Actually, it could be a lot nicer and less obtrusive than trackpad calibration.
If the technology just operates in passive mode for a while, it will know from time to time where the user's probably gazing, just from GUI operational data. Dialog boxes with Yes/No buttons draw the eye, and when the user is mousing at them, it's a fair bet that the user is also looking at them. This gives the software an "expected" range of coordinates where a user might be looking, webcam data notwithstanding.
An adaptive eye-tracking system should learn from its lazy-eyed user, that the left eye's gaze is localized with 70% more reliability than the right, or whatever. Likewise, it should be able to figure out, over time, what "reading through bifocals" looks like. It should only offer tracking-dependent services when it's started measuring a sufficiently high correspondence between eye-tracking results and the "expected" results.
I was under the impression that SSD's remain readable forever even after they become unwritable.
If I'm wrong about this then I stand corrected, but if I'm right then that is a highly desirable trait when you're worried about preserving data integrity across a hardware replacement.
And and AND, Disney has made significantefforts elsewhere to stomp out unauthorized derivative work, and at considerable expense to them. If some unlicensed merchandise is flying under their radar, I can only conjecture that it's because either a) that merchandise exists below the economic scale/scope threshold of what it's cost-effective to hire lawyers to hunt down, or b) Disney, like Microsoft, has figured out that strategic, selective non-enforcement of their intellectual property can actually serve their interests, sometimes creating new markets for their products which wouldn't otherwise have existed.
I'm gonna have to disagree respectfully. If Congress has taken to making laws that violate the intent of the constitution, I think it's the Supreme Court's job to strike these laws down - or at least, to force Congress to put up or shut up. If Congress's aim is to change the constitution, then the Supreme Court, to me, has a clear duty to force them to do it via a constitutional amendment, rather than getting away with mere statutory law.
I'm not saying this guy's injury is a sham or that anyone put him up to cutting his thumb off.
But Assuming they thought of it first, just how much money would the Saw Stop patent's owner pay to make this lawsuit happen, assuming absolute rationality?
Because what a licensing windfall this ruling is to them.
This has degenerated into pure speculation and nothing more.
Perhaps without copyright we'd see a vibrant world of amateur the likes of which we simply can't imagine after having seen a lifetime's worth of TV. Perhaps without copyright there would be no rock stars, and then subsequently there would be no teenagers buying guitars anymore, and art would just kind of die as we focused on other, more objectively productive things.
Maybe that would be a tragedy. Or maybe it would enable us to abolish scarcity and get Africa's quality of living up to snuff faster.
This is true, and a Supreme Court should find this persuasive, but it already happened in Eldred v. Ashcroft, and the court found (or rather, decreed) that retroactively extending copyrights indefinitely was constitutional.
Because the system of judicial precedent sort of sucks, that's going to be a lot harder to overturn now.
That is a good point. From the perspective of an educator trying desperately to keep the students away from Facebook for an hour and a half at a time, the general-purpose flexibility of this device is a bug, not a feature.
Slashdot Mirror
That happened to my sister. Apparently she's getting way more dates now. Even with the open-source beard.
Let's all pile onto this pointless thread and chime in about how pointless it is, so that it will take longer to scroll past.
'Round here, we call that the Manhandle.
Psst. Hey.
You forgot to finish your reply.
My company is called "Web n+1" and it will thrive for a thousand years.
Actually, it could be a lot nicer and less obtrusive than trackpad calibration.
If the technology just operates in passive mode for a while, it will know from time to time where the user's probably gazing, just from GUI operational data. Dialog boxes with Yes/No buttons draw the eye, and when the user is mousing at them, it's a fair bet that the user is also looking at them. This gives the software an "expected" range of coordinates where a user might be looking, webcam data notwithstanding.
An adaptive eye-tracking system should learn from its lazy-eyed user, that the left eye's gaze is localized with 70% more reliability than the right, or whatever. Likewise, it should be able to figure out, over time, what "reading through bifocals" looks like. It should only offer tracking-dependent services when it's started measuring a sufficiently high correspondence between eye-tracking results and the "expected" results.
Webcams aimed at Slashdot users?
Who would like that, exactly, and why?
I was under the impression that SSD's remain readable forever even after they become unwritable.
If I'm wrong about this then I stand corrected, but if I'm right then that is a highly desirable trait when you're worried about preserving data integrity across a hardware replacement.
In the same sense that the Ford Pinto is good at demolitions, sure.
They sell botnet access at pawn shops? Wowee!
At least we know how to properly capitalize and terminate sentences while using the correct diversity-sensitive language, Palin-American.
Yeah, if you really want to compare apples to apples, measure MTBF.
Oh, and let's not forget the SSD's far superior ability to decay gracefully.
actually "born" and "bred" come kinda hand in hand. You might have been thinking of "made"?
They'll have to install it as a superuser, or else the rootkit will have to exploit a local privilege escalation on the workstation.
Thoughtful selection of your OS/platform can mitigate this risk. (for instance, what if *all* user activities were done in a virtualbox?)
And and AND, Disney has made significant efforts elsewhere to stomp out unauthorized derivative work, and at considerable expense to them. If some unlicensed merchandise is flying under their radar, I can only conjecture that it's because either a) that merchandise exists below the economic scale/scope threshold of what it's cost-effective to hire lawyers to hunt down, or b) Disney, like Microsoft, has figured out that strategic, selective non-enforcement of their intellectual property can actually serve their interests, sometimes creating new markets for their products which wouldn't otherwise have existed.
What are you even talking about?
And yeah, I bothered to read the Eldred transcript, and also most of prof. Lessig's books wherein he agonizes over it.
I'm gonna have to disagree respectfully. If Congress has taken to making laws that violate the intent of the constitution, I think it's the Supreme Court's job to strike these laws down - or at least, to force Congress to put up or shut up. If Congress's aim is to change the constitution, then the Supreme Court, to me, has a clear duty to force them to do it via a constitutional amendment, rather than getting away with mere statutory law.
Here's a question.
I'm not saying this guy's injury is a sham or that anyone put him up to cutting his thumb off.
But Assuming they thought of it first, just how much money would the Saw Stop patent's owner pay to make this lawsuit happen, assuming absolute rationality?
Because what a licensing windfall this ruling is to them.
This has degenerated into pure speculation and nothing more.
Perhaps without copyright we'd see a vibrant world of amateur the likes of which we simply can't imagine after having seen a lifetime's worth of TV.
Perhaps without copyright there would be no rock stars, and then subsequently there would be no teenagers buying guitars anymore, and art would just kind of die as we focused on other, more objectively productive things.
Maybe that would be a tragedy. Or maybe it would enable us to abolish scarcity and get Africa's quality of living up to snuff faster.
Who knows!
This is true, and a Supreme Court should find this persuasive, but it already happened in Eldred v. Ashcroft, and the court found (or rather, decreed) that retroactively extending copyrights indefinitely was constitutional.
Because the system of judicial precedent sort of sucks, that's going to be a lot harder to overturn now.
Google simply believes that it's above the law
I believe this about myself too, but I prefer to say that the law, in its current state, is beneath me..
I'm still waiting for the evil part.
Parent link is super nasty. Do not click.
More than that, they are endeavouring specifically against their online privacy.
Grandparent comment said "still haven't figured out the point, if there is one", and you have indirectly advanced it.
Facebook exists for the express purpose of escaping anonymity and privacy. That is just what personal publishing is.
That is a good point. From the perspective of an educator trying desperately to keep the students away from Facebook for an hour and a half at a time, the general-purpose flexibility of this device is a bug, not a feature.