As with NASA's faster, cheaper, flatter missions, the lesson is: if you're going to spend the money to launch something, it had damn well better be worthwhile!
Re:LATE BREAKING NEWS! POSSIBLE MEMORY APPLICATION
on
Moldable Magnets
·
· Score: 2
COOL! Here's another application: I bet if you tuned some magnets to radiate at the right frequency, you might be able to heat food!
Cell phones have been suggested to cause tumors, not PROVEN.
And the EM field dangers are likely even more dubious. There's a great old episode of Frontline on how the research that spawned these fears is a spectacular example of flawed analysis.
The best line of the Frontline is when a more clueful scientist points out that outside of a few meters proximity the level of radiation coming from power lines is bupkus compared to that coming from the sun and earth:
"It's like your neighbor calling you up during a windstorm and saying 'Your cat is breathing on my tree.'"
"Last, but not least, this =may= be good news, in the longer-term. If people are buying NT in vast quantities, NOW, then they are unlikely to upgrade to Windows 2000 in a hurry. Too expensive to make that kind of move. These figures may, therefore, be good for Microsoft right now, but they might be killers for their sales, later."
I think Microsoft themselves have admitted that the vast installed base presents a problem -- they have to keep selling people stuff they already have.
As for the numbers being confusing -- indeed. What I'd like to see are the following:
Chart of OS unit sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us what was not said in the article: did the flat share for NT represent a cooling off? I expect that NT's share _had_ probably been growing steadily.
Chart of OS $ sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us whether NT has kept share by dropping prices (I think so, if I remember events of the past year correctly) or despite raising prices. We'd also be able to see the Linux $ growth more clearly, and see whether popularity = ability to command higher prices, which many suspect is not the case with commodity open-source.
Microsoft must be frustrated as hell: they spent all this money to get into the high-buck server OS market, only to arrive after Linux has turned it into the low-buck server OS market!
"Of course you could also book a flight with them and take the oppurtunity to pass out pamphlets on the flight."
The funny part about this is: who would be expected to confiscate the pamphlets if someone complained? The flight attendants! "Yeah, right, I'll get right on that..."
While I'm here, another poster mentioned the Minnesota bailout of Northwest. For the record, it was EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. No, that is not a typo. The reason they needed the cash was that Al Checchi and John Dasburg (and some other robber baron?) bought Northwest in a leveraged buyout, creating $4 billion in debt for a previously debt-free company.
As for the flight attendants, the end of the article, where the union says they basically capitulated to the search request, makes me wonder if the rank-and-file shouldn't decertify their union -- the Teamsters. Of course, they'd probably rather lose their jobs than their lives.
In a universe whose interactions respond to future conditions rather than past conditions, wouldn't the "future" conditions be experienced as the past?
The "cause" of gas diffusion in our time-forward universe is that at time 0 it was in some unlikely state (past boundary condition), and it migrated to a more likely state by time 1. In a time-reverse universe, the "cause" of gas un-diffusion would be that at time 1 it must be in some unlikely state (future boundary condition), so it will migrate there from some likely state at time 0.
But, being a time-reverse universe, the "cause" of the future condition will be an even-more-future condition, and so on, and so on. In such a universe, the "record" of time would be a record of future conditions. Since we define "past" time as time that we have experienced, i.e. that we have a record of, it seems to me that the time perception in a time-reversed universe would be precisely the same as our time-forward perception.
So, a universe where future conditions will "cause" natural phenomena IS a world where past conditions did "cause" natural phenomena.
That's the question that has always mattered: who gets to decide what is seen and not seen, and, perhaps more importantly, who leads the unknowing through the maze to particular sources of information?
If governments are the librarians, they will stock and lead us to propaganda.
If corporations are the librarians, they will stock and lead us to advertisements and products.
If individuals are their own librarians, however, they will stock and lead themselves to what they need to know.
Whatever else happens in boardrooms and courtrooms, the most essential capabilities of a free internet are those that allow us to be our own librarians, and to make unfettered use of the library:
the ability of anyone to publish (this requires global reach, uncontrolled hosting tools, and anonymity);
the ability of anyone to read (requiring global access, uncontrolled viewing tools, and anonymity);
the ability of anyone to guide others to the information you wish them to see (requiring global reach of indexes, uncontrolled indexing tools, and anonymity); and
the ability of anyone to be guided to information without bias (requiring access to global indexes, uncontrolled browsing and searching tools, and anonymity).
Governments and corporations can pass laws and make pitches about the internet, but whether the laws are obeyed and the sales are made depends on whether or not the abilities described above are maintained and improved.
Besides the obvious intent to offer all things desktop in Linux land, this acquisition has an extra level of intrigue in that Inprise is one of the very few companies besides Corel with significant revenues selling Windows corporate desktop software.
Is Corel also hoping to take a bigger piece of the post-DoJ Windows software market?
"We can give you two thousand pennies." Or something like that.
Seriously, though, I of course meant Free as in speech. But your point is still interesting. It is frankly amazing how close to gratis the whole thing really is.
But, I'd even dirty myself by paying money to USWorst for high-speed internet, but not $900 a month for a T1, ferchrissakes!
I suppose that's what happens when you have an inventory that increases in value over time -- you don't sell it for anything. I wonder if the telcos will ever see competition from wireless as a threat to their inventory's value. Imagine -- a whole new world of cheap bandwidth, freeing the mind and spirit for boundless creativity!!
Nah.
-- Theodoric of York, medieval phone company executive.
While most folks think of the portable computer as an easy interface to a networked world, and a link back to all the disparate machines you need to use (home PC, work PC, ISP, soon house and car), I think it could become the logical place for storing your personal info and serving up the apps you want the rest of the world to see.
That way, the various desks you encounter will be nothing more than generic ports for high-speed access, high-featured interfaces, and peripheral usage.
What I'd like to see would be for this model to make it possible for my personal server to be THE secure, authoritative source of data about me (not the marketeer's databases) and to be the primary way that the world's computers (my employer, stores, government, banks, etc.) interact with me. If it also made digital cash possible, that wouldn't hurt, either.
Mind you, storage and bandwidth of portables needs to advance greatly to make this real, but you asked for a vision...
No, really. Ford's insight was essentially the power of network effect: selling cheaply to millions beats selling expensively to thousands any day, and it guarantees a future market. Also, making a world where buying and using your products is the easiest thing in the world is great for the bottom line.
Besides proprietary software, other industries that could really use a Henry Ford:
Telcos -- you know, if we opened up all this unused capacity and stopped getting in people's way, everyone would buy it!
Record and Movie Studios -- you know, if we made digital distribution easy and stopped getting in people's way, our products would spread like wildfire of their own accord!
Airlines -- you know, if we made our pricing comprehensible, shared the market, and stopped treating passengers as cattle, we could run this place!
What the judge seems to be saying about the DMCA is this:
If a device is created for unauthorized *copying*, that's okay as long as there is ANY other legitimate use for it. (This, I believe, is how the Rio case was won.)
BUT...
If a device is created for unauthorized *access*, that's not okay EVEN IF there are other legitimate uses for it!
It seems like those who (thankfully) inserted the reverse-engineering, fair use, and interoperability exceptions into DMCA didn't cover all the bases.
Of course, I (or the judge) could be wrong about what DMCA says.
"Mr. Galelei, you can say whatever you want about the Earth revolving around the sun, but we can't let you distribute your code that proves it by simulating the Earth's motion."
The defense failed to raise another argument about the validity and applicability of DMCA: restrictions on interoperability can have antitrust implications when the restrictions favor a monopoly. Thus DMCA is in conflict with antitrust law or must be limited wrt measures taken to ensure interoperability.
This is especially nifty given Jackson's finding of monopoly status for Microsoft.
How much is that Congressman in the window? The one that likes to chase tail? How much is that DMCA-passing-Congressman in the window? I DO know that Congressmans's for sale!
If they were clear about the licenses, they might have to say something like "fair use entitles you to so-and-so". They'd rather not admit fair use exists, and have lobbied for the likes of DMCA to put it in a smaller and smaller box.
To echo another response to this post, the important part of your post is "and much like the recording and movie industries, the real artists don't make beans". That is what I think the MPAA and RIAA are trying to ensure -- that they maintain control of the *production* of content, to keep a monopoly position and to reduce costs. There's no way that a Hong Kong pirate shop or an internet rip site is going to compete with these guys in serious ways (and, yes, the maintenance of the perception that we are buying content, not media, is essential to making these competitors seem illegitimate). But, if independent musicians and filmmakers felt they could cheaply distribute their work, and not have to sign away their rights to the studios, that *would* threaten their monopoly.
Ironically, they try to defend themselves as protecting the artists!
Mind you, I think that, for all the reasons you mentioned, they are on balance still dumbasses.
Corel's life blood has been keeping up with the Windows API changes (although M$ shenanigans along these lines are always a problem), so what Wine does for them is allow them to use the code base of the Windows apps to quickly port to Linux.
I'm sure that Corel is as eager as you to see the day when their apps are Linux-native first, then get ported as an afterthought to the legacy MS OS. Until then, there's a purpose to Wine, namely being a stepping stone for Windows apps to Linux land.
I don't think the recent radiation findings undermine the belief that Europa's ocean is heated by tidal forces. Rather, I was wondering why this additional energy source was being touted as a necessary energy source for life. Or were the journalists misspeaking, and the radiation only helps explain exotic chemical reactions?
The transition from loss of privacy to impacting your life is a process:
1) Someone must gather information about you. The fourth amendment used to have some meaning here, but fear of crime, drugs, terrorism, Russians, not collecting taxes, etc. has given the government much more power to investigate, track, search, and seize. Also, passive surveillance in the name of safety, productivity, and marketing has become part of the landscape, online or not. We must assert the right to not be recorded or reviewed by *anyone* without our *uncoerced* permission or a warrant.
2) This information must have the potential of affecting how you live your life. Your phone number and email address don't really count. Your buying habits, credit history, social security number, salary, medical history, and day-to-day movements certainly do. We must assert our right to withhold information that is not required to do the business at hand.
3) Someone with the power to use the information to impact your life must obtain it. What is most infuriating is the literally hundreds of dollars paid for information about me, that is never paid to me, and worse, is paid to those who I entrust to keep it private (the state DMV, my bank, my credit card provider, etc.) We must assert our right to dictate how information about us is stored and distributed.
4) There must be an opportunity for the information-holder to wield their power. The ability of an employer to review credit history or medical history is rife with potential abuses, and irrelevant to a fair hiring decision. Similarly, if I'm not relying on them for financing, why should a car dealer or realtor or furniture sales clerk have access to my credit history? We must assert our right to decide who has access to our information.
5) The information must be wielded. The horror stories of identity theft, credit bureau errors, and discrimination demonstrate that great damage can be done to our lives for little reason, and without our even understanding why. We must also assert our right to challenge the information and the decisions that result.
Unfortunately, we are usually too unaware and apathetic to keep these rights from being abused.
Fortunately, some law does exist for each of these rights, but is spottily enforced, and often inadequate.
I'm not sure that there's anything to learn about the expected lifetime, as it seems to have just got lucky in terms of which electronics have or have not failed due to radiation, etc.
Although it does teach the lesson that if a probe can still talk, hear, see, and manuever, even in limited ways, it can still be extremely useful. The most shameful thing would be to end the mission prematurely because we didn't expect to spend this much time and money supporting it.
What I remember is the 2am "Neptune at Night" or some such thing that the local PBS station picked up. The first pictures of Triton were spectacular. Is there any such broadcast to be found for Galileo?
The longer-term plan mentions more trips to Io and Ganymede. What about Callisto? That news (of a possible ocean) seemed the most surprising.
Could the communications system be (ab)used as radar to check for a Europan ocean? Probably too weak and/or wrong frequency.
Is the Jovian radiation even necessary to provide energy for life on Europa? Wouldn't the ambient heat of the ocean water be enough, especially near the ocean floor, where the chemistry and geology would get most interesting? What would early indications of volcanism on Europa look like -- discoloration of surface ice?
What's ironic here is that the standard practice of government you just described is often frowned upon by corporations: it's "not invented here", so we don't touch it. And of course, I mean the very corporations that benefit from IP developed under government contract.
Slashdot Mirror
As with NASA's faster, cheaper, flatter missions, the lesson is: if you're going to spend the money to launch something, it had damn well better be worthwhile!
COOL! Here's another application: I bet if you tuned some magnets to radiate at the right frequency, you might be able to heat food!
Puhleeez!
Cell phones have been suggested to cause tumors, not PROVEN.
And the EM field dangers are likely even more dubious. There's a great old episode of Frontline on how the research that spawned these fears is a spectacular example of flawed analysis.
The best line of the Frontline is when a more clueful scientist points out that outside of a few meters proximity the level of radiation coming from power lines is bupkus compared to that coming from the sun and earth:
"It's like your neighbor calling you up during a windstorm and saying 'Your cat is breathing on my tree.'"
"Last, but not least, this =may= be good news, in the longer-term. If people are buying NT in vast quantities, NOW, then they are unlikely to upgrade to Windows 2000 in a hurry. Too expensive to make that kind of move. These figures may, therefore, be good for Microsoft right now, but they might be killers for their sales, later."
I think Microsoft themselves have admitted that the vast installed base presents a problem -- they have to keep selling people stuff they already have.
As for the numbers being confusing -- indeed. What I'd like to see are the following:
Chart of OS unit sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us what was not said in the article: did the flat share for NT represent a cooling off? I expect that NT's share _had_ probably been growing steadily.
Chart of OS $ sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us whether NT has kept share by dropping prices (I think so, if I remember events of the past year correctly) or despite raising prices. We'd also be able to see the Linux $ growth more clearly, and see whether popularity = ability to command higher prices, which many suspect is not the case with commodity open-source.
Microsoft must be frustrated as hell: they spent all this money to get into the high-buck server OS market, only to arrive after Linux has turned it into the low-buck server OS market!
"Of course you could also book a flight with them and take the oppurtunity to pass out pamphlets on the flight."
The funny part about this is: who would be expected to confiscate the pamphlets if someone complained? The flight attendants! "Yeah, right, I'll get right on that..."
While I'm here, another poster mentioned the Minnesota bailout of Northwest. For the record, it was EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. No, that is not a typo. The reason they needed the cash was that Al Checchi and John Dasburg (and some other robber baron?) bought Northwest in a leveraged buyout, creating $4 billion in debt for a previously debt-free company.
As for the flight attendants, the end of the article, where the union says they basically capitulated to the search request, makes me wonder if the rank-and-file shouldn't decertify their union -- the Teamsters. Of course, they'd probably rather lose their jobs than their lives.
What a mess.
In a universe whose interactions respond to future conditions rather than past conditions, wouldn't the "future" conditions be experienced as the past?
The "cause" of gas diffusion in our time-forward universe is that at time 0 it was in some unlikely state (past boundary condition), and it migrated to a more likely state by time 1. In a time-reverse universe, the "cause" of gas un-diffusion would be that at time 1 it must be in some unlikely state (future boundary condition), so it will migrate there from some likely state at time 0.
But, being a time-reverse universe, the "cause" of the future condition will be an even-more-future condition, and so on, and so on. In such a universe, the "record" of time would be a record of future conditions. Since we define "past" time as time that we have experienced, i.e. that we have a record of, it seems to me that the time perception in a time-reversed universe would be precisely the same as our time-forward perception.
So, a universe where future conditions will "cause" natural phenomena IS a world where past conditions did "cause" natural phenomena.
Correct or crazy?
Goodness, me, that was a spectacular post! Maybe someday I'll have moderator points with which to thank you properly.
Meanwhile, thank you.
That's the question that has always mattered: who gets to decide what is seen and not seen, and, perhaps more importantly, who leads the unknowing through the maze to particular sources of information?
If governments are the librarians, they will stock and lead us to propaganda.
If corporations are the librarians, they will stock and lead us to advertisements and products.
If individuals are their own librarians, however, they will stock and lead themselves to what they need to know.
Whatever else happens in boardrooms and courtrooms, the most essential capabilities of a free internet are those that allow us to be our own librarians, and to make unfettered use of the library:
the ability of anyone to publish (this requires global reach, uncontrolled hosting tools, and anonymity);
the ability of anyone to read (requiring global access, uncontrolled viewing tools, and anonymity);
the ability of anyone to guide others to the information you wish them to see (requiring global reach of indexes, uncontrolled indexing tools, and anonymity); and
the ability of anyone to be guided to information without bias (requiring access to global indexes, uncontrolled browsing and searching tools, and anonymity).
Governments and corporations can pass laws and make pitches about the internet, but whether the laws are obeyed and the sales are made depends on whether or not the abilities described above are maintained and improved.
Besides the obvious intent to offer all things desktop in Linux land, this acquisition has an extra level of intrigue in that Inprise is one of the very few companies besides Corel with significant revenues selling Windows corporate desktop software.
Is Corel also hoping to take a bigger piece of the post-DoJ Windows software market?
"We can give you two thousand pennies." Or something like that.
Seriously, though, I of course meant Free as in speech. But your point is still interesting. It is frankly amazing how close to gratis the whole thing really is.
But, I'd even dirty myself by paying money to USWorst for high-speed internet, but not $900 a month for a T1, ferchrissakes!
I suppose that's what happens when you have an inventory that increases in value over time -- you don't sell it for anything. I wonder if the telcos will ever see competition from wireless as a threat to their inventory's value. Imagine -- a whole new world of cheap bandwidth, freeing the mind and spirit for boundless creativity!!
Nah.
-- Theodoric of York, medieval phone company executive.
While most folks think of the portable computer as an easy interface to a networked world, and a link back to all the disparate machines you need to use (home PC, work PC, ISP, soon house and car), I think it could become the logical place for storing your personal info and serving up the apps you want the rest of the world to see.
That way, the various desks you encounter will be nothing more than generic ports for high-speed access, high-featured interfaces, and peripheral usage.
What I'd like to see would be for this model to make it possible for my personal server to be THE secure, authoritative source of data about me (not the marketeer's databases) and to be the primary way that the world's computers (my employer, stores, government, banks, etc.) interact with me. If it also made digital cash possible, that wouldn't hurt, either.
Mind you, storage and bandwidth of portables needs to advance greatly to make this real, but you asked for a vision...
No, really. Ford's insight was essentially the power of network effect: selling cheaply to millions beats selling expensively to thousands any day, and it guarantees a future market. Also, making a world where buying and using your products is the easiest thing in the world is great for the bottom line.
Besides proprietary software, other industries that could really use a Henry Ford:
Telcos -- you know, if we opened up all this unused capacity and stopped getting in people's way, everyone would buy it!
Record and Movie Studios -- you know, if we made digital distribution easy and stopped getting in people's way, our products would spread like wildfire of their own accord!
Airlines -- you know, if we made our pricing comprehensible, shared the market, and stopped treating passengers as cattle, we could run this place!
Why haven't more industries learned this lesson?
What the judge seems to be saying about the DMCA is this:
If a device is created for unauthorized *copying*, that's okay as long as there is ANY other legitimate use for it. (This, I believe, is how the Rio case was won.)
BUT...
If a device is created for unauthorized *access*, that's not okay EVEN IF there are other legitimate uses for it!
It seems like those who (thankfully) inserted the reverse-engineering, fair use, and interoperability exceptions into DMCA didn't cover all the bases.
Of course, I (or the judge) could be wrong about what DMCA says.
Your point on mathematics is essential here:
"Mr. Galelei, you can say whatever you want about the Earth revolving around the sun, but we can't let you distribute your code that proves it by simulating the Earth's motion."
Sounds like a political statement to me.
The defense failed to raise another argument about the validity and applicability of DMCA: restrictions on interoperability can have antitrust implications when the restrictions favor a monopoly. Thus DMCA is in conflict with antitrust law or must be limited wrt measures taken to ensure interoperability.
This is especially nifty given Jackson's finding of monopoly status for Microsoft.
How much is that Congressman in the window?
The one that likes to chase tail?
How much is that DMCA-passing-Congressman in the window?
I DO know that Congressmans's for sale!
Everybody!
If they were clear about the licenses, they might have to say something like "fair use entitles you to so-and-so". They'd rather not admit fair use exists, and have lobbied for the likes of DMCA to put it in a smaller and smaller box.
To echo another response to this post, the important part of your post is "and much like the recording and movie industries, the real artists don't make beans". That is what I think the MPAA and RIAA are trying to ensure -- that they maintain control of the *production* of content, to keep a monopoly position and to reduce costs. There's no way that a Hong Kong pirate shop or an internet rip site is going to compete with these guys in serious ways (and, yes, the maintenance of the perception that we are buying content, not media, is essential to making these competitors seem illegitimate). But, if independent musicians and filmmakers felt they could cheaply distribute their work, and not have to sign away their rights to the studios, that *would* threaten their monopoly.
Ironically, they try to defend themselves as protecting the artists!
Mind you, I think that, for all the reasons you mentioned, they are on balance still dumbasses.
Corel's life blood has been keeping up with the Windows API changes (although M$ shenanigans along these lines are always a problem), so what Wine does for them is allow them to use the code base of the Windows apps to quickly port to Linux.
I'm sure that Corel is as eager as you to see the day when their apps are Linux-native first, then get ported as an afterthought to the legacy MS OS. Until then, there's a purpose to Wine, namely being a stepping stone for Windows apps to Linux land.
I don't think the recent radiation findings undermine the belief that Europa's ocean is heated by tidal forces. Rather, I was wondering why this additional energy source was being touted as a necessary energy source for life. Or were the journalists misspeaking, and the radiation only helps explain exotic chemical reactions?
The transition from loss of privacy to impacting your life is a process:
1) Someone must gather information about you. The fourth amendment used to have some meaning here, but fear of crime, drugs, terrorism, Russians, not collecting taxes, etc. has given the government much more power to investigate, track, search, and seize. Also, passive surveillance in the name of safety, productivity, and marketing has become part of the landscape, online or not. We must assert the right to not be recorded or reviewed by *anyone* without our *uncoerced* permission or a warrant.
2) This information must have the potential of affecting how you live your life. Your phone number and email address don't really count. Your buying habits, credit history, social security number, salary, medical history, and day-to-day movements certainly do. We must assert our right to withhold information that is not required to do the business at hand.
3) Someone with the power to use the information to impact your life must obtain it. What is most infuriating is the literally hundreds of dollars paid for information about me, that is never paid to me, and worse, is paid to those who I entrust to keep it private (the state DMV, my bank, my credit card provider, etc.) We must assert our right to dictate how information about us is stored and distributed.
4) There must be an opportunity for the information-holder to wield their power. The ability of an employer to review credit history or medical history is rife with potential abuses, and irrelevant to a fair hiring decision. Similarly, if I'm not relying on them for financing, why should a car dealer or realtor or furniture sales clerk have access to my credit history? We must assert our right to decide who has access to our information.
5) The information must be wielded. The horror stories of identity theft, credit bureau errors, and discrimination demonstrate that great damage can be done to our lives for little reason, and without our even understanding why. We must also assert our right to challenge the information and the decisions that result.
Unfortunately, we are usually too unaware and apathetic to keep these rights from being abused.
Fortunately, some law does exist for each of these rights, but is spottily enforced, and often inadequate.
I'm not sure that there's anything to learn about the expected lifetime, as it seems to have just got lucky in terms of which electronics have or have not failed due to radiation, etc.
Although it does teach the lesson that if a probe can still talk, hear, see, and manuever, even in limited ways, it can still be extremely useful. The most shameful thing would be to end the mission prematurely because we didn't expect to spend this much time and money supporting it.
What I remember is the 2am "Neptune at Night" or some such thing that the local PBS station picked up. The first pictures of Triton were spectacular. Is there any such broadcast to be found for Galileo?
The longer-term plan mentions more trips to Io and Ganymede. What about Callisto? That news (of a possible ocean) seemed the most surprising.
Could the communications system be (ab)used as radar to check for a Europan ocean? Probably too weak and/or wrong frequency.
Is the Jovian radiation even necessary to provide energy for life on Europa? Wouldn't the ambient heat of the ocean water be enough, especially near the ocean floor, where the chemistry and geology would get most interesting? What would early indications of volcanism on Europa look like -- discoloration of surface ice?
Guesses are as welcome as informed responses.
One last question: is this thing on?
What's ironic here is that the standard practice of government you just described is often frowned upon by corporations: it's "not invented here", so we don't touch it. And of course, I mean the very corporations that benefit from IP developed under government contract.