e-mail, the application that launched the
digital information revolution.
I totally disagree with this.
It wasn't until the early 1990s, when the
world wide web appeared, that the
internet gained popular usage. My theory is that
it was when Mosaic made the internet look pretty,
that the general public took notice.
Or I could be a bit more cynical and say that
it was when people discovered they could browse
pornographic pictures on the net, that it gained
popular usage.
E-mail was the second most important
application that launched the digital information
revolution. It was only after people started
using the web that they realized that there was
this amazingly useful thing called E-mail.
I think Mr. Dominus hit the nail on the head
when he said, "the root of the problem is that we
tend to organize ourselves into tribes."
I suspect this is a deeply rooted social
instinct to become part of a group, support the
group and have the group support you. Possibly,
from the time when humans associated themselves
with a family unit and vied for resources among
other such units. And attacking other groups
meant a greater portion of the pie for your own
group, more support for yourself, and more
acceptance from within your own group.
Slashdot is one such group. Why do the
Microsoft-related stories routinely attract
postings that number in the five or six hundred
range? It all has to do with how we define our
tribe.
Is it a bad thing? I think it is, when it
starts to obscure the fact that we are all part of
a tribe called "the human race."
Ah, crap. That'll teach me for doing quick
last-minute edits. Of course, I meant to say
"five lines of good code can be a hundred times
better than five hundred lines of bad
code."
I'm sure most will agree with me that five
lines of good code can be a hundred times better
than five lines of bad code.
So, the question, for me, is this:
What the heck are these "commonly used measures
of productivity in software development?" Is
anybody aware of anything resembling an industry
standard in this regard? I don't think anyone
can honestly say that intensely heated debate will
not ensue if we collectively tried to formulate a
single definition of, and standard measure for,
"productivity."
So, I have to take the results of this study
with a large grain of salt...
Is there a case for using closed-source here,
from the point of view of security? After all,
this is a question of national security; I think
the rules might be a bit different. Now, I'm
writing off-the-cuff, so feel free to shoot me
down (so to speak).
The argument against "security through
obscurity" is that when people gain experience
cracking certain locks, the weaknesses become well
known and it's in the locksmith's interest to
learn about them. To this end, it makes sense to
publicize problems so that the locksmiths can fix
them, instead of leaving the knowledge only in the
hands of crackers.
But military systems aren't really open to a
great deal of attack in the first place. There's
a lot of physical security (at least, there
should be). As such, there's much less
chance for weaknesses to become well known in the
first place.
So, is it possible that "security through
obscurity" actually works a little better in this
case?
Would we want to be reading about our
military's weaknesses on BugTraq? (Actually, I'm
Canadian, so it doesn't directly affect me, but
hey...)
Then again, it depends on how the software is
used. If you have other kinds of physical and
mechanical security to back it up, then software
security might be almost irrelevant.
And also, the argument might be false because
it's just a question of a difference in community.
That is, if we replace "general public" with
"international military community," then maybe the
obscurity argument remains just as valid.
Hmmmm. I'm starting to argue against myself.
I'll stop now, before I end up looking ten times
more foolish than I look already.
So, Elections Canada should simply not release
any data regarding the vote count until all the
polls are closed.
First off, I want to say that I agree with you.
This incident only highlights the futility of the
whole "rolling blackout" idea.
However, the media will still want to use
exit polling data in their broadcasts - since this
also pretty much counts as "polling results",
these should not be published either...
Actually, the Canadian media do not use exit
polls in their election reporting. They use real
results. The CBC took several opportunities to
mention this (rather smugly, IMO).
As such, I don't think the taking and
publishing of exit polls is as much of an issue in
this country. (Of course, if you enforce a ban on
all publication of real results, the media might
start using exit poll results instead...)
My theory on the rolling blackout is that
television stations get such dynamite ratings by
having continuous coverage, that they've managed
to exert some kind of influence with Elections
Canada, to allow them to do so.
I say, have all polls open simultaneously, and
all polls close simultaneously. Sure, you'd have
to run longer hours, and it might cost a bit more,
and in some places, you might have polls closing
at 2AM, while in others, you might have them
opening at 5AM, but who cares?
For the poor souls who have never experienced
the joy of Elite, it was a space adventure in
which you start as a lowly little trader, and you
must travel from planet to planet, trading goods,
making money, arming your ship, gaining
experience, and increasing your "rating," until
you reach "Elite!!"
Space battles were in real time and 3D,
although it was all vector graphics that look
laughable by today's standards.
However, I was awed by the scope of the game,
because there were so many stars
to visit, I never reached even a fraction of them
all.
Ah, I remember the space battles, survived by
the skin of my teeth... the occasional
surreptitious trading in illegal goods (sometimes,
it was just so lucrative!)... the
pleasure of being able to upgrade the weaponry on
my ship...
Actually, part of the reason I'm reminiscing
about Elite is because I had a dream that I was
playing Elite, just last night. Strange dream.
I read this book a while ago, and was
thoroughly entranced by the story. I wish I could
remember more details, but the thing I remember
most is this.
If you
take
a look at the four timepieces that Harrison
built, you'll be floored by the final result. The
book says something like: "However, when people
see H4, they are stopped dead in their tracks."
It really is astounding. H1 looks
like an early prototype. It looks as though, if
you shook it, pieces would fly in all directions.
H2 has the appearance of a later prototype-- much
more rugged. It's starting to look like something
that can be taken out to sea. H3 looks a little
like H2, but with some fancier components added.
H4, however, is, nothing less than a work of art.
It's so completely different that you wonder what
the point of the other three was.
One must have a great deal of respect for a man
who, when he sees a better way, drops everything
that he's been working on, and follows the new
direction. Be it genius or recklessness, one must
respect the way he followed his
objective, as opposed to his own
work.
Quebec, always eager to assert their
sovereignty, might have different labour laws from
the rest of Canada. I don't know anything about
it, so I can't say anything specific, other than
that you should not assume that things are
identical between Quebec and the other provinces.
Nutshells: Bob Chiarelli is going to be mayor
of the new "mega-city." Almost all of the region
voted in Liberal candidates in the recent federal
election. A small two-seater airplane crashed
into the middle of Hull; fortunately, nobody on
the ground was hurt. Duplicated street names are
being changed in preparation for municipal
amalgamation.
But why isn't anyone else asking for
interviews from up there? Perhaps I've picked the
wrong handful of companies?
Hmm, that's rather surprising. Nortel and JDS
Uniphase are currently undergoing ridiculous
expansion (almost disturbing, in fact). Telecom
experience would be an asset for both those
places, but I'm sure any computer science
background will get you somewhere.
...I'm fresh out of school with no industry
experience.
Maybe that's it; maybe they're looking for more
experienced people. I'm not sure. I'm looking at
the moment.
I don't know your reasons for wanting to work
outside the US, but if it's French specifically,
then I can recommend West Quebec and Eastern
Ontario, in Canada. Companies are really hurting
for IT people here, just like in the States.
I live in Ottawa, which is just on the border
between Quebec and Ontario. Although the lingua
franca of Ottawa is English, there is a great
mixture of French and English speakers here.
As a matter of fact, I'm currently taking
private French lessons. (For myself, it's a
mostly a matter of my personal Canadian identity.)
I find that there's a lot of opportunity to hear
spoken French (radio and television), so
conditions for learning the language are superb.
A few plugs for Ottawa. We are experiencing
quite an explosion of high tech here. The city is
extremely well kept, urban sprawl is kept
(somewhat) at bay by designated green spaces, and
I understand the public transportation
infrastructure is amazing compared to most US
cities. The twelve municipalities that used to
comprise the Ottawa area are also being
amalgamated into a single city, and hopefully,
this will promote well coordinated urban planning
for the whole region.
Finally, as a Slashdot reader, you might also
be pleased to know that Ottawa is fairly keen on
Linux and the whole "open-source" movement.
The big downside of Ottawa, currently, is a
chokingly tight housing/rental market.
Canada may not be "foreign" enough for you, but
I'm sure it would be much, much easier to find
work here than overseas. I just wanted to mention
it.
The real fragmentation in
today's world of computers is the complete and
utter incompatibility between UNIX and
Windows.
This is of immediate concern to me (and I mean
really immediate) because I'm currently
working on packaging our company's software.
We support UNIX (Solaris, Irix, Linux) and
Windows (NT, 2000). The headaches caused by
differences between the various Unices pales in
comparison to the headaches caused by the
differences between Windows and UNIX.
I wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead
and adopt BSD for their next OS... (heh, yeah,
right.)
This is only marginally related, but it's got
me thinking, so maybe I can get comments about it
from people who are more knowledgeable.
If anything, Windows seems to run faster
than it does natively, although I have no idea how
that would be possible.
At first, this struck me as silly, and I
thought it must be his imagination.
However, it struck me that it might be
possible. I have no idea how Win4Lin
works, but it occurred to me that if Win4Lin disk
access happens through the Linux kernel, then
better disk caching efficiency of Linux could make
Windows run faster than native.
Anyone know the guts of Win4Lin, and whether
this is possible? Or, if I'm way off base, is
there some other reason Windows might run faster
within Win4Lin? I might be interested in trying
it out.
There are many who say that artificial
intelligence (of the sort equal or surpassing
human intelligence) should never be created
because they would displace human beings.
There are a couple of things that should be
kept in mind.
First, we should remember that "technology
becomes us," so to speak. The technology we
create becomes an integral part of who we are.
This will be more so than ever before, with the
advent of wearable computers and prosthetic
devices.
By the time computers achieve our level of
intelligence, the line between human and machine
will be so blurred, I don't think it will cause
the kind of upheaval that many foresee. (Except
maybe in certain philosophical circles.)
Secondly, I don't think it's something that
anyone can reasonably stop.
Would it have been reasonable to stop the
invention of telephones because face to face
communication would decrease? Or to prevent the
steam engine from being created because manual
labourers would be displaced? Or to shun the
benefits of fire because people can get burned by
it? This is the inexorable progress of
technology.
If A.I. is not done in the open, by companies
and researchers who are willing to disclose what
they're doing, it's sure to get done somewhere as
a secret military project. Which would you
prefer?
What if we fitted a large number of these
generator stations with pipes? It could become
the world's biggest pipe organ, and you could
actually listen to the ocean sing!
However, large-scale on-shore wave power
generating stations could face similar problems to
those encountered by some windfarm projects, where
opposition has focused on the aesthetic and
nose impact of the machinery on
the environment.
My, my, what violent opposition. I personally
don't think it's worth a shot to the nose.
I'm totally off-topic, I know. Moderate as
you will.
Sorry, but that typo was just too hilarious to
ignore.
So by your reasoning, (and I am neither an
Egyptologist, nor an astronomer), she went back an
abitrary amount of time, found two arbitrary stars
which lined up, and that proves something?
Well, I don't agree that she went back an
arbitrary amount of time, nor do I agree
that she chose arbitrary stars. There's
a small (astronomically speaking) time frame
within which she worked, and there's only so many
"eternal stars" from which to choose. She knew
what she was looking for. (And I know you're
about to say, that's the problem!)
I understand what you're saying about
corroborative evidence, because it's such a dicey
thing in science. It's usually far more useful to
look for contrary evidence, since corroborative
evidence (especially in something like
archaeology) is usually rather easy to find, and
often serves little purpose other than to give
scientists a warm fuzzy feeling.
I think as corroborative evidence goes, though,
Spence's work is pretty darned good.
You should also take note that the article you
mentioned talks about the Sphinx, not
necessarily the pyramids. I have heard of this
controversial theory before-- and in fact, I find
it quite convincing. However, they themselves
acknowledge that the pyramids were built
much later than the Sphinx. Also, I
believe there is a great deal of archaeological
evidence to link the pyramids with the ancient
Egyptians we know so well (speaking loosely...
again, IANAE).
It seems to me that Spence took a look at
the 'accepted' age of the pyramids, decided that
the pyramid alignments were celestial in nature,
and voila, here's a couple of stars which lined up
4500 years ago.
You'll pardon my saying so, but you don't seem
to have a full grasp of what she did.
The original question was how the Egyptians
managed to align their pyramids to true north.
There is much reason to believe that this was not
coincidence, and that the Egyptians had every
intention of aligning the pyramids with the stars,
because of their religion.
Any observant astronomer, of any time, will
notice that the stars rise and set with the day
and night, and the axis of this rising and setting
wobbles with the year. They will also see that
there are some stars, near the poles, that never
set-- they just go in circles. These stars were
called "eternal stars," and the Egyptians wished
their pharoah to join them for eternity. That's
the reason for the alignment.
Today, we have Polaris, which sits pretty much
exactly on the polar axis. Back then, they didn't
have such a star. So Spence reasoned they might
have used a couple of the closest bright stars to
the pole, which was two stars in Ursa Minor.
When she followed up this supposition,
she realized that there would be a very small
systematic drift over time, assuming they
continued using the same two stars to perform
their alignment. Using generally accepted ages of
the pyramids, she found that the alignment of the
pyramids drifted by the same amount.
This evidence is hugely compelling.
Now, because the evidence is
so strong, she could feel comfortable turning the
methodology on its head and using it to calculate
the dates of construction. It is based on the
assumption that they used this method of
alignment, and maybe that's a big assumption, but
it doesn't look that way to me, personally.
This article has absolutely no 'proof'
anywhere, and is just another in a long line of
pyramid dating schemes.
If you're willing to throw out all other lines
of evidence and historical records, then you're
right. There's no proof. But if you're willing
to go so far, then there's no proof of anything,
anywhere.
The main point of all this is that her main
objective was not to date the pyramids,
but to explain their alignment. The dating scheme
only followed as a consequence.
DISCLAIMER: IANAE (I am not an Egyptologist).
I've just heard this story from about three
separate sources, so I've learned a lot about it
by now.
As interesting as all of this speculation
is, there still remains one unfortunate fact which
people here seem to have missed - there is no
proof that black holes exist! They are still
entirely theoretical constructs...
The history of science is one of constant
theorizing. Usually, a theory falls out of favour
when we try to extrapolate it too far, and we
realize that it doesn't fit any more. This is
exactly the status of black holes, and this kind
of speculation is exactly the kind of
extrapolation that can disprove the theory.
However, I feel that unless you have a better
theory, or unless you can decisively show how our
current theory is sorely lacking, you don't have
much grounds to lambaste our current scientific
understanding. If you do have such a contribution
to make to this discussion, I'd welcome it (it
would be much better than my own comment).
There's no excuse for such slipshod science,
and it's all too likely that future scientists
will look back and laugh.
The history of science is filled with all kinds
of foolishness, and no doubt our age will be
included in that fine tradition. However, it's
completely unfair to "laugh" at our ancestors'
understanding of the universe without taking into
account the historical, social, religious, and
technological context.
I just found
this story,
right here on SlashDot as I was delving a little
more into this topic.
It talks about a "GPL-like system for Patents,"
that someone is setting up. I have no idea if
there's some kind of sponsorship happening (I'd
be pretty amazed if there were), but there you go,
for what it's worth.
People should realize that there is absolutely
no conflict with patenting open source (or even
free, RMS-style) code. The endemic problem that
FSF and open source addresses is
proprietary code, which is, in fact,
almost the antithesis of patented code.
Almost.
A patent is a disclosure. It is a public
document that clearly describes an artifact or a
process so that other people can use it. Along
with this disclosure, however, comes certain
rights granted to the inventor. The rights to
monetary rewards, primarily.
Something that's proprietary is not
disclosed. That's what non-disclosure
agreements are all about. The real problem with
proprietary code is that they usually come with
licenses that stipulate that users must not
reverse engineer, or modify that code.
The GNU Public License is rather like a patent
in that it makes the source code a public document
that allows others to make use of the process. It
just goes much further than a patent, however, in that
permission is granted up-front for anyone to use the
code. The one (big) proviso is that those who
modify it or distribute it must respect the rights
of others to do exactly the same thing you're
doing (I know it's a bit more complex than that,
but that's the basic intent).
Given this, there should be no problem
patenting open source or GPL'ed code, although I
seem to recall some small stipulations about
monetary cost in the GPL. So that might limit
your ability to get monetary rewards. However,
there is no limit imposed by a patent on that.
If you patent some code, but you waive your
rights to some reward or control, then it
basically becomes public domain. That would be
pretty silly, though. It would only make sense to
attach some sort of license with it.
Standard disclaimers apply:
IANAL.
Footnote: It just occurs to me now, as I
write this, that there may be restrictions on what
you are allowed to license, depending on whether a
patent exists for that thing, even if you are the
owner of that patent... Anybody here know about
these details?
...a jetpack-like device propelled by fans -
could really be a viable mode of
transport.
I can see how lots people would really go for
this mode of transportation, and would want it to
succeed. Some people might go to huge lengths to
see it succeed.
But what good is it really, if all you have is
a bunch of those fanatics pushing you around?
Doesn't seem very viable to me.
Slashdot Mirror
e-mail, the application that launched the digital information revolution.
I totally disagree with this.
It wasn't until the early 1990s, when the world wide web appeared, that the internet gained popular usage. My theory is that it was when Mosaic made the internet look pretty, that the general public took notice.
Or I could be a bit more cynical and say that it was when people discovered they could browse pornographic pictures on the net, that it gained popular usage.
E-mail was the second most important application that launched the digital information revolution. It was only after people started using the web that they realized that there was this amazingly useful thing called E-mail.
--
I think Mr. Dominus hit the nail on the head when he said, "the root of the problem is that we tend to organize ourselves into tribes."
I suspect this is a deeply rooted social instinct to become part of a group, support the group and have the group support you. Possibly, from the time when humans associated themselves with a family unit and vied for resources among other such units. And attacking other groups meant a greater portion of the pie for your own group, more support for yourself, and more acceptance from within your own group.
Slashdot is one such group. Why do the Microsoft-related stories routinely attract postings that number in the five or six hundred range? It all has to do with how we define our tribe.
Is it a bad thing? I think it is, when it starts to obscure the fact that we are all part of a tribe called "the human race."
--
Ah, crap. That'll teach me for doing quick last-minute edits. Of course, I meant to say "five lines of good code can be a hundred times better than five hundred lines of bad code."
--
I'm sure most will agree with me that five lines of good code can be a hundred times better than five lines of bad code.
So, the question, for me, is this:
What the heck are these "commonly used measures of productivity in software development?" Is anybody aware of anything resembling an industry standard in this regard? I don't think anyone can honestly say that intensely heated debate will not ensue if we collectively tried to formulate a single definition of, and standard measure for, "productivity."
So, I have to take the results of this study with a large grain of salt...
--
Is there a case for using closed-source here, from the point of view of security? After all, this is a question of national security; I think the rules might be a bit different. Now, I'm writing off-the-cuff, so feel free to shoot me down (so to speak).
The argument against "security through obscurity" is that when people gain experience cracking certain locks, the weaknesses become well known and it's in the locksmith's interest to learn about them. To this end, it makes sense to publicize problems so that the locksmiths can fix them, instead of leaving the knowledge only in the hands of crackers.
But military systems aren't really open to a great deal of attack in the first place. There's a lot of physical security (at least, there should be). As such, there's much less chance for weaknesses to become well known in the first place.
So, is it possible that "security through obscurity" actually works a little better in this case?
Would we want to be reading about our military's weaknesses on BugTraq? (Actually, I'm Canadian, so it doesn't directly affect me, but hey...)
Then again, it depends on how the software is used. If you have other kinds of physical and mechanical security to back it up, then software security might be almost irrelevant.
And also, the argument might be false because it's just a question of a difference in community. That is, if we replace "general public" with "international military community," then maybe the obscurity argument remains just as valid.
Hmmmm. I'm starting to argue against myself. I'll stop now, before I end up looking ten times more foolish than I look already.
--
So, Elections Canada should simply not release any data regarding the vote count until all the polls are closed.
First off, I want to say that I agree with you. This incident only highlights the futility of the whole "rolling blackout" idea.
However, the media will still want to use exit polling data in their broadcasts - since this also pretty much counts as "polling results", these should not be published either...
Actually, the Canadian media do not use exit polls in their election reporting. They use real results. The CBC took several opportunities to mention this (rather smugly, IMO).
As such, I don't think the taking and publishing of exit polls is as much of an issue in this country. (Of course, if you enforce a ban on all publication of real results, the media might start using exit poll results instead...)
My theory on the rolling blackout is that television stations get such dynamite ratings by having continuous coverage, that they've managed to exert some kind of influence with Elections Canada, to allow them to do so.
I say, have all polls open simultaneously, and all polls close simultaneously. Sure, you'd have to run longer hours, and it might cost a bit more, and in some places, you might have polls closing at 2AM, while in others, you might have them opening at 5AM, but who cares?
(Your idea is probably better.)
--
Any other former Elite players out there?
For the poor souls who have never experienced the joy of Elite, it was a space adventure in which you start as a lowly little trader, and you must travel from planet to planet, trading goods, making money, arming your ship, gaining experience, and increasing your "rating," until you reach "Elite!!"
Space battles were in real time and 3D, although it was all vector graphics that look laughable by today's standards.
However, I was awed by the scope of the game, because there were so many stars to visit, I never reached even a fraction of them all.
Ah, I remember the space battles, survived by the skin of my teeth... the occasional surreptitious trading in illegal goods (sometimes, it was just so lucrative!)... the pleasure of being able to upgrade the weaponry on my ship...
Actually, part of the reason I'm reminiscing about Elite is because I had a dream that I was playing Elite, just last night. Strange dream.
--
I read this book a while ago, and was thoroughly entranced by the story. I wish I could remember more details, but the thing I remember most is this.
If you take a look at the four timepieces that Harrison built, you'll be floored by the final result. The book says something like: "However, when people see H4, they are stopped dead in their tracks."
It really is astounding. H1 looks like an early prototype. It looks as though, if you shook it, pieces would fly in all directions. H2 has the appearance of a later prototype-- much more rugged. It's starting to look like something that can be taken out to sea. H3 looks a little like H2, but with some fancier components added. H4, however, is, nothing less than a work of art. It's so completely different that you wonder what the point of the other three was.
One must have a great deal of respect for a man who, when he sees a better way, drops everything that he's been working on, and follows the new direction. Be it genius or recklessness, one must respect the way he followed his objective, as opposed to his own work.
--
Something to remember...
Quebec, always eager to assert their sovereignty, might have different labour laws from the rest of Canada. I don't know anything about it, so I can't say anything specific, other than that you should not assume that things are identical between Quebec and the other provinces.
You might get some useful information from the Government of Quebec website.
Good luck.
--
So what's up with Ottawa?
Nutshells: Bob Chiarelli is going to be mayor of the new "mega-city." Almost all of the region voted in Liberal candidates in the recent federal election. A small two-seater airplane crashed into the middle of Hull; fortunately, nobody on the ground was hurt. Duplicated street names are being changed in preparation for municipal amalgamation.
But why isn't anyone else asking for interviews from up there? Perhaps I've picked the wrong handful of companies?
Hmm, that's rather surprising. Nortel and JDS Uniphase are currently undergoing ridiculous expansion (almost disturbing, in fact). Telecom experience would be an asset for both those places, but I'm sure any computer science background will get you somewhere.
Maybe that's it; maybe they're looking for more experienced people. I'm not sure. I'm looking at the moment.
--
I don't know your reasons for wanting to work outside the US, but if it's French specifically, then I can recommend West Quebec and Eastern Ontario, in Canada. Companies are really hurting for IT people here, just like in the States.
I live in Ottawa, which is just on the border between Quebec and Ontario. Although the lingua franca of Ottawa is English, there is a great mixture of French and English speakers here.
As a matter of fact, I'm currently taking private French lessons. (For myself, it's a mostly a matter of my personal Canadian identity.) I find that there's a lot of opportunity to hear spoken French (radio and television), so conditions for learning the language are superb.
A few plugs for Ottawa. We are experiencing quite an explosion of high tech here. The city is extremely well kept, urban sprawl is kept (somewhat) at bay by designated green spaces, and I understand the public transportation infrastructure is amazing compared to most US cities. The twelve municipalities that used to comprise the Ottawa area are also being amalgamated into a single city, and hopefully, this will promote well coordinated urban planning for the whole region.
Finally, as a Slashdot reader, you might also be pleased to know that Ottawa is fairly keen on Linux and the whole "open-source" movement.
The big downside of Ottawa, currently, is a chokingly tight housing/rental market.
Canada may not be "foreign" enough for you, but I'm sure it would be much, much easier to find work here than overseas. I just wanted to mention it.
--
The real fragmentation in today's world of computers is the complete and utter incompatibility between UNIX and Windows.
This is of immediate concern to me (and I mean really immediate) because I'm currently working on packaging our company's software. We support UNIX (Solaris, Irix, Linux) and Windows (NT, 2000). The headaches caused by differences between the various Unices pales in comparison to the headaches caused by the differences between Windows and UNIX.
I wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead and adopt BSD for their next OS... (heh, yeah, right.)
--
This is only marginally related, but it's got me thinking, so maybe I can get comments about it from people who are more knowledgeable.
If anything, Windows seems to run faster than it does natively, although I have no idea how that would be possible.
At first, this struck me as silly, and I thought it must be his imagination.
However, it struck me that it might be possible. I have no idea how Win4Lin works, but it occurred to me that if Win4Lin disk access happens through the Linux kernel, then better disk caching efficiency of Linux could make Windows run faster than native.
Anyone know the guts of Win4Lin, and whether this is possible? Or, if I'm way off base, is there some other reason Windows might run faster within Win4Lin? I might be interested in trying it out.
There are many who say that artificial intelligence (of the sort equal or surpassing human intelligence) should never be created because they would displace human beings.
There are a couple of things that should be kept in mind.
First, we should remember that "technology becomes us," so to speak. The technology we create becomes an integral part of who we are. This will be more so than ever before, with the advent of wearable computers and prosthetic devices.
By the time computers achieve our level of intelligence, the line between human and machine will be so blurred, I don't think it will cause the kind of upheaval that many foresee. (Except maybe in certain philosophical circles.)
Secondly, I don't think it's something that anyone can reasonably stop.
Would it have been reasonable to stop the invention of telephones because face to face communication would decrease? Or to prevent the steam engine from being created because manual labourers would be displaced? Or to shun the benefits of fire because people can get burned by it? This is the inexorable progress of technology.
If A.I. is not done in the open, by companies and researchers who are willing to disclose what they're doing, it's sure to get done somewhere as a secret military project. Which would you prefer?
A peripherally related random thought...
What if we fitted a large number of these generator stations with pipes? It could become the world's biggest pipe organ, and you could actually listen to the ocean sing!
Noise pollution aside, that would be way cool.
However, large-scale on-shore wave power generating stations could face similar problems to those encountered by some windfarm projects, where opposition has focused on the aesthetic and nose impact of the machinery on the environment.
My, my, what violent opposition. I personally don't think it's worth a shot to the nose.
I'm totally off-topic, I know. Moderate as you will.
Sorry, but that typo was just too hilarious to ignore.
quantum physics isn't really fiction?
Only if you learn it and understand it. Only then do you collapse its truth equation, at which point it becomes either fact or fiction.
Until then, it's both... and neither.
So by your reasoning, (and I am neither an Egyptologist, nor an astronomer), she went back an abitrary amount of time, found two arbitrary stars which lined up, and that proves something?
Well, I don't agree that she went back an arbitrary amount of time, nor do I agree that she chose arbitrary stars. There's a small (astronomically speaking) time frame within which she worked, and there's only so many "eternal stars" from which to choose. She knew what she was looking for. (And I know you're about to say, that's the problem!)
I understand what you're saying about corroborative evidence, because it's such a dicey thing in science. It's usually far more useful to look for contrary evidence, since corroborative evidence (especially in something like archaeology) is usually rather easy to find, and often serves little purpose other than to give scientists a warm fuzzy feeling.
I think as corroborative evidence goes, though, Spence's work is pretty darned good.
You should also take note that the article you mentioned talks about the Sphinx, not necessarily the pyramids. I have heard of this controversial theory before-- and in fact, I find it quite convincing. However, they themselves acknowledge that the pyramids were built much later than the Sphinx. Also, I believe there is a great deal of archaeological evidence to link the pyramids with the ancient Egyptians we know so well (speaking loosely... again, IANAE).
It seems to me that Spence took a look at the 'accepted' age of the pyramids, decided that the pyramid alignments were celestial in nature, and voila, here's a couple of stars which lined up 4500 years ago.
You'll pardon my saying so, but you don't seem to have a full grasp of what she did.
The original question was how the Egyptians managed to align their pyramids to true north. There is much reason to believe that this was not coincidence, and that the Egyptians had every intention of aligning the pyramids with the stars, because of their religion.
Any observant astronomer, of any time, will notice that the stars rise and set with the day and night, and the axis of this rising and setting wobbles with the year. They will also see that there are some stars, near the poles, that never set-- they just go in circles. These stars were called "eternal stars," and the Egyptians wished their pharoah to join them for eternity. That's the reason for the alignment.
Today, we have Polaris, which sits pretty much exactly on the polar axis. Back then, they didn't have such a star. So Spence reasoned they might have used a couple of the closest bright stars to the pole, which was two stars in Ursa Minor.
When she followed up this supposition, she realized that there would be a very small systematic drift over time, assuming they continued using the same two stars to perform their alignment. Using generally accepted ages of the pyramids, she found that the alignment of the pyramids drifted by the same amount.
This evidence is hugely compelling.
Now, because the evidence is so strong, she could feel comfortable turning the methodology on its head and using it to calculate the dates of construction. It is based on the assumption that they used this method of alignment, and maybe that's a big assumption, but it doesn't look that way to me, personally.
This article has absolutely no 'proof' anywhere, and is just another in a long line of pyramid dating schemes.
If you're willing to throw out all other lines of evidence and historical records, then you're right. There's no proof. But if you're willing to go so far, then there's no proof of anything, anywhere.
The main point of all this is that her main objective was not to date the pyramids, but to explain their alignment. The dating scheme only followed as a consequence.
DISCLAIMER: IANAE (I am not an Egyptologist). I've just heard this story from about three separate sources, so I've learned a lot about it by now.
Put succinctly: Moore's Law is a special case of the more general "Law of Accelerating Returns."
As interesting as all of this speculation is, there still remains one unfortunate fact which people here seem to have missed - there is no proof that black holes exist! They are still entirely theoretical constructs...
The history of science is one of constant theorizing. Usually, a theory falls out of favour when we try to extrapolate it too far, and we realize that it doesn't fit any more. This is exactly the status of black holes, and this kind of speculation is exactly the kind of extrapolation that can disprove the theory.
However, I feel that unless you have a better theory, or unless you can decisively show how our current theory is sorely lacking, you don't have much grounds to lambaste our current scientific understanding. If you do have such a contribution to make to this discussion, I'd welcome it (it would be much better than my own comment).
There's no excuse for such slipshod science, and it's all too likely that future scientists will look back and laugh.
The history of science is filled with all kinds of foolishness, and no doubt our age will be included in that fine tradition. However, it's completely unfair to "laugh" at our ancestors' understanding of the universe without taking into account the historical, social, religious, and technological context.
This is probably the most computationally expensive random single digit number generated ever.
It's worse than that, since it was in binary representation. It was the most expensive coin toss in history.
Of course, it's a so-called "coin toss" that comes up the same every time, but still...
Hey there,
I just found this story, right here on SlashDot as I was delving a little more into this topic.
It talks about a "GPL-like system for Patents," that someone is setting up. I have no idea if there's some kind of sponsorship happening (I'd be pretty amazed if there were), but there you go, for what it's worth.
Cheers!
People should realize that there is absolutely no conflict with patenting open source (or even free, RMS-style) code. The endemic problem that FSF and open source addresses is proprietary code, which is, in fact, almost the antithesis of patented code. Almost.
A patent is a disclosure. It is a public document that clearly describes an artifact or a process so that other people can use it. Along with this disclosure, however, comes certain rights granted to the inventor. The rights to monetary rewards, primarily.
Something that's proprietary is not disclosed. That's what non-disclosure agreements are all about. The real problem with proprietary code is that they usually come with licenses that stipulate that users must not reverse engineer, or modify that code.
The GNU Public License is rather like a patent in that it makes the source code a public document that allows others to make use of the process. It just goes much further than a patent, however, in that permission is granted up-front for anyone to use the code. The one (big) proviso is that those who modify it or distribute it must respect the rights of others to do exactly the same thing you're doing (I know it's a bit more complex than that, but that's the basic intent).
Given this, there should be no problem patenting open source or GPL'ed code, although I seem to recall some small stipulations about monetary cost in the GPL. So that might limit your ability to get monetary rewards. However, there is no limit imposed by a patent on that.
If you patent some code, but you waive your rights to some reward or control, then it basically becomes public domain. That would be pretty silly, though. It would only make sense to attach some sort of license with it.
Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL.
Footnote: It just occurs to me now, as I write this, that there may be restrictions on what you are allowed to license, depending on whether a patent exists for that thing, even if you are the owner of that patent... Anybody here know about these details?
I can see how lots people would really go for this mode of transportation, and would want it to succeed. Some people might go to huge lengths to see it succeed.
But what good is it really, if all you have is a bunch of those fanatics pushing you around? Doesn't seem very viable to me.
Oh, that kind of fan.
All right, so it's been a very long day, okay??