Every time there's a story about 2001, we see two basic types of flame. The first is "What's so great about 10 minutes of flashing colors?" and the second is "2001 wasn't a prophesy. I want a vacation on a space station." I'm going to respond to the first in the same way I usually do. Deal with it. There's a fast-forward button. If you don't like the flashing colors, press the button.
The second point, however, I think deserves more explanation. Much like the people complaining about the colors, these individuals are being to literal. Clarke did not expect a HAL to come online in 1997. 2001 is not about technology. It's about how man interacts with his own creation. It's about the effects technology has on man - and the effects man has on technology. It is not a statement, but a question. Clarke does not say that we can fly to Jupiter. Rather, he asks what would happen if we were to. Would we even want to?
The monolith, as well, is not to be taken literally. It represents a tool - a tool with many uses and many consequences. It is a tool to which we cannot even begin to apply morality, for we do not know the users. So what do we do? We go in search of them. We begin a quest for answers to a question that seems to run parallel to us, only to discover that we and it are entwined. We cannot seek the monolith. The monolith has already sought us. We merely respond to its summon.
As far as the technology goes, Clarke was a visionary. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Clarke. The number of realized concepts he had far outnumber the outlandish ones. The most significant, of course, was the idea for the communications satellite. In some novels, Clarke simply chose to deviate somewhat from the realistic barriers of technology in order to make a point regarding technology's effects.
I could go on for some time, but I'll end it here. The point of all of this is simple. Don't be too literal. Take the time to understand a work before you announce your dislike of it. For those of you who haven't yet, I highly recommend reading the book.
On a side note I find it most amusing that 2001 was released on 42 day.
I'm sorry. I just noticed that I wrote "serialization" when I meant "parallelization" (which doesn't even come close to sounding like an actual word, but you know what I mean). Sorry for any confusion.
These things use Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA's) in order to restructure themselves dynamically. This, in and of itself, is not a new concept. FPGA's have been used for years in prototyping or in the first products released. It's much cheaper and easier to reprogram an FPGA if a bug is found than it is to create a new chip design. Once the bugs are gone, FPGA's are replaced by hard-wired silicon in the rest of the line.
Now on to using FPGA's in supercomputers. First of all, an FPGA is slower than a hard-wired chip. These machines pick up speed from the fact that they can use portions of the chip that otherwise would have been on standby. It's super-charged serialization. By restructuring the circuitry for each task, they can take advantage of the majority of the chip at all times. This is not an easy task, and I find it quite impressive. (On a side note, the restructuring is software-controlled.)
When I read this story, I immediately associated it with an article from several years back about Inman Harvey and Adrian Thompson. Thompson was using an FPGA to run genetic algorithms for hardware development. Essentially, make a machine design the chip. He had some very interesting results. The chip designs took advantage of the physical chip rather than just the wiring. They were incredibly efficient, but Thompson couldn't understand why they worked. (He suspected such things as electromagnetic coupling and communication through the power supply.) This is all only moderately related, but it's very interesting, regardless. The article is from June, 1998 and can be found here if anyone is interested.
I raise my glass to the sights and sounds of an era past. Man's triumphs and failures of the past 1000 years represent the work of a truly remarkable culture. May nothing stand between man's vision and its achievement. Godspeed.
Appropriately enough, Arthur C. Clarke said it best. "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible."
1000 more years have come and gone- and still, man knows nothing.
This article seems to contain a few contradictions. It seems a trite ironic that the US government is willing to admit that most of their machines run Microsoft software, yet they continue to take Microsoft to court. (Bite the hand that feed you, anyone?) If I recall, one of the recommendations made in the trial was to make Microsoft open source at least parts of their software. And yet, access to that source code constitutes a security risk. There is a slight contradiction here!
On another note, if we are ever to convince big-name organizations (ie. the US government) that Linux is a viable option, we can't exactly agree with the content of this report. If unwittingly revealed source code is bad, what is intentially released source code? They don't like code that may have been modified by one person, but we want to offer them an alternative in code that has been modified by hundreds of people. Somewhat humorously, the Linux community may have to defend Microsoft on this one.
By the way, you might want to fix that link.
Build it out of Buckytubes
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 2
I don't remember where, but I read an article a while about about buckytubes. The basic idea is a cylinder of carbon atoms with end caps in the shape of half of a buckyball. The interesting aspect is that creating them is relatively simple. Eventually, you end up with a pile of soot and some buckytubes. Well, they have enormous tensile strength and it had been suggested that they could be used in a space elevator (if they could be produced in large enough quantities).
On an interesting side note, Clarke had originally written about a space elevator connected to a tiny island, but I can't remember the book (it was before 3001). I do recall that the island was conveniently very similar to Sri Lanka (where Clarke lives) but moved south to make the physics work.
First of all, the entire story grew out of "The Sentinel," written by Clarke in 1948. A number of other stories also contributed to the final work.
In addition, the actual novel of 2001 was, in fact, written prior to the movie. I quote from the introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition:
"...before we embarked on the drudgery of the script, we let our imaginations soar freely by writing a complete novel, from which we would later derive a script... This is more or less the way it worked out, though toward the end novel and screenplay were being written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions."
Clarke goes on to mention that he only wrote about 2/3 of the novel at this time and wrote the end during production of the film.
You are correct entirely in that, though some aspects simply could not be conveyed in film, Kubrick left many intentionally vague, resulting in a film that is truly a work of art. Clarke said it best. "If you understand 2001 on the first viewing, we will have failed."
You obviously never read the book. Though the book and the movie where developed essentially at the same time, there are some significant variations (most notably that Discovery is headed for Saturn in the book). Kubrick did a spectacular job on the movie, especially considering technology of the time, but some aspects of Clarke's epic vision elude capture in this medium. Sadly, most people who only watch the movie completely miss the point of many scenes.
I imagine the entire hotel scene seemed pointless to you. In the movie, there was no clear way to present its meaning. In the book, this scene serves to explain the underlying principles of the storyline you claim does not exist. In short, the images on the television (including a shot of this hotel room) reveal Dave's distance from home through their age.
From this and other observations, Dave learns the purpose of the monoliths. They form an intricate spy network, watching developing species and attempting to assist their development. Herein lies the purpose of the opening scene, which you also probably didn't understand. We are not the products of time. We are the creations of a spectactular race of beings.
In the book, one learns that this race first prolonged their existance by transfering their being into machines. This too, alas, had limitations, and the beings soon found a way to weave themselves into the very fabric of the universe. Having gained immortality, they became bored and began improving other species. (Starcraft really ripped this whole thing off...) That is the purpose of the "glowing fetus." Bowman became ome of them: a star child.
Finally, the vast majority of viewers completely misunderstood HAL's behavior. His apparent insanity was the result of a conflict of interest. He was programmed to simultaneously keep Frank and Dave (essentially nothing more than janitors, though they didn't know that) aware of any situations that could jeopardize the mission as well as with-hold from them the true nature of this mission (investigation of the monoliths). HAL could only find one solution to this problem, albeit not what the programmers intended.
Oh, and that "10 minutes of random flashing color." That sequence lasts only a few minutes and is one of the most famous scenes in movie history. You don't like it? Deal with it (fast-forward if necessary). Better yet, go read the book.
Anyone interested in this spectacular vision should read the rest of the series. In addition, read Hal's Legacy which offers an interesting look at what it would take to build a HAL.
By the way, don't think I don't like the movie. 2001 is one of the best movies of all time. Kubrick did a spectacular job. Somehow, though, a movie can never capture the essence of a book.
The school board in Palm Beach County has been blocking "all" websites providing e-mail access for some time. Well, starting this week, they (actually the company that makes their blacklist) decided that password-protected discussion boards are a form of e-mail. Hence. students in Palm Beach County may no longer access Slashdot. I checked some other websites with message boards (including such sites as CNN.com). Of course, these weren't blocked. Perhaps it's because they censor their comments... who knows? I don't really see the logic on this one, Perhaps we should demonstrate the Slashdot Effect with the district homepage...
First of all, I'd like to point out that before all this madness occured, it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
Next point it why Gore won the electoral vote. He won by a margin of somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 votes. He won by a greater margin than this in New York City alone. What this means is that, outside of NYC, Bush had the greater popular vote. So, is it really that unfair, Al? This is one reason for having the electoral college - so one city can't choose the president.
On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all that. There were ballots that were clearly punched through for all other offices but "dimpled" for president. Was this voter incapable of punching the holes? I think not.
As far as the whole military absentee ballot thing goes, Gore just managed to upset the people who risk their lives for this nation. Probably not a very good plan...
On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot" and replaced the candidates with cartoon characters. They then asked small children which circle to mark to vote for a particular character. Guess what? They figured it out... (and, keep in mind, that ballot was approved by the Democrats, published in the newspaper, and sent to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.)
Even if Gore had won the Florida recount, what would it mean? They only recounted Democratic counties. And, as far as I'm concerned, the changes in counts are more due to human error now than machine error then.
Of course, it's not over yet- but it should be. I think everyone is entirely sick of this. Time to move on.
By the way, this isn't even the worst election in US history. Take John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Jackson won both the popular and electoral votes. BUT he didn't have a majority. Henry Clay had managed to take enough electoral votes away that no one had a majority. So, the two candidates with the most electoral votes go to the House. Clay threw his support to Adams, who won the election despite an obvious loss to Jackson. Interesting stuff....
The above is my opinion on a few of these matters. You're entitled to your's too. Don't troll me. Don't flame me. Let me be.
As the GamePC article points out, a comparison between the Athon's and the P4's cannot be "apples to apples" at present. The P4's have significant hardware changes (such as a larger pipeline) that present software doesn't take advantage of. Since the P4 is "serialized" it really shouldn't come as a shock that the Athlon's performed better in this test. Let's not jump the gun here. Do another test in a few months and see what happens. Besides that, I don't really think game playing is the best benchmark that could be done. Most of the benchmarks involve 3D graphics. Quite frankly, with a processor like these, there are much better ways to use those cycles that would be more indicative of their power.
A Nobel Prize is being awarded to a Physicist for his work (in the 70's) in plastic electronics. Evidently, most of his work is just now coming into use and shows great potential for future applications.
Yes, I know. They're third party programs. (Lego actually supports third party software... What a concept!) I usually use NQC. However, the camera needs software to handle the vision system. Unfortunately, there does not yet exist any third party software to handle this and it will likely be a great while before there is any.
I got my Vision Command the other day, and I must say it is pretty impressive. The camera is actually pretty descent and the Lego studs make it the coolest computer cam out there. The software could stand to be more powerful, but at the price it's pretty good. Unfortunately, you are still stuck with the lousy Mindstorms programming "language." Also, the camera's observations are unchangable and execute continuously (ie. you can't detect motion in the upper-left corner now and look for blue later). You also can't observe two things simultaneously. However, the abilities that it does have (observe movement, color, light and interact with the RCX) are quite versatile. I expect Lego to be updating this software in the future and this idea has a lot of promise. Overall, this is probably the coolest thing to come out of Lego since the original computer interface in the 80's. For under $100 (including camera, software, and a good assortment of pieces), you'd be crazy not to buy it.
There was a story here a while ago debating who would have the rights to ideas thought up by machines. Evidently, these folks think the machine's owner should. The download page specifically states that you reserve all rights to any device designed by your computer. Interesting...
Re:Is LEGO a proprietary standard?
on
The LEGO Desk
·
· Score: 5
The main reason Lego bricks are more expensive than their imitation counterparts is the molding process. Lego spent a great deal of time and money perfecting their molding process. The plastic used is much stronger and holds color better than those plastics used by the imitators. In addition, Lego molds their product to a seemingly absurd tolerance (.0005 cm, I believe). It isn't as crazy as it sounds. If you start building a complex model, you'll be thankful for the accuracy and strength of Lego bricks. The other companies do attempt to make their bricks the same size. However, they cut back on costs in the molding process. As a result, the pieces don't fit as well. They are cheaper; they just aren't nearly as good.
From its earliest days making wooden toys, the Lego company prided itself on quality. Every toy got three coats of paint. One line of ducks was actually recalled in order to have the third coat applied. Lego might cost more, but you get a much better product. And of course, Lego offers a much larger variety of pieces than any of its competitors (especially Technic pieces).
I am so sick of this type of thing happening. If a URL isn't property, why can someone get sued over a domain? If a URL is like a phone number, then what is the difference between getting a phone number that spells something and getting a domain that spells it? Somebody had better start making actual laws regarding modern technology. All we have now are a bunch of laws never meant for these situations being applied in contradictory manners. Judges can come to any conclusion they like just by bending around existing laws. (ie. Your privacy online depends on the medium by which you connect...)
About all I can think of is working in a museum of some kind. If anyone out there just wants a nice reference site regarding the history of computers, the best one I have found is A Chronology of Digital Computing Machines. It stops at 1952, but the wealth of information regarding the predecessors to today's machines is very interesting.
Advertising in Gnuella a good thing?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking about this just the other day. MP3's are here to stay and there's very little purpose in fighting them. What it comes down to is that we need a way to make the distribution of MP3's legal. It was suggested a while ago that the record companies distribute MP3's with advertisements embedded at the end of the song. The obvious flaw in this plan is that it would be way to easy to filter out.
What shoud probably end up happening is that programs like Napster and Gnuella will give the record companies free ad space in their software in the form of a banner bar at the bottom of the window. True, it could be filtered as well, but what would be the point? The vast majority of users would simply put up with it and happily download legal MP3's. At least the record companies would get something out of all this...
I knew I shouldn't have used the Second Ammendment thing....
Yes, you are correct in what you state. I should have been more clear. However, my point still stands in that these fears are antiquated. As a result, the applications of the ammendment must be called into question.
On another note, I think part of the problem here is that someone decided that there's no such thing as an unreasonable electronic search. Probable cause is too vaque and makes it too easy to violate one's rights. Carnivore gets by tapping everyone's lines without a warent because the FBI promises they're only reading e-mails related to persons already under suspicion. If the FBI tapped every phone line in the country, but promised only to listen to those that of persons under suspicion, they'd be shutdown in a heartbeat. That indecisiveness is the problem.
I'm sick of seeing laws written prior to the technological explosion made to apply to todays computer systems. Someone needs to step up and start making some new laws specific to the field. E-mail has nothing whatsoever to do with the medium by which it is transfered. In the end, they all end up going by fiber anyway. Where are the laws dealing with taping fiber lines? The telephone and television have nothing to do with dial-up and cable modems. The only similarity lies in the medium used to transer information.
This problem has frequently plaqued the judicial system lately. Intellectual property, for one, is ill-defined. Microsoft can be ordered to release their source code. That's like forcing Coca-Cola to open the vault and bring the secret formula to Pepsi's door. Yet at the same time, source code for an open-source DVD player can't be distrited because it discloses an encryption method. A merger between two telephone providers is prevented, but a merger between AOL and Time Warner isn't. Napster can be ordered to shut down until it's decided if it's within the law. That's prior retraint. It's also saying they are guilty until proven innocent.
As an analogy, I use the Second Ammendment. (I'm not taking a stance on gun control, just using an example of laws taken out of context.) People argue that they have the right to own a gun becuase of the Second Ammendment. Where are the Redcoats and the revolutions in the country-side? The Second Ammendment starts by stating that it exists becuase a millia is necessary....
Too many of our existing laws have been bent out of shape, often in contradictory manners as it suits the court. And it almost always happens at the expense of technology. The solution is not to choose which of the old laws to apply. That leaves too much up for argument. The solution is to make totally new laws specifically designed for the technological age in which we live.
and I'm leaning toward the latter. They didn't just let everyone get misled by their website (which they went as far as to take down for a few days after the story broke), they also intentionally mislead the public in at least two other ways. Someone leaked that Gervase would win to MSNBC even before the website thing. Furthurmore, a scene in the introduction shows four people sitting at the tribal council, Gervase among them. CBS now claims that was intentional. So either CBS lucked out and had a number of coincidences fall perfectly into place, or they are master con-artists. They fooled us, didn't they?
Trust me, it's real. I was in Vegas last week and saw one do something like that. The screen was gibberish with the exception of the word "Microsoft" printed at the bottom. Then, of course, someone had to ctrl-alt-del it and go searching for the file to start it up again. Quite humorous indeed. My two cents...
Slashdot Mirror
Every time there's a story about 2001, we see two basic types of flame. The first is "What's so great about 10 minutes of flashing colors?" and the second is "2001 wasn't a prophesy. I want a vacation on a space station." I'm going to respond to the first in the same way I usually do. Deal with it. There's a fast-forward button. If you don't like the flashing colors, press the button.
The second point, however, I think deserves more explanation. Much like the people complaining about the colors, these individuals are being to literal. Clarke did not expect a HAL to come online in 1997. 2001 is not about technology. It's about how man interacts with his own creation. It's about the effects technology has on man - and the effects man has on technology. It is not a statement, but a question. Clarke does not say that we can fly to Jupiter. Rather, he asks what would happen if we were to. Would we even want to?
The monolith, as well, is not to be taken literally. It represents a tool - a tool with many uses and many consequences. It is a tool to which we cannot even begin to apply morality, for we do not know the users. So what do we do? We go in search of them. We begin a quest for answers to a question that seems to run parallel to us, only to discover that we and it are entwined. We cannot seek the monolith. The monolith has already sought us. We merely respond to its summon.
As far as the technology goes, Clarke was a visionary. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Clarke. The number of realized concepts he had far outnumber the outlandish ones. The most significant, of course, was the idea for the communications satellite. In some novels, Clarke simply chose to deviate somewhat from the realistic barriers of technology in order to make a point regarding technology's effects.
I could go on for some time, but I'll end it here. The point of all of this is simple. Don't be too literal. Take the time to understand a work before you announce your dislike of it. For those of you who haven't yet, I highly recommend reading the book.
On a side note I find it most amusing that 2001 was released on 42 day.
I'm sorry. I just noticed that I wrote "serialization" when I meant "parallelization" (which doesn't even come close to sounding like an actual word, but you know what I mean). Sorry for any confusion.
These things use Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA's) in order to restructure themselves dynamically. This, in and of itself, is not a new concept. FPGA's have been used for years in prototyping or in the first products released. It's much cheaper and easier to reprogram an FPGA if a bug is found than it is to create a new chip design. Once the bugs are gone, FPGA's are replaced by hard-wired silicon in the rest of the line.
Now on to using FPGA's in supercomputers. First of all, an FPGA is slower than a hard-wired chip. These machines pick up speed from the fact that they can use portions of the chip that otherwise would have been on standby. It's super-charged serialization. By restructuring the circuitry for each task, they can take advantage of the majority of the chip at all times. This is not an easy task, and I find it quite impressive. (On a side note, the restructuring is software-controlled.)
When I read this story, I immediately associated it with an article from several years back about Inman Harvey and Adrian Thompson. Thompson was using an FPGA to run genetic algorithms for hardware development. Essentially, make a machine design the chip. He had some very interesting results. The chip designs took advantage of the physical chip rather than just the wiring. They were incredibly efficient, but Thompson couldn't understand why they worked. (He suspected such things as electromagnetic coupling and communication through the power supply.) This is all only moderately related, but it's very interesting, regardless. The article is from June, 1998 and can be found here if anyone is interested.
"It is not my duty as a historian to predict the future, only to observe and interpret the past."
- Arthur C. Clarke / The City and the Stars (1953)
I raise my glass to the sights and sounds of an era past. Man's triumphs and failures of the past 1000 years represent the work of a truly remarkable culture. May nothing stand between man's vision and its achievement. Godspeed.
Appropriately enough, Arthur C. Clarke said it best. "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible."
1000 more years have come and gone- and still, man knows nothing.
This article seems to contain a few contradictions. It seems a trite ironic that the US government is willing to admit that most of their machines run Microsoft software, yet they continue to take Microsoft to court. (Bite the hand that feed you, anyone?) If I recall, one of the recommendations made in the trial was to make Microsoft open source at least parts of their software. And yet, access to that source code constitutes a security risk. There is a slight contradiction here!
On another note, if we are ever to convince big-name organizations (ie. the US government) that Linux is a viable option, we can't exactly agree with the content of this report. If unwittingly revealed source code is bad, what is intentially released source code? They don't like code that may have been modified by one person, but we want to offer them an alternative in code that has been modified by hundreds of people. Somewhat humorously, the Linux community may have to defend Microsoft on this one.
By the way, you might want to fix that link.
I don't remember where, but I read an article a while about about buckytubes. The basic idea is a cylinder of carbon atoms with end caps in the shape of half of a buckyball. The interesting aspect is that creating them is relatively simple. Eventually, you end up with a pile of soot and some buckytubes. Well, they have enormous tensile strength and it had been suggested that they could be used in a space elevator (if they could be produced in large enough quantities).
On an interesting side note, Clarke had originally written about a space elevator connected to a tiny island, but I can't remember the book (it was before 3001). I do recall that the island was conveniently very similar to Sri Lanka (where Clarke lives) but moved south to make the physics work.
First of all, the entire story grew out of "The Sentinel," written by Clarke in 1948. A number of other stories also contributed to the final work.
In addition, the actual novel of 2001 was, in fact, written prior to the movie. I quote from the introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition:
"...before we embarked on the drudgery of the script, we let our imaginations soar freely by writing a complete novel, from which we would later derive a script... This is more or less the way it worked out, though toward the end novel and screenplay were being written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions."
Clarke goes on to mention that he only wrote about 2/3 of the novel at this time and wrote the end during production of the film.
You are correct entirely in that, though some aspects simply could not be conveyed in film, Kubrick left many intentionally vague, resulting in a film that is truly a work of art. Clarke said it best. "If you understand 2001 on the first viewing, we will have failed."
You obviously never read the book. Though the book and the movie where developed essentially at the same time, there are some significant variations (most notably that Discovery is headed for Saturn in the book). Kubrick did a spectacular job on the movie, especially considering technology of the time, but some aspects of Clarke's epic vision elude capture in this medium. Sadly, most people who only watch the movie completely miss the point of many scenes.
I imagine the entire hotel scene seemed pointless to you. In the movie, there was no clear way to present its meaning. In the book, this scene serves to explain the underlying principles of the storyline you claim does not exist. In short, the images on the television (including a shot of this hotel room) reveal Dave's distance from home through their age.
From this and other observations, Dave learns the purpose of the monoliths. They form an intricate spy network, watching developing species and attempting to assist their development. Herein lies the purpose of the opening scene, which you also probably didn't understand. We are not the products of time. We are the creations of a spectactular race of beings.
In the book, one learns that this race first prolonged their existance by transfering their being into machines. This too, alas, had limitations, and the beings soon found a way to weave themselves into the very fabric of the universe. Having gained immortality, they became bored and began improving other species. (Starcraft really ripped this whole thing off...) That is the purpose of the "glowing fetus." Bowman became ome of them: a star child.
Finally, the vast majority of viewers completely misunderstood HAL's behavior. His apparent insanity was the result of a conflict of interest. He was programmed to simultaneously keep Frank and Dave (essentially nothing more than janitors, though they didn't know that) aware of any situations that could jeopardize the mission as well as with-hold from them the true nature of this mission (investigation of the monoliths). HAL could only find one solution to this problem, albeit not what the programmers intended.
Oh, and that "10 minutes of random flashing color." That sequence lasts only a few minutes and is one of the most famous scenes in movie history. You don't like it? Deal with it (fast-forward if necessary). Better yet, go read the book.
Anyone interested in this spectacular vision should read the rest of the series. In addition, read Hal's Legacy which offers an interesting look at what it would take to build a HAL.
By the way, don't think I don't like the movie. 2001 is one of the best movies of all time. Kubrick did a spectacular job. Somehow, though, a movie can never capture the essence of a book.
The school board in Palm Beach County has been blocking "all" websites providing e-mail access for some time. Well, starting this week, they (actually the company that makes their blacklist) decided that password-protected discussion boards are a form of e-mail. Hence. students in Palm Beach County may no longer access Slashdot. I checked some other websites with message boards (including such sites as CNN.com). Of course, these weren't blocked. Perhaps it's because they censor their comments... who knows? I don't really see the logic on this one, Perhaps we should demonstrate the Slashdot Effect with the district homepage...
First of all, I'd like to point out that before all this madness occured, it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
Next point it why Gore won the electoral vote. He won by a margin of somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 votes. He won by a greater margin than this in New York City alone. What this means is that, outside of NYC, Bush had the greater popular vote. So, is it really that unfair, Al? This is one reason for having the electoral college - so one city can't choose the president.
On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all that. There were ballots that were clearly punched through for all other offices but "dimpled" for president. Was this voter incapable of punching the holes? I think not.
As far as the whole military absentee ballot thing goes, Gore just managed to upset the people who risk their lives for this nation. Probably not a very good plan...
On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot" and replaced the candidates with cartoon characters. They then asked small children which circle to mark to vote for a particular character. Guess what? They figured it out... (and, keep in mind, that ballot was approved by the Democrats, published in the newspaper, and sent to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.)
Even if Gore had won the Florida recount, what would it mean? They only recounted Democratic counties. And, as far as I'm concerned, the changes in counts are more due to human error now than machine error then.
Of course, it's not over yet- but it should be. I think everyone is entirely sick of this. Time to move on.
By the way, this isn't even the worst election in US history. Take John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Jackson won both the popular and electoral votes. BUT he didn't have a majority. Henry Clay had managed to take enough electoral votes away that no one had a majority. So, the two candidates with the most electoral votes go to the House. Clay threw his support to Adams, who won the election despite an obvious loss to Jackson. Interesting stuff....
The above is my opinion on a few of these matters. You're entitled to your's too. Don't troll me. Don't flame me. Let me be.
As the GamePC article points out, a comparison between the Athon's and the P4's cannot be "apples to apples" at present. The P4's have significant hardware changes (such as a larger pipeline) that present software doesn't take advantage of. Since the P4 is "serialized" it really shouldn't come as a shock that the Athlon's performed better in this test. Let's not jump the gun here. Do another test in a few months and see what happens. Besides that, I don't really think game playing is the best benchmark that could be done. Most of the benchmarks involve 3D graphics. Quite frankly, with a processor like these, there are much better ways to use those cycles that would be more indicative of their power.
A Nobel Prize is being awarded to a Physicist for his work (in the 70's) in plastic electronics. Evidently, most of his work is just now coming into use and shows great potential for future applications.
The irony, of course, is that many people probably can't even read the article because it's blocked...
Yes, I know. They're third party programs. (Lego actually supports third party software... What a concept!) I usually use NQC. However, the camera needs software to handle the vision system. Unfortunately, there does not yet exist any third party software to handle this and it will likely be a great while before there is any.
I got my Vision Command the other day, and I must say it is pretty impressive. The camera is actually pretty descent and the Lego studs make it the coolest computer cam out there. The software could stand to be more powerful, but at the price it's pretty good. Unfortunately, you are still stuck with the lousy Mindstorms programming "language." Also, the camera's observations are unchangable and execute continuously (ie. you can't detect motion in the upper-left corner now and look for blue later). You also can't observe two things simultaneously. However, the abilities that it does have (observe movement, color, light and interact with the RCX) are quite versatile. I expect Lego to be updating this software in the future and this idea has a lot of promise. Overall, this is probably the coolest thing to come out of Lego since the original computer interface in the 80's. For under $100 (including camera, software, and a good assortment of pieces), you'd be crazy not to buy it.
There was a story here a while ago debating who would have the rights to ideas thought up by machines. Evidently, these folks think the machine's owner should. The download page specifically states that you reserve all rights to any device designed by your computer. Interesting...
The main reason Lego bricks are more expensive than their imitation counterparts is the molding process. Lego spent a great deal of time and money perfecting their molding process. The plastic used is much stronger and holds color better than those plastics used by the imitators. In addition, Lego molds their product to a seemingly absurd tolerance (.0005 cm, I believe). It isn't as crazy as it sounds. If you start building a complex model, you'll be thankful for the accuracy and strength of Lego bricks. The other companies do attempt to make their bricks the same size. However, they cut back on costs in the molding process. As a result, the pieces don't fit as well. They are cheaper; they just aren't nearly as good.
From its earliest days making wooden toys, the Lego company prided itself on quality. Every toy got three coats of paint. One line of ducks was actually recalled in order to have the third coat applied. Lego might cost more, but you get a much better product. And of course, Lego offers a much larger variety of pieces than any of its competitors (especially Technic pieces).
I am so sick of this type of thing happening. If a URL isn't property, why can someone get sued over a domain? If a URL is like a phone number, then what is the difference between getting a phone number that spells something and getting a domain that spells it? Somebody had better start making actual laws regarding modern technology. All we have now are a bunch of laws never meant for these situations being applied in contradictory manners. Judges can come to any conclusion they like just by bending around existing laws. (ie. Your privacy online depends on the medium by which you connect...)
About all I can think of is working in a museum of some kind. If anyone out there just wants a nice reference site regarding the history of computers, the best one I have found is A Chronology of Digital Computing Machines. It stops at 1952, but the wealth of information regarding the predecessors to today's machines is very interesting.
I was thinking about this just the other day. MP3's are here to stay and there's very little purpose in fighting them. What it comes down to is that we need a way to make the distribution of MP3's legal. It was suggested a while ago that the record companies distribute MP3's with advertisements embedded at the end of the song. The obvious flaw in this plan is that it would be way to easy to filter out.
What shoud probably end up happening is that programs like Napster and Gnuella will give the record companies free ad space in their software in the form of a banner bar at the bottom of the window. True, it could be filtered as well, but what would be the point? The vast majority of users would simply put up with it and happily download legal MP3's. At least the record companies would get something out of all this...
I knew I shouldn't have used the Second Ammendment thing....
Yes, you are correct in what you state. I should have been more clear. However, my point still stands in that these fears are antiquated. As a result, the applications of the ammendment must be called into question.
On another note, I think part of the problem here is that someone decided that there's no such thing as an unreasonable electronic search. Probable cause is too vaque and makes it too easy to violate one's rights. Carnivore gets by tapping everyone's lines without a warent because the FBI promises they're only reading e-mails related to persons already under suspicion. If the FBI tapped every phone line in the country, but promised only to listen to those that of persons under suspicion, they'd be shutdown in a heartbeat. That indecisiveness is the problem.
I'm sick of seeing laws written prior to the technological explosion made to apply to todays computer systems. Someone needs to step up and start making some new laws specific to the field. E-mail has nothing whatsoever to do with the medium by which it is transfered. In the end, they all end up going by fiber anyway. Where are the laws dealing with taping fiber lines? The telephone and television have nothing to do with dial-up and cable modems. The only similarity lies in the medium used to transer information.
This problem has frequently plaqued the judicial system lately. Intellectual property, for one, is ill-defined. Microsoft can be ordered to release their source code. That's like forcing Coca-Cola to open the vault and bring the secret formula to Pepsi's door. Yet at the same time, source code for an open-source DVD player can't be distrited because it discloses an encryption method. A merger between two telephone providers is prevented, but a merger between AOL and Time Warner isn't. Napster can be ordered to shut down until it's decided if it's within the law. That's prior retraint. It's also saying they are guilty until proven innocent.
As an analogy, I use the Second Ammendment. (I'm not taking a stance on gun control, just using an example of laws taken out of context.) People argue that they have the right to own a gun becuase of the Second Ammendment. Where are the Redcoats and the revolutions in the country-side? The Second Ammendment starts by stating that it exists becuase a millia is necessary....
Too many of our existing laws have been bent out of shape, often in contradictory manners as it suits the court. And it almost always happens at the expense of technology. The solution is not to choose which of the old laws to apply. That leaves too much up for argument. The solution is to make totally new laws specifically designed for the technological age in which we live.
and I'm leaning toward the latter. They didn't just let everyone get misled by their website (which they went as far as to take down for a few days after the story broke), they also intentionally mislead the public in at least two other ways. Someone leaked that Gervase would win to MSNBC even before the website thing. Furthurmore, a scene in the introduction shows four people sitting at the tribal council, Gervase among them. CBS now claims that was intentional. So either CBS lucked out and had a number of coincidences fall perfectly into place, or they are master con-artists. They fooled us, didn't they?
Trust me, it's real. I was in Vegas last week and saw one do something like that. The screen was gibberish with the exception of the word "Microsoft" printed at the bottom. Then, of course, someone had to ctrl-alt-del it and go searching for the file to start it up again. Quite humorous indeed. My two cents...