How to tame a dragon is proper 3d. Avatar is alllmost proper 3d. Alice in wonderland is completely fake 3d where they painted on depth after the fact. Completely different.
It is like digital cable or HDTV. Where stations would take their shit resolution analogue signal and then change the resolution send it in digital and then advertise 24/7 "All digital All the time!". Which is total BS.
Use red and blue highlighters on your old glasses then. You can keep them in your bag to equip for 3d movies. Real nerds have a gear switch for any occasion.
The kids from tfs are a little old to be worrying about drinking drain-o. I think you make sense if you change the age to like 6. Also, no access to drain-o isn't a big deal. In many places no access to internet is becoming almost a human rights issue.
50 years ago we just invented the integrated circuit and built the first proof of concept modem. It is a looong time in computer terms.
"Dealing with pedestrians of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities appearing from the side of the road, stepping out, possibly from between parked cars, will be one of the tougher sets of tests." Harder for humans. Robots have instant reaction time that buys them 1/4second automatically. They can also calculate instantly how close they will come to hitting or if they will hit. Honk the horn at the same time and skillfully navigate around the person if needed. This would not happen with a regular person. Even if the person is more situation aware than the computer.
That is not to say that the computer couldn't easily have a decent amount of situational awareness. They would know what areas are busy pedestrian spots and at what time. They would be pre-programmed for parking-lots and school-zones to drive more defensively.
"Having to identify not only the potential for danger, but also recognizing when it is safe as the individual is loading the boot of their car and not about to cross the street." It would drive defensively and slowly pass, proceeding with caution. Likely with all pedestrians it would treat them as unpredictable crazy people that could hurl themselves at the car at any moment.
Some additional things to note. We have pretty good computer vision for IDing people already. If a market in the millions/yr opened up we would see these near perfect very quickly. Ethnicity isn't a big problem for identifying people, It merely makes it harder to do facial tracking since features aren't as distinct on darker-skinned people.
Cars could do well in routing around busy pedestrian areas. It likely would be faster for a paranoid car (depending on the area) anyways. And not much slower compared to a regular driver if slower at all.
Another advantage cars could have is a periscope... seriously, stick a camera on a post google-van style 9ft in the air. Gives an additional vantage point for tracking objects/people.
Another option would be to start these systems out as highway only. No people to get overly concerned about. Reaction time and barking technique two things that computers excel at are the main causes of accidents. (I mean, aside from drinking or emotions or stupidity or being in a hurry... problems which a computer obviously does not share.)
Stick cameras inside. Problem solved. Ok, perhaps an exageration but cameras are cheap. Vandalism in many cities isn't bad enough to warrant REPAIR as you seem to imply. Or I'm being overly optimistic maybe. Most people on the bus won't care if it is painted with people's tags.
Lots of countries have done this and haven't been doomed. The US is far LESS likely to be affected than european countries. The US is the largest economy they can't just abandon the place totally. Plus it is easier to abandon European countries, physically more options around.
"If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government."
In many countries that isn't true. Hell McCain and Obama supported a bill pushing 'clean elections' where you aren't allowed to accept campaign donations and instead the government gives you a set allowance. So it isn't impossible to change or anything.
There aren't guards in bus stops or many public places.... So I don't get the distinction. With vandalism in mind certain designs would reduce costs as well.
If the bus driver were to be replaced it would be time to do what I've wanted for a long time. Free buses! Seriously, people use the bus to either spend money or go to work, both things that increase funding for the city. No one is going to be riding it for the sheer excitement whilst it is full. It makes sense to have it be free.
Having a person hired to collect money/stopping people get on is a fucking terrible waste of money. Not only do you need a guy to stand in the bus that you pay by the hour. You also need machines to collect the money. Places that sell tickets. Tokens. Secure way to transfer that money. Much slower buses while you get the money. Deals with local unis for ID cards.
Expect buses to follow the elevator. They used to have a guy in there to take tips and run the thing. When he is no longer needed to run the machine expect the service to become free. Maybe set it up so that business' can pay to have more buses come by their store.
You could have the vehicle drive up, auto ring your house. And then act as a big vending machine sticking the pizza out the side. Not to the door service but I could see it catching in some places.
Toyata's problems were caused most likely by a glitch between the pedal and the chair. In fact the multiple investigations have revealed no issues. The mat issue was the only issue they've had in the last 20yrs. People just suck. Thankfully computers won't get confused and stomp on the gas instead of the brakes.
While a fully autonomous system will likely kill a few people it will likely save many more. It would END drunk driving for one...
But yeah, your explanation answers one question (of 'Why not use usb?'). But raises another. Why didn't apple computers have usb 2.0, it was 2003~2004, usb 2.0 had been out for 3~4years?
And why didn't they switch to micro-usb when they dropped firewire compatability completely? How about the mini, touch or nano which have never supported firewire. The shuffle STARTED with a USB connector and they dropped it for their proprietary version.
You are saying there was a need for this? (the only cable that comes with an ipod): http://base0.googlehosted.com/base_media?q=FroogleCatalog_CNETI569022.jpg&size=20&dhm=d3cd1ec1&hl=en
Also, my old phone came with headphones that go in the micro-usb port. So it is totally possible. I can also plug it into the computer using micro-usb to usb. Or into a wall using the same micr-usb to usb cable with a usb to wall socket plug. Standards 3.
Once apple gets a decent share you will see lots of companies release apple only stuff.
For example, the ipod connector. Could have very easily been mini/micro usb. But it isn't. And because of that we get mp3/phone docks that are apple only. The reason? Because when you want to buy a new phone or mp3 player you either get to throw away 50$ extra to replace the perfectly good dock as well or stick with apple. It is a trap. Same with the ipod trying to enforce iTunes and occasionally Safari. So that you will be more attatched. And same with this enforced API usage. If you learn apple's api and become comfortable with it you are more likely to code for apple again.
Apple more and more is becoming a trap and already is for the unwary. All unnecessarily so. So Apple can engage in plenty of shitty anti-competitive behaviors without being the only option.
If you want to look at only christians that attend say once a week or more (vs less often vs atheists) then I am fine with that. It would be an interesting study I'm sure. But that isn't what you are saying.
"Their beliefs on divorce, marriage, morals and basic ethics often bear no resemblance to the actual teachings of the religion they profess to adhere to."
This doesn't break the group based on how religious a person is. It breaks the group into good and bad people. It is very likely that good people that are Christians are better than the average atheist but it isn't a fair comparison at all. It would be like seeing what runs faster dogs or humans. And then looking at only the olympic runner humans since they are the ideal runner. The comparison is inherently unfair.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Gandhi
My argument is that most Christians don't act Christ-like. And infact most Christians act LESS Christ-like than atheists. And statistics bear this out. Atheists commit less adultery/violence/murder/rape/divorce than Christians as I said before.
"For all practical purposes, these people behave the same or very nearly the same as agnostics/atheists."
Also if you think about the statistics it doesn't make any sense at all. If you take the top 50% most christ-like Christians they would have the lower divorce rate. Say the saint-like divorce rate is as low as 20% (27-7) from the mid-point of 27% (for born-agains). Then the others which you said would be close to agnostics would have a divorce rate of 34% (27+7) which is a whole 13% higher than the agnostic rate of 21%. Which is clearly going in the wrong way.
So.... there is no version of math you can do that puts the half-ass christians closer to agnostics. Unless of course you are argueing that the more religious are worse off than the less religious.
A. yep, but find your own studies on this, they will all agree with the general premise that you are more likely to divorce if you are religious.
"A person who goes to Catholic Mass on Easter and Christmas only is technically a "christian" but do they really practice the religion? Do they really love others as they would love themselves, sacrifice their own time and desires to help the poor and the widows?"
I'll be gentle and say thats fucking stupid. Taking part in the religion makes people more likely to commit sins (violence/murder/rape/divorce). If you sort out all the people that are religious and saint-like no fuck there would be less divorce in that group. But that isn't how it works at all. You miss the point entirely. Religiousness makes people more likely to do because it takes away any internal drive to figure out ethics on your own.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg
Lol I just copied it from the site. Any study you look up about religion vs divorce rate will show that atheist/agnostics are low compared to most all religions.
AFAIK The Books Rights Registry once it is up and running will be able to make deals with groups other than Google that are the same or similar. Basically the BRR got the rights to do so during the trial.
“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” -Grummond (Google)
"And what this means is that any book seller—anybody, whether it is Amazon, whether it is Barnes and Noble, whether it is Microsoft, should they ever decide to get into this market—would be able to sell access to the books that are covered by the settlement." -Grummond (Google)
Of course this is just talk, I didn't find what price Google was offering books at which could of course defeat the purpose. But it isn't selective at any rate.
Slashdot Mirror
How to tame a dragon is proper 3d. Avatar is alllmost proper 3d. Alice in wonderland is completely fake 3d where they painted on depth after the fact. Completely different.
It is like digital cable or HDTV. Where stations would take their shit resolution analogue signal and then change the resolution send it in digital and then advertise 24/7 "All digital All the time!". Which is total BS.
Use red and blue highlighters on your old glasses then. You can keep them in your bag to equip for 3d movies. Real nerds have a gear switch for any occasion.
The kids from tfs are a little old to be worrying about drinking drain-o. I think you make sense if you change the age to like 6. Also, no access to drain-o isn't a big deal. In many places no access to internet is becoming almost a human rights issue.
50 years ago we just invented the integrated circuit and built the first proof of concept modem. It is a looong time in computer terms.
"Dealing with pedestrians of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities appearing from the side of the road, stepping out, possibly from between parked cars, will be one of the tougher sets of tests."
Harder for humans. Robots have instant reaction time that buys them 1/4second automatically. They can also calculate instantly how close they will come to hitting or if they will hit. Honk the horn at the same time and skillfully navigate around the person if needed. This would not happen with a regular person. Even if the person is more situation aware than the computer.
That is not to say that the computer couldn't easily have a decent amount of situational awareness. They would know what areas are busy pedestrian spots and at what time. They would be pre-programmed for parking-lots and school-zones to drive more defensively.
"Having to identify not only the potential for danger, but also recognizing when it is safe as the individual is loading the boot of their car and not about to cross the street."
It would drive defensively and slowly pass, proceeding with caution. Likely with all pedestrians it would treat them as unpredictable crazy people that could hurl themselves at the car at any moment.
Some additional things to note. We have pretty good computer vision for IDing people already. If a market in the millions/yr opened up we would see these near perfect very quickly. Ethnicity isn't a big problem for identifying people, It merely makes it harder to do facial tracking since features aren't as distinct on darker-skinned people.
Cars could do well in routing around busy pedestrian areas. It likely would be faster for a paranoid car (depending on the area) anyways. And not much slower compared to a regular driver if slower at all.
Another advantage cars could have is a periscope... seriously, stick a camera on a post google-van style 9ft in the air. Gives an additional vantage point for tracking objects/people.
Another option would be to start these systems out as highway only. No people to get overly concerned about. Reaction time and barking technique two things that computers excel at are the main causes of accidents. (I mean, aside from drinking or emotions or stupidity or being in a hurry... problems which a computer obviously does not share.)
CS5 comes with content-aware fill also known as magic. Every review of it will be entranced. Seriously, that shit is crazy.
"So you are ok with your kids being on AIM all day looking for older guys who make them feel special? Or surfing porn all day?"
I'll go out on a limb and assume that OP would want to communicate that these are bad things.
Stick cameras inside. Problem solved. Ok, perhaps an exageration but cameras are cheap. Vandalism in many cities isn't bad enough to warrant REPAIR as you seem to imply. Or I'm being overly optimistic maybe. Most people on the bus won't care if it is painted with people's tags.
I doubt they are there yet but they will get there soon enough. Also we have tons of embedded computers that never kernel panic or blue screen. TONS.
Lots of countries have done this and haven't been doomed. The US is far LESS likely to be affected than european countries. The US is the largest economy they can't just abandon the place totally. Plus it is easier to abandon European countries, physically more options around.
"If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government."
In many countries that isn't true. Hell McCain and Obama supported a bill pushing 'clean elections' where you aren't allowed to accept campaign donations and instead the government gives you a set allowance. So it isn't impossible to change or anything.
replying to kill bad mod.
There aren't guards in bus stops or many public places.... So I don't get the distinction. With vandalism in mind certain designs would reduce costs as well.
The iPod connector is just USB for a while now. No firewire support. But yeah, point taken on the docks.
"Bus drivers"
If the bus driver were to be replaced it would be time to do what I've wanted for a long time. Free buses! Seriously, people use the bus to either spend money or go to work, both things that increase funding for the city. No one is going to be riding it for the sheer excitement whilst it is full. It makes sense to have it be free.
Having a person hired to collect money/stopping people get on is a fucking terrible waste of money. Not only do you need a guy to stand in the bus that you pay by the hour. You also need machines to collect the money. Places that sell tickets. Tokens. Secure way to transfer that money. Much slower buses while you get the money. Deals with local unis for ID cards.
Expect buses to follow the elevator. They used to have a guy in there to take tips and run the thing. When he is no longer needed to run the machine expect the service to become free. Maybe set it up so that business' can pay to have more buses come by their store.
"Pizza delivery"
You could have the vehicle drive up, auto ring your house. And then act as a big vending machine sticking the pizza out the side. Not to the door service but I could see it catching in some places.
Toyata's problems were caused most likely by a glitch between the pedal and the chair. In fact the multiple investigations have revealed no issues. The mat issue was the only issue they've had in the last 20yrs. People just suck. Thankfully computers won't get confused and stomp on the gas instead of the brakes.
While a fully autonomous system will likely kill a few people it will likely save many more. It would END drunk driving for one...
This isn't firewire it is .... ipod to usb:
http://base0.googlehosted.com/base_media?q=FroogleCatalog_CNETI569022.jpg&size=20&dhm=d3cd1ec1&hl=en
But yeah, your explanation answers one question (of 'Why not use usb?'). But raises another. Why didn't apple computers have usb 2.0, it was 2003~2004, usb 2.0 had been out for 3~4years?
And why didn't they switch to micro-usb when they dropped firewire compatability completely? How about the mini, touch or nano which have never supported firewire. The shuffle STARTED with a USB connector and they dropped it for their proprietary version.
You are saying there was a need for this? (the only cable that comes with an ipod):
http://base0.googlehosted.com/base_media?q=FroogleCatalog_CNETI569022.jpg&size=20&dhm=d3cd1ec1&hl=en
Also, my old phone came with headphones that go in the micro-usb port. So it is totally possible. I can also plug it into the computer using micro-usb to usb. Or into a wall using the same micr-usb to usb cable with a usb to wall socket plug. Standards 3.
"What's the big deal here?"
The difference being one is true the other isn't?
Once apple gets a decent share you will see lots of companies release apple only stuff.
For example, the ipod connector. Could have very easily been mini/micro usb. But it isn't. And because of that we get mp3/phone docks that are apple only. The reason? Because when you want to buy a new phone or mp3 player you either get to throw away 50$ extra to replace the perfectly good dock as well or stick with apple. It is a trap. Same with the ipod trying to enforce iTunes and occasionally Safari. So that you will be more attatched. And same with this enforced API usage. If you learn apple's api and become comfortable with it you are more likely to code for apple again.
Apple more and more is becoming a trap and already is for the unwary. All unnecessarily so. So Apple can engage in plenty of shitty anti-competitive behaviors without being the only option.
If you want to look at only christians that attend say once a week or more (vs less often vs atheists) then I am fine with that. It would be an interesting study I'm sure. But that isn't what you are saying.
"Their beliefs on divorce, marriage, morals and basic ethics often bear no resemblance to the actual teachings of the religion they profess to adhere to."
This doesn't break the group based on how religious a person is. It breaks the group into good and bad people. It is very likely that good people that are Christians are better than the average atheist but it isn't a fair comparison at all. It would be like seeing what runs faster dogs or humans. And then looking at only the olympic runner humans since they are the ideal runner. The comparison is inherently unfair.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Gandhi
My argument is that most Christians don't act Christ-like. And infact most Christians act LESS Christ-like than atheists. And statistics bear this out. Atheists commit less adultery/violence/murder/rape/divorce than Christians as I said before.
"For all practical purposes, these people behave the same or very nearly the same as agnostics/atheists."
Also if you think about the statistics it doesn't make any sense at all. If you take the top 50% most christ-like Christians they would have the lower divorce rate. Say the saint-like divorce rate is as low as 20% (27-7) from the mid-point of 27% (for born-agains). Then the others which you said would be close to agnostics would have a divorce rate of 34% (27+7) which is a whole 13% higher than the agnostic rate of 21%. Which is clearly going in the wrong way.
So.... there is no version of math you can do that puts the half-ass christians closer to agnostics. Unless of course you are argueing that the more religious are worse off than the less religious.
A. yep, but find your own studies on this, they will all agree with the general premise that you are more likely to divorce if you are religious.
"A person who goes to Catholic Mass on Easter and Christmas only is technically a "christian" but do they really practice the religion? Do they really love others as they would love themselves, sacrifice their own time and desires to help the poor and the widows?"
I'll be gentle and say thats fucking stupid. Taking part in the religion makes people more likely to commit sins (violence/murder/rape/divorce). If you sort out all the people that are religious and saint-like no fuck there would be less divorce in that group. But that isn't how it works at all. You miss the point entirely. Religiousness makes people more likely to do because it takes away any internal drive to figure out ethics on your own.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg
The study was done by an evangelical group not me... I'm sure I'd have been a lot more accurate.
Lol I just copied it from the site. Any study you look up about religion vs divorce rate will show that atheist/agnostics are low compared to most all religions.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1610984&cid=31780702
AFAIK The Books Rights Registry once it is up and running will be able to make deals with groups other than Google that are the same or similar. Basically the BRR got the rights to do so during the trial.
“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” -Grummond (Google)
"And what this means is that any book seller—anybody, whether it is Amazon, whether it is Barnes and Noble, whether it is Microsoft, should they ever decide to get into this market—would be able to sell access to the books that are covered by the settlement." -Grummond (Google)
Of course this is just talk, I didn't find what price Google was offering books at which could of course defeat the purpose. But it isn't selective at any rate.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-31_51994.PDF