I watched the video, and this stuff looks great. Very promising for a lot of people. One thing that struck me as odd, though, is how they're using the nerves that were originally used to move the arm to... well... move the arm. Given past advances, does that seem a bit behind the times? Or am I just being overly optimistic?
I'm rather fond of Sugar Free Bawls. It has a lightly sweet taste from sucralose and guarana, with a nice low calorie count. I'm not one for "diet" drinks, but this is how I take my Bawls.
Which reminds me: I was up late last night; I'd better grab a pair for work.
When asked if Halo 3 is coming out this year, the answer was: "It depends. If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes. For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed." If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.
IAA(CS)T, and the library at our high school is constantly sending students to me to resolve "old version" Word problems, along with a variety of other compatibility issues with files that students finished at home and absolutely HAVE to present by third period. All of the machines running linux in the building are in my office, and I just pop the file into OpenOffice and all is well.
Now if I could just convince the district to switch. TFA should help.
It's a shame we can't mod editors up. This one actually held off however long it took to gather a good chunk of the useful articles out there and post them to/. all at once. Kudos!
Disclosure: the editor is on my friends list, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's doing Something Right.
Wouldn't it be neat if there was a book about this? It could have stuff about planets, species and races, droids, even the Force! And it could be published in 1999!
While not as reputable as the original, the movie scores over the original on two key points. First, it is slightly cheaper, and second, it has the words, "Don't Panic," inscribed in large, friendly letters on the cover.
[...] it saddens me that Disney is making this movie. I fear that they might try to "clean" up the movie.
The movie will contain much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inacurate, but it will score over the earlier work on two important points. First, it will be slightly cheaper, and second, it has the words, "Don't Panic," written in large, friendly letters on the trailer.
I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies that have been made so far. I'm looking forward to the Hobbit eventually.
I'm just worried that I'll be disappointed when Jackson edits it so that Bard shoots first.
I agree, this push to get women into technology does the women who want to be there a dis-service. When people who were coaxed into a major that they didnt really want to be in, I think they tend to shine less when they enter the work force.
Ah, but it's not just that. There are a number of girls who, at an early age, are discouraged from technical interests because they are told (by culture as well as by other girls) that they have to be "feminine" or "attractive" and that being a geek is neither. I'm a high school CS teacher, and I see it all the time.
The problem is this: if a girl wants to be interested in technology and programming, she will be out of the mainstream, according to the culture of the United States; she is forced to be one of those marginalized folk that we all either know or are here. This is what needs to be fixed. Girls (and women, but I'm more involved in catching them at an earlier age) need to know that it's socially safe to be into this computer stuff.
The parent was written by Rich Lowry, an op/ed writer for the National Review magazine. The original article, published 22 Sep 03. Lowry appears several times on Spinsanity.
To be fair, I should mention that the National Review is not on my list of trusted news sources. But then, so are a lot of sources. Meh.
This isn't exactly a repost, but we have discussed this before. The only article I could find in the/. archive was
this one. There was another one that lead me to
this very nice paper on the Uncanny Valley, which is the area of resemblance to human features that is not quite realistic enough and not abstract enough for people to feel comfortable with; it resembles more closely a corpse than a living being.
The article quotes a British Ministry of Defence official as saying:
"We use a secret angle on our Type 23 frigates which enables our ships to reduce their radar signature to an absolute minimum."
Secret angle? Geez. And we US citizens thought the DMCA was bad. I'll have to tell the Math Department that they need to be careful about what they're teaching in Geometry.
Any idea how the machine that blows the "puff" of air actually determines the pressure inside of the eye?
Yup. It measures the amount of time it takes for the air puff to reflect off of the eye's surface and hit a sensor. The less pressure in your eye, the more give your eyeball has, and the longer it takes for the air puff to reach the sensor.
It's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough to not have to use the ones that actually touch your eyeball.
Also I'm not sure the machines work on determining astigmatism.
Actually, they do astigmatism, too. My McJob out of school was as an optometric tech, the person who uses the autorefractometer (that's the machine in question) and blows puffs of air into your eyes.
The machine does judge prescriptions okay, not great, but okay. It doesn't take a lot of training to get a reading, but as with everything else, the better you are at it, the better the results. The patient puts his or her chin in a little cup and the tech lines up the machine with the patent's eyes, one at a time. The tech gets a close up pic of the eye, lines up a reticle with the pupil, and presses a button. In the meantime, the patient is shown a picture of a distant object with homogenous surroundings (ours was a house in the middle of a soy field) which comes in and out of focus. You take a number of readings (we did three for each eye), and then it gives you the results.
Meetings are always going to be inefficient because language is hard.
As clearly demonstrated by the writing in this article.
This Rands person has some very good points. Still (and feel free to mod me down for saying so), it's hard to take advice on organizational makeup from someone who gets "here" and "hear" mixed up. (That being said, I think I'll carefully check my grammar and spelling before I post this...)
Actually, as a US citizen, isn't he not allowed to take a title from the British sovereignty? IANAL, but here's an excerpt from Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Does Bill count as having an office of profit or trust?
I'm not terribly worried about this, even if it does happen. Sure, there are people watching, but if you want 100% coverage, you need people to watch the watchers, and watchers watching the watcher watchers, and so on and so forth until the entire GNP is spent on watching people.
So assuming the nation/government/culture doesn't get REALLY silly, there will always be "safe" spots, likely more so than not. So don't panic too much.
True. I know this stuff, and you know this stuff, but this article will help out a lot of non-geeks out there. Personally, I find it particularly useful, because as a high-school CS teacher, it makes geekery a lot more accessible to my proto-incipient hackers, software engineers, and network techs, making my job all the easier.
So I say, "Up with articles by experts that explain the basics of secutiry, the internet, and all!"
Slashdot Mirror
Also potentially a new meaning to the phrase, "Beer Goggles."
if a * b = c
then a / c = b, and b / c = a
Strike that ... reverse it.
At least, I think that's what you meant. Unless you're actually describing this cool new idea for "dividity" that you have ...
I watched the video, and this stuff looks great. Very promising for a lot of people. One thing that struck me as odd, though, is how they're using the nerves that were originally used to move the arm to ... well ... move the arm. Given past advances, does that seem a bit behind the times? Or am I just being overly optimistic?
Which reminds me: I was up late last night; I'd better grab a pair for work.
It means no.
Gimme my cookie.
One more thing to help put the TARD in TARDEC. *sigh*
Now if I could just convince the district to switch. TFA should help.
Disclosure: the editor is on my friends list, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's doing Something Right.
Wouldn't it be neat if there was a book about this? It could have stuff about planets, species and races, droids, even the Force! And it could be published in 1999!
While not as reputable as the original, the movie scores over the original on two key points. First, it is slightly cheaper, and second, it has the words, "Don't Panic," inscribed in large, friendly letters on the cover.
[...] it saddens me that Disney is making this movie. I fear that they might try to "clean" up the movie.
The movie will contain much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inacurate, but it will score over the earlier work on two important points. First, it will be slightly cheaper, and second, it has the words, "Don't Panic," written in large, friendly letters on the trailer.
I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies that have been made so far. I'm looking forward to the Hobbit eventually.
I'm just worried that I'll be disappointed when Jackson edits it so that Bard shoots first.
Ah, but it's not just that. There are a number of girls who, at an early age, are discouraged from technical interests because they are told (by culture as well as by other girls) that they have to be "feminine" or "attractive" and that being a geek is neither. I'm a high school CS teacher, and I see it all the time.
The problem is this: if a girl wants to be interested in technology and programming, she will be out of the mainstream, according to the culture of the United States; she is forced to be one of those marginalized folk that we all either know or are here. This is what needs to be fixed. Girls (and women, but I'm more involved in catching them at an earlier age) need to know that it's socially safe to be into this computer stuff.
The parent was written by Rich Lowry, an op/ed writer for the National Review magazine. The original article, published 22 Sep 03. Lowry appears several times on Spinsanity.
To be fair, I should mention that the National Review is not on my list of trusted news sources. But then, so are a lot of sources. Meh.
The article quotes a British Ministry of Defence official as saying: "We use a secret angle on our Type 23 frigates which enables our ships to reduce their radar signature to an absolute minimum."
Secret angle? Geez. And we US citizens thought the DMCA was bad. I'll have to tell the Math Department that they need to be careful about what they're teaching in Geometry.
What's Russian for "fool of a Took!"?
"Two dollars!!!"
Yup. It measures the amount of time it takes for the air puff to reflect off of the eye's surface and hit a sensor. The less pressure in your eye, the more give your eyeball has, and the longer it takes for the air puff to reach the sensor.
It's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough to not have to use the ones that actually touch your eyeball.
Actually, they do astigmatism, too. My McJob out of school was as an optometric tech, the person who uses the autorefractometer (that's the machine in question) and blows puffs of air into your eyes.
The machine does judge prescriptions okay, not great, but okay. It doesn't take a lot of training to get a reading, but as with everything else, the better you are at it, the better the results. The patient puts his or her chin in a little cup and the tech lines up the machine with the patent's eyes, one at a time. The tech gets a close up pic of the eye, lines up a reticle with the pupil, and presses a button. In the meantime, the patient is shown a picture of a distant object with homogenous surroundings (ours was a house in the middle of a soy field) which comes in and out of focus. You take a number of readings (we did three for each eye), and then it gives you the results.
Meetings are always going to be inefficient because language is hard.
As clearly demonstrated by the writing in this article.
This Rands person has some very good points. Still (and feel free to mod me down for saying so), it's hard to take advice on organizational makeup from someone who gets "here" and "hear" mixed up. (That being said, I think I'll carefully check my grammar and spelling before I post this...)
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Does Bill count as having an office of profit or trust?
So assuming the nation/government/culture doesn't get REALLY silly, there will always be "safe" spots, likely more so than not. So don't panic too much.
So I say, "Up with articles by experts that explain the basics of secutiry, the internet, and all!"