If "the right combination" is intelligence + virtually no trace of autism symptoms, then why not just take the intelligence part and leave off the crippling disability? Autism is not a prerequisite to high intelligence. There are plenty of truly brilliant people out there who aren't autistic at all.
I used to work in a school for autistic children. I was just the IT guy, but I was in the classroom at times and saw how hard the kids had to work to grasp things that most toddlers can do intuitively. I think it's unfortunate that when kids like that overcome their illness and do great things, people think "Wow, he sure benefited from those genes" instead of "Wow, that guy must have worked really hard to become so brilliant despite his disability."
Autism is not the superpower that many people make it out to be. You only see the high functioning autistic people. There are a great many who cannot even communicate above an infantile level. Many also suffer from severe OCD. These people need constant care throughout their lives. The brilliance aspect is only found in a small percentage of autistic people, and I've never seen a conclusive study showing that brilliance is any more common among the autistic than it is among "normal" people. It may be that it is simply more noticeable when someone who's autistic has some great talent.
The Republicans held a gun to the country's head, in the form of forcing a default if they didn't get their way, and demanded trillions of dollars in budget cuts or else!. And so the budget gets cut, and you blame Obama. What a gullible fool you are.
Obama's proposed budget cuts $320M from the TSA's budget (6%). Obviously, money in fungible, and any dollar they do spend could have been spent on xray scanners, so it is pretty much tautological to claim that "they're going to spend that money on other stuff." But the truth is that if their budget hadn't been cut, they probably would have bought more scanners.
That's what I said... that we've been able to build these things for ten years. As the article explains, the big difference here is the precision of the placement of the atom, making the devices much more manufacturable (though not on a mass-scale, of course).
And yes, there are other steps involved in making actual devices. But we don't have to work in a single pipeline. As the process engineers get closer to making this sort of thing mass producible, the software engineers will be simultaneously upgrading the EDA tools, and the design engineers will be thinking of ways to use this new device. It'll go into high price, low yielding devices at first. Probably military tech, or cutting edge instruments for physicists. Those pilot projects will be used to the design tools, tune the process, and maximize the yield.
It'll be quite some time before they reach consumer electronics, if they ever do, but I wouldn't toss them aside as non-manufacturable.
This guy watches too many movies. Unless they're just shooting off a pinky finger, any area you get shot by a "high-powered assault rifle" is a lethal area, barring immediate medical attention. Even a shot to the calf would have him bleed out long before he managed to crawl fifty yards.
It's pretty telling that he has given no thought whatsoever to the conscience of the shooter. He's going to order this young man to shoot, and likely kill, someone on live television, just to show how tough he is. He's willing to deal with the physical pain of being shot (likely because he doesn't understand the consequences), but the idea that forcing a person to murder another human being could cause emotional scarring is completely alien to him.
Thankfully, there is absolutely zero chance of this guy being elected to any office.
I know reading it hard, but try to at least get through the first sentence of the summary.
A new federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors
They are required, by law, to allow drone use by commercial endeavors. So no, it's not just "accessible for the police" as you claim. This law does the exact opposite of what you claim, by making it so that the drones aren't just "accessible for the police".
On the one hand, extreme animal rights groups like this one tend to be really obnoxious and a tad crazy. On the other, shooting at an elevated target in the direction of a populated area? That is extremely dangerous, and the people who would be at an event like that surely knew it. They risked harming or killing another human being because they were angry.
Gun owners always claim that guns are safe as long as the people using them know what they're doing and follow best practices. These guys should be ashamed of themselves.
A huge searchable database of images from all over the world? That would be awesome!
What exactly are you worried about, specifically? What are these drones going to see you doing that you're so afraid of them? Can you come up with a realistic example?
The people controlling these things are just people. They are no different from your friends, your relatives, your neighbors, or any random joe you meet on the street. They aren't out to get you.
If there are particular government policies that bother you (e.g. the war on drugs), then that's a valid concern and something that you should fight against through votes, activism, etc. But saying that technology shouldn't advance because you think that there's some shadowy conspiracy the members of which are only kept from harming you because they lack the necessary tech... I'm sorry, but that's a Luddite's view, and probably comes from reading too many dystopian fantasies.
Technology will keep marching forward. Always. If the laws bother you, fight to change the laws. But don't blame the tools.
But that was a long time ago, and AMD was poised for a comeback in the early 2000s. It was the Conroe architecture in late 2006, and everything after it, that caused all of AMD's current woes.
It's even weirder than that... Here's the highest res shot of the front of the thing that I could find - link. (Caution -- source website contains industrial grade crazy. Just mousing over the link will get you on at least four watch lists.)
Zoom in on the flag. It's grainy, but I'll be damned if there aren't eight rows, alternating between 6 and 7 stars each. That's 4 x 13 = 52 stars.
Personally, I choose to believe that these are boxes sent back from the future year 1934 AA (after apocalypse), by future Americans who live in a 52 state US (50 + Canada + Mexico + Airstrip One - California [it finally sank]). In the future, the six trillion dollars barely buys a sandwich, but if they invest it several thousand years ago, they'll be rich! Unfortunately, the time traveler who was supposed to invest the money got distracted chasing after a bunch of loonies who were just trying to let all the animals out of the zoo, and the money ended up in the hands of the mob.
Hey, it makes more sense than any theory from those Divine Cosmos people.
Since it's an exact double, I don't see how upscaling could make it worse. If nothing else, they could just group all the pixels into 2x2 pixel squares and treat them as a single pixel, thus exactly recreating the old resolution.
In fact, that's almost certainly why they went with that particular resolution.
You're going to need to show your work on that one... It looks like you tried to just double the 132, and accidentally came to 234 instead of 264. You're wrong regardless, since the resolution is doubling in both the X and the Y dimensions, meaning that the total pixels per inch should be quadrupled. 4 x 132 = 528.
Counting the pixels is a pretty good way to figure out how many there are. How else would you do it? The only matter in question is whether or not the screen they were looking at is actually going to be in the iPad 3. That seems likely to be the case, unless this is just some prototype screen that isn't going to go into any device.
According to Wikipedia, the iPhone 4S has 326 ppi, and the iPad 2 had 132 ppi. Doubling the resolution in both dimensions while keeping the screen size the same will quadruple the pixel density, meaning that the iPad 3 will have 528 ppi, which is quite a bit more than any device I've seen.
The reason it gets dismissed is because we've seen these make-believe controversies a million times. The right-wing media finds the tiniest little problem they can, and blows it up into some huge threat to our way of life. They twist the facts, and even invent new ones. You do so yourself...
None of the sources you cite give any indication that they sent "a note home to the mother, chiding her for not packing a vegetable in the lunch, and warning (threatening?) her that in future the school might start charging if they felt the need to stage such an intervention again."
They sent a note, on some other date, apparently to all parents. But in your mind, it's a "threat". You even use the same tactics as the demagogues, by putting a question mark after the word "threatening" so that you can say it without really saying it.
Even if the story were honest which it is not, I wouldn't care. It would just be a one-off event due to someone making a mistake. Only if I saw numerous such stories would I grow concerned.
No, they did not. They sent out a form letter to all parents, on a completely different day, telling them that they might start charging for this sort of thing in the future. No parent has received a bill to date.
Slashdot Mirror
If "the right combination" is intelligence + virtually no trace of autism symptoms, then why not just take the intelligence part and leave off the crippling disability? Autism is not a prerequisite to high intelligence. There are plenty of truly brilliant people out there who aren't autistic at all.
I used to work in a school for autistic children. I was just the IT guy, but I was in the classroom at times and saw how hard the kids had to work to grasp things that most toddlers can do intuitively. I think it's unfortunate that when kids like that overcome their illness and do great things, people think "Wow, he sure benefited from those genes" instead of "Wow, that guy must have worked really hard to become so brilliant despite his disability."
Autism is not the superpower that many people make it out to be. You only see the high functioning autistic people. There are a great many who cannot even communicate above an infantile level. Many also suffer from severe OCD. These people need constant care throughout their lives. The brilliance aspect is only found in a small percentage of autistic people, and I've never seen a conclusive study showing that brilliance is any more common among the autistic than it is among "normal" people. It may be that it is simply more noticeable when someone who's autistic has some great talent.
The Republicans held a gun to the country's head, in the form of forcing a default if they didn't get their way, and demanded trillions of dollars in budget cuts or else!. And so the budget gets cut, and you blame Obama. What a gullible fool you are.
False equivalency is the greatest evil in this country today. It will be the death of this nation. STOP!
When a Republican says the sky is red, and a Democrat says it's blue, the truth is not in the goddamned middle!
Obama's proposed budget cuts $320M from the TSA's budget (6%). Obviously, money in fungible, and any dollar they do spend could have been spent on xray scanners, so it is pretty much tautological to claim that "they're going to spend that money on other stuff." But the truth is that if their budget hadn't been cut, they probably would have bought more scanners.
That's what I said... that we've been able to build these things for ten years. As the article explains, the big difference here is the precision of the placement of the atom, making the devices much more manufacturable (though not on a mass-scale, of course).
And yes, there are other steps involved in making actual devices. But we don't have to work in a single pipeline. As the process engineers get closer to making this sort of thing mass producible, the software engineers will be simultaneously upgrading the EDA tools, and the design engineers will be thinking of ways to use this new device. It'll go into high price, low yielding devices at first. Probably military tech, or cutting edge instruments for physicists. Those pilot projects will be used to the design tools, tune the process, and maximize the yield.
It'll be quite some time before they reach consumer electronics, if they ever do, but I wouldn't toss them aside as non-manufacturable.
We were making single atom transistors ten years ago, but it was hit or miss whether the atom would end up in the right place.
Today, we can place the atom with high precision, in silicon, so that the devices can be made reliably.
Ten years from now, who's to say we won't be able to mass produce them?
This guy watches too many movies. Unless they're just shooting off a pinky finger, any area you get shot by a "high-powered assault rifle" is a lethal area, barring immediate medical attention. Even a shot to the calf would have him bleed out long before he managed to crawl fifty yards.
It's pretty telling that he has given no thought whatsoever to the conscience of the shooter. He's going to order this young man to shoot, and likely kill, someone on live television, just to show how tough he is. He's willing to deal with the physical pain of being shot (likely because he doesn't understand the consequences), but the idea that forcing a person to murder another human being could cause emotional scarring is completely alien to him.
Thankfully, there is absolutely zero chance of this guy being elected to any office.
I said no such thing. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.
What these guys did was not responsible.
I know reading it hard, but try to at least get through the first sentence of the summary.
A new federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors
They are required, by law, to allow drone use by commercial endeavors. So no, it's not just "accessible for the police" as you claim. This law does the exact opposite of what you claim, by making it so that the drones aren't just "accessible for the police".
On the one hand, extreme animal rights groups like this one tend to be really obnoxious and a tad crazy. On the other, shooting at an elevated target in the direction of a populated area? That is extremely dangerous, and the people who would be at an event like that surely knew it. They risked harming or killing another human being because they were angry.
Gun owners always claim that guns are safe as long as the people using them know what they're doing and follow best practices. These guys should be ashamed of themselves.
A huge searchable database of images from all over the world? That would be awesome!
What exactly are you worried about, specifically? What are these drones going to see you doing that you're so afraid of them? Can you come up with a realistic example?
Why?
The people controlling these things are just people. They are no different from your friends, your relatives, your neighbors, or any random joe you meet on the street. They aren't out to get you.
If there are particular government policies that bother you (e.g. the war on drugs), then that's a valid concern and something that you should fight against through votes, activism, etc. But saying that technology shouldn't advance because you think that there's some shadowy conspiracy the members of which are only kept from harming you because they lack the necessary tech... I'm sorry, but that's a Luddite's view, and probably comes from reading too many dystopian fantasies.
Technology will keep marching forward. Always. If the laws bother you, fight to change the laws. But don't blame the tools.
But that was a long time ago, and AMD was poised for a comeback in the early 2000s. It was the Conroe architecture in late 2006, and everything after it, that caused all of AMD's current woes.
Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.
Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?
Bonds are basically IOUs from the government. So you're suggesting that we pay our debts with IOUs.
Trust me, Washington is waaay ahead of you.
It's even weirder than that... Here's the highest res shot of the front of the thing that I could find - link. (Caution -- source website contains industrial grade crazy. Just mousing over the link will get you on at least four watch lists.)
Zoom in on the flag. It's grainy, but I'll be damned if there aren't eight rows, alternating between 6 and 7 stars each. That's 4 x 13 = 52 stars.
Personally, I choose to believe that these are boxes sent back from the future year 1934 AA (after apocalypse), by future Americans who live in a 52 state US (50 + Canada + Mexico + Airstrip One - California [it finally sank]). In the future, the six trillion dollars barely buys a sandwich, but if they invest it several thousand years ago, they'll be rich! Unfortunately, the time traveler who was supposed to invest the money got distracted chasing after a bunch of loonies who were just trying to let all the animals out of the zoo, and the money ended up in the hands of the mob.
Hey, it makes more sense than any theory from those Divine Cosmos people.
Ah, got it, thanks.
Since it's an exact double, I don't see how upscaling could make it worse. If nothing else, they could just group all the pixels into 2x2 pixel squares and treat them as a single pixel, thus exactly recreating the old resolution.
In fact, that's almost certainly why they went with that particular resolution.
You're going to need to show your work on that one... It looks like you tried to just double the 132, and accidentally came to 234 instead of 264. You're wrong regardless, since the resolution is doubling in both the X and the Y dimensions, meaning that the total pixels per inch should be quadrupled. 4 x 132 = 528.
Counting the pixels is a pretty good way to figure out how many there are. How else would you do it? The only matter in question is whether or not the screen they were looking at is actually going to be in the iPad 3. That seems likely to be the case, unless this is just some prototype screen that isn't going to go into any device.
According to Wikipedia, the iPhone 4S has 326 ppi, and the iPad 2 had 132 ppi. Doubling the resolution in both dimensions while keeping the screen size the same will quadruple the pixel density, meaning that the iPad 3 will have 528 ppi, which is quite a bit more than any device I've seen.
So in short: favorably.
The reason it gets dismissed is because we've seen these make-believe controversies a million times. The right-wing media finds the tiniest little problem they can, and blows it up into some huge threat to our way of life. They twist the facts, and even invent new ones. You do so yourself...
None of the sources you cite give any indication that they sent "a note home to the mother, chiding her for not packing a vegetable in the lunch, and warning (threatening?) her that in future the school might start charging if they felt the need to stage such an intervention again."
They sent a note, on some other date, apparently to all parents. But in your mind, it's a "threat". You even use the same tactics as the demagogues, by putting a question mark after the word "threatening" so that you can say it without really saying it.
Even if the story were honest which it is not, I wouldn't care. It would just be a one-off event due to someone making a mistake. Only if I saw numerous such stories would I grow concerned.
No, they did not. They sent out a form letter to all parents, on a completely different day, telling them that they might start charging for this sort of thing in the future. No parent has received a bill to date.
She wasn't charged. The school provided the food for free. What does that do to your theory?