i guess i should make a browser that sends an EULA... or perhaps a SCLA (server communication) in the meta data it sends to the server along the lines of "by transmitting information to this computer you have released your rights to the information you have transmitted, continual transmission will be taken as an agreement to that condition". now its legal for me to use facebook's logos etc for my own financial gain without cutting them in. if they can obfuscate their "entitlements" deep in an obscure, excessively legalized document in which is supposedly applicable to even 13 year olds. then the same logic applies to my "agreement".
A cookie that is set is sent to the server upon each request. Cookies can be limited to only be sent to one server, but the default is "send to all servers".
Here, paste this into your address bar:
javascript:void(document.cookie="NOTICE=By transmitting information to this computer you have released your rights to the information you have transmitted, continual transmission will be taken as an agreement to that condition")
Now each website you visit (until you close your browser) will receive your agreement. To make this a bookmarklet, paste it as the URL of a bookmark, then click that bookmark once per session to activate the agreement cookie.
Of course, I doubt a court would find this legal.
The problem is that these agreements need not be legal. When faced with a costly legal battle, a settlement will likely be preferable than even having to pay your lawyers and taking the chance of losing. Point being: They have a bigger warchest than you; Ergo, your agreement is worthless while theirs is very formidable.
Infighting in Microsoft is why we didn't get clear-type for over 10 years after it was available... (Clear-type is the software that gives fonts 3 times the horizontal resolution on LCDs)
Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Clear Type shipped in Windows since XP launched in 2001? So, you're saying that this technology was available in 1991 or earlier?
No, I'm not saying that at all -- I'm just repeating what's in TFL... But, yes, it does seem to me that it took over ten years to be fully available.
For example, early in my tenure, our group of very clever graphics experts invented a way to display text on screen called ClearType. It worked by using the color dots of liquid crystal displays to make type much more readable on the screen. Although we built it to help sell e-books, it gave Microsoft a huge potential advantage for every device with a screen. But it also annoyed other Microsoft groups that felt threatened by our success.
[...]
Engineers in the Windows group falsely claimed it made the display go haywire when certain colors were used. The head of Office products said it was fuzzy and gave him headaches. The vice president for pocket devices was blunter: he’d support ClearType and use it, but only if I transferred the program and the programmers to his control. As a result, even though it received much public praise, internal promotion and patents, a decade passed before a fully operational version of ClearType finally made it into Windows.
--Dick Brass (Vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004).
I agree the time line may seem a bit dubious -- the sub pixel rendering method was patented in 1998 -- it could have been invented before that time... According to the Wikipedia article
ClearType was invented in the Microsoft e-Books team by Bert Keely and Greg Hitchcock. It was then analyzed by researchers in the company, and signal processing expert John Platt designed an improved version of the algorithm
So I suppose, according to Dick Brass, Keely & Hitchcock would have had to invent the system prior to 1991, before a patent was filed for the tech... I don't think he's claiming it was a decade before it was available.
I think means it was a decade before it actually worked correctly in Windows... (at which point I would consider it stable enough to rely upon -- Available != Available to be considered stable) In which case the timeline is less dubios, and my position stands that without the infighting I would not have had to wait a decade for "a fully operational version of ClearType" to finally make it into Windows.
P.S. Bullshit pedantic discussion aside: The ex Vice President of Microsoft says:
"Unlike other companies, Microsoft never developed a true system for innovation. Some of my former colleagues argue that it actually developed a system to thwart innovation. Despite having one of the largest and best corporate laboratories in the world, and the luxury of not one but three chief technology officers, the company routinely manages to frustrate the efforts of its visionary thinkers."
To me this means that corporate infighting at MS has stifled innovation in Windows -- Which was my original point.
Shuttleworth notes to that end, "Weâ(TM)ve failed." He adds, "Much of the language, and much of the decision making Iâ(TM)ve observed within Gnome, is based on the idea that Unity is competition WITH Gnome, rather than WITHIN Gnome."
There was a story on The Register today on why Nokia failed. They had the exact same problem - teams that should be working together are fighting against each other and in the end just losing together. That seems to be a large problem in OSS community too, and it's no wonder Nokia had it too (they had many Linux developers). But when a software company, usually proprietary, is ran good, it doesn't suffer such problems as management makes good decisions and gives orders. That is why Windows works good and why the quality is consistent.
Infighting in Microsoft is why we didn't get clear-type for over 10 years after it was available... (Clear-type is the software that gives fonts 3 times the horizontal resolution on LCDs) The Office Suite devs wanted it for their own -- to boost their own team's importance, and refused to fix the the MS Office font system to work with clear-type unless the clear-type devs were placed under the Office Suite team's umbrella.
Ubuntu and Gnome are diverging because they each have their own goals and any interference with one's goals is not tolerated -- I've found that true collaboration basically requires an alignment of our goals -- Seems to me like human nature.
The difference is that when Canonical and Gnome bicker, I can still use the features that they independently develop... I'm not stuck waiting for 10 years (like for Windows clear-type).
How about a browser option of 'accept all cookies - but delete them once the session is over'?
The tracking companies get their cookies accepted and privacy is maintained. Everyone is happy. Kind of.
Done: Open Firefox > Tools > Start Private Browsing.
This is the "mode" which you seek.
The bullshit legislation won't matter. There are hundreds of hacks to store user state without cookies. All of the data can be stored server side, and if just one identifying piece of information correlates two user profiles (say, usage pattern, or time of day + IP address) then your data is being mined.
Stop private browsing, go to a different website, the ads on that website link the current time of day & my IP address to the profile they bulit while I was "private browsing".
Some are arguing that allowing cookies in the browser is basically equivalent to giving your consent.
That sounds to me like implicit consent, while the EU requires explicit consent. Though I suppose asking permission once per site is enough - not every single visit. And after receiving such explicit permission the site may store a cookie on your computer indicating that they have that permission already.
Well, earlier today, I pasted this in my address bar:
javascript:void(document.cookie = "reminder=Don't forget:\n\tCover page for TPS report.");
Just now I pasted this in my address bar:
javascript: alert( document.cookie );
(Not a moment too soon -- I almost sent that report with the old cover sheet.)
That message was sent to every website I visited today. I know damn well they don't have my explicit permission to read the cookie headers that my browser sends them -- Especially not when they contain such important trade secrets. I'll report all the sites in my history post haste! In fact, YOU don't have explicit consent to be reading my notes either! I never gave you explicit consent, so I'm afraid I'll have to report you as well.
Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think that since I'm self employed part-time I might be in violation too! I didn't update the Cookie Consent Clause of my Explicit Permissions Form to specify that my company has the explicit permission to track my thoughts throughout the day using text files & "magic-cookies".
I sure hope I don't get fined, I can never go back to the yellow sticky squares... not after that time they didn't get my explicit permission to record the doodles I made of my manager, and nearly got me fired by way of an unauthorized 3rd party doodle disclosure!
(When I complained Post-It admitted that paper and pens normally only have implied consent to record and redisplay information to anyone within reading / writing distance, and explicit consent is required in the EU. However the EULA on the shrink wrap that I thew away said that by opening the package I forfeit my right to consider marks made with my hands as information...)
You have freedom to use what you paid for within the terms of the usage agreement you've got with your provider. If they say "we may filter or traffic shape your traffic", then you're free to accept that or find some other carrier with preferable terms.
"What? You're not a slave! Why, You have the choice of being told what you can & can't do here, or at my neighbor's plantation -- Or you can die, see, you have plenty of freedom."
You're correct about having the choice to accept draconian licensing terms or not have the Internet at all... I can go with a different provider, but the only other provider in town has shitty service & licensing too. The "freedom" you describe is the freedom of a catch-22. I suppose that I'm not supposed to complain about, or support legislation that combats, the bad business practices of the telecoms that put me in this position?
BTW, It's more profitable for them to have shitty service, more on that in a few...
And besides, EVEN IF there were subsidies, etc., (as the other AC replier mentioned), blame your congress-critters for not negotiating better terms before they gave your money away. EVEN IF your local municipality is granting a monopoly, blame your local town-board for doing so and not insisting that the cable provider accommodate competitive content providers on the outside plant.
Yeah, no. Although I do despise the corrupt congressmen, I ultimately blame the LOBBYISTS that pay the congress critters -- The Lobbyists that are funded by the Telecoms -- for making it financially beneficial for the congress critters to agree to the shitty terms... (Boy, some folks are clueless about how it all really works -- Money talks, bullshit walks.)
I have done all that's in my power to fix this -- One of the things I do is support network neutrality, but the corporate lobbyists have far more money than I do to donate (hint: Still in a recession -- I can eat, or use my $$ to fight a loosing battle against more powerful opponents who already have a history with their pocket politicians (the ones I need on my side to win).
So, in all actuality, I don't have much freedom of choice, I can either accept the crappy service & terms or not have any at all (Isn't 0Mbps WORSE than any crappy amount they decide to give me?)
Now that the consumer ISP monopoly / duopolies are in place they are turning their sights on the content producers (who already pay for their own access to the web, BTW). One way that an ISP can double dip is to force a content company to co-locate servers and charge them rent. The claim is that the servers are closer to the end users and therefore you get faster connections.
This is very true, you do get better connections, but it costs the content providers more (then they drive my bill up? so it ends up costing me more?). However, the co-location wouldn't be necessary if Comcast would run their links at less saturation -- Level3 tried to give them more hardware so they could do just this (Improve the Comcast service for everyone!), but Comcast refused... Comcast demands Co-Location instead of fixing the problem (It is a problem, come 5:00, my Internet speeds drop drastically). Comcast is holding my connection speed hostage -- Even when I paid to get faster service, the Netflix stream still sucked, and it will continue to suck unless Netflix/Level3 pays the ransom and co-locates servers with Comcast.
During the middle of the day my Netflix streaming on Comcast works almost acceptably... But when peak usage times hit, the streaming stutters all to hell because Comcast is dropping my Netflix packets (I pay both Comcast and Netflix to access them).
How does NN fit in? Well, if Comcast wasn't allowed to lower my Netflix traffic QoS so much (esp lower than their own competing Video service's priority) then their own Video delivery service would have to suck more... Comcast would have to fix the damn problem and
My first word wasn't "Dada" or "Mama"... It was "Light". My parents have a home video of the event; It happened to be my cousin Mike's birthday party and my father was carrying me as he turned off the light when they brought in the cake with 8 burning candles. I can clearly be heard saying "Light" as he turns off the switch and seen reaching for the switch, but no one noticed at the time.
A few minutes later they turn the light back on and I say "Light" again. This time people take notice -- They say, "Oh, look, he's saying 'Mike', daaaaww! It's his first word!" My parents seem somewhat surprised since I hadn't even babbled Mama, or Dada -- I was a "quiet and thoughtful" child they would later tell me. For the next several minutes I'm quiet, bashful seeming almost, as everyone tries to "reinforce" my "word birth" by getting me to say the wrong damn word -- "Mike... Mike... Can you say Mike?"
Later, when I'm brought near the light switch again I reach for it, say "light", and manage to turn off the switch and laugh as the lights go out.
My father says, "I think its 'light' he's saying". I'm allowed to play with the switch turning on and off the light as my father holds me and says, "Is that what you're saying? Are you trying to say "light" little guy?" Once again I say, "light" (not "Mike", and not subject to particularly short or repetitious "reinforcement" sentences) -- Clearly, I've been trying to tell my family that I want to play with the switch, and could not be deterred by their collective incorrect word reinforcement.
To note: I doubt it would have mattered what damn fool words the oafish apes were trying to "teach" me via reinforcement at the time; I wanted the damn light switch and was determined to get them to understand. You see, I had already learned the word -- They weren't teaching me a new word; I was attempting to communicate with them.
The remaining film is full of failed attempts to get me to say Mama and Dada over at least several days in various locations and times -- I'm sure the 35 minutes of tape is just a small sampling of the hours my parents admit to having coached me in this fashion. The home movie concludes with me saying my 2nd word: "Damn. Damn damn! Damn Damn Damn!" while my mother scolds my father for swearing in front of me... (Another "word birth" that they did not "reinforce"... In fact, I'm told that I continued to use the word long after it had been removed from my parents vocabularies.)
In short: Everyone is different; I was "late" to begin talking; When I did it was as if my vocabulary already contained many words, but I was just beginning to use them -- Some words, like "Car", I would say once, get wrong, and not attempt to say again for a long time (weeks -- enough time to study the pronunciation, apparently). As my annunciation became more clear, the words I said were more numerous, longer and more complex phonetically. It appears that my language skills were learned long before I attempted to speak, and to this day my favorite saying is: "If you're going to do something, do it correctly."
"Reinforced word birth" may well help some children, but as any parent that has cursed in front of their child and had them repeat the word(s) at an inopportune moment will tell you: Not all "word births" are "reinforced" or welcome for that matter. Perhaps "naughty words" are a special class of language that for some reason come naturally to all children -- or perhaps the reinforcement upon vocalization theory is just one small piece of the complex behavior of language development.
I ran my own BBS before the Internet was available in my town.
Local communities were established and people "belonged" to many BBSes (not one provider).
My family participated in the "beta" of the Prodigy Online Computer + Network all in one box.
I looked at its' GUI and thought -- Meh, my ASCII BBS may not have a client program, but some of my door games do, and I can't even use the computer for anything else, this is too restricted to succeed.
When the Internet came, I had a portal for my users on the BBS.
The Internet was so popular my lines were constantly tied, and no one used any other feature of the BBS.
I realized the BBS interconnectivity & long-distance restrictions had been solved via the Internet -- It must replace BBS because you can "belong" to a world of "servers" instead of just your local BBSes...
AOL was a huge BBS -- Many people didn't even use it's Internet gateway until websites got started... (Fsck AOL Kewords!) It was another centralized "everything here" system like Prodigy sans dedicated computer terminal.
It's still slogging along on momentum from back then, but I think many people would agree pure unrestricted web browser and Internet access is better than BBSes with Internet Gateways... (esp. now that Internet aware applications exist).
Yahoo got very popular, among many other IM systems -- I was just using IRC via a terminal app.
I kept seeing people join these ever increasing in size, yet still fractured communities looking to "belong" and to "connect".
Myspace & Facebook & other "networking" sites came around and got popular, but they were all sort of like the BBS (but worse, because Sysops would sometimes exchange volumes of their data to mutual benefit, where Facebook doesn't, except your private user data -- that which honorable BBS Sysops would never divulge.).
Invariably some people were info hoarders -- They have HDs full of saved websites & images (incase the site disappears or the image/video is pulled down, or they move from one service to another) -- Nothing has changed since the BBS days I thought... And then I thought about that and I realized something.
The true power of the community is its connections. The web is good because of all the connections, but the distinction between "client" and "server" is a horrible concept... Sites push out content, and some allow user uploaded contend, but they all suffer from Silo Syndrome... The info is in these Silos, not distributed among all these amazingly powerful machines. Facebook adding Skype is just further proof of the "collect it all until the system collapses on itself" Info-Silo syndrome.
Trying to gather all the data up into a pile for everyone to access is like a BBS... We learned that its better distributed. All machines could be (are already) both clients and servers (but few actually take advantage of this directly -- more in the game community, do, but only for games / chat).
I started to get the idea that there needs to be an open protocol for community connections: IM, voice, images, updates, journals, etc. Aggregators like Google can be used to "index" content and tell everyone where to find stuff, but not all data needs to be pubilc. Another tier is needed -- smaller aggregator systems that index individuals that are close to you (the people that allow you to see "friends only" data). The only way to do this securely is if the aggegator is trusted by (run by) mutal friends, or by everyone in a distributed manor. This requires goodwill on the friends part that they won't download your friend's only data and make it public (not a friend eh?).
So, different tiers of friendship, different relationships need to have their own permissions in addition to friends -- individual friends.
Everyone would have to run their own aggegators & client/servers, but some of it can be optimized in the "public" or "friends" acc
The Geminoid family, a series of ultra-realistic androids, each a copy of a real person, has a new member
A bit realistic perhaps, but definitely not ultra.
I agree, since this is a Japanese company, I'd say they've achieved S Class animatronics...( not Ultra, and certainly not over 9000! )
The jerky movements aside (it's a rough mechanical test), once its software is fine tuned I could see something like this hooked up to something like IBM's Watson (but with opinions & emotions instead of just answers in the form of questions).
Personally, I'm looking at the cyborg implications -- Take today's synthetic lungs, heart pumps, dialysis, and IV nutrient delivery and combine it with a thought control input device to control the robotic shell, and I'm one step closer to putting my brain in a robot body.
With lots of these houses, we could save alot of the energy generated during the night.
In future, you might want to consider fixing your typos, rather than just making them bold.
Hmmm... screw the typo, the logic failure is astounding... "With lots of these houses, we could save alot [sic] of the energy generated during the night".
I'm confused, does he mean lots of us could charge our houses' batteries during off-peak times and use that stored power when energy prices are higher in order to save money (which, with a large enough number of homes using this strategy will eliminate the usage-peak altogether or even shift the electric consumption peak to the night such that the monetary benefit of charging during those times is negated)? ... or...
Perhaps he means that excess energy from his solar cells can charge the house's battery the when his power demand is lower (at night)?
"Also, if the wormhole is short, so that the two stars it links don't lie far apart, an observer might see another unusual signpost -- two closely spaced objects with nearly identical properties."
And the sign says "No gas for 1,000,000,000 miles" or "McDonalds ahead"?
The sign next to the wormhole leading to our solar system reads:
Quarantined Zone: Human Infestation. Don't Panic!
All craft exiting this wormhole will be vaporized on sight.
Have a nice day, We apologize for the inconvenience
-- God
Posting this redundant comment to prevent myself from reading & modding any more of this drivel.
TFA is Redundant. We all already know that Apple turned to the dark side a long time ago. Doesn't matter to me if they win the fight to become the next evil emperors or not -- I concern myself not with the power struggles in the dark side.
The dark side is best viewed from a distance, and combatted by helping the good be better; Wallowing in the darkness by using their infernal software/hardware and complaining/speculating about the evil makes about as much sense as wallowing in mud and complaining/speculating about getting dirty.
"This closed system has so many controls, limits & ulterior motives!" =~ "This Mud puddle has so much Dirt & Filth!"
Now, if you'll excuse me, the good side just called & I've decided to donate some free time to provide free support for new-users (w/o support contracts) of my 100% Free-Libre Open Source project (that I created with my Free-Libre Open Source tools running on my Free-Libre Open Source operating system).
P.S. Here is some goodness just for you:
// Paste the following code into your address bar if to test for troll stories.
javascript:var TFS=document.title.toString();void(alert((TFS.match(/(Apple|(Google|(Microsoft|(Adobe|(SCO|(Oracle|(.{1,2}nix|(.?Ubuntu))))))))/i) && TFS.match(/(evil|considered harmful)/i)) ? "Troll thread detected.\n\nDo not post in or moderate this thread!" : "It's probably safe to read and post in this thread." ));
To use this as a bookmarklet: Create a bookmark & set that line of code as the "address" or "location" of the bookmark. Before reading & posting / moderating, click that bookmark.
"I think the first thing to realize is that minimization doesn't make sense if you maximize everything," It just proves they don't know shit about UI. Hint: The larger & higher res my monitor, the less shit I maximize.
Did you notice the if in that quote? The GNOME dev isn't saying that everyone maximizes everything, he's describing the role minimize plays in two different usage patterns. One is the "maximize everything" pattern (which I use on my fairly-small screened laptop, and lots of less technical users use even on large screens). So, everything he says about this usage pattern is irrelevant to your usage pattern; that's why he goes on to the "else" branch of the "if," and talks about how minimize is used by other users, who don't maximize anything.
Yeah, I get that... I also get that with such quotes as:
Many people (most people?) never minimize.
He's got to be talking out of his ass as well in the "else" condition of the justification for the idea they've had (Note: They didn't create an opt-in behavior reporting tool to create actual statistics -- they dreamed up some UI changes, then pulled rationals out of their asses for why they did so based on how much two people didn't like the new UI, but didn't refuse to use it either...)
"Many people" -- A term that can honestly describe nearly any amount of people. "(most people?)" -- Unsure if more people or less people on average actually do or do not fall into this classification <-- That's the truth folks; translation: "We don't know if more people do or do not ever minimize, but at least some people never do."
So, yeah, some people never turn their machines on Sunday. "Many people (most people?) never use their desktop machines on Saturday (well, the two I asked didn't outright refuse to refrain from powering on their machines on Saturday), so we're changing grub to not boot the machine on Sunday. It will save tons of money (we think) on electricity. Also: People that do need to boot on Sunday can still boot if they really must, simply dance a jig while sacrificing a virgin."
Your pedantic arguments about me missing the "if then else" do not apply when both branches are based on is bat-shit stupidity. I actually RTFAs and the articles that they link to before I come to a conclusion... Unlike some people.
Repeat this two person UI test with a much larger sample group, then we can call this BS research.
Charge one penny per sent message. That is all we need to do to stop spam. So simple.
If anyone wants security, there is S/MIME, widely available and widely supported.
Ooh look -- My new email business is to batch zip all incomming / outgoing emails, send / recieve the batches, and unpack them at the other end.
Peering agreements between mail-batch-zip providers will allow all email to traverse freely once again.
If you have any questions, click the "reply" link and fill out the form. You may be charged 1 cent to hit "submit" (unless you are already a customer of Slashdot's mail-batch-zip service).
Dragging is more stress-inducing to the hand than simply clicking mouse. we do countless minimize-maximize actions over the course of a normal workday. ...
Excuse me gnome, but you are losing me.
Well, on Ubuntu 10.10 the default Ambiance theme has 1px wide window borders...
It's rediculously difficult to resize a window by grabbing the edge or bottom -- Not every window has the resize widget in the lower corner.
If you have shaky hands (like my neighbor) or use a touch screen device it's not ridiculous, its damn near impossible to grab the window edge and resize the window. Right click the window title, then choose "resize", yes, I know -- I actually have a script bound to the window placement hotkeys that allow me to 1/2 width resize a window and position it on the left or right (most users don't know how to do this). Some themes have wider borders, but come on -- UI design testing? Did they even TRY using the theme!? If they did, they forgot to try resizing windows.
Ubuntu has no credibility IMO, when it comes to UI, and when Gnome comes out with statements like, "I think the first thing to realize is that minimization doesn't make sense if you maximize everything," It just proves they don't know shit about UI. Hint: The larger & higher res my monitor, the less shit I maximize. I have NEVER maximized Tomboy notes, Pidgin, Terminal, and about 10 other apps I'm running right now.
Maximized WebBrowser!? What the hell? If I do that then I'm just wasting a HUGE amount of space on many websites because of my high desktop resolution (big blank areas with a content strip in the center), sites that opt for reflowing layouts look decent when resized to 1280 wide, so UNmaximized browser is a general purpose solution for me... I prefer to have a workspace with the browser 1/2 covering, and other multi-media apps (radio, chat, etc) all sized to fit -- NONE ARE MAXIMIZED.
The only thing that is maximized is my (code | document | image ) editor on the other screen (actually -- I NEVER run Gimp maximized either, the toolboxes cover up the image, and my Wacom tablet's pen interface doesn't play nice with wide mulit-screen virtual desktops + Synergy (control multiple machines w/ one keyboard & mouse). The assumption that everyone just runs maximized is retarded (Problem, Calculator?!)
Forgive me if I call "bullshit" on both Ubuntu & Gnome's "UI research"; To me it seems like neither have done any.
It'd be awesome if there was a way to place this sort of intelligence into chemicals. Like, not just replicate the biology virtually... but actually do it with chemicals. Literally creating something like DNA, then getting bits of it copied with something like RNA to cause growth. Create cell like things that split. I mean, with work like this we have the theory... now could we put it into actual chemical practice? There I go being a dreamer:)
Dream no more, we have actually created synthetic life, having DNA modeled 100% in a computer.
There's even a website address & code to decode the website address hidden in the synthetic life, sort of like a fingerprint.
I hear it's next goal will be to engineer the new lifeforms to help produce bio-diesel or other fuels.
I have to concede that neurology is the correct field to study if you want to find a shortcut to "us".
Not too long ago we discovered that there are eddy currents in our brains, neurons not even connected to other neurons will be influenced by the inductive thought currents. This is a radical design shift for all of those artificial brains that model neuron and synapse connections.
Have no fear folks... We WILL have artificial life eventually, we just don't have fast enough computers. Our understanding of how (sub)atomic models work is fairly decent.
Once we're able to fully model a human brain at the atomic level and simulate all of its atoms' interactions -- Presto: Real AI.
Some AI folk talk about "building blocks" of intelligence -- They're called subatomic particles folks, not neurons. Emulating neurons is a shortcut that may get us closer to some form of machine intelligence. We may never be able to accurately model the physical world inside a computer at real-time speeds, but if we could then problems such as "DOH! I forgot about electromagnetism in my brain sim" wouldn't be a problem.
Neuroscience helps us understand how better to refine our "shortcut" approaches to AI such that we may see decent results within our lifetimes...
Another way to put it is that he is a dreamer with a goal. If you ever played any of the games of the Creatures series (especially Creatures3 and, astonishingly, Creatures Village, both available at GOG.com), you probably know that the norns felt quite real and sometimes behaved in bafflingly intelligent-looking ways. So, although I don't think he'll reach his ideological goal to 100%, I'm looking forward to see how Grandroid turns out.
It features a number of autonomous simulation components including a landscape simulation, biological simulation, weather simulation, sentient creature (Noble Ape) simulation and a simple intelligent-agent scripting language (ApeScript).
The Noble Apes see their surroundings, have memories (internalizations of the external world), remember their encounters (almost drowning results in a fear of water) which leads emotion simulation & even relationships, can crudely communicate and breed with each other, and even dream!
If the Norns were "alive" in Creatures -- The apes are even more so, and a great deal closer to the goal of emergent sentience (esp. than to as yet nonexistent/unpublished Grandroid code).
What the Noble Apes don't have is a detailed graphical representation of themselves based on their genetics... I hoped that perhaps SPORE would help with this, but it was closed source.
The biggest failing of software (esp. some AI/AL simulations) is the desire to attempt to realize an idea or concept instead of truly collaborating with like-minded individuals and utilizing their works / ideas to realize a greater solution.
What I find interesting is machine learning through evolution -- Start with a VM filled with random noise & a few inputs. Devise a goal & selectively "breed" the instances that are closer to reaching the goals.
IMHO, Yeah, he's quite full of himself... so much so that he'll start a new project.
Meh, I'll bet it will be a fun game, regardless.
Upgrade from a 386 with Win3.1, to Win95 on 486DX, then Win98 a Pentium, Win2000 on Pentium II, etc. Try migrating your settings from one hard drive to another larger one at each step. Perform a few service pack upgrades along the way like a normal user would. Hint: Migrating your systems through multiple hardware & service pack upgrades is a pain in the ass and flaky as hell.
Just try to take an older windows version and copy the files and settings onto AN ALREADY INSTALLED OS that your hardware vendor gave you -- OS pre-installation will be the death of me.
You save time if you wipe the new system, copy the old files from one PC to the other, then use the OEM CD (IF YOU CAN) to "upgrade" the OS back to the newer version... I've had to buy an additional copy of windows (having paid for the one that's pre-installed) just to get a CD that would allow me to upgrade. That's the price you pay for being a loyal Microsoft customer...
Copying the old windows files over to the new larger drive won't copy the master boot record, and even if you do manage to reimage your new system to match the old system Windows will call you a THEIF (user of a pirated copy of windows), and prevent you from upgrading until you to re-validate since the massive hardware change. Good luck booting & revalidating, the old OS drivers don't work on the new system they've been copied over to... "Upgrades" are subject to having a "valid" installation of windows already on the machine.
To note: Another option worked sometimes -- Actually full on install the old OS into the freshly wiped new system. Then, copy all the files / settings, etc (or use migration tool if it exists & your old OS boots on the new machine...) Finally, "updrade" the new machine back to it's original OS version... Got a new machine?! Great! Stop right there, you can't use it till it has thrice installed windows!
Also: I dare you try using a 386 to run Vista.
So what if MS can be upgraded through "EVERY VERSION*" ON THE SAME VIRTUAL HARDWARE without monthly and/or service pack updates? This is a solution in search of a use-case that doesn't exist.
* Well, except ME -- Guess that it isn't possible to upgrade through "every version" then is it?
Old hardware won't run MS's new OSs, and the old OSs don't work on the new hardware (outside of a damn controlled environment VM -- Win3.1 on a x64 quad core? Don't make me laugh -- it won't even support my mouse). Of course using these old OSs for testing & supporting software for legacy systems is a useful ability, but come on...
Actually having lived & worked through the hell that is the upgrade path through multiple windows upgrades w/ data & software migration and different hardware, and then watching how easy it is in a VM is just maddening (Oooh, it COULD have been that easy!? Well, damn, then why wasn't it?! -- rhetorical question [no need for pedantic answers] )
Reality has been quite a bit more frustrating... Lesson learned: NEVER, I repeat NEVER use Windows (outside of a VM), and ALWAYS place your user files on a different drive and/or partition than the operating system -- It makes migration a hell of a lot easier.
In our new era of collaborative social networks such as wikis and issure-trackers it may seem logical to some to think that Arthur David Olson's post might be replaced by an automated process.
Rest assured, the faithful group of volunteers that have helped the good Doctor all these many years are in no danger of being replaced by daleks.
We wish you a fond farewell Mr. Olson.
(Perhaps now you'll have time now to fix the Tardis' broken "chameleon circuit" and get it off that bloody conspicuous police box disguise.)
No way that a motherboard in a cardboard box is going to pass the various RF emission tests for FCC or CE certification.
1) Fortunately they are selling the Motherboard, not the entire PC (the PC assemblers would have to pass the FCC or CE certs).
2) The FCC or CE (and possibly NFPA) would really flip out if they saw my "computer room" which has several computers sans cases mounted across 4x8 plexiglass sheets. They're so much easier to upgrade & clean, they're more functional than paintings/posters (and more aesthetic (to me) ). Wallputers give the room a cosy, cyber-punk feel...
Who needs cases? Also: the cardboard case is fairly bulky, ugh.
P.S. I use Synergy for my Multi-screen/Multi OS/Multi Computer command and control center.
So, as someone who hasn't studied optics in at least 6 years, and doesn't plan on picking up a book regarding the matter anytime soon, I have a very naive, and possibly silly question.
Could a similar technique to this be used in reverse to make more powerful telescopes?
Well, lets see...
The new nano-imaging system is based on capturing optical, near-field virtual images, which are free from optical diffraction, and amplifying them using a microsphere, a tiny spherical particle which is further relayed and amplified by a standard optical microscope.
... So, your new macro-imaging system would be based on releasing actual optical, far-field images, which are subject to optical diffraction, and amplifying them using many macrospheres, huge spherical bodies, which are further relayed and re-focused by a standard optical telescopes.
I think that's a great idea! In fact, I believe that the technique is already in use.
That is pretty much the description of using huge collections of macrosphere bodies (planets, stars & black holes), AKA galactic clusters, to capture the light coming from even more distant objects (which release the optic far-field images). The light is bent by the massive gravity wells that the collection of Macrospheres generate, the effect is known as a Gravitational Lens.
Actually, I hear plenty of non-tech people rightly referring to the "Android Market" as an "app store"
"Honey, check out this App I got, it's so cool, I wonder why it's at the bottom of the Android app store?" -- My girlfriend
You are guilty of being tech-savy yourself, hence you do not realize that even though you call Windows apps Exes, or Linux apps Binaries, many less specific and/or less technical people call any such Application an "App" for short. Likewise, whereas you may call it The Android Marketplace, many people call it an app store in short-hand.
Can you find a use of App Store prior to the launch of Apple's?
I can find many previous examples of "App" in reference to Applications.
Application software, also known as an application or an "app", is computer software designed to help the user to perform singular or multiple related specific tasks.
I have been to many physical application software stores, such as the "Egghead Software" store. It was one of my favorite brick-and-mortar app stores.
I don't recall any software vendor being dumb enough to call their store "App Store" -- I posit that their marketing / legal team would have advised them against such a generic name; Hence "Egghead Software" instead of "The App Store".
Can you find any examples of "Car Dealer" or "Paint Store" or "Stock Investor" businesses? Just because the name isn't already trademarked, doesn't mean in can be trademarked.
Let us not forget that after the iRiver portable digital audio player came out, Apple created the iPod... At the time I was listening to podcasts (pre-recorded audio episodes) on my iRiver while others consumed such media on their PCs, car-CD players and iPods. Apple then trademarked "podcast" and other iXxx and podXXX names. IMHO, Apple was wrongly allowed to trademark "podcast"; Hell the term was already a menu item of many digital audio players at the time.
Whereas you (the tech-savy, but not as broadly exposed consumer) see Apple as an innovator, many of us more broadly/deeply versed in technology have heard & commonly used some of the terms Apple decided to trademark years if not decades before Apple decides to trademark them...
I believe that Apple is in the business of trademarking trending terms and prases... hence the i in iPod, and the entire term podcast...
TL;DR: Yes, the words are well known, Apple hops on established or emerging trends to seem innovative. Now, Get off my lawn.
I dont really like the term "pirated", but they most certainly were distributed without the permission of the developer [...] Still, cost shouldn't really factor into whether something is "pirated" or not. Just because an app is free doesn't mean anyone can take it and offer it for download in their store.
Very true, esp. in open source. For instance, Linux is free, but you can't just repackage and/or distribute the binaries without making the sources available -- IMHO, companies in violation of GPL are considered "pirates" because they are in violation of copyright.
Which is to say: Copyright controls distribution rights. You must seek permission to distribute if no rights are specified because no default rights to distribute are granted (thus making the text "All rights reserved" redundant). The free app's re-distributors should rightly be deemed pirates due to their lack of redistribution rights.
Yes, but how did God come to being? If "in the beginning He was there and then He created everything" is a simple answer, then "In the beginning everything was there" is simpler still.
Yep, the whole biblical god thing gets very complex within the first few sentences when you consider that he was speaking to himself ("Let there be light") before he ever created the universe, humans and their language...
Why would a god "speak" -- would the speech be more of a thinking to one's tri-self? Perhaps speech arose because he created humans in god's "image"; If this is the case god would need to speek before anything was ever created... In order to need to convey information (and ultimately create language) God would need a mentally separate entity to exist otherwise it would just be thought. Therefore, either God's three selves (which aren't explained until much later) don't share a mind, or they do and there are other Gods!
I think that "something very small exploded with lots of energy" and "Life is a complex chemical reaction that evolves" fall on the favorable side of the razor unlike the 'God did it' myth...
Slashdot Mirror
i guess i should make a browser that sends an EULA... or perhaps a SCLA (server communication) in the meta data it sends to the server along the lines of "by transmitting information to this computer you have released your rights to the information you have transmitted, continual transmission will be taken as an agreement to that condition". now its legal for me to use facebook's logos etc for my own financial gain without cutting them in. if they can obfuscate their "entitlements" deep in an obscure, excessively legalized document in which is supposedly applicable to even 13 year olds. then the same logic applies to my "agreement".
A cookie that is set is sent to the server upon each request. Cookies can be limited to only be sent to one server, but the default is "send to all servers".
Here, paste this into your address bar:
javascript:void(document.cookie="NOTICE=By transmitting information to this computer you have released your rights to the information you have transmitted, continual transmission will be taken as an agreement to that condition")
Now each website you visit (until you close your browser) will receive your agreement. To make this a bookmarklet, paste it as the URL of a bookmark, then click that bookmark once per session to activate the agreement cookie.
Of course, I doubt a court would find this legal.
The problem is that these agreements need not be legal. When faced with a costly legal battle, a settlement will likely be preferable than even having to pay your lawyers and taking the chance of losing. Point being: They have a bigger warchest than you; Ergo, your agreement is worthless while theirs is very formidable.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Clear Type shipped in Windows since XP launched in 2001? So, you're saying that this technology was available in 1991 or earlier?
No, I'm not saying that at all -- I'm just repeating what's in TFL... But, yes, it does seem to me that it took over ten years to be fully available.
For example, early in my tenure, our group of very clever graphics experts invented a way to display text on screen called ClearType. It worked by using the color dots of liquid crystal displays to make type much more readable on the screen. Although we built it to help sell e-books, it gave Microsoft a huge potential advantage for every device with a screen. But it also annoyed other Microsoft groups that felt threatened by our success.
[...]
Engineers in the Windows group falsely claimed it made the display go haywire when certain colors were used. The head of Office products said it was fuzzy and gave him headaches. The vice president for pocket devices was blunter: he’d support ClearType and use it, but only if I transferred the program and the programmers to his control. As a result, even though it received much public praise, internal promotion and patents, a decade passed before a fully operational version of ClearType finally made it into Windows.
--Dick Brass (Vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004).
I agree the time line may seem a bit dubious -- the sub pixel rendering method was patented in 1998 -- it could have been invented before that time... According to the Wikipedia article
ClearType was invented in the Microsoft e-Books team by Bert Keely and Greg Hitchcock. It was then analyzed by researchers in the company, and signal processing expert John Platt designed an improved version of the algorithm
So I suppose, according to Dick Brass, Keely & Hitchcock would have had to invent the system prior to 1991, before a patent was filed for the tech... I don't think he's claiming it was a decade before it was available.
I think means it was a decade before it actually worked correctly in Windows... (at which point I would consider it stable enough to rely upon -- Available != Available to be considered stable) In which case the timeline is less dubios, and my position stands that without the infighting I would not have had to wait a decade for "a fully operational version of ClearType" to finally make it into Windows.
P.S. Bullshit pedantic discussion aside: The ex Vice President of Microsoft says:
"Unlike other companies, Microsoft never developed a true system for innovation. Some of my former colleagues argue that it actually developed a system to thwart innovation. Despite having one of the largest and best corporate laboratories in the world, and the luxury of not one but three chief technology officers, the company routinely manages to frustrate the efforts of its visionary thinkers."
To me this means that corporate infighting at MS has stifled innovation in Windows -- Which was my original point.
Shuttleworth notes to that end, "Weâ(TM)ve failed." He adds, "Much of the language, and much of the decision making Iâ(TM)ve observed within Gnome, is based on the idea that Unity is competition WITH Gnome, rather than WITHIN Gnome."
There was a story on The Register today on why Nokia failed. They had the exact same problem - teams that should be working together are fighting against each other and in the end just losing together. That seems to be a large problem in OSS community too, and it's no wonder Nokia had it too (they had many Linux developers). But when a software company, usually proprietary, is ran good, it doesn't suffer such problems as management makes good decisions and gives orders. That is why Windows works good and why the quality is consistent.
Infighting in Microsoft is why we didn't get clear-type for over 10 years after it was available... (Clear-type is the software that gives fonts 3 times the horizontal resolution on LCDs) The Office Suite devs wanted it for their own -- to boost their own team's importance, and refused to fix the the MS Office font system to work with clear-type unless the clear-type devs were placed under the Office Suite team's umbrella.
This is just one small example of MS infighting stifling innovation. Please take your closed source software down from the pedestal. Management is the problem -- That, and a "not invented here" mentality. It can happen anywhere.
Ubuntu and Gnome are diverging because they each have their own goals and any interference with one's goals is not tolerated -- I've found that true collaboration basically requires an alignment of our goals -- Seems to me like human nature.
The difference is that when Canonical and Gnome bicker, I can still use the features that they independently develop... I'm not stuck waiting for 10 years (like for Windows clear-type).
How about a browser option of 'accept all cookies - but delete them once the session is over'? The tracking companies get their cookies accepted and privacy is maintained. Everyone is happy. Kind of.
Done: Open Firefox > Tools > Start Private Browsing.
This is the "mode" which you seek.
The bullshit legislation won't matter. There are hundreds of hacks to store user state without cookies. All of the data can be stored server side, and if just one identifying piece of information correlates two user profiles (say, usage pattern, or time of day + IP address) then your data is being mined.
Stop private browsing, go to a different website, the ads on that website link the current time of day & my IP address to the profile they bulit while I was "private browsing".
Some are arguing that allowing cookies in the browser is basically equivalent to giving your consent.
That sounds to me like implicit consent, while the EU requires explicit consent. Though I suppose asking permission once per site is enough - not every single visit. And after receiving such explicit permission the site may store a cookie on your computer indicating that they have that permission already.
Well, earlier today, I pasted this in my address bar:
javascript:void(document.cookie = "reminder=Don't forget:\n\tCover page for TPS report.");
Just now I pasted this in my address bar:
javascript: alert( document.cookie );
(Not a moment too soon -- I almost sent that report with the old cover sheet.)
That message was sent to every website I visited today. I know damn well they don't have my explicit permission to read the cookie headers that my browser sends them -- Especially not when they contain such important trade secrets. I'll report all the sites in my history post haste! In fact, YOU don't have explicit consent to be reading my notes either! I never gave you explicit consent, so I'm afraid I'll have to report you as well.
Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think that since I'm self employed part-time I might be in violation too! I didn't update the Cookie Consent Clause of my Explicit Permissions Form to specify that my company has the explicit permission to track my thoughts throughout the day using text files & "magic-cookies".
I sure hope I don't get fined, I can never go back to the yellow sticky squares... not after that time they didn't get my explicit permission to record the doodles I made of my manager, and nearly got me fired by way of an unauthorized 3rd party doodle disclosure!
(When I complained Post-It admitted that paper and pens normally only have implied consent to record and redisplay information to anyone within reading / writing distance, and explicit consent is required in the EU. However the EULA on the shrink wrap that I thew away said that by opening the package I forfeit my right to consider marks made with my hands as information...)
You have freedom to use what you paid for within the terms of the usage agreement you've got with your provider. If they say "we may filter or traffic shape your traffic", then you're free to accept that or find some other carrier with preferable terms.
"What? You're not a slave! Why, You have the choice of being told what you can & can't do here, or at my neighbor's plantation -- Or you can die, see, you have plenty of freedom."
You're correct about having the choice to accept draconian licensing terms or not have the Internet at all... I can go with a different provider, but the only other provider in town has shitty service & licensing too. The "freedom" you describe is the freedom of a catch-22. I suppose that I'm not supposed to complain about, or support legislation that combats, the bad business practices of the telecoms that put me in this position?
BTW, It's more profitable for them to have shitty service, more on that in a few...
And besides, EVEN IF there were subsidies, etc., (as the other AC replier mentioned), blame your congress-critters for not negotiating better terms before they gave your money away. EVEN IF your local municipality is granting a monopoly, blame your local town-board for doing so and not insisting that the cable provider accommodate competitive content providers on the outside plant.
Yeah, no. Although I do despise the corrupt congressmen, I ultimately blame the LOBBYISTS that pay the congress critters -- The Lobbyists that are funded by the Telecoms -- for making it financially beneficial for the congress critters to agree to the shitty terms... (Boy, some folks are clueless about how it all really works -- Money talks, bullshit walks.)
I have done all that's in my power to fix this -- One of the things I do is support network neutrality, but the corporate lobbyists have far more money than I do to donate (hint: Still in a recession -- I can eat, or use my $$ to fight a loosing battle against more powerful opponents who already have a history with their pocket politicians (the ones I need on my side to win).
So, in all actuality, I don't have much freedom of choice, I can either accept the crappy service & terms or not have any at all (Isn't 0Mbps WORSE than any crappy amount they decide to give me?)
Now that the consumer ISP monopoly / duopolies are in place they are turning their sights on the content producers (who already pay for their own access to the web, BTW). One way that an ISP can double dip is to force a content company to co-locate servers and charge them rent. The claim is that the servers are closer to the end users and therefore you get faster connections.
This is very true, you do get better connections, but it costs the content providers more (then they drive my bill up? so it ends up costing me more?). However, the co-location wouldn't be necessary if Comcast would run their links at less saturation -- Level3 tried to give them more hardware so they could do just this (Improve the Comcast service for everyone!), but Comcast refused... Comcast demands Co-Location instead of fixing the problem (It is a problem, come 5:00, my Internet speeds drop drastically). Comcast is holding my connection speed hostage -- Even when I paid to get faster service, the Netflix stream still sucked, and it will continue to suck unless Netflix/Level3 pays the ransom and co-locates servers with Comcast.
During the middle of the day my Netflix streaming on Comcast works almost acceptably... But when peak usage times hit, the streaming stutters all to hell because Comcast is dropping my Netflix packets (I pay both Comcast and Netflix to access them).
How does NN fit in? Well, if Comcast wasn't allowed to lower my Netflix traffic QoS so much (esp lower than their own competing Video service's priority) then their own Video delivery service would have to suck more... Comcast would have to fix the damn problem and
My first word wasn't "Dada" or "Mama"... It was "Light". My parents have a home video of the event; It happened to be my cousin Mike's birthday party and my father was carrying me as he turned off the light when they brought in the cake with 8 burning candles. I can clearly be heard saying "Light" as he turns off the switch and seen reaching for the switch, but no one noticed at the time.
A few minutes later they turn the light back on and I say "Light" again. This time people take notice -- They say, "Oh, look, he's saying 'Mike', daaaaww! It's his first word!" My parents seem somewhat surprised since I hadn't even babbled Mama, or Dada -- I was a "quiet and thoughtful" child they would later tell me. For the next several minutes I'm quiet, bashful seeming almost, as everyone tries to "reinforce" my "word birth" by getting me to say the wrong damn word -- "Mike... Mike... Can you say Mike?"
Later, when I'm brought near the light switch again I reach for it, say "light", and manage to turn off the switch and laugh as the lights go out.
My father says, "I think its 'light' he's saying". I'm allowed to play with the switch turning on and off the light as my father holds me and says, "Is that what you're saying? Are you trying to say "light" little guy?" Once again I say, "light" (not "Mike", and not subject to particularly short or repetitious "reinforcement" sentences) -- Clearly, I've been trying to tell my family that I want to play with the switch, and could not be deterred by their collective incorrect word reinforcement.
To note: I doubt it would have mattered what damn fool words the oafish apes were trying to "teach" me via reinforcement at the time; I wanted the damn light switch and was determined to get them to understand. You see, I had already learned the word -- They weren't teaching me a new word; I was attempting to communicate with them.
The remaining film is full of failed attempts to get me to say Mama and Dada over at least several days in various locations and times -- I'm sure the 35 minutes of tape is just a small sampling of the hours my parents admit to having coached me in this fashion. The home movie concludes with me saying my 2nd word: "Damn. Damn damn! Damn Damn Damn!" while my mother scolds my father for swearing in front of me... (Another "word birth" that they did not "reinforce"... In fact, I'm told that I continued to use the word long after it had been removed from my parents vocabularies.)
In short: Everyone is different; I was "late" to begin talking; When I did it was as if my vocabulary already contained many words, but I was just beginning to use them -- Some words, like "Car", I would say once, get wrong, and not attempt to say again for a long time (weeks -- enough time to study the pronunciation, apparently). As my annunciation became more clear, the words I said were more numerous, longer and more complex phonetically. It appears that my language skills were learned long before I attempted to speak, and to this day my favorite saying is: "If you're going to do something, do it correctly."
"Reinforced word birth" may well help some children, but as any parent that has cursed in front of their child and had them repeat the word(s) at an inopportune moment will tell you: Not all "word births" are "reinforced" or welcome for that matter. Perhaps "naughty words" are a special class of language that for some reason come naturally to all children -- or perhaps the reinforcement upon vocalization theory is just one small piece of the complex behavior of language development.
I ran my own BBS before the Internet was available in my town.
Local communities were established and people "belonged" to many BBSes (not one provider).
My family participated in the "beta" of the Prodigy Online Computer + Network all in one box.
I looked at its' GUI and thought -- Meh, my ASCII BBS may not have a client program, but some of my door games do, and I can't even use the computer for anything else, this is too restricted to succeed.
When the Internet came, I had a portal for my users on the BBS.
The Internet was so popular my lines were constantly tied, and no one used any other feature of the BBS.
I realized the BBS interconnectivity & long-distance restrictions had been solved via the Internet -- It must replace BBS because you can "belong" to a world of "servers" instead of just your local BBSes...
AOL was a huge BBS -- Many people didn't even use it's Internet gateway until websites got started... (Fsck AOL Kewords!) It was another centralized "everything here" system like Prodigy sans dedicated computer terminal.
It's still slogging along on momentum from back then, but I think many people would agree pure unrestricted web browser and Internet access is better than BBSes with Internet Gateways... (esp. now that Internet aware applications exist).
Yahoo got very popular, among many other IM systems -- I was just using IRC via a terminal app.
I kept seeing people join these ever increasing in size, yet still fractured communities looking to "belong" and to "connect".
Myspace & Facebook & other "networking" sites came around and got popular, but they were all sort of like the BBS (but worse, because Sysops would sometimes exchange volumes of their data to mutual benefit, where Facebook doesn't, except your private user data -- that which honorable BBS Sysops would never divulge.).
Invariably some people were info hoarders -- They have HDs full of saved websites & images (incase the site disappears or the image/video is pulled down, or they move from one service to another) -- Nothing has changed since the BBS days I thought... And then I thought about that and I realized something.
The true power of the community is its connections. The web is good because of all the connections, but the distinction between "client" and "server" is a horrible concept... Sites push out content, and some allow user uploaded contend, but they all suffer from Silo Syndrome... The info is in these Silos, not distributed among all these amazingly powerful machines. Facebook adding Skype is just further proof of the "collect it all until the system collapses on itself" Info-Silo syndrome.
Trying to gather all the data up into a pile for everyone to access is like a BBS... We learned that its better distributed. All machines could be (are already) both clients and servers (but few actually take advantage of this directly -- more in the game community, do, but only for games / chat).
I started to get the idea that there needs to be an open protocol for community connections: IM, voice, images, updates, journals, etc. Aggregators like Google can be used to "index" content and tell everyone where to find stuff, but not all data needs to be pubilc. Another tier is needed -- smaller aggregator systems that index individuals that are close to you (the people that allow you to see "friends only" data). The only way to do this securely is if the aggegator is trusted by (run by) mutal friends, or by everyone in a distributed manor. This requires goodwill on the friends part that they won't download your friend's only data and make it public (not a friend eh?).
So, different tiers of friendship, different relationships need to have their own permissions in addition to friends -- individual friends.
Everyone would have to run their own aggegators & client/servers, but some of it can be optimized in the "public" or "friends" acc
A bit realistic perhaps, but definitely not ultra.
I agree, since this is a Japanese company, I'd say they've achieved S Class animatronics...( not Ultra, and certainly not over 9000! )
The jerky movements aside (it's a rough mechanical test), once its software is fine tuned I could see something like this hooked up to something like IBM's Watson (but with opinions & emotions instead of just answers in the form of questions).
Personally, I'm looking at the cyborg implications -- Take today's synthetic lungs, heart pumps, dialysis, and IV nutrient delivery and combine it with a thought control input device to control the robotic shell, and I'm one step closer to putting my brain in a robot body.
With lots of these houses, we could save alot of the energy generated during the night.
In future, you might want to consider fixing your typos, rather than just making them bold.
Hmmm... screw the typo, the logic failure is astounding... "With lots of these houses, we could save alot [sic] of the energy generated during the night".
I'm confused, does he mean lots of us could charge our houses' batteries during off-peak times and use that stored power when energy prices are higher in order to save money (which, with a large enough number of homes using this strategy will eliminate the usage-peak altogether or even shift the electric consumption peak to the night such that the monetary benefit of charging during those times is negated)?
... or ...
Perhaps he means that excess energy from his solar cells can charge the house's battery the when his power demand is lower (at night)?
"Also, if the wormhole is short, so that the two stars it links don't lie far apart, an observer might see another unusual signpost -- two closely spaced objects with nearly identical properties."
And the sign says "No gas for 1,000,000,000 miles" or "McDonalds ahead"?
The sign next to the wormhole leading to our solar system reads:
Quarantined Zone: Human Infestation.
Don't Panic!
All craft exiting this wormhole will be vaporized on sight.
Have a nice day, We apologize for the inconvenience
-- God
Posting this redundant comment to prevent myself from reading & modding any more of this drivel.
TFA is Redundant. We all already know that Apple turned to the dark side a long time ago. Doesn't matter to me if they win the fight to become the next evil emperors or not -- I concern myself not with the power struggles in the dark side.
The dark side is best viewed from a distance, and combatted by helping the good be better; Wallowing in the darkness by using their infernal software/hardware and complaining/speculating about the evil makes about as much sense as wallowing in mud and complaining/speculating about getting dirty.
"This closed system has so many controls, limits & ulterior motives!" =~ "This Mud puddle has so much Dirt & Filth!"
Now, if you'll excuse me, the good side just called & I've decided to donate some free time to provide free support for new-users (w/o support contracts) of my 100% Free-Libre Open Source project (that I created with my Free-Libre Open Source tools running on my Free-Libre Open Source operating system).
P.S. Here is some goodness just for you:
javascript:var TFS=document.title.toString();void(alert((TFS.match(/(Apple|(Google|(Microsoft|(Adobe|(SCO|(Oracle|(.{1,2}nix|(.?Ubuntu))))))))/i) && TFS.match(/(evil|considered harmful)/i)) ? "Troll thread detected.\n\nDo not post in or moderate this thread!" : "It's probably safe to read and post in this thread." ));
To use this as a bookmarklet: Create a bookmark & set that line of code as the "address" or "location" of the bookmark. Before reading & posting / moderating, click that bookmark.
-- Cheers.
"I think the first thing to realize is that minimization doesn't make sense if you maximize everything," It just proves they don't know shit about UI. Hint: The larger & higher res my monitor, the less shit I maximize.
Did you notice the if in that quote? The GNOME dev isn't saying that everyone maximizes everything, he's describing the role minimize plays in two different usage patterns. One is the "maximize everything" pattern (which I use on my fairly-small screened laptop, and lots of less technical users use even on large screens). So, everything he says about this usage pattern is irrelevant to your usage pattern; that's why he goes on to the "else" branch of the "if," and talks about how minimize is used by other users, who don't maximize anything.
Yeah, I get that... I also get that with such quotes as:
Many people (most people?) never minimize.
He's got to be talking out of his ass as well in the "else" condition of the justification for the idea they've had (Note: They didn't create an opt-in behavior reporting tool to create actual statistics -- they dreamed up some UI changes, then pulled rationals out of their asses for why they did so based on how much two people didn't like the new UI, but didn't refuse to use it either...)
"Many people" -- A term that can honestly describe nearly any amount of people. "(most people?)" -- Unsure if more people or less people on average actually do or do not fall into this classification <-- That's the truth folks; translation: "We don't know if more people do or do not ever minimize, but at least some people never do."
So, yeah, some people never turn their machines on Sunday. "Many people (most people?) never use their desktop machines on Saturday (well, the two I asked didn't outright refuse to refrain from powering on their machines on Saturday), so we're changing grub to not boot the machine on Sunday. It will save tons of money (we think) on electricity. Also: People that do need to boot on Sunday can still boot if they really must, simply dance a jig while sacrificing a virgin."
Your pedantic arguments about me missing the "if then else" do not apply when both branches are based on is bat-shit stupidity. I actually RTFAs and the articles that they link to before I come to a conclusion... Unlike some people.
Repeat this two person UI test with a much larger sample group, then we can call this BS research.
Charge one penny per sent message. That is all we need to do to stop spam. So simple.
If anyone wants security, there is S/MIME, widely available and widely supported.
Ooh look -- My new email business is to batch zip all incomming / outgoing emails, send / recieve the batches, and unpack them at the other end.
Peering agreements between mail-batch-zip providers will allow all email to traverse freely once again.
If you have any questions, click the "reply" link and fill out the form. You may be charged 1 cent to hit "submit" (unless you are already a customer of Slashdot's mail-batch-zip service).
Dragging is more stress-inducing to the hand than simply clicking mouse. we do countless minimize-maximize actions over the course of a normal workday.
...
Excuse me gnome, but you are losing me.
Well, on Ubuntu 10.10 the default Ambiance theme has 1px wide window borders...
It's rediculously difficult to resize a window by grabbing the edge or bottom -- Not every window has the resize widget in the lower corner.
If you have shaky hands (like my neighbor) or use a touch screen device it's not ridiculous, its damn near impossible to grab the window edge and resize the window. Right click the window title, then choose "resize", yes, I know -- I actually have a script bound to the window placement hotkeys that allow me to 1/2 width resize a window and position it on the left or right (most users don't know how to do this). Some themes have wider borders, but come on -- UI design testing? Did they even TRY using the theme!? If they did, they forgot to try resizing windows.
Ubuntu has no credibility IMO, when it comes to UI, and when Gnome comes out with statements like, "I think the first thing to realize is that minimization doesn't make sense if you maximize everything," It just proves they don't know shit about UI. Hint: The larger & higher res my monitor, the less shit I maximize. I have NEVER maximized Tomboy notes, Pidgin, Terminal, and about 10 other apps I'm running right now.
Maximized WebBrowser!? What the hell? If I do that then I'm just wasting a HUGE amount of space on many websites because of my high desktop resolution (big blank areas with a content strip in the center), sites that opt for reflowing layouts look decent when resized to 1280 wide, so UNmaximized browser is a general purpose solution for me... I prefer to have a workspace with the browser 1/2 covering, and other multi-media apps (radio, chat, etc) all sized to fit -- NONE ARE MAXIMIZED.
The only thing that is maximized is my (code | document | image ) editor on the other screen (actually -- I NEVER run Gimp maximized either, the toolboxes cover up the image, and my Wacom tablet's pen interface doesn't play nice with wide mulit-screen virtual desktops + Synergy (control multiple machines w/ one keyboard & mouse). The assumption that everyone just runs maximized is retarded (Problem, Calculator?!)
Forgive me if I call "bullshit" on both Ubuntu & Gnome's "UI research"; To me it seems like neither have done any.
It'd be awesome if there was a way to place this sort of intelligence into chemicals. Like, not just replicate the biology virtually... but actually do it with chemicals. Literally creating something like DNA, then getting bits of it copied with something like RNA to cause growth. Create cell like things that split. I mean, with work like this we have the theory... now could we put it into actual chemical practice? There I go being a dreamer :)
Dream no more, we have actually created synthetic life, having DNA modeled 100% in a computer.
There's even a website address & code to decode the website address hidden in the synthetic life, sort of like a fingerprint.
I hear it's next goal will be to engineer the new lifeforms to help produce bio-diesel or other fuels.
Not too long ago we discovered that there are eddy currents in our brains, neurons not even connected to other neurons will be influenced by the inductive thought currents. This is a radical design shift for all of those artificial brains that model neuron and synapse connections.
Have no fear folks... We WILL have artificial life eventually, we just don't have fast enough computers. Our understanding of how (sub)atomic models work is fairly decent.
Once we're able to fully model a human brain at the atomic level and simulate all of its atoms' interactions -- Presto: Real AI.
Some AI folk talk about "building blocks" of intelligence -- They're called subatomic particles folks, not neurons. Emulating neurons is a shortcut that may get us closer to some form of machine intelligence. We may never be able to accurately model the physical world inside a computer at real-time speeds, but if we could then problems such as "DOH! I forgot about electromagnetism in my brain sim" wouldn't be a problem.
Neuroscience helps us understand how better to refine our "shortcut" approaches to AI such that we may see decent results within our lifetimes...
Another way to put it is that he is a dreamer with a goal. If you ever played any of the games of the Creatures series (especially Creatures3 and, astonishingly, Creatures Village, both available at GOG.com), you probably know that the norns felt quite real and sometimes behaved in bafflingly intelligent-looking ways. So, although I don't think he'll reach his ideological goal to 100%, I'm looking forward to see how Grandroid turns out.
Wlil Grandroid be written in ApeScript? I wish he'd pour his Grandroid ideas into the Noble Ape open source project.
It features a number of autonomous simulation components including a landscape simulation, biological simulation, weather simulation, sentient creature (Noble Ape) simulation and a simple intelligent-agent scripting language (ApeScript).
The Noble Apes see their surroundings, have memories (internalizations of the external world), remember their encounters (almost drowning results in a fear of water) which leads emotion simulation & even relationships, can crudely communicate and breed with each other, and even dream!
If the Norns were "alive" in Creatures -- The apes are even more so, and a great deal closer to the goal of emergent sentience (esp. than to as yet nonexistent/unpublished Grandroid code).
What the Noble Apes don't have is a detailed graphical representation of themselves based on their genetics... I hoped that perhaps SPORE would help with this, but it was closed source.
The biggest failing of software (esp. some AI/AL simulations) is the desire to attempt to realize an idea or concept instead of truly collaborating with like-minded individuals and utilizing their works / ideas to realize a greater solution.
What I find interesting is machine learning through evolution -- Start with a VM filled with random noise & a few inputs. Devise a goal & selectively "breed" the instances that are closer to reaching the goals.
IMHO, Yeah, he's quite full of himself... so much so that he'll start a new project.
Meh, I'll bet it will be a fun game, regardless.
Upgrade from a 386 with Win3.1, to Win95 on 486DX, then Win98 a Pentium, Win2000 on Pentium II, etc. Try migrating your settings from one hard drive to another larger one at each step. Perform a few service pack upgrades along the way like a normal user would. Hint: Migrating your systems through multiple hardware & service pack upgrades is a pain in the ass and flaky as hell.
Just try to take an older windows version and copy the files and settings onto AN ALREADY INSTALLED OS that your hardware vendor gave you -- OS pre-installation will be the death of me.
You save time if you wipe the new system, copy the old files from one PC to the other, then use the OEM CD (IF YOU CAN) to "upgrade" the OS back to the newer version... I've had to buy an additional copy of windows (having paid for the one that's pre-installed) just to get a CD that would allow me to upgrade. That's the price you pay for being a loyal Microsoft customer...
Copying the old windows files over to the new larger drive won't copy the master boot record, and even if you do manage to reimage your new system to match the old system Windows will call you a THEIF (user of a pirated copy of windows), and prevent you from upgrading until you to re-validate since the massive hardware change. Good luck booting & revalidating, the old OS drivers don't work on the new system they've been copied over to... "Upgrades" are subject to having a "valid" installation of windows already on the machine.
To note: Another option worked sometimes -- Actually full on install the old OS into the freshly wiped new system. Then, copy all the files / settings, etc (or use migration tool if it exists & your old OS boots on the new machine...) Finally, "updrade" the new machine back to it's original OS version... Got a new machine?! Great! Stop right there, you can't use it till it has thrice installed windows!
Also: I dare you try using a 386 to run Vista.
So what if MS can be upgraded through "EVERY VERSION*" ON THE SAME VIRTUAL HARDWARE without monthly and/or service pack updates? This is a solution in search of a use-case that doesn't exist.
* Well, except ME -- Guess that it isn't possible to upgrade through "every version" then is it?
Old hardware won't run MS's new OSs, and the old OSs don't work on the new hardware (outside of a damn controlled environment VM -- Win3.1 on a x64 quad core? Don't make me laugh -- it won't even support my mouse). Of course using these old OSs for testing & supporting software for legacy systems is a useful ability, but come on...
Actually having lived & worked through the hell that is the upgrade path through multiple windows upgrades w/ data & software migration and different hardware, and then watching how easy it is in a VM is just maddening (Oooh, it COULD have been that easy!? Well, damn, then why wasn't it?! -- rhetorical question [no need for pedantic answers] )
Reality has been quite a bit more frustrating... Lesson learned: NEVER, I repeat NEVER use Windows (outside of a VM), and ALWAYS place your user files on a different drive and/or partition than the operating system -- It makes migration a hell of a lot easier.
Meet the new Timelord, same as the old Timelord?
In our new era of collaborative social networks such as wikis and issure-trackers it may seem logical to some to think that Arthur David Olson's post might be replaced by an automated process.
Rest assured, the faithful group of volunteers that have helped the good Doctor all these many years are in no danger of being replaced by daleks.
We wish you a fond farewell Mr. Olson.
(Perhaps now you'll have time now to fix the Tardis' broken "chameleon circuit" and get it off that bloody conspicuous police box disguise.)
No way that a motherboard in a cardboard box is going to pass the various RF emission tests for FCC or CE certification.
1) Fortunately they are selling the Motherboard, not the entire PC (the PC assemblers would have to pass the FCC or CE certs).
2) The FCC or CE (and possibly NFPA) would really flip out if they saw my "computer room" which has several computers sans cases mounted across 4x8 plexiglass sheets. They're so much easier to upgrade & clean, they're more functional than paintings/posters (and more aesthetic (to me) ). Wallputers give the room a cosy, cyber-punk feel...
Who needs cases? Also: the cardboard case is fairly bulky, ugh.
P.S. I use Synergy for my Multi-screen/Multi OS/Multi Computer command and control center.
So, as someone who hasn't studied optics in at least 6 years, and doesn't plan on picking up a book regarding the matter anytime soon, I have a very naive, and possibly silly question.
Could a similar technique to this be used in reverse to make more powerful telescopes?
Well, lets see...
The new nano-imaging system is based on capturing optical, near-field virtual images, which are free from optical diffraction, and amplifying them using a microsphere, a tiny spherical particle which is further relayed and amplified by a standard optical microscope.
... So, your new macro-imaging system would be based on releasing actual optical, far-field images, which are subject to optical diffraction, and amplifying them using many macrospheres, huge spherical bodies, which are further relayed and re-focused by a standard optical telescopes.
I think that's a great idea! In fact, I believe that the technique is already in use.
That is pretty much the description of using huge collections of macrosphere bodies (planets, stars & black holes), AKA galactic clusters, to capture the light coming from even more distant objects (which release the optic far-field images). The light is bent by the massive gravity wells that the collection of Macrospheres generate, the effect is known as a Gravitational Lens.
And where do you buy apps on Android?
In the "Android Market"
Actually, I hear plenty of non-tech people rightly referring to the "Android Market" as an "app store"
"Honey, check out this App I got, it's so cool, I wonder why it's at the bottom of the Android app store?" -- My girlfriend
You are guilty of being tech-savy yourself, hence you do not realize that even though you call Windows apps Exes, or Linux apps Binaries, many less specific and/or less technical people call any such Application an "App" for short. Likewise, whereas you may call it The Android Marketplace, many people call it an app store in short-hand.
Can you find a use of App Store prior to the launch of Apple's?
I can find many previous examples of "App" in reference to Applications.
Application software, also known as an application or an "app", is computer software designed to help the user to perform singular or multiple related specific tasks.
I have been to many physical application software stores, such as the "Egghead Software" store. It was one of my favorite brick-and-mortar app stores.
I don't recall any software vendor being dumb enough to call their store "App Store" -- I posit that their marketing / legal team would have advised them against such a generic name; Hence "Egghead Software" instead of "The App Store".
Can you find any examples of "Car Dealer" or "Paint Store" or "Stock Investor" businesses? Just because the name isn't already trademarked, doesn't mean in can be trademarked.
Let us not forget that after the iRiver portable digital audio player came out, Apple created the iPod... At the time I was listening to podcasts (pre-recorded audio episodes) on my iRiver while others consumed such media on their PCs, car-CD players and iPods. Apple then trademarked "podcast" and other iXxx and podXXX names. IMHO, Apple was wrongly allowed to trademark "podcast"; Hell the term was already a menu item of many digital audio players at the time.
Whereas you (the tech-savy, but not as broadly exposed consumer) see Apple as an innovator, many of us more broadly/deeply versed in technology have heard & commonly used some of the terms Apple decided to trademark years if not decades before Apple decides to trademark them...
I believe that Apple is in the business of trademarking trending terms and prases... hence the i in iPod, and the entire term podcast...
TL;DR: Yes, the words are well known, Apple hops on established or emerging trends to seem innovative. Now, Get off my lawn.
I dont really like the term "pirated", but they most certainly were distributed without the permission of the developer [...] Still, cost shouldn't really factor into whether something is "pirated" or not. Just because an app is free doesn't mean anyone can take it and offer it for download in their store.
Very true, esp. in open source. For instance, Linux is free, but you can't just repackage and/or distribute the binaries without making the sources available -- IMHO, companies in violation of GPL are considered "pirates" because they are in violation of copyright.
Which is to say: Copyright controls distribution rights. You must seek permission to distribute if no rights are specified because no default rights to distribute are granted (thus making the text "All rights reserved" redundant). The free app's re-distributors should rightly be deemed pirates due to their lack of redistribution rights.
Yes, but how did God come to being? If "in the beginning He was there and then He created everything" is a simple answer, then "In the beginning everything was there" is simpler still.
Yep, the whole biblical god thing gets very complex within the first few sentences when you consider that he was speaking to himself ("Let there be light") before he ever created the universe, humans and their language...
Why would a god "speak" -- would the speech be more of a thinking to one's tri-self? Perhaps speech arose because he created humans in god's "image"; If this is the case god would need to speek before anything was ever created... In order to need to convey information (and ultimately create language) God would need a mentally separate entity to exist otherwise it would just be thought. Therefore, either God's three selves (which aren't explained until much later) don't share a mind, or they do and there are other Gods!
I think that "something very small exploded with lots of energy" and "Life is a complex chemical reaction that evolves" fall on the favorable side of the razor unlike the 'God did it' myth...