h4pless's comments

So swap out synthetic diamond for cubic zirconia for the analogy. Synthetic diamond and geological diamond aren't priced so differently because of their chemical composition. The way they're made is an integral part of what defines them and how they're valued.

There is a reason a flawless 1 carat natural diamond might cost you somewhere around $18,000 and a flawless 1 carat synthetic diamond will cost you maybe $100-200. And you can't put either a synthetic diamond or cubic zirconia on a ring and market it as a diamond ring.

The point is, that a big part of what defines wine for me is the process of making it. The process is why some wines cost $200 a bottle and some cost $5. And that process which partly defines the wine is completely missing from this system. (Not to mention that the other part: fermented grape juice, is also completely missing from this system) So labeling the resultant wine flavored fermented kool-aid from this machine as "wine", seems wrong to me.

I feel that using the term "wine" is misleading considering it is not made from fermented grapes. Not to mention that wine is one of those things that has a touchy-feely side and this system has none of the romance that many would argue helps define a good wine.

You can also take powders, process them and make yourself some nice cubic zirconia that looks a lot like diamond, but that doesn't change the fact that a diamond is a diamond and that shit you just made is not a diamond.

Not to nitpick or anything, but the first example on the site shows a bar chart with the example code being:

<img src="//api.chartspree.com/bar.svg?Foo=1,1,2,3,5">

However the actual embedded code for the example and the resultant chart is:

<img src="//api.chartspree.com/bar.svg?Foo=1,1,2,3,6">

My immediate reaction to seeing the wrong chart being displayed for some example code was that your system just didn't work properly.

As this is the first thing anyone sees when visiting the project, it might be a good thing to change.

Strange. I have noticed a decline in job offers since the internet grew out my beard, I wonder what may account for the discrepancy?

http://i.imgur.com/IfvPIZD.jpg

Bing's video search with the SafeSearch turned off is probably the best porn search engine/browser on the internet. I'm guessing the OP was looking for porn. At least that's what I'm usually doing with it. Now why was he trying to access Bing via an HTTPS connection which lead him to this blank page? I'm guessing naughty porn.

Well I supposed that was my underlying question. I understand that Google has taken the position where they're effectively holding the patents in good faith, but my question is if it would be beneficial for them to open license them so smaller companies could find them cheaply in a discovery for a patent infringement case so nonsense troll cases like the new law seems to be trying to fight could be more effective or whether it would be better to let google safeguard them just in case. (Possibly my longest run-on sentence ever)

Would it be outrageous to ask them to slap an MIT (or equivalent) license on some of the 51,000+ patents that they hold that are somewhat "expected behaviors" these days and aren't critical to their infrastructure? In my mind it would be an incredible PR move and would probably inhibit some of my hesitations of trusting Google.

I wonder if the use of this technology by a paid webcam model on a client would constitute prostitution.

Or what the social ramifications would be of having an omegle/chat-roulette style chat system where people could have sex with anonymous strangers over the internet at a moment's notice without any fear of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.

Car radios are generally designed so they can be used without having to look at them. Sure they have displays, but they almost always have a tactile design that allows them to be operated by touch and sound without having to take your eyes off the road.

Smartphones however cannot generally be operated with much precision without having to occasionally look at them, which is why they are becoming increasingly illegal to use while driving. But to your question, I would say no: the same does not apply to most car radios.

Dalke, first off, thank you for your exhaustive explanation. I might question you on a few points, but right now it would seem senseless as I don't really have anything that I disagree with relating to what you've said and you seem far more knowledgeable about the subject.

My question stemmed from my misunderstanding of the law and a curiousness about how my knowledge gaps might be exploitable (though not as much for harm but rather protection). Thank you for taking the time to give me such a thorough answer.

I was somewhat apprehensive to post my first question to HN, (especially one that even mentioned religion) but you definitely gave me the best response I could have hoped for. I definitely owe you one. Thank you.

Also, thank you for the response.

Alright, first off let me say that I am not a lawyer which is part of why I asked the question, but the first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Belief in God is a pretty big establishment of many religions, and the free exercise of such an establishment includes the recitation of such prayers asking for his help. In as much, I believe there is a freedom of religion issue here and I do not understand the amendment to indicate that religious requirement to be necessary for protection under the first amendment.

My curiosity lies more with your 4th paragraph. Has anyone ever raised a constitutional argument for any use of a copyrighted work outside of the scope you have mentioned, which looks to be very clear that it only applies to religious gatherings, or has anyone questioned what constitutes a "place of worship" in our modern age? Is it completely beyond reason that someone could argue that the internet is their "place of worship"? Many people attend all sorts of religious ceremonies online. And their right to do that is I believe protected by the first amendment and I don't believe arguing peoples beliefs are really ever deserving of an argument.

[branching off to address the 3rd paragraph and question

To your other question that seems slightly off topic but seemed provoking, the reason these words became spiritually meaningful to me is that they describe a time in our nation's history when we were fighting a war that the American people had very little say in, in a foreign land and the best they could do was pray to God to see the country that they loved through.

There are a lot of things going on in and outside this country that most people can't do anything about more than pay attention to what's happening and hoping (/praying) for the best. So it seemed relatable to the situation we are in now.

And not that it's really any of your business but yes, my religion started after 1938, in fact it started around 2007 when I became disillusioned with the tenets of my religion, could not find a religion without the mandatory governance of law and ritual and cultivated my own belief system given my favorite teachings of many of the principle thinkers to create a system of belief for myself. Is that a problem?

end 3rd paragraph response branch]

Well to quote the quoted regulation:

"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"

They aren't really doing any of that are they? Do they say that LTE will never be available to you on your device? Or that you can only use it so many hours per day or only between such and such a time? I believe that is what would be required for them to violate these regulations. And it appears that they are acting within their legal rights to postpone their "mandatory inspections to make sure the devices aren't bugged with something that could disrupt their networks" or something. Are they doing it to gain a market advantage for a bit? Sure. Is it immoral? Maybe. But is it against FCC regulation? That's much harder to prove.

To say they are sidestepping regulation is one thing, or to say that they're being immoral for their corporate actions. But suggesting that they are violating FCC regulation is a statement of fact. A statement that could lead to you being sued with libel.

I'm not saying you are wrong to be upset, I'm just saying: be careful what you say.

The future is nigh.

I see this sensor as something that has an immense number of valuable uses to everyone, as well as creating an immense number of potential abuses.

Whenever I see new technology I think of the Mom and Pop shops, run by people who aren't a part of the technology movement and how it would effect them. And when I think of that shop and this device, I think of people being able to scan the store and not just to get a video image of the layout and camera locations, but a properly rendered floor plan of the store where one could pinpoint unsurveilled merchandise.

I also see a lot of regulation coming from this. Imagine a world where anyone can go to a store, pick up an object, scan it at the store and then go home and print it on a 3-d printer. It might require theft to be redefined and create a slippery slope for people who like to take pictures of things with their iPads for creative inspiration.

I'm not trying to argue against this technology by any means, but with every new technology that comes out, a lot of questions are raised for me.

I guess the issue for me is more focused towards humanity rather than the technology. It's probably a nonsensical concern as there's no way to know if we'd really be better or worse off with/without any technology that has been developed and disseminated. But like Uncle Ben/Voltaire said, ~"With great power comes great responsibility."

With the advancements in technology and their increasing acceleration, we are being spoon fed an increasing amount of power. My concern is whether or not we are responsible enough for it. This sensor looks amazing, and I can't wait to see the great uses for it but like every new technology that completely amazes me, it reminds me: The future freaks me out.

I am sorry to say that I assumed the author was her father for most of the letter. Her arguments made much more sense to me after rereading it with that information, but I guess it's a statement in itself that with the discussion of her technical background and her strong assertive tone, I assumed her a man. Reality: checked.

Carets are risky comment selectors aren't they? Who knows whose truth you'll be supporting next...

It's good that they did this for sure. I remember reading that people were also having problems with the rear glass shattering from the thermal shock of being placed on cold counter tops. I'd still probably get a case for it, though. If you have generally pretty dry hands like mine, a case can reduce the strain of holding on to a generally slippery phone. I also don't know if this would be changed by the little nubs but I had issues with it regularly sliding out of my pocket while on couches.

If you buy this phone, get a case for it. The thing slides off of pretty much anything, including apparently flat counter tops. Screen replacements are $130 and take 2 weeks. You won't get the awesome feel of the beveled edges, or the nice solid feeling of a thin but reasonably weighted piece of equipment, but definitely get a case lest you watch in horror as your shiny new phone crashes onto your hard tile bathroom floor after sliding off the granite counter top like a magical hovercraft.

This entire situation seems a bit backwards to me. As I read Andy Johnston's letter, I gather that 1) Trip hung up on Andy. 2) Andy thought this was rude. 3) Andy has a lot of friends in SF that use yelp. 4) Andy is going to tell his friends "how [Trip] treated [Andy] as well as [Andy's] feelings about the people who run Sauce."

While this is unprofessional to say the least, I see no extortion or anything like it all as the wording states that this recourse is based on a past event and is not contingent on Trip's future actions at all. Also it is everyone's right to tell their friends if they think a place or a person sucks, that's part of what friends are for. And Andy doesn't say that he's going to write a bad review or have his friends write a bad review, he just says that he's going to tell his friends how Trip treated him. That doesn't mean that his friends will necessarily write reviews for him and because of that there is no guarantee of harm in any way.

What's most interesting to me about this whole situation (and the part that seems backwards) is the Trip's way of dealing with this. So okay, a Groupon employee wrote an angry letter to a restaurant owner that was 100% unprofessional and was probably understood by the restaurant owner to be a threat of defamation by the Andy's network of friends. Trip's response? To publicly post the letters to Facebook along with the Andy's name, cell phone number and other contact information so that everyone else that doesn't like Andy's immature letter can call him any time of the day to tell him how much of a jerk he is? It seems a bit much.

Trip's response letter was well written and had good advice but I believe it should have ended there. By making this whole thing public, Trip is really acting no more mature than Andy was when he wrote the offending letter. Not to mention that it could open Trip up to legal liability as I believe California has laws regarding the publication of private facts (e.g. Andy's cell phone number). Either way, I think this whole situation demonstrates a lot of immaturity on both sides.

I thought the same at first and honestly expected that the guy had just flat out committed libel. But after a tiny bit of research, I found that his claims about the restaurant's cleanliness were in fact accurate. (http://bit.ly/16xkdCO)

So while he probably was just writing the review to help his friend, his review is informative and factually based so really, there is no reason to remove it or the guy's account as far as I can tell.

This also makes Andy J's threat to make his active Yelp friends aware of his discontent with the restaurant make all the more sense as they are obviously better at it than him.