Actually, I've got no problems with split infinitives at all at all. It's like that silly rule about a preposition being something you shouldn't end a sentence with. The argument was along the lines of 'if it can't be done in latin, it shouldn't be done in English.' BTW I've got no respect for Oxford. They spell realise with a 'z'. And they're not even American. A big red Chambers is your only man. Or dictionary.
Yeah, it's offtopic. But I've karma to spare, so I don't care.
You're right, of course; it won't be c. But the beeb mentions that they (say they) increased the speed by changing the transmitter, not the cable. So they got light to go faster through the same medium. Can you die of cherenkov radiation poisoning?
The first record promises to increase speed. Woohoo! No more poxy 299,792,458m/s! According to relativity, this means that the data can go backwards in time. Soon we'll all be complaining about anti-latency.
Normally I wouldn't nitpick the BBC[1], but seeing as they split an infinitive in the last paragraph, I felt I had no choice.
The BBC article mentions a December launch for the repair mission. Wasn't this put back recently? On teh subject of the telescope: I'm sure I speak for many when I say that despite its shortcomings, it's the coolest thing to happen in centuries as far as popularising astronomy is concerned. Can anyone not look at the Deep Field without saying 'wow'? At least we've still got Chandra...
I'm sure Jon didn't just rely on a baseball cap. Surely you used passwords as well. "The penguin flies higher than the mouse" "Yes, but who will be the leader of us all?"
I bet an NSA version of Babelfish would rock. Yeah. Imagine; if you type in "J'adore mon libèrté, et je détest l'NSA Americaine", it'll translate as "I hereby give the US government permission to monitor my communications to ensure that I'm not a kiddie-porn-peddling terrorist."
The parallel may not be stricly accurate, but before the advent of solid state lasers, they were chunky bastards indeed. Just last night I was watching a bunch of programmes about all that electron stuff, and I was surprised by how recently laser technology became ubiquitous. If this CD proves to be better than, say, holographic storage, then a lot of people will work on shrinkng the microscope. However, given the choice between pennies and Bablyon 5 data crystals, I'd rather use the crystals. They're cooler.
I am not a GNU/Linux or free software / open source zealot; I simply recognize its genuine strengths and enormous potential.
It's a bad sign that this sort of disclaimer has to go on top of articles about open source; I've done it myself on a couple of occasions.
I'm not going to make the usual plea to the zealots to be polite when talking about OSS; I know by now that it's not going to work. What's needed is for those of us capable of pressing the point without being an asshole to do so when the opportunity presents itself. OSS' greatest enemy isn't Microsoft; it's its own zealots.
It's possible with available technology to set up a permanent base on mars for $50bn over twenty years; if you haven't read Roger Zubrin's The Case for Mars, check it out. More on the Mars Direct project can be found here.
It is not clear yet how the Sandia researchers plan to attack that problem.
So basically everyday, usable fusion is about ten years away. Nothing new there.
I shouldn't be cynical. There hasn't been an innovative research project in the history of the universe (afaik) that hasn't taken years with a steady stream of mishaps. And the great thing about science is that bad results provide data as well as good ones. But I still think we'll have a base on Mars before we see workable fusion.
I couldn't help but laugh out loud as I scrolled down and saw more and more repetitive art, with basically the same motif on both sides of the page. It raised deep suspicions in me; if you ask 1001 adults in any country for their favourite painting, you're going to get at least 900 different answers. The only way the answers produced could be gleaned is if our Russian artist chums painted blue landscapes and cubist primary colours, with a few extras thrown in for the pretence of variety. If you want a true barometer of people's tastes, check out the art galleries and flea markets that sell full-size prints of existing paintings. How many people have a print of Dali's Elephants? Constable's Haywain?
On a different topic: fair or not, the world views America as a land obsessed with celebrity. As US culture becomes more dominant throughout the world this attitude is becoming more ubiquitous, but it's hardly suprising to me that your average American would prefer a painting in which they could point out George to visitors. Stereotyping? Possibly.
Jeez. Do you think Windows users argue like this? "It's a piece of shit" "No, it's a piece of shite" "You're both wrong, it's a pile of shit" "Actually..."
Be grateful you can still count contending pronunciations without taking your socks off.
"I'm a little concerned about [this anti-wiretap sentiment]. Clearly not all wiretapping is illegitimate," one Cisco engineer said.
Herein lies the problem. As long as people can see one use for something, all the adverse effects become secondary. Some criminals are caught by wiretaps, so everyone should be tappable. This may be a specious argument, but if you nuke a city (say, Seattle), then you'll kill millions of innocent people. But it's okay, because you'll get some criminals, who'll never mug an old lady again.
Can light have "rest" anything? Relativity tells us that if you're travelling at c, then time stops (for you). Therefore you're everywhere in the universe at the same time. Therefore if you go from a to be, you don't move. Therefore you're at rest. I rest my case. Anyway, when was the last time you saw a moving photon?
I don't recall seeing it here, but NASA gave it a mention on their rather spiffing web site. If you haven't subscribed to their daily bulletins, do so now.
Imagine if two probes (say Deep Space 8 and, er, 8.5) were equipped with lasers, so that they could shot at each other once they were outside major planetary influences. It's the only satisfactory solution (imho), because when you're on a planet there's no way you can say for sure that you've accounted for every microscopic movement. Granted, you've still got planet x out there somewhere, but what the heck. If the experiment was screwed up by the discovery of a new planet (or brown dwarf) I wouldn't complain too much.
Yeah. I really hated the part where he said 'you can't disagree with me'. Just curious: do you define 'thought-provoking' as 'something I disagree with', or did you just decide that it was written by one of your political enemies, and therefore unworthy of consideration? Grow up.
(I also recall there being geopolitical factors in the famine, but I suppose you could elaborate on them better than I could.) So, dont blame us!
I apologise for being so churlish. Your kind (albeit forced) donation fed us for centuries, after all. Any blame lies with the sailors who brought back limited numbers of strains, and they were English. Woohoo! Something else to blame the Brits for! And don't worry, I wouldn't dream of going on about geopolitical factors; it's bad enough being a Linux zealot without bringing politics into it as well. Of course, if Mr. Katz writes an article on the influence of imperial cultures on attitudes to geeks in high schools, I may spend a happy couple of paragraphs ranting...
But I still see you as not distinguishing between technology as local problem-solving, which of course exists as much in tuber-gatherers as in Quake Clans, and Technology as a redemptive stance.
That's because I'm not convinced that there is a difference. Technology as a redemptive stance (if I understand you correctly) is a manifestation of our never being happy with what we've got; problem solving is essentially the same thing. There's no point in solving a problem unless you get something out of it, be it a potato, a new car or a feeling of smugness. And however smug you feel, you know that it's only a matter of time before some smartarse eclipses your wonderful achievement, and you've got to do it all over again.
And I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but if we'd had better spuds 150 years ago, there's tens of millions of fewer Americans claiming to be Irish despite having never been nearer to the republic than Nantucket.
It isn't about the stuff, it's about the relationships between stuff and people. Hrm. Take your elysian example; it sounds great. But how about this? Fragging demons is the core shared activity of your community; it is the basis of the annual Quake festival, and you are participating in blowing the shit out of the Big Boss; if your trigger finger grows strong from excessive use of the shotgun, and the local girls notice and appreciate the fact that you were the last to die -- and therefore everyone else pays for your pizza... Gambolling through the fields may be good fun, but it's not the *only* good fun. Nor is it inherently superior to tech-based fun; it's just been around for longer.
One thing most/. users are ignoring is that the internet is a global phenomenon; for me, arguments about the validity of the FBI's actions are irrelevent. I'm not saying that the US has a monopoly on intrusive surveillance (Enfopol may (or may not) be as bad as anything y'all can come up with). But what's needed is a global perspective. (In case you were wondering, btw, I don't want to be tapped by the CIA any more than you want to be tapped by the FBI).
by choosing to live in a technological mode, we stop inhabiting a world and start dwelling amidst Objects and Tools. We don't choose to live in a technological mode; in the developed world, that's the default setting. You've got to make an active choice to not live with Technology. And this is - believe it or not -- not a bad thing. Because technology makes life easier. It means I can post to slashdot while knocking back caffeinated peppermints that were made on the other side of the planet, instead of grubbing for wild potatoes (which isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not doing anything this weekend; I'm sure I could fit it in.
Actually, I've got no problems with split infinitives at all at all. It's like that silly rule about a preposition being something you shouldn't end a sentence with. The argument was along the lines of 'if it can't be done in latin, it shouldn't be done in English.'
BTW I've got no respect for Oxford. They spell realise with a 'z'. And they're not even American. A big red Chambers is your only man. Or dictionary.
Yeah, it's offtopic. But I've karma to spare, so I don't care.
You're right, of course; it won't be c. But the beeb mentions that they (say they) increased the speed by changing the transmitter, not the cable. So they got light to go faster through the same medium. Can you die of cherenkov radiation poisoning?
The first record promises to increase speed.
Woohoo! No more poxy 299,792,458m/s! According to relativity, this means that the data can go backwards in time. Soon we'll all be complaining about anti-latency.
Normally I wouldn't nitpick the BBC[1], but seeing as they split an infinitive in the last paragraph, I felt I had no choice.
[1]This is a lie.
The BBC article mentions a December launch for the repair mission. Wasn't this put back recently?
On teh subject of the telescope: I'm sure I speak for many when I say that despite its shortcomings, it's the coolest thing to happen in centuries as far as popularising astronomy is concerned. Can anyone not look at the Deep Field without saying 'wow'?
At least we've still got Chandra...
I'm sure Jon didn't just rely on a baseball cap. Surely you used passwords as well.
"The penguin flies higher than the mouse"
"Yes, but who will be the leader of us all?"
I bet an NSA version of Babelfish would rock.
Yeah. Imagine; if you type in "J'adore mon libèrté, et je détest l'NSA Americaine", it'll translate as "I hereby give the US government permission to monitor my communications to ensure that I'm not a kiddie-porn-peddling terrorist."
Disclaimer: I can't speak french.
The parallel may not be stricly accurate, but before the advent of solid state lasers, they were chunky bastards indeed. Just last night I was watching a bunch of programmes about all that electron stuff, and I was surprised by how recently laser technology became ubiquitous. If this CD proves to be better than, say, holographic storage, then a lot of people will work on shrinkng the microscope.
However, given the choice between pennies and Bablyon 5 data crystals, I'd rather use the crystals. They're cooler.
I am not a GNU/Linux or free software / open source zealot; I simply recognize its genuine strengths and enormous potential.
It's a bad sign that this sort of disclaimer has to go on top of articles about open source; I've done it myself on a couple of occasions.
I'm not going to make the usual plea to the zealots to be polite when talking about OSS; I know by now that it's not going to work. What's needed is for those of us capable of pressing the point without being an asshole to do so when the opportunity presents itself.
OSS' greatest enemy isn't Microsoft; it's its own zealots.
It's possible with available technology to set up a permanent base on mars for $50bn over twenty years; if you haven't read Roger Zubrin's The Case for Mars, check it out. More on the Mars Direct project can be found here.
It is not clear yet how the Sandia researchers plan to attack that problem.
So basically everyday, usable fusion is about ten years away.
Nothing new there.
I shouldn't be cynical. There hasn't been an innovative research project in the history of the universe (afaik) that hasn't taken years with a steady stream of mishaps. And the great thing about science is that bad results provide data as well as good ones.
But I still think we'll have a base on Mars before we see workable fusion.
I couldn't help but laugh out loud as I scrolled down and saw more and more repetitive art, with basically the same motif on both sides of the page.
It raised deep suspicions in me; if you ask 1001 adults in any country for their favourite painting, you're going to get at least 900 different answers. The only way the answers produced could be gleaned is if our Russian artist chums painted blue landscapes and cubist primary colours, with a few extras thrown in for the pretence of variety.
If you want a true barometer of people's tastes, check out the art galleries and flea markets that sell full-size prints of existing paintings. How many people have a print of Dali's Elephants? Constable's Haywain?
On a different topic: fair or not, the world views America as a land obsessed with celebrity. As US culture becomes more dominant throughout the world this attitude is becoming more ubiquitous, but it's hardly suprising to me that your average American would prefer a painting in which they could point out George to visitors. Stereotyping? Possibly.
It depends on your bomb. If you use a 1 Megaton bomb that blows up on the surface, Redmond is toast.
Note for the humour impaired: I really mean it. I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Jeez. Do you think Windows users argue like this?
"It's a piece of shit"
"No, it's a piece of shite"
"You're both wrong, it's a pile of shit"
"Actually..."
Be grateful you can still count contending pronunciations without taking your socks off.
"I'm a little concerned about [this anti-wiretap sentiment]. Clearly not all wiretapping is illegitimate," one Cisco engineer said.
Herein lies the problem. As long as people can see one use for something, all the adverse effects become secondary. Some criminals are caught by wiretaps, so everyone should be tappable.
This may be a specious argument, but if you nuke a city (say, Seattle), then you'll kill millions of innocent people. But it's okay, because you'll get some criminals, who'll never mug an old lady again.
The Register mentioned this as well.
It mentions that MS are investing $100Million in Radio Shack's web site. Surely some mistake?
Can light have "rest" anything?
Relativity tells us that if you're travelling at c, then time stops (for you). Therefore you're everywhere in the universe at the same time. Therefore if you go from a to be, you don't move. Therefore you're at rest.
I rest my case.
Anyway, when was the last time you saw a moving photon?
I don't recall seeing it here, but NASA gave it a mention on their rather spiffing web site. If you haven't subscribed to their daily bulletins, do so now.
Imagine if two probes (say Deep Space 8 and, er, 8.5) were equipped with lasers, so that they could shot at each other once they were outside major planetary influences. It's the only satisfactory solution (imho), because when you're on a planet there's no way you can say for sure that you've accounted for every microscopic movement. Granted, you've still got planet x out there somewhere, but what the heck. If the experiment was screwed up by the discovery of a new planet (or brown dwarf) I wouldn't complain too much.
Yeah. I really hated the part where he said 'you can't disagree with me'.
Just curious: do you define 'thought-provoking' as 'something I disagree with', or did you just decide that it was written by one of your political enemies, and therefore unworthy of consideration?
Grow up.
(I also recall there being geopolitical factors in the famine, but I suppose you could elaborate on them better than I could.)
So, dont blame us!
I apologise for being so churlish. Your kind (albeit forced) donation fed us for centuries, after all. Any blame lies with the sailors who brought back limited numbers of strains, and they were English.
Woohoo! Something else to blame the Brits for!
And don't worry, I wouldn't dream of going on about geopolitical factors; it's bad enough being a Linux zealot without bringing politics into it as well.
Of course, if Mr. Katz writes an article on the influence of imperial cultures on attitudes to geeks in high schools, I may spend a happy couple of paragraphs ranting...
But I still see you as not distinguishing between technology as local problem-solving, which of course exists as much in tuber-gatherers as in Quake Clans, and Technology as a redemptive stance.
That's because I'm not convinced that there is a difference. Technology as a redemptive stance (if I understand you correctly) is a manifestation of our never being happy with what we've got; problem solving is essentially the same thing. There's no point in solving a problem unless you get something out of it, be it a potato, a new car or a feeling of smugness. And however smug you feel, you know that it's only a matter of time before some smartarse eclipses your wonderful achievement, and you've got to do it all over again.
And I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but if we'd had better spuds 150 years ago, there's tens of millions of fewer Americans claiming to be Irish despite having never been nearer to the republic than Nantucket.
It isn't about the stuff, it's about the relationships between stuff and people.
Hrm. Take your elysian example; it sounds great. But how about this? Fragging demons is the core shared activity of your community; it is the basis of the annual Quake festival, and you are participating in blowing the shit out of the Big Boss; if your trigger finger grows strong from excessive use of the shotgun, and the local girls notice and appreciate the fact that you were the last to die -- and therefore everyone else pays for your pizza...
Gambolling through the fields may be good fun, but it's not the *only* good fun. Nor is it inherently superior to tech-based fun; it's just been around for longer.
One thing most /. users are ignoring is that the internet is a global phenomenon; for me, arguments about the validity of the FBI's actions are irrelevent.
I'm not saying that the US has a monopoly on intrusive surveillance (Enfopol may (or may not) be as bad as anything y'all can come up with). But what's needed is a global perspective.
(In case you were wondering, btw, I don't want to be tapped by the CIA any more than you want to be tapped by the FBI).
by choosing to live in a technological mode, we stop inhabiting a world and start dwelling amidst Objects and Tools.
We don't choose to live in a technological mode; in the developed world, that's the default setting. You've got to make an active choice to not live with Technology. And this is - believe it or not -- not a bad thing. Because technology makes life easier. It means I can post to slashdot while knocking back caffeinated peppermints that were made on the other side of the planet, instead of grubbing for wild potatoes (which isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds).