If possession of pre-release material is a felony, then why would a TV exec condone this? So downloading is ok if it helps make the companies money? Am I the only one that sees something fundamentally wrong with this?
...which is why I'm glad I develop for a university where over half of the student body uses Firefox, so I can develop for Firefox first and foremost and then make it look decent in IE. Granted, most things look identical, but some of the really cool stuff only works in Firefox.
The technology really is more for examining molecular structure (which will be very useful for protein folding research. Now they can track the reactions at each stage)....but then again, it depends on what you mean by "picture". Will the individual atoms be identifiable? Yes. Will they be in the same kind of pictures you take with your camera? Probably not.
Our privacy, it seems, is protected by the fact that if you dig hard-enough you can find dirt on anybody. Dirt is only good if you can use it and Google shows us just how many people have dirty linen that can be easily obtained.
Unless you a) don't have any dirt, or at least none that anyone would care about, or b) you actually are careful when you input information online, on forms, in email, etc. Of course, not many people think about the impact that one underage drinking picture their friend posted could have on them....
Good point. Some kids just need a chance to leave the backgrounds they came from to really develop, and a scholarship like this would do just that. When the best any family member has done is graduate high school, a C+ average might be very good.
The being said, a scholarship like this wouldn't be a appropriate for, say, a private school district in the Hamptons
One should be extremely careful when distributing technology in other countries. You never know when some screwy patent will foul things up no matter what your intention.
But seriously, can't a company appreciate a beneficial product? Or will greed always stand in the way of helping others?
Or it could also mean that since the math implies observation affects reality based on dark matter, the theory surrounding dark matter could be wrong. It's just like how the first calculation of the age of the universe made the universe younger than the youngest objects in it. What followed was a change in the surrounding theory that supported previous observations and the newer model to make everything fit.
And isn't this the point of science?
(For the record, Schroedinger was full of crap about the cat/box thing. I understand that he was trying to make a point about quantum behavior, but in reality, the life or death of the cat is independent of the observations; the only doubt lies in the minds of the observers until such observation is made.)
I'm really glad that where I live the dominant force is COX, which, although it has its problems as well, does a decent job at actually providing internet service without all of the provider/customer warfare.
For many interrogations they do record in the US, but not for anything that falls under the broad blanket of "terrorism".
But what I found really interesting about this particular event is how no one on the police force seemed to realize that they weren't bombs. I don't even watch the show and I could tell they were a cartoon.
But the real question is: is it really worth it? I mean, I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook, but even though Gmail has had a chat feature for years I've used it all of twice. When I want email, I go to the site for my email, and when I want to go on Facebook, I do that.
Sure, I understand that a lot of it is about attracting a larger user base to (they hope) make more money, but to me a unique venture would be refreshing to see.
This is true. When I was reading about wearable disguises a few weeks back, the point was made that in Japan no idea is ridiculed and, thus, new and interesting things are produced there regardless of practicality. As long as they don't start using the musical road idea for advertising, I consider it cool, if impractical.
I'd be willing to bet that the first thing that happens is that an officer jumps the gun a little and uses it during, say, a routine traffic stop, causing an accident (as in the worst-case scenario described) and an ensuing lawsuit. Then it's back to the drawing board for a new crazy idea.
True, but the system was still disabled and I think that was the point of the experiment. I think what they were also trying to figure out is whether or not the mouse still fled when that particular sensor was broken, proving it wasn't sight/sound/touch/(taste?) triggered.
Slashdot Mirror
If possession of pre-release material is a felony, then why would a TV exec condone this? So downloading is ok if it helps make the companies money? Am I the only one that sees something fundamentally wrong with this?
...which is why I'm glad I develop for a university where over half of the student body uses Firefox, so I can develop for Firefox first and foremost and then make it look decent in IE. Granted, most things look identical, but some of the really cool stuff only works in Firefox.
The technology really is more for examining molecular structure (which will be very useful for protein folding research. Now they can track the reactions at each stage)....but then again, it depends on what you mean by "picture". Will the individual atoms be identifiable? Yes. Will they be in the same kind of pictures you take with your camera? Probably not.
will the technologies be developed in time? Or will the fuel crisis win out and send humanity to the brink of doom?
Tune in next week for the thrilling conclusion!
This would be a lot easier if they just made the robots in the shape of a bop bag.
Unless you a) don't have any dirt, or at least none that anyone would care about, or b) you actually are careful when you input information online, on forms, in email, etc. Of course, not many people think about the impact that one underage drinking picture their friend posted could have on them....
Good point. Some kids just need a chance to leave the backgrounds they came from to really develop, and a scholarship like this would do just that. When the best any family member has done is graduate high school, a C+ average might be very good.
The being said, a scholarship like this wouldn't be a appropriate for, say, a private school district in the Hamptons
Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?
As long as Starcraft 2 is still going to be released, this is fine with me.
Thanks. The point is still valid, though.
Doesn't the government do this anyway? I thought it was called the Patriot Act?
I'd be surprised if any of them haven't already had all of the records examined by the government.
One should be extremely careful when distributing technology in other countries. You never know when some screwy patent will foul things up no matter what your intention.
But seriously, can't a company appreciate a beneficial product? Or will greed always stand in the way of helping others?
No, you're definitely not the only one. What's so hard about learning Java instead? (Seriously: what are JRuby's advantages?)
Money
Or it could also mean that since the math implies observation affects reality based on dark matter, the theory surrounding dark matter could be wrong. It's just like how the first calculation of the age of the universe made the universe younger than the youngest objects in it. What followed was a change in the surrounding theory that supported previous observations and the newer model to make everything fit.
And isn't this the point of science?
(For the record, Schroedinger was full of crap about the cat/box thing. I understand that he was trying to make a point about quantum behavior, but in reality, the life or death of the cat is independent of the observations; the only doubt lies in the minds of the observers until such observation is made.)
That is, of course, if you really want to pay for Alienware.
Yes, but have they?
I'm really glad that where I live the dominant force is COX, which, although it has its problems as well, does a decent job at actually providing internet service without all of the provider/customer warfare.
For many interrogations they do record in the US, but not for anything that falls under the broad blanket of "terrorism".
But what I found really interesting about this particular event is how no one on the police force seemed to realize that they weren't bombs. I don't even watch the show and I could tell they were a cartoon.
It's easy! Send her to Gitmo. Then civil rights no longer matter!
But the real question is: is it really worth it? I mean, I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook, but even though Gmail has had a chat feature for years I've used it all of twice. When I want email, I go to the site for my email, and when I want to go on Facebook, I do that.
Sure, I understand that a lot of it is about attracting a larger user base to (they hope) make more money, but to me a unique venture would be refreshing to see.
This is true. When I was reading about wearable disguises a few weeks back, the point was made that in Japan no idea is ridiculed and, thus, new and interesting things are produced there regardless of practicality. As long as they don't start using the musical road idea for advertising, I consider it cool, if impractical.
I'd be willing to bet that the first thing that happens is that an officer jumps the gun a little and uses it during, say, a routine traffic stop, causing an accident (as in the worst-case scenario described) and an ensuing lawsuit. Then it's back to the drawing board for a new crazy idea.
It was featured yesterday in the New York Times. I believe there was something new in it.
And if you're referring to analysis of swarm behavior, well, that's been around for a long time.
True, but the system was still disabled and I think that was the point of the experiment. I think what they were also trying to figure out is whether or not the mouse still fled when that particular sensor was broken, proving it wasn't sight/sound/touch/(taste?) triggered.
Are...are you serious?
Here's a tip: lighten up! Life's too short.