charlesatlas

9secondkox2 said:

Pressurized liquid right next to your eyes… what could go wrong? 

It's not pressurized. This is the peril when you have no understanding of what you're snarkily commenting on. It's ambient pressure. This is not new technology, either. Quite a few years ago, a similar concept was proposed for eyeglasses for people in poor countries. Instead of custom-ground lenses or having to stock a large inventory of different lenses, liquid lenses would allow poor people to adjust the diopter by just turning a knob on the eyeglasses. The only apparent difference in Apple's concept is that this is motorized and automated.

king editor the grate said:

"Apple and other major chip firms may want a piece of the action."

You just wait three or four years until the M5 processor comes out. That'll be terrifying. It'll lock you out and call you "nonessential personnel." Although it would be a lot more fun if Apple updates Siri then with a male voice that has clipped, staccato diction.

Forget all this. I just want a WALL-E style Apple hoverchair to take me everywhere I go.

chasm said:

Something here doesn’t add up. The filmmakers were trying to get this film made in the 2010s, Mr. Ackerman didn’t even publish his book until 2016, so the Tetris Company couldn’t have stolen it before that point, so … what material were the filmmakers using to peddle the project prior to 2016?

It says "in the 2010s," which doesn't indicate the entire decade. Just like saying, "The Apple II hit the market in the 1970s" doesn't mean it was around before 1977.

sflagel said:

cpsro said:

Can history be copyrighted?

Arguably, it should be. Historic accounts always only show one narrative of history, so that particular narrative should be copyrighted. It takes effort to piece together individual bits of information and data into one coherent historic narrative - the documented result of doing so should be protected. (Witness the painstakingly long and contentious process of establishing the timeline and events of only a few hours during January 6th).

 The expression of an idea can be copyrighted. The idea cannot. Facts cannot. How could you allow anyone to copyright the fact that the insurrection happened? Would nobody else be able to make that statement then?