Regulation. Cheap, thin walls allow sound propagation and noise from neighbors. So regulating thicker walls with soundproofing gaps between layers will solve the problem. But it costs more than the currently used walls.
Perhaps, but they can keep track of people around the house but not inside it. With facial recognition already advancing quickly, are you okay with your every entry and exit from your house recorded in some skynet database, along with tracking all the visitors you get?
However, as far as property rights go, when does a property owner's airspace end and it becomes the FAA's airspace?
This guy used a simple camera. But if privacy is an issue (and it should be), drones in general are a threat to privacy. An easily available $600 camera can capture every pore from 10 miles away. Any ridiculous distance like 500 feet or 1 mile is too small.
So what's going to happen to privacy laws when that Amazon/Walmart drone flies 500 ft over your property? 500 ft or even a mile high is nothing when you have the proper lens for zooming in. Will people have the right to buckshot these drones too to protect their privacy?
To ban the sale of apple devices to people who dont know to turn off a default optiion. You can clearly see the the data conn active in the top bar.
Maybe there's an icon, but why add such a stupid feature in the first place? Do you think most users want to continuously monitor the top status bar or even know such a feature exists?
If the wifi connection is iffy, the user can always manually switch to the expensive cellular connection. Automatic switching is bad because it's expensive. Requiring users to hunt settings is bad because most common users don't go there except power users.
Google does the same thing with Android and I have to switch to airplane mode then turn wifi on to prevent accidental cellular usage. It's such a stupid way to implement connections to the internet.
Exactly, please build these generators and tanks smack in the middle of the data center. Oh wait, they don't want deal with noise and danger from their own equipment. Hilarious!
Instead they place these generators and tanks away from their main buildings and close to nearby residential homes. Typical republicans.
Maybe they'll convert the data center into something less noisy and recover some of their losses. Isn't it common sense not to run noisy generators near residential areas? It's the company's fault for not being diligent.
Even if the driver had to look at the knob/button, it still takes less visual time than with a similar control on a touchscreen.
Manual knob: driver quickly locates the knob with his eyes and once his hand is on the knob or near it, he no longer needs to look at the knob.
Touch screen slider: driver has to be sure he is on the right screen. Then he locates the slider. While still looking at the slider, he slides it until it's the desired value. All this time he has to take his eyes off the road while operating the touchscreen.
No matter how much you argue, touchscreen devices take more visual time to operate than manual buttons/knobs. If a manual button/knob is frequently used, the driver would not need to take his eyes of the road to find it due to remembering it from muscle memory (eg: radio station switch buttons). By contrast, all touchscreen operations require the driver to take his eyes off the road (besides the huge, bright screen will distract you from what is happening on the road).
But what if foo() allocates memory and/or other resources that must be freed on error? If fix_my_mess() and fix_it_4realz() is in another function, you need to make those resource variables *global*, which is very bad. This assumes fix_my_mess() etc. is inlined/macroed inside foo().
I actually wrote code like that for a library, and goto was the best solution for cleanup.
You don't want some idiot's surname on a species just because he had money considering we'll be stuck with that name for centuries.
If he had sold the name rights for a "limited time" (and slashdotters do love that particular phrase) of say life+100 years, no one would mind. But naming rights for perpetuity is a really bad idea because the public will be stuck using a stupid name that had nothing to do with the characteristics of the insect but rather the greed of the scientist discovering it.
Imagine every newly discovered animal, insect and tree named after a wealthy individual or corp... that's truly disgusting. I would rather the govt reward the scientist for his discovery or at least fund his research somehow.
These politicians want to fool the public into thinking they care about privacy, when all they really care about is spying on you. You want to give us privacy? Fine, then disconnect/eliminate all tech in the car that talks to the internet. Bet that won't happen.
Now do something about that "Life plus 70 years" copyright term.
I have a solution for you. Simply visit a bookstore and pay them less than $50 for the book you want. No need to wait for life+70 years. Oh wait, you want knowledge/entertainment without paying a cent... never mind then.
Yes, the junior devs should beta test compilers/languages on their own time. After 3 to 5 years of free labor by thousands of programmers, most companies will be able to determine if Rust is worthy of production. It's called free testing.
(and pay all the filing costs, pitch it to companies, sue infringes, etc. on their own).
Each of those steps (especially suing) is unaffordable to a common inventor/researcher.
Using WARF is _voluntary_; UW researchers don't have to go through them.
Even if you use UW facilities for research? That's doubtful.
Moreover, what middlemen take the money?
In this case, WARF and suing lawyers are the middleman between the inventors and the companies using the invention or the companies being sued regarding the invention.
So in short, the middlemen or aggregators make all the money again, and not the people who did the actual work, thanks to bullshit laws and policies. The same applies not just to patents but to many other artistic, scientific, technological or other high skill jobs. Maybe the laws were written by the govt and the middlemen (corps, brokers etc) to screw the creative people who provide valuable IP.
If an employer gets IP from his employee, he needs to pay the employee a royalty as long as the IP is making the company money. Of course, the IP should be innovative and not some cut-and-paste stuff downloaded from the web. Paying some lame monthly salary while the company makes profit off the work for decades is just stealing.
In this case, WARF should pay 10% to 20% of the proceeds to the inventors. Heck, the lawyers are getting at least a 30% cut, so the inventors should get at least that much.
The process of deriving the ideas used to build programs is science.
How is it science when you don't derive it from experimenting on nature? If I create a wooden shape that is a union of random geometric shapes, is that natural or man-made?
The moment software becomes innovative is when you step away from the actual implementation and think of methods on an abstract level. At that point it is math.
Fail! You need to prove that any abstracted code is math, not technology. Let's see the proof. Tip: if the abstracted code is man-made and not found in nature, it is still technology.
3) Asshole patents intended usage so that no-one else can use it without paying a license fee.
It's to prevent uncreative, theiving assholes from reducing the inventor's profit margins. That's not assholery, just common sense. It's assholery if the invention is a trivial, obvious combination of pre-existing elements.
Computer science pretty much is a science. Not your coding classes, computer technology training, etc, but real computer science is very much a science.
But are computer programs science, or technology? Is a word processor, spreadsheet, power point presentation tool science or technology? I say it is technology, not science. Science is something discovered from nature (like atoms, magnetism, gravity etc.) whereas technology is artificial (not from nature), man-made artifacts created using science and math to serve many purposes.
Except, BRZ is a popular car. The original.bro extension is quite memorable and catchy (like.zip) -- good for marketing. Good luck with coming up with something better.
Slashdot Mirror
This is no different than any murder investigation and the police should find out who exactly made the decision and make them pay for it.
Regulation. Cheap, thin walls allow sound propagation and noise from neighbors. So regulating thicker walls with soundproofing gaps between layers will solve the problem. But it costs more than the currently used walls.
Perhaps, but they can keep track of people around the house but not inside it. With facial recognition already advancing quickly, are you okay with your every entry and exit from your house recorded in some skynet database, along with tracking all the visitors you get?
This guy used a simple camera. But if privacy is an issue (and it should be), drones in general are a threat to privacy. An easily available $600 camera can capture every pore from 10 miles away. Any ridiculous distance like 500 feet or 1 mile is too small.
So what's going to happen to privacy laws when that Amazon/Walmart drone flies 500 ft over your property? 500 ft or even a mile high is nothing when you have the proper lens for zooming in. Will people have the right to buckshot these drones too to protect their privacy?
Maybe there's an icon, but why add such a stupid feature in the first place? Do you think most users want to continuously monitor the top status bar or even know such a feature exists?
If the wifi connection is iffy, the user can always manually switch to the expensive cellular connection. Automatic switching is bad because it's expensive. Requiring users to hunt settings is bad because most common users don't go there except power users.
Google does the same thing with Android and I have to switch to airplane mode then turn wifi on to prevent accidental cellular usage. It's such a stupid way to implement connections to the internet.
Exactly, please build these generators and tanks smack in the middle of the data center. Oh wait, they don't want deal with noise and danger from their own equipment. Hilarious!
Instead they place these generators and tanks away from their main buildings and close to nearby residential homes. Typical republicans.
So are these "partners" going to see 1 cent from this $9.99 subscription plans? It's not clear from the post...
Maybe they'll convert the data center into something less noisy and recover some of their losses. Isn't it common sense not to run noisy generators near residential areas? It's the company's fault for not being diligent.
Even if the driver had to look at the knob/button, it still takes less visual time than with a similar control on a touchscreen.
Manual knob: driver quickly locates the knob with his eyes and once his hand is on the knob or near it, he no longer needs to look at the knob.
Touch screen slider: driver has to be sure he is on the right screen. Then he locates the slider. While still looking at the slider, he slides it until it's the desired value. All this time he has to take his eyes off the road while operating the touchscreen.
No matter how much you argue, touchscreen devices take more visual time to operate than manual buttons/knobs. If a manual button/knob is frequently used, the driver would not need to take his eyes of the road to find it due to remembering it from muscle memory (eg: radio station switch buttons). By contrast, all touchscreen operations require the driver to take his eyes off the road (besides the huge, bright screen will distract you from what is happening on the road).
But what if foo() allocates memory and/or other resources that must be freed on error? If fix_my_mess() and fix_it_4realz() is in another function, you need to make those resource variables *global*, which is very bad. This assumes fix_my_mess() etc. is inlined/macroed inside foo().
I actually wrote code like that for a library, and goto was the best solution for cleanup.
You don't want some idiot's surname on a species just because he had money considering we'll be stuck with that name for centuries.
If he had sold the name rights for a "limited time" (and slashdotters do love that particular phrase) of say life+100 years, no one would mind. But naming rights for perpetuity is a really bad idea because the public will be stuck using a stupid name that had nothing to do with the characteristics of the insect but rather the greed of the scientist discovering it.
Imagine every newly discovered animal, insect and tree named after a wealthy individual or corp... that's truly disgusting. I would rather the govt reward the scientist for his discovery or at least fund his research somehow.
These politicians want to fool the public into thinking they care about privacy, when all they really care about is spying on you. You want to give us privacy? Fine, then disconnect/eliminate all tech in the car that talks to the internet. Bet that won't happen.
I have a solution for you. Simply visit a bookstore and pay them less than $50 for the book you want. No need to wait for life+70 years. Oh wait, you want knowledge/entertainment without paying a cent... never mind then.
Yes, the junior devs should beta test compilers/languages on their own time. After 3 to 5 years of free labor by thousands of programmers, most companies will be able to determine if Rust is worthy of production. It's called free testing.
From google:
http://www.medgadget.com/2015/...
I would love to see a machine (a physical thing) made purely out of math (an abstract thing). Hint: such machines don't exist.
Each of those steps (especially suing) is unaffordable to a common inventor/researcher.
Even if you use UW facilities for research? That's doubtful.
In this case, WARF and suing lawyers are the middleman between the inventors and the companies using the invention or the companies being sued regarding the invention.
So in short, the middlemen or aggregators make all the money again, and not the people who did the actual work, thanks to bullshit laws and policies. The same applies not just to patents but to many other artistic, scientific, technological or other high skill jobs. Maybe the laws were written by the govt and the middlemen (corps, brokers etc) to screw the creative people who provide valuable IP.
If an employer gets IP from his employee, he needs to pay the employee a royalty as long as the IP is making the company money. Of course, the IP should be innovative and not some cut-and-paste stuff downloaded from the web. Paying some lame monthly salary while the company makes profit off the work for decades is just stealing.
In this case, WARF should pay 10% to 20% of the proceeds to the inventors. Heck, the lawyers are getting at least a 30% cut, so the inventors should get at least that much.
How is it science when you don't derive it from experimenting on nature? If I create a wooden shape that is a union of random geometric shapes, is that natural or man-made?
Fail! You need to prove that any abstracted code is math, not technology. Let's see the proof. Tip: if the abstracted code is man-made and not found in nature, it is still technology.
It's to prevent uncreative, theiving assholes from reducing the inventor's profit margins. That's not assholery, just common sense. It's assholery if the invention is a trivial, obvious combination of pre-existing elements.
Except the assholes who say software is math, not technology, and therefore it (software) cannot be patented.
But are computer programs science, or technology? Is a word processor, spreadsheet, power point presentation tool science or technology? I say it is technology, not science. Science is something discovered from nature (like atoms, magnetism, gravity etc.) whereas technology is artificial (not from nature), man-made artifacts created using science and math to serve many purposes.
Except, BRZ is a popular car. The original .bro extension is quite memorable and catchy (like .zip) -- good for marketing. Good luck with coming up with something better.
And how will the fake reviews drown out the torrent of bad reviews/ratings from real users?