Well since you love name calling and insults I'll take my jab at you.
Insults? You got me started at: "Well hopefully as seems absurdly pointless so far." I just hate it when people try to paint their lack of imagination and inability to make connections as some sort of stupidity on my part. (see below)
You're a small minded nit wit who thinks that because google is the hot shit right now everything must in turn directly tie to it
Uh, no. Google is just a concrete example I can use to talk about a whole class of things. The comparison of Google to search that came before, and research tools are meant to sketch out a trajectory. And this trajectory has to do with how accessibility and ubiquity affect the use of a tool. At this point, it becomes obvious that you have never crossed such a threshold. This often happens in programming when going from one sort of environment to another, or one language to another. Either you don't have this experience, or you have had it, but didn't generalize it. Now that I spelled that out, are you also going to pretend you understood that all along?
You can't comprehend the difference between a technology being useful COMBINED with other advances and being useful on it's own.
Uh, the book Rainbows End is precisely about the combination of a variety of such technologies. That was what you were supposed to get in the beginning. BZZZZT! Thanks for Playing! You're now taking the very thing that you missed in the beginning and are now claiming it as your own?
A future version of it may be useful on it's own but that would require either much better software or hardware.
Uh, I *am* talking about future versions, and again, the subject of the book being discussed is about technology a decade or more down the line, and its societal implications. You, on the other hand, are the one talking about Blackberries and touting that as some sort of foresight that can deem research in this direction useless.
And google is useless for most of them. I know because I search for such things a lot due to my indecently varied interests. By the time you know what the term means from finding the proper reference and reading it the lecture is 50 terms ahead. Likewise you can already do this with smart phones, laptops and so on.
50 terms ahead? You know, there's a difference between stretching yourself out of intellectual curiosity into related fields and going to random lectures with no preparation. Laptops and Smart phones -- my what a prognosticator of future tech you are! Hmm, weren't you just talking about the combination of technologies? Please apply some of the actual thinking you were doing up above when you were writing this bit: "IF the interface was better then it could be useful but copying existing interfaces isn't a giant leap. I mean it having sub vocal commands, brain activity reading, proper eye tracking, working AI (in the light sense) help and so on." You're finally beginning to catch up. Did you finally read the Wikipedia article about Rainbows End, maybe?
Huh? Christ, learn to write proper comprehensible english.
Covering for some reading comprehension deficiency? Ok, I'll spell it out for you: As a counter-example you write about complex queries that take 10 minutes to parse. Then you proceed to talk about all queries as if they are those complex queries. That is an intellectual slip-up I am taking you to task for again. (With a bit of sarcasm.) 2nd point: If someone with a healthy dose of curiosity has a good number of intellectual conversations with people working in other fields, they come to realize that there is a time-consuming negotiation of technical terms that occurs often. (And often they are different terms for the same thing.) Someone with this experience and a bit of imagination would realize the utility of being able to look things up as if you could Google things telepathically. I imagine that you lack one of those two things.
Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better?
Did it? I've seen less scientific progress in the last decade than in the decades before the web. Follow biotechnology much? And the boon to Computer Science / Engineering has been huge, just for a start.
google is not a replacment for proper research. idle curiosity maybe
Being able to instantly satisfy curiosity instantly and effortlessly is what Google is about. That can be idle, or that can be a great time saver for research.
Which won't do anything a blackberry (or high end cell phone) does already except kill you when it goes off while you're driving (and no, you won't remember to turn the thing off every time you're in the car).
Ah, another one who *thinks* he's clever but posts before thinking ahead one or two steps. It's different for one key reason: they can't see you using it, so you can use it in *any* conversation - This means that you can conspire in ways that a blackberry won't allow you.
Have you ever googled anything? It doesn't matter if I can search as fast as I can say it, it still take me 200 times as long to parse the results as to say the query. If the query is complex it can take much longer, sometimes requiring multiple queries.
Ah, another example of "cleverness" -- finding the one strawman example and not considering the real ones, then presenting that as *cleverness*. There are lots of simple queries that *are* useful. There are lots of technical terms in fields that you don't know that would be immediately useful in contexts like lectures, business meetings, meeting people for the first time, intellectual conversations... Have many of those?
Speed is worthless, google and the web didn't make accessing data simply faster but they made MORE information accessible.
For one thing, it's obvious I am talking about accessibility, of which speed is only a part. The phenomenon of a quantitative difference in speed/accessibility leading to a qualitative difference has been touted by persons like Linus Torvalds and Alan Kay. I think I'll take *them* over you! (On the basis of their good past performance intellectually, and your poor one in your post, so no crying argument by authority, baby!)
BS, as I said searching is horridly time consuming to get information. For all intent sand purposes it doesn't matter if it takes you 1 second (saying it) or 10 seconds (use your cell phone) to open a search when it takes 10 minutes to parse the crap that you get.
Demolished above. Hmm, seems like you have 0 points left! Too bad you didn't think ahead enough to think another second to consider simple queries. And the last quote indicates that you slipped up and took your complicated query example and conflated it with all queries. Oh, wait, maybe you've already got an encyclopedic command of all technical terms in all fields known to man. Yup that's *much* more likely than your having low intellectual curiosity and not often seeking out conversations with people knowledgeable in fields you don't know about.
And this really is just the surface. Read Rainbows End -- if intellectual sci-fi would be your cup of tea. I'm not sure at this point.
(Exercise for the reader -- think of others. Use of neurons may be required.)
He's a math & computer science professor, and writes technically savvy sci-fi that wins Hugo awards.
Just one example: give people the ability to invisibly send and read text messages, and you get something that looks just like Mental Telepathy. And this is just the surface! What if those invisible gestures and heads-up display contact lenses also let you Google something almost as fast and effortlessly as you can say the word? And for you nay-sayers, search existed before Google -- why did Google make things so much better? Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better? Because if you cross certain thresholds in speed and accessibility, the quantitative difference becomes qualitative! Once searching for something becomes as easy as saying it, the very concept of *knowing* something changes. (Books already take us part way there. I "know" how to build a compiler. But if I couldn't reach for my copy of the "Dragon Book" I'd be awful lost!)
(arkanoid especially would be a COMPLETELY different game with some kind of continual level)
What a COOL IDEA! Continual Arkanoid! You could just have the blocks move down slowly, and provide voids to get some nice multiple bounces! The blocks could be lethal to run into. The permanent blocks would dissolve for some reason when you got to them, of course.
You're conflating two different uses of the word "pattern" from two different computer science/programming contexts and think this constitutes cleverness. BZZZZZT! Wrong! No cigar!
They're not even the same phrases. You're thinking of pattern recognition and pattern matching. Read the 2nd article. They are definitely not the same thing!
We need another RISC revolution, but in support of what we really need as programmers. That would be better support of VMs for high level languages. VMs in the sense of Xen will also be useful, but we are already making significant progress there.
If the sources for the cellulose are fast growing plants like Hemp, then it *is* carbon neutral. (Seriously, dude, you just have to think ahead just 1 more step.)
This was over 5 years ago. Web pages were downloading SLOWWWWLLLY with this router. I looked into it, and discovered that the throughput was normal, but the latency was horrendous. Furthermore, it was only the DNS that had high latency. No matter what settings I put in, the thing was trying to route all of my DNS requests to a some machine that I tracerouted to China. Someone trying to set up man-in-the-middle attacks, maybe?
I've been using Google Maps on an iPhone in the exact way that Dvorak says people don't use phones! You can put in "Pizza Hut near 666 River Styx Drive, 77666" and it'll give you the several nearest options. Press on the ">" and you get more info, including the phone number and an option to dial.
Even before the iPhone, I used Google SMS in pretty much the exact same way. (iPhone is better with the map, however!)
NASA? You also get into trade-offs with expense. (Especially the airbags.) I hope you're right and those things appear as safety options for small aircraft and not just ultralights, but I doubt it. It still doesn't do you that much good at fairly low altitudes where the chute has little time to open but are still high enough to be deadly.
My coworker are doing a VTOL RC model project, and we've talked about a chute from an Estes rocket kit. But I doubt we'll be using it.
For heavier aircraft, this is still not an option. Also, they still might not help for hovering at very low altitudes. I don't know of any ultralights that hover. (But let me know if I'm wrong!)
If Cyclogyros can hover or fly at very low speed, this definitely isn't an option. You wouldn't have enough forward velocity to generate lift. At low altitudes, this could easily be disastrous. You'd want some way of utilizing the rotational energy already stored in the rotors. Throwing that away is wasting a valuable resource in an emergency.
That would be lots of additional weight. Also, if Cyclogyros can hover or fly at very low speed, this wouldn't be an option. In many cases, there wouldn't be enough time for the chutes to open. You'd want some way of utilizing the rotational energy already stored in the rotors. Throwing that away is wasting a valuable resource in an emergency.
Can Cyclogyros autorotate like helicopters? I suspect that they can. I have seen plans for model "airplanes" that are spinning cylinders of airfoils. This would make them a lot safer. (Or give an option for a safe recovery mode of a robot in case of engine failure.)
Speaking of scorch marks on the wall behind the computer, Arthur C. Clarke's Venus Prime had a Steam Cooled Nano-Supercomputer. It looked like one of those aerators you screw on to the end of the faucet on your kitchen sink. And that's what the main character did with it. The water would vaporize as steam, dissipating enormous amounts of heat.
That African kid is amazing he can do all that. Even more amazing that he's managed to fly the thing. I hope he can keep himself from getting killed. What talent!
It would be easy to collect data over time and determine not only when traffic jams happen, but the best alternate routes when traffic jams happen. You could also train a neural network to give you better travel times. Perhaps not so much the "wisdom" of the crowds as it is the "experience" of the crowds. But it is valid, and it could be quite useful.
A lot of these sorts of technologies were aggregated (PDF) by the Hexayurt folks. The hexayurt is itself one of these technologies. A roomy shelter costing just over $200, takes just a few hours to build, and has the R-value of a typical house.
You wouldn't see "other big bangs happening in space" because the big bang didn't happen at a point in space. It happened to all of space simultaneously. If we were two dimensional creatures, the expansion of our universe would be like being on the surface of a balloon that's being inflated. Other big bangs would be like other balloons inflating. But we couldn't see them if we were 2D, since all of our perceptions are trapped in our own 2D universe.
(Our big bang could also be a local swelling/bubbling-out on a much larger balloon. But you still wouldn't see these happening in space as some kind of explosion.)
An interesting proposal is to use sulfur lamps, which provide the needed frequencies for plants and are even more efficient than fluorescents. The 2 week lunar night can be bridged by many plants by lowering the temperature and providing a low level of artificial light for 16 hours in 24. (At about the level of an overcast day on Earth.)
Also, algae can be gown in the 2 week period when light is available, then used to feed animals (esp. fish).
I read somewhere that the Russians did experiments with growing plants with 2 weeks of sunlight followed by 2 weeks of relative darkness at low temperature. (Not lunar nighttime temperature, but above freezing.) It seems that there are plants can acclimatize to such conditions. (In particular, peas.) They remain dormant and are able to survive for the 2 weeks when the temperature is lowered less light is available, then continue growing. Using specially tuned LEDs, we could provide the interim power for the 2 weeks "economically." (Relatively speaking. NASA contractors would probably charge million$!)
Slashdot Mirror
Well since you love name calling and insults I'll take my jab at you.
Insults? You got me started at: "Well hopefully as seems absurdly pointless so far." I just hate it when people try to paint their lack of imagination and inability to make connections as some sort of stupidity on my part. (see below)
You're a small minded nit wit who thinks that because google is the hot shit right now everything must in turn directly tie to it
Uh, no. Google is just a concrete example I can use to talk about a whole class of things. The comparison of Google to search that came before, and research tools are meant to sketch out a trajectory. And this trajectory has to do with how accessibility and ubiquity affect the use of a tool. At this point, it becomes obvious that you have never crossed such a threshold. This often happens in programming when going from one sort of environment to another, or one language to another. Either you don't have this experience, or you have had it, but didn't generalize it. Now that I spelled that out, are you also going to pretend you understood that all along?
You can't comprehend the difference between a technology being useful COMBINED with other advances and being useful on it's own.
Uh, the book Rainbows End is precisely about the combination of a variety of such technologies. That was what you were supposed to get in the beginning. BZZZZT! Thanks for Playing! You're now taking the very thing that you missed in the beginning and are now claiming it as your own?
A future version of it may be useful on it's own but that would require either much better software or hardware.
Uh, I *am* talking about future versions, and again, the subject of the book being discussed is about technology a decade or more down the line, and its societal implications. You, on the other hand, are the one talking about Blackberries and touting that as some sort of foresight that can deem research in this direction useless.
And google is useless for most of them. I know because I search for such things a lot due to my indecently varied interests. By the time you know what the term means from finding the proper reference and reading it the lecture is 50 terms ahead. Likewise you can already do this with smart phones, laptops and so on.
50 terms ahead? You know, there's a difference between stretching yourself out of intellectual curiosity into related fields and going to random lectures with no preparation. Laptops and Smart phones -- my what a prognosticator of future tech you are! Hmm, weren't you just talking about the combination of technologies? Please apply some of the actual thinking you were doing up above when you were writing this bit: "IF the interface was better then it could be useful but copying existing interfaces isn't a giant leap. I mean it having sub vocal commands, brain activity reading, proper eye tracking, working AI (in the light sense) help and so on." You're finally beginning to catch up. Did you finally read the Wikipedia article about Rainbows End, maybe?
Huh? Christ, learn to write proper comprehensible english.
Covering for some reading comprehension deficiency? Ok, I'll spell it out for you: As a counter-example you write about complex queries that take 10 minutes to parse. Then you proceed to talk about all queries as if they are those complex queries. That is an intellectual slip-up I am taking you to task for again. (With a bit of sarcasm.) 2nd point: If someone with a healthy dose of curiosity has a good number of intellectual conversations with people working in other fields, they come to realize that there is a time-consuming negotiation of technical terms that occurs often. (And often they are different terms for the same thing.) Someone with this experience and a bit of imagination would realize the utility of being able to look things up as if you could Google things telepathically. I imagine that you lack one of those two things.
Did it? I've seen less scientific progress in the last decade than in the decades before the web. Follow biotechnology much? And the boon to Computer Science / Engineering has been huge, just for a start.
google is not a replacment for proper research. idle curiosity maybe
Being able to instantly satisfy curiosity instantly and effortlessly is what Google is about. That can be idle, or that can be a great time saver for research.
Which won't do anything a blackberry (or high end cell phone) does already except kill you when it goes off while you're driving (and no, you won't remember to turn the thing off every time you're in the car).
Ah, another one who *thinks* he's clever but posts before thinking ahead one or two steps. It's different for one key reason: they can't see you using it, so you can use it in *any* conversation - This means that you can conspire in ways that a blackberry won't allow you.
Have you ever googled anything? It doesn't matter if I can search as fast as I can say it, it still take me 200 times as long to parse the results as to say the query. If the query is complex it can take much longer, sometimes requiring multiple queries.
Ah, another example of "cleverness" -- finding the one strawman example and not considering the real ones, then presenting that as *cleverness*. There are lots of simple queries that *are* useful. There are lots of technical terms in fields that you don't know that would be immediately useful in contexts like lectures, business meetings, meeting people for the first time, intellectual conversations... Have many of those?
Speed is worthless, google and the web didn't make accessing data simply faster but they made MORE information accessible.
For one thing, it's obvious I am talking about accessibility, of which speed is only a part. The phenomenon of a quantitative difference in speed/accessibility leading to a qualitative difference has been touted by persons like Linus Torvalds and Alan Kay. I think I'll take *them* over you! (On the basis of their good past performance intellectually, and your poor one in your post, so no crying argument by authority, baby!)
BS, as I said searching is horridly time consuming to get information. For all intent sand purposes it doesn't matter if it takes you 1 second (saying it) or 10 seconds (use your cell phone) to open a search when it takes 10 minutes to parse the crap that you get.
Demolished above. Hmm, seems like you have 0 points left! Too bad you didn't think ahead enough to think another second to consider simple queries. And the last quote indicates that you slipped up and took your complicated query example and conflated it with all queries. Oh, wait, maybe you've already got an encyclopedic command of all technical terms in all fields known to man. Yup that's *much* more likely than your having low intellectual curiosity and not often seeking out conversations with people knowledgeable in fields you don't know about.
And this really is just the surface. Read Rainbows End -- if intellectual sci-fi would be your cup of tea. I'm not sure at this point.
(Exercise for the reader -- think of others. Use of neurons may be required.)
If you need a primer on the implications of wearable computing, read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge (who is known for popularizing the Singularity concept.
He's a math & computer science professor, and writes technically savvy sci-fi that wins Hugo awards.
Just one example: give people the ability to invisibly send and read text messages, and you get something that looks just like Mental Telepathy. And this is just the surface! What if those invisible gestures and heads-up display contact lenses also let you Google something almost as fast and effortlessly as you can say the word? And for you nay-sayers, search existed before Google -- why did Google make things so much better? Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better? Because if you cross certain thresholds in speed and accessibility, the quantitative difference becomes qualitative! Once searching for something becomes as easy as saying it, the very concept of *knowing* something changes. (Books already take us part way there. I "know" how to build a compiler. But if I couldn't reach for my copy of the "Dragon Book" I'd be awful lost!)
(arkanoid especially would be a COMPLETELY different game with some kind of continual level)
What a COOL IDEA! Continual Arkanoid! You could just have the blocks move down slowly, and provide voids to get some nice multiple bounces! The blocks could be lethal to run into. The permanent blocks would dissolve for some reason when you got to them, of course.
You're conflating two different uses of the word "pattern" from two different computer science/programming contexts and think this constitutes cleverness. BZZZZZT! Wrong! No cigar!
They're not even the same phrases. You're thinking of pattern recognition and pattern matching. Read the 2nd article. They are definitely not the same thing!
We need another RISC revolution, but in support of what we really need as programmers. That would be better support of VMs for high level languages. VMs in the sense of Xen will also be useful, but we are already making significant progress there.
brought you "Your Friend, the Shark!" Darnit, I can't find that particular Bloom County comic anywhere!
If the sources for the cellulose are fast growing plants like Hemp, then it *is* carbon neutral. (Seriously, dude, you just have to think ahead just 1 more step.)
This was over 5 years ago. Web pages were downloading SLOWWWWLLLY with this router. I looked into it, and discovered that the throughput was normal, but the latency was horrendous. Furthermore, it was only the DNS that had high latency. No matter what settings I put in, the thing was trying to route all of my DNS requests to a some machine that I tracerouted to China. Someone trying to set up man-in-the-middle attacks, maybe?
I've been using Google Maps on an iPhone in the exact way that Dvorak says people don't use phones! You can put in "Pizza Hut near 666 River Styx Drive, 77666" and it'll give you the several nearest options. Press on the ">" and you get more info, including the phone number and an option to dial.
Even before the iPhone, I used Google SMS in pretty much the exact same way. (iPhone is better with the map, however!)
I guess that's the intermediate stage.
NASA? You also get into trade-offs with expense. (Especially the airbags.) I hope you're right and those things appear as safety options for small aircraft and not just ultralights, but I doubt it. It still doesn't do you that much good at fairly low altitudes where the chute has little time to open but are still high enough to be deadly.
My coworker are doing a VTOL RC model project, and we've talked about a chute from an Estes rocket kit. But I doubt we'll be using it.
For heavier aircraft, this is still not an option. Also, they still might not help for hovering at very low altitudes. I don't know of any ultralights that hover. (But let me know if I'm wrong!)
If Cyclogyros can hover or fly at very low speed, this definitely isn't an option. You wouldn't have enough forward velocity to generate lift. At low altitudes, this could easily be disastrous. You'd want some way of utilizing the rotational energy already stored in the rotors. Throwing that away is wasting a valuable resource in an emergency.
That would be lots of additional weight. Also, if Cyclogyros can hover or fly at very low speed, this wouldn't be an option. In many cases, there wouldn't be enough time for the chutes to open. You'd want some way of utilizing the rotational energy already stored in the rotors. Throwing that away is wasting a valuable resource in an emergency.
Can Cyclogyros autorotate like helicopters? I suspect that they can. I have seen plans for model "airplanes" that are spinning cylinders of airfoils. This would make them a lot safer. (Or give an option for a safe recovery mode of a robot in case of engine failure.)
Lots of Google Entries but no Wikipedia
Speaking of scorch marks on the wall behind the computer, Arthur C. Clarke's Venus Prime had a Steam Cooled Nano-Supercomputer. It looked like one of those aerators you screw on to the end of the faucet on your kitchen sink. And that's what the main character did with it. The water would vaporize as steam, dissipating enormous amounts of heat.
I thought knocking holes in walls so you could watch porn got you in trouble like this guy?
Amazingly, the guy walks away from this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mo82pnyMR44
That African kid is amazing he can do all that. Even more amazing that he's managed to fly the thing. I hope he can keep himself from getting killed. What talent!
It would be easy to collect data over time and determine not only when traffic jams happen, but the best alternate routes when traffic jams happen. You could also train a neural network to give you better travel times. Perhaps not so much the "wisdom" of the crowds as it is the "experience" of the crowds. But it is valid, and it could be quite useful.
A lot of these sorts of technologies were aggregated (PDF) by the Hexayurt folks. The hexayurt is itself one of these technologies. A roomy shelter costing just over $200, takes just a few hours to build, and has the R-value of a typical house.
http://hexayurt.com/
You wouldn't see "other big bangs happening in space" because the big bang didn't happen at a point in space. It happened to all of space simultaneously. If we were two dimensional creatures, the expansion of our universe would be like being on the surface of a balloon that's being inflated. Other big bangs would be like other balloons inflating. But we couldn't see them if we were 2D, since all of our perceptions are trapped in our own 2D universe.
(Our big bang could also be a local swelling/bubbling-out on a much larger balloon. But you still wouldn't see these happening in space as some kind of explosion.)
Here's a link on Lunar Agriculture
http://www.moonminer.com/Lunar_Food_Supply.html
An interesting proposal is to use sulfur lamps, which provide the needed frequencies for plants and are even more efficient than fluorescents. The 2 week lunar night can be bridged by many plants by lowering the temperature and providing a low level of artificial light for 16 hours in 24. (At about the level of an overcast day on Earth.)
Also, algae can be gown in the 2 week period when light is available, then used to feed animals (esp. fish).
I read somewhere that the Russians did experiments with growing plants with 2 weeks of sunlight followed by 2 weeks of relative darkness at low temperature. (Not lunar nighttime temperature, but above freezing.) It seems that there are plants can acclimatize to such conditions. (In particular, peas.) They remain dormant and are able to survive for the 2 weeks when the temperature is lowered less light is available, then continue growing. Using specially tuned LEDs, we could provide the interim power for the 2 weeks "economically." (Relatively speaking. NASA contractors would probably charge million$!)
Here's some folks in New Zealand doing experiments that simulate lunar agriculture. There are many papers related to lunar agriculture as well.