The time advisory is actually new since I last looked at the materials. Previously I mostly evaluated the quality of the materials and completeness. In general though actual time requirements to complete the work are going to vary quite a bit by the amount of prior preparation a student has. The time guidelines given for individual assignments I spot checked just now appear to be in the ball park. The overall totals are likely to be off more, though possibly a reasonable starting point.

Saylor has one of the most complete, free, college degree equivalents that I have seen. The best part is many degree programs have links to video lectures, full problem sets and exams.

http://www.saylor.org/majors/c...

Their math stuff is decent, and that's what I'm competent to evaluate, so based on that I'd think the compsci would be good too. Some degree areas are not complete yet, but compsci is.

A few other apps cause that MAJOR FLAW in the Nexus camera driver to appear.

This is an Android driver bug, plain and simple.

Return your geek card (and your low ID at once). Calligra has been talked about many times at Slashdot. It's a fork and renaming of the KOffice suite, the original KDE clone of MS Office.

Plus, the human brain is massively parallel, much more than anything we know how to build, yet it learns as a single global epiphenomenon. If you split learning in separate niches, what makes you think that the computer would learn faster than the brains of the whole human race learning in parallel?

It's plausible that a pure information thinking system, once freed from the constraints of chemical processes on top of which our brains process information, could work much faster than our nature-evolved brains. But such system wouldn't resemble anything approaching the design of current computers.

Are you sure the algorithm won't learn much more slowly than humans instead? Learning happens by relating what you see to what you already know. So the more you know, the more it takes to add new facts. You can see that process in children, which learn much more quickly than adults.

We are not talking of merely recording events and dumping them into databases, but of building knowledge from them - that task could turn to be essentially non-parallelizable if you don't want schizophrenic computers.

My junk defaults to package private.

I'm not a lawyer either, but FYI even if the judge had agreed to dismiss the charges, that would not be binding on other courts either. It would not have become binding unless one side or the other appealed and the circuit court and got a decision there. That decision would then become binding on *only* that circuit.

Dammit. Now I'm going to have to find, dust off, and install my Doom collection CD.

Be sure to install a modern source port such as ZDoom (software rendering) or GZDoom (OpenGL). Doom is still fun and playable in 1080p with all the old bugs fixed. Some of the custom levels are phenomenal too.

On the other hand, if I don't have your data I can't check your results. If you want to keep your data secret for a decade, you really should plan to not publish anything relying on it for that time either. Release all the papers when you release the data.

Also, who gets to decide when a study is a replication and when it is a new result? Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason. If you want to see if it holds up you want to use different analysis or similar anyway. And "use" data? What if another group produces their own data and compares with yours? Is that "using" the data? What if they compare your published results? Is that using it?

A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.

But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable. A way to publish the data as a reserach result by itself - perhaps the data, together with a paper describing it (but not any analysis). ANyone is free to use the data for their own research, but will of course cite you when they do. A good, serious data set can probably rack up more citations than just about any paper out there. That will give the producers the scientific credit it deserves.

People project personhood on lots of things already. Apart from the obvious - search the net for what people think about their roombas - even stuff like cars are designed to evoke it. And it's not as if there's been a dearth of research on these issues already.

making the robot evil is the question

Making the robot evil is not the question. Making the robot evil is the answer. "How do I take over the world?" is the question.

Agreed - it's a POS.

I installed Pitivi .15.2 from from the repos. It literally took me less than 2 minutes to crash it. It died as soon as I imported an mp3 to use as audio. (NOTE: Their website says not to report .15.2 bugs. They are evidently not supporting it anymore)

Then, following the suggestions posted here, I grabbed the latest version from source (which through trial and error, I found required adding a source repo and installing build dependencies before attempting to install from source). I configured it, built it, and tried to run it. It immediately errored out, complaining that I need to install yet more missing dependencies (GES this time). I googled the problem, saw lots of people complaing about this, and found some vague instructions on the pitivi wiki (http://wiki.pitivi.org/wiki/Building_with_GES) explaining how to install it.

At this point, I threw in the towel.

"The review said the xbox game goes to 900 and the PS4 one goes to over 1000. Better get a PS4 to play it then."