I see what you're talking about, but it would require that Windows itself support.WMF images as an alternative format to the.BMP and and.ICO for desktop icons and widgets; I've never seen any mention that Windows has that kind of functionality, though I've never looked for it either. If there is support, at the OS level, for WMF icon files and data, then Windows would be, as you suggest, capable of going straight to vector-ish scalable displays.
Though it obviously doesn't help that every windows program today has bmps and icos embedded within DLLs, and aren't in any sort of realistically scaleable format.
Isn't the large Icon's setting in Plus! allow for support of 64x64 icons?
Of course, that's actually still too small, and it doesn't scale very intelligently, but it's a step in the direction. I'm betting Apple will be able to leverage this new display technology and wow everyone =)
Yes it would be cool. NeXT had display postscript over 10 years ago. Apple now has display PDF in their upcoming MacOS X.
So your prayers are answered, and they have been done so by the man called Jobs. Fear.
Anyway, it may be that Apple can support this right off the bat, with their vector based display system, Quartz, and 128pix icons, etc. All of a sudden, it seems everything is going Apple's way. Hmmm.
It's not so much a legacy driver problem, so much as a lack of foresight on the OS people's side! NeXT has had a solution for this problem for over a decade, and it looks like MacOS X will also be able to overcome this hurdle very easily; Display Postscript and Quartz, the PDF version of the above. I guess you could call this legacy software...
I'd imagine an Apple handheld using a 3x4 inch 200dpi display(that's 800x600! wow) would be awesome. Or a 19" LCD for their pro series desktop, when they can scale to that size... 3000x2200 here! Or imagine nextgen gameboys with monocle displays; a 1x1" display would easily match today's gameboy resolution of 144x144 pixels. Or a PDA with a monocle display!
I wonder how Apple is going to try to capitalize on their ability to display 128x128 pixel icons and their Quartz Display PDF capabilities? Right off the bat the icons would be larger than 5/8, which is about right, if on the small size. I'm not sure it was explicitly mentioned, but Toshiba are only shipping 4" and 6" screens; were IBM's not limited to that size, by omission of detail?
For being central to such a vocal part of the community, do you actually read, write, and communicate with the community? Do you use a nom de plume, and for what reasons?
It *seems* as if you can relate to us, but do you actually, as it were, live in the trenches? There's the JonKatz I see as an author, journalist, etc, but there's also the JonKatz I'd be interested in seeing as the person, with opinions, viewpoints, and responses that aren't so thought out or calculated, edited, refined, etc.
So why not voice recognition on cell phones, since that's already the main interface pardigm for the device? Why is it WAP phones and all the newfangled cell phones have/use LCD displays and buttons, when it seems to make sense to just *talk* to the phone?
Of course, don't get rid of the buttons(legacy support and all), but it makes as much sense for a phone to be spoken to as to use a keypad to enter numbers or names, text, dates, etc.
Some thoughts into how low power high performance processing may come into play(along with flexible LCD displays, laser based displays, etc)
Cars with wireless connectivity. Laser or LCD based HUDs projecting onto windows, rearviews, etc. Range finders telling you how far each car is, velocity, etc. 2d map always projected on some corner of your windshield telling you street signs ahead or behind, traffic conditions, road conditions, weather conditions. Cars relaying this info back and for to each other as they start to slow down or pile up.
PDAs with a monocle laser/lcd projection display. Sorta like the 'old' failed gameboy/3d experiment Nintendo tried? They used mirrors and red LEDs, I think. Display is a monocle, if voice is to be used, perhaps a subvocal microphone at the base of the jaw or something, and the 'pen' input would be your watch, more or less, if it uses grafitti. A larger surface, about the size of the Palm today, would 'snap' into this network for enhanced color displays and input options. Oh, mustn't forget all of this is wirelessly connected =)
The Palm device would probably house the high speed wireless connectivity, of course. What would this be used for? I'm not that much of a visionary, it just sounds cool =)
But it could prolly replace cell phones, pagers, beepers, PDAs, and stuff. Ugh, to many things to carry today anyway! Don't forget that the wristwatch device would have a 400mb HD and a processor fast enough to decode mp3s, if one were so inclined. Power is something else to be considered, though. Hm...
Cell phones with voice recognition! Ugh, why, if the phone is supposed to be a audible tool in the first place, is it littered with buttons and menus and stuff that could be concievable voice activated? Anyone see the WAP phones with screen/PDA interfaces? It seems more natural to speak into it in the first place, since that's it's primary purpose!
Milk cartons would have acidity and toxin sensors and the display cases would continually scan for containers with bad milk. This would literally require disposable sensors and computing!
Heh, Rubbermaid containers with similar technology to tell if your food is going bad!
Tires that actually self monitor (via sonar, radar, whatever) their condition, air pressure, wear, etc.
Sorting things according to size? If they can be suspended in a dense enough fluid, like Guiness, larger things will float to the top while the smaller objects cannot help but be carried away by the fluid flow.
Now if you actually mixed this method with some sort of incremental generative process, then things that sink will eventually get larger, while the objects floating on the top can be scooped up for usage! Sorta wacky way of how snow is actually generated in our atmosphere; the wind keeps the water/ice/snow fragments suspended until they get too large or heavy and proceed to fall down.
This needs to be seen by everyone talking about writing codecs, formats, servers, clients, etc.
There is, IIANM, the open source like Darwin server, and this tidbit tells us we can write our own codecs for Quicktime; the problem being that Apple hasn't released the general Quicktime player for Linux, etc. But if we can write our own codec and player, then the problem disappears!
The article seems to talk about how media content and distribution will be controlled by three corporations, Apple, Real, and Microsoft, as an analogy to CBS, NBC, and ABC. However, as far as I can tell, this analogy is crap. The three broadcasting networks control content, because up until now it was fairly expensive to create a video. They aren't winners because they control the video format(Beta, VHS, or DV), because they control the airwaves(they have to license out frequencies, not that they can own them!), or because they control the TVs(hardly! Sony, Panasonic, etc.), but because they have the funds to create content with actors, sets, special effects, scripts, and storylines, and they can attract advertisers.
So in comparison, the format(codecs), the distribution(wires, cables, and lines), or the clients(Quicktime, Real, or Windows Media) is also similarly pointless. It's the production software, which from Adobe costs $600 for special effects and $900 for video editing), $1.4k for an iMacDV with firewire and additional software/hardware, $0.8k for a cheapo Sony Firewire enabled digital8 camcorder, and maybe even a USB/Firewire CD-R for backup/archival/storage purposes at $0.3k
Getting actors, scripts, sets, etc, is a little harder, but Blair Witch proved it can be done. Most actors are starving/unemployed/checkout baggers, I guess, so it should not be too hard a problem =)
So once everyone(if Apple can get an iMacDV into every household) has the capability to create video content, what's stopping people? Serving it? Viewing it? Isn't that what Apple's Open Source Darwin server is about?
One thing I concede; Apple isn't yet supporting Quicktime for Linux. That sucks, but it's hardly the reason why media distribution will be controled by the big three; it's just short-sightedness on Apple's part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a problem over codecs, streaming software, or even distribution; all that exists, it just remains up to the consumer to create content!
The best solution is probable: control the viewer and server. If a codec maker dose not want to go OSS then we should make it hard for them to get users.. up to the point that they are really a hell of a lot better then anyhting we are using.. at which point we should compramize a little.
I'm not sure why you think this is the best solution? The problem(I think) is "How do we create a situation in which *anyone* can distribute their own media?", something along the way in which HTML has opened content distribution to the masses. Server might be useful in doing so, in order to prevent large corporations from dictating who can and can't distribute media. Viewers, I suspect is *almost* a pointless battle, excepting that most corporations don't support Linux. In that respect, the battle is just to gain recognition and equality.
The more powerful question is how to give people the capability to create content in the first place, and this is unavoidable; they have to own fairly high powered machines, they need some extensive video equipment, and they need the appropriate software.
Whether you like it or not, the two best solutions I can think of are Apple's iMac DV and Sony's Vaio computer systems, with Firewire, software, and computing horsepower all bundled together in one fell swoop. All that's needed after that would be some tapes and a digital camcorder, which is still unfortunately in the $0.8k range.
The battle over the clients just dictates who can see the media, not who can distribute it. The battle over the servers may be a moot point, what with Apple open sourcing their Quicktime server(but not their codecs) All that remains is for Apple to port a binary only Quicktime player for Linux, BeOS, etc.
It is also worth mentioning that codec makers make money by licensing the authoring software (i think) or with crap attached to the codec, so there should probable be a push to implement OSS versions of the authoring software and codecs in countries where the patent dose not apply.. then make the OSS version the default, i.e. default RedHat xanim has no support for the codec so the user is forced to choose between downloading a single OSS xanim which is illegal or downloading a million codecs. This will cut into there proffit margin.
Now you're getting somewhere; but somehow I suspect anything the OS community can come up with, the commercial houses will just come up with something better-one could always use the GIMP/Photoshop conflict as an analogy, and I really don't think Photoshop will be dying anytime soon. It supports too many professionals who just want to get their job done, and are willing to pay for it, rather than deal with the GIMP, much as a lot of people would rather deal with Mac or Windows over Linux, because both are rather incomplete in the useability department, though marvelous strides have been made.
So I don't know too much about the Apple Quicktime Server they've open sourced; if it's anything like I imagine it, codecs aren't the issue, clients are the issue. If someone has content, then anyone can stream it because of this open source server, thus solving one problem with the media distribution system. I don't think one can get around the high cost of media content, if only because one still needs equipment and software. And clients, well, that something someone has to fight over the decoding codecs.
Now I have to disagree; I think Windows is crap because it's unstable and resource intensive, not because it hasn't improved over the years.
I think Gameboy is great because it's small, easy to use, has a long battery life, and some great games-and there has been no need to change these features other than minor evolutionary refinements. The screensize grew, the clarity and brightness of the screen improved, it's become even smaller now, and it has even better games available, with faster processor and more memory addressable and the availability of color.
Very similar arguments can be made about the Palm Pilot as well, in terms of why it is a good device where others have failed
-AS
Re:What use is the Metaverse?
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 2
The Metaverse is not necessary for group meetings; I hope you realize this?
At worst VR goggles, sound stages, and arrays of video cameras can do this today. At best you'd use digital whiteboards, teleconferencing systems, videophone solutions, and connected PCs.
That's a very interesting standard of proof. You're saying that if I could come up with a theory that doesn't contradict anything (ie. completely coherent) then it's automatically true?
No, just that it isn't possible to disprove it; I'm not one to believe in ultimate truth, so there is nothing that is automatically true.
I postulate that rational thought and human logic are not sufficient to yield absolute truth in any matter but in realizing their failings.
I wholeheartedly agree, unfortunately; no amount of human rationalization, logical thought, and reasoning will ever get us to any sort of truth because there isn't any sort of 'truth' in this universe; just existence or not existence. At least by my perspective.
According to your standard of proof, this must be true, because it contradicts nothing (it supercedes anything that could contradict it!)
Not that I necessarily think it must be true, but because I agree with with the sentiment, it's hard for me to argue against it. I'm not a firm believer in human rationality or logic except that they are useful tools.
But imagine the net 5 years ago. If an obscure online retailer asked you to fill in your credit card number and click the happy "Submit" button, would you have done it? I hope not. Where there's not the basis for belief, I think skepticism is the more appropriate response.
Of course; five years ago there wasn't a 'system' one could use, live in, trust. But today's fears of online credit card fraud seem funny to me when these same people willingly hand over their credit cards to waiters in restaurants; if I really wanted to commit credit card fraud, I'd be scamming credit card numbers from my workplace and then buying stuff online where *my* ID can't yet be verified.
How long did you believe in Santa before you realized you were being lied to?
I was never lied to; I was never inculcated into the Santa belief system. I'm curious why it's relevant for you to ask me this even?
-AS
What use is the Metaverse?
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 2
Or is this something specific I just haven't read/seen/grokked?
In terms of recreating reality, I'd much rather go through reality; learning how to fletch, rock climb, rollerblade, make swords, etc, than have an avatar do so. If the metaverse is about doing the impossible, then it isn't much more than a more advanced blending of video games, RPGs, and movies, I think. Life is hard enough, without retreating into an alternate reality to escape our own when our own is already so rich, so beautiful, so powerful.
I don't know that it's such a bad thing that people tend to believe, rather than disbelieve. Do you know how much harder it is to prove, rather than disprove?
IE, a disproof only requires a contradiction where a proof requires the lack of a contradiction, so it seems to make sense that people believe rather than disbelieve, because it's much easier to disprove to a person once the person believes, than it is to prove to a person once they don't believe.
If the net is to be a viable, working, self-adjusting ecosystem/social system, I suspect it should also run on the 'tend to trust/believe' system, rather than the 'other way around' Sorta like credit cards online(unless someone can disprove me=), it's pretty safe if people trust the system.
Perfect bodies with piss-poor cardiovascular systems? They could bench 250, but be out of breath by the end of their first rep! Not unless you somehow can also regulate and exercise the heart and lungs along with the 'muscle' in question.
For obese people, this may have some effect; but if all it does is make them hungrier because their muscles are doing more work, and being hungrier makes them eat more, then nothing will hae changed.
This seems ideal for people who want to improve their tone, their looks, and keep unused muscles at a constant fitness, rather than improve fittness, bulk, or strength.
The only ones who *ever* copied the BG powers was Paul, Alia, and Leto.
Essentially the BG had developed an advanced yoga/chi physiological training for the human body, as well as tapping into 'spiritual' psychological threads of the human psyche.
They had tremendous control over themselves, and because they knew the human body and psyche so well, had tremendous control over others.
With the help of spice, they also had prescient powers.
The Honored Matres, if I recall correctly, had, by and large, some degree of physical control over their own bodies, but without access to the spice, had no prescience and did not have the true ability of controlling others through Voice.
They did have drugs, of course, but they had little in the way of powers compared to the BG or any of the KHs.
If e-speak can grow the internet business market... that means more servers and clients as well, right? And more support...
And HP also happens to sell desktops, workstations, servers, and massive servers all along the chain of devices.
That's one opportunity if e-speak takes off; HP can not only sell you the solution, they can sell you the hardware to run the solution the most effectively!
For example, say someone created a program that to all casual glances looked and acted like a zip file, but when executed actually does not run the normal zip program, but it's own?
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're talking about, but it would require that Windows itself support .WMF images as an alternative format to the .BMP and and .ICO for desktop icons and widgets; I've never seen any mention that Windows has that kind of functionality, though I've never looked for it either. If there is support, at the OS level, for WMF icon files and data, then Windows would be, as you suggest, capable of going straight to vector-ish scalable displays.
Though it obviously doesn't help that every windows program today has bmps and icos embedded within DLLs, and aren't in any sort of realistically scaleable format.
-AS
Isn't the large Icon's setting in Plus! allow for support of 64x64 icons?
Of course, that's actually still too small, and it doesn't scale very intelligently, but it's a step in the direction. I'm betting Apple will be able to leverage this new display technology and wow everyone =)
-AS
Yes it would be cool.
NeXT had display postscript over 10 years ago.
Apple now has display PDF in their upcoming MacOS X.
So your prayers are answered, and they have been done so by the man called Jobs. Fear.
Anyway, it may be that Apple can support this right off the bat, with their vector based display system, Quartz, and 128pix icons, etc. All of a sudden, it seems everything is going Apple's way. Hmmm.
-AS
It's not so much a legacy driver problem, so much as a lack of foresight on the OS people's side! NeXT has had a solution for this problem for over a decade, and it looks like MacOS X will also be able to overcome this hurdle very easily; Display Postscript and Quartz, the PDF version of the above. I guess you could call this legacy software...
I'd imagine an Apple handheld using a 3x4 inch 200dpi display(that's 800x600! wow) would be awesome. Or a 19" LCD for their pro series desktop, when they can scale to that size... 3000x2200 here! Or imagine nextgen gameboys with monocle displays; a 1x1" display would easily match today's gameboy resolution of 144x144 pixels. Or a PDA with a monocle display!
I wonder how Apple is going to try to capitalize on their ability to display 128x128 pixel icons and their Quartz Display PDF capabilities? Right off the bat the icons would be larger than 5/8, which is about right, if on the small size. I'm not sure it was explicitly mentioned, but Toshiba are only shipping 4" and 6" screens; were IBM's not limited to that size, by omission of detail?
Wow. Cool.
-AS
For being central to such a vocal part of the community, do you actually read, write, and communicate with the community? Do you use a nom de plume, and for what reasons?
It *seems* as if you can relate to us, but do you actually, as it were, live in the trenches? There's the JonKatz I see as an author, journalist, etc, but there's also the JonKatz I'd be interested in seeing as the person, with opinions, viewpoints, and responses that aren't so thought out or calculated, edited, refined, etc.
JonKatz raw, so to speak.
-AS
So why not voice recognition on cell phones, since that's already the main interface pardigm for the device? Why is it WAP phones and all the newfangled cell phones have/use LCD displays and buttons, when it seems to make sense to just *talk* to the phone?
Of course, don't get rid of the buttons(legacy support and all), but it makes as much sense for a phone to be spoken to as to use a keypad to enter numbers or names, text, dates, etc.
-AS
Some thoughts into how low power high performance processing may come into play(along with flexible LCD displays, laser based displays, etc)
Cars with wireless connectivity. Laser or LCD based HUDs projecting onto windows, rearviews, etc. Range finders telling you how far each car is, velocity, etc. 2d map always projected on some corner of your windshield telling you street signs ahead or behind, traffic conditions, road conditions, weather conditions. Cars relaying this info back and for to each other as they start to slow down or pile up.
PDAs with a monocle laser/lcd projection display. Sorta like the 'old' failed gameboy/3d experiment Nintendo tried? They used mirrors and red LEDs, I think. Display is a monocle, if voice is to be used, perhaps a subvocal microphone at the base of the jaw or something, and the 'pen' input would be your watch, more or less, if it uses grafitti. A larger surface, about the size of the Palm today, would 'snap' into this network for enhanced color displays and input options. Oh, mustn't forget all of this is wirelessly connected =)
The Palm device would probably house the high speed wireless connectivity, of course. What would this be used for? I'm not that much of a visionary, it just sounds cool =)
But it could prolly replace cell phones, pagers, beepers, PDAs, and stuff. Ugh, to many things to carry today anyway! Don't forget that the wristwatch device would have a 400mb HD and a processor fast enough to decode mp3s, if one were so inclined. Power is something else to be considered, though. Hm...
Cell phones with voice recognition! Ugh, why, if the phone is supposed to be a audible tool in the first place, is it littered with buttons and menus and stuff that could be concievable voice activated? Anyone see the WAP phones with screen/PDA interfaces? It seems more natural to speak into it in the first place, since that's it's primary purpose!
Milk cartons would have acidity and toxin sensors and the display cases would continually scan for containers with bad milk. This would literally require disposable sensors and computing!
Heh, Rubbermaid containers with similar technology to tell if your food is going bad!
Tires that actually self monitor (via sonar, radar, whatever) their condition, air pressure, wear, etc.
Anyone with anything else?
-AS
Sorting things according to size? If they can be suspended in a dense enough fluid, like Guiness, larger things will float to the top while the smaller objects cannot help but be carried away by the fluid flow.
Now if you actually mixed this method with some sort of incremental generative process, then things that sink will eventually get larger, while the objects floating on the top can be scooped up for usage! Sorta wacky way of how snow is actually generated in our atmosphere; the wind keeps the water/ice/snow fragments suspended until they get too large or heavy and proceed to fall down.
Just one idea
-AS
This needs to be seen by everyone talking about writing codecs, formats, servers, clients, etc.
There is, IIANM, the open source like Darwin server, and this tidbit tells us we can write our own codecs for Quicktime; the problem being that Apple hasn't released the general Quicktime player for Linux, etc. But if we can write our own codec and player, then the problem disappears!
-AS
The article seems to talk about how media content and distribution will be controlled by three corporations, Apple, Real, and Microsoft, as an analogy to CBS, NBC, and ABC. However, as far as I can tell, this analogy is crap. The three broadcasting networks control content, because up until now it was fairly expensive to create a video. They aren't winners because they control the video format(Beta, VHS, or DV), because they control the airwaves(they have to license out frequencies, not that they can own them!), or because they control the TVs(hardly! Sony, Panasonic, etc.), but because they have the funds to create content with actors, sets, special effects, scripts, and storylines, and they can attract advertisers.
So in comparison, the format(codecs), the distribution(wires, cables, and lines), or the clients(Quicktime, Real, or Windows Media) is also similarly pointless. It's the production software, which from Adobe costs $600 for special effects and $900 for video editing), $1.4k for an iMacDV with firewire and additional software/hardware, $0.8k for a cheapo Sony Firewire enabled digital8 camcorder, and maybe even a USB/Firewire CD-R for backup/archival/storage purposes at $0.3k
Getting actors, scripts, sets, etc, is a little harder, but Blair Witch proved it can be done. Most actors are starving/unemployed/checkout baggers, I guess, so it should not be too hard a problem =)
So once everyone(if Apple can get an iMacDV into every household) has the capability to create video content, what's stopping people? Serving it? Viewing it? Isn't that what Apple's Open Source Darwin server is about?
One thing I concede; Apple isn't yet supporting Quicktime for Linux. That sucks, but it's hardly the reason why media distribution will be controled by the big three; it's just short-sightedness on Apple's part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a problem over codecs, streaming software, or even distribution; all that exists, it just remains up to the consumer to create content!
-AS
The best solution is probable: control the viewer and server. If a codec maker dose not want to go OSS then we should make it hard for them to get users.. up to the point that they are really a hell of a lot better then anyhting we are using.. at which point we should compramize a little.
I'm not sure why you think this is the best solution? The problem(I think) is "How do we create a situation in which *anyone* can distribute their own media?", something along the way in which HTML has opened content distribution to the masses. Server might be useful in doing so, in order to prevent large corporations from dictating who can and can't distribute media. Viewers, I suspect is *almost* a pointless battle, excepting that most corporations don't support Linux. In that respect, the battle is just to gain recognition and equality.
The more powerful question is how to give people the capability to create content in the first place, and this is unavoidable; they have to own fairly high powered machines, they need some extensive video equipment, and they need the appropriate software.
Whether you like it or not, the two best solutions I can think of are Apple's iMac DV and Sony's Vaio computer systems, with Firewire, software, and computing horsepower all bundled together in one fell swoop. All that's needed after that would be some tapes and a digital camcorder, which is still unfortunately in the $0.8k range.
The battle over the clients just dictates who can see the media, not who can distribute it. The battle over the servers may be a moot point, what with Apple open sourcing their Quicktime server(but not their codecs) All that remains is for Apple to port a binary only Quicktime player for Linux, BeOS, etc.
It is also worth mentioning that codec makers make money by licensing the authoring software (i think) or with crap attached to the codec, so there should probable be a push to implement OSS versions of the authoring software and codecs in countries where the patent dose not apply.. then make the OSS version the default, i.e. default RedHat xanim has no support for the codec so the user is forced to choose between downloading a single OSS xanim which is illegal or downloading a million codecs. This will cut into there proffit margin.
Now you're getting somewhere; but somehow I suspect anything the OS community can come up with, the commercial houses will just come up with something better-one could always use the GIMP/Photoshop conflict as an analogy, and I really don't think Photoshop will be dying anytime soon. It supports too many professionals who just want to get their job done, and are willing to pay for it, rather than deal with the GIMP, much as a lot of people would rather deal with Mac or Windows over Linux, because both are rather incomplete in the useability department, though marvelous strides have been made.
So I don't know too much about the Apple Quicktime Server they've open sourced; if it's anything like I imagine it, codecs aren't the issue, clients are the issue. If someone has content, then anyone can stream it because of this open source server, thus solving one problem with the media distribution system. I don't think one can get around the high cost of media content, if only because one still needs equipment and software. And clients, well, that something someone has to fight over the decoding codecs.
-AS
Now I have to disagree; I think Windows is crap because it's unstable and resource intensive, not because it hasn't improved over the years.
I think Gameboy is great because it's small, easy to use, has a long battery life, and some great games-and there has been no need to change these features other than minor evolutionary refinements. The screensize grew, the clarity and brightness of the screen improved, it's become even smaller now, and it has even better games available, with faster processor and more memory addressable and the availability of color.
Very similar arguments can be made about the Palm Pilot as well, in terms of why it is a good device where others have failed
-AS
The Metaverse is not necessary for group meetings; I hope you realize this?
At worst VR goggles, sound stages, and arrays of video cameras can do this today. At best you'd use digital whiteboards, teleconferencing systems, videophone solutions, and connected PCs.
-AS
That's a very interesting standard of proof. You're saying that if I could come up with a theory that doesn't contradict anything (ie. completely coherent) then it's automatically true?
No, just that it isn't possible to disprove it; I'm not one to believe in ultimate truth, so there is nothing that is automatically true.
I postulate that rational thought and human logic are not sufficient to yield absolute truth in any matter but in realizing their failings.
I wholeheartedly agree, unfortunately; no amount of human rationalization, logical thought, and reasoning will ever get us to any sort of truth because there isn't any sort of 'truth' in this universe; just existence or not existence. At least by my perspective.
According to your standard of proof, this must be true, because it contradicts nothing (it supercedes anything that could contradict it!)
Not that I necessarily think it must be true, but because I agree with with the sentiment, it's hard for me to argue against it. I'm not a firm believer in human rationality or logic except that they are useful tools.
But imagine the net 5 years ago. If an obscure online retailer asked you to fill in your credit card number and click the happy "Submit" button, would you have done it? I hope not. Where there's not the basis for belief, I think skepticism is the more appropriate response.
Of course; five years ago there wasn't a 'system' one could use, live in, trust. But today's fears of online credit card fraud seem funny to me when these same people willingly hand over their credit cards to waiters in restaurants; if I really wanted to commit credit card fraud, I'd be scamming credit card numbers from my workplace and then buying stuff online where *my* ID can't yet be verified.
How long did you believe in Santa before you realized you were being lied to?
I was never lied to; I was never inculcated into the Santa belief system. I'm curious why it's relevant for you to ask me this even?
-AS
Or is this something specific I just haven't read/seen/grokked?
In terms of recreating reality, I'd much rather go through reality; learning how to fletch, rock climb, rollerblade, make swords, etc, than have an avatar do so. If the metaverse is about doing the impossible, then it isn't much more than a more advanced blending of video games, RPGs, and movies, I think. Life is hard enough, without retreating into an alternate reality to escape our own when our own is already so rich, so beautiful, so powerful.
Perhaps I'm just missing the point?
-AS
I don't know that it's such a bad thing that people tend to believe, rather than disbelieve. Do you know how much harder it is to prove, rather than disprove?
IE, a disproof only requires a contradiction where a proof requires the lack of a contradiction, so it seems to make sense that people believe rather than disbelieve, because it's much easier to disprove to a person once the person believes, than it is to prove to a person once they don't believe.
If the net is to be a viable, working, self-adjusting ecosystem/social system, I suspect it should also run on the 'tend to trust/believe' system, rather than the 'other way around' Sorta like credit cards online(unless someone can disprove me=), it's pretty safe if people trust the system.
-AS
This is so not going to lead to better health.
Perfect bodies with piss-poor cardiovascular systems? They could bench 250, but be out of breath by the end of their first rep! Not unless you somehow can also regulate and exercise the heart and lungs along with the 'muscle' in question.
For obese people, this may have some effect; but if all it does is make them hungrier because their muscles are doing more work, and being hungrier makes them eat more, then nothing will hae changed.
This seems ideal for people who want to improve their tone, their looks, and keep unused muscles at a constant fitness, rather than improve fittness, bulk, or strength.
-AS
Good reply! I heartily agree! Hear hear!
-AS
The only ones who *ever* copied the BG powers was Paul, Alia, and Leto.
Essentially the BG had developed an advanced yoga/chi physiological training for the human body, as well as tapping into 'spiritual' psychological threads of the human psyche.
They had tremendous control over themselves, and because they knew the human body and psyche so well, had tremendous control over others.
With the help of spice, they also had prescient powers.
The Honored Matres, if I recall correctly, had, by and large, some degree of physical control over their own bodies, but without access to the spice, had no prescience and did not have the true ability of controlling others through Voice.
They did have drugs, of course, but they had little in the way of powers compared to the BG or any of the KHs.
-AS
mainly griping because I'm installing and dealing with espeak on an HPUX system right now...
Mayhaps I should be posting Anonymously or something...
-AS
Don't know about e-speak itself, but it's a bear trying to get it up on an HPUX system.
It's so much nicer on a Linux system (hint-hint. Any HPUX people reading?)
Installing GNU tools, Perl, Python, LDAP, SSL, Apache, etc. Of course these prolly aren't necessary for deployment, but they are for development.
What have you tried to do with e-speak? I thought it was still too beta to do much-maybe I'm wrong?
-AS
If e-speak can grow the internet business market... that means more servers and clients as well, right? And more support...
And HP also happens to sell desktops, workstations, servers, and massive servers all along the chain of devices.
That's one opportunity if e-speak takes off; HP can not only sell you the solution, they can sell you the hardware to run the solution the most effectively!
-AS
If someone created an infected zipfile...
For example, say someone created a program that to all casual glances looked and acted like a zip file, but when executed actually does not run the normal zip program, but it's own?
Prolly not a problem under Linux/Unix tools...
Dunno, maybe I'm too paranoid
-AS
programs...
Not to insult you, but this being such a commodity right now I'm sure someone somewhere may be playing cruel tricks with the file.
Still, it's a shame this had to happen.
-AS
Why am I flamebait?
-AS