I was thinking Willy Ley, myself -- but, yes, they would be proud. This is what a space-plane is SUPPOSED to look like!
1543 posts • joined 8 Feb 2007
I suspect that this still comes under the category of "blackmail". Anon had best hope that they actually ARE as clever and unfindable as they think they are. They genuinely seem to be trying to go from "minor annoyance that's not worth going after" to "butt that wants kicking".
" 'As long as Opera is the only browser on mobile devices that automatically rewraps text when zoomed in'
"It isn't. Firefox Mobile does it."
Interesting. Because I've got Firefox for Android v.18.0 on my phone and tablet (Android 2.3.5 and 4.0.4, respectively) and it doesn't do it and doesn't give me that even as an option. Is there a newer version, or another FF that Google Whatsit isn't showing me?
As long as Opera is the only browser on mobile devices that automatically rewraps text when zoomed in so the user doesn't have to scroll back and forth AS WELL AS up and down to read a story, then f**k the rest of them.
Now, I'm sure that someone will come up with the "...but there's a plug-in for Firefox that does that..." whine.
F**k that, too. I don't really have the time nor the interest to hunt for add-ons that give me something that I can get out of the box elsewhere. A browser is a commodity product. I prefer a commodity that works the way that I want it to from Day 1 without requiring my fiddling with it. YMMV
... but if "cameras with outward-facing infrared lights." (the specific target of the device, as noted in the article) rely on the reflection of those infrared lights from an object (for focusing, visibility or whatever), wouldn't having an IR filter on the camera kind of defeat the purpose? I mean, it seems to me that if you're using IR lighting on your system, filtering out IR is probably the LAST thing that you want to do.
Now, if you're saying that this wouldn't work on cameras that specifically don't use IR illumination/reception and block thoise frequencies, I would suspect that you were right -- but that's not the target that they were apparently aiming at.
Or what am I missing?
@ David Hallett
The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that it is based on the premise that "Anything not physically impossible is morally permissible." The fact that information CAN, as you say, be copied infinitely does not imply that it SHOULD be. I don't know what you do for a living but are you okay with your employer using your services without pay? Certainly, he *CAN* do it, but is it morally acceptable and -- more importantly -- is it PERSONALLY acceptable to YOU? If that theft of services is NOT morally acceptable to you, then isn't it EQUALLY morally unacceptable for ANYONE who wishes to possess the result of another person's labor to take it without recompense to the creator?
If I'm missing the point of your argument -- that your point is NOT that morality isn't, and shouldn't be, a factor in a business transaction -- then please state it more clearly.
"and therein lies the problem. Copying is not stealing ss it doesn't necessarily that you're handling stolen goods."
Basically, it seems to me that the distinction rests on whether you accept that (as stated in the article) "The requested judge-led review hinges on the fact that in UK and European law, as well as an international treaty, copyright is aproperty right." (Emphasis, mine.)
If you don't accept that, then the premise that "(c)opying is not stealing" makes sense to you. (Whether it will make sense to a judge or jury is left as an experiment for the reader.)
If you DO accept the premise, however, then it becomes clear that any action which takes away the creator/copyright owner/property owner's right to say what use -- IF ANY -- may be made of his property and for what recompense to himself is theft of his property rights. (Alternatively, it is -- at the very least -- theft of services; i.e., using the result of his labor without recompense. Or doesn't the U.K. have that one?)
(And, yes; I know that the above isn't likely to convince the "copying is not stealing" brigade of anything , but hope springs eternal...)
"Management has to focus immediately on boosting employee morale by inspiring a customer-centric culture of high productivity, cost leadership and efficient innovation."
Translation.:Make the drones work harder for less money and, if they complain, off-shore it all.
"A prudent course of action ... would require the Company to aggressively right-size the business and focus on generating significant amounts of cash."
Translation: Give us all the money NOW! NOW!! NOWNOWNOW!!!
"The fun bit with vibranium is it is supposed to absorb impacts, which implies it converts the energy into another form. Seeing as heat seems to be the easiest way for nature to dump energy, you would have to assume Cap also has asbestos gloves to stop the shield frying his hands!"
Actually, I've always rather assumed that Vibranium doesn't so much ABSORB kinetic energy as CHANNEL it. If it simply absorbed any impact, he couldn't ricochet the shield around when he flings it. Throw... hit... absorb impact *thunk*... fall to the ground. No; rather there must be something about the structure of the crystal that absorbs impact from one direction and ejects it orthogonally. This would also help to explain the 60-yard, multiple-ricochet throws -- it absorbs on the face but expels on the edge. (Maybe after a firefight where it took a lot of head-on impacts but didn't get thrown much, he has to dribble it edge-on like a basketball for a few minutes to bleed off the excess potential energy...)
Why, yes... I DO have a lot of free time -- why do you ask...?
"Last year, the company released an Android app to control light and heating of a house from a phone."
"This is Microsoft Support; how may I help you? ...You say that it's 10 below and you can't turn on your heat...? Alright, I can help you with that. First off, have you tried unplugging your house from the power mains and plugging it back in...?"
@ Comments are attributed to your handle
"1. This "upgrade" is not forced on consumers since newer releases of Android will still run on older phones. Not so with iPhones."
Are there a lot of two year old phones that happily run Jelly Bean? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know.) Only my two year old iPod Touch is swinging right along on iOS 6.0.1, so I'm not sure where you got your info that older Apple hardware can't run the latest OS.
@ Barry Shitpeas
Oh, come on... You know that if the "recover from a mistake" patent had been an Apple one you would have claimed it was invalid due to prior art because people have had 'recover from a stumble' for millions of years, so it was obvious.
"Adobe got corrupted when they bought Macromedia in 2005. As a result less quality as with freehand."
At the risk of further thread drift, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on the virtues of Illustrator v. Freehand.
If you didn't routinely use Freehand and expected it to be Illustrator then, yeah, your experience with it would suck.
OTOH if, as I did, you started using Freehand back in the day that it let you work in preview mode while Illustrator was still making you work in keyline and toggle back and forth into preview after every step to see what you just did, you asked yourself, "Why would I want to go back to doing it the old way?" You got used to the way Freehand worked and if you went back to Illustrator, many functions just seemed backwards and inefficient (In an Illustrator "punch" operation, the "hole" object sits BEHIND the "donut" object...? Really...? And if you want to manipulate it...?)
After (Gad!) 30-some-odd years of doing illustration and graphic design on a professional basis -- with more than 25 of them working digitally almost exclusively -- I'm preferentially still using Freehand, both at the day job (illustrator/graphic designer for a governmental agency) and in my freelance work. I'm expecting to be upgrading one or both machines in the next few months and with the forced move to the new version of OS X that this entails, I dread no longer having Freehand available to me.
I'm not really interested in a media server to connect to my TV right now -- and if I were, I would be looking into dedicated media servers, rather than general-purpose computers, but maybe that's just me...
OTOH, I AM thinking about replacing my aging PPC Mac desktop. What are the benchmarks for the Mini vs. an iMac? How well does it handle tasks like video-editing?
You CAN use a wrench as a hammer, but if you're looking to BUY a wrench, how good a hammer it makes should probably be well down on your list of purchasing criteria -- well below the question: "How well does it work as a wrench?"
Really, this could -- and probably SHOULD -- have ben published as a news/feature: "Mac Mini has problems with HDMI". As an article, the title of which claims that it is an actual REVIEW of a general-purpose computer it was... Well, I wasn't whelmed.
FRAND patents are, yes, those items which are necessities, and design patents aren't. On a superficial level your argument might hold but treating FRAND patents as anything other than commodities would likely lead to there being, e.g., only one mobile telephone manufacturer -- or, more likely, a number of mutually incompatible phone systems -- since the first one to have secured a necessary patent for a particular technology could freeze out every other potential competitor. Alternatively, a "charge what the market will bear" cash-grab among all of the relevant patent holders could have a phone costing only slightly less than a small car.
Instead -- in the belief that doing so better serves the good of both industry as a whole and of the consumer -- FRAND patents are treated as commodities while design patents are treated as luxuries.
Look at it this way: Using your argument then, by analogy, food and water should be expensive and a Gucci suit should be cheap, since one is a necessity and the other is "frivolous tat".
If this can be engineered so that the existing motor nerves that used to be used to, say, move the fingers in a now-missing hand can operate robotic ones, this could do wonders for prosthetics.I wonder if it can be made to operate in reverse -- making resistance to movement in a prosthetic limb flash a signal to the appropriate sensory nerve for full feedback-controlled prosthetics...
This will be an interesting technology to follow in the next few years.
I agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it's Hackintosh-able, I'm there. A drawing tablet that could run the pro-level graphics tools that I already own, for doing actual wok when I'm away from my desk...? Yes, I would even buy Microsoft hardware.
(Hunh...! Shouldn't they have named their phone/tablet/console division "Microhard"...?)
(Eh-h-h... maybe not...)
Do they hand me a block of paper at the end and *I* have to cut away the unprinted parts? That *IS* the way that it looks in the video.
Unless the print head cuts around the print area on each sheet before adhering the next one, so that the finished model is separate but "encased" within the block, I'm just not sure how it will all work. It must be SOMETHING like that, but they really don't make it clear in their promo piece.
I mean, giving the average impatient person a paper brick and an X-Acto™ knife and saying "Go to it, chum!" just seems like a recipe for liability problems.
Still, the results ARE impressive as all get out and I hope it works out.
(I wonder if Staples will have restrictions on what they'll print? "No, sir... Staples will only output body parts that originate above the waist or below the knees...")
"...Samsung said it will 'eliminate hours beyond legal limits by the end of 2014'."
It really takes TWO YEARS for the guy who's PAYING THE BILLS to tell a supplier "Cut the shit!" and have it stick?
Or --just maybe -- is this just because, if they stopped the mandatory excess overtime they wouldn't have enough product to sell fast enough to keep the front office in annual bonuses? "Hell, what's two more years of screwing the workers over if it helps the bottom line...? Besides -- they're Chinese; they should be USED to it by now!"
It's not uncommon for companies to patent multiple implementations of an overall singular design. They do it to protect all of the basic -- i.e., easily doable -- variants of the initial design concept. The purpose is to stop someone from arguing, say, that the original maker patented a CLOCKWISE-rotating therblig, while theirs rotates COUNTER-clockwise and, hence, doesn't infringe.
The ad had to state that the decision has effect through all of the EU. Does that mean that decisions of the German courts that Samsung DID infringe are subservient to British ones that say they didn't? I mean, in the U.S., an individual state's courts -- even a state's supreme court -- can only pass decisions that are binding in THAT state. It takes a Federal court to make rulings that hold across all of the states.
Does the EU actually allow one state to override the decisions of another state's courts across the entire union?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but that just seems f*cked up.
If they're going to show his background, they need to find a way to stabilize it. Clearly, the unit has an accelerometer to indicate the movement of the user's head, there should be some (admittedly, computationally-intensive) way to negate that value for the rear-facing camera so that the BG stays steady while the head moves.
MY POV doesn't change when the person I'm talking to in RL moves HIS head, only when I move MINE.
Just wait 'til the Disney Animatronics people finish THEIR model...
...Tim Cook comes in to work one morning and finds out that he no longer has the corner office, and every 'droid-oid's worst nightmare comes true as an undying Steve Jobs 2.0 shows them the REAL meaning of "Android"!
One would think so, wouldn't one...?
Unfortunately, Google Maps/Latitude on my Samsung phone is spotty. Half of the time it can tell the difference between my sitting in my living room or in my bedroom (top floor of a wood-frame house, near the top of a hill), the other half of the time it tells me that I'm somewhere in a circle of 1/2-mile radius centered on a highway off-ramp a mile away.
So, they ALL can be crap, sometimes.
... to point out that Nokia is "PAINTING the lily" and not gilding it?
"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess "
King John. Act IV. Sc. 2.; Wm. Shakespeare
TBH, that makes a certain amount of sense. Do you really want to be flying in a plane onto which one or more people brought in multi-liter metal canisters that can't be opened or eamined? Part of the rationale, above and beyond the added fees, is that they can certify that their oxygen tanks contain, in fact, nothing but oxygen.
And, to be fair, note that they also suggest renting -- from someone OTHER than them -- a compressor/concentrator, as an alternative to their limited canister service.
Somewhat on the subject of the original article -- and I honestly don't know this, which is why I'm tossing this out for comments -- how hardened and/or secured are the plane's systems? That is, could a tablet-sized or laptop-sized device be created that could INTENTIONALLY interfere with the plane's instrumentation or hijack the fly-by-wire avionics? I mean, if you only wanted to CRASH the aircraft, your control overrides wouldn't have to be particularly precise -- throttle and/or aileron control alone would likely be sufficient, it seems to me.
Before it was the SR-71*, it was a prototype interceptor called the YF-12A, armed with AIM-47 "Falcon" air-to-air missiles.
*Actually, the original version was the A-12, designed as a reconnaissance aircraft, the YF-12 was added on to the assembly line along with the prototype A-12s. The SR-71 is basically a longer, single-seat A12.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019