Another case in point is determining how long to buffer and what bitrate to use (change dynamically). Does HTML5 video offer these options?
Aren't those things that are dependent on the codec and container that is used? Right now, depending on the format, I believe that HTML5 Video using OggTheora does provide variable bitrate.
I'm not sure where to address the buffering problem but you would think that it would be dependent on the user's latency and determined by the container or a combination of container and browser.
So what you asked would depend on the format used inside the HTML5 tag and if your browser supports that format yet.
You are entirely correct on the demo, I withdraw my comments and apologize for my obvious mistake. I was only inspecting the blog post with snippets as PNGs. My mistake, please mod my original post down.
Odd that he says:
I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.
Surely he realizes that he's made it available as you note?
I think you're confusing his blog site with the actual library. From his blog posting:
I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.
I'm not sure how you determined that it depends on jquery if none of it's available. All I could find on his site were PNG images... no real demonstration of canvassing in HTML5.
I saw this a few days ago and was impressed... until I tried to look inside. The demo is just a bunch of PNGs. The guy is most likely legit but I don't call it a demo until it's being rendered how the summary claims in front of my eyes. He posted more info on his work the next day. But I was really waiting for the real thing to come out. You know, the thing that makes this important and impressive--the real demonstration of HTML5's power (although it looks like he can do this with SVG as well). Right now it's just a bunch of pictures... something you could easily hoax.
Add it to the list in the xkcd article under Inspired Activities and redirect the malamanteau page to that subsection and be done with it. And now for some humor directed back at Munroe:
*puts blanket over his head and grabs a webcam* How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Wikipedia after all it has been through! It lost its father, it went through a fundraiser. It had two fuckin libel suits filed against it. Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn. All you people care about is... xkcd readers and making money off of it. IT'S A WEBSITE! Wahhhh. Ooooh. What you don’t realize is that Wikipedia is making you all this money and all you do is draw a bunch of crappy web comics about it. It hasn’t been featured in the news in years. Its slogan is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” for a reason because all you people want is to EDIT! EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT! LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even is hosted for you BASTARDS! LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! Please. Randall Munroe talked about a fancy neologism and said if Wikipedia was a professional it wouldn't delete malamanteau no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash something that is going through a hard time? Leave Wikipedia Alone Please... Leave Wikipedia.org alone!... right now!... I mean it! Anyone that has a problem with Wikipedia you deal with me, because it is not well right now.
"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."
There's another way you can sue them. Abondonware rights were added to the DMCA that made it legal to crack games that are "no longer being sold or supported" for your own personal purposes of archival. Now, it's still illegal to distribute those cracked games. So the people who cracked it might have a claim that they cracked these games for their own archival purpose after Max Payne left stores and did not distribute them. But the great part is that you don't need to sue them, you can write that up in a letter notifying the ESA who will take them to court and, effectively, may sue the copyright holders for distributing a cracked game even though they own the copyright on it. After all, it just might fit the description of abandonware and set precedent one way or the other.
I hope the crackers seriously stick it to them. Copyright length, game DRM and licensing really don't make any sense to me. Honestly I really am upset that I paid for ~$40 for Contra on the NES back in 1990 only to have to pay $8 for it on the Wii today with no ability to transfer it from that device to another. How many more times must I pay for the Contra license to what is the exact same game?
The official explanation – that the US wanted to prevent the toxic contents of the spacecraft's fuel tank from hitting the ground – seems a bit thin, according to James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thus critics from around the world have speculated about ulterior motives, ranging from a desire to test US ballistic missile defenses to poking China in the eye.
Look at it this way, they've already demonstrated to the rest of the world that their toys can knock your toys out of the sky. And that is the unquestioned belief right now which is why China had to run a similar test... er "emergency to save other satellites." Why jeopardize your status as anti-satellite super power to actually do something positive?
How long before "Non-Practicing Entity" goes from harmless-sounding euphemism to sinister dysphemism, the way terms like "Ethnic Cleansing" have?
Dysphemism? I don't get it. When has "ethnic cleansing" been used to describe something that wasn't really killing/displacing people that don't align exactly with your ethnicity/religion/culture? That phrase became popular (at least for me) while I was in high school (Hutu & Tutsi conflict, Kosovo) and I haven't heard it used as a "sinister dysphemism" to describe something innocuous where serious stuff wasn't going down.
Non-Practicing Entity already has a sinister sound to it in my mind. I would compare it more with things like "ponzi scheme" or "tax evasion." Things meant to game the system at other's expenses but can themselves be very hard to define precisely. And once you make them illegal, the people gaming the system just move their foot back so far that their toe is back on the line. For example, say you need to have one working prototype to hold a patent. Well, there's going to be tons of companies just throwing something together and calling it a prototype. Now you say it needs to be working... so companies like Acacia Research and IP Ventures will stand up some prototype fabrication company that just specializes in that and NDAs. So you say they need a factory. Well, they'll buy abandoned warehouses in Montana and put the working prototypes in the warehouses. It just goes on and on until you realize that you're also hurting the small time inventors that can't afford the factories and then the system is broken a different way.
I'd love to end patent trolling. I'd love to restrict non-practicing entities. The problem is that I can't really define either of them satisfactorily such that it's not broken another way. Can you?
More dangerous would be something like you sending off a workmate's saliva to see if they have HIV and then using that information to force them out of a job, etc. That's the sort of casual mis-use that we *don't* need.
Why would you use a genetics test to test for HIV? While you can now test for HIV with saliva, Pathway Genomics does not check for HIV as it's not a genetically inherited disease. It can be passed from mother to offspring prior to or during birth but it's not inherit to the genetic material. These tests at Walgreens are not to check for HIV or AIDS.
if you are with someone "significant" who calls the whole thing off because of things like that, then you're much, much better off without them, surely?
Depends, relationships are all about compromise. You meet the perfect someone but they're a hypochondriac when it comes to cancer. Oh well, you can work past that until they get their hands on this test and demand you take it or, like I said, send in your sample without your consent. No one's perfect. Someone worrying now about their offspring's future is not a bad thing. The bad thing is proceeding without consent. Your fears, however, make absolutely no sense.
Someone with a genetically inherited disease working next to you does not pose a risk unless you plan on them becoming your father or mother.
Here's some required reading if you are contemplating this. Most importantly:
5. Services Limitations. The Services provided by Pathway Genomics are solely for research and educational purposes and uses. Although based on scientific research, the Services, including all information about genetic findings and probabilities, have not been fully validated and shall not be relied upon by you or any other person to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease or health condition. You should consult with a physician or other appropriate health care professional regarding the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of any disease or health condition.
Emphasis mine. I knew that'd be in there along with point 13 (the indemnity clause). On the plus side they've got this:
9. Proprietary Rights. You own all Genetic Information derived from your saliva or other biological material. Genetic Information means the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs at particular locations in your genome.
If you submit or post content on the Pathway Genomics website or otherwise using the Services, (a) you retain any copyright rights that you hold in this content, and (b) you grant Pathway Genomics a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to copy, modify, translate, publicly display and distribute this content. This license grants Pathway Genomics the right to use this content to provide the Services and to provide this content to other companies and individuals affiliated with Pathway Genomics. You warrant to Pathway Genomics that you have the right, power and authority to grant this license.
Of course we all would think that would go without saying but you never know these days and in bullet 12 they follow that up with you have permission to send them this sample. I shudder to think that someone might grab some of their significant other's saliva in order to see what their genetic tests reveal and call the whole thing off based on the fact that their offspring would have a 5% higher chance of getting breast cancer according to The Super Deluxe Cancer Finder 3000.
They left out several data points they discovered that were simply too shocking to print:
There is a tight statistical correlation between the rate of software piracy and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Cracking a single piece of software is such a complex process that it can cost up to one hundred thousand kitten souls in the process.
If piracy dropped 20% in one year, the resulting productivity would yield one observable unified field theory for all of modern physics.
If piracy dropped 30% in one year, Jesus and Muhammad would come back to life and smoke a peace pipe thus ending pain and suffering all over the world. Just 30% for that!
The Center for Astrological Thought concluded that extraterrestrial life forms avoid our planet simply on the grounds that they cannot sell and enforce their software licenses here.
Software piracy creates an unknown yet to be found negative force that exists in the dimension in which we can travel through time. Every time a piece of software is pirated, seventeen thousand Negatosmas are released into this dimension prohibiting time travelers from the future of ever traveling back before that point.
Said Negatosmas have also created a food source for the Time Devil which caused him to mutate into the Super Time Devil which now makes time travel a cat and mouse game flirting with disaster... but also a very popular reality TV show in the future.
In 2009, Michael Jackson's last words were "End software piracy" as the stolen copy of Windows XP that regulated his IV's drip failed because he had just passed the 30 days he had to authorize his copy.
Because of software piracy, Pluto was delisted as a planet. The government stepped in at the last minute to save this victim.
Clearly we can only take such outlandish claims with the utmost sincerity. So what's up, software pirates? Why are you holding us back? The burden of proof is on you to disprove any of the aforementioned claims. Until you do they are all true because the BSA said so.
It's so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities, and it only didn't work once.
Success rate does not illustrate simplicity, especially not with that small of a sample set. That could be the equivalent of saying, "Putting a man on the moon is so simple, in fact, that the United States has used their method once and it has never failed."
Though it looks like Chrome will have a basic media player the dependence on the internet for applications will be too limiting for the typical user.
So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?
No local printing
All I've heard is that Google Cloud Print and the proxy service for your printer plans to be bundled with Chrome OS. I've not heard whether it's opt-in, opt-out, mandatory or if -- shock of all shocks -- they figure out a way to make it work like Google Gears.
That’s some advanced technoshit when I have to contact a server in California if I want to print a bbq recipe from a printer that is 2 feet away from me.
Google Cloud Print aims to make printing from any online device to any printer available. Apart from what you so eloquently claim, they did not set bricking your printer as a goal. Nor did they express a desire to inhibit your ability to print on your printer from your local machine directly. If Google Cloud Print is not opt-in on Chrome OS, I will be just as critical as you but there's no indication one way or the other yet.
Every consumer OS has a browser. Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors. Consumers will be confused when they are told that Chrome OS is just a browser. Just a browser?
And let the terrible analogies flow. Wrap your mind around this: what if the consumer just wants a netbook to surf the internet and do word processing? Like me and my netbook.
Why can’t I access local files? This netbook actually does less than my cell phone?
Is it that you can't access local files or that you can't discern between work that's being stored and cached locally versus being out on the cloud? One may claim that this simplifies the user experience. Who cares where it is? I can access it.
A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.
You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?
The $300-$400 price point
Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?
Android
While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.
All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
Sorry that was a typo on my part, it should have read:
3314 Saddam Husseins Arrested by CmdrTaco
Yep, three thousand fourteen Saddam Husseins arrested by CmdrTaco, each more Saddam Hussein than the last. I think the real question here today is why CmdrTaco wasn't retitled CmdrInChiefTaco?
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy 4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco 3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco 3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk 3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk 3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal 3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos 3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco 3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco 3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff
Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."
As others have pointed out, you can disable politics by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad.
Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.
CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.
I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.
Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.
I think it's more accurately stated that 'information can be a distraction' but, you know, it can also be a very useful tool both in learning and communicating. Everyone can have a Facebook account and everyone can read blogs but the programmer that spends much of his time reading reading blogs about programming and uses Facebook only to keep up with his friends periodically is going to outpace the programmer that spends 90% of his time on Facebook and 5% of his time reading movie reviews on blogs.
So, by and large, it comes down to -- surprise surprise -- responsible time management. Yes, too much information via the internet and mobile devices is a double edged sword. I cannot keep up with the papers on arxiv but if I learn to manage my time and quickly recognize which papers are worth my time then it is very valuable to an academic. Or I could spend my time playing Farmville. Both occupy my time and can be distractions.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views.
I don't think so. He actually encourages reading both sides:
This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.
For once the Slashdot summary seemed to be even more politically charged and biased than the actual politician. The correct message is to manage your time well and exercise caution. Sound advice actually.
And I laugh at how you are supposed to see the advantages of 4-color technology in ads on your 3-color sets at home as you watch their commercials.
Well, I'm not sure if you're correct to laugh at this or not. But all televisions are approximations of something analogue that was captured and in that capturing process, some information was lost. To illustrate, entertain a scenario where I have N standard definition television sets that are displaying footage from standard definition video cameras. I daisy chain them together (each camera directed at the last screen) to record something. As I move from the 0th screen to the Nth screen, I will begin to see degradation as more information is lost and randomness comes into play. The same can be done with HD but since HD captures more information, it can safely be assumed that the sampling and resampling will retain more of the original image.
If you played the Nth HD screen next to the Nth SD screen and piped that through an SD television, you'd still be able to see some difference (for reasonable non-astronomical numbers of N) even though you went through yet another SD television in the end.
I don't know what the fourth color is supposed to buy, I'm unfamiliar with this technology. But the side by side comparison through an SD or HD TV might still be able to demonstrate that the fourth color adds some meaningful information to the image that -- when resampled to be viewed on your device -- suffers less information loss than the three color implementation. Thus successfully demonstrating some superiority. Not showing you precisely what the final product is supposed to be like but instead give you relativity in signal loss and noise.
I also know how just making a picture brighter and saturating the colors a bit can make it more appealing to many viewers over a more accurate rendition
Well, I know that there is a huge photography following that is totally enamored with HDR photography and to many people it makes the images come to life... I think it's overdone (like autotuning in modern music) but it definitely has a place. Perhaps similarly four color displays hope to widen the dynamic range they can display? I wish I could give you better answers about four color displays but this is the first I've heard of them. Perhaps your questions to a large engineer base are the most effective kind of marketing?
This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can)
Well, I read a lot of those comments and while they were for the most part overly negative toward you, I think they had some good advice.
A number of them let you know that if you want to champion this message that Wikipedia hosts child porn then you should probably drop the "and also I run a clean competing product called Citizendia." I'm not accusing you of this but on the surface it may seem that you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion in some sort of free-cyclopedia-war. I think the Slashdot comments sent you a very valuable message to keep both of these messages separate to avoid that possibility.
Another thing that comments focused on was your Libertarianism conflicting with your moralism. The comments explored possibilities in which "child porn" becomes used inadvertently without an actual production or desire for it to be used as such. What about when someone draws or makes computer simulations of said things? If it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, shouldn't a Libertarian allow that? It seems your morals and ethics do come into conflict with a pure Libertarian stance. Slashdot has a large Libertarian readership so you should be prepared for this.
I was in a museum in New York City and saw an exhibit of with pictures of mentally challenged children playing outside in the grass, mostly undressed. Everyone else there was treating it as "art." I'd like to Google and find the artist for you but I'm not interested in that being saved in my Google searches. Which reveals to you that I'm not a big fan of what you speak of either (if it's any consolation) but I think the images on Wikimedia are community regulated and you're going to find an argument somewhere no matter what stance you take. For instance, I will defend [WARNING! Nudity] this image as an image of war, a reminder of Vietnam, a historical photograph and I am prepared to argue with you that that image has some merit and should remain on Wikipedia. But if I understand your stance that image needs to be removed?
You shouldn't take these comments as "ripped to shreds." Slashdot likes to avoid the obvious discussion and no one's interested in "I agree." comments as they don't add much to the conversation. When your ideas are on Slashdot, you're being flayed open for anyone to take any amount of time to poke at your soft underbelly and do what they want with it. Expect the full spectrum of responses and it seems that no matter how much I disagree with a stance, if you can form it into cogent and at least semi-logical defenses then you should be modded up.
You're a valuable member of the Slashdot community. I don't think you should take the highly rated, negative comments to heart and I hope you continue to contribute to Slashdot like NewYorkCountryLawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Another case in point is determining how long to buffer and what bitrate to use (change dynamically). Does HTML5 video offer these options?
Aren't those things that are dependent on the codec and container that is used? Right now, depending on the format, I believe that HTML5 Video using Ogg Theora does provide variable bitrate.
I'm not sure where to address the buffering problem but you would think that it would be dependent on the user's latency and determined by the container or a combination of container and browser.
So what you asked would depend on the format used inside the HTML5 tag and if your browser supports that format yet.
Are the png's you are talking about somewhere in here:
http://0xfe.muthanna.com/jsnotation/vexnotation.js
Or are they somewhere else?
You are entirely correct on the demo, I withdraw my comments and apologize for my obvious mistake. I was only inspecting the blog post with snippets as PNGs. My mistake, please mod my original post down.
Odd that he says:
I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.
Surely he realizes that he's made it available as you note?
View the source, Luke:
Block google and see how well it works.
I think you're confusing his blog site with the actual library. From his blog posting:
I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.
I'm not sure how you determined that it depends on jquery if none of it's available. All I could find on his site were PNG images ... no real demonstration of canvassing in HTML5.
I saw this a few days ago and was impressed ... until I tried to look inside. The demo is just a bunch of PNGs. The guy is most likely legit but I don't call it a demo until it's being rendered how the summary claims in front of my eyes. He posted more info on his work the next day. But I was really waiting for the real thing to come out. You know, the thing that makes this important and impressive--the real demonstration of HTML5's power (although it looks like he can do this with SVG as well). Right now it's just a bunch of pictures ... something you could easily hoax.
Add it to the list in the xkcd article under Inspired Activities and redirect the malamanteau page to that subsection and be done with it. And now for some humor directed back at Munroe:
... xkcd readers and making money off of it. IT'S A WEBSITE! Wahhhh. Ooooh. What you don’t realize is that Wikipedia is making you all this money and all you do is draw a bunch of crappy web comics about it. It hasn’t been featured in the news in years. Its slogan is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” for a reason because all you people want is to EDIT! EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT! LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even is hosted for you BASTARDS! LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! Please. Randall Munroe talked about a fancy neologism and said if Wikipedia was a professional it wouldn't delete malamanteau no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash something that is going through a hard time? Leave Wikipedia Alone Please ... Leave Wikipedia.org alone! ... right now! ... I mean it! Anyone that has a problem with Wikipedia you deal with me, because it is not well right now.
*puts blanket over his head and grabs a webcam* How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Wikipedia after all it has been through! It lost its father, it went through a fundraiser. It had two fuckin libel suits filed against it. Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn. All you people care about is
LEAVE IT ALONE!
"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."
There's another way you can sue them. Abondonware rights were added to the DMCA that made it legal to crack games that are "no longer being sold or supported" for your own personal purposes of archival. Now, it's still illegal to distribute those cracked games. So the people who cracked it might have a claim that they cracked these games for their own archival purpose after Max Payne left stores and did not distribute them. But the great part is that you don't need to sue them, you can write that up in a letter notifying the ESA who will take them to court and, effectively, may sue the copyright holders for distributing a cracked game even though they own the copyright on it. After all, it just might fit the description of abandonware and set precedent one way or the other.
I hope the crackers seriously stick it to them. Copyright length, game DRM and licensing really don't make any sense to me. Honestly I really am upset that I paid for ~$40 for Contra on the NES back in 1990 only to have to pay $8 for it on the Wii today with no ability to transfer it from that device to another. How many more times must I pay for the Contra license to what is the exact same game?
When China does it, the world protests. all the space junk created. However, when the US does it, it's to save other satellites.
The US did it before China and people were very critical:
The official explanation – that the US wanted to prevent the toxic contents of the spacecraft's fuel tank from hitting the ground – seems a bit thin, according to James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thus critics from around the world have speculated about ulterior motives, ranging from a desire to test US ballistic missile defenses to poking China in the eye.
It's a sort of anti-satellite arms race and status thing between two super power. Or in playground terms, the two assholes are having a dick measuring contest.
Call In the Military To Blast Rogue Satellite?
Look at it this way, they've already demonstrated to the rest of the world that their toys can knock your toys out of the sky. And that is the unquestioned belief right now which is why China had to run a similar test ... er "emergency to save other satellites." Why jeopardize your status as anti-satellite super power to actually do something positive?
How long before "Non-Practicing Entity" goes from harmless-sounding euphemism to sinister dysphemism, the way terms like "Ethnic Cleansing" have?
Dysphemism? I don't get it. When has "ethnic cleansing" been used to describe something that wasn't really killing/displacing people that don't align exactly with your ethnicity/religion/culture? That phrase became popular (at least for me) while I was in high school (Hutu & Tutsi conflict, Kosovo) and I haven't heard it used as a "sinister dysphemism" to describe something innocuous where serious stuff wasn't going down.
... so companies like Acacia Research and IP Ventures will stand up some prototype fabrication company that just specializes in that and NDAs. So you say they need a factory. Well, they'll buy abandoned warehouses in Montana and put the working prototypes in the warehouses. It just goes on and on until you realize that you're also hurting the small time inventors that can't afford the factories and then the system is broken a different way.
Non-Practicing Entity already has a sinister sound to it in my mind. I would compare it more with things like "ponzi scheme" or "tax evasion." Things meant to game the system at other's expenses but can themselves be very hard to define precisely. And once you make them illegal, the people gaming the system just move their foot back so far that their toe is back on the line. For example, say you need to have one working prototype to hold a patent. Well, there's going to be tons of companies just throwing something together and calling it a prototype. Now you say it needs to be working
I'd love to end patent trolling. I'd love to restrict non-practicing entities. The problem is that I can't really define either of them satisfactorily such that it's not broken another way. Can you?
More dangerous would be something like you sending off a workmate's saliva to see if they have HIV and then using that information to force them out of a job, etc. That's the sort of casual mis-use that we *don't* need.
Why would you use a genetics test to test for HIV? While you can now test for HIV with saliva, Pathway Genomics does not check for HIV as it's not a genetically inherited disease. It can be passed from mother to offspring prior to or during birth but it's not inherit to the genetic material. These tests at Walgreens are not to check for HIV or AIDS.
if you are with someone "significant" who calls the whole thing off because of things like that, then you're much, much better off without them, surely?
Depends, relationships are all about compromise. You meet the perfect someone but they're a hypochondriac when it comes to cancer. Oh well, you can work past that until they get their hands on this test and demand you take it or, like I said, send in your sample without your consent. No one's perfect. Someone worrying now about their offspring's future is not a bad thing. The bad thing is proceeding without consent. Your fears, however, make absolutely no sense.
Someone with a genetically inherited disease working next to you does not pose a risk unless you plan on them becoming your father or mother.
5. Services Limitations. The Services provided by Pathway Genomics are solely for research and educational purposes and uses. Although based on scientific research, the Services, including all information about genetic findings and probabilities, have not been fully validated and shall not be relied upon by you or any other person to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease or health condition. You should consult with a physician or other appropriate health care professional regarding the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of any disease or health condition.
Emphasis mine. I knew that'd be in there along with point 13 (the indemnity clause). On the plus side they've got this:
9. Proprietary Rights. You own all Genetic Information derived from your saliva or other biological material. Genetic Information means the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs at particular locations in your genome.
If you submit or post content on the Pathway Genomics website or otherwise using the Services, (a) you retain any copyright rights that you hold in this content, and (b) you grant Pathway Genomics a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to copy, modify, translate, publicly display and distribute this content. This license grants Pathway Genomics the right to use this content to provide the Services and to provide this content to other companies and individuals affiliated with Pathway Genomics. You warrant to Pathway Genomics that you have the right, power and authority to grant this license.
Of course we all would think that would go without saying but you never know these days and in bullet 12 they follow that up with you have permission to send them this sample. I shudder to think that someone might grab some of their significant other's saliva in order to see what their genetic tests reveal and call the whole thing off based on the fact that their offspring would have a 5% higher chance of getting breast cancer according to The Super Deluxe Cancer Finder 3000.
Clearly we can only take such outlandish claims with the utmost sincerity. So what's up, software pirates? Why are you holding us back? The burden of proof is on you to disprove any of the aforementioned claims. Until you do they are all true because the BSA said so.
It's so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities, and it only didn't work once.
Success rate does not illustrate simplicity, especially not with that small of a sample set. That could be the equivalent of saying, "Putting a man on the moon is so simple, in fact, that the United States has used their method once and it has never failed."
Though it looks like Chrome will have a basic media player the dependence on the internet for applications will be too limiting for the typical user.
So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?
No local printing
All I've heard is that Google Cloud Print and the proxy service for your printer plans to be bundled with Chrome OS. I've not heard whether it's opt-in, opt-out, mandatory or if -- shock of all shocks -- they figure out a way to make it work like Google Gears.
That’s some advanced technoshit when I have to contact a server in California if I want to print a bbq recipe from a printer that is 2 feet away from me.
Google Cloud Print aims to make printing from any online device to any printer available. Apart from what you so eloquently claim, they did not set bricking your printer as a goal. Nor did they express a desire to inhibit your ability to print on your printer from your local machine directly. If Google Cloud Print is not opt-in on Chrome OS, I will be just as critical as you but there's no indication one way or the other yet.
Every consumer OS has a browser. Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors. Consumers will be confused when they are told that Chrome OS is just a browser. Just a browser?
And let the terrible analogies flow. Wrap your mind around this: what if the consumer just wants a netbook to surf the internet and do word processing? Like me and my netbook.
Why can’t I access local files? This netbook actually does less than my cell phone?
Is it that you can't access local files or that you can't discern between work that's being stored and cached locally versus being out on the cloud? One may claim that this simplifies the user experience. Who cares where it is? I can access it.
A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.
You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?
The $300-$400 price point
Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?
Android
While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.
Jerkface Playhouse indeed.
You're being a bit disingenuous:
'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists
Chavez rockets to No. 1 on Twitter in Venezuela
'Happy ending' gives recyclable products higher status
Sweden pushes condom use as study hints risky sex common
All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
Sorry that was a typo on my part, it should have read:
3314 Saddam Husseins Arrested by CmdrTaco
Yep, three thousand fourteen Saddam Husseins arrested by CmdrTaco, each more Saddam Hussein than the last. I think the real question here today is why CmdrTaco wasn't retitled CmdrInChiefTaco?
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
Facing this disturbing visage, you'd surrender too.
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
And yet, look at the most active stories:
Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."
As others have pointed out, you can disable politics by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad.
Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.
CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.
I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.
Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.
Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.
Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me page for some clues.
Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity.
'information becomes a distraction'
I think it's more accurately stated that 'information can be a distraction' but, you know, it can also be a very useful tool both in learning and communicating. Everyone can have a Facebook account and everyone can read blogs but the programmer that spends much of his time reading reading blogs about programming and uses Facebook only to keep up with his friends periodically is going to outpace the programmer that spends 90% of his time on Facebook and 5% of his time reading movie reviews on blogs.
So, by and large, it comes down to -- surprise surprise -- responsible time management. Yes, too much information via the internet and mobile devices is a double edged sword. I cannot keep up with the papers on arxiv but if I learn to manage my time and quickly recognize which papers are worth my time then it is very valuable to an academic. Or I could spend my time playing Farmville. Both occupy my time and can be distractions.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views.
I don't think so. He actually encourages reading both sides:
This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.
For once the Slashdot summary seemed to be even more politically charged and biased than the actual politician. The correct message is to manage your time well and exercise caution. Sound advice actually.
And I laugh at how you are supposed to see the advantages of 4-color technology in ads on your 3-color sets at home as you watch their commercials.
Well, I'm not sure if you're correct to laugh at this or not. But all televisions are approximations of something analogue that was captured and in that capturing process, some information was lost. To illustrate, entertain a scenario where I have N standard definition television sets that are displaying footage from standard definition video cameras. I daisy chain them together (each camera directed at the last screen) to record something. As I move from the 0th screen to the Nth screen, I will begin to see degradation as more information is lost and randomness comes into play. The same can be done with HD but since HD captures more information, it can safely be assumed that the sampling and resampling will retain more of the original image.
If you played the Nth HD screen next to the Nth SD screen and piped that through an SD television, you'd still be able to see some difference (for reasonable non-astronomical numbers of N) even though you went through yet another SD television in the end.
I don't know what the fourth color is supposed to buy, I'm unfamiliar with this technology. But the side by side comparison through an SD or HD TV might still be able to demonstrate that the fourth color adds some meaningful information to the image that -- when resampled to be viewed on your device -- suffers less information loss than the three color implementation. Thus successfully demonstrating some superiority. Not showing you precisely what the final product is supposed to be like but instead give you relativity in signal loss and noise.
I also know how just making a picture brighter and saturating the colors a bit can make it more appealing to many viewers over a more accurate rendition
Well, I know that there is a huge photography following that is totally enamored with HDR photography and to many people it makes the images come to life ... I think it's overdone (like autotuning in modern music) but it definitely has a place. Perhaps similarly four color displays hope to widen the dynamic range they can display? I wish I could give you better answers about four color displays but this is the first I've heard of them. Perhaps your questions to a large engineer base are the most effective kind of marketing?
The Desktop Security Battle May Be Lost
No, you must have hope! We just need to hold them off a little longer until Gandalf the White Hat shows up on Shadowfax Machine.
This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can)
Well, I read a lot of those comments and while they were for the most part overly negative toward you, I think they had some good advice.
A number of them let you know that if you want to champion this message that Wikipedia hosts child porn then you should probably drop the "and also I run a clean competing product called Citizendia." I'm not accusing you of this but on the surface it may seem that you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion in some sort of free-cyclopedia-war. I think the Slashdot comments sent you a very valuable message to keep both of these messages separate to avoid that possibility.
Another thing that comments focused on was your Libertarianism conflicting with your moralism. The comments explored possibilities in which "child porn" becomes used inadvertently without an actual production or desire for it to be used as such. What about when someone draws or makes computer simulations of said things? If it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, shouldn't a Libertarian allow that? It seems your morals and ethics do come into conflict with a pure Libertarian stance. Slashdot has a large Libertarian readership so you should be prepared for this.
I was in a museum in New York City and saw an exhibit of with pictures of mentally challenged children playing outside in the grass, mostly undressed. Everyone else there was treating it as "art." I'd like to Google and find the artist for you but I'm not interested in that being saved in my Google searches. Which reveals to you that I'm not a big fan of what you speak of either (if it's any consolation) but I think the images on Wikimedia are community regulated and you're going to find an argument somewhere no matter what stance you take. For instance, I will defend [WARNING! Nudity] this image as an image of war, a reminder of Vietnam, a historical photograph and I am prepared to argue with you that that image has some merit and should remain on Wikipedia. But if I understand your stance that image needs to be removed?
You shouldn't take these comments as "ripped to shreds." Slashdot likes to avoid the obvious discussion and no one's interested in "I agree." comments as they don't add much to the conversation. When your ideas are on Slashdot, you're being flayed open for anyone to take any amount of time to poke at your soft underbelly and do what they want with it. Expect the full spectrum of responses and it seems that no matter how much I disagree with a stance, if you can form it into cogent and at least semi-logical defenses then you should be modded up.
You're a valuable member of the Slashdot community. I don't think you should take the highly rated, negative comments to heart and I hope you continue to contribute to Slashdot like NewYorkCountryLawyer.
three more for my girlfriends place
Why must you turn the internet into a house of lies, Ralph?
The outcry is not that Apple is revoking a right but simply that they are deliberately crippling a product ... and for what reason?
They don't need a reason.
Then they don't need my business.