> I wonder if I can use an old cheap B&W web-cam to make IR goggles like the Fire Dept has...
Maybe IHBT (- Score?), dunno. I wonder the same thing myself (sort of) except I think IR goggles in a burning buildng would blind you.
If the Rover can take IR images with just a camera & IR filter, what are the technical difficulties in doing the same with simple hardware? Is an IR filter hard to obtain?
BTW, this most certainly IS on-topic (parent too), since it deals with "seeing infrared."
> given how difficult it is for many people to turn their computers on and off, this is somewhat of a unrealistic expectation,
BUT, if these people are dealing with sensitive information, they should at least know enough to hire someone who DOES know what they are doing. Regardless of whether or not you can secure it yourself, you have to assume that anything not password-protected WILL be seen, and anything pw-protected but available CAN be seen.
Damn, which I could choose MY body. I wouldn't be such a fucking loser. Seriously, why?
First off, there are no "sufficiently intelligent" entities that are not human (that we know of for sure), and certainly not ones compatible with cybernetics. Assuming, of course, that we will in the future, why shouldn't the potential use of the robot determine what it looks like?
If it's a whore-bot, it'll have to look like various attractive women (or sheep, for some). Possibly modelled after women/sheep already alive, such as celebrities ("Flossy & the Farmer," anyone?)
Taken a step further, assuming AI is "perfect," wouldn't every AI entity choose the same perfect body? Or can AI still rely on any kind of freewill or even show preference? I suppose that is part of the definition of a sufficiently intelligent entity, but intentionally using randomization in a circuit means there is still not free will, just random choice. If preference is programmed in, it's following its programming, not making a decision.
I suppose, however, that we could be victims of a freewill facade and our choices are already in our "programming."
> Would you have trouble identifying when an android has low intelligence
You may be on to something with that, but I think there is an additional "something." One of the things some people have had difficulty with is trying to interact, in human ways, with a non-human. It is not necessarily that people would realize an android is of low intelligence, but they can tell how a human reacts -- if it doesn't react like you expect it to, you get uneasy. If a person (real) acts strangely, you can tell, because they do not act like "normal people." This can make you uneasy, so having what appears to be real act unreal is frustrating as hell.
Man, I should have taken debate or something in H.S., because I can't construct arguments for shit. I just hope you got what I was trying to say.
Because he feels like being contrary, he's an asshole, wants to look smarter than he is, or a combination of the above. Maybe he's just an extreme advocate of proper terminology. Oh, wait, I already said asshole.
> I sit in front of this 21' CRT a LOT and quite frankly the thought of it gives me the creeps.
If the thought of radiation scares you, better stay out of the Sun's rays. Seriously, radiation != harmful in any way. There are certain types/frequencies which can cause problems -- those are what you should be asking about.
> Can anyone come up with any reasons why nobody is producing passively lit computer screens?
Because they know damned well that no geek would buy it. We (many of us) like to sit in dark rooms playing games/coding/whatever. With passively lit systems, no more all-night coding sprees.
I realize that it might be good for daytime in offices, but if geeks won't drool over it, they won't suggest it to their bosses.
It really is a good idea, IMO, but not good enough to mass-produce; this leads to unreasonable prices.
Okay, when the market works properly the price lowers. When there is an intentional, artificial scarcity to make prices 100x what they should be, it is monopoly. Or thievery. Or, in this case, murder.
> what about parts of them owning my IP developed outside the company
If it is in the contract, it is valid (within reason. Something you created before you started is not theirs in any way).
> Especially if I have my own company
Then you should not click "I Agree," since you do NOT agree. Speak with someone in charge. If they will not take it out and you will not work with it in... Not to be rude, but tough shit. Law is very complex for some reason, and it is getting harder & harder to work under your own terms. I hate lawyers, but they are a necessary evil at times, so the best advice is to get their advice. It takes money, but is your future (on _your_ terms) worth a few hundred bucks?
> I don't think it's designed for the top of your car.
Aaaah, after you said that, I went back to read the post, since I had the same doubts as the other guy.
> a device that suppresses hail formation to protect its fleet of new vehicles from hailstorm damage
I originally read this to mean that the new cars would each have one to be protected instead of their entire fleet being in a single location (or large groups) protected by these devices.
So this does nothing for the purchaser except give them a better chance of buying a car that was not previously hail-damaged. Of course, you would probably notice the dents & nicks all over before buying it.
Just goes to show you that reading the article really is a good idea.
> he's seen plenty of boobs in his career, why would he be so interested in one more as to bargain for it?
Well, not to be serious or anything, but look at the value of the items: 1) RJ's cock has been seen numerous times, and as we know, more availability of an item generally lowers its price. 2) Even though he has seen "Plenty O' Titties," they were all from porn stars, who have shown them numerous times, therefore lowering the value of them as well. 3) The woman he was speaking to, however (I'm ashamed to admit I saw the episode you refer to -- the only episode I've seen) is far from a porn star, without plastic/silicone knockers that have been squeezed to hell & back by too many hands to count.
Therefore, he was taking into account the perceived value of showing his tallywhacker (as an aside, does that word then infer what "tally" means?) vs. what he would pay to see her boobs.
IOW, he doesn't want to look at nasty porn-star tits that have been "enhanced" digitally or cleaned up with tons of makeup.
Slashdot Mirror
> My AIP class was very interesting
Please excuse my ignorance, but what does AIP stand for? Advanced Image Processing?
> I wonder if I can use an old cheap B&W web-cam to make IR goggles like the Fire Dept has...
Maybe IHBT (- Score?), dunno. I wonder the same thing myself (sort of) except I think IR goggles in a burning buildng would blind you.
If the Rover can take IR images with just a camera & IR filter, what are the technical difficulties in doing the same with simple hardware? Is an IR filter hard to obtain?
BTW, this most certainly IS on-topic (parent too), since it deals with "seeing infrared."
> being slow to the draw
Eh, nothing I haven't done twenty or thirty times.
Of course, IRL, you only get to do it once... Unless the other guy is slower.
> given how difficult it is for many people to turn their computers on and off, this is somewhat of a unrealistic expectation,
BUT, if these people are dealing with sensitive information, they should at least know enough to hire someone who DOES know what they are doing. Regardless of whether or not you can secure it yourself, you have to assume that anything not password-protected WILL be seen, and anything pw-protected but available CAN be seen.
> McRobot Clerk at McDonalds can express his willingness to serve you without words
Now THAT would be an improvement. Even if the humans would be willing to serve you without an apathetic or angry reaction.
> let's create facsimilies of creations such as Chii
Since I have never heard of Chobits, I thought you meant Chia at first, which is a great mix of technology and botanical fun.
> Any sufficiently intelligent entity
Damn, which I could choose MY body. I wouldn't be such a fucking loser. Seriously, why?
First off, there are no "sufficiently intelligent" entities that are not human (that we know of for sure), and certainly not ones compatible with cybernetics. Assuming, of course, that we will in the future, why shouldn't the potential use of the robot determine what it looks like?
If it's a whore-bot, it'll have to look like various attractive women (or sheep, for some). Possibly modelled after women/sheep already alive, such as celebrities ("Flossy & the Farmer," anyone?)
Taken a step further, assuming AI is "perfect," wouldn't every AI entity choose the same perfect body? Or can AI still rely on any kind of freewill or even show preference? I suppose that is part of the definition of a sufficiently intelligent entity, but intentionally using randomization in a circuit means there is still not free will, just random choice. If preference is programmed in, it's following its programming, not making a decision.
I suppose, however, that we could be victims of a freewill facade and our choices are already in our "programming."
> Would you have trouble identifying when an android has low intelligence
You may be on to something with that, but I think there is an additional "something." One of the things some people have had difficulty with is trying to interact, in human ways, with a non-human.
It is not necessarily that people would realize an android is of low intelligence, but they can tell how a human reacts -- if it doesn't react like you expect it to, you get uneasy. If a person (real) acts strangely, you can tell, because they do not act like "normal people." This can make you uneasy, so having what appears to be real act unreal is frustrating as hell.
Man, I should have taken debate or something in H.S., because I can't construct arguments for shit. I just hope you got what I was trying to say.
> And no more robot pets.
I can handle robotic pets when they become a good bit better than an Aibo, but dammit, I'll shoot somebody if I ever see a DigiPet or its ilk again.
Yes they have, Just a few times.
> Did you see the face of that damn robot? If that's an accurate resemblance of his girlfriend, I think he should be the one worrying.
Really. I thought it was supposed to be a man's face. After I read it was modeled after a woman I looked again. Nope, still looks like a man, man.
> It apears you may be biased for other reasons
Because he feels like being contrary, he's an asshole, wants to look smarter than he is, or a combination of the above. Maybe he's just an extreme advocate of proper terminology. Oh, wait, I already said asshole.
> I sit in front of this 21' CRT a LOT and quite frankly the thought of it gives me the creeps.
If the thought of radiation scares you, better stay out of the Sun's rays. Seriously, radiation != harmful in any way. There are certain types/frequencies which can cause problems -- those are what you should be asking about.
> The only new display tech I've heard of and it's not there. Figures.
But are real OLED displays being sold? If so, are they selling enough that you would see one at Circuit City or your local A/V specialist?
> Can anyone come up with any reasons why nobody is producing passively lit computer screens?
Because they know damned well that no geek would buy it. We (many of us) like to sit in dark rooms playing games/coding/whatever. With passively lit systems, no more all-night coding sprees.
I realize that it might be good for daytime in offices, but if geeks won't drool over it, they won't suggest it to their bosses.
It really is a good idea, IMO, but not good enough to mass-produce; this leads to unreasonable prices.
> I'd prefer to read it on the pot,
Aw, son, you don't want to ruin your life! Stay away from that stuff, it's dirty. Just Say No! to toilets!
> Tell that to DaBeers.
Okay, when the market works properly the price lowers. When there is an intentional, artificial scarcity to make prices 100x what they should be, it is monopoly. Or thievery. Or, in this case, murder.
> what about parts of them owning my IP developed outside the company
If it is in the contract, it is valid (within reason. Something you created before you started is not theirs in any way).
> Especially if I have my own company
Then you should not click "I Agree," since you do NOT agree. Speak with someone in charge. If they will not take it out and you will not work with it in... Not to be rude, but tough shit. Law is very complex for some reason, and it is getting harder & harder to work under your own terms. I hate lawyers, but they are a necessary evil at times, so the best advice is to get their advice. It takes money, but is your future (on _your_ terms) worth a few hundred bucks?
> How binding is this I wonder?
Unfortunately for you, it's binding enough to get you fired for breaking the contract.
> I don't think it's designed for the top of your car.
Aaaah, after you said that, I went back to read the post, since I had the same doubts as the other guy.
> a device that suppresses hail formation to protect its fleet of new vehicles from hailstorm damage
I originally read this to mean that the new cars would each have one to be protected instead of their entire fleet being in a single location (or large groups) protected by these devices.
So this does nothing for the purchaser except give them a better chance of buying a car that was not previously hail-damaged. Of course, you would probably notice the dents & nicks all over before buying it.
Just goes to show you that reading the article really is a good idea.
> It could be the general lack of chicken soft tacos and carne asada too.
:)
Y'know, that really doesn't seem like it should be funny, but I was chuckling anyway. Thanks
> but you do have to contend with falling cats
Well, I guess that means it's raining cats, so all we need now are the dogs.
> Now they just need sharks with frikkin' radar beams.
If you're going to mangle the quote, at least realize that sharks would need frikkin' sonar devices.
> those bruises?
New excuse? What, you needed a previous excuse for having bruises on yer wang?
The Surreal Life is the show.
> he's seen plenty of boobs in his career, why would he be so interested in one more as to bargain for it?
Well, not to be serious or anything, but look at the value of the items:
1) RJ's cock has been seen numerous times, and as we know, more availability of an item generally lowers its price.
2) Even though he has seen "Plenty O' Titties," they were all from porn stars, who have shown them numerous times, therefore lowering the value of them as well.
3) The woman he was speaking to, however (I'm ashamed to admit I saw the episode you refer to -- the only episode I've seen) is far from a porn star, without plastic/silicone knockers that have been squeezed to hell & back by too many hands to count.
Therefore, he was taking into account the perceived value of showing his tallywhacker (as an aside, does that word then infer what "tally" means?) vs. what he would pay to see her boobs.
IOW, he doesn't want to look at nasty porn-star tits that have been "enhanced" digitally or cleaned up with tons of makeup.