it may open options similar to what was in Minority Report
Part of the interface should already be possible. With the position-monitoring stuff that's in a Nintendo Wii controller, you could hook up a couple of gloves which you could use as pointing/scrolling/zooming/whatever devices. Maybe add some context buttons to the palm. Good God, that would be cool.
I hope that voice recognition makes it into UIs soon. Then I'll need some replicator technology.
If I can manage to be the first nerd to say, with the intended effect "Tea, earl grey, hot" I'll die happy.
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
There's nothing you can't do in a shell that a gui provides extra ability for, when you've been well trained or decided to -learn- how to use a text mode interface well.
How about if I want to grab my Zerglings and run them behind the battle to attack some pylons?
I'm pretty sure that there is somehing in the EULA that addresses such a thing. I'm not going to read it, mind you. I assume that in the EULAs that I have read, that since personally-identifiable and non-personally-identifiable information are treated differently, that you can sue for releasing non-personally-identifiable information if the EULA states that such information will not be released.
Even if you couldn't sue for such a thing, you could make a strong case that they released personally-identifiable information, seeing as at least two people have been, eh, personally identified.
The warnings about plain text refer to the fact that it would be relatively easy for a third party to snatch the information you type in. AOL wasn't a third party, so I'll bet that the whole thing is winnable.
In the meantime, this might be the next best thing to catch stupid criminals.
As it stands now, it appears to be a rather smart crime. I suppose you could rig it up so that it takes a picture of anybody who puts in a default password, but one might argue that your time might be better spent catching smart criminals.
No, the statement "There's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the bluegill" is absurd on its face because you can't have an unknown manmade sensor.:D
People are living longer than ever, it's been quite some time since kids have been expected to crawl around in chimneys for their supper, people are getting smarter, especially in abstract puzzle-solving, and crime has been going down since one year after Doom came out.
What are they complaining about? It's just a bunch of traditionalist, nostalgia-waxing blowhardery. And, as pointed out above, a rather recent tradition, at that.
"Then offer them a 200% payback. Outright. Instead of a patent creating a monopoly, let it be worth a 200% ROI for the patent holder if it gets used in products to a certain amount within the next five (or ten, or thirty) years. Paid by the patent office,"
I'm not sure this is a good way to encourage thrift. "Hey guys, whatever you spend, you'll make double. Now go out there and invent somethin! Save your receipts!"
Seriously, though, the red tape and government bungling that this would encourage would be dreadful, IMO.
So, a relatively inexpensive hobby that doesn't seem to get old? Something that's fun for a lifetime? Or a few years, at least. Sounds like some pesky "contentment" trying to make itself manifest. I'm sure somebody can give me a reason why playing WoW for 12 hours a day is a far less noble pursuit than, say, building model airplanes and reading classic literature for the same amount of time.
Personally, I won't touch the game, because I know I'll spend every waking moment on it. That doesn't mean it's wrong, though.
This tool should just give up the tape - what he's protecting is the right to do stupid shit and not get caught. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press or anything else.
He's not protecting their right to do stupid shit, he's protecting his own right to report news. Nobody is alleging that he himself damaged anything, only that he might have seen someone else do it.
It has *everything* to do with the freedom of the press. If news organizations are discouraged from reporting this kind of thing, the government becomes even less transparent than it already is.
What if some pro-police blogger had a video up of protesters getting the shit kicked out of them by police? What if the Rodney King beating had been posted online with the identities of the police officers edited out on a blog?
They still shouldn't have to give up the tapes if they don't want to. If someone records a video and will be required to release it (and they don't want to), then they either won't record the video, or edit it and put out the edited version anonymously, or destroy it when they're done. An edited video would be better than nothing, which is very well what the public would get if you give a good incentive not to tape things of an instigative nature.
What if this guy had received a tape of a 12 year old girl getting raped, edited out the rapist, and then posted it onto his blog. Would people still be so adamant that he deserves some sort of media shield?
That would be child pornography, which would be quite covered under different laws.
I think that people are applying the "common sense" test instead of really thinking through the implications of media shield laws, especially in a world where everyone can be the media. It is "common sense" that he would have to give up a video of a little girl getting raped, but not "common sense" that he has to give up a video of a police car being destroyed.
I respectfully suggest that you yourself aren't thinking through the implications as far as you could. It seems to me that if the government requires any sort of recording to be given to the court, for whatever reason, no one will be willing to take such recordings. If Mr. Wolf is indeed pressed hard enough to relinquish his video, then videos like it will only be posted anonymously, and with less frequency. What good does that do anyone? It would be the same, only journalists willing to take such video will be forced to do their work while worrying that someone would find their identity. They would be moved to the fringes of legitimacy, and we would be a little closer to state run, or at least state-approved journalism.
Should the media never be forced to give up evidence of a crime, even in extreme cases like rape and murder?
They should not. Anything that the media is forced to give up will cease in short order, which does no good for the public.
Protecting vandal's rights, if indeed there is vandalism in evidence, strikes me as a guy who is choosing the wrong battle to fight.
He's protecting activists' anonymity. Even if he were only protecting some punks who lit a car on fire (and I don't think he is), then he still shouldn't have to hand over his videos, or the next time he tries to go record video in a chaotic situation, those punks will light him on fire. No journalist, no matter how big or small, should be forced to be an agent of the police.
At the same time I think its wrong to cover up a crime because of one's beliefs. If you videotape a crime then you are obligated to report it.
If you are a journalist covering a riot, or any large social diturbance, you are going to see crimes. If you can be compelled to show criminals on the tape, then pretty soon no journalist will cover such things for fear of retribution from the rioters, who know that the guy taping them will have to hand his tape over to the feds. Not much longer, and there won't be any tapes of such things. If you took it to an extreme, we'd have a Tiananmen Square sort of deal, only for slightly different reasons.
Where are you getting your information? When some big medical company, MegaFeelgoodCorp or something, wants to create a new AIDS treatment, you're saying they go out to BFE and observe how the ancient Buntuchuku tribe handles people with AIDS? Those billions of dollars supposedly spent by the industry on clinical research groups, doctors, lab work, you know medical-type shit goes somewhere.
Is it all just a farce, then? Or perhaps they've just been going about it the wrong way, and we should handle diseases the same way we did when people had the lifespan of a fruitfly in a blender? It wasn't all that long ago.
The patent system doesn't exist to make people rich for sitting around and thinking. That is a means to an end: That John Q. Public will have more useful technology available to him when the patent runs out. It exists only to encourage innovation. As it sits right now, the patent system is buried in bureaucracy, but it still stimulates more innovation than if there were nothing, which leads to better, cheaper products and medicines to the public.
Patents do work, especially in the medical area. Pharmaceuticals would be prohibitive to develop (without direct state involvement) without patent protection.
I think this is a fantastic idea! GNU should fork FreeBSD into GNU-BSD! Then they wouldn't have to worry about what Linus thinks. If the rest of the kernel developers are any indication, Linus would probably be one of the very few who would be upset by it, and one of the best operating systems would be protected from commercial hijacking.
*Guiness guys* Brilliant!
I know that's not what you had in mind, but I'm inspired now.
I don't think anything would happen, really. The pieces that are in the Linux kernel would still be licensed under the GPLv2. They have the option of giving the code away under v3, but that doesn't change the exact copy that is already in use in the kernel.
You can make the argument that Linus created the single most important piece of the whole, I suppose. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, the kernel is still a small thing compared to everything the GNU project did. Linus is brilliant, of course, but somehow I think that things might be going a bit smoother now if maybe the GNU kernel project hadn't been such a clusterfuck.
I totally agree with you. Now, if you or anybody else is reading this bit of thread, answer me this: Why are the "$100 laptops" not going to be available in the US? I assume that's the case for these little router dealies, too. I'd really like to buy one, even if I have to pay a bit more than somebody who needs a hand crank.
The BSD license, by itself, is indeed almost void of restrictions, which is the point of it. Huge bits of OSX are still under the BSD license, but they are also under the restrictions which Apple put on it. This use is allowed by the BDS license.
You can essentially fill your release with copyright notices and such in a way that makes it difficult for others to use without giving proper attribution to the original developers
You can force them to include a little text file that lists all the people who worked on the open-source bit?! Yawn. Don't get me wrong, developers should get the credit that they deserve, but it's a trivial matter to include the little license notice that the source came with. Apple had to do that anyway.
The GPL *can* be interpreted as saying 'OMGZ you used 120 lines of my code, give me the source to your 1 million lines of code project right now!'. Thats not fair is it, but then it's all in how you use the license with discretion.
The GPL *can* be interpreted to mean that you're required to use your laptop as a floatation device.
It's simple: if you don't want to make a GPL program, don't use GPL code. The intent of the GPL isn't to trick people into using open code, then laugh maniacally as it eats their project.
You can use licenses tactfully and interpret them differently
The legal definition is what matters, that's what the license is for. If you mean that you can have different *opinions* on licenses, then yeah.
...take the recent hot topic about derived distro's having to provide full source, instead of just patch sets for example. Some say thats just not practical or fair on people who can't support doing so and pisses on the little guy.
Some people say that, but it's really easy to make the code available. The distros have the code, by necessity. They can just burn the code laying around on their hard drives onto a DVD, mail it to you, and charge $5 for their time. Keep an.iso around for the next guy. Some can say that's not practical, but it's very little work next to compiling it all. The GPL doesn't require one to put the code into a tidy directory structure or anything, just lump it all into one directory, if you want, and send it out.
People should stand on the shoulders of giants. But they should not stand on the shoulders of giants, and then deny anyone else to stand on their own. I believe that closed-source operating systems are bad for the public. They create lock-in, millions of inventions of the wheel, compatibility problems, and undue expense to the end user. Therefore, I object to an operating system under a license which allows it to be used as a springboard for a closed-source system which will just make OSS systems less relevant.
Good God, I hope not. It irks me to no end that the BSD license doesn't require users of its source to play nice the way the original coders did. It's a damn stable platform to build from, and I think it's stupid of MS (though I'm grateful) that they don't just cherrypick BSD and Wine, and make the next Windows. Sorta how Apple did it. Those bastards.
Solar cells are really bitchin', but it takes a very long time to make your money back or save money on electricity equal to the initial cost of the units, which is rather prohibitive for most people. Small applications, like these little repeater/router stations is on an entirely different scale than powering one's home. If this weren't so, the simple economics of it would probably see cells installed on all new homes.
Not the best link, but the best one I could find in two minutes:
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=16736&ch=biztech
Slashdot Mirror
...so I'd just like to say that whatupbitches.com would be great, if they'd drop their Godawful logo and name. It's like myspace, only uncensored.
it may open options similar to what was in Minority Report
Part of the interface should already be possible. With the position-monitoring stuff that's in a Nintendo Wii controller, you could hook up a couple of gloves which you could use as pointing/scrolling/zooming/whatever devices. Maybe add some context buttons to the palm. Good God, that would be cool.
I hope that voice recognition makes it into UIs soon. Then I'll need some replicator technology.
If I can manage to be the first nerd to say, with the intended effect "Tea, earl grey, hot" I'll die happy.
There's nothing you can't do in a shell that a gui provides extra ability for, when you've been well trained or decided to -learn- how to use a text mode interface well.
How about if I want to grab my Zerglings and run them behind the battle to attack some pylons?
I'm pretty sure that there is somehing in the EULA that addresses such a thing. I'm not going to read it, mind you. I assume that in the EULAs that I have read, that since personally-identifiable and non-personally-identifiable information are treated differently, that you can sue for releasing non-personally-identifiable information if the EULA states that such information will not be released.
Even if you couldn't sue for such a thing, you could make a strong case that they released personally-identifiable information, seeing as at least two people have been, eh, personally identified.
The warnings about plain text refer to the fact that it would be relatively easy for a third party to snatch the information you type in. AOL wasn't a third party, so I'll bet that the whole thing is winnable.
From TFA:
That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain.
That's some high-tech shit, if it can get around without a drivetrain. Like a shuttlecraft or something.
In the meantime, this might be the next best thing to catch stupid criminals.
As it stands now, it appears to be a rather smart crime. I suppose you could rig it up so that it takes a picture of anybody who puts in a default password, but one might argue that your time might be better spent catching smart criminals.
No, the statement "There's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the bluegill" is absurd on its face because you can't have an unknown manmade sensor. :D
People are living longer than ever, it's been quite some time since kids have been expected to crawl around in chimneys for their supper, people are getting smarter, especially in abstract puzzle-solving, and crime has been going down since one year after Doom came out.
What are they complaining about? It's just a bunch of traditionalist, nostalgia-waxing blowhardery. And, as pointed out above, a rather recent tradition, at that.
"Then offer them a 200% payback. Outright. Instead of a patent creating a monopoly, let it be worth a 200% ROI for the patent holder if it gets used in products to a certain amount within the next five (or ten, or thirty) years. Paid by the patent office,"
I'm not sure this is a good way to encourage thrift. "Hey guys, whatever you spend, you'll make double. Now go out there and invent somethin! Save your receipts!"
Seriously, though, the red tape and government bungling that this would encourage would be dreadful, IMO.
Personally, I won't touch the game, because I know I'll spend every waking moment on it. That doesn't mean it's wrong, though.
From what I hear, Bluetooth doesn't have quite the bandwidth to get decent-sounding music. I'd try for a link for ya, but I'm lazy.
He's not protecting their right to do stupid shit, he's protecting his own right to report news. Nobody is alleging that he himself damaged anything, only that he might have seen someone else do it.
It has *everything* to do with the freedom of the press. If news organizations are discouraged from reporting this kind of thing, the government becomes even less transparent than it already is.
They still shouldn't have to give up the tapes if they don't want to. If someone records a video and will be required to release it (and they don't want to), then they either won't record the video, or edit it and put out the edited version anonymously, or destroy it when they're done. An edited video would be better than nothing, which is very well what the public would get if you give a good incentive not to tape things of an instigative nature.
What if this guy had received a tape of a 12 year old girl getting raped, edited out the rapist, and then posted it onto his blog. Would people still be so adamant that he deserves some sort of media shield?
That would be child pornography, which would be quite covered under different laws.
I think that people are applying the "common sense" test instead of really thinking through the implications of media shield laws, especially in a world where everyone can be the media. It is "common sense" that he would have to give up a video of a little girl getting raped, but not "common sense" that he has to give up a video of a police car being destroyed.
I respectfully suggest that you yourself aren't thinking through the implications as far as you could. It seems to me that if the government requires any sort of recording to be given to the court, for whatever reason, no one will be willing to take such recordings. If Mr. Wolf is indeed pressed hard enough to relinquish his video, then videos like it will only be posted anonymously, and with less frequency. What good does that do anyone? It would be the same, only journalists willing to take such video will be forced to do their work while worrying that someone would find their identity. They would be moved to the fringes of legitimacy, and we would be a little closer to state run, or at least state-approved journalism.
Should the media never be forced to give up evidence of a crime, even in extreme cases like rape and murder?
They should not. Anything that the media is forced to give up will cease in short order, which does no good for the public.
He's protecting activists' anonymity. Even if he were only protecting some punks who lit a car on fire (and I don't think he is), then he still shouldn't have to hand over his videos, or the next time he tries to go record video in a chaotic situation, those punks will light him on fire. No journalist, no matter how big or small, should be forced to be an agent of the police.
If you are a journalist covering a riot, or any large social diturbance, you are going to see crimes. If you can be compelled to show criminals on the tape, then pretty soon no journalist will cover such things for fear of retribution from the rioters, who know that the guy taping them will have to hand his tape over to the feds. Not much longer, and there won't be any tapes of such things. If you took it to an extreme, we'd have a Tiananmen Square sort of deal, only for slightly different reasons.
Is it all just a farce, then? Or perhaps they've just been going about it the wrong way, and we should handle diseases the same way we did when people had the lifespan of a fruitfly in a blender? It wasn't all that long ago.
Patents do work, especially in the medical area. Pharmaceuticals would be prohibitive to develop (without direct state involvement) without patent protection.
*Guiness guys* Brilliant! I know that's not what you had in mind, but I'm inspired now.
I don't think anything would happen, really. The pieces that are in the Linux kernel would still be licensed under the GPLv2. They have the option of giving the code away under v3, but that doesn't change the exact copy that is already in use in the kernel.
You can make the argument that Linus created the single most important piece of the whole, I suppose. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, the kernel is still a small thing compared to everything the GNU project did. Linus is brilliant, of course, but somehow I think that things might be going a bit smoother now if maybe the GNU kernel project hadn't been such a clusterfuck.
I totally agree with you. Now, if you or anybody else is reading this bit of thread, answer me this:
Why are the "$100 laptops" not going to be available in the US? I assume that's the case for these little router dealies, too. I'd really like to buy one, even if I have to pay a bit more than somebody who needs a hand crank.
You can essentially fill your release with copyright notices and such in a way that makes it difficult for others to use without giving proper attribution to the original developers
You can force them to include a little text file that lists all the people who worked on the open-source bit?! Yawn. Don't get me wrong, developers should get the credit that they deserve, but it's a trivial matter to include the little license notice that the source came with. Apple had to do that anyway.
The GPL *can* be interpreted as saying 'OMGZ you used 120 lines of my code, give me the source to your 1 million lines of code project right now!'. Thats not fair is it, but then it's all in how you use the license with discretion.
The GPL *can* be interpreted to mean that you're required to use your laptop as a floatation device.
It's simple: if you don't want to make a GPL program, don't use GPL code. The intent of the GPL isn't to trick people into using open code, then laugh maniacally as it eats their project.
You can use licenses tactfully and interpret them differently
The legal definition is what matters, that's what the license is for. If you mean that you can have different *opinions* on licenses, then yeah.
Some people say that, but it's really easy to make the code available. The distros have the code, by necessity. They can just burn the code laying around on their hard drives onto a DVD, mail it to you, and charge $5 for their time. Keep an .iso around for the next guy. Some can say that's not practical, but it's very little work next to compiling it all. The GPL doesn't require one to put the code into a tidy directory structure or anything, just lump it all into one directory, if you want, and send it out.
People should stand on the shoulders of giants. But they should not stand on the shoulders of giants, and then deny anyone else to stand on their own. I believe that closed-source operating systems are bad for the public. They create lock-in, millions of inventions of the wheel, compatibility problems, and undue expense to the end user. Therefore, I object to an operating system under a license which allows it to be used as a springboard for a closed-source system which will just make OSS systems less relevant.
Good God, I hope not. It irks me to no end that the BSD license doesn't require users of its source to play nice the way the original coders did. It's a damn stable platform to build from, and I think it's stupid of MS (though I'm grateful) that they don't just cherrypick BSD and Wine, and make the next Windows. Sorta how Apple did it. Those bastards.
Solar cells are really bitchin', but it takes a very long time to make your money back or save money on electricity equal to the initial cost of the units, which is rather prohibitive for most people. Small applications, like these little repeater/router stations is on an entirely different scale than powering one's home. If this weren't so, the simple economics of it would probably see cells installed on all new homes. Not the best link, but the best one I could find in two minutes: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=16736&ch=biztech