Forgot your password?

Comment: Ridiculous (Score 0) 166

by backslashdot (#47898303) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

We don't have a right to block private citizens filming our property from the air. I don't see it in the constitution. I would like to be protected from police harassment and legal action taking place based on the interpretation of things supposedly filmed from above occurring on my property. Frankly although I normally respect Sotomayer, I feel she is misguided in this and is doing the bidding of the anti-drone lobby. Do you think government will give up its own right to fly drones? HAHAHA! This is to take away the ability to fly drones, and nothing else. I can understand MAYBE an ordinance against zooming in and prolonged observation of a specific property but the right to fly drones with cameras MUST be preserved. If you don't want to be viewed from above, build a roof. Are we to be banned from taking binoculars on aircraft as well?

Comment: Re:Vibration messaging on the Apple Watch (Score 1) 471

by backslashdot (#47873083) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Smartwatch Apps Could You See Yourself Using?

Yeah I guess that one was kind of lame -- I wanted something that could charge the watch in 2 minutes or less while keeping the watch super thin since what I knew of the near field, whole room, or induction chargers is that they would add a few mm of thickness. I didn't exactly have the time, budget, tech vendor roadmaps, and team to sit around do nothing for a few months but kick ideas around and come up with practical ideas for a smartwatch.

Comment: Re:Apple effect (Score 3, Insightful) 137

by backslashdot (#47843451) Attached to: Deadmau5 Accuses Disney of Pirating His Music

Question is, how do we win round 2 .. which is coming soon. Works start falling out of copyright in 2019, Disney will and other corps will move to protect their monopolies. How can we stop that? Public action stopped things like SOPA.

The term "intellectual property" is I believe a misnomer. There is first of all no innate right to intellectual property. The right to own a copyright is no different than the right to drive on the roads, you have to be given the right by the government on the basis of meeting certain requirements. This is very different from a fundamental or innate right. You have an innate right to free speech, it is not something the government gives you's something you are born with. For example, if you own a physical object, you have the innate right not to have that object taken from you. But the US founding fathers saw that a person had no such innate right when it comes to inventions and art. Ideas are not your property once you describe them. That is why the constitution says that such monopolies on ideas should be granted by Congress *ONLY* IF IT SPURS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USEFUL ARTS. It is very different from freedom of speech, which you have regardless of the effect on society, a person has no such innate right to monopolize their own inventions and art.

According to the constitution Congress has the right .. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

According to that text, it's clear the current Supreme Court is shirking its responsibility by allowing excessive copyright and patent terms. Excessive copyright terms don't meet the fundamental constitutional requirement of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Disney made a lot of money by taking advantage of the expired copyrights of traditional stories such as sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast etc. I mean even The Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Did Disney compensate Shakespeare for stealing his story??? If Shakespeare's estate still owned the copyright of Hamlet, Disney would not have been able to make Hamlet. This is clearly proof that the useful arts and sciences are being hindered by excessive copyright terms. The first US copyright laws had only a few years in length .. and that was in a time where it was much harder to market one's work throughout the country and make enough money in a short time.

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 2) 211

by backslashdot (#47795649) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

NASA should wait until July/August 2015 before proposing a new launch system. That's around the same time the New Horizons space probe NASA launched back in 2008 will be reaching Pluto. I believe, hopefully, that the pictures from Pluto will capture the imagination of the public and, by proxy, Congress. That way NASA can propose a totally Giga launch system and get it approved.

Frankly SLS is lame. We're going to be stuck with whatever launch system for a few decades -- possibly longer given politics, so we better get it right. We need to be looking to build something that can scale to sustainable colony establishment class stuff.

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 200

The peephole example is not good. It's a violation of privacy to look through a peephole into a hotel room (the lens arrangement won't allow you to see much anyway even if you could focus). My point is that I should be legally allowed to record everything that I am legally allowed to view or hear.

Comment: Stupid (Score 1) 200

I am 100% in favor of privacy, but there are places you shouldn't expect privacy. For example if you have your lights on and the windows open you can't expect the right to privacy from the street. If you want to get it on with your partner in your backyard without cover, that does entail a privacy risk. You don't have the right to the airspace of all angles to your home. I mean with adequate zoom you could be filmed or watched from an airplane or satellite too. The way I see it, if I have the right to be someplace, I also have the right to record what I see.

Comment: Re:Thank GOD (Score 1) 96

by backslashdot (#47651463) Attached to: Intel's 14-nm Broadwell CPU Primed For Slim Tablets

I guess you need your eyes checked, because I can easily tell the difference between a 1080p tablet versus higher resolution tablets because the pixels are visible even at standard viewing distance.

Anyway, looking at Intel's published die area cost, it adds probably a few pennies to the cost of the CPU to add a 4K decoder. Also, the 4K decoder algorithm didn't have to get developed, it was designed years ago. Once the algorithm is designed most of the process shrink work is done automagically in software. It also has virtually no effect on power consumption to include it, the inclusion of 4K costs very very little per cpu so I am not sure what you are complaining about.

All you luddites do is complain when new technology comes out.

Comment: Duh (Score 5, Insightful) 176

by backslashdot (#47520127) Attached to: Dropbox Head Responds To Snowden Claims About Privacy

Dropbox has Condoleeza Rice on its board of directors. If anyone remembers, she was Secretary of State and also the president's National Security Advisor during the Bush administration. She basically allowed torture, and is responsible for Guantanamo. She had no problem with torturing people without even doing a basic check to see if the person being tortured was guilty of the crime he was being tortured for. And you want to talk about spying? She was part of the administration that developed the PATRIOT Act. The justification being "it's ok to spy on foreigners" .. Oh and we can DECLARE you a foreigner without any due process by making you prove your Americanness. She was cool with torturing foreigners without giving them any sort of due process, so why would you assume that she wont torture citizens if she was scared into doing so? We already know she doesn't think people need privacy.