I liked my Palm Pilot for a long time - it was more legible than my handwriting, easier to carry, and I could take notes as fast and as easy as I could by hand. (And the notes could be easily archived for reference once I was done with the course.)
Now that it's died and I can't replace it, I've gone back to paper. Laptop is too bulky and puts a wall between you and the teacher (it makes a difference), and the current tables/phones take too much concentration to take notes on - I find myself missing what's going on because I'm thinking to hard about how to make a note.
This surprises me as well: I work at a government facility, and it's locked down to the point where I can't get a fair number of sites that actually relate to my job, never mind something work-inappropriate.
Exactly. I'd argue that algebra is probably the minimum required mathematics to be able to handle much of the world today: It's where symbolic math and basic formula skills (not even solving, but just evaluating!) are taught. Without that, you are going to have trouble with any Excel worksheet, any tax form, and numerous other things on a day-to-day basis.
If someone wants to go into a non-math heavy field and thinks they won't need more than that, ok, I can see the argument - most of what follows is only actually needed in specific fields - but you've got to be able to handle that much.
I understand that, but in reordering them you keep the 'unable to harm a human of their own volition', and you can always charge the person who ordered the crime with the crime. (After all, they are responsible.)
The converse is that in the original order the robot can disregard your orders if they think they will cause harm - even if they are not aware of all the information, or if you have already taken that into account. A major thread in Asimov's stories was balancing different harms - and that mostly goes away if you just say 'follow orders'.
Asimov actually deals with that in one of his stories: They need to design a small and cheap robot to (re)introduce the public to the idea of robots, but the three laws make them too complex. They realize a disposable (not worth enough for the third law), single-purpose (not adaptable enough for the second law), and small (not dangerous enough for the first law) could be built without the protections, and still work.
Personally, while I like the discussion idea of the three laws, I tend to think the order is wrong: The first law needs to be the second. (And, in this context, the owner's orders and safety need to be more important than anyone else's.)
'Prior art and obvious' do not appear to be reasons to not file for a patent, from what I've seen. In fact, they might be reasons to apply: If people have done it, and it's obvious, surely someone will get a patent on it soon, and you don't want to have to pay patent licensing fees. (Or worse.)
It's not just the TVs. Or any one section of product. It's the customer service. The local Best Buy has eliminated checkout lanes. To actually buy something you need to get in line behind the people returning items (in a poorly laid-out fashion, which extends into the store), and wait while the person in front of you explains that, no, really, the dog didn't chew on his new game, it was just damaged in the packaging. And then wait as they go through some ten-step process to actually process the return.
I'm not sure what they actually want you to do at this point. They've reduced their selection so it's not worth looking at items, they've made it hard to actually give them money for things, and they've made getting service for something you've bought slow, for bad service. So, um, what's supposed to be the business model here? Step three being question marks doesn't work all that well in the real world...
Leakey's included: This is not out of character for him. I lived in his native Kenya for a while, and he's often saying similar things, about the superiority of science over religion. He's a good scientist, but he's a kook on anything else, and doesn't know when to shut up.
I've been buying ebooks for over a decade: Before Amazon, many ebooks were cheap, the main exceptions being the ebooks of the big-name authors or stuff on best seller lists. Amazon brought those down, but didn't touch the prices for most of the books. After the agency model, the prices of the big-name authors & best sellers went up, but not quite as high as it had been. Oh, and it became easier to find books, and e-readers finally found a common, open, non-proprietary, format that is widely used and supported. (DRM is still a problem, and after getting burnt a few times early on I refuse to buy anything with DRM, but that's starting to be easier...)
This though is my experiences. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. I'm sure someone has hard data gathered in a rigorous manner on the subject.
If they know it, it's not something 'only you would know' (or it's a password, effectively). Family or coworker snapshots can be defeated with a bit of time on Facebook. Etc. The article above seems to think switching to a physical token is a solution - effectively switching from a combination lock to a keyed one. Which works in a controlled, corporate environment.
But the problem is fairly complex: You need to come up with a simple, secure, easily implemented, quick way to distinguish a human from a machine, and one human from another. Oh, and it needs to be accessible: your visual idea only works if the person you are trying to verify isn't blind. (Even temporarily.) Security in general has been a problem for as far back as at least the Romans, if not further; there's a lot of value in breaking the other side's security, and a lot of value in not having them break yours. (Heck, I've seen tribal huts using the traditional design that had locks on their doors, though they don't look like what you'd think of as locks.)
The competitive bidding process was followed exactly: Someone in government drew up the specs, and then had several companies bid on it, and they picked the cheapest bid.
Of course, the specs themselves were horrible, but that's not a problem with the bidding process... (At least, not in theory.)
Obviously not, or else he would know that this kind of thing is not copyrightable. Judges like this are a detriment to society.
And you are sure of this based on your vast knowledge and experience of the law, without hearing any arguments from either side.
He's not, based on his vast experience. And the right thing to do is to hear out both side's legal arguments, and to look up precedent on his own. Meanwhile, he leaves the jury to judge the facts (instead of the law) of the case.
Which is precisely how our system is designed: The judge rules on the law of the case, and the jury rules on the facts of the case. Together, they come to a ruling. If we didn't want someone experienced in the law to be a part of that ruling, we wouldn't have judges.
This. The judge basically said 'The question of whether copyright law can apply at all in this situation is a legal one, and needs to be handled by someone who has studied the law. That's me. Your job is to decide if the law was violated. So, assume the law exists, while I go research.' The judge can still come back and say the law doesn't apply at all, so it doesn't matter what the jury says, but in the meantime the jury doesn't have to be confused by arguments over whether the law applies.
Because the light will be of lower energy (and therefore of a different wavelength) than that which the solar cells absorbed.
Basically, instead of heating up, these cells emit the energy in a controlled manner, in semi-directed infrared (probably) radiation. No laws of thermodynamics are being bent: The waste product is just closer to the type of the input than in other solar cells.
You could similarly say that a water turbine is more efficient if it lets water flow out: It is. The water will just have less flow strength than it did when it went in. The difference is what the turbine is collecting as energy. In this case, instead of letting the light 'back up' in the solar cells (as heat), it's released.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked my Palm Pilot for a long time - it was more legible than my handwriting, easier to carry, and I could take notes as fast and as easy as I could by hand. (And the notes could be easily archived for reference once I was done with the course.)
Now that it's died and I can't replace it, I've gone back to paper. Laptop is too bulky and puts a wall between you and the teacher (it makes a difference), and the current tables/phones take too much concentration to take notes on - I find myself missing what's going on because I'm thinking to hard about how to make a note.
This surprises me as well: I work at a government facility, and it's locked down to the point where I can't get a fair number of sites that actually relate to my job, never mind something work-inappropriate.
Exactly. I'd argue that algebra is probably the minimum required mathematics to be able to handle much of the world today: It's where symbolic math and basic formula skills (not even solving, but just evaluating!) are taught. Without that, you are going to have trouble with any Excel worksheet, any tax form, and numerous other things on a day-to-day basis.
If someone wants to go into a non-math heavy field and thinks they won't need more than that, ok, I can see the argument - most of what follows is only actually needed in specific fields - but you've got to be able to handle that much.
I love OpenBSD, and run it on my firewall at home, but anyone who's followed De Raadt over the years has to be 100% expecting this.
Including the over-the-top language.
Or super(hotchick)heroes : batgirl, supergirl, irongirl, thorgirl, ...
Hulkgirl might not be in the works.
That'd be because Shehulk is already an established character.
I have one of those: The Kyocera Echo. Screen unfolds to double it's size.
People didn't trust the folding mechanism, so it didn't sell well. (I haven't had issues.)
Rent-seek?
That was just a short list. Others exist.
If you want people to come from C-style syntax, have you taken a look at Perl? ;)
I understand that, but in reordering them you keep the 'unable to harm a human of their own volition', and you can always charge the person who ordered the crime with the crime. (After all, they are responsible.)
The converse is that in the original order the robot can disregard your orders if they think they will cause harm - even if they are not aware of all the information, or if you have already taken that into account. A major thread in Asimov's stories was balancing different harms - and that mostly goes away if you just say 'follow orders'.
I believe the specific story you are thinking of is 'Liar!'.
Asimov actually deals with that in one of his stories: They need to design a small and cheap robot to (re)introduce the public to the idea of robots, but the three laws make them too complex. They realize a disposable (not worth enough for the third law), single-purpose (not adaptable enough for the second law), and small (not dangerous enough for the first law) could be built without the protections, and still work.
Personally, while I like the discussion idea of the three laws, I tend to think the order is wrong: The first law needs to be the second. (And, in this context, the owner's orders and safety need to be more important than anyone else's.)
Which story? (As that's a collection of short stories...)
'Prior art and obvious' do not appear to be reasons to not file for a patent, from what I've seen. In fact, they might be reasons to apply: If people have done it, and it's obvious, surely someone will get a patent on it soon, and you don't want to have to pay patent licensing fees. (Or worse.)
So use it in the native-language versions for those markets.
It's not just the TVs. Or any one section of product. It's the customer service. The local Best Buy has eliminated checkout lanes. To actually buy something you need to get in line behind the people returning items (in a poorly laid-out fashion, which extends into the store), and wait while the person in front of you explains that, no, really, the dog didn't chew on his new game, it was just damaged in the packaging. And then wait as they go through some ten-step process to actually process the return.
I'm not sure what they actually want you to do at this point. They've reduced their selection so it's not worth looking at items, they've made it hard to actually give them money for things, and they've made getting service for something you've bought slow, for bad service. So, um, what's supposed to be the business model here? Step three being question marks doesn't work all that well in the real world...
Leakey's included: This is not out of character for him. I lived in his native Kenya for a while, and he's often saying similar things, about the superiority of science over religion. He's a good scientist, but he's a kook on anything else, and doesn't know when to shut up.
I've been buying ebooks for over a decade: Before Amazon, many ebooks were cheap, the main exceptions being the ebooks of the big-name authors or stuff on best seller lists. Amazon brought those down, but didn't touch the prices for most of the books. After the agency model, the prices of the big-name authors & best sellers went up, but not quite as high as it had been. Oh, and it became easier to find books, and e-readers finally found a common, open, non-proprietary, format that is widely used and supported. (DRM is still a problem, and after getting burnt a few times early on I refuse to buy anything with DRM, but that's starting to be easier...)
This though is my experiences. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. I'm sure someone has hard data gathered in a rigorous manner on the subject.
If they know it, it's not something 'only you would know' (or it's a password, effectively). Family or coworker snapshots can be defeated with a bit of time on Facebook. Etc. The article above seems to think switching to a physical token is a solution - effectively switching from a combination lock to a keyed one. Which works in a controlled, corporate environment.
But the problem is fairly complex: You need to come up with a simple, secure, easily implemented, quick way to distinguish a human from a machine, and one human from another. Oh, and it needs to be accessible: your visual idea only works if the person you are trying to verify isn't blind. (Even temporarily.) Security in general has been a problem for as far back as at least the Romans, if not further; there's a lot of value in breaking the other side's security, and a lot of value in not having them break yours. (Heck, I've seen tribal huts using the traditional design that had locks on their doors, though they don't look like what you'd think of as locks.)
Right now China, India, and Europe are trying to get the USA to play along on this issue. Or at least come to the table.
The competitive bidding process was followed exactly: Someone in government drew up the specs, and then had several companies bid on it, and they picked the cheapest bid.
Of course, the specs themselves were horrible, but that's not a problem with the bidding process... (At least, not in theory.)
Obviously not, or else he would know that this kind of thing is not copyrightable. Judges like this are a detriment to society.
And you are sure of this based on your vast knowledge and experience of the law, without hearing any arguments from either side.
He's not, based on his vast experience. And the right thing to do is to hear out both side's legal arguments, and to look up precedent on his own. Meanwhile, he leaves the jury to judge the facts (instead of the law) of the case.
Which is precisely how our system is designed: The judge rules on the law of the case, and the jury rules on the facts of the case. Together, they come to a ruling. If we didn't want someone experienced in the law to be a part of that ruling, we wouldn't have judges.
Oh, for mod points.
This. The judge basically said 'The question of whether copyright law can apply at all in this situation is a legal one, and needs to be handled by someone who has studied the law. That's me. Your job is to decide if the law was violated. So, assume the law exists, while I go research.' The judge can still come back and say the law doesn't apply at all, so it doesn't matter what the jury says, but in the meantime the jury doesn't have to be confused by arguments over whether the law applies.
Because the light will be of lower energy (and therefore of a different wavelength) than that which the solar cells absorbed.
Basically, instead of heating up, these cells emit the energy in a controlled manner, in semi-directed infrared (probably) radiation. No laws of thermodynamics are being bent: The waste product is just closer to the type of the input than in other solar cells.
You could similarly say that a water turbine is more efficient if it lets water flow out: It is. The water will just have less flow strength than it did when it went in. The difference is what the turbine is collecting as energy. In this case, instead of letting the light 'back up' in the solar cells (as heat), it's released.
This is probably what Sophos (an anti-virus provider) is hoping.
The day when Hitchhiker's Guide is 'to nerdy' for /. will be a sign of the end times.
(At least the end times of this site.)