Comment Breaking news! (Score 5, Funny) 148
Someone made a computer that's really good at reaction time, and at calculating trajectories.
Someone made a computer that's really good at reaction time, and at calculating trajectories.
Nuff said.
So robots should not be programmed with the 3 laws?
Hell no!!! Did you even read the book? The whole point of just about every book by Asimov was that you should never, ever, under any circumstances create robots that follow the Three Laws of Robotics.
Don't ask for advice online. Is probably the best advice you could give her.
Or, "Don't take life too seriously... it's not like it's permanent."
How about a method for producing food... ON A TRUCK! Sure it may have some prior art, but that seldom stops a patent nowadays because just about everything has prior art.
And while we're on the topic... if we can add "on a computer", "on the internet", or "on a truck" to make a new patent, how about "in a building"?
Unfortunately it's real.
Why's that unfortunate? Do you have any evidence that acting randomly would be inferior to what we have now?
The robot shouldn't be tasked with this judgment any more that the latch on a fridge door should be asked to keep you an your diet.
Funny you should say that... they already have locking fridges that are supposed to assist people in sticking to their diet.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I believe you meant, "How do you like them Apples?"
If patent trolls get too greedy, they may undo themselves.
Seems to me that if someone were serious about promoting patent reform, they would become a patent troll to undeniably drive the point home. I used to be upset at patent trolls, but now that I've thought about it the problem has never been the people who choose to most obviously abuse the patent system, but rather that the patent system is designed so that such abuse is possible. The real damage is caused not by the patent trolls, but by productive corporations who's random assortment of obvious patents will be used to sue any competitors into oblivion, thus discouraging anyone from even trying.
The real mark of the brokenness of our patent system is not patent trolls, but rather that most engineers are forbidden from looking at patents.
Exactly! Biking in the snow is slow, tiring, unpleasant, and dangerous. But when the weather allows it I prefer to bike, because it is more pleasant than driving and as others said "free" exercise. Biking also is only a little slower than driving, although in some cases it is faster.
Bogachev has been charged by federal authorities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with conspiracy, computer hacking, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering... He also faces federal bank fraud conspiracy charges in Omaha, Nebraska
Difference between banker and this guy: the computer hacking charges, and that he wasn't given tons of money for destroying our economy.
Yeah, all those Canadians complaining about the heat, amiright?
"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "
The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.
While I agree with most of your post, this I have to disagree with. Oil is a fungible commodity, and it doesn't really make a difference whether the oil we specifically use comes from Canada or the Middle East. The price of oil is first set by global supply and demand, and only slightly affected by shipping costs. So, for example, OPEC increasing their oil output means we pay less for oil, even though the oil we get is from the Americas.
Let me explain this with science.
You have two groups.
One that is exposed to peanuts as infants.
One that is not.
Fewer children in the exposed group developed peanut allergies.
In other words SOME peanut allergies can be prevented by early exposure.
Your argument is the same as. "My uncle never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer. Smoking does not cause lung cancer".
Oh oh, can I try a science experiment too?
You have two groups.
One that is exposed to anticancer drugs.
One that is not.
More people in the exposed group died from cancer.
In other words anticancer drugs cause cancer!
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
And release a video. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro