How can it be a 'tangible 3D display" if you have to wear a special glove connected to a computer and a 2D monitor?
A DISPLAY is a device for VISUALLY interpreting something. A TANGIBLE DISPLAY is something that displays information that can be manipulated BY the hand directly, not manipulated by the hand THROUGH another data input system.
A real tangible display would be something that can display images or data 3-dimensionally, and would allow the displayed data or image to be directly manipulated or sensed as it is displayed. If you have to use a glove to sense the tactility of objects, then you are not using a 3D display, but are coupling a 2D display for visual information *AND* a tactile-feedback apparatus (in this case, a glove) for tactile sensations and feedback. A good example of a tangible 3D system would be something like the '3D Holographic Communicator' that is used in Star Wars, or the holographic Faberge Egg in Ocean's Twelve, except that you would be able to manipulate the displayed image directly with your hands, UNAIDED, as well as see it.
This is the same thing as playing music on a spectrogram, on your computer, while placing your hands on speakers, and then claiming to have invented something that lets you "see and feel sounds, rather than just hear them".
Another analogy would be to claim that you have x-ray vision, but need a fluoroscope to make use of it. "We invented a Tangible 3D Display, but you need to wear a special glove connected to a 2D display and a computer to use it.".
I wish scientists would stop giving names to things that they really aren't. It's getting *VERY* irritating, and they are losing credibility because of it.
With the dependency that people have on gadgets and gizmos, it is a wonder how humanity even managed to exist without it.
There is a gadget for everything a person could possibly need, except one to take a shit for them.
I don't have a cell phone, don't have in-dash navigation, GPS, digital camera, digital video camera, webcam, a PDA, a PSP/Nintendo DS, an IPod/MP3 player, portable DVD player, push-free vaccuum, hands-free telephone, etc., yet I can still function just as well as anybody else, if not better, seeing as how all of my friends that have these things complain like the dickens because hey are incapable of any kind of physical labor.
A million years ago, humans were amazed by fire. Today, vaccuum cleaners that push themselves and watching TV on a cellphone that is a PDA/video/still camera are passe and nothing new.
The only really digital things that I have are my computer and my clock........oh wait a minute.....
People with shady dealings will always get antsy, defensive, and protective whenever someone who is smart and clever enough to ignore their squeaky clean image comes along and decides to lift up the rug to see what has been swept under there.
The RIAA is acting just like the teenager who has just been pulled over for speeding: Antsy, clumsy, nervous, and definitely not wanting to get in trouble.
The RIAA has just pretty much up and told everybody what we all suspected was going on: Collusion and possible racketeering deals, and most certainly deals that will absolutely destroy any remnants of positive P.R. (if there was any) that they had left. The record labels, having been caught with their pants down, will have their reputations completely destroyed.
If your actions are already under scrutiny, the last thing that you want to do is openly try to hide and cover up your dealings.
True true... The are exceptions to every rule. However, it's when companies become large firms that they start to highball and inflate bids, most likely because they need the money that they can skim off of the contracts as a means of compensating the company for monies lost due to poor management.
Since you are a consultant as well, I would say it is safe to assume that you have seen more than your fair share of "Consultant Horror Stories.", but also have greater inside knowledge of contractors who play by the rules and contractors who are crooked.
As far as you being a consultant, stay true and don't get bitten by the Money Bug!
I was reading an earlier/. article that was about how the RIAA was trying to get suits that were dismissed by the court to be dismissed without prejudice. IANAL either, but the article said that if a suit is dismissed without prejudice, then the defense cannot recover legal fees (or something very close to that). I assume the to have a suit 'dismissed with prejudice' means that the judge is pretty much saying that the suit is a load of bull, and that you should be liable for costs incurred by the defendant.
I don't know where you are from, but here in Kalifornia, filing frivolous lawsuits has pretty much become an occupation/career/industry in and of itself. I remember hearing something when we started passing legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits that was along the lines of "If you file a lawsuit, and lose, then you are responsible for all of the costs incurred for the suit (court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, filings etc.). I'm most definitely sure that it isn't that simple, but I'm pretty sure that if it is clear that the suit you are filing is obviously frivolous or just a way of getting money out of the defendant, then your ass is pretty much an open target for countersuits, and possibly more.
Sometimes, I think that people who clearly abuse the system as a way of generating income, for whatever reason, should have their 'right' to sue taken away. It's like having a car: If you can't use it responsibly, it will be taken away from you.
Unfortunately, there are people who are so pathetic and lazy that they just call of an attorney and have them do all the work while they sit on the couch and listen to people tell them they are a victim of pretty much everything.
Harassing people with lawsuits ought to be a crime.....THAT IS SEVERELY PUNISHED, namely, total asset seizure.
I hope to God the lady suing the RIAA wins. If she doesn't, it could set a precedent that would further allow these clearly abusive practices.
If you are going to sue people, especially on the scale that the RIAA is doing, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to drop a suit whenever they feel that it looks as if they may lose a judgement. This just allows Plaintiffs to file hundreds of thousands of suits, and then drop suits if it looks as if the judgment isn't going to go their way, with nothing more than a "We changed our mind.", leaving the defendant high and dry.
If you file a suit, then you should stick with it. You shouldn't be able to file a suit and then drop it right before the judgment if it looks as if it won't be in your favor, so as to absolve you of the defendant's legal costs.
Think of it this way:
You aren't allowed to place a million-dollar bet in a poker game, and then withdraw at the last minute it when you see that you were dealt a pretty bad hand. Such as it should be with lawsuits: If you are going to sue someone, you better be sure of what you are doing, because you can't change your mind when the outlook turns unfavorable.
If you sue someone, and you are not expecting to win, then you should be every bit liable for the other person's legal fees, and jailed if it is clear that you dropped your suit because you didn't like the outlook.
"Take them out back, line 'em up against the wall, and shoot them. Then throw them and their fat-laden contracts into a giant boiler as fuel, and use the steam to turn turbine generators.", right?
(raises fist clutching an 1886 Winchester)
I'll be happy to donate my time and ammo to the cause, free of charge to the taxpayer.
Let's see how the math works out:
Either we can spend &.30 per bullet to put into bloated, shady, criminal contractors, or we can let the contractors spend $2500 for a hammer.
DISCLAIMER: If you are one of those wacko idiot nutjobs who actually thinks I'm serious, you should spend the bullet on yourself instead.
What does this have to do with immigration? The robots are replacing EVERY worker, not just migrant workers. There is no difference between replacing migrant worker, illegal workers, and legal workers.
Regardless of immigration status, the robots are replacing workers. Period. The robots don't decide who they want to replace, The farmers that grow the fruit just want to replace all of the workers so they can minimize costs (the whole point of robotics in the first place), and the companies that develop the robots could give a damn about the immigration status of the workers they are replacing because it has no influence on robotics in the first place.
What the heel is this article about? Is it about robots becoming more widespread in industry, or is it an "Immigration Politics/Policies" op-ed?
Robotics has nothing to do with immigration status, and immigration status has nothing to do with robotics.
"All of your information is kept under lock and key, and held under the highest levels of security. All information is encrypted and is guaranteed safe, secure, and secret."
Unfortunately, this all means ABSOLUTELY DICK in keeping Big Brother away. Nobody openly mentions that they will allow Big Brother UNFETTERED ACCESS to ANY information about you, and your "private" data will be at the beck and call of Him (I don't mean 'Him' as in 'God'; I mean 'Him' as in Big Brother, and the snoops, goons, and spooks that act as if they are God).
Since when did my Republican Party think Big Government was good?
Oh wait, I forgot: Big Government isn't a problem when you *ARE* the Government.
Cameras have replaced cops in speed enforcement. Time-Calculating toll booths have also replaced cops in speed enforcement. Cameras have replaced cops in Red Light enforcement. Cameras have replaced cops in toll enforcement. Cameras have replaced cops in street patrols. A soon to come: Cameras replacing cops in Cell Phone violations.
Is it me, or are law enforcement agencies trying to keep their paychecks while doing less work?
Law enforcement agencies say that using cameras reduced workloads on officers, giving them more time on 'other' things. So, if the officers have a reduced workload, then they should have reduced pay, since cameras, not officers, are doing the work of catching/citing traffic violators. Reducing pay for reducing work would allow more room in the budget for more cops, thereby allowing more officers to be available. That could be further augmented in stiffer penalties/fines.
If cops actually got off their asses and CITED violators (and believe me, they are DEFINITELY out there, especially here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia), they could generate MILLIONS of dollars in revenue, enough to hire more officers.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much if government employees actually got paid proportionally to the amount of work they did. I just don't see why I should pay a fine that goes into maintaining a staff of officers, if those officers have cameras do most of their work for them. I'd rather pay the camera, and defend myself.
Slashdot Mirror
This is NOT what they are calling it.
How can it be a 'tangible 3D display" if you have to wear a special glove connected to a computer and a 2D monitor?
A DISPLAY is a device for VISUALLY interpreting something. A TANGIBLE DISPLAY is something that displays information that can be manipulated BY the hand directly, not manipulated by the hand THROUGH another data input system.
A real tangible display would be something that can display images or data 3-dimensionally, and would allow the displayed data or image to be directly manipulated or sensed as it is displayed. If you have to use a glove to sense the tactility of objects, then you are not using a 3D display, but are coupling a 2D display for visual information *AND* a tactile-feedback apparatus (in this case, a glove) for tactile sensations and feedback. A good example of a tangible 3D system would be something like the '3D Holographic Communicator' that is used in Star Wars, or the holographic Faberge Egg in Ocean's Twelve, except that you would be able to manipulate the displayed image directly with your hands, UNAIDED, as well as see it.
This is the same thing as playing music on a spectrogram, on your computer, while placing your hands on speakers, and then claiming to have invented something that lets you "see and feel sounds, rather than just hear them".
Another analogy would be to claim that you have x-ray vision, but need a fluoroscope to make use of it. "We invented a Tangible 3D Display, but you need to wear a special glove connected to a 2D display and a computer to use it.".
I wish scientists would stop giving names to things that they really aren't. It's getting *VERY* irritating, and they are losing credibility because of it.
All your cart are belong to us!
As you did ask people to politely point out mistakes in your English:
:)
F*ck is correctly spelled 'fuck'.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Coming from Dell, I would have expected an "Advanced Cooling System" to just be a really big fan.
With the dependency that people have on gadgets and gizmos, it is a wonder how humanity even managed to exist without it.
.....oh wait a minute.....
There is a gadget for everything a person could possibly need, except one to take a shit for them.
I don't have a cell phone, don't have in-dash navigation, GPS, digital camera, digital video camera, webcam, a PDA, a PSP/Nintendo DS, an IPod/MP3 player, portable DVD player, push-free vaccuum, hands-free telephone, etc., yet I can still function just as well as anybody else, if not better, seeing as how all of my friends that have these things complain like the dickens because hey are incapable of any kind of physical labor.
A million years ago, humans were amazed by fire. Today, vaccuum cleaners that push themselves and watching TV on a cellphone that is a PDA/video/still camera are passe and nothing new.
The only really digital things that I have are my computer and my clock...
I think that we've all seen this before...
People with shady dealings will always get antsy, defensive, and protective whenever someone who is smart and clever enough to ignore their squeaky clean image comes along and decides to lift up the rug to see what has been swept under there.
The RIAA is acting just like the teenager who has just been pulled over for speeding: Antsy, clumsy, nervous, and definitely not wanting to get in trouble.
The RIAA has just pretty much up and told everybody what we all suspected was going on: Collusion and possible racketeering deals, and most certainly deals that will absolutely destroy any remnants of positive P.R. (if there was any) that they had left. The record labels, having been caught with their pants down, will have their reputations completely destroyed.
If your actions are already under scrutiny, the last thing that you want to do is openly try to hide and cover up your dealings.
Another case of Big Brother punishing victims instead of criminals.
It's supposed to be THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!
I wonder if this will appear in the next release of Norton AntiVirus.....
"WWIII Starts Over Ice; Bartenders Crushed"
So what is the story about? The United States' space arsenal, or the weapons tests conducted in outer space by China?
There kinda is a difference between the two.....
To Cruise says that because he is a retarded shill for Scientology idiots.
Maybe we can create a vaccine that cures people of Scientology?
I'll bet 'Tunguska' is Scientologist code-speak for "Xenu".
True true... The are exceptions to every rule. However, it's when companies become large firms that they start to highball and inflate bids, most likely because they need the money that they can skim off of the contracts as a means of compensating the company for monies lost due to poor management.
Since you are a consultant as well, I would say it is safe to assume that you have seen more than your fair share of "Consultant Horror Stories.", but also have greater inside knowledge of contractors who play by the rules and contractors who are crooked.
As far as you being a consultant, stay true and don't get bitten by the Money Bug!
I was reading an earlier /. article that was about how the RIAA was trying to get suits that were dismissed by the court to be dismissed without prejudice. IANAL either, but the article said that if a suit is dismissed without prejudice, then the defense cannot recover legal fees (or something very close to that). I assume the to have a suit 'dismissed with prejudice' means that the judge is pretty much saying that the suit is a load of bull, and that you should be liable for costs incurred by the defendant.
I don't know where you are from, but here in Kalifornia, filing frivolous lawsuits has pretty much become an occupation/career/industry in and of itself. I remember hearing something when we started passing legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits that was along the lines of "If you file a lawsuit, and lose, then you are responsible for all of the costs incurred for the suit (court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, filings etc.). I'm most definitely sure that it isn't that simple, but I'm pretty sure that if it is clear that the suit you are filing is obviously frivolous or just a way of getting money out of the defendant, then your ass is pretty much an open target for countersuits, and possibly more.
Sometimes, I think that people who clearly abuse the system as a way of generating income, for whatever reason, should have their 'right' to sue taken away. It's like having a car: If you can't use it responsibly, it will be taken away from you.
Unfortunately, there are people who are so pathetic and lazy that they just call of an attorney and have them do all the work while they sit on the couch and listen to people tell them they are a victim of pretty much everything.
Harassing people with lawsuits ought to be a crime.....THAT IS SEVERELY PUNISHED, namely, total asset seizure.
I hope to God the lady suing the RIAA wins. If she doesn't, it could set a precedent that would further allow these clearly abusive practices.
If you are going to sue people, especially on the scale that the RIAA is doing, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to drop a suit whenever they feel that it looks as if they may lose a judgement. This just allows Plaintiffs to file hundreds of thousands of suits, and then drop suits if it looks as if the judgment isn't going to go their way, with nothing more than a "We changed our mind.", leaving the defendant high and dry.
If you file a suit, then you should stick with it. You shouldn't be able to file a suit and then drop it right before the judgment if it looks as if it won't be in your favor, so as to absolve you of the defendant's legal costs.
Think of it this way:
You aren't allowed to place a million-dollar bet in a poker game, and then withdraw at the last minute it when you see that you were dealt a pretty bad hand. Such as it should be with lawsuits: If you are going to sue someone, you better be sure of what you are doing, because you can't change your mind when the outlook turns unfavorable.
If you sue someone, and you are not expecting to win, then you should be every bit liable for the other person's legal fees, and jailed if it is clear that you dropped your suit because you didn't like the outlook.
"Take them out back, line 'em up against the wall, and shoot them. Then throw them and their fat-laden contracts into a giant boiler as fuel, and use the steam to turn turbine generators.", right?
(raises fist clutching an 1886 Winchester)
I'll be happy to donate my time and ammo to the cause, free of charge to the taxpayer.
Let's see how the math works out:
Either we can spend &.30 per bullet to put into bloated, shady, criminal contractors, or we can let the contractors spend $2500 for a hammer.
DISCLAIMER: If you are one of those wacko idiot nutjobs who actually thinks I'm serious, you should spend the bullet on yourself instead.
"These are not the droids you are looking for....."
(Gestures)
Just when you thought that Big Brother had put a tax on everything, they do one better:
Now they want to tax things that don't exist.
What does this have to do with immigration? The robots are replacing EVERY worker, not just migrant workers. There is no difference between replacing migrant worker, illegal workers, and legal workers.
Regardless of immigration status, the robots are replacing workers. Period. The robots don't decide who they want to replace, The farmers that grow the fruit just want to replace all of the workers so they can minimize costs (the whole point of robotics in the first place), and the companies that develop the robots could give a damn about the immigration status of the workers they are replacing because it has no influence on robotics in the first place.
What the heel is this article about? Is it about robots becoming more widespread in industry, or is it an "Immigration Politics/Policies" op-ed?
Robotics has nothing to do with immigration status, and immigration status has nothing to do with robotics.
"YOU GOT SERVED!"
*Raises hand*
"All your lake are belong to us."
There, I got it out. Mod me down.
Real "Therapeutic Cloning" would be cloning Capt. Janeway and Seven Of Nine for me so I could get massages after long days at work.
Now *THAT* would be therapeutic!
The new "privacy":
"All of your information is kept under lock and key, and held under the highest levels of security. All information is encrypted and is guaranteed safe, secure, and secret."
Unfortunately, this all means ABSOLUTELY DICK in keeping Big Brother away. Nobody openly mentions that they will allow Big Brother UNFETTERED ACCESS to ANY information about you, and your "private" data will be at the beck and call of Him (I don't mean 'Him' as in 'God'; I mean 'Him' as in Big Brother, and the snoops, goons, and spooks that act as if they are God).
Since when did my Republican Party think Big Government was good?
Oh wait, I forgot: Big Government isn't a problem when you *ARE* the Government.
Cameras have replaced cops in speed enforcement.
Time-Calculating toll booths have also replaced cops in speed enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in Red Light enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in toll enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in street patrols.
A soon to come: Cameras replacing cops in Cell Phone violations.
Is it me, or are law enforcement agencies trying to keep their paychecks while doing less work?
Law enforcement agencies say that using cameras reduced workloads on officers, giving them more time on 'other' things. So, if the officers have a reduced workload, then they should have reduced pay, since cameras, not officers, are doing the work of catching/citing traffic violators. Reducing pay for reducing work would allow more room in the budget for more cops, thereby allowing more officers to be available. That could be further augmented in stiffer penalties/fines.
If cops actually got off their asses and CITED violators (and believe me, they are DEFINITELY out there, especially here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia), they could generate MILLIONS of dollars in revenue, enough to hire more officers.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much if government employees actually got paid proportionally to the amount of work they did. I just don't see why I should pay a fine that goes into maintaining a staff of officers, if those officers have cameras do most of their work for them. I'd rather pay the camera, and defend myself.
Big Brother can go fuck himself.