Slashdot Mirror

Gates is hardly visionary himself. The first edition of The Road Ahead , his view of the future, infamously lacked mention of the Internet. Once the Internet exploded in the mid-1990s, Gates and his ghostwriter had to hastily put out a second edition. Around the same time he foolishly let his wife convince Microsoft to put out Microsoft Bob.

Because it isn't essentially an electrical engineering problem. Fluid dynamics plays a major role. "Winds," "rains," and "shocks" are all fundamentally fluid dynamics concepts. BTW, this isn't an astrophysics field...we're space physicists. The lines are blurry--one space physicist in our department is doing heliospheric research, and one astrophysicist does a lot of work on magnetic processes (esp. magnetohydrodynamic shocks) beyond the solar system.

We do talk about double layers (and the plasma mantle, and the low latitude boundary layer....), and Birkeland currents, and current closure. We use the terminology that seems best to describe the processes. Sometimes we really are talking about different things and that needs different terminology.

There's a lot of crossover between lab plasma and space plasma research. One of the professors I work with started in fusion research; in the other direction, I know several space physicists who are doing lab work to try and pinpoint processes observed in space. As far as EE, these people build their own instruments. My advisor has dual appointments to astronomy and EE. We use Chen as one textbook.

If you're really interested in the field, Kivelson and Russell is a pretty good introduction, written at roughly an advanced undergrad level (i.e. real E&M). It is getting a bit dated, though; AGU monographs are a decent source of semi-digested information. I do like the Cravens text for something a little meatier (IMO) than K&R, although less applied. Gurnett and Bhattacharjee is up to date and rigorous, but somewhat dense.

Because it isn't essentially an electrical engineering problem. Fluid dynamics plays a major role. "Winds," "rains," and "shocks" are all fundamentally fluid dynamics concepts. BTW, this isn't an astrophysics field...we're space physicists. The lines are blurry--one space physicist in our department is doing heliospheric research, and one astrophysicist does a lot of work on magnetic processes (esp. magnetohydrodynamic shocks) beyond the solar system.

We do talk about double layers (and the plasma mantle, and the low latitude boundary layer....), and Birkeland currents, and current closure. We use the terminology that seems best to describe the processes. Sometimes we really are talking about different things and that needs different terminology.

There's a lot of crossover between lab plasma and space plasma research. One of the professors I work with started in fusion research; in the other direction, I know several space physicists who are doing lab work to try and pinpoint processes observed in space. As far as EE, these people build their own instruments. My advisor has dual appointments to astronomy and EE. We use Chen as one textbook.

If you're really interested in the field, Kivelson and Russell is a pretty good introduction, written at roughly an advanced undergrad level (i.e. real E&M). It is getting a bit dated, though; AGU monographs are a decent source of semi-digested information. I do like the Cravens text for something a little meatier (IMO) than K&R, although less applied. Gurnett and Bhattacharjee is up to date and rigorous, but somewhat dense.

Because it isn't essentially an electrical engineering problem. Fluid dynamics plays a major role. "Winds," "rains," and "shocks" are all fundamentally fluid dynamics concepts. BTW, this isn't an astrophysics field...we're space physicists. The lines are blurry--one space physicist in our department is doing heliospheric research, and one astrophysicist does a lot of work on magnetic processes (esp. magnetohydrodynamic shocks) beyond the solar system.

We do talk about double layers (and the plasma mantle, and the low latitude boundary layer....), and Birkeland currents, and current closure. We use the terminology that seems best to describe the processes. Sometimes we really are talking about different things and that needs different terminology.

There's a lot of crossover between lab plasma and space plasma research. One of the professors I work with started in fusion research; in the other direction, I know several space physicists who are doing lab work to try and pinpoint processes observed in space. As far as EE, these people build their own instruments. My advisor has dual appointments to astronomy and EE. We use Chen as one textbook.

If you're really interested in the field, Kivelson and Russell is a pretty good introduction, written at roughly an advanced undergrad level (i.e. real E&M). It is getting a bit dated, though; AGU monographs are a decent source of semi-digested information. I do like the Cravens text for something a little meatier (IMO) than K&R, although less applied. Gurnett and Bhattacharjee is up to date and rigorous, but somewhat dense.

"these are Birkeland Currents?" Which are? I don't know exactly what Dr. Sibeck's quote is referencing, so I'm not going to comment on that. But as I've said, field aligned currents are hardly a controversial matter. Two recent JGR publications. And here's a review paper.

Well, we have a few hundred years to figure it out, we're not gonna lack uranium for quite a while.

Probably, it depends in part on how much our energy consumption increases (if it does not start decreasing or levelling out) and how unstable the sources of Uranium become (like oil) ... so far it looks like we have several sources that are relatively safe (like Australia) but who knows what will happen in 100 years.

At any rate, we may need that time to solve our problem, assuming we spend it wisely. There are unfortunately too few people working on the many problems that threaten our world, and too few resources spent on that research by the Powers that Be. So regime change may be a prerequisite as well as better education.

I remember reading in Peter Green's book that Aristotle's laboratory was the best funded in all of human history. If that is correct it is IMHO a sad reflection since it basically means we have never valued research as much as that or given those who do such work as many tools; we should be surpassing ourselves, not degenerating. Even if it is not it seems to me that it is obvious there is not enough money and time spent on increasing human knowledge in general, much less working on problems like the energy crisis, war, famine, etc... Solving the problem in time would require changing that IMHO. It's not fair to keep expecting the eggheads to pull a rabbit out of their hat when they can't afford the hat. For some here that probably hits close to home... :D But the argument that "we'll figure something out ..." only holds water if the necessary effort and resources are expended to achieve such goals.

A great book that talks about some of the engineering behind the SR-71 and later the F-117 is "Skunkworks":

http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003

In the book, it is mentioned that they examine the titanium skin of the SR-71 (after some years of surface) to see if it has indeed become weaker from high speed flight and high temperatures.

Their discovery?

That the skin of the plane had annealed and become stronger.

This book should be on the must-read list of all /.'ers.

I recently read The Lure. It makes the point that civilizations that are advanced enough to destroy us are also arguably advanced enough to destroy themselves. So, if a civilization can hear our message they A) exist, ie have not self-destructed B) are advanced enough to mine a nearby system for resources if needed C) have benevolent intentions Not only would they not have need to destroy us premptively, they would probably want to invite us to the "galactic club".

As lazy as I am, I knew that there was a kernel of truth to your argument, but I couldn't remember why I thought it was invalid, so I had to research.

According to brief online looking, yes, Galileo was friends with Pope Urban VIII, however Cardinal Barberini wasn't elected to that position until 1623. Previous to that, Cardinal Bellamine delivered an order to Galileo to not "'hold or defend' the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the center". That was in 1616, on order of the Inquisition.

And later, yes, he brought the wrath of Urban VIII, however the charges were for advocating heliocentrism, not insulting il papa.

If you're interested in actually reading Two Dialogues (assuming you haven't already). I really recommend this edition, with commentary by Stephen Hawking. It's part of a larger series called "On the shoulders of giants". I'm looking forward to getting the rest of the set soon.

I'll have to show my son that site (starfall.com). He loves letters. He knows the alphabet backwards and forwards, and can read the letters, but he hasn't taken an interest in reading words or sentences just yet. He can write his name, and he will write lots of letters, but not all of them. We read to him every day, and sometimes he pretends to read to us, but it's stories he makes up that go with the pictures instead of what is written -- which is great in its own way.

One thing that helped with letters was Here Come the ABCs we listen to it in the car a lot. I was already a fan of They Might Be Giants, and I just loved it when he took a liking to them as well. :) They have a "Here comes the 123s" that is due out in February.

I'd much rather he use the computer than stare at the TV, which is what seems to happen a lot more than I'd like. We got him a V.Smile system for Christmas so we'll see how that works out in terms of a compromise...

Dead Beat

Agreed. I fear Earth will soon face an epidemic of The Andromeda Strain . After all Crichton was a doctor, he should know.

I don't think DMT is present in most adults except in extreme situations, when your pineal calcifies around 7 years you stop producing it. Read this book by Rick Strassman about his DEA & NIMH approved DMT injection studies at Arizona. It is probably the best explanation for NDE's and abductions. He thinks that DMT floods the pineal in a NDE where specialized nerve cells pull the DMT across the blood brain barrier, The Pineal is not part of the brain but the soft palette and as such is outside the barrier. There is little experimental evidence for DMT and dreams, if you know of some journal articles I'd love to see them but I think this is an outdate model.

As for weaving through people I bet the firmware functions pretty well in a drunken state. It might even be more effective with social limits removed and the physical support from the press of the crowd.

I'm guessing I don't need a really long exposure to take star photos,

The big question: What ISO will your DR go to? At 1600 ISO, I can take a good star shot in 2 seconds at f1/8, basically a $70 lens. If I let the bright stars overexpose, say 6 seconds, then all kinds of faint detail comes out, like the nebulosity in Orion, even a little bit of the Pleides nebulosity, which is considerably fainter. As your ISO goes down, your time goes up, or your glass has to get faster. I have a freaky-good f/1.2 lens I treated myself to, but I've only had it out shooting stars one night thus far. I'm thinking I can go sub one-second with it, but haven't tested that. Next time! Right now it's socked in overcast, as it has been most nights the last month or so. Sigh.

How much were your big lenses?

The 500mm one is a Phoenix catadioptric (reflex and refractor combo) lens, available on Amazon for about $100. Don't get the kit with the 2x teleconverter, the lens isn't sharp enough (and neither is the teleconverter.) The Sigma catadioptric is better quality, you can find it on EBay, prices range from $100 (but you need to find an adaptor) to $250 or so for the right Canon hookup. Unfortunately, they don't make it any longer. Both lenses are fixed f/8 lenses, and your camera will balk and tell you they are f/0, just shoot aperture priority and the camera will figure out what to do. They're great for lunar shots and for long range wildlife, but they're manual focus and that can be tricky.

Science is the process of describing the universe through physical observation. Here are some things that are not science: distributing money to scientists, dispersing press releases to the media, inviting Congressmen to stay at Building 137 (that's a nice apartment for DVs, or Distinguished Visitors), and influencing your contract or your contract-completion bonus. Science is a rational approach to existence, and its true practitioners are, for lack of better words, on the right track. However, to unconditionally bestow respect on scientists is like emptying your wallet for each street musician. And to bestow respect on an agency that funds scientists is like giving your wallet to a bus driver with instructions to give it to a street musician.

If you want to know what it's like to be a grunt worker, and see how to get seriously screwed over in Antarctica all the way from Denver, read: http://www.amazon.com/Big-Dead-Place-Menacing-Antarctica/dp/0922915997. It is a seriously funny, and ultimately depressing, account of how corporate American and the US government treat people who are at the complete mercy of a bureaucracy on the other side of the planet. The author was first a food service worker, and later a garbageman, in the big dead place.

Well at least they are in good company with trustworthy institutions like the CIA and the Vatican.

"This set is limited to photos taken with an unaided camera - no telescopes, though I do use 500mm and 600mm lenses sometimes which provide significant magnification."

Unless you're taking a woman's portrait while she undresses in another apartment building, 600mm is no portrait lens ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197496457&sr=8-2

Well, they do have a Pocket Reference. I haven't seen it myself, so it's hard to gauge how good it is. However, from what I can gather, it seems like the last for chapters of the full version. Basically a syntax reference for .Net, PHP,Perl and Java. Which I've found extremely valuable.

$600? Amazon. $399. Now. http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-40GB-Spider-Man-Movie-Pack/dp/B000XGJH1O/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1197490414&sr=8-2

One O'Reilly book I would recommend is Mastering Regular Expressions. It contains a lot of insight into how regular expressions work, and how you can optimize your Regex's to get faster results. It also has language specific sections on .Net, PHP, Perl, and Java. I used it for learning regular expressions, and still find that it's a good reference even now that I am more skilled.

Eric Meyer also authored the Cascading Style Sheets 2.0 Programmer's Reference book. That book is my bible. I'm looking forward to an updated version, especially with browser support documented past IE 6.

It's not as if this is the first guide to designing for all browsers. CSS Mastery by Budd et al., the CSS guide I've been using lately, gives plenty of info on tag support and collects a number of useful hacks, and it's been out for only two years. And remember, this Slashdot review is for a O'Reilly pocket reference. That whole series consists of little more than what one could find in free sources, and though I've bought a couple of volumes, they've been more to provide reading while I'm away from the computer (using a laptop at the cafeteria is messy) than for essential reference while I'm at work.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Rode-Thunder/dp/0135482712

Seriously.. these people don't have anything to do with videogames.

It's not news, it's Fark.

Seriously speaking, I'm betting Drew just wanted to see how many news outfits he could get to carry such a ridiculous story, and how much of an overreaction and outrage said coverage would generate in the blogosphere. An effective publicity stunt, really, considering the recent publication of his book and its subject matter.

In what other line of work does principal construction begin before the customer has defined what it is they are ordering?

One place is in art. Especially collaborative art, like plays and movies. For serial TV shows, it is impossible to define it up front. And for improvisational theater, by definition you don't define it.

See the great book Artful Making if you'd like to learn more about that kind of work, and why modern knowledge work is much more like that than the industrial approach you're following.

Changing to a structured approach to working is costly, but the benifits are bountiful [...]

This is plausible in very specific problem domains where people a) know what they want, and b) what they want won't change. But it is fundamentally impossible in domains that are poorly understood or continuously shifting. It is also impossible if your product development process uses user feedback for planning. All three of these characteristics apply to a lot of web startups.

Take Flickr as an example. In under two years, they went from a side project to a $20m sale. (If they had held out until now, they could have been a $100m sale.) Their initial ideas were ok, but not great. But they released early and often, pushing to production every few hours. And then they listened to their users intently, continuously improving Flickr's fit to their audience's need. That relationship is only possible with an agile approach.

And before people jump on me about anecdotes versus data, I'll point at a VC's look back on companies he funded. Two thirds of his winners significantly reinvented their businesses between funding and success. That's not to say you have to use an agile approach for that. But agile methods are much cheaper in changing circumstances than structured ones, so you'll have to have much deeper pockets to survive.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the chaos of code n' fix here. I'm talking about highly disciplined agile methods, where you include practices like test-driven development, acceptance testing, pair programming, collocated teams, in-room product management, aggressive refactoring, short iterations (like a week), and frequent releases (daily to monthly, no more).

Give a man a fish, and he eats for day. Teach a man to Fish, and he eats for the rest of his life.

Don't forget the rest of the world is hungry for computing as well. Considering the lack of skills most of the worlds computer user have thanks to the lack of knowledge of basic software tools. Consider that this book is over 30 years old and 99% of computers users have not the understanding and training need to do basic computing tasks. Thanks to the mindless approach of the MS Software.

I need to say I didn't mean any disrespect to the author of the article as, well, he is one of the people who actually participated in the Revolution and can be seen on the videos I linked to. Not to mention he is a great author with some very interesting books. . I recommend the Dormouse - very enlightening.

I need to say I didn't mean any disrespect to the author of the article as, well, he is one of the people who actually participated in the Revolution and can be seen on the videos I linked to. Not to mention he is a great author with some very interesting books. . I recommend the Dormouse - very enlightening.

I need to say I didn't mean any disrespect to the author of the article as, well, he is one of the people who actually participated in the Revolution and can be seen on the videos I linked to. Not to mention he is a great author with some very interesting books. . I recommend the Dormouse - very enlightening.

The original trilogy is available as a sort of bonus disk with "limited edition" release of the "enhanced" versions. They look like shit, but they are available.

For some reason they chose to record them in masked 4:3 instead of anamorphic.

I didn't even know that I have never seen the original cut of Dr. Strangelove. That's a real disappointment.

-Peter

They are releasing a multiple disk set that includes the original theatrical release, the original "Director's Cut" and this new changed cut. (Much like Criterion did for Brazil, where they give you both Gilliam's original edit and the shitty happy-ending hack-job, so you can see exactly how bad it is.)

Gilliam and Scott, both far better directors than Lucas, aren't afraid of putting everything out there and letting the viewer decide which is best.

The two-disc edition is certainly worth getting if you've never seen the film before. I like how even if this successive re-editing of the film is getting ridiculous, the hype around the release of this version is bringing Blade Runner to the attention of a new generation. The larger box, however, is overkill for any but completists.

For my own part, I question the whole premise. Will a person who is smart always breed less than a person who is stupid, given similar circumstances? What evidence, other than, "I know a bunch of people who are like me, and therefore smart, and none of us wants any kids" and "I know that stupid people are always breeding" does anyone have about this?

Quite. We're still on two controllers. We haven't seen it as absolutely necessary to get another nunchuck though it's something we plan to get. We saved $10 by not buying Wii-play (I've yet to hear a positive word about the bundled games.) My mother is coming to stay with us this Christmas so we'll probably get another controller, but I'm not seeing a need for four right now.

As for the component cable, that was $6.87 from Amazon, including shipping. There's no need to pay $20 for anything.

As you say though, the price isn't even the major selling point of the Wii. It's relatively low cost, but that's not what makes it great. Forget my parents, I really have no interest in the other two - my computer is a better platform for anything I'd use the X-Box 360 or PS3 for anyway.

If it affects mean wave height, it will affect the self-cleaning mechanisms of tide pools and the edges of estuaries. That in turn will affect the levels of micronutrients these critical marginal ecosystems feed to the larger ocean ecosystems just off their shores.

Us lay people really don't know what goes on with this. The last book that gave the body politic any insight into these processes was The Sea Around Us, published in 1951 by Rachel Carson, a marine biologist. Fifty-six years later, it is still in print, and worth reading.

But when the same author published The Silent Spring in 1962, she simultaneously launched the ecology movement and destroyed her career as a popular science writer (she was tarred with hot, broad brushes from Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and the entire "better living through chemistry"— "DDT in your mama's breast milk is a Good Thing" industry). Serious students of marine biology, ecology, and related disciplines are told of the hell she was put through, that continued until her death from cancer when she was 57 years old. The message given to everyone who has trained in this field is don't say anything in public that could disturb the giants of industry, because they can and will crush you. The books that you would expect to have been published as follow-ons to Carson's works— books by marine biologists and other experts to make their findings available to lay persons within a global context— have not been written.

Bruce Sterling mentions phone sex bots in his short story "Are You For 86?" (appears in Globalhead anthology).

"The software just picks words at random out of the customer's own sick, pathetic rant! Whenever he stops for breath, it feeds a question back to him, using his own vocabulary .... Every two or three minutes it stops and says really nice things to him off the hard disk .... Kind of a flattery subroutine."

-kgj

New power generation facility receives Plasmatic injection at its main energy dome. Technicians wearing specially fitted xray spex oversaw the fueling of the power station.

Two things jump out at me in this article. The first is that this once again proves that Gartner is worse than useless. The second is that they left out one element. Take a look at Amazon or over at ebay. There are literaly thousands of Wiis that have been purchased by people for no other reason than turning around and selling them above retail. This has been going on for quite a while, though the prices have really spiked in recent weeks. I think they were averaging around $350 on Amazon for quite a while, as opposed to the over $500 now. And the number for sale there has greatly increased. I think some people may end up still holding them after the holidays though, because part of the appeal of the wii is the price. If I'm going to drop $600 on a console - I might as well get a 360 with some games or a PS3 that can play all those PS2 games out there.

I know I do, but then I've read Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini, so I'm even more aware of when I'm being played.

Reading that book changes the way you deal with people like that - you tick off the strategies in your head as they use them...

"Oh, there we go, 'Enforced Scarcity'...check! I wonder which one is next..."

It's a great book btw - even tells you how to make sure someone helps you if you have a heart attack :-)

Hey, like many Slashbots I spent a lot of time in front of my computer, leaving me with little chance to exercise. So, where are those nanobots that Neal Stephenson prophesized in The Diamond Age that crawl along your muscles, constantly stimulating them without any effort involved? I could have massive biceps and pecs, but the slow progress of technology is really hurting.

Hmmm... I think I'd want Wheeler to use his own book if I were studying gravitation with him. But that's just me.

http://askville.amazon.com/lyric-hit-shift-O-quote-dollar/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2395018

I wish with all my heart they had made "Better Days" as a movie and "Serenity" as the comic. Firefly was the very best SF show ever on TV. To have short-circuited its comeback as they did with making the movie so very harsh was IMHO a wasted chance at a relaunch. Fot those of you that haven't yet gotten what all of the fuss is about, hey, Christmas is coming, get the DVD as a present to someone else and give it one more try. Firefly is the American Western mythos of the past presented in a Space-Age future. We need to remember the vibes it resonates on now more than ever.

If you could insure the whole "philosopher king" thing, make sure you have a person as absolute ruler who is both capable and worthy of it, then that would be by far the best system. Since you can't, we go with democracy, not because it's in any way better, but because it limits the possible harm that can come out of government toward the people. However democracy can't save the people from their own shortsightedness, and it's just damn inefficient.

If you're seriously interested in such things, read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy . If not, the gist is, looking at the history of ancient civilizations, especially Rome, it appears that the most successful societies maintain aspects of democracy, monarchy and aristocracy, with all three constantly pushing for more power vs. the others. From there, you get to Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws (which isn't remotely as interesting to read), and then the debates at the U.S. Constitutional Convention and the arguments for ratification in The Federalist Papers.

But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Machiavelli's view was better than the follow-on work.

I'm sure it's the place many a geek first got into techno:

http://www.amazon.com/Wipeout-XL-Various-Artists/dp/B000003RYJ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1197042838&sr=8-6

Wipeout XL

But cooperation to do what - compete against the environment, against an external force.

Arnold J. Toynbee - A Study of History
http://www.amazon.com/Study-History-Abridgement-Volumes-I-VI/dp/0195050800/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197032602&sr=8-2

Studies the rise and fall of most of the major civilizations of the world. In all cases some external pressure (often an invasion) forced a young society to reinvent themselves and by responding aggressively raise their place in the world.

In the absence of competition, there is no innovation, no discovery, no drive. In the absence of aggression there is no competition.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be dog eat dog and every man for himself - we are social animals - generally aggression drives societal groups to work together against a common enemy, be it a foreign invasion or environmental catastrophe. Aggression is at the heart of what keeps us pushing forward instead of just sitting down and waiting for something to happen. Thousands of years of human history have repeated that meme. Only when living in a stable society built by those men have people had time to sit back and think "well, maybe we could all just be nice to each other all the time."

"Controlled and focussed aggression and competition are at the heart of our survival as a species and our great works of civilization."

Not really. See the writings of "Alfie Kohn".
    http://www.alfiekohn.org/

Like _No Contest: The case against competition_.
    http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
"Contending that competition in all areas -- school, family, sports and business -- is destructive, and that success so achieved is at the expense of another's failure, Kohn, a correspondent for USA Today, advocates a restructuring of our institutions to replace competition with cooperation. He persuasively demonstrates how the ingrained American myth that competition is the only normal and desirable way of life -- from Little Leagues to the presidency -- is counterproductive, personally and for the national economy, and how psychologically it poisons relationships, fosters anxiety and takes the fun out of work and play. He charges that competition is a learned phenomenon and denies that it builds character and self-esteem. Kohn's measures to encourage cooperation in lieu of competition include promoting noncompetitive games, eliminating scholastic grades and substitution of mutual security for national security."

What the glorification of violence and competition may do is supply a justification for a small number of people to have most of the wealth in society though a form of "Social Darwinism".