If I want my service to be fast just about anywhere on the web, I guess I'll need to make this kind of deal with >9000 ISPs? I guess I should do that as an individual as well, I'll pay so that all the traffic with my IP goes on the fast lane to the detriment of other customers in my area.
I can see the company's point. Why improve on the infrastructure of the network when you can get customers to pay an extra to get a better share of the limited connectivity?
Well if the night swimmers become numerous enough to require a drink bar, then a few vending machines can probably cover up the costs these swimmers incur until the thing becomes big enough that you can keep your pool open 24/24. In the end everyone is winning. Your swimming pool wouldn't gain popularity as fast without the night swimmers.
As far as pools are concerned, supposing people can swim for free at night, I don't think that'll prevent them from paying during the day as that's the time when it is the most interesting to cool yourself off.
Besides, why would swimming not be allowed at night? Some of the night swimmers maybe are night shift workers who just don't have any pool to go to otherwise. They're badly served customers and it's your own fault for not charging them a fee.
The approval process is for making the application available on the AppStore, not for installing it on a machine. Yet if you want anyone to have the application on their machine, either they need to have a valid developer license and be able to compile the source themselves, or you have to get it on the AppStore, which in the end needs apple's approval.
If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and do better.
As any media can be encoded, encrypted and compressed in an unlimited amount of different ways, there's an infinite amount of bit combinations that should be filtered out of our internet connections. As an unlimited amount of bit combinations should be filtered out of our internet connections, data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections. As data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections, we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place. As we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place, we should just go to the fucking movies and pay them their fucking due.
Wow I need to learn how to read. It's weird, I was sure it was written "stimulate" and even later in the article he seems to be thinking that way saying:
"Reverse-engineering the brain is being pursued in different ways," says Kurzweil. "The objective is not necessarily to build a grand simulation - the real objective is to understand the principle of operation of the brain."
We can't even do a brain transplant [wikipedia.org] and you're telling me we just need to reverse engineer the 'various inputs' of the human brain? Are you serious?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're one of the biologists with little or no background in computer science that Myers has convinced that Kurzweil was predicting a full brain simulation by 2020. Listen, unless you're a medium, a prediction by which we could learn how to stimulate the brain's input seems very reasonable to me.
PZ Myers [wikipedia.org] has got it all wrong? Well, he's a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota and has a PhD from the University of Oregon so what credentials do you (or even Kurzweil) hold to be commenting in this manner on the indefinite preservation of the human brain?
I don't need any credentials to point out this professor has misinterpreted the article he has read and is now making a fool of himself with his useless rant. Myers begins his article saying:
His latest claim is that we'll be able to reverse engineer the human brain within a decade. By reverse engineer, he means that we'll be able to write software that simulates all the functions of the human brain.
Even though the first line of the article he's ranting about reads:
Reverse-engineering the human brain so we can simulate it using computers may be only a decade away, says Ray Kurzweil
Maybe you should have read the article that Myer's article was ranting about before taking position.
The brain isn't all knowledgeable either. Several million lines of code could very well be enough to design the entire universe and more depending on the extent to which the primitives of the programming language you're using are advanced and capable.
What has the brain been programmed for anyway? Learning algorithms which make you able to learn stuff and fill in the gaps that aren't programmed. Reflexes (automated movements that bypass any thinking for speed purpose). Memory management (conscious and subconscious). Well that's about it. The rest you can figure out by yourself using the learning algorithms you have built-in and in a few years maybe you'll know how to talk and walk.
If you can program with any programming language without understanding every sublayer beneath it, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with DNA without understanding all the physics and chemistry that makes it work.
Besides, if you read Kurzweil's statement, he's saying we'll reverse engineer the various inputs that can be given to the brain, not the brain it's in entirety. PZ Myers has got it all wrong and jumped to ridiculous conclusions.
Ray Kurzweil never says we'll be able to write software to emulate the brain completely in ten years. He just says we'll have reverse engineered the signals we have to send to the cortex to interact with it. Reverse engineering involves analysing and understanding something. Reengineering anew would be the next step. But then again, when you're only interested in reverse engineering the various inputs you can give to the brain to get different results, you're still very far away from understanding how to build a brain.
PZ Myers clearly doesn't understand reverse engineering and writes up a useless article based on his erroneous comprehension of Ray Kurzweil's prediction.
Of course Dragon Age's ending doesn't display your progress, but it generates an ending story based on what's been recorded of your progress. Would this count as prior art?
There's no need for this functionality on phones just yet, the monthly bandwidth is insufficient for this kind of purpose. Besides, most people don't usually kill time that way in public transports with their smart phones.
Slashdot Mirror
If I want my service to be fast just about anywhere on the web, I guess I'll need to make this kind of deal with >9000 ISPs?
I guess I should do that as an individual as well, I'll pay so that all the traffic with my IP goes on the fast lane to the detriment of other customers in my area.
I can see the company's point. Why improve on the infrastructure of the network when you can get customers to pay an extra to get a better share of the limited connectivity?
Controling an energy source isn't merely commercial interests...
And have a bot keep doing it for you! ;)
Get off my lawn you brat!!
Get off my lawn you brat!
Well if the night swimmers become numerous enough to require a drink bar, then a few vending machines can probably cover up the costs these swimmers incur until the thing becomes big enough that you can keep your pool open 24/24. In the end everyone is winning. Your swimming pool wouldn't gain popularity as fast without the night swimmers.
As far as pools are concerned, supposing people can swim for free at night, I don't think that'll prevent them from paying during the day as that's the time when it is the most interesting to cool yourself off.
Besides, why would swimming not be allowed at night? Some of the night swimmers maybe are night shift workers who just don't have any pool to go to otherwise. They're badly served customers and it's your own fault for not charging them a fee.
The "more than one percent of its customer base" has rated 5000 shows and not 50 000. In TFA, 50 000 is only displayed for an "elite rater".
Precisely what I thought. Formenting dissent against a company? WTF!
As a matter of fact, not fixing this particular bug maintains compatibility with web sites that used to rely on this "feature".
They all contain links to pages (probably weird-looking) which, of course, I never open.
Here, fixed that for you.
The approval process is for making the application available on the AppStore, not for installing it on a machine. Yet if you want anyone to have the application on their machine, either they need to have a valid developer license and be able to compile the source themselves, or you have to get it on the AppStore, which in the end needs apple's approval.
If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and do better.
As any media can be encoded, encrypted and compressed in an unlimited amount of different ways, there's an infinite amount of bit combinations that should be filtered out of our internet connections.
As an unlimited amount of bit combinations should be filtered out of our internet connections, data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections.
As data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections, we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place.
As we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place, we should just go to the fucking movies and pay them their fucking due.
Damn!
Wow I need to learn how to read. It's weird, I was sure it was written "stimulate" and even later in the article he seems to be thinking that way saying:
"Reverse-engineering the brain is being pursued in different ways," says Kurzweil. "The objective is not necessarily to build a grand simulation - the real objective is to understand the principle of operation of the brain."
Okay I'm the one who can't rtfa.
I really read stimulate instead of simulate.
Gotta hide quick!
We can't even do a brain transplant [wikipedia.org] and you're telling me we just need to reverse engineer the 'various inputs' of the human brain? Are you serious?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're one of the biologists with little or no background in computer science that Myers has convinced that Kurzweil was predicting a full brain simulation by 2020. Listen, unless you're a medium, a prediction by which we could learn how to stimulate the brain's input seems very reasonable to me.
PZ Myers [wikipedia.org] has got it all wrong? Well, he's a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota and has a PhD from the University of Oregon so what credentials do you (or even Kurzweil) hold to be commenting in this manner on the indefinite preservation of the human brain?
I don't need any credentials to point out this professor has misinterpreted the article he has read and is now making a fool of himself with his useless rant. Myers begins his article saying:
His latest claim is that we'll be able to reverse engineer the human brain within a decade. By reverse engineer, he means that we'll be able to write software that simulates all the functions of the human brain.
Even though the first line of the article he's ranting about reads:
Reverse-engineering the human brain so we can simulate it using computers may be only a decade away, says Ray Kurzweil
Maybe you should have read the article that Myer's article was ranting about before taking position.
Here's the first line of the article Myers ranted about:
Reverse-engineering the human brain so we can simulate it using computers may be only a decade away, says Ray Kurzweil
The brain isn't all knowledgeable either. Several million lines of code could very well be enough to design the entire universe and more depending on the extent to which the primitives of the programming language you're using are advanced and capable.
What has the brain been programmed for anyway? Learning algorithms which make you able to learn stuff and fill in the gaps that aren't programmed. Reflexes (automated movements that bypass any thinking for speed purpose). Memory management (conscious and subconscious). Well that's about it. The rest you can figure out by yourself using the learning algorithms you have built-in and in a few years maybe you'll know how to talk and walk.
If you can program with any programming language without understanding every sublayer beneath it, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with DNA without understanding all the physics and chemistry that makes it work.
Besides, if you read Kurzweil's statement, he's saying we'll reverse engineer the various inputs that can be given to the brain, not the brain it's in entirety. PZ Myers has got it all wrong and jumped to ridiculous conclusions.
Ray Kurzweil never says we'll be able to write software to emulate the brain completely in ten years. He just says we'll have reverse engineered the signals we have to send to the cortex to interact with it. Reverse engineering involves analysing and understanding something. Reengineering anew would be the next step. But then again, when you're only interested in reverse engineering the various inputs you can give to the brain to get different results, you're still very far away from understanding how to build a brain.
PZ Myers clearly doesn't understand reverse engineering and writes up a useless article based on his erroneous comprehension of Ray Kurzweil's prediction.
Of course Dragon Age's ending doesn't display your progress, but it generates an ending story based on what's been recorded of your progress. Would this count as prior art?
To give them some credibility as people who are generally aware of most of what's going on inside.
He could face 7 years in jail? That's nice. I'm pretty sure some people manage to get less for murder. Maybe that's what he should have done?
There's no need for this functionality on phones just yet, the monthly bandwidth is insufficient for this kind of purpose.
Besides, most people don't usually kill time that way in public transports with their smart phones.