They already know if you don't have a TV license, they don't need to check that. They need to check if you have a TV or not and that it is not "receiving TV signals". Keeping it detuned is not an offence, its if you use one to watch TV.
An "Enquiry officer" WILL however need a search warrant to come into your home. If he doesnt have one, he cannot come in.
However, we are talking about an "robot" that can move (or animate its self) which is incorrectly described as "inanimate".
"... letting our children be brought up by inanimate objects.."
The robot can move, and therefore in the sentence "the robot can become animated" the word "animated" IS a transitive verb as it acts on the object "robot".
So saying the robot is animate but not alive is perfectly valid.
So Mickey Mouse is alive?!? May God have mercy on our souls..
tr.v. animated, animating, animates
1. To give life to; fill with life.
2. To impart interest or zest to; enliven: "The party was animated by all kinds of men and women" (René Dubos).
3. To fill with spirit, courage, or resolution; encourage. See Synonyms at encourage.
4. To inspire to action; prompt. 5. To impart motion or activity to.
6. To make, design, or produce (a cartoon, for example) so as to create the illusion of motion.
"Only the powerful gravity of a very massive black hole could propel a star with enough force to exit our galaxy," explained Brown.
This must mean that the galaxy is actually speeding up?
Or does it just mean the stars mass is greater than it was before..?
If its neither of these, why has the star suddenly broken away from the galaxy. If its a massive black hole, surely the gravitational pull would have kept the star in rotation around, not chucked it out..
Ok you have a good point and I'm not arguing the toss. I just want to point out that computers would be able replicate these things now. The main problem is not the technology, its the lack of understanding we have of the human brain and other feedback systems etc. If we knew all about these things, we could replicate it on todays computers.
That it would be agonisingly slow is neither here nor there, the fact is they could do it and possibly that would mean they could dream as well;)
Computers are no more capable of creating art, than they are of creating words, or context, or cognition.
I would disagree here. If a human being is a system of neurons and electrical impulses, then this system can be replicated on a computer and allow a computer to create words, context and cognition (cognition after all is just a process within the brain).
Art, and the underlying nature of self expression by definition requires a self, a sentient entity with whom to express.
If that "sentient entity" is a process of electrochemical impulses and neural activity, I'd say you can simulate it. Its just we haven't been able to yet.
Its interesting to read your post. It is common amongst most people to think that "that which makes us human" is unique to only human beings. We are not as unique as we think, only very very complex. I beleive that complexity will one day be, for good or bad, replicated by computers.
I never said Google was going to be more successful than Yahoo! and I certainly never implied it. I just said that it has "proved" itself by coming through that era in Internet history.
It could fail. It may not. Giving stock options to employees so they work harder for the company is certainly won't hurt them. Your post implied that it was a Bad Thing and its not.
Google might well be overvalued. It has just been floated. But its certainly not as overvalued as many companies with absolutely no brand or capital from the aforementioned dot-bomb era. Theres just no comparing the market now as to then.
Google will now live or die by the market and I can't see that they are doing much wrong.
I can't quite work out if you're trolling or not... a couple of things you mention are ringing little alarm bells in my head.
The bubble taught us all a couple things: Internet companies are not inherently more profitable. They are certainly not a "new paradigm".
Got cash in the bank? Ok, sure make acquisitions. But don't become a dot-bomb rollup. Buy brick and mortar companies too.
If anything, companies surviving the "dot-bomb" era as you call it can be considered successful! Specifically, the dot-bomb occured because the market was over valued. The futures market was pumped with hype, people borrowed and plowed money into the flimsiest of business propositions on the basis of getting rich quick. The market is more cautious now than its ever been, especially about internet businesses. Google has a proven track record and there's no reason to think that its not going to remain successful.
Rewarding internal (essentially "dot-com") projects, is a bit like valuing dot com companies in an even *more* dangerous way: without the input of the marketplace.
Hmm. Your second point a little flimsy there too. I work for Cisco, who are not a "dot-com" company but have entire internal billing systems "ungoverned" by the market. However, what is governed by the market is the trade of stock of the company. To reward internally is just the next step up. All Cisco employees receive stock as incentives too, afaik. The fact that its practically worthless at the moment is neither here nor there;)
You see the good thing about rewarding with stock is that it makes the employee more concerned about the well being of the company and can only be a good thing.
Lets hope they reward *profitable* internal projects. Not ones with "potential".
Don't forget, potentially good projects can also turn out to be profitable its just a matter of application.
Slashdot Mirror
It stores meta data along with all your files, so ... you have to spend more money on a bigger hard drive! Yay!
I reckon thats the reverse engineered Microsoft IE rendering DLL matey - 8MB of broken DOM and spaghetti crap ;)
IANAL but I think thats only in some states.
Shield act or something.
Ok, but they are still required to produce "some duly authenticated document showing his authority" whatever that may be. It isn't specified.
If your gas meter is not in your home, then they still have no right to enter your house.
Nope they cannot enter without a warrant, it amounts to trespass.
No one can enter your property without your permission first, which is why they ask. You have every right to say no.
They already know if you don't have a TV license, they don't need to check that. They need to check if you have a TV or not and that it is not "receiving TV signals". Keeping it detuned is not an offence, its if you use one to watch TV.
An "Enquiry officer" WILL however need a search warrant to come into your home. If he doesnt have one, he cannot come in.
Check here for more info.
.. why I hate and will NOT use netscape:
1. It looks crap
2. It used to be slow.
3. Its probably still slow now.
4. I dont like the spinning icon in the top right. Its annoying.
5. I dont want all all these extra applications, I just want a good browser.
6. I still think it looks crap. I know you can change the theme, but I can't be bothered; I want something good looking NOW. Like Firefox.
Why give us another Netscape? Unfortunately its like Skoda, they'll never get away from their badge now.
Give it up, eh?
However, we are talking about an "robot" that can move (or animate its self) which is incorrectly described as "inanimate".
"... letting our children be brought up by inanimate objects.."
The robot can move, and therefore in the sentence "the robot can become animated" the word "animated" IS a transitive verb as it acts on the object "robot".
So saying the robot is animate but not alive is perfectly valid.
So Mickey Mouse is alive?!? May God have mercy on our souls..
tr.v. animated, animating, animates
1. To give life to; fill with life.
2. To impart interest or zest to; enliven: "The party was animated by all kinds of men and women" (René Dubos).
3. To fill with spirit, courage, or resolution; encourage. See Synonyms at encourage.
4. To inspire to action; prompt.
5. To impart motion or activity to.
6. To make, design, or produce (a cartoon, for example) so as to create the illusion of motion.
for some reason, my brain turned "funded" into something..er.. else.
I certainly would NOT be happy if Google fuc$%W +++ NO CARRIER
If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages
FYI Google DO host the start page in different languages and heres a couple o them:
Google Netherlands
Google France
.. but unfortunately no one could read it cause it was written on a pinhead.
Prince Charles spent hours having the charter written into his scalp and was said to be "over the moon".
Oook ook OOOk ook ook ook OOk ook ook ook ook.
[trans. I for one welcome our oragutan overlords]
Time travel is impossible. Everyone knows time is a vector quantity and measures rates of change don't they?
don't they?!
Ah thanks good explanation... Thats why I flunked Physics. ;)
"Only the powerful gravity of a very massive black hole could propel a star with enough force to exit our galaxy," explained Brown.
This must mean that the galaxy is actually speeding up?
Or does it just mean the stars mass is greater than it was before..?
If its neither of these, why has the star suddenly broken away from the galaxy. If its a massive black hole, surely the gravitational pull would have kept the star in rotation around, not chucked it out..
"We're tempted to call it the outcast star because it was forcefully tossed from its home."
I wondered where all those Jedi had gone to...
okay okay perhaps it was the slashdotting. Its just when i changed to IE it seemed to work.
Ok you have a good point and I'm not arguing the toss. I just want to point out that computers would be able replicate these things now. The main problem is not the technology, its the lack of understanding we have of the human brain and other feedback systems etc. If we knew all about these things, we could replicate it on todays computers.
;)
That it would be agonisingly slow is neither here nor there, the fact is they could do it and possibly that would mean they could dream as well
Has anyone noticed the site doesn't work in Firefox?
Computers are no more capable of creating art, than they are of creating words, or context, or cognition.
I would disagree here. If a human being is a system of neurons and electrical impulses, then this system can be replicated on a computer and allow a computer to create words, context and cognition (cognition after all is just a process within the brain).
Art, and the underlying nature of self expression by definition requires a self, a sentient entity with whom to express.
If that "sentient entity" is a process of electrochemical impulses and neural activity, I'd say you can simulate it. Its just we haven't been able to yet.
Its interesting to read your post. It is common amongst most people to think that "that which makes us human" is unique to only human beings. We are not as unique as we think, only very very complex. I beleive that complexity will one day be, for good or bad, replicated by computers.
I never said Google was going to be more successful than Yahoo! and I certainly never implied it. I just said that it has "proved" itself by coming through that era in Internet history.
It could fail. It may not. Giving stock options to employees so they work harder for the company is certainly won't hurt them. Your post implied that it was a Bad Thing and its not.
Google might well be overvalued. It has just been floated. But its certainly not as overvalued as many companies with absolutely no brand or capital from the aforementioned dot-bomb era. Theres just no comparing the market now as to then.
Google will now live or die by the market and I can't see that they are doing much wrong.
I can't quite work out if you're trolling or not... a couple of things you mention are ringing little alarm bells in my head.
;)
The bubble taught us all a couple things: Internet companies are not inherently more profitable. They are certainly not a "new paradigm".
Got cash in the bank? Ok, sure make acquisitions. But don't become a dot-bomb rollup. Buy brick and mortar companies too.
If anything, companies surviving the "dot-bomb" era as you call it can be considered successful! Specifically, the dot-bomb occured because the market was over valued. The futures market was pumped with hype, people borrowed and plowed money into the flimsiest of business propositions on the basis of getting rich quick. The market is more cautious now than its ever been, especially about internet businesses. Google has a proven track record and there's no reason to think that its not going to remain successful.
Rewarding internal (essentially "dot-com") projects, is a bit like valuing dot com companies in an even *more* dangerous way: without the input of the marketplace.
Hmm. Your second point a little flimsy there too. I work for Cisco, who are not a "dot-com" company but have entire internal billing systems "ungoverned" by the market. However, what is governed by the market is the trade of stock of the company. To reward internally is just the next step up. All Cisco employees receive stock as incentives too, afaik. The fact that its practically worthless at the moment is neither here nor there
You see the good thing about rewarding with stock is that it makes the employee more concerned about the well being of the company and can only be a good thing.
Lets hope they reward *profitable* internal projects. Not ones with "potential".
Don't forget, potentially good projects can also turn out to be profitable its just a matter of application.
1. Hand stock to employees
2. ??
3. Profit!!
If they did they'd call it Moogle.
Sorry. Couldn't help it!!