...stunning visuals... don't... always make such a big difference [as] variety and challenge... and how involved it makes the gameplayer.
Nolan Bushnell (Atari Pong) used to talk of a successful game as being "hot", in a way that I think today might imagine the player as a collection of myriad stimulus/response ports, e.g., sight, sound, touch, worry, planning, speed, balance, ego. (I could - and apparently did - go on.)
Isn't retro-reflective redundant? Doesn't reflection pretty much imply sending light back in the direction it came?
No, 'reflection' means sending it onward after reversing the path-component that's orthogonal to the surface.
'Retro-reflective', I guess, means like Scotch-Lite (or whatever it's called now), where the surface comprises tiny beads each containing the inside of a reflective cube-corner, which has the property of returning a beam (close and) parallel to its entry path... like a billiard ball that just misses the corner pocket.
Can't imagine that this invisibility cloak passes more than a squint test, though.
The system is currently being used to monitor traffic slowdowns.
And if you want an abundance of those slowdowns to monitor, just also use the device's ubiquitous radar/camera feature to rigorously enforce posted highway speed-limits during peak travel. (...at least on those highways where traffic still currently flows.)
I would assume that once a patients has AIDS this therapy will have no affect.
But the article says that treatment inhibits HIV's ability to kill immune cells.
IANADr, but to me that seems to be a treatment for existing AIDS. (...Unless HIV and the the AIDS virus are two different microbes, which would be news to me.)
As much as the next person, I'd like to rail against any such infringement of my civil liberties. Here's what stands in my way:
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
Don't forget about his proposal of the "Turing test", which ascribes intelligence to a machine if can successfuly masquerade as human via typewritten conversation.
More than a practical test, it continues to illustrate the inherent limits on such tests and concepts.
(Swimming upstream to find a contrary perspective on this...)
Consider the Pentagon folks who looked at this "threat" and suspected sagely (and rightly) that it was too fanciful to be credible.
How closely do they resemble the Pentagon folks who, in early 2000, looked at jet-hijacking scenarios and suspected sagely (and wrongly) that they were too fanciful to be credible?
While waiting for the Megway web site to materialize, I realized the undoubted imminence of these further Segway competitors:
The one with a breathalyzer: Kegway
The overpriced one: Begway
The one that always craps out: Legway
The official one: Regway
The souped-up red one: Nutmegway
no applications need apply
on
GPS for GBA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't imagine very many useful applications for this...
For years, I've driven with a triple-A card and a statewide mapbook on hand. I've seldom actually used either, but having them affords me a certain (justified or not) peace of mind in plunging into new automotive adventures.
GPS/maps increase that same sort of assurance, and this gizmo seems to significantly commoditize the technology. I suspect that lack of a specific application won't matter.
One of [Sun or Kodak] has decided that litigation is a viable survival strategy.
...or both.
Each has a name much larger than its likely litigation-defense resources. If the patents are as broad as claimed, a good first step towards exploiting them might be a death-match with a highly visible opponent.
...with the continued proviso that you can't patent anything that's "obvious to one skilled in the art", which is supposed to obviate the most common scare-examples.
But, remember that main role of patents isn't "just deserts" for the inventor. Rather, they're society's incentive lure to galvanize its potential inventors. And in software, where the cost of experimentation and development is relatively low, the incentive needn't be as large as for other fields. Accordingly, cutting software patents from 20 years to say, 8, ought to be a huge win.
"Perfect skin", in this context, is equivalent to the Turing test for AI. I.e., can it fool a human who's inspecting under specified conditions? (The imperfect face pictured in the article demonstrates this nicely. Unfortunately, I didn't see disclosure of whether it was real or Memorex.)
BTW, literally "perfect" skin would mostly resemble Campbell's Cream of Bean soup.
...DVD...Special Edition... Directors Edition... How many times do the Studios want us buying the same movie/show?
Perhaps a clue lies in the overall availability chronology: your local multiplex... video stores... pay-per-view... premium channels... basic cable... network...
Seems the idea is to "auction" a property downward through as many audience-interest levels as can be differentiated.
(Personally, there are very few movies I'd watch again when the time could be spent watching nearly any other new one. Different strokes.)
If the intent is to measure a grasp of computer fundamentals, why not use a toy language comprising the programming primitives common to all three? (Such a toy language would would be simple enough to be defined on the spot...including only, say, assignments, conditionals, loops, and maybe a simple I/O.)
But, if the intent is instead to measure proficiency in a particular language, then why not offer all three?
Slashdot Mirror
Nolan Bushnell (Atari Pong) used to talk of a successful game as being "hot", in a way that I think today might imagine the player as a collection of myriad stimulus/response ports, e.g., sight, sound, touch, worry, planning, speed, balance, ego. (I could - and apparently did - go on.)
"Hot" is activating as many of those as possible.
Seem to recall either a Stephen King character or Wile E. Coyote who stood too close to a similar robot...
No, 'reflection' means sending it onward after reversing the path-component that's orthogonal to the surface.
'Retro-reflective', I guess, means like Scotch-Lite (or whatever it's called now), where the surface comprises tiny beads each containing the inside of a reflective cube-corner, which has the property of returning a beam (close and) parallel to its entry path... like a billiard ball that just misses the corner pocket.
Can't imagine that this invisibility cloak passes more than a squint test, though.
And if you want an abundance of those slowdowns to monitor, just also use the device's ubiquitous radar/camera feature to rigorously enforce posted highway speed-limits during peak travel. (...at least on those highways where traffic still currently flows.)
Not that he necessarily needs religious salvation, but... is there a trace of Zen in that quote?
But the article says that treatment inhibits HIV's ability to kill immune cells.
IANADr, but to me that seems to be a treatment for existing AIDS. (...Unless HIV and the the AIDS virus are two different microbes, which would be news to me.)
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
So, the ship doesn't go down with the captain.
Run a keyboard demon that "accompanies" your every click with randomly chosen acoustics.
More than a practical test, it continues to illustrate the inherent limits on such tests and concepts.
Consider the Pentagon folks who looked at this "threat" and suspected sagely (and rightly) that it was too fanciful to be credible.
How closely do they resemble the Pentagon folks who, in early 2000, looked at jet-hijacking scenarios and suspected sagely (and wrongly) that they were too fanciful to be credible?
(See answer in back of book.)
The one with a breathalyzer: Kegway
The overpriced one: Begway
The one that always craps out: Legway
The official one: Regway
The souped-up red one: Nutmegway
For years, I've driven with a triple-A card and a statewide mapbook on hand. I've seldom actually used either, but having them affords me a certain (justified or not) peace of mind in plunging into new automotive adventures.
GPS/maps increase that same sort of assurance, and this gizmo seems to significantly commoditize the technology. I suspect that lack of a specific application won't matter.
Don't know whether it's new, of course... but I did figure only sociopathic punsters like me would notice it.
Each has a name much larger than its likely litigation-defense resources. If the patents are as broad as claimed, a good first step towards exploiting them might be a death-match with a highly visible opponent.
How long till plainclothes cops walk the malls carrying detectors that sense the self-incriminating probe of the would-be pickpacket?
They're no worse than patents in general...
But, remember that main role of patents isn't "just deserts" for the inventor. Rather, they're society's incentive lure to galvanize its potential inventors. And in software, where the cost of experimentation and development is relatively low, the incentive needn't be as large as for other fields. Accordingly, cutting software patents from 20 years to say, 8, ought to be a huge win.
This sort of underground culture is such a good thing that, if the repressive laws causing it didn't already exist, we should enact them.
Profit is what's left of the selling-price after expenses. Since work (in a retailing context) is an expense, profit always comes for "free".
But it is indeed aggravating that I and every other man, woman, and child in America are forced to patronize these rapacious, money-gouging SOBs.
Wait... we're not?
BTW, literally "perfect" skin would mostly resemble Campbell's Cream of Bean soup.
Exercise:
1) Pick any generic beneficial public activity.
2) Identify the set of motives for performing it that are reasonably "beyond question".
3) Estimate the number of people embodying only those motives who have ever walked the earth.
4) Divide it into the number of people needed to accomplish the activity.
5) Stand back.
Perhaps a clue lies in the overall availability chronology: your local multiplex... video stores... pay-per-view... premium channels... basic cable... network...
Seems the idea is to "auction" a property downward through as many audience-interest levels as can be differentiated.
(Personally, there are very few movies I'd watch again when the time could be spent watching nearly any other new one. Different strokes.)
If the intent is to measure a grasp of computer fundamentals, why not use a toy language comprising the programming primitives common to all three? (Such a toy language would would be simple enough to be defined on the spot ...including only, say, assignments, conditionals, loops, and maybe a simple I/O.)
But, if the intent is instead to measure proficiency in a particular language, then why not offer all three?
If you're traveling into the wilderness (or anyplace similarly interesting), you'd do well to be on speaking terms with both.