Google Glass and the Future of Technology

I tried a demo in which a photo appeared – a jungly scene with a wooden footbridge just in front of me. The theme from “Jurassic Park” played crisply in my right ear. (Cute, real cute.)

But as I looked left, right, up or down, my view changed accordingly, as though I were wearing one of those old virtual-reality headsets. The tracking of my head angle and the response to the immersive photo was incredibly crisp and accurate.

That is interesting.

Glasses to blur vision of ultra-Orthodox men ?? Feminist Philosophers

From NBC:  It’s the latest prescription for extreme ultra-Orthodox Jewish men who shun contact with the opposite sex: Glasses that blur their vision, so they don’t have to see women they consider to be immodestly dressed.

HHGTTG peril sensitive glasses take on a new role. Google Glasses might have a more specific solution in the future.

Given the sensitivities of some to images, a wider constituency could be imagined.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner spikes Apple-Google case, calls patent system ???dysfunctional???

In a series of earlier rulings in the Apple case, Posner didn???t mince words as he used plain language to beat up the over-reaching arguments of both sides:

[re a slide-to-unlock patent] Apple???s .. argument is that ???a tap is a zero-length swipe.??? That???s silly.  It???s like saying that a point is a zero-length line.
Motorola???s contention that the term has a ???plain and ordinary meaning??? is ridiculous; Motorola seems to have forgotten that this is a jury trial.
In his ruling to dismiss, Posner noted that a trial would ???impose costs disproportionate to the harm ??? and would be contrary to the public interest.???

Anti-competitive, thank you judge.

From the Courtroom – Day 17 of Oracle v. Google

Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn’t have toldyou the first thing about Java before this problem. I havedone, and still do, a significant amount of programming in otherlanguages. I’ve written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundredtimes before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea thatsomeone would copy that when they could do it themselves justas fast, it was an accident. There’s no way you could say thatwas speeding them along to the marketplace. You’re one of thebest lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind ofargument?

Oracle: I want to come back to rangeCheck.

Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you’reinputting are within a range, and gives them some sort ofexceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high schoolstudent could do it–

A fish that walks, and a dog that talks! Whoo-ee

Google Glass: the good, the bad, the ugly.

Yes, but the CON directly below me counteracts this PRO. Maybe we???re starting to rely too heavily on technology aka getting lazy. God gave us hands, so use them. Not to mention, I???ve always thought that people who walk around with hands-free technology and talk to themselves look kind of crazy.  The thought of a Blade Runner/Brave New World society also creeps me out.

An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload’s Video [Updated] | Techdirt

There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube’s Content Management System. This last one doesn’t get much attention and isn’t that well known, but it’s basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren’t matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you’re familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said “This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.” That’s the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is “no longer available.”

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it’s not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn’t actually file a DMCA notice

Private contract, access has always been that under copyright.