It seems every electronic gadget is "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet". The japanese in particular seem to have made large strides in the field of robotics, it makes sense that they would be the first to accept them into their lives.
As for why, I think it's two factors. 1. They probably understand what robots are better than the general populace of America. People are less afraid of what they understand. 2. The "anonymous internet effect" as I call it. A robot isn't a human, it doesn't have emotions, it won't get pissed off if you insult it/don't remember its birthday/whatever.
"Santa" is jumping all over these maps. Seems to me that he'd go in order of closest house to farthest. Not left, right, up, left, down, right, up again, up, way down, diagonal, etc.
Could you imagine trying to find the dead bulb on that strand of lights when one goes out?
These huge displays are kind of useless if you ask me. You spend all this time setting them up, then a huge amount of time taking them down. All you do is piss off the neighbors and spend a huge amount of money on an astronomical electric bill.
Now, I can understand trying to make a huge display on some public/office building with a huge amount of lights using a bunch of volunteers just to have fun, or to raise money from charity. But not when it's "OK, lets see how many more lights we can buy than the smith family can."
The flicks, although a good idea, suck in practice. They're all badly recorded, low-res, volume screwed-over, web cam clips.
About the advertising, I have never seen any type of ad for FireFox before, aside from the non-animated, pretty much out of the way, banners. I hope they don't go too far with the advertising. If it starts becoming obtrusive then they're going to have a lot more angry customers on their hands.
Open source allows more people to work on the project. Which usually means that code is more streamlined and efficient. Streamlined, efficient code is usually faster than closed source alternatives which often tend to be much more poorly written.
He who does not have anti-virus software nor the common sense not to click on the link nor the common sense not to run the file deserves what's coming to them.
This really isn't any different from the morons who message random people telling them to download sub 7.
I wasn't aware that the bill would make it illegal to convert analog to digital. I read the bill and I probably missed that part in the roundabout wording that they use.
But it did say that any device removing the VEIL anti-copy signal from an analog signal would also violate the law. The VEIL signal will of course be optional so the owner of the work will still have control over their "intellectual property".
Also, any device simply ignoring the signal would be illegal as well. This is what I really don't agree with. Why should hardware manufacturers be required to obey signals that they never designed their hardware for.
If I buy a DVD recorder then damn it, I want it to record stuff to DVDs. It's up to ME to obey the law, not a computer chip.
Once again, I see my post has been moderated down as troll. I'm not attempting to start a flame war or anything of that sort, these are my opinions. I think that these are bad ideas. At least I supported them with reasons instead of just saying "OMFG THESE R SUX!!"
"J K Rowling sues Microsoft for copyright infringement"
On a more serious note: I think that the bowl thing is the most useless piece of junk of the face of this planet. Who wants to display images on a bowl? This isn't new technology, this isn't even a new concept for crying out loud. It's a weird-shaped touchscreen!
The "home note" device will probably end up like the refrigerators with internet access. No one will want to send text messages or email from the kitchen counter. People, or at least I, would much rather send them while sitting down in a chair with a cell phone, or better yet, a computer.
This probably voids your warranty, although if the screen is going blank the warranty has probably already expired.
I wonder how hard this actually is to do. I've read countless tutorials on do it yourself projects and they almost never work for me. There's always some little detail that you miss that could leave you with a pile of broken junk instead of a new monitor.
Anyone can make or edit any article on wikipedia and say that anyone/anything was involved with the assassination of JFK.
I could edit the article on dogs to say that "Dogs have a secret underground organization that directly supports al qaeda and assassinated JFK!!!". Does that mean that it actually happened? Of course not.
This issue is nothing more than someone editing a wikipedia article for some office humor, nothing to see here, move along please.
I have a $20 camera here by my computer. It's made out of plastic and I can throw it pretty damn hard and it won't experience anything more than a couple scratches. Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops. I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.
And with these new suggested cameras, you still have to view the output from said camera. In order to use this camera you have to: - Throw camera - Look at screen displaying camera output - Put away the screen displaying camera output - Go around corner.
Between steps 2 and 4 there is a huge amount of time that people could use to change their position, thus negating effects of having a camera at all.
"If you allow ANY non.xxx site to link to a.xxx site then the whole system collapses and a curious child can go from www.kidsplaysafe.org to www.kidsseehooters.xxx."
That's not the point of the system. If a "curious child" is going to try to look at porn then so be it. The.xxx domain shouldn't be used as a government-instituted web filter.
If the parents want to install a blocker to block.xxx images then yes it will be easier for the parents. However, there should be nothing restricting people from looking at pornography unless the person themselves does not want to see it.
This is more of an organization convenience than anything else really.
Yeah, slashdot would have to register slashdot.net and slashdot.org and slashdot.biz and slashdot.co.uk and slashdot.com and slashdot...... you get the point
I think this is one of the best ideas ever suggested. Aren't you tired of every other result for a Google search of "computer upgrades" pointing to porn? Same goes for images if you search for "white house" or "AMD logo".
It makes pornography about 1000000X easier to filter out if you don't want to see it. Simply set your web browser to "no.xxx content" and you have: 1. No more spyware trying to install on your computer from SOME discreditable porn sites. (yes I do realise that only very few porn web sites actually try to install spyware) 2. No "HORNY GIRLZ !!!!" banners. 3. No links that point to pornography that you don't want to see. 4. Google could make an option to eliminate all pornography from searches if desired.
Now, there are the people that want to access porn. Or who want to access it ONLY at certain times. (such as, after they're done looking for pictures of the AMD logo or white house). Simple, just set your browser back to "do not eliminate.xxx content".
Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to restrict pornography from anyone really. There shouldn't be a mandatory price increase for.xxx registration as opposed to.com or.net. The.xxx idea is the same thing as putting all of your dirty magazines into ONE drawer instead of spread about among all of your other magazines.
I have to disagree with you there. Yes, I believe that all sex sites should have a.xxx domain law established.
But domain names are NOT responsible for porn getting onto children's computers, libraries, schools, etc. That is the fault of the parents and also the child themselves.
By the time that children are old enough to look up porn, they should be old enough to make decisions not to look at it.
Also, the USA should not control the entire domain naming system. The UN should.
You know, I just though of something. If adults are going to use these devices on teenagers. They they shouldn't be allowed to complain about insanely profane, loud, annoying, music being blasted from stereos.
Teenagers, you find one of these devices being used, go get a portable stereo, come back to where said device is being used, pop in an AC/DC disc, turn to full volume and air guitar for a few hours.
"Teens listening to loud music can damage hearing. Make sure they don't listen to loud music!" Oh yeah, but this other device doesn't damage their hearing because.....ummm...... we say so.
Interesting, adults spend millions of dollars on research for studies that tell them that teens shouldn't listen to loud music. Yet, They're willing to throw all the data completely out the window when it doesn't work in the favor of the adults.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems every electronic gadget is "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet".
The japanese in particular seem to have made large strides in the field of robotics, it makes sense that they would be the first to accept them into their lives.
As for why, I think it's two factors.
1. They probably understand what robots are better than the general populace of America. People are less afraid of what they understand.
2. The "anonymous internet effect" as I call it. A robot isn't a human, it doesn't have emotions, it won't get pissed off if you insult it/don't remember its birthday/whatever.
Oh look, another unfunny joke modded up at +5.
If you read their job benefits and what they have in their main building, it's easy to see why people like working at Google.p age=why-ca-mv.html
http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?
Of course having fun makes a job more enjoyable, regardless of what the job actually is.
"Santa" is jumping all over these maps. Seems to me that he'd go in order of closest house to farthest. Not left, right, up, left, down, right, up again, up, way down, diagonal, etc.
Could you imagine trying to find the dead bulb on that strand of lights when one goes out?
These huge displays are kind of useless if you ask me. You spend all this time setting them up, then a huge amount of time taking them down. All you do is piss off the neighbors and spend a huge amount of money on an astronomical electric bill.
Now, I can understand trying to make a huge display on some public/office building with a huge amount of lights using a bunch of volunteers just to have fun, or to raise money from charity. But not when it's "OK, lets see how many more lights we can buy than the smith family can."
The flicks, although a good idea, suck in practice. They're all badly recorded, low-res, volume screwed-over, web cam clips.
About the advertising, I have never seen any type of ad for FireFox before, aside from the non-animated, pretty much out of the way, banners.
I hope they don't go too far with the advertising. If it starts becoming obtrusive then they're going to have a lot more angry customers on their hands.
Open source allows more people to work on the project. Which usually means that code is more streamlined and efficient. Streamlined, efficient code is usually faster than closed source alternatives which often tend to be much more poorly written.
It probably doesn't use Google talk to "spread".
He who does not have anti-virus software nor the common sense not to click on the link nor the common sense not to run the file deserves what's coming to them.
This really isn't any different from the morons who message random people telling them to download sub 7.
I wasn't aware that the bill would make it illegal to convert analog to digital.
I read the bill and I probably missed that part in the roundabout wording that they use.
But it did say that any device removing the VEIL anti-copy signal from an analog signal would also violate the law. The VEIL signal will of course be optional so the owner of the work will still have control over their "intellectual property".
Also, any device simply ignoring the signal would be illegal as well. This is what I really don't agree with. Why should hardware manufacturers be required to obey signals that they never designed their hardware for.
If I buy a DVD recorder then damn it, I want it to record stuff to DVDs. It's up to ME to obey the law, not a computer chip.
They could make them smaller, portable, released for civilians, not a bigallion dollars, and maybe throw in some designer colors.
Then I would consider getting one to wear in my own car.
Once again, I see my post has been moderated down as troll.
I'm not attempting to start a flame war or anything of that sort, these are my opinions. I think that these are bad ideas. At least I supported them with reasons instead of just saying "OMFG THESE R SUX!!"
"J K Rowling sues Microsoft for copyright infringement"
On a more serious note:
I think that the bowl thing is the most useless piece of junk of the face of this planet. Who wants to display images on a bowl? This isn't new technology, this isn't even a new concept for crying out loud.
It's a weird-shaped touchscreen!
The "home note" device will probably end up like the refrigerators with internet access. No one will want to send text messages or email from the kitchen counter.
People, or at least I, would much rather send them while sitting down in a chair with a cell phone, or better yet, a computer.
I want to know why this was modded down as troll.
I'm simply stating my experiences that I've had with DIY projects in the past.
This probably voids your warranty, although if the screen is going blank the warranty has probably already expired.
I wonder how hard this actually is to do. I've read countless tutorials on do it yourself projects and they almost never work for me.
There's always some little detail that you miss that could leave you with a pile of broken junk instead of a new monitor.
This really isn't a big deal at all.
Anyone can make or edit any article on wikipedia and say that anyone/anything was involved with the assassination of JFK.
I could edit the article on dogs to say that "Dogs have a secret underground organization that directly supports al qaeda and assassinated JFK!!!". Does that mean that it actually happened? Of course not.
This issue is nothing more than someone editing a wikipedia article for some office humor, nothing to see here, move along please.
I have a $20 camera here by my computer. It's made out of plastic and I can throw it pretty damn hard and it won't experience anything more than a couple scratches.
Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops.
I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.
And with these new suggested cameras, you still have to view the output from said camera. In order to use this camera you have to:
- Throw camera
- Look at screen displaying camera output
- Put away the screen displaying camera output
- Go around corner.
Between steps 2 and 4 there is a huge amount of time that people could use to change their position, thus negating effects of having a camera at all.
Excuse me, but what does this have to do with software piracy?
There is a school district switching over to Linux computers, I just don't see where any type of piracy is involved here.
The school isn't using them for piracy, and they aren't using pirated software.
WOULD PEOPLE PLEASE STOP MENTIONING PIRACY IN EVERY DAMN ARTICLE THAT HAS THE WORD "INTERNET" IN IT!
Then again, Google's definition of "a short time" can be longer than your projected lifespan.
Although as the parent pointed out, they aren't selling your information so they don't have much to gain from keeping the data too long.
"If you allow ANY non .xxx site to link to a .xxx site then the whole system collapses and a curious child can go from www.kidsplaysafe.org to www.kidsseehooters.xxx."
That's not the point of the system. If a "curious child" is going to try to look at porn then so be it. The .xxx domain shouldn't be used as a government-instituted web filter.
If the parents want to install a blocker to block .xxx images then yes it will be easier for the parents. However, there should be nothing restricting people from looking at pornography unless the person themselves does not want to see it.
This is more of an organization convenience than anything else really.
Yeah, slashdot would have to register slashdot.net and slashdot.org and slashdot.biz and slashdot.co.uk and slashdot.com and slashdot...... you get the point
I think this is one of the best ideas ever suggested.
.xxx content" and you have:
.xxx content".
.xxx registration as opposed to .com or .net. The .xxx idea is the same thing as putting all of your dirty magazines into ONE drawer instead of spread about among all of your other magazines.
Aren't you tired of every other result for a Google search of "computer upgrades" pointing to porn? Same goes for images if you search for "white house" or "AMD logo".
It makes pornography about 1000000X easier to filter out if you don't want to see it.
Simply set your web browser to "no
1. No more spyware trying to install on your computer from SOME discreditable porn sites. (yes I do realise that only very few porn web sites actually try to install spyware)
2. No "HORNY GIRLZ !!!!" banners.
3. No links that point to pornography that you don't want to see.
4. Google could make an option to eliminate all pornography from searches if desired.
Now, there are the people that want to access porn. Or who want to access it ONLY at certain times. (such as, after they're done looking for pictures of the AMD logo or white house).
Simple, just set your browser back to "do not eliminate
Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to restrict pornography from anyone really. There shouldn't be a mandatory price increase for
I have to disagree with you there. .xxx domain law established.
Yes, I believe that all sex sites should have a
But domain names are NOT responsible for porn getting onto children's computers, libraries, schools, etc. That is the fault of the parents and also the child themselves.
By the time that children are old enough to look up porn, they should be old enough to make decisions not to look at it.
Also, the USA should not control the entire domain naming system. The UN should.
You know, I just though of something. If adults are going to use these devices on teenagers. They they shouldn't be allowed to complain about insanely profane, loud, annoying, music being blasted from stereos.
Teenagers, you find one of these devices being used, go get a portable stereo, come back to where said device is being used, pop in an AC/DC disc, turn to full volume and air guitar for a few hours.
"Teens listening to loud music can damage hearing. Make sure they don't listen to loud music!"
Oh yeah, but this other device doesn't damage their hearing because.....ummm...... we say so.
Interesting, adults spend millions of dollars on research for studies that tell them that teens shouldn't listen to loud music.
Yet, They're willing to throw all the data completely out the window when it doesn't work in the favor of the adults.