h4pless

Actually, one more question. I see that you're marketing the Tank T190 phone by Blu which can be purchased on Newegg for $25 (http://bit.ly/ZyKBHA) and packaging it with an unknown 30 day data plan with talk and text which sounds very similar to the 30 day talk + text ReadySIM card which retails for $40 (http://bit.ly/13qyhtM). I guess what I'm wondering is what your company is adding to this equation for the extra $10 aside from being a middle man to obscure the trail? Also have you obtained permission from Blu to use their imagery?

Have you guys consulted an attorney and tax professional to verify all of this is legal? Maybe I'm just naive but it sounds like by destroying all records of every sale and shipment, you guys might be setting yourselves up to get shitfucked if the IRS comes after you with an audit. But then again I don't know much about the telecom industry or their reporting standard.

Constructive criticism: When people want to buy a painting, have them pay the $50 upfront to look through the database of available comments minus the phone numbers and let them choose the comment they want printed to canvas as art.

Aside from that, I don't understand what there is to be upset about. First off, who cares if someone has your number on their physical wall? If you posted your phone number to a public site, it will receive a lot more exposure there than hanging on some persons wall. Also, they claim to only produce one piece of art per comment so really they are only adding one more venue for viewing the number to an infinite amount of exposure via the web. And most likely, the people that the phone number is being publicly displayed to on porn sites are the people you wouldn't want to have your number. So how about... if you don't want people to have free access to your number in connection with some dirty thing you said online, don't post your flipping number on a porn site with your dirty comment, you silly goose!

With regard to this being extortion, the "erase a number from our database for 1000€" thing is a joke, whether intentional or not. The certificate of Unicity (the hell?) stipulates that they will sell a painting of your number only once. So if somebody ever buys a painting with the number: they just erased your number from the database. And if I plug the number of comments in their database, the number of people willing to buy one of these painting, and the number of places you and all of your aquaintences go that might publicly display the art in to my handy probability calculator, the odds that you or anyone you know would ever see the painting containing your phone number are 25 jagillion to 1. Not to mention that if you live in the US or anywhere outside of Italy really, the cost of shipping a 70x100cm canvas would be prohibitively expensive for many. So the only people being extorted are going to be the extremely gullible.

Anyway, it's time to get off the computer and party like an Irishman. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

So quick question... I noticed that when this site was posted to Facebook, FB rendered the title of the link as "New Site" above the URL instead of "Cree LED Bulb" but I am not seeing anything in the metadata that should cause this. What am I missing here?

What's interesting about this case to me is that Personal Audio, LLC is the original assignee for the patent and under the proposed SHIELD act, it would not be liable for paying the defendants legal fees if it lost its legal battle under the newly proposed system.

If the USPTO is willing to grant ridiculous patents that it shouldn't, then the SHIELD act would seem to not make much of a difference at all. It seems to me that the prior art should be a non-issue to produce considering people have been making tutorials on how to make podcasts since '04/'05, but as long as the patents are being erroneously assigned, the SHIELD act will provide very little protection from these types of patent trolls.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states that if the plaintiff is the inventor or original assignee, they would qualify as a practicing patent holder and would not be liable for paying the defendants fees. In Kearns' case, he would not be liable for paying defendants fees because he was the original inventor of the technology.

The idea of Google Glass throws up a few red flags for me...

1) Safety - For some reason thinking about a wireless device strapped in a stationary position on my head brings about heightened concerns of the long term impact of having a electromagnetic field being constantly generated next to my brain... Thinking of horror stories from when cell phones first came out.

2) Safety again - The static position of the glass directly over just one eye makes me think of Steve Martin's downfall in The Jerk. If people are actually wearing these things all the time, I would be concerned with how something that you're constantly having to readjust your focus to see with only one eye may cause a disparity in vision. Of course google could adjust the focus of the glass to be some arbitrary amount of feet out to help with focusing but this seems like it would make for less usable space on that tiny screen and still doesn't address the long term effects of having something statically in the field of vision of only one eye.

Both of these may very well have been exhaustively researched and or studied by Google but I think that with the semi-controversial design of this computer, Google might put an "Is It Safe?" section to their marketing material explaining how they've addressed safety concerns.

Also, in regards to privacy... As some have mentioned the concerns of being video taped while in the presence of wearing Google glass may prompt a lot of businesses/agencies to disallow their use while in their establishment with signs posted on the door. I don't think jewelry stores or banks or other security prone establishments would want people to so easily be able to comprehensively case the joint with almost complete anonymity. Plus fears of an Orwellian future where everybody is watching everybody for some unknown third-party viewer would not be unfounded.

Aside from that, I don't really see the value in Google glass. Perhaps it's just the way they've marketed it.... but it just looks like a cell phone that's been moved to your eye. I really don't need to start seeing POV films of people eating dinner or highlights from a drunken night out. The glass does not seem to offer much more usability than a smartphone and some duct tape for POV filming. Not to mention that I believe Mom may have already patented this idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHUpWuqNHY (Futurama)

Just realized you have to run the yeti into trees to keep them from eating you... Feels like a good moment for a facepalm.

Could someone (or has someone already tried to) patent the process of patent trolling? I know that such a patent shouldn't be granted because the idea obviously isn't original but it seems as though there are so many bogus patents sneaking through the cracks that it could be possible. It would be nice if there was someone you could call to troll the trolls.

This feels like very old news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7is6r6zXFDc

These specs seem almost unbelievable for the price but there is one glaring draw back for me which is the lack of removable storage. I understand the inherent risks of storing anything you want to remain private on a smart phone but without a microSD card, it feels like the when I inevitably brick my phone somehow, there's no easy way to get the files I want to keep private off the phone. What would be the options to ensure that either 1) the shop/company that does a warranty repair doesn't just data mine the phone once they fix it or 2) that the memory is properly destroyed if the phone cannot be fixed? It also feels like if there was an issue, like an update of Android going awry somehow, that you would lose all your data if you just needed to do a factory reset. I understand that it's all about the cloud now but even then it seems like there would be some corner cases where it would be invaluable to have a removable piece of storage in there even without considering privacy an issue.

From Wikipedia: Minimisation is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible. It is the opposite of exaggeration. 'Minimization is one of the most common ways we reduce our feelings of guilt..."It's not that big of a deal"'.

Well considering they're doing that verification via image/document files, why not allow applicants to also submit tax returns? Seems like that would quickly show whether or not a business has been active.

This year of incorporation requirement seems to miss the point... I incorporated in 2010 (missed the cutoff date to qualify by 17 days) but the registration was mostly to hold the name way before I had started to develop the product. Now I'm getting to the point where I could use the help but because I registered the name too long ago I can't partake? Seems like the qualification should have more to do with how long the company has actually been active or if it has even launched a product than when it was incorporated... not to mention one could just spend the $50 (fee for Colorado) to form another corporation to take advantage but that sounds like a major pain in the butt and generally shady behavior.

This mistake was done by a store called Euronics in Italy. Samsung had no part in the design of this wall and it is the store's lack of understanding that should be in question, not Samsung's.[http://bit.ly/PP9V3M]

I'm glad to see someone else mention the Caps Lock issue, I was starting to fear that I was the only one who used it or that it was just an issue on my end. I would like to see the Caps Locks functionality added to the Rails practice set too if possible. Otherwise I think this is a fantastic resource you've created, moonboots!