Unfortunately, it was the contracting company I worked for that insisted on playing politics rather than getting the job done.
How do you think that company got the contract to begin with? Military contracts can be very lucrative, and I think some companies would screw their mother with a diseased horse to get one.
FTA "Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
Really? 70% is exactly correct? It's not something like 70.4?
I think you will find that the folks on/. oppose laws that prevent other companies from laying copper in your city, and many would probably oppose many of the restrictions on the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The firework manufacturer can't go after you for using the fireworks you buy contrary to the instructions. The State makes laws regarding the use of fireworks to prevent physical injury or death to innocent bystanders and damage to other people's property.
Have you taken a stroll through the CD store and seen the mainstream music?
I have not bothered to even peak at what's main stream since I discovered heavy metal in my mid-teens. Composition wise, a lot of heavy metal songs have more talent and skill than most main stream artists have in their entire collection.
your citizens are virtually defenseless against criminals wielding "weapons" that you'll never be able to take away unless you ban the consumption of meat.
Defending your home just got a lot more up close and personal. I for one kinda like it!
Read the comment again "...with the only disadvantage being that you have to manually search for it." Like it's really that difficult to look up a product on Amazon. Recognition of a person in front of you is pointless here because the implementation does not allow for any practical means of displaying the information (hoping that someone has a white shirt and is in a dimly lit room and won't be pissed off about all you staring at all kinds of information being projected on them is not practical), not to mention that facial recognition is not near where it would need to be for this to even make sense. As far as I know, you still need prior training data for facial recognition to work. That one is just vapor ware thrown out there to try and excite you. I am generally unimpressed due to the fact that there's nothing really new here except for the use of a projector to display the information. Bar codes and RFID tags have existed for a while now, and attempts have been made to make similar information available in this fashion. I'm not saying that this is an uninteresting idea, but I am generally unimpressed with the implementation. If they come up with a practical use that just isn't reasonably available today, then I'll get excited. However, I spent enough of my career in academia to know how this will probably go down. At least in this case they actually have a working demo, rather than a bunch of government grant paid artist renditions.
Really? Because I see news references saying that the company was the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). If you go to their website, you can see that their full title is Peanut Corporation of America, Inc., indicating that they are a corporation, not a sole proprietorship. It doesn't really matter if a corporation is owned by one, two, or 10,000 people. The corporate culture and the legal protections that come with it still hold. You would have to be a fool to start a business and not incorporate.
What's the difference? All this thing does is look up information on something presented to it. The iPhone can be used to look up the same information, with the only disadvantage being that you have to manually search for it. For the examples presented in the video, manual searching is trivial. The display technique is gimmicky with no advantage beyond the fact that it's hands free.
They built it with "off the shelf" parts for $350.
Now add in manufacturing labor and maintenance, R&D costs, quality control, profit and marketing. A lot more than component cost goes into making a device. I would estimate with bulk orders, you could get the component cost down to $275-$300. That's not bad. Now you'll need to double it or probably more. Pretty soon it costs as much as a laptop and the iPhone becomes cheaper.
I did. Looks like a specialized PDA with internet access. We were supposed to have hand held devices that would do similar things with RFID tags by now. If that can't make it to the market, this stands no chance. I predict that the technology is far too expensive for a consumer device.
Most people would consider a $100,000 damages claim for making available a single song to be wrong. Most people would accept a $50 damages claim for sending a single song to 50 different people. You can't go to civil court and demand $100,000 for someone failing to pay a $700 rent for a couple months. You can only demand what you are owed. "Pain and suffering" claims are usually hard to get through.
This isn't a "sense" at all. A "sense" implies something that provides continual information about your immediate environment. This is just another human interface to a computer. Nothing to see here.
It's not an issue of what you do and don't deserve. We can argue about the ethics of TPB's business model all day and there's certainly fair argument for it being unethical. However, unethical != illegal. That's the problem here. If you want to shut people off the Internet for copyright violation, that's fine, but you had better damn well prove in a court of law that the defendant indeed violated copyright. Actually, since the punishment is no longer just monetary, you had better damn well prove in a criminal court (where the burden of proof is much more stringent) that the defendant violated copyright. The thing that has been pissing people off more than anything is abuse of the system. Using questionable evidence, flawed arguments, and outrageous damage claims is what has set most people against the recording industry. If you can prove that I shot off a Metallica mp3 to 50 people and you want somewhere between $50 to $100 in damages, that's reasonable. Demanding $100,000 with no evidence of distribution is an absurd violation of due process.
Strongly encouraging does not equate to legislating. I highly doubt that the Oklahoma State government would hold back funding from the university next year if they went ignored.
I used to think this until I started to realize the difficulty of writing plain language that was not ridiculously easy to technically interpret in a way that I completely did not intend. Thus I now try to avoid plain language when writing a contract. What's even scarier is that our laws are still often easy to bend in ways that were not intended. Plain language would probably make it a lot worse.
Laws are fairly easy to understand when you read them through. The problem is that they are the driest most boring pieces of literature ever written.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it was the contracting company I worked for that insisted on playing politics rather than getting the job done.
How do you think that company got the contract to begin with? Military contracts can be very lucrative, and I think some companies would screw their mother with a diseased horse to get one.
FTA "Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%." Really? 70% is exactly correct? It's not something like 70.4?
I'm fairly certain that I've heard about this several times before.
I think you will find that the folks on /. oppose laws that prevent other companies from laying copper in your city, and many would probably oppose many of the restrictions on the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Is this a sign that /. is becoming "fair and balanced"?
All lies. Data contained in books deteriorates over time. As proof, how many books do we have from the 1st century AD?
The firework manufacturer can't go after you for using the fireworks you buy contrary to the instructions. The State makes laws regarding the use of fireworks to prevent physical injury or death to innocent bystanders and damage to other people's property.
It's like the old phone booth trick.
Have you taken a stroll through the CD store and seen the mainstream music?
I have not bothered to even peak at what's main stream since I discovered heavy metal in my mid-teens. Composition wise, a lot of heavy metal songs have more talent and skill than most main stream artists have in their entire collection.
You don't have breaking and entering in the UK? Fascinating.
your citizens are virtually defenseless against criminals wielding "weapons" that you'll never be able to take away unless you ban the consumption of meat.
Defending your home just got a lot more up close and personal. I for one kinda like it!
Read the comment again "...with the only disadvantage being that you have to manually search for it." Like it's really that difficult to look up a product on Amazon. Recognition of a person in front of you is pointless here because the implementation does not allow for any practical means of displaying the information (hoping that someone has a white shirt and is in a dimly lit room and won't be pissed off about all you staring at all kinds of information being projected on them is not practical), not to mention that facial recognition is not near where it would need to be for this to even make sense. As far as I know, you still need prior training data for facial recognition to work. That one is just vapor ware thrown out there to try and excite you. I am generally unimpressed due to the fact that there's nothing really new here except for the use of a projector to display the information. Bar codes and RFID tags have existed for a while now, and attempts have been made to make similar information available in this fashion. I'm not saying that this is an uninteresting idea, but I am generally unimpressed with the implementation. If they come up with a practical use that just isn't reasonably available today, then I'll get excited. However, I spent enough of my career in academia to know how this will probably go down. At least in this case they actually have a working demo, rather than a bunch of government grant paid artist renditions.
Really? Because I see news references saying that the company was the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). If you go to their website, you can see that their full title is Peanut Corporation of America, Inc., indicating that they are a corporation, not a sole proprietorship. It doesn't really matter if a corporation is owned by one, two, or 10,000 people. The corporate culture and the legal protections that come with it still hold. You would have to be a fool to start a business and not incorporate.
Really? I know a lot of former hippies that turned out just fine. Go to a folk festival some time. You'll see plenty of hippies who are quite happy.
It's also good exercise! I thought they were worried about kids not getting enough exercise.
What's the difference? All this thing does is look up information on something presented to it. The iPhone can be used to look up the same information, with the only disadvantage being that you have to manually search for it. For the examples presented in the video, manual searching is trivial. The display technique is gimmicky with no advantage beyond the fact that it's hands free.
They built it with "off the shelf" parts for $350.
Now add in manufacturing labor and maintenance, R&D costs, quality control, profit and marketing. A lot more than component cost goes into making a device. I would estimate with bulk orders, you could get the component cost down to $275-$300. That's not bad. Now you'll need to double it or probably more. Pretty soon it costs as much as a laptop and the iPhone becomes cheaper.
6. pain
7. balance
8. acceleration
9. proprioception
10. temperature
Just to get you started...
I did. Looks like a specialized PDA with internet access. We were supposed to have hand held devices that would do similar things with RFID tags by now. If that can't make it to the market, this stands no chance. I predict that the technology is far too expensive for a consumer device.
Most people would consider a $100,000 damages claim for making available a single song to be wrong. Most people would accept a $50 damages claim for sending a single song to 50 different people. You can't go to civil court and demand $100,000 for someone failing to pay a $700 rent for a couple months. You can only demand what you are owed. "Pain and suffering" claims are usually hard to get through.
This isn't a "sense" at all. A "sense" implies something that provides continual information about your immediate environment. This is just another human interface to a computer. Nothing to see here.
It's not an issue of what you do and don't deserve. We can argue about the ethics of TPB's business model all day and there's certainly fair argument for it being unethical. However, unethical != illegal. That's the problem here. If you want to shut people off the Internet for copyright violation, that's fine, but you had better damn well prove in a court of law that the defendant indeed violated copyright. Actually, since the punishment is no longer just monetary, you had better damn well prove in a criminal court (where the burden of proof is much more stringent) that the defendant violated copyright. The thing that has been pissing people off more than anything is abuse of the system. Using questionable evidence, flawed arguments, and outrageous damage claims is what has set most people against the recording industry. If you can prove that I shot off a Metallica mp3 to 50 people and you want somewhere between $50 to $100 in damages, that's reasonable. Demanding $100,000 with no evidence of distribution is an absurd violation of due process.
In my experience, people who touch the girls are usually man-handled by the bouncer and thrown out on their asses.
Strongly encouraging does not equate to legislating. I highly doubt that the Oklahoma State government would hold back funding from the university next year if they went ignored.
I used to think this until I started to realize the difficulty of writing plain language that was not ridiculously easy to technically interpret in a way that I completely did not intend. Thus I now try to avoid plain language when writing a contract. What's even scarier is that our laws are still often easy to bend in ways that were not intended. Plain language would probably make it a lot worse.
Laws are fairly easy to understand when you read them through. The problem is that they are the driest most boring pieces of literature ever written.