So make "dual mode"(ok, bad term, sorry) phones that will vibrate, but automatically transfers the call into voicemail - where there is _no_ option to answer it. Have this Pager-Like option enabled by a low power transmitter located in the building.
That way the user could still have their phone and still be alerted that there is a phone call, but they wouldn't have to make any sound and could then walk out into a "Cell OK" area, listen to the message and call the person back.
Personally, I'd rather see the ISS boosted up to geostationary orbit (a herculean task, I realize) and used as a staging area for construction of a space elevator. That way some good might come of that orbiting albatross.
Great idea. I wonder how much more quickly a space elevator could be manufactured with that additional weight in orbit.
Could they modify some/most of the area in the ISS to produce the carbon nanotubes necissary for the cable?
First make sure that they are comfortable users, then worry about the Power User status.
The age group you are speaking of tends to be low on the wisdom scale, so I think that it may be a VERY good idea that you get the parent's permission to give them the CD, or even better, introduce them to Linux via something like Gentoo linux, where you simply need to boot off the CD and the Hard Drive isn't touched at all.
Using something like Gentoo eliminates the "Do they need to know how to install" question. I would include a few page document of "Linux options" with information on where to get different flavors, as well as cautions and howtos on installing them.
I think that understanding of the GUI would be more valuable initially.
And most importantly, teach them where to find information. Don't just say "do this, then do this". Say something like "There is a HOWTO here, read it and I'll help you if you get stuck".
Teach them what they need to know in order to teach others to be comfortable using(not administering) an alternative OS
I try to visit at least one UNESCO World Heritage site on every trip I take. Many of the sites are fascinating for their architecture as well as their cultural significance.
The Great Wall is truly an impressive feat, and walking on it is quite fascinating/exhilirating/impressive. I would definitely go back.
My only concern (and the reason that I have not visited Machu Picchu) is that a lot of the tourism is damaging the site(s), and very little of the money is going to preserving them. It's a real shame that these things last hundreds or thousands of years just for us to take a trinket home and destroy them.
Sure, it may be no great loss to us if the Spiderman movie isn't able to be viewed in the future, but the Spiderman movie isn't the only thing that will use DRM.
What would happen if something as culturally significant as the Bible or other work of a similar level were created and controlled by a DRM system.
What about music? Look at classical music - certainly some of the music created today would be listened to years in the future. But if it is controlled by a "lockdown" method like DRM how are we expected to listen to it?
I guess it boils down to two questions for me:
1. How do we(they?) determine what is culturally significant? Hindsight is 20/20, but we have no way of determining what media are going to be significant at the outset. In other words, we have no way of determining what is culturally significant when it is created.
2. How do we preserve information for the future? It's been stated before, but I'll repeat it - we're in a dangerous period(historically speaking), with most of our information being stored in manners that may not be retrievable in 30 years time, let alone 1,000 or more.
The RUF system is a great concept! I think that it should be brought to the attention of many major cities - if multiple cities could agree on a system like this It could produce a very efficient transportation system for the entire nation.
Hm... Sounds like time to start playing with prototypes:)
What about the space elevator? I think that it is a really good idea, and there have been some very interesting(and detailed) studies of the feasibility.
The site already does a two tiered approach, so it would be 50X pages currently. I just wanted to provide a couple of extra checks, as well as a performance estimate for user statistics. The drop from 50X to 33X is not nearly as great as the drop from 100X to 33X, although it is still significant.;)
Having a setup like I proposed makes it very difficult for a purposefully mangled page to get through.
First of all, you do not get to choose the page that you do, just the book - so you couldn't reference a particular page.
Second of all, with my proposed quality rating you couldn't do that. Sure, the first string proofer could screw up the page, but once one first string proofer finishes it, only second-string proofers can work on it. In my proposal the only people that would get their quality level adjusted would be the first string proofers. In other words, sure you could use your second account to fix what you screwed up in the first, but your second account's quality wouldn't be increased, and your first account's quality would be decreased.
Perhaps a cutoff to not allow proofing once a person is below Quality 0.80 or so would be in order.
The link you posted (to fogcreek.com) does have some good statements about user metrics. Keep in mind that this is a community effort, so there is no HR department to worry about.
I was attempting to give users something that they could boast about (I have a Quality rating of 5.06!) that would encourage higher quality work, not just faster work.
This a great project... But after doing my first page I found a couple of possible enhancements.
Add a "Quality" stat for each person. Base it on the number of things that were missed(another words, the number of things that the second-string proofer finds).
Use more than just two proofers. Have one "First String" proofer, who could be anybody, but have two second string proofers (who both get the output of the first string proofer). If the second string proofers have any differences in their output(with the exception of white space), then another second string proofer should be used. Only proofers with a certain quality rating(slightly higher than what a newbie's would be) should be able to do the second string proofing.
The "User rating" should be a combination of the number of pages done and the quality rating of those pages. Note that quality rating would only be increased by doing first string proofing. Page count would go up for any proofing.
Quality could be a float, starting at 1.0 for newbies. Every page that is completed and has a second-string person check would then go into a calculation like:
Thus, for every page proofed that requires NO corrections by the second string the user's quality would go up by 0.01. ( 0.01 - 0/1000 = 0.01 )
if there were more than ten errors in the proofing, their quality would go down ( 0.01 - 10/1000 = 0.00 ), (0.01 - 20/1000 = -0.01)
Have a threshold of 1.10 or some such for second string proofers... That way it would require the user to do at least 10 perfect pages, or 20 pages with 5 errors, etc, before they could do the second string proofing.
Obviously, make sure that the second string proofer can't see who the first string proofer is.
The "User Rating" (mentioned above) could just be a multiplication of the Quality and Page Counts...
Slashdot Mirror
So make "dual mode"(ok, bad term, sorry) phones that will vibrate, but automatically transfers the call into voicemail - where there is _no_ option to answer it. Have this Pager-Like option enabled by a low power transmitter located in the building.
That way the user could still have their phone and still be alerted that there is a phone call, but they wouldn't have to make any sound and could then walk out into a "Cell OK" area, listen to the message and call the person back.
Ok, if they're going to be tracking me, I want to be able to track them.
It's their decision, either share their location information with me, or don't try to track me.
"Can you hear me now?"
[Insert your favorite bash to blame for this here]
I misread that as:
"[Insert your favorite Bush to blame for this here]"
oops.
Personally, I'd rather see the ISS boosted up to geostationary orbit (a herculean task, I realize) and used as a staging area for construction of a space elevator. That way some good might come of that orbiting albatross.
Great idea. I wonder how much more quickly a space elevator could be manufactured with that additional weight in orbit.
Could they modify some/most of the area in the ISS to produce the carbon nanotubes necissary for the cable?
Brings whole new meaning to "Smoking the processor"!
OOps, you are correct. Sorry about that.
First make sure that they are comfortable users, then worry about the Power User status.
The age group you are speaking of tends to be low on the wisdom scale, so I think that it may be a VERY good idea that you get the parent's permission to give them the CD, or even better, introduce them to Linux via something like Gentoo linux, where you simply need to boot off the CD and the Hard Drive isn't touched at all.
Using something like Gentoo eliminates the "Do they need to know how to install" question. I would include a few page document of "Linux options" with information on where to get different flavors, as well as cautions and howtos on installing them.
I think that understanding of the GUI would be more valuable initially.
And most importantly, teach them where to find information. Don't just say "do this, then do this". Say something like "There is a HOWTO here, read it and I'll help you if you get stuck".
Teach them what they need to know in order to teach others to be comfortable using(not administering) an alternative OS
Unfortunately, these aren't highly technical places, but they are unique and fascinating.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) has a list of 730 sites around the world that they qualify as "World Heritage Sites" - sites that are one of a kind culturally significant locations. Things ranging from The Statue of Liberty to Ancient Thebes, and lots of others. I'm sure many of the items listed in this slashdot discussion will also show up on the list. (The Great Wall of China is there too)
I try to visit at least one UNESCO World Heritage site on every trip I take. Many of the sites are fascinating for their architecture as well as their cultural significance.
The Great Wall is truly an impressive feat, and walking on it is quite fascinating/exhilirating/impressive. I would definitely go back.
My only concern (and the reason that I have not visited Machu Picchu) is that a lot of the tourism is damaging the site(s), and very little of the money is going to preserving them. It's a real shame that these things last hundreds or thousands of years just for us to take a trinket home and destroy them.
Hey, what's that one that keeps wandering around that street corner...
Sure, it may be no great loss to us if the Spiderman movie isn't able to be viewed in the future, but the Spiderman movie isn't the only thing that will use DRM.
What would happen if something as culturally significant as the Bible or other work of a similar level were created and controlled by a DRM system.
What about music? Look at classical music - certainly some of the music created today would be listened to years in the future. But if it is controlled by a "lockdown" method like DRM how are we expected to listen to it?
I guess it boils down to two questions for me:
1. How do we(they?) determine what is culturally significant? Hindsight is 20/20, but we have no way of determining what media are going to be significant at the outset. In other words, we have no way of determining what is culturally significant when it is created.
2. How do we preserve information for the future? It's been stated before, but I'll repeat it - we're in a dangerous period(historically speaking), with most of our information being stored in manners that may not be retrievable in 30 years time, let alone 1,000 or more.
*gets off soapbox* err, sorry.
At least it wasn't:
404: Maglev not found
What an unfortunate acronym...
RIAA: Rural Internet Access Authority
Wonder how the RIAA feels about it...
The RUF system is a great concept! I think that it should be brought to the attention of many major cities - if multiple cities could agree on a system like this It could produce a very efficient transportation system for the entire nation.
:)
Hm... Sounds like time to start playing with prototypes
Arg, "two" buttons ;) I should stop reading slashdot, my spelling would improve!
What about the space elevator? I think that it is a really good idea, and there have been some very interesting(and detailed) studies of the feasibility.
Previous Articles:
Space Elevators: Low Cost Ticket to GEO?
More on Space Elevators
Going Up?
Calling the Space Elevator
Space Elevator May Become Reality - The Linked Study(PDF) Was fascinating.
Space Elevator Could Cost Less Than You Thought
Stepping Closer To The Space Elevator
I want to walk into an elevator some day and see too buttons - "G" and "O".
Thank you.
:)
;)
Good tagline
I tend to come up with way too many ideas/enhancements whenever I do something... Feature Creap is my greatest issue when writing software
The site already does a two tiered approach, so it would be 50X pages currently. I just wanted to provide a couple of extra checks, as well as a performance estimate for user statistics. The drop from 50X to 33X is not nearly as great as the drop from 100X to 33X, although it is still significant. ;)
Having a setup like I proposed makes it very difficult for a purposefully mangled page to get through.
First of all, you do not get to choose the page that you do, just the book - so you couldn't reference a particular page.
Second of all, with my proposed quality rating you couldn't do that. Sure, the first string proofer could screw up the page, but once one first string proofer finishes it, only second-string proofers can work on it. In my proposal the only people that would get their quality level adjusted would be the first string proofers. In other words, sure you could use your second account to fix what you screwed up in the first, but your second account's quality wouldn't be increased, and your first account's quality would be decreased.
Perhaps a cutoff to not allow proofing once a person is below Quality 0.80 or so would be in order.
The link you posted (to fogcreek.com) does have some good statements about user metrics. Keep in mind that this is a community effort, so there is no HR department to worry about.
I was attempting to give users something that they could boast about (I have a Quality rating of 5.06!) that would encourage higher quality work, not just faster work.
This a great project... But after doing my first page I found a couple of possible enhancements.
r oof_ / 1000))
Add a "Quality" stat for each person. Base it on the number of things that were missed(another words, the number of things that the second-string proofer finds).
Use more than just two proofers. Have one "First String" proofer, who could be anybody, but have two second string proofers (who both get the output of the first string proofer). If the second string proofers have any differences in their output(with the exception of white space), then another second string proofer should be used. Only proofers with a certain quality rating(slightly higher than what a newbie's would be) should be able to do the second string proofing.
The "User rating" should be a combination of the number of pages done and the quality rating of those pages. Note that quality rating would only be increased by doing first string proofing. Page count would go up for any proofing.
Quality could be a float, starting at 1.0 for newbies. Every page that is completed and has a second-string person check would then go into a calculation like:
_new_quality_ = _old_quality_ + (0.01 - (_num_differences_between_their_proof_and_final_p
Thus, for every page proofed that requires NO corrections by the second string the user's quality would go up by 0.01. ( 0.01 - 0/1000 = 0.01 )
if there were more than ten errors in the proofing, their quality would go down ( 0.01 - 10/1000 = 0.00 ), (0.01 - 20/1000 = -0.01)
Have a threshold of 1.10 or some such for second string proofers... That way it would require the user to do at least 10 perfect pages, or 20 pages with 5 errors, etc, before they could do the second string proofing.
Obviously, make sure that the second string proofer can't see who the first string proofer is.
The "User Rating" (mentioned above) could just be a multiplication of the Quality and Page Counts...
And Duct Tape. You can't forget the Duct Tape.
Does anyone else find it appropriate that microsoft is using a bug as the icon for their new promotion?
Right, and Linux has a round flightless bird...
Couldn't we just take a look at the differences in the source and figure out what was changed?
Oh, wait, Reverse Engineering is violating the DMCA too...
That's ok, my commission will be going to Kazza anyway...