...He finally made it into a heating vent and from there into the furnace where he died from either old age(he was nearing 3 years of age) or lack of water.
You mean he was in the furnace for 3 years? Holy hell!!! Where did you say you found this hamster? Near a nuclear power plant?:)
I don't know if the original article got updated, but it says that the field is 2.5mm X 2.5mm.
Quite a bit smaller than what the summary says (30mmX30mm). Also, for those of you that were wondering about how big a US Quarter is, here's something from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_(United_States_coin) :
I just hope that all these people they're hiring, are going to receive proper training. 1200 patent examiners a year means that they also need to train 1200 people a year...
Teacher: "Welcome to Patent Examination Training. Please open your folders. You each have a patent application in your hands. Start looking through it and hand it in to me by the end of the day as a Pass/Fail patent grade. This is your first assignment."
Student: "But we don't know how to pass a patent."
Teacher: "Nonsense, you do the homework, I'll grade your work, poof! Patent system at its best!"
Meh, dunno how I missed that point. Totally meant to say what you said. Thanks for correcting! Sorry if I caused panic to anyone:) Yes, if you do edits and save the image, you get detail corrosion.
---- I RTFA and I'm wondering what a "digital negative" is. ----
A digital negative is a lossless format. This is most commonly a TIFF file type although some companies have their own like Adobe's DNG (I believe that's the right extension) and most importantly, the camera's RAW files are lossless formats. They all do the same thing: They read the picture bit by bit and store it without compression. This allows for someone to open (view) a picture over and over without worrying about loosing sharpness or any detail. JPG file formats, on the other hand, use compression when they are stored and they are uncompressed when viewed. Every time you open a JPG image, you are basically uncompressing the image and when you close it, you are re-compressing it (unless you're reading the image in a read-only storage such as a CD-ROM). This can lead, eventually, to a loss in detail. For almost everyone, it's a non-issue, but for professional photographers and anyone that wishes to keep every bit of information, lossless formats are a must.
A digital negative does NOT mean that you were the one that took the picture. You can take any JPG picture and convert it to TIFF and voila! you have a digital negative of that JPG picture at the time you converted it. Having the RAW of the image may be indicative of who shot the picture and it takes a good effort to convert a JPG format to a proprietary RAW format (Each camera maker like Canon, Kodak, Nikkon etc.. have their own proprietary type of RAW encoding). The only real initial fact was that he had licensed that picture already prior to this incident and had proof of it. Having the RAW or a digital negative considerably adds to his story but by themselves they would be hard to be used in a court. In this case though, the plaintiff in a civil court needs only probable cause and digital negatives add to his rightful ownership. The RAW version of a digital negative of a picture would be a much stronger support than a TIFF or DNG. He (Gregerson) did not specify.
"...but there is some talk that another Pilot, Missouri based James Henry Joyce got there first and named the device the Joyce-stick."
Am I the only one that thought "Hmm, maybe his wife/girlfriend at the time actually came up with that name, the Joy-Stick which sounds like Joyce-stick but with a play on words"?
I can totally see it:
Joyce: "Hun, wanna pilot -this- bod? You can use my stick" Wife: "Ohh yeah, I'll use the Joyce-stick. Heh, the Joy... stick! Joystick! Could be your name, Joyce-stick -and- a fun pastime for me, Joystick!"
----
Ok so maybe it's a stretch, but hey, I think I might be onto something. And now, to let this endlessly arguable point of history be solved in bars around the world...
--FTFA-- Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."
The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response." --End Article quote--
So actually, this is a recent thinking to impose such strong bans on depictions. Although reading most of your comment, I'm not sure why you had to follow most of your points with clearly stereotypical comments such as: --quote-- People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so). --end quote--
You were starting to make sense until I read the end of that sentence. I believe you were trying to say "Respect all humans, their own religion and their human rights to study all areas"
What I am tired of, is actually comments like yours that push stereotypes further into everyone's head. Their religion doesn't MAKE them blow you up, extremists and activists and violent groups do. As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?
Genocides and death in the name of gods, religion or beliefs are actually common in history. Let's not make the mistake that just because we're facing a more recent act of extreme reactions, that they are and were always the -only- ones that are at fault.
Reading the original article and then the translation, I noticed that the translation unfortunately could not comprehend some of the key terms that make the article more succulent to the reader.
The important caveat is that although the lawyer (Monti) says that this was a mistake, it will not pose too many problems while it gets fixed. He says that while in the mean time, the law be enforced in such a way that only websites that belong to scientific or academic institutions will be allowed to host these mp3s and it will not even cover websites from professors or scientists even if for scientific or teaching purposes. This was said despite the fact that the Italian law allows anyone to make a website that accomplishes the same things (teach or do research or whatever). Monti said that it will be easier to regulate it in this fashion while the bill gets changed.
The previous example cited was kind of butchered from the translation as well. It said that in 2000 another mistake in the use of technical jargon created a law that legalized all pirated satellite TV decoder cards. Although the law was eventually changed, all charges had to be dropped on current pirates of said cards in the mean time.
They expect the same to happen while they fix this new mishap.
Being Italian myself and seeing the current state of the government (what government) I'm not entirely sure that this didn't happen on purpose to allow current charges to be dropped and so on and so forth...Call me paranoid, but if you've lived in Italy as a citizen, then you'll know what I mean.
I think you're missing the point. Your examples are actually using home-based businesses (work from home, musicians doing whatever). So I think you actually proved my point that if your usage is required for work or for something you personally need, then by all means, go ahead and do it! They simply appealed to the public's common sense to hold off on the big media downloads for a few days.
Why go through all the trouble of controlling weather when they could just build a roof? Would this in any way have anything to do with China trying to impress anyone? I might be wrong but why the hell would they want to choose the instability and unpredictability of controlling weather patterns than just simply building a roof?
Before you say that building a roof is not cheaper than shooting some chemical in the air, it's not just about price, it is also about certainty of results. You can get really really really lucky and it will NEVER rain and you'll never need a roof! But chances are that it will and your chemicals aren't going to stop it on time. Then what? Whoops! We're so sorry, we fucked up?
Roofs have been around a long time, they've been proven to do what they're supposed to do...
Maybe someone can enlighten me on their decision in the first place to not include roofs.
Is anyone even counting how much waste of taxpayer's money is going to give the RIAA time in civil courts? How much money, funding, time and resources have they wasted in these frivolous charges? Is there a governing body that oversees the just use of public courts? Probably not but I mean, I'm not only angry at their stupid bull-headed thinking and their obvious strive to make money off of the misery of unsuspecting victims. Even the financial market has put a serious black dot on them saying that when a company stops inventing and starts suing to make money, it's time to let go and sell sell sell.
I mean seriously, why is the RIAA even allowed such blatant abuse of civil courts?
I am not a lawyer, but would a lawyer point to some answers about this abuse? We could all use the info. Maybe next time we write our congressmen, representatives or legislators, we can include more educated information and opinions about this particular topic.
Basically the summary of the article can be boiled down to:
Scientists: "Yay! We finally crammed a new pair of DNA molecules!" Journalist: "What do they do?" Scientists: "We don't know, but we're gonna study it! It was really hard to cram that thing in there, it's like hammering a piece of a jigsaw puzzle where it didn't belong. Now we're going to study how it will react and how the surroundings react to it." Journalist: "So what will this do for the future?" Scientists: "More generally, Romesberg notes that DNA and RNA are now being used for hundreds of purposes: for example, to build complex shapes, build complex nanostructures, silence disease genes, or even perform calculations. A new, unnatural, base pair could multiply and diversify these applications." Journalist: "Cool" Scientists: "Word! Oh and we're not sure of the tools we can do with it, I'm sure they'll be cool and awesome when we discover the tools we can make with this. It HAS to be cool, we used genetic engineering!"
And that's that.:) Now go home and watch Resident Evil. I wonder if someone will start a business and call it "The Umbrella Corporation"
Wow, he's like the Tom Cruise of the Music Industry!
After reading 75% of the article, I got tired of reading half truths and personal propaganda. (begin sarcasm) I'm glad to know that he's using U2's name and website to push a service that he's an investor in. (end sarcasm)
Paul McGuinness, I think it's time that you realized that your old money-scamming business model is finally coming to an end. It's hard to swallow that your friends (with families) can't afford their lavish lifestyles anymore, but that's what happens when the public realizes that the music industry has been scamming them all along for many years.
People CHOOSE not to buy your inflated music, and you're a sore looser about it all because your music industry buddies weren't smart enough to develop a profitable way to do what iTunes does or what Amazon offers. Deal with it.
Isn't there someone that holds the "Origami Hexagon Fold" Patent that is going to sue them?
How about someone holding the "Using waves to view internal organs in a human body" Patent?
Or maybe the "Etching of ultrasound emitting device on silicon wafers" patent?
---end sarcastic comment---
Seriously,
if this invention grows to be used in humans, it will really provide some serious insights on disease prevention and diagnosis. I just hope that the patent morons don't destroy another inventive design much like they did with poor Vonage.
According to the article, there's a postulation that a curator or restorer might have accidentally cleaned off the eyebrows and eyelashes.
FTA
"And if you look closely at the eye of 'Mona Lisa' you can clearly see that the cracks around the eye have slightly disappeared, and that may be explained that one day a curator or restorer cleaned the eye, and cleaning the eye, removed, probably removed the eyelashes and eyebrow," he said.
Why would a single pigment/color disappear? Weren't colors back then all made with the same base? In that case, why would only the eyebrows disappear and nothing else shows a smudge from whatever cleaning agent it was used? (if this is the case).
Not to mention that I would have loved to be there for THAT occasion:
Owner: "Can you get this thing cleaned up for me?" Curator: "Sure thing mister, I'm a professional." Owner: "It's priceless you know..." Curator: "I'll take good care of it." Curator starts the restoration from the eyes and accidentally wipes off eyebrows and eyelashes. Curator: "Fuck!" Curator: "Well... maybe if I get the eyes soaked in enough oil to not crack for 500 years, no one will notice." Owner gets back. Owner: "Hmm... look at them eyes! They're awesome!" Owner: "There's something different about her, is it her smile?" Curator: "I'm just a restorer, but yeah, er... she looks mysterious." Owner: "Nice eyes though!"
Just because they did their homework and programmed the original Google Maps with reusable code, doesn't mean that a new feature added that uses already implemented code isn't 'Amazing'.
Looking at the feature by itself is pretty nifty! Let's not judge it by saying "well, they didn't add any new code for this so it's nothing new..."
Anyone know what happened to Hawking's proposal for information loss?
Basically what Hawking said (in a late essay entry in a science conference) was that Black Holes do 'digest' information and therefore you have information loss, however (and this is where his proposal was a bit controversial) Hawking suggested that the conglomeration of parallel universes will have a particular Black Hole present in one, and the same Black Hole missing in another, therefore the TOTAL information for ALL Universes, is retained.
And from the wiki article, here's the line I'm mentioning in my post:
"...On October 28, 2006, The Discovery Channel aired a show called "The Hawking Paradox". The show explained Hawking's conclusion that one must look at the universe as a whole, and that information lost in black holes is saved in parallel universes where no black holes exist."
It seems that this new solution is completely disregarding Hawking's proposal and replacing it with a new, stretched solution.
The link to Space.com for the 'most interesting extra-solar planets' has a top 10 list with all the new updated data. The article from the summary said that the fastest planet's orbit around its sun is 1.2 days, where instead the top-10 list shows a recently discovered planet with an orbit of just 10 hours! There is a link that leads to this page http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061004_fast_ planets.html that talks about 'fast planets' and shows the new data.
"On Monday, Attorney William Portello, a partner in a Concord law firm, and Sheehan, a high-school dropout who has argued his own case, faced off in a Cameron Park courtroom."
It saddens me that courts can be manipulated more by credibility rather than facts. I hope that the judge can look past the 'high-school dropout' and listen to the claims. I'm not sure why Hudson Sangree (Bee Staff Writer of this article) deemed necessary to introduce a David vs. Goliath scenario but I hope it won't influence the decision.
Also, why is there a quote from some unknown source given?
From the article: "This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway," Palefsky said. "By winning, he's lost."
After reading the article, the writer shows many discrepancies. I've actually felt the need to dismiss the article and read up on this story from a different source.
Does anyone else get the impression that the way this article was written, the writer was laughing at Sheehan the whole time?
This article isn't talking about those annoying toy robots available at your nearest junk store for the low low price of $99.99, this article describes robots that take on the impossible jobs of sniffing bombs, of tracking enemies and searching caves! They become part of the team:
FTA ------- "Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission." -------
I'm not surprised that this article describes emotional attachments. They've become pets, and not just a pile of hardware. Most people love their pets and they cry when their pets die.
The Robot Rights is in regards to ALL robots, the article is only describing a very small percent of robots. Not only that but these robots stories are set in military actions.
So to answer the question from the summary: Perhaps, but the article certainly doesn't relate to the wider audience!
Wouldn't YOU love your pet robot that sniffs IEDs and takes a few detonations in its face for you hence saving your life?
Slashdot Mirror
The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum
Oh trust me, I "peel my tape in a vacuum" all the time....
Ummm....sorry mate, but I'll have to give it the good ol' FAIL stamp! ....
PS>
http://failblog.org/
I wonder how this is going to affect items with similar properties (like good ol' duct tape) while at the space station.
"Hey! there's a leak on the outside wall but damn it, they wouldn't let us bring any duct tape!" :)
...He finally made it into a heating vent and from there into the furnace where he died from either old age(he was nearing 3 years of age) or lack of water.
You mean he was in the furnace for 3 years? Holy hell!!! Where did you say you found this hamster? Near a nuclear power plant? :)
I don't know if the original article got updated, but it says that the field is 2.5mm X 2.5mm.
...diameter 0.955 inches (24.26 mm)...
Quite a bit smaller than what the summary says (30mmX30mm). Also, for those of you that were wondering about how big a US Quarter is, here's something from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_(United_States_coin) :
For all of us who implement those 50-purpose tools into a single interface program, we can finally add our "Make Coffee" button!
I just hope that all these people they're hiring, are going to receive proper training.
1200 patent examiners a year means that they also need to train 1200 people a year...
Teacher: "Welcome to Patent Examination Training. Please open your folders. You each have a patent application in your hands. Start looking through it and hand it in to me by the end of the day as a Pass/Fail patent grade. This is your first assignment."
Student: "But we don't know how to pass a patent."
Teacher: "Nonsense, you do the homework, I'll grade your work, poof! Patent system at its best!"
Meh, :) Yes, if you do edits and save the image, you get detail corrosion.
dunno how I missed that point. Totally meant to say what you said. Thanks for correcting!
Sorry if I caused panic to anyone
Thanks Alzheimers.
----
I RTFA and I'm wondering what a "digital negative" is.
----
A digital negative is a lossless format. This is most commonly a TIFF file type although some companies have their own like Adobe's DNG (I believe that's the right extension) and most importantly, the camera's RAW files are lossless formats. They all do the same thing: They read the picture bit by bit and store it without compression. This allows for someone to open (view) a picture over and over without worrying about loosing sharpness or any detail. JPG file formats, on the other hand, use compression when they are stored and they are uncompressed when viewed. Every time you open a JPG image, you are basically uncompressing the image and when you close it, you are re-compressing it (unless you're reading the image in a read-only storage such as a CD-ROM). This can lead, eventually, to a loss in detail. For almost everyone, it's a non-issue, but for professional photographers and anyone that wishes to keep every bit of information, lossless formats are a must.
A digital negative does NOT mean that you were the one that took the picture. You can take any JPG picture and convert it to TIFF and voila! you have a digital negative of that JPG picture at the time you converted it. Having the RAW of the image may be indicative of who shot the picture and it takes a good effort to convert a JPG format to a proprietary RAW format (Each camera maker like Canon, Kodak, Nikkon etc.. have their own proprietary type of RAW encoding). The only real initial fact was that he had licensed that picture already prior to this incident and had proof of it. Having the RAW or a digital negative considerably adds to his story but by themselves they would be hard to be used in a court. In this case though, the plaintiff in a civil court needs only probable cause and digital negatives add to his rightful ownership. The RAW version of a digital negative of a picture would be a much stronger support than a TIFF or DNG. He (Gregerson) did not specify.
Ok, that was a bit lengthy. hope that helps!
FTFA
... stick! Joystick! Could be your name, Joyce-stick -and- a fun pastime for me, Joystick!"
"...but there is some talk that another Pilot, Missouri based James Henry Joyce got there first and named the device the Joyce-stick."
Am I the only one that thought "Hmm, maybe his wife/girlfriend at the time actually came up with that name, the Joy-Stick which sounds like Joyce-stick but with a play on words"?
I can totally see it:
Joyce: "Hun, wanna pilot -this- bod? You can use my stick"
Wife: "Ohh yeah, I'll use the Joyce-stick. Heh, the Joy
----
Ok so maybe it's a stretch, but hey, I think I might be onto something. And now, to let this endlessly arguable point of history be solved in bars around the world...
Actually, they ARE in the 21st century.
--FTFA--
Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."
The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."
--End Article quote--
So actually, this is a recent thinking to impose such strong bans on depictions.
Although reading most of your comment, I'm not sure why you had to follow most of your points with clearly stereotypical comments such as:
--quote--
People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).
--end quote--
You were starting to make sense until I read the end of that sentence. I believe you were trying to say "Respect all humans, their own religion and their human rights to study all areas"
What I am tired of, is actually comments like yours that push stereotypes further into everyone's head. Their religion doesn't MAKE them blow you up, extremists and activists and violent groups do. As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?
Genocides and death in the name of gods, religion or beliefs are actually common in history. Let's not make the mistake that just because we're facing a more recent act of extreme reactions, that they are and were always the -only- ones that are at fault.
Reading the original article and then the translation, I noticed that the translation unfortunately could not comprehend some of the key terms that make the article more succulent to the reader.
The important caveat is that although the lawyer (Monti) says that this was a mistake, it will not pose too many problems while it gets fixed. He says that while in the mean time, the law be enforced in such a way that only websites that belong to scientific or academic institutions will be allowed to host these mp3s and it will not even cover websites from professors or scientists even if for scientific or teaching purposes. This was said despite the fact that the Italian law allows anyone to make a website that accomplishes the same things (teach or do research or whatever). Monti said that it will be easier to regulate it in this fashion while the bill gets changed.
The previous example cited was kind of butchered from the translation as well. It said that in 2000 another mistake in the use of technical jargon created a law that legalized all pirated satellite TV decoder cards. Although the law was eventually changed, all charges had to be dropped on current pirates of said cards in the mean time.
They expect the same to happen while they fix this new mishap.
Being Italian myself and seeing the current state of the government (what government) I'm not entirely sure that this didn't happen on purpose to allow current charges to be dropped and so on and so forth...Call me paranoid, but if you've lived in Italy as a citizen, then you'll know what I mean.
My two euros.
I think you're missing the point.
Your examples are actually using home-based businesses (work from home, musicians doing whatever). So I think you actually proved my point that if your usage is required for work or for something you personally need, then by all means, go ahead and do it! They simply appealed to the public's common sense to hold off on the big media downloads for a few days.
Why go through all the trouble of controlling weather when they could just build a roof?
Would this in any way have anything to do with China trying to impress anyone? I might be wrong but why the hell would they want to choose the instability and unpredictability of controlling weather patterns than just simply building a roof?
Before you say that building a roof is not cheaper than shooting some chemical in the air, it's not just about price, it is also about certainty of results. You can get really really really lucky and it will NEVER rain and you'll never need a roof! But chances are that it will and your chemicals aren't going to stop it on time. Then what?
Whoops! We're so sorry, we fucked up?
Roofs have been around a long time, they've been proven to do what they're supposed to do...
Maybe someone can enlighten me on their decision in the first place to not include roofs.
Is anyone even counting how much waste of taxpayer's money is going to give the RIAA time in civil courts? How much money, funding, time and resources have they wasted in these frivolous charges? Is there a governing body that oversees the just use of public courts? Probably not but I mean, I'm not only angry at their stupid bull-headed thinking and their obvious strive to make money off of the misery of unsuspecting victims. Even the financial market has put a serious black dot on them saying that when a company stops inventing and starts suing to make money, it's time to let go and sell sell sell.
I mean seriously, why is the RIAA even allowed such blatant abuse of civil courts?
I am not a lawyer, but would a lawyer point to some answers about this abuse? We could all use the info. Maybe next time we write our congressmen, representatives or legislators, we can include more educated information and opinions about this particular topic.
My $0.02
Basically the summary of the article can be boiled down to:
:)
Scientists: "Yay! We finally crammed a new pair of DNA molecules!"
Journalist: "What do they do?"
Scientists: "We don't know, but we're gonna study it! It was really hard to cram that thing in there, it's like hammering a piece of a jigsaw puzzle where it didn't belong. Now we're going to study how it will react and how the surroundings react to it."
Journalist: "So what will this do for the future?"
Scientists: "More generally, Romesberg notes that DNA and RNA are now being used for hundreds of purposes: for example, to build complex shapes, build complex nanostructures, silence disease genes, or even perform calculations. A new, unnatural, base pair could multiply and diversify these applications."
Journalist: "Cool"
Scientists: "Word! Oh and we're not sure of the tools we can do with it, I'm sure they'll be cool and awesome when we discover the tools we can make with this. It HAS to be cool, we used genetic engineering!"
And that's that.
Now go home and watch Resident Evil. I wonder if someone will start a business and call it "The Umbrella Corporation"
Wow, he's like the Tom Cruise of the Music Industry!
After reading 75% of the article, I got tired of reading half truths and personal propaganda.
(begin sarcasm)
I'm glad to know that he's using U2's name and website to push a service that he's an investor in.
(end sarcasm)
Paul McGuinness, I think it's time that you realized that your old money-scamming business model is finally coming to an end. It's hard to swallow that your friends (with families) can't afford their lavish lifestyles anymore, but that's what happens when the public realizes that the music industry has been scamming them all along for many years.
People CHOOSE not to buy your inflated music, and you're a sore looser about it all because your music industry buddies weren't smart enough to develop a profitable way to do what iTunes does or what Amazon offers. Deal with it.
---begin sarcastic comment---
Isn't there someone that holds the "Origami Hexagon Fold" Patent that is going to sue them?
How about someone holding the "Using waves to view internal organs in a human body" Patent?
Or maybe the "Etching of ultrasound emitting device on silicon wafers" patent?
---end sarcastic comment---
Seriously,
if this invention grows to be used in humans, it will really provide some serious insights on disease prevention and diagnosis. I just hope that the patent morons don't destroy another inventive design much like they did with poor Vonage.
According to the article, there's a postulation that a curator or restorer might have accidentally cleaned off the eyebrows and eyelashes.
FTA
"And if you look closely at the eye of 'Mona Lisa' you can clearly see that the cracks around the eye have slightly disappeared, and that may be explained that one day a curator or restorer cleaned the eye, and cleaning the eye, removed, probably removed the eyelashes and eyebrow," he said.
Why would a single pigment/color disappear?
Weren't colors back then all made with the same base? In that case, why would only the eyebrows disappear and nothing else shows a smudge from whatever cleaning agent it was used? (if this is the case).
Not to mention that I would have loved to be there for THAT occasion:
Owner: "Can you get this thing cleaned up for me?"
Curator: "Sure thing mister, I'm a professional."
Owner: "It's priceless you know..."
Curator: "I'll take good care of it."
Curator starts the restoration from the eyes and accidentally wipes off eyebrows and eyelashes.
Curator: "Fuck!"
Curator: "Well... maybe if I get the eyes soaked in enough oil to not crack for 500 years, no one will notice."
Owner gets back.
Owner: "Hmm... look at them eyes! They're awesome!"
Owner: "There's something different about her, is it her smile?"
Curator: "I'm just a restorer, but yeah, er... she looks mysterious."
Owner: "Nice eyes though!"
So much speculation...
Just because they did their homework and programmed the original Google Maps with reusable code, doesn't mean that a new feature added that uses already implemented code isn't 'Amazing'.
Looking at the feature by itself is pretty nifty! Let's not judge it by saying "well, they didn't add any new code for this so it's nothing new..."
Anyone know what happened to Hawking's proposal for information loss?
o n_paradox
Basically what Hawking said (in a late essay entry in a science conference) was that Black Holes do 'digest' information and therefore you have information loss, however (and this is where his proposal was a bit controversial) Hawking suggested that the conglomeration of parallel universes will have a particular Black Hole present in one, and the same Black Hole missing in another, therefore the TOTAL information for ALL Universes, is retained.
Here's a link to Hawking's Black Hole Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_informati
And from the wiki article, here's the line I'm mentioning in my post:
"...On October 28, 2006, The Discovery Channel aired a show called "The Hawking Paradox". The show explained Hawking's conclusion that one must look at the universe as a whole, and that information lost in black holes is saved in parallel universes where no black holes exist."
It seems that this new solution is completely disregarding Hawking's proposal and replacing it with a new, stretched solution.
The link to Space.com for the 'most interesting extra-solar planets' has a top 10 list with all the new updated data. The article from the summary said that the fastest planet's orbit around its sun is 1.2 days, where instead the top-10 list shows a recently discovered planet with an orbit of just 10 hours! There is a link that leads to this page http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061004_fast_ planets.html that talks about 'fast planets' and shows the new data.
p lanets.html just click at the bottom link where it says "Number 10: The First" and off you go! It's actually a really nifty countdown :)
I recommend going to the top-10 list found at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/extrasolar_
Enjoy!
From the article:
"On Monday, Attorney William Portello, a partner in a Concord law firm, and Sheehan, a high-school dropout who has argued his own case, faced off in a Cameron Park courtroom."
It saddens me that courts can be manipulated more by credibility rather than facts. I hope that the judge can look past the 'high-school dropout' and listen to the claims. I'm not sure why Hudson Sangree (Bee Staff Writer of this article) deemed necessary to introduce a David vs. Goliath scenario but I hope it won't influence the decision.
Also, why is there a quote from some unknown source given?
From the article:
"This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway," Palefsky said. "By winning, he's lost."
After reading the article, the writer shows many discrepancies. I've actually felt the need to dismiss the article and read up on this story from a different source.
Does anyone else get the impression that the way this article was written, the writer was laughing at Sheehan the whole time?
Heh, and just as I post, someone makes an English translation. I love you guys!!
Woah, didn't know I had to learn a different language just to read an article on Slashdot. Anyone have any English versions of the articles handy?
This article isn't talking about those annoying toy robots available at your nearest junk store for the low low price of $99.99, this article describes robots that take on the impossible jobs of sniffing bombs, of tracking enemies and searching caves! They become part of the team:
FTA
-------
"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."
-------
I'm not surprised that this article describes emotional attachments. They've become pets, and not just a pile of hardware. Most people love their pets and they cry when their pets die.
The Robot Rights is in regards to ALL robots, the article is only describing a very small percent of robots. Not only that but these robots stories are set in military actions.
So to answer the question from the summary: Perhaps, but the article certainly doesn't relate to the wider audience!
Wouldn't YOU love your pet robot that sniffs IEDs and takes a few detonations in its face for you hence saving your life?