I remember reading a similar article about Linus Torvalds (saying no to the inclusion of much code in the Linux kernel codebase). The gist of the article was that he spends much more time rejecting new code than he spends actually coding. I can't seem to find the article now though...
Many amputees can still move the muscles/surface at end of their limb. So they put a sensor and then try to make an intuitive map of those skin/muscle movements to the bionic arm motions. I don't know how exactly they map the motions (statically vs a learning algorithm, etc), but apparently they can make it good enough that people can learn how to use the bionic arm naturally.
(Forgot exactly where I saw this. Hopefully someone can provide a source.)
> Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?
Even if those systems are integral to brain function, I'd assume that they are easier to simulate than the brain itself. Is it important to build a "brain simulation" instead of a "full body simulation"?
IANA astronomer, but I believe that the typical method of planet detection relies on the assumption that planets revolve around stars. They can detect planets by measuring the tiny wobble of stars caused by the gravity of revolving planets. So I was wondering how the hell they detect free-floating (orphan) planets. The article explains that they use gravitational microlensing, which is a pretty cool technique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing
From the article:
> A 5.9-foot (1.8-meter) telescope at Mount John University Observatory in New Zealand is used to regularly scan the copious stars at the center of our galaxy for gravitational microlensing events. These occur when something, such as a star or planet, passes in front of another, more distant star. The passing body's gravity warps the light of the background star, causing it to magnify and brighten. Heftier passing bodies, like massive stars, will warp the light of the background star to a greater extent, resulting in brightening events that can last weeks. Small planet-size bodies will cause less of a distortion, and brighten a star for only a few days or less.
And if the structure is going to be permanent, then using sea water due to a temporary shortage of potable water is going to result in a permanently weak building. I understand that this is supposed to provide a solid shelter during quick relief, but it's going to be much harder/costlier to take down than a tent if it becomes unnecessary at any point in the future.
vertr probably saw it when it was at the bottom, but it's been upvoted since. (just a guess.) But he's right. This sort of thoughtful breakdown (bromley's comment) is why I usually read the top comment before the article.
I understand your skepticism regarding spending extra money, but I do believe that "expensive" can often be "cheap". But it very much depends on your level of usage for the product in question.
To clarify hasenj's point about the more expensive thing being "worth 10x more", imagine that an expensive couch will last you 10 times longer than the cheap one (in addition to being more comfortable), but it will cost you twice as much. If owning a couch is an essential part of your desired lifestyle, then buying the more expensive couch is just the logical choice.
Of course, the real question is whether or not you really need couch? This is obviously a matter personal preference, but your present decision-making should incorporate your future preferences as well. There is often a lot of uncertainty in gauging your future level of need/want for a given product, which makes this a tricky game.
I believe Apple actually filed a patent for a screen with an embedded camera. I don't know how technologically/economically feasible it would be to actually make and integrate into devices.
Thanks for highlighting that distinction. I guess we can chalk up the lack of prosecution for actual fraud to the incredible power the investment banks have over the political process (i.e. lobbyists, campaign funding, regulatory capture, etc). I watched Inside Job a while ago and details are starting to blur together. (I just remember everyone looking really bad.) Perhaps it's time for a second watch.
I agree. Though a bit choppy for me, that was a genuinely beautiful experience, from both a technological and artistic perspective. (running Chrome, but not Canary)
The article makes a good point. There have been no trials (let alone convictions) of bank executives because they probably did not violate any actual laws. Reckless financial risk-taking on the part of private firms is not illegal. Sure, there were clear instances of fraud and predatory loaning by more minor players, but the guys at the top of the food chain are most likely not guilty of any specifiable crimes.
But if the overwhelming majority of US citizens do in fact believe that the actions of the bank executives should be illegal, the logical thing to do would be to change the laws. (Of course, this solution is a bit unsatisfying, since no one can accurately predict these major market collapses and the next major crisis will likely be different enough that it could very well fall outside scope of any new laws.)
Sidenote: Unfortunately, the recent conviction of Raj Rajaratnam will probably assuage public anger while not at all addressing this issue. From what I understand, he was found guilty of insider trading, which is more or less unrelated to the mortgage-bubble/financial-crisis.
Doesn't Microsoft pay hardware manufacturers to ship computers with Windows? I thought I heard of this happening with Dell. That seems like a major impediment to Ubuntu's shipping pre-installed/by default and its more widespread adoption.
On the rare occasion that I scrape a site for a project I'm usually less worried about the legal issues than I am worried that the site will recognize my script hitting them repeatedly and block my IP. Does anyone know how prevalent this practice is? I've heard that Google blocks scripts scraping their search results, but I haven't experienced it myself.
(I know it's easy to spoof the user agent, but that seems underhanded/nefarious.)
Now if only the rulings of the District Court in the Central District of Illinois applied to US federal law. (I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea how things like that work.) Regardless, I've come to expect such little consistency from the law.
This why the recent iPhone location data "scare" doesn't make sense to me. The wireless carriers must have MUCH more extensive location data on a much larger user base. I understand the growing concern over privacy issues as more companies begin aggregating user data etc, and I'm glad that people are (hopefully) becoming more aware of this issue, but shouldn't we react a bit more proportionately to corporate violations of user privacy?
> Then the progression stops, and the advice runs out. All your life the entire raison d'etre for you has been The Next Step, but now there is none. You've done it, you've hit the end, trumpets are supposed to blare, and... and... And then what?
You must have either seen this or you don't need to.
At first I was surprised by the extent to which the commenters dissect the issue "Why are beds soft?", but then I read up on the author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson
An alternative (and simpler) explanation for the purpose of beds that I read somewhere is that they play a role in night-time thermo-regulation. (I can't find the source now. It probably wasn't very scientific.) The idea was that humans evolved in warmer climates than most live now, so they require additional night-time insulation.