Slashdot Mirror

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/cityblock/

Now thats a nice job. Get in the Google/Stanford truck and drive around (don't forget to check out the Indian dude in Google truck. Talk about cheap labor)!

How interesting. I just saw a lecture by one of the men that won a nobel prize for this very thing, Steven Chu. What is being done here is essentially what is called Optical Tweezers.

The way this works is that the laser is fired, in timed pulses at a molecule. When the laser hits it from an opposing direction, it starts to cancel out the kinetic energy that the molecule has, and therefore cooling it. (I think it was something to the order of 2.0 × 10^-06 degrees above absolute zero).

In a nutshell, this is what is going on:
Almost Absolute Zero == Essentially No Movement == Essentially "Frozen" Object

How interesting. I just saw a lecture by one of the men that won a nobel prize for this very thing, Steven Chu. What is being done here is essentially what is called Optical Tweezers.

The way this works is that the laser is fired, in timed pulses at a molecule. When the laser hits it from an opposing direction, it starts to cancel out the kinetic energy that the molecule has, and therefore cooling it. (I think it was something to the order of 2.0 × 10^-06 degrees above absolute zero).

In a nutshell, this is what is going on:
Almost Absolute Zero == Essentially No Movement == Essentially "Frozen" Object

Antarctica goes through cycles every 100,000 years

This is the worst argument I've ever heard, and opponents of global warming just keep citing it, over and over, often associated with the Vostok ice core data

The resolution on that graph is a little over a thousand years. The most dramatic change on the graph is 20 degrees over 10,000 years. The arctic and antarctic have changed 5-7 degrees in the past *200 years*, and the rate seems to be accelerating. Of this 5-7 degrees, about half of it has occurred in the past 50 years alone. At the current rate (ignoring things like the rapidly expanding industrialization of China), it would implement that fast 10,000 year change in 250 years.

Furthermore, the Vostok cores drive home an additional point: The temperature is almost always correlated with CO2 concentraions. CO2 concetrations are rising rapidly, and completely predictably. We consume >80bbl per day; that's 12.72 trillion liters, which is about 10 trillion kilograms. Assuming heptane as the average length, that's 7 carbons and 16 hydrogens, about 63% carbon, so 6.3 trillion kilograms of carbon per day (i.e., 6.3e12 kg CO2). In 50 years, that's 1.15e17 kg CO2. The mass of the entire atmosphere is 5.3e18kg, and a current (already high) 0.0353 percent CO2, that's 1.87e15 kg CO2. I.e., at our current rate alone, we would put *61 times* more CO2 from oil alone into our atmosphere in the next 50 years then are in our atmosphere currently.

Now, if you want to look at the balance of how quickly that CO2 will get eaten up and compares to natural generation, we can do that calculation, too - I just wanted to point out the fact that the amount of CO2 we're adding is really quite huge in comparison to what's in our atmosphere.

Ok, well, what if there's some rapid changes in historic temperature that are too high resolution to show up on the Vostok cores? We have much more detailed methods for the past two thousand years - here's the graph for that period

Any questions?

dicks longer than 6 inches

First, it's been on Slashdot before.

Second, the "self replication", as the paper puts it, consists of making a baseplate in an fused-deposition modelling machine and depositing some metal on it, to make a very low density circuit board. That's all. This is an expensive way to make a crappy single-sided PC board. It's a giant step backwards from the photoetching processes used now to make both PCs and ICs. Not only is it nowhere near "self replication", it's not even a step in that direction.

Finally, the web site has the tag line "Wealth without money...", which sounds like something from a stock scam.

Actually, the cutting edge work in this area is not fake "self-replication", but using deposition-type fabricators to make 3D objects with complicated internal structure, including combinations of flexible and rigid materials and moving parts.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about manufacturing that pervades enthusiasts for computer-controlled one-off manufacturing. It's that most manufactured goods are made by some process that involves a "master" or "mould" or "die", and that those processes are incredibly cheap. There are about a hundred such processes in common use, from injection moulding to photolithography. And they work quite well. That's what you're competing with. Making single parts in bulk just isn't that expensive.

I understand that Intel's processors have actually featured a RISC arcitecture for a long time, but they run a CISC emulation layer on top of it. Some information about RISC vs CISC can be found here, and some info on the CISC emulation in Intel chips here.

Also, (quickly), if you're looking at Quantum Mechanics, this theory says that you can't fundamentally know, (measure), all the properties of a particle at the same time. For instance- if you absolutely know a particles position, then you can know absolutely nothing about its velocity at the same instant- & visa versa- the Uncertainty Principle. So from the 'know the initial state of all' & predict via the laws of physics hence forth approach, you aren't predicting any race winners there :) Extract from.... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ "One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that one can assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a particle, quantum mechanics denies this possibility. Instead, according to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position of a particle is given, the less precisely one can say what its momentum is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle. This principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and on the consistency of the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation."

It's a shame that criminals have developed the world's most massively powerful supercomputer at our expense. I'd like to see an organization compete with them, offering explicit, voluntarily installed bots. With an installer that runs the latest malwarectomy apps. This service is obviously valuable enough to the criminals - its legitimate use should justify the provider including subscriptions to malwarectomy support services.

For example, instead of Folding@Home subsidizing pharmaceutical corporate research in exchange for only a warm feeling (and a cool screensaver), they could include malwarectomy subscriptions. That alone could multiply their userbase manifold, displacing these bots. If Norton or McAffee flipped the script, offering their antimalware software free, bundled with a distributed computing app they hired out for timeshare, they might find an even more profitable (and productive) business model. In fact, if such a combined app formed an platform for both distributed computing and malware protection, that any corporation passing a standardized security audit could join, such a system would be worth billions in subsidies by governments worldwide. The savings in law enforcement, productivity and online security could be partly redirected - resulting in net savings, as well as vastly increased security. Let's use the criminal bot momentum against them.

Hate to say it, but this sounds like a pipedream. They want to 'take the proteins and tweak them' an dthen have a computer program spit out the DNA required to make that protein.

Well whoop-de-do. I'd like to make a computer that can generate wormholes. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Firstly, protein modelling is notoriously complex. Remember folding@home? http://folding.stanford.edu/.

So this company seems to be doing the following

1 Come up with nifty, but blindingly obvious, idea
2 Crack the age-old problem of accurately simulating protein folding
3 Profit!!!

It's just that step one is literally so obvious that you could ask a kid. And step 2 is so notoriously complex that I don't expect this company to amount to anything more than a plughole for research grants.

-Nano.

We may be a member of the UN but that in no way allows the UN to dictate legal precedent to us. US law is based on the constitution of the united states and nothing else. If you want to change that then you go through the legislature and work to have the constitution thrown out and or rewritten to give up our sovereignty. to a higher body. Until then no document or external entity can supersede the Constitution until they win the right either through war or a legislative action to do so.

Hate to say it, but this sounds like a pipedream. They want to 'take the proteins and tweak them' an dthen have a computer program spit out the DNA required to make that protein.

Well whoop-de-do. I'd like to make a computer that can generate wormholes. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Firstly, protein modelling is notoriously complex. Remember folding@home? http://folding.stanford.edu/
That's right - hundreds of thousands of computers cracking the problem of 12 amino acid chains. That's an oligopeptide, sort of like a 'protein lite'. Real proteins are hundreds to thousands of amino acids long.

IBM's Blue Gene supercomputers were even specifically designed with protein folding simulations in mind - read http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/.

So this company seems to be doing the following

1 Come up with nifty, but blindingly obvious, idea
2 Crack the age-old problem of accurately simulating protein folding
3 Profit!!!

It's just that step one is literally so obvious that you could ask a kid. And step 2 is so notoriously complex that I don't expect this company to amount to anything more than a plughole for research grants.

-Nano.

The only other Mathematician I know who has won a Nobel Prize is of course John Nash, for economics.

That's nothing. that is a big-ass fan. 2550 RPM and 3000lb of air per second. Yes, that's 2,352,941 CFM (at sea-level)...

FYI, that's a GE90. The power to run that fan is probably upwards of 50-60 megawatts

There are libraries for some of that here... http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/brookgpu/ and here... http://libsh.org/

I had a play with BrookGPU a while back, running parallel test jobs an AGP GF4 GPU, and PCI GFFX GPU. Worked well enough, but that was on PCI and AGP bus, and it killed the CPU trying to keep up with the GPUs. Probably needed bigger datasets to keep the GPUs busy or something...

Anyway, if there's an easy way to load-share accross these things using a single graphics context, I reckon it's got huge GPGPU potential.

Kinesis works for me, 11 years now. Details at

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/sorehand.html

I use vim.

While the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Nineth Amendment does say:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Further courts including the US Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to privacy:

• Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.
• Thurgood Marshall
  President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this capacity, he wrote over 150 decisions including support for the rights of immigrants, limiting government intrusion in cases involving illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and right to privacy issues.
• Privacy
  Early treatises on privacy appeared with the development of privacy protection in American law from the 1890's onward, and privacy protection was justified largely on moral grounds. This literature helps distinguish descriptive accounts of privacy, describing what is in fact protected as private, from normative accounts of privacy defending its value and the extent to which it should be protected. In these discussions some treat privacy as an interest with moral value, while others refer to it as a moral or legal right that ought to be protected by society or the law. Clearly one can be insensitive to another's privacy interests without violating any right to privacy, if there is one.

That was just a quick check but I'd bet I can find more references to the right to privacy. The reference at Stanford University mentions privacy protection from the 1890s.

What you're saying is that the spin is already determined and *not* yet undetermined? I've never quite known what to think about that. I would, as you suggest, also prefer the theoretical construct notion. But it seems this is not yet clear...?

The author of the Wiki page actually begs to differ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entang lement and implies that the entangled particles do interact :

The most basic aspect for any application to qualify as a "Semantic Web" app (from SW challenge, http://www-agki.tzi.de/swc/swapplication.html) is that the application should use "some formal description of the meaning of the data" ! RDF by itself doesnt give any *meaning* or *semantics* to the data. You need to associate your RDF data to RDFS/OWL for that purpose (TAP doesnt have a published OWL ontology http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/tapkb.html)

Also given that you dont have any 'meaning' to nodes and links in your RDF, I presume your searching again boils to 'keyword' based searching ! People find it cool to term their search as "Semantic Search" but I find it difficult to see any 'semantics' in the current application.

http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeO WLTutorial.pdf

http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/

BTW:
"Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 15 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator."

In the examples page, PLO and Al Fatah are listed under "Terror Organizations". This is a horrible misrepresentation.

The PLO is the organization representing the Palestinian people that eventually evolved into the Palestinian Authority. It had observer status in the UN General Assembly and even special permission to participate on Security Council debates (sans voting rights). Al Fatah is a political party which was involved in guerilla activities in the 70s, but that has, since the Oslo Accords, accepted the statehood of Israel.

check out gpgpu or BrookGPU as starting points.

faster than a thousand speeding gazelles

http://sp11.stanford.edu:8000/valve?query=it+is+sl ashdotted&ckb=Aggregated+Data

In my area (near Apple HQ in fact), there are quite a few good radio stations, none of them owned by Clear Channel / Infinity / Disney / etc. Not everyone is as fortunate as I am, but nearly everyone has a nearby NPR affiliate at least.

I've been looking at this kind of question for the last 10 years from two perspectives. first as a systems design consultant helping architects plan the kind of room you're describing, and later as a graduate student at Stanford. Based on that, I'll throw in my $0.02.

A lot of the comments on this thread have pointed to specific hardware (Smart Boards, webcams, Polycom VSX/Tandberg 6000, AMX/Crestrong control systems) or software (WebEx, iChat, breeze, LiveMeeting etc.) solutions. The problem with hardware solutions is that they are often expensive, unwieldy, and most of the time oriented toward the presentation of information rather than the ability to collaboratively work with it. Software, on the other hand, tends to provide only a metaphorical approximation to the realities of collaboration in a hybrid physical/digital environment. (e.g. Most software solutions don't REALLY provide a shared whiteboard. They provide a shared paint program with a white background. It's NOT the same thing.) The reality is that any room is going to be a collection of hardware and software solutions. The problem is that most vendors are designing only a portion of the total solution, and so the integrated experience of using all these systems is often not satisfying OR successful.

Another problem with most of the collaboration software out there is that it is being designed for individuals to use while sitting at their PC, instead of for groups in conference rooms. Using these in group settings is problemmatic. Either group members need to give verbal commands to a single person driving the projected display, or the meeting is forced into a "present only" mode.

For the kind of "easy to use" environment your CEO asked for (and that all of us really want....), you need to create a situation where people can walk in, connect in to the room systems, and then start working together. You want powerful tools to work with the actual information, not just push the video to a large display at the front (esp. where one person drives, while everyone else just watches.) You want a collaboration system that works independently of the software applications running there. And, you want it to accommodate the physical qualities of the room as well as the digital capabilities.

I was a member of a team of researchers working on such questions at Stanford. We were looking at ways to support co-located and distributed (group-to-group, where each was at a different site) teams working on engineering design tasks as well as other collaborative activities. Some of that technology is now being commercialized, so more functional group collaboration in conference rooms may get here sooner than you might think. In fact, Stanford has a basic trial setup in place that is open for use by student teams in its undergraduate library (see: http://teamspace.stanford.edu/). Other institutions, and some companies, are also deploying it in their environments.

The big shortcoming of a lot of the collaboration technology (hardware and software) out in the marketplace today is that it doesn't respond to the way people want to work. Before we see things improve, the folks who design the products are going to have to become willing to learn more about the realities of interaction in a physical meeting and then develop technologies that appropriately respond to the real needs. Metaphors for "awareness," "shared whiteboards," and "work rooms" that require everybody to interact with one another through their PC aren't going to get us there.

Not since 1999-2000. The overall shape is still similar but the internal details have all been reimplemented by the OpenLDAP Project. Today OpenLDAP is miles ahead of Netscape in terms of performance, scalability, and stability.

See for yourself:

http://www.stanford.edu/services/directory/openlda p/history/index.html

OpenLDAP 2.0 is slow, snail's pace, frozen molasses slow. That's the release that RedHat has bundled for years, up to RH9 and even beyond. It's only in the past few months that anything from them (Fedora Core) has shipped anything newer.

OpenLDAP 2.1 is over Two Hundred Times faster than OpenLDAP 2.0 and already significantly faster than Netscape 5. OpenLDAP 2.2 is 30-50% faster than OpenLDAP 2.1 and leaves Netscape in the dust. OpenLDAP 2.3 is faster yet.

One reason RDBMS'es are slower than inode DBs (filesystems) is that the RDBMS is just a layer on the inode DB.

A raw partition is a portion of a physical disk that is accessed at the lowest possible level. Input/output (I/O) to a raw partition offers approximately a 5% to 10% performance improvement over I/O to a partition with a file system on it.

Its possible for the robot to keep a map of its current position relative to the base station. For example, it knows that it turned right 30 degrees, proceeded forward 10 feet, turned left, etc. The IR homing mechanism is most likely to guarantee that the device finds its way home every time. This is needed because the machine has no feedback mechanism to know its true position, so the error in its position relative to the base will become increasingly wrong with each moment the robot is moving.

Now, if iRobot happened to include some sort of positional feedback mechanism like the works found on Sebastian Thrun's page, then you'd get a lot of the features people are wanting (i.e. intelligent route planning through a room instead of a "random walk," collision avoidance instead of apparently getting stuck under the same chair every time it runs, etc.). Check the link for some nifty videos of AI learning applied to robots. The problem with these technologies is not just the software, but the expensive sensors (relative to the Roomba) that would be needed. You may want to watch the FastSLAM videos to see a robot discover a map of its environment.

Nope. Stanford

I'm not a protein crystallographer, but I do work at a synchrotron and do lots of x-ray absorption and diffraction experiments. I've never had a problem with x-ray damage to my samples (mostly inorganic solids). Susceptibility to radiation damage varies from material to material. From my understanding, protein crystals are particularly bad, presumably because they not respond well (in a chemical sense) to the large numbers of electrons generated after an x-ray absorption event. This basically causes impurities in the crystal (local changes in the structure factor) that degrade the diffraction measurement. Also, in your typical protein diffraction experiment, you irradiate a particular spot on the crystal for a very long time. I would guess that this is not so much an issue in this case, because (1) no one is really interested in the chemical structure of the parchment itself, and (2) a particular spot on the sample is exposed only for a very short time. Incidentally, there's a better write-up of this at Stanford: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/may25/a rchimedes-052505.html [stanford.edu]

I'm not a protein crystallographer, but I do work at a synchrotron and do lots of x-ray absorption and diffraction experiments. I've never had a problem with x-ray damage to my samples (mostly inorganic solids). Susceptibility to radiation damage varies from material to material. From my understanding, protein crystals are particularly bad, presumably because they not respond well (in a chemical sense) to the large numbers of electrons generated after an x-ray absorption event. This basically causes impurities in the crystal (local changes in the structure factor) that degrade the diffraction measurement. Also, in your typical protein diffraction experiment, you irradiate a particular spot on the crystal for a very long time. I would guess that this is not so much an issue in this case, because (1) no one is really interested in the chemical structure of the parchment itself, and (2) a particular spot on the sample is exposed only for a very short time. Incidentally, there's a better write-up of this at Stanford: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/may25/a rchimedes-052505.html

I remember was it back in 96? 97? Anyway, when I first stumbled on this wierd search site, something like http://www.stanford.edu/~lporsomething/google.

And I was like wtf?!? Google?? No one will ever take these yahoos seriously!

So when I found Moodle in 03, I was less concerned about the name:-).

Comparing the energy contained in known Uranium reserves to the energy contained in the known oil reserves is much like comparing a matchstick to a forest fire. Fissile materials could last for *billions* of years [www-formal.stanford.edu], and so fissiles should also be considered a renewable energy source as the sun - and this is taking into account an yearly energy consumption rate 25 times higher than present, more than if the whole world was as energy-hungry as the developed countries.

That's actually the great thing about Eclipse: there's usually (always ?) a plugin that does what you need.

The difficulty is just to find it.

I use the KeepResident plugin to force Eclipse to hold on to its memory.

I'll let the author do the talking for me on the subject of how nice it is and how well it works:

"Yes, this is an evil nasty hack. But it's an evil nasty hack that works really well."

It appears as if the Stanford Center for Internet and Society has an audio lecture, which I'm listening to right now.

"we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."

That's the Stanford Solar Car project Not robotic, human driver

Exactly what "conclusion" have I jumped to?

Hot babe theoretical physicists? Or were you thinking of these ones?

They got the original router code from Stanford University in the first place, and now they complain so bitterly! Check this

1. Brilliant researcher at Oxbridge University (who pays his salary) comes up with great idea, writes it up, submits it electronically by emailing it to an editor at the Snooty Journal,
   
2. The editor, a professor at Enormus State University (who pays his salary and has him teach a little less because of his prestigous editorship) thinks of an appropriate anonymous referee and sends off the article to be refereed. Snooty Journal may give ESU some money to cover part of the cost of a secretary, but does not pay his salary.
   
3. Professor at IviedHalls University (who pays his salary) receives the article to refereee, reads it, sends it back with comments after letting it molder on his desk/inbox for a bit.
   
4. Editor accepts or rejects the paper, possibly asking for modifications based upon the referee's recommendation, possibly some iteration at this step
   
5. Original author prepares the article in electronic format using LaTeX with Snooty Journal's style files and uploads it to their web site.
   
6. Snooty Journal staff typeset the paper, messing a few things up because they are not experts in the appropriate field, and send the "galley proofs" to the author to review.
   
7. Original author points out typos introduced in their typsetting process, sends back corrected galleys.
   
8. Snooty Jounal releases the article on their paid-subscription webpage and prints it as a dead-tree volume to send to libraries around the world that can afford it.
   
   As you can see, the hard part of the labor (writing, reviewing, refereeing) is not done by anyone at the publisher-- various universities pay the salaries of those folks and they pay again for the journal in dead-tree form.
   

   
   So you can see that there may be some objection to the arrangement. In the old days, the journal staff actually typset things and dead-trees were the only game in town, but most of the typesetting is done by the author.
   

   
   The choice is hard for some people that really need to publish in the expensive journals to get tenure, recognition, grants, etc. But for people who already have tenure, some are resistant to the journal extortion. Some may have a policy like mine- I do not submit to expensive journals or agree to referee for expensive journals, now that I have the advantage of tenure.
   

   
   There have been some successes of editorial boards that resigned wholesale, then started a free/inexpensive journal. Hopefully this becomes more common.
   

   • Some related links:
   • Journal prices in Econ
     
   • Rob Kirby calling for better pricing for math journals
     
   • Journal of Algorithms editorial board resignation to start a cheap prestigious journal
     
   • Knuth's letter about that resignation
     

Copyright Durations
...the copyright term began on the date of publication or registration, and originally lasted 28 years...
http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyrig ht_durations.html

bulk.resource.org
Data rescued by media.org.
http://bulk.resource.org/copyright/

Copyright Clearance Center
http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright in Cyberspace
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p1 33.html

Copyright Management Center
http://copyright.iupui.edu/

Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/

FAIRCOPY
http://www.faircopy.com/

Janis Ian
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Musicians Against Copyrighting Of Samples
http://www.icomm.ca/macos/

Stanford University Libraries
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

What is Copyright Protection
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

$ sudo emerge axel
$ axel http://mirrordot.org/media/0729554272fd3be27100eea a4f9c2312/DualPhotography.mp4 http://graphics.stanford.edu.nyud.net:8090/papers/ dual_photography/DualPhotography.mp4 http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photograp hy/DualPhotography.mp4
$ mplayer DualPhotography.mp4

The conditions in question are indeed not diseases at all, nor is anyone informed calling them that. They are disorders, or more accurately, neurological disabilities. The proper analogy is with other neurological disorders such as dyslexia (I often call Asperger's "social dyslexia" although that doesn't cover nearly all of it). The parent post is a complete red herring, and should be modded down.

Proper diagnoses are based on specific, well-defined problems a person has. The behaviorally-based criteria are inherently flawed because they do not account for varieties in personality and coping strategies, and knowledgeable people have long since stopped taking those too literally. Of course, in the future, diagnosis might well be based on brain scans.

I should wish that anyone who thinks Asperger's is merely a set of behavioural traits could "have Asperger's for a while" - they'd get cured of that misconception real fast. Of course, they might also need to be in a psychiatric hospital for a while to recover from the experience. This is not an easy thing to live with. The highly intelligent high achievers are the exception, not the rule -- it's far more common to be normally intelligent and/or unemployed.

Yes, I speak from personal experience.

The article is good. I also enjoyed this actual footage of the '68 demo at SRI.

[warning footage is RealAudio stream]

GUI screenshots.
http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interface s

Englebart's famous 1968 demo.
http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html

Acorn Archimedes GUI
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~lrtc/computers/acorn_ro/ acorn/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A225785

Knowledge Navigator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_navigator

Apple II GS
http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/computers/IIg s.html

BeBox
http://www.bebox.nu/history.php

8-1/2: The Plan 9 Window system
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/8%BD/8%BD.pdf

Genera
http://www.geocities.com/mparker762/toys.html

Video Interviews of Early Pioneers
http://www.invisiblerevolution.net/

GUI News
http://interfacelift.com/news/

ZUI's
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/piccolo/applications/in dex.shtml

---
Important Stuff to keep slashdot's filter happy.

# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
# If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

This is interesting, but if what Paul Feyerabend says about the institution of science is true, then this rebellion will be crushed in due time. The dominance of science must prevail!

There is nothing inherent in science or in any other ideology that makes it essentially liberating. Ideologies can deteriorate and become stupid religions... the science of today is very different from the science of 1650... Like the heretics of the Catholic church, Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the 'most severe' sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer

Fear not for science is the next Catholic church and the ensuing Inquisition will quell this heresy of 'Intellegent Design' and 'Creationist theory'.

Science is defended via hypothesis and experimentation.

And ninjas, and flying burning sharks, and really big guns.

The problem with this whole freakshow is that, by changing the definition of science, they get a whole bunch of kids who don't have a chance of understanding the fundamental concepts of science.

Not that most kids really understand science anyway; most of them (and subsequently most of the adult population) think that science is a collection of boring facts. They never stop to think how it is that we *know* these facts. (That's not even getting into the whole subject of "true enough until something better comes along.")