Actually, not even that's true. It's perfectly possible, and not even terribly difficult, to put non-DRM content onto a Kindle. Fictionwise will tell you how to do it, as will Baen books.
And for that matter, so will the Kindle Owner's Manual. There is NO barrier to putting non-Amazon content on the Kindle; it reads several file formats (including text and PDF, as well as at least two other e-book formats besides the Kindle one), the package includes a USB cable for connection to your computer (and NO software or drivers are required to make that connection; I've moved files to it from Ubuntu), and the manual is explicit on how to get non-Amazon content onto the Kindle.
What the DRM does is ensures that, should your *Kindle* become inoperative, you cannot access your purchased books using another device (except, of course, your iPod Touch with Kindle software). It's not the other way around at all.
However note that they COULD deactivate books he had previously purchased.
*If* he has the wireless connection on. But, once the account is canceled, there's NO REASON to ever turn it on; it just drains the battery and doesn't connect to anything else besides Whispernet.
Without that connection, they can't tell his Kindle to stop showing the file.
What use is a electronic reader if you can't add new books to read?
Honestly, I don't quite get the point either... I have a Kindle, and I have a bunch of stuff on it that didn't come from Amazon.com. Sure, it's more hassle to put things on it if you don't have a working Kindle account; you can't just pay the 10 cents each to email things directly to the device, and instead have to hook it up to the computer... but you can get legitimately free books from, say, baen.com and load them on to your heart's content. the Kindle will *read* a variety of formats, not just its own.
The most valid point the guy has is "what happened to the warranty?" Since the warranty is used by contacting Customer Service, and he no longer has that right, he can't get warranty service on his $350 electronic device, and that does suck. It could even be illegal.
But, come on, it is so NOT true that a Kindle becomes useless if you can't access the Kindle store. It's the other way around: the Kindle store is of no use if your Kindle doesn't work.
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending? Like we've done every other time we've come close to lowering the deficit? Don't ignore inconvenient truths, right?
This is what you implied I said:
The suggestion that we should be able to pay off the deficit simply by "cutting spending" is to suggest that we are living beyond our means by maintaining a first-world existence.
Naughty naughty. It looks silly to imply that I said something I didn't - especially when I said so little.
Ah, but my larger point was, "cutting spending" has already cut into the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. We already have pockets of population who live an incongruous second-world life amid our wealth and prosperity. While in the short term, spending cuts will change the balance sheet, it will not solve problems long-term to do it the way we've been doing it.
So, while you didn't come right out and *say* that "cutting spending" means increasing the population of working poor, starving children, and illiterate masses, the fact remains that "cutting spending" does usually have those implications, whether one is willing to discuss them or not.
As for a response - sure, it's hard to cut spending. Most people in this country are finding that out right now. It's even harder to cut spending correctly. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? And yes, I would suggest that we are living beyond our means right now. That's why we are running a deficit, no shit!
If someone has a good job, and is making only 60% of the median salary for their job, and finds their expenses rising beyond their means, is it somehow unethical for them to ask for a raise? Sure, they can just continue to live on the same amount of money, which (compared to others doing similar work) is being underpaid, and cut expenses. They can tell their kids no new shoes this year, they can eat beans and rice most of the time. But would you seriously suggest that they *should*?
We pay the government to do work for us. It's more work than it used to be. Today's graduates need a college diploma to enter the same level of jobs that once required a high school diploma. Today's roads have to carry far higher volumes of traffic. Today's emergency and transitional shelters have to take on an increasing number of families with children, rather than just the single men who used to make up 99% of the homeless population. The times, they are a-changin'. The suggestion that we shouldn't spend any more money to do the same job is naive.
We couldn't afford to go to war in Iraq. We couldn't afford to let our banks run wild and get "too big to fail." We couldn't afford to gut our educational system with NCLB. We're stuck with a debt from those short-sighted, destructive decisions.
We need to invest in our future. The government can't open a Roth IRA; instead, it needs to ensure that today's kindergarteners are healthy and well-educated enough to care for the nation tomorrow.
If we want to live the kind of lifestyle we've been living, it costs more money. We can roll back to a semi-developed nation status, like much of Eastern Europe, and get our deficit under control that way... but then, who among our folks who bring in actual tax revenue will want to stay? Instead, we need to do *more* to make this country strong, to care for its people so that they can care for it. And that continues to cost money.
When people talk about "cutting spending," I wish they'd tell me particular line items and projects they want to see dropped. Volcano monitoring? Traffic signal networking? Agriculture subsidies? Take your Daughter or Son or Other Child You Know to Work Day? Please, look at the Federal Budget (it's available online) and figure out what we're "wasting money" on.
To say "we need to cut spending" is to say you want someone else to solv
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending?
To an extent, you can. But what do you cut? "Social programs"? Those social programs are going to prevent a lot of hard-working, skilled Americans and their families from starving or going homeless over the next year or two. Will *you* be the one to tell the family of four who have weathered three layoffs in two years and already seen the last of their six-month emergency fund that we're cutting their food stamps from $338 a month to $288? Or dropping the program altogether? And once you do, you've got, what, 2% of the deficit paid off? What's next? "Social programs" account for a tiny percentage of the federal budget.
Should we raid Social Security (again)? Drop infrastructure spending (again)? Cut education (again)? We're going to need that SS cushion, or people won't retire, and jobs will continue to be scarce. Our infrastructure is already suffering badly, and it costs more to clean up after a disaster than to prevent one (Katrina anyone?). Education is essential to remaining competitive in the global economy; as it is, we're having to import large numbers of health-care workers from the Philippines and other countries with better schooling available, and even the less-skilled pink/white collar jobs are shifting overseas at the speed of a telecom connection. Will our deficit situation improve if, in 10 years, we have even *fewer* literate and numerate 18-year-olds? Will their parents be able to "take up the slack" if they're working three part-time jobs to make up for the food stamps we took away, or to cover the emergency room bill since they can't afford to go to the doctor regularly?
And again, those things are a relatively small percentage of the budget. We could completely redirect education spending, and it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit. Maybe we could sell the Brooklyn Bridge?
Defense is really the only place where we spend enough money for cutting to make a big difference. Care to raffle off a B-2 bomber?
Yes, we have to watch our money... but there's such a thing as penny-wise and pound-foolish. Many of our spending cuts have *cost* us money in the long run. The suggestion that we should be able to pay off the deficit simply by "cutting spending" is to suggest that we are living beyond our means by maintaining a first-world existence.
We do need to increase revenue. Our taxation brackets are based on much smaller amounts in real dollars; we need to start ratcheting things up slower, so that on the bottom end (the five-figure households) you're paying the same or less, but at the top end (your seven-figure-a-year earners) you're paying more. YES it's wealth redistribution. I don't understand the argument against it; we're all in this together, and no one is going to pull down a million a year unless there's infrastructure and a quality labor force to build on. Try posting a CEO resume in Zaire, really... see how many bites you get.
I also think that, in this day and age, the IRS needs to change the "bracketing system" to something more intuitive. We look at the "top bracket," see the figure "35%", and FREAK THE FUCK OUT... how dare they take over a THIRD of my hard-earned money? But that's soooo not what is happening, is it? A family with $400,000 taxable income is actually paying 28% in taxes, and you better believe that at those numbers, they've got $100k or more in deductions; they'll be tracking their sales tax, deducting property taxes on homes assessed at seven figures, paying mortgage interest, contributing to Roth IRAs, and so on. Now they're actually only paying 22% in taxes on their gross income. (The plural of anecdote is not data, but my mother's experience, when she married a millionaire and retired from teaching public school, was that they paid a tax figure that came to 12% of their gross income; the numeric value of their taxes the first year was LESS than what she'd paid the prior year on her teacher's salary.)
Hopefully they'll be clueful and make it dependent on the buyer's location, rather than the sellers... otherwise, all the online retailers who can will pick up and move to the state with the lowest sales tax, similar to why everyone incorporates in Delaware.
So when buggy nvidia/ati drivers take down a linux box, we should blame linux, right?
Well... since Nvidia and ATI have access to the entire Linux codebase when developing their driver, *and* there's no "Linux Corp" claiming that things are or are not compatible with the OS, it's a different situation.
But people often *do* blame Linux when hardware is not supported or poorly supported. They also sometimes blame the hardware manufacturers, but in the general case, people do say "The problem with Linux is that it doesn't have enough support from hardware vendors," rather than the other way around.
dont misconstrue the comment to mean i endorse the censorship, im quite against it. I am however in awe of youtube and google engineers when it comes to bending to the social will of governments who insist crazy things like, say, 100% logging of everything however camp X-Ray must be censored out of any maps.
I think that's the point; S. Korea has put in this requirement on ALL websites, and Youtube has said "Sorry, can't do that; see ya!" and blocked all users who identify as being from S. Korea.
How they implement the verification system is their problem. Some never check at all, many others just check the hash value (the national ID number has its last digit generated from a simple hash function)...
Is it just me, or does this "national ID number" sounds just like a social security number?
Yes, yes, I know, that's not what you meant... but actually, they're not very similar at all. The US Government does NOT want everyone in creation using your SSN as an ID number. They'd rather you didn't use it to log onto every website or to look up your driver license. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center:
The Social Security Administration recommends that you should ask the following questions before releasing the SSN: - Why your number is needed; - How your number will be used; - What happens if you refuse; and - What law requires you to give your number.
For my part, I always put "decline to state" or DTS in the SSN field unless I see a clear need for the number, such as when filling out paperwork for a new job. My doctor's office does NOT need my SSN, and doesn't have it, for example.
is an image, you need to retake your browser 101 class dude.
If you think that naming a subdomain "video" automatically means moving pictures, I can't help you there.
FTR, this is what I get from clicking on the above link. See the address bar in the screen cap if you're still confused. Glad it works for some people, but clearly not compatible with Chrome 1.0.154.53 on WinXP Pro SP3.
Here's the vid so you don't have to search for it. (Wish folks would link to a vid in TFS).
Ironic that your link to a vid "so we don't have to search for it" is just a search output, where the product under discussion here is the very bottom link (everything before it is about the iPod Nano and iPod Touch). Oh, and that link isn't actually a video, just a static image.
Next time, just go for the humor value and use Let me Google That For You, ok? (Hey, first hit is about the actual device, how about that!)
Whenever I throw something and my dog catches it, he's inherently working out the position of the object and its velocity in order to catch it.
Your dog can do calculus when you set up a ball-throwing machine, and, from the angle of the chute and previous experience with velocity of objects, the dog goes to the correct location to catch the ball before its thrown (even though you're on a new field she's never seen before).
Associating a certain screen with more incidents of objects recently disappearing behind them doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to add or subtract. The idea that moving the objects back and forth is confusing to the chicks and thus requires math to sort out the answer might be a false assumption. If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment.
So how does their ability to distinguish between obscured quantities based on incremental changes differ from arithmetic? I don't think the scientists are suggesting that they are using abstract symbols to represent quantities, and applying additive and subtractive properties to them... but simply that, when given a problem ("Which screen hides a greater quantity?"), they can arrive at a correct result.
Because the items are moved one by one, rather than split into a group and moved all at once, it implies there's some sort of increment/decrement system going on. Whether it's incrementing and decrementing symbols or warm fuzzies, and whether they keep track by positioning their toes differently or by visualizing in their head what is behind the screen, they're doing *something* that gets the results of arithmetic.
Indeed. I wonder if a lot of animals would naturally, for example, choose a large pile of food over a small pile of food.
Actually, you could do an experiment with food to determine this.
You have a similar setup, where the animal watches you put a smaller quantity of food in one bin, and a larger quantity of food in another bin. Make sure it's discrete pieces of food, and a small number; say 3 in one and 5 in the other. The bins themselves are opaque. Then you allow the animal to choose to go to one bin or the other first.
I'm envisioning a bin where only ONE piece of food is visible/available at a time... a FIFO food queue, kind of like those fork dispensers at Whole Foods.
It would be interesting to use different sized eggs to create scenarios where one group has more individual eggs but the other group has a higher total surface area (maybe volume) of eggs. If the chicks still chose the group with more individual eggs than one could make a strong case that they are capable of counting.
But the inverse is not true... if they chose the larger eggs, you could not infer that they were incapable of counting; their preference for the larger eggs could be independent of an accurate perception of which is greater quantity.
Of course, they could have a preference for the smaller eggs independent of quantity as well, so it wouldn't really rule out or confirm anything one way or the other.
No, I'm saying that people who are diabetic have to watch their sugar intake, and therefore -might- have a lower blood sugar level
As other posters have confirmed, you're incorrect; diabetics tend to have a higher blood glucose level, and have to watch their diet, take meds, and inject insulin to keep it *down* to normal ranges.
I'm working on the assumption that this device, if it's ever used, would not use a "yeast additive", and that the use of yeast in the experiment was due to it being a substitute for human blood yeast/lack of available/controllable blood yeast. IE, in production, it would utilize human blood yeast which consumes sugars.
Um. Yeast in the blood is an infection, and a BAD one. Yeast normally lives in the intestinal tract, and sometimes ends up in other places, like genital areas, milk ducts, etc. If it's in your blood, you need a LOT of antifungal medication.
IANAD... I just happened to have read up a lot on thrush, systemic candida, and probiotic yeast (i.e. sacchromyces boulardii).
But what if the person is a diabetic, or pre-diabetic, and consumes no non-organic sugars or wheat? There would be minimal sugar-yeast in their body.
Huh?
Are you saying that people who don't consume refined sugar or carbs don't have glucose in their bloodstream? Or that this invention would somehow rely on the body's supply of yeast to run?
We all have glucose in our blood, even diabetics. The issue for them is that the insulin system, which keeps blood glucose levels steady in spite of rapidly changing intake, isn't working properly... so they have to keep their intake of sugars and carbs low. There's still plenty of glucose.
The invention has its own yeast, it doesn't rely on the body's native yeasts.
Keep in mind that the alcohol you drink goes through your liver first. Only a small portion of the alcohol you drink actually gets into your blood stream, so even a small amount produced by the yeast cells may be dangerous.
Um... how does the alcohol *get* to the liver? Do you think it jumps there directly from the intestines?;-)
Alcohol enters the bloodstream, and then is detoxed by the liver.
But what's the first thing that is mentioned when a story like that is posted here? It even gets a cute tag: correlation is not causation.
Correlation: Researcher notes that people who play a lot of FPS-style games have contrast detection that is on average 58% better than those who don't, even if they play other types of games.
Causation: Take a group of people, and test their contrast detection. Divide them randomly up into two groups. Have one play FPS-style games, the other play a different type of computer game, for the same amount of time over several weeks. Measure contrast detection again at the end of that time period.
"People who play violent video games are more violent" is correlation. "People become more violent after playing violent video games" would be causation, but I've not yet seen a study that takes baseline measurements and introduces a proper control, then finds that to be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, not even that's true. It's perfectly possible, and not even terribly difficult, to put non-DRM content onto a Kindle. Fictionwise will tell you how to do it, as will Baen books.
And for that matter, so will the Kindle Owner's Manual. There is NO barrier to putting non-Amazon content on the Kindle; it reads several file formats (including text and PDF, as well as at least two other e-book formats besides the Kindle one), the package includes a USB cable for connection to your computer (and NO software or drivers are required to make that connection; I've moved files to it from Ubuntu), and the manual is explicit on how to get non-Amazon content onto the Kindle.
What the DRM does is ensures that, should your *Kindle* become inoperative, you cannot access your purchased books using another device (except, of course, your iPod Touch with Kindle software). It's not the other way around at all.
However note that they COULD deactivate books he had previously purchased.
*If* he has the wireless connection on. But, once the account is canceled, there's NO REASON to ever turn it on; it just drains the battery and doesn't connect to anything else besides Whispernet.
Without that connection, they can't tell his Kindle to stop showing the file.
What use is a electronic reader if you can't add new books to read?
Honestly, I don't quite get the point either... I have a Kindle, and I have a bunch of stuff on it that didn't come from Amazon.com. Sure, it's more hassle to put things on it if you don't have a working Kindle account; you can't just pay the 10 cents each to email things directly to the device, and instead have to hook it up to the computer... but you can get legitimately free books from, say, baen.com and load them on to your heart's content. the Kindle will *read* a variety of formats, not just its own.
The most valid point the guy has is "what happened to the warranty?" Since the warranty is used by contacting Customer Service, and he no longer has that right, he can't get warranty service on his $350 electronic device, and that does suck. It could even be illegal.
But, come on, it is so NOT true that a Kindle becomes useless if you can't access the Kindle store. It's the other way around: the Kindle store is of no use if your Kindle doesn't work.
This is what I said:
This is what you implied I said:
Naughty naughty. It looks silly to imply that I said something I didn't - especially when I said so little.
Ah, but my larger point was, "cutting spending" has already cut into the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. We already have pockets of population who live an incongruous second-world life amid our wealth and prosperity. While in the short term, spending cuts will change the balance sheet, it will not solve problems long-term to do it the way we've been doing it.
So, while you didn't come right out and *say* that "cutting spending" means increasing the population of working poor, starving children, and illiterate masses, the fact remains that "cutting spending" does usually have those implications, whether one is willing to discuss them or not.
As for a response - sure, it's hard to cut spending. Most people in this country are finding that out right now. It's even harder to cut spending correctly. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? And yes, I would suggest that we are living beyond our means right now. That's why we are running a deficit, no shit!
If someone has a good job, and is making only 60% of the median salary for their job, and finds their expenses rising beyond their means, is it somehow unethical for them to ask for a raise? Sure, they can just continue to live on the same amount of money, which (compared to others doing similar work) is being underpaid, and cut expenses. They can tell their kids no new shoes this year, they can eat beans and rice most of the time. But would you seriously suggest that they *should*?
We pay the government to do work for us. It's more work than it used to be. Today's graduates need a college diploma to enter the same level of jobs that once required a high school diploma. Today's roads have to carry far higher volumes of traffic. Today's emergency and transitional shelters have to take on an increasing number of families with children, rather than just the single men who used to make up 99% of the homeless population. The times, they are a-changin'. The suggestion that we shouldn't spend any more money to do the same job is naive.
We couldn't afford to go to war in Iraq. We couldn't afford to let our banks run wild and get "too big to fail." We couldn't afford to gut our educational system with NCLB. We're stuck with a debt from those short-sighted, destructive decisions.
We need to invest in our future. The government can't open a Roth IRA; instead, it needs to ensure that today's kindergarteners are healthy and well-educated enough to care for the nation tomorrow.
If we want to live the kind of lifestyle we've been living, it costs more money. We can roll back to a semi-developed nation status, like much of Eastern Europe, and get our deficit under control that way... but then, who among our folks who bring in actual tax revenue will want to stay? Instead, we need to do *more* to make this country strong, to care for its people so that they can care for it. And that continues to cost money.
When people talk about "cutting spending," I wish they'd tell me particular line items and projects they want to see dropped. Volcano monitoring? Traffic signal networking? Agriculture subsidies? Take your Daughter or Son or Other Child You Know to Work Day? Please, look at the Federal Budget (it's available online) and figure out what we're "wasting money" on.
To say "we need to cut spending" is to say you want someone else to solv
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending?
To an extent, you can. But what do you cut? "Social programs"? Those social programs are going to prevent a lot of hard-working, skilled Americans and their families from starving or going homeless over the next year or two. Will *you* be the one to tell the family of four who have weathered three layoffs in two years and already seen the last of their six-month emergency fund that we're cutting their food stamps from $338 a month to $288? Or dropping the program altogether? And once you do, you've got, what, 2% of the deficit paid off? What's next? "Social programs" account for a tiny percentage of the federal budget.
Should we raid Social Security (again)? Drop infrastructure spending (again)? Cut education (again)? We're going to need that SS cushion, or people won't retire, and jobs will continue to be scarce. Our infrastructure is already suffering badly, and it costs more to clean up after a disaster than to prevent one (Katrina anyone?). Education is essential to remaining competitive in the global economy; as it is, we're having to import large numbers of health-care workers from the Philippines and other countries with better schooling available, and even the less-skilled pink/white collar jobs are shifting overseas at the speed of a telecom connection. Will our deficit situation improve if, in 10 years, we have even *fewer* literate and numerate 18-year-olds? Will their parents be able to "take up the slack" if they're working three part-time jobs to make up for the food stamps we took away, or to cover the emergency room bill since they can't afford to go to the doctor regularly?
And again, those things are a relatively small percentage of the budget. We could completely redirect education spending, and it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit. Maybe we could sell the Brooklyn Bridge?
Defense is really the only place where we spend enough money for cutting to make a big difference. Care to raffle off a B-2 bomber?
Yes, we have to watch our money... but there's such a thing as penny-wise and pound-foolish. Many of our spending cuts have *cost* us money in the long run. The suggestion that we should be able to pay off the deficit simply by "cutting spending" is to suggest that we are living beyond our means by maintaining a first-world existence.
We do need to increase revenue. Our taxation brackets are based on much smaller amounts in real dollars; we need to start ratcheting things up slower, so that on the bottom end (the five-figure households) you're paying the same or less, but at the top end (your seven-figure-a-year earners) you're paying more. YES it's wealth redistribution. I don't understand the argument against it; we're all in this together, and no one is going to pull down a million a year unless there's infrastructure and a quality labor force to build on. Try posting a CEO resume in Zaire, really... see how many bites you get.
I also think that, in this day and age, the IRS needs to change the "bracketing system" to something more intuitive. We look at the "top bracket," see the figure "35%", and FREAK THE FUCK OUT... how dare they take over a THIRD of my hard-earned money? But that's soooo not what is happening, is it? A family with $400,000 taxable income is actually paying 28% in taxes, and you better believe that at those numbers, they've got $100k or more in deductions; they'll be tracking their sales tax, deducting property taxes on homes assessed at seven figures, paying mortgage interest, contributing to Roth IRAs, and so on. Now they're actually only paying 22% in taxes on their gross income. (The plural of anecdote is not data, but my mother's experience, when she married a millionaire and retired from teaching public school, was that they paid a tax figure that came to 12% of their gross income; the numeric value of their taxes the first year was LESS than what she'd paid the prior year on her teacher's salary.)
It i
Hopefully they'll be clueful and make it dependent on the buyer's location, rather than the sellers... otherwise, all the online retailers who can will pick up and move to the state with the lowest sales tax, similar to why everyone incorporates in Delaware.
So when buggy nvidia/ati drivers take down a linux box, we should blame linux, right?
Well... since Nvidia and ATI have access to the entire Linux codebase when developing their driver, *and* there's no "Linux Corp" claiming that things are or are not compatible with the OS, it's a different situation.
But people often *do* blame Linux when hardware is not supported or poorly supported. They also sometimes blame the hardware manufacturers, but in the general case, people do say "The problem with Linux is that it doesn't have enough support from hardware vendors," rather than the other way around.
Let me get this straight... you're installing keyboard drivers? That could be your problem...
dont misconstrue the comment to mean i endorse the censorship, im quite against it. I am however in awe
of youtube and google engineers when it comes to bending to the social will of governments who insist crazy things like, say, 100% logging
of everything however camp X-Ray must be censored out of any maps.
I think that's the point; S. Korea has put in this requirement on ALL websites, and Youtube has said "Sorry, can't do that; see ya!" and blocked all users who identify as being from S. Korea.
How they implement the verification system is their problem. Some never check at all, many others just check the hash value (the national ID number has its last digit generated from a simple hash function)...
Is it just me, or does this "national ID number" sounds just like a social security number?
It's just you... SSNs don't have a check digit.
Yes, yes, I know, that's not what you meant... but actually, they're not very similar at all. The US Government does NOT want everyone in creation using your SSN as an ID number. They'd rather you didn't use it to log onto every website or to look up your driver license. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center:
The Social Security Administration recommends that you should ask the following questions before releasing the SSN:
- Why your number is needed;
- How your number will be used;
- What happens if you refuse; and
- What law requires you to give your number.
For my part, I always put "decline to state" or DTS in the SSN field unless I see a clear need for the number, such as when filling out paperwork for a new job. My doctor's office does NOT need my SSN, and doesn't have it, for example.
If you think the link:
video.google.com/videosearch?oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=nanotouch&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&q=nano+touch
is an image, you need to retake your browser 101 class dude.
If you think that naming a subdomain "video" automatically means moving pictures, I can't help you there.
FTR, this is what I get from clicking on the above link. See the address bar in the screen cap if you're still confused. Glad it works for some people, but clearly not compatible with Chrome 1.0.154.53 on WinXP Pro SP3.
Here's the vid so you don't have to search for it. (Wish folks would link to a vid in TFS).
Ironic that your link to a vid "so we don't have to search for it" is just a search output, where the product under discussion here is the very bottom link (everything before it is about the iPod Nano and iPod Touch). Oh, and that link isn't actually a video, just a static image.
Next time, just go for the humor value and use Let me Google That For You, ok? (Hey, first hit is about the actual device, how about that!)
There may be an uncomfortable PR side effect, though, in that the lobbier can then say "look, we're on the giving end also".
That would be easier for them to say if they also said "Ooops, yeah, that was infringement" instead of "What? That patent wasn't a REAL patent!"
> Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the upgrade of installed Vista copies to XP .
Here you go.
FTFY.
Whenever I throw something and my dog catches it, he's inherently working out the position of the object and its velocity in order to catch it.
Your dog can do calculus when you set up a ball-throwing machine, and, from the angle of the chute and previous experience with velocity of objects, the dog goes to the correct location to catch the ball before its thrown (even though you're on a new field she's never seen before).
Associating a certain screen with more incidents of objects recently disappearing behind them doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to add or subtract. The idea that moving the objects back and forth is confusing to the chicks and thus requires math to sort out the answer might be a false assumption. If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment.
So how does their ability to distinguish between obscured quantities based on incremental changes differ from arithmetic? I don't think the scientists are suggesting that they are using abstract symbols to represent quantities, and applying additive and subtractive properties to them... but simply that, when given a problem ("Which screen hides a greater quantity?"), they can arrive at a correct result.
Because the items are moved one by one, rather than split into a group and moved all at once, it implies there's some sort of increment/decrement system going on. Whether it's incrementing and decrementing symbols or warm fuzzies, and whether they keep track by positioning their toes differently or by visualizing in their head what is behind the screen, they're doing *something* that gets the results of arithmetic.
Does this mean that Cracker Jacks are not confections according to the FDA? In that case, what on earth ARE they?
Indeed. I wonder if a lot of animals would naturally, for example, choose a large pile of food over a small pile of food.
Actually, you could do an experiment with food to determine this.
You have a similar setup, where the animal watches you put a smaller quantity of food in one bin, and a larger quantity of food in another bin. Make sure it's discrete pieces of food, and a small number; say 3 in one and 5 in the other. The bins themselves are opaque. Then you allow the animal to choose to go to one bin or the other first.
I'm envisioning a bin where only ONE piece of food is visible/available at a time... a FIFO food queue, kind of like those fork dispensers at Whole Foods.
It would be interesting to use different sized eggs to create scenarios where one group has more individual eggs but the other group has a higher total surface area (maybe volume) of eggs. If the chicks still chose the group with more individual eggs than one could make a strong case that they are capable of counting.
But the inverse is not true... if they chose the larger eggs, you could not infer that they were incapable of counting; their preference for the larger eggs could be independent of an accurate perception of which is greater quantity.
Of course, they could have a preference for the smaller eggs independent of quantity as well, so it wouldn't really rule out or confirm anything one way or the other.
No, I'm saying that people who are diabetic have to watch their sugar intake, and therefore -might- have a lower blood sugar level
As other posters have confirmed, you're incorrect; diabetics tend to have a higher blood glucose level, and have to watch their diet, take meds, and inject insulin to keep it *down* to normal ranges.
I'm working on the assumption that this device, if it's ever used, would not use a "yeast additive", and that the use of yeast in the experiment was due to it being a substitute for human blood yeast/lack of available/controllable blood yeast. IE, in production, it would utilize human blood yeast which consumes sugars.
Um. Yeast in the blood is an infection, and a BAD one. Yeast normally lives in the intestinal tract, and sometimes ends up in other places, like genital areas, milk ducts, etc. If it's in your blood, you need a LOT of antifungal medication.
IANAD... I just happened to have read up a lot on thrush, systemic candida, and probiotic yeast (i.e. sacchromyces boulardii).
There's no room for doubt here!
But what if the person is a diabetic, or pre-diabetic, and consumes no non-organic sugars or wheat? There would be minimal sugar-yeast in their body.
Huh?
Are you saying that people who don't consume refined sugar or carbs don't have glucose in their bloodstream? Or that this invention would somehow rely on the body's supply of yeast to run?
We all have glucose in our blood, even diabetics. The issue for them is that the insulin system, which keeps blood glucose levels steady in spite of rapidly changing intake, isn't working properly... so they have to keep their intake of sugars and carbs low. There's still plenty of glucose.
The invention has its own yeast, it doesn't rely on the body's native yeasts.
Keep in mind that the alcohol you drink goes through your liver first. Only a small portion of the alcohol you drink actually gets into your blood stream, so even a small amount produced by the yeast cells may be dangerous.
Um... how does the alcohol *get* to the liver? Do you think it jumps there directly from the intestines? ;-)
Alcohol enters the bloodstream, and then is detoxed by the liver.
I've already seen that
- Videogames improve vision
- Masturbation is good for your prostate
- Drinking beer is good for your stomach.
Now the only thing missing is to read that pizza makes you thinner!
Well, pizza usually has cheese on it, and supposedly dairy makes you thinner. (Note: that study was funded by the dairy council.)
And don't forget... coffee is good for your heart!
But what's the first thing that is mentioned when a story like that is posted here? It even gets a cute tag: correlation is not causation.
Correlation: Researcher notes that people who play a lot of FPS-style games have contrast detection that is on average 58% better than those who don't, even if they play other types of games.
Causation: Take a group of people, and test their contrast detection. Divide them randomly up into two groups. Have one play FPS-style games, the other play a different type of computer game, for the same amount of time over several weeks. Measure contrast detection again at the end of that time period.
"People who play violent video games are more violent" is correlation. "People become more violent after playing violent video games" would be causation, but I've not yet seen a study that takes baseline measurements and introduces a proper control, then finds that to be the case.