That and these guys are payed by the government, they can't afford to hire more people to teach them how to use software that 95% of the world doesn't utilize.
That argument doesn't make sense in this case, since they've been using StarOffice for 5 years. So they (somehow) figured out how to operate the software and just were not content with it....Either that or they never used any office software at all. I suppose notepad does a pretty good job as a typewriter too. If they used StarWriter, I can't think of real interoperability issues. (Writer is better at reading/writing (legacy) MSoffice files as is MS office.) No business critical reason either for having excel or powerpoint on every police officer's desk. And MS Axes does an equally lame job in report-filing as does starbase.
So, in this case, the only plausible reason for choosing either is in marketing, branding and lobbying.
Your point is so true. Of course providing a wiretap service through VoIP is a waste of money. Actually, it is more likely to provide malicious hackers with private info of the good guys, than it is going to help intelligence catch the bad guys. (For example, eavedropping random phone conversations is relatively easy access to credit card numbers.) Meanwhile, terrorists could use onion routing/tor networks to communicate virtually untraceble.
The only way to tap on *every* conversation is to kindly ask *everyone* to install the spyware on *every* computer and never turn it off. Did I say "ask kindly"? Make than "mandate".
Now what do we need for the population to accept that? Call it fear, uncertainty and doubt. Stories about pirates. Stories about violence. Stories about war and terrorism.
Hello Nineteen Eighty-Four.
-- Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards -- Aldous Huxley
Low orbit satellites will be out of range of Japan most of the time, hence idle, hence you will need a lot of them, hence expensive. And since low-orbit geostationary satellites will not work unless Japan moves to the equator and earth spinning doubles, I guess (autonomous) balloons or gliders are the most viable alternative for low-ping sollutions.
Many books have been dedicated to studying and expanding the field of AI, but generally fall into two categories: those that concentrate on AI as a research topic, and those that concentrate on AI in the field of game development.
IMHO the traditional subdivision of AI is between expert systems and automated learning. Games, is a field of applications, as are language technology, machine vision and machine operation optimization, for example. Games are really just a fringe.
The two categories categories proposed here are like saying: "there are 'basically' two categories for programming languages: LISP and non-functional languages." Here, 'basically' makes no sense outside the scope of LISP.
For a more accepted categorization of AI, look here
Back in the 70's GM made several hundred cars with a turbine engine. they were quiet, powerful and worked like a dream
Although I'm sure they were recalled for bullshit reasons, turbine engines were not suitible for cars because of their slow acceleration.
This is where the electrical system in a Toyota Prius picks up: a small (cylinder) engine is economic but lacks horse power. A battery backed electrical motor adds these. Replacing the engine in a Prius by a turbine might be a nice experiment, but remember that efficiency of standard combustion engines has improved drastically in the last decades.
Then again, maybe it's best to just wait for fuel cells to deliver enough power.
Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.
That sounds really sad. As though a complete nation is wandering purposeless without grand PR projects like this. Why not spend billions on something that benefits earth habitants in the process? Why is finding a cure for cancer, aids, or solving startvation, crime, or pollution a less worhty ambition?
Re:Efficient,reliable,cheap - chose any 2 :-)
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
I guess your point of view makes sense, and we seem to agree on most parts. That is: sending sealed capsuled with astronauts from earth on a return ticket shouldn't a tax payers' priority. It's possible; it's been done and we know enough about prolonged weightlessness to send people on long journeys just yet.
IMHO, the manned moon missions had little scientific merits appart from the proof of concept. It's hot PR, offcourse, especially in the cold-war background, but what did the astronauts that landed do that cannot be done by probes?
The same goes for Bush' Mars-vision: at this point in time - knowing as little as we do about the journey and about its destination - it doesn't make sense to send humans on a two-way ticket. It's like building a manned submarine to explore the ocean's bottom: most ot the time it's unnecessarily dangerous, expensive and inefficient, while cheap unmanned alternatives are readily available.
As with the X-price: if people/organizations still insist it's nice (for PR; thrills) then OK let them have a go with their own money; don't waste tax dollars.
To prepare for colonization of other planets, most research in launch, space travel & landing is best done unmanned or simply on this rock, by simulation. Biosphere labs have not just revealed how (not) to build self-sustaining structures. They have also shown how people react to being crammed in a (relatively) small bubble and how theory about earth ecology actually translates to practice. Even if never applied to other planets, the experiments are bound to teach us a lot more about the ecology outside the biosphere. Ie. climate change, biodiversity - basically it's testing the scalability of the earh habitat (scaling down).
On off-world construction - I believe the Japs have made some good progress in basics like fabricating mortar from moon rocks; mining and it for metals. I beleieve transparant and air/pressure resistant materials are a long way off, though..
From the article: In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP... (Listen to that sweet, objective tone: that's what makes CoolTechZone The Ultimate Source For Tech News - as we all know)
...It must have been a typo. I'm sure he mean to say:
In Linux, you have [the opportunity] to recompile a kernel if you want to [fall back to using a] modem, [for some mysterious reason]! Give me a break guys, Linux [is comparable to] Windows XP, [except it's possible to fix bugs that others never cared to fix]...
Re:Efficient,reliable,cheap - chose any 2 :-)
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
True. You have a point in that my line of reasoning compares apples with oranges. Scaled composites has a long way to go before they can do space shuttle stuff.
But it's the small steps that count. Private initiative have a lot of catching up to do with NASA's state monopoly - it may take another 20 years.
But what's the advantage in spending tax dollars on research that - apparently - some indivuals & for-profit organizations would gladly pay for? Personally, I don't see the point in pay huge sums to get my ass in outer space, the moon, mars. And I couldn't care less if someone else does. Manned space missions have never been much more than PR. & tourism. Compared to unmanned missions they are outrageously expensive and have little or no scientific merrits.
So why should my tax dollars be spend on it?
OK. I'm ranting so I'll stop. Please (sincerely) convince me that an organization like NASA is the best (cheapest) way to innovate and build great things.
Re:Efficient,reliable,cheap - chose any 2 :-)
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO the accumulated costs of all research by Ansari X price contentendants didn't even touch on the cost of a single NASA launch. The point is: a big pile of dollars and a beefy set of managers isn't a guarantee to innovate cheap, reliable, efficient space ships. In case of the space shuttle as a reusable, cheap orbital launcher/lander - it just never happened. Innovation stopped in the mid-80s, costs never dropped.
On the other hand, from a set of competing teams with little cash, great ideas are bound to float up. Competitions may not be the way to go for settled business, continuously improving their efficiency margins. It is however the way to get great innovations, relatively cheap.
And space exploration isn't currently a settled business by far...
From tech specs: System Requirements: Mac OS X (programmability requires Mac OS X v10.4.2 Tiger or later), or Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
OK I agree it's typical that Apple rather than Microsoft markets this stuff, but I'm not convinced that there isn't a small company out there thinking goddamnit, Steve stole our idea.
Now from an unrelated source:
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk [Thomas Edison]
..That should give Bill a head start...
Re:Efficient,reliable,cheap - chose any 2 :-)
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
From TFA: [...] in theory speeding its completion and lowering its price.
That, indeed is why NASA is the leading agency for doing efficient, reliable and cheap innovation -- in theory. That is why Burt Rutan's SS1 project went over budget, it was irrisponsible, it did not win the Ansari X price and -- in fact -- it crashed. Whaha.
-- In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory.
Who are you to define what is sick in my mind? (you can't beat a good old ST prime directive conundrum)
Great! I think we're on the same line. I totally agree you shouldn't condemn someone's moral standards. Even when it comes to the debate on democratic/economic progress in China I'm reluctant to judge their way doing thing with my western background. Nevertheless - from my perspective - I think I'm allowed to say I personally find some of the stuff we see on TV, games, books and movies repulsive. But the right to speak does not entail the right to be taken seriously.
Parents who don't play games are going to have a tough time selecting games for their kids if they are clueless about their content (same thing for movies, except these same parents might know a tad more about them). Just because your kids do something doesn't mean you have to become an expert on the subject.
You don't need to be an expert to not be clueless. You don't need to watch over your kids shoulder all day to know what's going on. I lost my interest in video games long before 3d games were available (well, I did play Elite in wireframes), but I know what's going on.
My critism is with parents that just don't seem interested in what goes on in their kids life and just want to rely on ratings and certificates. I mean, you don't buy your 4 years old a bathing suit and leave her at the beach to play on her own just because it lacks a proper rating that says that sort of thing is dangerous.
Even clueless parents know enough about computer games to realized some stuff needs a bit of supervision.
OK. So you differ on whether it's sick or not to explore this kind violence. But you're not debating that it's your choice and your responsibility first and not that of the institution rating the game, least the author creating it.
It's just sad that some parents can't make out the difference between a titled "Mario Kart" and "Grant Theft Auto". I don't think any toy out there is safe enough to trust your kid with without any supervision or attention.
It's so lame to gather a group of people to complain about the dangers of a product that's available in a consumer-driven society. Worried parents should put their efforts into watching over their kids, and ask why those kids are even interested in games like GTA, rather than demonstrating against the game creators that somehow stumbled onto a booming market.
Go to Soviet Russia for communist technology "contests" and see how far that sort of "innovation" takes you.
(That may require time travel innovation first, but that's not my point.) As a programmer I have the greatest respect for innovation by Soviet colleague. These guys put astronauts into space in stuff that's more reliable and energy-efficient than anything NASA or ESA could come up with, yet their "hi-tech" computer hardware had a disadvantage of some 20 years. Imagine that.
Exactly. Indeed, my original phrasing about a "deathblow" to intel was a bit beside the point. "Deathblow" of course would not apply to intel as a company, but intel's dominance in the CPU market, and than still it's an overstatement.
What i meant to express is that AMD is very unhappy with the way things worked out. Instead of finally getting a high-profile brand recognise their superiority in the CPU market, they get nada while intel does the intel-thing.
I wonder what The Steve will break in a fit of rage if and when AMD's case against Intel results in a ruling that renders the volume deal illegal and void.
Good point
You'd almost think that AMD (lawsuit) and IBM (PPC announcements, Cell) banded together to flip The Steve the finger after he had already made the decision.
That, I don't believe. More likely, Apple was simultaneously bargaining a deal with AMD, IBM, Intel, Sony - and anyone else they could hustle. IBM lost, but being grown-ups didn't complain about an ex customer.
AMD, on the other hand lost a deal that could have been a (near) deathblow to their archenemy intel. Since they lost it the same way they have been loosing all major deals, they finally decided it was time to make a stand.
-- Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there -- Sydney J. Harris
But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.
Exactly. Isn't the problem that most terrorists are in fact just potential terrorists until the moment they blow up something? Apart from the profesionals, like Bin Laden himself, they're often model citizens. By the time you find out something's wrong, it's too late.
Retaliation shows that you're capable of doing the same evils; it doesn't prove that you're in control.
I'm not sure if this is genuine. Although an Al Qaeda link should never be ruled out, they don't have a record of claiming responsibility directly after attacks. A tape that comfirmed the link between Osama's network and "9/11" surfaced months later, while the first days after the Madrid bombings ETA was falsely blamed. Isn't it peculiar that this time asian sources have Al Qaeda claim responsibility *minutes* after the events occured?
Slashdot Mirror
Thats assumeing you stay witht the same work force. People come and go.
That's assuming your work force doesn't entirely consist of Scottish police officers.
--
Anybody who doesn't cut his speed at the sight of a police car is
probably parked.
That and these guys are payed by the government, they can't afford to hire more people to teach them how to use software that 95% of the world doesn't utilize.
...Either that or they never used any office software at all. I suppose notepad does a pretty good job as a typewriter too. If they used StarWriter, I can't think of real interoperability issues. (Writer is better at reading/writing (legacy) MSoffice files as is MS office.) No business critical reason either for having excel or powerpoint on every police officer's desk. And MS Axes does an equally lame job in report-filing as does starbase.
That argument doesn't make sense in this case, since they've been using StarOffice for 5 years. So they (somehow) figured out how to operate the software and just were not content with it.
So, in this case, the only plausible reason for choosing either is in marketing, branding and lobbying.
Your point is so true. Of course providing a wiretap service through VoIP is a waste of money. Actually, it is more likely to provide malicious hackers with private info of the good guys, than it is going to help intelligence catch the bad guys. (For example, eavedropping random phone conversations is relatively easy access to credit card numbers.) Meanwhile, terrorists could use onion routing/tor networks to communicate virtually untraceble.
The only way to tap on *every* conversation is to kindly ask *everyone* to install the spyware on *every* computer and never turn it off. Did I say "ask kindly"? Make than "mandate".
Now what do we need for the population to accept that? Call it fear, uncertainty and doubt. Stories about pirates. Stories about violence. Stories about war and terrorism.
Hello Nineteen Eighty-Four.
--
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards -- Aldous Huxley
Low orbit satellites will be out of range of Japan most of the time, hence idle, hence you will need a lot of them, hence expensive. And since low-orbit geostationary satellites will not work unless Japan moves to the equator and earth spinning doubles, I guess (autonomous) balloons or gliders are the most viable alternative for low-ping sollutions.
Many books have been dedicated to studying and expanding the field of AI, but generally fall into two categories: those that concentrate on AI as a research topic, and those that concentrate on AI in the field of game development.
IMHO the traditional subdivision of AI is between expert systems and automated learning. Games, is a field of applications, as are language technology, machine vision and machine operation optimization, for example. Games are really just a fringe.
The two categories categories proposed here are like saying: "there are 'basically' two categories for programming languages: LISP and non-functional languages." Here, 'basically' makes no sense outside the scope of LISP.
For a more accepted categorization of AI, look here
Hmm.
It seems the linked site has decided to demonstrate its ultra-silent page server after being slashdotted.
Back in the 70's GM made several hundred cars with a turbine engine. they were quiet, powerful and worked like a dream
Although I'm sure they were recalled for bullshit reasons, turbine engines were not suitible for cars because of their slow acceleration.
This is where the electrical system in a Toyota Prius picks up: a small (cylinder) engine is economic but lacks horse power. A battery backed electrical motor adds these. Replacing the engine in a Prius by a turbine might be a nice experiment, but remember that efficiency of standard combustion engines has improved drastically in the last decades.
Then again, maybe it's best to just wait for fuel cells to deliver enough power.
Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.
That sounds really sad. As though a complete nation is wandering purposeless without grand PR projects like this. Why not spend billions on something that benefits earth habitants in the process? Why is finding a cure for cancer, aids, or solving startvation, crime, or pollution a less worhty ambition?
I guess your point of view makes sense, and we seem to agree on most parts. That is: sending sealed capsuled with astronauts from earth on a return ticket shouldn't a tax payers' priority. It's possible; it's been done and we know enough about prolonged weightlessness to send people on long journeys just yet.
IMHO, the manned moon missions had little scientific merits appart from the proof of concept. It's hot PR, offcourse, especially in the cold-war background, but what did the astronauts that landed do that cannot be done by probes?
The same goes for Bush' Mars-vision: at this point in time - knowing as little as we do about the journey and about its destination - it doesn't make sense to send humans on a two-way ticket. It's like building a manned submarine to explore the ocean's bottom: most ot the time it's unnecessarily dangerous, expensive and inefficient, while cheap unmanned alternatives are readily available.
As with the X-price: if people/organizations still insist it's nice (for PR; thrills) then OK let them have a go with their own money; don't waste tax dollars.
To prepare for colonization of other planets, most research in launch, space travel & landing is best done unmanned or simply on this rock, by simulation. Biosphere labs have not just revealed how (not) to build self-sustaining structures. They have also shown how people react to being crammed in a (relatively) small bubble and how theory about earth ecology actually translates to practice. Even if never applied to other planets, the experiments are bound to teach us a lot more about the ecology outside the biosphere. Ie. climate change, biodiversity - basically it's testing the scalability of the earh habitat (scaling down).
On off-world construction - I believe the Japs have made some good progress in basics like fabricating mortar from moon rocks; mining and it for metals. I beleieve transparant and air/pressure resistant materials are a long way off, though..
From the article:
...It must have been a typo. I'm sure he mean to say:
In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP...
(Listen to that sweet, objective tone: that's what makes CoolTechZone The Ultimate Source For Tech News - as we all know)
In Linux, you have [the opportunity] to recompile a kernel if you want to [fall back to using a] modem, [for some mysterious reason]! Give me a break guys, Linux [is comparable to] Windows XP, [except it's possible to fix bugs that others never cared to fix]...
True. You have a point in that my line of reasoning compares apples with oranges. Scaled composites has a long way to go before they can do space shuttle stuff.
But it's the small steps that count. Private initiative have a lot of catching up to do with NASA's state monopoly - it may take another 20 years.
But what's the advantage in spending tax dollars on research that - apparently - some indivuals & for-profit organizations would gladly pay for? Personally, I don't see the point in pay huge sums to get my ass in outer space, the moon, mars. And I couldn't care less if someone else does. Manned space missions have never been much more than PR. & tourism. Compared to unmanned missions they are outrageously expensive and have little or no scientific merrits.
So why should my tax dollars be spend on it?
OK. I'm ranting so I'll stop. Please (sincerely) convince me that an organization like NASA is the best (cheapest) way to innovate and build great things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO the accumulated costs of all research by Ansari X price contentendants didn't even touch on the cost of a single NASA launch. The point is: a big pile of dollars and a beefy set of managers isn't a guarantee to innovate cheap, reliable, efficient space ships. In case of the space shuttle as a reusable, cheap orbital launcher/lander - it just never happened. Innovation stopped in the mid-80s, costs never dropped.
On the other hand, from a set of competing teams with little cash, great ideas are bound to float up. Competitions may not be the way to go for settled business, continuously improving their efficiency margins. It is however the way to get great innovations, relatively cheap.
And space exploration isn't currently a settled business by far...
From tech specs:
..That should give Bill a head start...
System Requirements: Mac OS X (programmability requires Mac OS X v10.4.2 Tiger or later), or Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
OK I agree it's typical that Apple rather than Microsoft markets this stuff, but I'm not convinced that there isn't a small company out there thinking goddamnit, Steve stole our idea.
Now from an unrelated source:
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk [Thomas Edison]
From TFA: [...] in theory speeding its completion and lowering its price.
That, indeed is why NASA is the leading agency for doing efficient, reliable and cheap innovation -- in theory. That is why Burt Rutan's SS1 project went over budget, it was irrisponsible, it did not win the Ansari X price and -- in fact -- it crashed. Whaha.
--
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory.
Who are you to define what is sick in my mind? (you can't beat a good old ST prime directive conundrum)
Great!
I think we're on the same line. I totally agree you shouldn't condemn someone's moral standards. Even when it comes to the debate on democratic/economic progress in China I'm reluctant to judge their way doing thing with my western background. Nevertheless - from my perspective - I think I'm allowed to say I personally find some of the stuff we see on TV, games, books and movies repulsive. But the right to speak does not entail the right to be taken seriously.
Parents who don't play games are going to have a tough time selecting games for their kids if they are clueless about their content (same thing for movies, except these same parents might know a tad more about them). Just because your kids do something doesn't mean you have to become an expert on the subject.
You don't need to be an expert to not be clueless. You don't need to watch over your kids shoulder all day to know what's going on. I lost my interest in video games long before 3d games were available (well, I did play Elite in wireframes), but I know what's going on.
My critism is with parents that just don't seem interested in what goes on in their kids life and just want to rely on ratings and certificates. I mean, you don't buy your 4 years old a bathing suit and leave her at the beach to play on her own just because it lacks a proper rating that says that sort of thing is dangerous.
Even clueless parents know enough about computer games to realized some stuff needs a bit of supervision.
OK. So you differ on whether it's sick or not to explore this kind violence. But you're not debating that it's your choice and your responsibility first and not that of the institution rating the game, least the author creating it.
It's just sad that some parents can't make out the difference between a titled "Mario Kart" and "Grant Theft Auto". I don't think any toy out there is safe enough to trust your kid with without any supervision or attention.
I agree completely.
It's so lame to gather a group of people to complain about the dangers of a product that's available in a consumer-driven society. Worried parents should put their efforts into watching over their kids, and ask why those kids are even interested in games like GTA, rather than demonstrating against the game creators that somehow stumbled onto a booming market.
Go to Soviet Russia for communist technology "contests" and see how far that sort of "innovation" takes you.
(That may require time travel innovation first, but that's not my point.)
As a programmer I have the greatest respect for innovation by Soviet colleague. These guys put astronauts into space in stuff that's more reliable and energy-efficient than anything NASA or ESA could come up with, yet their "hi-tech" computer hardware had a disadvantage of some 20 years. Imagine that.
Exactly.
Indeed, my original phrasing about a "deathblow" to intel was a bit beside the point. "Deathblow" of course would not apply to intel as a company, but intel's dominance in the CPU market, and than still it's an overstatement.
What i meant to express is that AMD is very unhappy with the way things worked out. Instead of finally getting a high-profile brand recognise their superiority in the CPU market, they get nada while intel does the intel-thing.
I wonder what The Steve will break in a fit of rage if and when AMD's case against Intel results in a ruling that renders the volume deal illegal and void.
Good point
You'd almost think that AMD (lawsuit) and IBM (PPC announcements, Cell) banded together to flip The Steve the finger after he had already made the decision.
That, I don't believe. More likely, Apple was simultaneously bargaining a deal with AMD, IBM, Intel, Sony - and anyone else they could hustle. IBM lost, but being grown-ups didn't complain about an ex customer.
AMD, on the other hand lost a deal that could have been a (near) deathblow to their archenemy intel. Since they lost it the same way they have been loosing all major deals, they finally decided it was time to make a stand.
--
Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there -- Sydney J. Harris
But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.
Exactly. Isn't the problem that most terrorists are in fact just potential terrorists until the moment they blow up something? Apart from the profesionals, like Bin Laden himself, they're often model citizens. By the time you find out something's wrong, it's too late.
Retaliation shows that you're capable of doing the same evils; it doesn't prove that you're in control.
--
I say: Death to all fanatics
Got it ;-)
I'm not sure if this is genuine.
Although an Al Qaeda link should never be ruled out, they don't have a record of claiming responsibility directly after attacks. A tape that comfirmed the link between Osama's network and "9/11" surfaced months later, while the first days after the Madrid bombings ETA was falsely blamed.
Isn't it peculiar that this time asian sources have Al Qaeda claim responsibility *minutes* after the events occured?
--
All extremists should be taken out and shot
No it's not. It's just that they asked a Smurf model to show off with it. They do that all the time.
Calling that thing "humongous" is an insult to my IBM 370 handheld!
In other news...
...Oh no wait, the other news is actually the same.
Sigh.