Slashdot Mirror

Mark Cuban seems to think that's the important part of the video iPod. As do others.

I, Cringley on video ipod/itunes $1.99 shows

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

Check out these maps to see how the coastlines would change (and have changed since the last ice age).

No, the Canadian Rockies aren't threatened, but Florida would be about 1/3 under water if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, and about 90% underwater if the East sheet melted as well.

Yes, I'm sure it's just biased accidentily. Consider:

Fox Primarily an "Opinion" Network
Fox Viewers More Likely to be Misinformed
Fox Shills for the War
Fox, Neither Fair nor Balanced

There's lots more out there if you open your eyes.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/ wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with ww.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/science/mquest.htm co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstiencousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

only a handful of people wanted to allow women to vote?

if you dont count all the women......

Many women were opponents of universal sufferage. Tarbell's attitude was not at all uncommon, to the extent that there was an active anti-sufferage women's movement. Google on "women opposed sufferage" to find out more.

Sadly, it probably needs to be said that I am fully in favour of women's sufferage, although blackly amused by the claims that it would usher in an era of peaceful prosperity, rather than the bloodiest century in human history. And if anyone thinks women were generally opposed to war in the 20th century, google "women white feather britain" before you post...

Sure, other uses will be found for genetic markers... but... the biggest and most obvious use for this info is to deny health "insurance" coverage to people likely to need it. This quite simply isn't a factor in systems where everyone is entitled to health care.

Indeed, uses that have already started. Women with a particular BRCA-1 marker have an 80% chance of developing breast cancer before age 65. Assuming a cheap test, most women should probably be tested. Even with a more expensive test, women with a family history should probably be tested. Positive test results may indicate that differences in health monitoring and/or treatment are appropriate. It seems likely that as tests for genetic markers become cheap, they will be incorporated along with other mandatory blood tests performed on newborns -- eg, PKU screening.

I'm beginning to think that it's a national disgrace that the US will be spending energy on the question "How do we keep this technology from being used to deny people health care?" while the rest of the industrialized countries get to ask "How can we use this technology to provide cost-effective health care?"

Of course, the reason they have these patents, in theory anyway, is because they do billions of dollars of R&D.

From what I recall from a book by Marcia Angell, US taxpayers are the ones driving the research, via the NIH. Also, Dr. Angell noted that innovation has been, in her perspective, actually decreasing over the last few decades.

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw/ m_angell.htm/

A few years back there was a controversial suggestion that Einsteins first wife- fellow student Mileva- had made substantial contributions to his papers. Some even said they saw her handwriting in the paper drafts.

Which one? Second? I'm not sure.

Anyway, it's a good complementary read:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/science/index .htm

Big entertainment has put out some crappy movies of late, as the suits and not the creative folks are running the show. The MBA types all want a product that will return money, and damn the content. Entertainment doesn't work like that. Put some good ideas on the screen and some of them will make you rich.
But I digress. The MBAs are not making the wads of cash they expect. So, let's find some other source.

Bob: "How can we get more cashola?"
Darl: "Well, we can sue the mother of a copyright breaker"
Bob: "We tried that, got some bad publicity... not that it matters to us."
Darl: "Then sue the kid! Really! Just because the product you offer isn't appealing to anyone doesn't mean that you can't try to McBride the cash. If they don't want to pay up at the box office, they can pay us in the court room!"

Find out how they blew it at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/musi c/

And add to it this one please:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/un_re form/paying_dues.html

Jho

WHAT monetary support? The US is billions upon billions of dollars in arrears with regard to UN dues. Besides, based on American Foreign Policy, the UN would probably be very thankful for the US dropping out... then you'll have to pay for your own messes when you invade sovereign nations under false pretences.

Please see this article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/un_re form/paying_dues.html. It is $562 million, and they are withholding monetary support under legal reasons drawn up by Senators under the Clinton Administration. It was also reinforced this year by another law to enforce the reforms at the UN. Because no international body should be found to be guilty of CHILD RAPE! What's more, is we are NOT alone. Japan is withholding its' dues, as well as others. So check your facts before you go posting what you don't know about.

Jho

Now, I don't subscribe to the whole hovering black helicopters and tin foil hats thing, but I certainly enjoy the odd conspiracy theory.

Throw in some IT interest and let good ol' Bob get to work and you've got yourself a master plan for world domination in 3 easy steps .. or something like that.

And this one even stars Morgan Freeman, so it's definitely worth a read...

Your post has many details that suggest knowledge of your subject, but you're not a reliable source. I don't have time to fact-check your whole post, but here are two obvious and significant errors:

First, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, not one. The articles charged obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress - not "telling an untruth on national television."

Second, a majority of the Senate did NOT vote to convict Clinton. There were two articles of impeachment, and the Senate voted 55-45 to ACQUIT on the first article, and 50-50 on the second. I distinctly remember Trent Lott furiously exhorting Arlen Specter (R. Pa.) during the vote, stopping just short of physically twisting his arm, trying unsuccessfully to get a vote for conviction from him so the Republicans could claim a majority vote for conviction on at least one of the counts. Specter proved his integrity to history by voting his conscience, for acquittal.

It is all about commerce! Can the business world really afford to allow a body like the UN control the internet? They can't even decide what to do when people are being slattered in Rwanda. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil /

If you think the red tape on progress is bad now under US control wait until every nation in the world has an equal vote on the direction of the interenet.

Maybe it would be a nice start for the US to start paying the UN's bill, like the rest of the world does.

Actually, the United States pays more than any single nation in the world. 22% of the total budget, in fact, and not including other loan support. The US also puts the rest of the developed world to shame in its foreign aid contributions.

Doesn't it suck to make a point, only to be blown away by facts? It makes you wonder how people go through life living such a delusion. Of course, you'll never see a corrupt European government official bite the Saudi, Syrian or Iranian hand that feeds it.

Now if the rest of the world would only step up and condemn corruption and tyranny, rather than blaming the US for their own incompetence, and the world would be a much better place (and Europe wouldn't be a muslim slave state in 20 years).

Doesn't, but some people are interested. There was a fascinating program on Nova about engineering feats such as the pyramids, where the methods used to build them have long been lost. In fact it is even a bit embarrassing to discover how hard some of this stuff is. Stealing a bit from the reality shows, they would have a couple of contestants, with various theories of how the darn thing was built, and then they would follow them in their triumphs and travails as they attempted to replicate, on a much smaller scale, what some of the ancients had done a millenium or two before. One of the interesting shows was ideas on how the Romans built an awning across the Coliseum.

Suddenly it strikes me a picture of a friend of mine, top high school student, math club and programming wiz, later to study for a Phd in CS and graphics at Stanford, gazing at an ancient PDP-7, staring down at a roll of punch tape in hand, then at the switches on the command panel, and wondering how in the world the 'grumpy old men' got this thing to run...

I doubt the government is going to take blood in the first place. And surely the insurance company is going to have to do some testing themselves. To add drawing blood while you're already there for your physical anyway is not a very big cost. And the government most likely isn't going to give up that information anyway.

No, you're right they won't take blood, but the article does say "DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva". But I didn't say physical while "there" whereever there is. When I applied for health insurance they sent someone to where I lived. Also I didn't say the government would give it out what I said was that insurance could induce someone with access to the database to give it to them.

So you think the government is going to store the entire genome of every single person? No way. They're going to store select portions, a fingerprint, which would be useless for other purposes.

I didn't recall the article saying the feds would only keep a subset of the DNA so I went back and reread it and it doesn't say anything about how much would be kept. But it does have a quote on what I was saying from Jesselyn McCurdy of the ACLU saying "DNA is not like fingerprinting. It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added another thing I said before, that they question whether it's even constitutional for the government to put the data from those who haven't been convicted in a database of conficted criminals. It also says those who have had their dna collected but were never conficted would have to petition to have it removed, that it wasn't done automatically.

So when the companies drop people with genetic problems it lowers the cost of healthcare and eliminates rationing.

No it doesn't lower costs by dropping those who may present a problem. As it is now hospital can't turn people away even if they can't pay and because those who don't have coverage won't see a doc when something can be easily treated they may end up in the emergency room where the cost are a lot higher. And because the hostipal and docs won't get paid by the person being treated or their insurance they have to raise the prices of those who can pay, they're not charities. Now if they are able to refuse to treat someone then think of humanity would miss from someone like Steven Hawkins not living. And what that say of humanity when profits are put before lives?

Deathstars refer to Gamma Ray Bursts [Nova] and are violent events that take out all life, sanitizing part of the galaxy where it happens.

Which reminds me of a idea I had when first hearing about these events as it relates to the SETI project.

If one were to map out a significant amout of these objects and a general approx of there historic path through the galaxy, one could rule out entire regions of galaxy where if life did begin would have been destroyed. The regions far enough away from these objects thus would should be the areas where life would be possible.

I always thought of life as the mold of the cosmos, flurishing in the damp, dark regions...

Quite a few people have commented on octopus being predators. Here's a video of an octopus attacking a shark:

(Sorry, realplayer only.)
(Low Bandwidth)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/media_playe rs_blue/shark_lo.html
(High Bandwidth)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/media_playe rs_blue/shark_hi.html

WMV of an octopus blending in with its surroundings (which is pretty amazing to watch). http://www.big-boys.com/articles/octopus1.html

Quite a few people have commented on octopus being predators. Here's a video of an octopus attacking a shark:

(Sorry, realplayer only.)
(Low Bandwidth)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/media_playe rs_blue/shark_lo.html
(High Bandwidth)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/media_playe rs_blue/shark_hi.html

WMV of an octopus blending in with its surroundings (which is pretty amazing to watch). http://www.big-boys.com/articles/octopus1.html

specific examples

four cases

Police and prosecutors blocked all attempts at DNA testing while Johnson was alive

prosecutors blocked dna testing of hair

prosecutors have successfully blocked the testing of DNA before an execution and then fought posthumous tests just as vigorously.

Why did the DA stop new DNA tests ?

frank lee smith

What do you have to say about that, ASSHOLE?!!!

Looks like you got smoked by the facts, try getting out of your basement, BOY!!!

and, even if they found a suitable disk drive, how will they run the software necessary to interpret the information on the disk?

If you saw the first NerdTV interview with Andy Hertzfeld you'd have heard his story of having to write a custom piece of software so that he could read an ancient Mac disk with the source code for MacDraw on it. Fun stuff, but I doubt my grandkids would be that resourceful.

Before patents, many innovations and improvements died with their inventor, because they were kept as jealously guarded secrets.

List them, please. And show why they couldn't be reverse-engineered.

Patents were invented as a way of stopping the loss of new technology, while at the same time affording the inventor the same benefits as a trade secret, albeit for a limited time.

Yes, and they're failing to do that.

WE ALL benefit from patents

No. In theory we all benefit from patents. But you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality: In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality there is.

nobody resorts to trade secret anymore

Umm yea, right. Pull the other one.

I think Cringely put it best when he wrote

But there is another issue here, one that is hardly ever mentioned and that's the coining of the term "innovation." This word, which was hardly used at all until two or three years ago, feels to me like a propaganda campaign and a successful one at that, dominating discussion in the computer industry. I think <b>Microsoft did this intentionally</b>, for they are the ones who seem to continually use the word. But what does it mean? And how is it different from what we might have said before? I think the word they are replacing is "invention." Bill Shockley invented the transistor, Gordon Moore and Bob Noyce invented the integrated circuit, Ted Hof invented the microprocessor. Of course others claimed to have done those same three things, but the goal was always invention. Only now we innovate, which is deliberately vague but seems to stop somewhere short of invention. Innovators have wiggle room. They can steal ideas, for example, and pawn them off as their own. That's the intersection of innovation and sharp business.

If you take general copyright-based products, the United States pretty much dominates the world. It's the fastest growing aspect of our GDP, about 5 percent of the GDP, about $80 billion of overseas sales in simple copyright-based entertainment of one kind or another

Yes, it was Compaq's 386, and IBM's poor strategy, that benefited Microsoft. IBM made many mistakes, for great reading see Robert X. Cringley's Accidental Empires book. Among the problems - IBM underpowered the original IBM PC, and then was slow bringing out the 386. They tried to make the hardware proprietary, by using the 'Microchannel' architecture, the market didn't buy it and went with Compaq's 386 architecture instead.

So the whole innovation deal, that open source just copies, but doesn't innovate, is baloney, one only needs to look at Microsoft. Which came first, Turbo Pascal or Visual Basic? Mosaic or Internet Explorer? Java or C#? ln -s or Microsoft's smart links? etc etc.

But this whole innovation argument is annoying Microsoft FUD. Rather, Microsoft seems to follow the kaizen model, i.e. constant improvement - look at Windows 3.1 to Win 95 to Win XP. And Visual Studio is a great IDE. And this is exactly the situation with Google. I think we'll see Microsoft improve, just as Windows has improved with Linux competition, and C# is an improvement on VB with Java competition, however just like these apps won't be destroyed, neither will Google, since it's outside the realm of MSFTs desktop realm.

If we want to really clean up government and speed up processing in the criminal justice system, we should put $100 million into fMIR as lie detectors.

We could have an electoral truth telling challenge between candidates to see who's telling the truth and who isn't.

"Why would a company like Microsoft do this?" asked Richard Lang, who is Burst's CEO and half the company workforce. "We were a little company. Microsoft could have had our technology for almost nothing, but instead they stole it. We called them on it, and they could have settled at any time, but they didn't. They stuck their heels in and won't give an inch even now. The only way I can make sense of this behavior is that they need to win no matter what the cost." -- Stupid Microsoft Tricks: Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat

This is all well known enough for there to be this bit on The Simpsons

Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!

Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]

Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!

Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
[insane laughter] -- SNPP:5F11

> Who would trade burn scars for 50% chance

Screw that, man. I want replacement
parts, including hopefully my own damn face if I should ever need a spare.

The government also does not want to mistake a private test launch for a nuclear strike. Really.

Uhh, nice try to yourself, but the average temperature *is* increasing. Methinks you need to look at the data again. The precise slope depends on how long of a period you look at, as the curve has been steepening; 20 years shows just under 0.2 per decade.

The overall plot is a an upward curve, matching CO2 concentrations, just like what we've seen in long terms in ice and sediment cores. There's only one difference: it is happening many times faster than any other change visible in core sample histories.

In 998 when the Vikings go a Vik'ing over to Greenland, the planet is warmer by many accounts...

Nope.

*Greenland* was warmer. But we're talking about *global warming*. The Sahara, by contrast, used to be cooler and less dry than it is today.

• Former TechTV ScreenSavers host Leo Laporte, Patrick Norton, John C. "I get no spam" Dvorak and others are doing TWIT and just announced video is next.
• Former ScreenSavers hosts Alex Albrecht and Kevin Rose at Diggnation are shooting video while they podcast and Kevin Rose is doing SYSTM
• Robert X. Cringley's NerdTV debuts. Now you may be wondering, "So what?". It's IPTV...that's what. There aren't a lot of great examples out there yet, but most of the smart podcasters -- who are mini-celebrities or have something people would like to see -- are simultaneously podcasting and shooting video (many in high definition just in case). Read an article about a new report here.
• Silicon Valley podcaster John Furrier from Podtech is embarking on video to augment his podcasting.

The overall discussion was about Intel/Apple, but it seems he called this one (at least the first part) right.

Why dont you kill that surgeon! I would if I were you! I dont care if I die on the electric chair if that would mean I have saved thousands of lives!

Doctors who dont follow Hippocratic Oath deserve to be killed mercilessly!

here is link to the Oath - classic version:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classica l.html

I already pasted links to articles detailing the work on this in another post. http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16214 1&cid=13556855 You are right about the fact that it's the ears that are damaged and not the DNA. You should read those and see if you still feel the same about "natural healing is not an option". Depends on what your definition of natural is though. For me it's natural if we use our bodies own systems to do something.

The thing is that it is our DNA that keeps our hearing cells from regenerating. But as has been mentioned on slashdot recently, scientists have noticed that RNA plays a bigger role in determining the functions of organisms than previously thought. One of the discoveries is RNAi (PBS Nova Science now has a great 15 min movie which explains what it's all about) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/02.ht ml which could hopefully be used to "fix people's ears". It has already been used to improve a condition where people go nearly blind. There's also an experiment to explore this possibility (linked to in my other post). An earlier experiment has determined that elimination of the gene that codes for the "regeneration-blocking" rB1 protein that the earlier post mentioned can make even mature hearing cells start dividing. I am quite positive that we will have this technology eventually. I dare not guess when.

This experiment is the one that I think has the most potential right now, but there are also approaches involving turning support cells in the ear into hearing cells, transplanting stem cells and maybe cochlear implants one day will be powerful enough to work as well, if not even better, than biological ears.

Imagine there are a few people rather lost at the headline (we're not all astronomers/cosmologists/whatever :) ). Anyway, NOVA ran an excellent show on this a couple years ago, and as usual there was an excellent companion website.

If that doesn't answer your questions, well... there's always Wikipedia. /I feel like a Karma whore linking to wikipedia, mod me as you see fit..

Just trying to run RHEL WS 4 today, and for some reason, my /dev/mouse gets moved to /dev/mouse0 (no clue as to why). So, naturally, X barfs and I get asked to run the mouse configurator and make things happy again. No problem. I choose the appropriate wheel mouse configuration (the same that worked before). Barfo. The only solution was to kill graphical login, go to the shell and use vim to edit /etc/X86config. Big deal? Hell, I'm a decades Unix veteran, so that's no biggie to me. But your typical Windoze user will NEVER figure that out, or even where to look.

FIX THE DAMN WINDOW MANAGERS. THEY ARE BROKE!

Please listen to Andy Hertzfeld on Bob Cringely's NerdTV. He started Easel, and his insight into "what's wrong with Linux on the desktop" is spot on.

And as usual, they manage to not only steal the Apple look but do everything to cheapen it and make it look as ugly as possible. Is there really nobody within the Microsoft moloch who has some feeling for style?

According to Steve Jobs, no:

You know it's true, it's true you [Bill Gates] have no taste.

To which Gates replied:

Steve, I may have no taste, but that doesn't mean my entire company has no taste.

Anybody have a similar list of online science shows?

Anything that covers science news weekly in physics, biotech, materials, chemistry, space, etc.

For example, Nova on PBS has some episodes posted online.

Like a proper little Darwin

Like a proper little Darwin

NOVA's new, toned down, show recently did a piece on this. You can view it at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/02.ht ml