The whole SETI project thus far has had to assume two things.
There are some ETs out there putting out a powerful "Hey we are here!" beacon or message, more powerful than anything Earth has ever broadcasted.
This signal is pointed directly at earth at least occasionally.
We have not looked for a signal less powerful or direct than this, because it would be expensive and difficult. SETI is having to travel the cheap and easy path.
I think SETI should be looking at the nearer stars, picking up stuff that sounds like white noise, and crunching real hard, looking for sync patterns and redundancy.
Its all white noise... Spread-spectrum is great for communication between two parties who already know each other is there, and know what form the communcation will be in, but it is not useful for signalling.
The real quandry in SETI is this:
On Earth, we have decided that it is cheaper and easier to look for signals from alien civilizations that it is to send out our own beacon. What if everyone else makes the same decision? The sky may be full of ears, but no mouths!
The problem with LiveJournal is that it leaves you too dependent on LiveJournal itself. If Blogger goes down I still have my page on my own site, and can post to it by hand. If LiveJournal goes down or closes up shop, then pfft! the page is gone.
Really, I'd like something I can have full control over, but it'd have to be CGI where I'm at. There just isn't a good, modern CGI solution that I can find. I fiddle around with writing my own, but I am inherently lazy and perpetually unfocused.
This is one of those books that I had to read half of, take a break for a month or two, then pick up and polish off. I liked it and everything, but by the end I think even Neal was tired of it, given the way he wrapped it up super-fast.
Probably not picked up because engaging in nancy-boy rumormongering is a half-decent way of finding out who is sleeping with whom, but a bad way to determine actual facts about concrete events that occured half way around the globe.
EA may not know how to run a "business" in the mom-and-pop sense. But they do know how to run a "business" in the steaming dungheap of post-80's American investment financing sense.
In order to meet their investors' hunger for immediate capital gains, companies must grow through predatory buy-outs, and they must shed niche market groups in pursuit of the amoebic "mass consumer" target. Since the mass consumer has no passion or focus, only the forces of marketing, branding, and shelf-space can be brought to bear in the conversion of product into gross profit.
Since today's investor intends to get rich today, buy a house with a 3-car garage and retire early to a life of travel and excess, rather than to retire at 65 and live comfortably from their investments, companies owned by these investors must pursue the high-entropy goal oc continual quarterly growth.
If I am going to be required to include links to an opposing viewpoint when I feel like ranting, what is to stop me from linking to the most ridiculous naturally-occuring strawman I can find?
Furthermore, what's with the.net? How is this any different than what has occured in physical groups such as political parties, or in books, periodicals, radio and television programs, churches, and etc. in the past?
Writing code takes man-hours. If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
As much a 133t c0d3rz talk about "flow" or "being in the zone", it is not that common, and the whole point of pair-coding is that supposedly people have been suprised in the past when under forced circumstances, pairing coders actually produced better results than keeping the coders seperate. For one, they spend less time on Slashdot, I'm sure.
Michael did not say it would take 20 years to calculate the cure, he said it will take 20 years for the patent taken out on the "philanthopically" calculated cure to expire.
Computing Faster Than Astronauts Can Run
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
NewsRelease
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199
Bill Uher
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
(757) 864-3189
For Release: March 26, 2001
RELEASE NO. 01-021
NASA Langley to test New Hyper Computer System
Computing Faster Than Astronauts Can Run
Via a Space Act Agreement, NASA Langley Research Center will receive a HAL (Hyper Algorithmic Logic)-15 Hypercomputer from Star Bridge Systems, Inc. of Midvale, Utah. The system will change the way we think about astonaut survival.
Taking up no more space than a standard desktop computer, the HAL-15 is the first of a new breed of high performance computer that can reconfigure itself hundreds or thousands of times a second. This makes it possible for multiple murderous thoughts to run at the same time on the same chips.
HAL is programmed graphically using the company?s proprietary programming language, VIVA. This language facilitates rapid custom software development by the system?s users.
NASA Langley is among the first in the world to get "hands on" experience with the new system. It will be implemented to explore:
-Solutions for structural, electromagnetic and fluid analysis
-Atmospheric science analysis
-Digital signal processing
-Lip reading
-Astronaut elimination
Future versions of the HAL technology are expected to include large, spooky wide-angle lensed "eyes" and a disturbingly uninflected voice output option. "We fully expect the HAL sytem to be capable of prolonged space missions and the massacre of crews of up to 4 astronauts within ten years," says an engineer from Star Bridge Systems.
He'd be trying to convice us that'd be so much better (for his profit margins) if we gave up on being individual humans and settled on being tapeworms in the gut of his overpriced "host humans".
Diablo II was in the pipe already when WCA was announced.
Blizzard didn't can WCA because of any other reason than the huge collective cry of NO! that rose up from the WarCraft fanbase. (Smart marketing 101: Given a fanbase in one genre, release the next sequel not only in a different genre, but in a genre that hasn't sold well since like 1993, duh...)
Whitespace is far more likely to be mangled by defective tools. And it's much harder to find mixed spaces and tabs because both are almost always invisible.
Don't use defective tools?
Don't mix spaces or tabs? Use an editor which differentiates between them?
If you can't do either of these, write a short script (in Python) which will reconcile your tabs into spaces or vice-versa.
If I record my own song "OhMyMommaDonna.mp3" can I sue Napster for hindering my distribution of it? Or how about my other hit song, "Madonna and her RIAA jackboots can suck my hairy sack.mp3" Keyword blocking is retarded and violates my free speech.
Not that I was looking for Madonna songs on Napster anyway. In fact maybe it'll be a little easier to look for the occasional odd thing like the Oompa Loompa song or "Baby Beluga".
Similarly, C programs will break if a mere parenthesis, curly bracket, quotation mark, etc. is misplaced or omitted. Yes Python treats spaces as signifigant characters, so? At least Python's indentation is WYSIWYG, whereas bad formatting can lead to misunderstood code in C and etc.
More like, if you're a supermegacorporation you don't even have to win in the court system, the legal fight itself will bankrupt and destroy your smaller competition.
I never liked the Bounty Quest approach anyway
on
One-Click Reprise
·
· Score: 3
From my point of view, all business-model and software patents are bad mojo on the face of it, and finding prior art for them is wrongheaded and simply plays into the "software patents are acceptable" mindset. Proving Amazons 1-Click Shopping is invalid due to prior art is only a way of saying that that prior art should have gotten the patent in the first place, which is just as bad.
Look no further than the April 2001 issue of Discover magazine. SUVs are not only much less safe than regular passenger cars in single-vehicle accidents, their design also promotes bad driving habits (driving too fast, turning too sharply) which can lead to increased risk of accidents occuring in the first place. Additionally, SUVs are certainly not safer for the people who are outside of them.
The allure is in proving to the bastards that there is no such thing as security through obscurity, and that there is no unhackable system. Once someone adopts that viewpoint, your argument that it "makes it much more difficult to hack things in the future" becomes moot.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole SETI project thus far has had to assume two things.
We have not looked for a signal less powerful or direct than this, because it would be expensive and difficult. SETI is having to travel the cheap and easy path.
Its all white noise... Spread-spectrum is great for communication between two parties who already know each other is there, and know what form the communcation will be in, but it is not useful for signalling.
The real quandry in SETI is this:
On Earth, we have decided that it is cheaper and easier to look for signals from alien civilizations that it is to send out our own beacon. What if everyone else makes the same decision? The sky may be full of ears, but no mouths!
The problem with LiveJournal is that it leaves you too dependent on LiveJournal itself. If Blogger goes down I still have my page on my own site, and can post to it by hand. If LiveJournal goes down or closes up shop, then pfft! the page is gone.
Really, I'd like something I can have full control over, but it'd have to be CGI where I'm at. There just isn't a good, modern CGI solution that I can find. I fiddle around with writing my own, but I am inherently lazy and perpetually unfocused.
This is one of those books that I had to read half of, take a break for a month or two, then pick up and polish off. I liked it and everything, but by the end I think even Neal was tired of it, given the way he wrapped it up super-fast.
Probably not picked up because engaging in nancy-boy rumormongering is a half-decent way of finding out who is sleeping with whom, but a bad way to determine actual facts about concrete events that occured half way around the globe.
EA may not know how to run a "business" in the mom-and-pop sense. But they do know how to run a "business" in the steaming dungheap of post-80's American investment financing sense.
In order to meet their investors' hunger for immediate capital gains, companies must grow through predatory buy-outs, and they must shed niche market groups in pursuit of the amoebic "mass consumer" target. Since the mass consumer has no passion or focus, only the forces of marketing, branding, and shelf-space can be brought to bear in the conversion of product into gross profit.
Since today's investor intends to get rich today, buy a house with a 3-car garage and retire early to a life of travel and excess, rather than to retire at 65 and live comfortably from their investments, companies owned by these investors must pursue the high-entropy goal oc continual quarterly growth.
If I am going to be required to include links to an opposing viewpoint when I feel like ranting, what is to stop me from linking to the most ridiculous naturally-occuring strawman I can find?
Furthermore, what's with the .net? How is this any different than what has occured in physical groups such as political parties, or in books, periodicals, radio and television programs, churches, and etc. in the past?
Writing code takes man-hours. If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
As much a 133t c0d3rz talk about "flow" or "being in the zone", it is not that common, and the whole point of pair-coding is that supposedly people have been suprised in the past when under forced circumstances, pairing coders actually produced better results than keeping the coders seperate. For one, they spend less time on Slashdot, I'm sure.
Michael did not say it would take 20 years to calculate the cure, he said it will take 20 years for the patent taken out on the "philanthopically" calculated cure to expire.
dumbass...
Wasn't this supposed to be posted on the 1st?
NewsRelease
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199
Bill Uher
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
(757) 864-3189
For Release: March 26, 2001
RELEASE NO. 01-021
NASA Langley to test New Hyper Computer System
Computing Faster Than Astronauts Can Run
Via a Space Act Agreement, NASA Langley Research Center will receive a HAL (Hyper Algorithmic Logic)-15 Hypercomputer from Star Bridge Systems, Inc. of Midvale, Utah. The system will change the way we think about astonaut survival.
Taking up no more space than a standard desktop computer, the HAL-15 is the first of a new breed of high performance computer that can reconfigure itself hundreds or thousands of times a second. This makes it possible for multiple murderous thoughts to run at the same time on the same chips.
HAL is programmed graphically using the company?s proprietary programming language, VIVA. This language facilitates rapid custom software development by the system?s users.
NASA Langley is among the first in the world to get "hands on" experience with the new system. It will be implemented to explore:
-Solutions for structural, electromagnetic and fluid analysis
-Atmospheric science analysis
-Digital signal processing
-Lip reading
-Astronaut elimination
Future versions of the HAL technology are expected to include large, spooky wide-angle lensed "eyes" and a disturbingly uninflected voice output option. "We fully expect the HAL sytem to be capable of prolonged space missions and the massacre of crews of up to 4 astronauts within ten years," says an engineer from Star Bridge Systems.
It's not another abstraction layer, it is a different implementation of the same abstraction layer.
I do not know about the other games which I don't have, but Starcraft has already been working in Wine for a while before Transgaming came around.
He'd be trying to convice us that'd be so much better (for his profit margins) if we gave up on being individual humans and settled on being tapeworms in the gut of his overpriced "host humans".
This whole thing is about in-store advertising. If it hurts retailers then its their own fault!
an american billion has always been a thousand million, britain and europe are just giving up and letting us have it our way
They need to be careful about poking holes all around the antarctic, as the ill-fated Miskatonic University expedition discovered.
anymore than rubber masks do. Somebody has to voice the character, right?
If you can't do either of these, write a short script (in Python) which will reconcile your tabs into spaces or vice-versa.
If I record my own song "OhMyMommaDonna.mp3" can I sue Napster for hindering my distribution of it? Or how about my other hit song, "Madonna and her RIAA jackboots can suck my hairy sack.mp3" Keyword blocking is retarded and violates my free speech.
Not that I was looking for Madonna songs on Napster anyway. In fact maybe it'll be a little easier to look for the occasional odd thing like the Oompa Loompa song or "Baby Beluga".
Similarly, C programs will break if a mere parenthesis, curly bracket, quotation mark, etc. is misplaced or omitted. Yes Python treats spaces as signifigant characters, so? At least Python's indentation is WYSIWYG, whereas bad formatting can lead to misunderstood code in C and etc.
More like, if you're a supermegacorporation you don't even have to win in the court system, the legal fight itself will bankrupt and destroy your smaller competition.
From my point of view, all business-model and software patents are bad mojo on the face of it, and finding prior art for them is wrongheaded and simply plays into the "software patents are acceptable" mindset. Proving Amazons 1-Click Shopping is invalid due to prior art is only a way of saying that that prior art should have gotten the patent in the first place, which is just as bad.
Look no further than the April 2001 issue of Discover magazine. SUVs are not only much less safe than regular passenger cars in single-vehicle accidents, their design also promotes bad driving habits (driving too fast, turning too sharply) which can lead to increased risk of accidents occuring in the first place. Additionally, SUVs are certainly not safer for the people who are outside of them.
The allure is in proving to the bastards that there is no such thing as security through obscurity, and that there is no unhackable system. Once someone adopts that viewpoint, your argument that it "makes it much more difficult to hack things in the future" becomes moot.