That ball catching thing isn't the same thing at all, it tracks the hand and the ball to points in space.
AFAIK, it can't detect obstacles in its space and figure out the most efficient way to move the hand from point A to point B without any part of the arm hitting any of the obstacles.
My initial impression is that it would be much easier to have the prosthetic implemented using conventional electronics, and have an interface adapter on the boundary with living tissue - sounds like that would be much easier.
“So there’s always this issue, a challenge, at the interface – how does an electronic signal translate into an ionic signal, or vice versa?” said lead author Marco Rolandi, a UW assistant professor of materials science and engineering. “We found a biomaterial that is very good at conducting protons, and allows the potential to interface with living systems.”
Sounds like "what would be easier" is, in fact, the problem they just solved...
First author Chao Zhong, a UW postdoctoral researcher, and second author Yingxin Deng, a UW graduate student, discovered that this form of chitosan works remarkably well at moving protons. The chitosan absorbs water and forms many hydrogen bonds; protons are then able to hop from one hydrogen bond to the next.
Energy-Minimizing Idle Listening... E-MiLi slows down the clock of a phone's WiFi card by up to 1/16 its normal frequency in order to save power, but then kicks it back up to full speed when information is coming in...
That sounds pretty much like how I make it through Thursdays.
Anyone pretending to know what they're talking about in a "empire versus federation" argument owes it to themselves to take a look at the very thorough technical analyses from the Tubolaser Commentaries, if for no other reason than to get a handle on the completely absurd amount of firepower shown to be produced by Star Destroyers in the films.
Everything about the TV character is public knowledge.
Actual scientists, not so much. In fact, if someone posted a bio containing that kind of detail about, say, me, on Wikipedia, and I hadn't published it in an autobiography or something, I'd be downright creeped the fuck out.
The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law.
For the people, of the people, by the people. If the people don't respect a law, it's the government's job to fucking change it.
And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.
Where did you get this bullshit lie from? People have been demanding legalization for decades. Unfortunately, they just can't break through the mile-high wall of stupid that surrounds the brains of people who think that the social costs of prohibiting a popular drug are less egregious than the social costs of leaving it legal.
Legal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug. Lives sometimes being ruined by the drug.
Illegal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug, plus enourmous price inflation, violence, corruption, unprecedented prison overcrowding, loss of tax revenue, economic depression, and lives not only still being ruined by the drug -- worse, now, because there's no way to enforce quality or safety standards -- but also by the makers and sellers of the drug, AND by the enforcers trying to stop the drug (*BLAM BLAM BLAM* "oops, sorry, wrong address").
Do the fucking math. You think alcoholics didn't drive drunk during alcohol prohibition? Do you really consider the shit that's going on in Mexico to be NOT AS BAD as a possible-but-not-actually-shown theoretical increase in "ruined lives" from legalization? Or do you not give a shit because they're brown and across a border?
Just because someone you care about was killed by a drunk driver doesn't make your problems worse than someone who was tortured to death for blogging.
Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense.
What the fuck? The customers were just minding their own business when the government came along and said "stop that or we'll kill you." Sure, it did that at the behest of the majority, but only after lying to the majority that it was in their best interests. Which it isn't.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. Under the most extreme restrictions, only the most addicted people will still do what it takes to get their favorite poison. But needless to say, those are the same people who would be causing the worst problems if their drug was legal. So prohibiting a substance DOES NOTHING to stem problems associated with people taking the drug, unless you make the enforcement and punishment completely disproportionate to the actual crime.
Singapore has the death penalty for drug smuggling. They execute people every year for this crime. That means: people in Singapore are still taking those illegal drugs. Despite the DEATH PENALTY.
Econ 101: you cannot make the demand go away by restricting the supply.
... and then, in the 80's, because cocaine was still illegal, Columbian drug gangs who cornered trade in said drug became huge, rich, and powerful when said drug started gaining popularity.
If cocaine had been made legal in the 30's, there'd be treatment programs available everywhere, education about the drug would be ubiquitous and hyperbole-free, and Coloumbian Cartels would be small, making a decent living, and selling coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that it's been exposed, it will hopefully be fixed very quickly.
You must be new here.
Seriously, though, has Diebold EVER fixed a vulnerability?
Vulnerabilities in electronic votes are the equivalent of butterfly ballots and hanging chads.
They're not in any fuckin' ballpark. They're not even the same fuckin' sport.
He's not joking.
Football is gigantically popular compared to many other sports, and indeed compared to many other forms of entertainment.
But it's nowhere near as popular as portrayed by football fans and the media companies that cater to them.
Why not just create perfect beings that also had free will.
Even a hypothetical omnipotent being can't create self-contradictory situations.
That ball catching thing isn't the same thing at all, it tracks the hand and the ball to points in space.
AFAIK, it can't detect obstacles in its space and figure out the most efficient way to move the hand from point A to point B without any part of the arm hitting any of the obstacles.
It's the path-finding part that's tricky.
Fishing expedition. He's an AI.
It only seems that way because you're super-good at it.
(Apologies if it turns out you're a klutz)
I've always preferred "free-range citizen".
Also, who's going to test this and tell us they had a good time?
They'll have one of those picture booths at the end, so you can see people's expressions.
Which would explain why native americans weren't inclined to do a lot of clear cutting.
I don't know, the Aztecs seemed to do a pretty good job of clear-cutting everyone who got within reach, using obsidian axes.
Oh, wait, you meant trees
My initial impression is that it would be much easier to have the prosthetic implemented using conventional electronics, and have an interface adapter on the boundary with living tissue - sounds like that would be much easier.
“So there’s always this issue, a challenge, at the interface – how does an electronic signal translate into an ionic signal, or vice versa?” said lead author Marco Rolandi, a UW assistant professor of materials science and engineering. “We found a biomaterial that is very good at conducting protons, and allows the potential to interface with living systems.”
Sounds like "what would be easier" is, in fact, the problem they just solved...
First author Chao Zhong, a UW postdoctoral researcher, and second author Yingxin Deng, a UW graduate student, discovered that this form of chitosan works remarkably well at moving protons. The chitosan absorbs water and forms many hydrogen bonds; protons are then able to hop from one hydrogen bond to the next.
No, they mean protons.
That's how a productive person thinks.
Yeah, but is that how they actually work?
If I get a ton of work done in two hours, I generally find it very difficult to maintain that peak performance for an entire day.
Many people remember child abuse that never happened.
"Catseakittens"
Jesus Christ, I can't even get myself to say that out loud ironically.
Doesn't sound as good compared to what? Where else will these "potential customers" be going to get a simliar service?
Energy-Minimizing Idle Listening... E-MiLi slows down the clock of a phone's WiFi card by up to 1/16 its normal frequency in order to save power, but then kicks it back up to full speed when information is coming in...
That sounds pretty much like how I make it through Thursdays.
Anyone pretending to know what they're talking about in a "empire versus federation" argument owes it to themselves to take a look at the very thorough technical analyses from the Tubolaser Commentaries, if for no other reason than to get a handle on the completely absurd amount of firepower shown to be produced by Star Destroyers in the films.
They have this already, it's called "being a human being in real life."
The only problem is all these fucking noobs and griefers. Kicking them from the game is a bannable offense, for some reason.
Everything about the TV character is public knowledge.
Actual scientists, not so much. In fact, if someone posted a bio containing that kind of detail about, say, me, on Wikipedia, and I hadn't published it in an autobiography or something, I'd be downright creeped the fuck out.
There is little difference between the far left and far right...
I can think of one major difference: one of the two essentially does not exist in the United States of America.
The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law.
For the people, of the people, by the people. If the people don't respect a law, it's the government's job to fucking change it.
And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.
Where did you get this bullshit lie from? People have been demanding legalization for decades. Unfortunately, they just can't break through the mile-high wall of stupid that surrounds the brains of people who think that the social costs of prohibiting a popular drug are less egregious than the social costs of leaving it legal.
Legal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug. Lives sometimes being ruined by the drug.
Illegal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug, plus enourmous price inflation, violence, corruption, unprecedented prison overcrowding, loss of tax revenue, economic depression, and lives not only still being ruined by the drug -- worse, now, because there's no way to enforce quality or safety standards -- but also by the makers and sellers of the drug, AND by the enforcers trying to stop the drug (*BLAM BLAM BLAM* "oops, sorry, wrong address").
Do the fucking math. You think alcoholics didn't drive drunk during alcohol prohibition? Do you really consider the shit that's going on in Mexico to be NOT AS BAD as a possible-but-not-actually-shown theoretical increase in "ruined lives" from legalization? Or do you not give a shit because they're brown and across a border?
Just because someone you care about was killed by a drunk driver doesn't make your problems worse than someone who was tortured to death for blogging.
Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense.
What the fuck? The customers were just minding their own business when the government came along and said "stop that or we'll kill you." Sure, it did that at the behest of the majority, but only after lying to the majority that it was in their best interests. Which it isn't.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. Under the most extreme restrictions, only the most addicted people will still do what it takes to get their favorite poison. But needless to say, those are the same people who would be causing the worst problems if their drug was legal. So prohibiting a substance DOES NOTHING to stem problems associated with people taking the drug, unless you make the enforcement and punishment completely disproportionate to the actual crime.
Singapore has the death penalty for drug smuggling. They execute people every year for this crime. That means: people in Singapore are still taking those illegal drugs. Despite the DEATH PENALTY.
Econ 101: you cannot make the demand go away by restricting the supply.
... and then, in the 80's, because cocaine was still illegal, Columbian drug gangs who cornered trade in said drug became huge, rich, and powerful when said drug started gaining popularity.
If cocaine had been made legal in the 30's, there'd be treatment programs available everywhere, education about the drug would be ubiquitous and hyperbole-free, and Coloumbian Cartels would be small, making a decent living, and selling coffee.
Competition IS co-operation.
Don't agree? Watch what happens when one competitor doesn't follow the rules, i.e. doesn't co-operate.
Farm subsidies maint a stable food cost.
Well, some of them do. Some of them funnel money into the pockets of rich New Yorkers who don't farm.