Slashdot Mirror

First link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ahecht/newpalm-large.jp g

It's the same pic as at the first link, only, different =)

The first mirror link, which as of now is broken, should be: http://home.earthlink.net/~ahecht/newpalm-large.jp g

mirroring

Kinda, sorta.
Why do we have to wait for nanotech? As my posting collect with bots... mentions I agree with the general idea but we can do it with bots not much more advanced than the stuff already sold by the Basic Stamp folks now.
It seems to me that the best response to the radiation issue is to use the debris itself as shielding and deactivate any robot that fails some overall diagnostic. If checksum=foo then robot=raw materials.
Or then again, maybe we can get the Armadillo Aerospace folks interested and sell the rights to shoot the debris down. Hmmmm.
perfessor multigeek

MOLECULAR LEECHING
Smaller = More Ephemeral

i have seen a 150 year old wood nail that has fused itself
into a piece of rock due to the natural properties of
molecular leeching.

the smaller you pack your bits on a hard drive.
the more data you squeeze into a square inch,
the sooner it will give way to molecular leeching
and become a paperweight.

a 20Mb hard drive from 20 years ago (1980's)
will last longer than a 20gig drive front 2002.

hemp paper lasts longer than tree-based paper.
if you really want long-lasting. you're better off
printing your documents on hemp paper than
storing it on a CD-ROM or hard-drive.

i've also been to the british museum
and seen the original rosetta stone.

alas - the CD-Roms ABOUT the rosetta stone
will probably not last a fraction as long as the original.

best regards,
john.

MOD THIS UP...

After looking at the image and checking it out in photoshop, I too see the obvious photoshoppery. The connectors and slot cover are from another photo but there are glaringly obvious similarities between this one and this (fake) one

depending on your budget, if you want reliable hardware with moving parts which do not break, you might wanna look at refurbed or new apple hardware.

Back in early '96 i bought Apple's first "PCI Mac", the PowerPC 7500/100. The thing has been on 24/7 every single day for the last 6 years and has run a slew of operating systems, and i have crashed the thing many, many times while never corrupting a single hard drive.

While in college, i used it as a TV, video capture platform, web surfing, web serving, web authoring, C programming tool.

Then it was used for about 3 years as a dedicated web server on a T1 connection, serving filemaker-pro-db/lasso/webstar-driven sites for multiple clients until they'd migrate to their own boxes.

And for the last two years it has been happily sitting on my kitchen table running LinuxPPC Q4 2000 24/7 serving some hobby sites of mine off of my DSL connection

I've upgraded its processor to a 250mhz G3, added an Ultra2 LVD SCSI card, a 9gig 8.5ms 10,000 rpm IBM cheetah hard drive, boosted the ram to 200MB (could be up to 1gig in theory) and other nifty things.

I've been opening the case and cleaning its guts about once every 2 years whenever i fellt the need to mess with it.

in any case, it has been my experience that apple hardware just doesn't break, no matter how much i fuck with it. I still see 5 year-old apple laptops still running MacOS 8.5 and allowing you to surf the 'net. Sure the battery no-longer holds a charge, which is to be expected, but once the power supply is plugged-in, they still work.

and i bet you could get an old 100mhz PPC 7500 CPU for around $300.

I haven't had too many problems pulling videos off my Tivo with my TivoNet card (hooked up to a wireless AP used in client mode to connect to the rest of my network). I used the boot CD and installed the Tivo Web stuff, then I use a program called TivoApp (yes, it's Windows, so shoot me). Works pretty well, well, at least it did until the 3.0 upgrade came out, now TivoWeb doesn't work at all :(

At least Tivo allowed the TivoNet (and TurboNet) to keep working in the 3.0 upgrade via different dial prefixes.

cdh

It was Eisenhower who added the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. You can read about it here.

A pertitent quote:

The only statement in the U.S.C. that reflects most of the original intent of the mandate against bills of attainder is from Cummings v. Missouri (1867). It states, "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

The common human can manage the 1 1/2 foot distance of a keyboard fairly well as evidenced by the number of God awful personal web pages on Geocities. Even though I use the most "gooey" Graphical User Interface, Apple's Mac OS X [apple.com], if I want to manage data, files, etc., I jump to the "Terminal" and do it through the Command Line Interface. Even with Mac OS X's speech control and IBM's Via Voice software, I can still type faster than I can talk -- in an intelligible manner.

I always find it funny in "near future" films how complicated the input interfaces are. They are dancing their hands in a virtual space acting like data had a form that you could grab and move. What a waste of effort. If you have to flail your arms around for 8 hours, you are going to be exhausted...but at least you will only have to buy one ticket to fly Southwest [washtimes.com]. The amount of effort required to manipulate the 100+ keys of a standard QWERTY keyboard is minimal. Though I have never had problems, I am sure the keyboard design can be improved to prevent repetitive injuries to certain users. We are all different shapes and sizes in various regions of our anatomy. Its hard to pick the "average human being" for a generic device.

The keyboard is a powerful input device. Even with the 130 year-old QWERTY keyboard [earthlink.net], human kind has been able to create wonders -- without it, we would have never made it to the moon. Compared to the original 1872 keyboard layout by C. L. Sholes, my clear plastic keyboard that came with my Dual G4 is not much different. I know it so well, I don't think I will ever use the Dvorak keyboard [utk.edu] but my future kids might.

Speaking of cars, may I present car sex. The "sticking your schlong up the tailpipe" kind, not the "fucking some whore in the backseat kind." I think this guy writes for Slashdot.

The common human can manage the 1 1/2 foot distance of a keyboard fairly well as evidenced by the number of God awful personal web pages on Geocities. Even though I use the most "gooey" Graphical User Interface, Apple's Mac OS X, if I want to manage data, files, etc., I jump to the "Terminal" and do it through the Command Line Interface. Even with Mac OS X's speech control and IBM's Via Voice software, I can still type faster than I can talk -- in an intelligible manner.

I always find it funny in "near future" films how complicated the input interfaces are. They are dancing their hands in a virtual space acting like data had a form that you could grab and move. What a waste of effort. If you have to flail your arms around for 8 hours, you are going to be exhausted...but at least you will only have to buy one ticket to fly Southwest. The amount of effort required to manipulate the 100+ keys of a standard QWERTY keyboard is minimal. Though I have never had problems, I am sure the keyboard design can be improved to prevent repetitive injuries to certain users. We are all different shapes and sizes in various regions of our anatomy. Its hard to pick the "average human being" for a generic device.

The keyboard is a powerful input device. Even with the 130 year-old QWERTY keyboard, human kind has been able to create wonders -- without it, we would have never made it to the moon. Compared to the original 1872 keyboard layout by C. L. Sholes, my clear plastic keyboard that came with my Dual G4 is not much different. I know it so well, I don't think I will ever use the Dvorak keyboard but my future kids might.

By experimenting with the display -- moving, by degrees, from a 20-degree field of view to a 30-degree field of view and so on up to 120 degrees, the team discovered that at the "60- to 80-degree point, it was like a switch went off in your head. Instead of looking at a picture, all of a sudden you thought you were in a place. You had a different way of interacting with the display. You brought in a different set of innate capabilities."

Actually, since '96 when the first PCI macs were released, namely the PPC 7500/100mhz and every significant desktop mac since then, has come with a removable CPU chip, lots of empty RAM slots and 3 to 6 PCI expansion bays, and extra room for mobo L2 cache RAM, additional video ram, empty drive bays and all that good stuff. Plus the 7500 pioneered the whole concept of upgrading your mac without touching a single screw.

I've owned my 7500 since early '96.

I have used it as my computer back in the dorms. It came with a built-in video capture card.

I've used it to watch TV: back in the dorm, i had a vcr but no tv. i'd plug the antenna cable to vcr tuner input and plug video and audio output of the vcr to ppc 7500's video input and stereo audio inputs (y-cable). I'd watch basketball games and take screen grabs. fun shit.

i've used it to actually capture video: I'm the one who digitized every single student movie clip from that site using this puppy.. It was running MacOS 7.5

Then i turned it into a full-time co-located server at an ISP in beverlyhills, where it would host a slew of web sites. it was running MacOS 7.6.1. It stayed there and worked very nicely for about 3 years after which i finally took it back home.

Meanwhile I had upgraded its processor chip from an old PPC 603, to the very first 250Mhz G3 chip. I boosted its RAM up to ~200MB, while it could in theory hold up to a GIG of ram with its 8 slots. I added an Ultra2 LVD SCSI card on one of my free PCI slots and an extra internal 10gig 8.5ms access-time Ultra2 SCSI cheetah IBM drive. i picked both of those by comparing prices on pricewatch.com.

I also added another Ultra SCSI-2 controller on another pci slot cuz i had planned to chain external scsi drives at some point but never followed-thru.

And of course i did all those upgrades without touching a screw. things worked as advertised.

Today, i could still stick a G4 processor in this thing. It's now running LinuxPPC Q4 2000. It sits at home where it's serving some hobby websites of mine off of my DSL connection behind my linksys router.

One thing i'd like to mention is that ever since i've bought this computer, 6 full years ago, it has been on 24/7/365. I've crashed it many times while dicking around with the OS and some server software but never managed to corrupt any of my hard drives.

As of today it is still happily cracking RC5 keys for distributed.net.

I might whipe out the drives and install Mandrake Linux PPC once it has matured a bit.

Can't upgrade a mac eh? right. and that's a '96 model. Today Apple has VGA displays, USB peripherals, ATA controllers. PCI expansion slots, and support for industry-standard video and graphics acceleration cards. Aside from things directly-tied to your motherboard, i'd say you've got a pretty wide choice of upgrade options.

So now you complain you couldn't build it from scratch in the first place? Well lemme put it this way:

At least, when you buy your mac, you KNOW, *everything*, and i do mean *everything* just WORKS out of the box. That gives you a baseline of a stable reference system. A powerful one. With all the features a geek could ever dream of. (and i'm pretty picky ) (and not a gamer, okay).

Countless friends of mine have mail-ordered all of their PC parts from all over the states, spent NIGHTS putting it all together only to find out some driver is not compatible with their specific configuration.

heh.

Aside from hardware considerations, in my mind, OS X *alone*, is a good-enough reason to buy a mac.

Oh good grief. Wind? Solar? These things have been "up and coming" for YEARS and they have never been successful.

First, wind power generation requires massive farms of windmills. Not picturesque little ones here and there like in the Netherlands. We're talking tall stalky turbines covering hundreds of acres. Resistance to building wind farms on a proper scale has been nothing short of monumental. Furthermore, working on them is dangerous, and turbines have required frequent maintenance. Finally, the Greenies don't like them because they've been known to kill birds. This page includes a formula for generating power out of a wind turbine. If 100% efficiency is assumed, and assume a turbine that has blades 100 feet long operating in a 15 mile per hour wind, we find that this turbine will generate 519.5 kW. Plant Votgle, a nuclear power facility in Georgia, has a combined output of 2430 MW (2430 million watts). We'd need almost 4700 windmills to equal the power output of Plant Votgle.

Solar power. What happens when it is cloudy? Or Dark? I don't know anyone that would volunteer to only have electricity only on sunny days. Furthermore, it has the same scale problems as wind. According to this page, the average incident solar power density is 164 watts per square meter. At 100% efficiency, a solar plant would have a collector surface area of 14.82e6 square meters to equal Plant Votgle's power output (that's a square a little less than four kilometers on a side). A chart on this page says that efficiency for collectors used to heat water is between 60 and 80%, increasing our required collector size even more.

The energy density of solar or wind is not nearly high enough to replace fossil or nuclear fuels for electricity production on a large scale.

whatever you get the machine to do for you - you pay for in letting your own ability to do it atrophy.

If you never learn it manually and always have a machine do it for you - then you're slave to the machine.

once you've Learned It without the machine, then the machine becomes an aid. but if you never actually learn it yourself, then you're slave to the machine.

once you know how to do it manually, then there's a place for letting the machine take the drudgery out of it for you - that's what computers are for after all.

but how many times have i been to a store, and the cashier didn't even know how to give correct change when the register doesn't tell them the right amount!?

john

Assuming you're not just trolling/joking, here's the thing:

You don't add velocities linearly in special relativity, they add in such a way that they can never exceed c in any reference frame. In order to move faster than light, you need either a discontinuity or an effect in a domain not covered by SR (GR, quantum, ...).

Special Relativity is a really cool system, but it doesn't act intuitively - it all falls out of the simple assumption that everybody always sees light as moving at c relative to their own reference frame (no matter how fast they are moving).

There's a nice intro to a bunch of the concepts involved here (sorry, requires flash).

protonman -- greetings.
YOU USE *superlative* almost As Much as me... ;->

i went through you strawman critique of searle.

you might want to ponder him a bit.

the point of searle's chinese room is to see if 'understanding'
is involved in the process of computation. if you can 'process'
the symbols of the cards without understanding them (since you're
using a wordbook and a programme to do it) - by putting yourself
in the place of the computer, you yourself can ask yourself if
you required understanding to do it.

now when you go and say that he ignores the people outside
who are getting fooled, then you once again remove yourself
of the possibility of knowing if you involved 'understanding'
in the process that was observed by the externals.

which leads me to wonder if you pondered him sufficiently.
so i had another go at your long letter, and it seems that
in some parts you agree searle only to say that he doesn't need
to make the argument because its obvious. you said you'd never
had anyone tell you that they thought 'the brain was a computer'.
that your experience, and i've added it to my points of reference.
but in my experience, there are many lay-people that through various
mis-information and popular media - many come to believe from the
persuasion of others (since it isn't exactly an original thought
these days to declare) - 'brains are computers'. i've been trying
to conince a fellow for over a year to the contrary, and he's
done and convinced himself that his own experience of consciousness
is merely the result of a sufficient algorithm running on the hardware
of his brain. if you don't believe that, and don't think that searle
needs to debunk it because its so obvious - then why so much strong
opposition to his argument? i've seen people get downright religious
in believing that men are machines instead of humans.

i agree that meaning and understanding is brought to an object
by the beholder.

they have a meaning, but the meaning needs to be *discovered*.

if you ponder and tinker at a watch long enough,
you get to understand the thought the watchmaker put into it.

not everything in subjective.
its a matter of finding the objective *through* the subjective.

merry met,

john

It is said that a Machine Could Generate its own Concepts.

But concepts aren't generated - the thought of a triangle isn't arbitrary (although its specific representation may be) - it is a REAL thing.

if this weren't so, there would be no grounds for any understanding at all between entities if all things were independently and arbitrarily contrived.

some people believe they manufacture their own concepts, but then where would the information for what we know about the world derive from? it would have to seep into us somehow from what a thing is into our understanding ABOUT it. this is the basis of the 'Symbol Grounding Problem'.

but that isn't necessary, because cognition (as a real process which we experience) completes the perception - the concept is that part of the given which isn't revealed to physical senses, but only to the pondering intellect.

thinking is an eyeball for concepts.

this machine builds up a database of what people have 'seen'.
its a 'concept logger'.

best regards,
john

]:->

--| IS THE BRAIN A DIGITAL COMPUTER? |-----

the answer given by a Cognitive Scientist (John Searle) is:

'THE BRAIN, AS FAR AS ITS INTRINSIC OPERATIONS
ARE CONCERNED, DOES NO INFORMATION PROCESSING...

IN THE SENSE OF 'INFORMATION' USED IN
COGNITIVE SCIENCE IT IS SIMPLY FALSE TO SAY
THAT THE BRAIN IS AN INFORMATION PROCESSING
DEVICE.'

John Searle, Cognitive Scientist

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:

This brief argument has a simple logical structure
and I will lay it out:

1. On the standard textbook definition, computation is defined syntactically in terms of symbol manipulation.

2. But syntax and symbols are not defined in terms of physics. Though symbol tokens are always physical tokens, "symbol" and "same symbol" are not defined in terms of physical features. Syntax, in short, is not intrinsic to physics.

3. This has the consequence that computation is not discovered in the physics, it is assigned to it. Certain physical phenomena are assigned or used or programmed or interpreted syntactically. Syntax and symbols are observer relative.

4. It follows that you could not discover that the brain or anything else was intrinsically a digital computer, although you could assign a computational interpretation to it as you could to anything else. The point is not that the claim "The brain is a digital computer" is false. Rather it does not get up to the level of falsehood. It does not have a clear sense. You will have misunderstood my account if you think that I am arguing that it is simply false that the brain is a digital computer. The question "Is the brain a digital computer?" is as ill defined as the questions "Is it an abacus?", "Is it a book?", or "Is it a set of symbols?", "Is it a set of mathematical formulae?"

5. Some physical systems facilitate the computational use much better than others. That is why we build, program, and use them. In such cases we are the homunculus in the system interpreting the physics in both syntactical and semantic terms.

6. But the causal explanations we then give do not cite causal properties different from the physics of the implementation and the intentionality of the homunculus.

7. The standard, though tacit, way out of this is to commit the homunculus fallacy. The humunculus fallacy is endemic to computational models of cognition and cannot be removed by the standard recursive decomposition arguments. They are addressed to a different question.

8. We cannot avoid the foregoing results by supposing that the brain is doing "information processing". THE BRAIN, AS FAR AS ITS INTRINSIC OPERATIONS ARE CONCERNED, DOES NO INFORMATION PROCESSING. It is a specific biological organ and its specific neurobiological processes cause specific forms of intentionality. In the brain, intrinsically, there are neurobiological processes and sometimes they cause consciousness. But that is the end of the story.

John Searle, Cognitive Scientist, 'Is the Brain a Digital Computer'
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/P apers/Py104 / earle.comp.html

--

A move in the right direction. I think I'm gonna wait for the version with a tesla coil on it tho.

--| THE TRANSITION FROM THE EMPIRICAL TO THE IDEAL |---

We take hold of a warm object, for example. The scientist will tell us: What you are calling the heat or warmth is the effect on your own nerves. Objectively, there is the movement of molecules and atoms. These you can study, after the laws of mechanics. So then they study the laws of mechanics, of atoms and molecules; indeed, for a long time they imagined that by so doing they would at last contrive to explain all the phenomena of Nature. Today, of course, this hope is rather shaken. But even if we do press forward to the atom with our thinking, even then we shall have to ask - and seek the answer by experiment - How are the forces in the atom? How does the mass reveal itself in its effects, - how does it work? And if you put this question, you must ask again: How will you recognize it? You can only recognize the mass by its effects.

The customary way is to recognize the smallest unit bearer of mechanical force by its effect, in answering this question: If such a particle brings another minute particle - say, a minute particle of matter weighing one gramme - into movement, there must he some force proceeding from the matter in the one, which brings the other into movement. If then the given mass brings the other mass, weighing one gramme, into movement in such a way that the latter goes a centimetre a second faster in each successive second, the former mass will have exerted a certain force. This force we are accustomed to regard as a kind of universal unit. If we are then able to say of some force that it is so many times greater than the force needed to make a gramme go a centimetre a second quicker every second, we know the ratio between the force in question and the chosen universal unit. If we express it as a weight, it is 0.001019 grammes' weight. Indeed, to express what this kind of force involves, we must have recourse to the balance - the weighing-machine. The unit force is equivalent to the downward thrust that comes into play when 0.001019 grammes are being weighed. So then I have to express myself in terms of something very outwardly real if I want to approach what is called ÒmassÓ in this Universe. Howsoever I may think it out, I can only express the concept ÒmassÓ by introducing what I get to know in quite external ways, namely a weight. In the last resort, it is by a weight that I express the mass, and even if I then go on to atomize it, I still express it by a weight.

I have reminded you of all this, in order clearly to describe the point at which we pass, from what can still be determined Òa prioriÓ, into the realm of real Nature. We need to be very clear on this point. The truths of arithmetic, geometry and kinematics, - these we undoubtedly determine apart from external Nature. But we must also be clear, to what extent these truths are applicable to that which meets us, in effect, from quite another side - and, to begin with, in mechanics. Not till we get to mechanics, have we the content of what we call Òphenomenon of NatureÓ.

All this was clear to Goethe. Only where we pass on from kinematics to mechanics can we begin to speak at all of natural phenomena. Aware as he was of this, he knew what is the only possible relation of Mathematics to Natural Science, though Mathematics be ever so idolized even for this domain of knowledge.

To bring this home, I will adduce one more example. Even as we may think of the unit element, for the effects of Force in Nature, as a minute atom-like body which would be able to impart an acceleration of a centimetre per second per second to a gramme-weight, so too with every manifestation of Force, we shall be able to say that the force proceeds from one direction and works towards another. Thus we may well grow accustomed - for all the workings of Nature - always to look for the points from which the forces proceed. Precisely this has grown habitual, nay dominant, in Science. Indeed in many instances we really find it so. There are whole fields of phenomena which we can thus refer to the points from which the forces, dominating the phenomena, proceed. We therefore call such forces Òcentric forcesÓ, inasmuch as they always issue from point-centres. It is indeed right to think of centric forces wherever we can find so many single points from which quite definite forces, dominating a given field of phenomena, proceed. Now need the forces always come into play. It may well be that the point-centre in question only bears in it the possibility, the potentiality as it were, for such a play of forces to arise, whereas the forces do not actually come into play until the requisite conditions are fulfilled in the surrounding sphere. We shall have instances of this during the next few days. It is as though forces were concentrated at the points in question, - forces however that are not yet in action. Only when we bring about the necessary conditions, will they call forth actual phenomena in their surroundings. Yet we must recognize that in such point or space forces are concentrated, able potentially to work on their environment.

This in effect is what we always look for, when speaking of the World in terms of Physics. All physical research amounts to this: we follow up the centric forces to their centres; we try to find the points from which effects can issue, For this kind of effect in Nature, we ate obliged to assume that there are centres, charged as it were with possibilities of action in certain directions. And we have sundry means of measuring these possibilities of action; we can express in stated measures, how strongly such a point or centre has the potentiality of working. Speaking in general terms, we call the measure of a force thus centred and concentrated a ÒpotentialÓ or Òpotential forceÓ. In studying these effects of Nature we then have to trace the potentials of the centric forces, - so we may formulate it. We look for centres which we then investigate as sources of potential forces.

Such, in effect, is the line taken by that school of Science which is at pains to express everything in mechanical terms. It looks for centric forces and their potentials. In this respect our need will be to take one essential step - out into actual Nature - whereby we shall grow fully conscious of the fact: You cannot possibly understand any phenomenon in which Life plays a part if you restrict yourself to this method, looking only for the potentials of centric forces. Say you were studying the play of forces in an animal or vegetable embryo or germ-cell; with this method you would never find your way. No doubt it seems an ultimate ideal to the Science of today, to understand even organic phenomena in terms of potentials, of centric forces of some kind. It will be the dawn of a new world-conception in this realm when it is recognized that the thing cannot be done in this way, Phenomena in which Life is working can never be understood in terms of centric forces. Why, in effect, - why not? Diagrammatically, let us here imagine that we are setting out to study transient, living phenomena of Nature in terms of Physics. We look for centres, - to study the potential effects that may go out from such centres. Suppose we find the effect. If I now calculate the potentials, say for the three points a, b and c, I find that a will work thus and thus on A, B and C, or c on A', B' and C'; and so on. I should thus get a notion of how the integral effects will be, in a certain sphere, subject to the potentials of such and such centric forces. Yet in this way I could never explain any process involving Life. In effect, the forces that are essential to a living thing have no potential; they are not centric forces. If at a given point d you tried to trace the physical effects due to the influences of a, b and c, you would indeed be referring to the effects to centric forces, and you could do so. But if you want to study the effects of Life you can never do this. For these effects, there are no centres such as a or b or c. Here you will only take the right direction with your thinking when you speak thus: Say that at d there is something alive. I look for the forces to which the life is subject. I shall not find them in a, nor in b, nor in c, nor when I go still farther out. I only find them when as it were I go to the very ends of the world - and, what is more, to the entire circumference at once. Taking my start from d, I should have to go to the outermost ends of the Universe and imagine forces to the working inward from the spherical circumference from all sides, forces which in their interplay unite in d. It is the very opposite of the centric forces with their potentials. How to calculate a potential for what works inward from all sides, from the infinitudes of space? In the attempt, I should have to dismember the forces; one total force would have to be divided into ever smaller portions. Then I should get nearer and nearer the edge of the World: - the force would be completely sundered, and so would all my calculation. Here in effect it is not centric forces; it is cosmic, universal forces that are at work. Here, calculation ceases.

Once more, you have the leap - the leap, this time, from that in Nature which is not alive to that which is. In the investigation of Nature we shall only find our way aright if we know what the leap is from Kinematics to Mechanics, and again what the leap is from external, inorganic Nature into those realms that are no longer accessible to calculation, - where every attempted calculation breaks asunder and every potential is dissolved away. This second leap will take us from external inorganic Nature into living Nature, and we must realize that calculation ceases where we want to understand what is alive.

(Rudolf Steiner, The Light Course, Lecture 1)

Light Course, Lecture 1, Rudolf Steiner

Now, all we need is a CGI Peter Cushing with a CGI Lucas beard and flannel shirt. . . .

dominik@schnitzer.at, mozparty-at-subscribe@relax.ath.cx, dominik@schnitzer.at, david_markvica@web.de, johannes_richter@gmx.net, kairo@kairo.at, rossi@chello.at, markush@world-direct.com, cbiesinger@web.de, jenskager@gmx.net, jo-at-mt@gmx.net, johann.petrak@gmx.at, dviper01@gmx.net, simon@simonschwaighofer.net, dreckskerl@glump.at, wt-lists@trexler.at, dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at, kasparhauserjr@hotmail.com, b.schallar@gmx.net, mutato@libero.it, phil@goli.at, diddalick@gmx.net, studio@paw8.com, croco@utanet.at, petru@paler.net, jlemmerer@node.at, bigkub@time2change.at, patrick@seher-it.at, ronald@hartwig.at, mozilla_party@webterminate.com, stefan@kleinhans.it, horst.jens@gmx.at, jjan@gibts.net, mjahn@agency.at, gpoul@gnu.org, green@eggs.ham, gerhard.hipfinger@openforce.at, mailto:moz@moz.org>, florianweinwurm@yahoo.com, christian@precht-jensen.dk, Bill_Gates@microsoft.com, Tux_the_penguin@linux.rules.microsoft.sux.open.sou rce.is.the.way.to.go.net, domi@schnitzer.at, joe_ringmaster@gmx.at, sifu@isohypse.org, dk@perm.ru, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, luke@strangemonkey.com, mrundataker@optushome.com.au, mcgarry@tig.com.au, chris@think.net.au, Mathias.Burbach@Bigfoot.com, acuteparanoia@optushome.com.au, syzh401@cse.unsw.edu.au, maillist@jasonlim.com, ram@digitalmethod.org, jason@sydneypubguide.net, geek@digitalone.com.au, curious@ihug.com.au, bill@maidment.com.au, kristof@staesis.org, bill@microsoft.com, belle@netset.net.au, ksosez@softhome.net, jruderman@hmc.edu, andyed@surfmind.com, down8@yahoo.com, mozparty@sigkill.com, bulbul@ucla.edu, gavin-mozparty@doughtie.com, roger@digitalfountain.com, matt@linuxschooltorrance.com, mozparty@ventura.nu, rombouts@compuserve.com, ian@freenetproject.org, tristanreid@yahoo.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, jj@lacasabonita.com, gmoudry@hotmail.com, eyezero@yahoo.com, ian@primewave.net, jlawson7@adelphia.net, el_arturo@att.net, janie@freenetproject.org, 145371217@numenor.net, infinite_8_monkey@yahoo.com, charshman@divus.org, mozparty@shadowlurker.net, john@marinapacific.com, ilanterrell@yahoo.com, aafes@psu.edu, bustamam98@yahoo.com, mozparty@myunixbox.com, yaten@sbcglobal.net, joelinux@pacificnet.net, dgc@penguino.net, poserskater69@yahoo.com, lheartb@hotmail.com, ncmother@zimage.com, daniel@likeicare.com, digital.evil@lycos.com, cjeburke@yahoo.com, jblow@hotmail.com, zachary.anthony@verizon.net, boogah@23.org, mebelost@yahoo.com, nickkricheff@netscape.net, mikemcg@ucla.edu, gogomozilla@denofslack.net, mike@mm1.com, seanmcoleman@attbi.com, jsm@bigfoot.com, hoarycripple@crippl3.net, mozparty@nslu.x.myxomop.com, mozparty@camworld.com, mozpartyNYC@isoga.net, ccarlen@netscape.com, h@rediffmail.com, lefever@rcn.com, tedjackson@accounting.org, darren@ny.com, marlon@nyc.com, plui@hyperreal.org, dzeluff@zeluff.com, joel@natividads.com, ken@bigbadapple.com, treebeard@treebeard.net, florent@nyc.com, chad@macristy.com, spud@montelshow.com, gbman_of_gvill@yahoo.com, eam-mozparty@learningpatterns.com, pkrause@primavera.com, tossoffus@yahoo.com, ryan@pantz.com, nichomof@eecs.tulane.edu, billg@microsoft.com, DevilsRejection@msn.com, petergunn@hotmail.com, bagerj@sullcrom.com, isaac@structuredsystems.net, bobk@panix.com, ngellner@hotmail.com, luke@sigterm.org, vivake@yahoo.com, jon@mediavortex.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, brendan@sighup.net, jds@panix.com, bluerose@bluerose.com, chris@allermann.net, dimkal@yahoo.com, preppyl@yahoo.com, blujoker@blujoker.net, nowell_h@hotmail.com, aragorn@cs.stanford.edu, treed@cpr.com, brt204@nyu.edu, andreas@antonopoulos.com, dj@randomwalks.com, lists@pote.com, mike@mhudack.com, reliable57@yahoo.com, jared@geek-boy.com, ondadl@mac.com, floss@myrealbox.com, xod@thestonecutters.net, mozilla@sectae.net, tywonm@screamingmedia.com, Odin_NT@hotmail.com, crooney@panix.com, bg25222@binghamton.edu, eugenem@brainlink.com, dave@downneck.net, romspace@mac.com, sdaejo@yahoo.com, masseo1@yahoo.com, jim@fearandloathing.net, mike@mjoy.us, miles@openly.com, LuciferSD@hotmail.com, nsdilwor@intertechmedia.com, chrisdowden@yahoo.com, pgs10@columbia.edu, sbrennan@ovid.com, lthomiso@rcn.com, paralox@paralox.ath.cx, Jester_458@yahoo.com, jsadove@beltion.net, stuehmke@yahoo.com, mike@realfx.com, alex@risky-roosky.com, shava@efn.org, kra10@columbia.edu, saihung@ix.netcom.com, gropo@mac.com, scottnym@yahoo.com, shaas@vibe.com, roon_toon@hotmail.com, ajaygautam@yahoo.com, jhdaly@mindspring.com, manuel@sphinx.ms, very_itchy_rash@yahoo.com, emeldrum@drew.edu, jeld@mindless.com, as867@columbia.edu, slams@penguin.rutgers.edu, wassa@columbia.edu, tony@vegan.net, zilla@bibliotrack.com, zeno_lee@hotmail.com, fosh@fishnet.cx, linux@gpl.us, jblow@hotmail.com, dkrook@hotmail.com, ivesti@yahoo.com, arek@arekwyderka.com, bljoechang@yahoo.com, brian@tribrothers.com, sparky@marklife.org, charles@softwareprototypes.com, scottkundla@hotmail.com, ccharabaruk@meldstar.com, ian@pottinger.ca, netdemonz@yahoo.com, diatribe@mailcity.com, nick@tomkinet.com, shawnlin@yahoo.com, sculley@pathcom.com, herd.killing@rogers.com, dave@renouf.com, aliyamin@hotmail.com, aswitzer@ispgn.com, netm0nkey@ispgn.com, hyakugei@hotmail.com, geduggan.mozparty@peri.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, lwhite@darkfires.ca, jorel@the-wire.com, js@tap.net, davew@tap.net, tmh@whitefang.com, vid_mozillaparty@zooid.org, anon@foolswisdom.org, morris_mk@yahoo.ca, colinmc@idirect.com, marcus.brubaker@utoronto.ca, akish@kishcom.com, nconway@klamath.dyndns.org, jason@thegeekcave.com, rampaging_simian@hotmail.com, garret@sirsonic.com, piowie@myrealbox.com, m5m5m@yahoo.com, ivan.brovko@net-sweeper.com, returnofthedorks@hotmail.com, axxackall@yahoo.com, tednye@sympatico.ca, darren.fuller@bell.ca, jbailey@nisa.net, swangeo@yahoo.ca, Hercynium@yahoo.com, cinetron@passport.ca, jotaroh@hotmail.com, aghajani@principle.com, fzv@yahoo.com, rocketmail_com@rocketmail.com, foo@bar.com, wolfe@alt.net, drew@xyzzy.dhs.org, jimmiejaz@nixhelp.net, bofh@swma.net, nilesh_mehta@email.com, mslack@rogers.com, m-cahill@rogers.com, tworkowski@sympatico.ca, george@openlight.com, irina@openlight.com, ilia@lobsanov.com, rjs@tao.ca, paul-mp@it.ca, alvarolists@aycuens.com, xan@dimensis.com, ike@lab.org, miguel@asiinfo.net, marevalo@marevalo.net, iolalla@yahoo.com, peluz0n@justice.com, weeddeveloper@yahoo.com, alfonsobugs@terra.es, sgala@apache.org, z_gringo@hotmail.com, santiz@madritel.es, murphy@litio.net, fox@mozilla.gr.jp, party@mozilla.org.uk, danj@fledgeling.com, fun@thingy.apana.org.au, moz@the-allens.net, onelists@hotmail.com, joel@fysh.org, simon.mozilla-party-if-its-in-central-london@rumbl e.net, bigboyjim@excite.com, andrew.and.friends.iff.central.london@sent.freeser ve.co.uk, itwillbecentrallondon@mozilla.org.uk, noahsark2x2@tiscali.co.uk, mmm-central-london@smileyben.com, jonathan-for-central-london@peepo.com, dave-Party-in-Central-London@dgta.co.uk, DJGMOL@netscape.net, srick@europe.yahoo-inc.com, moz-party@zpok.demon.co.uk, moz-party-central-london@trickofthelight.org, marc@brosystems.com, party@budge.net, rillian@telus.net, uphillsurfer@hotmail.com, edward@debian.org, mozilla@robertbrook.com, reagan@technomoose.com, lew@saltbeefsandwich.co.uk, osama@afghanistan.com, barking@insaneworld.org.uk, john@billabong-media.com, leith@cs.bu.edu, mozparty@noseynick.org, jonasj@jonasj.dk, bugzilla@kenneth.dk, chr_damsgaard@hotmail.com, alring@email.com, hp.grondal@get2net.dk, martin@marquentein.dk, Lovechild@foolclan.com, Kim@schulz.dk, kl@vsen.dk, mbendix@dunghill.dk, schnitzer.at@tange.dk, tommy@svindel.net, moz10@pbb.dk, dezral@despammed.com, nick@tioka.com, ask@fujang.dk, gecko@c.dk, spam@deck.dk, bugzilla@gemal.dk, b@bogdan.dk, kenneth@gnu.org, jee@email.dk, daniel@rtfm.dk, umfalvo@yahoo.com, christian@ostenfeld.dk, xor@ivwnet.com, Jason@screaminweb.com, alex@spamcop.net, dustym@riseup.net, rmcgee1@earthlink.net, dr_zeus@hotmail.com, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, looney_binn@yahoo(dot)com, apendell@attbi.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, fireball1244@mac.com, tommyo@hargray.com, natas@redtailboa.net, emmett_in_dallas@yahoo.com, razzbuten@yahoo.com, igdavis@truculent-telephone.org, foobar@null.net, bob@kludgebox.com, cgrimland@yahoo.com, ghamlett@swbell.net, bgood@inceptual.com, slot0k@pogox.org, kwhudson@netin.com, jimjamjoh@softhome.net, jimmys@utdallas.edu, charlesv@mfos.org chris@focus2.com jest6r@hotmail.com steve@ncc.com, usrg@mail.utexas.edu, steve@deltos.com, alex@avengergear.com, mkoenecke@alum.haverford.edu langley@hex.net mordred@inaugust.com swapan@yahoo.com drosoph@hotmail.com, goulash1@mac.com, ean@brainfood.com, vj@vj.com lpret42@hotmail.com bugoff@hotmail.com chad@digitaltriage.net, stewart@digitaltriage.net scottvr01@yahoo.com adam@dfwuptime.com dsaint@gnumatt.org naltrexone42@yahoo.com, webmaster@bast.net, tommyo@hargray.com, ladd@kryp.to, jtaylor5@bayou.uh.edu, jgschmitz@linuxmail.org, enslaver@enslaver.com edfierro@yahoo.com, moz@photonsphere.com, rayw@fuckmicrosoft.com, rfmobile@swbell.net, kevin@unif.com trident5@bigfoot.com Erik_Osterholm@ieee.org, tmunson@houston.rr.com, alessi_brand@hotmail.com, rballa1@lsu.edu, wasted@kewlhair.com, jofficer@martinapparatus.com, idiot@mylinuxisp.com, j0sh01@ev1.net faust@wintermarket.org bouncer@hotmonkeyporn.com tk-mozparty_@perljam.net janisch@students.zcu.cz, aha@pinknet.cz kuzi@atlas.cz scat@reboot.cz, petr@dousa.cz, ruzicka@core.cz, roman@management.cz, hojan@students.zcu.cz, tille@soti.org, cas.tuyn@hetnet.nl, aeon@pandora.be, sensi_millia2000@yahoo.com, crypto@shiftat.com, jan.fabry@vsknet.be, monkeyboy@fruru.com, adulau@foo.be, johan@linux.be, karu@pobox.com, soggie@soti.org nick@tomkinet.com, why_are_you_too_lazy_to_drive_1_hour_to_toronto@yo u_lazy.com try_grammer_class_a_while@get_a_life.com john@interlynx.ca asharp@axo.cc, unionstation@ryder.ca, prade@hotmail.com, 2600@hamilton2600.ca, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, jksteinhauer@netscape.net, i_love_junk_email@yahoo.com, cmiller@surfsouth.com, jan@bestbytes.de, me@phillipoertel.com, sebastian@pixelsalon.de, ccozan@andtek.com, ben@itlib.de, martin.ament@gmx.de, pulsar@highteq.net, muid@gmx.de, cedi@zooomclan.org, soapy@soapy.ch, deep_blue_ocean@gmx.ch, stamp@zooomclan.org, hans@switzerland.com, milamber@zooomclan.org, mtettea@switzerland.com, cylander@zooomclan.org, duke@zooomclan.org, pegirun@gmx.ch, pilif@pilif.ch, mlati@yahoo.com, Mozillzooom@holophrastic.com, erichiseli@yahoo.com, la_burdet@yahoo.com, rkoerber@gmx.de, dotzmasta@hotmail.com, B.Eckstein@cli.de, rtfm@linux.de, info@phosmo.de, gz@disintegrated.de, byronbay@gmx.de, stiwi@mac.com, mage@koeln.netsurf.de, mozilla@portfolio16.de, wrede@fh-aachen.de, ilikemozilla@html.de, cloud@final-fantasy.de, sfricke@sfricke.de, info@flossbau.de, no@dom.de, julian.suschlik@gmx.net, omero@m4d.sm, lapo@lapo.it, alcor78@email.it, info@fuelcat.it, mutato@libero.it, ildella@inwind.it, a.marabini@spinthehumanfactor.com, uomoman@criticalbit.com, thefl74@netscape.net, elbardo@libero.it, clem131@libero.it, t-i-e@bigfoot.com, gng74@libero.it, moz.party.20.gnes@spamgourmet.com, ema.cerqui@libero.it, ubertob@tin.it, mozparty.20.anagoor@spamgourmet.com, gianpaolo@preciso.net, ian@deepsky.com, marco@porciletto.org, planetx2100@hotmail.com, billabong@tiscalinet.it, piofree@libero.it, skunkyboy@tiscalinet.it, vincenzo@mondopiccolo.net, macmatteo@interfree.it, contreras@jce.it, hereandnow@libero.it, pza@students.cs.mu.oz.au, caedwa@students.cs.mu.oz.au, mgi@students.cs.mu.oz.au, bah@humbug.net, mfp@cs.mu.oz.au, nospamplease@indevelopment.org, peter@simplyit.screaming,net, pmj@users.sf.net, xanni@sericyb.com.au, agh@kalcium-is.com, felicityconsult@ozemail.com.au, lucas@lucaschan.com, andrewg@nopninjas.com, andym@abnormal.com, ts@meme.com.au, jasonpell@hotmail.com, syngin@gimp.org, mhammond@skippinet.com.au, szutshi@devraj.org, rmoonen@bigpond.net.au, fawad@fawad.net, ufs@softhome.net, kotrade@yahoo.com, ben@benscorp.com, stevesmith@columbus.rr.com, kkimmelosu@yahoo.com, neal.lindsay@peaofohio.com, pat@linuxcolumbus.com, chrisbaker@iname.com, hiroki2c@yahoo.com, seth@remor.com, jsohn@columbus.rr.com, ross@nanonet.net, mark@cushman.net, swinghammer.2@osu.edu, roberto.12@osu.edu, farhat@hotmail.com, pgunn@dachte.org, jwagner@gcfn.org, bp@osc.edu, joepletch@postmark.net, dsherman@iwaynet.net, glenn@uniqsys.com, bernstein.46@osu.edu, trent_reznor@nothing.com, erikniklas@bobanddoug.com, walters@gnu.org, timo@bolverk.net, annek25@aol.com, jlamb@leader.com, bart@osc.edu, jason@mcvetta.org

When final figures are announced, North American ticket sales for the Friday-through-Monday Memorial Day weekend are expected to total well over $200 million, marking the biggest four-day holiday of all time and surpassing last year's record by at least 8 percent, box-office tracking service Exhibitor Relations said on Tuesday.

more important than the spatial arrangement of the keys (which is in itself an important factor AFTER this) is SPRING keyboard action vs RUBBER MEMBRANE keyboard action -- nothing else matters as much as that if you want to avoid RSI.

Dvorak on a good Spring Keyboard is the only way to go.

regards,
john

Sounds like Carmack's approach paid off for you. I suggest it is you that needs to look closer however and find out a bit more about what you're talking about in regards to Doom 3 and its approach to character rendering. Section 4.7 (subsection 7 of section 4) of the unnofical Doom 3 FAQ has some speculation and third hand info on the subject that might be of interest to you. Doom 3 FAQ: What sort of engine will Doom 3 use? I'll try to dig up Carmack's quotes on the subject as well. Suffice to say he has been careful to point out that Doom 3 makes heavy use of bump maps.

Take a look at the areas of the high rez screens I've conveniently circled for you here. Note the rather obvious poly edges. Note that the apparent frontal detail of characters does not generally show up on edges, indicating the geometry is not actually present on the in game model. You see what appears to be unbelievable detail on any camera facing surface, but on the edges of the model it is quite obvious it does not have that level of detail. If you don't see it now, you're beyond help.

Granted, much of the detail is actual in game geometry, but what's really selling the effect is the texture maps, bump maps, and lighting. I'd be willing to bet the models aren't any more high poly than Soldier of Fortune II, but they sure look better, eh? There's no denying there's a poly increase from previous iD games, but it takes a back seat to the lighting and shading technology. And while i don't expect a 10x increase in poly count, 2x would be nice given how good the rest of everything looks.

- JavaJones

we see a great debate arising about
'intellectual property'. People are concerned that producers of digital
content (writings, music, video, data) are adequately compensated for
their efforts. In order to do this, an analogue was made -- we will sell
you a number (any digital file is just a big number consisting of 1's and
0's) - and to protect the 'uniqueness' of that number, we will treat that
number as if it weren't really a number, but an actual physical tangible
good.

But there's one problem with this. If i have an apple and give you an
apple, i no longer have an apple. But if i have an idea and give you an
idea, then we both have the idea. These inherent properties of matter and
bits is ignored for the sake of the analogy, and here lies the fundamental
problem at the heart of the intellectual property debate. And it will
never be solved until an understanding of social threefolding can be
brought to bear on it...

Social Threefolding

And this is the law of the wild,
As old and as true as the sky.
And the wolf who keeps it will prosper,
But the wolf who breaks it will die!

Like the wind that circles the tree trunk,
this law runneth forward and back.
The strength of the pack is the wolf,
and the strength of the wolf is the pack.

(Rudyard Kipling)

--| THE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL LAW |----

Briefly as the subject must be dealt with, there will always be some people
whose feeling will lead them to recognize the truth of what it is impossible
to discuss in all its fullness here. There is a fundamental social law which
spiritual science teaches, and which is as follows:

'The well-being of a community of people working together
will be the greater, the less the individual claims for himself
the proceeds of his work, i.e. the more of these proceeds he
makes over to his fellow-workers, the more his own needs are
satisfied, not out of his own work but out of the work done by
others'.

Every arrangement in a community that is contrary to this law will
inevitably engender somewhere after a while distress and want. It is a
fundamental law, which holds good for all social life with the same
absoluteness and necessity as any law of nature within a particular field of
natural causation. It must not be supposed, however, that it is sufficient
to acknowledge this law as one for general moral conduct, or to try to
interpret it into the sentiment that everyone should work in the service of
his fellow men. No, this law only lives in reality as it should when a
community of people succeeds in creating arrangements such that no one can
ever claim the fruits of his own labour for himself, but that these go
wholely to the benefit of the community. And he must himself be supported in
return by the labours of his fellow men. The important point is, therefore,
that working for one's fellow men and obtaining so much income must be kept
apart, as two separate things.

Self-styled 'practical people' will of course have nothing but a smile for
such 'outrageous idealism'. And yet this law is more practical than any that
was ever devised or enacted by the 'practicians'. Anyone who really examines
practical life will find that every community that exists or has ever
existed anywhere has two sorts of arrangements, of which the one is in
accordance with this law and the other contrary to it. It is bound to be so
everywhere, whether men will it or not. Every community would indeed fall to
pieces at once, if the work of the individual did not pass over into the
totality. But human egoism has from of old run counter to this law, and
sought to extract as much as possible for the individual out of his own
work. And what has come about from of old in this way due to egoism has
alone brought want, poverty and distress in its wake. This simply means that
the part of human arrangements brought about by 'practicians' who calculated
on the basis of either their own egotism or that of others must always prove
impractical.

Now naturally it is not simply a matter of recognizing a law of this kind,
but the real practical part begins with the question: How is one to
translate this law into actual fact? Obviously this law says nothing less
than this: man's welfare is the greater, in proportion as egoism is less. So
for its translation into reality one must have people who can find their way
out of egoism. In practice, however, this is quite impossible if the
individual's share of weal and woe is measured according to his labour. He
who labours for himself *must* gradually fall a victim to egoism. Only one
who labours solely for the rest can gradually grow to be a worker without
egoism.

But there is one thing needed to begin with. If any man works for another,
he must find in this other man the reason for his work; and if anyone is to
work for the community, he must perceive and feel the value, the nature and
importance, of this community. He can only do this when the community is
something quite different from a more or less indefinite summation of
individual men. It must be informed by an actual spirit, in which each
single one has his part. It must be such that each one says: 'It is as it
should be, and I *will* that it be so'. The community must have a spiritual
mission, and each individual must have the will to contribute towards the
fulfilling of this mission. All the vague abstract ideals of which people
usually talk cannot present such a mission. If there be nothing but these,
then one individual here or one group there will be working without any
clear overview of what use there is in their work, except it being to the
advantage of their families, or of those particular interests to which they
happen to be attached. In every single member, down to the most solitary,
this spirit of the community must be alive...

No one need try to discover a solution of the social question that shall
hold good for all time, but simply to find the right form for his social
thoughts and actions in the light of the immediate need of the time in which
he lives. Indeed there is today no theoretical scheme which could be devised
or carried into effect by any one person which in itself could solve the
social question. For this he would need to possess the power to force a
number of people into the conditions which he had created. But in the
present day any such compulsion is out of the question. The possibility must
be found of each person doing of his own free will that which he is called
upon to do according to his strength and abilities. For this reason there
can be no possible question of ever trying to work on people theoretically,
by merely indoctrinating them with a view as to how economic conditions
might best be arranged. A bald economic theory can never act as a force to
counteract the powers of egoism. for a while such an economic theory may
sweep the masses along with a kind of impetus that *appears* to resemble
idealism; but in the long run it helps nobody. Anyone who implants such a
theory into a mass of people without giving them some real spiritual
substance along with it is sinning against the real meaning of human
evolution. The only thing which can help is a spiritual world-conception
which of itself, through what it has to offer, can live in the thoughts, in
the feelings, in the will -- in short, in a man's whole soul...

The recognition of these principles means, it is true, the loss of many an
illusion for various people whose ambition it is to be popular benefactors.
It makes working for the welfare of society a really difficult matter-one of
which the results, too, may in certain circumstances comprise only quite
tiny part-results. Most of what is given out today by whole parties as
panaceas for social life loses its value, and is seen to be a mere bubble
and hollow phrase, lacking in due knowledge of human life. No parliament, no
democracy, no popular agitation can have any meaning for a person who looks
at all deeper, if they violate the law stated above; whereas everything of
this kind may work for good if it works on the lines of this law. It is a
mischievous delusion to believe that particular persons sent up to some
parliament as delegates from the people can do anything for the good of
mankind, unless their activity is in conformity with the fundamental social
law.

Wherever this law finds outer expression, wherever anyone is at work on its
lines-so far as is possible in that position in which he is placed within
the community-good results will be attained, though it be but in the single
case and in never so small a measure. And it is only a number of individual
results attained in this way that will together combine to the healthy
collective progress of society.

The healthy social life is found
When in the mirror of each human soul
The whole community is shaped,
And when in the community
Lives the strength of each human soul.

==| Capital and Credit in Threefolding |===

Where 'supply and demand' are the determining factors, there the egoistic
type of value is the only one that can come into reckoning. The 'market'
relationship must be superseded by associations regulating the exchange and
production of goods by an intelligent observation of human needs. Such
associations can replace mere supply and demand by contracts and
negotiations between groups of producers and consumers, and between
different groups of producers...

Work done in confidence of the return achievements of others constitutes the
giving of *credit* in social life. As there was once a transition from
barter to the money system, so there has recently been a progressive
transformation to a basis of credit. Life makes it necessary today for one
man to work with means entrusted to him by another, or by a community,
having confidence in his power to achieve a result. But under the
capitalistic method the credit system involves a complete loss of the real
and satisfying human relationship of a man to the conditions of his life and
work. Credit is given when there is prospect of an increase of capital that
seems to justify it; and work is always done subject to the view that the
confidence or credit received will have to appear justified in the
capitalistic sense. And what is the result? Human beings are subjected to
the power of dealings in capital which take place in a sphere of finance
remote from life. And the moment they become fully conscious of this fact,
they feel it to be unworthy of their humanity...

A healthy system of giving credit presupposes a social structure which
enables economic values to be estimated by their relation to the
satisfaction of men's bodily and spiritual needs. Men's economic dealings
will take their form from this. Production will be considered from the point
of view of needs, no longer by an abstract scale of capital and wages.

Economic life in a threefold society is built up by the cooperation of
*associations* arising out of the needs of producers and the interests of
consumers. In their mutual dealings, impulses from the spiritual sphere and
sphere of rights will play a decisive part. These associations will not be
bound to a purely capitalistic standpoint, for one association will be in
direct mutual dealings with another, and thus the one-sided interests of one
branch of production will be regulated and balanced by those of the other.
The responsibility for the giving and taking of credit will thus devolve to
the associations. This will not impair the scope and activity of individuals
with special faculties; on the contrary, only this method will give
individual faculties full scope: the individual is responsible to his
association for achieving the best possible results. The association is
responsible to other associations for using these individual achievements to
good purpose. The individual's desire for gain will no longer be imposing
production on the life of the community; production will be regulated by the
needs of the community...

All kinds of dealings are possible between the new associations and old
forms of business--there is no question of the old having to be destroyed
and replaced by the new. The new simply takes its place and will have to
justify itself and prove its inherent power, while the old will dwindle
away... The essential thing is that the threefold idea will stimulate a real
social intelligence in the men and women of the community. The individual
will in a very definite sense be contributing to the achievements of the
whole community... The individual faculties of men, working in harmony with
the human relationships founded in the sphere of rights, and with the
production, circulation and consumption that are regulated by the economic
associations, will result in the greatest possible efficiency. Increase of
capital, and a proper adjustment of work and return for work, will appear as
a final consequence...

--

(Rudolf Steiner, Architect, Playwright, Philosopher, Human)

Social Threefolding

---

And when was the last time you heard of any problems at Disneyland?

Apart from the numerous fatalities on the monorail and rides? Maybe the gangfights broken up by plainclothed security. Let's see... first gangfight in 1976, first recorded murder in 1981. Still, the Disneyland Security guys, backed up by hidden cameras play hardball , they're into handcuffing suspects to metal railings, lengthy interrogations etc. Don't try to enter if you have the wrong hair colour

What's amazing is that a place that caters for so many people has so few problems. But problems it has.

Actually, I work for Earthlink as a Tech Rep. There are instructions as well as a link to our "Live Chat" feature that allows you to cancel your account if you login to your Personal Support Site. Its listed under "Account Maintanence".

That URL isn't quite right, try:

http://support.earthlink.net/support/FORMS/product / earn_cancel.jsp

You may terminate your account at any time and for any reason by providing notice of intent to terminate to EarthLink by:

• registered or certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to EarthLink Inc., 1375 Peachtree St. Level A, Atlanta, GA 30309; or
• telephone calls directed to Accounts-Customer Service at (800) 719-4660, option #2.

Without prior notice, EarthLink may terminate this Agreement, your password, your account, or your use of the Services, for any reason, including, without limitation, if EarthLink, in its sole discretion, believes you have violated this Agreement, our Acceptable Use Policy, or any of the applicable user policies, or if you fail to pay any charges when due. EarthLink may provide termination notice to you by: email addressed to your email account or by US Mail or courier service to the address you provided for the Services. All notices to you shall be deemed effective on the first (1st) calendar day following the date of electronic mailing or on the fourth (4th) calendar day following the date of first-class mailing or deposit with a commercial courier service.

Sections 3, 4, 6, and 11 of this Agreement shall survive termination of this Agreement.

"you sure won't find any little cancellation box on the home page."

"I heard the usual chirpy recorded message urging me onto the site's website, where, the voice assured me, all my questions could be answered."

Go to support.earthlink.net Log in. Without even scrolling down, look on the left side of your screen, under "Customer Service," right next to the bit that tells you their call center wait times (which you obviously didn't check before calling). What do you see?

The fourth hyperlink down:
How to cancel your Earthlink account.

And, yes, their on-line chat tech support works, and the wait time on that is a heck of a lot shorter than their call-in lines.

"you sure won't find any little cancellation box on the home page."

"I heard the usual chirpy recorded message urging me onto the site's website, where, the voice assured me, all my questions could be answered."

Go to support.earthlink.net Log in. Without even scrolling down, look on the left side of your screen, under "Customer Service," right next to the bit that tells you their call center wait times (which you obviously didn't check before calling). What do you see?

The fourth hyperlink down:
How to cancel your Earthlink account.

And, yes, their on-line chat tech support works, and the wait time on that is a heck of a lot shorter than their call-in lines.

For those of you that want to attempt to cancel your AOL account like Jon Katz, the number is listed on this page.

Interestingly, Earthlink also has the phone numbers to cancel just about any popular Internet service (except for themselves of course) here.

Wow are you actually the Real Action Item Man ?

;)

that is the most succinct piece of clear thought
on open source and government i've ever read.

way to go!

*WARNING* I have not checked or preview this, and am not exactly sure on how accurate it is (I wasn't really paying attention to it at the time) so contine at your own risk.

I have some first hand experience with this particular scam. Localnet Communications (or something like that) was a subsidiary under this Zekko company, and they were promising the same technology. My dad became a "recruiter" in a sort of pyramid scheme (more on that later). He visited a few people and tried to get them to invest and attend a few demos they held. I went with him on one occasion to a demo, and I was very skeptical. They were promsing all this speed and technology, but never once in the demo I went to did they actually demonstrate anything. They did have a computer and tv set up in there, but I forget exactly what it is they showed. Anyway, they did come out with a WebTV like system. In addition to surfing the web, etc, they offered a service where you could use some office suite (Lotus?) over the phone line and save your files on their server. At least I think that's how it was. Also, the Localnet set-top box had a PCMCIA card on the front, for "technology upgrades" (super-high-speed over regular copper telephone wires, for example). All it was used for was to store your user info (account, dial up phone number, password, etc), like a smart card. It wasn't that bad for just web browsing (just vanilla html, anyway). I think it even had e-mail capabilities. Anyway, they also started providing long distance phone services. That's where the pyramid scheme was. You were to go out and recruit other people to go out and sell. You made a commision on every sale and a smaller commision on every sale your recruits made. My dad got a few recruits and made a couple hundred dollars the first 4 months or so, then got out of it when all this stuff about a hoax was spreading around. I told him so :) . I'm not sure how accurate this all is, but that's how I remember it.

Anyway, we actually still have the system, keyboard, remote, and "smart card." It still works and once I got it out and wanted to see if I could connect. I put in my local ISPs number and account information. It dialed out and connected, but it tries to go to the default homepage (localnet's now non-existant homepage) and times out and disconnects. Well, I'm assuming that's what's happening. If I could get a smart card reader/editor or something...
Anyway, here's a link to probably the only picture of this thing on the net. Nothing spectacular. It's on earthlink's support page. We're holding on to it in hopes it will be a collector's item and bring us some cash.

Also, don't visit Palatka. It's a shithole. I've lived here since 1987 or 88, so I know. If I sound like an idiot, that's why. Jackass.

And one more thing, unrelated. I cringe when Al Michaels yells out "A FACIAL!" when someone dunks in someone elses face. He either has no clue, or is an extreme pervert.

Earthlink offers 20 hours of dial-up per month with their satellite service. This seems like a good package if satellite service is prone to going down.

'Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.'

(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

You can increase the apparent simplicity and focus of an OS
simply by consolidating five menubars into one.

--| INTERFACE DESIGN > A SINGLE MENUBAR |-----

>> WHAT? Give me the summary.

A SINGLE MENUBAR AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN that changes according to
the current context (window) instead of a menubar for every window.

Setting this as a User Default will improve Linux's ease-of-use.
Placing a single Menubar along the top of the screen:

1 - Makes it faster and easier to hit.
(no mouse overshoot to slow things down)

2 - Eliminates clutter in the interface.

3 - Reduces ambiguity (and hence - user error).

--| DISCUSSION |---

>> LINUX MENUS WORK GREAT NOW.
>> WHY SHOULD WE DO SO MUCH WORK TO CHANGE THE ACCEPTED DEFAULT?

In programming, if you compute a static variable within a loop - it is
highly innefficient - it slows down the loop. You optimize code by pulling
all the computes you can out of the loop and processing externally.

Interface design is the same. If a user has to click: A, B, C three hundred
times a day - it would make him 3 times as efficient to collapse those three
steps into a macro and execute with one keystroke. Making things less steps
for users optimizes the UI just like computing static variables outside the
loop optimizes code.

Since Menus are one of the most frequently used items in an operating system,
optimizing something small in this frequent behaviour equates to a Big savings
for the user over time. Therefore getting the menus right is one of the most
crucial and fundamental UI decisions that must be made by those implementing
the OS.

Linux currently imitates Windows' menubar implementation of putting a menubar
in every window. UI studies show this is not the optimal way of implementing
menus in an operating system. Linux can beat Windows in menubar GUI by providing
the option of a single context-sensitive menubar. There are several good reasons
for doing this:

1 - TARGETING CONSTRAINT
How easy it is to hit a target - virtual size.

2 - CONSISTENT PLACEMENT
How easy it is to remember "where" a target is.

3 - SIMPLICITY KEEPING FOCUS
Elimination of extraneous controls that are not
relevant to the current task at hand.

>> See the rest of this posting - Why Single Menubar

best regads,
john.

---| swoopy curves Are Not design |---

Certainly, the PC industry has never revered design, preferring blocky
beige boxes or, more recently, coloured go-faster curves devoid of real
function. He's scornful of those who use 'swoopy shapes to look good,
stuff that is so aggressively designed, just to catch the eye. I think
that's arrogance, it's not done for the benefit of the user.'

By contrast, he says, "you won't be able to find a single thing on an
Apple that hasn't had thought put into it"...

With the first iMac the goal wasn't to look different, but to build the
best integrated consumer computer we could. If as a consequence the shape
is different, then that's how it is. The thing is, it's very easy to be
different, but very difficult to be better. That's what we have tried to
do with the new iMac."

(THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME, Interview with Jonathan Ive,
Charles Arthur talks to the designer of the iMac, January 14 2002)

--

regards,
john penner

--- Steve Jobs on Design ---

Fortune Magazine: What has always distinguished the products of the
companies you've led is the design aesthetic. Is your obsession with design
an inborn instinct or what?

Steve Jobs: We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing.
In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating.
It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be
further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a
man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers
of the product or service. The iMac is not just the colour or translucence or
the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible
consumer computer in which each element plays together.

On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it is
much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time.
That was not just "Steve's decision" to pull out the fan; it required an
enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do
a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest
thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started.

This is what customers pay us for--to sweat all these details so it's easy
and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really good
at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's hard for
them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely
like it.

fortune - january 24, 2000

regards,
john penner

So does that mean I will be charged less if I use less bandwidth than specified by the cap? I thought not. Time to reconsider earthlink.

Yoga Inside has been active since 1999 based on work done in 1995 by Mark Stephens in LA juvenile detention camps with six Tibetan monks sent by the Dalai Lama. here

That book has a website, www.yoga-insideout.com, here

"Inside and Out" is a popular way of describing holistic health, and the phrase "yoga inside" is commonly used to describe the experience, like the site here.

There is a travel company called Inside India which works with several Yoga therapy centers for health tours, here.

Barbara Kallir directed an instructional video guide to tantric yoga, "Inside Westside". Recommended for the Lawyers after those free courses, here.

Couldn't find a link between the Dalai Lama and Intel, unless you count that both are successful exiles. Although Apple struck the Dalai Lama from their Asian billboards so maybe ..nah.

The fourth most popular use of the word conjunction "yoga inside" on the web, after the prison project, the video, and general discussions of yoga and health experiences, is Intel's suit. How many hundreds of millions of dollars of PR is this costing Intel I wonder? Maybe the defendant should get the video publisher to join in, seems like they are making lots of money with their domain name.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

anyone try 'Remote Desktop' for OS-X ?

storm's nest.

| I'd like to see NASA devote its (too scarce) resources to
| making plant-based foods taste fantastic in a space
| environement. It sure beats the thought of microwaved
| synthetic meat.

NASA spent several million dollars and years of research
to make a Pen that works in Zero-G...

the russians just used a pencil...

typical. :-\

storm's nest

Well, Earthlink is the second biggest ISP in the US (prolly in the world) and Sky Dayton, its CEO, is a Scientologist.

You have to take into account that Scientology works more like a fringe cult than a real religion. It's willing to use fear and extortion against rebellious members, and willing to take *all* the assets of members. It's willing to expend quite a few resources going after people and on legal suits. This gives it a lot more clout per member than, say, the Methodist church in the US.

I've often thought about things like this. I'd really like to know what the world record for Tetris on the Gameboy is (hey, it's a classic and almost everyone has played it).. the game doesn't end, does it?

Other than that, I've been playing a lot of Freecell and Hearts lately. Some geeks on the net have been logging which Freecell games are hardest to complete, but it seems like only game '11982' is impossible.

Anyone ever shot the moon four times in a row in Hearts? :-)