Slashdot Mirror


10 Technologies MIA

Fantasy Football writes "CNet lists ten technologies they miss, which includes Napster, the originial Palm Pilot, good keyboards, and more. From the article: 'Technology evolves. Good technologies and products usually survive; poor ones usually go extinct. But not all of the technologies and tech products that have swirled down the drain of the tech gene pool deserved their fate. Here are some big, and some small, ideas that we thought we'd have with us forever, but that unfortunately have gone the way of the dodo.'"

698 comments

  1. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nothing to see here move along

  2. now before anyone gets started by thegoogler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    i dont get all the love for kozmo, its like saying "and i want a perpeptual motion machine that makes infinite money too!, AND A PONEY."

    there buisness model was fatally flawed, they didnt make any proffit because they basically sold everything at what it cost them, and didnt charge shipping.

    1. Re:now before anyone gets started by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't get what's to like about a company that sold everything at cost and didn't charge for shipping?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    2. Re:now before anyone gets started by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      Well, we didn't like Kosmo because they made money, we liked it because they delivered stuff to us, and because they basically sold everything at what it cost them and didn't charge shipping!

    3. Re:now before anyone gets started by Osty · · Score: 1

      i dont get all the love for kozmo, its like saying "and i want a perpeptual motion machine that makes infinite money too!, AND A PONEY."

      I'd be happy with a pony, personally. The love for Kosmo is an irrational one -- there's no possible way anybody could ever make money providing a service such as Kosmo's (as it was implemented, anyway -- I'm sure there are ways to do it, such as charging more for convenience, not overreaching on too many markets too soon, charging a nominal delivery fee, etc). It's just one of those things where if it were possible for such a service to exist, that'd be awesome.

    4. Re:now before anyone gets started by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kozmo could only work in an arcology setting, and only then if the service charge were added in some fashion, e.g., as part of the rent. Although I can see this as being a very big incentive to move into an arcology, having everything from groceries to movie rentals delivered right to your door. The young forward-thinking geek could move into a much larger and more socially acceptable version of his parents basement while at the same time claiming that he's part of the 'wave of the future', rather than just being afraid of sunlight and face-to-face contact with other human beings.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    5. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I miss when I don't get at least 5 dupes a week.

    6. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've tried arcologies before. They didn't work so good.

    7. Re: Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was not an arcology, and I have no idea what would cause you to think it was. You sir, are a troll.

    8. Re:now before anyone gets started by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The love for Kosmo is an irrational one -- there's no possible way anybody could ever make money providing a service such as Kosmo's (as it was implemented, anyway


      So, it's irrational to love something if that something can't make any money? If Kosmo was profitable, then it would be OK to love it, but since it was not, loving it would be "irrational"? Is our liking or disliking some company somehow tied to that company's profit-margin?

      If someone started giving away free cars to everyone, would you NOT love it? I mean, the person giving those cars away wouldn't be making any profit from it.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:now before anyone gets started by NickFitz · · Score: 1

      are fatally flawed, surely?

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    10. Re:now before anyone gets started by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I remember hearing one of those "audio diaries" on NPR by someone who worked at Kozmo. She had just graduated college with some arts degree, and her job was bicycle delivery in. She was paid over $30k/year and made, on average, 2 deliveries a day, and spent the rest of the time sitting in the warehouse chatting with the other messengers.

      When the company collapsed, she despaired of ever finding a job as good as that one, and decided to go to grad school - also in whatever major she had in undergrad (and couldn't find a job with).

      Never in my life have I so wished to have the power to disobey the laws of physics, just in order to be able to reach through the radio and slap that stupid bitch silly. She should have been doing backflips, rejoicing that the whole scheme lasted so long, instead of moaning about how unfair life was.

      (Didnt' help that I was stuck in Beltway traffic in summer with no A/C when listening.)

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:now before anyone gets started by kirn_malinus · · Score: 1

      anyone got a link to the EFF page of endangered/threatened tech?

      --
      All circuits busy.
    12. Re:now before anyone gets started by Tomun · · Score: 2, Informative
    13. Re:now before anyone gets started by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 0, Troll
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree.

      Your god dies of snakebite and stays dead; my god rises from the dead and lives forever...

    14. Re:now before anyone gets started by sickofthisshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "irrationality" of the belief is not a statement about profit per se. The context is a social one, in which by using a service, the consumer wants to make a fair exchange, not exploit someone's generosity in an unsustainable way. Essentially, one has to force oneself to ignore the fact that "hey, no shipping!" is too good to be true.

      It is easier for me to "love" consuming something that a faceless corporation wishes to dispense below cost, but if a human delivery guy is bringing something to my door, I get uncomfortable if I believe that he is working himself into bankruptcy.

      Do you "love" it when someone gives you back too much change by mistake?

    15. Re:now before anyone gets started by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Your god dies of snakebite and stays dead; my god rises from the dead and lives forever...

      Thor died of a snakebite? Anyway, my God just wants to screw and have fun.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:now before anyone gets started by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      If someone started giving away free cars to everyone, would you NOT love it? I mean, the person giving those cars away wouldn't be making any profit from it.

      Sure they could profit.

      Make it so you can only buy gas from them, charge $10/gal for it, and use the DMCA to enforce the exclusivity requirement.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    17. Re:now before anyone gets started by Gondola · · Score: 1

      Arthur Clarke reference for the funny:

      "My god, it's full of stars..."

      Queen reference for the atheism:

      "You say Lord I say Christ
      I don't believe in Peter Pan
      Frankenstein or Superman..."

      Gods are all myth and superstition, fellas. There's nothing wrong with wanting a security blanket, but if you want to be a big boy you gotta grow out of it someday.

      I like the Thor reference, though. I'm a Celt by descent, and I think it's a rich heritage that doesn't get the notice it deserves.

    18. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:now before anyone gets started by snorklewacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Kozmo could only work in an arcology setting, and only then if the service charge were added in some fashion, e.g., as part of the rent.

      Dude, they're called concierges.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    20. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...[sigh] If only they had a bigger truck they might have made it.

    21. Re:now before anyone gets started by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you even know what an arcology is? It's essentially a city in a very large building, including all the things you might expect in a medium sized city - housing, places to shop, grocery stores, hospitals, a police station, gyms, businesses, restaurants, movie theatres, churches, parks (on the roof), industry, a jail, etc.

      As far as I know, no arcologies have been built. About the closest thing I can think of is some larger "assisted living" homes for seniors, which have their own church, convience store, food store, resaurant/cafeteria, gym, pharmacy, etc. all in one building.

    22. Re:now before anyone gets started by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "As far as I know, no arcologies have been built."

      I think the John Hancock Tower in Chicago comes pretty close...living quarters, offices, grocery stores, but I'm not saying it's cheap.

    23. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the other incentives for moving into the arcology:

      (1) Avoid the hordes of radioactive mutants
      (2) Protection from the Mad Max roving bands of motocycle gangs
      (3) The geneticly enhanced fashion model love slave clones
      (4) Pretty flashing red jewel for your right hand

    24. Re:now before anyone gets started by modemboy · · Score: 1

      What about some of the huge Chinese manufacturing plants? They have housing, food, entertainment, etc.
      I think they even try to keep their employees poor enough that they can't afford to leave ;)

    25. Re:now before anyone gets started by Neoncow · · Score: 1
      Make it so you can only buy gas from them, charge $10/gal for it, and use the DMCA to enforce the exclusivity requirement.

      Whoa! $10/gal and they come with exclusivity agreements? I'll take two, eh?

    26. Re:now before anyone gets started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The love for Kosmo is an irrational one -- there's no possible way anybody could ever make money providing a service such as Kosmo's (as it was implemented, anyway

      Free ... as in Kozmo

    27. Re:now before anyone gets started by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What about some of the huge Chinese manufacturing plants? They have housing, food, entertainment, etc.
      I think they even try to keep their employees poor enough that they can't afford to leave ;)


      Now that you bring it up, those probably are closer to what an arcology is. A building you should never have to leave, only in this case - you can't :)

    28. Re:now before anyone gets started by jordyn · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Kozmo was profitable in both New York and London, but died due to overexpansion.

      A business model that works fine in a dense urban area doesn't work as well in many of the sprawling cities that Kozmo expanded into.

      Similarly, FreshDirect seems to be doing quite well in New York, but PeaPod couldn't figure out how to make online grocery shopping work on a broader footprint.

  3. Keyboard by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can still buy a real keyboard. Those guys bought the design from IBM and still produce it in the USA.

    I like the feel of an old Antec clicky keyboard better, but the layout on the Unicomp is better.

    Get a PS2USB adaptor and it even works great on a Mac.

    1. Re:Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uh, that's what it says in the article. THANKS FOR THE TIP

    2. Re:Keyboard by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh, that's what it says in the article.

      Sorry, I'm new here. Are we supposed to read it?

    3. Re:Keyboard by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1
      You can still buy a real keyboard. Those guys bought the design from IBM and still produce it in the USA.
      Maybe I'll buy one if I ever want a Windows key, or when all the Model M's I've fished out of the garbage over the years stop working. I don't think either of those are likely to happen any time soon.
    4. Re:Keyboard by log2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is awesome. I have been wanting a no-frills no-media keys NORMAL keyboard.

      Those MS keyboards are sooo stupid. They decided to group the F-keys in groups of 3 rather than 4, the delete key is twice as big as it should be and i HATE it when I go to press insert and I click Print Screen instead...GRRR

      Ahh, that's my rant for today :)

      --
      Can your karma go above being Excellent?
    5. Re:Keyboard by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll buy one if I ever want a Windows key

      Nice troll, but those keyboards are available with and without the windows key.

      And the old Model M's are nice, but why get a decade old one, when for a reasonable price you can get a brand new one?

    6. Re:Keyboard by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      You said it. I've been using the same Model M keyboard since, well, I was a tot and using the keyboard on dad's computer.

      Good thing someone still makes that design.

    7. Re:Keyboard by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to find 4 of the original keyboards at a garage sale last summer, the guy said they were garbage, so I asked if he'd sell em for $0.50/pc .. $2.00 in all :D I didn't realize they were so heavy.. work beautifully though :)

    8. Re:Keyboard by User0x45 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm typing this on a "Happy Hacker II" It is small, jet black, with 'proper' key placement of my control key.

      I get so many compliments and questions. I really never quite understood why the masses didn't follow. A very nice piece of 'windows key'-less technology!

    9. Re:Keyboard by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those guys bought the design from IBM and still produce it in the USA.

      Ah, the only patent a big software co. actually *deserves* a royalty for.

    10. Re:Keyboard by Fastball · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kinda like the robotic arm and processor that Cyberdyne Systems were working on in T2, huh? You know what this means don't you?

      I'm gonna have to get a Harley, some leather duds, and a tough pair of shades and blow up the pckeyboard.com offices. I HATE THOSE KEYBOARDS! THEY MUST BE STOPPED! The IBM M-series keyboard can't be reasoned with. It can't be bartered with. And it won't stop until my eardrums are dead. TA-TING!

      A couple years working in a university computer lab surrounded by those things almost broke my will to live, but there was a co-worker who taught me how to survive it.

      His name was Conner. John Conner.

    11. Re:Keyboard by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      "I really never quite understood why the masses didn't follow."

      I would guess the reason why not everyone is using a "Happy Hacker" keyboard is because they're priced between $70 and $120.

      If you got yours for less, please, help us all follow your lead.

    12. Re:Keyboard by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And the old Model M's are nice, but why get a decade old one, when for a reasonable price you can get a brand new one?

      Because the decade old one is as good as new and costs only 2 or 3 dollars?
    13. Re:Keyboard by zsau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a Sun Type 6 USB Unix keyboard, which gives me proper key placement of my control key, as well as giving me every key I could possibly want (also in their proper positions). It's multicolored (grey on the function/modifier/doing keys, white on the typing keys) which I love because all monochrome keyboards I've ever had the displeasure of using have felt horrible. (Admittedly this isn't clicky, but it still looks special, so it's nicer :)

      Of the various other keys it has in a different place is the backspace key, which is right above the Enter key, next to the close square bracket ] key. When I first got this keyboard, this became an instant hit with me, because I keep changing my mind halfway through a word, or mispell something (I tried typing 'keep' as 'ckeep' before). Having the backspace key in that more accessible position is just so useful. IIRC, the Happy Hacker keyboard puts it in the usual spot?

      I've never got why people find Windows keys to be incredibly annoying. Map them to meta/super/hyper and you get a key that does something useful, which you wouldn't've had otherwise. The menu key is also usefully mapped as a compose key so that you can type special characters (which English uses in spades if you want to type proper punctuation) easily. I suppose the glyphs are a bit annoying, but my Windows keys are marked with diamonds, so that bothers me not, neither!

      I was contemplating buying a Happy Hacker keyboard, but could never justify the cost for a keyboard without a dedicated number pad (having used a laptop as my main box for a while, I got quite used to the deficiency—but I always knew it was a deficiency, and nothing but!).

      Pardon me; I only recently got this keyboard, and needed to brag about it.

      --
      Look out!
    14. Re:Keyboard by jcaren · · Score: 1

      Would you buy a keyboard from someone who rates keyboard usage as "based on 30 minutes use per day at six keystrokes per second".

    15. Re:Keyboard by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I would guess the reason why not everyone is using a "Happy Hacker" keyboard is because they're priced between $70 and $120.

      That and the fact the layout is very different to your standard PC and is designed for, well, hacking with.

      Anyone who's into using their computer for more mundane things or (like me) is simply used to the standard PC layout (good or not) isn't going to want to relearn the whole thing again.

      Ironically in the latter case, the Happy Hacking keyboard layout more closely resembles the 8-bit microcomputers I grew up with, and it looks very cute and compact. But compared to a PC keyboard, not only are half the keys missing, but the likes of the Enter key is the wrong shape and position, ditto backspace, ditto backslash, backquote....

      I'm sure the Escape key is in a more convenient position for vi, but that doesn't justify spending that much money on a new keyboard you're going to have to spend ages relearning. I'm assuming it's not aimed at touch-typists....

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    16. Re:Keyboard by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      How much force do you need to use to press the keys on those things? I don't imagine those keys are very good for one's wrists.

      I'd personally rather use a full-size keyboard with laptop-style keys.

    17. Re:Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get a PS2USB adaptor and it even works great on a Mac.
      No need for that. Just visit http://tactilepro.com/ for a Mac-specific keyboard that can be had for less (see their "where to buy" links) than the Unicomp even before you factor in the cost of a PS2USB adaptor.
    18. Re:Keyboard by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Brag away. But it is a poyal PITA switching between the Sun and a standard PC keyboard. I still am not sure which keyboard is "correct," and I guess that it is a matter of preference. But switching between a PC and a Sun keyobard is painful. I am always getting the backspace and backslash keys mixed up, as well as ESC and backquote ("`").

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    19. Re:Keyboard by zsau · · Score: 1

      See now, that doesn't bother me that much. I use Dvorak as well, you see, so if I'm using another keyboard, it's only an extra couple of keys to switch internally. I'm probably going to type in a couple letter-keys wrong, and then get the backspace wrong once, and then I'll be set. Gears me up nice and quick for the switchover, in fact :)

      Also, my laptop keyboard had the ~ next to F12, so it's much closer to where I've come to expect it, over on the far side of the keyboard. (It seems to be de rigueur on laptops to put ~ in random positions.)

      Also, backslash finds itself in random positions on various keyboards anyway, with L-shaped enter keys and flat enter keys and L-shaped enter keys with big backspaces and the backslash down next to right-slash...

      --
      Look out!
    20. Re:Keyboard by Taladar · · Score: 1
      I've never got why people find Windows keys to be incredibly annoying.
      I don't know about other people but I hate them when using Windows (they are no problem in Linux) when playing games because I tend to press them when I don't want to and my fullscreen game collapses (minimizes) which is especially annoying in realtime games and games that don't support restoring their fullscreen after the minimizing (even more so if this prevents saving).
    21. Re:Keyboard by NineNine · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Call me nuts, but I get the original keyboard for $1/apiece at my local thrift shop.

    22. Re:Keyboard by minerat · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and great, but you can't get a split/ergonomic buckling spring keyboard ANYWHERE ( like the IBM M15 )

      --
      ...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
    23. Re:Keyboard by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      It doesn't get as many props as the Model M, but I'm typing this on an original Apple Extended Keyboard hooked up to an iMac G5 via a USB-to-ADB adapter, and the keyfeel is very similar.

      Clicky clicky clicky.

      --saint

    24. Re: Re:Keyboard by rnturn · · Score: 1

      You actually paid for yours?

      I'm like the above poster who got/gets them via dumpster diving, i.e., for free. Geez, the support folks at work had an entire cubicle filled with Model Ms that were going to be pitched in the trash. They let me take as many as I could carry. Which was a lot. All I gotta do now is hope there'll always be a PS2 port available or an adapter and I'm set for life as far as keyboards go. Those suckers last forever. Heck, the one I'm using right now is over 17 years old and still going strong.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    25. Re:Keyboard by zsau · · Score: 1

      Ah. I'd kinda forgotten about the irritation it causes under Windows, and kind-of assumed that everyone who complained did so because of an 'ugly' and unnecessary Microsoft logo gracing their keyboards.

      --
      Look out!
    26. Re:Keyboard by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The first MS keyboards were easy to spot, they used cheap key springs. But MS got smarter, made 'em harder to spot. That's when we started using the penguins to sniff them out.

      --Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:Keyboard by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, reports are that they are better for RSI's. The force level isn't taht much higher than a cheap keyboard, but you get positive feedback, both audible, and tactile, when the contact is made. This helps a lot.

      Look at it this was. The Model M ergonomics were copied from the IBM Selectric typewriters. Skilled typists could go insanely fast on them (my Mom once complained that, after years away from typing professionally, that her speed was down to "only" 90 wpm). Yet complaints of RSI only really flaired up (sorry 'bout that) with the widespread distribution of crappy membrane style keyboards.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    28. Re:Keyboard by Taevin · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is really frustrating and I've lost more than one game to that. That and some random Windows popup like automatic update that I said no to earlier but it decided to check in just to see if I'd changed my mind...

    29. Re:Keyboard by adamjaskie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looking at the layouts, it seems the Enter key is in the normal PC keyboard place. The backslash, backspace and backquote keys, however, are not. At least it doesn't have a giant L-shaped Enter key, and a tiny backspace.

      I like the regular PC keyboard layout, with one exception: the Caps Lock key. I ALWAYS turn it into a third Ctrl, and don't bother switching my left Ctrl to Caps Lock. I never use Caps Lock anyway, and this way, if someone else uses my computer, they won't be confused.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    30. Re:Keyboard by sn0wman3030 · · Score: 1

      I bought one a logitech ultrax keyboard, and it's by far the best keyboard i've ever used.

      --
      Life is offtopic.
    31. Re:Keyboard by sickofthisshit · · Score: 1

      Typists using Selectrics had a sloped keyboard, elevated above the desk by a few inches. I.e., no resting of the heel of their hands on the desk.

      They also had to stop their keyboarding every so often to insert and remove paper. I.e., built-in breaks.

      Selectric users also didn't have to deal with control-key gymnastics, and were trained to shift with the opposite hand, as well as to sit up straight.

      Widespread distribution of crappy keyboards is also related to the widespread distribution of typing chores to people who did not have the training to type with proper posture.

    32. Re:Keyboard by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why their Natural(TM) keyboard has been bastardized so much...

      If I could put a blue-tooth adapter on my Microsoft Natural (version 1.0) keyboards (I have 3) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    33. Re:Keyboard by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Most RSI I've seen has more to do with improper mouse usage than it does keyboard usage.

    34. Re:Keyboard by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      You can also get a clone of the original, or near original, Apple keyboards, from Matias. Buying from some dealers, like Smalldog (www.smalldog.com), is cheaper though.

      I use one of these new keyboards and love it.

    35. Re:Keyboard by ipxodi · · Score: 1
      quoth the poster: "Actually, reports are that they are better for RSI's. The force level isn't taht much higher than a cheap keyboard, but you get positive feedback, both audible, and tactile, when the contact is made. This helps a lot."

      Also, because the tactile feedback occurs BEFORE the key bottoms-out, the typist is already releasing the key when (or if) it does bottom-out. This results in much less impact and strain in the hand and fingers.

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    36. Re:Keyboard by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      That's an awesome site. I'll be bookmarking that for the next time I need to buy a keyboard.

      Their Classic 104 model looks great--there are so few companies that make 104-key keyboards with proper enter keys.

      The EnduraPro 104 model with the touchpoint sounds cool, too. My laptop has a touchpoint, and I like it enough that using one on my desktop might not be a bad idea (I don't think it can replace my hand-shaped trackball, but it's better than a mouse).

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    37. Re:Keyboard by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Heh - someone on a Harley acting against noise polution.

    38. Re:Keyboard by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      That sucks. Best solution is to just yank the keys out like the rotten teeth that they are. I bought an ultra cheap keyboard a while back with a key up next to F12 that had a "power" symbol on it. I really didn't think it could do anything unless I installed a special driver or something. Imagine the swearing when I went to hit "save as" (F12) and windows immediately shut down. Needless to say, that key no longer physically exists.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    39. Re:Keyboard by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Nice troll, but those keyboards are available with and without the windows key.

      The lack of a Windows key is why an old one might not be good enough. If you're going to throw accusations, read carefully.

    40. Re:Keyboard by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      The Enter key is 'kind of' in the normal place, but I don't know whether the fact it only occupies one row instead of two is a problem, or whether I could get used to that; I might end up hitting backspace instead. Also, I'd miss the key that normally resides to the left of 'Enter' (backslash on a US layout).

      When you say 'giant L-shaped Enter key', did you have those (older US/UK) keyboards that only have two symbolic keys (; and ') between the letters and Enter in mind?

      Agree with you about Caps; however, I do use Caps quite a lot- typically when I have to type three or more consecutive capitals. The problem *I* have is that they moved Control from its traditional position. Now, Caps only needs to be hit with one finger, and I'm sure that if it occupied Ctrl's position it wouldn't make typing any harder for me (once I was used to it). Ctrl, OTOH has always felt wrong there; it has to be used in conjunction with other keys, and that position makes it much harder to do this without contorting my fingers.

      There was *no* good reason for them to swap Caps and Ctrl like that IMHO, but I'm kind of loathe to get used to a non-standard layout by swapping them back now :-(

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    41. Re:Keyboard by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      I use one of these. It has 0 slope, good feel without being too clicky, and what's most important, normal key layout. Additionally, it has only the 3 media buttons I use (and none of the other ones I hate) -- volume up, volume down, and mute.

    42. Re:Keyboard by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of the Happy Hacker keyboards, but they're seriously overpriced online. I'm not paying $200 on a keyboard with no numeric keypad or arrow keys just to have control and caps lock swapped.

      Also, it takes awhile to get used to having the backtick key on the right side. I also think it's weird that they offer a keyboard with no printing on the keys apparently to make sure nobody else can use your keyboard. It's not like silkscreening letters on the keys significantly changes the way they feel or anything.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    43. Re:Keyboard by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Oh good lord! You're using one of those keyboards that stick the backslash next to ' so they can make the enter key double high! I'd always assumed they had all been burned by now in an effort to get the evil out.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    44. Re:Keyboard by narsiman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm new here. Are we supposed to read it?

      Fast learner. No you dont. Next time post additional info irrelevant to the article, using assumptions based on what you read from the post.

    45. Re:Keyboard by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      All of my keyboards, including my Model M from the late 1980s, my iBook G4 from 2004, and the brand new "multimedia" keyboard on my work PC from 2005, have two symbolic keys, Semicolon and Apostrophe, between 'L' and Enter. All of them have an Enter key that takes up only one row of height. All of them, save my Sun keyboard, have the Backslash key directly above Enter, and a Backspace key nearly as wide as Enter above that. The Sun keyboard replaces Backslash, with Backspace, directly above Enter, and places Backtick and Backslash on two keys in the place Backspace is located on my other keyboards.

      The keyboards in many of the computer labs on Michigan Tech's campus, where I study, have a large, backwards L-shaped Enter key, as if you combined the Backslash and Enter keys on a normal PC keyboard, and split the Backspace key into two normal-sized keys; one being Backslash, and the other, Backspace. This practice is beyond evil, and must be cleansed with fire.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    46. Re:Keyboard by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      That, BTW, is my solution for the Caps Lock. If I ever need to lock the caps, I use the end of a pen to reach the collapsing rubber dome.

    47. Re:Keyboard by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      that is a poorly written game, many games i play don't allow the windows key to interrupt play.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    48. Re:Keyboard by basean72 · · Score: 1

      I'm from Poland. We used "Right Alt" key to enter some polish specific letters. Can you imagine that mess when they put Window keys in place of RightAlt? Click, click, click, ooops.... It took me a year to switch.

    49. Re:Keyboard by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Oh good lord! You're using one of those keyboards that stick the backslash next to ' so they can make the enter key double high! I'd always assumed they had all been burned by now in an effort to get the evil out.

      Is this less common in the US? It's a widespread layout in the UK...

      Without wanting to get too anally-retentive about this, I'd say that I've seen keyboards (with otherwise the same layout) that lack the backslash there (and another key) and simply have a bigger Shift and *massive* Enter key taking up the extra space.

      That seems to be an older layout, so I guess they didn't choose a double-height Enter simply to get the backslash in.

      On the contrary, those two extra keys seem to get use in international keyboards (w/ different key labelling), so I suspect including them on US/UK keyboards means they can sell the (physically) same keyboard in all countries.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    50. Re:Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extra points if you only read the title of the original story, yet spend time googling and writing something completely offtopic.

    51. Re:Keyboard by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      That last case sounds weird; although it *is* what the US/UK Commodore Amigas did, so it's not altogether out of the ordinary.

      I can live with laptops that have slightly nonstandard layouts in order to fit the keys into the space available; what *really* annoys me is having some desktop keyboard insert an extra 'Fn' key (WTF?!) beside the shift, swap stuff around, and move them for no good reason. WHY?!!!!!!!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    52. Re:Keyboard by ruel24 · · Score: 1
      Those MS keyboards are sooo stupid...the delete key is twice as big as it should be...GRRR


      That's so you can hit ctrl-alt-DELETE easier... :o)
    53. Re:Keyboard by ruel24 · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why their Natural(TM) keyboard has been bastardized so much... If I could put a blue-tooth adapter on my Microsoft Natural (version 1.0) keyboards (I have 3) I'd do it in a heartbeat.
      I agree! I have 2 of them myself. I love the feel of them and can't get used to typing on a normal keyboard anymore.
    54. Re:Keyboard by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1
      Nice troll, but those keyboards are available with and without the windows key
      Of course they are, and if I found a compelling need for a windows key on a board I had to use regularly I'd buy one in a heartbeat or ask my employers to... but since I'm extremely unlikely to actually need a windows key, and I already have a stack of working model M's, why would I want to buy a new one before the ones I already have are worn out? Oh, I know... to save me having to clean the keytops? Maybe that's a fair reason to replace most keyboards - it's usually a sign that you've used them too much and something is about to break.

      And the old Model M's are nice, but why get a decade old one, when for a reasonable price you can get a brand new one?
      Jeez, I dunno... maybe it has something to do with having better things to do with my money than buy something substantially identical to gear I already own that works well and does exactly what I need it to do?
    55. Re:Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but on Linux I find myself hitting it accidentally when I'm fishing around for the control key. There is a reason why there should be a gap between Alt and Ctrl!

    56. Re:Keyboard by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Those were in common use in the States back in the 386/486 era, but thankfully people got tired of straining their pinkies when reaching way over to hit the enter key and they're pretty much gone now.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  4. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft BOB
    *Sniff*

    1. Re:RIP by dagr8tim · · Score: 2, Informative
      I had never heard of bob until now. But looking at the screen shots reminds me of the Navagator for Packard Bell.

      It did basically the same thing for windows 3.1(1). That was the main I hated to do a factory restore on that computer. You had to manually remove the damned program after you were done.

      --
      "Does your computer have IP on it?"
    2. Re:RIP by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      I remember Microsoft Bob. I wonder if I could still find my CD of it, let alone any stickers. (Kind of reminds me of those Wal-Mart commercials.)

    3. Re:RIP by FrankNFurter · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether it's fully legal - on the other hand, MS ought to be embarrassed enough about having produced Bob to not sue whoever offers it for download.

      So here you go:

      MS Bob Download link

      --
      "Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
    4. Re:RIP by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Legal or not, I'd rather not risk it anyways. Plus I know I have the CD around somewhere, just not sure where.

    5. Re:RIP by SeventyBang · · Score: 3, Interesting



      Try Microsoft Bob. Or did you mean your Battery Operated Boyfriend?

      I have yet to figure out why the technical field overuses 's for pluralization, 's for pronoun possession, and the mystery acronyms (see: scud - not SCUD - missles during the Gulf War) - just because a word is unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it's an acronym.

      As more and more people are learning this tidbit of information, making it less & less arcane Microsoft trivia, the product manager for Microsoft Bob was Melinda French. You know her now as... Mrs. William Henry Gates III.

    6. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We bought Bob off eBay as a joke one time and installed it on a co-worker's laptop. It actually installed on XP! Good times.

    7. Re:RIP by falconx7 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Bob? Looks like the MS Office Paper Clip's ancestor. I guess microsoft didn't learn with Bob and had to just try it one more time...

    8. Re:RIP by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      The major reason it failed: it was the product solely designed and devised internally in Microsoft - unlike so many other of their products that they either bought or stole. (Also, wasn't the "idea person" responsible for that now married to Bill the Man????)

  5. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? No Betamax?

  6. Again? by Alphanos · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, it sounds like CNet must have pretty poor editorial standards to post another article with an identical subject so soon after their last one.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:Again? by datafr0g · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of another popular news site...

      :)

      --
      "Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
    2. Re:Again? by dcclark · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was an article related to the "Top 10 Dot-Com Busts" that was linked here yesterday. It was linked from that article. This isn't a dupe on anyone's part, just a companion article.

    3. Re:Again? by Osty · · Score: 1

      This was an article related to the "Top 10 Dot-Com Busts" that was linked here yesterday. It was linked from that article. This isn't a dupe on anyone's part, just a companion article.

      And it wouldn't be Slashdot if they didn't take two inter-related articles and split them up across two different stories (double the ad impressions!). Now they just need to dupe each one at least once to complete the process (quadruple the ad impressions!).

  7. dell quietkey by alienfluid · · Score: 1

    i like my dell quietkey the best. it's got it "clickety" feel (even though it's called a quiet key) and it just feels good. what's your favorite keyboard?

    1. Re:dell quietkey by narkotix · · Score: 1

      any of the keyboards that come with proliant servers...

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    2. Re:dell quietkey by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The second generation Microsoft Natural Keyboard.

      They had a built-in 2-port USB hub and the extra Back/Forward/Home, etc keys (useful for custom key mappings) but _didn't_ have the fucked-up reorganisation of the Home/End/Insert/Etc and arrow keys that plague today's models.

    3. Re:dell quietkey by canadiangoose · · Score: 1
      I can agree that the old Dell queitkey boards are decent, though the new black ones are terrible and they gum up all the time.

      As for my favourite keyboard, it would be my old KeyTronic 101-key with a coiled cord and a switch on the back to flip between 'XT' and 'AT Enhanced' modes. I found it in the trash! Excellent keyboard, just amazing. I can't stand the stupid 104 key Windows boards.

      --
      Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
    4. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, keytronic was my old favorite as well. however, i really like the keyboard on my t41 thinkpad. it is extremely light action yet you know exactly where the activation point is. now, when i switch to other laptops or desktops, i find that i often mistype because i press them too gently and fail to activate the switch. i'll never understand people who like to pound keyboards... a light touch on a good keyboard and you won't get any fatique.

      now, where can i find a good three-button optical mouse that doesn't look like it was melted, isn't transparent blinky crap, and has three normal buttons instead of some tiny scroll wheel for a middle button??

    5. Re:dell quietkey by RoceKiller · · Score: 1

      Logitech Cordless Desktop Pro, the greatest keyboard+mouse out there.

    6. Re:dell quietkey by rylin · · Score: 1

      While you're about to get modded to "-1, Blasphemy", I have to applaud your wisdom and enlightenment.

      The MS Natural Keyboard pro is without a doubt the best keyboard I've ever used.
      I've got a Natural Keyboard pro at home, and a Natural Keyboard elite at work (but sadly, that's where they started reorganizing the insert-block).

      The Natural Keyboard, along with Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 or Intellimouse 1.1 are some of the best peripherals ever made.

    7. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Keyboards with that feel used come with all Compaq systems, back when they made nice PCs. (Pre 1996)

    8. Re:dell quietkey by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      what's your favorite keyboard?

      http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details /US/EN,CRID=2158,CONTENTID=7153

      I bought mine before they became bluetooth only. Totally normal layout for the f keys and home page up etc... extra buttons that actually are useful like volume and a scroll wheel and the other extra buttons that I don't use out of the way. Most important is the recharge base for the mouse... very very very handy.

      Logitech has a couple of split wireless keyboards that look interesting too.. been keeping my eyes peeled for them.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    9. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever tried the Touchstream? (www.fingerworks.com)
      It feels weird at first, but I would not want any other keyboard now!

    10. Re:dell quietkey by Dal+Platinum · · Score: 1

      try 1998.

    11. Re:dell quietkey by absBrain · · Score: 1

      I simply adore my Cherry keyboard which is over 15 years old, and still works perfectly of course :)

      http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/keyboards/cher ry-keyboard-italian-g83-6105it.asp

    12. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pure and simple - the original microsoft natural keyboard was outstanding.

      ok - the layout took a while to get used to but i bought mine in 1996 and it's still going strong. i've written a BSc, MSc and half of a PhD thesis on it in that time.

      The key movement is completely, completely, solid. Unfortunately the new MS natural keyboards are dire.

      MS hardware was the last bastion of respect many people had for them, their excellent keyboards, mice and joysticks led the way for some time - until i discovered that all MS hardware was not designed by them but were bought-in designs.

    13. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything with laptop-style scissors keys. The PSK-5000 (basically a clone of the Macally icekey keyboard) is my favorite, mostly because it seems to be the only scissors-key keyboard with a normal layout, not some weird squished laptop layout with the page-up/down and arrow keys in the wrong place.

    14. Re:dell quietkey by newnerdyuser · · Score: 0

      The keyboard on my Toshiba A30 Laptop.

    15. Re:dell quietkey by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's OK to like Microsoft Hardware.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    16. Re:dell quietkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this has to be my favourite keyboard. slanty function keys! hacking it (literally perhaps) to make it work as a PC keyboard may be fun.

    17. Re:dell quietkey by dhandler · · Score: 1

      My favorite keyboard is the one I am using now - much to the constant dismay of the people who sit close to my office - my IBM Model M keybaord - manufactured Aug 1992 and still running flawlessly! Two weeks ago I pull off all the keycaps, gave them a wash, popped then back on - the thing looks brand new. Love the clickety-click! I have had this keyboard through about 7 computers and two jobs. It will probably outlive me.

    18. Re:dell quietkey by harrkev · · Score: 1

      A strong caution about Logitech...

      I got of of their best keyboard/mouse combos a year ago (MX Duo, list price of around $100). The hardware is rather nice, but the software has issues.

      The software works well enough for what is does, but apparently Logitec still has not heard of this new program called "Firefox." The internet buttons (home, forward, back, etc.) all work OK with Netrscape and IE, but do aboslutely nothing with Firefox.

      And adding the support would be easy...if they ever decide to update the software. Is has been 17 months since the last update for this product.

      So, those extra buttons are only as good as the software driving them, and the software is almost never updated.

      Does anybody know of any good wireless keyboard made by a company who actually cares about its users?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    19. Re:dell quietkey by www.philpem.me.uk · · Score: 1

      My favourite keyboard? A Dell AT102W. I found a computer shop that had a bunch of them NIB - bought two. They are very nice - ALPS keyswitches, clicky feel, lovely *SNAP* sound... Absolutely impossible to type quietly on, and it's got Dell's logo on it, but I guess you can't have everything :)

    20. Re:dell quietkey by woobieman29 · · Score: 1

      My 10 year old Lexmark M15 (Formerly the IBM M15). Fully split, tent-able 'clicky' keyboard, with a detached 10-key that you can move the hell out of the way and put the pointing device closer to your centerline. Used all day every day for a decade, and it still feels better than any other kb on the market. Best.Keyboard.Ever.

      --
      \/\/oobie
    21. Re:dell quietkey by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      Does anybody know of any good wireless keyboard made by a company who actually cares about its users?

      Microsoft. I'm using one of their keyboards now, and it works perfectly in Firefox.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    22. Re:dell quietkey by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      The software works well enough for what is does, but apparently Logitec still has not heard of this new program called "Firefox." The internet buttons (home, forward, back, etc.) all work OK with Netrscape and IE, but do aboslutely nothing with Firefox.

      Let me look at mine. This one is their lesser lx-500. Does the job but replaced the f row with round buttons I find annoying, and the home end are in the wrong spot, delete is double sized. Other than that they did a good job remaping the f-keys that most people don't use with the option of being hot keys. In that way they did a decent job.

      Back and Forward work Home works, scroll wheel works. Search well brings up microsoft's search, zoom works only with the mouse scroll wheel not the keyboads. While I'm perfectly happy with the one back button, and won't turn on hot f keys... everything on here works.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  8. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by dagr8tim · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Along with #8. I found an old AT&T rotary phone in the basement of my new house. The phone is in mint condition and I decided to use it as a novelity. To my suprise, this phone which has to be 20-30 years old has better sound quality than any of my new "modern" corded or cordless phones.


    Just goes to show that cheap & mass produced do not mean quality.

    --
    "Does your computer have IP on it?"
  9. multithreaded GUIs by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seriously, if you never used BeOS, you don't know what you're missing.

    I love Mac OS X, but a sluggish GUI is a sacrifice I've learned to live with.

    1. Re:multithreaded GUIs by Osty · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if you never used BeOS, you don't know what you're missing.

      There's nothing stopping you from writing multi-thread GUIs in current operating systems (well, at least not in Windows, which is where I have most of my experience). Be just "forced" you to do so (as I understand it, you couldn't not write a multi-threaded GUI app). From a Windows-centric point of view there are some hoops to jump through (accessing controls from a different thread than that which spawned them), but it's certainly doable as long as you stay away from broken shit like mshta (which I believe is dead, though that doesn't stop people from trying to use it).

    2. Re:multithreaded GUIs by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

      I've got BeOS release 5 running on a Pentium II at 300MHz with 192MB of RAM, and it's running unbelievably quickly. Windows XP boasts of it's "fast boot time," but this boots on _that_ machine in 15 seconds. XP would take five minutes on a machine like that. All BeOS needs is better hardware support, and it'd be a viable desktop OS.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    3. Re:multithreaded GUIs by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      So true. Unfortunately there was one thing about BeOS that made it so much more than just "threaded everything".. the realtime support in the kernel. Linux has some hacks for realtime support, but not in Linus' tree.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:multithreaded GUIs by Osty · · Score: 1

      All BeOS needs is better hardware support, and it'd be a viable desktop OS.

      Better hardware support, more applications, and a solvent company behind it (because Be is no more, in case you hadn't noticed, and the source is not available).

    5. Re:multithreaded GUIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a brilliant path to an unsuccessful product: do the wrong thing, but do it very fast.

    6. Re:multithreaded GUIs by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Yup, really impressive, especially the rotating cube with a different running movie clip on each face, all on a 200MHz PPC.

    7. Re:multithreaded GUIs by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How much would the BeOS sourcecode cost? I would be willing to throw £100, maybe £200 into a pot to have the code released under a BSD license. How many other people would? Would it be enough to make it worth PalmSource's while to do so?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:multithreaded GUIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging your reaction, I think it's you who's crying, hehehhe.

  10. Keyboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Model M > All Thank you. I can't type worth a damn on any other keyboard.

    1. Re:Keyboards by gabbarbhai · · Score: 1

      Two keyboards I have come across that are acceptable given the rest of the scene:
      1. TVS Gold. An Indian made KB which is tough to buy here, but very cheap given the exchange rate if you can get them/someone to ship it from there. Good, clicky, individual spring loaded keys with enough travel. Space bar is kind of stiff, but I'm sure you'll find a way to fix that.
      2. Happy Hacking keyboard. A tiny, unix-oriented kb (control key at the right place). Keys are not as clicky as I like, but have good feel and travel.
      HTH.

    2. Re:Keyboards by DrVomact · · Score: 1
      I, too went on the search for the Holy Grail of keyboards recently. I wanted a simple keyboard with crisp tactile feedback--what I found were keyboards with a bunch of cheesy extra buttons that looked more like organs (is the half-moon key for taking a potty break?), keyboards that light up, keyboards that fold, keyboards with funny-shaped "ergonomic" keys that look like wedges, and so on.

      I finally got lucky--after having tried one at work, I bought a Microsoft Natural keyboard (about $17 from new egg, as I recall). This is not the version of the keyboard you usually see in the stores--those have a potty key. This one is intended for OEMs to sell with their PCs--therefore it doesn't have any of the extra junk that justifies slapping a high price on an aftermarket keyboard. It's a simple keyboard with a decent feel. Not great, but decent. It does have a funny wavy shape, but I think that's actually a good thing--in any case, I got used to it quickly.

      I bought two just in case I spill my coffee again...

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  11. I miss the Slashdot dupe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, that hasn't been invented yet. Never mind.

  12. Good keyboards by IvyKing · · Score: 1
    I tend to agree with their sentiments, most modern keyboards are way to mushy and too light. My best keyboard was the one that came with the Compaq Deskpro's in the mid 1980's, although the Sun type 5C was a somewhat close second.

    OTOH, modern keyboards sure beat the feel of a model 33 (used a few of those in school many moons ago).

  13. Space travel - no kidding by starseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier. The Earth is fully populated now, in the sense that only the very remotest regions remain unexplored and all regions are claimed.

    Practical is good and all, but if we wait until we solve all our problems here on Earth first we'll be stuck on this dirtball until the sun hits Red Giant phase. Human nature being what it is.

    I say Let's Get Out There! Now! It pushes limits, it's positive, and it pushes technology. Sounds good to me! May China can provoke another space race - I sure hope so. One-upmanship seems to be the only real way to get any serious funding :-(.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      As long as this one-upmanship doesn't spill over to some kind of arms race. I don't think we need any new and improved civilization destroying weapons at this point.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    2. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I prefer to put it another way. If you're not for space exploration they you must be for a conservation of resources. That is, you must be for a scaling back of population growth on earth and per capita energy consumption. This is just obvious. If the population of the earth keeps growing we won't have enough resources to maintain our current level of living conditions. Studies of population have shown that as the affluence of the society increases, the birth rate slows to match the death rate and population stablises. Or to put it less tactfully: poor people breed faster than rich people. So if you consider the earth as a closed system you have to either raise the standard of living around the world to a level where population growth ceases "naturally" or you have to commit the resources of the rich into forcing the poor not to breed. Would anyone care to guess which is more likely? Right, so if we're willing to agree that considering the earth as a closed system leads to the logical conclusion that the world population growth must be controlled by force, then I can sum up your two options right now..

      You are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth.

      Personally I don't think there's a choice. We must expand into space. Of course, there's also the third option. The so called what, me worry? approach. Which is to just pop your hands over your ears and sing "lalalalalala" and hope the whole issue will go away. Thing is, we can afford to do this, but chances are that the next generation won't.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left...

      The only external one, perhaps. The truly greatest frontier still wide open is the human mind. Going to Mars is a parlor trick compared to trying to figure out the intricacies of the brain. And there are more human benefits to it as well. Exploration of outer spaces is probably just a way to avoid exploration of the truly terrifying inner spaces. But that's human nature I guess. The answer is always "out there" somewhere.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Tsunam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      *laughs* everyone always forgets the oceans. We know more about space, then we know about our oceans. Sad that its always forgotten.

    5. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If the population of the earth keeps growing we won't
      > have enough resources to maintain our current level of
      > living conditions.

      I told that to my family. They basically said "God will take care of everything for us." *sigh*

      Even if I were religious, I would be of the attitude that God helps those who help themselves. Blindly trusting God to solve all of our problems isn't a good idea.

      Commence flamewar.

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    6. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Zaffle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier. The Earth is fully populated now, in the sense that only the very remotest regions remain unexplored and all regions are claimed.

      You must be kidding! There is a vast expanse that has only been touch upon, only a bit more than space itself. Undersea oceans and ocean floors. These vast, and relativily unexplored plains offer mountains and valleys that you only ever see on other planets.

      The technology to truely explore them is perhaps even more difficult that space, and its in our own backyard.

      --

      I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
    7. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, Seaquest DSV told us everything we needed to know about the oceans OK? Train a dolphin to speak english and all they ever talk about is fish. Build cities at the bottom of the sea and all you get are people complaining that the slightest crack in their domes will kill them and it's really really cold. Not to mention the dorky kids who are so geeky they even make me cringe.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Space travel - no kidding by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier.

      How about the deep sea? We haven't explored most of it... and it's practically in our backyard. Where are our Abyss-like underwater research labs, underwater homes, etc.? How many species of ocean life are we totally unaware of?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can sum up your two options right now

      There are many more choices than that, simply do to the fact you've made them ridiculously simplistic. Here's another huge broad choice: it's not my choice to make! If people want to move off the planet, more power to them! This isn't a "what, me worry" answer, it's an answer that says I'm not going to be a tyrant and impose my opinions upon others. Personally I am against the government space monopoly, but that doesn't mean I am against space exploration. Quite the opposite.

      In addition, your alternative to expansion is incomplete as well. It assumes only tyranny or anarchy can control populations. But there's an alternative even you touch upon: if rich people breed less than poor people, let's get rid of poverty.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the population of the earth keeps growing we won't have enough resources to maintain our current level of living conditions.

      While the Earth still has a positive growth rate, that rate has been in decline ever since a certain piece of trash called "The Population Bomb" hit the shelves. If the decline continues we'll hit an equilibrium population of around eight billion when all is said and done. Note that according to the doomsayers who first started whining about population we were supposed to have in excess of eight billion people by the year 2000; it never happened because they didn't bothered to check their facts, which even then indicated that the rate was in decline.

      I find it rather interesting that people who still complain about Earth being "overpopulated" fail to mention the declining growth rate, nor the fact that every single prediction they made from the '60's right up to the present has been dead wrong.

      As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level and never, ever progresses again. Quite clearly that isn't going to happen.

      So if you consider the earth as a closed system you have to either raise the standard of living around the world to a level where population growth ceases "naturally" or you have to commit the resources of the rich into forcing the poor not to breed.

      The first may eventually happen through technological advancement; the second never will unless you manage to enslave the Earth to a dictatorial one-world government. And so long as folks like me are around, anyone who tries to enforce breeding limits on their fellow citizens will find themselves the subject of a post-natal abortion right quick.

      Right, so if we're willing to agree that considering the earth as a closed system leads to the logical conclusion that the world population growth must be controlled by force

      We aren't willing to agree. You'll never get a majority of Americans - or anything other than a tiny, tiny minority, I suspect - to agree with your assessment.

      We must expand into space.

      Settling space is a non-viable population control method. It may be useful for increasing the resource wealth of the Earth itself (your first option - make everyone rich) but no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world. In fact, it'd be a complete waste of resources to even try.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    11. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      The only way to get rid of poverty is for the people who are rich to give up their standard of living to help those who are less fortunate. If you consider the earth a closed system, then it is a zero sum game.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I should just make it plain that I'm not suggesting we just shuffle people off into space, I'm suggesting that we go to space, get the resources and bring them back to earth. Then the earth will be able to support a much bigger population and growth can continue. However, if you are of the opinion that growth can, will, or should stop without expansion off the earth then I'm afraid you're going to have to give up your computer, your car and, if you're in a third world nation, probably your life. Technology, bound to the earth, can only do so much, then we run out of resources.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Earth is NOT fully populated nor explored fully.

      Take a look at Wyoming or Utah once and tell me it's "fully populated". We've only looked at a fraction of the ocean floor in detail, hell the United States is about the only Nation-State to fully explore it's territorial limits with sonar, the rest of the Nation-States 12 mile limits are unknown.

      We've not found all of the petroleum deposits yet, hell we've not found all the billion barrel basins, let alone smaller basins. Other metals, minerals and important chemicals likewise aren't fully mapped nor used.

      Sure the Earth is "claimed" by Nation-States, but its not explored, nor developed even fractionally yet.

      When there is a financial reason to leave the Earth, when the Corps go to LEO and L-5, then space travel will explode, but right now, theres tons to learn and find on Earth.

    14. Re:Space travel - no kidding by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      If you consider the earth a closed system, then it is a zero sum game.

      Only once we've maxed out our resource use. I don't think we're there yet. Nice try at a copout though.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    15. Re:Space travel - no kidding by jeremymiles · · Score: 1

      Errmmm... you're wrong, because it's not a zero sum game. (You're wrong in other ways too ...) If it's a zero sum game, why do we have a lot less poverty than we used to? A few hundred years ago, most people were very poor. A few people were rich. The middle class didn't exist. It's not a zero sum game, because creating goods creates wealth. JM

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    16. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Spoken like someone who hasn't the faintest idea about economics. Notice how the average standard of living for humans is higher than 100 years ago? And 500 years ago? And 1000 years ago? It's nothing like a zero-sum game.

    17. Re:Space travel - no kidding by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Funny

      Undersea oceans and ocean floors.

      Where I come from, we keep our oceans alongside our seas. None of this fancy layers of ocean and sea stacked up like a pile of pancakes. That's just ostentatious, that is.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    18. Re:Space travel - no kidding by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In addition, your alternative to expansion is incomplete as well. It assumes only tyranny or anarchy can control populations. But there's an alternative even you touch upon: if rich people breed less than poor people, let's get rid of poverty.

      There is a choice all the way up until we hit a certain equilibrium point, the choices made then will determine if we go into one of those two directions, and the grandparent is right, eventually it has to be growth into space or tight tight population controls. There is a third option, over populate and when the resources can't support the population, a rapid depopulation followed by a long resource poor dark age. I think we're nto smart enough for tight controls, thats leaves with exither expanding or crashing.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    19. Re:Space travel - no kidding by cas2000 · · Score: 2

      > And so long as folks like me are around, anyone
      > who tries to enforce breeding limits on their
      > fellow citizens will find themselves the subject
      > of a post-natal abortion right quick.

      typical redneck knuckle-dragger thinking - murder is perfectly acceptable, but population control is evil evil evil.

      moron!

    20. Re:Space travel - no kidding by jeremymiles · · Score: 1
      Population of earth is about 6,000,000,000.

      Total land area of eart is about 150,000,000 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.sht ml sq km, which is 15,000,000,000 hectares.

      This means that we have (about) 2.5 hectares of land area each. That's a space 250m x 100m, per person.

      We need to live on this area, grow our food, grow our fuels (when fossil fuels run out, or when we realise we've got to stopp using them), which will be needed in reasonable quantities to get people into space. We'd probably also like a bit of rainforest left, and some of that is going to be desert and arctic, and pretty useless. I don't see what resources you could possibly bring back from space that could solve this problem. But I'd be interested to see what you thought they could be.

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    21. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Dadoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you're not for space exploration they you must be for a conservation of resources.

      Only if you're a liberal. If you're a conservative, you make sure your country remains the top military power. Then, you can take whatever you need from whomever you want.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    22. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to jump into the middle of a conversation. We're talking about exhausting the earth's resources. It doesn't matter how much "wealth" you create if there aint enough resources to go around. That's the point. We're reaching a point in history where the earth can't support the current population and things are only going to get worse from here.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    23. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what we're talking about. The earth's resources are being maxed out, at a faster and faster pace every year. We're destroying the planet and there's only two ways out: stop living as we are and watch every year as our standards of living drop or head out into space and bring the vast resources available back to earth.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    24. Re:Space travel - no kidding by karmatic · · Score: 1

      So if you consider the earth as a closed system you have to either raise the standard of living around the world to a level where population growth ceases "naturally" or you have to commit the resources of the rich into forcing the poor not to breed.

      Or, as more resources get used, people either adapt, or die. The resourceful survive, the rest die. It's cruel, but it's natural, fair, and doesn't require people deciding who lives or dies, or having the government take from the rich so the poor can survive.

      If you can't feed your kids, don't have them. If you can't figure out how to feed yourself, die. Besides, a little culling would do our species some good.

    25. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Ok, so now that you're interested I'm going to direct you to the book Moonrush where Dennis Wingo spells out a solution to the oil crisis by jump starting the hydrogen economy by collecting platinum-group metals from the Moon where they are vastly more common than here on earth. With the people of earth's energy needs refocused on electrical power we would immediately see the technological advance of fusion power accelerated such that CO2 production over the next 50 years is dramatically reduced. And the final icing on the cake, is that once commercially viable fusion reactors are online we can begin sending helium3 from the moon to earth.. the cleanest, most efficient fuel known to human kind.

      All the other problems of earth stem from energy production.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    26. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While the Earth still has a positive growth rate, that rate has been in decline ever since a certain piece of trash called "The Population Bomb" hit the shelves.


      Hmm, I guess people read it and realized they'd better stop having so many kids? ;^)


      I find it rather interesting that people who still complain about Earth being "overpopulated" fail to mention the declining growth rate.


      That's a bit of a non-sequiter, isn't it? If the Earth is overpopulated, even a zero growth rate wouldn't change that fact. You'd need a negative growth rate in order to shrink the population back to less than the maximum sustainable size. (As to what that size actually is, I won't try to guess, but I do note that fish populations are declining drastically and that many species are becoming extinct in a short period of time. To me, that suggests that we are already past that point)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    27. Re:Space travel - no kidding by the_womble · · Score: 1
      "God will take care of everything for us."

      I no of no religion which promises that God will take care of your standard of living.

      Jesus usually favoured ("blessed are the poor" etc) people having a low standard of living.

      The usual Christian point of view on looking after the planet is that we should regard ourselves as stewards of it - it not our property, we have a duty to hand it on in good condition.

    28. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Take a look at Wyoming or Utah once and tell me it's "fully populated".


      I don't think you're using the right criteria. It's not a question of whether there are resources left or not, it's a question of living within our means. The Earth can produce X amount of renewable resources every year. If we consume more than X amount per year, the Earth will eventually run out and then we'll be screwed. In fact, it's actually worse than that, because the more resources we consume, the less ability the environment has to recover, and so X becomes smaller each year)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    29. Re:Space travel - no kidding by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Why do you say that "no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world"?

    30. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      murder is perfectly acceptable, but population control is evil evil evil.

      The only way you could achieve your version of "population control" is by enslaving every single human being who doesn't agree with you. Most people would find such an abominable attitude the very definition of "evil".

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    31. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a bit of a non-sequiter, isn't it? If the Earth is overpopulated, even a zero growth rate wouldn't change that fact.

      What the alarmists fail to acknowledge is that they don't get to decide at what point the Earth is "overpopulated". I don't think the Earth is overpopulated at the moment, nor will it be if we reach eight billion. My opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as any alarmist figure.

      You'd need a negative growth rate in order to shrink the population back to less than the maximum sustainable size.

      Every single analysis of 'sustainability' by the folks preaching doom and gloom over the Earth's carrying capacity assumes that *technology will never advance beyond what we have now*. It's not only stupid to think such a thing, it's deliberately deceptive. Not that this is a new development among the population control advocates - they've been doing the exact same thing since the beginning of the 20th century! And they've been absolutely, one-hundred percent, dead wrong.

      Based on their complete and utter failure to accurate predict anything when it comes to population and resource development, much less technological innovation, I see no reason to heed the alarmists now any more than I should if the year were 1900.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    32. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you say that "no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world"?

      Because there are no other habitable worlds in the Solar System. It will always be incredibly expensive to house and sustain human life off-planet compared to housing and sustaining human life on Earth. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to make an investment of this nature; the only people you'll ever want to move off-planet are the absolute minimum required to exploit the resources in specific places (e.g., the asteroid belt).

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    33. Re:Space travel - no kidding by el_womble · · Score: 1

      Then we'll be in the situation expressed in HHGG, where we have to monitor the mass of the planet and account for all mass imports. For every tonne of plutonium we bring back we'll have to 'export' 1 tonne of something useless, like.... squirels!

      (That would be worth the entrance price... 1000 squirels getting ejected from the planet on a giant catapult)

      --
      Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
    34. Re:Space travel - no kidding by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      Agree. Enslavement and murder are about the same on the evil scale. In both cases, you are taking away anothers life.

      Is killing in self-defense acceptable or not? (retorical question)

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    35. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Technology, bound to the earth

      This clause makes no sense. Technology is not limited by the fact that we don't have populations in space. Technological advancement won't halt simply because we haven't bothered to put a station down on the surface of Mars.

      then we run out of resources.

      Again, you're assuming that technological development will never find a solution to dwindling resources. For all we know in the next 20 or 30 years nanotechnology will be used to turn iron and copper atoms into gold, palladium, and irridium. Tailored bacteria may be used to 'mine' landfills (in fact, some of that is being tested right now). The scientists working on practical fusion may finally get around to making a working, profitable reactor.

      We don't *know* what's coming, but if the past is any indication it isn't just incremental changes to what we have right at this moment. The doubling of scientific knowledge in most fields is between 18 and 24 months, and the period is decreasing; no one, including you or me, can make even the vaguest predictions as to what will be possible in 20 years.

      All chicken-little scenarios rely on a massive technological freeze that defies all common sense, not to mention every scrap of historical data since the Industrial Revolution. We can confidently say that technology will continue to improve, and that the period of doubling will continue to decline, for the foreseeable future; and that what we can imagine in the next 20 or 30 or 40 years will be dwarfed by what is actually accomplished.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    36. Re:Space travel - no kidding by JulianOolian · · Score: 1
      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier.

      Perhaps there's something peculiar to the American psyche regarding frontiers but I don't think everyone on earth thinks that way.

      Humanity thrives on having problems to work on, perhaps, but I don't think they necessarily involve moving population into new places.

    37. Re:Space travel - no kidding by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      *good laugh*

      While I agree on your basic point (technology may give us new options for resources) I recall a quote about nanotech.

      It went something like 'using nanotech to transmute elements is as futile as trying to flatten steel balls by beating on them with cotton candy'

      Nanotech may let us turn rocks into robots, but not iron into gold.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    38. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Your faith in technology you don't even understand is not going to save us. People who have studied these things say we're in trouble if we continue to polute the planet as we are, and if some major, concerted effort is not made to move from oil and coal to fusion and hydrogen we're all seriously screwed. Fusion power is a technology with a roadmap that will be ready around the time the oil runs dry and until then we have other, efficient, non-poluting ways to make hydrogen. We have solar, wind, and methane hydrates. Hydrogen fuel cells we can move to today, we just need more platinum (or a new way of making fuel cells that doesn't need platinum, and unfortunately there are no indications of that happening anytime soon). We can get that platinum from space using technology we've had for over 30 years.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    39. Re:Space travel - no kidding by moranar · · Score: 1

      Well, the tsunami in indonesia could be construed as that. By someone particularly perverted.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    40. Re:Space travel - no kidding by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 4, Informative
      The idea of expanding into space is good for many reasons, but reducing population pressure is not one of them. The number of new persons born each year will easily outstrip any conceivable launch capability, even if there were somewhere for people to go.

      We must reduce population growth, and the best way to do that is to grant more political power to women, especially in developing countries (where in many cases, they are considered chattel). There's a good article on Wikipedia discussing the theory of demographic transition and how it affects population, and how giving women more economic and political control naturally reduces the birth rate. Of course access to contraception and (gasp!) abortion is important as well.

      I agree that the "what, me worry?" approach will not help, and unfortunately that is the one adopted by most of our political leaders. No one wants to tell people to stop having kids. In a few countries with declining populations citizens are actually encouraged to accelerate the birth rate!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    41. Re:Space travel - no kidding by iainl · · Score: 1

      I'll take that one. The short answer is that for it to qualify as 'significant' you've got to ship people off-world at least as fast as the population would be growing.

      Which is a HELL of a lot of people, at a very fast rate.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    42. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that we launch people into space to save room on earth. I was suggesting that we use the resources of space to support more people on earth.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    43. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Space colonization is not a solution for overpopulation. The amount of people which would leave will be insignificant for quite awhile.

      And even once we can ship significant numbers off world, the dynamics of population growth will replace those numbers in no time. You can't fit exponential growth.

      The problem should be self correcting though, as it is with any ecological system. And in the very long run, we'll all be smart and rich enough to not breed just for the hell of it anymore.

    44. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Eric604 · · Score: 1
      What the alarmists fail to acknowledge is that they don't get to decide at what point the Earth is "overpopulated". I don't think the Earth is overpopulated at the moment, nor will it be if we reach eight billion. My opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as any alarmist figure.

      That's why the GP stated some facts (about fish etc) that may indicate overpopulation which you choosed to conveniently ignore.

      Every single analysis of 'sustainability' by the folks preaching doom and gloom over the Earth's carrying capacity assumes that *technology will never advance beyond what we have now*.

      So you do admit there seems to be a slight problem and you think tech will solve it? Tech may be helpfull but isn't the answer. Free power and food do not exist and never will, increasing earth surface area to allow other (now almost extinct) species isn't possible (at least on mid term). Extending human life is certainly likely to be possible and therefore only increasing the population.

    45. Re:Space travel - no kidding by BenBenBen · · Score: 1

      Sad but true, after all just look at how AIDs was supposed to be "God's vengeance" back when it mainly affected homosexual people.

      --
      The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
    46. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing. On reading the first two sentences of your comment, I was sure you were giving an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy, to explain why it's wrong... but no, you appear to actually believe it yourself. The +5 moderation should have given me a clue. If you'd been taking a rational position, you'd have been modded -1 troll.

    47. Re:Space travel - no kidding by acaspis · · Score: 1
      Space colonization is not a solution for overpopulation. The amount of people which would leave will be insignificant for quite awhile.

      Well, it is definitely a solution for the happy few who can leave.

    48. Re:Space travel - no kidding by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      it's an answer that says I'm not going to be a tyrant and impose my opinions upon others.

      While I agree wholeheartedly with that ideal, the OPs logic indicates that a scarcity of resources will inevitably lead to you and others arguing about a small patch of earth on which to grow food. At which point the most principled idealists will choose to go hungry, get sick and die off. Leaving the planet in the hands of the belligerent and breeding.

      Come to think of it...

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    49. Re:Space travel - no kidding by OreoCookie · · Score: 1

      Any technology that can make the moon and Mars habitable would easily make deserts and frozen wastelands on earth habitable first. I think we could triple earth's population before going off planet is a viable alternative.

    50. Re:Space travel - no kidding by g2devi · · Score: 1

      > If you consider the earth a closed system, then it
      > is a zero sum game.

      Err, no. It received daily inputs of solar energy from the sun, cosmic rays from space, and micrometeors from space. It most definitely is not a closed system.

      Also, all resources have not been exploited or exploited efficiently, so even if it were a closed system, it doesn't mean that it's a zero sum game. That's precisely why the global poverty has declined dramatically throughout the centuries and why malnutritian is the major problem facing the poor today, not outright starvation.

      Zero-sum thinking is precisely why there have been so many wars in the history of mankind.

      That being said, just because we haven't maxed out our resources, doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for the day when they are maxed out or make use of our resources more efficiently or find ways of living off the external energy that come to the earth daily....

    51. Re:Space travel - no kidding by RFC959 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem is that the claim that we're "exhausting the earth's resources" is being thrown around with no supporting evidence. If we're "exhausting the earth's resources", why are the vast majority of natural resources cheaper now than they've ever been? You'd think that the price of resources might go up as they got exhausted and the population kept increasing (unless you just don't believe in supply/demand at all) but this isn't happening, and it isn't happening at the same time people's lives are improving in measurable ways (longevity, infant mortality, and yes, wealth) pretty much everywhere.


      What changes the rules of the game so dramatically is that humans and their resource usage aren't set in stone. 200 years ago whale oil was an important resource; today it's pretty much irrelevant. 100 years ago uranium was only a geological curiosity; today it's highly important. We don't know what will change in the future, but the only safe prediction is that things will continue to change. The assertion that the Earth "can't support this population" is a pretty strong one which needs some evidence, which we're not seeing.

    52. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper than space flight or iron-fisted tyranny would be the simple and rather expedient method of bribery.

      Offer a one-time $10,000 payout to any male in the world if he has a voluntary, irreversible sterilization procedure performed.

      The best part is, it would probably quickly doom our species to extinction through our own greed.

    53. Re:Space travel - no kidding by harrkev · · Score: 1
      The truly greatest frontier still wide open is the human mind.
      Naaaa. People have already explored the human mind with all sorts of little pointy metal objects. All they found was wet, squishy stuff.At most, the human mind is large enought to hold one human personality (unless your name is Sybil).But if you want to volunteer to let a family of four live on your noggin, feel free. But I won't sign up.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    54. Re:Space travel - no kidding by honkycat · · Score: 1

      You don't necessarily need humans aboard to do this. In fact, you're probably much better off without the need for the additional "fuel" (air, food, water) and radiation protection etc. All that is heavy and reduces your cargo.

    55. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Sumocide · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      The sun radiates enough energy in our direction to feed and cloth a lot more humans. We just need to figure out better ways to make use of it.

    56. Re:Space travel - no kidding by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, if you can mine the moon without sending a single human then all the better. Unfortunately, we can't even mine on earth without human labor.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    57. Re:Space travel - no kidding by base_chakra · · Score: 1

      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left

      I've never understood this sentiment. Surely any unexplored planets—and any such discrete bodies that harbor life or unique phenomena, and yet are distinct from space per se—are themselves frontiers from humanity's perspective.

    58. Re:Space travel - no kidding by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      You forget that populating into space will in no way reduce population on earth. Current birth rate is around 150 million a year. Luckly death rate follows that closely. Unfortunatly you would have to transport atleast a million people a year off this rock to have even the slightest effect. I don't see that happening anytime soon. So while colonising other planets will help the human race survive it won't stop the need for population controls as you speak of. So realistically you have to be for both.

    59. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Fatchap · · Score: 1

      malnutritian is the major problem facing the poor today, not outright starvation.

      Spoken like a true American! Do you guys get any footage of the famine Niger and other West African countries on TV over there? I think any sort of nuturion would a bonus to the people trying to keep their sons and daughters alive.

      --
      The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    60. Re:Space travel - no kidding by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Well, god will sort it out. The problem comes in that he usually does his sorting in the afterlife.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    61. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left

      Not really. I've once heared that about the deep sea there is much less known than about space. So why not do a deep sea program, complete with a manned deep sea station etc.?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    62. Re:Space travel - no kidding by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1
      Except for the fact that there are already many modern countries that are depopulating:

      Into the Woods: Economics and declining birthrates are pushing large swaths of Europe back to their primeval state, with wolves taking the place of people.

      I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but I think the "population bomb" never went off.

      --
      Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    63. Re:Space travel - no kidding by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Let's see. It is okay to force people to have abortions but self defence is wrong? While I would take a more civil attitude about opposing mandatory birth control than the grand parent post I would tend to agree with him. Is it more important to share code, movies, and music than to have the freedom to determine how many children one should have?
      Government mandated and mandatory population control is what I would consider the very definition of EVIL. Think about it. Who decides who gets to have children?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    64. Re:Space travel - no kidding by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The truly greatest frontier still wide open is the human mind.

      You took the words right out of my mouth. It isn't just the brain -- it's the brain's emergent properties, and the emergent properties of gathering so many brains together that are poorly understood.

      A lot depends, I guess, on what you insist should be taken as given. To some people questions like, "How did the planets form?" and "How did life arise?", and "is there other intelligent life out there?" are not only uninteresting, but are positiviely frivolous.They have answers that they find perfectly satisfactory: "God made them out of nothing." "God breathed life into inanimate matter." and "No." Most of us here, no matter what our metaphysical opinions are, can agree that these are not satisfactory answers at all, and that the only people who would find them so are people who are afraid of having their assumptions challenged.

      It seems to me that there are some fundamental questions about the human condition that don't have empirically validated answers, one of which is this: "How can we be happy?" We can't look to psychology for the answer, because psychology is obsessed with unhappiness, which is a much easier thing. It's the difference between asking "What words have the letter 'Q' and all five vowels in sequence?" and "What words don't have the letter 'Q' or all five vowels in sequence?" One question hard and may not even have an answer, the other is easy.

      It seems to me the question of happiness is one that is worth examining scientifically. But I also think there is a bias towards labelling this sort of thing as either frivolous or inherently subjective -- for the same reason a Fundamentalist might be inclined to dismiss research in xenobiology or evolution. Any of our assumption we put outside the realm of empirical research is an assumption which cannot be challenged. Every important decision we make in life is based on an assumption about what will make us happy: what school we go to, what profession we enter, who we marry, how we priortize our life, even our politics. It takes more guts than most of us have to consider that our decisions might be challenged on an objective basis.

      I'm for space exploration. I'm not as enthusiastic for manned exploration, or at least manned exploration at the expense of overall exploratory progress, but I see a value to it. This is because my personal bias is that the pursuit of knowledge, and more fundamentally struggling to extend ourselves beyond our present limitations, is an element in a purposeful, well lived life. But I can't prove it to anybody. Nobody can prove anything of that nature, because we have no reliable evidence other than our personal experiences, and until we rid ourselves of the superstition that the human mind can't be explored we won't have any.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    65. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was a choice, he stated the logical extremes of pro-diaspora and pro-conservation.

      Logical extremes. He's right, there will be the starts of genocide of the poorer countries, but I don't think it'll ever come to fruition. Boycotts and political action prevent that sort of thing, much the way legal action is capable of preventing most people from murdering their neighbor and pawning all his stuff.

      One, maybe two companies will get a bright idea to subjugate a population and take its land, and maybe get away with it. What's interesting is that this has, in all probability, already happened. Don't you ever wonder how DeBeers got control of most of south africa? But I digress.

      The truth is, as many third world countries become industrialised, everyone benefits; they trade, they develop new technologies, and they basically join the US, Canada, and much of Europe as global players in the eventual diaspora, no matter what route we take. As this happens, the tyrrany problem becomes a null issue - you can't subjugate one who can contact your peers and competitors; if they save your ass, they have loyal customers for a short while.

      I'm firmly of the mind that a spreading of the human race WILL happen sooner or later. We know what's out there, more or less, and we have the technology, more or less. The rest are just engineering problems (how do I build a dome that can withstand the occasional large(1-2cm) object impact?)

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    66. Re:Space travel - no kidding by adickerson0 · · Score: 1

      I will admit that for the most part the Earth is a closed system but I do not see how this matters. The interesting thing about the population of the earth is how it has grown with technology (correlation for sure, causality?). If we were to put people with the technology of 1200AD Europe in a situation where the population was as dense as New York, we would have nothing but death. Advancements in medicine, farming, construction, and just about anything you can think of has allowed us to grow our population. I give as a prime example food. We have gotten to the point where we don't even need dirt anymore (hydroponics). We can even use human waste product as the fertilizer. Who knows but there could be 80 story farms in the future. So there will be a point were we use every bit of matter in our magical atmospheric bubble but we are far more likely to kill ourselves before space travel is a necessity. So I guess you have space, population control, or advancement of technology...at least for the next few hundred years. The interesting bit is when the technology of traveling to space is cheaper then the technology needed to stay on earth.

    67. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Space is essentially the only frontier we have left...

      Actually the oceans make up most of the surface area of the Earth - and we have not even scratched the surface of that vast area.

      Instead of dragging fishing nets through it without understanding the impacts, maybe we should spend some time determining how to sustain its bounty - while exploring its unsolved mysteries that might provide solutions to other problems.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    68. Re:Space travel - no kidding by dunc78 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the deep parts of the oceans are also a frontier that we know little about. However, getting down there isn't going to save us from a Red Giant sun.

    69. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, "Secrets of the Human Mind" is worth one free tech advance!

    70. Re:Space travel - no kidding by WillWare · · Score: 1
      Undersea oceans...

      No, this is by contrast to those oceans that are left out on land, and get all dried out and dessicated. It's a huge waste of water.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    71. Re:Space travel - no kidding by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
      ... if we're willing to agree ... to the logical conclusion that the world population growth must be controlled by force
      We aren't willing to agree. You'll never get a majority of Americans - or anything other than a tiny, tiny minority, I suspect - to agree with your assessment.

      The trouble with his thesis is that it assumes the whole world thinks as he does, or at least, the whole world thinks the same way. World politics is driven by regional influence. Within each region and nation there is potential for a wildly different response to solving the population problem.

      • Technology - I guess this means finding some kind of utopian answer that eliminates poverty, or makes having more kids unnecessary.
      • Economy - It's fine to say "only poor people overbreed, so let's make everyone rich". If we could do that, wouldn't we? We've tried, but there will always be poor, and they will always overbreed.
      • Education - though it never works, it's always tried.
      • Force - if economic and political conditions are right, the upper classes may be able to force the lower classes to stop breeding. This will inevitably lead to collapse, but so does everything.
      • War - historically, our favorite solution to regional overcrowding. Well, next to
      • Disease - if we get too densely populated, modern travel techology will assure the rapid spread of wonderful population-limited maladies.

      ... no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world. In fact, it'd be a complete waste of resources to even try.

      I think that's the key point. The race may expand into space, but that will be by procreation of emigrants, not by moving significant numbers of people. The gravity ocean is too deep for the herd to ford.

      Space exploration may be of sociological help to the population crunch, in the same way that the NFL and NASCAR relieve certain stresses, but I agree that it isn't an answer to population control.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    72. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Kisil · · Score: 1

      Any study of sustainability really has to be based on thermodynamics. In the case of population, the most obvious limit is the amount of food that the planet can produce, given the finite amount of solar energy we get. This is a fixed amount. There is no way to increase it. This is the first law of thermodynamics, in action.

      (I don't have figures with me at the moment so I'm going to be abstract. I'm sorry.)

      At the moment, humans use a certain amount of the planet's food capacity, while other species and systems use the rest. Technology can not increase the total amount of food available (thermodynamics), it can only increase the amount of that energy that is available for human use. GMOs are a great example of this - they allow us to turn more of the solar energy gathered by a plant into a human-usable product; they are not increasing the amount of food available. Everything we take comes from somewhere else; the earth is a closed system.

      Already this leaves us with serious questions. How large a portion of the earth's food energy can we reliably make available to ourselves? Is it moral for us to continually increase our share of this energy, at the expense of biodiversity?

      On top of the thermodynamics, there are political difficulties in even distribution of resources (read: we in the wealthy first world don't want to share.) The parent post protests that popluation control by force is not politically possible, but in a way we already are forcibly controling the population, when we have the capability to combat and control the rampant disease and starvation in the third world, and are just not doing it. Failing to act when we have the ability is tantamount to causing the problem ourselves, but somehow allowing people to starve and die of malnutrition (or malaria, cholera, polio, smallpox, AIDS..) is easier for people to stomache than any outright form of mass murder. "What's wrong with these poor people, why do they have so many kids?" Nobody agrees with this policy, but there just isn't enough political energy to make it change.

      We have to work within the constraints of our own planet's systems. Unless we get into this mindset, anything we do 'off-world' in the name of progress will actually dig us deeper into our hole, because it allows us to become more reliant on routines that are not sustainable and not reversible. Anyone who thinks we are not digging a hole has his/her head buried in a hole.

    73. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I have to disagree with this statement. There is a vast unexplored region of our planet that could be considered an unexplored forntier. That would be the oceans. They have hardly been explored and could produce many amazing discoveries.

    74. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Rand310 · · Score: 1

      example: Fish

      Fish is cheaper today than ever because we have more boats on the sea than ever. More fisherman = more boats = cheaper prices. However, because there are more fisherman, AND the number of fish in the ocean is limited, the population of certain very common varieties of fish has peaked. We take out more and more fish a year, but all of a sudden the fish population can't keep up. Fish prices will become very cheap as more boats are put out. And then, all of a sudden, we will fish the 95% of the fish of a particular species in one season. And at that moment the price of fish will skyrocket.

      That's what the explosion, implosion is all about. We are smart enough to see it, why are we not smart enough to act on it with self-determination.

      Oil, Water (esp in places like China), arable land, etc. And those are things we really are dependent on. An immediate bust for any of those things will not result in the death of humanity, but it WILL result in war, famine, strife and a loss of population.

      That is the point. The population will go down, it's too high. It's just a matter of how it does it. We have the foresight to do it gradually before the hand of natural equilibrium does it for us. But in reality it seems we really do not...

    75. Re:Space travel - no kidding by swelke · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that we need to be out there. Do you suppose a space arms race would promote or discourage it? I really can't decide. On the one hand it would litter near-earth space with debris of dead satellites and such. On the other hand, it would mean lots of countries putting money into space travel (launches at least). Of course, if it precipitates a nuclear war, we're all fscked.

      --
      Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
    76. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      We have one huge frontier: the sea. Three quarters of our globe is currently useless to us. Yes, there are challenges, but they pale in comparison to the challenges of space. Space is tremendously empty and requires astronomical amounts of energy to traverse; the sea contains much life, and the sea floor hides untapped mineral resources.

    77. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      If the population of the earth keeps growing we won't have enough resources to maintain our current level of living conditions.

      Yeah, that's what Malthus thought. Of course, he was wrong. So far population is growing more slowly than productivity (which is why your children have more toys (which are each more complex and expensive) than you ever had. Which is why a family below the poverty line in the US is quite likely to own a colour TV and a car.

    78. Re:Space travel - no kidding by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1
      For all we know in the next 20 or 30 years nanotechnology will be used to turn iron and copper atoms into gold, palladium, and irridium.

      I'm in school (again, 2nd career) to study nanotech, and believe me it won't change the elements like that. However it could be used one day to mine the landfills and re-create the oil fields given enough energy (sunlight).

      If we get enough time to develop it that is. We need huge increases in solar panel efficiency and decades of research into safely manipulating (in a mechanical sense) atoms to form the molecules we want. And we also need huge increases in computing power to model hundred-mole structures that might each have hundreds of atoms in each molecule: we're talking 10^25 to 10^30 particles to make one useful device.

      All chicken-little scenarios rely on a massive technological freeze that defies all common sense, not to mention every scrap of historical data since the Industrial Revolution. We can confidently say that technology will continue to improve, and that the period of doubling will continue to decline, for the foreseeable future; and that what we can imagine in the next 20 or 30 or 40 years will be dwarfed by what is actually accomplished.

      Well, let's look at what has actually happened in the last 40 years, shall we?
      1. We still use cars with combustion engines for most transportation. The technology has not drastically improved.
      2. We still use television. The technology has improved a lot (very little of a brand-new HDTV flat-screen television is the same idea as the vacuum-tube versions) but we still use them the same way.
      3. We still live (most of us) in or near large cities, only some of which have good (e.g. not buses) mass-transit systems.
      4. We still derive most of our electrical power from fossil-fuel-burning plants.

      About the only significant technological changes are consumer electronics (computers, Internet, portable audio/video, cell phones) and plastics (used everywhere, revolutionary in medicine).

      We've been on the verge of other groundbreaking technologies for the last fifty years that have not really delivered. No "clean energy" fusion. No moon base or materials delivered from space. And now with nano we talk about better chemotherapy, better computer displays, and better data storage, i.e. better versions of what we already have.

      We're decades away (at least) from the kind of breakthroughs you're relying on to save us all from resource competition problems. I've lived my entire life in the shadow of these "the future will fix our problems" predictions that have not measured up. I think it's time to stop pinning our hopes on the unknown future.

      ...no one, including you or me, can make even the vaguest predictions as to what will be possible in 20 years.

      I make the following predictions about life in the year 2025:

      • Most of us will still be living in and near cities with population greater than 100,000.
      • We will drive our own cars (gas/electric hybrid) on asphalt streets, listen to FM radio, and talk on cell phones. We won't run red lights due to the automated cameras.
      • We will shop at Walmart superstores and trendy malls.
      • A healthy person will expect to live to 90 years old. Nerve-related diseases will be treatable with 80% success rate; heart surgery will be rare with microsurgery capable of fixing most issues; organ transplants will be somewhat common with better drugs to prevent rejection. Broken legs will still take six weeks to heal.
      • China will control Taiwan and have the largest and best manufacturing facilities in the world. Europe will have a constitution. The West will have a sluggish economy, but people will still have electricity and talk about how uncouth their children are.
      • Microsoft will have about 60% of the desktop market. Most applications in stores will install and run on Windows Whatever, Mac OS X Whatever, and Linux Wha
    79. Re:Space travel - no kidding by swelke · · Score: 1

      You are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth.

      Correction: there is a third option. You could always be so short-sighted that you don't see the necessity to choose one of these two. I strongly suspect that almost every politician alive (any party, any country) has such a short time horizon that they'd never actually try to push either of these.

      --
      Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
    80. Re:Space travel - no kidding by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      I think people are confusing reducing population pressure with ensuring the survival of the human race. It appears that life on earth could end some time in the near future due to asteroid or some other space object. Perfecting space travel would possible facilitate the continuation of the human species.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    81. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get rid of peoverty?
      Just one question - what is the sound of one hand clapping?

      Real question, ponder for a decade or two.

      Welshmnt

    82. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      No, we really don't need a 'huge, concerted effort' to move away from oil--if supplies dwindle (which they haven't yet), it will get more expensive. As it gets more expensive, people will become more price conscious and will use less of it. E.g. many will choose to live closer to work. This is a gradual process, but so too is the dwindling of oil. I doubt we'll ever run out of oil; eventually it will be tens of thousands of dollars a barrel, but it will be available if it's needed.

      But if it's that expensive, suddenly alternatives become relatively less expensive. We might start using horn instead of plastic, or wool instead of polyester.

      And of course science, despite your neo-Luddite inclinations, does continue on its forward march: we will make new discoveries, and they will continue to improve our quality of life (which would otherwise stagnate as everything gets more expensive--which is to say, takes more labour and resources to afford).

    83. Re:Space travel - no kidding by swelke · · Score: 1

      I believe that what you're referring to is the fact that many developed countries have sub-replacement fertility. Most undeveloped countries still have growing populations. Assuming that all countries eventually get to the "developed" state (hardly a certainty, but I guess it's possible), at least with regards to population growth, then yes; population will eventually stabilize.

      --
      Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
    84. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Asgard · · Score: 1

      The problem with the oceans is pressure. Space is at 0 atmospheres of pressure, so the difference between sea level and space is 1 atmosphere. After only a few meters of depth under water you'll reach 2 atmospheres and continue on. The engineering to keep out several atmospheres of pressure us much harder then keeping just one in.

    85. Re:Space travel - no kidding by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Next time they use the God trump card, tell them you agree -- tell them to read the Book of Revelation.

      I'm not a particularly spiritual person, but I do believe that we've violated Darwinism for too long and that there will be a reckoning sooner or later. Perhaps not along the apocalyptic lines of Revelation, but at some point there will be a threshhold of sustainability that will be crossed where the only corrective measure will be a depopulation. We've already seen this in drought-stricken areas like Saharan Africa, or in areas too susceptible to natural disaster, like Indonesia. The results are awful and terrifying.

      I hope we're smart enough to realize that we're in danger, but if not, I hope it doesn't happen during my or my son's lifetimes.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    86. Re:Space travel - no kidding by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      The thing is, as technology improves, the definition of "habitable worlds" broadens. It becomes possible to have entirely self-sufficient, and thus not expensive to Earth, colonies. Other planets have raw materials that can, with the help of energy that can be captured from the sun, be turned into oxygen, food, and building materials. Just because a planet is cold doesn't mean you can't build a greenhouse with an artifically stabilized ecosystem in it. Now, this certainly isn't possible with current technology. But current technology won't advance if we don't start trying to do these things.

    87. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "What the alarmists fail to acknowledge is that they don't get to decide at what point the Earth is "overpopulated". I don't think the Earth is overpopulated at the moment, nor will it be if we reach eight billion. My opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as any alarmist figure."

      If by "valid" you mean "I can make whatever mouth noises I want", then you're right. However, if by "valid" you mean "accurately reflects reality", then no, your opinion isn't necessarily as valid... its validity will depend on its accuracy, not on the identity of the speaker.

      The "future technology will arise to fix future problems" may end up being true, but it sounds an awful lot like "I don't need to worry about the rent, because there's a big lottery jackpot, and I'm sure to win between now and the end of the month!"

      It isn't alarmist to say that we're consuming non-renewable resources, and damaging ecosystems...

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    88. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      "Why do you say that "no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world"?

      "Because there are no other habitable worlds in the Solar System. It will always be incredibly expensive to house and sustain human life off-planet compared to housing and sustaining human life on Earth. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to make an investment of this nature; the only people you'll ever want to move off-planet are the absolute minimum required to exploit the resources in specific places (e.g., the asteroid belt)."

      Economic profit is not the only motivator for exploration and technological development, nor is it the only justification for a permanent offworld presence.

      The rest of the solar system offers us space, raw materials, and energy in near unlimited quantities. These resources can, given the necessary development of offworld infrastructure, be made use of without damaging the ecosystems on Earth, or consuming its non-renewable resources. Also, the Earth is a source of single point failure... one ecological or climatological collapse or a comet or astroid collision, and the human race could cease to exist, and those little green pictures of dead presidents will be of little use, value, or comfort.

      And hell, if you think big enough, terraforming is always a possibility.

      When I look to the future, I want "Star Trek", and not "Soylent Green", "THX-1138", or "Robocop".

      What kind of future do you want?

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    89. Re:Space travel - no kidding by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      Going to space sounds cool and all but few here even consider the oceans an option. Instead of flying off to some other planet and having to mine water and oxygen, we could create colonies under or on our oceans. They could pump their air from the atmosphere above or create it from the water. If something went wrong they could return to the surface. If something goes wrong in space, there's a good chance you are boned! It would be sooo much easier to establish a colony underwater. There would be less risk, less cost, more people willing, etc. If you were to settle on the Moon or Mars you would likely be saying goodbye forever to anyone on Earth. That wouldn't be the case underwater. Whatever techniques learned could also be applied in the future when leaving LEO doesn't cost a fortune.

    90. Re:Space travel - no kidding by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

      Huh? You can't alleviate population growth by sending people to other planets. The throughput capacity of any conceivable system for moving us off is so terribly finite that the process is not that of transplanting the sequoia -- it is one of snipping off and sending out twigs for establishing new growth in another nursery.

      Barring magic teleporters, space travel permits 1 human in 20 million (tops) to move to a new planet. Those left behind receive only the satisfaction of knowing his species eggs is in more than the one basket he is forever stuck in.

      --
      tone
    91. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err No. Space travel is a waste of energy. It provides no resources, requires an amazing amount of technical effort and is basically lethal to humans (radiation, low gravity, conditions etc)

      Wikipedia notes that the entire Apollo program cost $135 Billion US -- this was what 20 men lifted into space?

      If for simplicity assume that the needed extra safety features (people are more risk adverse now than in the late 60s' early 70s) cancel cost savings this means creating a small lunar colony (say 30 men and women) might cost the entire cost of Gulf War2

      Thansk but I would rather spend that money on providing basic welfare for every american

      If we could somehow get 1 Trillion US$ (half the budget) applied to this we might manage to get a good sized space habitat. Of cousre it would cost $200 billion (random guess here) to maintain

      Much to expensive to be worth it. The only way to make space travel worth while is too come up with some cheap, reliable, non radioactive propulsion method. If we can do that we might be able to commence manned exploration again --

      until then drones are the way to go

    92. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humanity is breeding at the rate of about five people _a second_. Six are born, one dies, sixty times a minute.

      In other words, to keep the population stable by expanding into space, you need to lift 18,000 people into space _every hour_ [1]. And then there's the stuff they'll need to keep them alive, entertained, working, etc. We are not adapted to living on the Moon or Mars without lots of gear.

      Can you imagine the resources we'd have to throw at this?

      I think that answers what choice we have.

      [1] Assuming that you could put 30 people on a Space Shuttle flight, that's 600 launches, i.e. a takeoff every third second.

    93. Re:Space travel - no kidding by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 1

      As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level and never, ever progresses again. Quite clearly that isn't going to happen.

      No, it only applies if you assume that the total influx of energy into the system remains constant. As a matter of fact, it does, as virtually all energy entering the system comes from the sun at a constant annual rate.

      We have millions of years of pent up energy to tap in the form of plants, soil nutrients, fossil fuels, etc., but we're using that at a much higher rate than it's being replenished by the sun. Eventually, those biological batteries will run out. Maybe not this decade, but sooner than you think. Technological advancement on its own can only slow that down, but in practice it tends to speed it up over time. (We're using up energy reserves far faster today than we were 100 years ago, which was more than 200 years ago, which was more than 300 years ago. etc.)

      If the total expenditure of energy is larger than the total income of energy, then we are operating at a net loss as a planet. That's bad. Basic economics, just applied to energy rather than money. If we don't already have other planets colonized that we can strip mine once we're done stripmining our own, then we'll be screwed.

      --

      --GrouchoMarx
      Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

    94. Re:Space travel - no kidding by speedothebrief · · Score: 1

      First of all... I just looked out my backdoor, and of the few square miles I can see, only about an eight of it is being used... for anything at all. Please! Send the millions of people looking for a place to lay their head without bumping elbows with their neighbors here! Quick! It's our world's only hope! **Of course access to contraception and (gasp!) abortion is important as well. Second... Great Idea! Cancel my first point! Let's just murder everyone who doesn't fit! I'm envisioning our world's new motto: First come first serve, Baby (no pun intended)!

    95. Re:Space travel - no kidding by tricorn · · Score: 1

      The logistics of moving that many people isn't overwhelming. There are over 650 million "enplanements" per year in the United States alone. 10 years at that rate would move all of the people currently here. In 10 years time, by some projections, world population will be less than 1 billion more than it is now - so about 2 more years would finish the job off.

      As far as energy required, it would be large, but (assuming perfect efficiency, and only talking about lifting ~180 lb people, not including luggage, supplies or vehicles) about 3% of current worldwide electrical energy generation capacity (3600 GW) would keep up with that rate (at 24 hours/day, 365 days/year). Obviously, we'd need a more efficient method than rockets to even approach that, but it means it isn't impossible.

      Of course, to merely remove a "significant" number of people would take much less. The above was for 100% removal. 25% of that rate is still twice the current worldwide population growth rate, and it would still only take about 60 years to remove the entire population.

      Doesn't mean its practical, or that it is desirable, but it certainly isn't impossible (given reasonable advances in technology over the next 50 years).

    96. Re:Space travel - no kidding by jafac · · Score: 1

      Or to put it less tactfully: poor people breed faster than rich people

      The tighter corellation was to the average education level of women in the population.

      In other words, a College Education is the most effective birth-control method known to man.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    97. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      People who have studied these things say we're in trouble

      The lunatic fringe has been screaming about how some critical system in the ecology or human society is going to collapse since the '60's - and every single time they've been just plain wrong. So they revise their estimates, hoping that people don't notice that they've got egg all over their face, and go back to predicting Armageddon just like any other mad little preacher. Hell, they've been ominously pontificating about ugly mass death due to overpopulation since Malthus, and not only has it not happened but they can't even get the simple things right - like basic math, or the decline in growth rates.

      we're all seriously screwed.

      All of the end-of-the-world types predict this. It's not exactly new or original. They deserve about as much credence as the sign-carrying idiot who stands on the street corner shouting "The end times are nigh!"

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    98. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Well, let's look at what has actually happened in the last 40 years, shall we?

      Currently the doubling rate for knowledge in most scientific fields is between 18 and 24 months. Do you know what that means? It means, for example, that in the next two years we'll learn as much about computer science as we have in all of previous human history combined. Two years after that we'll do it again - effectively quadrupling our knowledge in four years. And so on. More interesting, the rate of doubling is continually declining.

      This is true of most scientific or technical fields. It's a real phenomenon that's getting more and more attention as time goes by because it doesn't seem to be stumbling into any roadblocks (i.e., predicted plateaus).

      Ultimately what it means is that only a fool would predict the next 40 years based on the last 40 years. The doubling period was considerably longer 40 years ago than it is today, and will be much shorter 40 years in the future; technological improvement *is not a linear progression but an asymptotic one*.

      Making predictions 20, 30 or 40 years in the future based on what's right in front of our noses today is about as accurate as the psychic predictions laid out in the Weekly World News.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    99. Re:Space travel - no kidding by lgw · · Score: 1

      Eventually, the Sun will run out of fuel, and we'll all be toast - somehow that doesn't keep me up at night. It's easy to say that eventually a resource will run out if trends contiue, but trends never seem to continue. Consider oil, water, and food.

      Just 50-60 years ago the worldwide shortage of coal seemed insurmountable. For a while now, the surplus of available coal has meant hard times for coal miners. Until the Sun does go out, we don't *need* oil for power, it's just currently the cheapest source.

      There is no shortage of water on the Earth's surface, which you might remember is about 70% water. Drinkable water is just a matter of power - for purification and transportation.

      The land needed for farms to feed our growing population has greatly diminished over the last 50 years, to the point that major reforestation has occurred in America, and the surplus of food has caused hard times for small farmers.

      Yes, of course there's a hard limit to the sustainable population of the Earth, because there's only so much of everything, but that limit is probably greater than a million times the populaiton the Earth supports today. There's no evidence at all that the current population "will go down" or that "it's too high".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    100. Re:Space travel - no kidding by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier. The Earth is fully populated now, in the sense that only the very remotest regions remain unexplored and all regions are claimed.--

      There is a large region on earth called the ocean that remains unexplored. There is life there as well.

    101. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      If by "valid" you mean "I can make whatever mouth noises I want", then you're right. However, if by "valid" you mean "accurately reflects reality", then no, your opinion isn't necessarily as valid... its validity will depend on its accuracy, not on the identity of the speaker.

      Okay, here's why my opinion is more valid than the doomsayers.

      - Every single prediction of woe and grief put out by the population control folks has been WRONG. During the '60's they said that carrying capacity would be reached in the early eighties, and things would shortly collapse thereafter; during the '70's they said it would happen in the '90's, and during the '80's they were sure we were all going to be fucked by the year 2000. Stretch back to the year 1900 and they were sure that the Earth couldn't handle more than four billion people, even with strict governmental control over the consumption of resources.

      Yet here we are in 2005 and not a single prediction they've made has come to pass. They've been wrong about the population numbers, about carrying capacity, about technology, and about the grand collapse of all things human EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's amusing that they don't even bother to acknowledge their persistent failures at prediction; they just revise their numbers and start all over again, conveniently ignoring the fact that they've never managed to get any of it right.

      - every person whose said that the scaremongers were wrong has been RIGHT.

      Simple logic tells me that I'm far more likely to be on the money if I think the population control fanatics are full of shit than if I buy into their crap this time around.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    102. Re:Space travel - no kidding by hashhead · · Score: 1

      And so long as folks like me are around, anyone who tries to enforce breeding limits on their fellow citizens will find themselves the subject of a post-natal abortion right quick.

      Well there tough-guy, I guess there just aren't enough "folks like you" living in China, where "breeding limits" most definitely are "enforced". But you probably believe they're all just a bunch of pinko pansies, not red-blooded he-men American "folks" like you...

    103. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      The problem is you need a huge initial investment, and you get no return. None. It doesn't matter if you can mine mineral X on Mars, it'll always be cheaper to get it from Earth (or the asteroid belt). You invest, and you never get back what you invested. The colony may become self-sufficient (will become self-sufficient, if it's large enough) but there isn't anything on Mars that can't be gotten elsewhere cheaper.

      But current technology won't advance if we don't start trying to do these things.

      There's no evidence whatsoever that technology will fail to progress simply because we aren't colonizing other worlds in the Sol Sytem.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    104. Re:Space travel - no kidding by drsquare · · Score: 1

      We already have places to go on Earth, like Siberia, the Sahara, and Antarctica. All with plenty of space.

      But people won't want to live there, because they're barren, either very cold or very hot, or very dark and miserable. And yet, they're still more hospitable than anywhere else in the universe.

      If people don't want to live there, what makes you think they'll want to live on the Moon or Mars?

    105. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Just like James T. Kirk doesn't believe in the No Win Scenario, I don't believe in the Zero Sum Game. At least not outside the realm of dividing an apple pie up for dessert.

      This is not to imply that we should be hoggish and wasteful, only that this lunch I'm eating right now doesn't mean someone else somewhere in the world has to go without. Economics is not a zero sum game because every voluntary transaction results in a net increase of wealth. If I buy an apple from your for a dollar, I'm better off because I now have the apple I wanted, and you're better off because you now have the dollar you wanted. We BOTH win.

      It's also the same with resources, since the world is not a closed system and our technology is improving. Maybe oil is running out, maybe it's not. But we're not going to be using oil in the future, any more than we're now cutting down virgin forests to stay warm in the winter. We'll have nuclear and fusion energy. Maybe microwave energy beamed from space. And our energy usage will be more efficient.

      And our agrigulture will be more efficient as well. Every year for the last fw centuries we have been feeding more people per acre than the year before. Also, the birthrates of wealthy industrialized cultures have been going down. It's *not* because the government has been putting contraceptives in our drinking water!

      This doesn't mean that we should have no concerns. We have real problems that exist that we must honestly face. However it does mean that pessimism and despair aren't the solutions. The way to eliminate poverty is not to eliminate prosperity, which is your solution. Rather you eliminte poverty by eliminating the causes of poverty. Ever notice that the nations with the highest standards of living also happen to be the most free? There's a reason for that.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    106. Re:Space travel - no kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Economic profit is not the only motivator for exploration and technological development, nor is it the only justification for a permanent offworld presence.

      I disagree. While I approve of using my tax dollars to fund the exploration of the solar system via probe, I don't approve of the enormous outlay required to do that exploration with human beings. There isn't any justification (in my mind) for doing with humans what can be done much, much cheaper with robots; and even if there were some small scientific gain to be had when using humans I don't think it justifies the cost.

      The rest of the solar system offers us space, raw materials, and energy in near unlimited quantities.

      That would be an economic incentive for the exploitation of space, would it not?

      Also, the Earth is a source of single point failure... one ecological or climatological collapse or a comet or astroid collision, and the human race could cease to exist, and those little green pictures of dead presidents will be of little use, value, or comfort.

      Your money would be better spent keeping the Earth from getting hit by some nasty comet or asteroid than in trying to move millions off-world.

      And hell, if you think big enough, terraforming is always a possibility.

      Where, exactly? You can't terraform Venus; it's tidelocked. And Mars is too small. If you want to terraform Mars you're going to have to rebuild all the atmosphere it's lost to space, probably by throwing thousands of comets at it from the Oort Cloud - and that means you'd have to remove all the current colonists for the few centuries it'd take to complete the task. While it might someday become practical, it would be more efficient to colonize Mars without terraforming it.

      When I look to the future, I want "Star Trek"

      When I look to the future I want "Battlestar Galactica". Hot cylon babes like Boomer, hoowah!

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    107. Re:Space travel - no kidding by 2008 · · Score: 1

      Go and fire up Google Maps, zoom out a nice long way.
      See how much of the Earth is empty of humans. We could pave the deserts with solar panels, cover the wilderness areas and inefficient animal farms with protein vats (the stuff that the Quorn mycoprotein meat substitute comes from - it's quite nice). Live in apartment blocks, and make more use of the huge amount of space below our feet. Desalinate the oceans for drinking water.

      With a little technology and organisation we could probably support 10* times our current population, with a standard of living comparable to the current middle class. We'd fuck over the wildlife, and we'd have to be careful with what we did to the ecosystem, but we could do it - and a hell of a lot more easily than colonising Mars.

      *I made up this number, but you don't have any solid ones either...

      --
      I quit!
    108. Re:Space travel - no kidding by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      I used to think that, but now I'm not so sure. Imagine a person from 1985 who time-traveled to today. Would he really have that much trouble adapting? The stuff we have today is pretty much just an evolution of the same stuff we had then.
      What's happened in 20 years? Did they (we) have back then what we have today?

      Computers? Yup. Just faster and better graphics and more memory.
      Communications- data? Yup. Just faster.
      Communications- wired voice? Yup. Pretty much identical.
      Communications- wireless voice? Yup. Just more ubiquitous.
      Transportation? Nearly identical.
      Medicine? Treatments for certain diseases have gotten better, but name one disease that has been CURED in that time? In fact, how many viral diseases have been cured in the entire history of modern medicine... not vaccines, cures for the infected?

      It seems to be that if people are mostly satisfied with a technology, then R&D on that technology mostly stops. That's why we still use somewhat evolved 19th century automotive engine technology. There are far more efficient means of propulsion, but things like profit, and in-place infrastructure impede any real progress. Same goes for telecommunications, operating systems (backward compatibility), and on.

      I think there comes a point where the exponential growth of technological knowledge tapers off under the frictional (relativistic?) effects of external factors, many of them social... a scientific terminal velocity of sorts. There also comes a point where the scientific questions one is trying to answer grow more fundamental and perhaps exponentially more difficult. (Sure we understand the characteristics of magnetism, but what IS magnetism exactly, and why does it affect only certain materials? Gravity? Nuclear forces? Why are certain cosmic constants what they are?) The scientific community itself can often be an impeding factor. It often needs time to digest new ideas before moving on with newer ones. Sadly, the days of the wild-haired scientist/inventor in his garage-lab are pretty much over. Better communications (internet), originally designed to improve scientific research, may have had an indirect dampening effect here. It's pretty easy to find other people working on similar projects, and may be equally easy to assume they have a better handle on the subject than you... so why bother. Posessivness of ideas and litigious patent holders don't help matters either.

      Bottom line, there are a lot of external factors weighing down technological development these days; factors that were not there in decades and centuries past.

    109. Re:Space travel - no kidding by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wow, life must be miserable on your planet. Here on Earth, there is no food production shortage, and food distribution is never a problem by accident (i.e., the "poor countries" have plenty of ability to grow or buy food, but some governments prefer to use starvation as a weapon).

      Any study of sustainability really has to be based on thermodynamics. ... Technology can not increase the total amount of food available (thermodynamics), it can only increase the amount of that energy that is available for human use.

      You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. A little energy in the fertilizer, a little from sunlight, and bingo, food. Of course, there's only about 60 TW of sunlight to work with, so we'll have to start adding enery from local fusion once the popluation increases 100-fold, but so what?

      Is it moral for us to continually increase our share of this energy, at the expense of biodiversity?

      Ahhh, you believe that morality applies to things other than people. No wonder life sucks on your planet!

      anything we do 'off-world' in the name of progress will actually dig us deeper into our hole, because it allows us to become more reliant on routines that are not sustainable and not reversible

      When the first caveman moved into land that was only habitable thanks to fire, we became irreversibly commmitted to technology to sustain our population. The technology called "agriculture" was a huge step as well - no going back after that one. Why is this a problem again?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    110. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, they're "enforced" by economic means (loss of entitlements) rather than force or the threat of force.

    111. Re:Space travel - no kidding by lgw · · Score: 1

      We used to have a huge problem with deforestation in America, then we switched to coal. In the past few decades, as land needed for farming has been reduced, reforestation is the trend.

      50-60 years ago the worldwide coal shortage was a huge problem, but now the global surplus of coal makes life hard for miners, as we mostly burn oil these day.

      Today, oil is the source of complaints, but only because with today's technology it's the cheapest alternative. Considering proven oil reserves are the larget they've ever been, and oil production is the highest it's ever been (not even including the oil that's only profitable to pump when it will sell for more that $50 a barrel, and there's lots of that), we're not going to run out tomorrow. If oil prices stay high, it won't be too many years before something else is hot.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    112. Re:Space travel - no kidding by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      But doesn't that just add more fuel to the fire? One of the unforeseen consequences of foreign aid to the developing world is that it has fuelled population growth (more food and medicine, lower infant mortality, etc.) Unless we junk the idea that large families are a good idea, population will simply increase to take advantage of whatever resources we can haul in from off-planet.

      We need to find a stable point where the human population can be supported without destroying the environment. Elsewhere in this thread it was suggest that the growth will level off at around 8 billion people - that seems manageable.

      The solutions are political, not technological. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exploiting the resources of space, but it won't help us here on Earth if we continue growing the population past the breaking point.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    113. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the INTERNAL frontier? Rather than shooting ourselves into deep space hoping to someday be lucky enough to live in giant space domes, why don't we look at the internal universe of our own experience and consciousness? What are we? How did we get here? We know really nothing about this frontier even though it is iminently available to us - exploring of this space doesn't requre a mandate from congress, thousands of pounds of fuel, or a surge in popular support. Just close your eyes and see what is in there. It can provide a lifetime of discovery.

    114. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      Typical latte-sipping, candy-pants sissy thinking - abortion isn't murder but capital punishment is evil evil evil.

      Moron!

    115. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      "Economic profit is not the only motivator for exploration and technological development, nor is it the only justification for a permanent offworld presence."

      "I disagree. While I approve of using my tax dollars to fund the exploration of the solar system via probe, I don't approve of the enormous outlay required to do that exploration with human beings."

      The "I don't want my tax dollars going towards X" argument is hardly a relevant response. We already know that you are looking for profit.

      "There isn't any justification (in my mind) for doing with humans what can be done much, much cheaper with robots; and even if there were some small scientific gain to be had when using humans I don't think it justifies the cost."

      As you say... "in your mind." I see a lot of justification in my mind: abundant resources, abundant energy, a manunfacturing environment that doesn't carry concerns over ecological damange or the consumption of non-renewable resources, an impetus for technological advancement, the eventual creation of offworld colonies that give the human race a chance of surviving a plantary calamity, etc.

      "The rest of the solar system offers us space, raw materials, and energy in near unlimited quantities."

      "That would be an economic incentive for the exploitation of space, would it not?"

      Technically, yes... though I separated it in my mind because these efforts will start out being a consumer of money and resources, and you seem to be rejecting the idea because it won't make profits right now.

      "Also, the Earth is a source of single point failure... one ecological or climatological collapse or a comet or astroid collision, and the human race could cease to exist, and those little green pictures of dead presidents will be of little use, value, or comfort."

      "Your money would be better spent keeping the Earth from getting hit by some nasty comet or asteroid than in trying to move millions off-world."

      "My" money, if spent on establishing a fulltime offworld presence, would yield many benefits... including the means to prevent Earth from getting hit by an asteroid.

      "And hell, if you think big enough, terraforming is always a possibility."

      "Where, exactly? You can't terraform Venus; it's tidelocked. And Mars is too small. If you want to terraform Mars you're going to have to rebuild all the atmosphere it's lost to space, probably by throwing thousands of comets at it from the Oort Cloud - and that means you'd have to remove all the current colonists for the few centuries it'd take to complete the task. While it might someday become practical, it would be more efficient to colonize Mars without terraforming it."

      Fair points... there's always the possiblity of orbital habitats, either constructed like O'Neill stations, or within or on asteroids. Here is a link to many more ideas, and a discussion of the issues surrounding human presence in space.

      "When I look to the future, I want "Star Trek"

      "When I look to the future I want "Battlestar Galactica". Hot cylon babes like Boomer, hoowah!"

      No, seriously... I want to roll around in a pile of naked, oiled Boomers as much as the next geek, but how do you seriously see the future? Do you see a future that is basically the same as today, with a fairly tiny proportion of the world's population controlling and consuming most of the resources, with population stresses causing environmental degradation, and where a few people get Ipod Mk. Vs while most of the rest wonder about the next meal or the next military attack?

      I want better for the human race, and I think a vigorous expansion into space is one way of helping that happen.

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    116. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not Earth's sole inhabitant, therefore the Earth is overpopulated. Would the rest of you please leave now?

    117. Re:Space travel - no kidding by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      amazing! you miraculously know what my version of population control is without me ever posting it. hallelujah! praise the lord!

      fwiw, you don't need to enslave anyone for population control, any more than you need to enslave everyone to enforce laws against jaywalking or to regulate other activities that have consequences for other people.

      but since you're a redneck retard, you probably find it difficult to grasp such subtleties - if it can't be expressed in a monosyllabic grunt, then it must be ivory-tower evil communist propaganda designed to enslave Mom and Apple Pie

    118. Re:Space travel - no kidding by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      > Let's see. It is okay to force people to have
      > abortions but self defence is wrong?

      who said anything about forced abortions? i know i never did.

      similarly, where did self-defence come into the picture? the original poster talked about murdering people who were in favour of population control - that does not qualify as self-defence.

      > Government mandated and mandatory population
      > control is what I would consider the very
      > definition of EVIL.

      that would be because you're a moron. sorry, it's incurable.

      > Think about it. Who decides who gets to have
      > children?

      what? you think that leaving it up to irresponsible and idiot breeders is a good idea? that anyone should be able to have as many babies as they want regardless of the consequences for the planet?

      there's more than enough people in the world already. while killing any existing people would be wrong (in every way), there's nothing at all wrong with restricting or limiting the number of new humans that could potentially come into the world. it's not only "not wrong", it's NECESSARY.

    119. Re:Space travel - no kidding by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      Well, we already have a model for how colonization works economically. After a huge initial investment, the colony becomes mostly self-sufficient and begins to offer economic benefits to it's parent, and when it gets tired of its parent "recouping its investment" you get a revolution.

      Now, you could argue that in the case of other planets, the initial investment is comparatively larger and the economic benefit less or nonexistant. But that's open to debate, and besides, the reward for our species is much greater. Can you put a price on improving our ultimate chances of survival? That's some ROI right there.

      Because the equipment is more advanced than a wooden sailing ship, one of the benefits can actually be the economic activity of producing the equipment - jobs for technical people like us. And we may be on the brink of advances (space elevators) making it much cheaper to move significant mass between planets, albeit slowly.

      Also, physical transport of raw materials isn't the only way to profit or provide benefit. A big one is land. It was land, not resources, that prompted the colonization of West. Granted, Earth isn't crowded to the extent that Martian land is worth the drawbacks, but that isn't to say it will never be. Heck, we could use Mars as a NIMBY place to put our nuclear power plants, or to incarcerate our multitudes of IP criminals.

      I didn't mean that not trying to colonize other planets will cause technology to fail to progress on the whole, but it's pretty clear that it will cause there to be significantly less interest, and no experimentation, in the specific areas of technology related to colonizing other planets. Luckily, the world has too many people for them all to agree, so at least some people will try to help, even if others think it's a lost cause.

    120. Re:Space travel - no kidding by sean.geek.nz · · Score: 1

      Every single analysis of 'sustainability' by the folks preaching doom and gloom over the Earth's carrying capacity assumes that *technology will never advance beyond what we have now*.

      Untrue. Most explicitly state that they're assuming future technological change will not change the amount reduce resource use. But they usually make clear that is an OPTIMISTIC assumption, not a PESSIMISTIC one.

      Because Tech change almost always leads to MORE resource use, not LESS. For example: horses used a lot of resources, but cars use a lot more. If we just did with cars what we used to do with horses (which were too expensive for most city dwellers to own, and didn't go more than a few miles a day) then cars would use less resources. But cars enable us to move more people further, so we do - and we eat up more resources doing it.

      For you to be right that tech changes will reduce, not increase, resource use you have to assume that people will start saying: "Here's a fantastic new technology! But lets not use it to do cool and awesome new things, lets just use it do what the old technology did!"

      But hey, maybe suddenly all people will spontaneously decide that they'll only use environmentally friendly technologies from now on. And given some Genetic Engineering maybe the world will fill with flying pigs, too.

    121. Re:Space travel - no kidding by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Currently the doubling rate for knowledge in most scientific fields is between 18 and 24 months. Do you know what that means?

      Quantize "knowledge" and show me how "doubling knowledge" leads to "unpredictable future", because AFAICT you're doing the same thing as the doomsayers, waving your hands and talking about "The future is unknowable! The future is unpredictable! Technology will fix it!" How is that any different from H.G. Wells, Jules Verne and all the other Victorian-Era thinkers predicting sentient mechanical automatons?

      It means, for example, that in the next two years we'll learn as much about computer science as we have in all of previous human history combined.

      Right, and as a computer science degree holder I can categorically say that in two years computers will still behave much as they did in 1995, which is much as Apple Macs did in 1988. Things get better but it takes a lot of research. We have OCR now that works well enough to defeat captchas, but no decent handwriting recognition in common use. We've got voice recognition coming along, but no operating systems out there you can talk to ala the starship Enterprise computer.

      This is true of most scientific or technical fields. It's a real phenomenon that's getting more and more attention as time goes by because it doesn't seem to be stumbling into any roadblocks (i.e., predicted plateaus).

      The thermodynamics textbook I'm using was first published about 40 years ago. It's currently on its 7th edition, and so far as anyone can tell it hasn't been substantially updated since the 4th edition (1987). It covers 90% of what most chemical engineering professionals need to get by in the field. Most of the knowledge in the book was learned before 1930 and it's still difficult for most students to get through. I can't say our "knowledge of thermo" is doubling if graduate-level students are lucky to have half the understanding that Gibbs, Duhem, Carnot, et al possessed a hundred years ago.

      Knowledge isn't alive unless living people understand it and use it. And the far reaches of some of these disciplines are receeding past where a single human mind can get there in only a decade or so of secondary study.

      Ultimately what it means is that only a fool would predict the next 40 years based on the last 40 years.

      Right, but I was basing it more on the last *400* years, not 40. Technology takes time to incorporate into daily life and lots of people resist. "Knowing something" is a far cry from actually doing it, society has to be ready. We rapidly adopted Teflon-coated pans because it was an obvious benefit, but we haven't seen the need to switch en masse to HDTV because regular TV is good enough. The Greeks had iron, steam engines and some understanding of static electricity, but they also had slaves available to do most the grunt work and saw no need to build engines.

      technological improvement *is not a linear progression but an asymptotic one*.

      Ah right. You're predicting Verner Vinge's Singularity Event: a day will come when we know everything and suddenly humanity-as-we-knew-it will no longer exist.

    122. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno. Imagine you're a fish and you live underwater. Air is your 'space', and you have no comprehension of what the real 'space' really is. Think out of the box for a second.

    123. Re:Space travel - no kidding by Kisil · · Score: 1

      It's a problem because everything we do (pretty much) is powered by oil, which is finite. Pick a date in the future when it will run out; it doesn't really matter, though using rough numbers for current reserves and assuming constant consumption (it's actually exponentially increasing), you come out to about 40 years. At that point, unless something has changed, our lifestyle stops working. I'd say that that pretty much sucks.

      A little energy in the fertilizer, a little from sunlight, and bingo, food.

      Fertilizer... comes from oil, the source of both the energy to create it and the hydrogen in the nitrate produced. You could generate hydrogen from fusion through electrolysis of water, but the energy involved is vastly greater.. and we don't have fusion yet. The figure for processed (read: cheap, mass market, inorganic) foods is roughly 10 calories of oil energy input per calorie of food produced. That means that at the moment, we're pretty much eating oil.

      For further reading on eating oil and the earth's finite capacity to produce biomass (the correct term is "primary production," I'd forgotten), check out this article.

    124. Re:Space travel - no kidding by jayratch · · Score: 1

      It's not a closed system or a zero sum game.

      Regarding mass, the earth is more or less closed. Regarding energy, you could say it's in a steady flow open system: energy in is approximately equal to energy out. The radiation absorbed from the sun is roughly equivalent to the heat vented off the upper atmosphere and the night side of the earth.

      That's not precisely the case. Supposedly, global warming is taking place, meaning that the earth is experiencing a net enthalpy gain.

      I don't really have a point with that except to say that it's clearly not a zero sum game. Strangely, very few things actually are a zero sum. I remember a version of economics was once explained to me that when I buy a Coke for $1, it actually causes two $1s to exist in the economy. I'm not sure that was explained correctly, but nonetheless economics is not quite zero sum, and a simpler analogy would be in barter. I grow an apple, you grow a pear. I trade you an apple for a pear. We've both gained wealth; while it may seem zero sum, production took place. (In point of fact, the production that took place was an energy conversion. That's where we lose conservation.)

      (I admit I'm grossly oversimplifying. I'm trying to make a simple point, which is that things are either far simpler or less simple than people would like to think.)

      Contrary to our general state of crisis and panic, the earth is certainly absorbing energy at a relatively constant rate; in other words, it is not a fully closed system, and in fact, if more efficient technology were utilized, the daily energy input to the planet exceeds our consumption.. problems come in through inefficient methods, which have increased the energy retention of the planet, or at least discharged a sufficient amount of stored energy to cause the net enthalpy to increase (heat transfer in=heat transfer out, net enthalpy = heat transfer in - heat transfer out + exothermic energy conversions such as burning stuff - endothermic energy conversions such as photosynthesis. Cancel out equal terms, you get net enthalpy=burning stuff - storing energy, since we're currently burning more than the equivalent to daily production of plant matter, if we oversimplify for sake of argument, the non-potential energy goes up. To maintain constant temperature, add enthalpy to ice converting it to water at the same temperature. Hence more energetic world than we used to have, hence less ice.)

      If I was smarter or better educated, I could probably go on. I'm ure some /.er knows where life figures in and messes it all up. But mere elementary heat transfer goes at least far enough to show we don't live in a Thermos bottle.

      So yeah, it's not a closed system. Those who think it is need a physics lesson.

    125. Re:Space travel - no kidding by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      We can live underground or in the Ocean. Jimmy Hoffa is already exploring those areas.

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    126. Re:Space travel - no kidding by lgw · · Score: 1

      you come out to about 40 years. At that point, unless something has changed, our lifestyle stops working.

      No argument there. Given the rate of change in technology in the modern world, what are the odds this will matter? Heck, even just looking at cars, the difference is huge. Sure, we all wonder where our flying cars went, but nevertheless a modern ULEV car pollutes about 1/1000th as much as a pre-catalytic-converter beast, is much lighter (a modern SUV weighs as much as a 60s family sedan, with about 3 times as much room, and the similar sedan weighs half as much).

      There's nothing magic about oil as a power supply, it's just the cheapest thing that's practical. Most cars could run on methane with no changes beyond fuel storage (and maybe engine firmware), as thanks to OBD2 everything is fuel-injected now - a technology you wouldn't find 40 years ago. Hydrogen is harder to retrofit (and still impractical to store), but still not a big deal. When some *practical* alternative becomes cheaper than oil, everyone will naturally want to change over, just as we've switched our main source of power several times in the past when it became scarce.

      And food is so cheap the production cost could double and not change the consumer cost - we'd just be able to remove the price supports. The price of oil will remove it as the primary power supply long before it matters to our food supply.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  14. Kozmo # 1 Technology & DotCom Bust by EyeSeaYou · · Score: 1

    How sad... wasn't Kozmo.com in the Top 10 Dot Com Flops article, too? Yes. What's sad is that you see all of these bike messengers in NYC still touting their Kozmo.com messenger bags. And wasn't this in like 30 previous posts, too?

    1. Re:Kozmo # 1 Technology & DotCom Bust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the hell is with you fuckers and linking to that site? it's not even good. it's bash.org for morons (and yes, I realise bash.org is for morons but it seems that people in the UK listen to strangers talk even more shit than morons on irc are capable of spouting)

    2. Re:Kozmo # 1 Technology & DotCom Bust by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      Please, somebody mod this spammer down. He adds nothing to any discussion he posts to, just ads for that website.

  15. It's all about the batteries by starseeker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    EV1 was never workable - the battery weight and expense, combined with limited range, made it Not Practical as a mass market car from day one.

    Gotta love the bit about recalling and destroying the cars due to liability concerns. Thank you US legal system. We really ought to outlaw innovation, exploration, and all that stuff - it's too dangerous. Can let people run risks - heaven forbid.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:It's all about the batteries by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was perfectly practable for a commuter car.
      battery expense ammortized over 5 years (expected lifespan) yeilded a cost only slightly higher than gas prices of the time (by a few hundred dollars). With fuel costs expected to rise (which they have) the crossover point for the battery pack is 2.5-3 years.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:It's all about the batteries by ldspartan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you just completely ignore the cost of the energy to charge it, huh? Must be nice doing that...

      --
      lds

    3. Re:It's all about the batteries by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the bit about recalling and destroying the cars due to liability concerns. Thank you US legal system. We really ought to outlaw innovation, exploration, and all that stuff - it's too dangerous. Can let people run risks - heaven forbid.

      Yeah, let's bring back the ACME Rocket Car!

              -W.E.Cayote-

    4. Re:It's all about the batteries by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      dude, this is the modus-operandi of the automotive world.

      Back in the 70's GM made several hundred cars with a turbine engine. they were quiet, powerful and worked like a dream to the few that were allowed to drive them through an extended test run. they recalled all of them and had them all destroyed. due to the "bullshit" reasons as quoted about the EV1. The truth is that the car maker did not want any of them getting in the hands of competition that had competent management that could make the product work and profitable.

      the Lawyer-speak used by the press releases about the recall and destruction of innovative cars is only there to throw off joe consumer.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:It's all about the batteries by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      NO, that is accounted for in the 5 year crossover point, and actually was the reason it was a couple hundred dollars higher than gas. What has changed since then is that with gasonline prices increasing at a faster rate than electricity prices, the crossover point now is 2.5 to 3 years.

      Finally, in a preemptive counter to the "displaced pollution" argument, it is far easier to generate power (of any type) in a large single facility cleanly than it is to generate that power distributed over several endpoints (Cars in this example).

      While electric power is not the answer for people who are on the road all day long or have painfully long distance commutes, it is ideal as a "daily driver" for most people.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:It's all about the batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1
      EV1 was never workable - the battery weight and expense, combined with limited range, made it Not Practical as a mass market car from day one.

      Gee, you want to quote some numbers? I ask because I'm rather sure you don't have any. It was the car that really demonstrated that fully-electric vehicles were practical at the time.

      The EV1 got over 100 miles on a single charge, and it's estimated retail price was less than some hybrids are going for.

      Gotta love the bit about recalling and destroying the cars due to liability concerns. Thank you US legal system.

      No, that was the bullshit excuse they made-up. They put an immediate stop to the program the instant it became clear the deadline for the California law (which required a perctange of cars sold to be zero-emission) was going to be extended, and later overturned in court.

      They had people driving the cars for several months, then they just up and decided one day it was too big of a risk? Nonsense. Look at the Ford Th!nk for another example of this exact same thing.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  16. My take on these 10 by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Manned space exploration
    I am of the opinion that sending humans into space is the most effective use of our "space dollars". It is fine to send up robots to collect data samples, but we also need to know the safest and cheapest way to package up live astronauts, drive them around the solar system, and bring them home safely. With the current shuttle tech, we are looking at neither the safest, nor the cheapest way of sending up live astronauts and bringing them home extra crispy. There are a lot of barriers to getting rid of the shuttle program, but discarding it for a more future-looking program (even the Apollo and Mercury missions were more forward-looking than the shuttles) would rejuvenate interest in science and physics in particular.

    Kozmo.com
    Never heard of it.

    Napster
    I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.

    The Concorde
    I am going to agree. Actually, any type of supersonic aircraft would be great for longhaul flights.

    GM's EV1
    That is possibly the ugliest car I've seen since the Pontiac Aztec. It is only out-uglied by the Honda hybrid.

    The original Palm Pilot
    They like the stability, but I like the stability of my TV remote control. It just doesn't do very much except what was originally programmed in.

    Good keyboards
    There are plenty of good keyboards, Microsoft even makes some good ones. What they are asking for are those loud IBM keyboards that feel like the clumsy typewriters they were adapted from.

    Wires
    No. Make wireless faster.

    LPs
    This will continue to be a niche format. CDs provide the same quality sound playback for the human-audible range of sound. I imagine that it might be useful if you were a dog and had to listen to ultrasonic music, otherwise... not useful.

    The Newton
    They praise it because it failed? I don't understand what they want to say.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:My take on these 10 by EyeSeaYou · · Score: 1

      Kozmo was great. You could rent a flick and some munchies to enjoy the pot that the deliverymen sold. Not that I used it... ahem.

    2. Re:My take on these 10 by nunchux · · Score: 0

      Manned space exploration
      I am of the opinion that sending humans into space is the most effective use of our "space dollars". It is fine to send up robots to collect data samples, but we also need to know the safest and cheapest way to package up live astronauts, drive them around the solar system, and bring them home safely. With the current shuttle tech, we are looking at neither the safest, nor the cheapest way of sending up live astronauts and bringing them home extra crispy. There are a lot of barriers to getting rid of the shuttle program, but discarding it for a more future-looking program (even the Apollo and Mercury missions were more forward-looking than the shuttles) would rejuvenate interest in science and physics in particular.


      Yes... We have to keep going, and as callous as it sounds we have to understand that some lives will be lost, but we have to keep going. Space is a frontier-- and pioneers often have short lives, but understand it's work the risk. U.S. Astronauts know they may not be coming when they're launched into space and the American public needs to understand this too... Because losing a few Taikonauts won't slow China down for a second.

      Kozmo.com
      Never heard of it.


      That's the problem, and it's too bad. A web-based convenience store with a decent deli that delivers to your door.

      Of course if you didn't live in a major city when they were in operation you wouldn't know about them, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a great service.

      Napster
      I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.


      Well, you can be tracked through Bittorrent too... Your IP is available to all other users.

      Either way, they're waxing nostalgic. The Napster model is dead, but when it was around it was amazing. I think it was also a great leveller-- no longer would you have to rely on friend's opinions, music rags or taking chances on $15 CD's to find new bands, you could download it and see for yourself. I never took chances with CD's before 1998-ish, and only bought a few a year from bands I knew I liked... Now I buy hundreds, many of them from the 60's-80's from bands I never would have heard of if I didn't download.

      The Concorde
      I am going to agree. Actually, any type of supersonic aircraft would be great for longhaul flights.


      I never understood this, why did they ground it after a single crash? There must be more to the story.

      GM's EV1
      That is possibly the ugliest car I've seen since the Pontiac Aztec. It is only out-uglied by the Honda hybrid.


      Kind of ugly, but no one was leasing them for the looks. The author is bemoaning the fact that there are no electric vehicles in production any more, which is a crying shame-- and I suspect Big Oil may have something to do with it.

      Wires
      No. Make wireless faster.


      Keep wires available AND make wireless faster. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, and wired devices make sense in many cases. Wireless phone and internet connections are somewhat less reliable and much less secure. Cordless phones are at the mercy of their battery, and nothing sucks more than having it run out during an important call. And if you have ample desk space and don't share a network there's no reason besides looks that every device needs to be wireless-- a usb cable to my printer works just fine.

      LPs
      This will continue to be a niche format. CDs provide the same quality sound playback for the human-audible range of sound. I imagine that it might be useful if you were a dog and had to listen to ultrasonic music, otherwise... not useful.


      You may not hear a difference. Others do. The sound isn't "better" by any technical definition, but it is different (some say more "warm", even more "human".)

      Just like photographers and filmmakers will use film as long as it still exists,

    3. Re:My take on these 10 by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      LPs
      This will continue to be a niche format. CDs provide the same quality sound playback for the human-audible range of sound.

      Actually, they provide better quality playback for the human-audible range, because they have much lower noise.

      I imagine that it might be useful if you were a dog and had to listen to ultrasonic music, otherwise... not useful.

      While it's true that CDs cut off sharply above 20 kHz and thus can't produce ultrasonics at all, it's a misconception that LPs don't also have high frequency limitations. It's tempting to believe that, because they're analog, they are producing the sound with infinite detail, but it's just not true: the higher frequency sounds require smaller features in the groove, and those small pieces are easy to wear off. After a few playings, ultrasonics, if they ever were present on the LP in the first place, are gone because the ridges that correspond to the ultrasonic frequencies are just too tiny (and therefore thin and weak) to stand up to the stress of colliding with the needle. It's much the same as the concept of keeping a really fine edge on a knife -- the finer it is, the sharper it is, but as you get finer and finer, the faster you lose the fineness of the edge you've put on there.

      The bottom line is that CDs have LPs beat in the area of signal-to-noise ratio and they also have them beat in frequency response. While it is possible to hear the difference between LPs and CDs (because they each introduce their own kinds of distortions), it is tough to make an argument that LPs are superior unless it's based on a personal preferences for the distortions you can hear.

    4. Re:My take on these 10 by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good keyboards
      There are plenty of good keyboards, Microsoft even makes some good ones. What they are asking for are those loud IBM keyboards that feel like the clumsy typewriters they were adapted from.


      Microsoft makes some good ones? I've oned one MS natural and one MS natural elite, but both died due to the contacts wearing out.

      While the IBM clicky keyboard (can't remember the model number off hand) might not be your bag IIRC they used metal on metal contacts basicly looking like tweesers inside the key hole.. where the pressing down action caused the contacts to meet and behold a key press is registered. Dec keyboards I believe are made in much the same way though i'd have to check mine... but you phone up support if you dumped coffee in your keyboard and they tell you to put it in a bucket full of soap and water and let dry, and most of the time the problem was resolved.

      The current keyboard trend is circuit traces on one membrain, a seperator, and a membrain with a solid contact spot. They are cheap, easy to mass produce, and rub away after a couple of years. I mean it "nice" not having to spend $50 to $100 on a keyboard, but those who spent $50 to $100 on a keyboard likely have something that can still be used today.

      There was a time when the keyboards were made by using a large PC board with basic contacts, with a flexable bubble material on top with a little metal contact. While these will eventually wear away, they don't do so nearly as quickly as plastic membrains.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    5. Re:My take on these 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napster
      I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.


      And what do you think a BitTorrent tracker does? The idea of peer uploading is great, but your connections are still tracked from a single centralized server. Napster is important in pioneering easy to use P2P, even though its technologies have been improved upon.

    6. Re:My take on these 10 by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Napster I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.

      The napster server didn't upload the files, just an index. The file transfer was P2P.

      GM's EV1 That is possibly the ugliest car

      Ugly is trivial, just a skin and easily changed.

      LPs This will continue to be a niche format. CDs provide the same quality sound playback

      One factor not mentioned is that CDs tend to decay unpredictably. LPs last at least a century with mimimal care.

    7. Re:My take on these 10 by shmlco · · Score: 1
      "I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent."

      You mean, as opposed to a paid ISP where your every connection can be logged and tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single DSL/cable line?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    8. Re:My take on these 10 by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      The Concorde
      [snip]
      I never understood this, why did they ground it after a single crash? There must be more to the story.


      The aircraft were grounded immediately after the crash, until they figured out what occurred (fuel tank too easy to puncture issues) and fixed it (bladders installed into the fuel tanks.) The Concorde resumed flying for less than a year at which point British Airways and Air France figured out that the plane had just become too expensive to maintain and fly.

    9. Re:My take on these 10 by Sique · · Score: 1
      the higher frequency sounds require smaller features in the groove, and those small pieces are easy to wear off. After a few playings, ultrasonics, if they ever were present on the LP in the first place, are gone because the ridges that correspond to the ultrasonic frequencies are just too tiny (and therefore thin and weak) to stand up to the stress of colliding with the needle.


      Not only that, they have never been there from the start. There is a physical upper limit to the frequencies you can put on a vinyl record, determined by the structural properties of the vinyl itself (it's elasticity... higher frequencies are just sucked up into the vinyl slightly bending when the crystal touches the little details) and the mass of the crystal: For the piezoelectric effect used to measure the crystal movement, the crystal itself has to bend a little, and there the mass of the crystal is the limit due to necessary accelerations.

      So effectively the vinyl-crystal system cuts off all frequencies above 16kHz anyway, and (not only) here the CD with 22,1kHz is definitely better.
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:My take on these 10 by Threni · · Score: 1

      >LPs
      >This will continue to be a niche format. CDs provide the same quality sound
      >playback for the human-audible range of sound. I imagine that it might be useful
      >if you were a dog and had to listen to ultrasonic music, otherwise... not
      >useful.

      I prefer the sound of CDs but I have friends who swear by LPs. It's not possible to argue that they both sound the same - they both have advantages and disadvantages.

    11. Re:My take on these 10 by Threni · · Score: 1

      > LPs last at least a century with mimimal care.

      LPs haven't been around for a century! You might as well make the same claim about CDs - sure, some have decayed but most of them haven't, and some LPs have warped.

    12. Re:My take on these 10 by Frankie70 · · Score: 1


      Napster
      I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.


      Huh!

      This is like looking at a wheel & saying that it's
      a useless invention - I'll with a car.

    13. Re:My take on these 10 by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Dec keyboards I believe are made in much the same way [as an IBM 'Model M' mechanical keyboard]

      Depends which DEC keyboard you mean; I got an old DEC keyboard secondhand. It was *by far* the bulkiest keyboard I've ever seen, although not because of the keys; they were normal-sized PC keys in a standard 104-key PC layout. It had the old-fashioned telephone-cable style curl in its cable.

      And what made this so annoying was that it *wasn't* a quality mechanical keyboard. It was *very* obviously a cheap membrane-based keyboard, and possibly one of the worst examples of that type I've ever seen; very strange and obvious "deforming rubber dome" feel to the keys. Not to mention that the keys themselves were a somewhat odd shape and not pleasant to type on.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    14. Re:My take on these 10 by Frankie70 · · Score: 1


      Napster
      I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent.


      Huh!

      This is like looking at a wheel & saying that it's
      a useless invention - I'll stick with a car.

    15. Re:My take on these 10 by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Napster
      I don't see the attraction. A centralized database where your connections can be tracked and you are at the bandwidth mercy of a single uploading server. No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent."

      I think they were referring to Napster BEFORE you had to worry about getting sued by the RIAA. When Napster first got big, it WAS revolutionary, and while you personally may not have seen the attraction, MILLIONS did. I challenge you to name one piece of software that gained so much popularity so quickly.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    16. Re:My take on these 10 by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Actually, they provide better quality playback for the human-audible range, because they have much lower noise.


      Well, I'm merely a casual listener. And to me CDs sound perfect, whereas LP's hiss and pop.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    17. Re:My take on these 10 by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 1

      Microsoft makes some good ones? I've oned one MS natural and one MS natural elite, but both died due to the contacts wearing out.

      I'm using a MS Natural keyboard right now... and have been doing so for seven years. Other than the label on the letter 'n' wearing out from excess use, it's holding up well. As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft made a damn good keyboard (assuming they designed it themselves that is). Best damn keyboard I've ever owned.

    18. Re:My take on these 10 by Aumaden · · Score: 1

      Well, it kinda depends on the limits of your hearing. Mine fades out around 24KHz, so CDs sound a bit flat when compared to LPs or tape. It took forever for me to get used to the sound of CDs. If I could have the range of an LP or tape in a CD-sized package, I'd be tickled pink. Would it really have been that hard to use 48KHz sampling?

    19. Re:My take on these 10 by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I had a "clacky" cherry keyboard for a long while that I got with my first 486sx. It worked perfectly and was very similar to the original IBM keyboard. But I threw it out in the end simply because it was huge and used an AT style connector. I know you can get adapters for USB but to be honest, I've got so many keyboards that it was getting in the way.


      The modern "squidgy" keyboards aren't that great but they do quite well. I also feel that they're much less likely to induce RSI than the old ones. Even thinking about using my old cherry keyboard makes my fingers throb a little.

    20. Re:My take on these 10 by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      LPs haven't been around for a century! You might as well make the same claim about CDs - sure, some have decayed but most of them haven't, and some LPs have warped.

      Yes, vinyl LPs were introduced in 1948. I was thinking of 78s; but of course they're a different material. But a warped LP can be restored and the music extracted and useable. I've had some commercially-pressed CDs 5 or so years old that have gone 50% transparent, and totally unreadable.

    21. Re:My take on these 10 by lgw · · Score: 1

      At the time, CDs used the highest possible sampling rate technology allowed given the media available and the error correction necessary. I suspect you're not hearing anything different in the 20-24KHz band, however, but instead missing some sound you liked inherent to analog playback.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:My take on these 10 by Threni · · Score: 1

      Most CDs survive 5 years. Some CDs were made badly - a chemical was used on the label which ate into the foil. You should check around, for instance:

      http://members.cox.net/surround/uhjdisc/bronze.htm
      http://www.classical.net/music/guide/bronzedcds.ht ml

      But most are OK. Like most records are.

    23. Re:My take on these 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the newer models, but the older MS Natural keyboards are pretty robust - I've been using a Natural Pro for the last six years, without the slightest problem.

      As for cleaning, I've seen one of those keyboards working fine after being put in a dishwasher (on low temperature) - my boss left it in a warm spot for a few days, and plugged it back in again. Worked perfectly - removed years of accumlated gunk, and left the keyboard working fine.

  17. I'll second that keyboards vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss a good gaming keyboard that will actually let me push more than two keys at once. And don't get me started on that windows key. Many a game of 3v3 war2 was clobbered due to it...

  18. Keyboards.. by mrbill · · Score: 1

    Best keyboard I've run across lately is the Matias Tactile Pro. Designed for a Mac, but works great on a PC/Linux machine as well (I'm on one right now, hooked to a KVM that has both a Windows system and a Mac mini on it).

    1. Re:Keyboards.. by Kagami001 · · Score: 1

      I'll second that; I'm using a Matias with Windows, also, with a few key remaps.* For those to lazy to click the link, it uses microswitches for that old-school click. Only complaint I can think of about it is that the transparent case means you can see any hair and dirt that accumulates inside it, heh.

      (*Changed both Mac Command keys to Alt, Left Option to Windows Key, Right Option to Context Key, F13 to Print Screen, F14 to Scroll Lock, and F15 to Multimedia Play/Pause.)

  19. LP's by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    There are a bunch of guys that are currently using lasers to decode the LP then digitize it. They then take it through some audio cleaning, to get the hiss out. Then they can set it to cd or wahtever. I saw this on telvision, they are currently doing this for the Library of Congress (I believe). They are able to get the sound off the old wax cylanders. I Wish I had a link for this.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    1. Re:LP's by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      I say good riddance to LPs. I heard about CDs when I was in high school so I deliberately did not buy too many vinyl disks in anticipation of this fabulous new tech. And it never failed that when I did buy one it would have at least one serious pop or skip even after a careful wipe with the Discwasher. Even if the sound is slightly inferior it has been well worth it in my mind to go to CD.

      The only thing I miss about LPs was a the great amount of print real estate for liner notes, photos, etc.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:LP's by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      There are a bunch of guys that are currently using lasers to decode the LP then digitize it. They then take it through some audio cleaning, to get the hiss out. Then they can set it to cd or wahtever. I saw this on telvision, they are currently doing this for the Library of Congress (I believe). They are able to get the sound off the old wax cylanders. I Wish I had a link for this.

      Gee, I just typed "Laser Turntable" into Google, and got a link right away. You can get one for $15,000.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:LP's by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      CDs are better quality but LPs are more fun (especially when playing electronic music). You can see it spin, you can scratch, you can beatmix, you can quickly hop the needle forward/backward and if you look closely at the groove you can spot where the breaks are. Ofcourse you need a steady hand to do this, so it's probably less enjoyable for old folks. Besides that, I noticed that nothing enhances acid techno better than a bit of crackle and hiss. But yeah indeed, usually I listen to digitized music on cd or mp3.

    4. Re:LP's by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      A lot of folks feel that because its analog, there is something thats missing. I hate MP3s for the most part, because they are overly-compressed. There is no way that you can tell me that MP3's are CD quality. Its onr thing on itsy bitsy headphones,quite another on a decent sound system.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  20. I miss slim keyboards. by eingram · · Score: 1

    It's getting more difficult to find keyboards without "extra features" (also called programmable buttons). And I've yet to find a quality wireless keyboard (radio) that is slim and lacking these "extra features".

    Does anyone know of any slim, wireless keyboards?

    1. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by agibbs · · Score: 1

      The Apple bluetooth keyboard is an excellent keyboard. Full sized, but without any of those stupid media buttons.

    2. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally love the Logitech DiNivo slim keyboard. DiNivo
      Granted it's sans-numeric pad; the numeric-pad is seperate from the main keyboard and acts as a great remote control from other locations in the room...

      just my 2 cents..

    3. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      It's getting more difficult to find keyboards without "extra features" (also called programmable buttons). And I've yet to find a quality wireless keyboard (radio) that is slim and lacking these "extra features".

      Does anyone know of any slim, wireless keyboards?


      Helps to search for cordless keyboards for some odd reason... they tend to be without cords not without wires. Don't ask me why.

      I have seen wired keyboards with the home, end, page up/down etc. In fact they the default offering on the linspire box. 95ish keys or so.

      But how slim do you want? If you just want a normal keyboard without extra features... the usual 105ish key keyboard. Logitech offers the cordless desktop express... like $20 on overstock.com. The last one I bought that was minimal I think was called their access keyboard. Mechanical mouse, tradtional keyboard plus 3 buttons for web/email/some other shit I can't remember cause I don't use them. Good, solid, long lasting, and great range.

      If you want to spend $300 you've got the Gyration Ultra, and the diNovo someone alreay spoke of.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    4. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Gyration. I believe the compact keyboard would be of interest to you. I've used their keyboard/mouse combo before. Very good stuff.

    5. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by tachyonflow · · Score: 1
      It's getting more difficult to find keyboards without "extra features" (also called programmable buttons). And I've yet to find a quality wireless keyboard (radio) that is slim and lacking these "extra features".

      YES! I had the same experience the other day when I was roaming around Micro Center trying to find an undorkified keyboard. The few they had looked poorly built and were PS/2 and not USB. (I needed a USB keyboard for my notebook.)

      I ended up buying a USB Dell keyboard from someone on ebay, and I like it quite well. Be careful, though -- some Dell keyboards have a non-standard ins/del/home/end/pgup/pgdown key block arrangement for no apparant reason.

      Does anyone know of any slim, wireless keyboards?
      We had one floating around at work a while back that I fell in love with. It was undorkified (no extra buttons to launch email, etc.) and had a little joystick built-in (which is a lot better than having a separate wireless mouse, for a home-entertainment PC). Unfortunately, I haven't found one like it on sale anywhere. It looked a lot like the keyboard in this picture. Maybe it's the same one, and it's only OEM'ed for other products.

    6. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      We had one floating around at work a while back that I fell in love with. It was undorkified (no extra buttons to launch email, etc.) and had a little joystick built-in (which is a lot better than having a separate wireless mouse, for a home-entertainment PC).

      I have to admit I like the idea of a wireless keyboard with either a joystick, track pad, or a track ball onboard. Unfortunatly the only times I see this arangement are either in IR keyboards which while they do have a great range suck in terms of construction and have a narrow line of site, or even more rare the keyboards that cost a few hundrad dollars and are designed for presentation.

      The ideal design for me would be a trackball placed far right, not so good for lefties I know but great for me. I've seen this on the compaq aero laptop and a couple of oddball NECs. I could live with a ball under the space bar, or heck even a trackpad would be nice.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      Are you looking for something like this

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    8. Re:I miss slim keyboards. by slacktide · · Score: 1

      Kind of spendy, but there's always the Happy Hacker keboard. http://store.yahoo.com/pfuca-store/haphackeyser.ht ml

  21. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn straight. I still hate the sound quality of cordless phones and insist on corded phones in my house. And just forget cell phones--they're the worst. The sound quality of recently-produced corded phones isn't noticeably worse than the old Ma Bell varieties IMO though. Maybe I'm not that picky.

    And I'll jump on the wireless networking bandwagon once someone explains to me why, after spending most of the nineties upgrading AWAY from half-duplex shared media networks, I should now go back.

  22. Common Sense... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Could have saved us from losing most of the good technologies, and is the prime technological loss to trump them all.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  23. Manned Space Flight by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    I recently read M o o n r u s h. The renouned commercial spaceflight author Dennis Wingo makes the argument that for a $20 billion investment humans could return to the Moon perminately, mine precious metals needed to kickstart the hydrogen economy and eventually turn a profit. That much investment includes all the launches and all the equipment needed. Of course, it won't happen with some angel investor handing over that much capital at once with some vague hope of a return on investment. No, the way it will happen is with small incremental missions with each returning an investment. Dennis Wingo's current project is Orbital Recovery. They're developing a space tug to station keep satellites when their fuel runs out to keep them operational beyond their designated decommission dates. The space tug that is developed as a result is an integral part of the return to the moon system. How long? Give it 20 years.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Manned Space Flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way, you get what you pay for. Halliburton all the way!

      I think our immediate goal should be crashing the moon into the earth so we may harvest the resources more readily.

  24. Space Cadet Keyboard! by starseeker · · Score: 1

    I want my PC version of the space cadet keyboard, ding nabbit! Complete with absurdly overbuild mechanical durability and enough shift keys to fly an airplane with! It's not quite a mind meld with your computer but it's more or less the next best thing ;-).

    I lucked into an old IBM keyboard, and it will undoubtedly outlive the rest of my computer. Why the heck is there no market for durable goods any more? Or rather, why won't anyone MAKE durable goods? Has pride in workmanship given over entirely to next quarter profits? Gah.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Space Cadet Keyboard! by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      I think it's the walmart effect. No one is willing to pay $20 for a durable part when they can get something that does the job for $19 (even if it won't last half as long). Durability and workmanship is far secondary to cost these days, except perhaps on luxury items.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  25. Huh? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    the last people to explore the final frontier are past retirement age--and so are the engineers who put them there. In other words, next time we go into space, we're going to have to retrain people from scratch. There may be no firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be in space or to build a space vehicle


    Not to be a curmudgeon, but there is a Space Shuttle in orbit as I type this text. I'm pretty sure its occupants know "what it's like to be in space".


    OTOH, I think manned space travel is going to remain an expensive novelty until we can massively improve our dollars-per-kilogram-to-orbit. And that will require either some revolutionary breakthrough in rocket science (doubtful), or a space elevator or some other alternative means of getting mass to orbit. Until one of those things happens, unmanned probes and more basic research on the "get mass out of Earth's gravity well" problem are the smart way to go.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:Huh? by bbkingadrock · · Score: 1

      the difference is possibly the definition of the 'final frontier'.... being in orbit in the outer reaches of earth's gravity, versus exploring space beyond said orbit

    2. Re:Huh? by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      or a space elevator or some other alternative means of getting mass to orbit.

      A 'space elevator' is snake oil, and it never ceases to amaze me how many supposedly 'intelligent nerds' here on /. fall for it. But take a good hard look at it. To make it work, we need a breakthru in materials to manufacture the cable, and we need a breakthru in propulsion/energy transfer to power the climbers. Now assume both of those have occurred, take a step back and look at the big picture. The materials and propulsion can be deployed without the long cable, they will make the concept of a spaceplane practical.

      The whole concept of the space elevator will be made obsolete by the technology required to build it. Once that technology is available, we dont need the long cable to do the job, and it's a MASSIVE point of failure in the system, that'll make the whole concept impractical anyways.

      Space elevator is nothing more than the 21st century version of snake oil, and its mind boggling that there are folks actually falling for the pitch of a few companies promoting the concept as a way of relieving investors of thier cash.

      As for the shuttle, yes, it's in orbit, and has a few folks on board. Most of them aren't old enough to remember the last time there was real manned exploration happening in space, cuz the shuttle program isn't exploring anything new, except the realms of unpowered flight at hypersonic speeds during re-entry.

    3. Re:Huh? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      To make it work, we need a breakthru in materials to manufacture the cable


      Seems to me the 'breakthru' came with the discovery of carbon nanotubes. Getting the manufacturing process to the state where it is practical for this application is indeed a challenge, but I don't think it requires any miracles.


      and we need a breakthru in propulsion/energy transfer to power the climbers.


      As I understand it, the required technology to do that is more or less already developed. You need a power source (done), a photo cell for the receiver (done), a powerful laser (done), and an automatic tracking/focusing system (done).


      The materials and propulsion can be deployed without the long cable, they will make the concept of a spaceplane practical.


      Unless I am missing something (always a possibility), the problem with a space plane is the same problem that rockets have: it has to carry its own fuel into orbit. That means you burn up most of your fuel boosting up more fuel. The main advantage of a space elevator is that you dont have to send up fuel; you only pay the energy cost necessary to boost the payload.


      Space elevator is nothing more than the 21st century version of snake oil


      Well, you may be right -- I'm no expert, just someone who read a book on the subject and thought it sounded very promising. But my point wasn't that a space elevator will necessarily happen -- it was that without it (or something equally revolutionary), manned space exploration won't happen on any significant scale. Rockets simply aren't a practical way to get people into space. The analogy to the old west applies: sure, Lewis and Clark were able to explore a bit on horseback, but the significant developments didn't occur until after the building of the railroads.


      As for the shuttle, yes, it's in orbit, and has a few folks on board. Most of them aren't old enough to remember the last time there was real manned exploration happening in space, cuz the shuttle program isn't exploring anything new, except the realms of unpowered flight at hypersonic speeds during re-entry


      True, but not relevant to the point the article was trying to make. As long as we are sending people into space (even boring old low-earth-orbit) we are maintaining our skills regarding what is necessary to keep people alive in space. Not that I'm happy with the situation, but it isn't as bad as the article wants to make it seem.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference is possibly the definition of the 'final frontier'.... being in orbit in the outer reaches of earth's gravity, versus exploring space beyond said orbit

      Ok, I may have fallen asleep during my science classes, but are you really sure that the moon is beyond the outer reachs of earth's gravity? I mean, why does it always seem to hang around the earth so much?

    5. Re:Huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How is a space elevator supposed to provide about 10,000km/h in lateral acceleration in any case? It always seemed to me that if you were lifting payloads large enough to justify the effort, the space elevator would be flopping all over the place. A significant percentage of the energy you put into lifting the payload is going to end up forceing the cable sideways as the payload goes up. While you can arrange for "centrifugal force" to tend to straighten the cable again, you're still constantly feeding energy into a harmonic system and no good can come of that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Huh? by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1
      ... the problem with a space plane is [...that] it has to carry its own fuel into orbit. That means you burn up most of your fuel boosting up more fuel.

      Unless it's one of those "launch from some other craft at high altitude" ideas (but GP didn't allude to that).

      GP seems to overlook that a spaceplane is also a "massive" point of failure. You can have more than one spaceplane, but that doesn't reduce the chances of one of them failing. Worse, if one of them does fail, then the entire fleet is grounded anyway.

      I agree with GP that the complete failure of the first stage (single-cable) elevator would be more expensive than a single spaceplane failure, depending on the cost overruns in either program. But, neither the cable(s) nor the cargo of an SE have to travel x times faster than the speed of sound, which more than evens the odds, IHMO. The dangerously high speed is both a major source of risk for the spaceplane, as well as its primary advantage for passenger travel (to reduce the time of exposure to radiation).

      The main advantage of a space elevator is that you dont have to send up fuel; you only pay the energy cost necessary to boost the payload.

      Not only do you not have to send up fuel, you don't have to deposit as much garbage in orbit that complicates future launches. It may be possible to generate energy on the trip down, BTW, rather than expending fuel to come back down.

    7. Re:Huh? by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

      The SE cable, in its current design, is kept stretched out, under a [superlative] amount of tension. At eye level, the cable will feel as hard as a road surface. Still, the engineers know that oscillation will still occur, so they have a couple of good tactics they can use. One is to keep track of where the peaks and valleys are and to time the release of the next climber so that it produces oscillations out of phase with the previous one, either cancelling them out or at least not harmonizing into resonance. You can even adjust the speed of each climber to keep them out of phase. Another tactic is for the ground station to dampen the oscillations (think shock absorber). Well, there is one other tactic and that's to wait for the oscillations to die off as friction, but that's boring :)

      Something that isn't in their current plans but which may be incorporated at some point is a ground station with a device like a tidal generator that can extract some energy from the longer period oscillations. The energy can then be beamed back to the climbers.

    8. Re:Huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      At eye level, the cable will feel as hard as a road surface.

      Like the Tacoma Narrows bridge? ;) The cable will be quite flexible under its own weight, and the extreme length will give it quite a bit of play even under considerable tension.

      One is to keep track of where the peaks and valleys are and to time the release of the next climber so that it produces oscillations out of phase with the previous one, either cancelling them out or at least not harmonizing into resonance.

      I once discussed this with an egineer who designed realtime control software for robotics where the elasticity of the steel peices had to be taken into account (the robotics to set blank wafers into position in a fab, where the precision needed is quite high). He was quite dubious of the idea of trying to create out-of-phase waves to try to dampen harmonic ocilations - basically, it's a chaotic system. You can try to dampen the system as much as possible, but expecting to predict the exact wave form created by sending a weight down a swinging pendulum, expecially one with a weight near the middle in addition to at the end, is just impossible. It's only a matter of time before you get it just slightly wrong and snap the whip.

      Even dealing with weather driving the system will take some sort of active damping, and the latency involved in communincating down the length of the cable would make current proven realtime control technology useless. I certainly wouldn't want this thing within 35,000km of where I live!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Huh? by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

      ...expecting to predict the exact wave form created by sending a weight down a swinging pendulum, expecially one with a weight near the middle in addition to at the end, is just impossible. It's only a matter of time before you get it just slightly wrong and snap the whip.

      Expecting to predict the exact wave form created by plucking a guitar string with your finger, especially one with another finger near the middle in addition to at the end, is just impossible. It's only a matter of time before you get it just slightly wrong and snap the whip. :)

      It sounds like you believe that resonance can become destructive at any frequency, and that you have to worry about dampening every frequency at every location at every microsecond. According to your theory, all bridges would have fallen down by now due to the random coalescence of wavefronts, and the ocean would have produced a wave tall enough to reach the moon.

      For the sake of argument, think of the SE as basically a huge guitar string. It differs from your ukulele in that it has a very very long period of vibration. That's the part that may be hard to intuitively grasp. Think lunar tides, not middle C. Now, any guitar string has a natural frequency that it likes to vibrate at, and you are not going to build up enough amplitude/energy to break the string except at that frequency.

      Sending up a climber is like putting a finger somewhere on the string; you will end up with a higher "pitch," but in doing so, you have also cut down the maximum amplitude possible. The string just won't play as loud with that finger on it as without it. With more and more climbers, the ability to resonate destructively is not increased as you seem to think (unless you deliberately synchronize the peaks).

      If you're still worried about oscillations, another experiment you might want to try is to pluck a guitar string at 0.1% of its length to see how much it oscillates. That's the part of the cable that's subject to the weather, and represents an even tinier fraction of the total mass.

      The latency involved in communincating down the length of the cable would make current proven realtime control technology useless.

      Given that the period of vibration of the cable is measured in hours, if it takes one whole second to send a signal to a climber to tell it to slow down slightly, is that good enough to appease the latency god, or are you wanting to dampen the vibrations above 1 Hz as well?

    10. Re:Huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Have you ever played with a 2-part pendulum? It's a chaotic system. Adding a massive string doesn't simplify matters.

      A space elevator will store energy in compression and transverse waves in the ribbon as payloads are moved. The angular momentum transfer to the payload will steal angular momentum from the elevator as a whole, causing both the station and the counterweight to change orbits, like a pendulum from the Earth attachment point. But there are two weights on this pendulum, which makes it quite difficult to model. The large transverse wave caused by this momentum transfer will actually caused the station to want to roll up the ribbon like a yo-yo, or if the station is lightweight or loosely coupled, the counterweight will want to do so.

      This isn't a freshman physics pendulum, or a guitar. You have energy stored in waves in the ribbon, in the orbital mechanics of the station and of the counterweight, and in angular momentum of the station and of the counterweight (and the counterweight is pretty heavy in the designs I've seen), and in the seperate harmonic periods of the Earth-to-station pendulum and the station-to-counterweight pendulum. You have constant chaotic (if minor) input to this system from weather action (both Earth and space weather).

      While you could attempt to model all of this, and make some predictions about what the effects of sending the next payload up might be, the equations are certainly not solvable, and it's not like there will be some easy "send the next one up *now* to correct for the effects of the last one" answer.

      Somehow people seem to think that if we have a material strong enough, the rest will be easy. Heck, even the issues involved with obtaining a counterweight are beyond our current technology, and how do you deploy the thing - manufacture it all in geosynchronous orbit and unreel it in both directions?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Huh? by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

      Have you ever played with a 2-part pendulum? It's a chaotic system

      Yes. My legs. And despite their chaotic oscillations they haven't broken off just yet :)

      This isn't a freshman physics pendulum, or a guitar

      No, but I would submit that the guitar model is closer to an SE than the suddenly stopped robot arm, and easier for most people to relate to.

      You have energy stored in waves in the ribbon...

      Well, IMHO I had already answered why that wouldn't cause the ribbon to break. Something I haven't seen you take into account though is that the energy is being continuously reduced by friction. The longer the cable, the more energy is required to overcome it and reflect. Some of those chaotic oscillations just won't make it to the other end at anywhere near their initial amplitudes. Wavefronts can't coalesce if they can never coincide. Did I mention that this is a very, very long cable?

      it's not like there will be some easy "send the next one up *now* to correct for the effects of the last one"

      Well, you may be right that there may not be enough of an effect to make it worth worrying about to that degree, but if you were worrying about it, the fact is it would be easy to do that.

      While you could attempt to model all of this

      Well, yeah -- you could model the oscillation aspect pretty well by building a Lunar SE first and inducing the oscillations yourself.

      the equations are certainly not solvable

      Which equations specifically? You sound like you're making it up.

      Somehow people seem to think that if we have a material strong enough, the rest will be easy

      I agree with that. There's plenty of other things to worry about that will make this project an engineering challenge -- and also why it can be a superlative human achievement when it is completed. Don't ask me to lose any sleep over the oscillation aspect though.

      how do you deploy the thing - manufacture it all in geosynchronous orbit

      Well, now you're changing the subject, but I haven't heard anyone claim that it would be manufactured anywhere in orbit.

    12. Re:Huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Unless you specifically build damping mechanisms into the cable, friction is going to be a lot less than it needs to be here (of course, I'm saying this without knowing exactly what the thing will be built of, but the friction associated with flexing in a cable under tension tends to provide less of a damping effect as scale increases, if you're maintaining elasticity at that scale). I think you want low friction in any case - in general friction means material fatigue, unless you have actual shock absorbers. Additionally, all the friction gets expressed as heat, and unless the cable is very heat conductive it's going to have problems sheedding heat (but now that I think about it, solar energy will probaly add more heat than friction could). Finally, you *need* the cable to be moving, as it will be dragged to a lower orbit with every payload, and you need it to return.

      So here's a question for you - if you don't manufacture it in orbit, how do you raise it? In any scenario I can think of, you're pretty much lifting the entire mass of the cable+counterweight with rockets. That's a lot of mass. So much so, in fact, that if we just lifted payloads with those rockets in the first place, it would serve all of our space transport needs for a century.

      You were joking about the lunar one, no? Mars would almost make sense, once Mars has a large industrial base.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Huh? by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced. Especially as you never posted the "unsolvable formulas" you alluded to.

  26. Palm Pilot? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Erm. I used to have one of the original. It was okay, but I don't miss it. I liked its simplicity and its battery life. Heck, I even liked all the 3rd party apps out there. But my big beef with it was in giving it something uesful to do. Eventually I settled on AvantGo and Dope Wars. That was kinda neat... but .. meh.

    Okay, this is just me, but I really didn't find a use for PDAs until they started coming with wifi built in and support for ginormous memory cards. Heck, I played with a Palm the other day that had a camera built in. How handy is that?

    I don't miss the old Palm Pilots, but I do like modern PDAs. They don't feel like a solution in search of a problem.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Palm Pilot? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      The original Palm Pilot wasn't a solution in search of a problem - did you see what assistants had to drag around before Palms? They were called "Organisers", they weighed about a kilogram (a couple of pounds) and they cost a hundred dollars a year in replacement fillers. The palm pilot weighed in at a few hundred grams (a gram is a thousandth of a kilogram), did everything an organisor did, fitted in the pocket and didn't need replacing every year.

  27. Better info about BOB here... by oldosadmin · · Score: 0, Troll
    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:Better info about BOB here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If better means 'not really better but on my site with my ads' then yes

    2. Re:Better info about BOB here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar.

  28. Ctrl in its correct place. by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the first computer I used, a TRS-80 Model 100, the Control key is next to the A button, and the caps lock is a tiny button to the bottom right of the keyboard.

    How often does Caps Lock get used relative to Ctrl? Why was it moved? Even in Windows, copy, cut and paste use Ctrl.

    http://store.yahoo.com/pfuca-store/haphackeylit1.h tml
    These keyboard look ok, but they don't sell a split egronomic version.

    I can map my keyboard, with xmodmap on linux, but it is hard to do that on a per user basis on a windows box, and I definitly can't do that on the windows boxes at school.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    1. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by IvyKing · · Score: 1
      On the first computer I used, a TRS-80 Model 100, the Control key is next to the A button, and the caps lock is a tiny button to the bottom right of the keyboard.

      Buy a keyboard with the "Unix" layout (e.g. Sun type 6). The Caps Lock next to the "A" key is an IBM PC thing - just one of many stupid design decisions left over from the original 5150. Maybe it was someone who wanted to kill WordStar (which used the ctrl keys for moving around)...

      My first computer keyboard (Televideo 925) had the control key next to the "A" key.

    2. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      How often does Caps Lock get used relative to Ctrl?

      Totally, *totally* agree with you. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

      Between the Ctrl/Caps Lock and DEL/BS, IBM really screwed the world, as far as keyboard layout is concerned.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    3. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by achurch · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I have no problem with Ctrl in the lower left corner. I mean, there's this gouge in the side of my left hand dripping blood, but no big deal, you know?

    4. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      is an IBM PC thing

      Uh, maybe s/PC/key board/.

      Take a look at typewriter keyboards going back to the dawn of time. The Caps Lock, formerly Shift Lock was above the Shift key for a reason. That being that the Shift key mechanically shifted the guts of the typewrite so a different part of the key would hit the ribbon/paper. The Shift Lock was mounted to the Shift lever, and activated a catch that would hold it down.

      That said, I firmly believe that the Control key belongs over the shift key, where God and the Digital Equipment Corporation intended it to be.

    5. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by Kaa · · Score: 1

      I can map my keyboard, with xmodmap on linux, but it is hard to do that on a per user basis on a windows box

      Solution A: http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Ctrl2Cap.htm l

      Solution B: http://www.winstuff.de/show_registry.html?sid=50

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    6. Re:Ctrl in its correct place. by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      I did Solution B a while ago on my computer at work, but that isn't per user, and I can't do that at school.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  29. Best. (Apple) Keyboard. EVER! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    The Apple Extended Keyboard.

    Not the Extended II, which is pretty good, but the original Extended, with the rainbow Apple in the lower left hand corner.

    Compared to the Extended, every other keyboard feels like I'm poking at a slab of Silly Putty.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:Best. (Apple) Keyboard. EVER! by foo12 · · Score: 1

      This was linked up-thread, but I thought I'd repost the link here as I use one of these: Mattias TactilePro

  30. My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Manned Space Exploration

    Well, I agree that reestablishing travel to the moon and beyond is important, the International Space Station is an important stepping stone that deserves focus. The reason I think so is that I truly believe it's going to take a multinational effort to get to Mars and back.

    2. Kozmo.com

    Make up your mind, CNET, technology you miss, or giant flop. I suppose it could be both, but even if Kozmo had stayed in business, it could never compete with my neighborhood grocery store.

    3. Napster

    Any opinion I might express about this would likely start a flame war, so I'll leave this one alone.

    4. Concorde

    You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?

    5. GM's EV1

    Zero Emission Vehicle. ROFLMAO. Zero-emission as long as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard. Sure, I suppose the power could have been photoelectric or wind produced, but if you believe no harm to the earth was done in the process of manufacturing those systems, you're clueless. (Hint: Strip mining for metals, processing ore, smelting, doping chemicals for solar, etc). Not that I have a problem with any of the above, but let's be realistic here. There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".

    6. The Original Palm Pilot

    I don't know. My Zire 31 does everything the original did, plus color and MP3s. I've been eying the Tungsten E2 as an upgrade. Only third party apps have ever crashed it, and that's only twice after over a year of use. The Palm-supplied apps have been rock solid. A lot like the original Palm Pilot.

    7. Good Keyboards

    Agreed.

    8. Wires

    You miss wires? Uh, you made the choice to go wireless. If you truly miss wires, just switch back, right? It's not like your old phone company disappeared, and you can't buy ethernet cables. Oh wait... the convenience outweighs the disadvantages of wireless you point to. I guess you don't really miss wires after all.

    9. LPs

    My wife is an archaeologist. She's told me about digging these up.

    10. The Newton

    The Newton was good for a laugh, but it was also a good lesson for future manufacturers of PDAs. Without Apple's failure, would we really have seen Palm's success?

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:My take on the list by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the ISS is a farce and a waste of billions. We needed a station capable of in-space construction even if it was of the most rudimentary design. The ISS is just another orbiting coffee can where people who call themselves scientists can play with yo-yos.

      It is time for NASA to think beyond the next shuttle launch, and start cultivating a fucking reason for us to be in space. A mission to Mars at this time is idiotic. Instead, let's concentrate on an orbital construction/production facility so we can actually capitalize on the advantages of zero gravity. But NO! We are content to make mere potshots at the rest of the solar system without bulding the infrastructure that may one day make interplanetary travel really viable.

    2. Re:My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      We may disagree on the value of the ISS (there *is* value. International cooperation in space is a good value. Long-term cooperation even more so).

      However, you are right on the need for an orbital construction facility, but as the old saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." You can't simply rush into it.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:My take on the list by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative
      There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle"
      Of course there is - it means zero emission from the vehicle, emission happens elsewhere. It isn't the way to cut down on energy consumption or CO2 emission, it's a way to not have CO, NOx or SOx where people are breathing it. The first hybrid car I saw in 1987 was for this purpose - above ground at a mine site it ran on fuel and below ground it ran on batteries - no emissions when it mattered.

      From what I've read the zero emissions policy was at first a reaction to unbelievable amounts of pollution from automobiles in L.A. - any other slant that was put on it after that was people playing politics and the nuclear lobby trying to get green credibility (and possibly succeeding).

    4. Re:My take on the list by tade · · Score: 1

      Two things bother me. First while they can't take away your dreams, they can make them less accessible. Like the Concorde. I'm too young to actually have been dreaming about that (only 25) but sure, if I could afford it, i'd do it. Now while it's still possible for me to reach the speeds it's considerably more difficult. So i'd say it's a loss while I agree that I'd probably hadn't flown anyways.

      And the other thing is the zero emission vehicle. Guess you've never lived in a city (neither have I) to realize that while you still produce emissions when generating electricity it's much more preferable to do it in one place where the emission can be controlled and not in a 250 000 000 small power plants that pollute the exact same air the people breathe. (I'm Not trying to suggest that people in the countryside (where the big plants are) aren't people, but they aren't suffering from pollution like the other people who live in the city.)

    5. Re:My take on the list by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      What you just described there is more properly known as a "displaced-emissions vehicle."

      p

    6. Re:My take on the list by Washizu · · Score: 1

      "Zero-emission as long as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard."

      But by creating the waste at the power plant, society can decide where the best place is to store/release it. When cars are generating the waste, the pollution gets released (by definition) where everyone wants to go.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    7. Re:My take on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with using "zero-emissions vehicle" to describe a vehicle that doesn't freaking emit anything!? We all know that vehicles are supported by a larger system that provides energy, but the point is that _that component_ of the system, referenced by the noun "vehicle", is accurately described by the compound hyphen-adjective "zero-emissions". The power source may or may not be "zero-emissions", which is irrelevant from a lexical perspective. It's not that damn complicated.

    8. Re:My take on the list by Yonder+Way · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".

      Wrong.

    9. Re:My take on the list by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      It's far from the most comment-worthy on the list, but since the other topics have been addressed, and this is a topic close to my heart, I'll take The Newton for $500, please.

      The Newton was good for a laugh, but it was also a good lesson for future manufacturers of PDAs. Without Apple's failure, would we really have seen Palm's success?

      I think that should be revised. The original Newton MessagePad was a failure, because it exposed serious flaws in what was (at that time) still the most heavily researched and well-thought-out touchscreen interface of the time. Plus, it was a little slow. However, you're missing about 4-5 years of history in which the MessagePad started to succeed, and it was this success that not only inspired Palm, but allowed them to make their initial money as a software developer for the Newton platform.

      As someone who developed for the MessagePad as a teenager, I can tell you that it was not only highly technically advanced, but was a great learning platform. The Newton OS was based on a bytecode, object-oriented solution that was similar to, but of a smaller scope than, Java. The development environment for Newton was, 10 years ago, what NetBeans 4.1 has just started to become for mobile apps today, and native development was available as well. That's why there's still an active developer community.

      On technical merit, Apple put a lot of innovation into this machine, and it paid off by allowing easy-to-use applications on a PDA that could print (w/WYSIWYG preview!), fax, email -- whatever. There are still things I could do with a MessagePad (eg, receive a fax, or write and edit a heirarchical checklist) that either don't work at all or don't work right on current PDA's, even with third-party software and annoying hardware dongles.

      The processor in the first few generations wasn't quite up to the load of running an interpreted OS, a problem that was remedied quite nicely by the MP2000 series -- they used a 190MHz StrongARM, the first of its kind to become available. A few months after their release, Jobs came back to Apple and gave the Newton the axe.

      But, from the release of the Newton 2.0 Operating System (which many older machines could be upgraded with), the UI bugs had been worked out. Handwriting recognition was excellent. There was an accessory keyboard that was great, if a little noisy. And the built-in notetaking application has yet to find an equal among newer PDA's. And, even at $800 a pop, it was selling.

      In summation, your point about the Newton is patently false. It should read:

      The Newton was good for a laugh, but then it improved and was shut down in its prime due to internal politics. Without the Newton's late-life success and the ensuing market vacuum when it was axed, would we really have seen Palm's success?
      Jasin Natael
      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    10. Re:My take on the list by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".

      Some would disagree.

    11. Re:My take on the list by harrkev · · Score: 1
      What you just described there is more properly known as a "displaced-emissions vehicle."
      Perhaps not. With a car, you have millions of little gas-producing factories running around. So, in order to reduce emissions, you have to have millions of little catalytic converters. You also have to make it fit in around a cubit foot of space.

      With entirely electric vehicles, all emissions are produced in a limited number of places (in the hundereds, I believe). And these power plants have few space limitations, and deeper pockets. So, it makes more sense to try to clean up the emissions in a lot fewer locations.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    12. Re:My take on the list by dbIII · · Score: 1
      displaced-emissions vehicle
      I think my point was missed - while the example was a hybrid it may as well have been fully electric, which in that case would have been described as a zero emission vehicle.

      Electric cars have been around for a much longer time than hybrids, and hybrids have mostly replaced them mainly because batteries still suck and you can get up the hill on fuel and regenerate on the way down. Hybrids solve some of the problems electric cars were chosen for - for example a hybrid stuck in traffic will shut it's motor down so you don't get such a large concentration of nasty stuff in the city air if you have a lot of them.

    13. Re:My take on the list by dwhitman · · Score: 1
      Perhaps not. With a car, you have millions of little gas-producing factories running around. So, in order to reduce emissions, you have to have millions of little catalytic converters. You also have to make it fit in around a cubit foot of space.
      Yeah, what he said. I'd add that you also don't waste energy dragging the pollution control hardware around with you while you drive, which will also contribute to reduced emmisions.
    14. Re:My take on the list by MythMoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Concorde

      You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?


      I agree with their attitude in the article - this was something to aspire to. It was very expensive, but not so expensive that it was unimaginable as a once-in-a-lifetime possibility.

      I miss it for exactly that reason. Plus I used to work at Heathrow and have nostalgic memories of everyone checking their watches as the 11am BA001 flight roared past the window.

      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    15. Re:My take on the list by Khelder · · Score: 1

      I had an original MessagePad and later a MessagePad 2000. I agree that the MP2000 had good handwriting recognition and was fast enough. I really miss the Newton OS and the user interface. It was designed for pens and was excellent.

      I don't miss the physical form factor, though. Too big to carry with me everywhere (my Palm fits in my pocket), but too small to show very much information.

      If only there were a steno-pad-sized or larger NewtonOS device...

    16. Re:My take on the list by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're wrong. The energy sopurce of that ship was wind, which itself is driven by the sun's heat, which is generated by nuclear fusion in the sun. Now the sun generates a lot of waste in form of the so-called solar wind (it's even dangerous; fortunately we have an atmosphere and a magnetic field to protect us from it). Therefore it's clearly not zero emission, the emission is just moved to a different place (the sun).

      Even worse, it's already known that one day the real power source for that ship (i.e. the sun) will fail, and during failure will completely destroy the whole earth. You wouldn't call such an energy source exactly environment friendly, would you?

      SCNR :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:My take on the list by argent · · Score: 1

      My Zire 31 does everything the original did, plus color and MP3s.

      How about being able to go a month on a pair of AAAs?

      Palm started out doing a pretty good job with the ARM processor, but they've totally dropped the ball on it since. Today your ARM CPU is still running all your apps in 68000 emulation, and the native ARM OS seems further away than ever now they're talking Linux. And there's nothing that I want to do on a PDA that a 68000 won't do as well as an ARM, which is why I went back to the Sony SJ22 - decent battery life, ample RAM, and a thumb control so I can comfortably read a document that's more than a page long without holding it at some weird angle.

    18. Re:My take on the list by Thag · · Score: 1
      6. The Original Palm Pilot
      I don't know. My Zire 31 does everything the original did, plus color and MP3s. I've been eying the Tungsten E2 as an upgrade. Only third party apps have ever crashed it, and that's only twice after over a year of use. The Palm-supplied apps have been rock solid. A lot like the original Palm Pilot.

      What I really want is an updated Treo 90, a basic Palm model with a thumb-board. Add in the modern d-pad and a headphone jack and it would be ideal.

      The only thing I really miss about the old Palms is Graphiti 1, and even then it's a toss-up with Graphiti 2 (Graphiti 2 is a lot better for entering phone numbers, for instance). For everything else, the new Palms are better in every way.

      Jon Acheson
      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    19. Re:My take on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of those vikings create a lot of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. You also need to feed the vikings, which involves production and transport of food - more pollution.

    20. Re:My take on the list by wackywendell · · Score: 1

      Also, huge power plants are much, much more efficient at turning coal or oil into energy. It's a big difference.

    21. Re:My take on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You miss wires? Uh, you made the choice to go wireless. If you truly miss wires, just switch back, right? It's not like your old phone company disappeared, and you can't buy ethernet cables. Oh wait... the convenience outweighs the disadvantages of wireless you point to. I guess you don't really miss wires after all.

      Wireless has it's places, but it's just done wrong. Do you know how hard it is to find a wired keypad garage door opener that doesn't require a battery? Batteries aren't so swell in a Wisconsin winter. Or how about speakers? I want wireless speakers without batteries. Changing batteries sucks, throwing them away sucks more. Why do I have to run a cable to my receiver for my overpriced Bose rear speakers when they are sitting next to a power outlet? I want to plug them into the wall outlet nearby and have them "just find" the audio signal.

      While I'm on it, it amazes me at how many new home builders don't install ethernet in their homes - even geeks who should know better. They always say, "well, we looked into it, but we figured we'd just go wireless." Yeah, I guess if speed, security, future upgradability, resale, interference, and brain tumors don't account for anything. Compare how easy it is to add structured cabling that includes audio, phone, and network when the house is being built versus how difficult (and crappy looking) it is to add later (accounting for finished basements and second stories, of course).

    22. Re:My take on the list by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard."

      Tehcnically speaking, no "burning" occurs in a nuclear power plant. And, while the waste is dangerous, there isn't very much of it, and it can be (and usually is) isolated from the environment.

    23. Re:My take on the list by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      The bright red sail could easily confuse birds, causing them to be unable to reproduce as they repeatedly hit the sails in a comical fashion. Why won't anybody think of the cute little birds?

    24. Re:My take on the list by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      Although I understand your rebuttals, and they are reasonable and defensible, I think the authors "miss" these technologies in the "grief" sense of the word. I.E., They "miss" the idea of a future with these technologies, or perhaps "miss" thinking of the kind of future that these ideas suggested.

      For example, I remember how cool I thought the Newton was, despite its flaws. It was just fun to imagine what the future held with such digital assistants in it. The loss comes in having to change our hopes for the future.

      I wanted an electric car, too.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    25. Re:My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Hah! I stand corrected! Excellent.

      Actually, that is how my own Viking ancestors discovered North America.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    26. Re:My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Unless your bicyle is made out of some magic material that does not need mining (ever seen a strip mine in operation) and processing (smelter), and welding (oxyacetylene combustion byproducts from gas welding or ground level ozone from electric welding) to put it together, it isn't zero-emission.

      I will grant that (not counting your carbon-dioxide exhalation as you ride it), the emissions of a bicycle approach zero over time, but they are not zero-emission.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    27. Re:My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Tehcnically speaking, no "burning" occurs in a nuclear power plant. And, while the waste is dangerous, there isn't very much of it, and it can be (and usually is) isolated from the environment.

      Technically speaking, in the jargon of the field, you are wrong. See burn and pay particular attention: 2. Physics. To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.

      Yes, I checked a real Merriam-Webster, too, and it agreed, as does m-w.com.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    28. Re:My take on the list by yakovlev · · Score: 1

      Even when you take into account transmission and storage losses when transferring it from the plant, into the vehicle batteries, and then out onto the road? There's a lot of energy loss there, and I don't know if it would make up for the loss incurred by using a small gasoline engine instead of a large turbine.

    29. Re:My take on the list by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Well..there is this model.

      More to your point, though, all vehicles are built out of 'something'. The ZE everybody keeps talking about is actual usage. Of course, we do have to take into account various manufacturing concerns. Is a building and recycling a bank of batteries beetter or worse than the tailpipe emission of a gas motor over its lifetime.

      But a bike probably uses less mined and manufactured resources than the driver seat alone in a standard car...:)

    30. Re:My take on the list by drsquare · · Score: 1

      That's the most stupid thing I've ever read. By your definition, nothing is zero emission because of how it was made. Zero emission means it doesn't give anything out when you use it. How do people like you remember to breath?

    31. Re:My take on the list by toddestan · · Score: 1

      With entirely electric vehicles, all emissions are produced in a limited number of places (in the hundereds, I believe). And these power plants have few space limitations, and deeper pockets. So, it makes more sense to try to clean up the emissions in a lot fewer locations.

      And the best part is that if tomorrow, the fossil fuel burning power is replaced by a fusion power plant, all of those formly "displaced-emissions vehicles" instantly become "zero-emissions vehicles", with no changes to the vehicles themselves.

    32. Re:My take on the list by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      That's the most stupid thing I've ever read. By your definition, nothing is zero emission because of how it was made. Zero emission means it doesn't give anything out when you use it. How do people like you remember to breath?

      My point was that "zero emission vehicle" is an inaccurate term meant to make people feel good about themselves, not reflect the actual reality of the situation. The world would be a much better place if people quit trying to invent euphemisms.

      Well, that and to piss people like you off.

      Oh yeah, if you really want me to nit-pick, you are leaving little particles of rubber dust everywhere you ride your bike. Bicycles are zero emission, only if you forget about the manufacturing process, tire wear, and the lube you put on the chain every now and then (likely full of VOCs).

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    33. Re:My take on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi - I'm too lazy to create an account when I'm just popping in - I'm sorry if that makes me an Anonymous Coward. :)

      I'm the webmaster for www.vikingship.org, and I was really confused while looking at the stats as to why our site was linked to this site, since they're practically opposites (history vs. technology). Then I found this branch of the comments... :)

      I'd love to know how you found our site!

      (BTW- our ship is NOT zero emissions - to meet Coast Guard regulations, we have an engine in the back of our ship... we call it the MEAD MOTOR.) ;)

  31. they missed one... by nilbog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I liked punch cards... I mean, they had the added benefit that if your drive broke, you could actually SEE the data...

    --
    or else!
    1. Re:they missed one... by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      And if your lightbulb broke, you could feel the data.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    2. Re:they missed one... by synesis · · Score: 1

      And if your heater broke ...

  32. My take on selected ones by number7 · · Score: 1

    #1: Absolutely.
    OK, so the direct science of manned spaceflight is dubious, but we need the romance of space and it can really help to push along major innovation. If we let the market do it, all we get are Microsoft products.

    #5: SOOOO impractical.
    Make it accelerate well, not be beholden a third of its life to a power cord and actually USEFUL and it'll take off. THat's why I love hybrid and fuel cell technology.

    #7: Oh SO much. I have three old IBM keyboards, one a "UNIX" keyboard (no keypad). Built like tanks. I've pounded on them in frustration and they take it like Tina Turner. I love overengineered products.

    #8: Funny,
    most of my phones in the house (3 out of four) are corded. Even better, two of those are from the '20s and '30s. That ring is just so beautiful. I just love getting called.

    #9: Also funny,
    in the past three years I've bought far more vinyl than plastic. Used and new, to be sure, but the ratio is about 3:1, vinyl to plastic.

    You can choose to be nostalgiac for the past or, like me, just live in it (so says the man whose newest means of transportation is over 25 years old and has two wheels...).

    --
    Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, we lost our corkscrew and had to live on food and water for a number of weeks.
  33. So? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That doesn't mean that it wsan't a bitching service. I mean to-your-door delivery is awesome, but it's hard to get on almost anything but pizza. Plenty of times when I've wanted something, but not wanted to get dressed and go to the store to get it. Even more so when you are talking about things outside of normal business hours.

    That is was a bas business idea doesn't make it any less cool to the consumer. I wish they had found a way to make it work because I tell ya, I could go for a new DVD right now, but I don't want to go and drive and get one, espically since I'm pretty sure the video store is closed anyhow.

    1. Re:So? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I realized Kozmo was terminally doomed as soon as they started offering their DVD service. I mean, it's one thing to offer a service that competes with your corner convenience store, but does a dot-com startup really want to make enemies out of the likes of Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, Wal-Mart, and Netflix all at once?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:So? by bentcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my corner of the world, pizza joints have been offering film deals for some time now. You'll order pizza and DVD and it'll get delivered to your door. It would surprise me if this wasn't happening elsewhere too ...

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a friend who used to work for Kozmo, and he said that most of his deliveries were gay porn videos.

      Maybe that's what gave them the idea.

    4. Re:So? by kabz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is what children used to be for.

      Go fetch some milk.
      Go fetch bread.
      Get get the 'messages', as we say in Scotland.

      Too dangerous now, and you'd probably have to give the kids the car keys, unless you wanted them to spend three hours hiking to the nearest Kroger.

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    5. Re:So? by sketerpot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Too dangerous now, and you'd probably have to give the kids the car keys, unless you wanted them to spend three hours hiking to the nearest Kroger.

      With obesity problems nowadays, this might not be such a bad idea.

    6. Re:So? by ratsg · · Score: 1

      I lived in hawaii in the early 90's and there was a place on Nimitz Highway called "Thick and Juicy Pizza" that sold pizza and rented porno movies.

      I have no idea if it is still there. I moved away in 1993.

    7. Re:So? by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      The thing you're looking for is called 'courier service'. Call the store to depose the wanted good for you, send courier to pay and retrieve, pay courier. I work in advertising, this is done there for *decades*.

      Actually buying stuff like this is a minor portion of all those couriers we call each day (most deliver proofs or hard disks with data that would be impractical to transfer via the net), but we get our 'emergency' hardware like this and it's usually faster than what most vendors hardware support contracts offer to you. You call the deliverer, courier picks it up. Takes around 20 minutes until I hold the hardware in my hands.

      And it's not particularly expensive, either. Said hardware delivery would usually be around 7 EUR, but it depends on distance.

      While we're at it, if we're talking stuff like getting the munchies at 3 in the morning and wanting some whoppers or something, you can always call a taxi and have it deliver the food or whatever you need. They might require getting the money for the food up front to get rid of prank calls, but if you call the same cab company always, they will know they can trust you and have the nearest driver pick up your stuff. Then getting your quarter pounder costs you around 5-7 EUR. I'd say this is a fine price for not having to drive around to buy stuff.

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    8. Re:So? by Lotharus · · Score: 1

      What? I thought the requisite finger-food for watching porn was fried chicken...

  34. I miss word processors... by confused+philosopher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That can start in under 2 seconds. I don't see why current word processors like Open Office and Word need 30 seconds to load, when all they are doing is taking input from the keyboard 90% of the time. Why can't they load a simple screen and then fill in the rest behind the scenes later so you can start typing when you open the darn program, and not a minute later? It makes no sense. People are going to start to wonder why we don't use PAPER for writing anymore.

    Speaking of paper, there's another technology I'll miss, especially in the bathroom, unless they get something better.

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
    1. Re:I miss word processors... by Knome_fan · · Score: 1
    2. Re:I miss word processors... by davesag · · Score: 2, Funny
      Speaking of paper, there's another technology I'll miss, especially in the bathroom, unless they get something better.

      You mean no-one has explained the 3 shells to you?

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    3. Re:I miss word processors... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of TextEdit?

      (I suppose WordPad would be okay too, if you insist on using a certain shitty operating system.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:I miss word processors... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I suppose WordPad would be okay too ... operating system
      Versions of vi such as vim run on a lot of operating systems, including all versions of MS Windows (and MSDOS). With the cream extensions you get a fairly familiar GUI for those that are used to word processors and not used to vi. I'm sure there are versions of emacs to run on most operating systems as well.
    5. Re:I miss word processors... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, they told me I have to use those shells, but I just can't find the right command. I already tried "rm shit" and "clear", but nothing helped.
      I also don't understand why you have to have three shells open for such a simple task.

      (note to moderators: yes, I did get the Demolition Man reference!)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:I miss word processors... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The only reason vi and emacs don't fit into what I was saying -- despite the fact that they're both great programs (and superior to WordPad!) -- is that they're not word processors. They're only text editors, and as such the only way to add formatting is to write in markup. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing; in fact I write all my "word processing" documents in HTML and use a text editor!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:I miss word processors... by radish · · Score: 1

      Word just started up in 3 seconds for me, and this is NOT a fast computer. At home on a decent box it's more like 1 second.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  35. My own list by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1
    1. Multi-disc optical drives for PCs
    2. Motherboards without built-in sound/RAID/etc.
    3. DejaNews (although Google Groups prior to the interface downgrade would be acceptable)
    4. Hardware modems
    5. Pudding Pops
    1. Re:My own list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:My own list by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I hear you about the motherboards and modems. Sigh.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:My own list by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Pudding Pops are in the pipeline to be back on market this year. (Or so the rumor goes.)

  36. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hoo yah! I'm still using the same phone I bought in 1985 from Western Electric. This was not long after the break-up and they were still making 'em like they were going to lease 'em out to you and didn't want to have to come out and do repairs more often then every 25 years. It's built like a tank and has survived dozens of 6 foot dives to the kitchen floor. I'll probably be leaving it in my will to the grandkids.

    Got the old-fashioned actual real bell on it, too, none of these namby-pamby tweedle-eedle-eep electronic imitations...harumph...

    Got to go take my medication now....

  37. Technology lost by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Insightful
    is the art of efficient programming. Today we are running multi-core with gigahertz but the same task takes still about the same time to perform as when we were running the 3MHz Z80-processor with 32k RAM in the beginning of the 80's.

    What we need today is not another version of Windows needing even more computer resources, what we need today is a safer computer environment.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Technology lost by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a 300k Autocad drawing of a house with detail plans and open it on a 386 and take the same drawing and open it on a 3.2 GHz P4.

      Tell me the redraw times are the same.

  38. napster??? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    legal issues aside, how was napster any better than the current breed of p2p apps?

    it only let you share .mp3 files, couldn't do multi-source downloading, couldn't resume, was heavily centralized, etc...

    all in all, I'd say that napster was pretty bad. even gnutella (acquisition/limewire) has evolved to be miles better than napster.

    napster's popularity was it's only saving grace. end of story.

    (oh, and about the keyboards.... fill a computer lab/library with buckling spring keyboards, and see how long you keep your sanity. clickclickclickclickclickclick)

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  39. Internet... by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... as in:
    * Spamless Internet
    * Virusless Internet
    * Popupless Internet
    * Bannerless Internet
    * etcless Internet

    Of course that the net has evolved, and a lot, but sometimes one miss those old days when your mail were mail, when browsing pages retrieved almost only the content you wanted, and even the pages were really static, without things popping up, moving, blinking or weighting far more than the useful content of what you really want to read.

    1. Re:Internet... by skingers6894 · · Score: 1

      At least for the first three just get of Windows and IE you can have your Internet back!

    2. Re:Internet... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      * Spamless Internet

      Spamassassin

      * Virusless Internet

      Linux

      * Popupless Internet

      apt-get install mozilla-firefox

      * Bannerless Internet

      Junkbuster

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:Internet... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      * Spamless Internet
      * Virusless Internet
      * Popupless Internet
      * Bannerless Internet
      * etcless Internet


      Most of us that actually remember the good old days have it. My spamfilters take out almost all spam, certainly not more irritating than a mild itch. Viruses? Between not using IE/Outlook, a good firewall and antivirus as a last line of defense, I haven't see a virus on my computer since Win98. Pop-ups? Blocked. Banners? Blocked (mostly).

      And with the return of open standards (Linux maturing, IE down meaning more compliant HTML, OpenOffice with office documents) I see more opportunities than ever. The only dark clound in the horizon is DRM, but that's not now. I really love the advances made in both speed, quality and breadth of content available since I started on my pitiful dial-up pay-per-minute modem.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Internet... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      ... sometimes one miss those old days when your mail were mail ...

      Ah yes, the golden era of the internet. When men were men, women were too, and little girls were FBI agents.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also possible to use Safari on a Macintosh running Pithhelmet. No Advertisements. No gif, jpeg, flash, google text ads, nothing. And of course, no viruses.

    6. Re:Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn off Javascript.

  40. The only one technologty I miss by aepervius · · Score: 1

    is the anti-dupe article technology.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  41. top 10 /. top 10 posts! by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, CNET is having a top 10 celebration for its 10th aniversary... can we just point everyone to it rather than having to make each one a new article!?

    http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6250162-1.html?ta g=bottom

  42. OmniKey Ultra, best keyboard ever by cool_st_elizabeth · · Score: 1

    I have an original OmniKey Ultra, made by Northgate Computer Systems. I'll give it up when someone pries it from my cold dead hands. It weighs several pounds, but has a light touch, and the paint didn't wear off the keys after the first few days of typing. The letters and numbers are embedded into the plastic. The OmniKey Ultra is so good, there are still companies who are willing to repair it if anything goes wrong. Just try getting a "modern" keyboard repaired, or a pair of shoes, or a VCR.

  43. My 2 cents by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is my list:

    1. Software optimized for keyboard speed. Most software focuses on the mouse, which makes it easier to learn, but you just don't get the same productivity once the learning curve is crossed. Outside of art and diagrams, the keyboard is potentially quicker (once learned).

    2. XBase (dBase dirivative) for table processing. It showed what nimble table-oriented and/or collection-orientation can do. SQL is just not factorable enough to do some things as well, taking more than 3 times the same amount of code in many cases. The language had flaws, but the table-side seemed to straddle the line between SQL and array-oriented languages that derived from APL (and still used for financial analysis).

    3. Developing with real GUI's. The web puts all kinds of odd constraints and hurdles in front of creating good, controllable, and quick GUI's. Before the web I spent about 30% of my time on interface issues and 70% on the processing itself. With the web that seems reversed.

    4. DEC VAX file versioning. The VAX kept a copy of 2 or so save generations in case you foobarred something. With disk being cheap (for at least text files) I would like to see something similar brought back.

  44. Okay, I'll bite by XanC · · Score: 1
    so says the man whose newest means of transportation is over 25 years old and has two wheels

    Are we talking about a 1970 model bicycle?

    1. Re:Okay, I'll bite by number7 · · Score: 1

      Nope, 1976 motorcycle.

      My truck is older than that.

      --
      Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, we lost our corkscrew and had to live on food and water for a number of weeks.
  45. Amiga... Betamax... Alpha AXP cpu's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Amiga was a decade or more ahead of its time, but you won't buy one in the store today.

    Betamax - we should all know the story here. At the time, everyone knew that Beta was superior to VHS in every way except in terms of movie selection at the video store. It's a crying shame.

    AlphaServers with AXP CPU's... Yes I know it is still possible to purchase these, but not for long. I am still stunned by how Intel was allowed to buy the Alpha technology just to own the competition's processor technology and chipmaking plant, dodge the MMU patent lawsuit (which would have been expensive for Intel) and allow Intel to write the closing chapter on the superior Alpha processor technology.

    Intel's aquisition of DEC's competing Alpha technology is a clear example of Capitalism gone very wrong.

    1. Re:Amiga... Betamax... Alpha AXP cpu's... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Actually, initially Betamax had a lower capacity than VHS.
      Everyone went with VHS because you could put more video on the one tape.

      There was a new version later on that eliminated this but it was too little too late.

    2. Re:Amiga... Betamax... Alpha AXP cpu's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Betamax - we should all know the story here. At the time, everyone knew that Beta was superior to VHS in every way except in terms of movie selection at the video store. It's a crying shame."

      The Beta still in use today has little in common with Beta's initial release.

    3. Re:Amiga... Betamax... Alpha AXP cpu's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The advantage of Beta over VHS during the decisive battleground period (just prior to VHS-HQ) was very simple; it was Beta's better picture. Technically, Beta's greater bandwidth afforded a higher "lines of resolution" rating (250 versus 220 or 235), which resulted in slightly sharper pictures and better color with Betamax at the time. ("Lines of Resolution" is of course not to be confused with raster scan lines, which were standard.) Beta had a 21% larger head drum with an accordingly higher video head flying speed, plus a different azimuth angle, all of which resulted in longer, faster and wider recording stripes with a higher signal-to-noise ratio and less crosstalk between fields. Of course most people didn't know any figures; they just understood from magazines and TV programs and word-of-mouth which format was technically "better." A secondary issue was the more consistent manufacturing tolerance that Sony provided which meant that you could record something on one Betamax and play it on another, and it could be expected to work - a difference even more significant with the use of Hi-Fi audio. The only perceived technical advantage of VHS at the time was the longer tape capacity.

      These were the major known issues at the time, during the decisive marketplace battleground period. Whether the average consumers could actually notice any NTSC picture difference between the formats without doing a side-by-side comparison, I rather doubt. (My own eyes could easily spot the difference in home recordings, while pre-recorded tapes seemed similar between formats.) Still, it is this known difference in picture quality which was the primary reason everyone viewed Beta as superior to VHS during the period in which VHS clobbered Beta in the marketplace.

      During this time, the minority of consumers who were either short on cash and/or were serious about doing a lot of their own recording were still likely to buy a Betamax (which was priced lower), while the majority who were mainly interested in renting videos bought VHS due to the widespread greater selection of films available in VHS format at the video store. So I'm sure this strategic dominance of VHS over Beta is more of an important and factually-based marketing lesson on "networked externalities" rather than being based on fallacy or urban myth. What people refuse to forget is this triumph of VHS's superior marketing over Beta's superior engineering.

    4. Re:Amiga... Betamax... Alpha AXP cpu's... by snolan · · Score: 1
      Actually, the compelling reason for many people to chose VHS over Beta was that the VHS decks had day/time programming first. For nearly 17 months most VHS decks made time-shifting your favorite TV shows easy and Beta had no programmable solution for the same goal.

      It was also regional market driven by what was available in the area's rental stores. I remember being surprised and delighted that VHS was virtually unheard of in Hawaii when I got stationed there in 1985. Hawaii was a strong Beta market long after New York had entirely shifted to VHS.

  46. durable goods by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Or rather, why won't anyone MAKE durable goods?
    Because, for the most part, a consumer can't tell the difference between a durable product and a non-durable product until well after they've bought it. See The Market for Lemons and/or for some insight into what happens to a market when buyers can't distinguish between high and low quality products.
  47. featurama by halleluja · · Score: 1
    In this list: substitute anything that has grown more features over the last years.

    For example, I use a mobile to call, no need for Java, camera's, compasses and christmas bells.

    Also, computer quality has degraded, cars are more difficult to fix etc.

  48. I miss the Trackball on the 100-series Powerboook by wolfpaws · · Score: 1

    That and cherry fizzies instant drink tablets, even though it always made me barf.

  49. Why modded flamebait? by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    I agree with a lot of your comments and would add:

    3. Napster. Was great for a while and I bought quite a few CDs after getting to know a lot of new bands. Near the end though there was so much crap -- poorly encoded songs, songs that cut off before the end, etc. Even BitTorrent suffers from some of the same issues and I don't want to spend hours looking for a good rip of a song I want. Itunes is just so much more evolved and hassle free for me.

    4. Concord. Loud, expensive and the sonic boom forced them to run transoceanic routes only. Admittedly cool though. There was work on a replacement that sought to significantly reduce or eliminate the sonic boom, but it fell off the rails.

    5. GM's EV1. I saw one at a mall display and while the technology was interesting the styling did leave a lot to be desired. Hybrids appear to be a bridge between gas and electric for now.

    6. Palm Pilot. I still use my Palm, a second generation color model. Pocket PCs look great and can do so much, but the cost just doesn't seem worth it when my cell phone (and old Palm) accomplishes the same tasks.

    7. Keyboards. My mom still has her first office PC, an IBM XT. The keyboard weighs a ton and feels very solid, but I remember that the clicking drove sound me crazy. Modern keyboards also seem to take a lot less effort to push the keys than the old IBM keyboard.

    9. LPs. Convert LPs to digital? Isn't that what a CD does (an admittedly simplistic interpretation)? I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of CD vs recorded to digital from LP? I know that all my Elvis CDs were remasted and cleaned up digitally from the original masters. I would think this would be an improvement.

    On the whole, you would expect that technology continues to improve. I think the gist of the article is while technology might change, it doesn't necessarily improve over previous generations as styles and tastes change.

    Just my take.

  50. Re:My 2 cents (non-computer) by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oh, and I also miss analog alarm clocks, mostly because I could change the alarm time much easier than with button-based ones. For example, the commute tends to be lighter on Mondays and Fridays, so I could tweak the alarm in 2 seconds for those days. With the digital clocks, one has to play clickitty click for several seconds. With analog clocks it was just Grab and Twist.

    Regarding the following from the article:

    Many music lovers say the analog technology of vinyl records, where sound waves are recorded as bumps and waves in the record groove, provides a more authentic, warmer sound than the digital recording technologies of CDs and MP3s.


    I don't think they were more "authentic", it is just that analog tends to add "extra" noise and distortion that may provide some variety to the ears. The best guitar music is not clean and pure, but "damaged" with purposeful distortion and noise. Digitially-reproduced music is sometimes too clean, like spending every day at Disney Land. After a year of that you would crave a biker convention instead.
  51. Number 10 from the article..... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    "The Newton
    When Apple gets things right, it's spectacular (think iPod), but when the company messes up, it's a hoot. The first popular pen-based PDA, the Apple Newton, was big, expensive, and too smart for its britches. Early models tried to interpret handwriting with often amusing results, making words out of users' scrawls that often combined into surreal "Newton Poetry." We miss the Newton because what it thought we meant was often far more interesting than what we were really trying to say."


    Having just experienced OS X last week (dedicated Linux user, sometime Windows user who had to recommend a Mac to his parent for the lack of viruses/spyware while still letting them run Quickbooks and I have 1 thing to say to KDE&Gnome - MY GOD, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO COPY WINDOWS FOR WHEN WE CAN COPY APPLE!!!!!!!)I too would love it if apple redid a handheld that could sync in with their computer. They wouldn't have to redo a new line because they already have a handheld. They could simply dip their toes in the water and introduce the iPod with some more feature than simply playing music...... and showing pictures:) If nothing else, at least you'll have a legitimate excuse now to write an iPod off as a business expense!

  52. I miss this one soooo badly..... by Guru+Goo · · Score: 3, Funny

    The handshake noise of dial-up modems.

    1. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Overrated. Take it from one who just heard it a few minutes ago upon waking up and booting to check e-mail.

          -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    2. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by Guru+Goo · · Score: 1

      Is is OK to assume u live in a cave?

    3. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      No, but its OK to assume I live in an area where fiber lines are not available and the only cable provider has onerous restrictions on their over-priced access plans.

      It is also safe to assume that I don't download music or movies via the Internet, so ~43Kb/s seems like an acceptable speed for browsing and downloading e-mail.

          -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    4. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by Guru+Goo · · Score: 1

      Is it OK to assume that u dial-up a Unix system and then use Mosaic to browse and access email ?

    5. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it OK to assume that u dial-up a Unix system and then use Mosaic to browse and access email ?

      Is it OK to assume you've never tried running an X application over dialup?

    6. Re:I miss this one soooo badly..... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Miss it? It's still here. My modem doesn't appear to have any way to turn off the speaker, so I'm stuck with it. What sort of modem are you using?

  53. Pah, f*ck Napster by Peter+Lustig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Napster was only cool as long as there were no real alternatives. Audiogalaxy was much better, both in handling and the way it worked. Heard a song on the radio while being at work? Entered the website and when you got home, the song was on your harddrive. And you could find a lot of things that you would have never found on napster.

    Everything after Audiogalaxy was quite crappy, especially Kazaa / Morpheus etc. Only Top 100 music and lots of dialers, worms and fakes.

    Yeah, those were the days.

  54. Floppies! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Plug them in and they work *instantally*. No fussin' with tiny USP doors or a dismount step[1], just yank-and-crank.

    [1] As long as you change the drive letter/reference before yanking, otherwise you get that annoying "drive not ready" error, but that can happen with pen-drives also.

    1. Re:Floppies! by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Yes - from insertion to a screen full of bad sector errors in mere milliseconds!

    2. Re:Floppies! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yes - from insertion to a screen full of bad sector errors in mere milliseconds!

      That is true. They don't have a high reliability record. Then again, I've seen flash pens crash 2 systems.

  55. Goog keyboards by teslatug · · Score: 1

    Damn do I miss a good simple keyboard. I like to touch a keyboard before bying one, so I don't like to buy online. None of the stores have a simple 104 key USB keyboard that feels right (bonus if it has a mini usb hub for mouse). They have weird layouts, 1000 extra buttons, small buttons, bad feedback, etc.

    1. Re:Goog keyboards by teslatug · · Score: 1

      P.S. I blame all the typos on this shitty Belkin keyboard :)

  56. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we should assume everyone missed it the first time.

  57. "originial" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "originial". Good God.

    1. Re:"originial" by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      Seems like somebody has managed to miss spellcheckers, even though they're still here!

  58. 11. IT Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, India

    (flamebait -1, unemployed -2)

  59. Oh, no they didn't... by Revenge013 · · Score: 1

    ...they did.

    They didn't mention the Generra Hypercolor 'collection'!



    Oh c'mon, don't look at your monitor like that... you wore 'em too.

    --
    Trivial Omnipotence
  60. Manned space exploration loss, or is it a gain? by Nymz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that fewer manned space trips is actually a boon for us technologists.

    Sending humans that weren't designed for, or evolved to, going into outer space is inefficient and costly when compared to specific tools that humans have created and are continuing to improve upon.

    Let's compare what we could lose against what we could gain. Gone will be photo opportunities, of one man in a space suit, planting a flag on another planet, as seen in the article. Gained will be 'spin-offs', from research and developement efforts, that will come from advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence systems, because remote control over such great (time) distances is simply not feasable.

    I don't know about you, but I'd rather be a unsung computer science nerd, than a glorified trained monkey in space. :-)

    Do not think that I'm belittling the efforts of those that made significant contributions to our space programs in the past. But, as we gain the capability to explore safer, better, and cheaper, then we also have the responsibility to set aside our old pride (photo of man next to flag) for new pride (photo of man next to robot).

    1. Re:Manned space exploration loss, or is it a gain? by confused+philosopher · · Score: 1

      Spin offs aren't much use if we need to have a colony of an ark on the Moon or Mars next week.

      --
      Why slashdot? Why not?
  61. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by ndg123 · · Score: 1

    what ? the at&t phone wasn't cheap and mass produced ?

    but true - things have used cheaper materials and techniques and *are* crap as a result.

  62. Decent Keyboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have an original IBM PS2 keyboard (on which i am typing this) and its just not equalled by anything else i've ever used. Sad really - its dated 1984, weighs more than the Shuttle its plugged into, and you could beat your boss to death with it, wipe off the blood and it'll still work perfectly.

    Hmm, i now start to see why they changed them...

    1. Re:Decent Keyboards by oingoboingo · · Score: 1
      I have an original IBM PS2 keyboard (on which i am typing this) and its just not equalled by anything else i've ever used. Sad really - its dated 1984

      Are you sure it's an IBM PS/2 keyboard? The PS/2 wasn't released until 1987

    2. Re:Decent Keyboards by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

      Somebody probably swapped the cord out with one from a later keyboard, leaving the OP with a 1984-dated keyboard with a PS/2 plug. That kind of thing should be easy to do; I don't think they changed the design much (other than to drop the removable cord that came with the original IBM PC) over the entire lifespan of the Model M keyboard.

      --Ender

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  63. LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having grown up in the LP era and spent large amounts of hard-earned lawn mowing and snow-shovelling money on them, I can honestly say about them "Good Riddance!".

        They are primitive sound technology. They are expensive, fragile, and don't sound good. You can always tell an MP3 file of an old 60's pop song made from an LP as opposed to one ripped from a CD. The fidelity is just not there.

        An LP held 45 minutes of music for most of its life and about 60 minutes at its most advanced. It cost about $20 (in today's US dollars). Now a blank DVD ROM holds about 4000 minutes in high-quality MP3 or OGG files and sells for $0.39 (in today's US dollars). An exact copy of this set of 4500 minutes can be made on another 39 cent blank disk in about 15 minutes. And you can control which selections will be copied and the order.

        To get ultra high fidelity audio from LPs requires thousands of dollars of precision equipment, very fragile and sensitive to the local room conditions. To get the same fidelity from high quality 320kbps MP3 and OGG files takes a $59 player. And it even puts out this high fidelity sound when you are running with it.

        And some silly people want to go back to LP?

    1. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by jdonnis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched LP.
      Then try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched CD.

      The first will be tolerable, the second will drive you to murder.

    2. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched LP.
      Then try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched CD."

      That's funny, because a mildly scratched CD plays fine. CDs have error correction that is quite strong, so minor scratches aren't an issue.

      Now, you can't take a knife to a CD and expect it to play properly. But you can't do that to an LP either.

      You can drill holes in CDs, though, and they still play. Mostly.

    3. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a lot of nostalgia for vinyl - partly because you did have to care for the discs, which meant the pop stars you worshiped as a teenager had their own little audio shrine in your house, but mostly because you got at least 2 square feet of artwork on the sleeves. A band can't fit much of an 'image' on a CD inlay, so image-building has to be done by video, which places too much emphasis on the looks of the perfomers. Ulgy musicians can't be effortlessly cool anymore.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    4. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, are you kidding me? I have a lot of mildly scratched CDs, they all work just fine. Now I have some severely scratched ones that have problems but guess what? A severly scratched record is worse, hell it often won't even track. Further, the CDs are fixable. There's a shop here that for abut a dollar will resurface a CD. Basically they just grind it down to get rid fo the scratches and then polish it smooth. Works great. Limited amount of times out can do it, of course, but you can't do that with LP.

      Tehn of course there's the real beauty of digital: I can just copy it. Really, I don't worry about my CD collection anymore. I get a CD, I rip it to my computer, I put the CD in my closet. The copy on my system is bit-accurate, no loss in wuality at all. I can keep doing this two, from one drive to another, one format to another. Should I choose to keep it up I can have a perfect copy 80 years from now, not a single bit of degradation.

      Sorry, but digital wins out hands down. Consumer grade digital (as in CD) is easily as good as even very good vinyl. Professional grade digital will just slam any LP, even a system at a much greater price.

    5. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by varebel · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because a mildly scratched CD plays fine.

      That is, unless the scratches are on the *top* of the CD. Scratches on top of the disc, if they are deep enough to go through the silver layer, will kill a CD more-so than scratches of the same depth on the bottom of the disc.

    6. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by sita · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An LP held 45 minutes of music for most of its life and about 60 minutes at its most advanced. It cost about $20 (in today's US dollars). Now a blank DVD ROM holds about 4000 minutes in high-quality MP3 or OGG files and sells for $0.39 (in today's US dollars). An exact copy of this set of 4500 minutes can be made on another 39 cent blank disk in about 15 minutes. And you can control which selections will be copied and the order.

      And yet, none of the reduction in the price of production of a record shows up in the price to customer.

    7. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Nowadays some people burn CD-R's using their PC's and sell them the full price as normal audio CD's.
      They don't claim they are CD-R's yet they are. They even use the CD Audio logo too. I have seen this locally, I should add. Perhaps it is being done in other countries. I think selling a CD-R is ok, yet the disk should be labelled as such (CD-R).

    8. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolute codswallop, "thousands of dollars of precision equipment".

      For 200 quid (GBP) you can buy a decent turntable and probably a good stylus as well.

      Adjust your stylus and keep your records clean (the first should be easy for the average geek, the second might be slightly harder) and fidelity is superior to anything digital (and that includes the new high-end digital formats like DVD-audio according to tests in Hi-Fi Choice).

      There are things on "Dark Side of the Moon" LP (analog recording!) which I cannot even hear on my CD copy ... The only thing CDs do better is reproducing silence (a bunch of zeros is not that hard to do), but when it comes to producing sound analog is still the best. Don't mistake abscence of crackles for great sound ...

      I am sick of people who listen to their music through computer speakers and tinny MP3 players having opinions about analog.

      If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.

    9. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Well, I tried listening to a 10-year-old CD, but it had degraded so much that I got a big bunch of silence. The only people I wanted to murder were the bastards who told me they'd last forever.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    10. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am sick of idiots who wouldn't recognize the engineering principles behind digital audio if they were clubbed senseless with rolled up copies of Shannon and Nyquist's seminal papers telling me that LP analog recordings are always better than digital.

      Forget about DVD-Audio. Simple 16-bit 44.1 KHz recordings (CD-Audio) are vastly superior to LP in every known aspect of sonic reproduction. And I do mean "vastly". There simply isn't any contest. Signal-to-noise ratio? Useful bandwidth? Wow/flutter? Channel separation? All horrible on LP. All excellent on CD-Audio.

      Yeah, CD does reproduce silence better. That's because the horrible surface noise of LP prevents it from even representing silence -- no matter what, you always have some white noise. Goodbye quiet passages.

      It also reproduces everything else better. The measurements and blind testing don't lie.

      Real geeks pay attention to science and engineering, not the modern brand of audiophilia which would have us throw away all the advances of the past several decades and return to primitive and inferior equipment.

    11. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Just because your copyright laws are completely screwed in Malta, doesn't mean they are elsewhere. On the other hand, the significant swell of /. groupthink that hates Intellectual Property Rights would be very happy.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    12. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... maybe you should check out those engineering principles yourself. 16-bit recordings don't beat an LP, the quantization errors are just too much. signal to noise? channel separation? all depends on your equipment.

    13. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And some silly people want to go back to LP?

      Some people should definately invest in digital filters, one for the sound distortion, the other to add the appropriate amount of snap, crackle and hiss. It's all about good memories, either dreaming back to when you were young or just dreaming that you've gone back in time to when the LPs were hot. Digital perfection is simply counterproductive to the immersion. It's not about perfect reproduction, but consistent reproduction with the past.

      That is why there is no charm in making modern music play as if they were on LP. They were never played that way, and it adds nothing to the feel of the music (unless you've grown so accustomed to it, that you find LP distortions preferable in all music). And hey, that's what the music is all about really, perfect reprodction is a means, not the end. That's something certain people don't seem to understand. Just don't claim it to be anything but what it is: a desired distortion.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first will be tolerable, the second will drive you to murder.

      It will drive you to mu-mu-mu-mu-mu-mu-mu *click* r-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de....

      :-)

      Seriously, though, the big thing that CD's did is equalize the market.

      A cheap CD player will do almost as good of a job at playing a CD as an expensive one will do. The incentive for going to a $1000 CD player versus a $30 CD player is a very small gain in sound quality. CD players also, essentially, require no maintenance, whereas you need to periodically change the stylus in a turntable.

      As for high-quality outputs, even if you have a $23 DVD player from Wal*Mart that you want to play CD's on, it will have an S/PDIF output on it.

      On the other hand, the granparent post said that LP's sound bad. No, they don't. LP's played on a cheap turntable sound bad.

      Play an LP on a feather-weight, belt-drive turntable with a straight tonearm and a stylus long overdue for replacement, and it will sound like crap.

      Play it on a direct-drive turntable with a heavy platter and an S-arm and a properly aligned, properly-maintained stylus, and it will sound quite good.

      Play it on a direct-drive turntable with good weight and good shock isolation and linear tracking, and it will sound fantastic.

      It will never sound like a CD. Only CD's sound like CD's. Whether you find you like the sound of vinyl better or worse than that of CD is subject to your listening tastes. I reject, however, the assertion that LP's sound bad.

      Incidentally, I use the second option listed above. I have a very good Technics S-arm turntable that is about 20 years old. I do have to periodically replace the stylus, something that is often missed by folks who don't understand vinyl. Even so, it sounds great despite its age.

      I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a 20-year-old CD player that still works, never mind works well. Also, if my turntable breaks, I can fix it, as I have done on one occasion. With a CD player, you replace it and the old one goes to the landfill.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    15. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are things on "Dark Side of the Moon" LP (analog recording!) which I cannot even hear on my CD copy ...

      Those are the scratches and the dust. CD audio is better quality than LPs. period.

    16. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      No, the mildly scratched CD sounds fine due to error correction. And I can make a nice, fresh digital copy of it. You can also get one of those polisher gadgets and fix it.

    17. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by zecg · · Score: 1

      As I see it, CD is just a medium for digital data. Even with the most cheap equipment (such as someone's thrown-out P2 and the free CD ripping program) it can be backed up infinitely with no loss.

      So, it's a bit wrong to compare its durability to an analog sound recording which is being eaten by time, quite probably eroding every time you touch it or use it.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    18. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Chalex · · Score: 1
      There are things on "Dark Side of the Moon" LP (analog recording!) which I cannot even hear on my CD copy ... The only thing CDs do better is reproducing silence (a bunch of zeros is not that hard to do), but when it comes to producing sound analog is still the best. Don't mistake abscence of crackles for great sound ...
      If you hadn't posted this as AC, we could at least discuss the facts reasonably. As it is, you're just trolling. Also, that Hi-Fi Choice magazine is a load of crap.
    19. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong way round.

      The <pop> first <crackle> will <pop><crackle> drive <pop><pop> you <crackle> to <crackle><pop> murder <pop> murder <pop> murder <pop> murder.

      The second will sound indistinguishable from the unscratched CD.

      If badly scratched a CD may get stuck or have drop-outs, but try scratching an LP the same way.

    20. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you missed the word mildly scratched, if the scratch goes all the way through the label and the silver that is NOT mildly scratched.

    21. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Hi, can you please show me a CD player made in the past 20 years, for any price, that doesn't have perfect channel seperation? Thanks.

    22. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by nukular · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of pretentious dweebs who only spout numbers. Have you LISTENED to a good turntable playing a good copy of an album...and then listened to a GOOD cd player playing a cd of the same album? I have...many times....and in the MAJORITY of instances I have preferred the sound coming from vinyl. I have seen other people I know simply have their jaw drop when I do the same thing.

      Basically technical specs don't always make the music sound better to the human ear. To an oscilloscope...yes..

      And don't get me wrong. I buy CDs as well and enjoy music from them quite regularly.

    23. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by rbrander · · Score: 1

      I'll admit to never having had better than mid-range, mass-market equipment, but I finally got a 1970's-era joke about Dark Side of the Moon ending with an old guy saying "There is no dark side, really, it's all dark"....when I finally heard it for the first time on the "20th anniversary" CD I bought.

      You have to crank the sound up a fair bit to hear it, and that made the hum & static pretty hard to ignore ... on my LP.

      Could a really well-kept LP and a really good turntable beat a CD system? Oh, I suppose...but the matter is strictly theoretical to me and to over 90% of former turntable owners.

      One similarity - I did know audiophiles who, as part of their obsessive LP-protectiion efforts, would promptly tape any new LP and then almost never play it again.

      But one does not have to be an obsessive audiophile to avoid playing a CD very often - because all of mine now get one play to MP3 them, then maybe one play per DECADE thereafter.

      So the complaint about "mildly scratched" CDs sounding bad is quite theoretical to me, as well.

    24. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      Absolute codswallop, "thousands of dollars of precision equipment". For 200 quid (GBP) you can buy a decent turntable and probably a good stylus as well.

      I concur. After years of bashing "audiophiles"--I ended up becoming one. The truth, really, is in the listening. My friends (who also thought audiophiles were insane) were quickly converted upon listening to some music on my setup. I spent more than one would on something from Circuit City (around $3000), but quite frankly, it sounds nice, and articulates midrange especially well--key for jazz and classical.

      I'll also note that there is fair amount of audiophile equipment that is overpriced and complete crap. The shop near Portland, Oregon I went to was very pleasant and had zero-pressure sales. Their philosophy: listen to what you want, stay as long as you'd like, and feel free to ask questions. And, if you don't like it when you bring it home, return it for a full refund. A basic new-in-box setup could be had for less than $1500, and last for years (compare that to the PC components that get disposed of almost annually).

      I'd also note that not all audiophiles are in it simply to blow money on really expensive equipment. Richard Vandersteen, designer of my first set of speakers, once called me to personally answer some questions about equipment. While his favorite amps were quite pricey, he noted that once in a blue moon, a great amp design could be bought at Circuit City from a decidedly non-audiophile-oriented company (Sony, Yamaha, etc.). To snobs, this is heresy--but he was willing to admit that good stuff can be occasionally had for cheap.

      As for LPs vs. CDs, it depends. Well engineered, pressed and preserved LPs sound really incredible, even on the $160K (no joke) reference system they have. (The speakers, I recall, have been used at Skywalker Sound, and were also used during the engineering of some Grammy-award winning classical music albums in the last year or so.) It was truly amazing to audibly "see" the footsteps of people walking in a three-dimensional space--on a record that was 30 years old. Downright scary and hair-raising, actually. This, from an old opera LP.

      I side with my friends that note that a key difference between CDs and LPs is transient response. Loud drum crashes and rapid changes in volume seem to be rendered better on a well-engineered CD. Only in the last few years, I'd note, has CD come of age: HDCD (now owned by Microsoft) was a format that certainly helped, as well as better engineering (even the die-hard vinylphiles were very impressed by the Sony/Legacy re-release of Dave Brubeck's Take Five).

      While the benefits of great engineering in 10 years has been a boon to audiophile equipment (especially in RF and high-frequency advancements), anyone involved in the arcane science of acoustic engineering will tell you that it's not just all TLAs (THD, SNR, blah blah) and numbers. Ultimately, like Ellington said, "if it sounds good and feels good, it IS good!"

    25. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by don.g · · Score: 1

      Of course, some small bands burn their own CDs and sell them, with colour-laser printed inserts. Nothing illegal about that.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    26. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by rainmayun · · Score: 1

      One thing I have noticed that also makes a huge difference is the quality of your D2A converter chipset. Consumer grade soundcards sound terrible. I actually have a shamefully expensive pro audio card from Echo Labs (that has an external rack-mount interface in addition to the PCI card) that I used to use for home music production, but just listening to any digitally recorded music on that device (and with appropriate quality speakers) makes a HUGE difference in the music enjoyment experience.

    27. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, while you're right and the parent is full of shit, he's modded +5, and you're only +3.

      Welcome to slashdot, everyone!

    28. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a 20-year-old CD player that still works, never mind works well.

      The 20 year old CD players that I come accross work fine. Back in 1985, CDs and CD players were new, a CD player costed some ungodly amount of money, and thus were pretty well built. Now, try to find a 5-10 year old CD player that still works well. That can be a bit tougher. And don't get me started on DVD players that are more than about 6 months old...

    29. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      "I prefer" != "high fidelity".

      It's amazing the number of audiophiles who spend $10k on a set of speakers that reproduces the top octave perfectly, don't like that sound, then spend another $10K on a turntable or tube amp that rolls that octave back off, to give the sound they prefer - but now with high consumer status!

      CDs have higher fidelity. This is not a statement of opinion, but of good solid mathematics. That doesn't mean you have to like them better, any more than you have to like the high fidelity of a solid state amp over the "warm" sound of a tube amp, but stop talking about fidelity!

      You prefer technologies that reduce the fidelity of audio. Don't worry, they still cost a whole lot.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      It was truly amazing to audibly "see" the footsteps of people walking in a three-dimensional space--on a record that was 30 years old. Downright scary and hair-raising, actually. This, from an old opera LP.

      OK, any good pair of speakers will give you "staging", i.e. the ability to place a sound anywhere between the speakers (and for some frequencies beyond the speakers) on a line between the tweeters. If the sound was recorded with a good dual-mic setup (in a performance hall with good acoustics for recording) you might get some distance information from the timings and echos of footsteps, but any "three-diminsional" positioning (and most 2D positioning) is in your imagination.

      There's no difference in the audio quality of the CD format and the HDCD or DVD-A formats to human ears. The extra bits don't do anything for you. Extra bit *are* quite helpful in digital mixing, however, and the few HDCDs out there tend to be well engineered (plus, manufacturers have admitted deliberately lowering the quality of the "ordinary CD" track so the HD track sounds better in an A/B test).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by pioneerX · · Score: 1

      But you can't put the severed head on the CD mechanism to mystify the detectives.

    32. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.

      Hell, SoundBlaster Live! cards, which used-to go for $200, and sound great, go for about $20 now. The 24-bit SB-lives are only a little bit more. If you're spending $200 on an Audigy, you're paying for the marketing, and the artwork on the retail box.

      As for speakers, if you avoid every branded as "PC Speakers" you can get some good ones quite cheap. $40 can get you some good speakers. They won't get very loud, won't have a subwoofer, won't have 5+ channels, etc., but can reproduce stereo music quite well.

      Or you can get $20 studio-monitor headphones that will do the job just as well.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    33. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by nukular · · Score: 1

      Well "high fidelity" is usually a term used by audiophiles not people using mathematics to prove the superiority of CDs (dictionary definitions aside)...which if they are SO freakin' perfect, why do different players sound SO different. Actually that has amazed me since the early days of digital when I was a complete sucker for the marketing of "a perfect sound forever"...and I was like 16. I agree that mathematics does not mean you have to like something better despite the "proof" that it sounds better. Face it...Humans don't hear mathematically perfectly...and if they do maybe it doesn't sound good that way to them.... I won't go into the voodoo of tube amps. I am friends with a guy who owns a professional studio...is a fan of digital and yet swears by tube amps in his home system...and I seriously doubt he is an anomaly with people involved in the "industry."

    34. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      If the sound was recorded with a good dual-mic setup (in a performance hall with good acoustics for recording) you might get some distance information from the timings and echos of footsteps, but any "three-diminsional" positioning (and most 2D positioning) is in your imagination.

      My imagination? Perhaps, but I also had others with me who have NEVER heard a reference system set up in this manner (custom room treatments, bass traps, etc.), who were suitably impressed, and commented on the same.

      And, this is hardly something new: folks like Brian Eno have been using research in psychoacoustics to create albums that, when played back on the two-speaker reference system I mentioned earlier, include sounds that clearly seem like they emanate from the back of the room.

      We've known about some of the aspects of sound spatialization for a while, but creating and reproducing them in a life-like manner has been difficult. After all, we only have two ears, but know when sound is coming from in front of us or behind us. With how you describe sound, you'd need an ear on the back of your head.

    35. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well "high fidelity" is usually a term used by audiophiles not people using mathematics to prove the superiority of CDs (dictionary definitions aside)...

      The only words that really matter are "style" and "cost". It's all just jewelry past a certain point, and self-delusion about how things sound. Sure, if you change the definition of "high-fidelity" to mean "what I paid more for", it all makes sense!

      But what you really mean is "it sounds better to me". That's fine and all, but the mathematics of sound are well understood, and the reason tube amps and LPs sound better to many is well understood - they roll off the upper octave. Less good sound reproduction sounds better, probably because you match what the recording engineer was listening to when he was optimizing. This can be done very cheaply, however, which is what makes it all amuzing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's called sonic hollography, and 20 years ago they started making cheap boom boxes that used the same principle - making the speakers sound farther apart than they actually were. Later it was common for expensive televisions to play similar games before surround sound became common.

      Yes it's a neat trick. Yes, people selling speakers always have a special demo CD ready for people who have never heard this effect before (I did when I was in that line of work). Like most of audiophilia these days it's just a trick to seperate fools and their money - the same special music would produce the same trick on any speakers with good tweaters (which might be hard to find at Best Buy, but you certainly don't have to pay more that $1000 for), but if you've never heard it before you assume it's the speakers.

      I also wouldn't be surprised if the room you were listening in had a pair of speakers hidden in the back of the room - a salesman will go a long way to sell a $160k pair of speakers. ;) But most likely it was just well crafted echos. If you know the seperation of the tweeters and the position of the walls, you can do anything.

      Heck, Yamaha makes a 1-speaker surround sound system now that uses a phased array of 40 or so tweeters to send "beams" of sound in 5 directions, which works quite well if your walls are where the engineers expected them to be - sounds like 5 speakers surrounding you (or, if you don't have a typical room arrangement, sounds like crap, but it's perfect for a dorm room).

      But keep in mind that we mostly know where sound is coming from from other cues, and it's very easy to trick people - this can be good engineering, as in the case of the common surround sattelite + single woofer systems, or just good salesmanship. It's *very* easy for the eyes to decieve the ears, especially with a little subtle suggestion thrown in.

      Or did you expect a shop that sells speakers for the price of cars to be less weaselly than a car dealership?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by danila · · Score: 1

      I don't think a blank DVD ROM is a very useful thing... A DVD-R or a DVD-ROM with music, on the other hand...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    38. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Good point, I'd forgotten about that (despite the fact that my own brother has done it himself).

      It's still an IP issue (specifically Trademark law) if they're caught using Philips' Compact Disc logo without permission.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    39. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      Well, you seem to be really hung up on the weasely aspect of the store I purchased my equipment from. So, a few points:

      1) I've known these folks for several years, and spent a lot of time listening to equipment prior to purchasing it. There was no overt "selling" going on--for the most part, I could spend three hours listening to something, and not even be bothered.

      2) Hiding speakers is for amateurs. While I certainly question the intentions of some of these shops, this small, two-person operation makes it quite clear that if you don't like it, return it in a month, no questions asked. I've known people who've done this, and they were more than happy to oblige.

      3) The chief engineer of the speakers used by the reference system (Avalon Acoustics) is well-known amongst studio engineers. And, his speakers were used for a Grammy-nominated recording of the Minnesota Orchestra (directed by Eiji Oue at that point).

      And, when it comes to salespeople, I'm as much a skeptic as you are. My acquaintances who sell cars pretty much tell me that I'm their customer from hell, and I've helped structure several deals in my career that were worth over $10 million. And, as work as a volunteer EMT in an urban area, I'm constantly needing to figure out if someone wants pain medication for bonafide pain or an addiction problem.

      If you're calling me gullible, you've set the bar awfully high.

    40. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, off on this tangent - people often assume that if they were taken by a saleman they were somehow gullible, or that the salesman was a con-man. That's an unfair analysis on both sides. A good salesman benefits from decades of academic research into persuasive communication *and* dirty tricks passed along within a field. It's owhere near a level playing field, even if the salesman is completely honest about his product he has still stacked the deck as much as possible to get you to buy that product from him.

      Of course there's no overt sales pressure in high-end audio, any more than there is in buying a luxury car. It's all about arranging the details to allow the customer to convince himself he needs the item.

      But, seriously, your ability to convince yourself that a given pair of speakers sounds better is immense, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that - you're there to buy a pair of speaker that sound good to you. Where it gets annoying is (1) audiophiles mistaking what sounds good to them with accurate sound reproduction, and (2) people not realizing that once you train your ear you don't have to pay a fortune for the sound you want. It's only when salsemen start spinning FUD about mid-priced systems so that the customer becomes scared that he's missing the good sound that it gets dirty.

      Of course, if like many people, you buy this stuff as living room jewelery, then it's automatically worth whatever you paid for it! You can spend $50k on a Patek Philippe watch, and it's worth every penny as jewelry, but claiming it keeps better time is a bit silly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    41. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree with you about sales methodology. I've been in sales before, although I was never put in a position to be in the "dirty tricks" department (which is merciful). One aspect about living in Portland, however, is that there is a plethora of places to buy various things from (well, except cars) that are staffed by people who do put a lot of weight into letting the customer decide what they want. It jibes well with a tendency for Portlanders to be on the mellow/passive-aggressive temperament continuum.

      I also agree with you on the subjectivity of sound reproduction. There is some research in the ability of some to hear and cognitively process sound (e.g., tone, timbre, rhythm) better (for instance, cardiologists). It's the whole tube vs. solid-state argument, which I personally think is more taste than anything else. Certainly, one could buy an expensive system for listening to Top 40 music, but ironically, some of my favorite pop songs I've heard on audiophile systems sounds downright horrible and strange in phase. Jewel, comes to mind--and even worse, it was engineered with HDCD.

      Funny you mention Patek Philippe--my Swiss acquaintances love watches (especially Piaget), but none would ever cop a notion that they somehow keep time better. I like analog watches for the simple reason that they're easier to use when I need them for EMT work (much easier for me to see 15 seconds go by with a second hand during pulse or respiration measurement), but I'll take it in quartz over complications and jewelled-bearings.

  64. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by dagr8tim · · Score: 1
    what ? the at&t phone wasn't cheap and mass produced ?

    "cheap" & "mass produced" are relative terms. What may have been cheap and mass produced 25 years ago is more likely to be of quality than items that are mass produced in our current disposable FRU (field replaceable unit) society.

    --
    "Does your computer have IP on it?"
  65. When computers were different by skingers6894 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really miss the days when a new computer release was really that. In the good old days before PC homogenization we used to get new and interesting computers released every month it seemed. I know, I know the PC industry had to mature and standards were required blah blah.

    It was fun though...

  66. I like the older SGI keyboards the best. by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Nice firm keys and a great clickety-click sound. ..and there is always the Northgate Omnikey 102.

  67. scroll point mice need to be included! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i had an old ibm scroll point rolling ball mouse (think little purple button for the mouse on older laptops instead of little wheel on the top) that i swore i would never give up to the "rolling scroll" mouse that is so common today. sadly, i am not aware of an optical scroll point mouse, and thus had to switch because gaming and a rolling ball mouse do not sit well together. i think i would pay $100 for a scroll point optical mouse on par with the mx 500 series.

  68. we are pushing limits by cahiha · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Have you been asleep for the last couple of decades? We are doing great things with space exploration: probes going to the outer reaches of the solar system, solar sails, new propulsion methods, hibernation, you name it, it's being worked on.

    However, sending human astronauts to Mars or even the moon at this point will just take funding away from important space related programs and delay meaningful manned space travel by decades.

    1. Re:we are pushing limits by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Have you been asleep for the last couple of decades?
      ...

      We are doing great things with space exploration: probes going to the outer reaches of the solar system, solar sails, new propulsion methods, hibernation, you name it, it's being worked on.

      Wow! Obviously their work on hibernation is been a grand success!

  69. A true zero-emission electric car by kfg · · Score: 1

    Whose batteries were recharged by a really, really big coal engine.

    KFG

    1. Re:A true zero-emission electric car by throbbingbrain.com · · Score: 1

      There are electric buses in San Francisco with "Zero Emission" stickers all over them. Some people just don't get it...

      Sorry, no mod points today.

    2. Re:A true zero-emission electric car by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Pollution at the power plant is less of a problem than pollution in an urban area where it is concentrated and many people are exposed to it.

      Power plants can also be made cleaner than vehicles, which need to be mobile, have weight limits on how heavy the enigine can be, etc. Power plants can concentrate on just be efficient and clean.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:A true zero-emission electric car by kfg · · Score: 1

      Power plants can concentrate on just be efficient and clean.

      Power plants concentrate on being profitable.

      KFG

  70. Beos source code was bought by Yellowtab by MikkoApo · · Score: 1

    Yellowtab is making an OS called Zeta based on the Beos source and from the looks of it, Zeta is an updated version of Beos. Here's a slashdot post about it.

  71. recharging was the biggest jump I think... by corneliusagain · · Score: 1

    I guess I noticed that when palms were younger every manager seemed to have a dead one sitting in a pile of cables in the corner of the room. Once they got rechargable lithium batteries, though, that stopped. Personally I still use my Palm Vx... I would say that's the classic model if it's useful to you. It does enough for me. I agree about ginormous storage being very useful, too, but don't think a good enough model has come out yet (i.e. they crash too much or don't have batteries lasting long enough or don't have enough space!)

    1. Re:recharging was the biggest jump I think... by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Personally I still use my Palm Vx... I would say that's the classic model if it's useful to you. It does enough for me.

      I actually liked it very much, but had to give up on it over a year ago. The touch screen calibration tended to go apeshit after a couple days up to the point where you needed to hard reset the device. This of course is not tolerable.

      I really liked the simplicity and the battery life, but now switched to a smartphone (Nokia 9300), which does all what the Vx did and then a bunch more. Its approach is also very simple and the quality is awesome (I don't work for Nokia, but was always a sucker for their phones, specifically their user interface).

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

  72. Combine canceled technologies. by Tune · · Score: 1

    Back in the 70's GM made several hundred cars with a turbine engine. they were quiet, powerful and worked like a dream

    Although I'm sure they were recalled for bullshit reasons, turbine engines were not suitible for cars because of their slow acceleration.

    This is where the electrical system in a Toyota Prius picks up: a small (cylinder) engine is economic but lacks horse power. A battery backed electrical motor adds these. Replacing the engine in a Prius by a turbine might be a nice experiment, but remember that efficiency of standard combustion engines has improved drastically in the last decades.

    Then again, maybe it's best to just wait for fuel cells to deliver enough power.

    1. Re:Combine canceled technologies. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      but it's not true, in the 60's the Chrysler Turbine Car had a run of about 50-55 built and proved this wrong. They had good acceleration and were driven on the roads of Michigan and Ohio for almost 3-4 years by many people in the test program. reading online stories from many of the people that drove them speak otherwise. Reports of good acceleration and other things that debunk the myths surrounding the turbine engine in a car.
      a href="http://www.barracudamagazine.com/turbine.htm l">More info

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  73. @ wikipedia by PengoNet · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article made boring by Wikipedia!

    1. Manned space exploration

    see List of human spaceflights by program

    2. Kozmo.com

    Kozmo.com was a venture-capital driven online company that promised free one-hour delivery of anything from DVDs to Starbucks coffee. It was founded by young investment bankers, Joseph Park and Yong Kang in March 1998 in New York City. The company is often referred to as an example of the dot-com excess.

    Kozmo promoted an incredible business model; it promised to deliver small goods free of charge. The company raised about $280 million including $60 million from Amazon.com. The business model was heavily criticized by business analysts, who pointed out that one-hour point-to-point delivery of small objects is extremely expensive and there was no way Kozmo could make a profit as long as it refused to charge delivery fees. Not surprisingly, the company failed soon after the collapse of the dot-com bubble, laying off its staff of 1,100 employees and shutting down in April 2001.

    3. Napster

    Napster is an online music service which was originally a file sharing service created by Shawn Fanning. Napster was the first widely-used peer-to-peer music sharing service, and it made a major impact on how people, especially university students, used the Internet. Its technology allowed music fans to easily share MP3 format song files with each other, thus leading to the music industry's accusations of massive copyright violations. Although the original service was shut down by court order, it paved the way for decentralized P2P file-sharing programs, which have been much harder to control. The service was named Napster after Fanning's nickname.

    4. The Concorde

    The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport (SST) was one of only two models of supersonic passenger airliners to have seen commercial service. Concorde had a cruise speed of Mach 2.04 and a cruise altitude of 60,000 feet (17,700 metres) with a delta wing configuration and an evolution of the afterburner-equipped engines originally developed for the Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. It is the first civil airliner to be equipped with an analogue fly-by-wire flight control system. Commercial flights, operated by British Airways and Air France, began on 21 January 1976 and ended on 24 October 2003, with the last "retirement" flight on 26 November that year.

    5. GM's EV1

    The EV1 was the first electric car produced by General Motors in the United States. The experimental cars were the only vehicles in the history of the company to bear the "General Motors" badge. GM leased about 800 EV1 cars with the proviso that after the three-year leases were up, the cars reverted to the company. They were only available in California and Arizona and could only be serviced at designated Saturn dealers. The first generation EV1s used lead-acid battery batteries in 1996 (as model year 1997) and a second generation batch with nickel metal hydride batteries in 1999. As cars came off lease, they were refurbished and upgraded to second generation. GM spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1, but the company decided that it could not sell the car in enough quantities to make the EV1 profitable. The program was stopped in 2003.

    6. The original Palm Pilot

    Pilot was the name given to the first generation of personal digital assistants manufactured by Palm Computing in 1996 (then a division of U.S. Robotics and later 3Com).

    7. Good keyboards

    The IBM Model M keyboard was manufactured by IBM, Lexmark and finally Unicomp, starting in the 1980s. Built solidly, with a heavy steel backplate and fully swappable keycaps, its sturdiness and versatility allows it to outlive virtually any other computer component, and its buckling spring key

  74. Other alternaltives by XNormal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I prefer to put it another way. If you're not for space exploration they you must be for a conservation of resources.

    There are other alternatives. You can also be:
    • For short term profits. Period.
    • With no plans to have children
    • With plans to have children, but not care much about their future
    • Irrational.
    • I'm sure there's more.
    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  75. Some technologies I miss by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) Audiogalaxy. Wonderful as BitTorrent is, it's simply not as good for finding incredibly obscure music that only 3 people in the world are interested in.

    2) Games written in Basic. Oh for the glory days when any schoolkid could write from scratch something that his mates would be interested in playing.

    3) The 12" single. For the sleeves - CD singles are great, but I really miss getting a square foot of artwork thrown in for free.

    4) Booting from ROM. The Amiga started the rot, back in the old days you could turn a PC on and start to use it in seconds. Hard OSes were practically immune to piracy, and the 'it has to be right, we can't patch it' OS coding ethos has a lot going for it too!

    5) Trackballs. The mouse you don't need a pad for, perfect for laptops too, but we ended up smearing our fingers over horrible 'trackpads' instead - how did that happen?

    6) Analogue TV. Still hobbling on but it's days are numbered. My 30 years of compression-artefact-free viewing are already over.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:Some technologies I miss by Mwongozi · · Score: 1

      Games written in Basic.

      Go forth, and write games in BASIC.

    2. Re:Some technologies I miss by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      MS Trackball Explorer. Better than the latest Logitech wireless trackball, 'cause whilst that one does have more buttons (==better), it still uses the old wireless tech which makes for crap tracking. I returned mine for the wired MS trackball.
      It's strange though, as MS is a software co., but their hardware outclasses their software by far.

      Any other great trackballs out there? I'm looking for great, not just good: great tracking, lotsa buttons, great ergonomics...and not at the price of a spaceball4000 :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:Some technologies I miss by frankmu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i agree with audiogalaxy. an excellent service. i miss it greatly. recently tried iTunes, and was amazed at the lack of depth. the best thing about audiogalaxy was the detailed user reviews. it made me more informed with my CD purchases. i haven't bought a CD since it went down.

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    4. Re:Some technologies I miss by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Every so often I go to try iTunes, and find they still want me to install their 20MB browser/player just to see what artists are available. Then I stop.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    5. Re:Some technologies I miss by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      4) Booting from ROM. The Amiga started the rot, back in the old days you could turn a PC on and start to use it in seconds. Hard OSes were practically immune to piracy, and the 'it has to be right, we can't patch it' OS coding ethos has a lot going for it too!
      Not just booting but being able to just turn off the computer as well instead of having to "shut down".
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:Some technologies I miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, with school-level calculators getting more advanced, its even easier to write games in BASIC that your friends will enjoy playing. Turning something that looks like work (even in direct sight of the teacher) into a simple, portable gaming console makes you the envy of your friends, I can assure you.

      Sure, you cant do much in the way of non-textual graphics, but standard games of chance and simple racing are easy to write. One of these days I'm going to have to pull out the copy of 'space invaders' I tried to write in my final year and get it working.

    7. Re:Some technologies I miss by narcc · · Score: 1
      2) Games written in Basic. Oh for the glory days when any schoolkid could write from scratch something that his mates would be interested in playing.


      And glory days they were! Not only was it tons of fun, but it taught new ways of thinking and problem solving to uncountable kids across the globe. It's a real shame that MS decided to stop bundling a basic interpreter with their o/s...
    8. Re:Some technologies I miss by evilviper · · Score: 1
      5) Trackballs.

      Certainly true about trackballs on notebooks. This is one area where everyone that can remember it agrees the world went completely backwards. Trackballs worked far better than touchpads.

      Ask for desktops, trackballs are still around, they just aren't popular. Self-fullfulling prophecy here. You think trackballs are dead, so you don't look for a store that still sells trackballs. I have trackballs for all of my computers.

      What's your excuse?

      Analogue TV.

      I disagree. There are plenty of things I dislike about digital, but the artifacts of an analog broadcast signal are far, far worse. After you've been watching cable/satellite TV for a few years, you forget how terrible OTA analog looks.

      As for analog cable, it's been digital for quite some time now. With digital cable, they unfortunately chose to squeeze the streams down to intolerable bitrates, but I suspect this too with change with time.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Some technologies I miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 5MB of player, 5MB of Mac-style widgets, and 10MB of DRM.

    10. Re:Some technologies I miss by MendicantMonkey · · Score: 1

      4) Booting from ROM. The Amiga started the rot, back in the old days you could turn a PC on and start to use it in seconds. Hard OSes were practically immune to piracy, and the 'it has to be right, we can't patch it' OS coding ethos has a lot going for it too!

      To be fair, the Amiga had OS patches. I forget the command, but the ROM patch is loaded in the startup batch. I think it was 'setpatch' or something similar.

      Usually, though, the final patch was included with the shipping OS. This probably had more to do with the lack of Internet connectivity in it's heyday.

  76. Zero Emission Vehicle by sita · · Score: 1

    5. GM's EV1

    Zero Emission Vehicle. ROFLMAO. Zero-emission as long as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard. Sure, I suppose the power could have been photoelectric or wind produced, but if you believe no harm to the earth was done in the process of manufacturing those systems, you're clueless. (Hint: Strip mining for metals, processing ore, smelting, doping chemicals for solar, etc). Not that I have a problem with any of the above, but let's be realistic here. There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".


    Moving emission from the vehicle to a power plant has a huge bonus: point sources of pollution are much easier to address (filter, upgrade to cleaner to technology, whatever) than diffuse sources.

    To put it bluntly: Even if you believe nuclear power is The Way(TM), you probably shouldn't put it in cars. Not yet.

  77. limit or be limited by cahiha · · Score: 1

    I find it rather interesting that people who still complain about Earth being "overpopulated" fail to mention the declining growth rate,

    Our current population size is already not sustainable; any non-negative population growth rate is therefore too high.

    nor the fact that every single prediction they made from the '60's right up to the present has been dead wrong.

    The predictions were generally of the form "if growth continues unchecked, then...". Fortunately, limiting growth and family planning have put a damper on that. Unfortunately, some populations are increasingly being limited through natural consequences of overpopulation (famine, malnutrition, drought, disease, conflict), which was bound to happen sooner or later.

    As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level

    Over the last century, technology has primarily allowed us to increase population size by increasing the rate at which we extract non-renewable resources; it has not appreciably increased the sustainable population size.

    You'll never get a majority of Americans - or anything other than a tiny, tiny minority, I suspect - to agree with your assessment.

    It's either family planning or environmental disaster or war or disease; take your pick.

    1. Re:limit or be limited by pomo+monster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you'll find that "famine, malnutrition, drought, disease, conflict" has historically been much more widespread than it is presently, even in sub-Saharan Africa--and this despite our ever-increasing population. How, then, is this an indication that technology hasn't boosted the sustainable population size?

    2. Re:limit or be limited by cahiha · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that "famine, malnutrition, drought, disease, conflict" has historically been much more widespread than it is presently, even in sub-Saharan Africa--and this despite our ever-increasing population.

      If only it were true, but it isn't.

    3. Re:limit or be limited by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. What are you talking about?

    4. Re:limit or be limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4584576/

      AIDS, few births slowing population growth

      So, even that simple article says that the slowdown is due to a combination of family planning and disease.

      What the article doesn't talk about is the disruptive effect of loss of arable land and consequent famine and migration into cities.

      Human population growth is slowing because we are not only far beyond sustainable levels, we are approaching population levels that can't even be supported through unsustainable plunder of the environment.

    5. Re:limit or be limited by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      OK, let's focus on "developed" economies for a second. Population growth here isn't slowing because of disease, it's slowing because, as you point out, families are choosing to have fewer children (for a variety of reasons). Many diseases that used to kill early and often--polio, tuberculosis, flu, malaria--aren't a concern anymore, and diseases like AIDS aren't so prevalent that they'll lead to an appreciably lessened population growth rate.

      So what about the developing world? Here, AIDS and other diseases (malaria, TB) are indeed slowing population growth; however, contrary to common misconception, this is not because of overpopulation. It's because of limited access to education and medicine, plain and simple. HIV infection rates in cities are actually lower than infection rates in rural areas, thanks to better health awareness, availability of things like condoms, and a culture more accepting of diseased individuals (I'm thinking particularly of HIV here, but the same goes for other yucky diseases). Whatever the impact of disease, things would be no better (in relative terms) with a smaller population.

      Arable land can be recovered, and the technology's constantly improving to squeeze more and more food out of every hectare of land (sustainably, natch). And it's not as if we don't have malaria vaccines or the proper ways to stop the spread of AIDS. Slowing our population growth rate--whether by fiat or by natural disaster--won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, and resource depletion. Sorry to sound like such a company man, but really, only economic and political stability can do that.

    6. Re:limit or be limited by cahiha · · Score: 1
      Your assertions are incorrect in many ways. But that's not even the point: you keep changing your story and your arguments.

      My assertions remain:
      • current population levels are nowhere near sustainable and won't be sustainable using any foreseeable technology
      • growth has slowed, in part because of family planning, and in some populations due to disease and famine

      You have provided no counter arguments and haven't even tried to disprove these points.

      Your final statement, "Slowing our population growth rate--whether by fiat or by natural disaster--won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, and resource depletion. Sorry to sound like such a company man, but really, only economic and political stability can do that." is correct but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because economic and political stability is unachievable at current population levels. It's also irrelevant because, indeed, slowing population growth won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, or resource depletion, because the absolute population size is already far too large.
    7. Re:limit or be limited by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      So tell me, why is a population of 6.5 billion unsustainable? We have the resources to feed and shelter every living human being. Famine and disease aren't the result of inadequate production, it's poor distribution that's to blame. And as both production and distribution continue to improve, the world will be able to support more and more people. Always has, always will. I'm not sure why you think we're all overdue to die any day now, but I promise the future's not quite as bleak as all that.

      Can you also explain why you think economic and political stability is impossible at current population levels? Seems to me that the world used to be a lot messier back before we had a population in the billions, what with famine and disease in every corner of the earth, and that things have actually been getting more stable, not less, over the past few centuries, hell, millennia of population growth. But maybe you meant something different.

    8. Re:limit or be limited by cahiha · · Score: 1

      So tell me, why is a population of 6.5 billion unsustainable?

      Well, let's look at agricultural productivity. World grain production increased about 3-fold in the last 50 years, but that required a 50-fold increase in the amount of energy required per unit of food produced. It currently takes about 1600 liters of fossil fuel per year just to produce the food for a single American; storage and transport required a lot more additional fossil fuels, plus roads and other infrastructure. Fossil fuel alone is a limited resource and will become increasingly scarce.

      Our use of irrigation is also unsustainable; agricultural productivity in many marginal areas was achieved through tapping into non-renewable groundwater reservoirs and creating unsustainable dams.

      Fishing is another issue: a significant part of our growth has been sustained by a huge protein inventory we had inherited in the oceans, but that has not been used sustainably and it is running out.

      Seems to me that the world used to be a lot messier back before we had a population in the billions, what with famine and disease in every corner of the earth, and that things have actually been getting more stable, not less, over the past few centuries

      That's certainly not true in terms of absolute numbers, and it is probably not even true in terms of relative numbers, even during the entire historic period. But the historic period isn't even a good reference, because it is already characterized by many of the same problems that we have today: population growth, movements out of overpopulated areas into more marginal areas, displacement of native populations, etc. (It's common to think of ancient times as dismal, but many ancient peoples, in particular around the Mediterranean, clearly had a high quality of life and security.)

      Sustainability requires using agricultural methods that don't have the energy and freshwater requirements of current techniques. Switching to sustainable agriculture will likely result in significant productivity losses and will make a lot of our currently arable land economically uninteresting. As a consequence, we'll have to limit agriculture to the most productive areas in the world and areas where freshwater is naturally abundant. And the food output from that kind of system simply cannot sustain 6.5 billion people. We'll be lucky if it can sustain 1 billion people.

      Can you also explain why you think economic and political stability is impossible at current population levels?

      Because when energy and water run out, there is going to be conflict. Much of the conflict in the Middle East is already about water and access to water. Access to oil is another source of conflict, and we are in the Middle East not just because of our SUVs but also because we need cheap oil for agriculture and for making good for our population.

  78. You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by madaxe42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You see when you're listening to a digital CD the sound comes out all like _|-|_|-|_|-|_ and it sounds terrible, but if you're listening to an analogue LP the sound is all like v^v^v^u^v^U^wooooOOOooo000ooo. So basically the sound quality is smoother and easier from an LP, and it's got all those extra harmonics and sounds, which come free! I mean, you don't get any pops and crackles on CD, and those give the music all their character. The beatles sound sterile and dead without the pops and crackles. I think we need to invest some serious research $$$ in a portable LP player, that you can use like an iPod, I mean, an iPod has what, 40Gb of storage, that's about 4000 minutes... So if you had some kind of barrel, with 40 LPs in it, and a player, and some gyroscopes, you could have that great L:P quality wherever you run. And you'll get fitter faster.

    But, anyway, back to my point. For things to sound good, you need an LP, some really thick cables, a gold plated power supply, some of those special bricks which go on top of cables, and a whole bunch of tetrodes & pentodes. Also, once, I saw the beatles in concert, they sucked - they were nothing like they are on an LP - I mean, between the lot of them they couldn't make a single crackle or pop, and they didn't skip once!!!! Where's the warmth?!?!?! Remember, it's w000oo000OOO000oooo))oo which is great not 101010101010101010111 all those ones sound terrible.

    1. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has just got to be a troll.

    2. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because anything this funny must be a troll, right, party-pooper?

    3. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      Insightful??? WTF? Mod me troll, you idiots! *imagines going for a jog with 400lbs of vinyl on his back*

    4. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by iainl · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the mislabelled comedy (who voted 'insightful'?) I discovered an interesting facet of the whole 'vinyl is warmer' thing a while back. Recording a bunch of my 12" singles from vinyl to CD produced CDs that still sound warm and lovely. So it's definitely because there's something 'wrong' with vinyl that it sounds so nice.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    5. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Greenisus · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on the warmth of vinyl. I think it's all about the production of the record. Pearl Jam's Vitalogy CD sounds like an old LP to me, even though I've only had it on CD.

      And the reason the parent was modded Insightful is because slashdot's mod system doesn't increase karma for Funny mods, so people have been modding funny posts as insightful.

    6. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Maxbe the mods want to give you points because your post is funny..?
      30% insightful and 70% funny is still funny, so thank them for the insightful moderation (as funny gives no karma) :-)

    7. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "warmness" is the greater dynamic range of analog sources.

    8. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Shamon · · Score: 0

      "you don't get any pops and crackles on CD, and those give the music all their character"
      So, if I understand correctly, LPs are superior because they have pops and crackles and assorted other noise? Snort.

      I have my own theory about the recent resurgence of "record stores", LP nostalgia, etc. From what I've observed, this camp falls into two categories:

      1) Old people - Given that these folks grew up listening to Beatles/Floyd/Whatever on LP, they claim to miss things like cleaning the records, studying the the big record cases, observing the crackles that distort the music, etc. Note that none of these actually contribute positively to music quality. So in conclusion, these people don't miss the music quality of LPs. They just miss being young.

      2) "Retro" people - It's currently trendy in the US to have anything retro. Shoes, atari, records, etc. Trendy music artists talk about their next "record" coming out. Bullshit, you have a new CD coming out, and 99% of your listeners will be buying post-1988 music media. Trendy music listeners go to the "record" store, and then buy a CD. Do you also go to the horse-drawn-carriage store to buy a car? No, because that would sound stupid. In 5 years there will no doubt be a hipter community singing the praises of the cassette tape, and I'll still be here to make fun of them.

      Peace, and God bless.

    9. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if CD really did come out like that, it would sound horrible - listening to a square wave!

      Audiofools love warmth don't they? Run CDs through a low-pass filter with the cut-off set to about 15kHz - this pretty much replicates the upper frequency limit of an LP that has been played a few times.

      Similarly there are no extra harmonics above that frequency. Whatever the theoretical limits of what can be cut into a piece of vinyl the stylus is there to make sure it is excised quickly.

      So-called audiophile magazines are almost invariably laughable. People magazine for sound equipment. OK that's not fair, People magazine has a lot more science behind them :-)
      These magazines won't do proper blind testing. When they do they attack it because it doesn't support the differences they claim to be able to hear. Never was there bunch that knew less about human perception. Your brain lies. It wants that silly $10,000 cable to sound better than the 50c piece of copper wire.

      We have measuring equipment way more sensitive than speakers - not that hard, speakers are horrible inefficient things, like lightbulbs - and more sensitive than anyone's ears. Speakers produce heat and distortion, oh and a bit of sound. Lightbulbs are heaters that happen to give off some light.

    10. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Korea, LPs are for old people! :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    11. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by iainl · · Score: 1

      Quoth the AC:

        The "warmness" is the greater dynamic range of analog sources.

      I really hope they're being funny, as the LP has nothing like 96dB of dynamic range resolution. Of course, modern production methods crush their dynamic range down to a tiny fraction of that, but that's bad production again, not a problem of the format.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    12. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've done extensive experimentation with high quality LPs on high quality turntables - basically sampling them with extremely high sampling rates, enough to catch their alleged high frequency harmonics, and doing FFTs - before the first playback, then after each playback. Basically the frequency response tapers off rapidly. Within the first ten playings it'll be down to around 15kHz. By the hundredth it'll be down to under 13kHz.

      We discovered that you could reasonably replicate the LP sound by simply running the CD audio through a low-pass filter. This is a big part of the 'warmth'. Listeners who didn't know they were listening to CDs thought we were still playing the vinyl. This was obviously before the crack and hiss of vinyl started to become obvious (could use noise filters for further testing).

      But audio nuts can cling to their fantasy world, it is their money they're burning afterall.

    13. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by narcc · · Score: 1
      And the reason the parent was modded Insightful is because slashdot's mod system doesn't increase karma for Funny mods, so people have been modding funny posts as insightful.


      And for good reason! It's way easier to make a post funny than it is 'interesting' or 'insightful'. There were just too many karma whores flooding us with posts they thought were funny and added nothing to the discussion.

      Please stop modding funny as insightful!
    14. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what difference does it really make? I mean, if your brains says it sounds better, then it sounds better to you. I know I love vinyls for the holistic experience: seeing the beautiful artwork, wiping the dust out of the vinyl itself, hearing those little cracks and pops. And the songs sound better, maybe because my brain lies to me, but why would it matter, really?

    15. Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      For things to sound good, you need an LP, some really thick cables, a gold plated power supply, some of those special bricks which go on top of cables, and a whole bunch of tetrodes & pentodes.

      Don't forget the Tuning Dots! Lots and lots of tuning dots!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  79. How about 3-button mice by Trogre · · Score: 1

    You know, the ones that actually have three buttons that are operated by three different fingers. A hell of a lot more ergonomic than the ones today where the wheel doubles as the third button that needs the strength of an index finger to press, thus requiring the middle finger to rest over the right-hand button not the middle button where it should be.

    Oh how I miss my dual-wheel three-button A4Tech mouse - zero lateral finger movement. If only it was optical.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:How about 3-button mice by Misagon · · Score: 1
      Yes, they are getting increasingly hard to find.

      Here is one: Belkin F8E842-DL. It has some issues though.


      Ask Slashdot: 3-Button Mice - An Endangered Species?.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  80. Converted LPs versus CDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convert LPs to digital? Isn't that what a CD does

    But then you have to repurchase your entire collection, and store two redundant sets of discs.

    Also I imagine there's probably stuff out there that was never rereleased on CD.

    I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of CD vs recorded to digital from LP?

    Taking a different angle, assuming CDs are comparable, how about cost comparisons? Time spent recording, splitting, cleaning up LP transfers versus just going down the store and buying the CDs.

  81. Macally IceKey by prionic6 · · Score: 1

    I bought a Macally IceKey because I read about how great it was... It is basically a high quality laptop keyboard with fullsize buttons and full layout. The buttons are very easy to press and your hands can basically rest flat on the table and keyboard because of its minimal height. I sometimes hear that ergonomically it is better when buttons click and the keyboard is "angled" (don't know how to call that... when you use those legs on the back of the keyboard) but I highly doubt that. As I see it, the best thing for your hands would be a startrek like table where you don't have to hold up your hands at all, but of course then you have no feel for the buttons. The IceKey actually has a very good feel and it is very flat - perfect or me.

    http://www.macally.com/spec/usb/input_device/iceke y.html

    Disclaimer: Yes, it also looks good with my iBook :)

    1. Re:Macally IceKey by Skidge · · Score: 1

      I second the Macally IceKey. I use it on both a Windows and a Mac at work without a problem. Here's a quick review I wrote up long ago:

      Macally IceKey review

  82. Hindsight is 20/20 by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

    Have we already forgotten the tag?

    C',mon, it wasn't all daffodils and kittens back then ... (shudders at the memory of scarlet text marquees scrolling on lime green backgrounds)

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    1. Re:Hindsight is 20/20 by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I had a monochrome monitor... and I liked it!

      It made it tough to design colour web pages though :-)

    2. Re:Hindsight is 20/20 by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      Yup. Let's add to the list:

      - Highly detailed (usually photographic) background images that were impossible to read text off of.

      - Frames being used and abused in a time when screen resolutions were much smaller, and Netscape 2.0's (the only browser at the time that supported frames) back button didn't like dealing with frames.

      I'd still take those days over what we have now, tho...

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    3. Re:Hindsight is 20/20 by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      Heh! You must've been the Beethoven of web designers :)

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    4. Re:Hindsight is 20/20 by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I was exactly like Beethoven... except I sucked.

  83. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not "STAFFED" space exploration? Why do you have to be so male-centric? It's 2005, for crying out loud.

  84. Must expand into space by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    We surely have to. See the previous post about killer algea, so to survive we have to diversify and spread out.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  85. Bullshit all the way by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    "Or to put it less tactfully: poor people breed faster than rich people."

    There is a transition point in any country, and yes even America and Western Europe had it, from (A) high mortality including infant mortality, must make 10 kids so maybe 2-3 survive, to (B) chances are good they'll all survive, so no point in breeding like rabbits anyway. That point is mainly a question of not even being "rich", but simply of access to sanitation and basic medical care.

    And it takes a while for the "no point in breeding like rabbits" notion to sink in. At that transition point there's a generation or two which basically still doesn't know or get it. They still try to make as many kids as they can, so some will survive, but, surprise, this time most or all survive. So there's a temporary population boom. Then the idea sinks in and it's ok from there.

    Most of the western world is already past that point. Other countries started much later, so they're still in the trailing edge of that population boom. That's all.

    But even there the keywords are: trailing edge. As was mentioned, the global growth is already decreasing pretty quickly.

    "Personally I don't think there's a choice. We must expand into space."

    You want to do... what? Send all the poor into space colonies? Have you actually calculated how many millions it takes to put even 1 man on the moon? Now add the cost of building self-sustaining habitable space, shipping suplies and resources back and forth, etc.

    Now multiply that by, say, 1 billion people, if the goal is to reduce population on earth by any signifficant amount.

    Right. For a _tiny_ fraction of that cost you could just provide the most basic sanitation and medical care them, and not worry about overpopulation any more. Again, you don't need to make everyone rich.

    And even if you wanted to make everyone "rich", there are better ways than blowing several million dollars _per_ _person_ to put them on Mars. And it's happening without government intervention anyway. That's what globalization does: all those jobs and factories in poor countries, a lot of which end up producing for local consumption anyway, _are_ raising their standard of living.

    "You are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth."

    Ah, right, was wondering where we'd get the mandatory appeal to humanity or some other tried-and tested fallacy. Would have been too good to actually have a coherent logical argument, instead of reaching for the fallacies, but I guess that was an unrealistic expectation.

    No, I'm for using the money in a way that actually benefits us all, rather than on unrealistic SF stuff. Space colonization may give trekies and SW fans a hard-on, but right now it's simply not a realistic option.

    "Of course, there's also the third option. The so called what, me worry? approach. Which is to just pop your hands over your ears and sing "lalalalalala" and hope the whole issue will go away."

    Or here's a fourth: actually get a clue, use logic and facts, instead of going on a SF bullshit spree and emotional appeals to humanity.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Bullshit all the way by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I obviously wasn't clear enough in this post as at least 4 people have read it and think I am suggesting that we launch poor people into space to get rid of them. The point of my post was that the earth has limited resources and therefore cannot support the current or future world population at a standard of living that is acceptable. As such, I believe we must bring the resources of space down to earth so that it can support an increasing population. And no, this isn't fantasia bullshit. For $20 billion the US could build a sustainable manned moon colony which could send down unthinkably large amounts of resources. Of course, next you're gunna claim there are no resources on the moon and that the only way forward is to huddle in the dark as we use up all the resources on earth.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Bullshit all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have ya SEEN Montana?!? Lower your standards, man! :) They're practically BEGGING people to move in! What we really lack, are "perfect" places to live.

  86. The list 10 years from now by tootlemonde · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Free news Web sites -- no payback ever emerged
    2. SUVs -- killed by $900/barrel oil
    3. Blogging -- turned out to be a fad
    4. "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" -- killed by scammers
    5. AOL -- the public wised up
    6. DVDs -- everything went online
    7. CRTs -- went the way of the LP
    8. VCRs -- went the way of the LP
    9. Movie theatres -- killed by rude audience behavior
    10. Slashdot -- killed by trolls and poseurs
    1. Re:The list 10 years from now by po8crg · · Score: 1

      1. Free news Web sites -- no payback ever emerged

      BBC will still be there, which should drag a few others.

      3. Blogging -- turned out to be a fad

      Pointless personal homepages turned into pointless personal blogs. Am I the only one who fails to see what's revolutionary in that?

      6. DVDs -- everything went online

      I think we'll still want some way of storing what we've downloaded; we might end up with just DVD-R and no prepublished DVDs.

    2. Re:The list 10 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5. AOL -- the public wised up

      You are an optimist, there will always be stupid people.

    3. Re:The list 10 years from now by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Please God, the BBC will have lost its charter by then and we can finally be rid of the UK-funds-rest-of-world's TV tax.

    4. Re:The list 10 years from now by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 1

      A lot of free news web sites will be axed, but the ones that remain will have higher traffic and will be able to turn a profit off of advertising, so they will still be free.

  87. Technologies... by scottsk · · Score: 1

    Ami Pro: Bad business kills great product. Intuitive, easy-to-use word processor. Nothing today holds a candle to it. I probably miss it the most of any old technology. Too bad IBM can't open-source it.

    LP?: What's so great about LPs? I've always wondered what audiophiles can hear that normal people can't. What is the world like to someone with that kind of hearing? To me, LPs are music set in a background roar. It was nice when I was in college and couldn't afford CDs to get an LP for $1, but the sound wasn't that good. Besides, to balance this out, since the LP era, digital remasters have made many recordings sound better than the best LP ever sounded. (Who wants the un-re-remastered version of Yes' Relayer? It didn't sound decent until the second remastering!) Plus CDs are so convenient: I can put my entire music library into a little zipper case. And I can edit out the filler ("Mother" on Synchronicity is the canonical example), and put 2 LPs on 1 CD, etc. I'll take CDs any day.

    Napster: I like being able to call up out-of-print music on demand which no one will sell me for any price.

    Riddle me this: In any other market, companies take unwanted inventory and sell it for scrap value just to get it off the books and salvage some value out of it. So why don't record companies take all their out-of-print music and sell it to some service that will let people download songs for a $1 membership fee or something? What do the record companies get for hoarding music? Isn't there some value in it they could squeeze out?

  88. Dupe by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

    I miss the automatic dupe detector.

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
  89. HP calculators by sita · · Score: 3, Interesting

    HP RPL calculators. Yes, they still make them, but it not exactly as if they evolved with time. Well, perhaps I don't miss them, since I haven't had much use for them since I left university, but still.

    HP calculators are (used to be) fine pieces of engineering. A few months ago I needed to calculate something and since there really isn't anything that compares to the HP RPL calculator interface I digged out my HP48 from a deskdrawer. I turned it on. The batteries had not drained! It must have been roughly ten years since I used it last. There was stuff lying around on the stack since I last used it.

    1. Re:HP calculators by Curate · · Score: 1

      What the heck is an RPL calculator? Do you mean RPN?

    2. Re:HP calculators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What the heck is an RPL calculator? Do you mean RPN?

      No, he means RPL; RPN is something else and doesn't by itself make a calculator great.

    3. Re:HP calculators by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      The day I broke the LCD of my HP48, I cried. I am not ashamed about it. It was beautiful. I plugged it into an Hayes modem and dialed up my own BBS and logged in, what else can I brag about? :)

  90. So you would described as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    not a shareholder then I take it.

  91. Speaking of declining population growth by achurch · · Score: 1

    In Japan, the male population declined slightly last year, and the overall population is predicted to peak in 2006. The birth rate of 1.29 kids per couple is a pretty major factor. (And I sure wouldn't want to be that .29 of a kid...)

    1. Re:Speaking of declining population growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In 1947, at the time of independence, India's population was approx. 250 million.

      Today, it has passed 1 billion.

      And no, they don't see that as a problem in India.

  92. My dupe theory by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

    I think I've got it worked out.

    There was a sort of unwritten agreement at one time between some games developers to see how much bullshit they could get 'Edge' magazine to print (I think there's a sister mag called 'Next Generation' in the US - they shared a lot of content). The journos are arrogant and pretentious, and like to think they are technically knowledgeable, but of course they aren't.

    So in features/interviews with some of the cheekier games dev houses, you would find some rare old nonsense passed off as 'technology' by the developer :-).

    I think the same thing is happening here - there's a group of slashdot readers who have a competition to see how many dupe stories they can get accepted onto the front page.

    It's the only thing that makes sense :-)

  93. Re:Peter Jennings, dead at 67 by smchris · · Score: 1


    I think the detail is that he smoked, smoked, smoked those cigarettes (and worked in NYC, which someone wrote is equal to another several packs/day). Despite his upbeat sign-off, it's a small percentage of people who survive lung cancer.

  94. If they want one, here: by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    Palm IIIe I picked up a couple months ago for $25 CAN. (I'd probably outgrow any first PDA, so I decided to spend the minimum until I know exactly what features I want/need in the second one.)

    It's okay, it plays Zork.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  95. Why we love C|Net by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    We miss the Newton because what it thought we meant was often far more interesting than what we were really trying to say.

    Thanks for trying to do the journalist thing, guys. :-P

  96. I Miss by Stanneh · · Score: 1

    Quake 2 -_-
    it could never be the same again.

    --
    I Predict A Riot
  97. Re:Keyboard [Keytronic is better] by tyrione · · Score: 1
  98. Palm Pilot by aaamr · · Score: 1

    I miss the original palm too... I had a Palm Pilot Professional which hit the sweet spot. It did all the PIM stuff and did it well.

    Of course, my Blackberry 7280 now does it all with the addition of email and a cellphone, so I guess there's really not much to miss after all.

    Oh yeah, I *never* wanted to balance my checkbook, do work processing, or watch movies on my PDA, so my Blackberry just about gets it right in the way that the original Palms did.

    1. Re:palm pilot by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Palms are not generally inherently unstable. Where they get the instability is from after-market code doing things it shouldn't.

      Disclosure: I used to be one of the perpetrators. Now that I know what I'm doing, my applications don't destabilize everyone else's. Palm is only to blame for not properly identifying the correct application and disabling it.

      I agree with you on Grafitti. I'm slowly getting used to the new one, but I'll always miss the original.

  99. Somebody's getting old by smchris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It takes a while to figure out that progress isn't linear. As an older person, my favorite is the motor-driven analog clock radio.

    * It doesn't need a backup battery.

    * Unlike cheap clock radios without backup if the power goes out for a minute, it takes about 5 seconds to adjust the minute hand.

    * Ditto, if the power goes out. you aren't going to wake up for work two hours late unless the power is off for two hours.

    * If you want to get up later one day, you don't have to cycle 23 hours that evening to get the alarm back to the earlier time.

    * I just think analog is cool. It's a one-glance pictoral instead of digital information.

    * And the clock motors were 60-cycle syncro and perfectly accurate for all practical purposes.

    But, aside from the expense of being made of metal (back then), I imagine assembling a clock motor was labor intensive, right?

    I'm currently using a circa '68 Zenith that somebody gave me around '98 because the AF power transistor had thermal runaway. An easy diagnosis and an equally easy fix with a circuit board of discrete components. A little light grease on the clock gears every few years and it's good to go.

  100. Re:Peter Jennings, dead at 67 by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    it's a small percentage of people who survive lung cancer.

    And there's an even smaller pecentage of people who survive life.

  101. Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. | Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, if you mainly listen to techno/industrial music and not "soft and warm" music, the LP really comes off at a disadvantage.

    *Imagines Skinny Puppy with LP distorsion*
    *Shudders*

  102. All ten on one page! by PhotoGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Top tech I miss, is people putting top ten lists all on one page, rather than having to click "continue" ten times. Congrats to cNet for being concise on this one... Reminds me of the old days...

    Good keyboards? I find bang for the buck for key boards has come a *long* way. I buy $7.95 Cicero keyboards at Future Shop (argh), which have an incredibly good feel to them. They way my kids (okay, okay, and I), go through keyboards, I'm glad I have have "disposable" keyboards with a great feel. Other than that, thought it was a cool article.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  103. Reality check by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The point of my post was that the earth has limited resources and therefore cannot support the current or future world population at a standard of living that is acceptable."

    Ok, I'll bite. _Which_ resources doesn't it have enough to sustain an 8 billion population? Because it produces currently a surplus of food, has enough uranium for centuries, has iron under almost literally every hill or mountain, and it can synthetize fuel and plastics from any other source of energy (e.g., nuclear.) So _what_ materials do you absolutely need to bring from the moon?

    "For $20 billion the US could build a sustainable manned moon colony which could send down unthinkably large amounts of resources."

    "Unthinkably large" sounds cool, but:

    A) Exactly how much _is_ "unthinkably large"? More than the exact same money (including, salaries, supplies, shipping, etc) would get you from a mine on Earth? Enough to not be lost in the decimals, compared to what millions of people already extract on Earth?

    B) What's the price per ton to transport it, and to transport supplies back? There's a good reason why you get raw materials or oil imported by train or ship, not by airplane: cost per ton transported.

    "Of course, next you're gunna claim there are no resources on the moon and that the only way forward is to huddle in the dark as we use up all the resources on earth."

    Actually, next I'm gonna claim you need to read a book on economics. Might be a fascinating read.

    The question isn't just whether there are resources on the Moon worth getting, but whether it's cheaper to get them from there. That's how the economy still works here on Earth, I'm affraid.

    There's a lot of "plan B"s out there, that are perfectly feasible, but aren't done because "plan A" is still cheaper. E.g., why the USA prefers to import oil than to extract its own. Or for that matter than to synthesize it from coal, or to switch to hydrogen cars and nuclear power to produce the hydrogen, or whatever.

    If 20 billion USD was all it takes to bring a lot of cheap resources from the moon, that is, cheaper than you can get them on Earth, some corporation would already do that.

    But maybe we'll do something else first. Yours is not the only solution, but just one possible "plan B" in a list of _thousands_. Humanity has a _lot_ of already existing options before huddling in the dark or mass-murder, and more are already being researched. (Of course, it makes a better doomsday whine if you ignore them.)

    Which of them will be used next and when, will have to do with economics, not with what looks way cool to SF fanboys. _Maybe_ some day bringing iron ore from the moon will be cheaper than digging it from under a mountain on Earth. But maybe we'll just use plastics and composite materials produced with fusion power instead. Or maybe something else.

    When one such "plan B" becomes cheaper, or the current "plan A" becomes too expensive, we will know it, and do it then. That's how the economy works.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Reality check by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Go read the fuckin' book man. Jesus, you argue just for the sake of argument.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Reality check by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Generally I agree with your post, except:

      If 20 billion USD was all it takes to [ do something interesting ], that is, cheaper than [ the existing way ], some corporation would already do that.

      No they wouldn't. Corporations can only invest in projects that have basically guaranteed outcomes; they are extremely risk-averse. A security risk manager at a megacorp told me just a few weeks ago that their corporate discipline is very tight: if it can't make at least 12% profit, it is not invested in.

      Hindsight is 20/20. Given hindsight, the "free" market failed to fund a lot of profitable ventures: the interstate rail and highway systems, the secondary education system, the power grid, the communications infrastructure. It's amazing how much development will only occur if the government pays through the nose for it in the form of tax breaks (Detriot's Pole City, airlines, trucking, agribusiness, etc.) or pork (DoD spending, NSF grants, etc.). Yet we persist in this thinking, contrary to history, that corporations will innovate at every opportunity.

      Otherwise good points all around.

    3. Re:Reality check by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, that's very insightful, but more or less that's the whole point: all these "my theory will save the world" theorists present their pet theory as something sure and guaranteed. You just need to sign here and transfer 20 billion USD here, and you're _guaranteed_ to get these unbelievably huge quantities of minerals practically for free. (Or whatever other miracle solution is being peddled.)

      And if it was that clearly cut and obvious, someone would have already done it. The reverse side of that risk management that you mention (and is indeed very real), is that if such a venture was guaranteed to bring a 12% profit, chances are good they _will_ invest in it. Or if not them, someone else will.

      Corporations may be weary in investing in fundamentally new stuff to try, but here we're talking mining and transport, really. They already can know _exactly_ how much it costs to transport a ton to moon or back, how much do they need to pay for machinery and buildings, can get a pretty accurate estimate of the probability to get a direct meteor hit per year (which translates into insurance rate), etc.

      I.e., if a corporation wants to get exact numbers on that, I believe they can get very exact numbers.

      "Hindsight is 20/20. Given hindsight, the "free" market failed to fund a lot of profitable ventures: the interstate rail and highway systems, the secondary education system, the power grid, the communications infrastructure."

      The phone infrastructure, they did get into and, at least in the USA, it took legal action to break that monopoly. I also believe that most of the history of the railway system development was in fact a case of private companies at work. Electricity production and distribution, again, was a case of private enterprise. (Including such trivia as Edison selling light bulbs under the production cost, to create a market for them and demand for electricity.) Education too. I believe there are a ton of private schools, high schools, and universities which are basically run as private companies or foundations. Plus, companies routinely pay to educate/specialize their workers.

      In a lot of those cases government intervention was needed to make the owner play fair (break a monopoly, nationalize a vital resource, etc) but they weren't really built by the government or anything.

      Where it gets fuzzier are things which are basically for the good of society as a whole, rather than for a clear-cut ROI.

      E.g., while private companies did lay railroad tracks for their own trains (and _only_ their own being allowed on those tracks), building highways and roads for everyone's trucks and cars wasn't really promising that much of a ROI.

      E.g., while companies do routinely school their own employees, running a high-school doesn't guarantee they'll work for _you_ at the end or that you'll make much money out of running it. (Although examples do exist, such as the Waldorf Schools, started with funding from the Waldorf Astoria Cigarette Company.)

      Basically I'm not saying you're wrong as a whole. Quite the opposite. Companies do invest in things which look like they'll bring a guaranteed profit, and generally stay away from funding the common good of society.

      But that applies IMHO to minerals from the moon too. We're not talking bringing minerals for the common good of society, we're talking that if it was indeed cheaper to bring minerals from there, someone would make a very direct profit for doing so. If there was a good economic case for that, I suspect someone will get into it.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    4. Re:Reality check by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      It is government that is adverse to risk, not free markets. Look at spaceship one... where is the guarantee on that making money? Look at the speculative dotcom boom. When there is lots of money to be made, companies will risk it all. Maybe not the big entrenched ones that are already making money hand over fist, but those smaller firms with nothing to lose are very willing to risk it all on a long shot.

    5. Re:Reality check by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      The phone infrastructure, they did get into and, at least in the USA, it took legal action to break that monopoly.

      They were given a legal monopoly to do it, i.e. it wasn't a competitive venture at all.

      I also believe that most of the history of the railway system development was in fact a case of private companies at work.

      Robber barons. Massive federal grants for the transcontinental railroad. Federal soldiers to break strikes.

      Electricity production and distribution, again, was a case of private enterprise. (Including such trivia as Edison selling light bulbs under the production cost, to create a market for them and demand for electricity.)

      Private utility companies, granted monopoly power and guaranteed pricing markups. In some areas (Tennessee Valley for example) no corporations wanted to open up shop at all.

      Education too. I believe there are a ton of private schools, high schools, and universities which are basically run as private companies or foundations. Plus, companies routinely pay to educate/specialize their workers.

      Right, but the point is that in 1870 the literacy rate of the country was at most 80%, with only 20% of blacks able to read in any language. Where was the private system, that could be easily justified by the increase in productivity? One would think that industrial company A would subsidize a school run by company B to improve their workforce, but they didn't.

      Nowadays public universities do the lion's share of basic research using a mix of government and corporate money and corporates turn that into salable products.

      In a lot of those cases government intervention was needed to make the owner play fair (break a monopoly, nationalize a vital resource, etc) but they weren't really built by the government or anything.

      They were mostly funded by the government, reaped the benefits of government-sponsored research, were given legal monopolies to prevent competition, and didn't have to share their institutional expertise after the systems were established. Oh yeah, and real people who paid for their homes with their own labor were eminent-domained from their land to make room for the corporate-owned infrastructure.

      Where it gets fuzzier are things which are basically for the good of society as a whole, rather than for a clear-cut ROI.

      Not really. When 911 happened, the major airlines begged for money and got it, even though several smaller carriers (like Southwest Airlines) ran a profit despite the attack.

      Basically I'm not saying you're wrong as a whole. Quite the opposite. Companies do invest in things which look like they'll bring a guaranteed profit, and generally stay away from funding the common good of society.

      I think we disagree a bit more than it seems at first glance. I think most corporates will only fund things that guarantee profit in the short and medium term at the expense of the long term, that such action is irrational with respect to Economics 101, AND that even those investments wouldn't happen without market-distorting money from the public treasury.

      Or to use another example. I can't recall which sci-fi author coined the idea (books are at home), but basically they said "the one sure way to guarantee a new moon landing would be to offer a multi-billion-dollar prize for the first private company to get there". I think that if even such a prize was offered, no company would rise to the occasion on their own. Offer the prize in baby steps along the way, with a DoD-style contract and guaranteed minimum profits (regardless of outcome), and they would do it for sure.

      Call me odd if you wish. I've worked for both municipal government (engineering and negotiating contracts with PUCs) and Fortune-100 corporation, and in both cases short-sighted is the order of the day.

  104. Aaah...nostalgia by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  105. Negative cash flow by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    "You don't get what's to like about a company that sold everything at cost and didn't charge for shipping?"

    How did this get mod'ed Insightful? (Yah, yah, pretend I'm new here.)

    I suppose it's much like Santa Claus. People like the concept, but nobody with a brain thinks they really exist.

    Negative cash flow is bad, m'kay?

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Negative cash flow by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Negative cash flow is bad, m'kay?

      Why don't you stop looking at it from the point of an investor/shareholder, and look at the company from the point of a customer? What isn't there to like about a company that has great prices, fast delivery, and free shipping?

    2. Re:Negative cash flow by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Unreliability?

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  106. Emitting a displaced post by dbIII · · Score: 1
    more properly known as a "displaced-emissions vehicle."
    A rose by any other name will emit the same scent - and I suggest you read a bit and see what other people are talking about when they use the term. What one person thinks is the best description may differ from plenty of others and a pile of stuff in print, so games over terminology are pointless.

    If this gets pushed too far we will be trying to find objects with no effect whatsoever on the world around them.

  107. They're right on about the Palm Pilot by defile · · Score: 1

    Simple and to the point.

    Once they switched processors and added colors and tried to have mass market appeal, I think they killed their core culture, which is a shame. Now every PDA looks more or less the same, and we all kind of remember the Palm for what it was, not what it is.

    Not that I could ever stand to use the things on a day-to-day basis, no matter how hard I tried. (Fantasy of an original Palm being released in a world with pervasive net access)

  108. Keyboards by Remlik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keyboards have been my biggest complaint for many years. My home keyboard is one I got used off of and old Pentium 60 Zeos corp computer. Its AT, it has a full click in the keys (not quite as full as the classic IBM keyboards of old) and the larger enter key. For my needs this is the best keyboard out there. I type faster and with less mistakes.

    At work I have another AT style keyboard gotten from a garage sale for 2 bucks. It has 12 extra programable function keys, a build in calculator and of course the full click and larger enter key.

    A trip to my local Compusa shows me about 12 different keyboards and all of them suck with one exception. The exception is a keyboard with removed sidebar number pad in a metalic base (heavy, nice) and it is basically a notebook keyboard. Flat keys with a short throw click..it sells for $250 !!! One day it will be mine.

    --
    Apple free since 1990!
  109. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 2005, for crying out loud.

    And there you are, crying out loud. STFU!

  110. "The" Concorde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never existed. There was a plane called Concorde once.

    And James Cameron if you're watching, "Titanic" was not a ship, it was The Titanic.

  111. Re:Keyboard Northgate Omnikey by srh2o · · Score: 1

    How about the Northgate Omnikey. 116 Keys, Dual function key rows, all good. http://www.cvtinc.com/products/keyboards/stellar.h tm

  112. Not really correct by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kozmo started charging for delivery on orders under $30 at least a year or so before they went under.

    Further, they were turning a profit in both Boston and New York -- both very dense cities where deliveries were easily made via bicycle. Not so in some of their later expansions (Dallas comes to mind).

  113. Keytronic (and Unicomp) not in Europe... by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1

    KeyTronic quit the EU market from the beginning of August 2005. They probably don't even make the various European layouts any more. Unicomp says that most layouts are available on order, but you'll have to order from the USA, ($79 + overseas shipping)*1,22 and the price including VAT isn't all that realistic.

    Bottom line -- in the EU we're just supposed to scour through junk heaps to find some working IBM clickers...

  114. Good Wired Keyboards by adamjone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've experienced numbers 7 and 8 directly within the last couple of months. After switching jobs, my new cube was outfitted with a truly horrible Belkin 104 key model. The keys felt like someone had spilled orange juice all over it, sticking in position up or down. What I really wanted was an ergonomic wired keyboard. Good luck finding one. I tried Best Buy, Target, Fry's, and Wal-Mart without success. All had wireless ergonomic models, but nothing wired. So I caved and got the Microsoft Wireless Desktop Comfort Edition. It was a wireless mouse / keyboard combo, and the keyboard had a nice ergonomic curve to it. Big mistake. Nearly everyone in the office has a wireless device, so there is a ton of interference. Add to that the fact that the keyboard consistently misses keystrokes, or sticks the control or shift key down. This is murder when using Vi for editing.

    Where can I find a good, wired, ergonomically shaped keyboard?

  115. original palm=simplicity and low power consumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Mmmm. The original palm pilot.

    Those 2 AA batteries lasted an entire month. Let's see any of today's new devices do that.

    The list of "features" in a new palm seem pretty pathetic...

    Built-in 1.2 megapixel camera
    (no thanks, I'll wait for the cheap 8 megapixel cameras that you can change lenses on. golly gee, I miss those old cameras you can change the lenses on.)

    Instantly capture photos and video clips
    (Expansion card required, sold separately. and I'll wait for the cheap 8 megapixel panaramic video recorder, too.)

    Listen to MP3s
    (Expansion card required, sold separately.)

    High-resolution, 320 x 320 color screen
    (what a battery eater, the old lo-res black and white is good enough.)

    Create and edit Word and Excel compatible files
    Synchronize with Outlook

    (Windows only. Why would I ever want to do something like that. The old and simple email and note writing apps are good enough for me.)

    Built-in Bluetooth(TM)
    (yeah, right. I admit I would prefer WiFi rather than the serial cable and/or infra red on the original Palms. Does anyone actually use Bluetooth? Does anyone care?)

    32MB of memory
    (24.7MB actual storage capacity. Bloat. I got by with 1MB of memory, no problem. Simple lightweight apps.

    Expansion slot
    (for all those expensive power consuming hardware bits that will quickly become obsolete and broken.)

    High-performance ARM processor
    (again, who cares? the processor in the Palm Pilot was good enough and again, it didn't suck power!)

  116. Re: ZEV by toganet · · Score: 1

    For a pre-exisiting diesel vehicle, you can argue that using biodiesel is zero-emissions, from a carbon standpoint. Since the carbon released had been converted from atmospheric carbon, the release is zero-sum.

    Of course, there are other emissions, such as NOx, that would have come from the soil, or even petroleum fertilizers.

  117. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Halo- · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One thing to consider is that your old rotary phone has a speaker that is over an inch in diameter and has an actual honest-to-good magnet in it. Speakers in today's electronics tend to me cheap-ass piezo-electrics only slightly bigger than a pencil eraser. I've never heard one of those tiny speakers which sounded as good as a cheap paper-coned magnetic one.

    Magnetic speakers are cheap and mass-produced as well, but they are also heavy, and can't be easily placed next to other circuitry without problems.

  118. You have to be careful about the polisher gadgets by Thag · · Score: 1

    Don't buy the cheap plastic ones.

    I had a "Disk Doctor" polisher gadget, and it was a menace. It broke the first time it was used and ruined the DVD too.

    Nowadays I use a soft washcloth and polish by hand.

    There are probably good polishers, but I couldn't tell you which ones are good.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  119. Don't believe the hype by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

    Yes, back in the last century when CDs were new there were demos on TV of people "drilling a hole in a CD and it still playing".

    The trouble is, they were drilling between the end of the recorded section (which, as everyone here will know but no-one then did) starts from the inside out rather than (as with an LP) from the outside in. It's about as relevant as drilling a hole in between the end grooves of an LP.

  120. Re:Peter Jennings, dead at 67 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    it's a small percentage of people who survive lung cancer

    Hey, my dad survived lung cancer. For about four years after they took the first lung (they took half of the second later). Of course, he was 6 feet tall and about 100 pounds when he died at age 59. Well, he wasn't really 6 feet tall any more, since the cancer was digging into his spine by then.

    It's absolutely true that no one survives life, but my God there are better ways to wrap it up, trust me. If cancer doesn't worry you, Google COPD (my favorite hits are the tips on how to take a shower without feeling like you're being slowly suffocated). Today would be an excellent day to quit smoking.

  121. IBM Keyboard Mass Purchase by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

    When I worked at IBM, the old IBM PC Keyboards were on the employee purchase plan dirt cheap, along with IBM PCI 10/100 Ethernet adaptors with WOL (the Intel chipset). You'd bet I picked up a case of each- about 12 of either fully boxed. As I scrape the letters off each one and it starts to give me trouble, I move to the next.

    Couldn't be happier. The current 'new' keyboards all suck... but you see, it's all about predicting that it's going to happen.

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  122. human-powered vehicles as "zero emission" by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

    Nope, he still has you. The waste products are:
    carbon dioxide
    perspiration
    urine
    feces

    1. Re:human-powered vehicles as "zero emission" by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      You can take those out of the equation, because they are being produced by the passenger/driver/operator anyway, whatever the vehicle type.

    2. Re:human-powered vehicles as "zero emission" by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      Nope, they're emissions from the engine that drives the vehicle. The vehicle doesn't go unless the rider exerts energy, which increases metabolism and burns calories. The energy moving the vehicle is generated by a chemical process which has waste products. No such thing as "zero emission" transportation anymore than there's perpetual motion machines. It's just a question of how much emission, and what kind.

    3. Re:human-powered vehicles as "zero emission" by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Very true. BUT:
      People should get exercise. Some level of activity beyond mere sitting on the couch. Those 'extra' calories burned in riding a bike to work are the exact same calories that would otherwise be used in exercise riding a spin bike at the gym. Going absolutely nowhere.

      Mulititasking your exercise and transportation solves two problems at the same time.

  123. palm pilot by sirinek · · Score: 1

    The original USR Pilot 1000 did not arrive until 1996, NOT 1994.

    Also, as the owner of one of these Pilot 1000s, I will say, it did crash periodically. Not OFTEN mind you, but then, my Palm Tungsten T5 doesn't crash any more than the old Pilot either. The only thing I dislike about the Tungsten over the original Pilot is Graffiti 2. I'm too used to the original Graffiti.

    I liked the Pilot much better than the big bulky Newton 120 I had before it.

  124. Man, technology moves sooo fast... by east+coast · · Score: 1

    FTA: "Try to buy communications equipment today--it's all wireless. Wireless networks, cellular phones..."

    They make wireless cell phones? Damn, and I'm still carrying around this 28 mile spool of cable for my wired cell phone. I need to look into this...

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  125. The HP100LX by WillWare · · Score: 1

    definitely belongs on the list. That was the best PDA I ever had. A perfectly-sized chicklet keyboard, tremendous battery life, a C compiler, a sane OS. I hoped they would be around long enough for a Linux port but it wasn't to be. I know there have been follow-up HP products but they prioritized the wrong things, e.g. a color screen adds little while shortening battery life.

    --
    WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
  126. Usenet by rlp · · Score: 1

    Usenet back before Canter/Siegel. Heck, Usenet back before AOL made it available to their users. Despite lack of civility and the occasional (OK, not so occasional) flamefest - it was entertaining, amusing (i.e. kremvax hoax), and surprisingly useful. If you wanted to get information, share information, it was the place. And no - even with a zillion Web sites and Google Groups (the remains of Usenet) there's no equivalent.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Usenet by doom · · Score: 1
      rlp wrote:
      Usenet back before Canter/Siegel. Heck, Usenet back before AOL made it available to their users. Despite lack of civility and the occasional (OK, not so occasional) flamefest - it was entertaining, amusing (i.e. kremvax hoax), and surprisingly useful. If you wanted to get information, share information, it was the place. And no - even with a zillion Web sites and Google Groups (the remains of Usenet) there's no equivalent.
      *Pssst*. Don't tell the slashkiddies, but the new usenet is usenet. The eternal september is over.

      Get a decent newsfeed and a newsreader, and you're all set... You'll have to live without the feeling that you're Cutting Edge, though. For that you need to be a blogger.

    2. Re:Usenet by rlp · · Score: 1

      Thanks - stopped using Usenet around the time the S/N approached 0 (mostly due to spam). I'll have to take another look.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
  127. Who the heck is William Henry Gates III? by Merk · · Score: 1

    ;)

    1. Re:Who the heck is William Henry Gates III? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billion Dollar Bill

  128. Thermodynamics economics by Kisil · · Score: 1

    The problem with using economics as a justification is that we're not working with a completely free market, and there are many externalities that are just not figured into the system - what is the 'cost to society' of releasing ten tons of small particles into the atmosphere? It is certainly nonzero, and is not reflected in the cost of running a factory.

    If you subsidize oil enough, you can make it profitable to drill in the US.. but when it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than you get from the product, there's no real reason to drill. Until our economic policy accurately reflects thermodynamics, arguments based on 'cost' really don't hold water.

    That said, it still represents a huge energy loss to mine for anything on the moon...

  129. "Fidelity" is overrated by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.

    And if you think "fidelity" is what music appreciation is about then you need to have your brain checked.

    Play me a good song, and I won't care whether it's a 96kbps MP3 stream or pristine vinyl on a $2000 turntable -- I'm going to enjoy it. Likewise, play me a bad song and I'm NOT going to enjoy it, irregardless of "fidelity".

    1. Re:"Fidelity" is overrated by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      It depends what the music is. Something that depends on subtle details, like Dire Straits, is going to be seriously hurt by bad equipment.

  130. Some of the things I miss - in no particular order by schiefaw · · Score: 1

    1. OpenDoc - This was just kind of cool.
    2. Hellcats Over the Pacific - Old fashioned dogfighting
    3. Hypercard - Fun for the whole family
    4. Mechwarrior 1 - The new ones may be fun too, but this falls under the same category as #2. Games tend to get more complicated over time.

    --
    Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
  131. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Stone+Cold+Troll · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, they still make these. I have one on my desk.

  132. Slashdot by FLOOBYDUST · · Score: 1

    with no dupes and JonKatz....

  133. How far we've come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never understood why anyone would prefer the IBM keyboards with their 100dB, carpal tunnel-inducing key strokes and gigantic phone coil cord. Of course, I bet if I asked the RPG programmers here they could tell me...

  134. The list 10,000 years from now by clambake · · Score: 1

    1. F/OSS -- Destroyed when Mordak the Executioner bombarded the last of the OSS revolutionary comclaves from space with his "StarWave" hyperlight virtual partical reciprocator.
    2. Energy Conservation -- Abandoned when M'hec'ma'har, the galactic cloud made of pure, unadulterated fossil fuel was discovered.
    3. Humans -- Structurally reengineered into virtual extinction when Humans had to redesign thier internal atomic structure to be able to survive the Val disturbance, when all atomic matter in the universe went through it's temporary depolarization.
    4. Microsoft -- Finally met it's end when one of the Seven All Creators (Steve, not Jabar this time) decided that they had built thier towers too high.
    5. Reality TV -- Damn that took a long time.
    6. The War on Drugs -- Now that the newly restructured fundamental laws of physics that the new humans were built on are no longer susceptible to drug induced states of euphoria, finally we could end this.
    8. The number 7 -- Turns out we didn't really need it after all.
    9. All other languages except for English -- After discovering that all sentient races in the Universe speak perfect, American English, and that only a subset of humans spoke strange, non-English dialects, those last few "Language Terrorists" were finally dealt after a bloodly battle resulting in the massacre and total gravatomic annaihilation of seven galaxies... Of course, really the only survivors that really needed to be dealth with were Juan Carlos and his mother, Maria, of Earth, but those other seven galaxies were really pissing us off.
    10. Ka'THUR -- Don't tell me I'm the only one glad to see this go. I mean, seriously.

  135. I loved my Northgate KB, but... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    $150 is a little much for a keyboard.

    But that's better then the last time I saw the Northgate copies. They were $200+ then.

    The unicomp is decent. Using one to type this.

    On the Northgate a few of the keys have gone all mushey on me, no complaints though. Lasted for more then a decade of heavy use.

    On second though I might have to get one. The original cost about $100 IIRC.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  136. Mouse is what you call your little guy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    I give mine more respect.

    He's Mr. Natural.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  137. On Zero Emission Vehicles by snStarter · · Score: 1

    You can either have a ton of devices trying to limit smog-producing emissions or you can work on reducing emissions at a few large sources. I'll all for the latter. Coupled with roof-top solar cell electricity production (in areas where it makes sense) this can have a substantial increase in air quality.

    There are, of course, no free lunches, and you have to work at minimizing the emissions of power plants - but it's easier to do this there, where power generation is more efficient than in internal combustion engines.

    And I'm all in favor of increased efficiency.

    1. Re:On Zero Emission Vehicles by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. I just take issue at the term "Zero Emission Vehicle". It is misleading and literally not true unless you are only counting the immediate area around the vehicle after manufacturing has finished.

      Even hydro power has emissions, in the form of heat transferred to the water.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:On Zero Emission Vehicles by lgw · · Score: 1

      Internal combustion engines are pretty clean these days. A ULEV vehicle will actually clean the air in Houston on a bad day. ;)

      The advantage is in moving away from oil, which is politically troublesome to acquire so that we can take better adavtage of ... umm ... nuclear which is politically troublesome to acquire. But batteries are not the right way to do that - too heavy, too slow to recharge, and despite quite a few millions in R&D, no major breakthrough in that technology. A breakthrough in storing hydrogen for use in existing engines seems far more likely.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  138. three words, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    porn n' ice cream.

    oh yeah.

    porn n' ice cream.

  139. Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not "VAGINAED" space exploration? Why do you have to be so phallocentric? It's 2005, for crying out loud.

  140. Trackpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss a trackpoint (those red nipple things on an IBM Thinkpad) that work...

    (In Xorg when using it my mouse goes all over the place uncontrollably)

  141. Two Words: Cue Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wanted to do barcode scanning at home, but I never found time to get off my lazy ass and pick one of those up at Radio Shack while they were still available.

  142. Magnetic Core Memory by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1
    Back in the day, one could put a computer with magnetic core memory to sleep just by shutting the power off, and then start it up just by turning it on.

    Magnetic core memory is nonvolatile. It has to be explicitly erased to change its value.

    If 32 kb of magnetic core was good enough for the Apollo 11 lunar lander, then it's good enough for me!

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Magnetic Core Memory by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Heck, I could do that with my IBM PC--just flip the switch and turn it off. That's because it didn't do memory paging. All things being equal, I think I'd rather have paging than the ability to turn my computer off without damaging anything, though.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    2. Re:Magnetic Core Memory by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Ummm., no, the parent poster meant that you could turn off the power and what's in memory is preserved.

      In other words, you're in the middle of writing a program, and then decide the call it a day and you turn off the computer....

      When you next turn ON the computer, it picks up where you left off -- as if it had never been off, because the contents of the RAM have not changed.

      That's why core memory is cool.

      Old computers rock!!!

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  143. Yeah, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My K5 FP article "Useful dead technologies" never got slashdotted, you wankers. And it was better, actually mentioning dead tech that many younglings never heard of.

    And it had nothing stupid like the following:

    "Napster..." I hate to break it to C|NUT, but Napster itself is dead but its tech isn't. It has evolved through Gnutella, etc, and finally to Bittorrent, which is to teh original Napster what the Space Shuttle is to the Wright Brothers' plane.

    "Concorde... victim of economic factors and the aftermath of its only fatal crash...."

    The fatal crash had little if anything to do with its demise. It was just too damned expensive. And why is this fool decrying the death of a technology he never once used himself?

    "The original Palm Pilot"
    This is like begging for "the original IBM PC". Today's offerings are superior.

    "Good keyboards Once upon a time, using a computer was a loud, tactile affair."

    And now my keyboard is wireless and what's more, doesn't wake the neighbors.

    "Wires" Wires? Jesus, what a luddite. Why on earth do you miss wires?

    "LPs" - I covered this in two different unSlashdotted K5 FP articles, "Which is better, analog or digital" and "How to rip from vinyl or tape." Only in my articles, I actually explained what was better about analog than current offerings (and begging for higher sample rates) and what was better about digital recording.

    "The Newton" and then he goes on to say he misses it because... it sucked? Huh? Did it really?

    My writing no longer graces the pages of K5. Perhaps I'll return some day. At any rate, I'm flattered that Rafe Needleman ripped me off.

    The bastard - my head was just starting to get back down to normal size.

    -mcgrew

  144. Obligatory Northgate Shout-out by stalky14 · · Score: 1

    Love mine. It has a couple flakey keys on the numeric keypad, but nothing serious. I scoured PC surplus auctions for years before I came across mine, duct-taped to the bottom of a bundle with two other no-name keyboards. Five bucks for all 3! Score!

    One other thing about the Omnikey Ultra (mine) that rarely gets mentioned is that it was dip-switch configurable, both in layout and emulation. With the right cable it could be used on an Amiga, Mac, or PC. You just changed the DIP switches to put it in the right mode. I used it on my Amiga for years before moving it to my PC. Just change a couple of switches and voila!

    Control and Caps-Lock are interchangable too. Set the switches and move the keycaps.

    Best keyboard ever made.

    1. Re:Obligatory Northgate Shout-out by wakdjunkaga · · Score: 1
      I too adored Northgate's Omnikey both for crisp tactile feedback and left hand function key placement. This just always made more sense to me from an ergonomic perspective, and especially when using programs with pre-Windows roots where a lot of shortcuts were Alt-Ctrl-Shift combos with function keys).

      Although I'm not happy with some design changes (the cable isn't replaceable anymore; can't recall if the config DIP switches were retained) Creative Vision Technologies (comprised partially of ex-Northgate employees) builds a nearly exact replacement - the Avant Stellar - and it has the same good feel.

      http://www.cvtinc.com/products/keyboards/stellar.h tm

      I've averaged about 8 years hard use per Northgate keyboard, so, although the Avant Stellar costs a lot ($189) it'll be worth it in the long run.

  145. Re:No, I'm New Here by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ I actually laughed out loud from that one. Keep it up, New Here!

  146. Re:Apples and Oranges by decipher_saint · · Score: 1
    You were making some sense until you said this:
    An LP held 45 minutes of music for most of its life and about 60 minutes at its most advanced. It cost about $20 (in today's US dollars). Now a blank DVD ROM holds about 4000 minutes in high-quality MP3 or OGG files and sells for $0.39 (in today's US dollars).
    Where can you buy 4000 minute "hi-fi" mp3 or ogg discs for $0.99 (other than the Chinese supermarket...)?

    Most CDs you purchase retail can go from $6.99 to $21.00 (even higher if there are multiple discs) and contain under 60 minutes of music.

    Making your own records was not something that most consumers would have had access too. Even in the last 40 years of consumer home audio via reel-to-reel or cassettes the investment was minimal for equipment that would record and store music, I would think that it would have been at least a comparable cost to a computer system, the appropriate software and blank discs.
    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  147. Re:Thermodynamics economics by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

    It's not all about energy cost, but rather which form of energy sells for the most.

    If we mine oil using oil then yes, energy cost matters. But if we use solr/wind/etc.. energy to mine oil we can support a large energy loss because the energy we are getting in the form of oil comes in a nice package AND there is a supporting infrastructure ready to use it, both of which statements are false about solar and wind.

    So it still comes down to how much is that guy willing to pay at the pump before changing his infrastructure.

  148. YAY KOZMO! WE MISS YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we all miss Kozmo???

  149. WANTING and NEEDING are different by mnmn · · Score: 1

    And the natural selection of good apps depend more on NEED than WANT.

    Think of the Spitfire fighters. They were cool. They no longer exist because better aircraft have appeared. Even the F-16 flew awesome, and is now replaced with more automated stealth fighters, and will soon be replaced with unmanned drones. Now I would prefer to see spitfires zip across the skies rather than drones, and dogfight videos rather than nightvision targets blowing up. But thats wanting what you dont need.

    I loved the IBM model M keyboards, and their feel. But I chucked them out because they were loud and heavy, and didnt buy another because the market produces cheaper and lighter keyboards now. All the new IBM keyboards are pretty good and at a good price given their easy mass production and low quantity of plastic. So I'll use these now, and remember the gool ol days.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  150. ha ha! by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    ha ha!

    You just got F'd in the A!

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  151. America took a step backwards in 2003?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Esp. with the loss of the EV1 car. I bet a lot of conservatives are yelling "FAG!" from their oil derriks with glee.

  152. How to get 4000 minutes of music on a 39 cent disk by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Go to the local public library and check out the entire rock and pop collection. Rip these CDs to your PC hard drive. Buy a DVD burner for $70. Copy the entire MP3/OGG collection to the blank DVD that came with the DVD burner. Take the DVD burner back to Fry's. You have a 4000 minute 39 cent DVD.

  153. Re:original palm=simplicity and low power consumpt by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

    My Zire (21 I believe) lasts more than a couple of months easily. On the other hand it has no colour, no backlight, nothing. It is a lightweight m100, nothing else and as fast as the original Palms. On the other hand, it was dirt cheap and it does its job (taking notes down). My other PDA is an SL5500 so I usually use that one for fancier stuff.

  154. I miss MacWrite by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    I miss the old MacWrite word processor that came with the first macs. Even a kid could pick it up in a few minutes, and do fancy hand-outs with pretty fonts and graphics.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    1. Re:I miss MacWrite by G.+Ratte' · · Score: 1

      Yeah MacWrite is great... and it was rolled into Apple(Claris)Works a looong time ago.

      --
      G. Ratte'/cDc "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce."
  155. The forgot OS9! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about OS-9? That was a cool operating system! So fast!

    Now the Mac is the same old bloatware as anyone else. I, for one, refuse to upgrade to X! And now with the Intel segmented crap, it'll be the same as a PC.

  156. Napster? Hardly. MP3.com however... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    I miss the old MP3.com. Originally, it was THE major player in LEGAL free music distribution. Now they've gone pay, and the other free distribution sites either have too, or have diversified too much, or are too small, or whatever to build up the kind of momentum that MP3.com had before it became mismanaged by fools that didn't understand the artists role in their success-- preferring to see the artist as customer rather than collaborator.. IUMA too has dried up, and while there are dozens of smaller sites now, the idea of a centralized catalogue of legal free music has pretty much gone...

  157. Re:No, I'm New Here by Shaklee39 · · Score: 1

    Then you REALLY must be new. He has been doing that stupid joke for almost a year now.

  158. Re:Napster? Hardly. MP3.com however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try soundclick.com, it's got a huge library of free music and they don't charge you anything to create an account and upload your mp3s, as long as you keep each under 10MB and no higher than 128kbps. You can upload mp3s of any size at very high bitrates if you pay like 4 bucks a month. Very cool. Only problem I have with the site is that once I accidentally visited it using Internet Explorer and saw that most of its advertising is for spyware companies.

  159. Re:Thermodynamics economics by Kisil · · Score: 1

    "Supporting infrastructure ready to use wind and solar energy," i.e. the power grid. Solar and wind energy are generally collected as electricity. Oil is also burned to produce electricity. The market economy ensures that where this oil goes doesn't really make a difference; the oil is just added into the market, and the whole transaction still nets an energy loss.

    Also note that the infrastructure we have for extracting oil mostly runs on energy from... oil.

  160. Re:Thermodynamics economics by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I'm not saying there isn't a net loss of energy in something like shale oil or the like. I think there probably is. That is besides the point. People will still pay for a nice energy packaging even iff it contains less energy than it cost to produce. I charge my cell phone battery, even though that is a net loss of energy simply because I like to carry my cell phone with me. We don't care about net losses of energy because energy is not a scarce resource. A limitless supply of it strikes the Earth's surface each second. We only care that it comes in handy little packages.

    Now no one is going to use oil to drill oil when there is a net loss... that's just silly. When we move to net loss production we will be using less handy packages of energy (like wind) to produce more handy packages (oil). That isn't a problem because currently there is NO infrastructure to produce oil from these sources... it must be built from scratch.

  161. For the love of Mod! by Neoncow · · Score: 1

    Even punchlines are being duped now!

  162. For want of a company, a customer was lost by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    DragonHawk: "Negative cash flow is bad, m'kay?"

    toddestan: "Why don't you stop looking at it from the point of an investor/shareholder, and look at the company from the point of a customer? What isn't there to like about a company that has great prices, fast delivery, and free shipping?"

    I am looking at it from the standpoint of a customer. Companies that consistently lose money eventually run out of money and die. A company that doesn't exist does me no good at all. At work, one of the things I always look at when selecting vendors is the corporate health of the vendor. I want the vendor to be around in the future. I want them to make money. If they don't, they die, and I (as the customer) am, at best, severely inconvenienced. If the vendor provided more then just a commodity, things might get very expensive as I look to replace "legacy" stuff.

    Hence the Santa Claus analogy. What's not to like about a jolly old elf who flies around giving presents to people who do good? Well, nothing, except for the fact that it isn't realistic. I don't base my personal life or my professional work on such things.

    That's reality.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  163. Re:Thermodynamics economics by Kisil · · Score: 1

    At the point where we need to drill for oil at a loss, building a new drilling infrastructure isn't significantly cheaper, even short term, than building a new energy transport infrastructure (like hydrogen, or better batteries). The problem is that the more oil we drill, the harder it is to get to the remaining oil.

    The real danger is that as easily accessible oil runs out, we will not have the good sense to invest enough of that energy in sustainable infrastructure. Energy itself is not scarse, but the means to convert it from sunlight into anything useful have to be developed and manufactured. The irony is that we need oil energy to build its replacement, but as long as oil remains cheap and plentiful, there's no economic incentive to make that switch. The government keeps prices artificially low; it's great politically, but doesn't help the future outlook.

  164. Next week?! What aren't you telling us? by Nymz · · Score: 1

    If your end goal is to colonize another celestial body, then I believe it would be more efficient to learn about it's properties, then terraform it through remote methods, and then only afterword to step human feet on it.

    1)Look for a good neighborhood.
    2)Terraform remotely.
    3)Profit!!!

    'Spin-offs' are simply multi-use technologies that will help keep the cost down, and further justifiy the spending of even more money toward your goals.

  165. Re:Theft != Thrift by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

    Yes, stealing is much cheaper... forget the library just go to the mall at night with a box van (if you don't have one you can steal that too) and rob the music store, brilliant, why didn't I think of that.

    If you buy retail music on disc you are getting 60 minutes or less regardless of maximum capacity.

    I dug up some records I have with their original retail price stickers circa the early to mid 80s or so, the prices ranged from 4.99 to 9.99, which adjusted for inflation fell between the ranges of $9.07 and $18.16 (for the year 1984). Adjusted for inflation I paid $12.07 ($6.99 in 1984) for Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", and how much is it today? $11.99, it is the same length as the LP, same tracks, wow, it's 8 cents cheaper.

    Burning DVDs has nothing to do with buying retail LPs and proves in no way that LPs are more expensive or less economical. I hope you understand.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  166. Tungsten E2 by danila · · Score: 1

    I have a Tungsten E2 on my desk.

    1) It had Grafitti 2 (accuracy sucks) and it's impossible to downgrade back.
    2) It is very slow (it turns on in about 400-500 ms). May be it's because of the slower flash memory.
    3) It crashes a lot, even though I don't have any hacks or anything installed (new OS?).

    Older Palms were of better quality. New models have some cool new features, but the quality of the OS (stability, speed and input accuracy) is lower.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  167. Re:No, I'm New Here by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 1

    Easy buddy, "keep it up" was my own little joke having checked his posts page. Btw, your uid is 70000 higher than mine. I'm 0ldschool, kiddo.

  168. Mr.Swap.com by Sylven_1969 · · Score: 1

    Another great site that went out of business for the same reason as Kosmo as far as I can tell at least was www.mrswap.com . I traded games and movies on this site like crazy! The idea was that you could sell your game or movie or book for so many mr.swap BUX and then use those BUX to buy movies, games etc... from other users. Mr. Swap made their money from the shipping and handling. The shipping and handling fees were very cheap and when someone purchased something from you they sent you a box pre-printed with the buyers address and you simply put in the item(s) used the easy seal to close it and put it back in the mail. When you bought something they'd deduct your BUX plus whatever the S&H charge was and send the seller a box which would then come straight to you with your goods. I know that I completed at least 250-300 sales and purchases through there. I basically replaced every VHS movie I had with DVD by trading on Mr. Swap. I was truly bummed when they went out of business. Shortly before they shut their doors there was a great write-up about them on a big magazine or newspaper online (might have been NYTs, can't remember for sure). It's too bad that a replacement service that was as "easy to use" and efficient as this one never popped back up.

    --
    Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
  169. Re:Next week?! What aren't you telling us? by confused+philosopher · · Score: 1

    "Next week?! What aren't you telling us? "

    The government likes secrets, and if they can get away with keeping it, they will. My point is, in some cases, we just aren't going to even know what hit us, so it's best to be diverse all of the time. I mean, look at 9/11? Who saw that coming? The minority did, and the rest were blown away with what was happening. Imagine those planes were large rocks from space. Wouldn't it be better to be already having a few people living on Mars and the moon with plenty of plants that we could live off of until the Earth was back to "normal"?

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  170. MIA $ 10 by Molochi · · Score: 1

    What can I get for $10 Anything you want.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"