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?
How is that even possible? Android is essentially a Linux distribution. It's like saying you want it to work on Sprint before it works on a phone network. Though come to think of it Sprint might not be one given their spotty coverage.
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.
Gee, I wonder where Apple got the idea of being able to send Vibration messages. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I bet they would sue the daylights out of Samsung if THEY tried to implement anything similar.
I guess I'll use that feature
What does this have to do with the fact that Apple copied my idea of smartwatch vibration messaging and filed patents on it even though I have proof at this URL right here on slashdot that I came up with it first. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
Question is, how do we win round 2
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
According to the constitution Congress has the right
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
The way I see it, id Software's new owners are evil because they even tried to frivolously sue John Carmack, who invented all their games and technology.
In addition to recording, it should stream to the cloud in real time.
Probably not, if the pictures of Pluto returned back by the New Horizons mission are still fresh on people's minds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody that resorts to such a cowardly and fear driven act as torture is a badass. A badass wouldn't be so scared of the consequences of not torturing someone that they would be willing to give up their humanity. Only fear, paranoia, and revenge can drive someone to torture another.