If you haven't read about the brain implants for vision, then read this. The photo of the implant doesn't seem to be showing up in the article right now, but there's a sketch here. Suffice it to say, your friends are going to look at you funny, at least until Apple releases the iBrain, which by my calculations won't be before 2042. Of course, Apple's main innovation will be that they'll make the implant white, and advertise it so that people think it looks cool.
Neurofeedback has been studied since the twenties.
Yes, and other than the sort of biofeedback applications mentioned by the parent, very little usable progress has been made since then, for some very obvious reasons. If you're not talking about an invasive system, in which you have electrodes surgically implanted into your brain, then you're limited to relying on electric currents that are detectable on the skin surface. But guess what, your thought processes are not actually visible from outside your skull. So systems that use this technology are characterized by extremely low resolution and low bandwidth, i.e. you can't exercise fine control and you can't communicate quickly. You can't use it to play anything but the simplest games, for example, and you certainly can't use it to do anything critical.
And none of this will change, short of a sci-fi style breakthrough that can read better signals through your skull -- which any physicist will tell you is a tall order, at best. If you really want to control things with your mind, you're going to have to get an implant.
Yellowstone is a different type of volcano than Mt. St. Helens, though, and it may not give as much warning. We know there's a magma chamber there, and all it needs is the right kind of crack in the crust to expose the magma to atmospheric pressure, at which point the gas dissolved in the magma causes an explosion. I think the grandparent has a point, in that the events we're seeing now could in fact be a prelude to an upcoming eruption, but they could also just be normal activity. We may not know for sure which it is, ahead of time, because we've never observed a volcano like this erupting before.
Of course, IANAVolcanologist, all I know is what I saw on the one BBC show about it.
The prices you give aren't that different from U.S. prices. Although not the norm, there are drinkable wines for as little as $2 (Two-buck Chuck). I often buy $6 wines, often imports from e.g. Chile. For what you call a "good" bottle, I think it depends how much of a connossieur you are. There's good wine in the 12-17 range, there's also questionable stuff, particularly the really high-volume mass-market stuff. If you're unfamiliar with the choices and want to use money to insulate yourself against buying something bad, things start to get safer at about $20. Restaurants vary tremendously, so you'd have to qualify "a restaurant". But yeah, $20 is the low end for a restaurant, with most places that I consider nice being closer to $30. That said, I'm a restaurant snob and won't eat just anywhere.
"Verlag" means something like "publishing house" in German, so its presence in the names of both companies simply means that they're both publishing houses. Different Springers, though, as someone else already pointed out.
Don't sweat it, the moderation system is just a way to figure out which people, when given some tiny amount of power, will immediately start behaving like the prison guards at Abu Ghraib.
You're throwing out a lot of BS to cover up one thing: that you don't understand that whatever distractions you indulge in in the car have only not caused accidents for you so far because of luck, a.k.a. statistics. So maybe many of the people with babies in the back seat have also been lucky, but that doesn't excuse you.
As someone else said, we all sometimes do things in the car that are distracting, and most of the time, we get away with it. But if you think you're getting away with it because of your mad l33t driving skillz, you're kidding yourself, and are more likely to end up having an accident than someone who's more realistic about what's going on.
that said, I text while driving, and expect I'll pay for it someday...
So do you see any difference between yourself and that woman that you mentioned? Texting while driving is reckless, and at best shows great ignorance of the dangers of the road, and contempt not not only for your own life and health, but those of others.
Let's rephrase -- branes are mathematical concepts that describe the multiverse. You can't ask where branes came from, they're guaranteed to exist if you have a multiverse.
Do you seriously believe that no alternative, incompatible-with-branes mathematical description of the multiverse is possible? Nice try at an end run around the testability requirement!
You should re-read quixote9's comment carefully; it is accurate, and your reaction makes little sense. While the Hot Zone describes real events, it goes to some lengths to exaggerate the risk to the world at large, in the interests of an exciting story. That's understandable in such a book, but it can't be regarded as "scientifically accurate" in that sense.
Copyright isn't dying, although it may appear that way when you look only at work that's consumed by the general public. Copyright gets used throughout the business world, because we have a largely knowledge-based economy, and without copyright the entire economic system would fall apart, pretty much overnight. Copyright isn't just about movies and music.
That said, the way copyright is used in the consumer space is changing, and that's what this lawsuit is about: Google and Viacom are fighting for their piece of the pie. You can't dismiss Viacom as being a buggy whip owner, because unlike buggy whip owners, Viacom invests in and produces plenty of content that people actually want.
Not all the content on Youtube "belongs" to Viacom. Not by a long shot. If Google buys Viacom to make this lawsuit go away, every other content company will immediately sue Google to see what they can get out of it, too. IOW, even if Google buys Viacom, the basic situation doesn't change a bit.
actually a second reason would be to have fun firing viacoms lawyers.
Wouldn't happen -- the lawyers are more important to Google than anything else, because these companies are playing for high stakes, and a lot of the game will happen in court. See my comment here.
Viacom doesn't broadcast for free, the content is paid for by advertising, which is income Viacom doesn't get when someone else distributes the content without authorization. But the income isn't the only thing which matters, the whole point of copyright is to protect work when it's distributed, whether it's for free or for payment. Copyright means they, as copyright owners, get some control over how people who don't own the copyright use the work.
There's something rotten in more than Denmark here.
Perhaps, but you're going to have to muster a more robust argument than "they broadcast it over public airwaves for free".
Slashdot Mirror
If you haven't read about the brain implants for vision, then read this. The photo of the implant doesn't seem to be showing up in the article right now, but there's a sketch here. Suffice it to say, your friends are going to look at you funny, at least until Apple releases the iBrain, which by my calculations won't be before 2042. Of course, Apple's main innovation will be that they'll make the implant white, and advertise it so that people think it looks cool.
very little usable progress has been made since then, for some very obvious reasons. If you're not talking about an invasive system, in which you have electrodes surgically implanted into your brain, then you're limited to relying on electric currents that are detectable on the skin surface. But guess what, your thought processes are not actually visible from outside your skull. So systems that use this technology are characterized by extremely low resolution and low bandwidth, i.e. you can't exercise fine control and you can't communicate quickly. You can't use it to play anything but the simplest games, for example, and you certainly can't use it to do anything critical.
And none of this will change, short of a sci-fi style breakthrough that can read better signals through your skull -- which any physicist will tell you is a tall order, at best. If you really want to control things with your mind, you're going to have to get an implant.
A guy can dream...
You must be new here, so I'll go easy on you: dweeb.
No, just to get him the hell off Earth.
Yellowstone is a different type of volcano than Mt. St. Helens, though, and it may not give as much warning. We know there's a magma chamber there, and all it needs is the right kind of crack in the crust to expose the magma to atmospheric pressure, at which point the gas dissolved in the magma causes an explosion. I think the grandparent has a point, in that the events we're seeing now could in fact be a prelude to an upcoming eruption, but they could also just be normal activity. We may not know for sure which it is, ahead of time, because we've never observed a volcano like this erupting before.
Of course, IANAVolcanologist, all I know is what I saw on the one BBC show about it.
I always thought that the Grand Tetons were a reference to Anna Nicole Smith...
They're Australian. Cures for diseases are all invented in America, as everyone knows.
The prices you give aren't that different from U.S. prices. Although not the norm, there are drinkable wines for as little as $2 (Two-buck Chuck). I often buy $6 wines, often imports from e.g. Chile. For what you call a "good" bottle, I think it depends how much of a connossieur you are. There's good wine in the 12-17 range, there's also questionable stuff, particularly the really high-volume mass-market stuff. If you're unfamiliar with the choices and want to use money to insulate yourself against buying something bad, things start to get safer at about $20. Restaurants vary tremendously, so you'd have to qualify "a restaurant". But yeah, $20 is the low end for a restaurant, with most places that I consider nice being closer to $30. That said, I'm a restaurant snob and won't eat just anywhere.
You might like this picture better. Or this one. Note that these may not be work-safe, depending on whether or not you work in Utah.
"Verlag" means something like "publishing house" in German, so its presence in the names of both companies simply means that they're both publishing houses. Different Springers, though, as someone else already pointed out.
Thanks!
Don't sweat it, the moderation system is just a way to figure out which people, when given some tiny amount of power, will immediately start behaving like the prison guards at Abu Ghraib.
I dunno, I find AC's stuff to be a bit mixed, myself. I can never figure out her politics, either!
Yeah, efficiently. No hope of that being possible. Microsoft means full employment for low-level admins.
You're throwing out a lot of BS to cover up one thing: that you don't understand that whatever distractions you indulge in in the car have only not caused accidents for you so far because of luck, a.k.a. statistics. So maybe many of the people with babies in the back seat have also been lucky, but that doesn't excuse you.
As someone else said, we all sometimes do things in the car that are distracting, and most of the time, we get away with it. But if you think you're getting away with it because of your mad l33t driving skillz, you're kidding yourself, and are more likely to end up having an accident than someone who's more realistic about what's going on.
Oh yeah? Well, I have a message for you from Tony Montana's little friend!
Listening to Falkenbach while falling into the deadly crevasse you would have noticed if you hadn't been listening to Falkenbach: Priceless.
No, but he sometimes writes with Lurch's brother, Rock.
You should re-read quixote9's comment carefully; it is accurate, and your reaction makes little sense. While the Hot Zone describes real events, it goes to some lengths to exaggerate the risk to the world at large, in the interests of an exciting story. That's understandable in such a book, but it can't be regarded as "scientifically accurate" in that sense.
Copyright isn't dying, although it may appear that way when you look only at work that's consumed by the general public. Copyright gets used throughout the business world, because we have a largely knowledge-based economy, and without copyright the entire economic system would fall apart, pretty much overnight. Copyright isn't just about movies and music.
That said, the way copyright is used in the consumer space is changing, and that's what this lawsuit is about: Google and Viacom are fighting for their piece of the pie. You can't dismiss Viacom as being a buggy whip owner, because unlike buggy whip owners, Viacom invests in and produces plenty of content that people actually want.