Umm.. that's blatantly false. There's still plenty of secret knowledge and secret practice in the Mormon church, and all allegations against the church are denied and disbelieved by everyone who joins it. Ignoring evidence is a prerequisite of joining a religion, I don't know why people are surprised that so many people "don't know what they're getting into".
you are extremely ignorant or naive or stupid... so which one is it?
Umm.. I'm asking YOU to present some evidence that they do before just assuming that everything you read about in the gossip rags is true.
If you actually bother to read the article, or check out Google Dashboard, you'll discover that the personal information *they* are talking about is the stuff that *you* give them, voluntarily.. it's not some data mined facts from searches, it's stuff like your birth date and location. Now, *presumably* they give that stuff to advertisers, but I happen to be an advertiser with Google and I've never been given the option to target ads based on that information... so why are you so certain that they use it for ad targeting? Do you know something the rest of us don't know or are you just assuming they do without evidence?
And your ISP.. or anyone who has poisoned your DNS cache and is transparently proxying you.. or just about anyone who logs http-request traffic on the backbone.
Oh, and anyone who has access to your web browser history/cache.. but you knew that.
I believe what you're trying to do there is "make a distinction without a difference" which the court will reject with the "if it walks like a duck, it's a duck" analysis. That's the great thing about talking to people about law, they consistently come up with the same tired old shit that has been struck down before. Unfortunately, now and then it works.
Just because Asimov didn't bother to predict that I would one day be sitting down at a terminal to discuss his works with a person with less intelligence than one of his fictional robots doesn't make them dated. Please kindly die.
The official rules, which are no longer available btw, contain many caveats of the form "at the sole discretion of the judges".. these give the judges power to change the rules as they go along and they're not ashamed to do it. If they have a competition next year I expect many people will be looking at this situation and seriously doubting if it is worth competing.. how can you put time and money into a competition built on shifting sands.
Ya know, I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion. Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers. Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet?
Yes.... but if the police want to search your package they still need a warrant.. no matter whether your package is currently in the hands of FedEx or not.
Yes, and if the police show up and say "we wanna open this package" FedEx will say "I've gotta see a warrant or I'll be liable for you violating someone's 4th amendment rights". Or, at least, that's what will happen if the person the police are talking to actually speaks english...
umm.. yeah, I can see your frustration at the Ares I-X, it does kinda seem pointless if the Ares I project is canceled. Thing is, Ares I is the first rocket to be developed by NASA in decades and they've used a lot of new analytical techniques. The Ares I-X test flight is a way of getting "ground truth" for those techniques. This has knock-on effects on every other project that will use those techniques and its not just inside NASA that this will happen.
you're talking about a TRL-4 engine as if it is almost TRL-7.. each step up the ladder takes funding.. that's why Apollo, and the Manhattan project were such amazing achievements, they went from concept to operational with dozens of different subsystems in an incredibly short period of time - by spending a massive amount of money.
One of the best collected references on the nuclear thermal rocket propulsion development program that I've ever read.. and almost all the pages are available online.
I mean, even back in the 60s it was stupid media fear mongering. Poison wires and adequate casing make nuclear reactors perfectly safe when not in operation. It was exactly those kinds of objections that caused the NERVA project to deliberately overload their biggest prototype and cause an explosion: so they could assess the difficulty of worse case cleanup - btw, it was no trouble. Perhaps the only way "scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmosphere" could be a serious concern is if you skimp on the casing.. which you might do if you're trying to make a nuclear first stage, or have a limited first stage lift capacity and no on-orbit capabilities, but both Russia and the US now have decades of on-orbit operations under their belt. They could launch the nuclear material inside a multi-ton casing and put it into the dry engine on-orbit.
I miss the days when people worried about looking stupid before posting mainstream media nonsense on this site. Wake up to yourself.
I used to wonder what the point of patenting stupidity was.. and then I heard one of my friends say "well he's got a patent on it! They cost money! So he's investing in this idea, and he's not asking for much money to build a prototype." And there ya go, the essence of the scam.
Worse yet are the people who have this 19th century view of the patent office and say stuff like "well, he couldn't get a patent if he didn't have a working prototype." Sigh.
I think all of us could claim to have experienced virtual reality at home. Just not with clunky glasses from the 80s, but congratulations in making an expensive new phone into your very own pair of 80s fail.
I personally own a pair of these: http://www.vuzix.com/iwear/products_vr920.html they're exactly what they claim to be, and work just as well. Shame that the technology hasn't made the concept much better over the years. The problem is simply that trying to trick the human vision system is really hard. Doing it in an affordable way is even harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. that's blatantly false. There's still plenty of secret knowledge and secret practice in the Mormon church, and all allegations against the church are denied and disbelieved by everyone who joins it. Ignoring evidence is a prerequisite of joining a religion, I don't know why people are surprised that so many people "don't know what they're getting into".
you are extremely ignorant or naive or stupid... so which one is it?
Umm.. I'm asking YOU to present some evidence that they do before just assuming that everything you read about in the gossip rags is true.
If you actually bother to read the article, or check out Google Dashboard, you'll discover that the personal information *they* are talking about is the stuff that *you* give them, voluntarily.. it's not some data mined facts from searches, it's stuff like your birth date and location. Now, *presumably* they give that stuff to advertisers, but I happen to be an advertiser with Google and I've never been given the option to target ads based on that information... so why are you so certain that they use it for ad targeting? Do you know something the rest of us don't know or are you just assuming they do without evidence?
Umm.. wouldn't just ad rotation do that?
Is that all you've got?
Has anyone ever presented evidence that Google does not use collected user data for their ad services?
Assume people are out to get you until proven otherwise eh.
Has anyone ever presented some other reason for Google to be collecting data?
Ya, that's the other thing, got any evidence that they *do* collect data?
I suggest you remove your tinfoil hat. All it will do is focus the corporate and government mind waves and cause cranial injury.
Yup, that's me, requesting that people present evidence before making wild accusations, very tin foil.
And your ISP.. or anyone who has poisoned your DNS cache and is transparently proxying you.. or just about anyone who logs http-request traffic on the backbone.
Oh, and anyone who has access to your web browser history/cache.. but you knew that.
Just curious, has anyone ever presented any evidence that Google uses collected user data for their ad services?
I mean, you state it as if it was a fact.. it's not.
I believe what you're trying to do there is "make a distinction without a difference" which the court will reject with the "if it walks like a duck, it's a duck" analysis. That's the great thing about talking to people about law, they consistently come up with the same tired old shit that has been struck down before. Unfortunately, now and then it works.
Just because Asimov didn't bother to predict that I would one day be sitting down at a terminal to discuss his works with a person with less intelligence than one of his fictional robots doesn't make them dated. Please kindly die.
No-one knows jack about AI.. most can't even define it.
And if you thought his books were about AI, you completely missed the point.
Ask a sucker why they think they weren't scammed and you'll get similar bullshit.
they sell because the products are of good quality,
And if they break you will discover their customer service is horrid.
holistically designed,
tied into the rest of their product line in unacceptably anti-competitive ways.
and have a good UI.
As declared by them and unrecognized by any academic body.
The great thing about declaring something "art" is that no-one can deny your claim.
By "artistically inclined" you mean he's a slick talking con artist right?
ya, I know, *rimshot*
The official rules, which are no longer available btw, contain many caveats of the form "at the sole discretion of the judges".. these give the judges power to change the rules as they go along and they're not ashamed to do it. If they have a competition next year I expect many people will be looking at this situation and seriously doubting if it is worth competing.. how can you put time and money into a competition built on shifting sands.
Jon Carmack
His name is John, for fuck sake he's not french.
Ya know, I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion. Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers. Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet?
Yes.... but if the police want to search your package they still need a warrant.. no matter whether your package is currently in the hands of FedEx or not.
Yes, and if the police show up and say "we wanna open this package" FedEx will say "I've gotta see a warrant or I'll be liable for you violating someone's 4th amendment rights". Or, at least, that's what will happen if the person the police are talking to actually speaks english...
Wow, best to stop using FedEx and other *private* companies to send mail then.
umm.. yeah, I can see your frustration at the Ares I-X, it does kinda seem pointless if the Ares I project is canceled. Thing is, Ares I is the first rocket to be developed by NASA in decades and they've used a lot of new analytical techniques. The Ares I-X test flight is a way of getting "ground truth" for those techniques. This has knock-on effects on every other project that will use those techniques and its not just inside NASA that this will happen.
and by "dust it off" you mean embark on a multi-billion dollar technology maturation process right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
you're talking about a TRL-4 engine as if it is almost TRL-7.. each step up the ladder takes funding.. that's why Apollo, and the Manhattan project were such amazing achievements, they went from concept to operational with dozens of different subsystems in an incredibly short period of time - by spending a massive amount of money.
You're an ignorant fool.
Check out this book: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zmpxV1ygjvsC
One of the best collected references on the nuclear thermal rocket propulsion development program that I've ever read.. and almost all the pages are available online.
That's a bit of an ancient fear don't ya think?
I mean, even back in the 60s it was stupid media fear mongering. Poison wires and adequate casing make nuclear reactors perfectly safe when not in operation. It was exactly those kinds of objections that caused the NERVA project to deliberately overload their biggest prototype and cause an explosion: so they could assess the difficulty of worse case cleanup - btw, it was no trouble. Perhaps the only way "scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmosphere" could be a serious concern is if you skimp on the casing.. which you might do if you're trying to make a nuclear first stage, or have a limited first stage lift capacity and no on-orbit capabilities, but both Russia and the US now have decades of on-orbit operations under their belt. They could launch the nuclear material inside a multi-ton casing and put it into the dry engine on-orbit.
I miss the days when people worried about looking stupid before posting mainstream media nonsense on this site. Wake up to yourself.
I used to wonder what the point of patenting stupidity was.. and then I heard one of my friends say "well he's got a patent on it! They cost money! So he's investing in this idea, and he's not asking for much money to build a prototype." And there ya go, the essence of the scam.
Worse yet are the people who have this 19th century view of the patent office and say stuff like "well, he couldn't get a patent if he didn't have a working prototype." Sigh.
They've drawn up a design.. wooo.. any nuclear engineer can do that - plenty of amateurs too.
Building real hardware is the only way to develop launch technology. Tell me when they've gotten the funding to do some static firing.
I think all of us could claim to have experienced virtual reality at home. Just not with clunky glasses from the 80s, but congratulations in making an expensive new phone into your very own pair of 80s fail.
I personally own a pair of these: http://www.vuzix.com/iwear/products_vr920.html they're exactly what they claim to be, and work just as well. Shame that the technology hasn't made the concept much better over the years. The problem is simply that trying to trick the human vision system is really hard. Doing it in an affordable way is even harder.