Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Brainwaves, MPnothin', Telescopy

Slashback tonight with a few words on forcing Open software, NASA mind-reading tricks, a reminder of one nice way not to pay for an MP3 decoder, and more. Read on for the details. Update: 08/28 00:36 GMT by T : Oops -- No DoubleClick news tonight, as the original headline implied. Regrets.

They felt your unvoiced contempt. perl-guy writes "According to a recent NASA press release, reports such as those in this Slashdot story stating that NASA is planning to develop mind-reading equipment for airports in efforts against terrorism are exaggerated and ignore the facts and science behind current research. 'NASA does not have the capability to read minds, nor are we suggesting that would be done,' said Robert Pearce, Director, NASA's Strategy and Analysis Division in the Office of Aerospace Technology in Washington. 'Our scientists were asked to think outside the box with regards to ideas that could aid the nation in the war on terrorism and that's what they are doing. We have not approved any research in this area and because of the sensitivity of such research, we will seek independent review before we do.'"

Let's put that Schneier fellow on the "body-search" list. Quixotic1 writes "Four articles are highlighted over at The Atlantic Online arguing that to protect ourselves against terrorism we must rely on people, not simply on technology. The outline touches on the recent article about Bruce Schneier, the national ID card proposal, and the Clipper Chip."

Star systems, slip through fingers, etc. Since Thomson Multimedia / the Frauenhofer Institute has decided to press the $0.75-per-decoder charge for MP3 decoders mentioned earlier today, there are probably a lot of people suddenly more interested in other formats. I favor the Xiph Foundation's Ogg Vorbis; Xiph CEO Emmett Plant has written his thank-you note to Thomson Multimedia.

Depends what you consider "great." morhoj writes "ZDNet is running a great commentary that talks about the recent debate involving the Digital Software Security Act (the California law the would force governments to use open source software). ''Open source is supposed to be about freedom. Unfortunately, certain advocates have lost sight of that goal.'' I couldn't have summed it up better myself. Forcing anyone to use Open Source software is no better than ludicrous Microsoft licensing agreements." I think Carroll is dead-wrong when he focuses on cost-benefit analyses (and ignores the question of whose money is being spent by whom, for what), but YMMV.

I bet they'd have to edit Super Troopers, too. David_Bloom writes: "Following up on an earlier article, according to a page (link is a direct link to a frame - context sold separately) on the IMAX website, the first movie to use 35mm to 70mm IMAX DMR technology will be the hit 1995 flick Apollo 13. It is interesting to note that, according to a FilmRatings.com lookup, the film has been edited for content for its IMAX release (which is bad news for people hoping to see The Matrix or similar movies on IMAX)."

No, I said I'm meet you by the other telescope! Reader Dan Yocum points out that the skyward-gazing Yalies who captured asteroid 2002 NY40 digitally did so with a different telescope than the one reported. He writes: "They weren't even using WIYN. They were using the 0.9M that's next to it (about 50yd away)." Thanks for the correction!

17 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Why NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would NASA be developing mind reading technology? They should stick to the task at hand, i.e. converting metric measurments to American.

    Anyways, shouldn't the FBI, CIA or NSA develop this?

    1. Re:Why NASA? by KaiKaitheKai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because, it sounds a whole lot less threatning when a government agency with more than three letters in it's name does it. Think about it, do you ever feel threatened by NORAD?

    2. Re:Why NASA? by monadicIO · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe NASA had a read error and thinks that CIA, FBI and NSA think that NASA should do it. On a related note, can mind-R and mind-RW technology be far behind mind reading?

      --

      The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar

    3. Re:Why NASA? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are you talking about? Its just a little different. They are now exploring the space inside our heads.

    4. Re:Why NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NASA's projects require thousands of engineers working on projects where there is no chance for repair for years at a time. There are few parallels for the complexity and quality constraints here on Earth.

      In contrast, for your task of writing three sentences, you had one spelling error and misnamed a system of measurement.

    5. Re:Why NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      All those other than America who have had a national agency screw a billion dollar project because they couldn't manage their measurement units properly, say "I".

    6. Re:Why NASA? by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering the amount of empty space inside my head, they're going to be exploring a good long tiOOH SHINY!!

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    7. Re:Why NASA? by Kowh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm... NSA, CIA, NASA. If we mix these around we get NASA = NSA + CIA - CI.

      I guess this means NASA's just a blind front for the NSA and the CIA (blind front, get it? Can't "CI". ;)).

    8. Re:Why NASA? by konijn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to forget mind+R and mind+RW and all the other mind reading standards.

  2. Re:Isn't it to the point where... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There has to be ONE company that hosts all these "motivational" seminars responsible for these buzzwords, such as "thinking outside the box." They are the scientologists of business.

  3. Re:Isn't it to the point where... by jcsehak · · Score: 3, Funny

    isn't it to the point where "Thinking Outside the Box" is thinking INSIDE the box?

    Only if the box is Schroedinger's...

    --

    c-hack.com |
  4. Far More Sinister Plot Re: Mind Reading by figjamjam · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course the real reason NASA is developing such a device is so that they can detect people who believe that the entire apollo moon landing was a hoax. These people will then be "removed". ;-)

  5. Re:Editing movies? by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I for one am glad they are editing it! There was some very offensive material in that filthy movie! I hope they are getting rid of that rocket...you do know what its shaped like? Don't you?
    And all that dirty talk about inserting hoses in air filters, using duct tape no less! The movie will be much better without it.
    Think of the children!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  6. Re:Is he being sarcastic? by ChadN · · Score: 2, Funny

    There IS a detectable level of sarcasm in the "Thank you" letter...

    --
    "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
  7. Re:Thompson letter by Jippy_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    It would be interesting to see a reply to that letter. :)

    Laff, they should reply with an MP3 and charge $0.75 to listen to it.

    =-Jippy

  8. How does it work? by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA engineers have thought outside the box in order to come up with a device "to detect passengers who potentially might pose a threat"... and on to the Q/A:

    Q: How does it work?
    A: We ask people to think inside this box.

    Q: What if they think outside the box?
    A: Then we can't detect anything.

    Q: How do you make sure there are no "back doors" in the system?
    A: We asked our engineers to think outside the box inside the box.

    -- Terry

  9. Censoring movies for family audiences by yerricde · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, I would be very disapointed if a movie about such an accident didn't portray the people in this situation as annoyed enough to swear.

    If the IMAX company wants to remove George Carlin's favorite words from all movies shown on its screens, but it wants to preserve the plot, it could use a standard sound effect for each word, as I do in my custom clean versions of popular rap songs:

    • Fuck: 1000 Hz triangle wave
    • Shit: two sawtooth waves, increasing from 60 to 75 Hz and from 62 to 80 Hz
    • Cocksucker: Rooster crowing
    • Piss: Snake or cat hiss, or faucet
    • Tit(s): four triangle waves at 300, 375, 2400, and 2700 Hz
    • Valium (or other tranquilizing drugs): "Volume" sample from "Pump Up the Volume" by M/A/R/R/S
    • Bitch: Dog bark
    • Asshole: Donkey braying
    • Head, as in "Give head": Record scratch

    For other cuss words, either just use silence, or think up some other sound.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?