Physical objects have the "potential" to move with a certain speed. There is a theoretical limit to the magnitude of such a speed. The speed of a physical object, then, can not be arbitrarily large. I haven't read the paper, but summary implies that there is no known theoretical limit to this magnitude of this mass non-equivalence phenomenon. So, the term "arbitrary" most definitely has meaning here.
I must be misinterpreting your comment. Can you explain how crashing a probe into a celestial body has LESS contamination risk than just letting it drift off into the void?
You want green, join the voluntary human extinction movement. Not more power generation and transportation.
With the number of people who currently drive a car to work every day, and clearly have no plan to stop that any time soon, it is absurd to suggest that nobody should invest in improving the fuel efficiency of cars.
Traffic timings don't even need to rely on cameras, they frequently take input from the inductive sensors (even more ubiquitous than cameras) in all four streets on the intersection.
Your IPSC could have chosen their name better, seeing that it overlaps with...
Intel Personal Supercomputer
International Private Society Club
Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee
Interim Political and Security Committee
...
What happens when you bend an LCD? You seem to think it would do the same thing this device does. I don't know, because I've never tried it, but somehow I doubt that it would continue to display any image at all. Saying that this device does not demonstrate any improvement over an LCD at all is absurd.
Why not music/video players, phones, GPS, etc..? Every consumer electronic device could benefit from this. You could roll up a 10" screen lengthwise and fit it into a device the size of thick pencil. Big screen, pocket-sized device, that's the whole point, to me.
You're worried about sturdiness? For a simple, completely mechanical solution, just add some crossbars that swivel up from the short sides, and lock into place on the long side.
I think a much cooler solution would be some sort of material that can harden/soften when different voltages are applied, and that would be handled automatically.
... early this week to cap an uncontrolled underwater oil spill from a well in the Gulf of Mexico...
Those of us familiar with English grammar might expect definite articles, in a sentence describing a well-reported current event.
Or, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
You have a good point, but if the argument was ever "humans will never create life", then he is right to claim this as a victory. I think the "intelligence" in intelligent design is generally understood to refer to some higher power, not the human intelligence we know.
"Creating life" needs to be clearly defined before having this discussion. There are a lot of steps on this ladder between "understanding basic genetics" and "synthesis of arbitrary living cell from raw materials". Which step is the earliest that counts as "creating life" to you? Can you at least agree that synthesizing an arbitrary genome, then placing it inside a functioning cell, is notably closer to "creating life" than breeding dogs or pea plants is?
You didn't twist anything, you just extended further the same point that I made. Of course each of the involved parties deserves some credit. The point is that singling out ONE of them as the sole discoverer makes no sense, especially if you're saying the sole discoverer is the player, the one involved party who did not actually create anything. Giving recognition to the platform developers would probably be unduly difficult, since there are tens of thousands of them, including, say, Von Neumann and Turing.
You have to draw a line for recognition somewhere. If you want to include every CPU manufacturing tech and kernel hacker that's ever lived, go ahead. My selection criteria are a little tighter than that, but we're just at different points on the same spectrum. The other extreme is giving 100% credit to the player, and that is simply nonsensical.
Oh, and I think I'll credit myself for your post, since you couldn't have made it without mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a half-hour argument about your "fun little problem" once...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Physical objects have the "potential" to move with a certain speed. There is a theoretical limit to the magnitude of such a speed. The speed of a physical object, then, can not be arbitrarily large. I haven't read the paper, but summary implies that there is no known theoretical limit to this magnitude of this mass non-equivalence phenomenon. So, the term "arbitrary" most definitely has meaning here.
Amen, brotha
They are "taking actions to seriously discourage the project", which is certainly not "blocking" in an IT sense, but is arguably MORE significant.
tried to mod insightful, mouse slipped, posting to revert...
I must be misinterpreting your comment. Can you explain how crashing a probe into a celestial body has LESS contamination risk than just letting it drift off into the void?
You want green, join the voluntary human extinction movement. Not more power generation and transportation.
With the number of people who currently drive a car to work every day, and clearly have no plan to stop that any time soon, it is absurd to suggest that nobody should invest in improving the fuel efficiency of cars.
Traffic timings don't even need to rely on cameras, they frequently take input from the inductive sensors (even more ubiquitous than cameras) in all four streets on the intersection.
Your IPSC could have chosen their name better, seeing that it overlaps with...
Intel Personal Supercomputer
International Private Society Club
Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee
Interim Political and Security Committee
...
Would you kindly recommend an unused acronym?
Or a "please" checkbox on the bottom of the form...
What happens when you bend an LCD? You seem to think it would do the same thing this device does. I don't know, because I've never tried it, but somehow I doubt that it would continue to display any image at all. Saying that this device does not demonstrate any improvement over an LCD at all is absurd.
Why not music/video players, phones, GPS, etc..? Every consumer electronic device could benefit from this. You could roll up a 10" screen lengthwise and fit it into a device the size of thick pencil. Big screen, pocket-sized device, that's the whole point, to me.
You're worried about sturdiness? For a simple, completely mechanical solution, just add some crossbars that swivel up from the short sides, and lock into place on the long side.
I think a much cooler solution would be some sort of material that can harden/soften when different voltages are applied, and that would be handled automatically.
I don't know how the technology works, but the article implies that this can not be done with an LCD panel, even if you take the glass off.
Or to make devices with retracting/rollup screens, that's what I'm really looking forward to.
"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
I think it would submerge...
Why stop at windows? You should have a separate monitor for each application. That's the only way to prevent all content from ever being obfuscated.
A legitimate purpose like, say, significant development work on a well-known, large-scale open source project, such as Firefox?
All you had to read was the first sentence of the summary...
The locking prevents the user from navigating to another page. I don't think it has any effect on scripts that were initially loaded with the page.
The summary makes it sound like both the ink and the printer cost nothing to produce, but its the R&D that's the "loss leader".
... early this week to cap an uncontrolled underwater oil spill from a well in the Gulf of Mexico ...
Those of us familiar with English grammar might expect definite articles, in a sentence describing a well-reported current event. Or, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
You have a good point, but if the argument was ever "humans will never create life", then he is right to claim this as a victory. I think the "intelligence" in intelligent design is generally understood to refer to some higher power, not the human intelligence we know.
"Creating life" needs to be clearly defined before having this discussion. There are a lot of steps on this ladder between "understanding basic genetics" and "synthesis of arbitrary living cell from raw materials". Which step is the earliest that counts as "creating life" to you? Can you at least agree that synthesizing an arbitrary genome, then placing it inside a functioning cell, is notably closer to "creating life" than breeding dogs or pea plants is?
That doesn't really make any sense at all
You didn't twist anything, you just extended further the same point that I made. Of course each of the involved parties deserves some credit. The point is that singling out ONE of them as the sole discoverer makes no sense, especially if you're saying the sole discoverer is the player, the one involved party who did not actually create anything. Giving recognition to the platform developers would probably be unduly difficult, since there are tens of thousands of them, including, say, Von Neumann and Turing.
You have to draw a line for recognition somewhere. If you want to include every CPU manufacturing tech and kernel hacker that's ever lived, go ahead. My selection criteria are a little tighter than that, but we're just at different points on the same spectrum. The other extreme is giving 100% credit to the player, and that is simply nonsensical.
Oh, and I think I'll credit myself for your post, since you couldn't have made it without mine.