I'm going to pay $15,000 for that? Come on, dude, I want one like Data's daughter! What are you guys smoking? Speaking of smoking, I can get a real twenty five year old human crack whore for twenty bucks.
Well, you get what you pay for, I guess.
Skanky crack whore. $20, but nasty at any price.
Real doll. $6000, but really interactive.
Hard-plastic humanoid with no sexy bits. $15000.
Sentient, intelligent android with positronic brain and capacity to learn. Priceless.
Wishlists are an obvious toy... used by everyone from little kids doing their Christmas list, to parents on their way to the grocery store. It only serves to follow that web based users wishing to track a list have it be stored on a database
Indeed. Isn't the entire concept of a Bridal Registry (which I'm sure is a pretty old idea) basically this? I mean, people have had some form of exactly this for literally decades.
I utterly fail to see how you'd take something which has been in common use as concept and then claim you can patent it by putting "in a database" after the description.
Haha this is one of the things I love about Slashdot, no matter how obscure the thing your referencing is, there are always people around to tell you you're wrong.
Slashdot. (n) A place on the internet where pedantry, grammar nazis, and bickering over minor semantics reigns supreme.
Simple: we don't. Future generations of 10.000 years will probably have the means to detect radioactive sites from the other end of the galaxy. And maybe they'll even have the means to dispose of them quickly and safely.
I'm a little more cynical about our prospects.
I figure in 10,000 years we'll have pretty much either wiped ourselves out completely, or have left ourselves in a really bad state and barely hanging on above stone-age levels. I figure we'll either we'll use up all of our resources/pollute ourselves out of existence, or some mad fucker will start setting off nukes.
I don't really hold out much hope that we can go another 10,000 years or so and reach this technical utopia which will solve all of our problems and see us zipping around the galaxy.
We can't seem to handle conflict and using the resources we have now, and it's getting worse.
If we want to survive as a species for another 10,000 years, we need to start doing something about it now instead of hoping that some people in the future will be able to come up with a solution and therefore we don't need to worry about it.
In the end, I won't be around in 10,000 years, so I'll never know. I'm just far more cynical about the ability of future generations to have the resources and wherewithal to come up with that mythical set of technologies which is going to fix everything we don't know how to do anything about now.
One day, finally fed up of having to remain ever vigilant of my wandering, my parents decided on a simple course of action. They waited for me to begin wandering, then hid around a corner, just out of view of me, but at a point where they could still keep an eye on me (presumably using one of those convex security mirrors, I never did ask).
Dude, you were 5. Outwitting a 5 year old isn't exactly rocket science.
They were both taller than you, and more acclimated to crowds and the like.
The convex mirror might have helped if it was handy, but peeking around a corner and not getting caught by a 5 year old doesn't exactly require mad field craft and stealth.;-)
I love the Do Not Call Registry. I'm just concerned about it's ramifications to the first amendment.
What, your first amendment right to call me in the middle of dinner to try to sell me a carpet cleaning service? Or to have a robo-dialer which will leave me answering a phone with nobody on the other end?
Individuals have first amendment rights. I've never bought the argument that companies have the same thing. I fail to see why we should protect the ability of companies to make unsolicited calls to people who don't want them. Are you saying spam should be protected speech too?
Besides, if you are going to do this kind of call, wouldn't it be better to get a list of the people who you know aren't interested rather than hearing me tell you to "fuck off" for the 3rd time this week?
I realize the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone is just doing a job -- but, I don't give a crap and I don't owe him any politeness. If you show up on my doorstep and aggressively won't leave or keep coming back when I tell you to, I'm gonna knock your ass down. If you call me, I'm going tell you exactly once nicely -- there after, you're not getting nice. (And, believe me, I've been called 20 times in two weeks by the same organization. There's no point in politely explaining after the 1st time.)
So then the people at "Catch A Pedophile" are committing a felony too. Damn, now how will we be entertained.
Careful with that double-edged blade.
Ah, but increasingly (and by the example of the US government), we see that the ends do justify the means.
If you're protecting children or claiming what you're doing is for national security, then you have done the Right And Noble Thing (tm) and are in the clear. Trying to log into the New York Times or MySpace without a valid ID, not so much -- you're a terrorist and can go to jail.
That double-edged blade carries with it a double standard. The 'good' guys can do bad things and have no consequence -- the rest of us get hosed for saying to MySpace "NOYFB who I am".
It's only a felony if we disagree with your reasons for it, and if the media companies haven't given their permission. Everything else is fair game.
You're not making yourself look good here. Read the entire proof and then critique it objectively, rather than just insult the proof and the mathematician behind it.
I'm not sure, but the way I read that is the quote is saying that the mathematician whose work was the basis for the proof started to read it and he (the mathematician) stopped reading.
From the link pointing to Connes blog...
The "proof" is that of Theorem 7.3 page 29 in Li's paper, but I stopped reading it when I saw that he is extending the test function h from ideles to adeles by 0 outside ideles and then using Fourier transform (see page 31).
Of course, I don't understand anything in the above other than "I stopped reading". Meaning, "your work was so wrong on page 2, pages 3 and up are irrelevant".
In physics and cosmology, dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.
If we could detect it though any other mechanism than inferring it exists based on gravitational effects, it literally would cease to be dark matter -- because that's how they define "dark matter".
When "96% of the universe" is only detectable by how your model fails with the visible stuff alone, measurements of the visible stuff become useless. It isn't even science at that point.
How can observing the only stuff we can possibly observe be useless and not even science?
Are you proposing we start looking at all of the things we can't see with the technology we don't have because that would be better somehow? Is it more efficient to skip straight into the stiff you can't even conceive of yet?
We can try to explain the universe based on what we can see and what we know. I fail to see an alternative -- this is the only science we got, it can't step outside of its own bounds to come up with better explanations.
What is she looking at that is so belabored with content?
Why, old people porn, of course.:-P
But, in all seriousness, start sending them daily links to videos or photo albums of the youngest of grandchildren, and they'll suddenly discover why they might care to have faster speeds.
I will go out on a limb and say that at least some grandparents have switched for broadband for exactly that reason. "Mac: $900. Broadband connection: $50. Video conferencing story time with the grand kids: fucking priceless".
For a long time my (80-something) parents were quite happy with dial-up.
You know, that we're talking about elderly parents and their internet connection speeds still messes with my head.
I remember trying to explain to my parents (now 70-ish) what the internet was back in the mid '90s. They now have a laptop running Vista and broadband -- dad has even installed a printer driver. The mind just reels.:-P
Not according to your quote, which says only that they can tell a top quality violin from a lower grade and explicitly states that they couldn't tell a Strad apart from a excellent modern violin.
No, actually the quote says "the differences might not be readily apparent". It doesn't say anything whatsoever about trained musicians either -- it's purely about laymen (a nonmusician or "uneducated" listener).
We're not talking about monster cable -- we're talking about something that even on the low end, someone like me should be able to tell the difference between. On the high end, I might not be able to tell the difference.
But, among those with the m4d sk1llz to hear it, I still stand by my assertion that some people likely can tell. The quote says nothing to contradict that.
P2P isn't just about illegal file sharing, it's bigger than that. The way we download linux distros, the way we download game updates
None of whom have a lobby big enough to counter collective weight the music, movie and software industries have brought to bear on this.
You need a few more zeroes in your bribery and lobbying budget to accomplish the level of what this is talking about.
They're perfectly happy to outlaw legitimate software on the basis that it could be used for purposes they don't approve of. They don't give a crap about what we want.
It's called bias. Yes, they are fine instruments, no doubt, about the best there is, no doubt. But can you detect a Stradivarius without knowing it is one? And telling it apart from a Guarnerius or Amati? Or even a good quality modern instrument?
A common question: In a blind test, could a nonmusician or "uneducated" listener tell the difference between a Stradivarius and some other violin? The answer is that it depends. If the other violin, whether old or modern, were an excellent one by a fine maker, the differences might not be readily apparent. But in a direct, side-by-side comparison of a great Stradivarius with a commercially produced instrument -- or even with a handcrafted violin that was merely very good -- the differences would be absolutely clear, even to the most inexperienced listener.
This is all too complicated. I'm just going to wait for "Violin Hero" to come out. The delux package comes with a kettle drum, brass and woodwind section, conductor's baton, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh!! That should be "NOT really interactive".
Fixed that for me. :-P
Well, you get what you pay for, I guess.
Skanky crack whore. $20, but nasty at any price.
Real doll. $6000, but really interactive.
Hard-plastic humanoid with no sexy bits. $15000.
Sentient, intelligent android with positronic brain and capacity to learn. Priceless.
Cheers
No, Ali G is played by a Brit. ;-)
Cheers
Indeed. Isn't the entire concept of a Bridal Registry (which I'm sure is a pretty old idea) basically this? I mean, people have had some form of exactly this for literally decades.
I utterly fail to see how you'd take something which has been in common use as concept and then claim you can patent it by putting "in a database" after the description.
Cheers
Slashdot. (n) A place on the internet where pedantry, grammar nazis, and bickering over minor semantics reigns supreme.
Cheers
I'm a little more cynical about our prospects.
I figure in 10,000 years we'll have pretty much either wiped ourselves out completely, or have left ourselves in a really bad state and barely hanging on above stone-age levels. I figure we'll either we'll use up all of our resources/pollute ourselves out of existence, or some mad fucker will start setting off nukes.
I don't really hold out much hope that we can go another 10,000 years or so and reach this technical utopia which will solve all of our problems and see us zipping around the galaxy.
We can't seem to handle conflict and using the resources we have now, and it's getting worse.
If we want to survive as a species for another 10,000 years, we need to start doing something about it now instead of hoping that some people in the future will be able to come up with a solution and therefore we don't need to worry about it.
In the end, I won't be around in 10,000 years, so I'll never know. I'm just far more cynical about the ability of future generations to have the resources and wherewithal to come up with that mythical set of technologies which is going to fix everything we don't know how to do anything about now.
Cheers
Dude, you were 5. Outwitting a 5 year old isn't exactly rocket science.
They were both taller than you, and more acclimated to crowds and the like.
The convex mirror might have helped if it was handy, but peeking around a corner and not getting caught by a 5 year old doesn't exactly require mad field craft and stealth. ;-)
Cheers
What, your first amendment right to call me in the middle of dinner to try to sell me a carpet cleaning service? Or to have a robo-dialer which will leave me answering a phone with nobody on the other end?
Individuals have first amendment rights. I've never bought the argument that companies have the same thing. I fail to see why we should protect the ability of companies to make unsolicited calls to people who don't want them. Are you saying spam should be protected speech too?
Besides, if you are going to do this kind of call, wouldn't it be better to get a list of the people who you know aren't interested rather than hearing me tell you to "fuck off" for the 3rd time this week?
I realize the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone is just doing a job -- but, I don't give a crap and I don't owe him any politeness. If you show up on my doorstep and aggressively won't leave or keep coming back when I tell you to, I'm gonna knock your ass down. If you call me, I'm going tell you exactly once nicely -- there after, you're not getting nice. (And, believe me, I've been called 20 times in two weeks by the same organization. There's no point in politely explaining after the 1st time.)
Cheers
Ah, but increasingly (and by the example of the US government), we see that the ends do justify the means.
If you're protecting children or claiming what you're doing is for national security, then you have done the Right And Noble Thing (tm) and are in the clear. Trying to log into the New York Times or MySpace without a valid ID, not so much -- you're a terrorist and can go to jail.
That double-edged blade carries with it a double standard. The 'good' guys can do bad things and have no consequence -- the rest of us get hosed for saying to MySpace "NOYFB who I am".
It's only a felony if we disagree with your reasons for it, and if the media companies haven't given their permission. Everything else is fair game.
Cheers
I'm not sure, but the way I read that is the quote is saying that the mathematician whose work was the basis for the proof started to read it and he (the mathematician) stopped reading.
From the link pointing to Connes blog ...
Of course, I don't understand anything in the above other than "I stopped reading". Meaning, "your work was so wrong on page 2, pages 3 and up are irrelevant".
Cheers
No, really. He's right.
From Wiki:
If we could detect it though any other mechanism than inferring it exists based on gravitational effects, it literally would cease to be dark matter -- because that's how they define "dark matter".
Cheers
How can observing the only stuff we can possibly observe be useless and not even science?
Are you proposing we start looking at all of the things we can't see with the technology we don't have because that would be better somehow? Is it more efficient to skip straight into the stiff you can't even conceive of yet?
We can try to explain the universe based on what we can see and what we know. I fail to see an alternative -- this is the only science we got, it can't step outside of its own bounds to come up with better explanations.
Cheers
Blowjobs. Beer. Breasts (real ones, mind you, not those digital ones). Really good food. Vacations without the internet. Fast cars. Easy women.
You could actually partake in some of human culture as well.
His grandmother figured it out. :-P
Cheers
Why, old people porn, of course. :-P
But, in all seriousness, start sending them daily links to videos or photo albums of the youngest of grandchildren, and they'll suddenly discover why they might care to have faster speeds.
I will go out on a limb and say that at least some grandparents have switched for broadband for exactly that reason. "Mac: $900. Broadband connection: $50. Video conferencing story time with the grand kids: fucking priceless".
Cheers
You know, that we're talking about elderly parents and their internet connection speeds still messes with my head.
I remember trying to explain to my parents (now 70-ish) what the internet was back in the mid '90s. They now have a laptop running Vista and broadband -- dad has even installed a printer driver. The mind just reels. :-P
Cheers
Your grandmother is a wise woman who has better things to worry about.
Cheers
As a socially conscious person, is there a way I can download songs which only causes kitten killing? :-P
Cheers
I thought we made it official a few years ago? :-P
Cheers
Except for 12 steps -- God (or a reasonable facsimile) is a requirement there. :-P
Cheers
No, actually the quote says "the differences might not be readily apparent". It doesn't say anything whatsoever about trained musicians either -- it's purely about laymen (a nonmusician or "uneducated" listener).
We're not talking about monster cable -- we're talking about something that even on the low end, someone like me should be able to tell the difference between. On the high end, I might not be able to tell the difference.
But, among those with the m4d sk1llz to hear it, I still stand by my assertion that some people likely can tell. The quote says nothing to contradict that.
Cheers
None of whom have a lobby big enough to counter collective weight the music, movie and software industries have brought to bear on this.
You need a few more zeroes in your bribery and lobbying budget to accomplish the level of what this is talking about.
They're perfectly happy to outlaw legitimate software on the basis that it could be used for purposes they don't approve of. They don't give a crap about what we want.
Cheers
God is not required for that step. :-P
Cheers
Thee and me, probably not.
According to this:
I think some people probably could tell.
Cheers
This is Slashdot -- we do car analogies, and overly-complicated technical solutions.
Natural climates ... not so much. :-P
Cheers
And, of course, more cow bell. :-P
Cheers