Well, if the news is that important, it will still reach us:
China blows up-->Gold Farming disappears
President assassinated-->YouTube servers bogged down
All fruit becomes sterile and withered due to an alien virus-->Apple changes its logo and name
And you have to get a new torso before you can put it on, otherwise you can only walk really slowly... right? And when you do get your new torso, all of your clothes will become slightly transparent.
The team have recorded people's movements in completely new locations -- like driving a car -- previously out of reach.
Can't make a clear car out of plastic? Yes, you could, but it would also have to be relatively stationary for the standard mocap cameras to be able to pick up the motion of the driver inside. If the car is stationary, the person inside isn't moving naturally how one would move in a car. That's the idea here.
Since each coupon is printed with an individual ID, printing to a file then just copying it doesn't work. The information has to actually go back to coupons.com to be activated. Aren't there better ways of ensuring one coupon per person?
Like requiring you to sign up with an e-mail address which, in combination with your MAC address, would singularly identify you (until you changed your network card and email address) or something? You wouldn't need windows-proprietary software to print coupons out then. Honestly, they just have a bad setup.
While this does sound like a good idea, to weaken the apparent strangle hold the broadcasting companies have on the FCC, I'm just not sure if I really want MS to loosen that grip. After all, what's better? Letting MS control the FCC or the broadcast companies? I guess it's a start though.
I'd rather let MS control the broadcast companies. Then we'd get less crappy soap operas, and more crappy tech-weenie shows. That's probably not what you meant to ask in your question, though. Between you and me, as programmer to whatever you are, that's why grammar Nazis will rule the world. Trust me, I am one.
</sarcasm style="wit:extremely subtle;">
Well, when I think of clones, I think of them in the normal sense, where they have to be grown in a test tube from inception. In this case, since you retain your complete self, age and memory included, it would be a copy at worst. Though I may just be hassling over words here, "clone" is one of those words that makes "certain"* people oppose things that would otherwise advance one or more aspects of society greatly.
So a copy of you is made, that is, let me make this clear, not a clone of you. And at the risk of getting all philosophic, your conscious mind is based around those elements of your brain that are private to yourself, mainly your memories, thoughts, and feelings. To be very secular about all of this, we can assume that there's not some aether substance** bound to your body as it currently exists that represents your consciousness that would suddenly become unbound when your body becomes disassembled. If there is, then where would a new aether substance come from to bind to the new body? If a body has none of this representation of a conscious mind, then it would not have any memories either. Or it would not be able to access them anyway. This could be tested simply by teaching a lab rat a way through a maze, then teleporting it to see if it still remembers on the other side.
Of course, you could argue that a lab rat is simply acting autonomously through brain functions and is not sapient. So if some human were willing to go through, and suddenly this human were no longer sapient, i.e. were acting only autonomously, we would have an answer. This, still, may be hard to gauge, but presumably a human with no consciousness (not conscience) would not have "feelings". This tends to get mushy, but I'm sure somebody could devise a method to test this.
* - stupid, if you're not a moderator who opposes things like stem-cell research, or the idea of evolution.** - Take your pick of soul, spirit, divine spark, etc.
While the article posted doesn't necessarily make it entirely clear what Google is complaining about, I had the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just that a search function existed in Vista, as there has always been. So take a look at some other articles if you really want to know what the complaint is about. I found this:
In a 50-page document Google submitted to the Court, the search provider contends that Vista's desktop search, which is separate from internet search, limits users abilities to run Google's desktop search instead. Basically, Google says Microsoft's new OS only permits users to search Microsoft compatible information, such as e-mail.
A Google spokesperson said in a statement that Microsoft Vista "violates the consent decree" and that its nearly impossible to turn off. "There is no visible way for users to choose an alternate search provider," the Google spokesman stated.
Many of the comments in the previous news post were about how the touch screen would be unsafe for regular coffee-table use. This obviously negates that to some extent, since we can now just the top at a much lower cost, presumably, than was previously thought. (Although large pieces of glass custom-cut to the right size aren't cheap either)
Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
on
Apple, the New Microsoft?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The nice thing about the English language is that words can be used in context to mean what we want them to, as long as others understand it. If the phrase were "the ultimate source of cool", we would understand it to mean the best source of cool. Not the last. In the same sense, penultimate, in context, would mean second to best source of cool. Not the second to last.
Slashdot Mirror
See: Denobulan Species
They seem to have worked it out just fine.
To solve your problem, please read our guide on "Switching to another Service Provider"
Bah! There is only one true sport. I'll be concerned when robots can beat us at this.
Or perhaps Brockian Ultra Cricket?
Well, if the news is that important, it will still reach us:
China blows up-->Gold Farming disappears
President assassinated-->YouTube servers bogged down
All fruit becomes sterile and withered due to an alien virus-->Apple changes its logo and name
As the ratio of air marshals to planes approaches 1, the chance of Jodi Foster losing her child and going crazy increases asymptotically.
And you have to get a new torso before you can put it on, otherwise you can only walk really slowly... right? And when you do get your new torso, all of your clothes will become slightly transparent.
And plenty of nonmeaningful ones too. I'm not sure what they were thinking when they registered http://www.bbbbbbbbbbbbb.com.
Or, for that matter...
No, what we do first is move to another country. That fixes all of our immediate problems. At least, if that's what you're really worried about.
Can't make a clear car out of plastic? Yes, you could, but it would also have to be relatively stationary for the standard mocap cameras to be able to pick up the motion of the driver inside. If the car is stationary, the person inside isn't moving naturally how one would move in a car. That's the idea here.
Cf. Vista not trusting its users with HD media
Crap, now they're gonna sue me too!
Raiders IV? I wasn't aware of a Raiders II or III.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7916 892&st=Duke+Nukem&type=product&id=1149208575530
whatever you do, don't look at this page, or else the release date won't be the first of December any more...Crap!
Since each coupon is printed with an individual ID, printing to a file then just copying it doesn't work. The information has to actually go back to coupons.com to be activated. Aren't there better ways of ensuring one coupon per person? Like requiring you to sign up with an e-mail address which, in combination with your MAC address, would singularly identify you (until you changed your network card and email address) or something? You wouldn't need windows-proprietary software to print coupons out then. Honestly, they just have a bad setup.
</sarcasm style="wit:extremely subtle;">
Well, when I think of clones, I think of them in the normal sense, where they have to be grown in a test tube from inception. In this case, since you retain your complete self, age and memory included, it would be a copy at worst. Though I may just be hassling over words here, "clone" is one of those words that makes "certain"* people oppose things that would otherwise advance one or more aspects of society greatly. So a copy of you is made, that is, let me make this clear, not a clone of you. And at the risk of getting all philosophic, your conscious mind is based around those elements of your brain that are private to yourself, mainly your memories, thoughts, and feelings. To be very secular about all of this, we can assume that there's not some aether substance** bound to your body as it currently exists that represents your consciousness that would suddenly become unbound when your body becomes disassembled. If there is, then where would a new aether substance come from to bind to the new body? If a body has none of this representation of a conscious mind, then it would not have any memories either. Or it would not be able to access them anyway. This could be tested simply by teaching a lab rat a way through a maze, then teleporting it to see if it still remembers on the other side. Of course, you could argue that a lab rat is simply acting autonomously through brain functions and is not sapient. So if some human were willing to go through, and suddenly this human were no longer sapient, i.e. were acting only autonomously, we would have an answer. This, still, may be hard to gauge, but presumably a human with no consciousness (not conscience) would not have "feelings". This tends to get mushy, but I'm sure somebody could devise a method to test this. * - stupid, if you're not a moderator who opposes things like stem-cell research, or the idea of evolution. ** - Take your pick of soul, spirit, divine spark, etc.
While the article posted doesn't necessarily make it entirely clear what Google is complaining about, I had the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just that a search function existed in Vista, as there has always been. So take a look at some other articles if you really want to know what the complaint is about. I found this:
More pictures of the product: http://images.google.com/images?q=The+One+Ring
Many of the comments in the previous news post were about how the touch screen would be unsafe for regular coffee-table use. This obviously negates that to some extent, since we can now just the top at a much lower cost, presumably, than was previously thought. (Although large pieces of glass custom-cut to the right size aren't cheap either)
I don't know about everybody else, but some times, when I wake up in the morning, and open my inbox, I do get a little afraid.
...in that order.
The nice thing about the English language is that words can be used in context to mean what we want them to, as long as others understand it. If the phrase were "the ultimate source of cool", we would understand it to mean the best source of cool. Not the last. In the same sense, penultimate, in context, would mean second to best source of cool. Not the second to last.
I made a program in VB6 years ago that can make much the same images. But these are just computer generated by random. Probably would end up being a slug or something. http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCod e.asp?txtCodeId=32601&lngWId=1