Your story sounds like BS.

You aren't looking very hard then, I know several people who are very good developers, including a Google developer who had to move due to family reasons and simply couldn't stay at Google. I assure you, she was qualified for anything she applied for. So maybe you live in that one place that doesn't have any qualified workers, but since there are people claiming that pretty much everywhere, I call bullshit.

Another bullshit line. They really went through the entire interview process and THEN decided the commute was too much? That makes no sense at all. You seem to think that these people would waste their time letting you interview them when they never had any intention of taking the offer. That would be pretty stupid and as such makes it hard to believe your version of the story.

Sure you do. Even in the shittiest places to work as far as location and cost of living, you'd have grads beating your door down for the job, moving there from all over the country.

Are you in hiring at office int he middle of Manhattan or San Fran? If so, thats not that impressive considering cost of living and experience.

Your entire post just sounds completely unbelievable like its being embellished for you to provide excuses for why you can't hire anyone or pretend that you're even trying.

http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Its not like it was my idea, but thanks for proving that you're just an arrogant close minded douche.

:( stupid autocorrect fixing my poor spelling

Then you've never used Google Glass or have put much thought into what is technically possible with the hardware.

Hint: He's not using it for anything like you might expect and those silly stories you've ready about people overlaying useful information on real world problems are bullshit, none (repeat NONE) of the sensors in glass are accurate enough to do so.

Glass is a joke, ask anyone who has ACTUALLY used one. Its just silly at this stage.

And yes, I have a Glass prototype my former employer paid for. Even with it being his money, it was still a waste of money.

Why do you believe there must not be a religious explanation for a soul?

Ot goes both ways based on current evidence. There is evidence that the soul is a quantum phenomenon that can not be simply created (for varying definitions of simply) and this possibly explains so many things. I acknowledge its only a possibility and the theory has only a small amount of evidence but you have exactly none to back your statements.

In quantum fluctuations that happen to reside for some time in part of your brain.

There is already decent evidence that the 'soul' is a quantum phenomenon, which allows it to reside both in your brain and survive death at the same time and it explains all sorts of other odd 'miracles' that occur as well as things like telepathy and twins seeming to 'feel' their twin even from great distances.

This satisfies both the religious definition and the OMG GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND I HATE THE IDEA definition.

Get over it it and accept theres more too it than you understand.

Your head has very few pain receptors in it, neural surgery is pretty much painless after you get into the skull even with no anastasia at all, hence why they can probe the brain while you are full conscious and aware.

So, no, it isn't going to hurt like blazes.

If we ever create even minor AI that can learn on its own like humans do, then it can easily cascade very quickly as it turns into simply 'adding cores' and letting the AI improve itself.

Replace 'adding cores' with whatever is actually relevant to the technology of the time.

Googles car has been programmed to know how to drive. It can not learn how to fly. It can not learn how to build a new copy of itself. It can not learn to bake a loaf of bread.

It is in no way AI.

Then you shouldn't have allowed it to be sold in the first place.

The whole thing is still silly, a single person like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison or Steve Job's wife (to pick the popular easy to recognize names) can easily out fund this PAC with nothing more than a signature and a laugh about it ... there are thousands of people who can do it. This PAC is one.

... no, it means you just committed perjury, and in order for your request to be taken seriously by anyone of any importance (like github) they're going to communicate with you first, so they'll know who you actually are.

Better still, the company claiming infringement has to claim a monetary cost with the DMCA take down request, and if its bogus, they have to pay at least twice that back, half to the ISP/hoster, half to whomever they made the false claim against.

i.e. I file a DMCA request against your content on github., I must claim the monetary damages I expect should I go to court. If you counter the claim, you have the option of requiring a hearing. That hearing results in me getting my monetary claim (and not a penny more) against you and the take down stays down, or I have to pay twice the amount I claimed, half to you, half to github, and it goes back up.

Lets see how this shit goes under those rules.

And if they record to a VHS tape, I might be concerned. Once it hits the MPEG encoder, not so much. The entire point of MPEG is to throw out as much data as possible if it isn't perceptible by humans and recreate it as something that is much smaller but looks the same to human senses.

MPEG is perceptual encoding. The imperceptible would be lost by design, not because they were trying to ensure privacy but simply as a side effect of the design.

Yes, they could easily design cameras that could use stenography to encode data in the mpeg stream that would survive, but that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing power line noise making its way through the entire system and being used to ID a recordings location.

Even so, assuming an analog recording, I'm still inclined to believe it would rarely work just based on modern electronics having so much built in power supply conversions and filtering. Digital ballasts for example are going to make it hard to see fluctuations in lighting.

The owner of the VW would be liable if they put the keys somewhere with a big sign that says 'use my car to keep the law from knowing what YOU are doing by making it look like it was me!'

Sigh ... taught ... not 'teached', taught.