Maybe we are seeing more meteorites due to the thinning of the ozone layer, or thinning of the whole atmosphere! Forget the tinfoil hats and helmets, get your space suits on!
Exactly. I was wondering why in real life everything that had feet had forward facing feet (bent in the direction of running), but this robot has backward facing feet (bent away from the direction of running). It seems very non-intuitive. Or are there animals with feet pointing away from the direction of movement?
This is also seen, somewhat, in the BigDog robot, where the legs bend the wrong way, all the knees pointing toward the middle of the body.
I can see how the "feet" here help it grab onto the ground better to go forward, but what is it lacking since the feet are backwards from, say, a dog. Does it have less climbing ability (no claws)? Less stopping ability? Or is the weird geometry based on an enhancement to human / animals, such as bones that have a higher tensile strength (since ours have to grow, mend, etc.)?
If the 90% of the results were actively campaigning against Santorum, it would not be a problem. Wrong ideas, bad policy, saying things that you don't agree with -- I have no problem with those. The problem is when they are equating his name with obscene material. Just stick to the issues, not the implied name-calling.
I'm sorry, but what does being rich, powerful, or connected have to do with being bullied? Being a public personality doesn't mean someone can appropriate your name for another purpose.
I concur. This seems on par with taking someone else's name (person or business: McDonald's, Obama), and deliberately trying to game the search engine to have your results on top. If you have a legitimate business model, it would be fair game. However, a person's name definitely belongs to them.
The name stealing, combined with name calling (which *is* childish) makes Savage look the fool. Anything else he does becomes suspect in my mind.
True, but just straight product cost is only part of the equation. Going grocery shopping (for cheese, plus some crackers, and we're out of milk, and...) means driving my car (or even walking). If I want cheap milk from store A, and cheap cheese from store B, do I drive/walk to both?
You have to factor in time (because time is money), gas (or wear-and-tear on your shoes plus even MORE time), hassle, etc. There are times I go to 2 different stores, usually because one stocks what I need and the other doesn't (but the other has better prices / selection).
So, yes, I end up buying something that costs more at store A so I don't have to drive/walk to store B. If the cost were exorbitant, or I only had to buy it infrequently (iPad), then I might choose between store A and B. However, sometimes the time saved is worth it to just pay a little more. Or, in the case of filling my gas tank, supporting gas station A instead of B because of other factors: closer to home -- do you really want only 20-stall gas stations, or one close to home to drop in and get a gallon of milk? Venezuelan owned?
I concur. My wife has been diagnosed with Fibromyalgia; if it is "all in her head," then there is still something wrong physically. She gets shooting pains at times, gets the prickly skin associated with fever (but no fever), even claims at times that her hair hurts (again, I have had that when I am feverish).
Is she coddled? Sure. Maybe we should take away comfy couches, because those coddle us. And toothpaste. And running water (that coddles a LOT); we could just use wells, and boil / filter it if we don't like the smell / taste / whatever.
I see you are trolling, but you bring up a valid point in your first sentence.
"barely enough or not enough spaces" -- do you *want* the government to mandate *more* unused parking spaces?
But seriously, the time when I really notice all the spots being full (my wife has an on-off disability and has a disabled permit that we rarely use) is Sunday afternoon at popular restaurants. Yes, I live in the South, and many people leave church and go to a restaurant for lunch afterward. I wonder if some of these people only "get out" once a week, and take advantage of being out to go to a nice lunch.
I think the time when the spots are all full are during peak times. If you were to go an hour or two later, they would be mostly empty, just like the rest of the parking lot.
I concur. I thought about turning all of my protections off just to see what they were talking about... but then I came to my senses. Whew, disaster averted!
No, it is worse than being in the Stone Age -- they are in the HIPPA Age. With patient rights, you cannot share information with another person, unless that person specifically give the pharmacy or doctor permission to talk to them.
I fear this will only get worse as the government tries to take over more and more of the healthcare.
No, I have never had a problem with my local pharmacy; as long as I have the Rx number, I can call it in, and since we are on the same account and I can verify the address, I can pick it up. But when the big insurance pharmacy calls, for example about a problem, they have to verify you are the person they want ("Are you ?" "Please enter your date of birth to verify your identity" and stuff like that). It's actually easier when it is a computer calling, they don't hear that you are male or female, they just want to know you have the right information.
I've had to do that with ordering prescriptions for my wife. It always made me feel a little dirty, except that she asks me to fill her prescriptions (not like I am ordering them without her knowledge). The insurance company has recently installed a new system, where she can authorize others to see or order medications for her, so I login as me but have access to her information. She only has to authorize once, then I can see her prescription numbers and order them. Unfortunately, if I had to call them, I couldn't really sound like her, so I'd have to get someone to help (e.g. if she were out of town and unavailable to call them directly).
How about keeping your passwords "locally" at your house, so upon your death, they can get to them *in* your house? You could keep them somewhere locked, where your siblings wouldn't normally be into. But, when they needed them, they could login to your computer and have the passwords nearby?
I know people that keep their passwords in software "lockers" that require a master password, but then all of the passwords are there. Even if this were an online service, you could keep the master password to yourself until you died, but then have it written down (or something) in the house.
My father-in-law has a bunch of important papers in his house, in a folder labeled, "when I die," so we can access everything. Life insurance, etc., but you could keep your master password there with those important documents.
That was the first thing I thought of, also. Sounds like the original Mac file system and their "file with payload" idea. It had good aspects and bad aspects, but it got weird when your file type got wrongly assigned somehow.
Perhaps you are looking at the wrong schooling options? I have 2 kids, both in college. They started with scholarships (one has lost theirs, so is having to pay), but working at just-above-minimum wage jobs is letting them live off-campus (with roommates) and attend school full-time.
I know others around their age that went the community college route to obtain an AA (while working), and have moved into the 4-year institution with half of their schooling done. If they have any loans, they will be minimal. Yes, many are living with parents to eliminate rent and food expenses, although commuting costs dollars for gas. We made the decision that paying for gas back-and-forth didn't make sense, plus living close to campus made the rest of the college experience easier (need to go in for a study group? not a major pain to drive across town).
Can the kids afford to take summers off and backpack around Europe? No way. Usually summer is taking only one class and getting more hours at work, to save up for fall and spring classes. Am I helping? Yes, still on my car/health insurance, still a cell phone on my family plan. But, food, rent, clothes, and entertainment is all on them.
I saw that two celebrities got banned (William Shatner and Alyssa Milano), both got their accounts blocked, no warning, no reason given. Both were complaining on twitter. I can't imagine they were lying about their ages, or trying to sell viagra / rolex watches...
Read article, still scares me. If I get reported for something, they will shutdown not just my G+ account, but could possibly block all linked accounts? I think the simplest workaround is: please don't link accounts for me. Oh wait, I don't have a choice.
I think I'll keep my separate accounts. Or, like people above have said, create a G+ account just to see others' posts, but not actually use it for anything -- a glorified RSS feed. Wonderful:eyeroll:
Slashdot Mirror
... hey, where's the "Like" button? Someone stole my Like button!
Maybe we are seeing more meteorites due to the thinning of the ozone layer, or thinning of the whole atmosphere! Forget the tinfoil hats and helmets, get your space suits on!
Ok, but then the knee is hitting the ground, similar to a crawling baby. Except this baby crawls at 18 mph!
Exactly. I was wondering why in real life everything that had feet had forward facing feet (bent in the direction of running), but this robot has backward facing feet (bent away from the direction of running). It seems very non-intuitive. Or are there animals with feet pointing away from the direction of movement?
This is also seen, somewhat, in the BigDog robot, where the legs bend the wrong way, all the knees pointing toward the middle of the body.
I can see how the "feet" here help it grab onto the ground better to go forward, but what is it lacking since the feet are backwards from, say, a dog. Does it have less climbing ability (no claws)? Less stopping ability? Or is the weird geometry based on an enhancement to human / animals, such as bones that have a higher tensile strength (since ours have to grow, mend, etc.)?
Has anyone checked out their HTML? With wonders like the snippet below, maybe they need some help (at exorbitant rates, of course):
<tr> ...
<td class="style125"
</td>
<td class="style135"
<strong><span class="style131"><strong> If you have
Someone needs to learn to close their TD tags ...
If the 90% of the results were actively campaigning against Santorum, it would not be a problem. Wrong ideas, bad policy, saying things that you don't agree with -- I have no problem with those. The problem is when they are equating his name with obscene material. Just stick to the issues, not the implied name-calling.
I'm sorry, but what does being rich, powerful, or connected have to do with being bullied? Being a public personality doesn't mean someone can appropriate your name for another purpose.
I concur. This seems on par with taking someone else's name (person or business: McDonald's, Obama), and deliberately trying to game the search engine to have your results on top. If you have a legitimate business model, it would be fair game. However, a person's name definitely belongs to them.
The name stealing, combined with name calling (which *is* childish) makes Savage look the fool. Anything else he does becomes suspect in my mind.
True, but just straight product cost is only part of the equation. Going grocery shopping (for cheese, plus some crackers, and we're out of milk, and ...) means driving my car (or even walking). If I want cheap milk from store A, and cheap cheese from store B, do I drive/walk to both?
You have to factor in time (because time is money), gas (or wear-and-tear on your shoes plus even MORE time), hassle, etc. There are times I go to 2 different stores, usually because one stocks what I need and the other doesn't (but the other has better prices / selection).
So, yes, I end up buying something that costs more at store A so I don't have to drive/walk to store B. If the cost were exorbitant, or I only had to buy it infrequently (iPad), then I might choose between store A and B. However, sometimes the time saved is worth it to just pay a little more. Or, in the case of filling my gas tank, supporting gas station A instead of B because of other factors: closer to home -- do you really want only 20-stall gas stations, or one close to home to drop in and get a gallon of milk? Venezuelan owned?
There is a nice theater around here that shows current run movies, but on Sunday night they only charge $5. It's almost like a super-matinee!
I concur. My wife has been diagnosed with Fibromyalgia; if it is "all in her head," then there is still something wrong physically. She gets shooting pains at times, gets the prickly skin associated with fever (but no fever), even claims at times that her hair hurts (again, I have had that when I am feverish).
Is she coddled? Sure. Maybe we should take away comfy couches, because those coddle us. And toothpaste. And running water (that coddles a LOT); we could just use wells, and boil / filter it if we don't like the smell / taste / whatever.
I see you are trolling, but you bring up a valid point in your first sentence.
"barely enough or not enough spaces" -- do you *want* the government to mandate *more* unused parking spaces?
But seriously, the time when I really notice all the spots being full (my wife has an on-off disability and has a disabled permit that we rarely use) is Sunday afternoon at popular restaurants. Yes, I live in the South, and many people leave church and go to a restaurant for lunch afterward. I wonder if some of these people only "get out" once a week, and take advantage of being out to go to a nice lunch.
I think the time when the spots are all full are during peak times. If you were to go an hour or two later, they would be mostly empty, just like the rest of the parking lot.
Huh? At the end it showed a page with your score, and the correct answers, your answers, and some snarky remark.
Or did I take a later revision of the test?
PS: I only got 40%; I couldn't remember ARCnet, but I lived through ARPAnet and BITnet. Go figure.
I concur. I thought about turning all of my protections off just to see what they were talking about ... but then I came to my senses. Whew, disaster averted!
No, it is worse than being in the Stone Age -- they are in the HIPPA Age. With patient rights, you cannot share information with another person, unless that person specifically give the pharmacy or doctor permission to talk to them.
I fear this will only get worse as the government tries to take over more and more of the healthcare.
No, I have never had a problem with my local pharmacy; as long as I have the Rx number, I can call it in, and since we are on the same account and I can verify the address, I can pick it up. But when the big insurance pharmacy calls, for example about a problem, they have to verify you are the person they want ("Are you ?" "Please enter your date of birth to verify your identity" and stuff like that). It's actually easier when it is a computer calling, they don't hear that you are male or female, they just want to know you have the right information.
I've had to do that with ordering prescriptions for my wife. It always made me feel a little dirty, except that she asks me to fill her prescriptions (not like I am ordering them without her knowledge). The insurance company has recently installed a new system, where she can authorize others to see or order medications for her, so I login as me but have access to her information. She only has to authorize once, then I can see her prescription numbers and order them. Unfortunately, if I had to call them, I couldn't really sound like her, so I'd have to get someone to help (e.g. if she were out of town and unavailable to call them directly).
How about keeping your passwords "locally" at your house, so upon your death, they can get to them *in* your house? You could keep them somewhere locked, where your siblings wouldn't normally be into. But, when they needed them, they could login to your computer and have the passwords nearby?
I know people that keep their passwords in software "lockers" that require a master password, but then all of the passwords are there. Even if this were an online service, you could keep the master password to yourself until you died, but then have it written down (or something) in the house.
My father-in-law has a bunch of important papers in his house, in a folder labeled, "when I die," so we can access everything. Life insurance, etc., but you could keep your master password there with those important documents.
That was the first thing I thought of, also. Sounds like the original Mac file system and their "file with payload" idea. It had good aspects and bad aspects, but it got weird when your file type got wrongly assigned somehow.
To end the irony of the previous post ...
... and here I am without any mod points.
Pretend that I marked you Two Thumbs Way Up!, Mr. PHB.
PS: For those of you without an irony chip installed ... pretend I started my post with </irony>
Perhaps you are looking at the wrong schooling options? I have 2 kids, both in college. They started with scholarships (one has lost theirs, so is having to pay), but working at just-above-minimum wage jobs is letting them live off-campus (with roommates) and attend school full-time.
I know others around their age that went the community college route to obtain an AA (while working), and have moved into the 4-year institution with half of their schooling done. If they have any loans, they will be minimal. Yes, many are living with parents to eliminate rent and food expenses, although commuting costs dollars for gas. We made the decision that paying for gas back-and-forth didn't make sense, plus living close to campus made the rest of the college experience easier (need to go in for a study group? not a major pain to drive across town).
Can the kids afford to take summers off and backpack around Europe? No way. Usually summer is taking only one class and getting more hours at work, to save up for fall and spring classes. Am I helping? Yes, still on my car/health insurance, still a cell phone on my family plan. But, food, rent, clothes, and entertainment is all on them.
What? You think Slashdotters are pedantic enough to see that you mis-typed your response and call you on it anyway? What do you think we are?
Oh wait, I think I answered my own question ...
(from wiktionary)
A phrase that has two meanings, especially where one is innocent and literal, the other risqué, bawdy, or ironic; an innuendo.
However, your point is well taken. Of course the risks are tiny, we're talking about microbes!
I saw that two celebrities got banned (William Shatner and Alyssa Milano), both got their accounts blocked, no warning, no reason given. Both were complaining on twitter. I can't imagine they were lying about their ages, or trying to sell viagra / rolex watches ...
Read article, still scares me. If I get reported for something, they will shutdown not just my G+ account, but could possibly block all linked accounts? I think the simplest workaround is: please don't link accounts for me. Oh wait, I don't have a choice.
I think I'll keep my separate accounts. Or, like people above have said, create a G+ account just to see others' posts, but not actually use it for anything -- a glorified RSS feed. Wonderful :eyeroll: