He suggests in today's Wall Street Journal that Google should offer an ad-free Gmail for a nominal fee, much like Slashdot's ad-free version.
In its current form, he fears that Gmail, will undermine Google's integrity, something that is perhaps more important than their technology. He says, "I'm calling on Google to preserve its sterling reputation for honesty and customer focus by offering an alternative form of the new Gmail service. The company should offer Gmail accounts without the ads, and without the scanning, for a modest annual fee. That would put the choice where Google has always placed it: in the hands of its users."
Here's the link, but unfortunately you'll need to be a WSJ online subscriber to see it:
Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels
on
Directed Sound
·
· Score: 1
Five years ago I visited the lab at American Technology Corp. I can vouch for the fact that HSS does indeed work. I was even able to meet with Elwood Norris, the inventor, to discuss it.
At that time, the emitter they demonstrated was an early prototype, yet the sound was very clear and not the least bit annoying. The only downside I witnessed was that it was unable to reproduce low-frequency sounds.
It's quite spooky. Sound can be projected to a distant wall and it sounds like it is coming from that wall.
The sound is sent along a "flashlight" beam of sound, so it does spread, but in a cone shape, not a laser-like coherent beam. I believe they can now create a more pin-point focus by separating the functional parts of the emitter.
Some have misunderstood the technology and think that no one else outside the beam or focus will hear the sound. This is not true. Those outside the beam will hear the sound if it is reflected off objects in the beam itself. However, the volume is greatly reduced.
So, if two folks were walking beside each other, the person in the beam would hear it and the person not in the beam would hear the reflected sound, but at a much lower volume.
Absolutely fascinating technology. May qualify as a disruptive technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an upcoming test of Mossberg power:
He suggests in today's Wall Street Journal that Google should offer an ad-free Gmail for a nominal fee, much like Slashdot's ad-free version.
In its current form, he fears that Gmail, will undermine Google's integrity, something that is perhaps more important than their technology. He says, "I'm calling on Google to preserve its sterling reputation for honesty and customer focus by offering an alternative form of the new Gmail service. The company should offer Gmail accounts without the ads, and without the scanning, for a modest annual fee. That would put the choice where Google has always placed it: in the hands of its users."
Here's the link, but unfortunately you'll need to be a WSJ online subscriber to see it:
Clean Image Is So Key To Google's Success, Why Take Gmail Risk?
Five years ago I visited the lab at American Technology Corp. I can vouch for the fact that HSS does indeed work. I was even able to meet with Elwood Norris, the inventor, to discuss it.
At that time, the emitter they demonstrated was an early prototype, yet the sound was very clear and not the least bit annoying. The only downside I witnessed was that it was unable to reproduce low-frequency sounds.
It's quite spooky. Sound can be projected to a distant wall and it sounds like it is coming from that wall.
The sound is sent along a "flashlight" beam of sound, so it does spread, but in a cone shape, not a laser-like coherent beam. I believe they can now create a more pin-point focus by separating the functional parts of the emitter.
Some have misunderstood the technology and think that no one else outside the beam or focus will hear the sound. This is not true. Those outside the beam will hear the sound if it is reflected off objects in the beam itself. However, the volume is greatly reduced.
So, if two folks were walking beside each other, the person in the beam would hear it and the person not in the beam would hear the reflected sound, but at a much lower volume.
Absolutely fascinating technology. May qualify as a disruptive technology.