Since I'm a small fish in a big pond, I hope Slashdot readers can be my market research team.
Thank you so much for preempting all the "do your own research, asshole" posts. Unfortunately, you did not preempt all the people that will whine about those posts anyway (me).
They're just saying that their robot has the processing power of a bee or a wasp. Which may be true. However, the bee or wasp has had millions of years to perfect it's programming.
The software is lacking. The robotics are lacking. But not the raw calculations per second.
Comparing humans to individual ants doesn't make any sense. Individual ants do not have a drive to procreate, since they are sterile. Only sexually viable ants are in any way comparable to humans in terms of individualism vs. collectivism. And if anyone on either side thinks human motivations are significantly better or worse modulated than animals in terms of individualism & collectivism, you're wrong. They're the same.
I would also point out that y'all Randians tend to frequently ignore situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial and should be in keeping with an individualist stance. An example is this: which is more common, collectivist hives of sterile ants, or individualist ants?
Gameboy Advance. Cartridges. Plays Gameboy & Gameboy Color games.
The original Gameboy sold like crazy. Backwards compatibility matters when space is important (Gameboy) and especially if you have a huge installed base (Gameboy).
XBox has neither of these "problems". If space was important, your weren't buying that behemoth anyway. In The Future, the original XBox might get smaller, too. That assumes that they can sell any.
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint. What do humans bring to the table? Propaganda value, and local decision-making ability. That is all. They need to be pampered and babied
I agree that humans are not worth sending to Mars anytime soon. However, your point is exactly backwards. The advantage to people is not their decision making ability. All their decision making would be exactly according to rules set out by mission control well in advance. If there are any problems that put them out of communication with Earth, and the potential solutions are not well anticipated, they're as good as dead. Any other problem solving scenario would be just as well dealt with by a machine: Either follow rules in the absence of communication, or follow orders in the absence of predefined rules.
What humans are good for in a space mission is robotics. They have incredibly good sensory abilities and a wide range of incredibly good motor skills. Unfortunately, their operational constraints can be more difficult than machines. This makes them very expensive to transport. They are also expensive to train, although in projects of this magnitude I don't know how significant the training costs are.
DARPA never offered funding to OpenBSD. They gave a big grant to Jonathan Smith, professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He's done a variety of (tepid, IMHO) research in software security and other fields. I'm quite curious why they chose to give him so much cash.
Anyway, after they offered him the money, he said yeah, thanks, your money would be best spent on OpenBSD. So Jonathan Smith was going to give it to Theo De Raadt.
Theo said some very mild things to the press, but it caught aflame and the checkbook didn't like the idea that they were giving so much money to a Canadian that was going to get so much attention.
If DARPA had wanted to give money to OpenBSD, they could do that anytime. They probably expected new research out of Jonathan Smith, not further development of an existing operating system.
Has anyone received any of those "www.e-qo1d.com" fraud emails?
Try clicking the link. It does the standard URL spoofing.
If you select the address and retype it (so long as you don't type a "/" at the end), you will remain at the scammer's website.
So really, when they say "don't click; type the link" they mean:
1) Click the link, so you can find out what the URL is. 2) Open a whole new IE window and retype the link. The IE window you have already opened is poisoned.
I'm there and it sucks. Email me at dojothemouse@mac.com and I'll invite you. I'll need your name and email address. If I get lazy and too many people ask, I'll stop doing it.
You think they don't know who you are if you don't fill out the form? What, Safeway is stupid? They spend an insane amount of money to figure out how to place their products. They'll figure out who the hell you are, and associate your purchases with all the information that is commercially available to them.
Starting with THE CARD YOU USE TO PAY. What does it matter if you don't fill it out if you use your ATM or credit card? It's got *all* your information associated with it. Bingo. They're done.
Right. But your dumb-terminal approach isn't what took away the ability to control your input. It's that people willingly give that control away. Dumb terminals have nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I'm a small fish in a big pond, I hope Slashdot readers can be my market research team.
Thank you so much for preempting all the "do your own research, asshole" posts. Unfortunately, you did not preempt all the people that will whine about those posts anyway (me).
They're just saying that their robot has the processing power of a bee or a wasp. Which may be true. However, the bee or wasp has had millions of years to perfect it's programming.
The software is lacking. The robotics are lacking. But not the raw calculations per second.
Comparing humans to individual ants doesn't make any sense. Individual ants do not have a drive to procreate, since they are sterile. Only sexually viable ants are in any way comparable to humans in terms of individualism vs. collectivism. And if anyone on either side thinks human motivations are significantly better or worse modulated than animals in terms of individualism & collectivism, you're wrong. They're the same.
I would also point out that y'all Randians tend to frequently ignore situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial and should be in keeping with an individualist stance. An example is this: which is more common, collectivist hives of sterile ants, or individualist ants?
Gameboy Advance. Cartridges. Plays Gameboy & Gameboy Color games.
The original Gameboy sold like crazy. Backwards compatibility matters when space is important (Gameboy) and especially if you have a huge installed base (Gameboy).
XBox has neither of these "problems". If space was important, your weren't buying that behemoth anyway. In The Future, the original XBox might get smaller, too. That assumes that they can sell any.
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint. What do humans bring to the table? Propaganda value, and local decision-making ability. That is all. They need to be pampered and babied
I agree that humans are not worth sending to Mars anytime soon. However, your point is exactly backwards. The advantage to people is not their decision making ability. All their decision making would be exactly according to rules set out by mission control well in advance. If there are any problems that put them out of communication with Earth, and the potential solutions are not well anticipated, they're as good as dead. Any other problem solving scenario would be just as well dealt with by a machine: Either follow rules in the absence of communication, or follow orders in the absence of predefined rules.
What humans are good for in a space mission is robotics. They have incredibly good sensory abilities and a wide range of incredibly good motor skills. Unfortunately, their operational constraints can be more difficult than machines. This makes them very expensive to transport. They are also expensive to train, although in projects of this magnitude I don't know how significant the training costs are.
Everyone.
In retrospect, my joke was not funny. I apologize.
Quake and UT both run on MacOS. You could start there. This "Halo" thing seems to be kindof popular too.
Dunno about RPGs. But my Mac is a G3 (an old G3), so I don't exactly keep up with Mac gaming. RPGs are for nerds, anyway.
This isn't about passenger travel. Or about space travel. It's about being able to put large bombs anywhere in the world in a short amount of time.
You went through all the trouble to get a tinyurl, why not just make a damn clickable link?
DARPA never offered funding to OpenBSD. They gave a big grant to Jonathan Smith, professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He's done a variety of (tepid, IMHO) research in software security and other fields. I'm quite curious why they chose to give him so much cash.
Anyway, after they offered him the money, he said yeah, thanks, your money would be best spent on OpenBSD. So Jonathan Smith was going to give it to Theo De Raadt.
Theo said some very mild things to the press, but it caught aflame and the checkbook didn't like the idea that they were giving so much money to a Canadian that was going to get so much attention.
If DARPA had wanted to give money to OpenBSD, they could do that anytime. They probably expected new research out of Jonathan Smith, not further development of an existing operating system.
No one does, though. So you tell me why no one compiles anything to be statically linked.
And you can include .NET in your installer too. This is like complaining YOU STILL NEED JAVA, or YOU STILL NEED GLIBC. Of course you fucking do.
Jesus God, this is stupid.
Has anyone received any of those "www.e-qo1d.com" fraud emails?
Try clicking the link. It does the standard URL spoofing.
If you select the address and retype it (so long as you don't type a "/" at the end), you will remain at the scammer's website.
So really, when they say "don't click; type the link" they mean:
1) Click the link, so you can find out what the URL is.
2) Open a whole new IE window and retype the link. The IE window you have already opened is poisoned.
(See subject.)
Obviously we can afford more dangerous videogames until this kind of idiocy results in death.
Dude, with the XSS bugs in Orkut, joining Orkut is the equivalent of getting your email addresses harvested.
That was just because the computers came in black magnesium cubes. They looked the part.
Amen. I don't want to admit to any of my real friends that I'm on it just because it's so fucking lame.
I'm there and it sucks. Email me at dojothemouse@mac.com and I'll invite you. I'll need your name and email address. If I get lazy and too many people ask, I'll stop doing it.
Orkut sucks. Well. I'm there, and I have 1 friend. When I joined friendster, I had 25 friends waiting for me.
Want an invite? Email me at dojothemouse@mac.com
Sure thing. Email me at dojothemouse@mac.com
You think they don't know who you are if you don't fill out the form? What, Safeway is stupid? They spend an insane amount of money to figure out how to place their products. They'll figure out who the hell you are, and associate your purchases with all the information that is commercially available to them.
Starting with THE CARD YOU USE TO PAY. What does it matter if you don't fill it out if you use your ATM or credit card? It's got *all* your information associated with it. Bingo. They're done.
Right. But your dumb-terminal approach isn't what took away the ability to control your input. It's that people willingly give that control away. Dumb terminals have nothing to do with it.
You could try a pdb, personal digital brooch. Assuming nobody gives you any accusatory chest pokes.
I thought that comment of the poster's was facetious.
I also thought they were talking about dog collars...