No... Imagine having a VNC terminal running on your LCD screen (complete with RAM and processor)-- no need for inputs, disk, etc. And another terminal running 'locally'. So now, not a whole lot of bandwidth is required to show images, and you in effect have a "wireless" screen.
It seems we can do an open source solution quite quickly...
Just to inform a little, I am sitting currently at a research institution with 36 blades in one cluster and 8 blades in another. (Two different architectures). They are laptop technology. Period. You might be able to put two into a laptop, but the question comes up: why? Are you planning on running weather simulations or serving web requests from you lap?
They are nicely power efficient, however. The main problem being that you still have to pay the cost of the inintial power supply to turn them on.
I have a CD of the NASA voyager probe recordings. Sounds interesting at first, and then gets boring. The CD is 50 minutes long or so, and has a warning about the dangers of using heavy machinery while listening, since it puts people to sleep.
Anyway, some sounds like whales, other parts sound like choirs from the movie 2001.
4 bytes! My family would dream of 4 bytes. We had to get up in the morning, defrag the file system, decrypt RSA-65 for 23 hours and then go back to the boot sector where we would be erased. And we had to do it all in 4 bits of space!
Would be to check if it falls down. Most theories predict that it should, but there are just enough interesting alternative theories of gravity that this certainly deserves verification.
Ok, so you showed them: 1) Hydrogen burns. 2) CO2 can be produced and 3) Ethanol burns.
And all this, I'm guessing, in a program that only took about 30 minutes. And what do the kiddies remember from it today? Probably that things burn or go boom. No understanding. No more desire to do anything more scientific than read the Anarcist's (sp?) Cookbook.
Once again, I am not saying that Science is not fun. However, at no time should content be reduced for the sake of entertainment. I truly believe science should be more "interesting" than "fun". Watch "The Mechanical Universe" for a way for physics to be interesting and educational, if not necessarily fun.
(Yes, it is a bit above the level of a 5th grader, but blowing things up is closer to the level of a 5 year old)
And yet we wonder why children have no attention.
on
Hands on Science Learning
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So, let's assume I've grown up with instant gratification. If I'm not having fun at every instant in my life, something must be wrong, right? I watch TV and play video games. If I'm at school, they are either playing nifty cartoon things or letting me dress up and crawl around like I was part of history, or I get to throw things around and pretend I'm learning science. What? I need to do some paper work that doesn't involve nifty artwork and pictures? I don't think so.
And when they have to discover things on their own, are they going to know how to do any background research? That's often not any fun...
Why don't children have any attention span? Because we don't expect them to have one, nor do we expect them to develop one.
Now, I know I'm starting to look like a "It's supposed to hurt" kind of educator at this point. Thta's really not what I'm saying. I believe that learning can be "fun", but moreso, that it can be deeply satisfying. Many athletes who have great fun at their sports absolutely hate practicing, but they do it anyway, knowing the payoff is worth it.
Here's one area where the sports coaches know what they are doing better than the educators. Walk out to a football practice sometime and tell me if you really think those students are enjoying what they are doing every minute.
I don't think students should suffer. However, you've already made the dichotomy "No Fun = Pain". This is simply not the case. And as others are more eloquently pointing out, a deeper appreciation of learning does not come from MTV clip style education. Ever wonder why children have attention problems? It's because we've given up on expecting a modicum of effort on their part, and assume that we have to make everything fun for them.
All right, I'm going to go out on a limb here. Why should everything be fun? Sure science can be fun, but there are plenty of times that the non-fun things must be done before you can enjoy the truly fun things in science.
Now, I really mean this towards all subjects. There are certain things that children should know, and sometimes learning them just isn't fun. What if the question was, "How can I make all food taste like candy so children will eat it?" Perhaps kids should be taught the value of learning and discovery outside of the "Hey, that's pretty nifty" look of a pretty demonstration. Science is not simply a fireworks exhibit, and I'm not convinced that showing children pretty pictures makes them want to go out and learn and perform science any more than watching a trip up Everest makes me want to be a mountain climber.
Occasionally things in life are boring. Education should not always be fun and entertaining, Especially since a lot of teachers slice out the meat of the learning since it just isn't "fun."
Yeah... go ahead and sue microsoft because you lost a couple of days of productivityworth of software. Every lawyer in the north west would be after you, your family, your dog, and your sheep. You would think that microsoft is going to allow a precedent of "Oh, our software crashed and it cost you some money, therefore we need to pay you."? Not a chance in the world.
At the same time, I don't think Corporate types back microsoft because they can sue them. Think of it this way, you might cheer for the little guy when you're an observer, but you want the big guy fighting for you when your'e being protected. It really is a matter of trust -- RedHat could go away tomorrow, MS (sadly) isn't likely to.
So all citizens have a right to see the plans on making a nuclear missle? Or the location of every nuclear sub iin the world? Or the targeting and communication systems of all weapons?
Just because the government paid for it doesn't mean everybody has a right to see it.
And then there was the after-prom party casino
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 3, Funny
One of those stupid little monopoly-money type casinos where the cash could be used to bid at an auction at the end--things like hammocks, phones, etc.
Anyway, I was wandering around the tables while my date was off dancing with her boyfriend (hey, I am posting on/. after all), and I happened to notice the roulette wheel. They had the odds posted beside it.
50-1 payoff on guessing the right number.
There are only 38 slots to pick from.
Well, my first attempt at putting a chip on every spot got me throttled by a football player who said I was messing up the board. My later attempt of just telling the guy working it what my bet was just had him handing me 12 chips on every spin.
Very entertaining, humorous, and extremely sad that no one else in the junior or senior class happened to notice this.
it removes the only this vendor can fix that widget relationship which drives up costs
In most government contracts, there are clauses about repair and upkeep of products. For example, when the US Navy bought a school complex for more than $100M, the contractr was required to have a 24-hour on call repair expert for the first 3 years, as well as comprehensive repair teams for anything that the command said was broken. This was part of the specification that the contractor bid on.
I really think OSS is a great idea, however, isn't it a bad plan to require OSS use in government?
If the specification has a reason to be open source, for security or whatever, then great, make it so. However, having access to the source code for a project is not the same as making the project open source. AFAIK, letting someone look at your code and not change it is not the same as making it open source.
Even though people will (and have) actively compared software to things like cars, bridges, etc, it really is not the same. Imagine a small townhall that needed to buy a frobnosticating whiczawhosit managing program. No one there will evr look at the code. Odds are, no one will even upgrade the system, even 10 years from now, as long as it's doing its job. So why say that the code must be open source? It's kinda like saying that all school lunches must be kosher. Doesn't directly stop companies from bidding, but that's just not a way to do business for most of them.
Open source only laws are the embodiment of fiscal responsibility
Not true. Fiscal responsibilty in government institutions comes from extremely well written specifications and a closed, low bid system with underwriting. Not allowing a closed source shop to compete certainly does not help fiscal responsibility.
I'm all for open source, but I really don't believe anybody should be strong armed into releasing their code. Remember, freedom of speech should also be freedom not to speak as well.
Sadly, once customers get to step 3, they're ususally done. They may even sigh and groan about the $100, but odds are very few will return it, especially if Apple offers a "Free, 30 day trial".
I hate to use the word, but I will: "Sheople." Too many people think that if they have to pay $100 a year, that's just what they must deserve for buying he Mac. Now, apple may have a problem when these people go to buy their next system (and not NeXT system).
It seems that many of the points made on the MS website have more to do with Linux not working with windows. For example:
No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwords-one for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX
So, if you only use Windows, you only need 1 password, but if you use Linux, you'll need one for us and one for them. So automatically they decide that EVERYONE must use windows, and you have an option to choose Linux for a couple of minor things. And this is MS first point in all of the comparison, thus you'd think it was one of their strongest/most important arguments.
So you really don't think NewLine is going to market "The Definitive Lord of the Rings 14 DVD collectors set" In addition to a gift set and full edition for each film? I say 14 DVD's because I would expect about 2 DVDs worth of stuff (including background screens for your PC, and even a Lord of the Rings Linux Distro [There can be only One! {Woops, wrong geek-movie}]).
So I'd believe you'd have many fans doing the following purchases: FotR : $21. TTT: $21 RotK: $21 The Full Collectors Edition: $150(?)
Why buy RotK when you're going to buy the full collector's set anyway? Well, to have the complete regular set, and I have no doubt that the full set will follow RotK by about 5-6 months. Maybe even a year (Just in time for Christmas 2004)
That the full "collection" will be at least 12 DVDs? And wouldn't you expect 2-4 more with the full set of "never to be seen before" details? Is this set ging to retail around $200 or so?
Talk about a marketing coup! They'll get people to buy this movie at least twice, and some of them three times.
Likely around $90/month for the "Total Package", or even higher. Remember, Time-Warner wants your cable bill to be around $200/month by around 2004.
Is $90/month worth it? Would any of us get it? Why would you, when you can build an easier and cheaper solution by yourself. And since it's possible, maybe a side business of doing just this could be set up...
Want all the glamour of the wireless set top box but hate paying through the nose? Why not pay me $100 once, and I'll make your monthly bill around $50/month.
Not all orbits around Earth need to be checked. Most orbits are low enough, and they degrade over time, and thus there's not a big issue for garbage collection.
However, in geosyncronous orbits, there's another problem. We've been using these orbits ever since we started sending satellites up there, and this part of space is filled with little rivits, rocket boosters, etc. The good news is, that even though they are in orbit, they are moving at pretty much the same speed as everything near them (we're mainly looking at the Geo-syncronous orbits here, therefore everybody stays above their little piece of the equator.
Now, here's my way-stupid idea:
Send up a big steel ball. Now, have it plow through the geo sycronous orbits and knock everything it can out of it's way. All active satellites would have to move out of the orbit breifly, and then once the "Mr. Space Plow" passed, they could resume their orbits. If they can't respond... Well, that's just too damn bad.
Once out of the nice geosyncronous orbits, the trash does one of two things: degrade and crash to Earth, or escapes. Either was, problem solved.
And one other thing about RAID. Since drive replacements really aren't that common, when it does happen, it could easily be that person's first time at rebuilding a raid, as well as replacing a drive. Many a failure event has been created by a sys-op replacing the wrong drive (are the drives physically numbered from zero? Does the system reporting know that?) And just simple "Everyone be careful" generally doesn't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
No... Imagine having a VNC terminal running on your LCD screen (complete with RAM and processor)-- no need for inputs, disk, etc. And another terminal running 'locally'. So now, not a whole lot of bandwidth is required to show images, and you in effect have a "wireless" screen.
It seems we can do an open source solution quite quickly...
Just to inform a little, I am sitting currently at a research institution with 36 blades in one cluster and 8 blades in another. (Two different architectures). They are laptop technology. Period. You might be able to put two into a laptop, but the question comes up: why? Are you planning on running weather simulations or serving web requests from you lap?
They are nicely power efficient, however. The main problem being that you still have to pay the cost of the inintial power supply to turn them on.
I have a CD of the NASA voyager probe recordings. Sounds interesting at first, and then gets boring. The CD is 50 minutes long or so, and has a warning about the dangers of using heavy machinery while listening, since it puts people to sleep.
Anyway, some sounds like whales, other parts sound like choirs from the movie 2001.
4 bytes! My family would dream of 4 bytes. We had to get up in the morning, defrag the file system, decrypt RSA-65 for 23 hours and then go back to the boot sector where we would be erased. And we had to do it all in 4 bits of space!
4 bytes. Hmph.
Would be to check if it falls down. Most theories predict that it should, but there are just enough interesting alternative theories of gravity that this certainly deserves verification.
then laugh when the whole thing explodes and blame it on microsoft
That would be anti-microsoft, or macrohard.
Ok, so you showed them:
1) Hydrogen burns.
2) CO2 can be produced
and
3) Ethanol burns.
And all this, I'm guessing, in a program that only took about 30 minutes. And what do the kiddies remember from it today? Probably that things burn or go boom. No understanding. No more desire to do anything more scientific than read the Anarcist's (sp?) Cookbook.
Once again, I am not saying that Science is not fun. However, at no time should content be reduced for the sake of entertainment. I truly believe science should be more "interesting" than "fun". Watch "The Mechanical Universe" for a way for physics to be interesting and educational, if not necessarily fun.
(Yes, it is a bit above the level of a 5th grader, but blowing things up is closer to the level of a 5 year old)
So, let's assume I've grown up with instant gratification. If I'm not having fun at every instant in my life, something must be wrong, right? I watch TV and play video games. If I'm at school, they are either playing nifty cartoon things or letting me dress up and crawl around like I was part of history, or I get to throw things around and pretend I'm learning science. What? I need to do some paper work that doesn't involve nifty artwork and pictures? I don't think so.
And when they have to discover things on their own, are they going to know how to do any background research? That's often not any fun...
Why don't children have any attention span? Because we don't expect them to have one, nor do we expect them to develop one.
Now, I know I'm starting to look like a "It's supposed to hurt" kind of educator at this point. Thta's really not what I'm saying. I believe that learning can be "fun", but moreso, that it can be deeply satisfying. Many athletes who have great fun at their sports absolutely hate practicing, but they do it anyway, knowing the payoff is worth it.
Here's one area where the sports coaches know what they are doing better than the educators. Walk out to a football practice sometime and tell me if you really think those students are enjoying what they are doing every minute.
I don't think students should suffer. However, you've already made the dichotomy "No Fun = Pain". This is simply not the case. And as others are more eloquently pointing out, a deeper appreciation of learning does not come from MTV clip style education. Ever wonder why children have attention problems? It's because we've given up on expecting a modicum of effort on their part, and assume that we have to make everything fun for them.
All right, I'm going to go out on a limb here. Why should everything be fun? Sure science can be fun, but there are plenty of times that the non-fun things must be done before you can enjoy the truly fun things in science.
Now, I really mean this towards all subjects. There are certain things that children should know, and sometimes learning them just isn't fun. What if the question was, "How can I make all food taste like candy so children will eat it?" Perhaps kids should be taught the value of learning and discovery outside of the "Hey, that's pretty nifty" look of a pretty demonstration. Science is not simply a fireworks exhibit, and I'm not convinced that showing children pretty pictures makes them want to go out and learn and perform science any more than watching a trip up Everest makes me want to be a mountain climber.
Occasionally things in life are boring. Education should not always be fun and entertaining, Especially since a lot of teachers slice out the meat of the learning since it just isn't "fun."
Oh, but then wouldn't this or this be a significantly better choice?
... or a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, A Buddhist, A Hindu, a Confusist, a Scientologist, an Athiest...
Remember, every religion starts off with a wacko according to somebody's definition.
they like to have someone to sue
Yeah... go ahead and sue microsoft because you lost a couple of days of productivityworth of software. Every lawyer in the north west would be after you, your family, your dog, and your sheep. You would think that microsoft is going to allow a precedent of "Oh, our software crashed and it cost you some money, therefore we need to pay you."? Not a chance in the world.
At the same time, I don't think Corporate types back microsoft because they can sue them. Think of it this way, you might cheer for the little guy when you're an observer, but you want the big guy fighting for you when your'e being protected. It really is a matter of trust -- RedHat could go away tomorrow, MS (sadly) isn't likely to.
So all citizens have a right to see the plans on making a nuclear missle? Or the location of every nuclear sub iin the world? Or the targeting and communication systems of all weapons?
Just because the government paid for it doesn't mean everybody has a right to see it.
One of those stupid little monopoly-money type casinos where the cash could be used to bid at an auction at the end--things like hammocks, phones, etc.
/. after all), and I happened to notice the roulette wheel. They had the odds posted beside it.
Anyway, I was wandering around the tables while my date was off dancing with her boyfriend (hey, I am posting on
50-1 payoff on guessing the right number.
There are only 38 slots to pick from.
Well, my first attempt at putting a chip on every spot got me throttled by a football player who said I was messing up the board. My later attempt of just telling the guy working it what my bet was just had him handing me 12 chips on every spin.
Very entertaining, humorous, and extremely sad that no one else in the junior or senior class happened to notice this.
it removes the only this vendor can fix that widget relationship which drives up costs
In most government contracts, there are clauses about repair and upkeep of products. For example, when the US Navy bought a school complex for more than $100M, the contractr was required to have a 24-hour on call repair expert for the first 3 years, as well as comprehensive repair teams for anything that the command said was broken. This was part of the specification that the contractor bid on.
I really think OSS is a great idea, however, isn't it a bad plan to require OSS use in government?
If the specification has a reason to be open source, for security or whatever, then great, make it so. However, having access to the source code for a project is not the same as making the project open source. AFAIK, letting someone look at your code and not change it is not the same as making it open source.
Even though people will (and have) actively compared software to things like cars, bridges, etc, it really is not the same. Imagine a small townhall that needed to buy a frobnosticating whiczawhosit managing program. No one there will evr look at the code. Odds are, no one will even upgrade the system, even 10 years from now, as long as it's doing its job. So why say that the code must be open source? It's kinda like saying that all school lunches must be kosher. Doesn't directly stop companies from bidding, but that's just not a way to do business for most of them.
Open source only laws are the embodiment of fiscal
responsibility
Not true. Fiscal responsibilty in government institutions comes from extremely well written specifications and a closed, low bid system with underwriting. Not allowing a closed source shop to compete certainly does not help fiscal responsibility.
I'm all for open source, but I really don't believe anybody should be strong armed into releasing their code. Remember, freedom of speech should also be freedom not to speak as well.
Sadly, once customers get to step 3, they're ususally done. They may even sigh and groan about the $100, but odds are very few will return it, especially if Apple offers a "Free, 30 day trial".
I hate to use the word, but I will: "Sheople." Too many people think that if they have to pay $100 a year, that's just what they must deserve for buying he Mac. Now, apple may have a problem when these people go to buy their next system (and not NeXT system).
But it's worth pointing out 51 times.
It seems that many of the points made on the MS website have more to do with Linux not working with windows. For example:
No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwords-one for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX
So, if you only use Windows, you only need 1 password, but if you use Linux, you'll need one for us and one for them. So automatically they decide that EVERYONE must use windows, and you have an option to choose Linux for a couple of minor things. And this is MS first point in all of the comparison, thus you'd think it was one of their strongest/most important arguments.
So you really don't think NewLine is going to market "The Definitive Lord of the Rings 14 DVD collectors set" In addition to a gift set and full edition for each film? I say 14 DVD's because I would expect about 2 DVDs worth of stuff (including background screens for your PC, and even a Lord of the Rings Linux Distro [There can be only One! {Woops, wrong geek-movie}]).
So I'd believe you'd have many fans doing the following purchases:
FotR : $21.
TTT: $21
RotK: $21
The Full Collectors Edition: $150(?)
Why buy RotK when you're going to buy the full collector's set anyway? Well, to have the complete regular set, and I have no doubt that the full set will follow RotK by about 5-6 months. Maybe even a year (Just in time for Christmas 2004)
That the full "collection" will be at least 12 DVDs? And wouldn't you expect 2-4 more with the full set of "never to be seen before" details? Is this set ging to retail around $200 or so?
Talk about a marketing coup! They'll get people to buy this movie at least twice, and some of them three times.
Likely around $90/month for the "Total Package", or even higher. Remember, Time-Warner wants your cable bill to be around $200/month by around 2004.
Is $90/month worth it? Would any of us get it? Why would you, when you can build an easier and cheaper solution by yourself. And since it's possible, maybe a side business of doing just this could be set up...
Want all the glamour of the wireless set top box but hate paying through the nose? Why not pay me $100 once, and I'll make your monthly bill around $50/month.
Not all orbits around Earth need to be checked. Most orbits are low enough, and they degrade over time, and thus there's not a big issue for garbage collection.
However, in geosyncronous orbits, there's another problem. We've been using these orbits ever since we started sending satellites up there, and this part of space is filled with little rivits, rocket boosters, etc. The good news is, that even though they are in orbit, they are moving at pretty much the same speed as everything near them (we're mainly looking at the Geo-syncronous orbits here, therefore everybody stays above their little piece of the equator.
Now, here's my way-stupid idea:
Send up a big steel ball. Now, have it plow through the geo sycronous orbits and knock everything it can out of it's way. All active satellites would have to move out of the orbit breifly, and then once the "Mr. Space Plow" passed, they could resume their orbits. If they can't respond... Well, that's just too damn bad.
Once out of the nice geosyncronous orbits, the trash does one of two things: degrade and crash to Earth, or escapes. Either was, problem solved.
And one other thing about RAID. Since drive replacements really aren't that common, when it does happen, it could easily be that person's first time at rebuilding a raid, as well as replacing a drive. Many a failure event has been created by a sys-op replacing the wrong drive (are the drives physically numbered from zero? Does the system reporting know that?) And just simple "Everyone be careful" generally doesn't cut it.