Oh please, there are new gameshows every year (think, who wants to be a millionare, weakest link, the mole, survivor, temptation island, fear factor, and im sure im missing some) and people love the stuff. Im not saying they will like watching counterstrike, but the tv viewing population can adjust pretty quickly =).
I think you are much closer on your second point, I could see this on something like tech tv before I would see it on espn. Tech tv already has an audience that probably has a computer, and a larger portion of them will have known something about the latest fad in 3d gaming. The only people I know that watch espn are the middle aged male members of the family, im sure if they could get it directly piped in their heads they would. I doubt they would really be too interested in watching a game of counterstrike.
Its easier to tell a user how to do something by the command line because they really can't mess anything up. The problem with that is, instead of clicking thru menu's that most people are somewhat used to, they are typing arcane commands at a very basic looking screen, they aren't going to remember what they are doing.
You are correct when you say that it is hard to tell someone how to do something in the GUI. Over the phone, ive tried to explain to some people (usually a 70 year old guy who just bought his first pc) where a button is, and it takes me 10 minutes, explaining it in every concievable way until it finally clicks with them. I could send them to a command prompt and get it overwith in a minute or so.
Do you remember reading about some 'lines' they had found around that area, which looked like it could have been man made. It was like part of the sea floor, and some pretty straight lines that went off for a while, could have been roads or something..
In the tropics, corals grow at shallow depths, Willison explained. "They receive food directly from the photosynthesizers, often making it possible for them to survive without filtering food from the nutrient-poor tropical waters in which they (live)."
Unlike reefs that thrive in warm waters, deep-sea corals grow without sunlight at cold temperatures and use filters to collect most of their food.
Generally found along the continental shelf at depths of 650 feet or more, deep-sea corals may be disappearing faster than their tropical cousins, according to scientists.
This above does not say that coral grows at 2000ft, but it does say it will grow at about 700ft, which is much deeper then what you say at 100ft. It does also say that coral has another way of getting food, not by photosynthesis. Now, with that said, can you tell me that at no place on earth, coral grows at 2000ft?
but I do wonder how they assigned the date "of at least 6000 years ago" to this.
They probably used coral growth to find out how old it was. Coral grows at a steady rate every year, so they can figure out how thick the coral is, they can approximate the amount of time it has been growing there.
It just went straight forward. Imagine a board about 1ft square, with 4 wheels, and what probably looked like some sort of rocket or something that looked like it was shooting it forward. In the center of the board were some wires that angled up and they were hooked to the center body part of the car (probably a batter and whatnot).
If anything they could just have the cops partner do all the manuvering, that would work pretty good I would imagine.
It was a show on the discovery channel, about new technologies the police force is looking at. They didn't mention how the little car knows when its under the target or not, or many more details, just kinda showed it a few times and went on..
I saw a device like this that some police people were testing.
It would be mounted underneath the cop car, and it was like a tray with a smaller rc-type car on it. The car wasn't any taller then a few inches, probably a foot or so square.
When the cops got into a car chase with some suspect, they could just get right behind them, hit a button, the tray would drop, and the car would propel itself forward to the car the cop was chasing. Once under the car it would send a big electric shock thru the car killing the engine. This seemed like it was only meant for high speed chases and such, pretty crazy though..
Well at Los Alamos National Labratory, they take the approach of hiding the data in more then one sense.
Usually they will encrypt the data as normal, they took the extra step of physically taking out the hard drive and hiding it someplace. I guess the memo didn't get around, because his superiors couldn't find the data later. How is that for hiding data? =)
If you want to use their methods, here is a description of what happened =)
Patent number: 6,324,338
Filed: August 7, 1998
Granted: November 27, 2001
The only difference between the 2 is that the tivo patent isn't as broad as the replay tv patent. What is also interesting is that the tivo patent was filed 8 days before the replaytv patent. They also got the patent awarded to them about 5 months before replaytv. I have read thru both patents, I am not a lawyer, but they are describing pretty much the same device.
Saying that, and what I found on the web about prior art
What Can Be Used As Prior Art For Invalidating A Patent?
In essence, any publication, in any language, located anywhere in the world is valid prior art for invalidating a U.S. Patent. One copy of a thesis, written in the Chinese language and stored on a dusty shelf of the Beijing University Library will invalidate any and all U.S. patents that were filed one year after that thesis was published and that claims as an invention ANY of the subject matter that was disclosed in that thesis.
A publication can be, among other things: a thesis, a PHD dissertation, a journal article, a text book, a newspaper article, a patent, a home work assignment, a white paper, written materials handed out during a presentation, a product, or a product brochure.
A publication is NOT: your recollection of what someone once said, someone's recollection of what they themselves once said, a trade secret, or a confidential company memo. The upshot is that prior art must be publicly available, and it must be printed (or a physical object).
So, I doubt replaytv could use this patent for much more then ego boosting. If they even tried to touch tivo, tivo could invalidate their patent fairly easily with their own patent as prior art.
Yea, thanks for the response again, im gonna have to wait till after work to read it though.
I just wanted to clarify something. The first person in the scenario does not believe that there is any gods out there, that there is no being that is higher up then us that we cannot see but he is there. So, the first person doesn't believe in god/gods in any sense.
I'll read the rest when I get home, im glad that you are giving me these long responses, its interesting stuff and its not turning into any sort of flame war or anything, so thanks again.
I'll reply back tonight with any other questions i might have =)
I really dont think that is what they are shooting for, as you can do that kind of stuff already. This is about minimizing all the cables that musicians use *there are a ton* and also having better communication between devices.
Example would be what they said in the article, plug in your guitar to your amp, and your amp will remember what guitar it is and what settings you like for it.
Well I think I can see what you are saying. It still doesn't change my mind when it comes to how people will use this. Im not really too sure how to state this, but I dont have much 'faith' that this will be used only for good purposes. I hope it will, and I can see a lot of good things coming from it, but im sure we can all imagine what can happen if things go wrong.
Thank you for the reply back. I can see what you are saying now and im glad you explained it. As I said I really don't consider myself very knowledgable about religions and the beliefs that people have.
As I understand you, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. You lack a belief that 85% of the world shares. I am sure that you are correct in your reply, dont get me wrong, but I am a bit confused.
You take 2 people, person number one believes that there is no god. The second person lacks the belief in god. What is the difference between these 2 people. In my opinion, the first person is arrogant, as I feel it is impossible to know for a fact that god does not exist. Does the second person not know for sure if there is a god, but wont believe there is one unless he/she is shown some sort of solid proof that there is one?
If that is a case, then I could probably 'label' myself as an atheist. I find it strange that someone could think, without a doubt, that there is a higher being that had created us in some way. I would not classify that as false information, but I would also not classify it as true.
Thanks for the reply once again, I am sorry if my first reply was a bit short or trollish, I wasn't in a very good mood earlier, bill day =(.
You could always buy a firewire hub and hook them up that way..
Re:Why waste all the time developing "gyros"...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Well I really don't have much of an idea. The guy sells them, and people use them, so I would assume they are safe.
From what I have seen and heard from the inventor, he seems like he has the mind to do these things.
My guess would be that gyroscopes probably don't mess up that often, and the voting thing is merely an error checking routine to make sure that one of the gyros didn't physically fail. I don't know much about gyroscopes, but they seem to be fairly accurate in figuring out movement. They use gyroscopes in the MS Sidewinder Freestyle Pro gamepad, it seems to be fairly accurate. The gamepad is one that can be tilted left right, up down, and so on, to do movement. The gamepad sucks itself, but its a cheap hands on way of looking at gyroscopes in action..
If you can find the video where they show him catching the medicine ball sitting on one of those chairs, its pretty amazing to see. I seem to remember that they say the system is better with balance then a human is. If you want to find out, im sure you could just go to google.com, and search on fred wheelchair dean kamen etc and find out if this happens or not.. Im fairly sure it doens't.
So, I believe ethics goes hand and hand with the belief in some higher authority, even if you define it as ethics.
I am glad that you said this is your belief, and it is not fact. I do not believe in a specific god, as I am agnostic. But I do have a 'set of principals of right conduct'. I have these because I feel that it is the correct thing to do, not because I feel I will be struck down by god if I dont.
So, I feel the original poster was right. I can see ethical objections to this that have nothing to do with religion. In fact, all the objections I have are not religion involved.
Anyway.. I just hope this turns out for the best..
Zeno
Re:Arrogance more powerful than its technology?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry the page is in xml format, not sure if your browser will do it, worked fine in the evil IE6. It describes what I said in my first post about the medicine ball and such. Sorry no video link as far as I know =(.
What happens if company x creates a new hybrid human/animal with no vocal cords, and with a lower intelligence level, enought to make it so he really can't talk.
Who is to decide if this person wants a life of his own?
I can understand what your saying, but I can see some company making the above mentioned hybrids, and using them for slave labor lets say. The local authorities come and investigate, and the company states that these things are not human. They are like animals, which do not have the same rights. What is to be done?
Maybe I read too many fiction books, but I feel that there a lot of evil corporations out there that might want to try something like this. It may not be slave labor, but I can see people taking advantage of it.
What happens if I create a hybrid human that cannot talk, cannot think at a high intelligence level, and cannot feel pain. According to you, this would not be a person who would be able to tell me in any way that he feels that he is an individual, or that he wants life. Could I then put all these hybrids to work and not pay them?
The whole idea of genetics and manipulating DNA is going to be a touch subject. Your idea I agree with, but I can see little loopholes and such in the laws, and someone will try it. In fact, im just about certain it is going to happen. Why hire a large group of 1000 labor workers when you can create your own in a test tube, and you don't have to pay them, what could be better for a large corporation and keeping the spending level down, and profit levels up..
From what I know, and I am not a religion expert or anything, is that someone who is an atheist does not believe that there is a god. Someone who is agnostic believes that there might, or might not be, they cannot be certain.
I see a distiction there. I don't follow a belief that states there is no god, nor do I beleive that there is a god.
Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Both of these definitions came from dictionary.com. One of them states that it is impossible to know if there is or is not a god. The other states that there is no god.
What seems to be the confusion?
I too have no idea whether or not there is any sort of god
Then you are agnostic.
Hence, not having knowledge of it, i cannot claim to believe, and am therefore an atheist.
An athiest BELIEVES that there is NO god. If you are saying you do not have knowledge of the proof of god, you are not stating that there is not one. You are stating that you are unsure. That is being agnostic.
To restate my opinion:
I feel it is impossible to get solid proof of the existance of a god. Until that day comes, I cannot be 100% certain that there is a god, or is not a god. If i was an atheist, I would believe that there is no god completely. There would not be a shred in my mind that there is a god.
According to you I am wrong, please educate me..
Zeno
Re:Why waste all the time developing "gyros"...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
They are for balance.
They also can 'talk' to each other, and they vote on all the signals that come into the gyros, and they throw out any signals that they dont agree on. Its pretty interesting..
Re:Arrogance more powerful than its technology?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
I saw a video of his wheelchair he made. If you have not seen this before, its a wheelchair with 4 wheels. 2 of the wheels can move themselves above the other 2, to move the person in the chair to a normal eye level height. This is also used to get the chair to climb stairs.
Anyway, when it is in this configuration, the wheelchair is balancing on 2 wheels, and they are side by side.
In the video I saw, they had someone sitting in this wheelchair, on 2 wheels, and someone threw a medicine ball at them. The ball probably weighs 25lbs or so, and the wheelchair compensated for the weight change and kept the person upright.
From what I understand, there are about 4 or 5 gyroscopes inside the wheelchair. Each one, from what I read, is controlled by a pentium processor. Each one can talk to the other gyroscopes, and they will "vote" on the signals it gets, and by doing that, it can throw out 'bad' signals that might be picked up.
All in all, its a pretty amazing device within itself, from what they said about IT, it sounds like the same setup. So when they say that it is pretty hard to fall over in it, believe it =)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please, there are new gameshows every year (think, who wants to be a millionare, weakest link, the mole, survivor, temptation island, fear factor, and im sure im missing some) and people love the stuff. Im not saying they will like watching counterstrike, but the tv viewing population can adjust pretty quickly =).
I think you are much closer on your second point, I could see this on something like tech tv before I would see it on espn. Tech tv already has an audience that probably has a computer, and a larger portion of them will have known something about the latest fad in 3d gaming. The only people I know that watch espn are the middle aged male members of the family, im sure if they could get it directly piped in their heads they would. I doubt they would really be too interested in watching a game of counterstrike.
I think he might have been talking about a cease and desist order.
Anyone happen to get a mirror of this?
Its easier to tell a user how to do something by the command line because they really can't mess anything up. The problem with that is, instead of clicking thru menu's that most people are somewhat used to, they are typing arcane commands at a very basic looking screen, they aren't going to remember what they are doing.
You are correct when you say that it is hard to tell someone how to do something in the GUI. Over the phone, ive tried to explain to some people (usually a 70 year old guy who just bought his first pc) where a button is, and it takes me 10 minutes, explaining it in every concievable way until it finally clicks with them. I could send them to a command prompt and get it overwith in a minute or so.
Do you remember reading about some 'lines' they had found around that area, which looked like it could have been man made. It was like part of the sea floor, and some pretty straight lines that went off for a while, could have been roads or something..
I wonder if this is in the same area?
In the tropics, corals grow at shallow depths, Willison explained. "They receive food directly from the photosynthesizers, often making it possible for them to survive without filtering food from the nutrient-poor tropical waters in which they (live)."
Unlike reefs that thrive in warm waters, deep-sea corals grow without sunlight at cold temperatures and use filters to collect most of their food.
Generally found along the continental shelf at depths of 650 feet or more, deep-sea corals may be disappearing faster than their tropical cousins, according to scientists.
This was taken from:
CNN
This above does not say that coral grows at 2000ft, but it does say it will grow at about 700ft, which is much deeper then what you say at 100ft. It does also say that coral has another way of getting food, not by photosynthesis. Now, with that said, can you tell me that at no place on earth, coral grows at 2000ft?
Zeno
Ya, I really don't know either, but that is usually how you would tell how old something is when its been under the water for a while.
They probably used coral growth to find out how old it was. Coral grows at a steady rate every year, so they can figure out how thick the coral is, they can approximate the amount of time it has been growing there.
Anyone else thinking this might be Atlantis? =P
Zeno
It just went straight forward. Imagine a board about 1ft square, with 4 wheels, and what probably looked like some sort of rocket or something that looked like it was shooting it forward. In the center of the board were some wires that angled up and they were hooked to the center body part of the car (probably a batter and whatnot).
If anything they could just have the cops partner do all the manuvering, that would work pretty good I would imagine.
It was a show on the discovery channel, about new technologies the police force is looking at. They didn't mention how the little car knows when its under the target or not, or many more details, just kinda showed it a few times and went on..
Zeno
I saw a device like this that some police people were testing.
It would be mounted underneath the cop car, and it was like a tray with a smaller rc-type car on it. The car wasn't any taller then a few inches, probably a foot or so square.
When the cops got into a car chase with some suspect, they could just get right behind them, hit a button, the tray would drop, and the car would propel itself forward to the car the cop was chasing. Once under the car it would send a big electric shock thru the car killing the engine. This seemed like it was only meant for high speed chases and such, pretty crazy though..
Zeno
Usually they will encrypt the data as normal, they took the extra step of physically taking out the hard drive and hiding it someplace. I guess the memo didn't get around, because his superiors couldn't find the data later. How is that for hiding data? =)
If you want to use their methods, here is a description of what happened =)
Los Alamos National Labratory Classified Information techniques
Zeno
Patent number: 6,233,389
Multimedia time warping system
And they were granted this on May 15th of 2001.
I am not a lawyer though so what do I know..
Zeno
Multimedia time warping system
Patent number: 6,233,389
Filed: July 30th, 1998
Granted: May 15, 2001
Next we have the replaytv patent:
Video data recorder with integrated channel guides
Patent number: 6,324,338
Filed: August 7, 1998
Granted: November 27, 2001
The only difference between the 2 is that the tivo patent isn't as broad as the replay tv patent. What is also interesting is that the tivo patent was filed 8 days before the replaytv patent. They also got the patent awarded to them about 5 months before replaytv. I have read thru both patents, I am not a lawyer, but they are describing pretty much the same device.
Saying that, and what I found on the web about prior art
What Can Be Used As Prior Art For Invalidating A Patent?
In essence, any publication, in any language, located anywhere in the world is valid prior art for invalidating a U.S. Patent. One copy of a thesis, written in the Chinese language and stored on a dusty shelf of the Beijing University Library will invalidate any and all U.S. patents that were filed one year after that thesis was published and that claims as an invention ANY of the subject matter that was disclosed in that thesis.
A publication can be, among other things: a thesis, a PHD dissertation, a journal article, a text book, a newspaper article, a patent, a home work assignment, a white paper, written materials handed out during a presentation, a product, or a product brochure.
A publication is NOT: your recollection of what someone once said, someone's recollection of what they themselves once said, a trade secret, or a confidential company memo. The upshot is that prior art must be publicly available, and it must be printed (or a physical object).
So, I doubt replaytv could use this patent for much more then ego boosting. If they even tried to touch tivo, tivo could invalidate their patent fairly easily with their own patent as prior art.
Zeno
Yea, thanks for the response again, im gonna have to wait till after work to read it though.
I just wanted to clarify something. The first person in the scenario does not believe that there is any gods out there, that there is no being that is higher up then us that we cannot see but he is there. So, the first person doesn't believe in god/gods in any sense.
I'll read the rest when I get home, im glad that you are giving me these long responses, its interesting stuff and its not turning into any sort of flame war or anything, so thanks again.
I'll reply back tonight with any other questions i might have =)
Zeno
I really dont think that is what they are shooting for, as you can do that kind of stuff already. This is about minimizing all the cables that musicians use *there are a ton* and also having better communication between devices.
Example would be what they said in the article, plug in your guitar to your amp, and your amp will remember what guitar it is and what settings you like for it.
Pretty slick I think.
Well I think I can see what you are saying. It still doesn't change my mind when it comes to how people will use this. Im not really too sure how to state this, but I dont have much 'faith' that this will be used only for good purposes. I hope it will, and I can see a lot of good things coming from it, but im sure we can all imagine what can happen if things go wrong.
Thank you for the reply back. I can see what you are saying now and im glad you explained it. As I said I really don't consider myself very knowledgable about religions and the beliefs that people have.
As I understand you, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. You lack a belief that 85% of the world shares. I am sure that you are correct in your reply, dont get me wrong, but I am a bit confused.
You take 2 people, person number one believes that there is no god. The second person lacks the belief in god. What is the difference between these 2 people. In my opinion, the first person is arrogant, as I feel it is impossible to know for a fact that god does not exist. Does the second person not know for sure if there is a god, but wont believe there is one unless he/she is shown some sort of solid proof that there is one?
If that is a case, then I could probably 'label' myself as an atheist. I find it strange that someone could think, without a doubt, that there is a higher being that had created us in some way. I would not classify that as false information, but I would also not classify it as true.
Thanks for the reply once again, I am sorry if my first reply was a bit short or trollish, I wasn't in a very good mood earlier, bill day =(.
Zeno
You could always buy a firewire hub and hook them up that way..
Well I really don't have much of an idea. The guy sells them, and people use them, so I would assume they are safe.
From what I have seen and heard from the inventor, he seems like he has the mind to do these things.
My guess would be that gyroscopes probably don't mess up that often, and the voting thing is merely an error checking routine to make sure that one of the gyros didn't physically fail. I don't know much about gyroscopes, but they seem to be fairly accurate in figuring out movement. They use gyroscopes in the MS Sidewinder Freestyle Pro gamepad, it seems to be fairly accurate. The gamepad is one that can be tilted left right, up down, and so on, to do movement. The gamepad sucks itself, but its a cheap hands on way of looking at gyroscopes in action..
If you can find the video where they show him catching the medicine ball sitting on one of those chairs, its pretty amazing to see. I seem to remember that they say the system is better with balance then a human is. If you want to find out, im sure you could just go to google.com, and search on fred wheelchair dean kamen etc and find out if this happens or not.. Im fairly sure it doens't.
Zeno
So, I believe ethics goes hand and hand with the belief in some higher authority, even if you define it as ethics.
I am glad that you said this is your belief, and it is not fact. I do not believe in a specific god, as I am agnostic. But I do have a 'set of principals of right conduct'. I have these because I feel that it is the correct thing to do, not because I feel I will be struck down by god if I dont.
So, I feel the original poster was right. I can see ethical objections to this that have nothing to do with religion. In fact, all the objections I have are not religion involved.
Anyway.. I just hope this turns out for the best..
Zeno
iBot
And for the cautious ones:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/99/11/22/ 991122opmetcalfe.xml
Sorry the page is in xml format, not sure if your browser will do it, worked fine in the evil IE6. It describes what I said in my first post about the medicine ball and such. Sorry no video link as far as I know =(.
Zeno
What happens if company x creates a new hybrid human/animal with no vocal cords, and with a lower intelligence level, enought to make it so he really can't talk.
Who is to decide if this person wants a life of his own?
I can understand what your saying, but I can see some company making the above mentioned hybrids, and using them for slave labor lets say. The local authorities come and investigate, and the company states that these things are not human. They are like animals, which do not have the same rights. What is to be done?
Maybe I read too many fiction books, but I feel that there a lot of evil corporations out there that might want to try something like this. It may not be slave labor, but I can see people taking advantage of it.
What happens if I create a hybrid human that cannot talk, cannot think at a high intelligence level, and cannot feel pain. According to you, this would not be a person who would be able to tell me in any way that he feels that he is an individual, or that he wants life. Could I then put all these hybrids to work and not pay them?
The whole idea of genetics and manipulating DNA is going to be a touch subject. Your idea I agree with, but I can see little loopholes and such in the laws, and someone will try it. In fact, im just about certain it is going to happen. Why hire a large group of 1000 labor workers when you can create your own in a test tube, and you don't have to pay them, what could be better for a large corporation and keeping the spending level down, and profit levels up..
Don't forget dairy products!
Zeno
From what I know, and I am not a religion expert or anything, is that someone who is an atheist does not believe that there is a god. Someone who is agnostic believes that there might, or might not be, they cannot be certain.
I see a distiction there. I don't follow a belief that states there is no god, nor do I beleive that there is a god.
Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Both of these definitions came from dictionary.com. One of them states that it is impossible to know if there is or is not a god. The other states that there is no god.
What seems to be the confusion?
I too have no idea whether or not there is any sort of god
Then you are agnostic.
Hence, not having knowledge of it, i cannot claim to believe, and am therefore an atheist.
An athiest BELIEVES that there is NO god. If you are saying you do not have knowledge of the proof of god, you are not stating that there is not one. You are stating that you are unsure. That is being agnostic.
To restate my opinion:
I feel it is impossible to get solid proof of the existance of a god. Until that day comes, I cannot be 100% certain that there is a god, or is not a god. If i was an atheist, I would believe that there is no god completely. There would not be a shred in my mind that there is a god.
According to you I am wrong, please educate me..
Zeno
They are for balance.
They also can 'talk' to each other, and they vote on all the signals that come into the gyros, and they throw out any signals that they dont agree on. Its pretty interesting..
I saw a video of his wheelchair he made. If you have not seen this before, its a wheelchair with 4 wheels. 2 of the wheels can move themselves above the other 2, to move the person in the chair to a normal eye level height. This is also used to get the chair to climb stairs.
Anyway, when it is in this configuration, the wheelchair is balancing on 2 wheels, and they are side by side.
In the video I saw, they had someone sitting in this wheelchair, on 2 wheels, and someone threw a medicine ball at them. The ball probably weighs 25lbs or so, and the wheelchair compensated for the weight change and kept the person upright.
From what I understand, there are about 4 or 5 gyroscopes inside the wheelchair. Each one, from what I read, is controlled by a pentium processor. Each one can talk to the other gyroscopes, and they will "vote" on the signals it gets, and by doing that, it can throw out 'bad' signals that might be picked up.
All in all, its a pretty amazing device within itself, from what they said about IT, it sounds like the same setup. So when they say that it is pretty hard to fall over in it, believe it =)
Zeno