I saw a pretty interesting program on TV a while ago, and have since been reading up on it a bit.. According to a growing group of scientists, the real reason for the ups and downs of the earth temperature that we are observing are in fact caused by solar activity!
In short, the theory is that when the suns solar activity increases, the intensity of the magnetic field around the solar system increases. This field is part of what shields us from the so-called cosmic rays, rays from distant objects and energies in the universe.
Now suppose it's true as they claim to have found, that the level of cosmic rays influences our atmospheres ability to block or 'keep' sun radiation, and a whole new dimension is suddenly added to the discussion.
Using similiar methods as for tracking the environment back in time, they tracked the level of cosmic rays backwards in time aswell, and found a 100% match between the levels of cosmic rays and the average temperature on earth. And as if that wasn't enough, it even was able to explain the 'exceptions' from the until-now believed CO2 rule, like during the second world war when the CO2 levels in the air were immensely increased compared to the years before and after, but the temperature was falling..
Problem: Political unwillingness to consider new views and theories. And ofcourse the fact that politicians and environmental organizations already have spent billions in time and money on the CO2 'problem'... It's not hard to imagine how embarrassing it would be for them to admit that they might have been wrong..
How on earth can Slashdot ever expect to be taken seriously anywhere if they practically _encourage_ illegal activity like this? I might be a bit double-moralish here, but I think there is a difference between this (stealing a product or service) and things like the DeCSS case etc. etc., where one is fighting for ones rights..
NOONE has the right to steal what someone is lawfully trying to sell..
Computer art doesn't have an original and therefore loses its collectible (monetary) value.
Umm.. Just because you can't distinguish a copy from the original, doesn't mean there aren't any original.. And suppose we find a way to make sure you can distinguish a digital copy from the digital original (I think this is impossible, but just suppose..), will computer art then suddenly qualify as potential 'fine art'?
I think that 'disadvantage' of computer art is rather unfair..
True, it's hard to put monetary value on such art. And it's hard to see how someone could actually 'buy the original', when, in fact, technically the artist could always 'keep a copy' or whatever.. But I am of the 'ideological' opinion that this has nothing to do with the quality of the art, or the classification of it.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound that hostile. Only annoyed;)
Anyway.. If you read my article again, I said _nothing_ about the value of the photographs taken or any reproductions made of it. What they DEPICT however, is still real, fine art. The 'Mona Lisa' is (today) considered a piece of very fine art, regardless of the number of reproductions made in any form.
So my point is: Art produced with the aid of a computer (like a pencil is the aid of a painter, a piano or a violin is the aid of a musician) should have the same chances of being considered 'real' and 'fine' art as anything else. How many reproductions (copies) you make has nothing to do with it. The art in its original form has the same value; it's just that with computer art, the quality of the reproductions are usually indistinguishable from the original.
I can draw another parallel here - Literature can be considered art, in one way or another. I'm not sure if anyone would call it 'fine art', but at the least 'fine literature'. Now one must agree that in general, it's the TEXT in a book that represents the artistical product, and in any REPRODUCTION of the book, the text will be (in general, not taking into account translation, typos, corrections etc.) the _exact_ same as in the original work. This doesn't, however, reduce the quality of the original work, even though the reproductions are, in this sense, 100% indistinguishable from the original work.
Does that mean that if I take a photograph of 'Mona Lisa', 'Mona Lisa' will seize to be 'fine art' because it's been reproduced (in whatever quality the photograph is) and thus it's possible to mass-produce? Or is it simply my photograph not being art, while the subject of my photograph still is?
In the latter case, Computer Art may be Fine Art aswell, no matter the number of reproductions. How many people don't have 'Mona Lisa''s hanging somewhere in their house, repro quality good or bad?
Keep your crap to yourself.
..because they are extremely inefficient.
The amount of energy you put into the batteries is like - I don't know the exact numbers, but - several times the energy you get out on the wheels.. Whereas in a gasoline/diesel engine atleast you can 'relate' to the numbers..
So (hypothetically speaking) if a fuel car has a 2:1 relationship in-out, a electric car would have a 20:1 or something thereabouts.
And then comes the question - how much does it pollute to PRODUCE that electricity in the first place?? I'd be surprised if the total sum-up there would be any better than conventional gasoline or diesel cars (the ones we drive in Europe, not the american monsters...:P )
...is the whole point. "Multimedia" as such should be used to intensify the message. The human brain works more effectively and more easily remembers something when getting it from several sources - audio, visuals, if possible movement, taste, smells.. And reading ofcourse.
The ideal use of multimedia is NOT to show off "this is soo cool and we can do it!" but to bring the message to the user/reader/whatever in the most effective way possible.
Surely, part of this will be through impressing with nice design, but a nice design should enhance the message, not overwhelm it.
Not that I have read their terms of service or anything, but do they state that it's illegal to use third-party software to access their sites?
On the other hand, I don't see how this differs from web-sites that only lets you display them if you use one particular broser. (And mind you, it's not just M$/Explorer I'm talking about - personally I think that it's just as bad blocking IE as it is to block NS..)
The question is, is it possible to differ between blocking from "technical" reasons (i.e. this page won't work in netscape so we won't show it to you at all) and blocking because of "liking" (we don't like IE, use netscape or nothing at all)? I guess this will be almost as difficult as it would be to make a law saying "You may hack as long as you have good ethical reasons and don't destroy anything"..
Quite funny to see all you people wanting the OS/2 source released, when it actually IS available.. Well some of it at least.
Through "legal" channels you can get hold of almost anything you want, through the developer connection, if you prove reasonable reasons why you should have it. And what about JFS? As for "illegal" channels, the kernel source is "out there". And some other parts of the sources aswell. Maybe someone should have a look? Ofcourse "for educational purposes only"...;)
Oh and for those who wonder.. I'm still using OS/2. All the time. And until it doesn't do the job I need it to do better than any of the alternatives, I stick with it. Fuck IBM:)
...for seeing the OS internals. The OS/2 kernel is built around all the best schoolbook examples there is, except perhaps for the scheduler which is far ahead of anything else. Besides, the device driver interface is quite easy to understand, and well documented, giving close relations to the kernel/hw at the same time as being logical and pretty straight-forward.
The biggest problem when it comes to OS/2's stability is the WPS. And the cause of 99% of all WPS problems is the display drivers. Get a good display adapter with good OS/2 drivers, and you're safe.. I'm running the beta of the new Warp Server (Aurora), and I've NEVER had a WPS crash so far. Been running it since October....
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a pretty interesting program on TV a while ago, and have since been reading up on it a bit.. According to a growing group of scientists, the real reason for the ups and downs of the earth temperature that we are observing are in fact caused by solar activity!
In short, the theory is that when the suns solar activity increases, the intensity of the magnetic field around the solar system increases. This field is part of what shields us from the so-called cosmic rays, rays from distant objects and energies in the universe.
Now suppose it's true as they claim to have found, that the level of cosmic rays influences our atmospheres ability to block or 'keep' sun radiation, and a whole new dimension is suddenly added to the discussion.
Using similiar methods as for tracking the environment back in time, they tracked the level of cosmic rays backwards in time aswell, and found a 100% match between the levels of cosmic rays and the average temperature on earth. And as if that wasn't enough, it even was able to explain the 'exceptions' from the until-now believed CO2 rule, like during the second world war when the CO2 levels in the air were immensely increased compared to the years before and after, but the temperature was falling..
Problem: Political unwillingness to consider new views and theories. And ofcourse the fact that politicians and environmental organizations already have spent billions in time and money on the CO2 'problem'... It's not hard to imagine how embarrassing it would be for them to admit that they might have been wrong..
How on earth can Slashdot ever expect to be taken seriously anywhere if they practically _encourage_ illegal activity like this? I might be a bit double-moralish here, but I think there is a difference between this (stealing a product or service) and things like the DeCSS case etc. etc., where one is fighting for ones rights..
NOONE has the right to steal what someone is lawfully trying to sell..
Computer art doesn't have an original and therefore loses its collectible (monetary) value.
Umm.. Just because you can't distinguish a copy from the original, doesn't mean there aren't any original.. And suppose we find a way to make sure you can distinguish a digital copy from the digital original (I think this is impossible, but just suppose..), will computer art then suddenly qualify as potential 'fine art'?
I think that 'disadvantage' of computer art is rather unfair..
True, it's hard to put monetary value on such art. And it's hard to see how someone could actually 'buy the original', when, in fact, technically the artist could always 'keep a copy' or whatever.. But I am of the 'ideological' opinion that this has nothing to do with the quality of the art, or the classification of it.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound that hostile. Only annoyed ;)
Anyway.. If you read my article again, I said _nothing_ about the value of the photographs taken or any reproductions made of it. What they DEPICT however, is still real, fine art. The 'Mona Lisa' is (today) considered a piece of very fine art, regardless of the number of reproductions made in any form. So my point is: Art produced with the aid of a computer (like a pencil is the aid of a painter, a piano or a violin is the aid of a musician) should have the same chances of being considered 'real' and 'fine' art as anything else. How many reproductions (copies) you make has nothing to do with it. The art in its original form has the same value; it's just that with computer art, the quality of the reproductions are usually indistinguishable from the original.
I can draw another parallel here - Literature can be considered art, in one way or another. I'm not sure if anyone would call it 'fine art', but at the least 'fine literature'. Now one must agree that in general, it's the TEXT in a book that represents the artistical product, and in any REPRODUCTION of the book, the text will be (in general, not taking into account translation, typos, corrections etc.) the _exact_ same as in the original work. This doesn't, however, reduce the quality of the original work, even though the reproductions are, in this sense, 100% indistinguishable from the original work.
I hope you are catching my drift..
Does that mean that if I take a photograph of 'Mona Lisa', 'Mona Lisa' will seize to be 'fine art' because it's been reproduced (in whatever quality the photograph is) and thus it's possible to mass-produce? Or is it simply my photograph not being art, while the subject of my photograph still is? In the latter case, Computer Art may be Fine Art aswell, no matter the number of reproductions. How many people don't have 'Mona Lisa''s hanging somewhere in their house, repro quality good or bad? Keep your crap to yourself.
..because they are extremely inefficient. The amount of energy you put into the batteries is like - I don't know the exact numbers, but - several times the energy you get out on the wheels.. Whereas in a gasoline/diesel engine atleast you can 'relate' to the numbers.. So (hypothetically speaking) if a fuel car has a 2:1 relationship in-out, a electric car would have a 20:1 or something thereabouts. And then comes the question - how much does it pollute to PRODUCE that electricity in the first place?? I'd be surprised if the total sum-up there would be any better than conventional gasoline or diesel cars (the ones we drive in Europe, not the american monsters... :P )
...is the whole point. "Multimedia" as such should be used to intensify the message. The human brain works more effectively and more easily remembers something when getting it from several sources - audio, visuals, if possible movement, taste, smells.. And reading ofcourse.
The ideal use of multimedia is NOT to show off "this is soo cool and we can do it!" but to bring the message to the user/reader/whatever in the most effective way possible.
Surely, part of this will be through impressing with nice design, but a nice design should enhance the message, not overwhelm it.
-me.
Not that I have read their terms of service or anything, but do they state that it's illegal to use third-party software to access their sites?
On the other hand, I don't see how this differs from web-sites that only lets you display them if you use one particular broser. (And mind you, it's not just M$/Explorer I'm talking about - personally I think that it's just as bad blocking IE as it is to block NS..)
The question is, is it possible to differ between blocking from "technical" reasons (i.e. this page won't work in netscape so we won't show it to you at all) and blocking because of "liking" (we don't like IE, use netscape or nothing at all)? I guess this will be almost as difficult as it would be to make a law saying "You may hack as long as you have good ethical reasons and don't destroy anything"..
Quite funny to see all you people wanting the OS/2 source released, when it actually IS available.. Well some of it at least.
;)
:)
Through "legal" channels you can get hold of almost anything you want, through the developer connection, if you prove reasonable reasons why you should have it. And what about JFS?
As for "illegal" channels, the kernel source is "out there". And some other parts of the sources aswell. Maybe someone should have a look? Ofcourse "for educational purposes only"...
Oh and for those who wonder.. I'm still using OS/2. All the time. And until it doesn't do the job I need it to do better than any of the alternatives, I stick with it. Fuck IBM
...for seeing the OS internals. The OS/2 kernel is built around all the best schoolbook examples there is, except perhaps for the scheduler which is far ahead of anything else.
Besides, the device driver interface is quite easy to understand, and well documented, giving close relations to the kernel/hw at the same time as being logical and pretty straight-forward.
Good luck!
The biggest problem when it comes to OS/2's stability is the WPS. And the cause of 99% of all WPS problems is the display drivers. Get a good display adapter with good OS/2 drivers, and you're safe.. I'm running the beta of the new Warp Server (Aurora), and I've NEVER had a WPS crash so far. Been running it since October....
OS/2 - It works.