Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Puts Classic Feynman Lectures Online

theodp writes "Okay Tux fans, let's see how badly you want to see Feynman's Messenger Lectures on Physics. Bill Gates has the goods over at Microsoft Research's Project Tuva site. Also, CNET's Ina Fried has an interesting interview with Gates. He goes into why he spent his own money to make a series of classic physics lectures available free on the Web, talks about the possibility of Project Natal bringing gesture recognition to Windows, gives his thoughts on Google's Chrome OS, and discusses plans to patent 'cows that don't fart.' The last is a joke. I think."

20 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. I know why. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He goes into why he spent his own money to make a series of classic physics lectures available free on the Web

    That's easy. It's a good way to lure technically minded people into installing Silverlight. No sale here Gates, I'll wait until it's available by torrent.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:I know why. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the knee-jerk reactions to Silverlight?

      It's yet another attack vector. I already have a video player on my system, and Silverlight offers me nothing that I can't do without it. It does however potentially contain vulnerabilities that could compromise my system.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:I know why. by mr+crypto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because requiring Silverlight (and therefore Windows) severely dilutes the notion that Gate's action is altruistic. The content is only kinda free.

    3. Re:I know why. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the knee-jerk reactions to Silverlight?

      What makes you think it's a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well reasoned reaction from years of experience dealing with Microsoft?

      For most users, Silverlight doesn't provide any real benefits. The whole thing was invented, not to fill a need, but to push Microsoft's vendor lock-in.

      Sure, they support OSX. For now. They also used to release IE for OSX, but they stopped updating it, letting it fall behind IE for Windows, and then killed it off. They also used to sell Outlook for OSX, before killing it and replacing it with a substandard version that didn't support Exchange servers. Their broadness of support only seems to last as long as it takes them to dominate that particular market, and then they drop support in order to drive everyone back to Windows.

      So now, tell me, except for Microsoft putting up content like this on their own site and requiring Silverlight, what reason do I have to install the thing at all? What reason did Microsoft have for using Silverlight instead of just letting people play the video files?

    4. Re:I know why. by AlexBirch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because requiring Silverlight (and therefore Windows) severely dilutes the notion that Gate's action is altruistic. The content is only kinda free

      Silverlight does not require Windows. It is available for Mac, also, where it runs flawlessly. Windows + Mac covers around 99% of personal computers.

      But here at Slashdot, Windows + Mac only only 50% of users.

      --
      Written from Lynx

    5. Re:I know why. by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because requiring Silverlight (and therefore Windows) severely dilutes the notion that Gate's action is altruistic. The content is only kinda free.

      Wrong. Choose to use it or not as you wish but dont spread incorrect information.

      Silverlight for Mac-> download

      And of course you can choose the Mono implementation if you want FOSS versions instead Mono-> download

      I'll give you 3 reasons to not use Silverlight, even the Mono implementation:

      1. embrace
      2. extend
      3. extinguish
      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  2. Re:Then Use Moonlight Instead by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don`t have to be RMS to reject Microsoft`s "me too" technologies cloned by their clowns.

  3. Re:Then Use Moonlight Instead by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't Linux "me too" tech too?

  4. The bigger problem... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care that it's MS Research. The irritating part is that my "browser is not compatible" because I don't use silverlight.

    Oh, and regarding Bill's comments on it being a bad idea for Google to have two OS's (Chrome and Android)... MS HAS MORE THAN ONE OS, DUMBSHIT! Is Gates so out of touch that he thinks that win mobiles run Vista?

  5. Read thinking machines instead by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about some great reading in HTML instead? It tells about where the real IT World was while MS was monkeying with some clone of CP/M

    http://www.longnow.org/views/essays/articles/ArtFeynman.php

    BTW, dear BillG: There is something called archive.org if you want to donate something to technical community. They offer standard MPEG and OGG files and Flash, which is current de-facto standard can stream them embedded if one is in hurry. Your attempt to kill Flash has failed, fire that team and target something else.

  6. but you gotta know what project tuva is by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny is Tuva is really close to word Truva in Turkish which is basically the city of Troy. Installing some silverlight clone to be able to watch them really reminds "trojan". :)

  7. Trying to keep an open mind... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but this guy still makes me facepalm.

    "It just shows the word browser has become a truly meaningless word," Gates said. "What's a browser? What's not a browser? If you're playing a movie, is that a browser or not a browser? If you're doing annotations, is that a browser? If you're editing text, is that a browser or not a browser? In large part, it's more an abuse of terminology than a real change."

    Editing text has been part of browsing ever since HTML forms were introduced. Playing movies has been part of browsers since QuickTime and RealPlayer -- so, could easily be 10 years.

    And of course, he's playing dumb about the real difference here. It seems like he's trying to suggest that it shouldn't be called a "browser", but rather, we should be talking about text editors and movie players.

    No, see, the difference is whether I can just watch stuff on YouTube, edit text on Google Docs, pretty much do whatever I want on the Internet, without downloading anything other than a browser update. It means I get a fat client to some very cool services -- one that auto-updates the next time I refresh, yet one that's sufficiently sandboxed as not to be able to touch anything else in my OS.

    It also means that when developing such applications, not only are they automatically cross-platform, but I can develop most of the logic as part of the server, and on the server side, I can use whatever technologies and languages I want.

    And this reality is something Microsoft has been fighting since day 1, with the bastardization of web technology that is IE, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Gates doesn't get it. I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt...

    Ballmer and Gates also stressed the fact that Google now has two operating systems--Chrome OS and Android. Ballmer noted that Microsoft learned with the separate Windows 95 for consumers and Windows NT for businesses that having two operating systems isn't necessarily a positive thing.

    *facepalm*

    Ok, leaving aside the fact that you've got, what, five or six versions of Vista, and it looks as though there will be even more versions of Win7 -- just what does Gates think runs on Windows Mobile? It's not Vista, and it's not Win7.

    Sure, Chrome OS and Android are closer to each other than Windows Mobile and Vista, but they're still directed at different markets -- Chrome OS is meant for netbooks, while Android was meant for mobile phones. Android runs on netbooks, but serves an entirely different purpose -- while NT and Win95 look exactly the same -- oh, and as he pointed out, Android has a browser, meaning anything Chrome OS can do, Android can do -- meaning it's more like comparing Vista Starter with Vista Ultimate, whereas NT and Win95 actually had mutually incompatible software.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  8. Re:Well I can think of one reason why... by metageek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    however much we dislike Gates and M$, we must recognize that he is a serious philantropist and has a record on donations to charity, particularly towards serious world problems like malaria, measles, etc. That is something good I can say about him. Silverlight, on the other hand, is not :(

    --
    metageek
  9. Lecture in MKV, MPEG4? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The site need Silverlight to view the lectures, so one has to wonder whether Microsoft was looking for a 'killer application' to make people want to install the plug-in.

    On a more optimistic note, does anyone have these lectures in MKV or MPEG4 format, or at least something using a more open format?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  10. Re:How badly do I want to see it? by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your bank requires Silverlight while 98% of Planet has Flash installed, they are desperate for MS money or donation of servers which is not a good thing for banks. It also means there is some MS technology involved in process as opposed to AIX/UNIX/zOS which are "rolls royce" of servers and chosen by banks who prefers reliability to price.

    Same goes for anyone "subscribing" to media outlets for a long time which requires Silverlight . It probably means they are easily bought out.

  11. Education begins where vocational focus ends. by MrCrassic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that it's great that Gates made Feynman's lectures available for free online. Now, I don't know a lot about physics, but I do know that his lectures were some of the best sources out there to learn it. In addition, there are several outlets available for people to expand their knowledge base, with MIT OpenCourseWare being one of the more popular ones. Heck, people could even use YouTube to gain a better understanding of any one topic. It could even be argued that a source like YouTube is better, since the educational videos I've seen were explained in very simple terms (which are always the best terms).

    That all goes to show that the sources are there, and are very easy to access. You don't even need an account to access nearly the same material as MIT students do! However, Gates was absolutely right in that motivation is a really strong factor in wanting to find that stuff. I think that a source of that waning motivation comes from the desire to find a job, especially "in this economy."

    So many people see school solely as a "means to an end," and many schools set themselves up to be precisely this. When one's goal is simply to graduate, there's "no time" to bother with learning the extra stuff; it's all about the grade in that paradigm.

    I don't want to make this longer than it already is, but what I think would be awesome is to let students "create a major" at the college level. Some schools, like RPI and RIT, already practice this, but it should be practiced much more heavily, especially in the sciences and engineering. As a finishing Computer Engineering student, I'll be the first to say that it kind of sucks that I have to take a ton of classes that will have no practical OR educational use for me, just so that I can graduate under the guidelines of a program. However, that rant is for another time.

  12. It's on YouTube by Latinhypercube · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here :- 1964 Messenger Lecture 1 Character of Physical Law 1 of 7 I have been loving discovering Feynman. As much as he reveals and explains interesting physics, he also maps the limits of our current understanding. Questions like, how does gravity and matter work, why does light refract, simple aspects of physics that we still don't understand.

  13. Re:Well I can think of one reason why... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But on the other hand, they usually do not donate anything close to being something that they would actually feel. Some do, but most don't.

    Well I think Bill Gates, when you add up a lot of the things he's done, has donated more than what would be a rounding error. Still, you can look at all these things in the sense that it's no more generous for Gates to give away a few billion dollars than it is courageous for Superman to jump in front of a bullet. The hurt isn't large. It's not as though Gates is going to cease to live an extremely comfortable lifestyle. What's more, you could argue that something like this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Gates is screwing society out of billions of dollars through underhanded business tactics, only to give back a portion of the money through charitable donations.

    You can argue those things, but on the other hand, it's not always worth looking a gift horse in the mouth. He's donating more than he's required to, and doing it of his own free will. May as well be pleased about that.

  14. Re:gesture recognition by Macthorpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that's right. It couldn't be that you're not funny - someone is being paid to not laugh at you.

    Wow.

    --
    "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  15. Why did Bill Gates have to pay to buy the rights? by Question+Mark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me get this straight: an employee of a public institution (Cal Tech) gave some speeches that were recorded by a government-funded entity (the BBC), and in order to release those recordings to the public, a private individual (Bill Gates) had to purchase the rights? And rather than release in them in a standards-based format, we instead have to to download and install proprietary software (Silverlight) that we may not want on our computers?