Funny you should say that, because the 'prior art' in Arthur C. Clarke's story is actually what prevented geosynchronous communications satellites from being patented.
Actually you're the one who's wrong. We call 16 bits a "word" because that was the word size on the original x86 processors. The word size on a 32 bit processor is actually 32 bits, and the word size on a 64 bit processor is 64 bits. You just call 16 bits a word, but on a 32- or 64-bit processor it actually isn't.
And if I want to shoot a different person every day, is it my right to take that risk too?
The key difference you have failed to notice between a vaccine and the safety-related examples you have listed, is that by being vaccinated you are helping to stop the spread of a disease and so actually avoiding harm to people other than yourself.
RTFA. The article clearly describes the differences between the new technologies and the old ones they're based on, and it gives examples of real-world research that is actually making progress towards the two technologies that you have said might never happen. You obviously haven't read the article at all, and are just making assumptions based on the short list in the summary.
If you hate convenient abbreviations that are actually shorter than the alternative but no less functional, then you are a hypocrite if you do not hate file compression also.
It seems you are the one who has forgotten what science is.
Hypotheses are never proved. The evidence either supports the hypothesis or disproves it, and if enough evidence supports the hypothesis then it is probably reasonable to believe that it is true. It still isn't proved though.
The summary is completely incorrect. They're not aiming for 99% to actually *have* a broadband connection, they're aiming for broadband to be *available* to 99% of the population. So 99% will be able to get broadband, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll all get it.
Why don't people ever think sensibly about this? *GOOGLE IS AN ADVERTISING COMPANY!* It's not an evil secret society that wants to ruin your life. The worst thing Google is likely to do with my personal information is to show me ads that I'm more interested in, and I personally don't see anything wrong with that.
It is possible for you to think about moving your arm without actually moving it. I don't find myself accidentally moving my arm when I think about picking something up off the table; the movement only happens when I actually decide to pick up the object.
A good neural interface would work the same way. There would be a clear distinction between thinking about something, and actually inputting it.
Don't fear new technology just because it's new. There's no reason to believe that something shorting out in your head and destroying your power of speech is any more likely than the screen you have now shorting out and killing you by an explosion or something.
Nothing can ever be proven 100% flawless. If we never used a technology until it was "proven 100% flawless", we would still be lighting candles to see at night, because the 50/60Hz EM waves from electric lighting might have some unknown effect on us.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean about hacking the device, but if you're talking about people spying on what is being sent between your brain and the computer, this can be done already by Van Eck phreaking, keyloggers, and many software hacks etc.
Anyway, if you claim that we shouldn't use a technology because there would be bad consequences if it broke or got hacked, then by your logic we shouldn't be using computers at all.
It seems Microsoft have this idea that because VS Express does not have a particular feature which a more expensive version does have, users shouldn't be allowed to add an equivalent feature to Express.
This makes about as much sense as saying that because Windows XP Pro has a web server, it should be illegal to write a web server compatible with XP Home.
Slashdot Mirror
This post is an attempt to prevent a stupid troll from getting the first post.
Just setting the evil bit on packets containing unauthorised copies should be sufficient.
And those system calls will read /etc/passwd if necessary, of course.
You can get an honorable mention for doing stupid stuff that could have killed you but doesn't.
Funny you should say that, because the 'prior art' in Arthur C. Clarke's story is actually what prevented geosynchronous communications satellites from being patented.
Well, you've come to the right place.
It's not actually an illegal site. In russia, allofmp3.com actually has a licence to sell the music.
Actually you're the one who's wrong. We call 16 bits a "word" because that was the word size on the original x86 processors. The word size on a 32 bit processor is actually 32 bits, and the word size on a 64 bit processor is 64 bits. You just call 16 bits a word, but on a 32- or 64-bit processor it actually isn't.
The key difference you have failed to notice between a vaccine and the safety-related examples you have listed, is that by being vaccinated you are helping to stop the spread of a disease and so actually avoiding harm to people other than yourself.
RTFA. The article clearly describes the differences between the new technologies and the old ones they're based on, and it gives examples of real-world research that is actually making progress towards the two technologies that you have said might never happen. You obviously haven't read the article at all, and are just making assumptions based on the short list in the summary.
That's not an "oddity". The whole idea of advertising is that you get paid for someone looking at something other than your content.
Interestingly enough, Myspace actually has a "Myspace Haters" chat room.
If you hate convenient abbreviations that are actually shorter than the alternative but no less functional, then you are a hypocrite if you do not hate file compression also.
"Wiki" comes from a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" (because they can be edited quickly)
It took me a significantly shorter amount of time to figure out how to use Google.
Hypotheses are never proved. The evidence either supports the hypothesis or disproves it, and if enough evidence supports the hypothesis then it is probably reasonable to believe that it is true. It still isn't proved though.
> It really seems that none of the politicians or bureaucrats in the U.S. government have the slightest clue. Fixed that for ya.
The summary is completely incorrect. They're not aiming for 99% to actually *have* a broadband connection, they're aiming for broadband to be *available* to 99% of the population. So 99% will be able to get broadband, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll all get it.
What about the RIAA equalisation curve? That was one good thing the RIAA did.
So you're essentially saying other people should never buy stuff because increasing demand raises the prices and pisses you off.
It's not even in beta yet.
Why don't people ever think sensibly about this? *GOOGLE IS AN ADVERTISING COMPANY!* It's not an evil secret society that wants to ruin your life. The worst thing Google is likely to do with my personal information is to show me ads that I'm more interested in, and I personally don't see anything wrong with that.
A good neural interface would work the same way. There would be a clear distinction between thinking about something, and actually inputting it.
Don't fear new technology just because it's new. There's no reason to believe that something shorting out in your head and destroying your power of speech is any more likely than the screen you have now shorting out and killing you by an explosion or something. Nothing can ever be proven 100% flawless. If we never used a technology until it was "proven 100% flawless", we would still be lighting candles to see at night, because the 50/60Hz EM waves from electric lighting might have some unknown effect on us. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about hacking the device, but if you're talking about people spying on what is being sent between your brain and the computer, this can be done already by Van Eck phreaking, keyloggers, and many software hacks etc. Anyway, if you claim that we shouldn't use a technology because there would be bad consequences if it broke or got hacked, then by your logic we shouldn't be using computers at all.
It seems Microsoft have this idea that because VS Express does not have a particular feature which a more expensive version does have, users shouldn't be allowed to add an equivalent feature to Express. This makes about as much sense as saying that because Windows XP Pro has a web server, it should be illegal to write a web server compatible with XP Home.