They were pretty sketchy about this issue of whether a robot is "better" than a human doctor. They emphasized the robot's advantages, but then go on to say that humans have "more dexterity" which to me implies that it is still safer to have a human perform the operation. I'm pretty curious as to how much information this woman was given before the surgery - she seems very trusting of her doctors, and I hope they didn't take advantage of that to turn her into an experiment.
All those capabilities sound great in theory, but how's the robot going to get into the wreckage of a collapsed building (just as an example). I think nanotechnology would have to improve quite a bit before we're capable of building a robot that is both small enough (I imagine it would have to be quite small) to efficiently navigate something like that, in addition to having all of the measurement/monitoring/video capabilities that would make it useful in practice. Possibly on the horizon...
I've got to agree with the majority here that this is a pretty ridiculous imposition onto sites like facebook and myspace.
I think the average kid is going to get up to stuff on the internet that they're not "supposed" to. I know I did. But fortunately, most kids have been sufficiently educated about the potential dangers and how to keep themselves safe... the real problem that has to be addressed is how some kids slip through the cracks and don't receive/understand this basic safety information.
Re:Helps the welfare of the Jockeys how?
on
Camel-Riding Robots
·
· Score: 1
Well one would hope that without a demand for children to use as jockeys, they wouldn't be kidnapped in the first place...
I could be wrong, but I don't really think there will be a big push to replace humans with robots in most sports. Maybe as a cool, project/aside from traditional sports, as robots are capable of doing things that humans aren't and it would provide a challenge to those interested AI, but not replacing persay.
One of the things most people who enjoy sports like is the ability to relate to the players, and the fact that they can aspire to be like them or view them as role models, etc. This aspect of sports would be lost if the players were robots instead of humans.
I love this idea. I hope things keep going in this direction, because I like the idea of my phone doing everything. Acting as my TV remote, my car door opener, my camera, my ipod, my palm pilot, my mobile stock/email/sports scores report... As well as the ability to interface with other technology to keep me updated on things like whether my oven is on...
I read a few weeks ago about a cell phone company in Japan working on this, and despite my reservations due to privacy concerns, I really can't wait until this kind of technology becomes widely available.
Could it also be argued that spelling/grammar aside, students are better at communicating because they have the opportunity to converse with others over the web? Especially since for some students in middle/high school, it's far easier to talk to others online than it is for them to talk in person. From personal experience I'd have to say no, but who knows...
I wonder if this is actually a case of the web making students worse at English, or if those students would be just as unable to write well without its influence. I would say it's fairly obvious that communicating over the net has affected the way in which they're failing English, but I don't necessarily think that means they wouldn't be failing it if they didn't talk online.
After doing a few searches, I'm really confused by the results coming up - some are posted on news sites, and other places where my first assumption is definitely not that I can just take the image and go on my way with no worries. Are we just supposed to trust that the search engine *actually* found media we can safely use? Because somehow I don't think that my college will be too happy with me if I try to use that as an excuse when I'm being accused of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
It still seems that making sure the image is really free for use has to be the responsibility of the person doing the search, and it looks like in some cases this is going to require at least a little bit of extra searching.
Still a cool idea, and I hope they continue to improve on it.
Unfortunately I don't trust Amazon to do anything for the public good.
Neither do I. In addition to this latest story, it's been clear for quite some time that Amazon has it's own political agenda - which of course, is their prerogative.
Quoted from buyblue.org: This PAC supported politicians that amongst other things supported "safeguards" regulating TV news content, opposed the "freedom to read" amendment allowing federal funds to be used to demand patron records from bookstores and libraries, and sponsored a bill to legalize "censorship software" for stripping "offensive content" out of films.
As someone said earlier on this page, it's the consumer's job to buy intelligently and only support companies whose initiatives they agree with - which may or may not be Amazon's.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize even experimental patients should know what they're getting into, right?
They were pretty sketchy about this issue of whether a robot is "better" than a human doctor. They emphasized the robot's advantages, but then go on to say that humans have "more dexterity" which to me implies that it is still safer to have a human perform the operation. I'm pretty curious as to how much information this woman was given before the surgery - she seems very trusting of her doctors, and I hope they didn't take advantage of that to turn her into an experiment.
All those capabilities sound great in theory, but how's the robot going to get into the wreckage of a collapsed building (just as an example). I think nanotechnology would have to improve quite a bit before we're capable of building a robot that is both small enough (I imagine it would have to be quite small) to efficiently navigate something like that, in addition to having all of the measurement/monitoring/video capabilities that would make it useful in practice. Possibly on the horizon...
I've got to agree with the majority here that this is a pretty ridiculous imposition onto sites like facebook and myspace. I think the average kid is going to get up to stuff on the internet that they're not "supposed" to. I know I did. But fortunately, most kids have been sufficiently educated about the potential dangers and how to keep themselves safe... the real problem that has to be addressed is how some kids slip through the cracks and don't receive/understand this basic safety information.
Well one would hope that without a demand for children to use as jockeys, they wouldn't be kidnapped in the first place...
I could be wrong, but I don't really think there will be a big push to replace humans with robots in most sports. Maybe as a cool, project/aside from traditional sports, as robots are capable of doing things that humans aren't and it would provide a challenge to those interested AI, but not replacing persay.
One of the things most people who enjoy sports like is the ability to relate to the players, and the fact that they can aspire to be like them or view them as role models, etc. This aspect of sports would be lost if the players were robots instead of humans.
I love this idea. I hope things keep going in this direction, because I like the idea of my phone doing everything. Acting as my TV remote, my car door opener, my camera, my ipod, my palm pilot, my mobile stock/email/sports scores report... As well as the ability to interface with other technology to keep me updated on things like whether my oven is on...
I read a few weeks ago about a cell phone company in Japan working on this, and despite my reservations due to privacy concerns, I really can't wait until this kind of technology becomes widely available.
Could it also be argued that spelling/grammar aside, students are better at communicating because they have the opportunity to converse with others over the web? Especially since for some students in middle/high school, it's far easier to talk to others online than it is for them to talk in person. From personal experience I'd have to say no, but who knows...
I wonder if this is actually a case of the web making students worse at English, or if those students would be just as unable to write well without its influence. I would say it's fairly obvious that communicating over the net has affected the way in which they're failing English, but I don't necessarily think that means they wouldn't be failing it if they didn't talk online.
After doing a few searches, I'm really confused by the results coming up - some are posted on news sites, and other places where my first assumption is definitely not that I can just take the image and go on my way with no worries. Are we just supposed to trust that the search engine *actually* found media we can safely use? Because somehow I don't think that my college will be too happy with me if I try to use that as an excuse when I'm being accused of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
It still seems that making sure the image is really free for use has to be the responsibility of the person doing the search, and it looks like in some cases this is going to require at least a little bit of extra searching.
Still a cool idea, and I hope they continue to improve on it.
Unfortunately I don't trust Amazon to do anything for the public good.
Neither do I. In addition to this latest story, it's been clear for quite some time that Amazon has it's own political agenda - which of course, is their prerogative.
Quoted from buyblue.org: This PAC supported politicians that amongst other things supported "safeguards" regulating TV news content, opposed the "freedom to read" amendment allowing federal funds to be used to demand patron records from bookstores and libraries, and sponsored a bill to legalize "censorship software" for stripping "offensive content" out of films.
As someone said earlier on this page, it's the consumer's job to buy intelligently and only support companies whose initiatives they agree with - which may or may not be Amazon's.