I'll believe it when I see it (not happen.)

Did any of you follow the link?

"Manufacturer's Description
This is a great wall clock for any girls bedroom, featuring Hannah Montanna. The lenticular face changes as you move round the room"

Instead of wasting time on finding ways to turn corpses into sludge, we should be looking for ways to embalm that will cause the body to be preserved as needed for a reasonable wake viewing time (I can understand that need for some people) and then the fluids and other substances pumped into the body should either spontaneously, or through the injection of another substance, make the resulting corpse compost-worthy again.

Basically, you inject one fluid that temporarily preserves the body for up to 2 weeks or so, then, right before burial, you inject the second fluid, which negates the preservation effects of the first one.

Perhaps the only other needed thing would be for the results (after the second liquid is inserted) to not cause the corpse to start stinking again.

Also, anyone who dies of a communicable disease should be cremated, for obvious public health reasons.

There's already an easy way to turn a corpse into fertilizer: you bury them.

Also, after perhaps watching too many crime dramas (and other things like the X-Files) I really think burial remains the best option, as long as you avoid all that bilking of grieving family members; just put me in a quickly-decomposing cardboard box, then throw some dirt on me before closing the box.

There's always a chance that your remains might have to be dug up, later on, for some investigation or other, so might as well keep these bodies "around", while providing some fertilizer for the local vegetation.

What is the need for this new corpse-disposal method, again? I doubt it's any more environmentally-friendly than cremation. I'm all for freedom of choice, but why add more pointless options? Could anyone explain to me what the appeal of this solution is? (I'm not disgusted by it, I just don't see what makes it better or more desirable than the other options.)

If it's an electric violin, then the shape is not really as crucial (except for ergonomics considerations).

Electric violins come in many different shapes, some of which have virtually no body, just a long neck with a bridge (is that the right term for a violin? I'm only good with guitar terminology...) and some form of pickup.

The shape does color the sound, however, in the same way that a guitar's shape and solid- or hollow-ness will color its sound (compare the sound of a hollow Gretsch to a solid-body Strat or Les Paul, and you'll hear the difference.)

Looking at the pictures, it's unclear whether the violin in question is designed to be played "unplugged" or electrified, since there's electronics everywhere, but I can't see a pickup or microphone where I would expect to see one.

Don't let the censors kill your creativity! With the current headline, I probably wouldn't have clicked the link or checked the comments (even though I knew who Hans Reiser was and the kind of trouble he's in.)

You know what? When something bad happens to me, I'd rather someone make a joke about it and make me laugh than to have everybody be careful not to upset me. That's way more aggravating.

The musical itself is even better than it sounds!

I saw them twice while they were peforming it as part of the Just For Laughs festival in Montréal, about three or four years ago.

If you loved the movies, you'll love the musical, it's as simple as that. Just don't sit in the front rows if you don't want to get drenched in blood.

The jokes are hilarious, the songs are just cheesy enough to also make you smile, but not enough to annoy people like me who generally don't like musicals.

Definitely worth seeing!

"One might even suspect that the author of the post manipulated the image in order to create this impression."

I see what you did, there.

Having seen many much worse (and funnier) graphics bugs as a game tester, it didn't even occur to me that the image had been photoshopped.

I find it ironic that the picture you used shows that pixie or fairy or whatever (she's nVidia's mascot and has been in many of their tech demoes, right?) with extremely divergent eyes. This makes it look like she's been lobotomized, and that most of her brain is missing.

From there, the idea of brain == CPU is not too outlandish. Plus, she's supposed to be beautiful.

And, basically, the nVidia VP is saying that we've got enough brains, we need more beauty.

Well, I for one, think we could certainly do with more brains: for AI, for physics (although GPUs are starting to deal with that, too) and for more complex game mechanics, such as procedurally-generated content.

I can has invisibul poast?

/I'll get off the stage now...

I guess this answers the eternal question "Who watches the watchers?"

Terrorists.

Someone needs to make a Flash version of this!

And did any teens "off" themselves due to reading these comics? Does anyone have any verifiable instances of such occurrences?

The most disturbing line in all this is "Latex takes hard play!"

How hackable does it seem to be? Would it be easy to replace its firmware with Linux? Because that could be all it needs to become what it was supposed to be to begin with.

The most significant song on Pepper has to be "A Day in the Life", and it's a song that needs all that room in order to get its (deep) point across.

Or, to stick with The Beatles, take Hey Jude: no way would that song be the landmark it is if it had been cut at 2:42, even though the length itself is not the reason why it's so successful.

ADD is not a valid reason for limiting creativity in popular music. If you only have 35 minutes a day to listen to music, you're not a music lover, and your opinion on the length of songs is irrelevant.

Now, if someone actually tried to approach this subject a little more objectively, maybe we would get more relevant results. You could build a library of 100-200 popular songs (at least) of varying lengths, and then have various people listen to a certain number of songs each, at the end of which they would say if a song felt too short, too long or just right.

After a statistically-significant sample of people has each listened to their songs and reported back, we could compile the results and see if there's one "peak" where the sweet spot in song length is, or if it's actually a plateau, or perhaps multiple peaks or plateaus.

I guess you don't remember seeing Fred Armisen's impersonation from a couple years ago on SNL, when he dropped in on a Weekend Update segment to present some new iPod models.

I'm not enough of an Apple or Jobs fan to know if he really nailed the impersonation, but the skit was pretty funny.

Enochrewt: try playing Super Mario Bros. 2: The Lost Levels on the Wii Virtual Console for at least an hour. Then tell us if you can actually do that many push-ups.

Kurt said:
"Of course, going down this path of human distinguishing challenges means that spammers will be the first to develop Turing-test passing AIs."

Essentially, an infallible CAPTCHA is, by definition, a reverse Turing Test: instead of trying to prove that a particular AI is indistinguishable from a human, you want to distinguish humans from AIs.

If we were able to develop this infallible CAPTCHA, any AI able to beat it could then be said to have passed the Turing Test.

Phillip Lamb must have done some software testing at some point. Nobody writes detailed bug reports like that unless they've had to professionally test software. It just doesn't happen.

Normal people report bugs as follows:
"Nothing works!"

Or, if you're lucky, you get a slightly more specific report, such as:
"I can't comment!"

Then you get the academic user who knows just enough to be even less helpful:
"Your site keeps saying my comment was wrong. I have a doctorate in Artificial Intelligence, so that qualifies me to tell you that your comment truthiness validator is buggy."

Or, there's the tech-savvy user who tries to be helpful:
"I think your firewall is blocking my comments."

Only an experienced and competent software tester replies with a detailed bug description which includes reproduction steps.

Am I the only one who's worried about all the red on the map right now? I checked this the other day when it was on Slashdot, and and I had trouble finding red (pink, yes, but no red.)

Could it be just because they're being hammered, or is the Internet breaking down before our eyes?