I'm not even that old but I know my computer history and that bothered me too. I'll help you escort the kids off of your lawn.
The issue is that most gamers don't feel alienation and DRM doesn't stop them from buying games. Ubisoft would have gone out of business if that weren't true. In some cases I've had fellow gamers staunchly defend DRM and actually criticize my choice not to buy a game for that reason. In one other specific case I recall a friend complaining about Assassin's Creed DRM after he bought it because he didn't even know it was there. It blew my mind because it had been all over the gaming news but some people just don't check out a game before buying it.
The assumption the companies have is that everyone now has an always-on connection
Not exactly. These people are smart enough to make incredibly complex games so they are aware that not everyone in the world has a constant connection...they just don't care. The majority of their potential customers have an internet connection so they are willing to piss off the minority who don't for the sake of better DRM. And the number of people who actually have the willpower and desire to boycott DRM on principle is smaller yet, albeit vocal. It's a calculated business decision to deliberately alienate a small number of potential customers for a (real or perceived) greater return.
Did anyone do a body fat percentage baseline before you started?(They usually use calipers in a couple of places) Muscle weighs more than fat so if you're lifting and building muscle through exercise then the scale is terrible measure of success. Even if you haven't lost in your waistline you've probably lost more than 2.3lbs of fat and just replaced it with muscle.
If nothing has changed then I too would question the efficacy, but if you are at all stronger, faster, or have better stamina then you are healthier than when you started regardless of what the scale or your waistline says.
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
However the OP's complaint was regarding failure to fire and simply having a higher weight wouldn't prevent you from firing if you chose to. They're not calling it a full trigger lock. In that respect it does not sound like they've done anything mechanically that would compromise the weapon's ability to fire but I suppose that depends how the resistance is implemented.
I read the article and there doesn't seem to be any serious modification to the basic mechanics of the rifle. The "modified trigger" just adds resistance so that you can preemptively apply pressure to the trigger to avoid that motion causing your shot to misalign. There's no indication that it provides enough resistance to prevent the shooter from pulling harder and firing anyway. It would make sense that if it was a full trigger lock that they would simply call it that. They are even careful to state that the shooter is in control but the example they give is deciding NOT to fire so they don't really address whether failure to fire is possible or not.
Uh, that's what this is: a computer aided scope, not a change to the mechanics of the rifle. Even TFS says this.
Who knows? I can't relate because I'm not compelled to take naked pictures of myself. Perhaps if I had that frame of mind I'd also want to keep them on my phone? Maybe they think pictures are safer on a mobile than on a desktop computer connected to the Internet? *shrug*
Yes, the Supreme court ruled that it is legal so we are now seeing many companies adding this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion
If you can't keep a consistant bare min. sustained speed of 35mph...then, yes...you are holding up traffic on about 98% of the roads most driver use...and are an impediment.
As I said, if there were cars piled up behind me and they couldn't pass I would just pull over but this has never been a problem because most of the streets around here are either two lanes or wide enough that I can ride to the right and cars just pass me if they need to. Honestly, in downtown traffic I'm sometimes moving faster than traffic and more often than not it seems like we're all racing just to wait at the next light anyway.
And sure, some people live in what I'd almost have to list as a micro-climate...where it is consistently good enough weather to ride a bicycle to work on a consistent basis.
I guess my area is a bit more temperate than many but it is going to hit 100F today. That's not a problem though because it's not hot until I'm already at work for the day. And I don't care if I sweat on the way home. Yes it's going to rain during the winter but that's what rain gear is for.
not even considering if you need to bring your laptop with you...possibly gym clothes if you like to hit the gym after work for some weight training or swimming....and work materials (ref. books,etc).
Between the various bags that can be mounted on a bicycle and the option of wearing a backpack you can carry a lot more than you'd think. I personally have a relatively small bag on top of my rack which is plenty to carry my lunch in the morning and the extra layers I don't need on the ride home. I keep several articles of nicer clothing at the office and wear comfortable and practical clothing for the actual commute.
bicycling is recreational, you generally drive a car for business
Not for me it isn't, and I know I'm not alone. Bicycling is by far the best way for me to get to and from work. Gas prices are high; parking is limited and expensive near where I work; taking the bus costs more and takes longer than cycling. Not to mention that I sit in an office for work so my commute is often the only exercise that I get all day. Since I started biking to work I've lost several inches off of my waist.
If there were cars piled up behind me with no way to pass then I would pull off, just as I would if the same situation occurred while driving a car. I don't suddenly merge into fast moving traffic at a slow pace any more than I would do so with a car. I wear brightly colored clothing and lights when visibility is bad so if a driver can't see me right in front of them then they shouldn't be licensed. If everyone follows the law and common courtesy there is no problem with sharing the road.
Well, I think the policy is crap but the second article indicates this was to be a present for someone in Iran. From a purely he said, she said perspective I'd have to give the guy the benefit since she later said she was going to do what he said she was going to do.
Well, we may actually see some progress. Supposedly Sandia had a demo day in November where they invited "Potential licensees and commercialization partners"
This would be new to the console mass market I suppose, but not new as a controller. A small company called Novint has been selling haptic feedback controllers for years now on the PC.
There's also a company called TNGames that sells a haptic vest designed to simulate bullet hits & explosions.
So you are no longer claiming that no problem exists, rather you are claiming that there is a problem but it is in the legal system. Perhaps you now can see why an inventor legitimately wants to sell and move on, to avoid the problematic legal system, to let the experts in the corp buying his patent navigate those waters.
I've no idea what the legalities of licensing an idea are. What I am saying is that there is no legitimate reason I can think of why someone should be able to sue you solely for having an idea. The solution is to make sure you can't be sued for an idea, not force you to sell off your idea out of fear. If removing the option to sell a patent introduces significant risk due to a problematic legal system then obviously that can't be ignored and there should be corresponding efforts to mitigate or eliminate that risk. I'm not saying this should be done in a vacuum. And so if appropriate action is taken to ensure that the patent system still works and has no significant disincentive with a purely licensed based model then I have no problem with that.
Under your proposal inventors must now be, or pay for, experts in law, economics, marketing & product development, patents, etc. It increases the barrier to getting rewarded as an inventor. Original inventors often sell because they don't understand, and don't want to learn, all this other stuff. Deprive them of the ability to sell and be done with it, to force them into an ongoing relationship that will draw on their time and attention -- your proposed system will have the unintended consequence of deterring some guy who is an expert in some technical specialty from giving inventing a try.
If you're going to sell or you're going to license you should still have representation either way. The difference is whether this is a perpetual state or a one time event. As a perpetual state I'm sure some smart person could start a business based on the idea that inventors need not be constantly involved and do it at a reasonable price when they distribute the cost of all those experts you mentioned over a large number of clients. A corporation is going to do essentially the same thing with a patent except some of those experts may be in-house since they operate on a larger scale.