Windows has so many piles of APIs and hooks rotting in the corners, unpatched for 15 years and longer, that it's perhaps time to blow up the known universe and start afresh.
You just described WinRT aka Metro.
I'm not a biologist, but it seems to me that life is more keen to utilize energy through more complicated but well defined pathways rather than through unpredictable thermal excitations, much like your car prefers a piston engine and a gearbox to Orion-style detonations.
There is a level of coolness attributed to a car that does Orion-style detonations. Mind you, you wouldn't survive but still.
2560X1440 is an upgrade. 1920X1080 is only good for laptops and casual use.
A monitor with spherical back. Then they can sue anyone still using CRTs.
There is some advantage for various full screen viewing implementations like gaming. Like it or not, human field of view is much wider than it is taller. As a result, taking visual input from wide screen is more natural than from square(ish) screen.
The obvious problem is that which you mention - much if not most of PC work is related to document handling and such, which requires vertical space and wastes horizontal space, making wide screen format a bad idea.
The Turing Test has flaws.
Firstly, it requires a human-level of communication. One cannot use the it to determine whether a crow (for example, or cat or octopus) is intelligent since they cannot communicate at our level. Even though these creatures demonstrate a surprising level of intelligence. Watch this video and be astonished.
The extended video shows the crow taking the worm to it's nest, then returning to grab the hooked wire and taking that back to the nest! Can we use the Turing Test to determine whether the crow is intelligent?
Secondly, it conflates intelligence with human intelligence. There's no spectrum of measurement, no "ruler" which can be laid down to measure the level of intelligence in an entity, or to determine whether one entity is more (or less) intelligent than another. Are crows more intelligent than cats? Can the question be resolved using the test? Could the test be used to determine which of two humans is the more intelligent?
But most importantly, the Turing Test has no predictive value: it cannot be used to guide research or development of intelligence.
Consider trying to build a fizzbin, and whether you are successful will be determined by a yes/no decision from a jury of professionals. With no description of what a fizzbin actually is, how hard would it be?
Consider trying to deliver a package, given that you have a GPS system with a broken display. The GPS still works, and the LED will light when you are at the delivery address, but otherwise you have no idea where to go. The address could be in NYC or Tokyo, or anywhere else.
The fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that it doesn't define intelligence(**). Defining something as a test works in mathematics where there is no time or effort to make the axiom of choice on the set of all objects (ie - the universe), but intelligence isn't a purely mathematical concept. It's partly based on a real-world measurement (being: information), and as such is more closely akin to physics.
Instead of a fizzbin, consider trying to build a car. A car can be defined as a body, frame, 4 wheels, engine, and seats, and the purpose is to transport people from place to place (*). A wheel can be further described as a tire on a rim with brakes, a tire can be described as a loop of rubber with steel wires and a valve-stem, a valve-stem as a tube with a schrader valve, a schrader valve is... and so on.
This is a constructive definition: an object is made of simpler objects, each of which is composed of even simpler objects. Math is full of these (a field is a ring plus some stuff, a ring is a group plus some stuff, a group is a set plus some stuff... and so on.)
With the constructive definition, one could build a car directly; or at least, know how to make the attempt. You can determine whether something is a car; and if not, know what needs to be changed.
In my opinion (I'm an AI researcher) the Turing test and the Lovelace test have little value. The tests don't show where to look or how to proceed.
(*) A simplified definition to not lose sight of the position.
(**) This is an academic position. I am a great admirer of Alan Turing and his many brilliant results, including the Turing Test.
I actually suspect that the majority of life - and intelligent life - in the universe is probably ocean-based. If ever space aliens visit us, unlike the movies, I suspect their spaceships may be more likely to be like sealed aquariums than an air-breathing setup. I've never seen this idea reflected in science fiction though.
In the later books of the Lost Fleet series, they come across an alien race that is aquatic, with ships that are much more maneuverable than human ships. They theorized that the ships were in fact filled with water which allowed them to make more radical movements.
Mathematically, Einstein breaks with the tradition dating back to Euclid (and which is inflicted on high-school students even today!), and employs instead the non-Euclidean geometry developed by Riemann. Einstein's equations are highly nonlinear, which is why traditionally-trained mathematicians find them so difficult to solve.
In the 1980's a very different approach, known as string theory, became popular: here the fundamental constituents of matter are not point-like particles but rather tiny (Planck-scale) closed and open strings. In this theory, the space-time manifold does not exist as an objective physical reality; rather, space-time is a derived concept, an approximation valid only on large length scales (where ``large'' means ``much larger than 10^-33 centimeters''!).
As Althusser rightly commented, ``Lacan finally gives Freud's thinking the scientific concepts that it requires''. More recently, Lacan's topologie du sujet has been applied fruitfully to cinema criticism and to the psychoanalysis of AIDS. In mathematical terms, Lacan is here pointing out that the first homology group of the sphere is trivial, while those of the other surfaces are profound; and this homology is linked with the connectedness or disconnectedness of the surface after one or more cuts.
Facebook only reuses crap you post on Facebook. These guys want the right to use anything you do ANYWHERE. That's a real over-reach. You should have some say in how your name, image, and words are used.
Such an overreach it's not even legal in the US, let alone most other places in the English-speaking world.
.. and here's the poisoned term:
You can tell from their terms that the site was founded by some recent lawyer graduates and their scummy MBA friends. The recent lawyer graduates think they can write any terms they like and just because it's written down, it's legal. Their scummy MBA friends think wildly lopsided terms is a great way to make money. They got their MBAs from the Comcast School of Monopolistic Practices. They don't realize that you have to actually be the monopoly first before you can behave like one.
Whatever they paid Dice for this pathetic slashvertisement, it was too much. Unlike much of the world, Slashdot commenters can read.
That's not to say they won't make money with this scam. They're bottom feeding scum-sucking algae eaters, but it's a big ocean. There's plenty of bottom out of which to suck money. And who knows. Maybe one of their scummy users tweeting about Helpful (whatever the fuck that is) will hit it big. Kind of like a Kardashian. Doesn't seem likely to do well off of Slashdot though.
Sounds like it. Apple and 5 publishers tried to raise the price of new "e-books from the $9.99 price that Amazon had made standard".
So why does Amazon get to set the price, and not Apple or the publishers?
This is so simple I'm amazed you got voted up. Fundamental market mechanics is that sellers try to raise the price, buyers try to lower the price. Everything from someone haggling over an item at a flea market to a multi-billion dollar corporate buyout operates this way. Both buyer and seller are acting in their own interests. However, the counterbalance to sellers having the power to raise the price is that if they raise it too much, buyers can go to a different seller to get the same or similar item. That natural balance between sellers trying to get as high a price as they can without driving buyers to competitors is what sets the market price.
Apple and the publishers were sellers who tried to raise the price. If they'd arrived at that price individually, then there's no problem. But they colluded to set it at that price, which is absolutely illegal since it breaks this fundamental market mechanic.
Amazon was a seller who tried to lower the price. That's not a problem since it benefits the buyer. It's just like a store deciding to hold a sale. (There's an anti-trust argument that Amazon shouldn't be selling ebooks at a loss, using profits from other markets to undercut competitors in the ebook market. But that wasn't the focus of this particular case, and its disingenuous to try to argue Apple and the publishers aren't guilty because of this. Both can be illegal. If Amazon's ebook pricing is driving competitors to bankruptcy, then that's a separate issue that needs to be decided in a separate case.)
All built to Google's spec. What's unfortunate is having to wait for a replacement after you shelled out over $600 bucks for one. Should have bought Samsung maybe? Note: I'm upgrading from a Note 2 and after seeing this I'm definitely thinking Note 4 now.
Beats playing Assassins Creed all day.
Coercion would of course obviate the need for explicit objections. There was no coercion here.
There are of course grey scales of coercion as well. Physical threats would definitely get ruled as rape, but there have been cases where the woman didn't object because she felt like she'd be considered a spoilsport or not cool enough. Those cases have generally not been considered rape by Swedish courts. Unless the law gets changed to include a consent requirement, the courts are quite straight forward on that point; if you feel you are getting raped, you have to tell the person you think is raping you in such a clear way that there is no possibility of misunderstanding.
Sleep is incapacitated and if she had objected upon waking, or failed to wake up (oddly deep sleeper, or more commonly, due to drugs or alcohol), there would have been no question that she had been raped. She did wake up, and by not objecting even when it was clear he wasn't wearing protection, moved that sex into the standard wake-up-sex category which is not generally considered rape under current laws.
And no, they're not my standards, they're Swedish law. Personally I'd prefer a mandatory contract and video taping, just to get everyone to shut the fuck up about the whole debate. It wouldn't cost me anything as I consider thorough negotiation part of any sex I'm willing to engage in, and if someone can't even talk freely and explicitly in detail about exactly what they do and don't want, I sure as fuck am not going to take them to bed.
Again, Sweden does not _have_ a consent requirement. There have been discussions about changing the law to include that, but that is not the law today.
As he did not lie when asked about protection and she did not object it was not rape as Swedish law would currently classify rape.
With your bare hands?!?
