Where'd you get that from?

I don't disbelieve it, and it would certainly make a lot more sense, but I don't see this mentioned in either article, and the blog post linked seems to imply that they went straight to C&D.

I find it very strange that they are continuing to allow them to use the trademark/trade dress with the non-commercial condition.

I don't understand trademark law, but I thought it didn't matter whether money was being made or not.

The problem is resolution.

If you think about it, even with the greatly improved version of the dev kit, you are still only dealing with 960 x 1080. I imagine this would make it terrible for reading text or fine information spread out over a large visual area. You'd end up having to move your head just while reading one screen, let alone be able to see multiple screens effectively at the same time. At that point, you may as well just use virtual desktops and switch between them.

In real life, this problem happened to me with 6 actual monitors. Yes I could add more, but then it becomes more effort to move my head to see the additional monitors than it would be to just flip to another virtual desktop.

And yes, monitor space is one of those things that you never have enough of. Most of the time I actively use 3, but once in awhile I get into something where I'm comparing stuff together or monitoring something in real time, and I find myself running out of space.

At least with software, it can usually be explained at a high level.

Sure, people may not know what a context object is, or dependency injection, but they can understand "this program will process a bunch of data about shipping times and rates, and figure out the most optimal way to get a package from one location to another based on selected criteria".

The kind of ultra-abstract project being talked about here, not so much.

Actually never mind, slashdot appears to be flattening out parts of this thread for some reason.

Ignore last.

(also I totally agree with your post).

I uh, think you are replying to the wrong post..

We arn't talking about the humanities as an elective, or outside interest. This article is specifically about lack of employment for the humanities at the PhD level.

That is actually an impressive level of bad grammar.

I mean I pride myself on subtle things, like never under any circumstances using "it's" without the apostrophe and even dragging out "irregardless" from time to time, but this is just brilliant.

I think what you've said kind of mirrors why "the humanities" might be exploding.

There is no industry for them to branch into. They are all cramming into one funnel, and the proposed solution seems to be to toss more in. If the only viable career path for a CS student was to become a CS prof, we'd be having the same problem.

Oh I totally agree with this. Relying on the user to "make the decision" is (or should be) the last resort when a programmer can't figure out how to deal with a situation.

In the specific area of certificate verification on web browsers, the problem has been too many false positives. Lots of people are sloppy with their certificates, and users have gotten used to the idea that any error mentioning a certificate is probably no big deal (because the other 100 times they clicked the ok button the world didn't end). This then served only to encourage people to be even more sloppy (the user will just click the warning that comes up, no big deal).

Things are moving in a good direction now, with most of the major browsers making the dialog more menacing and (in the case of firefox at least) requiring several not-so-intuitive steps, and this having the effect of making letting your certificates expire/using incorrect certificates more of a big deal because you will lose traffic. I think we are at least at a point where most users will stop when they get one of these more complicated warnings and they are doing something like banking or buying something online.

The real limiter for your average user is the requirement for man in the middle position.

Even without this flaw, most users will just click through any warning that comes up during a man in the middle attack.

It's still a bad thing that the mechanism designed to protect us from man in the middle is broken, but for the average user, the mechanism is already broken via apathy.

But if you have a man in the middle position, most of those same users would have just clicked "ignore" or typed yes to the "connect anyway" prompt.

So your belief would be:

- kickstarter and their team of lawyers don't understand the law as well as you do?
- kickstarter is pushing some kind of agenda, not just against guns, but against medicine, GMOs, alcohol, tobacco, porn, etc. And this is more important to them than money?

or something else entirely?

Someone still needs to look at every potentially vaguely weapon related thing and make that determination, and that someone is probably going to need to have a law degree. "Some guy on a forum said it was cool" isn't enough for a large business with resources to lose in a lawsuit. Untangling the laws surrounding complex, heavily related areas like weapons and medicine (also prohibited, I imagine for the same reason) is expensive.

And then you get into the stuff that's borderline, and you inevitably have people angry because you allowed one thing and didn't allow another.

It all just turns into a big mess, and for the profit they might get out of it, they've obviously decided it's not worth it.

The time and resources spent deciding what is legally dubious and what isn't plus the risk of getting it wrong probably exceeds the cost of just saying "if it's vaguely related to guns, it's not allowed".