Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Simpler Solution (Score 1) 326

by Paul King (#47900947) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

And I'd think most of those ideas suffer various problems too. Most ideas trying to solve social problems end up over-engineered and even more so when trying to iron out the problems.

There are plenty of people with mobile handsets which number other than 1.

Those with 0 for example, either through battery being dead, stolen, lost, quick run to the shops without picking up a phone or simply choose not to have a phone. We seem to now be blocking them from using the car. Well I guess we'll need to engineer some sort of override to allow for that? Now the system without the override is a worse experience for most people, but being the same law abiding, socially caring people who wouldn't text whist driving anyway, they won't use the override except in a genuine situation right?

More than 1, well I guess that only one is blocked so no problem texting etc. as we go. I guess we could implement the cell site thing to ensure all the phones in the car connect to that right? Well what about passengers in the car etc. Guess we need some vision systems so the car can also see who is operating the car and the phones?

And whatever you do you can bet those who are willing to break the law still will, they'll find a way of getting around it. So you still need to find ways of actually enforcing the law anyway...

Comment: Re:Broadcom don't deal with little guys (Score 1) 165

by Paul King (#47798503) Attached to: Update: Raspberry Pi-Compatible Development Board Cancelled

That still seems to support the basic underlying proposition though. Something which had appeal to the little guy ended up leading to use of that which ultimately led onto a a successful business initially at least based around that product. If MOS has kept it's key staff involved and developed the line further who knows where that could had led.

Comment: Re:Hardkernel wasn't using Broadcom SoC anyway? (Score 3, Informative) 165

by Paul King (#47795951) Attached to: Update: Raspberry Pi-Compatible Development Board Cancelled

No, the linked article says they are better known for their Exynos based products, this board was supposed to have the broadcom chip.

"none of them have made use of the same Broadcom BCM2835 SoC as the Pi, so none of them (until now) have been software compatible."

And the labeling on the picture shows the chip to be used.

Comment: Re:OK, fine, do it already. (Score 1) 83

by Paul King (#47742199) Attached to: Sources Say Amazon Will Soon Be Targeting Ads, a la Google AdWords

Amazon do, there is an area for you to improve your recommendations, where you can simply tick items not to be used for recommendations.

Don't think I've bothered really though, it should be more seamless than me having to go and hunt it out etc. simply easier for me to ignore the recommendations.

Comment: Trolls or Not Trolls (Score 1) 97

by Paul King (#47711155) Attached to: How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation

I would assume the parallel research showing that those who end up paying our against non-trolls also reduce spend later having lost a lot of money.

The link is the losing of a patent suit (or having to settle) etc. rather than patent trolls.

The real problem is that the patent system is open to abuse by everyone not merely trolls. It's expensive to be on the receiving end of a patent lawsuit regardless of if you are in the right or wrong. The well known issues with Patents been issued on broad ideas rather than actual inventions etc. Al this leads to the potential to be sued increasing, the costs huge and ends up as a deterrent to innovation.

The original purpose of Patents to create a period of exclusivity to regain the expense of research, tooling (and other capital risks), are good. These don't tend to work well in many areas, software being obvious where the costs are primarily research and in many cases it's pretty debatable as to the genuine cost of that, the capital risks are generally pretty small, not to mention the rapid pace of development making patent terms generally too long. NPE's similarly the primary cost is that of research, they don't take capital risks to bring it to market, why should they then be afforded the protection?

In short NPEs the problem per se, it's the whole patent system which needs a significant overhaul to refocus on it's actual purpose, to reward those willing to take risks on innovation.

Comment: Re:good (Score 1) 238

by Paul King (#47024155) Attached to: Apple To Face Lawsuit For iMessage Glitch

Perhaps it is poor journalism, perhaps apple can easily do this. It doesn't really matter much, the point is that there are apparently people out their suffering from this problem and despite talking to apple support can't fix it in 30 seconds as you suggest.

Now personally I don't have the mentality of, something doesn't work exactly how I want it to, therefore I'm going to sue, so on that basis alone I really hope this doesn't fly.

That however doesn't mean there isn't a genuine problem out there, which to many non-technically literate people out there who won't be able to solve this. Many won't know the difference between iMessage and SMS, many won't know about menu options they need to set before getting rid of the phone (assuming they had it to do so, it wasn't stolen, lost, broken etc.). Many will find their friends sending them texts and them not receiving them, they won't immediately (if ever) realise the root cause and may will think it's a problem with their new handset, rather than related to their old.

So should their be a lawsuit on this, No, should Apple be being more proactive about a general fix which people don't have to think about, Yes - indeed the people I know who are into Apple products always tell me how easy it all is, this sounds far from that ideal.

Comment: Re:Anti-competitive (Score 3, Insightful) 238

by Paul King (#47024019) Attached to: Apple To Face Lawsuit For iMessage Glitch

This helped to drive prices of texting down...

Any evidence to show any causal link? Or just plucked out the air?

Since if you had to use texts you'd still be paying and if you could use iMessage you'd always not be paying. So reducing price would still leave those using iMessage not paying you, and those still needing to use text just paying you less. I can see nothing to suggest iMessage would have had any impact on the price.

Comment: Re:Well (Score 2) 162

by Paul King (#45244909) Attached to: FBI Seized 144,000 Bitcoins ($28.5 Million) From Silk Road Bust

Well previously they had said they would cash them in (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/10/04/fbi-silk-road-bitcoin-seizure/) in.

I don't see anything in doing that about legitimizing them, as far as I am aware the FBI don't contend them to be illegal anyway.

I doubt the FBI is worried about them accidentally revealing their own address, in fact if anyone wants to decide that makes someone dealing with them tainted, then they could of course leverage that, pay for a VPN account with every provider you don't currently have some snooping deal with, thus driving people to the ones you do have influence with.

Comment: Re:Well (Score 5, Informative) 162

by Paul King (#45244431) Attached to: FBI Seized 144,000 Bitcoins ($28.5 Million) From Silk Road Bust

...but if they have the account credentials they can simply transfer all the bitcoins to a new holding account to which they have the only credentials.

Which is exactly what the article suggests they've done:

"The FBI official pointed me towards this Bitcoin address, which according to the public Bitcoin transaction record known as the “blockchain” received transfers of close to 144,000 in just the last 24 hours. “They finished moving them at 3am this morning,” said the official."

Comment: Re:Here is my question.... (Score 3, Interesting) 162

by Paul King (#45244427) Attached to: FBI Seized 144,000 Bitcoins ($28.5 Million) From Silk Road Bust

The article states:

"The FBI official pointed me towards this Bitcoin address, which according to the public Bitcoin transaction record known as the “blockchain” received transfers of close to 144,000 in just the last 24 hours. “They finished moving them at 3am this morning,” said the official."

So no, they have already "spent" them by transferring them to another address. If they've already been spent then Bitcoin shouldn''t allow them to spent again from a "backup", otherwise it'd be worthless as a currency, you buy X from me with the coins, I send you X, then you can spend them again rom this backup depriving me of the value.

Comment: Re:Killer App? Really? (Score 2) 134

by Paul King (#44817037) Attached to: PS Vita TV's Killer App: Remote Play

Your PSP has no screen, plays output on the TV, uses a separate controller and cost $100 when released?

I think that's really part of the point, the remote play in and of itself may not be new, but the way it'll work and enable the Vita TV to be used to play PS4 games on any TV in your house, is the new twist. The article sees that as the more compelling use than playing Vita games on the TV.

Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G.H. Gonnet

Working...