From the Wired article: Kremen said he wasn't looking forward to the prospect of more legal bills if the case winds up in the California Supreme Court but was pleased with Friday's decision.
"They clearly think this is a really important issue for Californians, and I think they're just trying to highlight that to make sure they get it absolutely right," he said.
But as Alex Kozinski, the lone dissenting judge in the case pointed out, there's no guarantee the state's high court will take the case. In his dissent, Kozinski noted that the state's high court has turned down a third of such requests submitted by the federal appeals court, a record he attributed to the California judges' already formidable caseload.
I'm hesitant to second-guess a federal judge in his assessment here, but perhaps the reason he cites for them not taking this case is precisely why they will. If they have a significant caseload and they keep getting this request, perhaps their attitude is "oh lets just get this over with."
The pdf of the request for review by the Supreme Court makes many references to "certification." Viz:
"The decisions of the California appellate courts provide no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which may be determinative of this appeal. We respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question presented below. We acknowledge that your Court may decide to reformulate the question, and our phrasing of the issue is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of the case. We agree to follow the answer provided by the California Supreme Court. We invoke the certification process only after careful consideration and do not do so lightly. The certification procedure is reserved for state law questions that present significant issues, including those with important public policy ramifications, and that have not yet been resolved by the state courts."
The impression I get is that this reference to "certified" can be understood as "answering the question specifically and directly so that it may be settled once and for all," but that is just a guess because (you guessed it) IANAL. Can a Slashdotter who is a lawyer provide a bit of detail on this concept of "certified?"
This is an extremely interesting case because afaik, domain names are currently held to be much like phone numbers -- you don't own one, you more or less rent it.
But while reading the pdf, I noticed that the name of the guy who is the plaintif in this sex.com lawsuit is "Gary Kremen."
ToLu the Happy Furby writes: "I'm not sure what more you're looking for."
An example from the linked page:
" The book first. Take two compelling notions advanced in "Stupid White Men." The journalist Ben Fritz went through the book with a fine tooth comb. In the book, Moore claims that five sixths of the U.S. defense budget went toward one plane. He also claims that two-thirds of president Bush's campaign finances came from 700 people. These claims are so ludicrous it says something about Moore's credibility that he even believed them himself. Both are easily refuted by a quick look at the publicly available Pentagon budget and the records of the Federal Elections Commission, which compiles all campaign contributions."
What figures? He should provide them. He just describes them as 'ludicrous' and moves on.
" Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine has shown that, in fact, the two boys did not go bowling that morning. Early police reports to that effect turned out to be false. Moreover the Lockheed Martin factory near Columbine does not make "weapons of mass destruction," as argued in the movie. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. Moore shows a clip of giant rockets. Nice try, Michael."
References??
I'm looking for something to sink my teeth into, something hard. All he's doing is saying, in effect, "not true, not true, not true."
From the article: "The world-famous lady has posed for millions of photos, but since her creator left no blueprints and only minimal design sketches, replacing her in the event of a catastrophic loss would have been all but impossible.
Nonsense. The difficulty would be the engineering, but quite far from "all but impossible." What laser mapping the surface does is give us an accurate measure of the skin (both inside and out). Laser mapping doesn't tell us jack about the underlying structure which is where the vast, vast majority of the work would be. And the skin can be replicated from the extremely high resolution pictures we already have.
In other words this makes a difficult task a bit easier. This does not bridge some do-or-die gap where if we didn't have it we couldn't accomplish the task.
ToLu the Happy Furby writes: "Here's [andrewsullivan.com] Andrew Sullivan's quick article debunking Bowling For Columbine. Note that this is not even a complete list of the distortions in just that particular "documentary"."
Don't take this as a brush-off, but I read that link and all I have to work with, again, is his say-so.
I should mention that I was a huge fan of John Stossel's before I found that he was basically distorting the ever-loving crap out of things. Which sucked because he debunked a lot of things that I enjoyed seeing debunked. I don't even read his stuff anymore. My point is that I'm not above saying, "well, I guess I was wrong for following him."
But I need something hard, something more than "he's wrong," and "that's obviously absurd." Once I have that about Chomsky and/or Moore, I'll have to defer the assessment that they're distorting things. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.
aphor writes: "I believe the choice to moderate is an important one, and while I agree with your sentiment (I think...) that people who moderate without without knowing what they are doing should think harder about things, I don't think that differentiates moderation from posting replies. "
Moderation is both useful and necessary, but I'm far more concerned with learning something (by way of good, intelligent feedback) than racking up this nebulous karma. Who gives a shit about karma?
In other words, while it might look like I'm bemoaning the loss of karma, I really lamenting the loss of a good conversation. Very, very rarely do I get decent replies. And no, "decent" is not to be understood as "agreement." In fact, as soon as I saw that what you were replying to was my sig, I thought, "oh no, another AC troll" but was pleasantly surprised.
Reality Master 101 writes: "It's worth pointing out that the movie is by Michael Moore -- second only to Chomsky when it comes to biased, selective viewing of facts. I don't waste my time giving that clown any money, and recommend that others should bypass it also. Moore is an idiot, and yes, the messenger does make a difference even if the blind squirrel finds a few nuts. It's what he leaves out that's often important."
Provide examples of Chomsky or Moore being selective in their facts. By American standards I'm fairly far to the right of both of them (I'm pro-gun, for example) but my differences with them are in their interpretation of the facts. To their credit I've found both of them to be quite reliable and unselective when it comes to the actual reporting.
n0nsensical writes: "Well obviously this version isn't practical for commercial applications, but the idea is the technology could be developed to that point in the future. The cathode ray tube needed to be developed before we could have television..."
I'm only semi-bitching because of comments like this in the article:
"...that could reinvent smart card technology and yield a dazzling new array of high-tech gadgets."
...to why my suggestion would be to append "...not anytime in the near future, you can expect to see this around the same time as flying cars." If they can't tell me when, maybe they could just hazard a guess as to when not.
You might argue that it is impossible to calculate such things but they're already going out on a bigger limb by assuming this can be brought to a consumer market (read; stabilized at room temperature) in the first place.
From the article The plastic ultimately stabilized in 1.6 dimensions at a temperature of minus 269 degrees Celsius (minus 452 degrees Fahrenheit).
It would be nice if someone came up with a chart that plotted the correlation between the temperature necessary in the lab and the temperature necessary to bring the item to market for a significant number of products. Because I'm willing to bet that -249 C is pretty close to the Don't Hold Your Breath mark.
bmud writes: Unless your etc's hold a surprise or ten, your preference in music isn't eclectic at all. Instead your preferred genre of music falls under what the rest of us label "curdled genital cheese."
Eclectic does not necessarily mean "good." I felt that listing T.A.T.U. served a double-role in that regard. =)
ceejayoz writes: "Ask your friends what they like... download random songs, etc. One of my favorite ways is to browse other users' files on file sharing programs. Who knows, you might find something completely new and unexpected."
This is precisely what I do. I'll find someone with some songs that I like and while I'm getting those, I'll browse their directories, click a few that look interesting and click a few at random just for kicks.
"That's how I discovered Apocalyptica - rock'n'roll on cellos - and Our Lady Peace."
I found A New Found Glory that way. Oh, and thanks for the Apocalyptica suggestion.
I think it is plain to see that certain people tend to like certain genres. Sure, some of us are downright ecclectic -- I like Aphex Twin, Bjork, T.A.T.U., Smiths, Squarepusher, Busta Rhymes, Tom Waits, De La Soul, Guster, etc, etc -- but those who like opera, for example, are probably good sources on where you can find more of the same.
So if you're not averse to using file-sharing programs such as Gnutella et al, I would suggest looking for songs you already like and instead of downloading the songs you find (or in addition to), browsing the files of the people who have those songs. This way you can make as big a leap as you want.
Since this is human-based I think you'll find similar tastes that jump genres, something that even the most clever algorithm is likely to miss, and will do precisely what you're seeking; introduction to new sounds.
Also, you might consider stuff like MP3.com. I've found a lot of stuff that is unknown only for lack (or refusal) of a record deal.
Cyclone66 writes: "except that these things still crash occasionally. No one cares if it lands on a afghani mud hut, but if it hits some power lines and crashes to the ground killing some americans in an city that might just be a problem.."
6B in potential profits vs. $30M in lawsuits and wrongful death compensation.
Yeah, I'm with you, I'm sure that the potential for dead American citizens will cause them to not even consider it...
michael writes: jjohnston writes "Salon just posted its technology and business predictions for 2003: Total Commercialization Awareness. Includes: Al-Qaida online, Slashdot sells out, and pets: the new white meat. Cute..." That's so 1999.
The "that's so 1999" Slash article you linked to is about Slash going IPO. The Salon blub reads:
The popular discussion site for fans of open source software will disclose that it's perilously close to bankruptcy and needs to make all Slash code proprietary in order to survive. Slashdot regulars will rebel, and some will attempt to set up alternative discussion sites -- but Slashdot's founder, Rob Malda, will sue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prevent any copycat sites. When readers accuse the site of "monopolizing" all the vital discussions of the various ways of cooling your computer with liquid nitrogen, Justice Department officials will threaten prosecution of Sherman antitrust violations. But Slashdot will prevail, after hiring David Boies, litigator to the stars.
Which, while satire, is quite a bit different, don't you think?
AlphaHelix writes: Dude, you're a crack monkey. The article you referenced didn't offer evidence that anybody was targeted by the Feds for buying "charcoal and hummus." It didn't even say there existed a person who bought "charcoal and hummus." "Charcoal and hummus" are used as examples of grocery items that might have been on the list of frequent-shopper records that got turned over to the Feds by an overzealous marketroid.
Incorrect. The article does not say, as you state, that hummus and charcoal are merely things that may have been on the list that was turned over, it says that the purchasing habits of customers -- tied to real names and real people, which is none of the government's business -- were turned over. Viz:
The final destination of all that data scares Ponemon and other civil libertarians, defenders of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. Ponemon, for one, suggests federal authorities are plugging the information into algorithms, using the complex formulas to create a picture of general-population trends that can be contrasted with the lifestyles of known terrorists. If your habits match, expect further scrutiny at the least.
Unless you are taking the position that the government sought the data and then precisely nothing with it, then the next thing you must ask yourself is, "what did they do with it?" Ponemon seems to feel, not irrationally, that this is being used in a sort of "grocery profiling," which isn't but a quarter-degree removed from racial profiling, since different ethnic groups tend to eat different things. Therefore my original statement:
Buying hummus and charcoal can get the suits at your door...
...is entirely correct. If the government has a laundry list of "marker items" that can be tabulated for a profile match, it stands to reason that if you match the profile, you'll receive attention. It doesn't make sense to twist my argument to shoot it down.
And stop calling people "dude," it makes you look cheap. =)
Stillman writes: "Do you honestly think "suits" would turn up at someone's door over such a thing?"
Buying hummus and charcoal can get the suits at your door, man, much less a chemistry set.
Besides, do you realize that 7,600 people died last year from non-steroidal painkillers (eg, asprin)? Do you realize that between deaths resulting from cirrhosis of the liver and drunk driving fatalities there are about 48,000 deaths a year in the U.S.? Have you seen the hysteria over ecstacy?
Yes, ordering things from chemistry supply companies can get a suit at your door.
And if they did, would it be a problem if you had nothing to hide?
If we have to resort to this logic we're already screwed...we do, and we are.
From the article: "Chinese takeout boxes and junk-food wrappers testify to a busy lifestyle with little time to cook. A Post-it note even lays bare someone's arithmetic skills (the addition is solid, but the long division needs work)."
The site is convincing enough that Tycho and Gabe (the creators of PA) weren't even entirely sure themselves:
"But as regards the dreaded Mavav, I think we have very little to worry about.
In fact, I am prepared to call it a hoax.
I hate moms just as much as the next guy, but that site doesn't have the taint of mom. It has the taint of fancy lads trying to get your blood up. No articles. No privacy policy. Some of the language and word choice rings false. The hyperbole takes a step too far, even for a concerned parents site, to hold any water.
Here is my backup plan: If it does turn out to be real and I just didn't believe it, well, that's because I've reached this, like, hyperspace, higher plane of cynicism where all reality and the people in it are a ridiculous pageant for my amusement.
dirkdidit writes:
"How exactly is that research? It seems to be a pretty trivial piece of code to write. Hell it could be done in Visual Basic in 20 minutes I bet.
It's not implementation, it's the concept, stupid. How long does it take for you to write E=mc2?
Slashdot Mirror
From the Wired article:
Kremen said he wasn't looking forward to the prospect of more legal bills if the case winds up in the California Supreme Court but was pleased with Friday's decision.
"They clearly think this is a really important issue for Californians, and I think they're just trying to highlight that to make sure they get it absolutely right," he said.
But as Alex Kozinski, the lone dissenting judge in the case pointed out, there's no guarantee the state's high court will take the case. In his dissent, Kozinski noted that the state's high court has turned down a third of such requests submitted by the federal appeals court, a record he attributed to the California judges' already formidable caseload.
I'm hesitant to second-guess a federal judge in his assessment here, but perhaps the reason he cites for them not taking this case is precisely why they will. If they have a significant caseload and they keep getting this request, perhaps their attitude is "oh lets just get this over with."
The pdf of the request for review by the Supreme Court makes many references to "certification." Viz:
"The decisions of the California appellate courts provide no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which may be determinative of this appeal. We respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question presented below. We acknowledge that your Court may decide to reformulate the question, and our phrasing of the issue is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of the case. We agree to follow the answer provided by the California Supreme Court. We invoke the certification process only after careful consideration and do not do so lightly. The certification procedure is reserved for state law questions that present significant issues, including those with important public policy ramifications, and that have not yet been resolved by the state courts."
The impression I get is that this reference to "certified" can be understood as "answering the question specifically and directly so that it may be settled once and for all," but that is just a guess because (you guessed it) IANAL. Can a Slashdotter who is a lawyer provide a bit of detail on this concept of "certified?"
This is an extremely interesting case because afaik, domain names are currently held to be much like phone numbers -- you don't own one, you more or less rent it.
But while reading the pdf, I noticed that the name of the guy who is the plaintif in this sex.com lawsuit is "Gary Kremen."
Oh, the jokes...
old-computer.com. Extremely well done.
ToLu the Happy Furby writes:
"I'm not sure what more you're looking for."
An example from the linked page:
" The book first. Take two compelling notions advanced in "Stupid White Men." The journalist Ben Fritz went through the book with a fine tooth comb. In the book, Moore claims that five sixths of the U.S. defense budget went toward one plane. He also claims that two-thirds of president Bush's campaign finances came from 700 people. These claims are so ludicrous it says something about Moore's credibility that he even believed them himself. Both are easily refuted by a quick look at the publicly available Pentagon budget and the records of the Federal Elections Commission, which compiles all campaign contributions."
What figures? He should provide them. He just describes them as 'ludicrous' and moves on.
" Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine has shown that, in fact, the two boys did not go bowling that morning. Early police reports to that effect turned out to be false. Moreover the Lockheed Martin factory near Columbine does not make "weapons of mass destruction," as argued in the movie. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. Moore shows a clip of giant rockets. Nice try, Michael."
References??
I'm looking for something to sink my teeth into, something hard. All he's doing is saying, in effect, "not true, not true, not true."
From the article:
"The world-famous lady has posed for millions of photos, but since her creator left no blueprints and only minimal design sketches, replacing her in the event of a catastrophic loss would have been all but impossible.
Nonsense. The difficulty would be the engineering, but quite far from "all but impossible." What laser mapping the surface does is give us an accurate measure of the skin (both inside and out). Laser mapping doesn't tell us jack about the underlying structure which is where the vast, vast majority of the work would be. And the skin can be replicated from the extremely high resolution pictures we already have.
In other words this makes a difficult task a bit easier. This does not bridge some do-or-die gap where if we didn't have it we couldn't accomplish the task.
Cute. Very cute. I especially like your references. =)
ToLu the Happy Furby writes:
"Here's [andrewsullivan.com] Andrew Sullivan's quick article debunking Bowling For Columbine. Note that this is not even a complete list of the distortions in just that particular "documentary"."
Don't take this as a brush-off, but I read that link and all I have to work with, again, is his say-so.
I should mention that I was a huge fan of John Stossel's before I found that he was basically distorting the ever-loving crap out of things. Which sucked because he debunked a lot of things that I enjoyed seeing debunked. I don't even read his stuff anymore. My point is that I'm not above saying, "well, I guess I was wrong for following him."
But I need something hard, something more than "he's wrong," and "that's obviously absurd." Once I have that about Chomsky and/or Moore, I'll have to defer the assessment that they're distorting things. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.
aphor writes:
"I believe the choice to moderate is an important one, and while I agree with your sentiment (I think...) that people who moderate without without knowing what they are doing should think harder about things, I don't think that differentiates moderation from posting replies. "
Moderation is both useful and necessary, but I'm far more concerned with learning something (by way of good, intelligent feedback) than racking up this nebulous karma. Who gives a shit about karma?
In other words, while it might look like I'm bemoaning the loss of karma, I really lamenting the loss of a good conversation. Very, very rarely do I get decent replies. And no, "decent" is not to be understood as "agreement." In fact, as soon as I saw that what you were replying to was my sig, I thought, "oh no, another AC troll" but was pleasantly surprised.
Reality Master 101 writes:
"It's worth pointing out that the movie is by Michael Moore -- second only to Chomsky when it comes to biased, selective viewing of facts. I don't waste my time giving that clown any money, and recommend that others should bypass it also. Moore is an idiot, and yes, the messenger does make a difference even if the blind squirrel finds a few nuts. It's what he leaves out that's often important."
Provide examples of Chomsky or Moore being selective in their facts. By American standards I'm fairly far to the right of both of them (I'm pro-gun, for example) but my differences with them are in their interpretation of the facts. To their credit I've found both of them to be quite reliable and unselective when it comes to the actual reporting.
Provide something more than your say-so.
Let me see if I have this straight.
...this is the same government which claims to want to protect my child (yes, I have one) from the implication of violence?
The government that brought us arms sales to Iran's Ayatollah, supported al Queda et al when it was Russia they were fighting, funded CIA-trained death squads in South America, that has killed a million-plus Iraqi children with their embargo (and noted "we think the price is worth it"), who have so far provded Turkey with $15B (yes, billions) worth of weapons and training to fight the Northern Kurds (who the U.S. claims to be protecting from Saddam)
If I want to keep my daughter away from violence, I think my best bet is to turn off the nightly news and give her permission to skip history class.
"Well obviously this version isn't practical for commercial applications, but the idea is the technology could be developed to that point in the future. The cathode ray tube needed to be developed before we could have television..."
I'm only semi-bitching because of comments like this in the article:
"...that could reinvent smart card technology and yield a dazzling new array of high-tech gadgets."
You might argue that it is impossible to calculate such things but they're already going out on a bigger limb by assuming this can be brought to a consumer market (read; stabilized at room temperature) in the first place.
But I do see your point.
From the article:
The plastic ultimately stabilized in 1.6 dimensions at a temperature of minus 269 degrees Celsius (minus 452 degrees Fahrenheit).
I'd be happy if my girlfriend would stabilize in three dimensions at room temperature.
How long do you think it'll take for them to figure that one out?
From the article
The plastic ultimately stabilized in 1.6 dimensions at a temperature of minus 269 degrees Celsius (minus 452 degrees Fahrenheit).
It would be nice if someone came up with a chart that plotted the correlation between the temperature necessary in the lab and the temperature necessary to bring the item to market for a significant number of products. Because I'm willing to bet that -249 C is pretty close to the Don't Hold Your Breath mark.
bmud writes:
Unless your etc's hold a surprise or ten, your preference in music isn't eclectic at all. Instead your preferred genre of music falls under what the rest of us label "curdled genital cheese."
Eclectic does not necessarily mean "good." I felt that listing T.A.T.U. served a double-role in that regard. =)
ceejayoz writes:
"Ask your friends what they like... download random songs, etc. One of my favorite ways is to browse other users' files on file sharing programs. Who knows, you might find something completely new and unexpected."
This is precisely what I do. I'll find someone with some songs that I like and while I'm getting those, I'll browse their directories, click a few that look interesting and click a few at random just for kicks.
"That's how I discovered Apocalyptica - rock'n'roll on cellos - and Our Lady Peace."
I found A New Found Glory that way. Oh, and thanks for the Apocalyptica suggestion.
I think it is plain to see that certain people tend to like certain genres. Sure, some of us are downright ecclectic -- I like Aphex Twin, Bjork, T.A.T.U., Smiths, Squarepusher, Busta Rhymes, Tom Waits, De La Soul, Guster, etc, etc -- but those who like opera, for example, are probably good sources on where you can find more of the same.
So if you're not averse to using file-sharing programs such as Gnutella et al, I would suggest looking for songs you already like and instead of downloading the songs you find (or in addition to), browsing the files of the people who have those songs. This way you can make as big a leap as you want.
Since this is human-based I think you'll find similar tastes that jump genres, something that even the most clever algorithm is likely to miss, and will do precisely what you're seeking; introduction to new sounds.
Also, you might consider stuff like MP3.com. I've found a lot of stuff that is unknown only for lack (or refusal) of a record deal.
Cyclone66 writes:
"except that these things still crash occasionally. No one cares if it lands on a afghani mud hut, but if it hits some power lines and crashes to the ground killing some americans in an city that might just be a problem.."
6B in potential profits vs. $30M in lawsuits and wrongful death compensation.
Yeah, I'm with you, I'm sure that the potential for dead American citizens will cause them to not even consider it...
michael writes: ..." That's so 1999.
jjohnston writes "Salon just posted its technology and business predictions for 2003: Total Commercialization Awareness. Includes: Al-Qaida online, Slashdot sells out, and pets: the new white meat. Cute
The "that's so 1999" Slash article you linked to is about Slash going IPO. The Salon blub reads:
The popular discussion site for fans of open source software will disclose that it's perilously close to bankruptcy and needs to make all Slash code proprietary in order to survive. Slashdot regulars will rebel, and some will attempt to set up alternative discussion sites -- but Slashdot's founder, Rob Malda, will sue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prevent any copycat sites. When readers accuse the site of "monopolizing" all the vital discussions of the various ways of cooling your computer with liquid nitrogen, Justice Department officials will threaten prosecution of Sherman antitrust violations. But Slashdot will prevail, after hiring David Boies, litigator to the stars.
Which, while satire, is quite a bit different, don't you think?
Dude, you're a crack monkey. The article you referenced didn't offer evidence that anybody was targeted by the Feds for buying "charcoal and hummus." It didn't even say there existed a person who bought "charcoal and hummus." "Charcoal and hummus" are used as examples of grocery items that might have been on the list of frequent-shopper records that got turned over to the Feds by an overzealous marketroid.
Incorrect. The article does not say, as you state, that hummus and charcoal are merely things that may have been on the list that was turned over, it says that the purchasing habits of customers -- tied to real names and real people, which is none of the government's business -- were turned over. Viz:
The final destination of all that data scares Ponemon and other civil libertarians, defenders of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. Ponemon, for one, suggests federal authorities are plugging the information into algorithms, using the complex formulas to create a picture of general-population trends that can be contrasted with the lifestyles of known terrorists. If your habits match, expect further scrutiny at the least.
Unless you are taking the position that the government sought the data and then precisely nothing with it, then the next thing you must ask yourself is, "what did they do with it?" Ponemon seems to feel, not irrationally, that this is being used in a sort of "grocery profiling," which isn't but a quarter-degree removed from racial profiling, since different ethnic groups tend to eat different things. Therefore my original statement:
Buying hummus and charcoal can get the suits at your door...
And stop calling people "dude," it makes you look cheap. =)
Stillman writes:
...we do, and we are.
"Do you honestly think "suits" would turn up at someone's door over such a thing?"
Buying hummus and charcoal can get the suits at your door, man, much less a chemistry set.
Besides, do you realize that 7,600 people died last year from non-steroidal painkillers (eg, asprin)? Do you realize that between deaths resulting from cirrhosis of the liver and drunk driving fatalities there are about 48,000 deaths a year in the U.S.? Have you seen the hysteria over ecstacy?
Yes, ordering things from chemistry supply companies can get a suit at your door.
And if they did, would it be a problem if you had nothing to hide?
If we have to resort to this logic we're already screwed
Imagine being the scientist working on this when Mister Roboto looks you square in the eyes and says, "Whoa... I know Tai chi."
I mean, do you suppose the robot will be able to kill him before he reaches the plug?
From the article :
"Chinese takeout boxes and junk-food wrappers testify to a busy lifestyle with little time to cook. A Post-it note even lays bare someone's arithmetic skills (the addition is solid, but the long division needs work)."
Ouch.
Well, that certainly explains this.
The site is convincing enough that Tycho and Gabe (the creators of PA) weren't even entirely sure themselves:
"But as regards the dreaded Mavav, I think we have very little to worry about.
In fact, I am prepared to call it a hoax.
I hate moms just as much as the next guy, but that site doesn't have the taint of mom. It has the taint of fancy lads trying to get your blood up. No articles. No privacy policy. Some of the language and word choice rings false. The hyperbole takes a step too far, even for a concerned parents site, to hold any water.
Here is my backup plan: If it does turn out to be real and I just didn't believe it, well, that's because I've reached this, like, hyperspace, higher plane of cynicism where all reality and the people in it are a ridiculous pageant for my amusement.
"How exactly is that research? It seems to be a pretty trivial piece of code to write. Hell it could be done in Visual Basic in 20 minutes I bet.
It's not implementation, it's the concept, stupid. How long does it take for you to write E=mc2?