Re: Re: This is nothing compared to 3D printing fingerprints
Fingerprints have never been, and will never be, remotely secure enough to rely on for authentication. All but the most sophisticated scanners (which are large and expensive) can be easily spoofed by people with average skills and materials.
The sophisticated ones can be spoofed, too, but it takes more work and skill. Also, you're not going to have one of those on cell phones in the near future.
Re: Does anyone remember the phone charms that would flash if your phone was ringing?
A hobby project I'm working on right now will react to cell phone, wifi, and bluetooth radio signals that are nearby (to allow an illuminated art piece to change its output according to events such as a cell phone ringing, etc.)
It might be possible to scale this down to something that could fit in a key fob.
"ignoring requests to pull stuff led to the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement."
If that actually led to those charges, then I call foul. The repercussion should be that the site loses safe harbor protection from charges that were already in play, not that it would lead to new charges.
"Not something to be analyzed later by engineers."
Every time an airplane disaster has happened, people didn't say "ban all the airplanes". Instead, we put a lot of effort into post-disaster engineering analysis to ensure that the same disaster won't happen again.
That's the biggest reason why flying is the safest method of travel you can engage in.
"In the world I like to live in this kind of mistake is career ending."
In the world I like to live in, people would look at the larger picture rather than a single incident.
If autonomous cars cut the car-related death rate even by 10%, then it wouldn't matter when the cars made the occasional mistake -- on the whole, we would still be better off.
Going carless will never be something that makes sense for everybody, so I expect that lots of people will always own their own form of high speed transportation.
But it makes a lot of sense for a substantial number of people. Personally, I find owning a car is not only expensive, but enough of a pain in the ass that I will gladly ditch it as soon as an alternative that meets my needs comes around.
It doesn't even have to be that much cheaper -- but it's hard to see how it wouldn't be, given that the more costly expenses (insurance, maintenance, etc.) would be shared across many people.
I don't live in an area that has anything like Uber, so I have zero experience with such things. My comments are half speculation, and half just the fact that I don't like owning a car.
The US is manufacturing more now than at any time in US history. What's changed is what we manufacture -- in the past, it was mostly consumer goods. Now, it's mostly big-ticket things like supercomputers, very large machinery, etc. We still outproduce every other nation. The next largest producer is China. According to 2010 figures, China produced about $1.5 trillion worth, and we produced about $2.1 trillion worth.
That said, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen from about 19.5 million in 1980 to around 11.5 million in 2010.
Just for fun, I once counted the number of computers my mother owned. She thought she had one. Once I did an inventory of all the consumer devices she owned that contained a computer, I was able to inform her that she owned at least two dozen.
There is a certain truth to this, although it's often overstated in common conversations. It is not true, for instance, that you have to sue in order for it to count as defending your mark in this way.
For instance, if you and another company with a similar mark have come to an arrangement with each other, that counts as "defense".
However, it's pretty hard to see how this is an example of a case where a defense is needed. Unless I'm missing something (always possible), the alleged trademark infringement is nonexistent. Or, at the very most, extremely difficult to see.
I think so. In my mind, it's not about what Techdirt prefers over what other sites prefer. It's about the overall reduction of one of the things that makes the internet itself valuable -- enabling the exchange of ideas and opinions between ordinary people.
What the anti-comment news sites are doing has an important impact on society at large, and especially the intersection of society, technology, and business. That puts it squarely into Techdirt's stated area of interest.
I'm not from Miami, so I may be missing some local meanings to all of this, but never in a million years would I think that "Miami Brewing Co." and "M.I.A. Beer Company" were in any way associated. They are miles apart.
Re: Re: Re: You can only police people as much as they want to be policed
No need to use computers for this. The method is tried and true, and as old as government: you keep increasing the amount of tyranny until your subjects start to squeal louder than you can take, then back off half a notch.