I hadn't read that in years. I just returned from living in the UK for a year. It's funnier now that I know what a zebra crossing is. Thanks for the laugh.
Why blur? Haven't we learned yet that the goal is no information, not less information? O.K., this is probably not one of those cases where someone will go to the trouble of trying to deconvolute the image. But really, just drop a white circle over the face and be done with it. Blurring gains nothing and leaves trace information.
The 3D communication (holodeck) aspect mentioned is therefore an attempt to have an AI "living" in a human like space, to enable it to develop a similar world view.
Huh? Why do you need the holodeck for the computer? The computer does math. It only does math. It doesn't do anything but math. And, Or, Not. The holodeck will process math to give real people (with eyes) a nifty way to look at the math. Just give the math that you were going to show people in the holodeck to the computer, and skip the display. Your computer doesn't need the monitor, does it?
Under the DMCA, the copyright holder need only plead a prima facie case of copyright infringement. In re: Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244, 263 (D.D.C. 2003). A certificate of registration of a copyright constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and facts stated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. Section 410(c). Melaleuca has registered the Sheppard Letter with the Copyright Office. See Supplemental Filing Re: Copyright Registration Certificate for Sheppard Letter, Ex. 1 (Docket No. 18-2). This is prima facie evidence that the Sheppard Letter is copyrighted and satisfies the first prong of demonstrating a prima facie case of copyright infringement. 43SB has valid arguments and enforcing this subpoena pre-litigation may have far-reaching consequences, therefore some preliminary examination of the potential claim is necessary. However, the Court will not go into an in-depth analysis of the merits of a copyright infringement claim in determining whether to quash this subpoena. It is sufficient in this instance that Melaleuca has registered the Sheppard Letter with the Copyright Office.
All the court said is that the prima facie evidence exists to let the subpoena stand for the simple reason that the slimy law firm registered the copyright of the letter. However, the court acknowledges that the defendant has "valid arguments" on their claim that the letter cannot be copyrighted. The court simply says that the analysis of those claims is beyond the scope of determining to quash the subpoena, and the prima facie case is sufficient to let the subpoena stand. As I see it, the defendant will now have to go to court and challenge the copyright directly instead of the validity of the subpoena.
Of course, this is/., and I am not a lawyer.
Mr. Kasten says that people like to obey the law when it comes to copyright because it is more economically efficient. He also says that the Secretary is not a contributing member of society, which she rather resents.
Pharmaceuticals, food, computers, fabricated metals,...
Manufactured goods accounted for nearly $1T in 2006 . More than double services. I agree that US manufacturing is in bad shape, but it's not non-existent.
You shouldn't be using the "display equation" in Excel, since it doesn't have any notion of significant figures, and can give you crap results if the intercept and the slope differ by orders of magnitude. You should be using the slope() and intercept() functions for linear fits (which also exist in Calc) so that you have the numbers in cells. You can format the cells to display the proper number of sig-figs, and have the numbers available in a cell for further calculations.
If you need to fit more than a line, then you should know how to transform the data into a linear problem. If you need something more sophisticated than the ordinary least-squares fit to the transformed problem, then you probably should be using a tool other than a spreadsheet.
Displaying the equation on the graph will only work if you have few sig-figs and all parameters of the fit are of equal orders of magnitude. And even then, you won't be able to DO anything with the numbers other than display them.
FTFA: But Bono said strong protections for digital content are needed. "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."
Umm... They are, at www.uspto.gov. There is no "patent protection" keeping people from the information. If Steve wants to enforce his patents, he can file a civil suit, but the information in the patents themselves is available to all.
Here is the closest I could find to an explination . This is the abstract of the paper that they preseted at SID in '04. Nick Lawrence is the CEO of Light Blue Optics and they are based in Cambridge, so I figure N. Lawrence (one of the authors) from the Photonics and Sensors Group at Cambridge University is one and the same.
Now if you can figure out what "Binary-Phase Holography" is, your golden.
Yes, the copper coin would have more potential energy, but jump distance is going to be determined solely by the initial velocity of the jump, not the energy of the object. If we assume that friction is negligible and the pennies are sliding not rolling (just for starters), then the initial velocity as the penny leaves the ramp will be the same for both materials. Do the math, it's the infamous mass-doesn't-affect-final-velocity-in-a-constant-p otential-field thing. From an energy balance perspective:
T = mgh, K = mvv/2 => mgh=mvv/2 => gh=vv/2, mass drops out.
Now, becuase the pennies are rolling, not sliding, we have to also consider the rotational moment (I), so if anything, the copper penny might be going slower at the bottom of the ramp since it has more of it's potential energy tied up in it's rotation. However, I suspect that the difference would be negligible.
This MIGHT work as a quick sorting machine. Set up a bowl that drops the pennies out the bottom to roll onto a ramp. The ramp has a "ski jump" at the end. Right before the ski jump, put a nice sized magnet. The eddy currents in the copper coin will be greater than the currents in the zinc coin, slowing it down more prior to the jump. The zinc coin should jump farther than the copper coin. If the difference is enough (with statistical spread), you could set up two baskets to catch the sorted coins. If it works, it would be a very rapid way to sort the coins with kit you probably have lying around.
What if you want to really make that ERP system shine? You know, take it to 11. A degree in CS will help you understand stuff like
this . Just a random ERP paper I pulled from CiteSeer that looked like it had a fair amount of CS related math. In grand Slashdot form, I didn't read it.
Yeah, I realize the difference. What I was trying to imply (unfortunately quite poorly) was that there may be a real need where the security/performance of the software is critical that there be "professional programmers" or "professional architects" in the same sense as P.E.s where you do put your job on the line certifying the performance of the code. Would it be more expensive code? You bet. Would a customer be willing to pony up the change? In some cases I think so.
Yes, engineers should be responsible for negligent loss of life (if not financially, then professionally). A prime example is the Hyatt balcony collapse.
The most glaring mistake in this entire chain of events was that the structural engineer did not review the final design. As can be seen from the evidence, the real failure that caused the collapse of the Hyatt Regency walkways was actually a failure of communication in the design phase of the project. As a result of the disaster, the two engineers from G. C. E. International lost their professional engineering licenses in the state of Missouri. These engineers were Jack D. Gillum, the engineer of record, and Daniel M. Duncan, the project engineer.
Patenting physical devices (ever computer hardware) is fine by me, but patenting algorythms is comparable to patenting and restricting ways of thinking.
A (sort-of) hypothetical. I come up with a new process for manufacturing goods. This new process is unique, non-obvious, and useful. The embodiment of the process is a machine that executes the process. The rules for the machine - the control logic etc. - are implemented by a large electronics cabinet holding a bunch of opamps and relays all hard wired together.
Is this patentable?
Now, for the sake of power consuption, flexibility, etc. I replace my huge electronics cabinet with a computer and some I/O cards. It's the same invention, just a slightly different embodiment (and very slightly at that). Is the process still patentable?
I think this is the problem with arguing that all software patents are not O.K., while all hardware patents are O.K. The line is too blurry for me, since the point of a method patent is that the method is protected, regardless of the embodiment of the method. I don't patent the machine, I patent the method of executing my new manufacturing process (something that is vaugely tangeble, but I think worthy of patent protection). The implementation of this process would have been done with the "magnetics cabinet" 50 years ago, but today it's done with PLC's (simple industrial computers) running software to emulate the magnetics cabinet. Does that change mean that the process is no longer patentable? The SCOTUS of course said that the computer embodiment is patentable , and I agree with the decision. I think the USPTO f'd it up by allowing what are fundamentally "obvious" software patents, and software patents that are not implementations of patentable processes, but I don't think that all software should be exempt from patent protection.
OK. I did look it up. It's here. Only applies if the dish is less than 1m in diameter. So a digital satellite dish would qualify, but one of those 2m+ ones (like I used to see in the 80's) could still be restricted. Then again, does anybody still get the giant ones? Maybe to pick up foreign television transmissions?
The question is, would you have flipped out if the neighbor had invited your daughter over to play cops-and-robbers? Maybe you would have, which would at least point to consistency in your parenting (kudos, hard to do). Maybe you wouldn't have, in which case, why not?
I don't let my son play (or watch me play) violent video games. But at the same time, he loves play acting violent fantasy games (hunting monsters and dragons, fighting bad guys, etc.). Personally, I think my bias is the blood and gore. I don't think its a rational bias against games, more just my own comfort level at raising my kid. I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. I just keep trying.
What I certainly don't want is the government's help. My fear is they would screw my kid up far worse than a violent video game. Real people are far more influential role models to my son than fantasy characters, and I'd hate my son to come out a disingenuous spin doctor.
I agree with the bulk of the comments, that there is little to no market for HD video conferencing, but if you want to give it a go check out this camera.
It's not terribly expensive (about $1000). The output is firewire. The resolution is 1024x768, so you may have to do some croping or scaling if you want it to match TV formats.
Other industrial cameras may be just as good. You will just have to do some coding to turn the data from the camera into something usefull.
The thing is, I'm so bad at AA that it's an incredible disincentive for me to join the army. "Join the army. See the world. Be dead in under two minutes". I suppose I'm not the target audience though.
Slashdot Mirror
Or... It's all about the (implied?) parenthesis. (t*9.81) m/s, where the parent is showing the units of the result not the units of the constant.
I hadn't read that in years. I just returned from living in the UK for a year. It's funnier now that I know what a zebra crossing is. Thanks for the laugh.
Why blur? Haven't we learned yet that the goal is no information, not less information? O.K., this is probably not one of those cases where someone will go to the trouble of trying to deconvolute the image. But really, just drop a white circle over the face and be done with it. Blurring gains nothing and leaves trace information.
Huh? Why do you need the holodeck for the computer? The computer does math. It only does math. It doesn't do anything but math. And, Or, Not. The holodeck will process math to give real people (with eyes) a nifty way to look at the math. Just give the math that you were going to show people in the holodeck to the computer, and skip the display. Your computer doesn't need the monitor, does it?
Pharmaceuticals, food, computers, fabricated metals, ...
Manufactured goods accounted for nearly $1T in 2006 . More than double services. I agree that US manufacturing is in bad shape, but it's not non-existent.
You shouldn't be using the "display equation" in Excel, since it doesn't have any notion of significant figures, and can give you crap results if the intercept and the slope differ by orders of magnitude. You should be using the slope() and intercept() functions for linear fits (which also exist in Calc) so that you have the numbers in cells. You can format the cells to display the proper number of sig-figs, and have the numbers available in a cell for further calculations.
If you need to fit more than a line, then you should know how to transform the data into a linear problem. If you need something more sophisticated than the ordinary least-squares fit to the transformed problem, then you probably should be using a tool other than a spreadsheet.
Displaying the equation on the graph will only work if you have few sig-figs and all parameters of the fit are of equal orders of magnitude. And even then, you won't be able to DO anything with the numbers other than display them.
FTFA: But Bono said strong protections for digital content are needed. "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."
Umm... They are, at www.uspto.gov. There is no "patent protection" keeping people from the information. If Steve wants to enforce his patents, he can file a civil suit, but the information in the patents themselves is available to all.
That's the wrong bill. The main bill is HR5252 . What you have linked to is a proposed amendment that is being voted on. Google is "pro" amendment.
Found the patent! This should give all the gory details.
Now if you can figure out what "Binary-Phase Holography" is, your golden.
Yes, the copper coin would have more potential energy, but jump distance is going to be determined solely by the initial velocity of the jump, not the energy of the object. If we assume that friction is negligible and the pennies are sliding not rolling (just for starters), then the initial velocity as the penny leaves the ramp will be the same for both materials. Do the math, it's the infamous mass-doesn't-affect-final-velocity-in-a-constant-p otential-field thing. From an energy balance perspective:
T = mgh, K = mvv/2 => mgh=mvv/2 => gh=vv/2, mass drops out.
Now, becuase the pennies are rolling, not sliding, we have to also consider the rotational moment (I), so if anything, the copper penny might be going slower at the bottom of the ramp since it has more of it's potential energy tied up in it's rotation. However, I suspect that the difference would be negligible.
This MIGHT work as a quick sorting machine. Set up a bowl that drops the pennies out the bottom to roll onto a ramp. The ramp has a "ski jump" at the end. Right before the ski jump, put a nice sized magnet. The eddy currents in the copper coin will be greater than the currents in the zinc coin, slowing it down more prior to the jump. The zinc coin should jump farther than the copper coin. If the difference is enough (with statistical spread), you could set up two baskets to catch the sorted coins. If it works, it would be a very rapid way to sort the coins with kit you probably have lying around.
What if you want to really make that ERP system shine? You know, take it to 11. A degree in CS will help you understand stuff like this . Just a random ERP paper I pulled from CiteSeer that looked like it had a fair amount of CS related math. In grand Slashdot form, I didn't read it.
Yeah, I realize the difference. What I was trying to imply (unfortunately quite poorly) was that there may be a real need where the security/performance of the software is critical that there be "professional programmers" or "professional architects" in the same sense as P.E.s where you do put your job on the line certifying the performance of the code. Would it be more expensive code? You bet. Would a customer be willing to pony up the change? In some cases I think so.
A (sort-of) hypothetical. I come up with a new process for manufacturing goods. This new process is unique, non-obvious, and useful. The embodiment of the process is a machine that executes the process. The rules for the machine - the control logic etc. - are implemented by a large electronics cabinet holding a bunch of opamps and relays all hard wired together.
Is this patentable?
Now, for the sake of power consuption, flexibility, etc. I replace my huge electronics cabinet with a computer and some I/O cards. It's the same invention, just a slightly different embodiment (and very slightly at that). Is the process still patentable?
I think this is the problem with arguing that all software patents are not O.K., while all hardware patents are O.K. The line is too blurry for me, since the point of a method patent is that the method is protected, regardless of the embodiment of the method. I don't patent the machine, I patent the method of executing my new manufacturing process (something that is vaugely tangeble, but I think worthy of patent protection). The implementation of this process would have been done with the "magnetics cabinet" 50 years ago, but today it's done with PLC's (simple industrial computers) running software to emulate the magnetics cabinet. Does that change mean that the process is no longer patentable? The SCOTUS of course said that the computer embodiment is patentable , and I agree with the decision. I think the USPTO f'd it up by allowing what are fundamentally "obvious" software patents, and software patents that are not implementations of patentable processes, but I don't think that all software should be exempt from patent protection.
OK. I did look it up. It's here. Only applies if the dish is less than 1m in diameter. So a digital satellite dish would qualify, but one of those 2m+ ones (like I used to see in the 80's) could still be restricted. Then again, does anybody still get the giant ones? Maybe to pick up foreign television transmissions?
A manager I worked with had this up in his office:
Q: What happens if I train my employees and they leave?
A: What if you don't and they stay?
Maitre D': You're Linus Torvalds? Ferris: That's right, I'm Linus Torvalds. Maitre D': The Sauce King of Chicago? Ferris: [caught off-guard] ... Uh yeah, that's me.
I don't let my son play (or watch me play) violent video games. But at the same time, he loves play acting violent fantasy games (hunting monsters and dragons, fighting bad guys, etc.). Personally, I think my bias is the blood and gore. I don't think its a rational bias against games, more just my own comfort level at raising my kid. I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. I just keep trying.
What I certainly don't want is the government's help. My fear is they would screw my kid up far worse than a violent video game. Real people are far more influential role models to my son than fantasy characters, and I'd hate my son to come out a disingenuous spin doctor.
Will the work on milling path optimization be published? Is ther a website overview on it? Very interested.
I agree with the bulk of the comments, that there is little to no market for HD video conferencing, but if you want to give it a go check out this camera. It's not terribly expensive (about $1000). The output is firewire. The resolution is 1024x768, so you may have to do some croping or scaling if you want it to match TV formats. Other industrial cameras may be just as good. You will just have to do some coding to turn the data from the camera into something usefull.