I dont see this setting from Canada. My search settings show "no filtering" option set and selected. Im not sure whether they plan to change this in Canada in the future. But for now, anyone who really wants this type of search should be able to go to the google.ca website and go from there.
The link it shows for me is: https://www.google.ca/imghp
Google may redirect to ur local country image search from here... not sure. But I think there is a way to tell google to set it to a remote country search, as I sometimes do this to get.com instead of.ca searches.
When experimenting with having people drive cars at high speed into a wall, we usually end up with a random mush. But sometimes with the right can and the right people, a transformer walks away.
I doubt this system works as claimed. The numbers in various articles quote different percentage success rates. And then they say it will only fire when the system determines if the targetted area is populated. Sounds like this is a tactic to inflate success numbers when really it fails to operate. Further, these are largely funded with the help of US funds and yet the US has no information about the technology. What is this? This all just sounds like a PR mechanism designed to garner more funding. Ill believe it when it is tested by multiple countries... until then, Ill remember that there is a war going on and news from the front is often propiganda.
Seriously.
He was just a scientist among many others.
Right. So how many other great scientists share this "unusually complex pattern" of the brain. Perhaps we should take more brain scans of dead scientists to see if this is contributing factor to brialliant insight.
No. India's major religions are: Hinduism is the majority religion with 80.5% of the population of India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%), Sikhism (1.9%), Buddhism (0.8%) and Jainism (0.4%) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India). Further, from the link u provide: "Abrahamic religions (also Abrahamism) are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions (Dharmic), East Asian religions (Taoic) and Neopaganism." Which means that almost nobody in India believes or cares about Adam and Eve or a single god. So not having read the article itself, but knowing what I know... I call bogus on this article.
I cannot read the paper without paying for it. Is there a source to the actual paper without paying? I fundemantally do not believe in paying for scientific information and theories.
The answer is just: "quantum computing". IMO, Period. From what we know it will be able to do unbelievable computations. That is what we know. I expect the result we dont know will be far more useful and exciting. I hope useful quantum computers come online in my lifetime.
I most often here about quantum computing in regard to cyptography. I think this will prove to be a narrow short term usage of it. It will simply be used to unlock some secrets of the past and then we will simply apply a new level of cryptography for the future.
The Internet already provides massive amounts of data waiting to provide us with useful information in weather, health, politics, environment, history, etc etc. The problem is that we are unable to process this information to provide useful conclusions. Or rather we can only process this information in limited ways. Quantum algorithms allowing this data to be processed in linear time could provide surprisingly usable results. I believe quantum computing will provide us with the most unexpected tools of analysis in the future.
I also believe that quantum computing will change our views on privacy. I think once we see the benefits of massive data analysis, society will begin to allow personal information to be easily added to massive data sets in order to better humanity. For example, all our daily activities or movement, usage, health, feelings and observations will be uploaded to "the cloud". The cloud in this case being a massively sharable data set. I think most people will be giving up much of their privacy in order to better the future and understand of ourselves as a whole in real time.
Of course you forget things. You forget things when you don't use them.
That's an entirely different thing to new things pushing old ones out, which (unless I've forgotten) was the original claim.
Who cares if he is right or wrong on this point. I think we can all agree that there is no way for any single person to understand every single bit of information that is available to be known. And apply this to the reality of a situation at hand. If there was a way to interact with the Internet so that known information can be organized and presented to you on demand in a useful manner based on real word needs... then this interaction would be far more useful then simply stuffing my brain as full as possible.
Yes. This is pretty silly. Wats wrong with the UK. Its like they want everyone in the world to read this joke. Now I have. Otherwise, it would just remain in his circle of friends.
"Technically ICBIT is not an exchange since it does not act as a central counterparty. According to their website users are fully exposed to counterparty risk from other traders whose identities are concealed from them; the exchange does not pledge its own assets to back the other side of a customer's position. Traders are not allowed to conduct background or reputation checks of any kind on these anonymous counterparties."
"In the worst case scenario, your profit is always limited by ability to pay of counterparties to your contract. We do our best to resolve such situations before the particular user goes bankrupt, but if that happens, your profitable position will be closed (at a very good price for you!) and you would need to reopen it again."
...which I believe means that your return on investment is not guaranteed and instead of being paid fully on the result of a contract which is highly profitable in your favour, they will limit the profit to the ability of the other agent to pay. So there is a limit to the value on your contacts and if others take advantage of this, they can limit their risk while maintaining high risk for yourself. Im not a professional in this matter, but it seems to me that there is a serious flaw in this trading system.
A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".
Three strikes ur out law. Meaning, the first 3 crimes per day are ok, but the 4th gets a ticket in ur inbox.
If you post a video to youtube, then you want it to be public. If you are filmed and put onto youtube, you were in public or gave permission to be filmed in private. If this is not the case, then it will be easier for you to locate the violations and request their removal. This is a benefit to privacy. I like the idea and would like to see this service in action. I support youtube with this invovation and request that those who perfer privacy continue to stay away from youtube and public spaces.
Mobile networks and wifi are completely separate things. The article of the post you are replying to mentions mobile networks, but you say google is talking about wifi. Please provide a link if you meant what you said. I would like to see Google's position on wifi.
This is the problem with allowing Apple to determine for you wat is and is not appropriate. If you like a manufacture deciding what you can and can not do, keep paying them for this.
All this article proves is that most people dont know what the cloud is or in what context it applies. It is very natural to think something named apon a weather occurance would be related to the weather. This is the best guess and I should hope that people who do not understand the context would naturally assume the word has something to do with this classification. If you never heard of MS "Windows", would you not hope that when people are asked about it, they would answer that windows are related to buildings and allow you to look through them from the interior to the outside? But this article gets worse... it then explains to these people who have never heard about the cloud, what the cloud is and then goes on to ask their opinions about its usefulness. What a load of crap. Their opinions are obviously going to be based on the information they just received about what it is. The information they provide next is going to be entirely based on the manner in which the cloud was just described to them. This survey is meaningless... other then to say: "most average people do not know what the cloud is and may not realize when they are using it". WOW... how informative. I would like to see a survey on how many people even understand what an operating system is. I think it is far lower then we would assume.
The 'NC' and 'ND' clauses do have a purpose. Just because this guy wants everyone to share their property for them to modify and change into their own mash-ups doesnt mean that every artist wants to allow them to do this. The Creative Commons license is a simple way for content creators to license their work outside the default copyright restrictions. Most people do not have the money for lawyers in order to draft their own legal copyright text, so the CC licenses provide some options for those who want to make their work 'more free' then they normally could... while still restricting some of those rights. For example, a music artist may want to make their song available to you for free and allow you to freely share it with your friends, but not want you to resell the song or play their music at a paid concert. This is completely reasonable and is definitely more "free" then a default copyright would imply. If Creative Commons where to remove their "ND" and "NC" license, Im sure it would result in less people selecting to use the license entirely.
I dont really understand the purpose of the "ND" clause as much as the "NC" clause. It seems to me that an artist who selects "ND" may be concerned about the context in which their art is used. Perhaps taking their content out of context and used in a way that would offend them.
There is a license which provides what you want. It is the "CC-By" license. I wish more people would use this license for their work. I just dont see how forcing everybody to use this license would benefit the free art movement. I think it would reduce the amount of CC content by removing those who do not want to allow you to make money off their work.
If the concern is about multiple licenses using a single "Creative Commons" moniker, maybe there should be a movement to rebrand the CC-By license under a different name/logo. But there are totally free licenses already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_License
The guy that wrote this article is wasting his time. Instead of trying to change something wide into the narrow limits he wants... maybe he should concentrate on encouraging artists to use the license option he prefers
I wouldn't buy a PC from any of the manufacturers which install any of this shit. Give me a vanilla install of Windows, and leave me the hell alone.
Its funny that you do not include "vanilla Windows" within the set of preloaded crap. I consider Windows one of the biggest hogs of CPU and memory.
Last time I purchased a HP laptop, I tried to get the refund for the Windows crap they preinstalled and was refused. HP will never get my money again, because they do not support the concept of a commodity PC and they do not follow the letter of their EULA contracts.
When friends tell me how wonderful life is with an iphone or ipad, I always ask them how they expect to install a virus. Because if you dont have the option to install a virus of your choosing then you really dont control the device and it is not a computer. We often think of a virus as undesirable, but in reality it expressed one thing: full control over the hardware. No viruses = limited control. At some point a virus will be something you will want to get. Like the one that will sweep across the world moving from router to router. The one that will open up the massive free worldwide wireless bandwidth we all have sitting mostly idol on our locked down routers right now. When that happens, many will find themselves scrambling to remove the security measures on their routers in order to allow the virus to improve their computing lives.
Have you not been paying attention? All your books belong to the publishers. All you have is the limited right to read them on particular devices for a limited period of time if the publishers don't change their minds. Same goes for your music.
This is not true of the concept of digital media in general. This is a result of the license agreement attached to the digital content you buy. The solution is to only select content for which the license does allow for sharing and transfer. The creative commons license is an example of a license which can provide for sharing and transfer. Support artists who use the creative commons license.
This whole argument is late to the party. The software industry has been slowly killing the concept of sharing for years. Now that music is simply a set of digital values like software, the music industry is in a position to apply the same unfair restrictions and have you eat it. Its your own fault. For listening to the music industry marketing. Break free. Start listening to music under the creative commons license and start sharing it with your friends and family. If you want to leave a legacy for your children and friends after your dead... show them that you were the generation that began to reject these horrible license shackles. Just because something is "free" does not mean it has no value. Your music selection passed on should be a reflection of who you are not what you bought. Show future generations that you were a person who choose not to be enslaved by corporations through marketing.
The first site you should visit is http://jamendo.com./ Support the concept of sharing and let this be your legacy
You cant copyright a store layout. This is why they often do not allow cameras in stores. Because it is perfectly legal to copy the furniture layout and style of a store. This is not something which can be patented or copyrighted. I see this in the restaraunt industry all the time. Each trying to look distinct, but everyone copying good style ideas from one another. So the whole question of whether the store 'looks like apple' or not is pointless and has no legal bearing. It is simply an observation to agree with or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont see this setting from Canada. My search settings show "no filtering" option set and selected. Im not sure whether they plan to change this in Canada in the future. But for now, anyone who really wants this type of search should be able to go to the google.ca website and go from there. The link it shows for me is: https://www.google.ca/imghp Google may redirect to ur local country image search from here... not sure. But I think there is a way to tell google to set it to a remote country search, as I sometimes do this to get .com instead of .ca searches.
When experimenting with having people drive cars at high speed into a wall, we usually end up with a random mush. But sometimes with the right can and the right people, a transformer walks away.
I doubt this system works as claimed. The numbers in various articles quote different percentage success rates. And then they say it will only fire when the system determines if the targetted area is populated. Sounds like this is a tactic to inflate success numbers when really it fails to operate. Further, these are largely funded with the help of US funds and yet the US has no information about the technology. What is this? This all just sounds like a PR mechanism designed to garner more funding. Ill believe it when it is tested by multiple countries... until then, Ill remember that there is a war going on and news from the front is often propiganda.
Seriously. He was just a scientist among many others.
Right. So how many other great scientists share this "unusually complex pattern" of the brain. Perhaps we should take more brain scans of dead scientists to see if this is contributing factor to brialliant insight.
All three religions belong to the family of Abrahamic religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions ) and very high similarities in beliefs, traditions etc.
No. India's major religions are: Hinduism is the majority religion with 80.5% of the population of India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%), Sikhism (1.9%), Buddhism (0.8%) and Jainism (0.4%) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India). Further, from the link u provide: "Abrahamic religions (also Abrahamism) are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions (Dharmic), East Asian religions (Taoic) and Neopaganism." Which means that almost nobody in India believes or cares about Adam and Eve or a single god. So not having read the article itself, but knowing what I know... I call bogus on this article.
I cannot read the paper without paying for it. Is there a source to the actual paper without paying? I fundemantally do not believe in paying for scientific information and theories.
driverless cars, uav/ugv swarms, quantum computers, genetic modifications of *, bio-hacks/synthetic biology , graphene graphene everywhere, etc...
The answer is just: "quantum computing". IMO, Period. From what we know it will be able to do unbelievable computations. That is what we know. I expect the result we dont know will be far more useful and exciting. I hope useful quantum computers come online in my lifetime.
I most often here about quantum computing in regard to cyptography. I think this will prove to be a narrow short term usage of it. It will simply be used to unlock some secrets of the past and then we will simply apply a new level of cryptography for the future.
The Internet already provides massive amounts of data waiting to provide us with useful information in weather, health, politics, environment, history, etc etc. The problem is that we are unable to process this information to provide useful conclusions. Or rather we can only process this information in limited ways. Quantum algorithms allowing this data to be processed in linear time could provide surprisingly usable results. I believe quantum computing will provide us with the most unexpected tools of analysis in the future.
I also believe that quantum computing will change our views on privacy. I think once we see the benefits of massive data analysis, society will begin to allow personal information to be easily added to massive data sets in order to better humanity. For example, all our daily activities or movement, usage, health, feelings and observations will be uploaded to "the cloud". The cloud in this case being a massively sharable data set. I think most people will be giving up much of their privacy in order to better the future and understand of ourselves as a whole in real time.
Of course you forget things. You forget things when you don't use them.
That's an entirely different thing to new things pushing old ones out, which (unless I've forgotten) was the original claim.
Who cares if he is right or wrong on this point. I think we can all agree that there is no way for any single person to understand every single bit of information that is available to be known. And apply this to the reality of a situation at hand. If there was a way to interact with the Internet so that known information can be organized and presented to you on demand in a useful manner based on real word needs... then this interaction would be far more useful then simply stuffing my brain as full as possible.
I think you need to step inside a performance electric to really see how quite an engine can be at high speed and acceleration.
Yes. This is pretty silly. Wats wrong with the UK. Its like they want everyone in the world to read this joke. Now I have. Otherwise, it would just remain in his circle of friends.
The 2nd time the article mentioned Cody, he was called Cory.
So if I were a producer or buyer of bitcoins, a solid futures market would be of great interest.
Who said that ICBIT is 'solid'? You cannot even find information about the company here: https://icbit.se/
Looking here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ICBIT, we see:
"Technically ICBIT is not an exchange since it does not act as a central counterparty. According to their website users are fully exposed to counterparty risk from other traders whose identities are concealed from them; the exchange does not pledge its own assets to back the other side of a customer's position. Traders are not allowed to conduct background or reputation checks of any kind on these anonymous counterparties."
So how "solid" is this, and who would use it?
ICBIT here: https://icbit.se/margincall says this:
"In the worst case scenario, your profit is always limited by ability to pay of counterparties to your contract. We do our best to resolve such situations before the particular user goes bankrupt, but if that happens, your profitable position will be closed (at a very good price for you!) and you would need to reopen it again."
...which I believe means that your return on investment is not guaranteed and instead of being paid fully on the result of a contract which is highly profitable in your favour, they will limit the profit to the ability of the other agent to pay. So there is a limit to the value on your contacts and if others take advantage of this, they can limit their risk while maintaining high risk for yourself. Im not a professional in this matter, but it seems to me that there is a serious flaw in this trading system.
A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".
Three strikes ur out law. Meaning, the first 3 crimes per day are ok, but the 4th gets a ticket in ur inbox.
We have a way that anyone can say anything to anyone else. What we need to add is:
1. A way to prevent anyone from saying something offensive.
OR
2. A way to allow some people to opt-out of using this form of communication.
If we could figure out how offer one of these solutions, the system would be perfect.
If you post a video to youtube, then you want it to be public. If you are filmed and put onto youtube, you were in public or gave permission to be filmed in private. If this is not the case, then it will be easier for you to locate the violations and request their removal. This is a benefit to privacy. I like the idea and would like to see this service in action. I support youtube with this invovation and request that those who perfer privacy continue to stay away from youtube and public spaces.
Mobile networks and wifi are completely separate things. The article of the post you are replying to mentions mobile networks, but you say google is talking about wifi. Please provide a link if you meant what you said. I would like to see Google's position on wifi.
This is the problem with allowing Apple to determine for you wat is and is not appropriate. If you like a manufacture deciding what you can and can not do, keep paying them for this.
All this article proves is that most people dont know what the cloud is or in what context it applies. It is very natural to think something named apon a weather occurance would be related to the weather. This is the best guess and I should hope that people who do not understand the context would naturally assume the word has something to do with this classification. If you never heard of MS "Windows", would you not hope that when people are asked about it, they would answer that windows are related to buildings and allow you to look through them from the interior to the outside? But this article gets worse... it then explains to these people who have never heard about the cloud, what the cloud is and then goes on to ask their opinions about its usefulness. What a load of crap. Their opinions are obviously going to be based on the information they just received about what it is. The information they provide next is going to be entirely based on the manner in which the cloud was just described to them. This survey is meaningless... other then to say: "most average people do not know what the cloud is and may not realize when they are using it". WOW... how informative. I would like to see a survey on how many people even understand what an operating system is. I think it is far lower then we would assume.
Wouldnt it be cool if some people had eyes that could see into infrared or ultraviolet?
The 'NC' and 'ND' clauses do have a purpose. Just because this guy wants everyone to share their property for them to modify and change into their own mash-ups doesnt mean that every artist wants to allow them to do this. The Creative Commons license is a simple way for content creators to license their work outside the default copyright restrictions. Most people do not have the money for lawyers in order to draft their own legal copyright text, so the CC licenses provide some options for those who want to make their work 'more free' then they normally could... while still restricting some of those rights. For example, a music artist may want to make their song available to you for free and allow you to freely share it with your friends, but not want you to resell the song or play their music at a paid concert. This is completely reasonable and is definitely more "free" then a default copyright would imply. If Creative Commons where to remove their "ND" and "NC" license, Im sure it would result in less people selecting to use the license entirely.
I dont really understand the purpose of the "ND" clause as much as the "NC" clause. It seems to me that an artist who selects "ND" may be concerned about the context in which their art is used. Perhaps taking their content out of context and used in a way that would offend them.
There is a license which provides what you want. It is the "CC-By" license. I wish more people would use this license for their work. I just dont see how forcing everybody to use this license would benefit the free art movement. I think it would reduce the amount of CC content by removing those who do not want to allow you to make money off their work.
If the concern is about multiple licenses using a single "Creative Commons" moniker, maybe there should be a movement to rebrand the CC-By license under a different name/logo. But there are totally free licenses already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_License
The guy that wrote this article is wasting his time. Instead of trying to change something wide into the narrow limits he wants... maybe he should concentrate on encouraging artists to use the license option he prefers
I wouldn't buy a PC from any of the manufacturers which install any of this shit. Give me a vanilla install of Windows, and leave me the hell alone.
Its funny that you do not include "vanilla Windows" within the set of preloaded crap. I consider Windows one of the biggest hogs of CPU and memory.
Last time I purchased a HP laptop, I tried to get the refund for the Windows crap they preinstalled and was refused. HP will never get my money again, because they do not support the concept of a commodity PC and they do not follow the letter of their EULA contracts.
When friends tell me how wonderful life is with an iphone or ipad, I always ask them how they expect to install a virus. Because if you dont have the option to install a virus of your choosing then you really dont control the device and it is not a computer. We often think of a virus as undesirable, but in reality it expressed one thing: full control over the hardware. No viruses = limited control. At some point a virus will be something you will want to get. Like the one that will sweep across the world moving from router to router. The one that will open up the massive free worldwide wireless bandwidth we all have sitting mostly idol on our locked down routers right now. When that happens, many will find themselves scrambling to remove the security measures on their routers in order to allow the virus to improve their computing lives.
Have you not been paying attention? All your books belong to the publishers. All you have is the limited right to read them on particular devices for a limited period of time if the publishers don't change their minds. Same goes for your music.
This is not true of the concept of digital media in general. This is a result of the license agreement attached to the digital content you buy. The solution is to only select content for which the license does allow for sharing and transfer. The creative commons license is an example of a license which can provide for sharing and transfer. Support artists who use the creative commons license.
This whole argument is late to the party. The software industry has been slowly killing the concept of sharing for years. Now that music is simply a set of digital values like software, the music industry is in a position to apply the same unfair restrictions and have you eat it. Its your own fault. For listening to the music industry marketing. Break free. Start listening to music under the creative commons license and start sharing it with your friends and family. If you want to leave a legacy for your children and friends after your dead... show them that you were the generation that began to reject these horrible license shackles. Just because something is "free" does not mean it has no value. Your music selection passed on should be a reflection of who you are not what you bought. Show future generations that you were a person who choose not to be enslaved by corporations through marketing.
The first site you should visit is http://jamendo.com./ Support the concept of sharing and let this be your legacy
You cant copyright a store layout. This is why they often do not allow cameras in stores. Because it is perfectly legal to copy the furniture layout and style of a store. This is not something which can be patented or copyrighted. I see this in the restaraunt industry all the time. Each trying to look distinct, but everyone copying good style ideas from one another. So the whole question of whether the store 'looks like apple' or not is pointless and has no legal bearing. It is simply an observation to agree with or not.