricks. Smart watches (or watches of any type) may not be for everyone, but I like non-smart watches, really like smart watches if they are done at least reasonably well (like the Pebble), and would love to have a smart watch truly "done right". I don't know if the Apple Watch will, in fact, be "done right", but it will be interesting to see what it's really like once it's in the wild.
Ah, but that is what protective orders and motions to seal the record. There are many tools available to deal with and protect the confidentiality of sensitive information. Sensitivity of information, however, is not (in 99.9% of ordinary circumstances) a viable legal justification for ex parte communications. Mind you, I'm not saying that ex parte communicatinos about substantive issues in a case are never appropriate. It is just that it is an extremely disfavored practice as, at a minimum, it creates an appearance of impropriety. At worst it represents a violation of procedural due process rights, potentially resulting in either a mistrial or subsequent overturning of the case. As I said before, none of us on the outside of this case truly know what is going on here, so much of this is just wild ass guessing, but on the basis of a career doing precisely this kind of work, it certainly looks highly anomalous from the outside.
IAAL... (15 years of business litigation experience) While we cannot know for certain the reasons for the ex parte conference until (and if) the record is unsealed, the existence of trade secrets or business strategies are not ordinarily reasons for ex parte communications with the judge. Instead either a) the parties agree to a protective order limiting the use and dissemination of the sensitive information, or b) the judge enters such a protective order over the objections of one or both parties. Also, even if the judge is chiding one set of attorneys for behaviors, tactics, or even the inadvisability of proceeding with a case, this is not something that is routinely done outside of the presence of opposing counsel. While I do not know why the judge decided to hold and exp parte meeting with defense counsel, none of the reasons I have hear advanced are anything resembling routine behavior in business litigation, even where potential trade secrets and other sensitive (but non-national security) information is involved.
The anonymous reply was mine. I forgot to sign in first. :p
As a photographer, I have to call B.S. on this. Film or digital, virtual or otherwise, Head shots and other non-journalistic photos are manipulated in a million different ways: choice of lighting, choice of depth of field, use of make-up, use of mocked-up backgrounds, etc. Whether this is done with Photoshop or actual props, lights, make-up, etc. makes no difference. As such the AP's arbitrary choice to apply their policy to non-journalistic shots is ridiculous. People are repeatedly asking: "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is easy (although, like life, not always simple). Retouching of photo-journalistic shots (i.e. pictures that either carry editorial content or are intended to represented an accurate depiction of a reported-upon event or location) should be vigorously guarded from manipulation to the greatest extent possible. Pictures presented for non-editorial (ex. public relations, identification, etc...) purposes need not bear the same scrutiny unless the change is such that it renders the picture clearly deceptive (ex. Portraying a picture of a person 20 years ago as a current shot). Rules are good, but they are not a substitute for sound editorial judgment.
Let me start by saying I AM a lawyer and I practice in employment law. While it is true that some jurisdictions do give strict or hightened scruitiny to restrictve covenants (i.e. non-coompete and non-solicitation provision) in employment agreements, other states are "right to contact" states in which, unless a contract is for an illegal purpose or the parties lack sufficient capacity to form a contract, the contract is enforceable. Making generalizations over the legal issues regarding employment issues is extremely dangerous as different states can can vary wildly in what is permissible / enforeceable and what is not.
Your story sounds much like mine. I did about 10 years of "enthusiastic ameture" film photogrpahy before putting down the SLR (due to lack of time and money) for about 15 years. In the interrgnum, I did snapshots with various film and compact digicams, until playing with an Olympus e-10 a couple of years ago, which reignited my interest in art photography with a digital bent. I then purchased a Nikon 8700 as a first step, but as my interest grew, I quickly outgrew the 8700. About a year ago I took the plunge an bought a Kinica Minolta 7D, some decent glass and Photoshop CS and have been immersed ever since. It's a grand (if expensive) love affair. ;)
Hear, hear, my friend. Much of the technological penis measuring between the digital and analog camps here is pretty much irrelevant. Bad S/N ratio. While it is true tha 35mm film still holds a technical resolution over eqivalent digital competitors, a number of dSLRs hold an advantage in sharpness, "grain" and color fidelity. Plus digital workflow is a savior for many professionals. All of that aside, the test of the art is the result and not the instrumentality that created it. I have seen many a print from a 6mp dSLR, at up to 16" x 20", that rivaled (if they were not indistinguishable to all but close examination with a loupe) from 35mm film shots. Results like this, IMHO, render much of the argumetns of technical superiority between mediums pretty much irrelevant. In short, I agree with your sentiment. Stop navel gazing and go make art! :)
You are missing an important legal distinction. Despite the assertions of the RIAA, what is at issue is not property, but rather intellectual property.
Under U.S. intelectual property laws (at least as they exist up to now... the RIAA is pushing for some pretty scary chnages in the law) various items which may receive protection under U.S. statutory trademark and/or copyright laws (and in some cases comon law copyrights and/or trademarks are subject to deined set of rights which are assigned to the "owners" of these registered or otherwise protected pieces of intellectual property. These set of rights conferred upon the "owners" is not the same as the rights which inure to owners of actual physical property (be it personal or real property.)
I find myself absolutely floored when I hear the RIAA and its minions speakinf of "theft" of their "property". Under traditional U.S. intellectual property law, there is no such thing as "theft" of intellectual property. Instead there may be infringement upon the rights of the "owners" of the intellectual property rights, which caries civil penatties under the laws. But theft is a strager to the entire schema of traditional intellectual property law.
What is scary, though, is the RIAA and some of its lackeys in Congress are attempting to do (and in fact have done) several things which threaten to radically change the face of intellectual property in the U.S. First of all they have already successfully sought to significantly lenghten the time period for which works may receive protection under Copyright laws,thus permitting corporations which buy up, extort away or otherwise aquire these rights to protect their "property" in near perpetuity, continuing to use this "property" to make money for them long beyond the lifetime of the protected property's author/composer,etc...'s death. (The time period for which copyrights were originally granted under the common law tradition).
By far the most disturbing change sought by "Big Media", though is the redefinition of intellectual property into a model far more like that traditional property. The results of this effort would be far reaching. Any violation of the owners property rights would then be criminal in nature, thather than civil. The concept of expiration of intellectual property rights would disappear, permitting Big Media to have near feudal control over much of the creative content generated in this company. Most significanty, any concept of users of protected content having any onwership interst in music, movies, books, etc. that they "purchase" would disapper. The "owners" of the intellectual property would have undisputed ownership and control of use of any reproduction of the protected content. (Poof! No argument that you "own" the CD that you just "purchased"! Al you have is a limited license which permits you only to do precisely what they say you can do with that protected content.)
Perhaps the most disturbing repercussion of this redefinitin of intellectual property is that it has the potential to end the concept of "fair use" which is the lynch pin of what permits libraries to operate, what permits people to create mixed tapes from their CD's (BTW there IS a legal debate as to whether you in fact have the right to rip those sames CD's into MP3 or OGG files. If RIAA gest its way, the answer wil be "NO"), and to tape or TIVO shows and wahtch them later. If traditional intellectual paradigms are replaced by traditional property ones, these "fair uses" which have preiously been carved out in the law will cease to exist and would only be permissible with the explicit permission of the content owner (aka Big Media).
These are things that should conern everyone in this country. Litteraly, Big Media is on a crusade to take away the rights of content users. That is you and me and Aunt Sally and everyone else. They are seeking to have it their way, all of the time. This is nont only a shame but it is contradition to the very foundation of our notions of the nature of intellectual
I agree. On this particular issue both the political left and right were united in supporting controlling telemarketing because telemarketing is so unpopular with the majority of the public.
Many on the political right, however, have on many occasions objected strenuously to the differentiation between commercial speech and the speech of individuals. The objection is even more vociferous when it comes to political donations, particularly from corporate doners. The argument of money equals speach has long been a rallying cry of the political right, for fairly obvious reasons.
Moreover, much of the political right has also made continuous hay of "judicial activism" on the part of the Courts. It is worth noting that this "judicial activism" war cry only comes out when the result does not fit with their agenda. (Go back and read the the property takings cases authored by Jusices Scalia and Rhenquist in the late '80's. Where was the outcry againt "judicial activism" on the part of the political right when those cases were issued?)
I fear, however, that we're starting to drift off topic. The real point of my original post (despite the political overtones and the tongue-in-cheek proletariat reference) was that there is definitely a benefit to the differentiation between commecial and individual speech and I am glad the pendulum of judicial (and to a lesser extent political) opinion seems to again be swinging towards a position of upholding and even strengthening that deliniation.
It is refreshing to see the Courts stepping forward to reassert the legal precedent that free speach does not equal unlimited commercial speach. With the continuing growth of political influence of coporations both in the U.S. and world wide and the increasing rights granted to the these coporate entities, a clear delinitation of the the rights of individuals (as guaranteed by the Constitution) vs. the rights that have been accorded to corporations (largely as a result of campaign contributions ... giving rise to the related debate of does $ = speach in the political arena)is certainly called for. Despite the cat calls of the much of the right wing of american politics decrying the "black robed tyranny" of the american judiciary, I for one am glad to see the legal system prtecting the rights of individuals and refusing to water down the rights granted to individuals by affording equal footing to artifical entites such as corporations! Three Cheers for the proletariot! ;)
I certainly agree. The biggest problem with GSM in the U.S. is coverage. I've been with VoiceStream/T-Mobile for about two years now. I love the wide variety of phones available for GSM services. (I have or have had a SE T-68, Danger/Sidekick, a SE P-800 and a Motorola MPX-200). The CDMA carriers have only just recently caught onto the need to have more than basic vanilla phones for their services. Generally I have also found the U.S. GSM carrieres to have more reasonable data pricing plans than the CDMA carriers (although ATTW's new all you can eat EDGE plan is still a bit cher for my tastes). With any luck the ATTW-Cingular merger will help plug the coverage hoes that have long plagued U.S. GSM service and speed up the roll-out of new 3G services. :fingers crossed:
Unfortunatly, all we can do at this time is sit back and wait to see what comes of this.