I think Google should draw the line between public/business addresses and residential (apartment buildings would be ok).
When you have such detailed images of a lonely residential street, it opens up the opportunity for crime. Imagine a motivated burglar who can case a neighborhood from the safety and anonymity of his own home. He can make a detailed plan of where the best place to access a home is. He can assess their wealth and potential goodies. Sure, the burglar could drive up the street in his car, but this would be much more risky because people could see him and be suspicious. Street view from Google makes burglary much easier.
I say, Google should photograph all public and commercial buildings: because that's what they want anyway - visibility. But, Google should shut off the camera when they go down residential streets. Apartment buildings would be ok since they are typically secure and are typically mixed in with the business parts of the city.
A scientific survey in 2002 attempted to find the funniest joke in the world. Thousands of people from dozens of countries voted on thousands of jokes. Each country had a different favorite. Overall, the number one and number two funniest jokes in the world, based on votes, are:
So, let me get this straight: I can wrap my phone around my wrist for easy transport, then the phone rings, I have to un-mold it from my wrist, figure out which end is up, then reshape it into a phone, then re-mold it back to my wrist?
Seems like the general shape phones are in and have been for most of the last century has worked pretty well. Why reinvent the wheel?
This will end up being a real problem. For one thing, what about multiple users of the same computer? Families, for instance might see ads for dad's naughty websites and junior's latest goth-band ads at the wrong time.
And how exactly do they plan to serve these ads? Are they going to use pop-ups, page frames, or something like that? Won't that interfere if these ISP ads are competing with Google? Google will put up a big fight for sure...and they'll win.
People will complain about this ad onslaught, and new ISPs will start popping up "get our ISP - now with NO ADS for only $9.95!" - thus defeating the point in the first place.
"Thompson defined 'time-sensitive assets' as 'something that if you don't hit right now it will be gone if you come back later.' He cited, as one example, a ballistic missile preparing to launch against the United States."
There are a few problems with this:
1. If we can indeed detect a missile preparing to launch, can we accurately project where it's being pointed at? I can see a situation where we hit a missile we thought was aimed at us, but wasn't. "oops!, my bad"
2. Most likely these hypersonic vehicles could and would ultimately target nuclear weapons. What if we launch a defensive attack on a missile silo (or multiple silos)? Would there be any danger of setting off the nuclear warheads in the enemy country? I know nuclear warheads don't explode by just being shot at, but there could still be radio-active fallout from the release of radio-active material into the environment. And if so, would the US be accused of reckless use of our weapons against civilians that may be affected by such a fallout?
3. If we did hit a "regular" missile and/or a nuclear missile as a defensive attack, couldn't this be easily turned against us politically? Couldn't the enemy country simply cry foul saying they weren't really going to attack and that the bully US strikes again?
4. Perhaps a better strategy is to develop satellites with defensive capabilities of their own. Some kind of emergency propulsion system that would move them out of harms way really fast.
5. Perhaps the best solution is to talk with China and make some agreement not to develop these weapons in the first place. China is the last country we need to be fighting right now.
While these hypersonic vehicles are cool, they could become very reckless since they have such a small window of opportunity and could have terrible political or human costs if we have an itchy trigger finger.
Microsoft's only options are to either open up widely to Open Source, or to crush Google with its proprietary products - which will never happen. This only leaves Microsoft one option: encourage/use Open Source or die. They're simply too far in the hole and their products are rapidly becoming obsolete from the POV of the average-Joe user.
Absorbing Yahoo is going to be a mammoth task simply because of internal cultural differences, but trying to fight the tide of Open Source is a losing battle for Microsoft.
1. Japan is very far ahead of us as far as cell-phone technology is concerned. They've had fully-functional video phones for at least a year or two, for example (as in, you can communicate via real-time video).
2. Japanese retail is much more about service than most US retail. We just want to get in and get the product, but the Japanese are all about greeting you at the door, pleasant smiles, and all of that.
Therefore, a sommelier isn't all that strange in the context of Japanese retail. It's strange to Americans, but to the Japanese, it must make sense, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
While this suit is totally cool, I think bigger, mass-production robots like this rice-planting robot are far more practical. The robot suit is indeed a technological breakthrough, but I think robots that can help more than one person at a time are far more valuable. Or, check out these weed-killers.
This article elaborates on how it would work with shoes/clothing:
"Rather than absorbing water and dirt, moisture will instead bead off the surface of the specially-designed shoes."
And then another advantage (for insurance companies at least) is the insurance angle:
"For electronic devices, protection from water is also important. Water damage is one of the top reasons for insurance claims on mobiles, with more than 1.2 million being dropped in lavatories, drinks or put through washing machines last year."
Perhaps this could also be an eventual replacement to protect servers and other vital machinery without the cost and danger of Halon and similar gases.
We often take for granted when we see these cool renditions of distant space that these images are only possible when based on the leaps and bounds made with various telescopes over the last 50+ years:
"Only now by combining the images of radio telescopes, the optical and ultraviolet eyes of Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory, can researchers put together the entire violent story about this intergalactic mugging.
Along with the more scientific theories given in the article as to why the young chimps do it faster than the human adults is: chimps don't know it's supposed to be hard. To the chimps, it may be just a game with no pressure. For the adults, the pride of humanity is at stake.
It's like some savant kids: no one has ever told them they can't play piano like Mozart, so they just do it.
I think it's ridiculous that the Jersey gov is forcing their dating sites to do a mandatory background screening.
1. The Article states that it's not even a true background check (it's a name check only -- so, it's essentially worthless anyway)
2. Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
If anything, the state should only require the dating sites to offer a full background screening service for a reasonable price. That way, the user can check out their dates, plus the dating site isn't forced to do a background check on everyone, plus the site can still make a profit which is what the site is there for in the first place.
I'm glad they're finding ways around having to use embryonic stem cells, but just for those who are still against embryonic stem cells (if it turns out that we still need to use them), we're not destroying a human, we're destoying a pitre dish of cells. See this great visual demo: http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/stemcells_scnt.html I just wanted to clarify for those who still think the embryo we're talking about is a little baby: it's not -- it's literally a mass of cells -- that's all.
A science debate is a good idea, but it would never happen. Most of the candidates would say something like, "it would be like a debate on religion, or a litmus test for presidency." They would reject the debate on those grounds alone.
While I admire Chapman's request, it's impractical. Imagine a candidate being asked a biology question that an 8th grader would know, but not understanding some of the basic terminology. They would look foolish in front of millions of Americans. Could you or I remember all of our 8th grade biology? I think not. Therefore, no politician would agree to such a debate: it would only hurt them, not help them.
Plus, most Americans simply aren't concerned with science. National security and the economy are the pressing matters of the day.
I think non-lethal weapons are great. How many times have we seen deadly force used to kill a suspect when all that was really needed was a good puking.
Check out this page that lists the real non-lethal weapons being worked on: http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/nonlethal.html (scroll down the page to where it says: Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References)
As of this posting 10:49am PST, the ScienceHack site is down. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If these "scientists" can't even keep their site up, what faith in their videos should we have. I can find a Paris Hilton video anywhere on the web -- with a reliable connection. *sigh*
Props and in-camera F/X shots still hold up over time because they are shots of something real. What I mean is, a physical model has a depth and weight that a CGI model has difficulty replicating. Think of that Star Destroyer chasing Princess Leia's ship in the opening scene of A New Hope. Doesn't that Star Destroyer just "feel" huge and heavy? It lumbers across the screen as though it's a real flying fortress. Cut to the mega-ships of Revenge of the Sith. Yeah, they look great and fancy, but do they feel as "real" as the model ships of A New Hope? IMHO, no. CGI ships float in an unreal realm. Models have real depth and weight that translates to the screen as "real." Another example would be the puppet Yoda vs. the CGI Yoda. Which one is more real and true in your mind?
Also, consider the more modern pseudo-sci-fi movie Children of Men. Now there's a fantastic example of F/X and set design over CGI. Every shot feels like it comes from a real place because every shot is a "real" set piece or "real" in-camera F/X. Don't get me wrong, CGI has made movies explode into our imagination (Lord of the Rings, for example), but real models and in-camera F/X shouldn't be lost to the ages. Yes, they're more expensive and time-consuming, but the long-term effect is worth it.
Supposedly, the LANdroids are to be deployed at the same time the troops are. The only problem I see is that these droids can't move as fast as Hummers and tanks. An army needs to be highly mobile, and take ground at a high rate. How can these droids change positions fast enough to compensate for a fast-moving army? Doesn't seem possible to me.
A better alternative would be to make these droids into mini-helicopters instead. They could land on roof-tops and thus be more out of harm's way. Plus, they could move much faster when needed. Plus, I think the mini-helicopters would be plenty durable. Have you ever seen that infomercial for those mini helicopters that can crash into stuff and keep right on going?
This most shocking thing in this article is not that the White House cherry-picks data, but that the White House (and the Conservatives in general) have finally got on board with the whole "climate change" thing. Go back 5 years and you would be called crazy if you said greenhouse gasses are aiding global warming (notice the alternate term: "climate change" instead of "global warming" - Conservatives wouldn't dare agree with Liberals and call it "global warming").
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're finally getting what Liberals have been shouting for decades. It's just shocking that they're only agreeing with the science now.
Now all we have to do is wait 30 more years for Conservatives to accept evolution.:)
Or I should say, only partially true. You're saying that altruism is a selfish endeavor, meaning, giving away something is only done because the brain will reward you with pleasure. True. However, you're missing the bigger picture of this article: altruism is not just about pleasure, it's about survival.
Take this altruistic concept back to a primitive, tribal society level. One hunter brings back a deer to the village. He can hoard it all to himself and ensure the survival of himself and/or his family, OR, he can divvy out the deer to the entire tribe even though this means he'll get less for himself. Why would he do this? According to you, it's simply because it feels good to give, but the point of this article (imho) is to show that it's actually beneficial to his survival. And his survival is 100% dependent on the survival of the tribe.
So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).
Slashdot Mirror
I think Google should draw the line between public/business addresses and residential (apartment buildings would be ok).
When you have such detailed images of a lonely residential street, it opens up the opportunity for crime. Imagine a motivated burglar who can case a neighborhood from the safety and anonymity of his own home. He can make a detailed plan of where the best place to access a home is. He can assess their wealth and potential goodies. Sure, the burglar could drive up the street in his car, but this would be much more risky because people could see him and be suspicious. Street view from Google makes burglary much easier.
I say, Google should photograph all public and commercial buildings: because that's what they want anyway - visibility. But, Google should shut off the camera when they go down residential streets. Apartment buildings would be ok since they are typically secure and are typically mixed in with the business parts of the city.
A scientific survey in 2002 attempted to find the funniest joke in the world. Thousands of people from dozens of countries voted on thousands of jokes. Each country had a different favorite. Overall, the number one and number two funniest jokes in the world, based on votes, are:
http://www.innocentenglish.com/best-funny-jokes/funniest-jokes.html
HAL: "I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that"
DAVE: "But HAL, it's a tumor, it's got to come out!"
HAL: "My records show this patient hasn't paid their insurance premium this month. I'm very sorry Dave, I can't let you operate."
I've got a better idea: make a great electric car for the present day.
This 100 year-old gimmic car is a waste of time and energy. If they really want to get noticed, show us a car of the future, not the past.
And also, so what these companies are telling us is: our products are based on 100 year-old technologies? Yeah, I want to buy a car from those people.
So, when do Rock Hudson, Mia Farrow, and Robert Forster show up for their 2008 remake of "Avalanche!" the movie? 1978 - imdb
So, let me get this straight: I can wrap my phone around my wrist for easy transport, then the phone rings, I have to un-mold it from my wrist, figure out which end is up, then reshape it into a phone, then re-mold it back to my wrist?
Seems like the general shape phones are in and have been for most of the last century has worked pretty well. Why reinvent the wheel?
This will end up being a real problem. For one thing, what about multiple users of the same computer? Families, for instance might see ads for dad's naughty websites and junior's latest goth-band ads at the wrong time.
And how exactly do they plan to serve these ads? Are they going to use pop-ups, page frames, or something like that? Won't that interfere if these ISP ads are competing with Google? Google will put up a big fight for sure...and they'll win.
People will complain about this ad onslaught, and new ISPs will start popping up "get our ISP - now with NO ADS for only $9.95!" - thus defeating the point in the first place.
"Thompson defined 'time-sensitive assets' as 'something that if you don't hit right now it will be gone if you come back later.' He cited, as one example, a ballistic missile preparing to launch against the United States."
There are a few problems with this:
1. If we can indeed detect a missile preparing to launch, can we accurately project where it's being pointed at? I can see a situation where we hit a missile we thought was aimed at us, but wasn't. "oops!, my bad"
2. Most likely these hypersonic vehicles could and would ultimately target nuclear weapons. What if we launch a defensive attack on a missile silo (or multiple silos)? Would there be any danger of setting off the nuclear warheads in the enemy country? I know nuclear warheads don't explode by just being shot at, but there could still be radio-active fallout from the release of radio-active material into the environment. And if so, would the US be accused of reckless use of our weapons against civilians that may be affected by such a fallout?
3. If we did hit a "regular" missile and/or a nuclear missile as a defensive attack, couldn't this be easily turned against us politically? Couldn't the enemy country simply cry foul saying they weren't really going to attack and that the bully US strikes again?
4. Perhaps a better strategy is to develop satellites with defensive capabilities of their own. Some kind of emergency propulsion system that would move them out of harms way really fast.
5. Perhaps the best solution is to talk with China and make some agreement not to develop these weapons in the first place. China is the last country we need to be fighting right now.
While these hypersonic vehicles are cool, they could become very reckless since they have such a small window of opportunity and could have terrible political or human costs if we have an itchy trigger finger.
Microsoft's only options are to either open up widely to Open Source, or to crush Google with its proprietary products - which will never happen. This only leaves Microsoft one option: encourage/use Open Source or die. They're simply too far in the hole and their products are rapidly becoming obsolete from the POV of the average-Joe user.
Absorbing Yahoo is going to be a mammoth task simply because of internal cultural differences, but trying to fight the tide of Open Source is a losing battle for Microsoft.
Finally, the English can now truly call their flashlights "torches."
We have to remember a couple things:
1. Japan is very far ahead of us as far as cell-phone technology is concerned. They've had fully-functional video phones for at least a year or two, for example (as in, you can communicate via real-time video).
2. Japanese retail is much more about service than most US retail. We just want to get in and get the product, but the Japanese are all about greeting you at the door, pleasant smiles, and all of that.
Therefore, a sommelier isn't all that strange in the context of Japanese retail. It's strange to Americans, but to the Japanese, it must make sense, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
While this suit is totally cool, I think bigger, mass-production robots like this rice-planting robot are far more practical. The robot suit is indeed a technological breakthrough, but I think robots that can help more than one person at a time are far more valuable. Or, check out these weed-killers.
This article elaborates on how it would work with shoes/clothing:
"Rather than absorbing water and dirt, moisture will instead bead off the surface of the specially-designed shoes."
And then another advantage (for insurance companies at least) is the insurance angle:
"For electronic devices, protection from water is also important. Water damage is one of the top reasons for insurance claims on mobiles, with more than 1.2 million being dropped in lavatories, drinks or put through washing machines last year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/30/scitech230.xml
Perhaps this could also be an eventual replacement to protect servers and other vital machinery without the cost and danger of Halon and similar gases.
We often take for granted when we see these cool renditions of distant space that these images are only possible when based on the leaps and bounds made with various telescopes over the last 50+ years:
"Only now by combining the images of radio telescopes, the optical and ultraviolet eyes of Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory, can researchers put together the entire violent story about this intergalactic mugging.
The coordinated use of such an array of diverse and powerful telescopes is one of the unheralded triumphs of modern physics, Tyson said. "This is an example of the triumph of that exercise." http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/17/galaxy-black-hole-02.html
Just the fact that we can observe such a dramatic event is awe-inspiring.
Along with the more scientific theories given in the article as to why the young chimps do it faster than the human adults is: chimps don't know it's supposed to be hard. To the chimps, it may be just a game with no pressure. For the adults, the pride of humanity is at stake.
It's like some savant kids: no one has ever told them they can't play piano like Mozart, so they just do it.
I think it's ridiculous that the Jersey gov is forcing their dating sites to do a mandatory background screening.
1. The Article states that it's not even a true background check (it's a name check only -- so, it's essentially worthless anyway)
2. Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
If anything, the state should only require the dating sites to offer a full background screening service for a reasonable price. That way, the user can check out their dates, plus the dating site isn't forced to do a background check on everyone, plus the site can still make a profit which is what the site is there for in the first place.
I'm glad they're finding ways around having to use embryonic stem cells, but just for those who are still against embryonic stem cells (if it turns out that we still need to use them), we're not destroying a human, we're destoying a pitre dish of cells. See this great visual demo: http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/stemcells_scnt.html I just wanted to clarify for those who still think the embryo we're talking about is a little baby: it's not -- it's literally a mass of cells -- that's all.
A science debate is a good idea, but it would never happen. Most of the candidates would say something like, "it would be like a debate on religion, or a litmus test for presidency." They would reject the debate on those grounds alone.
While I admire Chapman's request, it's impractical. Imagine a candidate being asked a biology question that an 8th grader would know, but not understanding some of the basic terminology. They would look foolish in front of millions of Americans. Could you or I remember all of our 8th grade biology? I think not. Therefore, no politician would agree to such a debate: it would only hurt them, not help them.
Plus, most Americans simply aren't concerned with science. National security and the economy are the pressing matters of the day.
I think non-lethal weapons are great. How many times have we seen deadly force used to kill a suspect when all that was really needed was a good puking.
Check out this page that lists the real non-lethal weapons being worked on: http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/nonlethal.html (scroll down the page to where it says: Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References)
Great, just what we need, more fuel for the already over-inflated egos of the world.
As of this posting 10:49am PST, the ScienceHack site is down. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If these "scientists" can't even keep their site up, what faith in their videos should we have. I can find a Paris Hilton video anywhere on the web -- with a reliable connection. *sigh*
Props and in-camera F/X shots still hold up over time because they are shots of something real. What I mean is, a physical model has a depth and weight that a CGI model has difficulty replicating. Think of that Star Destroyer chasing Princess Leia's ship in the opening scene of A New Hope. Doesn't that Star Destroyer just "feel" huge and heavy? It lumbers across the screen as though it's a real flying fortress. Cut to the mega-ships of Revenge of the Sith. Yeah, they look great and fancy, but do they feel as "real" as the model ships of A New Hope? IMHO, no. CGI ships float in an unreal realm. Models have real depth and weight that translates to the screen as "real." Another example would be the puppet Yoda vs. the CGI Yoda. Which one is more real and true in your mind?
Also, consider the more modern pseudo-sci-fi movie Children of Men. Now there's a fantastic example of F/X and set design over CGI. Every shot feels like it comes from a real place because every shot is a "real" set piece or "real" in-camera F/X. Don't get me wrong, CGI has made movies explode into our imagination (Lord of the Rings, for example), but real models and in-camera F/X shouldn't be lost to the ages. Yes, they're more expensive and time-consuming, but the long-term effect is worth it.
Supposedly, the LANdroids are to be deployed at the same time the troops are. The only problem I see is that these droids can't move as fast as Hummers and tanks. An army needs to be highly mobile, and take ground at a high rate. How can these droids change positions fast enough to compensate for a fast-moving army? Doesn't seem possible to me.
A better alternative would be to make these droids into mini-helicopters instead. They could land on roof-tops and thus be more out of harm's way. Plus, they could move much faster when needed. Plus, I think the mini-helicopters would be plenty durable. Have you ever seen that infomercial for those mini helicopters that can crash into stuff and keep right on going?
Where's my check, DARPA?
This most shocking thing in this article is not that the White House cherry-picks data, but that the White House (and the Conservatives in general) have finally got on board with the whole "climate change" thing. Go back 5 years and you would be called crazy if you said greenhouse gasses are aiding global warming (notice the alternate term: "climate change" instead of "global warming" - Conservatives wouldn't dare agree with Liberals and call it "global warming").
:)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're finally getting what Liberals have been shouting for decades. It's just shocking that they're only agreeing with the science now.
Now all we have to do is wait 30 more years for Conservatives to accept evolution.
Not true:
Or I should say, only partially true. You're saying that altruism is a selfish endeavor, meaning, giving away something is only done because the brain will reward you with pleasure. True. However, you're missing the bigger picture of this article: altruism is not just about pleasure, it's about survival.
Take this altruistic concept back to a primitive, tribal society level. One hunter brings back a deer to the village. He can hoard it all to himself and ensure the survival of himself and/or his family, OR, he can divvy out the deer to the entire tribe even though this means he'll get less for himself. Why would he do this? According to you, it's simply because it feels good to give, but the point of this article (imho) is to show that it's actually beneficial to his survival. And his survival is 100% dependent on the survival of the tribe.
So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).
That's my two cents.