Considering that when the sun goes Red Giant on us, we'd have to be at an orbit the distance of Triton in order to maintain an environment similar to what we have now, we'd have to move at a pretty good clip to make it. Especially since we couldn't get much of a head start since we'd then freeze the entire planet on the way if we didn't time it with the sun's expansion. And then what happens when the sun goes white dwarf? We move back again? Not to mention the fact we'd by MUCH closer (as in right next door) to the gas giants, and their gravity would probably do some crazy stuff with us.
And what about Mars? Won't we have colonized it by then? Along with probably the rest of the Milky Way? Why would we move Earth? For nostalgic purposes? Of course, that's assuming the human race even exists then, in any form.
I read an article back when Corel first introduced their version of Linux. (I actually knew about the release about a year earlier, when I got a tour of the Corel Computers offices, but that's another story...). It stated that Corel's plan, although not publicized in any way, was fairly obvious. By providing a user-friendly, Windows-like Linux distro, they could increase the number of Linux users. Knowing that M$ wouldn't likely port their apps over to Linux, they could then essentially corner the market with the WordPerfect suite. THIS is where the real money would be, not in the OS itself, but in the applications that Corel planned on building up user support for.
Have to admit, this made sense. One cannot make money on a Free OS, no matter how much you charge for the box, manuals, and support, especially in an age where high speed access is becoming more widespread, slowly making traditional distribution models (ie.- off-the-shelf) obsolete. However, by offering "crippled" versions of their applications for free, they COULD make money, especially to the market they were aiming for. Most people who would use Corel Linux wouldn't go near, say, Debian, because they want user-friendliness, and M$-like configurability. These same people would then get the online version of WP, use it, and realize they want more TrueType fonts, macros, filters, etc., that could only be obtained with the commercial version of the software. So, they would dutifully trudge out to their local store, or visit corel.com, and buy the package. The same would apply to CL versions of CorelDraw, etc..
However, there was a problem. The Linux market took a nose-dive. Suddenly the Linux buzz started dying off, and Corel dropped from $61/share to $2.50 ($CDN prices folks). Cowpland resigned, and the plan wasn't looking as feasible. So, spin off the OS now, instead of after the expected boom in usage, because the boom isn't going to happen any time soon. This way, the problem isn't theirs. They can continue to provide the apps, and over time, they just might make a profit from them, especially if the spin-off does a decent job of building and supporting CL.
Mind you,/. readers don't tend to fall into the category Corel was looking for. Not many actually use CL, some might of installed it on a separate partition just to take a look-see, but most returned to their Red-Hat/Debian/Slackware/whatever distros and happily hacked away in their xterms.
Point being, *IF* Linux had continued to stay at its peak, and *IF* Corel's version grabbed a decent share of the market, then the plan of providing the OS for free and selling the apps *COULD* have made them a mint. Unfortunately, none of the ifs were realized, so Corel is once again struggling to stay afloat.
Hmmm... interesting. I had a friend who was in charge of setting up an internal network in a b&m bank. Once he had it set up, he figured that he, knowing everything about the system, would be able to steal a sizeable sum of money in about 20 seconds. And it would take bank security 2 seconds to catch him. So I guess it really depends on who you're dealing with.
Yah, but BC tends to be more techno-happy than Ontario (at least Vancouver vs Toronto, shhhh, don't tell anyone around here I said that). I read somewhere that BC ADSL is much faster than the 1 Meg modems we have 'round here. Both of those would account for the higher demand.
Of course, there's the fact that every major corporation in Canada wants to keep Torontonians happy, that might explain the lower delay. I know Bell recently added a ton of tech support people and has been expanding Sympatico High Speed like Oprah's waistline.
Maybe the long waits is an U.S. thing. Until recently, Bell Canada had a monopoly on ADSL in Ontario (until the CRTC told them to allow competition), mainly because they control all the physical lines and equipment. I did my own install (since it's pathetically simple), so I received the necessary hardware, software, etc. via courier about 3 days after I ordered. And my service was activated a day earlier than they said (4 business days instead of 5).
Since then I've only really had a few problems, The worst being 12 hours of downtime that was fixed with an irate phone call (the tech support people tend to be morons). Of course, the max download speed at the moment is 1.13Mbps, but I'm happy with it.
Actually, yes. In the Engineering Faculty, many of our groups and programs have been started by not only PhD students, but UNDERGRADUATE students. Many of these remain completely student-run, while some eventually fall under a professor's moderation. As for Mann leaving MIT, he was (and still is) disgusted by what the program became. He believes strongly in uninfluenced, user-controlled development. MIT's program started being funded by major corporations with their own agendas who are exercising control over the project. His major fear was when the military started looking into applications for wearables and he wanted nothing to do with that level of obfuscation and loss of control. UofT was more than happy to offer him a position here, along with giving him complete control over the project. As such, his major sponsers donate equipment, not money, and he couldn't be happier with it, because they want nothing more than recognition for their assistance. Anything that is developed because of the project goes into the public domain. As I said earlier, it's all open source. Everyone has an equal opportunity to use what is developed, provided of course that they can afford it.
I made the mistake once of mentioning an advance in wearable computing that was being credited to MIT to him (I belive it was the embedded LCD in standard eyeglasses). He quite quickly pointed out that MIT had little to do with it, other than testing and some research into the project, and that it was in fact the corporate sponser that now had rights to it that did most of the legwork. As far as he was concerned, MIT sold out with this one.
Really, considering he started the MIT wearables program as a PhD student, and has been building and using wearable computers for the last 20 years. True, he uses other people's technology in his work, but it's the combination of these technologies that is his. I'm not saying there aren't other wearable groups out there that have done the same independently, but I have yet to see ANY group with the same ideas or technology Mann uses. Most don't work on the concept of "mediated reality"; they seperate the computer from the rest of the world instead of integrating it. And before you say "MIT is doing just that!" I remind you that it was Mann that brought that idea to MIT.
Actually, a Beowulf of these would be run of a form-fitting vest designed to carry the computers. Linking with other cyborgs would be done over radio modem. Actually, that's how it's done now
Actually, the course is offered to anyone who wants to take it. The thesis students are from Eng Sci, Computer and Electrical engineering (in fact, most of the thesis students this year were from Comp and Elec). If you count thesis students along with the regular group, there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30-40 people working on the project this year alone. And if anyone else wants to work with the project (Industrial engineers for example) they are free to approach Steve Mann and set something up. Considering some of the groups in the Faculty, I'd say it's far less elite than most.
I've heard Steve Mann talk about the phrases he's coined: Eyetap, wearcomp, photoquantigraphic lightspace rendering, etc. But NEVER has he claimed to have coined the word cyborg. Are you sure that the writeup you've linked to (for TedCity, a media and technology convention-thingy in Toronto) wasn't written by someone else? Professor Mann will unabashadly refer one to any reference he has used, or any other pioneer whose ideas or work he has incorporated into his own.
Further, as to the reaction you've posted, at the time, Mann was in the midst of a project where we wore his wearcomp CONSTANTLY for a year of his life, recording and broadcasting everything. When the year was up, he stopped. Trust me, when I was in his class, I was hoping he'd be broadcasting himself writing the final exam:). Since then, he hasn't been walking around with a bright light shining in everyone's face, oblivious to the world... he's stopped using the light.
It sounds like you hold a personal grudge against Mann, have you ever met him? Or are you just basing this attack on second-hand information from disgruntled MIT students? Regardless, this isn't a topic about Steve Mann, but about his wearable computers.
Alright, it's about time this got posted. I just spent the past year working with Professor Mann and the 'cyborg' group at the University Of Toronto. So, I guess I'll put my $0.02 in
First off, the page is over a year out of date, even the course syllabus is slightly dated. Since Steve Mann came to UofT, the wearcomp/wearcam/eyetap/cybernetics group has grown tremendously. We've effectively taken over an entire graduate student lab with prototypes, workstations, even a Beowulf or two.
Secondly, by no means was "a bunch of engineering students assigned to create wearable computers". Every student involved with the wearcomp group has their own specific interests in the project. Some concentrate on the use of the device, others develop the technology, most of us have hacked the code (all open-source, all linux) to some degree. I personally did my 4th year thesis (along with two partners) on parallel image processing using code designed for wearcomps and eyetap (and running on that aforementioned Beowulf). I also took Professor Mann's course, which, if nothing else, is an eye-opener to what his concepts really are and where he's heading with this technology
For those of you with concerns about the wearability of the devices. Currently, the most widely-used wearcomps can be fairly discretely worn around the waist. However, the eyetaps used are slightly more conspicuous, being mounted on hard hats, baseball caps, etc, with a modified webcam, a small screen, and a fairly large mirror used as a diverter. There are more discrete versions of the eyetap in existence, which are often used by Professor Mann (in fact, he's rarely seen without them), embedded into a larger pair of sunglasses (slightly more stylish than the ones seen on the webpage) or regular lenses.
Where is all this going? Beats me. Bear in mind that when Steve Mann started building wearable computers, he wore 200lbs of equipment in a backpack and had an antenna sticking out his head. In the 20 years that have elapsed since then, the whole system weighs in at about 10lbs in its case, and it's getting smaller all the time. As for uses, of course the first application that comes to mind is internet usage. But after 20 years, Professor Mann's gotten a little bored with just checking e-mail. The concept of a "mediated reality" is the predominant use envisioned for the eyetap. Imagine a meeting around a table in your local Second Cup (or Starbucks for all the non-Canucks out there), where each person is wearing a covert wearcomp. The entire meeting can take place without anyone else in the room able to access the information being shared. You could project flow charts, xterms as whiteboards, etc, to each other using the wearcomps, and nobody but you would know. You could be walking down the street, and another user could have left you a message 'written' on a store window reminding you to bring donuts to the morning meeting. These are the types of uses that could develop, where reality isn't interrupted by the computer (unlike cell phones, pagers, PDAs, etc.), but enhanced, and augmented.
Anyway, I can think of at least 5 other people who will be starting their posts with "I've worked with Professor Steve Mann for x years...", I'll let them do the rest of the talking.
Ok, first off, the page is outdated. I spent the last year working with Steve Mann on the wearcomp project. He's actually got a couple covert wearables built that he uses. He has a pair of dark sunglasses (NOT the aviator lenses seen on the page) with a miniscule camera mounted on the frame and a laser eyetap behind the lenses. He also has a pair of regular glasses that again use a frame-mounted camera, but in order to hide the eyetap device, it uses a small laser eyetap that uses a diverter in the lens itself, so that the lenses look like a pair of bifocals.
As for the computers themselves, they are currently carried around in waist-packs, however, Professor Mann's plans for wearability include a form-fitted vest that would contain a cluster (possibly even a Beowulf cluster (no joke)) of cigarette-pack-sized computers. Ideally, the whole system would be undetectable by a passerby
Considering the majority of the people in India are Hindu, and the jihad is part of the Muslim faith, I doubt too many Indians will be making bombs for their holy war.
I, like so many others, started out with BASIC when I was 9, on a Commodore 128 (in that yellow-screen mode). It was fine and dandy, and taught me some basic programming concepts, but I wouldn't recommend it
The problem with BASIC is that it's "spaghetti programming", using GOTO and GOSUB statements regularly, making it hard to follow a basic programming structure. I'd recommend Turing, it's somewhat Pascal-like, but without the nit-picking. (ie.- no need for semi-colons, or brackets, etc.). It uses relatively plain english commands (put, get, etc.) and has auto-formatting at the push of a button. It's a structured language, and an object-oriented version is also available.
In fact, Turing was developed as a learner's language, with the idea that one would move onto C with little problem. It was maintained by the University of Toronto, not sure if it still is or not. Note however, that it uses an interpreter, not a compiler (an external compiler IS available however), and tends to be slower than C, and not as powerful. But it is an excellent learning language.
Bear in mind that the original frankenstein's monster started off with the mind of a child and soon taught itself how to speak, read, interact, etc.. It was actually quite intelligent.
Lars seems to have some idea of what's going on, and sees the potential, but unfortunately lacks an inside view. He even states they aren't very net savy, so they don't see the whole picture like a regular user does. That and the answers were obviously not prepared.
So, if you tell the computer to engage the Borg, does it set up all the wedding plans as well? Or do you have to tell it step by step. And my heavens Brain, what would the children look like?
Two things: I find your reasoning about the only purpose served is confiscation interesting. I live in Canada, and a license has been required for years to own a gun (note, this is not a registration). Now, new gun control has come in where not only must all firearms be registered, but a special gun-owners photo ID is being issued that must be used to purchase any guns or ammunition. And I haven't heard a single person say they're afraid the government is going to step in and take away their guns. In fact, the US is the ONLY country I know of where this sort of debate is so volatile. Maybe we're just more responsible with our firearms up here, so we aren't as afraid of Big Brother coming to take away our toys.
Second, as I stated in my initial post, gun registration and control is NOT the answer to the problem of violent crime, it is only part of the solution. The societal problems that lead to violence and crime must also be addressed.
That's okay, we all have a RIGHT to voice our opinions. And I take issue with your reply. Comparing the right to vote to the right to bear arms is ridiculous. By voting, you are one voice in many, and the majority will win. If some nutcase decided he's going to vote for a leader who believes aliens are sending him messages through broadcasts of Green Bay Packer games, then so be it, but that leader won't win because of his vote. The majority will vote for the leader that makes the most sense (or failing that, is the candidate for whichever party the voters support). The right to own a gun means that single nutcase can go and kill the entire Packers defensive line with an AK47. This isn't an issue of whether someone is black, white, rich, poor, male, female, straight, gay, or handicapped. It's an issue of "can this person be given the ability to kill someone with minimal effort." A nurse would undoubtedly qualify for gun ownership, as they would have to have some level intelligence, sanity, and definately responsibility to be in the position they are in. The key is that background checks have to be standardized, so that the same questions are asked of every person wishing to own a gun, and not be held to the whims of some bigotted bureacrat.
A better analogy to use would have been driving. It's nobody's RIGHT to drive, it's a priviledge granted after one passes a series of standardized tests that determine driving ability, safety and responsibility. It's the RIGHT of anyone to try to get their license, as many times as they want, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to have a license granted to them. The same should hold for gun control
No, of course not. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, justice, liberty, etc, are all RIGHTS, as they should be. None of them allows one person to wield power over life and death like the ownership of a gun does. If some nutcase wants to stand on a street corner and tell me Bill Clinton is an alien, then he/she has every right to do so. I'm intelligent enough to ignore or listen as I see fit. But if someone sticks a gun in my face and pulls the trigger, then *I* lose any control I have. I no longer have the choice to ignore something like that. The right to bear arms is one of the few "rights" that FORCES something onto another person. And that's why it should be considered a priviledge, not a right.
I'm constantly amazed at how one topic can lead to another... the point of the original article was the FBI had a computer glitch and gun sales had stopped. It (naturally) became a huge debate on gun control. Ah/., how I love thee.
Anyhoo, after skimming through all the banter, I guess I'll give me $0.02 (CDN), because I know you all want to hear it.
First off, everybody, please stop quoting statistics. As all/. knows, 67% of all statistics are made up. Either the pro-gun or the anti-gun side can mention any number of statistics that "prove" the other side wrong. "Crime goes up when gun control is implemented", "Most shootings happen in the home by the homeowner", "Water guns lead to ak47s". Give me a break. They serve no purpose other than filling out your comments.
Second, it should NEVER have been the right to bear arms, it should be the priviledge to bear arms. Making it a right means that EVERY Tom, Dick or Jane can own a gun, regardless of their stability, responsibility level, etc.. So any arguement that makes ANY sense that calls it a right is flawed, unless you MEAN to say "I don't care if the nutcase next door owns a gun or not". With a gun comes tremendous responsibility, more than with just about anything else. ANYBODY who purchases a gun should have a background check (whether the government keeps records on it or not is another discussion entirely), a psychological test, and an IQ test! As well, no gun should be sold until the person has COMPLETED a gun-training course, and knows not only how to PROPERLY use a gun (any idiot can point and shoot), but has been trained in safety, care, and responsible use. You don't sell a car to someone who doesn't have a driver's license. Yes, a gun is a tool, and like any tool, shouldn't be used by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly (just ask your grade 8 shop teacher).
As for the arguements that criminals will have guns regardless of the laws, and that the government is going to enslave everybody if your precious guns are taken away. Yes, criminals will still have guns, AT FIRST, but registration will mean that SOMEBODY is responsible for each gun that is legally sold, and if it gets used in a crime, then the person to whom the gun is registered is liable. This would result in people being much more careful about their firearms. You'd find less guns that aren't well-hidden, or locked up, so they couldn't be stolen as easily. You'd find less children with guns, as parents would make sure they couldn't get them. It's amazing what precautions are taken when someone's ass is on the line. As for smuggled weapons, that's a whole other area to crack down on, but in time, obtaining a gun illegally would become MUCH harder that it is now. And responsiblity has to go back further than the purchaser, every gun that a gun store has in stock should be accounted for, every sale and purchase recorded by that store (not necessarily who bought what, but that it was bought), so that guns could be easily tracked back to their origin. As for the government, give me a break, no stable capitalist country would turn to a dictatorship, it's bad for businesss. Do you honestly think Microsoft or GM would allow the government to destroy a free market? NO! That's Microsoft and GM's job:). And that's all I got ta say about that.
Finally, the larger picture is always missed (or at least avoided) in these discussions, that the fact people own guns isn't what causes these crimes. It's the fact that social problems and the makeup of the people committing said crimes are to blame. If the government would spend half the time they spend on debating gun control, and one TENTH of the money they spend on the military on fixing the problems that lead to crime, then the gun control issue would become moot as crime would drop radically. But it's much easier, and more "glamourous" to deal with the problems at the end of the slippery-slope than climbing back up it and fixing the ones that started everything.
-...for every gun turned in, trade them an ounce of crack. -Al Franken on PI
Amazing how quickly everybody jumps on this NOW. As the article says, the ruling passed a month ago, and the contract change occured last NOVEMBER. DomainNameBuyersGuide.com has a huge WARNING in the overall rating of NSI because of this very clause! This is something that's been known for months already.
The court ruling talked about was a reversal of an earlier ruling, which stated that domain names were intellectual property. As for what you're getting, the article does quote NSI's legal counsel as saying "You don't own a domain name any more than you own your phone number." Obviously, just his (and NSI's) opinion, but that's their rationalization for their rules. However, you don't complain that you pay a monthly phone bill, when your phone company does reserve the right to change your number, or even take away your right to use it (area code changes, illegal use, not paying your bill, etc. for example). Not that I'm supporting NSI's position, just clarifying... or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that when the sun goes Red Giant on us, we'd have to be at an orbit the distance of Triton in order to maintain an environment similar to what we have now, we'd have to move at a pretty good clip to make it. Especially since we couldn't get much of a head start since we'd then freeze the entire planet on the way if we didn't time it with the sun's expansion. And then what happens when the sun goes white dwarf? We move back again? Not to mention the fact we'd by MUCH closer (as in right next door) to the gas giants, and their gravity would probably do some crazy stuff with us.
And what about Mars? Won't we have colonized it by then? Along with probably the rest of the Milky Way? Why would we move Earth? For nostalgic purposes? Of course, that's assuming the human race even exists then, in any form.
I read an article back when Corel first introduced their version of Linux. (I actually knew about the release about a year earlier, when I got a tour of the Corel Computers offices, but that's another story...). It stated that Corel's plan, although not publicized in any way, was fairly obvious. By providing a user-friendly, Windows-like Linux distro, they could increase the number of Linux users. Knowing that M$ wouldn't likely port their apps over to Linux, they could then essentially corner the market with the WordPerfect suite. THIS is where the real money would be, not in the OS itself, but in the applications that Corel planned on building up user support for.
Have to admit, this made sense. One cannot make money on a Free OS, no matter how much you charge for the box, manuals, and support, especially in an age where high speed access is becoming more widespread, slowly making traditional distribution models (ie.- off-the-shelf) obsolete. However, by offering "crippled" versions of their applications for free, they COULD make money, especially to the market they were aiming for. Most people who would use Corel Linux wouldn't go near, say, Debian, because they want user-friendliness, and M$-like configurability. These same people would then get the online version of WP, use it, and realize they want more TrueType fonts, macros, filters, etc., that could only be obtained with the commercial version of the software. So, they would dutifully trudge out to their local store, or visit corel.com, and buy the package. The same would apply to CL versions of CorelDraw, etc..
However, there was a problem. The Linux market took a nose-dive. Suddenly the Linux buzz started dying off, and Corel dropped from $61/share to $2.50 ($CDN prices folks). Cowpland resigned, and the plan wasn't looking as feasible. So, spin off the OS now, instead of after the expected boom in usage, because the boom isn't going to happen any time soon. This way, the problem isn't theirs. They can continue to provide the apps, and over time, they just might make a profit from them, especially if the spin-off does a decent job of building and supporting CL.
Mind you, /. readers don't tend to fall into the category Corel was looking for. Not many actually use CL, some might of installed it on a separate partition just to take a look-see, but most returned to their Red-Hat/Debian/Slackware/whatever distros and happily hacked away in their xterms.
Point being, *IF* Linux had continued to stay at its peak, and *IF* Corel's version grabbed a decent share of the market, then the plan of providing the OS for free and selling the apps *COULD* have made them a mint. Unfortunately, none of the ifs were realized, so Corel is once again struggling to stay afloat.
Check out Tales Of Woe . It's the day-to-day true stories of the idiocy a network admin for the DoD has to deal with. It's absolutely hilarious.
Hmmm... interesting. I had a friend who was in charge of setting up an internal network in a b&m bank. Once he had it set up, he figured that he, knowing everything about the system, would be able to steal a sizeable sum of money in about 20 seconds. And it would take bank security 2 seconds to catch him. So I guess it really depends on who you're dealing with.
Is this any different than when an attempt was made to patent Blue? Oh wait, this time it's Red, my bad.
Yah, but BC tends to be more techno-happy than Ontario (at least Vancouver vs Toronto, shhhh, don't tell anyone around here I said that). I read somewhere that BC ADSL is much faster than the 1 Meg modems we have 'round here. Both of those would account for the higher demand.
Of course, there's the fact that every major corporation in Canada wants to keep Torontonians happy, that might explain the lower delay. I know Bell recently added a ton of tech support people and has been expanding Sympatico High Speed like Oprah's waistline.
Maybe the long waits is an U.S. thing. Until recently, Bell Canada had a monopoly on ADSL in Ontario (until the CRTC told them to allow competition), mainly because they control all the physical lines and equipment. I did my own install (since it's pathetically simple), so I received the necessary hardware, software, etc. via courier about 3 days after I ordered. And my service was activated a day earlier than they said (4 business days instead of 5).
Since then I've only really had a few problems, The worst being 12 hours of downtime that was fixed with an irate phone call (the tech support people tend to be morons). Of course, the max download speed at the moment is 1.13Mbps, but I'm happy with it.
Actually, yes. In the Engineering Faculty, many of our groups and programs have been started by not only PhD students, but UNDERGRADUATE students. Many of these remain completely student-run, while some eventually fall under a professor's moderation. As for Mann leaving MIT, he was (and still is) disgusted by what the program became. He believes strongly in uninfluenced, user-controlled development. MIT's program started being funded by major corporations with their own agendas who are exercising control over the project. His major fear was when the military started looking into applications for wearables and he wanted nothing to do with that level of obfuscation and loss of control. UofT was more than happy to offer him a position here, along with giving him complete control over the project. As such, his major sponsers donate equipment, not money, and he couldn't be happier with it, because they want nothing more than recognition for their assistance. Anything that is developed because of the project goes into the public domain. As I said earlier, it's all open source. Everyone has an equal opportunity to use what is developed, provided of course that they can afford it.
I made the mistake once of mentioning an advance in wearable computing that was being credited to MIT to him (I belive it was the embedded LCD in standard eyeglasses). He quite quickly pointed out that MIT had little to do with it, other than testing and some research into the project, and that it was in fact the corporate sponser that now had rights to it that did most of the legwork. As far as he was concerned, MIT sold out with this one.
Really, considering he started the MIT wearables program as a PhD student, and has been building and using wearable computers for the last 20 years. True, he uses other people's technology in his work, but it's the combination of these technologies that is his. I'm not saying there aren't other wearable groups out there that have done the same independently, but I have yet to see ANY group with the same ideas or technology Mann uses. Most don't work on the concept of "mediated reality"; they seperate the computer from the rest of the world instead of integrating it. And before you say "MIT is doing just that!" I remind you that it was Mann that brought that idea to MIT.
Actually, a Beowulf of these would be run of a form-fitting vest designed to carry the computers. Linking with other cyborgs would be done over radio modem. Actually, that's how it's done now
Actually, the course is offered to anyone who wants to take it. The thesis students are from Eng Sci, Computer and Electrical engineering (in fact, most of the thesis students this year were from Comp and Elec). If you count thesis students along with the regular group, there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30-40 people working on the project this year alone. And if anyone else wants to work with the project (Industrial engineers for example) they are free to approach Steve Mann and set something up. Considering some of the groups in the Faculty, I'd say it's far less elite than most.
I've heard Steve Mann talk about the phrases he's coined: Eyetap, wearcomp, photoquantigraphic lightspace rendering, etc. But NEVER has he claimed to have coined the word cyborg. Are you sure that the writeup you've linked to (for TedCity, a media and technology convention-thingy in Toronto) wasn't written by someone else? Professor Mann will unabashadly refer one to any reference he has used, or any other pioneer whose ideas or work he has incorporated into his own.
Further, as to the reaction you've posted, at the time, Mann was in the midst of a project where we wore his wearcomp CONSTANTLY for a year of his life, recording and broadcasting everything. When the year was up, he stopped. Trust me, when I was in his class, I was hoping he'd be broadcasting himself writing the final exam :). Since then, he hasn't been walking around with a bright light shining in everyone's face, oblivious to the world... he's stopped using the light.
It sounds like you hold a personal grudge against Mann, have you ever met him? Or are you just basing this attack on second-hand information from disgruntled MIT students? Regardless, this isn't a topic about Steve Mann, but about his wearable computers.
Alright, it's about time this got posted. I just spent the past year working with Professor Mann and the 'cyborg' group at the University Of Toronto. So, I guess I'll put my $0.02 in
First off, the page is over a year out of date, even the course syllabus is slightly dated. Since Steve Mann came to UofT, the wearcomp/wearcam/eyetap/cybernetics group has grown tremendously. We've effectively taken over an entire graduate student lab with prototypes, workstations, even a Beowulf or two.
Secondly, by no means was "a bunch of engineering students assigned to create wearable computers". Every student involved with the wearcomp group has their own specific interests in the project. Some concentrate on the use of the device, others develop the technology, most of us have hacked the code (all open-source, all linux) to some degree. I personally did my 4th year thesis (along with two partners) on parallel image processing using code designed for wearcomps and eyetap (and running on that aforementioned Beowulf). I also took Professor Mann's course, which, if nothing else, is an eye-opener to what his concepts really are and where he's heading with this technology
For those of you with concerns about the wearability of the devices. Currently, the most widely-used wearcomps can be fairly discretely worn around the waist. However, the eyetaps used are slightly more conspicuous, being mounted on hard hats, baseball caps, etc, with a modified webcam, a small screen, and a fairly large mirror used as a diverter. There are more discrete versions of the eyetap in existence, which are often used by Professor Mann (in fact, he's rarely seen without them), embedded into a larger pair of sunglasses (slightly more stylish than the ones seen on the webpage) or regular lenses.
Where is all this going? Beats me. Bear in mind that when Steve Mann started building wearable computers, he wore 200lbs of equipment in a backpack and had an antenna sticking out his head. In the 20 years that have elapsed since then, the whole system weighs in at about 10lbs in its case, and it's getting smaller all the time. As for uses, of course the first application that comes to mind is internet usage. But after 20 years, Professor Mann's gotten a little bored with just checking e-mail. The concept of a "mediated reality" is the predominant use envisioned for the eyetap. Imagine a meeting around a table in your local Second Cup (or Starbucks for all the non-Canucks out there), where each person is wearing a covert wearcomp. The entire meeting can take place without anyone else in the room able to access the information being shared. You could project flow charts, xterms as whiteboards, etc, to each other using the wearcomps, and nobody but you would know. You could be walking down the street, and another user could have left you a message 'written' on a store window reminding you to bring donuts to the morning meeting. These are the types of uses that could develop, where reality isn't interrupted by the computer (unlike cell phones, pagers, PDAs, etc.), but enhanced, and augmented.
Anyway, I can think of at least 5 other people who will be starting their posts with "I've worked with Professor Steve Mann for x years...", I'll let them do the rest of the talking.
Ok, first off, the page is outdated. I spent the last year working with Steve Mann on the wearcomp project. He's actually got a couple covert wearables built that he uses. He has a pair of dark sunglasses (NOT the aviator lenses seen on the page) with a miniscule camera mounted on the frame and a laser eyetap behind the lenses. He also has a pair of regular glasses that again use a frame-mounted camera, but in order to hide the eyetap device, it uses a small laser eyetap that uses a diverter in the lens itself, so that the lenses look like a pair of bifocals.
As for the computers themselves, they are currently carried around in waist-packs, however, Professor Mann's plans for wearability include a form-fitted vest that would contain a cluster (possibly even a Beowulf cluster (no joke)) of cigarette-pack-sized computers. Ideally, the whole system would be undetectable by a passerby
Considering the majority of the people in India are Hindu, and the jihad is part of the Muslim faith, I doubt too many Indians will be making bombs for their holy war.
I, like so many others, started out with BASIC when I was 9, on a Commodore 128 (in that yellow-screen mode). It was fine and dandy, and taught me some basic programming concepts, but I wouldn't recommend it
The problem with BASIC is that it's "spaghetti programming", using GOTO and GOSUB statements regularly, making it hard to follow a basic programming structure. I'd recommend Turing, it's somewhat Pascal-like, but without the nit-picking. (ie.- no need for semi-colons, or brackets, etc.). It uses relatively plain english commands (put, get, etc.) and has auto-formatting at the push of a button. It's a structured language, and an object-oriented version is also available.
In fact, Turing was developed as a learner's language, with the idea that one would move onto C with little problem. It was maintained by the University of Toronto, not sure if it still is or not. Note however, that it uses an interpreter, not a compiler (an external compiler IS available however), and tends to be slower than C, and not as powerful. But it is an excellent learning language.
Bear in mind that the original frankenstein's monster started off with the mind of a child and soon taught itself how to speak, read, interact, etc.. It was actually quite intelligent.
Lars seems to have some idea of what's going on, and sees the potential, but unfortunately lacks an inside view. He even states they aren't very net savy, so they don't see the whole picture like a regular user does. That and the answers were obviously not prepared.
Apparently un Canadien Francais too, by your spelling. Myself, I'm Canadian.
So, if you tell the computer to engage the Borg, does it set up all the wedding plans as well? Or do you have to tell it step by step. And my heavens Brain, what would the children look like?
Forgive me, it's 5am...
Two things: I find your reasoning about the only purpose served is confiscation interesting. I live in Canada, and a license has been required for years to own a gun (note, this is not a registration). Now, new gun control has come in where not only must all firearms be registered, but a special gun-owners photo ID is being issued that must be used to purchase any guns or ammunition. And I haven't heard a single person say they're afraid the government is going to step in and take away their guns. In fact, the US is the ONLY country I know of where this sort of debate is so volatile. Maybe we're just more responsible with our firearms up here, so we aren't as afraid of Big Brother coming to take away our toys.
Second, as I stated in my initial post, gun registration and control is NOT the answer to the problem of violent crime, it is only part of the solution. The societal problems that lead to violence and crime must also be addressed.
That's okay, we all have a RIGHT to voice our opinions. And I take issue with your reply. Comparing the right to vote to the right to bear arms is ridiculous. By voting, you are one voice in many, and the majority will win. If some nutcase decided he's going to vote for a leader who believes aliens are sending him messages through broadcasts of Green Bay Packer games, then so be it, but that leader won't win because of his vote. The majority will vote for the leader that makes the most sense (or failing that, is the candidate for whichever party the voters support). The right to own a gun means that single nutcase can go and kill the entire Packers defensive line with an AK47. This isn't an issue of whether someone is black, white, rich, poor, male, female, straight, gay, or handicapped. It's an issue of "can this person be given the ability to kill someone with minimal effort." A nurse would undoubtedly qualify for gun ownership, as they would have to have some level intelligence, sanity, and definately responsibility to be in the position they are in. The key is that background checks have to be standardized, so that the same questions are asked of every person wishing to own a gun, and not be held to the whims of some bigotted bureacrat.
A better analogy to use would have been driving. It's nobody's RIGHT to drive, it's a priviledge granted after one passes a series of standardized tests that determine driving ability, safety and responsibility. It's the RIGHT of anyone to try to get their license, as many times as they want, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to have a license granted to them. The same should hold for gun control
No, of course not. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, justice, liberty, etc, are all RIGHTS, as they should be. None of them allows one person to wield power over life and death like the ownership of a gun does. If some nutcase wants to stand on a street corner and tell me Bill Clinton is an alien, then he/she has every right to do so. I'm intelligent enough to ignore or listen as I see fit. But if someone sticks a gun in my face and pulls the trigger, then *I* lose any control I have. I no longer have the choice to ignore something like that. The right to bear arms is one of the few "rights" that FORCES something onto another person. And that's why it should be considered a priviledge, not a right.
I'm constantly amazed at how one topic can lead to another... the point of the original article was the FBI had a computer glitch and gun sales had stopped. It (naturally) became a huge debate on gun control. Ah /., how I love thee.
Anyhoo, after skimming through all the banter, I guess I'll give me $0.02 (CDN), because I know you all want to hear it.
First off, everybody, please stop quoting statistics. As all /. knows, 67% of all statistics are made up. Either the pro-gun or the anti-gun side can mention any number of statistics that "prove" the other side wrong. "Crime goes up when gun control is implemented", "Most shootings happen in the home by the homeowner", "Water guns lead to ak47s". Give me a break. They serve no purpose other than filling out your comments.
Second, it should NEVER have been the right to bear arms, it should be the priviledge to bear arms. Making it a right means that EVERY Tom, Dick or Jane can own a gun, regardless of their stability, responsibility level, etc.. So any arguement that makes ANY sense that calls it a right is flawed, unless you MEAN to say "I don't care if the nutcase next door owns a gun or not". With a gun comes tremendous responsibility, more than with just about anything else. ANYBODY who purchases a gun should have a background check (whether the government keeps records on it or not is another discussion entirely), a psychological test, and an IQ test! As well, no gun should be sold until the person has COMPLETED a gun-training course, and knows not only how to PROPERLY use a gun (any idiot can point and shoot), but has been trained in safety, care, and responsible use. You don't sell a car to someone who doesn't have a driver's license. Yes, a gun is a tool, and like any tool, shouldn't be used by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly (just ask your grade 8 shop teacher).
As for the arguements that criminals will have guns regardless of the laws, and that the government is going to enslave everybody if your precious guns are taken away. Yes, criminals will still have guns, AT FIRST, but registration will mean that SOMEBODY is responsible for each gun that is legally sold, and if it gets used in a crime, then the person to whom the gun is registered is liable. This would result in people being much more careful about their firearms. You'd find less guns that aren't well-hidden, or locked up, so they couldn't be stolen as easily. You'd find less children with guns, as parents would make sure they couldn't get them. It's amazing what precautions are taken when someone's ass is on the line. As for smuggled weapons, that's a whole other area to crack down on, but in time, obtaining a gun illegally would become MUCH harder that it is now. And responsiblity has to go back further than the purchaser, every gun that a gun store has in stock should be accounted for, every sale and purchase recorded by that store (not necessarily who bought what, but that it was bought), so that guns could be easily tracked back to their origin. As for the government, give me a break, no stable capitalist country would turn to a dictatorship, it's bad for businesss. Do you honestly think Microsoft or GM would allow the government to destroy a free market? NO! That's Microsoft and GM's job :). And that's all I got ta say about that.
Finally, the larger picture is always missed (or at least avoided) in these discussions, that the fact people own guns isn't what causes these crimes. It's the fact that social problems and the makeup of the people committing said crimes are to blame. If the government would spend half the time they spend on debating gun control, and one TENTH of the money they spend on the military on fixing the problems that lead to crime, then the gun control issue would become moot as crime would drop radically. But it's much easier, and more "glamourous" to deal with the problems at the end of the slippery-slope than climbing back up it and fixing the ones that started everything.
-...for every gun turned in, trade them an ounce of crack. -Al Franken on PI
- Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people
Amazing how quickly everybody jumps on this NOW. As the article says, the ruling passed a month ago, and the contract change occured last NOVEMBER. DomainNameBuyersGuide.com has a huge WARNING in the overall rating of NSI because of this very clause! This is something that's been known for months already.
The court ruling talked about was a reversal of an earlier ruling, which stated that domain names were intellectual property. As for what you're getting, the article does quote NSI's legal counsel as saying "You don't own a domain name any more than you own your phone number." Obviously, just his (and NSI's) opinion, but that's their rationalization for their rules. However, you don't complain that you pay a monthly phone bill, when your phone company does reserve the right to change your number, or even take away your right to use it (area code changes, illegal use, not paying your bill, etc. for example). Not that I'm supporting NSI's position, just clarifying... or not.