It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible...
Beware the scientist who refuses to accept the possibility of something based on the fact that it is not known. Such people have lost their soul. They have lost their sense of wonder at the miracles of the Universe. They have lost their drive to discover new things.
All great advances come from people who challenge, question and subvert "what we know about the physical Universe". If it wasn't for them we'd still be living in the 'fertile crescent', eating berries and rodents. We would have never gone to the moon, gone to the air, gone to the Western Hemisphere, made tools or intentionally lit a fire.
"Here there be Dragons!" "The world is flat!" "Heavier-than-air craft will never fly!"
Such thinking makes me question the existence of intelligent life on Earth... 'It goes against what we believe to be true, therefore it's impossible'. What a depressing and embarassing attitude for a 'scientist' to have... Pity.
Anti-gravity may not pan out. It seems pretty far fetched. But wouldn't it be wonderous if it worked?? Same with super-luminar velocity travel. Yeah, it's impossible given what we know. Maybe we just need to learn a little more, that's all.
The QUALITY of commercialized Western television is HUGELY inferior to the QUALITY of the Communist propaganda spewing idiot-box...
Yeah, you couldn't rely for a second on the accuracy or impartiality of the news reports, and most movies were thematically slanted towards the 'party line', but the QUALITY of the content was exceptional.
Arts and Sciences were much better represented then they are in the US. Kids would actually get value out of television, not just a brain-numbing babysitter.
The QUALITY of Eastern Bloc TV was pretty much parallel with that of the BBC. State control meant that you didn't produce sterlie and politically correct crap that people would watch addictively (like soap operas, Springer, Rikki and other drivvel) where you could then plant commercial messages in their stupefied, hypnotized little minds. The priority WAS on delivering something that would add intellectual value for people who were repressed, opressed and frustrated. Make them think about things other than taking up arms against their government. Keep the inferior feeling inferior, and keep the intelligent occupied.
Eastern Bloc and the BBC TV are/were much more valuable to the thinking mind than the crap that US commercial TV pumps out on 500 channels 24x7.
There's little in Linux to keep application level viruses, like those enabled by Microsoft Innovations and intra-application macro languages, to pummel their users work.
Open source kills bugs DEAD! But folks who insist on distributing compiled versions of their code apparently do not want the advantage of infinitelly shallow bugs, and virus protection to boot.
The article points out that access protection keeps a virus confined within the user(s) that initially bring it onto the system. As Linux becomes more and more popular, new users running as root will multiply, making the installed Linux base more prone to virus infection from compiled wizz-bang apps that newbies will download.
New users may run as root because they don't know any better. They don't have to learn about access protection, chmod, or other UNIX complexity. rm -rf works and there's no doubt, when you run as root.
Slightly less than new users run as root for the illusion of competency. This is where the danger lies. Arrogance is harmful until you have the experience to ack it up. Then it becomes confidence, and pride no longer requires running as root always, just to tweak a config file sometimes.
For the record, Linux DOES suffer from one virus. GPL.;)
I don't think that this is definitive of the 'spirit' of UNIX, but the idea of treating all things as files is a characteristic shared by all UNICES.
/etc/passwd is a file. /dev/null is a file. a socket is a file.
All things are interacted with in the same manner, and this consistent abstraction, along with a common API and tool set, are what makes it easier to go from one flavor to another.
I don't think any OS, except maybe MULTICS (don't know it) which is UNIXes daddy, did this before.
I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make. How much does an artist get from that 18$ anyway?
Excellent point.
Remember Apartheid in South Africa? Remember Bishop Tutu's pleas to the West from his cell? Tutu asked for sanctions to be imposed, severe economic sanctions. The S. African government said that this would hurt the population, which was already starving.
Tutu rebutted that the poor black majority never see any humanitarian aid money since it's all embezzeled (sp?), so imposing sanctions would only hurt those few who are in control of segreggation and repression.
How's this on-topic? Well, how much of that $18 dollars goes to the starving artists? Pennies! The rest goes to the RIAA execs, LAWYERS, paper pushers and agents, managers.
We see musicians in fast cars, LearJets, penthouses... These are mostly Recording Studio property, given to the artists for use while under contract.
You have a valid point about car ownership. Buddies get together to drink, and the one able to stand takes the wheel of his innebriated friend's car. It happens often. There's no easy answer, and making it too hard for the drunk driver will restrict the life of non-drinking drivers as well. I don't want to breathe in a tube every time I need to run to the store. That said...
As for the murder aspect, if you are able to think clearly enough to bypass the breathalyser, then you are aware enough to wait until IT tells you that you are sober. Intent to endanger others is clear to me here, and intentionally causing death is 2nd degree murder.
As with my baloon of clear air example, this is something that would have to be premeditated. Premeditation is what makes it murder in the 1st degree. If you're already drunk, and get a sober person to start the car, then they're an accomplice.
The only thing left out is the killing of a SPECIFIC person. This makes it harder to call it murder. Would you then settle for willfull and premeditated intent to endanger, resulting in homicide? Up the fine/penalty to the levels of murder and I'll sign off on it.
I rather like this since if a person is pulled over as DUI, then either the breathalyser failed (provable) or they (or an accomplice) bypassed it. Premeditated intent to endanger for both parties involved.
Now, let's throw a biometric device like a retina scanner into the mix, making it hard to fake the test, and we might have a workable system. We're heading towards key-less cars as it is, so this is not as far-fetched as it first appears.
I wish I could remember the link, but... There is a device that can be installed in your car, wired to the ignition, which requires you to breathe into a little tube an show an acceptable BAC (blood alcohol content) before the car starts.
Yes, this device can be circumvented - keep a baloon on hand and inflate it before you start drinking. But, if this device was mandatory for anyone who has ever been stopped for DUI, and bypassing the device guaranteed a charge of Murder as opposed to manslaughter, in the event of a DUI death; well... It might be enough of a deterent and inconvenience to stop MOST drunk drivers.
I don't think MOST drunk drivers out there mean to drive drunk. I think that MOST are hyped up by the booze, are overconfident and impared just enough to blame it on 'being tired'. These folks need a reality check, and this device would provide that.
The fall-down, "can't get the key in the lock", "how did I get home" kind of drunk driver is a different matter entirely. These guys are somewhere between sociopathic (you're drunk, you know it, you don't care) and mentally disturbed (you've had enough to kill a horse, but it hasn't fazed you - you have your own reality). There little solution to this.
Most people mean well. They're unable to assess impairment, as you've pointed out. You are right, alcohol tends to mask the extent of it's effect. The solution is to err on the side of safety. If you've been drinking, and (being a well-meaning, intelligent person) have to think about your level of impairment, then you are too impaired to drive. But, at this rate, you'll never drive until morning, because there's a fine line between impaired and simply tired.
The "one hour per dose" rule is a good one. One beer, shot or glass of wine is typically metabolized in one hour by a light-weight drinker like myself. Wait the right number of hours. Entertain yourself by figuring out the alcohol's 'half-life' as it is consumed over time. But sit on your rump for the full number of hours.
Let me first say that I'm sure to get whipped for this unconventional point of view but...
Napster has nothing to do with it. Napster is the UZI and the AK-45 when compared to the front-loaded musket of cassette tapes. The whole concept of copy-able music is wrong, and it all hurts artists who are looking to make money on economies of scale.
There are two types of art: Static and Dynamic.
Static art is a painting or a sculpture or an architectural work. It is something people have to go to see, and something they're willing to pay admission for. It is something that can not effectively be copied, because even though everyone can have a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta in their back yard, there is only ONE ORIGINAL.
Dynamic art is fleeting and temporal. It is a performance. It is ACTUALLY BEING THERE when Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear. Everyone has, by now, been able to see a replay, but seeing it live - or AS IT HAPPENED is where the value is.
Selling copies of reruns of sterile performance is somehow abhorent to me. I don't have Napster, I only have a couple of MP3 files (of my girlfriend's brother's music - he's pretty good) and I have bought, or received as gifts, all my CDs. But when an artist whines and complains about being hurt by piracy, I feel no pity.
It's like selling software, really. If you write it once, and perform it once, and it can be copied ad-nauseum without you ever again lifting a finger... Why should you keep getting royalties??
These 'artists' need to take a lesson from the Grateful Dead. I'm ambivalent towards their music, but I respect their attitude about it.
Music should be free. It is a result of a persons point of view on reality, and their willingness/need to share that view with the world. Having people give you money for your opinions, or perspectives on the Universe, is a compliment, not a right.
Everyone has bills to pay, and everyone needs to eat. But how much MORE than that? Perform. Make it a unique experience each time, and people will flock to see what you will do next time. They will gladly compliment your work, and compensate you for your time.
But if all that had to happen to buy you that gold chain or that phat sports car, was that some recording engineer monkey pushed REC, and the machine spit out a thousand copies... What have you don't for me LATELY?
My girlfriend's sister went through a similar accident several years ago. Similar situation, drunk driver in a pick-up ran a light and hit her broadside. A few months before her high-school graduation, her life nearly ended.
She survived, and in time she got better. There is a scar on her thigh that she keeps as a reminder, and there are slight traces of the head trauma she suffered - a little slur when she speaks too quickly.
She graduated HS on schedule, thanks to aggressive rehab and the help and support of friends, family and classmates. She went on to college and finished on schedule, with a dual BS in Education and Spanish.
Things may hurt a lot now, and there is a lot of fear now. But, it WILL get better.
Jason, I have never seen your work and I do not know the person you are. But I know that you make a difference. Not only to your immediate circle and loving wife, but to a community spread the world over. I hope that the people whose lives you've touched let you know this, over and again.
As for those out there that have ever driven drunk... Fuck You! You may think you're in control enough to drive, but that sort of arrogance just shows how out of control you are. Think twice, then think again. The cost of a cab or a phone-call to a friend (or a cop; it's not a crime to be drunk, only to drive drunk; they will help you get home) is much less than that of a life (yours or that of someone else).
An optimizing compiler can not determine at compile-time which branches will be most often taken at run-time. This is what Dynamo seems to do.
If you think of control flow as a tree, Dynamo is doing run-time tree balancing, or twisting the code loops to shorten (or inline if you will) the paths most often enountered.
Then again, this is just my preliminary, first-read, interpretation. (no pun int)
Sidebar: Has anyone noticed that even when slashdot is doggy-slow, the ads pop up in not time flat, and then we get to stare at them while the rest of the page takes it's time loading?
See, the article was submitted to/., and the acknowledgement of it being read was a page fault of Internet proportions. This was a signal which, once received, made the existence of the referenced site irrelevant.
Slashdotting can be thought of as a form of communication. It's also the sincerest form of flattery on the Internet.
There's your answer. If it's an educational software, geared towards schools, it goes through 'distributors' and buyers and such... I bet it sells for HUGE bucks too...
I worked in a middle school for a couple of years as a LAN tech (yeah, 50+ workstations, 2 labs, Novell 3.xx - lucky brats.:) We played Doom and Descent after school, for hours.). The software that the school system was buying was horrible. Buggy, badly written, amateurish and terribly expensive. It's like buying Aspirin at a Hospital.
Now, if Lego was to retarget this software for public consumption, they'd sell MILLIONS at $39.95 at Fry's, E.B. and CompUSA.
Management and administration at NASA, and in the corporate arena, seem to share a flawed way of thinking. They estimate, budget and plan based on a 'best-case' scenario, and if things fall short, run late, or go over budget, it's the techies fault for 'not doing their job'... Do I sound bitter?
The technoids were very nervous about Challenger's last flight, but management pushed it through anyway. Cancelling the flight would have 'looked bad'. Well, seven people and a symbol of American and human ingenuity went up in smoke.
Thing is, poo-poo occurs, and you're much more likely to live up to expectations if you acknowledge that something invariably goes wrong. Risks must be mitigated and if you must err, err on the side of safety.
A common failing in software development is that corners MUST be cut to bring the project back on schedule and within budget. Doing this while the project is in progress usually means cutting down on the completion-work, like testing. This is why there's so much buggy software out there. Testing was scaled down to shorten schedules and reign in budgets.
Unfortunatelly, this tendency seems to have contaminated the ultimate think-tank in the world, NASA. You don't send a probe to a planet 6 to 18 months away, without testing your landing capability. And retesting, and retesting. Landing is sort of a crucial step, no?
Either it was an unavoidable failure, odd-ball happenstance and bad luck, OR someone didn't prioritize risks correctly, and should be working for Microsoft.
You're right, $180 mil is not cheap, not to us. But it's a drop in the bucket. Personally, I think NASA's bucket should be a lot bigger than it is, so corners like LANDING wouldn't have to get cut.
Reminds me of that quote from the movie Contact. "Why build one multi-billion dollar machine if you can have two for twice the price". Well, something to that effect at least.:)
You raise an excellent point though. With NASA's policy of cheaper, faster, better, they really ought (IMHO) to pelt the solar system with dozens, if not hundreds of probes. Guarantee misson success through redundancy. Gather data in parallel.
Obligatory/. wise-crack: Gee, I wonder when somone will build a Beowulf cluster of Mars Polar Landers??
Seriously though, cutting corners is good and fine, if you don't keep all the eggs in one basket. The NASA policy makers are doing the right thing by developing cheaper probes, but they still seem caught in the 'Cowboy Mentality' of the lone-star probe. Voyager and Gallileo and Pioneer were great, but the singular, focused effort belongs in HUMAN exploration.
You just CAN'T send dozens of people to Mars, and hope one makes it. But building a bunch of Yugo-sized, disposable probes... Seems common-sense.
As for the B-2, this enthusiasts page cites a $2.2 billion price tag, along with some interesting specs.
As the evilpenguin points out, the cost of the project was five percent of the construction costs of a B-2 bomber. Lessons have been learned. Public awareness has been raised. Imaginations of young childern have been sparked by the possibility.
Next time, for maybe a slightly higher cost (seven percent of a B-2), we will land on Mars. I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers this feat a more worthwhile goal than radar absorbing paint.
I mean, for God's sake, it would cost less money to put people on Mars than Titanic made in the theaters. Doesn't this bother anyone else? NASA needs a public support fund.
We're seeing the death of broadcast TV. Pay channels, only available through paid services like cable or satellite, are the future.
The cost of these channels is in the subscription. HBO does not run commercials. MTV does, because they're jerking off the RIAA to begin with, and would sell children for more money. Pay-to-view and Pay-per-view are where we're headed, and commercials are exactly what Rob said - bathroom breaks.
Personally I prefer pay-per-view, but it needs to come down to earth. I have a satellite dish, which costs too much. I don't watch it while at work, or while asleep, yet I pay for 24x7 availability. I'd prefer to pay for the fraction of time I actually have available for watching TV.
After some thought, I think that the elimination of commercials, the added flexibility of replay and slo-mo and stuff like that, is worth the price of disclosing my viewing habits to the service provider. Maybe then science, sci-fi, nature documentaries and shows I consider interesting would get more funding, JMS would get millions to bring Babylon 5 back, and ESPN and home shopping would drop dead.
Several years ago, I took an Organic Chemistry course. Very cool stuff..
One of the conclusions I came away with is pretty obvious: The more geometrically balanced a molecule is, the more stable it is. Typically, more stable molecules are also harder to create. Entropy tends to dictate lower energy structures.
Think of a water molecule. It has a positive dipole where the Oxygen sits, and a negative dipole where the hydrogen sits. The number of electrons in a bond, and the charges of the atoms involved dictate a certain geometry to the molecule.
A buckyball is pretty much spherical, composed of cyclohexane and cyclopentane (six and five-carbon rings) like a soccer ball. This is a very stable structure. It would take tremendous energy to break it. Contrast most other hydrocarbons, like octane, which are long chains of carbon, and are easily broken.
So using buckminsterfullerene to deliver Oxygen to charcoal is not going to work well. But, what it is being considered for is the encapsulation of radio-active isotopes for injection into the human body, for example. This way, a radioactive tracer is still useful, but keeps the bad stuff confined, and not bonding with other molecules.
As a side note, Arthur C. Clarke proposes that bucky-tubes (buckyballs, openned and connected with nanotubes - built up from individual atoms by nanites) could be used to make extremely long, extremely strong and extremely light cables for building an elevator to orbit.
And be sure to imply that Coca Cola puts it's corporate image and trademark above efforts to educate the public about the dangers of drugs.
You can't outright SAY that, but...
Hey, BTW, Beaver College is considering changing it's name due to the slang connotation.:) Totally random, I know, but the whole idea of slang is sort of resonating with me today.
Coke is a product of a process called coking, in which a coal is heated in a coking oven, out of contact with air, in order to drive off moisture an volatile matter.
Coke is the fused solid residue left when certain coals, pertoleum, or tar pitch are heated in an atmosphere excluding oxygen, so as to expel their volatile content. The process of thus decomposing these fuels into their gaseous and solid fractions is known as destructive distillation or carbonization.
Coke is, and has for a very long time been, used in metallurgical processes such as the preparation of steel from iron, and the creation of various alloys.
Add to this 'alternative' connotation the fact that the Original Coca-Cola was so named precisely because it was infused with the addictive essence of the coca plant, and you have the a very sad situation.
Coke is an engineering and fossil chemistry term. Coke is street slang for cocaine. Coca Cola was made with cocaine due to it's taste, mind altering effect and resultant 'captive market' of addicts. Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.
That Coca Cola is going after a site named (arguably) after the substance to which Coca Cola owes it's very existance, is laughable. The fact that Coca Cola is trying to leverage it's 'trademark' above the importance of a scientific and engineering term, is down-right scary!
It's like Nabisco trying to sue Apple (or better yet, NASA) over the word Newton.
"It's not a cookie Mother, Newtons are fruit and cake."
WRONG junior executive, Newtons are a unit of force!
We have a similar situation in my calculus class. 3 or 4 of us have TI-89s that will integrate or differentiate almost anything, which makes taking tests a matter of button pushing. I personally work everything out on pencil and paper and check myself with the calculator, but some don't.
I can't imagine a consciencious professor who would accept a mathematical or scientific solution in final result form. All professors I've ever had REQUIRED disclosure of complete work. We all know that, in the end, anyone who takes the above sort of 'short-cut' is shooting themselves in the foot.
But the ability to take examinations online with a full lap-top, opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities. In Calculus, what's to prevent someone from installing Mathematica? What's to stop someone from setting up a collaborative software, linked back to a room of better-informed friends?
Then again, most college professors are not stupid. Those that opt for open-media examinations set up the tests in such a way that digging for information is not the skill being tested. Creative writing under timed conditions, on an assigned topic, makes the internet pretty useless - since you haven't much time to search, you can't creatively plagerize - you MUST do your own work.
Ultimately, I think that this sort of testing is the way of the future. Facts and information are becoming trivially easy to locate - why force people to memorize it? Education is becoming more about understanding, and learning to manipulate the concepts, not the facts.
Sure, you need to know the basics, but how many of us in the 'working world' function without relying on reference books, the net and our collegues? Facts are easy to find, but if you don't know what to do with them, you sink.
As for the rich-poor gap... Bah! Computers are becoming dirt cheap, especially compared to the cost of education. The upcoming web-pads (a'la Crusoe) will sell for the cost of a schoolbook in a year or two. For this level of computation, cost is not going to be an issue for long. If you can afford college, you can afford the books, and the laptop (in a year or two mind you).
The online Universities, since they are by definition 'non-traditional' will not be able to offer "meaningful" degrees... There is a game involved in University education.
"Ah... so you graduated from Yale, eh?" means that you went through the process of 'ball-licking', and the frat-parties, and got the 'rounded education' that so often breaks a perfectly good 'in major' GPA.
The requirements that make us jump through hoops seem to somehow prove to employers that we're well rounded, and able to juggle conflicting responsibilities and such. Whatever all that means.
An online VR. U. that lets students choose their courses for a sum of credits, without requiring the English Lit and soft-science and history that, frankly, doesn't interest us much, will never be seen as anything other than a self-study course set, or a trade school.
They won't have the prestige of CMU, MIT, RPI or any other respected tech school, because they will not subject their students to the same rigors - both in terms of 'rouded' curricula AND the IRL politics that we have to play with professors and administrator.
Now, for the record, I believe in the value of a 'rounded' education. Hybrid knowledge is a good thing, and it makes for an interesting experience. But, having done it both ways, I can see the University process as a huge racket as well.
As for suggestions, I have two: 1. Smaller state schools tend to be more flexible than larger ones. My experience with CCSU is better than with UCONN. Better schedule, more aligned to the commuter population that also works for a living... The smaller schools are also a bit cheaper, and the professors are more sensitive to the fact that non-traditional students have lives. I've had the good fortune of classes that started as late as 8:00PM. The bulk of the CS curriculum was offered after 5pm. The down-side, well, it's not as good an education; more superficial - you have to supplement it yourself - and with work and kids and such, it's hard.
2. RPI is pushing real hard to be the premiere Distance Education University in the country. Large employers may be able to set up a conference room to allow tele-commuting to the Troy campus. I'm taking an experimental online class from home, via the net. This is a trend, and it will continue. Surf over to RPI.edu and see what you can find. Caveat, prestige co$t$. See if your employer might reimburse you via an educational assistance program.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bird!
:)
It's a plane!
It's, it's... Why, it's an anti-gravity donut stack delivery system. The future is looking good for law enforcement!
I like that java animation though. That's pretty cool. And probably the most technically impressive piece of the site.
It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible...
Beware the scientist who refuses to accept the possibility of something based on the fact that it is not known. Such people have lost their soul. They have lost their sense of wonder at the miracles of the Universe. They have lost their drive to discover new things.
All great advances come from people who challenge, question and subvert "what we know about the physical Universe". If it wasn't for them we'd still be living in the 'fertile crescent', eating berries and rodents. We would have never gone to the moon, gone to the air, gone to the Western Hemisphere, made tools or intentionally lit a fire.
"Here there be Dragons!" "The world is flat!" "Heavier-than-air craft will never fly!"
Such thinking makes me question the existence of intelligent life on Earth... 'It goes against what we believe to be true, therefore it's impossible'. What a depressing and embarassing attitude for a 'scientist' to have... Pity.
Anti-gravity may not pan out. It seems pretty far fetched. But wouldn't it be wonderous if it worked?? Same with super-luminar velocity travel. Yeah, it's impossible given what we know. Maybe we just need to learn a little more, that's all.
That's bloc, and what do you know of it?
The QUALITY of commercialized Western television is HUGELY inferior to the QUALITY of the Communist propaganda spewing idiot-box...
Yeah, you couldn't rely for a second on the accuracy or impartiality of the news reports, and most movies were thematically slanted towards the 'party line', but the QUALITY of the content was exceptional.
Arts and Sciences were much better represented then they are in the US. Kids would actually get value out of television, not just a brain-numbing babysitter.
The QUALITY of Eastern Bloc TV was pretty much parallel with that of the BBC. State control meant that you didn't produce sterlie and politically correct crap that people would watch addictively (like soap operas, Springer, Rikki and other drivvel) where you could then plant commercial messages in their stupefied, hypnotized little minds. The priority WAS on delivering something that would add intellectual value for people who were repressed, opressed and frustrated. Make them think about things other than taking up arms against their government. Keep the inferior feeling inferior, and keep the intelligent occupied.
Eastern Bloc and the BBC TV are/were much more valuable to the thinking mind than the crap that US commercial TV pumps out on 500 channels 24x7.
There's little in Linux to keep application level viruses, like those enabled by Microsoft Innovations and intra-application macro languages, to pummel their users work.
;)
Open source kills bugs DEAD! But folks who insist on distributing compiled versions of their code apparently do not want the advantage of infinitelly shallow bugs, and virus protection to boot.
The article points out that access protection keeps a virus confined within the user(s) that initially bring it onto the system. As Linux becomes more and more popular, new users running as root will multiply, making the installed Linux base more prone to virus infection from compiled wizz-bang apps that newbies will download.
New users may run as root because they don't know any better. They don't have to learn about access protection, chmod, or other UNIX complexity.
rm -rf works and there's no doubt, when you run as root.
Slightly less than new users run as root for the illusion of competency. This is where the danger lies. Arrogance is harmful until you have the experience to ack it up. Then it becomes confidence, and pride no longer requires running as root always, just to tweak a config file sometimes.
For the record, Linux DOES suffer from one virus. GPL.
I don't think that this is definitive of the 'spirit' of UNIX, but the idea of treating all things as files is a characteristic shared by all UNICES.
/etc/passwd is a file.
/dev/null is a file.
a socket is a file.
All things are interacted with in the same manner, and this consistent abstraction, along with a common API and tool set, are what makes it easier to go from one flavor to another.
I don't think any OS, except maybe MULTICS (don't know it) which is UNIXes daddy, did this before.
I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make. How much does an artist get from that 18$ anyway?
Excellent point.
Remember Apartheid in South Africa? Remember Bishop Tutu's pleas to the West from his cell?
Tutu asked for sanctions to be imposed, severe economic sanctions. The S. African government said that this would hurt the population, which was already starving.
Tutu rebutted that the poor black majority never see any humanitarian aid money since it's all embezzeled (sp?), so imposing sanctions would only hurt those few who are in control of segreggation and repression.
How's this on-topic? Well, how much of that $18 dollars goes to the starving artists? Pennies! The rest goes to the RIAA execs, LAWYERS, paper pushers and agents, managers.
We see musicians in fast cars, LearJets, penthouses... These are mostly Recording Studio property, given to the artists for use while under contract.
Blah, blah, blah... Vent, vent, fume... Done.
You have a valid point about car ownership. Buddies get together to drink, and the one able to stand takes the wheel of his innebriated friend's car. It happens often. There's no easy answer, and making it too hard for the drunk driver will restrict the life of non-drinking drivers as well. I don't want to breathe in a tube every time I need to run to the store. That said...
As for the murder aspect, if you are able to think clearly enough to bypass the breathalyser, then you are aware enough to wait until IT tells you that you are sober. Intent to endanger others is clear to me here, and intentionally causing death is 2nd degree murder.
As with my baloon of clear air example, this is something that would have to be premeditated. Premeditation is what makes it murder in the 1st degree. If you're already drunk, and get a sober person to start the car, then they're an accomplice.
The only thing left out is the killing of a SPECIFIC person. This makes it harder to call it murder. Would you then settle for willfull and premeditated intent to endanger, resulting in homicide? Up the fine/penalty to the levels of murder and I'll sign off on it.
I rather like this since if a person is pulled over as DUI, then either the breathalyser failed (provable) or they (or an accomplice) bypassed it. Premeditated intent to endanger for both parties involved.
Now, let's throw a biometric device like a retina scanner into the mix, making it hard to fake the test, and we might have a workable system. We're heading towards key-less cars as it is, so this is not as far-fetched as it first appears.
I wish I could remember the link, but...
:)
There is a device that can be installed in your car, wired to the ignition, which requires you to breathe into a little tube an show an acceptable BAC (blood alcohol content) before the car starts.
Yes, this device can be circumvented - keep a baloon on hand and inflate it before you start drinking. But, if this device was mandatory for anyone who has ever been stopped for DUI, and bypassing the device guaranteed a charge of Murder as opposed to manslaughter, in the event of a DUI death; well... It might be enough of a deterent and inconvenience to stop MOST drunk drivers.
I don't think MOST drunk drivers out there mean to drive drunk. I think that MOST are hyped up by the booze, are overconfident and impared just enough to blame it on 'being tired'. These folks need a reality check, and this device would provide that.
The fall-down, "can't get the key in the lock", "how did I get home" kind of drunk driver is a different matter entirely. These guys are somewhere between sociopathic (you're drunk, you know it, you don't care) and mentally disturbed (you've had enough to kill a horse, but it hasn't fazed you - you have your own reality). There little solution to this.
Most people mean well. They're unable to assess impairment, as you've pointed out. You are right, alcohol tends to mask the extent of it's effect. The solution is to err on the side of safety. If you've been drinking, and (being a well-meaning, intelligent person) have to think about your level of impairment, then you are too impaired to drive. But, at this rate, you'll never drive until morning, because there's a fine line between impaired and simply tired.
The "one hour per dose" rule is a good one. One beer, shot or glass of wine is typically metabolized in one hour by a light-weight drinker like myself. Wait the right number of hours. Entertain yourself by figuring out the alcohol's 'half-life' as it is consumed over time. But sit on your rump for the full number of hours.
I've rambled long enough.
Let me first say that I'm sure to get whipped for this unconventional point of view but...
Napster has nothing to do with it. Napster is the UZI and the AK-45 when compared to the front-loaded musket of cassette tapes. The whole concept of copy-able music is wrong, and it all hurts artists who are looking to make money on economies of scale.
There are two types of art: Static and Dynamic.
Static art is a painting or a sculpture or an architectural work. It is something people have to go to see, and something they're willing to pay admission for. It is something that can not effectively be copied, because even though everyone can have a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta in their back yard, there is only ONE ORIGINAL.
Dynamic art is fleeting and temporal. It is a performance. It is ACTUALLY BEING THERE when Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear. Everyone has, by now, been able to see a replay, but seeing it live - or AS IT HAPPENED is where the value is.
Selling copies of reruns of sterile performance is somehow abhorent to me. I don't have Napster, I only have a couple of MP3 files (of my girlfriend's brother's music - he's pretty good) and I have bought, or received as gifts, all my CDs. But when an artist whines and complains about being hurt by piracy, I feel no pity.
It's like selling software, really. If you write it once, and perform it once, and it can be copied ad-nauseum without you ever again lifting a finger... Why should you keep getting royalties??
These 'artists' need to take a lesson from the Grateful Dead. I'm ambivalent towards their music, but I respect their attitude about it.
Music should be free. It is a result of a persons point of view on reality, and their willingness/need to share that view with the world. Having people give you money for your opinions, or perspectives on the Universe, is a compliment, not a right.
Everyone has bills to pay, and everyone needs to eat. But how much MORE than that? Perform. Make it a unique experience each time, and people will flock to see what you will do next time. They will gladly compliment your work, and compensate you for your time.
But if all that had to happen to buy you that gold chain or that phat sports car, was that some recording engineer monkey pushed REC, and the machine spit out a thousand copies... What have you don't for me LATELY?
My girlfriend's sister went through a similar accident several years ago. Similar situation, drunk driver in a pick-up ran a light and hit her broadside. A few months before her high-school graduation, her life nearly ended.
She survived, and in time she got better. There is a scar on her thigh that she keeps as a reminder, and there are slight traces of the head trauma she suffered - a little slur when she speaks too quickly.
She graduated HS on schedule, thanks to aggressive rehab and the help and support of friends, family and classmates. She went on to college and finished on schedule, with a dual BS in Education and Spanish.
Things may hurt a lot now, and there is a lot of fear now. But, it WILL get better.
Jason, I have never seen your work and I do not know the person you are. But I know that you make a difference. Not only to your immediate circle and loving wife, but to a community spread the world over. I hope that the people whose lives you've touched let you know this, over and again.
As for those out there that have ever driven drunk... Fuck You! You may think you're in control enough to drive, but that sort of arrogance just shows how out of control you are. Think twice, then think again. The cost of a cab or a phone-call to a friend (or a cop; it's not a crime to be drunk, only to drive drunk; they will help you get home) is much less than that of a life (yours or that of someone else).
An optimizing compiler can not determine at compile-time which branches will be most often taken at run-time. This is what Dynamo seems to do.
If you think of control flow as a tree, Dynamo is doing run-time tree balancing, or twisting the code loops to shorten (or inline if you will) the paths most often enountered.
Then again, this is just my preliminary, first-read, interpretation. (no pun int)
Sidebar: Has anyone noticed that even when slashdot is doggy-slow, the ads pop up in not time flat, and then we get to stare at them while the rest of the page takes it's time loading?
The original site is closed due to bandwidth quota restriction.
See alternate location.
No, it's not. Well, yeah, but that's the point.
/., and the acknowledgement of it being read was a page fault of Internet proportions. This was a signal which, once received, made the existence of the referenced site irrelevant.
See, the article was submitted to
Slashdotting can be thought of as a form of communication. It's also the sincerest form of flattery on the Internet.
There's your answer. If it's an educational software, geared towards schools, it goes through 'distributors' and buyers and such... I bet it sells for HUGE bucks too...
:) We played Doom and Descent after school, for hours.). The software that the school system was buying was horrible. Buggy, badly written, amateurish and terribly expensive. It's like buying Aspirin at a Hospital.
I worked in a middle school for a couple of years as a LAN tech (yeah, 50+ workstations, 2 labs, Novell 3.xx - lucky brats.
Now, if Lego was to retarget this software for public consumption, they'd sell MILLIONS at $39.95 at Fry's, E.B. and CompUSA.
Yeah, it was a shame.
Management and administration at NASA, and in the corporate arena, seem to share a flawed way of thinking. They estimate, budget and plan based on a 'best-case' scenario, and if things fall short, run late, or go over budget, it's the techies fault for 'not doing their job'... Do I sound bitter?
The technoids were very nervous about Challenger's last flight, but management pushed it through anyway. Cancelling the flight would have 'looked bad'. Well, seven people and a symbol of American and human ingenuity went up in smoke.
Thing is, poo-poo occurs, and you're much more likely to live up to expectations if you acknowledge that something invariably goes wrong. Risks must be mitigated and if you must err, err on the side of safety.
A common failing in software development is that corners MUST be cut to bring the project back on schedule and within budget. Doing this while the project is in progress usually means cutting down on the completion-work, like testing. This is why there's so much buggy software out there. Testing was scaled down to shorten schedules and reign in budgets.
Unfortunatelly, this tendency seems to have contaminated the ultimate think-tank in the world, NASA. You don't send a probe to a planet 6 to 18 months away, without testing your landing capability. And retesting, and retesting. Landing is sort of a crucial step, no?
Either it was an unavoidable failure, odd-ball happenstance and bad luck, OR someone didn't prioritize risks correctly, and should be working for Microsoft.
You're right, $180 mil is not cheap, not to us. But it's a drop in the bucket. Personally, I think NASA's bucket should be a lot bigger than it is, so corners like LANDING wouldn't have to get cut.
Reminds me of that quote from the movie Contact. "Why build one multi-billion dollar machine if you can have two for twice the price". Well, something to that effect at least. :)
/. wise-crack: Gee, I wonder when somone will build a Beowulf cluster of Mars Polar Landers??
You raise an excellent point though. With NASA's policy of cheaper, faster, better, they really ought (IMHO) to pelt the solar system with dozens, if not hundreds of probes. Guarantee misson success through redundancy. Gather data in parallel.
Obligatory
Seriously though, cutting corners is good and fine, if you don't keep all the eggs in one basket. The NASA policy makers are doing the right thing by developing cheaper probes, but they still seem caught in the 'Cowboy Mentality' of the lone-star probe. Voyager and Gallileo and Pioneer were great, but the singular, focused effort belongs in HUMAN exploration.
You just CAN'T send dozens of people to Mars, and hope one makes it. But building a bunch of Yugo-sized, disposable probes... Seems common-sense.
As for the B-2, this enthusiasts page cites a $2.2 billion price tag, along with some interesting specs.
As the evilpenguin points out, the cost of the project was five percent of the construction costs of a B-2 bomber. Lessons have been learned. Public awareness has been raised. Imaginations of young childern have been sparked by the possibility.
Next time, for maybe a slightly higher cost (seven percent of a B-2), we will land on Mars. I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers this feat a more worthwhile goal than radar absorbing paint.
I mean, for God's sake, it would cost less money to put people on Mars than Titanic made in the theaters. Doesn't this bother anyone else? NASA needs a public support fund.
So what's the HD in the thing? How big? How fast? IDE or SCSI?
Can I replace it with, oh, a massive RAID setup of 15krpm monsters in my basement to store a month of uncompressed video?
Can I access the HD as an HD? Say, with the intention of burning a DVD of that special event? Or archiving to DAT?
We're seeing the death of broadcast TV. Pay channels, only available through paid services like cable or satellite, are the future.
The cost of these channels is in the subscription. HBO does not run commercials. MTV does, because they're jerking off the RIAA to begin with, and would sell children for more money. Pay-to-view and Pay-per-view are where we're headed, and commercials are exactly what Rob said - bathroom breaks.
Personally I prefer pay-per-view, but it needs to come down to earth. I have a satellite dish, which costs too much. I don't watch it while at work, or while asleep, yet I pay for 24x7 availability. I'd prefer to pay for the fraction of time I actually have available for watching TV.
After some thought, I think that the elimination of commercials, the added flexibility of replay and slo-mo and stuff like that, is worth the price of disclosing my viewing habits to the service provider. Maybe then science, sci-fi, nature documentaries and shows I consider interesting would get more funding, JMS would get millions to bring Babylon 5 back, and ESPN and home shopping would drop dead.
Several years ago, I took an Organic Chemistry course. Very cool stuff..
One of the conclusions I came away with is pretty obvious: The more geometrically balanced a molecule is, the more stable it is. Typically, more stable molecules are also harder to create. Entropy tends to dictate lower energy structures.
Think of a water molecule. It has a positive dipole where the Oxygen sits, and a negative dipole where the hydrogen sits. The number of electrons in a bond, and the charges of the atoms involved dictate a certain geometry to the molecule.
A buckyball is pretty much spherical, composed of cyclohexane and cyclopentane (six and five-carbon rings) like a soccer ball. This is a very stable structure. It would take tremendous energy to break it. Contrast most other hydrocarbons, like octane, which are long chains of carbon, and are easily broken.
So using buckminsterfullerene to deliver Oxygen to charcoal is not going to work well. But, what it is being considered for is the encapsulation of radio-active isotopes for injection into the human body, for example. This way, a radioactive tracer is still useful, but keeps the bad stuff confined, and not bonding with other molecules.
As a side note, Arthur C. Clarke proposes that bucky-tubes (buckyballs, openned and connected with nanotubes - built up from individual atoms by nanites) could be used to make extremely long, extremely strong and extremely light cables for building an elevator to orbit.
And be sure to imply that Coca Cola puts it's corporate image and trademark above efforts to educate the public about the dangers of drugs.
:) Totally random, I know, but the whole idea of slang is sort of resonating with me today.
You can't outright SAY that, but...
Hey, BTW, Beaver College is considering changing it's name due to the slang connotation.
Coke is a product of a process called coking, in which a coal is heated in a coking oven, out of contact with air, in order to drive off moisture an volatile matter.
Coke is the fused solid residue left when certain coals, pertoleum, or tar pitch are heated in an atmosphere excluding oxygen, so as to expel their volatile content. The process of thus decomposing these fuels into their gaseous and solid fractions is known as destructive distillation or carbonization.
Coke is, and has for a very long time been, used in metallurgical processes such as the preparation of steel from iron, and the creation of various alloys.
Add to this 'alternative' connotation the fact that the Original Coca-Cola was so named precisely because it was infused with the addictive essence of the coca plant, and you have the a very sad situation.
Coke is an engineering and fossil chemistry term. Coke is street slang for cocaine. Coca Cola was made with cocaine due to it's taste, mind altering effect and resultant 'captive market' of addicts. Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.
That Coca Cola is going after a site named (arguably) after the substance to which Coca Cola owes it's very existance, is laughable. The fact that Coca Cola is trying to leverage it's 'trademark' above the importance of a scientific and engineering term, is down-right scary!
It's like Nabisco trying to sue Apple (or better yet, NASA) over the word Newton.
"It's not a cookie Mother, Newtons are fruit and cake."
WRONG junior executive, Newtons are a unit of force!
Common sense people, that's all we ask.
We have a similar situation in my calculus class. 3 or 4 of us have TI-89s that will integrate or differentiate almost anything, which makes taking tests a matter of button pushing. I personally work everything out on pencil and paper and check myself with the calculator, but some don't.
I can't imagine a consciencious professor who would accept a mathematical or scientific solution in final result form. All professors I've ever had REQUIRED disclosure of complete work. We all know that, in the end, anyone who takes the above sort of 'short-cut' is shooting themselves in the foot.
But the ability to take examinations online with a full lap-top, opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities. In Calculus, what's to prevent someone from installing Mathematica? What's to stop someone from setting up a collaborative software, linked back to a room of better-informed friends?
Then again, most college professors are not stupid. Those that opt for open-media examinations set up the tests in such a way that digging for information is not the skill being tested. Creative writing under timed conditions, on an assigned topic, makes the internet pretty useless - since you haven't much time to search, you can't creatively plagerize - you MUST do your own work.
Ultimately, I think that this sort of testing is the way of the future. Facts and information are becoming trivially easy to locate - why force people to memorize it? Education is becoming more about understanding, and learning to manipulate the concepts, not the facts.
Sure, you need to know the basics, but how many of us in the 'working world' function without relying on reference books, the net and our collegues? Facts are easy to find, but if you don't know what to do with them, you sink.
As for the rich-poor gap... Bah! Computers are becoming dirt cheap, especially compared to the cost of education. The upcoming web-pads (a'la Crusoe) will sell for the cost of a schoolbook in a year or two. For this level of computation, cost is not going to be an issue for long. If you can afford college, you can afford the books, and the laptop (in a year or two mind you).
Buy another disk.
This was a point I meant to make but didn't.
The online Universities, since they are by definition 'non-traditional' will not be able to offer "meaningful" degrees... There is a game involved in University education.
"Ah... so you graduated from Yale, eh?" means that you went through the process of 'ball-licking', and the frat-parties, and got the 'rounded education' that so often breaks a perfectly good 'in major' GPA.
The requirements that make us jump through hoops seem to somehow prove to employers that we're well rounded, and able to juggle conflicting responsibilities and such. Whatever all that means.
An online VR. U. that lets students choose their courses for a sum of credits, without requiring the English Lit and soft-science and history that, frankly, doesn't interest us much, will never be seen as anything other than a self-study course set, or a trade school.
They won't have the prestige of CMU, MIT, RPI or any other respected tech school, because they will not subject their students to the same rigors - both in terms of 'rouded' curricula AND the IRL politics that we have to play with professors and administrator.
Now, for the record, I believe in the value of a 'rounded' education. Hybrid knowledge is a good thing, and it makes for an interesting experience. But, having done it both ways, I can see the University process as a huge racket as well.
As for suggestions, I have two:
1. Smaller state schools tend to be more flexible than larger ones. My experience with CCSU is better than with UCONN. Better schedule, more aligned to the commuter population that also works for a living... The smaller schools are also a bit cheaper, and the professors are more sensitive to the fact that non-traditional students have lives. I've had the good fortune of classes that started as late as 8:00PM. The bulk of the CS curriculum was offered after 5pm. The down-side, well, it's not as good an education; more superficial - you have to supplement it yourself - and with work and kids and such, it's hard.
2. RPI is pushing real hard to be the premiere Distance Education University in the country. Large employers may be able to set up a conference room to allow tele-commuting to the Troy campus. I'm taking an experimental online class from home, via the net. This is a trend, and it will continue. Surf over to RPI.edu and see what you can find. Caveat, prestige co$t$. See if your employer might reimburse you via an educational assistance program.