It's there. Go to the site and navigate to the demonstration polar bear page. In the "biodiversity heritage library" page, a scan of an old book is included, which says,
"We killed several with our musquets, and the seamen ate of their flesh, though exceeding coarse."
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet. Nobody should work on anything else until I can ssh from Linux, Windows, IRIX, and Solaris to each of the other systems and have the backspace and delete keys always work right.
The actual patent is #6,460,020. I would summarize it by saying that it covers writing a program to do all of the stuff you need to do to sell products internationally, including currency conversion, tariff and shipping calculations, etc. Sounds pretty obvious to me. Enjoy...
Ugh, this is a terrible idea!! Why do window managers always try to make it as hard as possible to use multiple windows at the same time? I find it very useful to be able to read from a PDF file and type into a maximized web browser sitting below, for example.
Not quite: a superball interacts autonomously and quite physically with its environment. You also need to require that it has a specific goal, like helping people into and out of bed.
Of course it's just a word, but I think something needs to satisfy three requirements before being called a "robot":
1) it must be man-made (that's your mechanical criterion) 2) it must react to its environment (maybe that's what you mean by being automotive - it has to actually think of its own reactions) 3) it must actively try to do something (this rules out, for example, superballs)
#2 is, in my mind, the thing that distinguishes dishwashers and most other machines from being robots. Even if you don't put any dishes in the dishwasher, it will go ahead and do its normal wash cycle, because it doesn't have any feedback. Now, if you could just put your dishes in a pile, and the dishwasher would line them up nicely in racks and run a washing cycle automatically - then you could call it a dishwashing robot.
This "robot" also seems to fail #2, for a lack of any sensors or motors to do useful things like loading and unloading your clothes automatically.
Yeah, in fact, I get the feeling that this research is purely destructive. As far as I can tell, the only function of a quantum computer is to crack public-key encryption. As soon as the machines come on line, we'll have to say goodbye to https, ssh, pgp, etc. Why, then, are people so excited about advances in the field? Researchers who love quantum mechanics would do better to work on quantum encryption or on inventing more useful algorithms for quantum computers.
Yep, that's it. I can't change the access code, and I reveal it in the message! But I'm not too worried about them catching on because they use auto-dialers that probably don't even give them the ability to "press 5", and they know I'll be mad and more interested in suing than in buying their product if they do bypass it.
I'm in the LA area, so most telemarketers calling me only speak Spanish and won't understand the message. Also, the line gets lots of calls from previous owners of the number - I left the machine off over the holidays and got six messages for them, from prospective employers, their doctors, etc... All of these people will gladly hang up after hearing my message.
I'll give you my number if you want to hear how it works...but if you'd enjoy coding your own, go for it! It would certainly be fun.
That's a totally reasonable question. I feel quite Libertarian, so I naturally want the issue to be decided privately. If consumers can't solve it through boycotts, the telephone companies could set up do-not-call lists and put large fines for telemarketing into their service contracts. Competition with cell phones is one thing that could encourage companies to develop attractive features like that. But it's not happening now, and the telemarketers keep calling.
More realistically, it does feel like a violation of my rights when people keep using my own phone to wake me up at 8AM and offer me credit cards. I feel that somehow I should have the right to keep people away from me. So I might support more laws against telemarketing. But I don't trust the government to make a law that actually works - see the exceptions for non-profits, political campaigns - even companies not selling directly over the phone are free to call you under this law!
Luckily, I found that there are technological solutions. Junkbusters recommends a variety of devices that can significantly reduce telemarketing calls in various ways. A month ago, I paid $60 for a Screen Machine, which answers the phone first with a voice message telling telemarketers to go away. Not a single junk call has gotten past it yet. I'm not sure why these devices haven't caught on, given how annoyed everyone is by the telemarketers. Anyway, the market has finally solved my telemarketing problem, so I'm happy.
As far as I can tell, the article just talks about special relativity, vaguely mentioning light cones... The word "gravity" is said a few times, but aren't given any hint about how it relates to her theory.
In the GNU manifesto there is a short section on paying programmers with a software tax. What would you think about the government or large organizations buying the licenses to popular commerical software and re-releasing them under the GPL?
This would save us from having to rewrite what has already been written and allow us to put our effort into improving software that already has a large number of users. It seems like the fairest way to break a monopoly, since the copyright holders do not need to be forced into giving up their products.
We can apply this strategy to other copyrighted work. For example, while writing replacements for commercial software is feasible, there is no way replace copyrighted music. For art to become truly free, it needs to be purchased and re-released.
Every January, we run a similar contest here at MIT - teams of three are given legos and electronics, and have the month to build a robot. It's all really fun, but (as a result) incredibly time-consuming. There are plenty of pictures and the course notes avaliable on the web for your enjoyment.
800 people cheering your robot on when it does something violent, intelligent, and completely unplanned makes the work worth it...
Slashdot Mirror
UPS and FedEx can't, because it's illegal.
It's there. Go to the site and navigate to the demonstration polar bear page. In the "biodiversity heritage library" page, a scan of an old book is included, which says,
"We killed several with our musquets, and the seamen ate of their flesh, though exceeding coarse."
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet. Nobody should work on anything else until I can ssh from Linux, Windows, IRIX, and Solaris to each of the other systems and have the backspace and delete keys always work right.
The actual patent is #6,460,020. I would summarize it by saying that it covers writing a program to do all of the stuff you need to do to sell products internationally, including currency conversion, tariff and shipping calculations, etc. Sounds pretty obvious to me. Enjoy...
You doubt that people would do this, and as an example you name some people who did??
Ugh, this is a terrible idea!! Why do window managers always try to make it as hard as possible to use multiple windows at the same time? I find it very useful to be able to read from a PDF file and type into a maximized web browser sitting below, for example.
We're annoying everyone just so we can preserve a bad choice for a help key? Move it to F1 or something and we can finally fix backspace.
Not quite: a superball interacts autonomously and quite physically with its environment. You also need to require that it has a specific goal, like helping people into and out of bed.
Of course it's just a word, but I think something needs to satisfy three requirements before being called a "robot":
1) it must be man-made (that's your mechanical criterion)
2) it must react to its environment (maybe that's what you mean by being automotive - it has to actually think of its own reactions)
3) it must actively try to do something (this rules out, for example, superballs)
#2 is, in my mind, the thing that distinguishes dishwashers and most other machines from being robots. Even if you don't put any dishes in the dishwasher, it will go ahead and do its normal wash cycle, because it doesn't have any feedback. Now, if you could just put your dishes in a pile, and the dishwasher would line them up nicely in racks and run a washing cycle automatically - then you could call it a dishwashing robot.
This "robot" also seems to fail #2, for a lack of any sensors or motors to do useful things like loading and unloading your clothes automatically.
He's sold the chain already, so you aren't giving him money. Your link says it, but also see this one.
Yeah, in fact, I get the feeling that this research is purely destructive. As far as I can tell, the only function of a quantum computer is to crack public-key encryption. As soon as the machines come on line, we'll have to say goodbye to https, ssh, pgp, etc. Why, then, are people so excited about advances in the field? Researchers who love quantum mechanics would do better to work on quantum encryption or on inventing more useful algorithms for quantum computers.
Yep, that's it. I can't change the access code, and I reveal it in the message! But I'm not too worried about them catching on because they use auto-dialers that probably don't even give them the ability to "press 5", and they know I'll be mad and more interested in suing than in buying their product if they do bypass it.
I'm in the LA area, so most telemarketers calling me only speak Spanish and won't understand the message. Also, the line gets lots of calls from previous owners of the number - I left the machine off over the holidays and got six messages for them, from prospective employers, their doctors, etc... All of these people will gladly hang up after hearing my message.
I'll give you my number if you want to hear how it works...but if you'd enjoy coding your own, go for it! It would certainly be fun.
That's a totally reasonable question. I feel quite Libertarian, so I naturally want the issue to be decided privately. If consumers can't solve it through boycotts, the telephone companies could set up do-not-call lists and put large fines for telemarketing into their service contracts. Competition with cell phones is one thing that could encourage companies to develop attractive features like that. But it's not happening now, and the telemarketers keep calling.
More realistically, it does feel like a violation of my rights when people keep using my own phone to wake me up at 8AM and offer me credit cards. I feel that somehow I should have the right to keep people away from me. So I might support more laws against telemarketing. But I don't trust the government to make a law that actually works - see the exceptions for non-profits, political campaigns - even companies not selling directly over the phone are free to call you under this law!
Luckily, I found that there are technological solutions. Junkbusters recommends a variety of devices that can significantly reduce telemarketing calls in various ways. A month ago, I paid $60 for a Screen Machine, which answers the phone first with a voice message telling telemarketers to go away. Not a single junk call has gotten past it yet. I'm not sure why these devices haven't caught on, given how annoyed everyone is by the telemarketers. Anyway, the market has finally solved my telemarketing problem, so I'm happy.
Gravity is relativity.
As far as I can tell, the article just talks about special relativity, vaguely mentioning light cones... The word "gravity" is said a few times, but aren't given any hint about how it relates to her theory.
Yes, and it's disappointing that the article doesn't mention what her theory has to do with gravity, but just talks about the relativity bits.
This would save us from having to rewrite what has already been written and allow us to put our effort into improving software that already has a large number of users. It seems like the fairest way to break a monopoly, since the copyright holders do not need to be forced into giving up their products.
We can apply this strategy to other copyrighted work. For example, while writing replacements for commercial software is feasible, there is no way replace copyrighted music. For art to become truly free, it needs to be purchased and re-released.
800 people cheering your robot on when it does something violent, intelligent, and completely unplanned makes the work worth it...