Why stick to imitating the eye and its limited peripheral vision? Am I the only one thinking of an eye helmet? I doubt you are, but all that more eyes will acomplish is to make it more difficult to see. The brain takes the seperate data from our two eyes and lays one image over the other. This gives us depth perception when both eyes are looking at the same thing but when they're not we have double vision. Try holding your hand 2" (or 5 cm if you prefer) directly in front of one eye and you'll see what I mean. Adding more eyes around the sides of the head, either through a helmet or implants, will make focusing more difficlut and add too much information.
I suppose what really troubles me about this idea is the fact that the parent proposes expanding one sense to do the job of another. Our ears are already omni-directional. Our ears tell us what's going on around us and that's how our brain deciedes where to look. I suppose the moral here is don't try to see more, just learn to listen better./soapbox
Article VI: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
Article IX: A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
Article VI gives physicians a way out by allowing them to bow out of any non-emergency case. THe AMA's codified policies have a bit more to say
Because society has an obligation to make access to an adequate level of health care available to all of its members regardless of ability to pay, physicians should contribute their expertise at a policy-making level to help achieve this goal. In determining whether particular procedures or treatments should be included in the adequate level of health care, the following ethical principles should be considered: (1) degree of benefit (the difference in outcome between treatment and no treatment), (2) likelihood of benefit, (3) duration of benefit, (4) cost, and (5) number of people who will benefit (referring to the fact that a treatment may benefit the patient and others who come into contact with the patient, as with a vaccination or antimicrobial drug). Ethical principles require that a just process be used to determine the adequate level of health care. To ensure justice, the process for determining the adequate level of health care should include the following considerations: (1) democratic decision making with broad public input at both the developmental and final approval stages, (2) monitoring for variations in care that cannot be explained on medical grounds with special attention to evidence of discriminatory impact on historically disadvantaged groups, and (3) adjustment of the adequate level over time to ensure continued and broad public acceptance. Because of the risk that inappropriate biases will influence the content of the basic benefits package, it may be desirable to avoid rigid or precise formulas to define the specific components of the basic benefits package. After applying the five ethical values listed above, it will be possible to designate some kinds of care as either clearly basic or clearly discretionary. However, for care that is not clearly basic or discretionary, seemingly objective formulas may result in choices that are inappropriately biased. For that care, therefore, it may be desirable to give equal consideration (eg, through a process of random selection) to the different kinds of care when deciding which will be included in the basic benefits package. The mechanism for providing an adequate level of health care should ensure that the health care benefits for the poor will not be eroded over time. (VII) Issued June 1994 based on the report "Ethical Issues in Health System Reform: The Provision of Adequate Health Care," adopted December 1993 (JAMA. 1994; 272: 1056-62).
In theory there is some mandate that a doctor must provide needed care regardless of cost, however the policy is not black and white so there are loopholes.
Somehow I just don't think that a board game is going to be able to capture either the immersive atmosphere of the game. The game was all about being alone, how can you play it with other people?
Besides, its hard to play a board game in the middle of the night with the lights off.
The author of this article seems to have missed the big picture in a couple of cases. There has been a technological revolution in the professional sound world over the last 5 years with digital equipment (Consoles, Effects processors, Playback systems, and Recording/Editing systems just to name a few) at its core. D/A and A/D converters aren't endangered; their population is growing.
Usually they fold each denomination of bill into a differant shape. For example: A $1 bill might be folded across the width, a $5 bill might be folded length wise, a $10 might have one corner folded down and a $20 might not be folded at all. I believe that part of an ATM's braille instructions tell the user what type of bills the machine gives out.
As much as I hate to say this, Daredevil shows how the blind handle money pretty well. Look for it in the scene where he is getting up and getting ready for work.
Quote "An extension of this could mean that any documents you create under a future version of MS Office could potentially be copyrighted by MS. Granted that would be a very stupid thing for MS to do, but this ruling seems to make it possible."
OK, I am not a Lawyer, but Judge Shaw ruled that the fact a user may waive his/her right to reverse engineer the software that he/she has purchased is not an unreasonable request for the software company to make. He was in fact very specific on this point.
""Substantive unconscionability focuses on the actual terms of the agreement." Pardee, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 295. It traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to "shock the conscience" or that impose harsh or oppressive terms. Id. The terms of the EULA and TOU in this case do not impose harsh or oppressive terms."
This is from Page 23 of the decision. Again I am not a Lawyer, but giving Microsoft the rights to everything I write on their software would certianly quallify as "harsh or oppressive terms" in my mind and in the minds of every lawyer and judge that I know.
There are terms of this decision that trouble me (regarding my ownership of the copy of the software that I paid hard earned money for) but agreements not to reverse enginner products and non-disclosure agreements are common and legally recognized. This decision is not a start down any slippery slope, lets not get paranoid about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you are, but all that more eyes will acomplish is to make it more difficult to see. The brain takes the seperate data from our two eyes and lays one image over the other. This gives us depth perception when both eyes are looking at the same thing but when they're not we have double vision. Try holding your hand 2" (or 5 cm if you prefer) directly in front of one eye and you'll see what I mean. Adding more eyes around the sides of the head, either through a helmet or implants, will make focusing more difficlut and add too much information.
I suppose what really troubles me about this idea is the fact that the parent proposes expanding one sense to do the job of another. Our ears are already omni-directional. Our ears tell us what's going on around us and that's how our brain deciedes where to look. I suppose the moral here is don't try to see more, just learn to listen better.
And Microsoft wants to be number one in search? They also want to be number one in Technology and they're still backing up to tape...
Article VI: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
Article IX: A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
Article VI gives physicians a way out by allowing them to bow out of any non-emergency case. THe AMA's codified policies have a bit more to say
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n= browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.095.HTM&&s_t=&st_p= &nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HnE/E-1.02.HTM&nxt_pol =policyfiles/HnE/E-2.01.HTM&
Because society has an obligation to make access to an adequate level of health care available to all of its members regardless of ability to pay, physicians should contribute their expertise at a policy-making level to help achieve this goal. In determining whether particular procedures or treatments should be included in the adequate level of health care, the following ethical principles should be considered: (1) degree of benefit (the difference in outcome between treatment and no treatment), (2) likelihood of benefit, (3) duration of benefit, (4) cost, and (5) number of people who will benefit (referring to the fact that a treatment may benefit the patient and others who come into contact with the patient, as with a vaccination or antimicrobial drug). Ethical principles require that a just process be used to determine the adequate level of health care. To ensure justice, the process for determining the adequate level of health care should include the following considerations: (1) democratic decision making with broad public input at both the developmental and final approval stages, (2) monitoring for variations in care that cannot be explained on medical grounds with special attention to evidence of discriminatory impact on historically disadvantaged groups, and (3) adjustment of the adequate level over time to ensure continued and broad public acceptance. Because of the risk that inappropriate biases will influence the content of the basic benefits package, it may be desirable to avoid rigid or precise formulas to define the specific components of the basic benefits package. After applying the five ethical values listed above, it will be possible to designate some kinds of care as either clearly basic or clearly discretionary. However, for care that is not clearly basic or discretionary, seemingly objective formulas may result in choices that are inappropriately biased. For that care, therefore, it may be desirable to give equal consideration (eg, through a process of random selection) to the different kinds of care when deciding which will be included in the basic benefits package. The mechanism for providing an adequate level of health care should ensure that the health care benefits for the poor will not be eroded over time. (VII) Issued June 1994 based on the report "Ethical Issues in Health System Reform: The Provision of Adequate Health Care," adopted December 1993 (JAMA. 1994; 272: 1056-62).
In theory there is some mandate that a doctor must provide needed care regardless of cost, however the policy is not black and white so there are loopholes.
I'm wondering how Apple can "develop" something that has not only existed for years but that several generations of their own software has supported.
I thought these were screenshots of Myst VII.
Somehow I just don't think that a board game is going to be able to capture either the immersive atmosphere of the game. The game was all about being alone, how can you play it with other people?
Besides, its hard to play a board game in the middle of the night with the lights off.
The author of this article seems to have missed the big picture in a couple of cases. There has been a technological revolution in the professional sound world over the last 5 years with digital equipment (Consoles, Effects processors, Playback systems, and Recording/Editing systems just to name a few) at its core. D/A and A/D converters aren't endangered; their population is growing.
Usually they fold each denomination of bill into a differant shape. For example: A $1 bill might be folded across the width, a $5 bill might be folded length wise, a $10 might have one corner folded down and a $20 might not be folded at all. I believe that part of an ATM's braille instructions tell the user what type of bills the machine gives out.
As much as I hate to say this, Daredevil shows how the blind handle money pretty well. Look for it in the scene where he is getting up and getting ready for work.
They won't bother. They're too busy laughing at us.
Quote "An extension of this could mean that any documents you create under a future version of MS Office could potentially be copyrighted by MS. Granted that would be a very stupid thing for MS to do, but this ruling seems to make it possible." OK, I am not a Lawyer, but Judge Shaw ruled that the fact a user may waive his/her right to reverse engineer the software that he/she has purchased is not an unreasonable request for the software company to make. He was in fact very specific on this point. ""Substantive unconscionability focuses on the actual terms of the agreement." Pardee, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 295. It traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to "shock the conscience" or that impose harsh or oppressive terms. Id. The terms of the EULA and TOU in this case do not impose harsh or oppressive terms." This is from Page 23 of the decision. Again I am not a Lawyer, but giving Microsoft the rights to everything I write on their software would certianly quallify as "harsh or oppressive terms" in my mind and in the minds of every lawyer and judge that I know. There are terms of this decision that trouble me (regarding my ownership of the copy of the software that I paid hard earned money for) but agreements not to reverse enginner products and non-disclosure agreements are common and legally recognized. This decision is not a start down any slippery slope, lets not get paranoid about it.