Actually, there were a few achievments that
the US did get to first.
I concede your points. I'm sure that if you
try hard enough, anyone can come up with some kind
of "first" for every space mission. It's
a little subjective what you consider to be
"major."
But you have some very good ones.
I also concede the point that the first man in
space did orbit the Earth, so it was a bit
disingenuous to split that in two. My mistake.
During the space race, the Soviets were able
to compete (they didn't do terribly well, but they
did at least compete)
I disagree. The Soviets got the Americans beat
on just about every major score except putting a
man on the moon:
First satellite in space
First animal in space
First human being in space
First human being to orbit the earth
First unmanned probe on another planet
First permanent space station
Not to cheapen the American accomplishment,
mind you - putting a man on the moon was almost
nothing short of a miracle.
I guess Americans can claim the prize for first
reusable spacecraft, too, although the Russians
had something of the sort on the way, I
understand. I don't know how far they got with
it.
The Americans surged ahead when unfortunate
economics started to kick in for the Soviets.
This was covered in our local paper (The Ottawa
Citizen; sorry, couldn't find an on-line article).
Garneau had said that the only thing we
couldn't do ourselves ("we" meaning Canada of
course) is the launch vehicle. I don't quite see
why.
(And for those who were wondering, of
course this is unmanned!! A manned
mission would be totally cool, but Canada? All by
herself? Not for a long while yet.)
I can totally understand needing to secure a
good (equatorial) launch site, but the
vehicle? That's not really all that high-tech, is
it?
While watching the last episode (the one with
Mitch Pileggi guest starring as Skinner), I was
thinking that The Lone Gunmen was finally finding
its legs. Just like how ST:TNG found its
legs in the second season, and finally became
thoroughly enjoyable in the third.
It's really too bad Fox isn't going to give TLG
the chance that the monster franchise name of
"Star Trek" gave to TNG. My feeling is that those
two words were the only reason TNG lasted longer
than a year.
P.S. Was anyone else rolling on the floor at
Pileggi's rendition of Jimmy Bond? That man is
a much better actor than I ever gave him credit
for.
Now, let's be fair. If you don't care about
the open/free software philosophy (and just for
the record, I do), and security is really
the only thing we're arguing here, then the real
questions are: when was this backdoor introduced,
when was it discovered, and how soon will there be
a patch?
The article mentions nothing in this regard,
and doesn't warrant the comment, "Here's another
brilliant example of how closed source development
models are a threat to security and privacy on the
Internet."
I can't see how this incident favours one side
of the argument over the other, until we have more
information about the circumstances.
I had it in my head that since gravity acts
differently at different points on the cable, it
could not maintain a stable orbit, but I guess
that's not true. I think the thing I missed is
that the added force of gravity on the cable
that's being lowered is counterbalanced by the
so-called centrifugal force acting on the
counterweight being raised.
I also thought that something akin to the
Coriolis force may come into play (I know the
Coriolis force will have nothing to do with the
whole space elevator, but I thought something
similar might cause the cable to start
bending, like the arm of a galaxy). But I guess
that's not true, either.
(So I suppose I deserved to be moderated
down... oh, well.)
...you want to attach the counterweight and
the earth at close to the same time, so that the
beanstalk goes from being under tension at neither
end, to under tension at both ends.
Actually, you should be able to safely attach
the ground end first, because it will just be
hanging in geostationary orbit, as it were. I'm
not sure you even need a counterweight to pull the
whole thing taut - just enough to overcome the
force of gravity on the cable.
Probably, the best way to attach an added
counterweight (if you need one) would be to bring
it to the original geostationary satellite and
then let it "fall up" to the end of the cable.
Another option might be to use the construction
satellite itself as the counterweight - so as the
cable gets lowered to the earth, the satellite
just moves itself to a higher altitude.
Seems to me that the description in the article
can't be quite complete:
imagine elongating the satellite inwards
towards the Earth, and at the same time outwards
into space, so that its centre of mass remains in
geostationary orbit.
This might be fine for a quick and dirty
thought experiment (so it's fine for this
article), but it's obvious that the centre of mass
is an approximation for spherical objects, and it
won't hold up if you deform it too much, which of
course, is exactly what we're doing.
I don't know enough physics to figure this out
myself... Anyone have a more complete description
of the mechanics, or a link to some website? How
exactly do you place the counterweight?
It's always mystified me a little bit how some
people get so worked up about these little gizmos.
Some people decry the lack of strong parenting.
Others say the technology isn't perfect.
Well, give me a break. To measure anyone's
strength as a parent by a little software agent is
ridiculous. And here's some news: there is
no technology that's perfect. The
question is, are there people who will use this
program? The second question is, does it work
well enough for those who want to use it?
If it doesn't work well enough, the company making
it will go under, and I'll bid them good riddance.
But if it is good enough, more power to them.
On the topic of this article specifically,
what's the big deal? Oooh, neural nets. I'm sure
it works better; otherwise, they wouldn't be using
it. But it's a relatively small step in
technology, in an application that (IMHO) doesn't
bear much discussion.
It's just a machine, like a traffic light.
Traffic lights can cause people to get sloppy
about their driving, if they trust them too much;
and they're not perfect, but they work well enough
that they're worth using. And remember, we don't
use them at all intersections.
Extending the metaphor, this article on using
neural nets is akin to the use of delayed greens
to reduce collisions at intersections. It can
work better; it's good; but it's not worth
much discussion.
They're targeting companies that buy a few
hundred PCs for their WINTel shop, and say they
don't want to buy windows, because they can handle
getting Windows themselves.
It's even more than that. In the example
letter they showed, a company was asking the
supplier to pre-install Windows for them at no
cost because they claimed their site license
already covered the OSes on the new
machines, which it doesn't.
Anyone have any insights into this "decision
tree learning" that Evans mentions? It seems to
me to be one of those fuzzy terms that could
refer to any of a dozen things.
Like "perceptrons" -- unless he's actually
referring to the algorithm described in Marvin
Minsky's book of the same name, which would
actually surprise me quite a bit, based on (what
little) (and I mean little) I know about the book.
Seems to me that a "decision tree" is a simple
deterministic programming construct, so the real
interesting part would be how you change it in
response to stimuli. Anybody have any inside
knowledge (grin) on what he's actually doing?
You three know that if the two hats you can
see are of the same color, chances are that your
hat is of a different color.
This is a very old probabilistic fallacy.
Since all the hats were chosen independently, the
probability that your hat is a different colour
from the other two is still 50%.
The apparent contradiction is resolved in this
problem because you don't always actually make a
guess, and a "win" is based on three answers, not
one. Take a look at my
other
post.
Also, I was saying there is no way to
guarantee a win - in other words, have
zero probability of failure.
--
Breakdown from a single player's point of view
on
The Three Hat Problem
·
· Score: 1
I finally got it! I'd been trying to explain
the apparent fallacy that based on the colours of
the other two hats, you can guess your own.
Here is how things break down from a single
person's point of view:
If the colours of the other two hats is the
same (which will happen 50% of the time), you
guess the opposite colour for your own, which will
be correct 50% of the time, meaning that your
guess will win for the group 25%
of the time overall.
The other 25% of the time,
you'll guess incorrectly (along with everyone else
in the group), and lose.
The other 50% of the time,
the colours of the other two hats will be
different, and you will pass. In this case, one
of the other two players will guess correctly.
Hence, 75% of the time, you (as a group) will
win.
Someone suggested that if the players are
allowed to give their answers in sequence, and
subsequent players can know the others' responses,
then you can guarantee a win.
However, this is clearly untrue, because of the
following reasoning:
The first person to guess has access only to
the colours of the other two hats. This gives no
information about the colour of his own, since
they were chosen independently. Any concrete
guess will have a 50% chance of being correct.
Thus, in order to guarantee a win, the first
person must pass.
Since the first person must pass regardless of
what colours the other two have, the second person
has no new information about his own hat. He,
too, must pass.
By the same reasoning, the third person also
has no new information, and is therefore forced to
guess, and incurs the wrath of the other two, 50%
of the time.
There is no way to guarantee a win except by
allowing the players to collaborate in some way.
Am I incorrect or is this based upon the
supposition that by looking at the other draws you
can base conclusions on your own
You would be correct if a single person were
being asked to guess either red or blue for his
own hat.
But, this is not the case. Three people are
being asked to give simultaneously one of three
answers: red, blue, or pass. Each person can see
the hats of the other two, and finally, they have
an agreed strategy for guessing.
The best way to think of it (IMHO) is this: the
guessing strategy is completely mechanical, so
it's fair to think of it as part of the
randomized process, rather than the
response to one.
[First of all, I want to say that if you have a
userid, you should have used it, because your post
was the most reasoned and insightful response I've
seen in a long time. Made for a nice change from
the flames I often get from others.]
A high index of automobiles per capita is
not a sign of technological advance, but exactly
the opposite.
One of the few uncivilized things I (a
foreigner) have found in America is the total
dependence on cars, which is directly linked to
pathetically uneffective mass transit systems.
You're right, but I think that's more of a
social difference than a technological one.
Your post (plus some more thought) has changed
my position a bit. I started by accusing William
Gibson of oversimplifying things when he said
Japan is ahead of the rest of the world; I said
Japan is not ahead in all ways. Now, I realize
that that was also an oversimplification.
The actual level of technology may be higher in
Japan. After all, tons of innovation happens
there (sure, you may say that it happens in the
U.S. first and Japan just adopts it, but I don't
care what you say, tons of innovation happens in
Japan, too). However, the adoption of
that technology is following a completely
different pattern than in North America. I'm no
longer sure if it's more, or less advanced.
Why does Gibson think it's more advanced in
Japan? Maybe it's a grass-is-greener thing.
And to all those who corrected me on the
computer chip gaffe, thanks for not flaming. I
would have realized my mistake myself if I'd
thought about it, but I was rushed. It's an
unfortunate thing that on Slashdot, if you don't
post quickly, you don't get read.:-(
But this is also the country in which there
are no full access ATMs, no Birth control (until
last year) and no law against denying somone a
promotion because they are a woman... (well, also
not until last year)... The contradiction of the
techno idolatry and the hedgemonc morality of the
society amazes me.
I don't contradict you on your stand regarding
Japanese attitudes towards women, but I don't
understand your last point. I don't see how the
two contradict each other. Care to expand on your
statement?
First, some credentials. I am of Japanese
descent, and although I make my home in Canada,
most of my family is still in Japan, and I've
visited Japan at least a half dozen times.
Gibson makes the sweeping generalization that
Japan is "several clicks down the time line" (and
I'm sure he'll be first to admit that it's a
simplified generalization), but I'd like to point
out that there are some places where technology
has made less inroads than in North
America, at least for the common consumer.
Automobiles, for instance. You may scoff at
that; after all, it was the Japanese car makers
that gave American manufacturers a swift kick in
the pants a few decades ago by exporting higher
quality products for much less cost. But the per
capita use of cars in Japan is far less than here
in America. Here, it would be tough to imagine a
5-member family without a car. But it would be no
surprise in suburbs of Tokyo or Osaka.
Now, admittedly, that's primarily because of
the mind-bogglingly efficient train systems that
are the envy of the world. But it goes to show
that adoption of technology is not uniformly
advanced in Japan.
Secondly, there is the technology that concerns
us Slashdotters most: the personal computer.
Adoption of the PC, E-mail, WWW, etc, were far
behind in Japan. Game consoles have been common,
but general purpose PCs have seen far slower
acceptance. This might also seem bizarre, when
the majority of the chips in our computers come
from Japan (or Japanese companies). I think it
has to do with language and culture.
In common households, you are most likely to
see an ordinary refrigerator, a gas stove, two or
three separate water heaters (one for the sink and
one for the bathtub), a TV, radio, and maybe a
game console if there's a young boy in the house.
And oh, yes; one of those (in)famous fuzzy logic
washing machines.
For regular folk, I don't think there's all
that much difference between Japan and North
America, technologically speaking. (Although I
have to admit, those people who like gadgets
really like their
gadgets!)
Any attempt to make it more "formal" and
"rigid" will take the fun out of it...
You may call it "formal," "rigid," and "no
fun," but I call it "being professional."
IMHO, software companies have been following
the "pay the geeks, let'em hack" philosophy of
software project management for too long. It's
time we brought some formality into the process.
Now, whether this Extreme Programming is the
answer is a separate question. I'm as not sure of
that.
But if you want to hack for fun, I say
do it at home.
Much as the author likes to claim that software
is sold as-is these days, it's not totally true.
If it were, there would be no difference between a
"real" software product and open source software,
at least in terms of the producer's liability.
However, we all know that part of the reason
(perhaps just a small part, but a part
nonetheless) why management types were leery of
open source was because there was nobody you could
sue if something went disastrously wrong with it.
And I suspect that anyone who thinks a software
company can avoid liability for some disaster by
slapping two words on the box is fooling
themselves. (If I'm wrong, and there are
precendents for this, then please post away.) Oh,
they'll still do it to cover their asses, but I
think everyone knows it will get challenged if
something truly horrible happens, like loss of
life.
...an alien (or aliens) wishing to stay
would be treated like a foreign dignitary.
...An AI would be treated like a machine for
long before they ever get rights... This si going
to be an extremely interesting set of legal ground
greaking when it finally takes place.
What would be really interesting is if
we were visited by aliens who turned out to be
mechanical beings.
Do we deny the fundamental equality of the
visitor? Do we immediately grant rights to all
AIs (assuming they already exist on earth, but
haven't yet gained rights)? Or, do we act
slightly hypocritically and make an exception for
the visitor?
Probably the last. Far be it for the human
race to act rationally.;-)
The benefit of using Monsanto's crop is that
you can use a herbicide called Roundup. Roundup
usually kills just about all plants it comes in
contact to, except this genetically
modified canola that Monsanto has developed. This
simplifies your weeding task, decreases cost, and
(presumably) increases yield.
I'm not taking any kind of stand on this
practice; who knows if it's better
environmentally?
But on the matter of the court case, I believe
the most important question is whether Schmeiser
took advantage of Monsanto's plant in the way that
licensed farmers do. Did he use Roundup, or some
similar herbicide? Or was he just conducting his
business as he normally would have, with normal
canola?
This would establish two things: did he know
that the genetically modified plant was present,
and how much did he gain from the illicit use?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there were a few achievments that the US did get to first.
I concede your points. I'm sure that if you try hard enough, anyone can come up with some kind of "first" for every space mission. It's a little subjective what you consider to be "major."
But you have some very good ones.
I also concede the point that the first man in space did orbit the Earth, so it was a bit disingenuous to split that in two. My mistake.
--
During the space race, the Soviets were able to compete (they didn't do terribly well, but they did at least compete)
I disagree. The Soviets got the Americans beat on just about every major score except putting a man on the moon:
Not to cheapen the American accomplishment, mind you - putting a man on the moon was almost nothing short of a miracle.
I guess Americans can claim the prize for first reusable spacecraft, too, although the Russians had something of the sort on the way, I understand. I don't know how far they got with it.
The Americans surged ahead when unfortunate economics started to kick in for the Soviets.
--
This was covered in our local paper (The Ottawa Citizen; sorry, couldn't find an on-line article).
Garneau had said that the only thing we couldn't do ourselves ("we" meaning Canada of course) is the launch vehicle. I don't quite see why.
(And for those who were wondering, of course this is unmanned!! A manned mission would be totally cool, but Canada? All by herself? Not for a long while yet.)
I can totally understand needing to secure a good (equatorial) launch site, but the vehicle? That's not really all that high-tech, is it?
Anyone have any ideas why Garneau said this?
--
While watching the last episode (the one with Mitch Pileggi guest starring as Skinner), I was thinking that The Lone Gunmen was finally finding its legs. Just like how ST:TNG found its legs in the second season, and finally became thoroughly enjoyable in the third.
It's really too bad Fox isn't going to give TLG the chance that the monster franchise name of "Star Trek" gave to TNG. My feeling is that those two words were the only reason TNG lasted longer than a year.
P.S. Was anyone else rolling on the floor at Pileggi's rendition of Jimmy Bond? That man is a much better actor than I ever gave him credit for.
--
Now, let's be fair. If you don't care about the open/free software philosophy (and just for the record, I do), and security is really the only thing we're arguing here, then the real questions are: when was this backdoor introduced, when was it discovered, and how soon will there be a patch?
The article mentions nothing in this regard, and doesn't warrant the comment, "Here's another brilliant example of how closed source development models are a threat to security and privacy on the Internet."
I can't see how this incident favours one side of the argument over the other, until we have more information about the circumstances.
--
I had it in my head that since gravity acts differently at different points on the cable, it could not maintain a stable orbit, but I guess that's not true. I think the thing I missed is that the added force of gravity on the cable that's being lowered is counterbalanced by the so-called centrifugal force acting on the counterweight being raised.
I also thought that something akin to the Coriolis force may come into play (I know the Coriolis force will have nothing to do with the whole space elevator, but I thought something similar might cause the cable to start bending, like the arm of a galaxy). But I guess that's not true, either.
(So I suppose I deserved to be moderated down... oh, well.)
Actually, you should be able to safely attach the ground end first, because it will just be hanging in geostationary orbit, as it were. I'm not sure you even need a counterweight to pull the whole thing taut - just enough to overcome the force of gravity on the cable.
Probably, the best way to attach an added counterweight (if you need one) would be to bring it to the original geostationary satellite and then let it "fall up" to the end of the cable.
Another option might be to use the construction satellite itself as the counterweight - so as the cable gets lowered to the earth, the satellite just moves itself to a higher altitude.
--
Seems to me that the description in the article can't be quite complete:
imagine elongating the satellite inwards towards the Earth, and at the same time outwards into space, so that its centre of mass remains in geostationary orbit.
This might be fine for a quick and dirty thought experiment (so it's fine for this article), but it's obvious that the centre of mass is an approximation for spherical objects, and it won't hold up if you deform it too much, which of course, is exactly what we're doing.
I don't know enough physics to figure this out myself... Anyone have a more complete description of the mechanics, or a link to some website? How exactly do you place the counterweight?
--
It's always mystified me a little bit how some people get so worked up about these little gizmos. Some people decry the lack of strong parenting. Others say the technology isn't perfect.
Well, give me a break. To measure anyone's strength as a parent by a little software agent is ridiculous. And here's some news: there is no technology that's perfect. The question is, are there people who will use this program? The second question is, does it work well enough for those who want to use it? If it doesn't work well enough, the company making it will go under, and I'll bid them good riddance. But if it is good enough, more power to them.
On the topic of this article specifically, what's the big deal? Oooh, neural nets. I'm sure it works better; otherwise, they wouldn't be using it. But it's a relatively small step in technology, in an application that (IMHO) doesn't bear much discussion.
It's just a machine, like a traffic light. Traffic lights can cause people to get sloppy about their driving, if they trust them too much; and they're not perfect, but they work well enough that they're worth using. And remember, we don't use them at all intersections.
Extending the metaphor, this article on using neural nets is akin to the use of delayed greens to reduce collisions at intersections. It can work better; it's good; but it's not worth much discussion.
--
They're targeting companies that buy a few hundred PCs for their WINTel shop, and say they don't want to buy windows, because they can handle getting Windows themselves.
It's even more than that. In the example letter they showed, a company was asking the supplier to pre-install Windows for them at no cost because they claimed their site license already covered the OSes on the new machines, which it doesn't.
--
Anyone have any insights into this "decision tree learning" that Evans mentions? It seems to me to be one of those fuzzy terms that could refer to any of a dozen things.
Like "perceptrons" -- unless he's actually referring to the algorithm described in Marvin Minsky's book of the same name, which would actually surprise me quite a bit, based on (what little) (and I mean little) I know about the book.
Seems to me that a "decision tree" is a simple deterministic programming construct, so the real interesting part would be how you change it in response to stimuli. Anybody have any inside knowledge (grin) on what he's actually doing?
--
I think the best solution to the year 2038 bug is simply to roll everybody's clock back to the year 1970. Problem solved!
Besides, disco was so groovy, wasn't it? Yeah, baby, yeah!!
--
so much is said about the american space program, and how they gloriously and righteously ( *cough, cough*) bested the russians in the 60's etc. etc.
You're quite right. It's also worth mentioning that Russia/USSR must be credited with probably the longest and most notable string of firsts in space:
--
You three know that if the two hats you can see are of the same color, chances are that your hat is of a different color.
This is a very old probabilistic fallacy. Since all the hats were chosen independently, the probability that your hat is a different colour from the other two is still 50%.
The apparent contradiction is resolved in this problem because you don't always actually make a guess, and a "win" is based on three answers, not one. Take a look at my other post.
Also, I was saying there is no way to guarantee a win - in other words, have zero probability of failure.
--
I finally got it! I'd been trying to explain the apparent fallacy that based on the colours of the other two hats, you can guess your own.
Here is how things break down from a single person's point of view:
Hence, 75% of the time, you (as a group) will win.
--
Someone suggested that if the players are allowed to give their answers in sequence, and subsequent players can know the others' responses, then you can guarantee a win.
However, this is clearly untrue, because of the following reasoning:
The first person to guess has access only to the colours of the other two hats. This gives no information about the colour of his own, since they were chosen independently. Any concrete guess will have a 50% chance of being correct. Thus, in order to guarantee a win, the first person must pass.
Since the first person must pass regardless of what colours the other two have, the second person has no new information about his own hat. He, too, must pass.
By the same reasoning, the third person also has no new information, and is therefore forced to guess, and incurs the wrath of the other two, 50% of the time.
There is no way to guarantee a win except by allowing the players to collaborate in some way.
--
Am I incorrect or is this based upon the supposition that by looking at the other draws you can base conclusions on your own
You would be correct if a single person were being asked to guess either red or blue for his own hat.
But, this is not the case. Three people are being asked to give simultaneously one of three answers: red, blue, or pass. Each person can see the hats of the other two, and finally, they have an agreed strategy for guessing.
The best way to think of it (IMHO) is this: the guessing strategy is completely mechanical, so it's fair to think of it as part of the randomized process, rather than the response to one.
--
[First of all, I want to say that if you have a userid, you should have used it, because your post was the most reasoned and insightful response I've seen in a long time. Made for a nice change from the flames I often get from others.]
A high index of automobiles per capita is not a sign of technological advance, but exactly the opposite.
One of the few uncivilized things I (a foreigner) have found in America is the total dependence on cars, which is directly linked to pathetically uneffective mass transit systems.
You're right, but I think that's more of a social difference than a technological one.
Your post (plus some more thought) has changed my position a bit. I started by accusing William Gibson of oversimplifying things when he said Japan is ahead of the rest of the world; I said Japan is not ahead in all ways. Now, I realize that that was also an oversimplification.
The actual level of technology may be higher in Japan. After all, tons of innovation happens there (sure, you may say that it happens in the U.S. first and Japan just adopts it, but I don't care what you say, tons of innovation happens in Japan, too). However, the adoption of that technology is following a completely different pattern than in North America. I'm no longer sure if it's more, or less advanced.
Why does Gibson think it's more advanced in Japan? Maybe it's a grass-is-greener thing.
And to all those who corrected me on the computer chip gaffe, thanks for not flaming. I would have realized my mistake myself if I'd thought about it, but I was rushed. It's an unfortunate thing that on Slashdot, if you don't post quickly, you don't get read. :-(
--
But this is also the country in which there are no full access ATMs, no Birth control (until last year) and no law against denying somone a promotion because they are a woman... (well, also not until last year)... The contradiction of the techno idolatry and the hedgemonc morality of the society amazes me.
I don't contradict you on your stand regarding Japanese attitudes towards women, but I don't understand your last point. I don't see how the two contradict each other. Care to expand on your statement?
--
First, some credentials. I am of Japanese descent, and although I make my home in Canada, most of my family is still in Japan, and I've visited Japan at least a half dozen times.
Gibson makes the sweeping generalization that Japan is "several clicks down the time line" (and I'm sure he'll be first to admit that it's a simplified generalization), but I'd like to point out that there are some places where technology has made less inroads than in North America, at least for the common consumer.
Automobiles, for instance. You may scoff at that; after all, it was the Japanese car makers that gave American manufacturers a swift kick in the pants a few decades ago by exporting higher quality products for much less cost. But the per capita use of cars in Japan is far less than here in America. Here, it would be tough to imagine a 5-member family without a car. But it would be no surprise in suburbs of Tokyo or Osaka.
Now, admittedly, that's primarily because of the mind-bogglingly efficient train systems that are the envy of the world. But it goes to show that adoption of technology is not uniformly advanced in Japan.
Secondly, there is the technology that concerns us Slashdotters most: the personal computer. Adoption of the PC, E-mail, WWW, etc, were far behind in Japan. Game consoles have been common, but general purpose PCs have seen far slower acceptance. This might also seem bizarre, when the majority of the chips in our computers come from Japan (or Japanese companies). I think it has to do with language and culture.
In common households, you are most likely to see an ordinary refrigerator, a gas stove, two or three separate water heaters (one for the sink and one for the bathtub), a TV, radio, and maybe a game console if there's a young boy in the house. And oh, yes; one of those (in)famous fuzzy logic washing machines.
For regular folk, I don't think there's all that much difference between Japan and North America, technologically speaking. (Although I have to admit, those people who like gadgets really like their gadgets!)
--
Any attempt to make it more "formal" and "rigid" will take the fun out of it...
You may call it "formal," "rigid," and "no fun," but I call it "being professional."
IMHO, software companies have been following the "pay the geeks, let'em hack" philosophy of software project management for too long. It's time we brought some formality into the process. Now, whether this Extreme Programming is the answer is a separate question. I'm as not sure of that.
But if you want to hack for fun, I say do it at home.
--
Much as the author likes to claim that software is sold as-is these days, it's not totally true. If it were, there would be no difference between a "real" software product and open source software, at least in terms of the producer's liability.
However, we all know that part of the reason (perhaps just a small part, but a part nonetheless) why management types were leery of open source was because there was nobody you could sue if something went disastrously wrong with it.
And I suspect that anyone who thinks a software company can avoid liability for some disaster by slapping two words on the box is fooling themselves. (If I'm wrong, and there are precendents for this, then please post away.) Oh, they'll still do it to cover their asses, but I think everyone knows it will get challenged if something truly horrible happens, like loss of life.
--
What would be really interesting is if we were visited by aliens who turned out to be mechanical beings.
Do we deny the fundamental equality of the visitor? Do we immediately grant rights to all AIs (assuming they already exist on earth, but haven't yet gained rights)? Or, do we act slightly hypocritically and make an exception for the visitor?
Probably the last. Far be it for the human race to act rationally. ;-)
--
The benefit of using Monsanto's crop is that you can use a herbicide called Roundup. Roundup usually kills just about all plants it comes in contact to, except this genetically modified canola that Monsanto has developed. This simplifies your weeding task, decreases cost, and (presumably) increases yield.
I'm not taking any kind of stand on this practice; who knows if it's better environmentally?
But on the matter of the court case, I believe the most important question is whether Schmeiser took advantage of Monsanto's plant in the way that licensed farmers do. Did he use Roundup, or some similar herbicide? Or was he just conducting his business as he normally would have, with normal canola?
This would establish two things: did he know that the genetically modified plant was present, and how much did he gain from the illicit use?
--
Actually, Hamlet's quote reduces even more, and much more elegantly, to one qubit!
--
5:30 p.m. I'm going to go meet my girlfriend. Take her out to dinner, go back to her place.
How did he meet this girl? By spamming a whole bunch of E-mail addresses??
Hey, then again...
--