As someone with a physics degree (or two) in pocket, I've learned to suspend a little reality while watching a movie. If not, I'd probably end up nitpicking myself to death, and wouldn't enjoy *any* movie. (Let's face it: movie studios go for the "cool special effect" rather than worry about any type of accuracy.
The problem with this movie was the absolute terrible, hideous execution of character development and plot around a fairly neat idea.
The idea of "seeding" earth is one that has been used in a lot of sci-fi movies and scenarios, so that central idea was kind of neat.
But..
We are introduced right away to a bunch of stereotype "NASA jocks". The hard working 'stick jockey' with a dead wife, the wives and families, yadda, yadda, yadda. (Hey, De Palma, this worked in Apollo 13 because these were real people, and background was thought about for more than five minutes. I bought into Gary Sinese as Ken Mattingly, but I didn't care enough about him here to even remember his name.)
Jump right into scene 2. Insert $DISASTER. Scratch three characters.
Jump into ill-fated rescue mission. Try to introduce a touch of character development, but any thought about who these people are is hacked and slashed. Think more about dead wife, who proved to be the most interesting character in the 15 or so seconds we saw her.
Interrupt with $DISASTER2 Scratch another character.
Land on Mars, find crazed out crew member. He shaves, then all is well. (Hey, who's up for a $PRODUCT??
Go to "face", enter "face". Spend FIVE FSCKING MINUTES ON DRIVING POINT OF MOVIE. Don't worry, you already saw most of this in the trailer.
Tearful farewell, wistful glance at characters we don't care enough about to *get* wistful about. Boo Hoo.
Best part of movie: I went for a Sunday afternoon matinee, only spent four dollars. Worst part: I could have purchased McDonald's value meal with that four dollars...
Hmmm.. I guess I can't imagine learning much more from a piece of exposed metal than you normally do using the onboard instruments. (Besides, even with the 'harsh' conditions, remember space is still fairly empty. Besides small meteorite impact, there would probably not be any physical "damage" to the spacecraft to study.)
Unless, of course, the spacecraft returned with "Kilroy was Here" spraypainted on the side...
It would never be really possible to re-use a space probe like Galileo:
First, fuel costs would be prohibitive. In order to get out to Jupiter, the probe has to have enough velocity to move to a larger solar orbit. When a probe is launched it often follows a pretty complex trajectory to gain speed by using "gravity assists" from other planets. Now, imagine having to do the exact opposite.
Second, by the time the spacecraft has traveled to the outer planets, it is pretty much shot. Exposure to energetic particles, micrometeorites, etc. have a cumulative effect. In addition, a lot of the spacecraft systems are actually fairly fragile. The plasma wave antenna on Galileo is actually made of nothing but "robust" aluminum foil! (not to mention the PW antenna failed two years ago...)
If you want to re-use a spacecraft, you can always use the "duplicate" that is usually built. (This was actually done for the Cluster II mission. The first Cluster mission exploded over the ESA launchpad, so the backups were brought into service!)
Intel's latest commitment seems like another shot at jumping out of the 'Wintel' boat. According to the book "Infinite Loop", Intel tried to do this with Apple (co-sponsoring a port of the MacOS to an Intel architecture)
Hmm.. most Linux programs I've seen haven't been *that* bad in terms of usefulness. I just set up my first Red Hat box yesterday (I've been a loyal Debian user) and the installation was a breeze.
The one thing that I notice while looking at all of the user interfaces that have been thrown in front of me is this: does everything *have* to be so Windows-like? KDE is practically a Win 95/98 clone, GNOME seems pretty similar, and a lot of 'wm' customizations seem to take everything directly from M$.
I would think that Open Source and Linux would be the perfect place to try new front ends and methods of viewing data. (Like those mentioned just about every one of those PC mags...)
Besides, I'm thinking of filing suit against KDE. I mean how *dare* they make a browser part of the operating system! (in jest, of course...)
This is fantastic. I like the idea of letting kids explore interests, but keep good perspective. Computers used wisely can really make subject matter come alive. (Especially in science. I taught a beginning college physics lab where visualization and data analysis tools improved course content significantly...)
Have you and your comrades ever thought of attempting some open source educational programs? (Some physics demonstrations, perhaps?) I think this would be a great application for high school students to pursue. (Or myself, as a matter of fact...)
Have you also encouraged your teachers and administrators to publish a paper or two in some educational journals? (Curriculum developers often don't see the generic articles...)
too much emphasis on computers can also be a bad thing. The last thing schools need is to become a technical "vocational school".
Most curricula developed in high schools recently treat computer skills as an end unto themselves. The focus should be on using computers (and OSS) as a tool. I do like seeing things like high school kids using computers to model chemical interactions, study musical composition, perform and analyze experiments, etc. Applying computer skills to solve real-world problems should be the focus.
When I was in high school, most of the 'computer skills' I learned was a BASIC programming class and a bunch of home-grown skills. (Mostly doing with the good ol' Apple IIgs and Mac SE.. UNIX had to wait until college..)
I just don't think "the school for sysadmins" is a necessarily *good* thing. It's really neat for kids to get this hands on experience and all (and is a good application of problem solving skills), but kids today (especially techie types) really need to focus on preparing for a college education as well...
A lot of the free software, etc., didn't only come out of academic laboratories. A pretty good chunk of work also appeared from the corporate research centers.
*Sigh*. There was a day when companies often hired researchers to pursue topics "of interest", but gave them little oversight. A lot of great things came out of these labs. For example:
Irving Langmuir studying ways to make better vacuum tubes, and founding the study of plasma physics along the way.
Researchers at Xerox PARC developing nearly every modern computer interface.
UNIX being developed at Bell Labs.
Academia has also produced a lot of interesting software and other products, but most academic research (at least the stuff I was involved in) didn't focus on "producing a product".
The days of companies hiring researchers and providing grants seems to be over. Companies now seem obsessed with getting results from current technology without funding other basic research efforts. There is just a lack of *patience* out there that has produced all this great stuff. (I don't think a Thompson/Ritchie would just be allowed to come up with a new operating system anymore. Their assignment would probably be something more like: "Just patch up Multics. We don't have the budget to pursue anything else."
I think the best axiom I've heard is "Genius happens on its own time." It's too bad that companies don't recognize this anymore.
I'm anxiously waiting for the Voyagers to find concrete proof of the location of the heliosphere (the sun's 'backyard fence', as it were)
*That's* gonna be cool.
(As a side note, the Pioneer spacecraft are still operational, but not being actively tracked because the probes are too far away for us to track the signal!
It's a shame that kind of engineering doesn't happen at NASA anymore. (again, not enough budget to plan and test adequately...)
This type of thing is becoming a little too typcial. NASA has been forced to do "less with more" and have tried to push a lot of spacecraft projects out the door in a hurry to get the PR gains, but seems to take an awful lot on shortcuts.
In the 'heyday' of Pioneer, Voysger (even the Galileo and Cassini projects) the projects were getting more expensive and 'bloated' (according to the Congressional budgets) This money wasn't just being thrown away, but spent on backups, backups, and more backups and a lot of testing. (As a matter of fact, an "extra" spacecraft was often built to work out the bugs...)
The result: even through seeming distaster, these spacecraft did some amazing things:
Voyager 2 was able to continue the "grand tour" of the solar system even though its systems were *pummeled* by particles in Saturn's rings. (There was a project that measured the density by 'listening' for spacecraft collisions on the plasma wave antenna)
Galileo returned a huge amount of data even though the primary antenna was crippled.
I guess my point is that cranking out cheaper spacecraft in a hurry is not the best way to go about things. (Gee... sounds like software development) It would seem prudent to possibly have fewer missions if the extra time and budget to devote to testing and double-checking. (Granted, landing a spacecraft on another planet *is* a tricky thing, but hey, the Viking series seemed to do pretty well..)
The re-do of the logo seems a good marketing ploy. In my mind (and many others, I'm sure) the old multi-colored logo seems nostalgic (like the Apple II). Revamping the logo to match the new product line makes quite a bit of sense.
Plus, Apple (especially under the leadership of Steve Jobs) has always been 1/2 tech, 1/2 marketing. Apple probably sells as many computers on "image" as they do on tech. Jobs and crew have done a great job of promoting Apple as the alternative computer (i.e. 'Big Brother', 'Think Different', etc.,etc.) Losing firm control of that image (allowing the Logo to be spread without company control, the Mac 'clones') just seems to downgrade the counterculture image that Apple has worked to build. (That's why they seem to enjoy suing *everybody* over look/feel issues.)
I work in a consulting house cranking out business applications, where my work hours seem to vary quite a bit. As of late, I've been putting in ~ 40 (or a bit less), but last Nov. and Dec. 60 hr/week was average with one week (during a "User Acceptance Test") ran up to 85 hrs.
It seems work hours depend on 1) The volume of work 2) The way in which said work is planned (i.e how big a lie the client was sold on, and how much the 'managing partner' believes his moon-pie promises... another gripe for another time..)
Is the work cycle this way in a lot of "tech" jobs?
To tell the truth, the biggest thing I hate about PDAs is the user interface. Either you use a pen to write in a tiny little box (Palm Pilot) or you stumble-fingers with little toy keys (the WinCE camp.)
My ideal 'PDA' would be something about the size of a paper notebook, that has a touch sensitive flat screen (that you could possibly write on... hey, playing the "visionary" here !). The machine would be able to do just about anything a PC could. (Net access, productivity tools, a "real" word processor, etc.) Something with wireless net access that you could use to surf the web, write a paper, read an "online" book or periodical, all with something the size of a magazine.
Hmmm.. probably not really a 'PDA' but more like having the functionality of a notebook/laptop PC...
The GPL seems pretty ill-equipped to deal with this type of code 'piracy'. (I think the whole Sun-Blackdown situation pretty much showed that.)
The thing I don't know: has the GPL ever been legally challenged? (i.e. has a company ever been sued for 'stealing' GPL'ed materials?) Seeming how this project revolves around a Win32 platform, I could easily imagine M$ lifting the best parts of the redesigned interface and billing them as their own. ('Freedom to Innovate').
If having your code 'lifted' is a concern, I might almost try to find some form of legal advice about this.
Another thing I've always wondered about: how does existing copyright law apply to "open" software? I remember Apple suing M$ over the use of the Win 3.x interface, but that case was settled out of court. (Any legal-type geeks out there?)
I know the CO2 doesn't come free, (niether does the methanol) but was throwing out the idea that prehaps this process might grab a little energy from the waste product.
Example: Car produces a few liters of C02 that can be processed into methanol with 15 joules of energy.
Methanol is converted by a fuel cell to produce 17 joules of energy: net gain: two joules..
The problem with this: I have no idea what the energy amounts involved are. It just may be that it takes 17 joules to convert enough methanol to produce 5 joules (net loss: 12 joules)
You obviously can't run a car forever; but such a process might improve the mechanical efficiency...
I think I recall that some of the fuel cells being developed use methanol as fuel. I know there has been talk of 'hybrid cars' using plain ol' electric batteries and combustion engines. I wonder if the same could be used for fuel cells:
1) CO2 scrubber produces methanol 2) Methanol is used to provide more power to a fuel cell...
(Obviously, not in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, just squeezing out a little more fuel efficiency..)
I *don't* know if this would be practical (i.e. use more energy to power the CO2 scrubber than the fuel cell would produce... That would be kind of pointless...)
She said both of the Internet bills are designed to "get at the porn problem." She responded to First Amendment objections by saying that the proposals have been reviewed by lawyers, who found them constitutional.
WHOA. This is a little disturbing. Even though this "bill" probably doesn't stand a chance of passing (how much would a campus wide "internet filter" and budget for enforcing student behavior cost?) I am worried that a legislator (and a group of lawyers) would even *think* like this. This is definitely a matter for concern.
The most astounding thing about the internet (and the greatest potential) is the vast amount of information out there to be communicated. When we read books/magazines/newspapers we have to filter out useful information from the crap that is out there: the net is no different. If internet access is filtered, might as well check the library for some undesirable materials. Anyone for a book burning?
The content that is on the net is a reflection of society as a whole, in my opinion. There is nothing on the net that you couldn't find in "The Real World". Trying to limit access is the same thing as censorship, a strict violation of the First Amendment.
In my years in college (U. of Iowa), something similar was brought before the legislature that would have essentially limited research that the faculty could pursue. (I thought *that* was the most backward thing I had ever heard, until now...)
Is this type of thing becoming common all over the country?
To tell the truth, most "Techie" misunderstanding of the law happens because we really don't take the time to do thourough research.
Putting together a strong legal case is something that takes an extrodinary amount of research into existing rulings (precidents), or constructing a case convincing enough to throw out existing precident. This is why the EFF and other watchdog groups are so terribly important.
I think the larger concern is how to change existing law to allow for new technology. Most laws today seem to be passed on lobbying dollars and the ignorance of elected officials. (e.g. That communications law (? don't recall the name offhand ?) that was overturned by the Supreme Court about a year ago.
As the judicial system seems to be fairly strong against technical "hoodwinking" I think the danger exists of these large groups/companies using legislative coersion to achieve thier means. (Which will tie up the courts all over again, ad nauseum...)
I also have the O'Reilly "Running Linux" book, which covers the basics very well and is accessible to nearly any Linux newbie. (It does help to have a *little* computing experience, as with most O'Reilly books.) Even more "advanced" topics are covered well enough that you could easily say 'RTFOB', I guess...
If I recall correctly, the point of LIGO is not to prove "existance" (as pointed out, this has already been done), but rather to determine if the laser technique will work. The goal of LIGO is to create a "network" of these laser based gravity wave detectors in order to infer direction of the gravity waves... (There was a PBS show called "The Astronomers" awhile back that described this technique in pretty good detail. Heh... I remember more from a PBS show that I do from getting a BS in Astronomy. That's probably a bad thing...)
Linux having many 'flavors' is probably no different than the situation faced by papa UNIX. As with UNIX, the success of a distribution will depend eventually on hardware vendors. We will probably see one distribution become wildly successful after low-priced mainstream computers are sold with Linux pre-installed. (As about every PC mag I have seen lately has been wildly predicting...)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this movie was the absolute terrible, hideous execution of character development and plot around a fairly neat idea.
The idea of "seeding" earth is one that has been used in a lot of sci-fi movies and scenarios, so that central idea was kind of neat.
But..
Best part of movie: I went for a Sunday afternoon matinee, only spent four dollars. Worst part: I could have purchased McDonald's value meal with that four dollars...
Let's see:
Cripes. I think we all need to lay off the "X-Files".
Unless, of course, the spacecraft returned with "Kilroy was Here" spraypainted on the side...
If you want to re-use a spacecraft, you can always use the "duplicate" that is usually built. (This was actually done for the Cluster II mission. The first Cluster mission exploded over the ESA launchpad, so the backups were brought into service!)
Is Linux the "savior" of Intel from M$?
The one thing that I notice while looking at all of the user interfaces that have been thrown in front of me is this: does everything *have* to be so Windows-like? KDE is practically a Win 95/98 clone, GNOME seems pretty similar, and a lot of 'wm' customizations seem to take everything directly from M$.
I would think that Open Source and Linux would be the perfect place to try new front ends and methods of viewing data. (Like those mentioned just about every one of those PC mags...)
Besides, I'm thinking of filing suit against KDE. I mean how *dare* they make a browser part of the operating system! (in jest, of course...)
This is fantastic. I like the idea of letting kids explore interests, but keep good perspective. Computers used wisely can really make subject matter come alive. (Especially in science. I taught a beginning college physics lab where visualization and data analysis tools improved course content significantly...)
Have you and your comrades ever thought of attempting some open source educational programs? (Some physics demonstrations, perhaps?) I think this would be a great application for high school students to pursue. (Or myself, as a matter of fact...)
Have you also encouraged your teachers and administrators to publish a paper or two in some educational journals? (Curriculum developers often don't see the generic articles...)
Most curricula developed in high schools recently treat computer skills as an end unto themselves. The focus should be on using computers (and OSS) as a tool. I do like seeing things like high school kids using computers to model chemical interactions, study musical composition, perform and analyze experiments, etc. Applying computer skills to solve real-world problems should be the focus.
When I was in high school, most of the 'computer skills' I learned was a BASIC programming class and a bunch of home-grown skills. (Mostly doing with the good ol' Apple IIgs and Mac SE.. UNIX had to wait until college..)
I just don't think "the school for sysadmins" is a necessarily *good* thing. It's really neat for kids to get this hands on experience and all (and is a good application of problem solving skills), but kids today (especially techie types) really need to focus on preparing for a college education as well...
*Sigh*. There was a day when companies often hired researchers to pursue topics "of interest", but gave them little oversight. A lot of great things came out of these labs. For example:
Academia has also produced a lot of interesting software and other products, but most academic research (at least the stuff I was involved in) didn't focus on "producing a product".
The days of companies hiring researchers and providing grants seems to be over. Companies now seem obsessed with getting results from current technology without funding other basic research efforts. There is just a lack of *patience* out there that has produced all this great stuff. (I don't think a Thompson/Ritchie would just be allowed to come up with a new operating system anymore. Their assignment would probably be something more like: "Just patch up Multics. We don't have the budget to pursue anything else."
I think the best axiom I've heard is "Genius happens on its own time." It's too bad that companies don't recognize this anymore.
*That's* gonna be cool.
(As a side note, the Pioneer spacecraft are still operational, but not being actively tracked because the probes are too far away for us to track the signal!
It's a shame that kind of engineering doesn't happen at NASA anymore. (again, not enough budget to plan and test adequately...)
In the 'heyday' of Pioneer, Voysger (even the Galileo and Cassini projects) the projects were getting more expensive and 'bloated' (according to the Congressional budgets) This money wasn't just being thrown away, but spent on backups, backups, and more backups and a lot of testing. (As a matter of fact, an "extra" spacecraft was often built to work out the bugs...)
The result: even through seeming distaster, these spacecraft did some amazing things:
- Voyager 2 was able to continue the "grand tour" of the solar system even though its systems were *pummeled* by particles in Saturn's rings. (There was a project that measured the density by 'listening' for spacecraft collisions on the plasma wave antenna)
- Galileo returned a huge amount of data even though the primary antenna was crippled.
I guess my point is that cranking out cheaper spacecraft in a hurry is not the best way to go about things. (Gee... sounds like software development) It would seem prudent to possibly have fewer missions if the extra time and budget to devote to testing and double-checking. (Granted, landing a spacecraft on another planet *is* a tricky thing, but hey, the Viking series seemed to do pretty well..)Plus, Apple (especially under the leadership of Steve Jobs) has always been 1/2 tech, 1/2 marketing. Apple probably sells as many computers on "image" as they do on tech. Jobs and crew have done a great job of promoting Apple as the alternative computer (i.e. 'Big Brother', 'Think Different', etc. ,etc.) Losing firm control of that image (allowing the Logo to be spread without company control, the Mac 'clones') just seems to downgrade the counterculture image that Apple has worked to build. (That's why they seem to enjoy suing *everybody* over look/feel issues.)
It seems work hours depend on
1) The volume of work
2) The way in which said work is planned (i.e how big a lie the client was sold on, and how much the 'managing partner' believes his moon-pie promises... another gripe for another time..)
Is the work cycle this way in a lot of "tech" jobs?
My ideal 'PDA' would be something about the size of a paper notebook, that has a touch sensitive flat screen (that you could possibly write on... hey, playing the "visionary" here !). The machine would be able to do just about anything a PC could. (Net access, productivity tools, a "real" word processor, etc.) Something with wireless net access that you could use to surf the web, write a paper, read an "online" book or periodical, all with something the size of a magazine.
Hmmm.. probably not really a 'PDA' but more like having the functionality of a notebook/laptop PC...
Think Star Trek 'PADD'...
Every time I go to Best Buy, I see that box beckoning me "Come, waste too many hours of your short life!"
The thing I don't know: has the GPL ever been legally challenged? (i.e. has a company ever been sued for 'stealing' GPL'ed materials?) Seeming how this project revolves around a Win32 platform, I could easily imagine M$ lifting the best parts of the redesigned interface and billing them as their own. ('Freedom to Innovate').
If having your code 'lifted' is a concern, I might almost try to find some form of legal advice about this.
Another thing I've always wondered about: how does existing copyright law apply to "open" software? I remember Apple suing M$ over the use of the Win 3.x interface, but that case was settled out of court. (Any legal-type geeks out there?)
Example: Car produces a few liters of C02 that can be processed into methanol with 15 joules of energy.
Methanol is converted by a fuel cell to produce 17 joules of energy: net gain: two joules..
The problem with this: I have no idea what the energy amounts involved are. It just may be that it takes 17 joules to convert enough methanol to produce 5 joules (net loss: 12 joules)
You obviously can't run a car forever; but such a process might improve the mechanical efficiency...
1) CO2 scrubber produces methanol
2) Methanol is used to provide more power to a fuel cell...
(Obviously, not in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, just squeezing out a little more fuel efficiency..)
I *don't* know if this would be practical (i.e. use more energy to power the CO2 scrubber than the fuel cell would produce... That would be kind of pointless...)
"We are not 'write once, run anywhere' kind of guys."
Pretty much sums it up.
WHOA. This is a little disturbing. Even though this "bill" probably doesn't stand a chance of passing (how much would a campus wide "internet filter" and budget for enforcing student behavior cost?) I am worried that a legislator (and a group of lawyers) would even *think* like this. This is definitely a matter for concern.
The most astounding thing about the internet (and the greatest potential) is the vast amount of information out there to be communicated. When we read books/magazines/newspapers we have to filter out useful information from the crap that is out there: the net is no different. If internet access is filtered, might as well check the library for some undesirable materials. Anyone for a book burning?
The content that is on the net is a reflection of society as a whole, in my opinion. There is nothing on the net that you couldn't find in "The Real World". Trying to limit access is the same thing as censorship, a strict violation of the First Amendment.
In my years in college (U. of Iowa), something similar was brought before the legislature that would have essentially limited research that the faculty could pursue. (I thought *that* was the most backward thing I had ever heard, until now...)
Is this type of thing becoming common all over the country?
To tell the truth, most "Techie" misunderstanding of the law happens because we really don't take the time to do thourough research.
Putting together a strong legal case is something that takes an extrodinary amount of research into existing rulings (precidents), or constructing a case convincing enough to throw out existing precident. This is why the EFF and other watchdog groups are so terribly important.
I think the larger concern is how to change existing law to allow for new technology. Most laws today seem to be passed on lobbying dollars and the ignorance of elected officials. (e.g. That communications law (? don't recall the name offhand ?) that was overturned by the Supreme Court about a year ago.
As the judicial system seems to be fairly strong against technical "hoodwinking" I think the danger exists of these large groups/companies using legislative coersion to achieve thier means. (Which will tie up the courts all over again, ad nauseum...)
I also have the O'Reilly "Running Linux" book, which covers the basics very well and is accessible to nearly any Linux newbie. (It does help to have a *little* computing experience, as with most O'Reilly books.) Even more "advanced" topics are covered well enough that you could easily say 'RTFOB', I guess...
If I recall correctly, the point of LIGO is not to prove "existance" (as pointed out, this has already been done), but rather to determine if the laser technique will work. The goal of LIGO is to create a "network" of these laser based gravity wave detectors in order to infer direction of the gravity waves... (There was a PBS show called "The Astronomers" awhile back that described this technique in pretty good detail. Heh... I remember more from a PBS show that I do from getting a BS in Astronomy. That's probably a bad thing...)
Linux having many 'flavors' is probably no different than the situation faced by papa UNIX. As with UNIX, the success of a distribution will depend eventually on hardware vendors. We will probably see one distribution become wildly successful after low-priced mainstream computers are sold with Linux pre-installed. (As about every PC mag I have seen lately has been wildly predicting...)