If I knew medicine like I do computers, I would like to be able to control
the [human] immune system, to fight against the onset of disease on a world
level... but I think the idea of the PC still would have topped that.
Translation: "Y'all better be glad I'm just screwing up your PC."
[Gates on how Live.com competes with Google]
Competition between our two companies will be good for the whole industry.
Interesting that there's no specific mention of what was modified to make the European Edition "unnecessary". It's obvious that Vista is still packing Windows Media Player (component in question) Is this IE/Netscape all over
again)?
[Gates on the next 10 years]
We're on to another wave of innovation; we just need to make sure the United
States continues to stay right up there in relation to the rest of the world.
This is after quoting all the "amazing stuff" that's coming with the Xbox360,
Zune and voice
recognition. Yes, World, be like the good ol' U.S. of A-holes!
Cave-in to an oppression of content not seen since the book
burnings of 1938 Germany!
[Gates on the delays of Vista]
Yes, it's later than we planned. But we want it to be right. It reminds me
of when we released Windows 95 late that year, taking much longer than we planned.
...and we all know how "right" Windoze95 turned out to be. (...but it's got
a killer version of MS-DOS!)
I get a little upset with the media, which will cover a plane crash in India
that killed 100 people, but it won't cover the fact that 1,000 times that many
died in Africa today from malnutrition or disease.
NOVELL CEO: [to Ballmer/Gates] Yes, we will sell our Linux division to you. The going price is a majority share in your company along with our executives becoming your executives.
I must cop to a typo in my post... it's not "bifield-browning" effect, but biefeld-brown effect. Archaic terminology calls such vehicles, Ionocrafts. Granted, the idea has been around for a while, but it is stalled and isn't developing much further. (new materials, insulators, conductors, EM freq's, etc. --even NASA admits that there's something strange about it.)
The idea that the amount earth rotation slows down is enough to really affect us is totally bonkers..
Have you ever tried "putting the brakes" on a planet? Can you honestly say that it's not possible without inter-stellar technology or small-moon-size stations? If you're going to propose theories, try not to stomp-out those presented by others. I have a good theory for you; Jericho. Using nothing but the sound of horns, the Israelites were able to crumble the fortress. The validity of such a force is proven by seismology studies and research by... who else... Nikola Tesla. Can we prove it happened? No. Is there evidence to support it? Yes. That's why it's a theory.
So how far-fetched is this idea; that a centrifugal mass-displacement on the order of hundreds of metric tons, (remember to include the weight of the tether itself) spinning at a distance further than six times the Earth's own diameter and providing a centripetal force that could literally lift small towns out of the ground, is in any way insignificant?
I must now remark on technical foibles...
The length of a day will change totally neglibly.(allthough we may be able to measure it) Probably less then wether effects dynamicly changing solid earths rotation.
"solid earth", eh? Stop skipping your Geology! The "solid" part (crust) is less than 1% of the Earth's mass! Even if you speak of the solid planetary core (still theoretical), which has nothing to do with the atmosphere whatsoever, then you're still neglecting the egg-shell nature of the crust or what an asymmetrical force might do to the inner balance.
(Wind, going along with rotation=>solid earth rotates slower, and vice versa) Get your orders of scale right.
Cheeky! I would actually give you the same advice, along with your orders of magnitude. (carry the "1 x 10^23", please) Stop abusing the grey matter, it will bite you in the tuckus!
However violent any atmospheric disturbance may be, it does not change the fact that it also is part of the mass of the Earth itself. Since it is a gaseous/vapor form, it lacks essential density to have any effect whatsoever on Earth's momentum. We're all moving at the same speed here on Earth; the clouds, the rocks and the sky. I watched Bugs Bunny too, but even I know you can't get a boat moving by breathing on the sails. (no matter how hard you blow)
[It] has been a long time since we actually measured time with the rotation of the earth.
If you're speaking of sun-dials and ancient temples, I would have to agree. I would however stipulate that it is the very rotation of the Earth (the diurnal cycle) that defines "time" on it. A day is not 24 hours long because we felt that it had to be more than 23, it is 24 hours long because it breaks the diurnal cycle down into manageable units.
You see, the use of pulsar emissions or excited quartz molecules or the vibration of electrons only provides the most precise means of measuring our "diurnal units". I postulate that the Earth will always have 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; no matter how long the actual days, hours or seconds may be.
What I'm predicating is that a change—ever so slight—in Earth's rotation will likely cause an entirely new chronological era. (perhaps to be referred to as "BSE" and "ASE"; or before/after Space Elevator) The calendar would, in fact, "shrink" to accommodate the slightly-longer days, if it changes at all. (maybe it would eliminate the leap-year, or extend it to every seven years?) The growing discrepancy of the actual diurnal phenomenon and the state of modern chronology will have to be re-sync'ed, and on a global scale. A boon for the timepiece and calendar-printing industries to be sure,
[Quite] frankly this is the same kind of criticism the Wright brothers, Columbus, and the Apollo project got.
Wright Brothers heard, "It can't be done!"...from concerned friends and envious/prideful colleagues.
The Wright Brothers prototyped their design and successfully tested it. The only risks were financial and the dangers were limited to the two brothers themselves. (and a handful of volunteers/friends) They succeeded.
Columbus heard, "It's impossible!"...from the paranoid monarchy, court, the Church, and the ignorant masses.
Columbus found like-minded people, built his case, and successfully pleaded it to a semi-sympathetic ruler. (It doesn't hurt that there were some romantic ties.) In the end, the reigning powers saw fit to invest in his dream. They risked the financial burden, and only the adventurers under Columbus (ok... slaves, too) were at risk. They succeeded in ways they never could have imagined at the time... also failed in other ways, but that's another essay altogether.
NASA Scientists behind Mercury/Gemini missions (before Apollo) heard, "You'll fail!"...from the ignorant masses and a global community that was afraid we'd get it done first. (U.S.S.R., for one)
NASA sallied forth, armed with new technology and a scientifically-sound principle. They approached it with a reasonable escalation of factors, had a few mistakes along the way, but in the end can be held as one of the "safest" Space Exploration Programs ever conceived. For those programs under NASA, it was an unquestionable success.
In aeronautics terms, I rate the "Space Elevator" as a "Spruce Goose"; it's a grand idea, and would be marvelous to behold, but the ump-teen factors of entropy and random disaster loom so closely that it appears doomed from the start. Furthermore, the potential of a mass-shift that could affect the Earth's own sidereal rotation (even if very slightly) presents a risk factor that can not be appropriately measured.
Think of it! Would our very forms of measuring time and the calendar year have to change because of this project? We can already confirm the length of a year to 1/1000 sec., yet a "very small change" would be a negligible difference?! Please!
[A] space elevator on the moon is possible, using the (unstable, but stable if attached to moon with string) Lagrange point between earth and moon. (for which we actually already have sufficient strength materials)
If you're referring to the equilibrium of a Lagrangian point it's a safer idea, but still amounts to a tremendous challenge.
Calculating the Lagrangian point for Earth/Moon orbits means that it's relatively closer to the Moon than the Earth by a fuzzy factor of six. (still around 280,000km away from Earth) It may be possible, but how is it practical?
Now I'm no rocket scientist, but it may be a marginal (marginal) advantage to actually landing on the moon. In the ending cost-analysis, I believe it would take a while before such a delivery platform "pays for itself". Even then, you still need a reiable delivery system from Earth.
I find it interesting that you chose to (try and) pick-apart my contentions about this fanciful science-fiction, and yet completely ignored my mention of actual technologies in the midst of grassroots and only-slightly-sanctioned research.
A Vortex Thruster could make the propeller nearly obsolete as a form of propulsion.
Propulsion in the vacuum of space nearly always meant using some expelled substance to get moving; what if there was a previously undiscovered physical force that we could fully understand and har
With OSS, the bug is usually discovered quite quickly, and the patch is usually not far behind.
You neglect the primary reason for this phenomenon; the Open Source community actually listens to the users when a new version is released.
Cutler Beckett: I'm listening... [Elizabeth aims a flintlock pistol at Cutler's head and pulls the hammer.] Cutler Beckett: I'm listening intently. And now for something completely different.
There are plenty of fun games that are native to the Linux platform[...]
Hours and hours of Armagetron, Nethack, Linux Racer and Abuse, eh? The story goes that Linux will become a gaming platform when the Linux community actually starts paying for the games. Pity that Loki isn't still around; alas, they were before their time. I wonder who takes-up the baton now? Transgaming? Their support is laughable (by comparison) and many simple questions go completely ignored. Unlike Loki, they only support a platform of compatibility, not a movement of straight-porting to Linux-kernel architecture.
But above all, use what works for you. If you don't like Linux, don't use it.
Well said. So very freedom-of-choice of you. But then...
[...]you'll eventually be forced to use something other than Windows.
Ha ha! Irony!
Many in this community would be quick to point-out that we are a "nation" who believes in the choice of the individual. That is the primary reason any form of Linux is in the home and not locked-away in large, expensive schools and research corporations.
Appreciate the reason that people use Window$; it comes ready-to-go. Despite the fact that it only remains in that state for a few days, the "out of box experience" can not be denied.
Nobody is really forced to use Windows, likewise, nobody will ever be "forced to use something [else]". Our choices are guided by the Market, and the Market favors M$. It's a plain truth in business, but it's also a plain truth that no, one power in the Market can withstand the attention forever. Goliath will fall.
IE7 has already pissed me off to no end. I have customers who benefit from my web design. The measures of "protection" and "security" in IE7 have kept me from presenting updated content, or previewing new drafts, because the page is not "aged enough" or is "untrusted". Why would we want a product that treats the world as suspect but is ready to consider it's "home" domain a trustable resource? Call it what it is! It's a "blacklisting" product, and it doesn't even follow "whitelisting" protocols; for sites that are entered as trustworthy are still denied due to some black-box programming that is "included for our safety." FUD Indeed! Feh!
Has anyone mentioned that there's a point where the curves of space-time (gravity) and cetrifugal forces would cross?
Considering that GSO is approximately six times the diameter of the Earth itself, there is a point where the gravitaional pull from Earth's mass is countered by the mass of the rotating object that is tethered to the spinning Earth! So, if the cable is supposed to handle 10- to 20-ton payloads into space, how heavy is the cable itself?
How do we maintain a geosynchronous rotation for such a massive contraption before ever reaching GSO? Our other poster made it sufficiently clear that anything moving that slow around LEO will just come crashing back down.
Got a ceiling fan?
(In case any jackass fans are reading...) Turn the fan OFF.
Measure the length of ONE blade on the fan.
Get a piece of string that equals three-times that length.
Secure one end (duct tape?) to the tip of a fan-blade and the other to a cork. (Any relatively light-weight item will do, as long as it's heavier than the string.)
Turn the fan on its lowest speed.
Right away, you'll notice that the cork will begin to soar about the room; given that you've cleared a path for it. (Watch for mummie's good China! Move that snow-globe, it's a collectible!)
The point here is that the cork flies outward, doesn't it? (it would fly higher in a vacuum, given air-resistance on the string and cork) Same goes for any tethered mass. I estimate that somewhere 'round the upper part of LEO is where you'll find that centrifugal forces will take over. The fan moves a lot slower, too. What does that spell for the Earth's spinning core should we ever get such a massive project underway?
Granted, there hasn't really been anything to compare with this sort of physics experiment... short of small-scale models. (see above) Even so, there's little account for relative unknowns; such as primary physical forces (gravitational vs. centrifugal vs. atmospheric) and environmental hazards. (materials expansion/contraction, physical stresses, a full spectrum of radiation exposure and, of course, space debris)
"We'll use nanotubes!"// "The cable will be tapered!"// "It will be made of diamond filaments!"
Feh.
Frankly, the whole idea is crocked. Where's the hybrid-engine space vehicles already? Where's our gauss-cannon-style space catapult? How is this getting the spotlight when there's perfectly good research in areas of anti-gravity propulsion, bifield-browning effect and yet-unknown physical forces? Why is there no news of the vortex thruster?
(Don't cry to me about not having links here. You can Google them yerself! Learn a little!)
Space elevator lethal? HA! I'd guarantee it! You'd be lucky the Hand of God doesn't come right out of the cosmos with a pair of big, sharp scissors.
Hmm... an ink-and-paper system that employs destroying one copy of the ballot and assuring me that my copy doesn't prove a thing?
The guys at Enron would have loved this approach.
Aside from the high-school-quality demonstration, (nice handwriting... NOT) the guys have a point; a system based on forensic-reliable data (ink on paper) that can be machine-readable and provides a "receipt" to the voter for verification at a later time.
The idea of splitting the form, where only the two "layers" of the ballot together provide an indication of the actual vote, is a quality idea. Encrypted links for ballot-to-voter data? Brilliant. It's already out there and it's name is PGP. It's already open-source and it's well established. (the "serial number" is also a no-brainer, use my SSN) None of that addresses the issue of how our votes are physically counted.
Despite the elegance of the concept and the seemingly extensive explanations in the FAQ, it's apparent they didn't think this through. The evidence is right there in the first question.
Does Punchscan really remove the need for the public to trust any hardware or software [...]?
Yes! Briefly: [...]
So... does "briefly" mean the-following-statement-shall-employ-brevity, or does it modify the "yes!" answer? To wit, did they just tell us that we DO have to trust in a black-box system, but only for a brief moment? I think the Diebold study at Princeton proved to all of us that it doesn't take that long for our collective trust to be betrayed.
Also from the FAQ...
[...] deliberate cheating or errors can be kept from necessitating a re-vote, considerably more effectively than with other system. [...]
Is that so? If the one half of the ballot, the "key" that can indicate the vote, is destroyed, how can the results be re-tallied? As I see it, any "deliberate cheating" would taint the count, the ballot's "shredded half" already eliminates any possibility of a re-count, and a re-vote (or concession/state-arbitration) is eminently necessary. This answer is bogus.
While we're at it, where is the demonstration of this "transparent" software and hardware? I can tell you this, if any part of the system relies on electronic storage to present ballot items or candidates to the voter, it is succeptible to fraud. (my emphasis)
In this context, the definition of "transparent" would have to be thus:
An apparatus that, in its full and complete capacity...
Optically reads the printed ballot agenda from the ballot media. (cardstock)
Optically reads and counts voter marks from the ballot media.
Stores said count on non-removable and fixed-access memory. (no "cards")
Provides final counts and results on machine-printed, redundant-data and encrypted summary reports, generated by OEM-certified firmware programming.
Readily displays a "seal" of OEM certification for public inspection.
Add to this the idea that each "receipt" will consist of forensic marking, indicating the individual ballot choices, and encrypted to the individual voter by a unique geometric shape. (the cut-out on the top "layer" of the ballot) If you're wondering which shapes to use... I suggest a 4x4 square grid with specific patterns cut-out... think "Tetris". Consider the variations in those shapes, multiplied by the number of items and candidates on any particular ballot, and you have a sufficiently encrypted system.
If we want to take this to the next level, (i.e., to address the potential for corruption within the various Election Committees) we would take a page from our god-fearing Founding Fathers. A sort of "tribunal" of authenticity.
Voting machines would NOT come from just one maker. The "core" of the voting machine would include components from no-less-than three technology ma
What's all the ruckus about? Haven't we learned enough about M$ to know that they would do this?
If the past is any guide, there will be another anti-trust suit in the works by X-mas.
As for the news on FF 2.0, it's a shame. Not a tragedy, just a shame. Of all browsers, FF2 is the most promising for a secure, standards-compliant browser.
The tragedy with IE7 is that most of the world is waiting for it to FIX its predecessor. If you don't think it's broken, then you haven't been on the Internet. If M$ can work things out with IE7, look for IE6 to be dropped faster than Windows ME.
With Firefox 2.0, we can wait. There's no hurry, guys. Take your time and get it fixed. FF 1.5 is working just fine in the meantime.
In the end, there's no comparison. If you want to browse the net worry-free, dump the big, blue "e".
It's the rush to embrace electronic voting that has led to these catastrophes. In the haste, we allowed the wrong people to be in-charge of how they are used.
How many of the electronic voting systems are actually proven? How many are tamper-resistant? How many use public and openly available source code to operate?
We've already seen the results of "black box" voting. Though the jury may be out, my money is riding on, "not working in the slightest".
If the public is not allowed to understand the voting process, it is NOT a democratic vote!
if we were able to strip out all of this excesses DNA, would the resulting DNA still be useful?
Indeed it does. Another post refers to a newly theorized purpose for "junk genes" as if they have an active purpose throughout the human lifespan. I believe they termed it the "epigenome".
From what I got, it's like this: First, DNA was just a "blueprint", a way for our cells to figure out which cells go where and what they do.
Now, there's a theory that the cells are actually "piloted" by DNA, which has become a more dynamic relationship. Cells not only "read" DNA to figure out how to multiply or function, but also change according to these genes, and it may be happening every day of our lives.
So, the "junk" may not be junk after all.
I don't know what happened. I looked at the engine and found this piece of junk stuck into the cylinder. I took it out, plugged the hole in the cylinder and now it won't start!
Talk about FUD! Except this goes upwards into sheer paranoia.
Google's response to people like content owners who don't like Google's use of their copyrighted materials without permission, have found that Google's reaction is to claim they are doing public good and then fight in court.
Can you tell me how Google makes a profit from conveying the copyrighted materials? They don't sell any of the photos or videos that come-up in a search. They do that for free. Without a profit-motive, it's very hard for anyone to sue Google for conveying licensed/copyrighted content. It's no wonder they fight it in court, because the other guy doesn't have a case!
Google is also collecting more of our use and web patterns through Google desktop and toolbar.
Is that so? Ordinarily, Google Toolbar only logs data that barely indicates that it successfully installed... and that's all it will ever do unless you actually use it. Even then, the only information it sends are based on the information that is absolutely necessary for the advanced features to even work.
... or didn't you read the Privacy Policy? (BTW... so much easier to understand than MSN Hotmail or MSN Search...looks the same, but not the same. Hmmm....)
Add in the fact that they have your cell number, are indexing your email, have your calendar, etc.
Maybe they have your cell number, but that's because you wanted SMS alerts sent to you. Maybe they're indexing your e-mail, but that's because you signed-up with Gmail in the first place. If they have your calendar, it's because your taking advantage of that service as well. Now, where's the so-called "invasion of privacy" here?
Simply put, if you want to be protected from all that, then stay off the 'Net. The fact that you're here on./ seems to imply that you won't.
It's the Information Age; you have to give to get. It's not exactly quid-pro-quo, but there's always the alternative.
Feel free to go start-up your own search engine and see how easy it is.
I'm backing-up this one, because search-engine optimization is part of my business.
AdSense is a relational database of web sites and their categories (ebusiness, community, retail, travel, etc.) that only tracks behaviors by "clicks" visitors take -->through--> AdSense
If you don't click on a Google ad, then nothing is recorded at Google.
The part about IP address tracking is also true; you can't easily hide your IP, nor would you want to. (But it's a real good way to get the Feds to watch you... closely)
I can't see anything wrong with using my IP address to identify advertising that applies to my local area. It's better than seeing ads for a skateboard shop in Hoboken that I'll never visit.
All the other nay-speak about Google is simply F-U-D. They've got the model MS should be using.
Someone like myself would understand the hours of data-entry and database development that goes into indexing imagery. I research photo copyrights for a living.
The fact that there is a feasible, automated system that can do the work will certainly cut down the man-hours for that sort of work; at least by half.
Pity, though. I heard that Google and others had a telecommuting thing that paid people to recognize what's in a photo. Sorry to hear they'll be out of a job soon.
Oh yeah? Well, I demand that Diebold retract their demand!
While I'm at it, I demand that the entire Diebold board of directors watch "Hacking Democracy" in its entirety... and in one sitting... with no bathroom breaks! Ha-ha!
Also, I demand that Diebold go back and conclusively verify the integrity of voting machines used in 2004!
Furthermore, I demand that Diebold verify all electronic and paper ballots from the 2000 election!
Take that y2k! Take that Electoral College! Take that... er... YOU-!
Frankly, I'm amazed that this red flag hasn't been raised yet... or I'm just too lazy to scan the three-hundred-some posts for it.
Let's break it down: (A) The company saturates the viable market-share in the heavily populated areas, (B) this company also identifies "unprofitable" regions where it deems that service will not have a net gain, and (C) they buddy-buddy with the regional chambers to limit any competition. Free market, my ass!
Isn't this the very definition of "monopolistic endeavors"? See for yourself here.
What are we coming to? Are we going to be the next Russia?
I utter yet-another groan at the blatant whittling-down of consumers' basic right to a free market... damn you, Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
The tricky part is reading between the lines...
From TFA:
[Gates on "powerful ideas"]
Translation: "Y'all better be glad I'm just screwing up your PC."
[Gates on how Live.com competes with Google]
...until we leverage all the content out of Google with IP lawsuits.
[Gates on recent struggles with the EU]
Interesting that there's no specific mention of what was modified to make the European Edition "unnecessary". It's obvious that Vista is still packing Windows Media Player (component in question) Is this IE/Netscape all over again)?
[Gates on the next 10 years]
This is after quoting all the "amazing stuff" that's coming with the Xbox360, Zune and voice recognition. Yes, World, be like the good ol' U.S. of A-holes! Cave-in to an oppression of content not seen since the book burnings of 1938 Germany!
[Gates on the delays of Vista]
Yes, it's later than we planned. But we want it to be right. It reminds me of when we released Windows 95 late that year, taking much longer than we planned.
...and we all know how "right" Windoze95 turned out to be. (...but it's got a killer version of MS-DOS!)
[Gates on the exposure of medical research furthered by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]
I get a little upset with the media, which will cover a plane crash in India that killed 100 people, but it won't cover the fact that 1,000 times that many died in Africa today from malnutrition or disease.
Of course! That's why Billy has a problem with the media. ...or is it another
reason?
If Gates did turn out to be a doctor, I'm sure he'd be a plastic surgeon. If he can't make you well, he can at least make you look good.
Maybe Novell is just setting-up M$ for a coup d'etat, like Pixar did with Disney.
NOVELL CEO: [to Ballmer/Gates] Yes, we will sell our Linux division to you. The going price is a majority share in your company along with our executives becoming your executives.
You gotta admit, that would be slick!
Ha Ha Ha! Lawyers!
Bird-man! Get on the phone and call our lawyers! I want us to be right in the middle when they infringe on that GPU patent!
You! Get on that phone and keep calling this phone. I want that phone working at all times!
Lastly, you! Get me one of those red hats.
[slam!]
I must cop to a typo in my post... it's not "bifield-browning" effect, but biefeld-brown effect. Archaic terminology calls such vehicles, Ionocrafts. Granted, the idea has been around for a while, but it is stalled and isn't developing much further. (new materials, insulators, conductors, EM freq's, etc. --even NASA admits that there's something strange about it.)
They found a much-better use for tinfoil, anyway.
I'm still wondering where your facts are...
Have you ever tried "putting the brakes" on a planet? Can you honestly say that it's not possible without inter-stellar technology or small-moon-size stations? If you're going to propose theories, try not to stomp-out those presented by others. I have a good theory for you; Jericho. Using nothing but the sound of horns, the Israelites were able to crumble the fortress. The validity of such a force is proven by seismology studies and research by... who else... Nikola Tesla. Can we prove it happened? No. Is there evidence to support it? Yes. That's why it's a theory.
So how far-fetched is this idea; that a centrifugal mass-displacement on the order of hundreds of metric tons, (remember to include the weight of the tether itself) spinning at a distance further than six times the Earth's own diameter and providing a centripetal force that could literally lift small towns out of the ground, is in any way insignificant?
I must now remark on technical foibles...
"solid earth", eh? Stop skipping your Geology! The "solid" part (crust) is less than 1% of the Earth's mass! Even if you speak of the solid planetary core (still theoretical), which has nothing to do with the atmosphere whatsoever, then you're still neglecting the egg-shell nature of the crust or what an asymmetrical force might do to the inner balance.
Cheeky! I would actually give you the same advice, along with your orders of magnitude. (carry the "1 x 10^23", please) Stop abusing the grey matter, it will bite you in the tuckus!
However violent any atmospheric disturbance may be, it does not change the fact that it also is part of the mass of the Earth itself. Since it is a gaseous/vapor form, it lacks essential density to have any effect whatsoever on Earth's momentum. We're all moving at the same speed here on Earth; the clouds, the rocks and the sky. I watched Bugs Bunny too, but even I know you can't get a boat moving by breathing on the sails. (no matter how hard you blow)
If you're speaking of sun-dials and ancient temples, I would have to agree. I would however stipulate that it is the very rotation of the Earth (the diurnal cycle) that defines "time" on it. A day is not 24 hours long because we felt that it had to be more than 23, it is 24 hours long because it breaks the diurnal cycle down into manageable units.
You see, the use of pulsar emissions or excited quartz molecules or the vibration of electrons only provides the most precise means of measuring our "diurnal units". I postulate that the Earth will always have 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; no matter how long the actual days, hours or seconds may be.
What I'm predicating is that a change—ever so slight—in Earth's rotation will likely cause an entirely new chronological era. (perhaps to be referred to as "BSE" and "ASE"; or before/after Space Elevator) The calendar would, in fact, "shrink" to accommodate the slightly-longer days, if it changes at all. (maybe it would eliminate the leap-year, or extend it to every seven years?) The growing discrepancy of the actual diurnal phenomenon and the state of modern chronology will have to be re-sync'ed, and on a global scale. A boon for the timepiece and calendar-printing industries to be sure,
Wright Brothers heard, "It can't be done!" ...from concerned friends and envious/prideful colleagues.
The Wright Brothers prototyped their design and successfully tested it. The only risks were financial and the dangers were limited to the two brothers themselves. (and a handful of volunteers/friends) They succeeded.
Columbus heard, "It's impossible!" ...from the paranoid monarchy, court, the Church, and the ignorant masses.
Columbus found like-minded people, built his case, and successfully pleaded it to a semi-sympathetic ruler. (It doesn't hurt that there were some romantic ties.) In the end, the reigning powers saw fit to invest in his dream. They risked the financial burden, and only the adventurers under Columbus (ok... slaves, too) were at risk. They succeeded in ways they never could have imagined at the time... also failed in other ways, but that's another essay altogether.
NASA Scientists behind Mercury/Gemini missions (before Apollo) heard, "You'll fail!" ...from the ignorant masses and a global community that was afraid we'd get it done first. (U.S.S.R., for one)
NASA sallied forth, armed with new technology and a scientifically-sound principle. They approached it with a reasonable escalation of factors, had a few mistakes along the way, but in the end can be held as one of the "safest" Space Exploration Programs ever conceived. For those programs under NASA, it was an unquestionable success.
In aeronautics terms, I rate the "Space Elevator" as a "Spruce Goose"; it's a grand idea, and would be marvelous to behold, but the ump-teen factors of entropy and random disaster loom so closely that it appears doomed from the start. Furthermore, the potential of a mass-shift that could affect the Earth's own sidereal rotation (even if very slightly) presents a risk factor that can not be appropriately measured.
Think of it! Would our very forms of measuring time and the calendar year have to change because of this project? We can already confirm the length of a year to 1/1000 sec., yet a "very small change" would be a negligible difference?! Please!
If you're referring to the equilibrium of a Lagrangian point it's a safer idea, but still amounts to a tremendous challenge.
Calculating the Lagrangian point for Earth/Moon orbits means that it's relatively closer to the Moon than the Earth by a fuzzy factor of six. (still around 280,000km away from Earth) It may be possible, but how is it practical?
Now I'm no rocket scientist, but it may be a marginal (marginal) advantage to actually landing on the moon. In the ending cost-analysis, I believe it would take a while before such a delivery platform "pays for itself". Even then, you still need a reiable delivery system from Earth.
I find it interesting that you chose to (try and) pick-apart my contentions about this fanciful science-fiction, and yet completely ignored my mention of actual technologies in the midst of grassroots and only-slightly-sanctioned research.
A Vortex Thruster could make the propeller nearly obsolete as a form of propulsion.
Propulsion in the vacuum of space nearly always meant using some expelled substance to get moving; what if there was a previously undiscovered physical force that we could fully understand and har
You neglect the primary reason for this phenomenon; the Open Source community actually listens to the users when a new version is released.
Cutler Beckett: I'm listening...
[Elizabeth aims a flintlock pistol at Cutler's head and pulls the hammer.]
Cutler Beckett: I'm listening intently.
And now for something completely different.
Hours and hours of Armagetron, Nethack, Linux Racer and Abuse, eh? The story goes that Linux will become a gaming platform when the Linux community actually starts paying for the games. Pity that Loki isn't still around; alas, they were before their time. I wonder who takes-up the baton now? Transgaming? Their support is laughable (by comparison) and many simple questions go completely ignored. Unlike Loki, they only support a platform of compatibility, not a movement of straight-porting to Linux-kernel architecture.
Still, plenty have made the jump and are doing best they can with compatibility.
Well said. So very freedom-of-choice of you. But then...
Ha ha! Irony!
Many in this community would be quick to point-out that we are a "nation" who believes in the choice of the individual. That is the primary reason any form of Linux is in the home and not locked-away in large, expensive schools and research corporations.
Appreciate the reason that people use Window$; it comes ready-to-go. Despite the fact that it only remains in that state for a few days, the "out of box experience" can not be denied.
Nobody is really forced to use Windows, likewise, nobody will ever be "forced to use something [else]". Our choices are guided by the Market, and the Market favors M$. It's a plain truth in business, but it's also a plain truth that no, one power in the Market can withstand the attention forever. Goliath will fall.
IE7 has already pissed me off to no end. I have customers who benefit from my web design. The measures of "protection" and "security" in IE7 have kept me from presenting updated content, or previewing new drafts, because the page is not "aged enough" or is "untrusted". Why would we want a product that treats the world as suspect but is ready to consider it's "home" domain a trustable resource? Call it what it is! It's a "blacklisting" product, and it doesn't even follow "whitelisting" protocols; for sites that are entered as trustworthy are still denied due to some black-box programming that is "included for our safety." FUD Indeed! Feh!
Watch a certain Redmond, WA company go out and purchase about fifty of these for their corporate HQ.
If you're strolling the campus and your RFID tag goes on the blink... well, let's say your tenure is up.
EM-BRACE... EX-TEND... EX-TAAH-MIII-NAAAAAAAAAATE!
I do not take credit for this tag; it was one someone else's sig and I forget who. Brilliant!
Let's review our physical forces, here.
Has anyone mentioned that there's a point where the curves of space-time (gravity) and cetrifugal forces would cross?
Considering that GSO is approximately six times the diameter of the Earth itself, there is a point where the gravitaional pull from Earth's mass is countered by the mass of the rotating object that is tethered to the spinning Earth! So, if the cable is supposed to handle 10- to 20-ton payloads into space, how heavy is the cable itself?
How do we maintain a geosynchronous rotation for such a massive contraption before ever reaching GSO? Our other poster made it sufficiently clear that anything moving that slow around LEO will just come crashing back down.
Got a ceiling fan?
(Any relatively light-weight item will do, as long as it's heavier than the string.)
Right away, you'll notice that the cork will begin to soar about the room; given that you've cleared a path for it. (Watch for mummie's good China! Move that snow-globe, it's a collectible!)
The point here is that the cork flies outward, doesn't it? (it would fly higher in a vacuum, given air-resistance on the string and cork) Same goes for any tethered mass. I estimate that somewhere 'round the upper part of LEO is where you'll find that centrifugal forces will take over. The fan moves a lot slower, too. What does that spell for the Earth's spinning core should we ever get such a massive project underway?
Granted, there hasn't really been anything to compare with this sort of physics experiment... short of small-scale models. (see above) Even so, there's little account for relative unknowns; such as primary physical forces (gravitational vs. centrifugal vs. atmospheric) and environmental hazards. (materials expansion/contraction, physical stresses, a full spectrum of radiation exposure and, of course, space debris)
"We'll use nanotubes!" // "The cable will be tapered!" // "It will be made of diamond filaments!"
Feh.
Frankly, the whole idea is crocked. Where's the hybrid-engine space vehicles already? Where's our gauss-cannon-style space catapult? How is this getting the spotlight when there's perfectly good research in areas of anti-gravity propulsion, bifield-browning effect and yet-unknown physical forces? Why is there no news of the vortex thruster?
(Don't cry to me about not having links here. You can Google them yerself! Learn a little!)
Space elevator lethal? HA! I'd guarantee it! You'd be lucky the Hand of God doesn't come right out of the cosmos with a pair of big, sharp scissors.
... and where's my Jet Pack?
Where have those days gone, when we could joyfully chuckle at NASA's foibles?
Ah, the halcyon days of yore. The early Mercury mistakes. The Apollo agitations. The Titan tribulations.
Darn ol' Challenger—and recently, Columbia—had to make them all serious again. Phooey.
But now, disaster spells F-U-N!
Fuel leak! Abandon the gantry! Certain death imminent! WHeeeeeeeeeee!
Though I'm certain they will approach the new evacuation system with the utmost [chuckle] sincerity.
Psst... when is our next fire drill? I'm bringin' popcorn!
...or even better, a shrouded kiosk in a public venue... like a mall or something.
We could call it a "Voter Proof Booth". (Say that five times fast. HA!)
Hmm... an ink-and-paper system that employs destroying one copy of the ballot and assuring me that my copy doesn't prove a thing?
The guys at Enron would have loved this approach.
Aside from the high-school-quality demonstration, (nice handwriting... NOT) the guys have a point; a system based on forensic-reliable data (ink on paper) that can be machine-readable and provides a "receipt" to the voter for verification at a later time.
The idea of splitting the form, where only the two "layers" of the ballot together provide an indication of the actual vote, is a quality idea. Encrypted links for ballot-to-voter data? Brilliant. It's already out there and it's name is PGP. It's already open-source and it's well established. (the "serial number" is also a no-brainer, use my SSN) None of that addresses the issue of how our votes are physically counted.
Despite the elegance of the concept and the seemingly extensive explanations in the FAQ, it's apparent they didn't think this through. The evidence is right there in the first question.
So... does "briefly" mean the-following-statement-shall-employ-brevity, or does it modify the "yes!" answer? To wit, did they just tell us that we DO have to trust in a black-box system, but only for a brief moment? I think the Diebold study at Princeton proved to all of us that it doesn't take that long for our collective trust to be betrayed.
Also from the FAQ...
Is that so? If the one half of the ballot, the "key" that can indicate the vote, is destroyed, how can the results be re-tallied? As I see it, any "deliberate cheating" would taint the count, the ballot's "shredded half" already eliminates any possibility of a re-count, and a re-vote (or concession/state-arbitration) is eminently necessary. This answer is bogus.
While we're at it, where is the demonstration of this "transparent" software and hardware? I can tell you this, if any part of the system relies on electronic storage to present ballot items or candidates to the voter, it is succeptible to fraud. (my emphasis)
In this context, the definition of "transparent" would have to be thus:
An apparatus that, in its full and complete capacity...
Add to this the idea that each "receipt" will consist of forensic marking, indicating the individual ballot choices, and encrypted to the individual voter by a unique geometric shape. (the cut-out on the top "layer" of the ballot) If you're wondering which shapes to use... I suggest a 4x4 square grid with specific patterns cut-out... think "Tetris". Consider the variations in those shapes, multiplied by the number of items and candidates on any particular ballot, and you have a sufficiently encrypted system.
If we want to take this to the next level, (i.e., to address the potential for corruption within the various Election Committees) we would take a page from our god-fearing Founding Fathers. A sort of "tribunal" of authenticity.
Voting machines would NOT come from just one maker. The "core" of the voting machine would include components from no-less-than three technology ma
If you ask me, the real story is here. Right next to the aforementioned article.
The "Wii" gets a second mention in this article, for the name alone.
Also in the lineup; Sony's Li-Ion IED's, X-Men III Video Game, Paperless Voting Systems, and last--but certainly not least--Windows Vista.
My personal favorite is the bit about Ultra-mobile PC's.
...or at least until another sig makes me spit Coke® all over my screen.
Coke and the Coca-Cola name are registered trademarks of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company,look out! There's one near you!
One word: werd.
Blizzard stroked our collective ego and said, "You want a cow level? We'll give you a cow level... don't say we didn't warn you."
Mmmm... steak.
Try it with Necro' for heaps of reanimated-beef goodness, or prime-rib bombs, or beef-to-bones ballyhoo, or... O_o
Yeah, give that a try sometime.
The stuff of Legends.
I believe that would be the introductory level on "We've got hostiles."
Glad to see they fit Ravenholm in there. It's a tough pick for HL2, my runner-up would be Water Hazard.
Still, the guys at Destructoid could learn a thing or two from the pros. There's a reason VH1 is making "Top 100" shows instead of "Top 10".
Should have categorized first... (FPS/RTS/MMORPG/PJ/2D/SS/ETC) let the all-time faves come from the tallied totals from all categories.
At least that's how I would have done it. :P
What's all the ruckus about? Haven't we learned enough about M$ to know that they would do this?
If the past is any guide, there will be another anti-trust suit in the works by X-mas.
As for the news on FF 2.0, it's a shame. Not a tragedy, just a shame. Of all browsers, FF2 is the most promising for a secure, standards-compliant browser.
The tragedy with IE7 is that most of the world is waiting for it to FIX its predecessor. If you don't think it's broken, then you haven't been on the Internet. If M$ can work things out with IE7, look for IE6 to be dropped faster than Windows ME.
With Firefox 2.0, we can wait. There's no hurry, guys. Take your time and get it fixed. FF 1.5 is working just fine in the meantime.
In the end, there's no comparison. If you want to browse the net worry-free, dump the big, blue "e".
Hear hear!
It's the rush to embrace electronic voting that has led to these catastrophes. In the haste, we allowed the wrong people to be in-charge of how they are used.
How many of the electronic voting systems are actually proven? How many are tamper-resistant? How many use public and openly available source code to operate?
We've already seen the results of "black box" voting. Though the jury may be out, my money is riding on, "not working in the slightest".
If the public is not allowed to understand the voting process, it is NOT a democratic vote!
Learn more here and here.
Indeed it does. Another post refers to a newly theorized purpose for "junk genes" as if they have an active purpose throughout the human lifespan. I believe they termed it the "epigenome".
From what I got, it's like this: First, DNA was just a "blueprint", a way for our cells to figure out which cells go where and what they do.
Now, there's a theory that the cells are actually "piloted" by DNA, which has become a more dynamic relationship. Cells not only "read" DNA to figure out how to multiply or function, but also change according to these genes, and it may be happening every day of our lives.
So, the "junk" may not be junk after all.
-- Random
Talk about FUD! Except this goes upwards into sheer paranoia.
Can you tell me how Google makes a profit from conveying the copyrighted materials? They don't sell any of the photos or videos that come-up in a search. They do that for free. Without a profit-motive, it's very hard for anyone to sue Google for conveying licensed/copyrighted content. It's no wonder they fight it in court, because the other guy doesn't have a case!
Is that so? Ordinarily, Google Toolbar only logs data that barely indicates that it successfully installed... and that's all it will ever do unless you actually use it. Even then, the only information it sends are based on the information that is absolutely necessary for the advanced features to even work.
... or didn't you read the Privacy Policy? (BTW... so much easier to understand than MSN Hotmail or MSN Search ...looks the same, but not the same. Hmmm....)
Maybe they have your cell number, but that's because you wanted SMS alerts sent to you. Maybe they're indexing your e-mail, but that's because you signed-up with Gmail in the first place. If they have your calendar, it's because your taking advantage of that service as well. Now, where's the so-called "invasion of privacy" here?
Simply put, if you want to be protected from all that, then stay off the 'Net. The fact that you're here on ./ seems to imply that you won't.
It's the Information Age; you have to give to get. It's not exactly quid-pro-quo, but there's always the alternative.
Feel free to go start-up your own search engine and see how easy it is.
I'm backing-up this one, because search-engine optimization is part of my business.
AdSense is a relational database of web sites and their categories (ebusiness, community, retail, travel, etc.) that only tracks behaviors by "clicks" visitors take -->through--> AdSense
If you don't click on a Google ad, then nothing is recorded at Google.
The part about IP address tracking is also true; you can't easily hide your IP, nor would you want to. (But it's a real good way to get the Feds to watch you... closely)
I can't see anything wrong with using my IP address to identify advertising that applies to my local area. It's better than seeing ads for a skateboard shop in Hoboken that I'll never visit.
All the other nay-speak about Google is simply F-U-D. They've got the model MS should be using.
Unless Jupiter Media gets to it first.
Someone like myself would understand the hours of data-entry and database development that goes into indexing imagery. I research photo copyrights for a living.
The fact that there is a feasible, automated system that can do the work will certainly cut down the man-hours for that sort of work; at least by half.
Pity, though. I heard that Google and others had a telecommuting thing that paid people to recognize what's in a photo. Sorry to hear they'll be out of a job soon.
Oh yeah? Well, I demand that Diebold retract their demand!
While I'm at it, I demand that the entire Diebold board of directors watch "Hacking Democracy" in its entirety...
and in one sitting...
with no bathroom breaks!
Ha-ha!
Also, I demand that Diebold go back and conclusively verify the integrity of voting machines used in 2004!
Furthermore, I demand that Diebold verify all electronic and paper ballots from the 2000 election!
Take that y2k! Take that Electoral College! Take that... er... YOU-!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the only U.S. president to serve more than two terms.
George W. Bush, the only president to serve two terms without ever being elected.
And you thought the backlash from getting your /. comment wrong was intense.
If the world becomes an angry mob, it's time to get in the pitchfork-and-torch business!
Does the word "anti-trust" ring a bell?
Frankly, I'm amazed that this red flag hasn't been raised yet... or I'm just too lazy to scan the three-hundred-some posts for it.
Let's break it down: (A) The company saturates the viable market-share in the heavily populated areas, (B) this company also identifies "unprofitable" regions where it deems that service will not have a net gain, and (C) they buddy-buddy with the regional chambers to limit any competition. Free market, my ass!
Isn't this the very definition of "monopolistic endeavors"? See for yourself here.
What are we coming to? Are we going to be the next Russia?
I utter yet-another groan at the blatant whittling-down of consumers' basic right to a free market... damn you, Microsoft.