Your comment should have read, "Big buiness spreads fraudulent propaganda to protect its interests." Acting like they should be able to do whatever they want simply because of their industry or size as a corporation is absurd. Any way you cut it, this is fraud.
Considering that they're targeting most of their products at early adopters and high end users, this survey is rather unrepresentative. Their regular electronics departments haven't been making them money for years.
There are no laws against defacing money. That is a common myth. You may deface, burn, destroy or do whatever else you feel like with federal or other money. The only time that becomes illegal is if you try to pass it off as legal currency AFTER defacing it. If you don't believe me, you can look it up.
If advertisers were allowed to run rampant on Wikipedia, they'd likely also end up being able to alter entries on their companies without any backlash. The loss of any credibility is definitely not worth putting ads on WP.
There's a great amount of logic to it. If you're a technology layman, and/or some sort of managerial or politically minded person that doesn't know any better. It's absolutely absurd for anyone that has the faintest clue about the realities of technological security to claim that RFID would add any sort of security, rather than doing exactly the opposite. The claim that RFID somehow makes passports more secure assumes that no one would ever bother attacking them, and that they're somehow "unbreakable" (which, non-laypeople should know is basically never true). Adding RFID to passports to add security is like replacing your kevlar vest with cheesecloth and expecting the latter to somehow block shrapnel more effectively.
Brilliant logic! I agree completely, former government workers should have no expectation of free speech at all. In fact, they should probably be disallowed from thinking of publishing as well. Hell, why not just arrest everyone, torture them until they confess to their charges, and put them all to death, that'd save PLENTY of time. Genius.
Again, it's the responsibility of the owner of the sites in question to ensure that people they do not want to access their resources are not allowed to. It most certainly is not the place of the courts. By requiring courts to police access of every web site on the (US) internet, the costs of arbitration would far exceed any costs incurred by the individuals whose content has been "unwantedly linked to" (here is where I pause for dramatic sarcastic effect, with perhaps a left raised eyebrow or such, given such an absurd concept) and the cost to taxpayers would be ridiculous. If a content owner does not want public content to be linked to sans his/her ads, it is their SOLE duty to ensure that. Putting the burden of what is essentially a novice website administrator's job to do onto the courts is ridiculous.
To answer your question seriously, I think if you had a decent understanding of software development, you could use the OpenEEG project's schematics to build two of them, hook them up to a comp via whatever interface (can't recall, but I'm guessing it's serial or USB or such), write your software that takes inputs from the EEG, interprets them (so, you'd want to look for the band mentioned in the article, theta waves, associated with drowsy or relaxed states) and then send a command to an air blower or whatever (whatever method of propulsion you want to hook up to your tube with your ping pong ball or whatnot), which then moves the ball, according to the volume of your type of brain wave your program is looking for.
Here's a link to the OpenEEG project.
WRONG. You are absolutely incorrect. This does NOT open the market for smaller players, it simply means that AT&T et al will never be required to fulfill the contracts they entered into when they were given absurd government subsidies paid for by taxpayer money. It will still be prohibitively expensive to start in the field due to the monopoly imposed by AT&T et al and perpetuated by the fact that they have pipes running through private property (which is why they're REQUIRED to provide equal access to services).
As soon as every citizen was FORCED to pay taxes to pay for those services, i.e., such as the case of telecoms' copper and fibre lines. So yes, we do have a RIGHT to these services, which the telcos are now REQUIRED to supply, because they were given government subsidies PAID for by tax payers. Not providing those services in areas they WERE PAID TO PROVIDE THEM TO is what this is about. Just because you and a few select others that have commented are too thickwitted or ignorant of the facts to realize this does not change the fact that its true.
Unfortunately, you get all the idiots(see half of the comments on this thread claiming AT&T should just be GIVEN profits by the government, in return for performing NO service at all) that are too stupid to grasp the fact that they're OWED these services, since everyone was REQUIRED to pay for them.
Indeed! We all know how being for any laws, as long as they benefit corporations in some way, will ultimately help all of us. Of course, why didn't I see before? You must be a fan of "trick down" economics or something, right? You probably think that allowing corporations guaranteed high profits by the government, the entire planet will bloom with flowers, and every human will suddenly declare peace and goodwill. How careless I overlooked something SO OBVIOUS!/sarcasm
The wheel patent is an excellent example of what patents were NEVER intended to do. Whoever was issued this patent most assuredly cannot disprove any and all prior art of the wheel, making the patent absurd, as is all patents on ideas instead of implementations of ideas.
That may be their current function, but it is not their proscribed function. In the case of patents, the idea (was, but somewhat no longer) to ensure the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea is protected for the owner of that IMPLEMENTATION. Eventually the patent system was corrupted to its present condition, in which IDEAS are patentable (i.e., the "idea" of vacuum (absense of energy or matter) is technically patentable, which does not fit the framework of the original intention of the patent system). Copyright was similarly meant to ensure that the copyright holder was fairly compensated UNTIL which point the material enters the public domain (IIRC, the original time frame was 10-15 years). The copyright system has been destroyed by large companies that are outside the scope of the original intention of the copyright system (which arises partially from the idiotic rulings recognizing corporations as individuals and citizens).
It would be the government's role to enforce those patent and copyright laws, but DEFINITELY not to enforce profits for a sole individual or corporation, which is what this and other rulings are about (although this particular one is even MORE absurd, since the judge's ruling is essentially saying that an owner of any content made public should be guaranteed, by the government, any amount of profit they wish from said public content, regardless of their negligence in assuring that profit will be made or not).
So no, neither of those systems are in place to force the government to ensure profits for any individual or corporation.
Wow, you have no understanding of the definition of "theft" do you? To be able to steal something, it first must either not belong to you, or not be available for no cost. Considering that the content in the plaintiff's site doesn't even meet the basic definition of things that *can* be stolen, there was no theft involved. If publishing URLs = theft, then every person that has ever used the internet is guilty of theft and should be required to pay indeterminate sums.
It is an absurd ruling, since it puts the responsibility of guaranteeing revenue based on public content on the shoulders of the legal system, and also simultaneously defines the basic use of the internet as grounds for lawsuit. Apparently, some judges lack the basic reasoning skills of a toaster.
Your analogy is incorrect. By the logic of the judge, anyone giving the location of Time Magazine (a copyrighted piece of content) to another person (without first listing the content of every ad in Time Magazine, in every issue ever published) would be required to pay Time Magazine for profit deprivation.
Good analogy, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would be the domain of the content owner, not the government, to make sure their customers see their ads, and that "guides" (deep links) may not be used. In your analogy, the judge should say "Change the maze then, it isn't the government's problem that your customers don't want to look at your ads." The actual ruling (in the context of your analogy) is that conveying the information to bypass the ads to anyone is the same as depriving the content owner of revenue(which everyone can agree is absurd in the extreme, and otherwise in which case every company and individual on the planet would owe every other company and individual on the planet an absurd sum of money for compensation, since any number of events would qualify as deprivation of revenue). This concept is patently false, since the person relaying information about the direction of the maze has in fact done nothing but reproduce information made publicly available (and in context of the actual case, this would be the URL, not the actual song file, which everyone knows is illegal to reproduce). The next step from this ruling is to make thinking of copyrighted content the same as deprivation of revenue, and to start charging everyone uniform profit recovery fees of arbitrary sums.
It is still the domain of the content owner, not the governments, to ensure that access to content is restricted to authorized users (i.e., those that view your ad). Otherwise, you get into precisely the situation this has caused, i.e., the government takes the role of securing the profit of the content provider. If the content provider wants every one of its users to view an ad, it is their responsibility, not the government's, that third parties are not able to view their (PUBLIC! so it cannot be "theft" as some others here are saying) content without seeing ads.
This analyses is pathetic, and blatantly ignores the actual statistics of the current generation, which clearly show a trend as PS3 being the distant third, with 360 in the middle and Wii winning out at top, due to the sheer amount of product and market they're targeting. Sony may have more mind share, but they definitely have FAR less market share than MS does at this point. The fact that 360 has roughly 30x the amount of games, a hands down better user software experience (anyone disputing this is a moron, and has never bothered to compare the usability of the 360 vs. PS3, one is CLEARLY inferior in software usability, and it isn't the 360). Considering that historically, games are the deciding factor, PS3's 3 (non-port) title line up is essentially doomed to failure.
Slashdot Mirror
With the sentiment that customers shouldn't be allowed to design applications. They tend to be absolutely horrible at figuring out what they want.
Yeah, "Joe Public" in this case basically amount to "Paid Sony Schills". *n00854180t eats his Great Salt Lake Salt Lick*
Your comment should have read, "Big buiness spreads fraudulent propaganda to protect its interests." Acting like they should be able to do whatever they want simply because of their industry or size as a corporation is absurd. Any way you cut it, this is fraud.
Considering that they're targeting most of their products at early adopters and high end users, this survey is rather unrepresentative. Their regular electronics departments haven't been making them money for years.
There are no laws against defacing money. That is a common myth. You may deface, burn, destroy or do whatever else you feel like with federal or other money. The only time that becomes illegal is if you try to pass it off as legal currency AFTER defacing it. If you don't believe me, you can look it up.
If advertisers were allowed to run rampant on Wikipedia, they'd likely also end up being able to alter entries on their companies without any backlash. The loss of any credibility is definitely not worth putting ads on WP.
As opposed to people that watch the drivel known as "Crossfire"?
There's a great amount of logic to it. If you're a technology layman, and/or some sort of managerial or politically minded person that doesn't know any better. It's absolutely absurd for anyone that has the faintest clue about the realities of technological security to claim that RFID would add any sort of security, rather than doing exactly the opposite. The claim that RFID somehow makes passports more secure assumes that no one would ever bother attacking them, and that they're somehow "unbreakable" (which, non-laypeople should know is basically never true). Adding RFID to passports to add security is like replacing your kevlar vest with cheesecloth and expecting the latter to somehow block shrapnel more effectively.
Brilliant logic! I agree completely, former government workers should have no expectation of free speech at all. In fact, they should probably be disallowed from thinking of publishing as well. Hell, why not just arrest everyone, torture them until they confess to their charges, and put them all to death, that'd save PLENTY of time. Genius.
Again, it's the responsibility of the owner of the sites in question to ensure that people they do not want to access their resources are not allowed to. It most certainly is not the place of the courts. By requiring courts to police access of every web site on the (US) internet, the costs of arbitration would far exceed any costs incurred by the individuals whose content has been "unwantedly linked to" (here is where I pause for dramatic sarcastic effect, with perhaps a left raised eyebrow or such, given such an absurd concept) and the cost to taxpayers would be ridiculous. If a content owner does not want public content to be linked to sans his/her ads, it is their SOLE duty to ensure that. Putting the burden of what is essentially a novice website administrator's job to do onto the courts is ridiculous.
I was bored nearing the end of work.
To answer your question seriously, I think if you had a decent understanding of software development, you could use the OpenEEG project's schematics to build two of them, hook them up to a comp via whatever interface (can't recall, but I'm guessing it's serial or USB or such), write your software that takes inputs from the EEG, interprets them (so, you'd want to look for the band mentioned in the article, theta waves, associated with drowsy or relaxed states) and then send a command to an air blower or whatever (whatever method of propulsion you want to hook up to your tube with your ping pong ball or whatnot), which then moves the ball, according to the volume of your type of brain wave your program is looking for.
Here's a link to the OpenEEG project.
You need to pick a better example, because the US is FAR FAR from even near the top of the list of most broadband penetrated countries.
WRONG. You are absolutely incorrect. This does NOT open the market for smaller players, it simply means that AT&T et al will never be required to fulfill the contracts they entered into when they were given absurd government subsidies paid for by taxpayer money. It will still be prohibitively expensive to start in the field due to the monopoly imposed by AT&T et al and perpetuated by the fact that they have pipes running through private property (which is why they're REQUIRED to provide equal access to services).
As soon as every citizen was FORCED to pay taxes to pay for those services, i.e., such as the case of telecoms' copper and fibre lines. So yes, we do have a RIGHT to these services, which the telcos are now REQUIRED to supply, because they were given government subsidies PAID for by tax payers. Not providing those services in areas they WERE PAID TO PROVIDE THEM TO is what this is about. Just because you and a few select others that have commented are too thickwitted or ignorant of the facts to realize this does not change the fact that its true.
Unfortunately, you get all the idiots(see half of the comments on this thread claiming AT&T should just be GIVEN profits by the government, in return for performing NO service at all) that are too stupid to grasp the fact that they're OWED these services, since everyone was REQUIRED to pay for them.
Indeed! We all know how being for any laws, as long as they benefit corporations in some way, will ultimately help all of us. Of course, why didn't I see before? You must be a fan of "trick down" economics or something, right? You probably think that allowing corporations guaranteed high profits by the government, the entire planet will bloom with flowers, and every human will suddenly declare peace and goodwill. How careless I overlooked something SO OBVIOUS! /sarcasm
The wheel patent is an excellent example of what patents were NEVER intended to do. Whoever was issued this patent most assuredly cannot disprove any and all prior art of the wheel, making the patent absurd, as is all patents on ideas instead of implementations of ideas.
That may be their current function, but it is not their proscribed function. In the case of patents, the idea (was, but somewhat no longer) to ensure the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea is protected for the owner of that IMPLEMENTATION. Eventually the patent system was corrupted to its present condition, in which IDEAS are patentable (i.e., the "idea" of vacuum (absense of energy or matter) is technically patentable, which does not fit the framework of the original intention of the patent system). Copyright was similarly meant to ensure that the copyright holder was fairly compensated UNTIL which point the material enters the public domain (IIRC, the original time frame was 10-15 years). The copyright system has been destroyed by large companies that are outside the scope of the original intention of the copyright system (which arises partially from the idiotic rulings recognizing corporations as individuals and citizens). It would be the government's role to enforce those patent and copyright laws, but DEFINITELY not to enforce profits for a sole individual or corporation, which is what this and other rulings are about (although this particular one is even MORE absurd, since the judge's ruling is essentially saying that an owner of any content made public should be guaranteed, by the government, any amount of profit they wish from said public content, regardless of their negligence in assuring that profit will be made or not). So no, neither of those systems are in place to force the government to ensure profits for any individual or corporation.
Wow, you have no understanding of the definition of "theft" do you? To be able to steal something, it first must either not belong to you, or not be available for no cost. Considering that the content in the plaintiff's site doesn't even meet the basic definition of things that *can* be stolen, there was no theft involved. If publishing URLs = theft, then every person that has ever used the internet is guilty of theft and should be required to pay indeterminate sums.
It is an absurd ruling, since it puts the responsibility of guaranteeing revenue based on public content on the shoulders of the legal system, and also simultaneously defines the basic use of the internet as grounds for lawsuit. Apparently, some judges lack the basic reasoning skills of a toaster.
Your analogy is incorrect. By the logic of the judge, anyone giving the location of Time Magazine (a copyrighted piece of content) to another person (without first listing the content of every ad in Time Magazine, in every issue ever published) would be required to pay Time Magazine for profit deprivation.
Good analogy, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would be the domain of the content owner, not the government, to make sure their customers see their ads, and that "guides" (deep links) may not be used. In your analogy, the judge should say "Change the maze then, it isn't the government's problem that your customers don't want to look at your ads." The actual ruling (in the context of your analogy) is that conveying the information to bypass the ads to anyone is the same as depriving the content owner of revenue(which everyone can agree is absurd in the extreme, and otherwise in which case every company and individual on the planet would owe every other company and individual on the planet an absurd sum of money for compensation, since any number of events would qualify as deprivation of revenue). This concept is patently false, since the person relaying information about the direction of the maze has in fact done nothing but reproduce information made publicly available (and in context of the actual case, this would be the URL, not the actual song file, which everyone knows is illegal to reproduce). The next step from this ruling is to make thinking of copyrighted content the same as deprivation of revenue, and to start charging everyone uniform profit recovery fees of arbitrary sums.
It is still the domain of the content owner, not the governments, to ensure that access to content is restricted to authorized users (i.e., those that view your ad). Otherwise, you get into precisely the situation this has caused, i.e., the government takes the role of securing the profit of the content provider. If the content provider wants every one of its users to view an ad, it is their responsibility, not the government's, that third parties are not able to view their (PUBLIC! so it cannot be "theft" as some others here are saying) content without seeing ads.
This analyses is pathetic, and blatantly ignores the actual statistics of the current generation, which clearly show a trend as PS3 being the distant third, with 360 in the middle and Wii winning out at top, due to the sheer amount of product and market they're targeting. Sony may have more mind share, but they definitely have FAR less market share than MS does at this point. The fact that 360 has roughly 30x the amount of games, a hands down better user software experience (anyone disputing this is a moron, and has never bothered to compare the usability of the 360 vs. PS3, one is CLEARLY inferior in software usability, and it isn't the 360). Considering that historically, games are the deciding factor, PS3's 3 (non-port) title line up is essentially doomed to failure.