The law will be satisfied with a registered death certificate. Thus requiring one provides protection from lawsuits.
Of course, only the administrator of the estate should be allowed to do anything to the account anyway (assuming, contrary to fact, that a FaceBook account has any value).
> Personally, I think they should go ahead and launch it.
Sure. And then if it doesn't seem to go quite right in a way might have been due to the wind or lightning but the cloud cover and the broken radar mean they don't have enough data?
This is a test launch. Better to wait for perfect conditions. You don't want them to have to do it all over again.
> I actually own a head mounted display with head tracking.. the simple fact > is, scanning across a display that is half an inch in front of your eyes is > worthless.
With proper optics the display would be projected at infinity and mostly fill your field of vision.
> Well the confined optical mode is 200THz so an RF EM mode wouldn't be > confined and therefore wouldn't overlap effectively with the vibronic modes > in the nano-structure.
Right. It would be radiated. That's the idea.
> I also really doubt that inducing vibrations in the nano-structure would > generate an optical (or other EM) field.
The idea is to convert the GHz vibrations into an oscillating electric field. Thus the piezo material (or perhaps electret).
> Regular goggles are very tiring to use because when your eyes move around, > the scene does not. This is very confusing for your brain and causes my eyes > to really hurt after a while.
Then those goggles are poorly designed. They should contain accelerometers and gyros to detect head movement. If the googles fill most of the visual field with image detecting eye movement is unnecessary (it could be used to only show high resolution to the fovea, though).
> I mean the thing is right in front of one of your eyes.
The next step will be some tricky optics (no, I don't know how it will work) such that the light will be reflected off (or refracted out of) the glasses lenses and into the eye while still allowing you full vision through the lenses.
Trying to minimize their tax liability in a grotesquely complex and arbitrary system. Quit being righteously indignant. You do it too. Taxes are not voluntary. Everybody pays what they have to and no more.
> I am not sure I would agree so optimistically. I see the internet as just > another means of communication, and cutting that off would obviously change > the way we live.
I said nothing about how the younger generations would deal with it. Huddle in their "media rooms" clicking hopelessly on the remote and crying, most likely.
No, they'd just have to do substantial construction work in a sacred national park.
I have no doubt that the helicopter is less expensive both financially and politically (not to mention that they would probably like to carry out the tests some time this century).
Slashdot Mirror
And then have to deal with spam from Gmail accounts.
But maybe this will kill Google Groups and thus eliminate 99% of the spam on Usenet. We can hope, anyway.
> So it's OK for him to expose second hand smoke and all the toxins that go
> with it to anyone else who has to drive his truck?
It's his truck. He _owns_ it.
> Other people are required to interact with his workplace as part of their
> jobs.
No one is required to touch his truck. Would you forbid people to smoke in their homes because a plumber might be "required" to work there?
Such as, for example, the one with all the pedophile priests and the rituals that include eating what they assert is human flesh?
Or do they intend to continue to subsidize it?
However, they cannot stop the rental companies from buying the things at retail.
> ...they'll never be satisfied.
The law will be satisfied with a registered death certificate. Thus requiring one provides protection from lawsuits.
Of course, only the administrator of the estate should be allowed to do anything to the account anyway (assuming, contrary to fact, that a FaceBook account has any value).
That is not proof of death. A registered death certificate is proof of death.
> Personally, I think they should go ahead and launch it.
Sure. And then if it doesn't seem to go quite right in a way might have been due to the wind or lightning but the cloud cover and the broken radar mean they don't have enough data?
This is a test launch. Better to wait for perfect conditions. You don't want them to have to do it all over again.
> Apple Eye's?
And when those come out such devices will instantly go from dorky to cool.
This system does not project an image at all. It scans a raster on the retina.
> I actually own a head mounted display with head tracking.. the simple fact
> is, scanning across a display that is half an inch in front of your eyes is
> worthless.
With proper optics the display would be projected at infinity and mostly fill your field of vision.
> Well the confined optical mode is 200THz so an RF EM mode wouldn't be
> confined and therefore wouldn't overlap effectively with the vibronic modes
> in the nano-structure.
Right. It would be radiated. That's the idea.
> I also really doubt that inducing vibrations in the nano-structure would
> generate an optical (or other EM) field.
The idea is to convert the GHz vibrations into an oscillating electric field. Thus the piezo material (or perhaps electret).
That it uses laser to scan a raster directly on the retina.
> Regular goggles are very tiring to use because when your eyes move around,
> the scene does not. This is very confusing for your brain and causes my eyes
> to really hurt after a while.
Then those goggles are poorly designed. They should contain accelerometers and gyros to detect head movement. If the googles fill most of the visual field with image detecting eye movement is unnecessary (it could be used to only show high resolution to the fovea, though).
> I mean the thing is right in front of one of your eyes.
The next step will be some tricky optics (no, I don't know how it will work) such that the light will be reflected off (or refracted out of) the glasses lenses and into the eye while still allowing you full vision through the lenses.
...and maybe have a new kind of microwave antenna?
This is entirely different (though not entirely new).
Trying to minimize their tax liability in a grotesquely complex and arbitrary system. Quit being righteously indignant. You do it too. Taxes are not voluntary. Everybody pays what they have to and no more.
Of course not. However, this has nothing to do with new technology. It's quid pro quo for supporting healthcare "reform".
On the contrary. It's too inexpensive and too convenient. Worst of all, it might actually work (though not with politicians in charge).
You, sir, are an idiot. The quote is from Helmuth von Moltke the elder.
> I'm not arguing against closed source vs open, more about popular vs obscure.
Whatever they use is going to be a high-profile target just because they are using it. Security by obscurity doesn't work for such sites.
> I am not sure I would agree so optimistically. I see the internet as just
> another means of communication, and cutting that off would obviously change
> the way we live.
I said nothing about how the younger generations would deal with it. Huddle in their "media rooms" clicking hopelessly on the remote and crying, most likely.
> It's dead simple. We need something like this in Linux.
"aptitude install " (or the pointy-clicky equivalent) works for me.
No, they'd just have to do substantial construction work in a sacred national park.
I have no doubt that the helicopter is less expensive both financially and politically (not to mention that they would probably like to carry out the tests some time this century).