_seininn

This is sad. There is no proof that this person was the one who stole the phone (Of course, there is no proof that he wasn't). I wont tell you what to do, but I would never do something like this unless I'm confident that I have the right person.

Scrubbing the phone isn't as common as some make it out to be, and the result is victims becoming victims twice.

And we need people like Richard Stallman to provide a contrast. That said, I think the guy provided a fair article on how things might turn out based on how they are currently progressing.

I've been working on a project like this that's nearing completion (it works, and the api is mostly complete). It differs from this in that it uses any normal browser to fulfill requests (via extensions).

The idea is to have a pythonic API to any browser that has reasonable support for extensions; i.e. a cross-browser scripting.

The prevalent attitude here is worrying.

As a non-american, I think diversifying and spreading the production (and knowhow) of technology is a good thing, in pretty much the same way not having only one browser/os vendor is a good thing. It's even better when it's spread geographically, and across different cultures.

I understand the reasoning of wanting to keep every thing local, but, and please pardon my frankness, it seems selfish .

> If I'm manipulated into buying something that I genuinely want, then I'd be happier for it.

But do you genuinely want it? or were you _influinced_ into wanting it? It's the same principle that makes fast food advertisements so profitable for the food industry. The ads are already targeted (most people like to eat tasty food).

Furthermore, if you're truly indifferent with being influenced like this, to what extent will the "influencing" remain acceptable to you? where would you draw the line?

If a person is well understood and their actions can be predicted, they can be manipulated.

The real question is: why aren't you?

> unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

To make money.

Companies (and people) have been developing new technology long before patents were introduced, and something tells me that they will continue to do so just fine even in the unlikely event of the patent system is abolished.

The millions spent give them the advantage of being the first to introduce this type of product in market. Nothing more.

on a personal note: I'd hate to think what would have happened if everyone throughout history thought of "IP" the same way people nowadays seem to think. We'd probably just started producing cars that need to be cranked to start.

> startssl.com offers free SSL certificates valid in almost every browser, good for one year

startssl certs aren't trusted by my browser (or maybe the os?), so ssl's identity authentication for startssl is void. It's still better than no cert since ISPs can't detect what certs my browser trusts, thus wont make stupid moves, probably.

If you can use more widely recognized certificates, please do.

no, it doesn't. You just haven't played long enough for a another piece to become a worse than the one you're playing.

Also, it's possible to finish a line using one piece (multiple lines actually).

Voice recognition has always been patchy or non-existent for languages other than English, and it's a deal breaker for something that relies _primarily_ on voice for input. That's the point I believe he was making.

I don't think he was referring to the glasses in specific rather than the state of voice recognition as a whole.

> and by holding the patent you ensure that no one else uses it against you.

A - Wouldn't they be protected due to f.lux being prior art? B - Would a competitor be able to get a patent on this in the first case? (due to A)

Youtube seems to be pushing these recommendations on me as well.

The funny thing is that "normal" recommended videos are usually preceded by the message "Recommended for you because you watched ..." on youtube's home page. The suggestive recommendations, however, are preceded by a simple, mysterious "Recommended for you".

Doesn't this create a conflict with other copyright laws such as the one related with the night lighting of the Eiffel Tower? Who owns the copyright to such photos?

And on a related note: with this law, who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?

It's clear from your comment that you are against the ruling and the man's actions, but calling him "clown" doesn't add anything and, in some cases, takes away from any point you're trying to make.

If you have a point to make, I'm sure you can make it without name calling.