They're based on Reviver clothing swipes, and these things are basically reusable odour eliminators. While there's little info on their web site the patent currently pending indicates they use non-toxic agents to break down odours. Think of Fabreze in a palm-sized reusable cloth but with a better scent

It's sad that so many people have intentionally confused this issue by claiming that not passing it means people can force others to do their bidding, against the beliefs and wishes of the business owners.
That is patently false.
The law (and the argument against it) was not about stopping others from forcing anyone to create anything they're uncomfortable with, it's about allowing people to refuse their normally provided service to those they dislike.
With or without this law, no one has to make a penis cake for a gay wedding, no one has to make a satan cake for a Satanist wedding. No one has to make a star of David cake for a Jewish wedding. No one has to make a Nazi cake with a swastika. They simply can't refuse to serve those people based on their sexual orientation, religion, race, age, or sex. It's called civilization people...try it.

i think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.

What a load of horseshit.

I have no intention of arguing that Mohammed was anything other than a terrible human being.

But to say that all Muslims are guilty of mass rape or genocide is so patently absurd it's barely worth rebutting.

Are they guilty of cognitive dissonance? Hell yeah.

I've argued in the past that almost all members of religions are hypocrites; either you believe your religion is divine and therefore, infallible, or you're just making up your own morality and therefore tacitly acknowledging your religion is a flawed man-made thing.

But since the alternative is insane fanatical fundamentalism, I can forgive a little hypocrisy.

The moral gap between hypocrisy and mass rape or genocide is pretty fucking substantial. If you can't or won't understand that, then you're looking at the world in terms of absolutes and little better than a fanatic yourself.

Oh, and ordinarily, I would take this as given, but just in case you really are that simple, I think mass rape and genocide are Bad Things.

Do not rape people. Do not murder people. Especially do not do this to lots of people.

Clear?

I don't see what this has to do with patents. Patents are a completely reasonable way to allow someone to recover the cost of R&D (and yes, it's pretty high).

The problem is not patents, it's abuse of the patent system and misleading studies, leading to practices such as "evergreening".

And people still argue that patents in their current form are neccessary to cover the cost of R&D...

Damn, you really need to make that patent available for use under a Creative Commons license or some such. The world could use a whole lot more "getting it".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's OK, we can use the patented VideoSift "gist" voting system - wherein we get the gist of it.

Debunking the notion of "herd immunity," this doctor provides evidence for how the vaccines themselves can cause the person to develop measles and, itself, become the source of an outbreak.
Yet another problem coming as the result of patent laws and FDA-bred cronyism in the vaccine business..

In terms of "Big Brother," the United States government has paid more than $3 billion to victims of vaccines since 1989, according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP).

It's a brilliant idea, I'd patent it. I believe it could be done (there are projector modules that would almost fit in their form factor), but only at an extraordinarily high price and with other major shortcomings like power usage that would need to be overcome.

Also, the unavoidable shadow your finger would cast but which they leave out of the mock up videos would be a problem.

Just wrong. Comedy is comedy, not prejudice. Wearing drag is not the same as wearing black face in a civil rights rally. That's patently ridiculous. He insulted no one.
You and Trance really need to cultivate a sense of humor. Your lack of understanding jokes is only hurting you.

I figured out that the HYT stands for Hsu Yun Tung, makes for interesting reading if you do a patent lookup on that name - haven't quite figured out if it's the name of a company or individual though. A couple of US patent numbers relating to this locking mechanism: 5086632 and 5131247.

what an odd dynamic here on the sift in regards to lantern.

many here (myself included) have seemed to put the mantle of responsibility squarely on lanterns shoulders,as if he represented ALL police....everywhere.

this is not only patently false,it is very unfair.

BUT....

and @lantern53 this is very important you understand this very crucial,pivotal point:

the outrage you see here playing out on the sift in regards to police abuse of power and authority (oftimes directed AT you) comes directly from a perspective on how we all view HOW a true police officer should behave.

we feel (i dont mean to speak for everyone..but im going to anyways) that those in a position of power and authority have to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

why?

because they are in a position of power and authority!!!!

and to abuse that public trust.
be it by the use of violence or intimidation,is the greatest of all betrayals.

so when we see a cop abusing his powers,in whatever capacity,we become outraged and angered.
justifiably so in my opinion.

i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible.

as a police officer you should be the first one condemning those cops who have obviously stepped over the line.
i am willing to be that you have done just that in your time on the force.most cops i know do it that way.
police policing themselves in a roundabout way.

i have full confidence you are good at what you do and have built a skin so thick not much really phases you anymore,but stop defending those cops that are NOT good cops...they are a cancer on your institution and they make those of you who ARE good at what you do treated with suspicion and wariness.

so listen to those here who are telling you how they feel about the bad cops.these are not criticizing you in particular,so dont feel you have to defend every bad cop out there.

so just as you do not represent every cop on the planet,dont allow those bad cops define you.

we are counting on you to be better.

/rant off

I think I'd have to see it in actual printed form to judge the readability accurately.

BUT, in terms of readability on a display, like the 40" 1920x1080 LCD I'm watching on ... it is quite poor in my opinion. I have a feeling that it would work much better in ink on paper.

33% ink savings sounds pretty good, assuming that the readability on paper is better than a display. That being said, encouraging printer manufacturers to have a more sane approach to refillable ink/toner reservoirs would have a better/bigger impact.

Here in Thailand, where respect for patents / IP is low, (SE Asia is notorious for fake manufactured goods, pirated "soft" media, and hardware hacks / bypasses) I'd guess that around 90% of inkjet printers sold have a tank system glued onto the side with ink lines running into the cartridges from big CYMK reservoirs. I never buy new cartridges unless the print head gets damaged/worn out -- instead, I just buy cheap LARGE bottles of the different ink colors and refill the reservoirs. (Image link of such a setup HERE)

That kind of mod would be a gray or black-market item in the West, but here the laissez-faire attitude about such things has some positive effects. At least, for a consumer (like me), or someone concerned about the environmental impact of all the waste packaging for ink carts (like the dude in this video).

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.