We had already solved the problem of achieving orbit but instead of doing things beyond orbit, NASA repeated a lot of the same trick (achieving orbit) without having much to show for it.
I wish we had a Mars mission instead of the space station. What is that being used for, again?
The best thing NASA has done in the past 40 years is Hubble. That is a real treat for anybody with a pair of eyes and an imagination.
Did you really write that there was no money to be made in space exploration? There are an infinite number of ways to make money there. Sure, it takes huge investments but even as tourism and mining there's a lot out there. Wasn't Lebensraum ("living space") one of the main justifications for World War II? People just want to explore.
I meant no NASA hate--I have followed everything they have done. My hate is for our leaders since JFK who did not have the foresight to move maintenance off to dedicated resources. The rocket scientists at NASA should be spending their time dreaming up cooler stuff. Think of the innovations that came out of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo missions. And in the intervening 40 years we have had no more of that innovation. The shuttle was designed in the 1970s. I think if our rocket scientists were put up to the challenge by giving them nothing else to do but invent new stuff--that innovations would come that would spur new technologies.
Only recently, I've gotten the idea that the space program, somehow, went on out of the public eye. I never used to think that but now I'm thinking the reason the public was not treated to the continuing space program was because they were all already preoccupied with the secret space program. Think about it. We designed the shuttle and all that in the 1970s. And in 40 years nobody has thought up a better way? So, innovation in space just stopped in 1970? I don't think so. I think they just classified it.
This is a great idea. Since NASA has lost the last 40 years on good scientific research but no exploration, I think it's time for somebody else to take those dollars and try to see if they can make money.
It's the same as we have in good IT shops. You have the roving team of experts who design and build your systems [the NASA guys] but you don't waste your best on maintenance. For that, you have another team that lives with each app. This will also force the NASA people to actually DO something.
If English were a compiled--instead of an interpreted--language, writers like Jack Kerouac would fill the logs with language-exception puke, yet, we revere "On The Road". English is much too wild a tongue to be compiled. Russian maybe could make it through the compiler but not English.
I always used as a benchmark this idea: the quality of the design is inversely proportional to the size of the manual. Larger manual = shitty design. If it's intuitive, you don't need a manual.
Because the API for the English language is a mess. I learned Russian in college (along with a few computer languages) and the API for Russian makes a lot more sense than English does.
Excellent points all. It pertains to a larger geek problem: poor communication skills. How many brilliant developers have you met who send emails that sound like they were written by a 4th grader? Too many...
The reason most open-source projects get no press is they have neither a story to tell nor a storyteller to tell it.
Linux is a good example. There was a story to tell--the story of Linus Torvalds.
Windows--always meant telling a story of Bill Gates. Likewise, the Mac story always equates to a Steve Jobs story.
Then you have the case of a Gaving King, who never misses a chance to be rude on the forums, who is always irascible--he does his cause no good.
If you want good press, you need a story and a messenger.
Here we sit on this earth with all kinds of evidence that we are polluting the crap out of this planet and here the business lobby--just so their members can get a little bit richer before the world comes crashing down--are doing everything they can to prevent the inevitable. Crazy.
I'm not fluent in Objective C yet--that was one of my points.
While I won't claim to be a Java guru, I do feel that I understand every corner of the language.
And the kind of project I'm describing does not need any special language hocus pocus.
Did Google require any special technological wizardry? Not at first, they just grew into what they are. Facebook is just another web app. Killer Apps don't often rely on cutting edge technology--they rely on cutting edge creativity.
Unless the researchers controlled for handedness, this study is meaningless. Why?
Thanks to the work of Dr. Roger Sperry [winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize for this work], we know that the Left hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Linear-Sequential manner, which makes it optimized for Language.
This faster, Linear-Sequential Hemisphere--the Left--is mostly gray matter, which reflects how it is specialized to hold many, small, discrete memory locations, such as are used to store words.
Dr. Sperry also determined through his split-brain experiments that the Right hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Visual-Simultaneous manner, which makes it optimized for Vision.
This slower, Visual-Simultaneous Hemisphere--the Right--is mostly white matter, which reflects how it is specialized to have many long axons that connect make the multiple connections between neurons, such as are used to store images.
According to Roger Sperry, in Left-handed people, the Right Brain dominates. In Right-handed people, the Left Brain dominates.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the linear one, Right-Handed people cannot effectively multi-task. If a Right-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point is discarded and they must begin again. Therefore, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is wasteful.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the visualone, Left-Handed people can effectively multi-task. If a Left-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point can be resumed because of the ability to hang on to more trains of thought. Therefor, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is useful.
I have been looking at SQLite, with its few curious omissions from SQL92.
And the client-side memory needs are trivial so in this case SQLite would be fine for the client--even on Android. I've worked my way through the Stanford Podcasts.
I have no doubt that Objective C is a mature, full-featured language. That is not my objection--leveraging my long friendship with Java is.
I have been looking at Objective C. Thus, my opinion.
Once again, I was not talking about the client when I mentioned the bit about users being so thrilled with the app they wanted to make sure their server-side data is preserved.
My whole point is this: a cool enough app will completely obliterate the advantage of the iPhone--given a killer app. Remember how invincible the BlackBerry was? It still dominates but it's doomed.
Why all this focus on the hardware, anyway? You remind me of guys telling me how much more productive they were going to be on their new Pentium computers. Now you are all enamored with the iPhone. But after we get a few thousand versions of piddly video games or tell-me-where-I-can-buy-organic-arugalla-in-Queens apps, then people will realize that it's now just a phone or another internet browser or email vehicle.
Once again, somebody who's looking for a glorified PSP. Can none of you imagine something so different that it is nothing like what you've heard of before. This is 0% a phone.
I have a great idea that I'm not going to give away. The point is not the platform, it's the app. And after I do the hard core development and multiple prototypes on Android, I can always port the final version to the iPhone. I just see going back to worrying about memory management in the manner of Objective C as a step backward. I can develop and prototype much faster on Android.
I know Objective C might run faster but if your app relies on the speed of the phone for its processing, you have bigger problems. If your idea is so tiny that it can run 100% inside the phone, that sounds to me like a iToy.
All it takes to win droves over to a single Android phone is One Killer App that you cannot get anywhere else. It has to be an idea so radical that its specific implementation can be patented and licensed in a proprietary manner because it requires the use of extensive parallel back-end processing for each front-end client. In addition to that, it requires a sort of database that is unique to each client--in every way except for the raw materials used to create its shape. It must have an ongoing data storage requirement for each customer, one that grows absolutely forever until that client stops being a customer and then all that constructed database structure is gone.
It takes a killer app that changes the game so much, one that makes your world different because it makes you a better human being--for whatever purpose you have in mind. This app is something that will not be as useful on the first day you get it as it will be years from then, when your usage patterns are in built to the system.
This thing I'm describing is complex, it has a lot of moving parts, a lot of parallel, asynchronous processing. Just building the thing in all its glory has been an ongoing project for years, with whole half years having been devoted to subsystems. I have a lot of time invested in what I've already done, for example. It's in Java because I didn't want to worry about the language, I wanted to worry about the architecture. I've been doing Java for about 13 years so I really can think in it, pardoning the Bruce Eckels echo.
Do I want to try to replicate all the client code in this new curiosity, Objective C? Do I want to put my energy into learning how Objective C compares to C or C++, or is my creativity better spent completing this idea in Java-friendly Android, knowing that all it will take is something really cool that people are talking about and using and that they want assurances from the company that this data structure they've built in it is safe and backed up.
The platform is trivial. The App is King. Long Live The Killer App.
Jeff Hawkins (founder of Palm) wrote an excellent book "On Intelligence" that deals extensively with pattern stream processing.
I think the human brain is so plastic that it can handle much, much more stimulation than we give it credit for. Consider the contrast in the sensory ambient environment of the modern man versus the same man 100 years prior. Quite different.
I think the human brain can do anything--and we are not at 1% of its capacity. If you want to add more inputs through an ankle pattern, I think your brain could learn to regularly monitor those inputs. It would learn its own language that you could read.
I don't yet know what it's going to take but I mean I think it will require science to replicate the functions of both hemispheres: the one that processes language and the other that processes images. I think consciousness is a function of both styles feeding each other and memory.
The human brain is adept at processing pattern streams. These are two-dimensional datasets that change over regular intervals of time. In the specific case of this tongue-sight project, they are taking advantage of the ability of the tongue to transmit many "pixels" of sensory information in a square grid. Which pins poked into the tongue governed what the brain got that instant of time. So, by reading the changing pattern of the dots, the brain can learn to process that pattern stream in the same way it learns to process the pattern stream that is the million or so "pixels" of information each eye sends, each unit of time.
The left brain hemisphere processes Linear-Sequential Information.
The right brain hemisphere processes Visual-Simultaneous Information.
We know that from the Nobel-prize-winning [1980] research of Dr. Roger Sperry.
Current computers process information in a linear, sequential fashion--much like the left hemisphere works.
The true breakthroughs in AI will come when we can process and interpret the pattern streams that reach the right hemisphere, the image-oriented streams.
The complex interplay between the faster linear-sequential hemisphere and the holistic visual-simultaneous hemisphere is what creates consciousness. This tongue-stream is a great idea.
Slashdot Mirror
We had already solved the problem of achieving orbit but instead of doing things beyond orbit, NASA repeated a lot of the same trick (achieving orbit) without having much to show for it. I wish we had a Mars mission instead of the space station. What is that being used for, again?
They explore what's in the TV Guide. (Not me! Stopped watching TV in 8th grade.)
The best thing NASA has done in the past 40 years is Hubble. That is a real treat for anybody with a pair of eyes and an imagination.
Did you really write that there was no money to be made in space exploration? There are an infinite number of ways to make money there. Sure, it takes huge investments but even as tourism and mining there's a lot out there. Wasn't Lebensraum ("living space") one of the main justifications for World War II? People just want to explore.
I meant no NASA hate--I have followed everything they have done. My hate is for our leaders since JFK who did not have the foresight to move maintenance off to dedicated resources. The rocket scientists at NASA should be spending their time dreaming up cooler stuff. Think of the innovations that came out of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo missions. And in the intervening 40 years we have had no more of that innovation. The shuttle was designed in the 1970s. I think if our rocket scientists were put up to the challenge by giving them nothing else to do but invent new stuff--that innovations would come that would spur new technologies.
Only recently, I've gotten the idea that the space program, somehow, went on out of the public eye. I never used to think that but now I'm thinking the reason the public was not treated to the continuing space program was because they were all already preoccupied with the secret space program. Think about it. We designed the shuttle and all that in the 1970s. And in 40 years nobody has thought up a better way? So, innovation in space just stopped in 1970? I don't think so. I think they just classified it.
This is a great idea. Since NASA has lost the last 40 years on good scientific research but no exploration, I think it's time for somebody else to take those dollars and try to see if they can make money. It's the same as we have in good IT shops. You have the roving team of experts who design and build your systems [the NASA guys] but you don't waste your best on maintenance. For that, you have another team that lives with each app. This will also force the NASA people to actually DO something.
What a delight! Where do I order one? "Bandit on your six, Mate!"
If English were a compiled--instead of an interpreted--language, writers like Jack Kerouac would fill the logs with language-exception puke, yet, we revere "On The Road". English is much too wild a tongue to be compiled. Russian maybe could make it through the compiler but not English.
I always used as a benchmark this idea: the quality of the design is inversely proportional to the size of the manual. Larger manual = shitty design. If it's intuitive, you don't need a manual.
That is a mistake. This is a natural function for the project manager. They should run these meetings.
Because the API for the English language is a mess. I learned Russian in college (along with a few computer languages) and the API for Russian makes a lot more sense than English does.
Excellent points all. It pertains to a larger geek problem: poor communication skills. How many brilliant developers have you met who send emails that sound like they were written by a 4th grader? Too many...
The reason most open-source projects get no press is they have neither a story to tell nor a storyteller to tell it. Linux is a good example. There was a story to tell--the story of Linus Torvalds. Windows--always meant telling a story of Bill Gates. Likewise, the Mac story always equates to a Steve Jobs story. Then you have the case of a Gaving King, who never misses a chance to be rude on the forums, who is always irascible--he does his cause no good. If you want good press, you need a story and a messenger.
Here we sit on this earth with all kinds of evidence that we are polluting the crap out of this planet and here the business lobby--just so their members can get a little bit richer before the world comes crashing down--are doing everything they can to prevent the inevitable. Crazy.
I'm not fluent in Objective C yet--that was one of my points. While I won't claim to be a Java guru, I do feel that I understand every corner of the language. And the kind of project I'm describing does not need any special language hocus pocus. Did Google require any special technological wizardry? Not at first, they just grew into what they are. Facebook is just another web app. Killer Apps don't often rely on cutting edge technology--they rely on cutting edge creativity.
Unless the researchers controlled for handedness, this study is meaningless. Why?
Thanks to the work of Dr. Roger Sperry [winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize for this work], we know that the Left hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Linear-Sequential manner, which makes it optimized for Language.
This faster, Linear-Sequential Hemisphere--the Left--is mostly gray matter, which reflects how it is specialized to hold many, small, discrete memory locations, such as are used to store words.
Dr. Sperry also determined through his split-brain experiments that the Right hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Visual-Simultaneous manner, which makes it optimized for Vision.
This slower, Visual-Simultaneous Hemisphere--the Right--is mostly white matter, which reflects how it is specialized to have many long axons that connect make the multiple connections between neurons, such as are used to store images.
According to Roger Sperry, in Left-handed people, the Right Brain dominates. In Right-handed people, the Left Brain dominates.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the linear one, Right-Handed people cannot effectively multi-task. If a Right-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point is discarded and they must begin again. Therefore, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is wasteful.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the visualone, Left-Handed people can effectively multi-task. If a Left-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point can be resumed because of the ability to hang on to more trains of thought. Therefor, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is useful.
I have been looking at SQLite, with its few curious omissions from SQL92. And the client-side memory needs are trivial so in this case SQLite would be fine for the client--even on Android. I've worked my way through the Stanford Podcasts. I have no doubt that Objective C is a mature, full-featured language. That is not my objection--leveraging my long friendship with Java is. I have been looking at Objective C. Thus, my opinion. Once again, I was not talking about the client when I mentioned the bit about users being so thrilled with the app they wanted to make sure their server-side data is preserved. My whole point is this: a cool enough app will completely obliterate the advantage of the iPhone--given a killer app. Remember how invincible the BlackBerry was? It still dominates but it's doomed. Why all this focus on the hardware, anyway? You remind me of guys telling me how much more productive they were going to be on their new Pentium computers. Now you are all enamored with the iPhone. But after we get a few thousand versions of piddly video games or tell-me-where-I-can-buy-organic-arugalla-in-Queens apps, then people will realize that it's now just a phone or another internet browser or email vehicle.
I know, the NS initials in front of everything for NeXT. But you know that the language has been in hibernation until now.
And wait until somebody has a brilliant idea and then you go: "Why didn't I think of that" but you were not even in the game...
Once again, somebody who's looking for a glorified PSP. Can none of you imagine something so different that it is nothing like what you've heard of before. This is 0% a phone.
I have a great idea that I'm not going to give away. The point is not the platform, it's the app. And after I do the hard core development and multiple prototypes on Android, I can always port the final version to the iPhone. I just see going back to worrying about memory management in the manner of Objective C as a step backward. I can develop and prototype much faster on Android. I know Objective C might run faster but if your app relies on the speed of the phone for its processing, you have bigger problems. If your idea is so tiny that it can run 100% inside the phone, that sounds to me like a iToy.
Whiners.
All it takes to win droves over to a single Android phone is One Killer App that you cannot get anywhere else. It has to be an idea so radical that its specific implementation can be patented and licensed in a proprietary manner because it requires the use of extensive parallel back-end processing for each front-end client. In addition to that, it requires a sort of database that is unique to each client--in every way except for the raw materials used to create its shape. It must have an ongoing data storage requirement for each customer, one that grows absolutely forever until that client stops being a customer and then all that constructed database structure is gone.
It takes a killer app that changes the game so much, one that makes your world different because it makes you a better human being--for whatever purpose you have in mind. This app is something that will not be as useful on the first day you get it as it will be years from then, when your usage patterns are in built to the system.
This thing I'm describing is complex, it has a lot of moving parts, a lot of parallel, asynchronous processing. Just building the thing in all its glory has been an ongoing project for years, with whole half years having been devoted to subsystems. I have a lot of time invested in what I've already done, for example. It's in Java because I didn't want to worry about the language, I wanted to worry about the architecture. I've been doing Java for about 13 years so I really can think in it, pardoning the Bruce Eckels echo.
Do I want to try to replicate all the client code in this new curiosity, Objective C? Do I want to put my energy into learning how Objective C compares to C or C++, or is my creativity better spent completing this idea in Java-friendly Android, knowing that all it will take is something really cool that people are talking about and using and that they want assurances from the company that this data structure they've built in it is safe and backed up.
The platform is trivial. The App is King. Long Live The Killer App.
Jeff Hawkins (founder of Palm) wrote an excellent book "On Intelligence" that deals extensively with pattern stream processing. I think the human brain is so plastic that it can handle much, much more stimulation than we give it credit for. Consider the contrast in the sensory ambient environment of the modern man versus the same man 100 years prior. Quite different. I think the human brain can do anything--and we are not at 1% of its capacity. If you want to add more inputs through an ankle pattern, I think your brain could learn to regularly monitor those inputs. It would learn its own language that you could read.
I don't yet know what it's going to take but I mean I think it will require science to replicate the functions of both hemispheres: the one that processes language and the other that processes images. I think consciousness is a function of both styles feeding each other and memory.
The human brain is adept at processing pattern streams. These are two-dimensional datasets that change over regular intervals of time. In the specific case of this tongue-sight project, they are taking advantage of the ability of the tongue to transmit many "pixels" of sensory information in a square grid. Which pins poked into the tongue governed what the brain got that instant of time. So, by reading the changing pattern of the dots, the brain can learn to process that pattern stream in the same way it learns to process the pattern stream that is the million or so "pixels" of information each eye sends, each unit of time. The left brain hemisphere processes Linear-Sequential Information. The right brain hemisphere processes Visual-Simultaneous Information. We know that from the Nobel-prize-winning [1980] research of Dr. Roger Sperry. Current computers process information in a linear, sequential fashion--much like the left hemisphere works. The true breakthroughs in AI will come when we can process and interpret the pattern streams that reach the right hemisphere, the image-oriented streams. The complex interplay between the faster linear-sequential hemisphere and the holistic visual-simultaneous hemisphere is what creates consciousness. This tongue-stream is a great idea.
Easy. Name them after nebuli. My workstation is named NGC 6060, for example.