I dunno, but to me LOTR was about how the big lofty heroes do battle so the real life can go on without them. Hobbits present a rather idealistic version of anarchy as they don't even have real government with enforcement powers. Ents seem to have a democracy. Tom Bombadil is an individualist extraordinnaire. Dwarves seem to have an oligopoly but they are far from the romantic ideal. All those mighty elves go away when battle is done, ditto for Mordor folks. The king begins his reign by giving free territory to his allies. Did I mention those wild men who also seem to have anarchy as a mode of governance. Indeed, even the counsil of Elrond is not mandated but happens by chance. Basically the big heroes do have a fate to follow but page after page you read about how they long for quiet times when they can relax and smoke a joint. I read LOTR as romanticism turned on its head.
It is also not clear to me where Brin gets the idea that Mordor had all races represented. In fact Tolkien seems to set it up like a computer game so for every beast on one side you have a matching beast on the other. I do not recall dwarves serving Sauron, nor hobbits, ents, elves.
Basically, I agree with Brin's social analysis but using LOTR as a base seems strained at best.
If 90% of everything on TV is crap then (if you value your time) stop watching TV. I did. It can be done even without a support group. In fact, if you don't watch TV for about half a year and then turn it on, you might be astounded to find out that even the things you liked are really drivel. That's what happened to me. YMMV.
I agree. This is not a troll. I myself tried to watch farscape several times and each time I quit after ~2 minutes. I am wondering the same thing as the original poster. No offense intended to anyone, but could someone please enlighten us.
Mmmm, no. Linux is free. Alas, most importantly as in beer. That is its de facto selling point. You'd be surprised how many things people will put up with if they pay less.
I agree that X isn't necessarily a bad protocol. The problem with all X implementations, all of these Berlins and picoGuis and stuff is one and the same: context switching. More bluntly, I want my GUI in the kernel! Now that's just what I want so feel free to feel differently but until it is in the kernel you'll have to live with me bitching about X's speed and responsiveness.
Science "community" is getting larger, hence fraud is getting out of hand. I am a physics grad student and between this, the Schon saga and the Ninov debacle, this has been a bad year for physics. But I wager it will only get worse because physics is growing. My fear is that beyond a certain size, we will not be able to maintain knowledge in a coherent state between all practitioners.
So whoever had seen the sales pitch, please comment. Does this thing understand stenography? If it does, this could be way useful for board meetings and such and also for my own devious needs (going to a scientific seminar with one of those could then rock).
Ok, I am not in the software business at all, so I am just idly wondering here... What if in your analogy, instead of a PC with Windows 3.1, you had some other closed system. Like AS 400. I'd guess you could get IBM to support its hardware/software combo for 10 years. It seems to me not all closed systems are created equal w.r.t lifetime.
Thermal matching between glass and metal can be done. Look at your regular light bulb. See that metal-glass interface? It doesn't go bad after you switch the bulb on and off many times, does it? If these two were mismatched you'd have major failure rates and short bulb lifetimes. You do raise a valid concern but it can be engineered around.
It's not uncommon to think like that in this field. Especially since hydrogen has been shown to tunnel along a metal surface. So by comparison, copper is huge.
Well, as someone doing stm research I think I am qualified to answer. Quantum uncertainty isn't THE problem in this case. You are dealing with huge atoms like copper and even huger system like CO. They aren't exactly classical at this scale but they aren't going to tunnel out either. Especially since this research was done at or below 4K (Don only has low temp. microscope in the lab). At that temperature stuff doesn't like to go anywhere. The real limitations here are: a. STM is slow. In this case STM is used to manipulate individual atoms so it will be hard to make this much faster than it is already. b. STM tips sometimes change. They are usually atomically sharp so the probability of one atom moving is not altogether small. Not a big deal in research but may not be reliable enough for production. c. Copper or any other surface cannot be made entirely free of defects. This limits the size of circuits you can build. I will be amazed if this technology scales at all (even by one order of magnitude). d. Did I mention this will only work so reliably at low temperature? You have heard of crazy guys cooling their OC'ed rigs with liquid nitrogen... Well, this is waaaay colder than that.
All that said, this is very impressive work as far as research goes.
Round-trip-able is fine and all but is _any_ formatting lost between XML version and binary format? In so many words, from what you have seen, is there a point of writing a script to run Word in batch-convert mode? Is the XML version more faithful to original formatting than, say, OO import filter?
I am beginning to really like HIPAA. It seems to require that everyone in each medical organization be mindful of security and privacy. With any luck, this will force all the boneheaded medical stuff to get a second bachelors degree in computer science. Then maybe this will propagate until computer literacy (sufficient to run and configure e.g. HURD) will be required for any job, just like regular literacy is today. With laws like these twenty years from now could be sweet time to be around.
Soooo... As I see it, the license hinges on Bit_guys' opinions. So then it basically reduces to: "This software is free for use by my homies. If I cease to like you, then you pay." This in turn means that people using free version effectively now have overhead costs, namely keeping the McVoy guy happy.
It would be ironic if ahremgippity were to become an adjective to describe slow/fast (whichever way it works out in the end) thread performance, thus thwarting the "no default interpretation" intention of the authors.
Like many physicists, I have spent a good chunk of this morning reading the Beasley report on this case. There is nothing about this guy or his data that is not "troublesome", i.e. fake. When your read that virtually every paper he published is the result of scientific misconduct it gets very hard to feel bad for the guy. Instead I feel bad he is ruined at 32, not at 28.
I think the parent is a troll, but in case he is serious: What does a square wave do to your speakers? We have some decent peakers down in our lab, because we do vibration testing before real experiments run and we run all kinds of sharp looking waveforms thru them and we don't see any problems. This is in fixed setup, inside an acoustic room with acoustic level meters and accelerometers. Doesn't get any more precise than that. Our speakers are fine after 5 years. What's supposed to be the problem?
You can either file for the patent yourself or hire a lawyer. If you file yourself, buy a Nolo book and go. However, the trick with patents is not writing the bulk of it, but rather formulating the claims such that they would be difficult to circumvent. For this you might need a lawyer. If you do get a lawyer, remember that "filing" for a patent is only a part of it. You also need to file disclosure documents, i.e. what you know about prior art, and you also need a lawyer for the stage known as prosecution, i.e. for responding to office actions. Make sure your contract with your lawyer addresses these stages and seek another lawyer to review your contract with the first one. The price of $3,000 seems cheap but if your patent is simple and you are not in a major metropolitan area then maybe. $5,000-6,000 is more realistic for a simple patent. When I got my first patent, I thought some lawyers would work on contingency but they don't, not decent ones anyway.
If evolved programs are good for finding bugs, as you say, then there will be tons of applications for software testing. Imagine setting up a firewall and letting a bunch of evolving code hack at it. Given enough iterations all bugs are shallow:)
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, but to me LOTR was about how the big
lofty heroes do battle so the real life can go
on without them. Hobbits present a rather
idealistic version of anarchy as they don't
even have real government with enforcement
powers. Ents seem to have a democracy. Tom
Bombadil is an individualist extraordinnaire.
Dwarves seem to have an oligopoly but they are
far from the romantic ideal. All those mighty
elves go away when battle is done, ditto for
Mordor folks. The king begins his reign by giving
free territory to his allies. Did I mention those
wild men who also seem to have anarchy as a mode
of governance. Indeed, even the counsil of Elrond
is not mandated but happens by chance. Basically
the big heroes do have a fate to follow but page
after page you read about how they long for quiet
times when they can relax and smoke a joint.
I read LOTR as romanticism turned on its head.
It is also not clear to me where Brin gets the
idea that Mordor had all races represented.
In fact Tolkien seems to set it up like a computer
game so for every beast on one side you have a
matching beast on the other. I do not recall
dwarves serving Sauron, nor hobbits, ents, elves.
Basically, I agree with Brin's social analysis
but using LOTR as a base seems strained at best.
I work and I sleep. Everything else takes
less than 5% of my time per day, every day.
If 90% of everything on TV is crap then (if you
value your time) stop watching TV. I did. It can
be done even without a support group. In fact,
if you don't watch TV for about half a year and
then turn it on, you might be astounded to find
out that even the things you liked are really
drivel. That's what happened to me. YMMV.
I agree. This is not a troll. I myself tried to
watch farscape several times and each time I quit
after ~2 minutes. I am wondering the same thing
as the original poster. No offense intended to
anyone, but could someone please enlighten us.
Fourteen? Unless you're not counting Jeshua.
Mmmm, no. Linux is free. Alas, most importantly
as in beer. That is its de facto selling point.
You'd be surprised how many things people will
put up with if they pay less.
I agree that X isn't necessarily a bad protocol.
The problem with all X implementations, all of
these Berlins and picoGuis and stuff is one and
the same: context switching. More bluntly, I want
my GUI in the kernel! Now that's just what I want
so feel free to feel differently but until it is
in the kernel you'll have to live with me bitching
about X's speed and responsiveness.
Science "community" is getting larger, hence
fraud is getting out of hand. I am a physics
grad student and between this, the Schon saga
and the Ninov debacle, this has been a bad year
for physics. But I wager it will only get worse
because physics is growing. My fear is that
beyond a certain size, we will not be able to
maintain knowledge in a coherent state between
all practitioners.
So whoever had seen the sales pitch, please
comment. Does this thing understand stenography?
If it does, this could be way useful for
board meetings and such and also for my own
devious needs (going to a scientific seminar
with one of those could then rock).
Ok, I am not in the software business at all, so
I am just idly wondering here...
What if in your analogy, instead of a PC with
Windows 3.1, you had some other closed system.
Like AS 400. I'd guess you could get IBM to
support its hardware/software combo for 10 years.
It seems to me not all closed systems are created
equal w.r.t lifetime.
What does it say? In English, I mean.
I am not a Tolkien fanatic and not "wise in the lore" but didn't Tolkien write "The adventures of Tom Bombadil"?
Thermal matching between glass and metal can be
done. Look at your regular light bulb. See that
metal-glass interface? It doesn't go bad after
you switch the bulb on and off many times, does it?
If these two were mismatched you'd have major
failure rates and short bulb lifetimes. You do
raise a valid concern but it can be engineered
around.
It's not uncommon to think like that in this field.
Especially since hydrogen has been shown to
tunnel along a metal surface. So by comparison,
copper is huge.
Well, as someone doing stm research I think
I am qualified to answer. Quantum uncertainty
isn't THE problem in this case. You are dealing
with huge atoms like copper and even huger
system like CO. They aren't exactly classical
at this scale but they aren't going to tunnel
out either. Especially since this research was
done at or below 4K (Don only has low temp.
microscope in the lab). At that temperature stuff
doesn't like to go anywhere.
The real limitations here are:
a. STM is slow. In this case STM is used to
manipulate individual atoms so it will be hard to
make this much faster than it is already.
b. STM tips sometimes change. They are usually
atomically sharp so the probability of one atom
moving is not altogether small. Not a big deal
in research but may not be reliable enough for
production.
c. Copper or any other surface cannot be made
entirely free of defects. This limits the size of
circuits you can build. I will be amazed if this
technology scales at all (even by one order of
magnitude).
d. Did I mention this will only work so reliably
at low temperature? You have heard of crazy guys
cooling their OC'ed rigs with liquid nitrogen...
Well, this is waaaay colder than that.
All that said, this is very impressive work as far
as research goes.
Round-trip-able is fine and all but is _any_
formatting lost between XML version and binary
format? In so many words, from what you have
seen, is there a point of writing a script to
run Word in batch-convert mode? Is the XML
version more faithful to original formatting
than, say, OO import filter?
I am beginning to really like HIPAA. It seems
to require that everyone in each medical
organization be mindful of security and privacy.
With any luck, this will force all the
boneheaded medical stuff to get a second
bachelors degree in computer science. Then
maybe this will propagate until computer
literacy (sufficient to run and configure e.g. HURD)
will be required for any job, just like
regular literacy is today. With laws like these
twenty years from now could be sweet time to
be around.
If deep linking can you you in court, imagine
what deep caching will do...
Soooo...
As I see it, the license hinges on Bit_guys' opinions.
So then it basically reduces to: "This software is
free for use by my homies. If I cease to like you,
then you pay." This in turn means that people using
free version effectively now have overhead costs,
namely keeping the McVoy guy happy.
It would be ironic if ahremgippity were to become
an adjective to describe slow/fast (whichever
way it works out in the end) thread performance,
thus thwarting the "no default interpretation"
intention of the authors.
Like many physicists, I have spent a good chunk
of this morning reading the Beasley report on
this case. There is nothing about this guy or
his data that is not "troublesome", i.e. fake.
When your read that virtually every paper he
published is the result of scientific misconduct
it gets very hard to feel bad for the guy.
Instead I feel bad he is ruined at 32, not at 28.
I think the parent is a troll, but in case he is
serious:
What does a square wave do to your speakers?
We have some decent peakers down in our lab,
because we do vibration testing before real
experiments run and we run all kinds of sharp
looking waveforms thru them and we don't see
any problems. This is in fixed setup, inside an
acoustic room with acoustic level meters and
accelerometers. Doesn't get any more precise than
that. Our speakers are fine after 5 years.
What's supposed to be the problem?
You can either file for the patent yourself or
hire a lawyer. If you file yourself, buy a Nolo
book and go. However, the trick with patents is
not writing the bulk of it, but rather formulating
the claims such that they would be difficult to
circumvent. For this you might need a lawyer.
If you do get a lawyer, remember that "filing" for
a patent is only a part of it. You also need to
file disclosure documents, i.e. what you know
about prior art, and you also need a lawyer for
the stage known as prosecution, i.e. for
responding to office actions. Make sure your
contract with your lawyer addresses these stages
and seek another lawyer to review your contract
with the first one. The price of $3,000 seems
cheap but if your patent is simple and you are
not in a major metropolitan area then maybe.
$5,000-6,000 is more realistic for a simple
patent. When I got my first patent, I thought
some lawyers would work on contingency but they
don't, not decent ones anyway.
Their series are still the best. A bit on the
advanced side but self-contained and very
logical.
If evolved programs are good for finding bugs, :)
as you say, then there will be tons of
applications for software testing. Imagine
setting up a firewall and letting a bunch of
evolving code hack at it. Given enough iterations
all bugs are shallow