That was never implied. All that was implied was that it could be a more convenient and biodegradable that other ways of putting luminous markers. As for seeing through the dust, it helps because it is luminous....doesn't matter that it is biological.
I would consider a Chrome OS that runs Android apps to be basically a merger of the two. At least it is a merger from the point of view of being a platform.
Closed source doesn't say somehow make them immune to antitrust scrutiny. They want to sell their devices in the US (or elsewhere), they have to play by the rules.
The computer industry took off because home computers have always allowed hobbyists to get in an program them and share their programs easily. I think a strong case could be made that rules that disallow the sort of thing Apple is doing would benefit everyone. I'm a fan of Apple and have made a lot of money off their stock, but I fully support the government pressuring them to do the right thing for consumers and the industry as a whole in cases like these.
Android doesn't fully address the problem either, since one incentive for programming as a hobby is that you learn skills that can make you money later. But skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone, and iphone is such a large chunk of the market that could potentially make learning the skill financially worthwhile..
I don't see how they are going to provide a consistant UI on Chrome -- or any browser with a search bar, but especially one with a search bar integrated with the address field. I like the feature, but don't like how it never does it on my first search, since that is via the search field on Chrome. I'm sure they'll update Chrome to deal with this somehow, but I can't think of a nice way of doing it.
The basic idea behind PageRank may be published, but there is a lot more to do with it, such as all the logic for detecting link farms and other forms of intentional manipulation, which Google does not make public.
There is also a ton of logic behind trying to determine in a page what is "important," and that comes down to parsing html and making inferences as to what is the "main part", what is a heading, and so on. And then there is logic for determining what is duplicate content....again a very complex problem. The list goes on. If you think this is simple or straightforward, I'd say you are highly mistaken.
Except the pay-what-you-want idea was kinda lame. Great for a band that already has a huge following and more money than God. And for one album, where the novelty effect makes a huge difference.
I think it turned out to be a distraction from actually finding an intellectual property solution that worked for the long term.
Because "natural", in that context, means "not man-made". Just as "artificial" means "man made" (and "artifact" is something made by humans).
Being humans, it is expected that we would have words to refer to things made by our own species, to distinguish them from things that occur outside of our species' influence.
If you don't like the word, don't use it, but that is its meaning.
Not sure how consumers expecting you to do your job well, and competition to keep prices low, can be called "dumbing down". If you have that much disdain for your customers, maybe you should find a different career?
I think it is happening, but slowly. Firefox and Android being good examples of open source stuff that is eating into microsoft's stranglehold on the industry.
I don't really think there will be room for both as time goes on, at least not in microsoft's core businesses. Microsoft may still have large market share, but they can't charge what they want anymore. And as computing moves toward mobile and tablet platforms, I think they will lose out in the same way the AOLs and Compuserves lost out to the open internet.
The problem (for us) is that these things take time. I'm guessing office and windows have another 10 years before microsoft can't milk them anymore.
I think it's only fair to point out that the terms of the netflix contest (which I participated in and got a lot out of) are such that you own everything you produce. I think you may have to licence it to netflix if you win and take the $million, but if so it is non-exclusive.
Sure, but the idea is to monitor thousands or even millions of them....at least if you are planning on doing the kinds of sci-fi-ish things we'd like to do. The issue here is what resolution are we working at. Current technology is several orders of magnitude less than neuron level. Neuron level (or even higher, synapes level) would be good, even if each individual neuron may not be giving a lot of info. (just as every pixel in an image doesn't have a lot of info)
Whether we can ever do it, and whether we'll be able to process all the data meaningfully, no one knows. But the future is long.
True, but take a look at a relay or vacuum tube of 75 years ago, compared to a silicon transistor today. That's about where we are with this stuff.
My guess is that a lot of information goes from one side of the brain to the other via the corpus callosum, and if you could monitor just that traffic (which is still massive), you could gather a lot. Making sense of it is a different matter. I don't think its unreasonable to think that they might be able to do it in 100 years though.
Well I'm not sure what you mean by nerve cells vs. neurons (they are the same thing, by my understanding), but for every neuron there might be 1000 synapses, so that might be what you mean. I couldn't tell from the story, though.
I think it's what is known as "an important first step". That is, having communication between neurons and electronics. Once you've done that, it is another (admittedly large)step to make it practical.
Obviously, it's harder to do in a living organism, so you work out certain details in a test tube, so to speak.
If the kid is too young to understand what it means, I don't see the problem. And I think a donation is not an insignificant thing, it could save a life.
It's no different than deciding for a child whether he should be cremated or buried if he dies young. Most likely, the kid didn't have an opinion on it.
On the other hand, if you explain organ donation to your kid, and he says he doesn't want it, then you shouldn't make that decision. But I think its very unlikely that's the case here.
Depends on how you interpret the assumptions of classical economics. One way is "all people will behave as if they are rationally self interested". Another is "everything else being equal, a system designed with the assumption that all people are rationally self interested is more likely to behave as predicted than one that is not". The former assumption is clearly absurd. The second is quite reasonable, in my opinion.
I agree that competition is good, but it isn't only Android. Lots of other competition, and if Android hadn't shown up, someone else would have filled that gap. Apple expected competition when they got into this business.
I would've said would've. Presumably the "of" comes from the fact that "would've" sounds a bit like "would of". I suppose you could even say "I'd've". Probably not considered correct written English to have a double contraction, but it's clear you know the correct form, but are just being informal.
Slashdot Mirror
That was never implied. All that was implied was that it could be a more convenient and biodegradable that other ways of putting luminous markers. As for seeing through the dust, it helps because it is luminous....doesn't matter that it is biological.
I would consider a Chrome OS that runs Android apps to be basically a merger of the two. At least it is a merger from the point of view of being a platform.
I think it should be pretty obvious....Android is taking off, but the idea of an app ecosystem based on the browser is clearly the future as well.
.
I'd wager anything that google will merge the two....if that wasn't their plan from the beginning, it will come to pass regardless.
I don't see this too difficult really.... but it's smart that they didn't attempt it too early though for various reasons.
Closed source doesn't say somehow make them immune to antitrust scrutiny. They want to sell their devices in the US (or elsewhere), they have to play by the rules.
The computer industry took off because home computers have always allowed hobbyists to get in an program them and share their programs easily. I think a strong case could be made that rules that disallow the sort of thing Apple is doing would benefit everyone. I'm a fan of Apple and have made a lot of money off their stock, but I fully support the government pressuring them to do the right thing for consumers and the industry as a whole in cases like these.
Android doesn't fully address the problem either, since one incentive for programming as a hobby is that you learn skills that can make you money later. But skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone, and iphone is such a large chunk of the market that could potentially make learning the skill financially worthwhile..
They charge per click, so obviously, no.
I don't see how they are going to provide a consistant UI on Chrome -- or any browser with a search bar, but especially one with a search bar integrated with the address field. I like the feature, but don't like how it never does it on my first search, since that is via the search field on Chrome. I'm sure they'll update Chrome to deal with this somehow, but I can't think of a nice way of doing it.
Got a citation for that? Everything I see says otherwise, for instance this.
The basic idea behind PageRank may be published, but there is a lot more to do with it, such as all the logic for detecting link farms and other forms of intentional manipulation, which Google does not make public.
There is also a ton of logic behind trying to determine in a page what is "important," and that comes down to parsing html and making inferences as to what is the "main part", what is a heading, and so on. And then there is logic for determining what is duplicate content....again a very complex problem. The list goes on. If you think this is simple or straightforward, I'd say you are highly mistaken.
Except the pay-what-you-want idea was kinda lame. Great for a band that already has a huge following and more money than God. And for one album, where the novelty effect makes a huge difference.
I think it turned out to be a distraction from actually finding an intellectual property solution that worked for the long term.
Regardless, Radiohead will always be associated for me with this most brilliant "review" of their Creep video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6VWk1yT5o
Because "natural", in that context, means "not man-made". Just as "artificial" means "man made" (and "artifact" is something made by humans).
Being humans, it is expected that we would have words to refer to things made by our own species, to distinguish them from things that occur outside of our species' influence.
If you don't like the word, don't use it, but that is its meaning.
I say that's not a tip, then, by definition.
Not sure how consumers expecting you to do your job well, and competition to keep prices low, can be called "dumbing down". If you have that much disdain for your customers, maybe you should find a different career?
(and I say that as a mobile app developer myself)
I think it is happening, but slowly. Firefox and Android being good examples of open source stuff that is eating into microsoft's stranglehold on the industry.
I don't really think there will be room for both as time goes on, at least not in microsoft's core businesses. Microsoft may still have large market share, but they can't charge what they want anymore. And as computing moves toward mobile and tablet platforms, I think they will lose out in the same way the AOLs and Compuserves lost out to the open internet.
The problem (for us) is that these things take time. I'm guessing office and windows have another 10 years before microsoft can't milk them anymore.
Don't you really mean the opposite?
I think it's only fair to point out that the terms of the netflix contest (which I participated in and got a lot out of) are such that you own everything you produce. I think you may have to licence it to netflix if you win and take the $million, but if so it is non-exclusive.
Sure, but the idea is to monitor thousands or even millions of them....at least if you are planning on doing the kinds of sci-fi-ish things we'd like to do. The issue here is what resolution are we working at. Current technology is several orders of magnitude less than neuron level. Neuron level (or even higher, synapes level) would be good, even if each individual neuron may not be giving a lot of info. (just as every pixel in an image doesn't have a lot of info)
Whether we can ever do it, and whether we'll be able to process all the data meaningfully, no one knows. But the future is long.
True, but take a look at a relay or vacuum tube of 75 years ago, compared to a silicon transistor today. That's about where we are with this stuff.
My guess is that a lot of information goes from one side of the brain to the other via the corpus callosum, and if you could monitor just that traffic (which is still massive), you could gather a lot. Making sense of it is a different matter. I don't think its unreasonable to think that they might be able to do it in 100 years though.
Well I'm not sure what you mean by nerve cells vs. neurons (they are the same thing, by my understanding), but for every neuron there might be 1000 synapses, so that might be what you mean. I couldn't tell from the story, though.
Cochlear implants go the opposite direction. Cochlear implants are like speakers, this is like a microphone.
I think it's what is known as "an important first step". That is, having communication between neurons and electronics. Once you've done that, it is another (admittedly large)step to make it practical.
Obviously, it's harder to do in a living organism, so you work out certain details in a test tube, so to speak.
If the kid is too young to understand what it means, I don't see the problem. And I think a donation is not an insignificant thing, it could save a life.
It's no different than deciding for a child whether he should be cremated or buried if he dies young. Most likely, the kid didn't have an opinion on it.
On the other hand, if you explain organ donation to your kid, and he says he doesn't want it, then you shouldn't make that decision. But I think its very unlikely that's the case here.
Depends on how you interpret the assumptions of classical economics. One way is "all people will behave as if they are rationally self interested". Another is "everything else being equal, a system designed with the assumption that all people are rationally self interested is more likely to behave as predicted than one that is not". The former assumption is clearly absurd. The second is quite reasonable, in my opinion.
I agree that competition is good, but it isn't only Android. Lots of other competition, and if Android hadn't shown up, someone else would have filled that gap. Apple expected competition when they got into this business.
It's WiFi only "for 2010"
I would've said would've. Presumably the "of" comes from the fact that "would've" sounds a bit like "would of". I suppose you could even say "I'd've". Probably not considered correct written English to have a double contraction, but it's clear you know the correct form, but are just being informal.