A number of people have commented that these
types of molecules are only the key ingredients
for life as we currently know it. This is
fair enough.
However, here's my point of view. In our own
solar system, right here in our back yard, there
is a very wide variety of different environments:
the surface of every planet and moon is, in places
subtly, and in places completely, different from
each other.
As far as we can see (so far) only Earth has
life in our solar system. To me, this is
suggestive. If you really believe that life can
form in completely different environments, why
didn't they form in any of the completely
different environments that exist right next door?
Of course, this is not proof; it's perhaps not
even corroborating evidence. However, it's enough
to make me believe (tentatively) that Earth-like
conditions really are the only kind of conditions
in which life can form in our universe.
I'm open to the possibility that wildly
different life could form elsewhere in the
universe, and I know that there must be places in
the universe that have environments that are so
different as to be incomprehensible, but hey, we
have to base our opinions on what we know
currently. If we totally throw open the gates of
possibility, then we can never come to any
conclusion about anything.
Of course, if you knew anything about
Windows CE, you'd not have said this. Windows CE
was designed from the ground up to be used in
embedded systems.
Mea culpa. The only thing I've seen with
Windows CE was the UI for a little hand-held, and
the interface looked identical to Windows proper.
I concede that Microsoft probably has a clue
about what it's doing (they didn't get to where
they are without a clue), and no doubt they'll
actually do a reasonable job, much as Slashdotters
like to slam M$.
But I do stand by my opinion on GUIs. In
kiosks and ATMs (which I hadn't thought about when
I was considering the embedded market) GUIs make a
lot of sense, but in things like household
appliances, I don't think they do.
Disclaimer: I don't have a clue. I
just have opinions.:-)
I think there is probably general consensus
(here on Slashtot anyway) that "security through
obscurity" doesn't work.
However, I believe that on the internet, the
ubiquity of script kiddies is changing the rules.
The argument traditionally goes that people who
want to compromise security will learn the "tricks
of the trade." It's therefore in the interests of
the securers to discuss exploits openly, or at the
very least among themselves.
That last stipulation is the crux.
I think that exploits that are revealed by
securers and crackers alike are broadcast
across the internet so quickly and sometimes, in
such a convenient fashion (like a little program
in which you just "press the big red button") that
an early and temporary "information quarantine" of
this sort can make a lot of sense, as long as it's
done right.
That's just my take, anyway.
--
Didn't MS fund Apple?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
I know nothing about the deal, but I
understood that Microsoft had funded Apple in some
way, to the tune of a million dollars or so...
Is it possible that the funds included some
kind of non-competition stipulation? In other
words, could Microsoft have said, "hands off the
x86 platform?"
A week or so ago, I saw a program on TV about
diamond mining, and how the use of very large
machinery has eliminated the possibility of
finding very large diamonds any more, because the
rock is crushed before being brought to the
surface.
But, if the mining robots were smaller in scale
and used smaller digging instruments, larger
diamonds (like on the order of tennis ball size),
rare as they may be, could have a chance of being
recovered whole.
It's also probable that smaller robots would be
able to recover materials much more efficiently
and in a much more environmentally friendly way.
I doubt the economies of scale of current
technology will support thousands of tiny robots,
or if such robots would be capable of digging
through solid rock.
The Rose Center says there is no universal
definition of a planet...
Then make one! We shouldn't be debating
whether Pluto is a planet, we should be debating
what the definition of a planet should be. Then,
Pluto will come out in the wash.
...a 1999 proposal to list Pluto as both a
planet and a member of the Kuiper Belt was
abandoned after it drew strong opposition from
astronomers who did not want to diminish Pluto's
status.
I can't believe people are getting territorial
about Pluto.
There was a slightly similar case before the
British Columbia Supreme Court regarding
posession of child pornography. There's
an
article about it on the CBC website.
However, part of the issue this side of the
49th is
the definition of child pornography. The
particular case before the court at the moment
involves someone who penned erotic fantasies of
juvenile sex for his own private enjoyment. The
argument is that the definition is so broad that
it infringes on basic rights.
The police, on the other hand, argue that they
need a relatively broad definition, and the
ability to arrest for posession, because otherwise
they would be handicapped to ineffectiveness and
they'd be unable to fight child pornography at
all.
My take on the issue is that the two sides are
arguing past each other. Fix the definition.
I'm reasonably sure there's a happy medium where
both sides can be equally dissatisfied.;-)
Morphability is cool and all, but I think that
it would be far more useful to build a robot in
human form. Such a robot could use existing
tools, essentially making it modular.
A morphing robot would (ultimately) outstrip
any modular robot in usefulness, but I think the
research and fabrication costs of such a robot are
gigantic in comparison to simply building a
human-shaped robot. A humaniform robot (to borrow
Asimov's term) can instantly use of all our human
tools, making itself useful very quickly.
--
Re:Cars of the future.
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 2
I can imagine this being useful, especially
if they can paint a car with some sort of light
deadening material. It would render laser speed
detection devices obsolete.
Such material already exists; it's called thin
film technology, and I really don't know much
about it, but I understand it's used on the
surfaces of stealth vehicles the render them
almost invisible to radar.
No doubt it's way too expensive (currently) for
regular automobiles, just to avoid traffic
tickets.
But I say, if you feel the need for speed, put
yourself on a closed race track, don't put others
in danger...
They bug me because it seems like a gratuitous
use of technology. Believe me, I'm all for
technology, but I think we should use it where it
fits, not go nuts-blind with it. I feel (just a
feeling) that trying to make our homes
too smart is rather wrong-headed.
For example:
Heating control. Personally, I don't want to
walk into a room and be surprised that it's ten
degrees colder (or ten degrees hotter) because the
A.I. failed to predict that I'll go there. I
would prefer to tell the computer not to
condition the air in certain rooms, possibly at
certain times of the day or days of the week.
Good old fashioned programming (with possibly
something simple like fuzzy logic) will suffice.
The real problem is making an intuitive user
interface that a layman can use to program it.
Lighting control. Again, I don't think this
makes sense, because lighting is far more dynamic.
I want the lights on where I am, not
where the computer thinks I want to go. It's a
control problem, pure and simple. Just install
sensors that read where I am, and control the
lights directly. (Of course, sometimes I might
want to override it.)
Central music control. This one is the most
dynamic of all. Not only does it depend on where
I am, but how I feel. There are neural
networks that can verge on reading facial
expressions these days, but I would find it rather
creepy and annoying if the house started piping in
music to try and cheer me up, or try and fit my
mood. My feeling is that music selection is a
database access problem, not an A.I. problem. You
want to be able to choose what you want quickly;
you don't need a computer to try and predict or
intuit.
At the heart of it, I think my problem with the
whole idea is this: I want control over my house.
The A.I. of today is not intelligent enough to be
useful. It would need to have almost human
intelligence to be useful, and I believe that by
the time computers are that smart, we'll be able
to plunk them into robotic bodies, bypassing this
whole question.
Places where neural networks might be useful
are in low-level control systems for complex
machinery, like the furnace, the water heater, or
the plumbing. These would not constitute neural
network control of a house, but rather
the underlying subsystem.
Can anyone point to the best online apologia
favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting
higher thresholds for them?
I would really like to see something like this,
too. Anyone?
While I agree that there have been many silly
patents out there, I'm not comfortable with
falling completely on one side of the issue. I
believe there's probably a good case for software
patents out there somewhere, and, as with most
things in life, I suspect there's a happy medium.
My father is a patent agent (generally not in
software, though), and it's actually
a line of work that I had considered. However, I
want to consolidate my own position on software
patents before I make any move in that direction.
To do that, I want to hear both sides of the
story (until then, and maybe even after then, I
continue with software development...).
I suppose Slashdot isn't the best forum to look
for that side of the argument.
I think if they felt they could include both
Doom and Quake, then they should have included
both Dune II and Command and Conquer. Personally,
I think C&C was much more than a more popular
version of Dune II. It wasn't simply a question
of popularity versus precedence.
The innovations that improved C&C over Dune
II were colossal. First, they did all the obvious
stuff. Improve the graphics, the sound, the
animations. Second, they added more variety in
terms of objectives (in the single player levels).
Finally (and I think this is the most important),
they improved the user interface.
Requiring three clicks to issue a single
command to individual units (select unit; select
command; select target) was tremendously
cumbersome. Reducing it to two and allowing the
selection of multiple units (and in the process,
allowing the player to keep the mouse pointer on
the playing field at all times), made game play so
much better, that I consider C&C and Dune II
to be completely different games. In addition,
they had user-definable hotkeys, and a much
improved button bar.
Red Alert, on the other hand, was hardly any
improvement at all over C&C.
You might argue that C&C's innovations are
fairly obvious after having played Dune II. But
you can't deny that Westwood was right on the
ball, being the first one to release the much
improved version, whose user interface set the
standard for all the RTS games that followed.
Assuming this beast gets built, we have to keep
in mind that at first (and, I think, for a very
long time) there will only be one of these things.
Its cost effectiveness (and it's
appropriateness for use by individual private
passengers) must take into account the cost of
transporting the people and cargo across land to
the site of the tether.
I have no idea how to crunch these kinds of
numbers. Has anyone else done so?
It is one of three or four great movies
about AI. The others being "Terminator," "War
Games," and "The Matrix."
Not to drift too far off-topic, but... I would
add to that mix, "Blade Runner."
It's not a movie that you would usually think
about when you try to think of a "movie about AI,"
but it's pretty obvious that it is.
It's also interesting to note that movies about
AI are never really about AI, per se.
They're really about humans. And I think Blade
Runner tackles the subject so directly (since
replicants are basically identical to humans) that
we forget they're just "machines."
Movies "about AI," too often, are about
human frailty, or hubris. Except maybe...
At the risk of getting moderated "off-topic,"
did anyone see "The Bicentennial Man?"
Then you understand nothing. Go to google
and do a search for "intellectual property faq."
Read it. Don't post again until you have.
Okay, fair enough - I didn't realize it
included trademarks and copyrights (well,
copyrights... I would guess that all intellectual
property would be copyrighted to the holder).
I think you're being unduly harsh, though. I
was replying to someone making (what I thought
was) a one-sided and unfair remark about IP,
whereas the discussion should be more specifically
about patents. My main point was that they're not
the same thing.
In my own defence, I never said I was an
authority, and on a discussion forum like this, I
think that should not be assumed in the first
place. I also did a bit of hedging with my
language.
From what I understand, intellectual property
is usually undisclosed information, although I
suppose it's a general enough term that it might
include patented ideas, too; I'm not 100%
certain.
Patents, on the other hand, are very
specifically disclosed to the
public. In return for the disclosure,
the patent holder receives certain rights in terms
of its use, and is entitled to monetary rewards
when others use it.
The big difference, thus, is this: if an
undisclosed and unpatented idea gets out, there's
nothing a company can do to rein it back in. The
best they will likely be able to do is sue the
discloser (as long as he/she had signed an NDA, of
course). If another company tries to use a
patented idea without permission, the patent
holder can, in fact, legally stop them.
I'm not taking a stand here, just clarifying
the terms.
--
Numbering days of week makes little sense to me
on
13 Month Calendar?
·
· Score: 2
And the seven days of the week would simply
be named after numbers...
What the heck? What exactly is the point of
changing the names of the days of the week to
numbers? I suppose it's just so that it's easier
to calculate distances between days, but that, to
me, isn't much of a benefit.
It might be fine for the "human calculator,"
but the rest of us mere mortals aren't quite as
proficient at using base seven arithmetic (with no
zero digit, to boot!).
Where is the "human" in this part of the "human
calendar?"
... clearly show objects as small as 19
inches in length...
Does this bug other people as much as it does
me?
Half-meter resolution doesn't mean that it
"clearly shows objects as small as 19 inches!"
This is quite misleading.
It simply means that an object of 19 inches
can register in the image- and "register"
simply means that a dot on the image
might be brighter or darker depending on the
overall colour of the object.
"To clearly show an object" implies that you'll
be able to identify it. Some might even think
that you'd be able to see features and details of
the object. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
This is better:
At half-meter resolution... forestry
officials can count trees, and urban planners can
view streetscapes, even discerning manhole
covers.
But I wish they had put that at the top of the
article, not at the end of the last paragraph!
Just to register my dismay that yet another
social science type avant garde Internet "user" is
telling us what Internet is, has been and will
be.
Hey! That's unfair. I'm a computer scientist.
I have a software development job doing UNIX
development. I have a four-machine mixed
Linux-Windows network at home. I have set up DNS,
Web servers, E-mail and I have my gateway set up
using diald and pppd with IP Masquerading.
The "digital information revolution" didn't
start when computer scientists cobbled together
some components. That was the beginning of
information technology, not the revolution.
The real revolution (which I consider a social
phenomenon, not a technological one) began when
non-techies started getting E-mail addresses, and
when non-tech companies started deciding that it's
essential to get a web site.
And non-techies only started getting E-mail
addresses twenty years after the invention of
E-mail. My theory (and I'm first to admit it's
just a theory) addresses that long delay.
(By the way, I avoid telnet whenever I can, in
favour of ssh. But I'll admit to having never
used gopher, archie, and veronica.)
No, I'm sorry. You're wrong. I suspect a lot
of people on Slashdot remember getting out of
school the '80's, and being very, very suprised
that some people still didn't have e-mail.
E-mail in the 80's? I beg to differ. I would
say it was very common among university students
(especially computer scientists and engineers, of
course) at large institutions, and industry
employees at large companies, but not at all with
the general public.
E-mail really was the killer app, and a big
part of the reason the net reached the density
that allowed something like the web to be
successful.
Okay, I posted a little too soon. If I had
read the entire article first, I would have worded
things differently. However, I still stand by my
original post.
I'll grant you that E-mail was the first killer
app over the internet. I would say that it
seeded the information revolution.
However, the thing that really launched
it, and by this I mean when people who were not in
the business of computers started getting internet
accounts, was the world wide web.
I'm not really that cynical. I don't think it
was just porn. I think the pretty pictures on the
web made the internet far more accessible to the
regular person. And that was when
internet usage really took off.
Slashdot Mirror
A number of people have commented that these types of molecules are only the key ingredients for life as we currently know it. This is fair enough.
However, here's my point of view. In our own solar system, right here in our back yard, there is a very wide variety of different environments: the surface of every planet and moon is, in places subtly, and in places completely, different from each other.
As far as we can see (so far) only Earth has life in our solar system. To me, this is suggestive. If you really believe that life can form in completely different environments, why didn't they form in any of the completely different environments that exist right next door?
Of course, this is not proof; it's perhaps not even corroborating evidence. However, it's enough to make me believe (tentatively) that Earth-like conditions really are the only kind of conditions in which life can form in our universe.
I'm open to the possibility that wildly different life could form elsewhere in the universe, and I know that there must be places in the universe that have environments that are so different as to be incomprehensible, but hey, we have to base our opinions on what we know currently. If we totally throw open the gates of possibility, then we can never come to any conclusion about anything.
--
So, what are the "three bases" in terms of computer dating, and what's a home run??
Any takers?
--
Of course, if you knew anything about Windows CE, you'd not have said this. Windows CE was designed from the ground up to be used in embedded systems.
Mea culpa. The only thing I've seen with Windows CE was the UI for a little hand-held, and the interface looked identical to Windows proper.
I concede that Microsoft probably has a clue about what it's doing (they didn't get to where they are without a clue), and no doubt they'll actually do a reasonable job, much as Slashdotters like to slam M$.
But I do stand by my opinion on GUIs. In kiosks and ATMs (which I hadn't thought about when I was considering the embedded market) GUIs make a lot of sense, but in things like household appliances, I don't think they do.
Disclaimer: I don't have a clue. I just have opinions. :-)
--
I think "Windows," which basically means "GUI," is the antithesis of the requirements of embedded software.
Although I do think it would be great if you wanted to turn all your appliances into something that resembles a PC.
If you never use anything but nails, all your tools will begin to look like hammers.
--
I think there is probably general consensus (here on Slashtot anyway) that "security through obscurity" doesn't work. Are you ready to burn?
However, I believe that on the fucking internet, the fucking ubiquity of script kiddies is changing the fucking rules.
[Blah, blah, etc, etc...]
This post just made my day. I'm convinced it was done with a perl script. I want it!
Mod this up, it's hilarious.
--
I think there is probably general consensus (here on Slashtot anyway) that "security through obscurity" doesn't work.
However, I believe that on the internet, the ubiquity of script kiddies is changing the rules.
The argument traditionally goes that people who want to compromise security will learn the "tricks of the trade." It's therefore in the interests of the securers to discuss exploits openly, or at the very least among themselves.
That last stipulation is the crux.
I think that exploits that are revealed by securers and crackers alike are broadcast across the internet so quickly and sometimes, in such a convenient fashion (like a little program in which you just "press the big red button") that an early and temporary "information quarantine" of this sort can make a lot of sense, as long as it's done right.
That's just my take, anyway.
--
I know nothing about the deal, but I understood that Microsoft had funded Apple in some way, to the tune of a million dollars or so...
Is it possible that the funds included some kind of non-competition stipulation? In other words, could Microsoft have said, "hands off the x86 platform?"
--
What use is a tennis ball sized diamond?
Yeah, I guess I agree...
But then again, I'm reminded of the famous quote from some engineer, who asked, about the microchip:
"But what... is it good for??"
--
A week or so ago, I saw a program on TV about diamond mining, and how the use of very large machinery has eliminated the possibility of finding very large diamonds any more, because the rock is crushed before being brought to the surface.
But, if the mining robots were smaller in scale and used smaller digging instruments, larger diamonds (like on the order of tennis ball size), rare as they may be, could have a chance of being recovered whole.
It's also probable that smaller robots would be able to recover materials much more efficiently and in a much more environmentally friendly way.
I doubt the economies of scale of current technology will support thousands of tiny robots, or if such robots would be capable of digging through solid rock.
But it's cool to speculate.
--
Okay, I'm replying to my own post, but I just thought of a better way to express myself.
When does an island become a continent?
When does a town become a city?
When does winter become spring?
--
The Rose Center says there is no universal definition of a planet...
Then make one! We shouldn't be debating whether Pluto is a planet, we should be debating what the definition of a planet should be. Then, Pluto will come out in the wash.
I can't believe people are getting territorial about Pluto.
Why is this news?
--
There was a slightly similar case before the British Columbia Supreme Court regarding posession of child pornography. There's an article about it on the CBC website.
However, part of the issue this side of the 49th is the definition of child pornography. The particular case before the court at the moment involves someone who penned erotic fantasies of juvenile sex for his own private enjoyment. The argument is that the definition is so broad that it infringes on basic rights.
The police, on the other hand, argue that they need a relatively broad definition, and the ability to arrest for posession, because otherwise they would be handicapped to ineffectiveness and they'd be unable to fight child pornography at all.
My take on the issue is that the two sides are arguing past each other. Fix the definition. I'm reasonably sure there's a happy medium where both sides can be equally dissatisfied. ;-)
--
Morphability is cool and all, but I think that it would be far more useful to build a robot in human form. Such a robot could use existing tools, essentially making it modular.
A morphing robot would (ultimately) outstrip any modular robot in usefulness, but I think the research and fabrication costs of such a robot are gigantic in comparison to simply building a human-shaped robot. A humaniform robot (to borrow Asimov's term) can instantly use of all our human tools, making itself useful very quickly.
--
I can imagine this being useful, especially if they can paint a car with some sort of light deadening material. It would render laser speed detection devices obsolete.
Such material already exists; it's called thin film technology, and I really don't know much about it, but I understand it's used on the surfaces of stealth vehicles the render them almost invisible to radar.
No doubt it's way too expensive (currently) for regular automobiles, just to avoid traffic tickets.
But I say, if you feel the need for speed, put yourself on a closed race track, don't put others in danger...
--
They bug me because it seems like a gratuitous use of technology. Believe me, I'm all for technology, but I think we should use it where it fits, not go nuts-blind with it. I feel (just a feeling) that trying to make our homes too smart is rather wrong-headed.
For example:
Heating control. Personally, I don't want to walk into a room and be surprised that it's ten degrees colder (or ten degrees hotter) because the A.I. failed to predict that I'll go there. I would prefer to tell the computer not to condition the air in certain rooms, possibly at certain times of the day or days of the week. Good old fashioned programming (with possibly something simple like fuzzy logic) will suffice. The real problem is making an intuitive user interface that a layman can use to program it.
Lighting control. Again, I don't think this makes sense, because lighting is far more dynamic. I want the lights on where I am, not where the computer thinks I want to go. It's a control problem, pure and simple. Just install sensors that read where I am, and control the lights directly. (Of course, sometimes I might want to override it.)
Central music control. This one is the most dynamic of all. Not only does it depend on where I am, but how I feel. There are neural networks that can verge on reading facial expressions these days, but I would find it rather creepy and annoying if the house started piping in music to try and cheer me up, or try and fit my mood. My feeling is that music selection is a database access problem, not an A.I. problem. You want to be able to choose what you want quickly; you don't need a computer to try and predict or intuit.
At the heart of it, I think my problem with the whole idea is this: I want control over my house. The A.I. of today is not intelligent enough to be useful. It would need to have almost human intelligence to be useful, and I believe that by the time computers are that smart, we'll be able to plunk them into robotic bodies, bypassing this whole question.
Places where neural networks might be useful are in low-level control systems for complex machinery, like the furnace, the water heater, or the plumbing. These would not constitute neural network control of a house, but rather the underlying subsystem.
--
Can anyone point to the best online apologia favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting higher thresholds for them?
I would really like to see something like this, too. Anyone?
While I agree that there have been many silly patents out there, I'm not comfortable with falling completely on one side of the issue. I believe there's probably a good case for software patents out there somewhere, and, as with most things in life, I suspect there's a happy medium.
My father is a patent agent (generally not in software, though), and it's actually a line of work that I had considered. However, I want to consolidate my own position on software patents before I make any move in that direction. To do that, I want to hear both sides of the story (until then, and maybe even after then, I continue with software development...).
I suppose Slashdot isn't the best forum to look for that side of the argument.
--
I think if they felt they could include both Doom and Quake, then they should have included both Dune II and Command and Conquer. Personally, I think C&C was much more than a more popular version of Dune II. It wasn't simply a question of popularity versus precedence.
The innovations that improved C&C over Dune II were colossal. First, they did all the obvious stuff. Improve the graphics, the sound, the animations. Second, they added more variety in terms of objectives (in the single player levels). Finally (and I think this is the most important), they improved the user interface.
Requiring three clicks to issue a single command to individual units (select unit; select command; select target) was tremendously cumbersome. Reducing it to two and allowing the selection of multiple units (and in the process, allowing the player to keep the mouse pointer on the playing field at all times), made game play so much better, that I consider C&C and Dune II to be completely different games. In addition, they had user-definable hotkeys, and a much improved button bar.
Red Alert, on the other hand, was hardly any improvement at all over C&C.
You might argue that C&C's innovations are fairly obvious after having played Dune II. But you can't deny that Westwood was right on the ball, being the first one to release the much improved version, whose user interface set the standard for all the RTS games that followed.
--
Assuming this beast gets built, we have to keep in mind that at first (and, I think, for a very long time) there will only be one of these things.
Its cost effectiveness (and it's appropriateness for use by individual private passengers) must take into account the cost of transporting the people and cargo across land to the site of the tether.
I have no idea how to crunch these kinds of numbers. Has anyone else done so?
--
It is one of three or four great movies about AI. The others being "Terminator," "War Games," and "The Matrix."
Not to drift too far off-topic, but... I would add to that mix, "Blade Runner."
It's not a movie that you would usually think about when you try to think of a "movie about AI," but it's pretty obvious that it is.
It's also interesting to note that movies about AI are never really about AI, per se. They're really about humans. And I think Blade Runner tackles the subject so directly (since replicants are basically identical to humans) that we forget they're just "machines."
Movies "about AI," too often, are about human frailty, or hubris. Except maybe...
At the risk of getting moderated "off-topic," did anyone see "The Bicentennial Man?"
--
Then you understand nothing. Go to google and do a search for "intellectual property faq." Read it. Don't post again until you have.
Okay, fair enough - I didn't realize it included trademarks and copyrights (well, copyrights... I would guess that all intellectual property would be copyrighted to the holder).
I think you're being unduly harsh, though. I was replying to someone making (what I thought was) a one-sided and unfair remark about IP, whereas the discussion should be more specifically about patents. My main point was that they're not the same thing.
In my own defence, I never said I was an authority, and on a discussion forum like this, I think that should not be assumed in the first place. I also did a bit of hedging with my language.
--
To clarify "IP" versus "patent"...
From what I understand, intellectual property is usually undisclosed information, although I suppose it's a general enough term that it might include patented ideas, too; I'm not 100% certain.
Patents, on the other hand, are very specifically disclosed to the public. In return for the disclosure, the patent holder receives certain rights in terms of its use, and is entitled to monetary rewards when others use it.
The big difference, thus, is this: if an undisclosed and unpatented idea gets out, there's nothing a company can do to rein it back in. The best they will likely be able to do is sue the discloser (as long as he/she had signed an NDA, of course). If another company tries to use a patented idea without permission, the patent holder can, in fact, legally stop them.
I'm not taking a stand here, just clarifying the terms.
--
And the seven days of the week would simply be named after numbers...
What the heck? What exactly is the point of changing the names of the days of the week to numbers? I suppose it's just so that it's easier to calculate distances between days, but that, to me, isn't much of a benefit.
It might be fine for the "human calculator," but the rest of us mere mortals aren't quite as proficient at using base seven arithmetic (with no zero digit, to boot!).
Where is the "human" in this part of the "human calendar?"
--
Does this bug other people as much as it does me?
Half-meter resolution doesn't mean that it "clearly shows objects as small as 19 inches!" This is quite misleading.
It simply means that an object of 19 inches can register in the image- and "register" simply means that a dot on the image might be brighter or darker depending on the overall colour of the object.
"To clearly show an object" implies that you'll be able to identify it. Some might even think that you'd be able to see features and details of the object. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is better:
At half-meter resolution... forestry officials can count trees, and urban planners can view streetscapes, even discerning manhole covers.
But I wish they had put that at the top of the article, not at the end of the last paragraph!
--
Just to register my dismay that yet another social science type avant garde Internet "user" is telling us what Internet is, has been and will be.
Hey! That's unfair. I'm a computer scientist. I have a software development job doing UNIX development. I have a four-machine mixed Linux-Windows network at home. I have set up DNS, Web servers, E-mail and I have my gateway set up using diald and pppd with IP Masquerading.
The "digital information revolution" didn't start when computer scientists cobbled together some components. That was the beginning of information technology, not the revolution.
The real revolution (which I consider a social phenomenon, not a technological one) began when non-techies started getting E-mail addresses, and when non-tech companies started deciding that it's essential to get a web site.
And non-techies only started getting E-mail addresses twenty years after the invention of E-mail. My theory (and I'm first to admit it's just a theory) addresses that long delay.
(By the way, I avoid telnet whenever I can, in favour of ssh. But I'll admit to having never used gopher, archie, and veronica.)
--
No, I'm sorry. You're wrong. I suspect a lot of people on Slashdot remember getting out of school the '80's, and being very, very suprised that some people still didn't have e-mail.
E-mail in the 80's? I beg to differ. I would say it was very common among university students (especially computer scientists and engineers, of course) at large institutions, and industry employees at large companies, but not at all with the general public.
E-mail really was the killer app, and a big part of the reason the net reached the density that allowed something like the web to be successful.
Okay, I posted a little too soon. If I had read the entire article first, I would have worded things differently. However, I still stand by my original post.
I'll grant you that E-mail was the first killer app over the internet. I would say that it seeded the information revolution. However, the thing that really launched it, and by this I mean when people who were not in the business of computers started getting internet accounts, was the world wide web.
I'm not really that cynical. I don't think it was just porn. I think the pretty pictures on the web made the internet far more accessible to the regular person. And that was when internet usage really took off.
--