It's reprehensible that they leverage this incredibly popular brand to teach girls to code when they could be using it to sell Happy Meals and next year's landfill fodder. Shame, shame!
Google is following Apple and Microsoft and moving away from widescreen tablets. Good riddance, I say; 4:3 or 3:2 is much better for showing a 'page' of information.
That said, I don't begrudge widescreen (tallscreen?) phones, since they have to be narrow enough to fit in your pocket, nor large widescreen monitors, since they can show multiple 'pages' at once. In the 7-13" range, though, widescreens tend to be too much for one 'page' of content but not enough for two, and not nearly tall enough either. Blech.
Say the satellite is orbiting at 200km. The planes are flying at 10km. (I'm being generous on both these figures.) The planes are only 5% closer to the satellite than the ground, so perspective would only make the aircraft look 5% larger (barely enough to notice) than they would on the ground.
Now look at the satellite photo again. Compare the fighter to the roads and farm plots it's flying over, and compare the 777 to the terrain features and especially the airport (I think) on the left side of the photo.
(If you're curious, the fighter in real life has a 15m wingspan, the Boeing a 60m wingspan.)
One is a point of sale peripheral, the other is a Linux desktop environment. Okay, they're both 'technology', but that category is huge and getting broader every year. In any case, neither product is widely known, it's highly unlikely anyone would confuse one with the other, or that it would hurt either brand if they did. The case for trademark infringement is practically nonexistent.
That said, I'm glad Groupon is changing it; the Gnome has rubbed me the wrong way ever since it was announced. The name isn't reassuring on a device meant for handling financial transactions, the early prototypes were a bit too 'friendly' and OLPC-inspired, the current one is huge and clunky, and it lacks support for newer technologies like EMV and NFC. Hopefully this will send them back to the drawing board. Thanks, nerd rage! You saved the day again.
You don't want... this is a question...well, it's like a horror movie when a character is standing in a dark room, hears a scary noise, and asks "Who's there?". It's one of those type of questions.
Because it is inefficient. In addition to higher energy bills, a less efficient architecture means shorter battery life in a mobile device, more noise in a desktop PC, and fewer servers per rack in a datacenter.
Let's use a more practical example. If you wrote an elaborate version of ELIZA which produced output indistinguishable from a human, but which you knew was merely a algorithm operating deterministically on outside input with data structures and subroutines for emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations, would it be immoral for you to shut your program off? To delete any of its data? To rewrite it and make improvements to it?[1]
And if you know a Human is also a deterministic machine, do you feel any differently about it?
[1] I suppose you could ask your algorithm for permission first, but if it is deterministic, you could simply examine its state and design your query in a way you know the algorithm will respond 'yes'...but at that point, why bother asking?
Probably because the notion of consciousness as a physical, deterministic property is also messy, leading to conscious arrangements of gears and the ultimate conclusion that you are simply an automaton programmed to believe it is conscious, awake and self-determinate by an elaborate and pointless lie created through the cruelty and caprice of evolution.
My take is we're no better than ancient Greek philosophers arguing over the properties of atoms. We can debate it until we're blue in the face, but we simply don't have the technology or foundation of understanding to discern the truth. It is unfortunate that Humans have a deep need to believe they understand The Truth About Things no matter how little they really know, and this has led to millennia of dogma and persecution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! That's precisely the technology-wrapped new age bullshit we're talking about.
AI uses sensible variable and function names *and* comments its code?
We're doomed.
It's reprehensible that they leverage this incredibly popular brand to teach girls to code when they could be using it to sell Happy Meals and next year's landfill fodder. Shame, shame!
Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot [slashdot.org], I take a free day and spend it reading the story
Wow, I can never get through novels that quickly.
Google is following Apple and Microsoft and moving away from widescreen tablets. Good riddance, I say; 4:3 or 3:2 is much better for showing a 'page' of information.
That said, I don't begrudge widescreen (tallscreen?) phones, since they have to be narrow enough to fit in your pocket, nor large widescreen monitors, since they can show multiple 'pages' at once. In the 7-13" range, though, widescreens tend to be too much for one 'page' of content but not enough for two, and not nearly tall enough either. Blech.
It is a fake. A very bad, undeniable, fake.
Say the satellite is orbiting at 200km. The planes are flying at 10km. (I'm being generous on both these figures.) The planes are only 5% closer to the satellite than the ground, so perspective would only make the aircraft look 5% larger (barely enough to notice) than they would on the ground.
Now look at the satellite photo again. Compare the fighter to the roads and farm plots it's flying over, and compare the 777 to the terrain features and especially the airport (I think) on the left side of the photo.
(If you're curious, the fighter in real life has a 15m wingspan, the Boeing a 60m wingspan.)
So these don't count?
Yes, Captain?
One is a point of sale peripheral, the other is a Linux desktop environment. Okay, they're both 'technology', but that category is huge and getting broader every year. In any case, neither product is widely known, it's highly unlikely anyone would confuse one with the other, or that it would hurt either brand if they did. The case for trademark infringement is practically nonexistent.
That said, I'm glad Groupon is changing it; the Gnome has rubbed me the wrong way ever since it was announced. The name isn't reassuring on a device meant for handling financial transactions, the early prototypes were a bit too 'friendly' and OLPC-inspired, the current one is huge and clunky, and it lacks support for newer technologies like EMV and NFC. Hopefully this will send them back to the drawing board. Thanks, nerd rage! You saved the day again.
http://www.applerecords.com/ (yes, I chose that one ironically)
http://boardgamegeek.com/board...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://www.thepalm.com/
http://www.niagaraparksgolf.co...
...okay, you win on Whole Foods.
The GNOME foundation invented the word—nay, the letters themselves, carved and finished from wordstone hewn from the deep tunnels of the earth.
It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.
Say what you will about the guy, but he didn't exactly swear a blood-oath there.
"Zero day" means the first exploit hasn't been spotted
What?
Microsoft announced the patch and the problem at the same time
Did you even read the summary?
Fascinating. More evidence that my universe intersects an alternate universe in which Apple invented everything.
You *do* pay your state use tax for all those things you order over the Internet, right?
Then again, I'd have less sympathy for them if avoiding paying taxes wasn't a universal pastime for corporations and individuals alike.
Nobody wants hot water in the summer?
But security, reliability, and other factors seem to defeat any advantages. I wonder who their customers will be.
You don't want... this is a question...well, it's like a horror movie when a character is standing in a dark room, hears a scary noise, and asks "Who's there?". It's one of those type of questions.
Because it is inefficient. In addition to higher energy bills, a less efficient architecture means shorter battery life in a mobile device, more noise in a desktop PC, and fewer servers per rack in a datacenter.
Does Watson Have the Answer To Big Blue's Uncertain Future?
Did you ask it?
Because dragons are really cool.
Let's use a more practical example. If you wrote an elaborate version of ELIZA which produced output indistinguishable from a human, but which you knew was merely a algorithm operating deterministically on outside input with data structures and subroutines for emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations, would it be immoral for you to shut your program off? To delete any of its data? To rewrite it and make improvements to it?[1]
And if you know a Human is also a deterministic machine, do you feel any differently about it?
[1] I suppose you could ask your algorithm for permission first, but if it is deterministic, you could simply examine its state and design your query in a way you know the algorithm will respond 'yes'...but at that point, why bother asking?
Probably because the notion of consciousness as a physical, deterministic property is also messy, leading to conscious arrangements of gears and the ultimate conclusion that you are simply an automaton programmed to believe it is conscious, awake and self-determinate by an elaborate and pointless lie created through the cruelty and caprice of evolution.
My take is we're no better than ancient Greek philosophers arguing over the properties of atoms. We can debate it until we're blue in the face, but we simply don't have the technology or foundation of understanding to discern the truth. It is unfortunate that Humans have a deep need to believe they understand The Truth About Things no matter how little they really know, and this has led to millennia of dogma and persecution.
I'd guess because it's the only US state on the pacific coast with no sales tax.