I read the article wanting to know how the Avida developed memory. Basically, the programmer included an instruction that said "Do what you did last time" It is not evolution if the programmer hands them the ability. Also, when the goal stays in the same location every time, your robots can develop "memory" through the program itself. Ex: To go 2 up & 3 left -> Forward, Forward, Turn Left, Forward, Forward, Forward. No intelligence in the search pattern. This is simply memorizing the location of the goal. I would not call this memory.

I am very interested in this subject and get excited every time Slashdot posts a new story in this topic, but I never see any real advances vs. what I was doing in school 20 years ago. This doesn't mean advances aren't being made, but I think they are now at the level where they don't make simple easy-read stories. Real robots (not simulated ones) getting form point A to B (not just wanting to go from A to B) over rough terrain without help (mars rovers) is much more complicated and a required advance to put this technology into a real application. MIT, NASA, National Labs always seem to have interesting projects going on.

We celebrate these simple outdated advances in AI when we have hundreds of programs out there now capable of playing World of Warcraft without help simply to collect virtual gold to sell for cash.

Another reason I hate these articles is that they don't include any real specifics. You could learn more reading Wikipeida on GA, GP, ANN... It was a video of a Koza project that got me really interested in this topic. Why don't people include something like this in the article. A couple of years ago, I decided to rewrite one of my old projects so that people could easily run it online - Ant Simulator. Watching the system quickly learn or solve a problem is much more satisfying than reading an article written by someone that doesn't actually understand the field.

This may not apply to the OP (since he is in the apartment), but real Security Systems have more benefits beyond the obvious:

• A security system will get you an insurance discount. More if it is monitored, but still something if it isn't
• A security system increases the appraised value of your home. I asked our appraiser and he said a good alarm could add $1000 to the home value in our area. The logic here is that monitoring can be found for much cheaper if the company doesn't install the system - under $10/month. Ex: $100 for the basic install + $40/month for 2 years = $1060. No install + $10/month for 2 years = $240.
• Security systems can also protect against fire, water damage... If you are not home, the response speed of the fire department will be much faster if they smoke alarm contacts the security company.
• Full featured security systems (panel, box, battery, door/window sensors, motion detectors, multiple LCD keypads...) from ADT or other major manufacturers can be found online for under $500.

Some may not consider this true DIY, but wiring / installing / programming a fully featured ADT alarm system is not a simple task if you go through the trouble to properly fish all the wires through the walls...
I've done a couple of these systems in homes I've owned and have posted some of the things I have learned on http://structuredhomewiring.com/

Yeah, no one will go for that idea. It's as silly as creating a game where people pay money so they can water virtual flowers in their virtual garden.

You are forgetting about things people are not willing to pay for. With a really bad movie, the studio tries to cover up just how bad it is by not letting anyone see it ahead of time. They over-advertise it and hope for a good opening weekend before the word gets out just how bad it is. If the movie hits the torrents before it is released, then it tends to bomb in the box office. You might say this is only fair, but leaked movies tend to hurt the bad ones just as much (if not more) than the good ones.

he can't type his name on a computer. He's jealous of the numbers.

I think the first patent is great ("Kids Health"), although I've seen the basic idea discussed many times online and don't think it should be approved.
Remember that early patents are a land grab designed to prevent someone else from stealing the basic premise of the idea.
In this case, the basic premise is that if you are fat, then when playing GTA, WOW... your character will be slow. Instead of sitting in front of a TV/computer spending too many hours grinding out lots of short missions to build up your characters stats, go out running or go to the gym and build up your own stats. Then your character will be faster, stronger...
So back to the patent land grab, Microsoft's primary concept is probably something that monitors your current health, speed... as you play the game to determine your character's stats. Your physical activity while playing the game (similar to some Wii sports games) determines your character's performance. Someone looking to get around this patent might determine your current physical fitness "outside the game" to be captured in an electronic medical record - something Microsoft doesn't want to let someone do to get around the patent.

People on this site should know that if you buy from Dell, you get it from their Small / Medium Business site.
US tech support & they come to your house to fix the computer within a day or two.
The bonus is that I think the computers are cheaper. If you try to get a powerful PC from Dell, their home models usually force an overpriced under powered video card on you. Good video cards are very expensive from Dell. The Business site allows more choices. It lets you get a good PC with no video card. If you don't need one, use on-board video. If you do need one, get it from newegg.
Note: I do build and overclock PCs, but sometimes if you need something simple it is hard to beat Dell's < $300 computers. I also go with them for the very small form factor PCs and sometimes check out their Refurb Site for Previously Ordered New (returned - not refurb) PCs to see if they have exactly what I am looking for.

Sounds like trying to extort money from honest businesses. Forcing Amazon to spend money for Amazon.xxx

Oh wait, I already knew th <carrier disconnected>

I was actually implying that even the legal owner of the video or a video based web site wouldn't be able to convert the video because creation / possession of the conversion tool would not be legal. Ex: If a site like YouTube had DRM in Flash based videos (not that it does), Google wouldn't be allowed to convert the video format to HTML 5.

FTA:

So if someone has a library of DRM protected Flash videos and seeks to convert them to some new HTML5 format, they are not allowed to use a simple conversion tool to convert their entire video library. They are instead required to find the original DRM-free source of each video - if it exists?

This Amazon patent cited other Amazon patents going back to 1997 (filing date) - approved 2001: 6175831
Abstract: A networking database containing a plurality of records for different individuals in which individuals are connected to one another in the database by defined relationships. Each individual has the opportunity to define the relationship which may be confirmed or denied. E-mail messaging and interactive communication between individuals and a database service provider provide a method of constructing the database. The method includes having a registered individual identify further individuals and define therewith a relationship. The further individuals then, in turn, establish their own defined relationships with still other individuals. The defined relationships are mutually defined.
I also found this patent reference very odd: 5263160
Abstract: Augmented doubly-linked list search and management method for a system having data stored in a list of data elements in memory

Yes, you are correct. I think the author could have just showed figures 5 & 6 and said obviously figure 6 is better and I would have gotten the point.
Instead I had to read a bunch of text and timing charts before he simply showed what his improvement was. Yes, cache oblivious is worse, but that wasn't the problem Knuth was trying to solve. You could make further arguments that the paging system should group links by location AND popularity. You could move more popular links to the top of the tree so you don't have to traverse past the first page to find them. Also, I would think different applications would have different potential improvements. Algorithms for hosting links to news articles (where newer articles are more popular) might not work well with this algorithm when every newly inserted link ends up at the bottom of the tree.
On the flip side, most people don't care. Unless you have many servers, it is cheaper to throw money at the problem in the form of physical RAM before you start thinking about problems like this.