Thanks. Sounds like some good but ambitious ideas.
Birds seem to often get adversely affected by alternate energy sources. Reflective solar panels blind them, the best place for a windmill is in an air current, which they like as well, and now they get microwaved in flight.
As a former member of the L5 society, beaming power back to Earth via microwaves has it's own rather nasty environmental problems. It may be the only sustainable industrial power source long-term if a fusion solution isn't found, though.
That's fairly interesting - any web sites on the subject?
I read a bit on using microwaves to transmit power, in an article on technology that may come to pass in the next 100 years. The idea was to place solar energy plants on the moon (burying the wires just a little under the dust), then use orbiting mirrors to control the beam back to earth. It sounded interesting, and had some milestones to make it possible: a space station as a stepping stone to the moon, moon bases powered by solar energy, manufacturing on the moon, etc.
I find it hard to imagine a future where we aren't in space, eventually. It's all that science fiction from the 60's, I guess. The hard part seems to be to figure out a reason to leave the planet in the first place.
The Americans knowingly voted in an idiot, so now they get the idiot decisions they asked for. I can't remember who said it, but there is a nice quote "Democracy is the process of making sure the people get what they want, and get it good and hard".
Not to be offtopic (what moderator is reading now?), but less than half of the voters voted for him. And less than half of the population voted. Government by 1/3 of the people, for 1/3 of the people.
My favorite election quote is "If God intended us to vote, he would have given us candidates."
As for comparisons between the airplane and the rocket for space exploration... well, until there's somewhere there worth going to, or something there worth bringing back, nobody's gonna build the technology to make it worthwhile. This is (IMHO) sad, verging on the tragic, but true.
I've been thinking about that over the weekend. A few times in the last few days, I heard about Yuri Gugarin. He was the first man in space, and is still idolized by the Russians, but most Americans go "Huh?" when his name is mentioned. We remember the first folks on the moon, because they were "our" guys. Because that was the last "first", we claim we won the space race.
What would the world be like if the Russian hadn't stopped, but had the cash and the will to go to Mars, or to put a base on the Moon? The space program would still be alive and kicking, with an established Moon base (perhaps small, but there), with a space station and a better launch vehicle.
Ironically, if Sagan et. all wanted to go to the Moon to stay, they should have raised money for the Russians... Only the Cold War really drove the space program. Maybe the Chinese are looking for investors?
We seem to have an excellent base in Antarctica, and a good foundation for a moon base. Maybe the new International Space Station will be a launching pad for the Moon, and a permanent moon base. The absence of an atmosphere means you could lay down a solar-collecting array an inch under the dust, for minimal cost with minimal protection. Solar farms could then beam it back to earth, via Sim-City's Microwave power plants.
Just an idea. Won't happen, though, especially now that Bush decided to let us go ahead and depend on coal plants for the next 4 years.
The fastest language in execution speed will probably be the one your programmers are most familiar with. C or Assembly would be the fastest when optimized, but it is also possible to code a really slow implementation. If your programmers start with a language they are familiar with, then learn a bit about optimizing that language, then they should do alright.
Having said that, it sounds like several languages would support your application, and different ones would be best implemented in different languages. A glue language with calling ability to other languages (C, C++) may be good for the central parts, and farm database work out to a database language (MySQL). This way, you can take advantage of speed gains in either domain (C++ speed optimizations for low-level execution, MySQL for quantum database improvements).
This will also force you to think about the design a little more, as well as the interfaces. With good interfaces, the implementation can thrash around a bit, but everyone can still be doing their work, and you can prototype a lot faster.
Of course, I haven't experienced your situation. Why don't you write the developers at Utopia, see what they use, and if they would change anything about their language of choice?
It's good to hear from a first source every once in a while, especially one who can clarify the facts. Good work, Adam.
There was a debate a while back about laptops in college classes, with many folks saying "calculators, etc., just make students lazy, and smarter kids would be better off doing things by hand." The fact that Josh and Adam both used the Geometer's Sketchpad had to be a data point in that arguement.
I'd argue that it helps prove that computer tools help the brightest students do more, especially when they have a solid foundation like these two had. Still unproven is the effect on average students, but I still think it is a benefit.
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 1
It was Upton Sinclair, as even the link you posted proclaims.
I'm glad I can laugh at myself - I have such good material...
At first, I thought it was "Lewis Sinclair", or "Sinclair Lewis" (not sure where that came from), so I searched, found the link, and replaced the wrong words.
Where is the AI spell-checkers? Why is Microsoft's Grammer Check still the state-of-the-art?
I wish we could go back and make corrections to prior posts...
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 3
The way I see it, it could affect people two ways:
It could open their eyes to the sensationalism that is the media (as if the supposed "storm of the century" didn't already do so for most north-easterers >:)). Or
It's just get a reaction of "awesome!" and the next day the viewers will be telling their friends to go see it because of the gory scenes.
Unfortunatly, for most of the populace, it will be the latter.
I agree that the second is worse than the first, but I don't think the first is that great either. Most of the time, we subject ourselves to violent and disgusting images in the media for entertainment value, but it doesn't change our opinions or push us to action. It just makes us less sensitive to violence, and it takes more extreme images to get a reaction, which the media is happy to give us.
One of the best examples of conscience raising was Upton Lewis's The Jungle, a book about the meatpacking industry in the US, was very graphic, and led to government regulation of the industry. People were exposed to the nastiness of the real world, and were spurred to action.
By comparision, Hollywood movies may never do this. I've heard a lot of praise for "Traffic". I don't see any new bills for ending the drug war. It seems that the only ones who found it truly convincing were those opposed to the drug war, and those for it may have had their "eyes openned", but that won't translate to action.
Did the multi-billion dollar "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" convince you that the true meaning of Christmas was not money and material possessions? Jim Carrey and Ron Howard probably didn't get paid in millions of heart-warmings. IMHO. the book was much more effective.
Same thing with this one. What public action do the producers desire? Government regulation of violence in prime time? Probably not. Government regulation of violence in movies? Probably not. Mass Boycotts of trash TV? Probably not. All those things would hurt them financially. Any possible action by the people would hurt them financially, and would be completely unintended.
What they want is for people who criticize Jerry Springer and TV Violence to feel good about themselves, while they enjoy the same trash.
To think otherwise is to say that you should surf over to the Stile Project to gain an appreciation for all varients of sexual practices.
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 1
I know this is a pipe dream now, but really I think it would work wonders for the quality of American television.
No kidding! Most Americans respond "WTF!?!" the first time they hear of the British system. Five channels isn't so bad, I got through most of my childhood that way, but the TV tax seems so ridiculous and counter-intuitive to most Americans. They try to wrap their mind around it, thinking - Oh, like PBS, no commercials. I might pay for that... - but they are wrong. There are commericials, and bad ones at that!
TV is so much of an institution in America, it would be impossible to go to a British system. A dozen channels, for the cost of cable? Poor college students, able to afford a TV, but not the licsensing fee? Survailence vans going down the street, detecting singals from TVs in houses without liscenses, then walking up to that house and searching it? Won't happen here.
It's a bad idea, because the cost/benefit doesn't work out. It's a bad idea, because it means extra equipment for TVs made in smaller batches that don't add to the experience. It's a bad idea, because poorer Americans (and then, often minorities) will be targetted for not owning a liscense, which will not make political sense.
Besides, the low quality of US TV is pushing people into computer entertainment, which is good for everyone but a TV exec.
Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 4
Here is what I got from the movie:
Violence: Bad
Media: Bad
Justice System: Bad
Simple New York Cops Trying to do the Right Thing: Good
That may be paraphrasing the Salon review, but it seems true. Now that I know that, why should I see the movie?
Seriously, it seems very hypocritical, making a movie condemning violence in the media by... making a violent movie. It makes about as much sense as the apologists for Natural Born Killers. These movies don't teach you about violence's role in society, or foster ideas on how to fix the problems: they just rub you up against the violence for a while, getting you a little dirty.
I'm all for entertainment movies, and I can even stand the occasional "Big Message" movie. But when Hollywood (Hollywood!) tries to preach to me (Pay it Forward, Traffic, etc.), I get a nasty feeling in my stomach. Maybe, it's because they are using high-minded concepts as a box-office draw.
I can see the board room meeting now: "Yeah, the self-rightous demographic, that's big. The violence-loving demographic, that's big too. And our research shows, even though they don't want to admit it, the two groups overlap quite a bit. Let's do it!"
Is it possible to implement DeCSS as in an Excel spreadsheet? Is anything possible in Excel?
Sure. You could load the DVD into fields, chunks at a time, and formulas could work on the fields, and you write the results to another file. Since MS products all have Visual Basic extensions, you could automate the process. You could even skip working in the spread sheet, and simply embed the code into the spreadsheet, without actually calling it. If you got the code into some company memo, perhaps even made it self-copying, then a whole company could get "infected" by the macro, which wouldn't do anything, just sit there for folks to look at.
Now, that would be an interesting Melissa varient - no actual damage, just email around the DeCSS code, so that the majority had a copy. You could even be nice, and have the self-replication die after 7 iterations or so. Or, try embeding Metallica songs into the background. There are a few interesting posibilities.
So if Microsoft succeeds in making Office 12.0 a subscription-only kind of thing someday, and someone figures out a way to substantially infringe copyright using some part of the software package, it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS would get sued for vicarious and/or contributory infringement. (The fact that they have a legal department the size of Brazil is another matter, however.)
Interesting point. I'm having a hard time thinking of infringing uses, however. DOC files of Harlan Ellison Stories? DeCSS as an Excel file? PowerPoint presentation by Marketing, Images via the Matrix, Soundtrack by Metallica?
They probably have thought about these things, and think that the existing laws grant them immunity. Maybe you have to click "I Agree" twice, to really prove you won't hold Microsoft liable!
Sorry, we're running outside the realm of "on-topic" comments. Interesting discussion, but this isn't the forum.
The answer seems to be that law and tech don't mix (outside of scientology).
For instance, p2p technology makes it possible to distribute binary data in a way such that copying costs are distributed to users. If you want a particular file, you can pay for the connection, the computer, the hard drive space, and get that file from someone else. The more popular a peice of binary data is, the more availible it becomes (more people have downloaded it, meaning more availible copies for upload). It is a rather clever solution to distribution problems.
The law, however, contrubutes copyright limitations, which require a bit of legal communication (often paperwork) to allow someone to make copies of a work. In this system, you need to have a distributer with the capacity to distribute the desired copies, and an agreement to compensate the copyright holders for each copy.
Technologically, it is simple, self-scaling, and cheap. Legally, it is complex, inefficient, and expensive. Yet, rule of law, bureaucracy, and other features of our government appear to contribute to stability and prosperity of our country. Go figure.
Is it possible for there to be a compelling legal argument for software manufacturers to start providing safety controls to prevent code with an illegal intent from running? I'd like to hope that I'm speculating out on the "kook" end of a slippery slope, but I do think it's a point worth thinking about.
This would be a good idea - make software manufacturers legally liable for security holes that others could demonstrate could be avoided. It could be done in such a way that the first security breach is free, but companies could sue creators for further breaches.
Unfortunatly, Microsoft et. all have lawyers, and they make sure you agree to waive all liability claims. Don't you know that clicking "I Agree" is as legally binding as signing away your rights with two witnesses' signatures?
This is one of the benefits in selling a Product (like Microsoft does) vs. a Service (like Napster tried to) - once you sell a product, you can protect yourself with limited warrenties, instructions, warning labels, etc. (Philip-Morris - "It says it may kill you on the side of the package!") If you sell a service, you are liable for any illegal activities performed using the service (as long as you could stop them, are informed of the violation, etc. etc.).
This standard would allow anyone who produced a single component to claim no knowledge of how it may be used in the end (ie The BETAMAX defense). The user is the one who decides to put the program together and use it for either infringing uses, or non-infringing uses.
According to the article (which is increasingly more difficult to get to), yes, and in fact is one of the few possible strategies for legally defensible P2P products.
The other strategy would be a legal, completely controlled product that integrates search, transfer, chat, etc. This would be pretty restrictive, and the RIAA would love it. I bet Microsoft is developing one right now, and attaching an operating system to it.
One of the weak points of the multi-tool strategy may be the search engine. The RIAA may be able to convince a judge that searches could be filtered based on songs. A judge may be convinced if searches were formulated in the "Artist", "Song" categories that Napster uses.
One interesting non-infringing use would be transfer of text files that the author put in the public domain. For instance, if I wrote a thesis titled Analysis of Feminist Issues in Britanny Spears songs, focusing on "Baby Hit Me One More Time", then a filtered search engine would block it.
This promotes two plans of action. First, search engines and other products need to be file-type agnostic, so that the lawyers can't argue about filtering on.MP3 files. Second, we all need to start writing public-domain position papers on pop stars and songs. Death and Religion in Metallica's "Enter Sandman", anyone?
Is just about the most bullshit thing I can think of. Does that mean that Linus T. is responsible for every little skr1pt k1dd13 who hacks a website using linux? Today in salon I saw a great quote: Are the makers of pantyhose liable for bank robberies, because they are fully aware that robbers use thier products for concealment?
Obviously not. Because Linux is open-source, and because Linus doesn't add skr1pt k1dd13 features to it, Linus can't be sued. He has no control over the script kiddies - he can't stop them from obtaining Linux, and he can't restrict them from using the operation system for their purposes.
Pantyhose manufacturers are in the same boat - their product is be used in a way they don't endorse and can't control.
Napster can control its users - it can ban them when it is notified of copyright enfringement (however ineffective that banning is). It is reasonably aware of infringement, based on internal emails, advertising they created, and their own hard drives.
They are profitting from the trading of copyrighted materials - the more that are availible, the more users there are, and the more venture capital they can obtain. Their salaries are being funded by that capital.
They can also prevent it by limiting search queries, which is technically difficult but not impossible. By including search capabilities in their product, they both facilitate copyright infringement, and give themselves a means to prevent it.
Napster has the means of blocking illegal activites and it profits from illegal activities, in the minds of the judges. The article explained all this. Did you read it?
I am thrilled that a lawyer finally put in his two cents, and that the article was well-written and researched. At the end, he even defines IAAL and IANAL, and mentions SlashDot. Someone with a real, expert opininon!
File sharing is here to stay, including sharing music, movies, etc. Those that create the systems will be under constant legal attack until either the law changes or a legally defensible system is created.
This article draws a huge grey line between legal and illegal systems, and Naspter is clearly on the illegal side, and in a lot of trouble. If you disagree, read the article, and then come back and argue.
There is room on the legal side, however. The best news is, the most legal software would be anarchist open-source free software! Microsoft will never make it!
This may be the dividing line between Linux and Microsoft - Microsoft's product would be popular, legal, but limited, while the Linux equvalent would be geeky, illegal but unenforcable, and unlimited. Perhaps even a legal, open-source version could be created, to meet the criteria halfway.
Good news and bad news. Good news, more people will try Linux to satisfy their Napster desires. Bad news, Linux will get a further reputation as a haven for pirates and hackers (hackers in the media sense).
We all have a good idea of what the Microsoft solution will be: Encryption and copy protection enforced at the operating system level, designed to fit the desires of the RIAA. We should try to beat them to the punch, creating a legal system that allows some freedoms, rather than the anarchist systems proposed elsewhere.
I'm not positive, but ISTM that the original BIFF was a PSUVM user. But I could be mistaken.
The Jargon File claims that the famous B1FF was Joe Talmadge, creator of the Flamer's Bible - it doesn't say where he started out, but his current address is at HP. There might have been an original BIFF, but this guy apparently used scripts to help him along.
The Jargon File, maintained by esr, is an interesting reference - I've been through the thing, and you pick up little peices of lore. Not as good as experiencing it first hand, but you do find gems like Jeff K.
Has Slashdot encountered this problem yet, with their Anonymous coward postings?
Nah, anyone with useful information has already left, or won't post what they know.
Microsoft doesn't seem too hurt, even though thousands of Slashdot AC's bash them and their products daily.
Suing over personal insults? The insults have risen in volume and frequency, it seems pointless. Can you really get offended at the ocean, or background noise?
The folks that should be suing are those at goatse.cx; they must get SlashDotted daily!
But there's one thing I just don't get about it: why do the juveniles and anonymous cowards focus so much of their energy on destruction?
It's mostly (I think) a lack of any true sense of responsibility for actions. This comes with age, as you begin to empathize with others, and respect the feelings of others. But it does come with age, and you can't apply adult morality to children and adolescents.
I feel I was a fairly good kid (my parents seem to agree, looking at my younger brothers), but I remember instances as a child and adolescent when I was cruel, when I destroyed other's property, and when I thought things like the anarchist's cookbook were cool. Looking back, it was as if I was a different person, and I'm glad I grew out of it, and I still think I was a good kid. If I did the same things today, though, I'd have to admit I was a bad adult.
Parents seem to understand this - that you can't reason with young children, and often a little spank is all that will stop their animalistic impulses. Eventually, the kids internalize what is right and wrong, and non-corporal punishment (grounding, extra chores, whatever) becomes a reasonable deterrent. Eventually, when they have matured some more, you can give them rational reasons for what is right and wrong, and indeed they demand them (heaven help the parents that are still saying "Because I told you!"). Sometime after they ask for rational reasons behind rules, they recognize that not all rules are rational, and either fight them (which is good, if the rule is bad), or they respect them, because of the rewards of following the rules (stay out of jail, earn the respect of those that love them and/or have control over them).
So, we can't do much for the annoying elements of SlashDot - they have to follow the rules themselves. We can hope that someday they try to run for office, or get promoted, and their goatse.cx links come back to haunt them (formative years my ass!!!).
I secretly hope that the Slashdot moderators are recording data about anonymous posters, etc, and will one day create SlashJustice, where you can find the names and addresses of the most annoying posters, ranked by how close they are to you. You could then exercise SlashJustice on their asses. Penny Arcade had a comic on the issue, but it's amoung those lost in the server move.
The USSR and the USA dealt with each other in a much more cordial manner at the height of the cold war, when each was prepared to completely annihilate the entire planet!
You also have to remember, for every US/USSR summit with its dignified and cordial atmosphere, there was a Sylvester Stallone movie or a Vietnam. We weren't always very nice to each other.
Hey, Moderators: Is it really off-topic if it was an honest responce to a previous post?
The one thing that I will miss about the "digerati" (as Jon calls them) is that they really believed in the Net as a medium to facilitate our communications among ourselves as a group of peers, as members of communities.
I'll miss the idealist Internet as well, but remember, that is mostly a white, middle-class, college educated dream, and even mostly European or even American. That kind of idealism only really exists in isolation, or in a few battle-hardened individuals who can no longer think another way.
My wife works in a literacy service, and she has be instrumental in integrating computer education into adult literacy services. Some of the students have really been amazed by the web, and have become self-taught web surfers. It's interactive nature, which also provides information on almost any subject, is great for motivating students to keep learning to read. They may start out on Britney Spears and Temptation Island, but they don't have to stop there.
It is hard for her, however, when one of these students wants to buy a computer for themselves. They feel limited by the computer lab, which often requires a bus trip downtown, during work hours. They want to surf at night, which would mean daily reading practive. However, even low-cost computers are prohibitively expensive at minimum wage.
The sense of community that many of us get on the web is fuelled by a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, where it is reasonable to pay $X per month for a computer, or even buy it all at once. We don't even have to decide between a computer, cable, a fast Internet connection, constant air conditioning and heating, eating out, having a car, and a game console.
This new phase in Internet growth, into mass media, will create a new class of newbies. We are already seeing them, the web page builders who don't bother with spell check, those that surf to web pages provided by television, who don't know about filters, DMCA, MPAA, RIAA, etc.
But they bring with them lots of money, some to be invested in infrastructure, and gets this tech thing the respect of politicians and the media. Prices will continue to go down, letting more people get online, further narrowing any digital divide.
The "old school" messages will be competing with the "Valuetainment" messages, and the bad guys will win. Not because they are right, or the best, but because we will continue to act elite, evangelize the "one true way" to ourselves while never explaining it to outsiders, and general turn anyone off who may thing of joining us.
If we really wanted to win the culture war, we would be making the ultimate "Guide to the Web" website, explaining everything from how to turn on your computer to HTML to building a kernel and beyond. Instead, they'll go to www.disney.com for their information.
The days of the Digirati are over, and they will not be missed.
Oh, yes, they will. Those days you could still keep up with Usenet, the days 99% of posts was relevant to the group and the previous message, those days when "Flame" stood for an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal, instead of moronic incendiary gutter-drivel, the days of the Crystal Cave, the days the 'net _was_ free and open, and abuse and crass commercialism non-existent. They will be missed, Jon, until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers and nail the coffin shut. And I bet many will agree, if maybe not here.
I call bullshit. Maybe you really feel this way, but stop whining - if you really are hanging around bemoaning the good ol' days, then it means you have gotten slow.
September refers to the start of the fall semester, when a whole bunch of Freshmen in college got access to the Usenet, and all the veterans (many of them sophmores) had to start educating the newbies in ettiquitte and "the way things are done around here". It made things more civil, more of a tight-nit community, etc., because the numbers were small enough that the old users always outnumbered the new users.
The September that Never Ended refers to when AOL openned Usenet access for it's members, and the newbie outnumbered the old-timers by huge margins. Usenet got overwhelmed by uncouth barbarians who didn't learn the rules, didn't want to learn the rules, and were numerous enough never to be taught properly.
What did the old-timers do? Some tried to cope, updating the FAQ, and making sure that new folks knew that there were rules to be followed if they wanted to be accepted and respected. Others bitched and moaned, and were called elitist for their whining. Others, who couldn't stand the newbies, formed other, smaller newsgroups or mailing lists, and abandoned those when they got too popular.
Those that did not like associating with every Tom, Dick, or Harry paying $14.95 for AOL access has two choices: stay and complain, or create something new. Those creative types gave us many new forums: ICQ, excelent mailing lists, moderated newsgroups, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, etc. When their pet group gets too popular, they will move on to something new, and take their friends with them.
These forums (Usenet, Slashdot, etc) get good because creative folks invest themselves into making them good. Even the common user recognizes quality, and wants a part of it (or, more annoyingly, to destroy it). Good forums and good ideas will eventually get popular. Deal with it, or move on and make something better.
Besides, you will always have something to divide the lamers from the elites. AOL vs. "pure" ISP. MSIE vs. fringe browser. FrontPage vs. HTML by hand. Web user vs. web builder. RPM user vs. Make user. GUI vs. CLI. HLL vs. Assembly. Diable vs. Angband. Internet Multiplayer vs. LAN party. Whatever you use to make yourself more superior than the next guy, go ahead, latch yourself onto it.
For my part, I welcome an Internet that is less white, middle-class, college-educated Americans. One that doesn't get deomonized by politicians, or blamed for school shootings, but one that is part of our lives, with a supported backbone, and enough space for everyone to play.
You mean, like the way they optimize for MHz over other, useful things, like flops? Remember when AMD did that little ad campaign of "Our 800 MHz chip is faster than Intel's 766 MHz chip!" How many "normal" people followed that one? Today, MHz is the standard rating of speed, and is misleading. mflops would be a much better measure (although you're right that, with different ops taking different amounts of time, you'd have to carefully define what you mean by an operation).
It is true that MHz is less useful than FLOPS for determining performance. Also, with the numbers becoming huge, there isn't much difference betweem 766 MHz and 800 MHz, not as much as 100Mhz and 133 MHz. Still, with the same arcitecture, you can make rough estimates based on clock speed (100 Mhz Pentium vs 133 Mhz Pentium, if that is possible).
When you compare across processors, you have to start looking elsewhere. As another poster mentions, FLOPS (especially Multiple-Accumulate) is important for signal processing. Still, I would rather see benchmarks for two signal processing programs running on the same processor. That way, you are comparing apples to apples.
The mind boggles at what this new kind of tech means. What does a NOP mean? Do interrupts still work? Are multi-process pipelines still possible? How does memory (timed refresh, tight processor-to-memory channels) work? Video card interfaces? Other devices that may feed off the system clock? This device may be years away from commercial use, may never run Microsoft, and may take a while to even run Linux. The whole discussion seems rather academic, and the technology may only be used in academic or high-end applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Birds seem to often get adversely affected by alternate energy sources. Reflective solar panels blind them, the best place for a windmill is in an air current, which they like as well, and now they get microwaved in flight.
That's fairly interesting - any web sites on the subject?
I read a bit on using microwaves to transmit power, in an article on technology that may come to pass in the next 100 years. The idea was to place solar energy plants on the moon (burying the wires just a little under the dust), then use orbiting mirrors to control the beam back to earth. It sounded interesting, and had some milestones to make it possible: a space station as a stepping stone to the moon, moon bases powered by solar energy, manufacturing on the moon, etc.
I find it hard to imagine a future where we aren't in space, eventually. It's all that science fiction from the 60's, I guess. The hard part seems to be to figure out a reason to leave the planet in the first place.
Not to be offtopic (what moderator is reading now?), but less than half of the voters voted for him. And less than half of the population voted. Government by 1/3 of the people, for 1/3 of the people.
My favorite election quote is "If God intended us to vote, he would have given us candidates."
I've been thinking about that over the weekend. A few times in the last few days, I heard about Yuri Gugarin. He was the first man in space, and is still idolized by the Russians, but most Americans go "Huh?" when his name is mentioned. We remember the first folks on the moon, because they were "our" guys. Because that was the last "first", we claim we won the space race.
What would the world be like if the Russian hadn't stopped, but had the cash and the will to go to Mars, or to put a base on the Moon? The space program would still be alive and kicking, with an established Moon base (perhaps small, but there), with a space station and a better launch vehicle.
Ironically, if Sagan et. all wanted to go to the Moon to stay, they should have raised money for the Russians... Only the Cold War really drove the space program. Maybe the Chinese are looking for investors?
We seem to have an excellent base in Antarctica, and a good foundation for a moon base. Maybe the new International Space Station will be a launching pad for the Moon, and a permanent moon base. The absence of an atmosphere means you could lay down a solar-collecting array an inch under the dust, for minimal cost with minimal protection. Solar farms could then beam it back to earth, via Sim-City's Microwave power plants.
Just an idea. Won't happen, though, especially now that Bush decided to let us go ahead and depend on coal plants for the next 4 years.
D.M.C.A.
used as weapon; Taco bends
but he never breaks
Having said that, it sounds like several languages would support your application, and different ones would be best implemented in different languages. A glue language with calling ability to other languages (C, C++) may be good for the central parts, and farm database work out to a database language (MySQL). This way, you can take advantage of speed gains in either domain (C++ speed optimizations for low-level execution, MySQL for quantum database improvements).
This will also force you to think about the design a little more, as well as the interfaces. With good interfaces, the implementation can thrash around a bit, but everyone can still be doing their work, and you can prototype a lot faster.
Of course, I haven't experienced your situation. Why don't you write the developers at Utopia, see what they use, and if they would change anything about their language of choice?
There was a debate a while back about laptops in college classes, with many folks saying "calculators, etc., just make students lazy, and smarter kids would be better off doing things by hand." The fact that Josh and Adam both used the Geometer's Sketchpad had to be a data point in that arguement.
I'd argue that it helps prove that computer tools help the brightest students do more, especially when they have a solid foundation like these two had. Still unproven is the effect on average students, but I still think it is a benefit.
I'm glad I can laugh at myself - I have such good material...
At first, I thought it was "Lewis Sinclair", or "Sinclair Lewis" (not sure where that came from), so I searched, found the link, and replaced the wrong words.
Where is the AI spell-checkers? Why is Microsoft's Grammer Check still the state-of-the-art?
I wish we could go back and make corrections to prior posts...
- It could open their eyes to the sensationalism that is the media (as if the supposed "storm of the century" didn't already do so for most north-easterers >:)). Or
- It's just get a reaction of "awesome!" and the next day the viewers will be telling their friends to go see it because of the gory scenes.
Unfortunatly, for most of the populace, it will be the latter.I agree that the second is worse than the first, but I don't think the first is that great either. Most of the time, we subject ourselves to violent and disgusting images in the media for entertainment value, but it doesn't change our opinions or push us to action. It just makes us less sensitive to violence, and it takes more extreme images to get a reaction, which the media is happy to give us.
One of the best examples of conscience raising was Upton Lewis's The Jungle, a book about the meatpacking industry in the US, was very graphic, and led to government regulation of the industry. People were exposed to the nastiness of the real world, and were spurred to action.
By comparision, Hollywood movies may never do this. I've heard a lot of praise for "Traffic". I don't see any new bills for ending the drug war. It seems that the only ones who found it truly convincing were those opposed to the drug war, and those for it may have had their "eyes openned", but that won't translate to action.
Did the multi-billion dollar "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" convince you that the true meaning of Christmas was not money and material possessions? Jim Carrey and Ron Howard probably didn't get paid in millions of heart-warmings. IMHO. the book was much more effective.
Same thing with this one. What public action do the producers desire? Government regulation of violence in prime time? Probably not. Government regulation of violence in movies? Probably not. Mass Boycotts of trash TV? Probably not. All those things would hurt them financially. Any possible action by the people would hurt them financially, and would be completely unintended.
What they want is for people who criticize Jerry Springer and TV Violence to feel good about themselves, while they enjoy the same trash.
To think otherwise is to say that you should surf over to the Stile Project to gain an appreciation for all varients of sexual practices.
No kidding! Most Americans respond "WTF!?!" the first time they hear of the British system. Five channels isn't so bad, I got through most of my childhood that way, but the TV tax seems so ridiculous and counter-intuitive to most Americans. They try to wrap their mind around it, thinking - Oh, like PBS, no commercials. I might pay for that... - but they are wrong. There are commericials, and bad ones at that!
TV is so much of an institution in America, it would be impossible to go to a British system. A dozen channels, for the cost of cable? Poor college students, able to afford a TV, but not the licsensing fee? Survailence vans going down the street, detecting singals from TVs in houses without liscenses, then walking up to that house and searching it? Won't happen here.
It's a bad idea, because the cost/benefit doesn't work out. It's a bad idea, because it means extra equipment for TVs made in smaller batches that don't add to the experience. It's a bad idea, because poorer Americans (and then, often minorities) will be targetted for not owning a liscense, which will not make political sense.
Besides, the low quality of US TV is pushing people into computer entertainment, which is good for everyone but a TV exec.
Violence: Bad
Media: Bad
Justice System: Bad
Simple New York Cops Trying to do the Right Thing: Good
That may be paraphrasing the Salon review, but it seems true. Now that I know that, why should I see the movie?
Seriously, it seems very hypocritical, making a movie condemning violence in the media by... making a violent movie. It makes about as much sense as the apologists for Natural Born Killers. These movies don't teach you about violence's role in society, or foster ideas on how to fix the problems: they just rub you up against the violence for a while, getting you a little dirty.
I'm all for entertainment movies, and I can even stand the occasional "Big Message" movie. But when Hollywood (Hollywood!) tries to preach to me (Pay it Forward, Traffic, etc.), I get a nasty feeling in my stomach. Maybe, it's because they are using high-minded concepts as a box-office draw.
I can see the board room meeting now: "Yeah, the self-rightous demographic, that's big. The violence-loving demographic, that's big too. And our research shows, even though they don't want to admit it, the two groups overlap quite a bit. Let's do it!"
Sure. You could load the DVD into fields, chunks at a time, and formulas could work on the fields, and you write the results to another file. Since MS products all have Visual Basic extensions, you could automate the process. You could even skip working in the spread sheet, and simply embed the code into the spreadsheet, without actually calling it. If you got the code into some company memo, perhaps even made it self-copying, then a whole company could get "infected" by the macro, which wouldn't do anything, just sit there for folks to look at.
Now, that would be an interesting Melissa varient - no actual damage, just email around the DeCSS code, so that the majority had a copy. You could even be nice, and have the self-replication die after 7 iterations or so. Or, try embeding Metallica songs into the background. There are a few interesting posibilities.
Interesting point. I'm having a hard time thinking of infringing uses, however. DOC files of Harlan Ellison Stories? DeCSS as an Excel file? PowerPoint presentation by Marketing, Images via the Matrix, Soundtrack by Metallica?
They probably have thought about these things, and think that the existing laws grant them immunity. Maybe you have to click "I Agree" twice, to really prove you won't hold Microsoft liable!
The answer seems to be that law and tech don't mix (outside of scientology).
For instance, p2p technology makes it possible to distribute binary data in a way such that copying costs are distributed to users. If you want a particular file, you can pay for the connection, the computer, the hard drive space, and get that file from someone else. The more popular a peice of binary data is, the more availible it becomes (more people have downloaded it, meaning more availible copies for upload). It is a rather clever solution to distribution problems.
The law, however, contrubutes copyright limitations, which require a bit of legal communication (often paperwork) to allow someone to make copies of a work. In this system, you need to have a distributer with the capacity to distribute the desired copies, and an agreement to compensate the copyright holders for each copy.
Technologically, it is simple, self-scaling, and cheap. Legally, it is complex, inefficient, and expensive. Yet, rule of law, bureaucracy, and other features of our government appear to contribute to stability and prosperity of our country. Go figure.
This would be a good idea - make software manufacturers legally liable for security holes that others could demonstrate could be avoided. It could be done in such a way that the first security breach is free, but companies could sue creators for further breaches.
Unfortunatly, Microsoft et. all have lawyers, and they make sure you agree to waive all liability claims. Don't you know that clicking "I Agree" is as legally binding as signing away your rights with two witnesses' signatures?
This is one of the benefits in selling a Product (like Microsoft does) vs. a Service (like Napster tried to) - once you sell a product, you can protect yourself with limited warrenties, instructions, warning labels, etc. (Philip-Morris - "It says it may kill you on the side of the package!") If you sell a service, you are liable for any illegal activities performed using the service (as long as you could stop them, are informed of the violation, etc. etc.).
According to the article (which is increasingly more difficult to get to), yes, and in fact is one of the few possible strategies for legally defensible P2P products.
The other strategy would be a legal, completely controlled product that integrates search, transfer, chat, etc. This would be pretty restrictive, and the RIAA would love it. I bet Microsoft is developing one right now, and attaching an operating system to it.
One of the weak points of the multi-tool strategy may be the search engine. The RIAA may be able to convince a judge that searches could be filtered based on songs. A judge may be convinced if searches were formulated in the "Artist", "Song" categories that Napster uses.
One interesting non-infringing use would be transfer of text files that the author put in the public domain. For instance, if I wrote a thesis titled Analysis of Feminist Issues in Britanny Spears songs, focusing on "Baby Hit Me One More Time", then a filtered search engine would block it.
This promotes two plans of action. First, search engines and other products need to be file-type agnostic, so that the lawyers can't argue about filtering on .MP3 files. Second, we all need to start writing public-domain position papers on pop stars and songs. Death and Religion in Metallica's "Enter Sandman", anyone?
Obviously not. Because Linux is open-source, and because Linus doesn't add skr1pt k1dd13 features to it, Linus can't be sued. He has no control over the script kiddies - he can't stop them from obtaining Linux, and he can't restrict them from using the operation system for their purposes.
Pantyhose manufacturers are in the same boat - their product is be used in a way they don't endorse and can't control.
Napster can control its users - it can ban them when it is notified of copyright enfringement (however ineffective that banning is). It is reasonably aware of infringement, based on internal emails, advertising they created, and their own hard drives.
They are profitting from the trading of copyrighted materials - the more that are availible, the more users there are, and the more venture capital they can obtain. Their salaries are being funded by that capital.
They can also prevent it by limiting search queries, which is technically difficult but not impossible. By including search capabilities in their product, they both facilitate copyright infringement, and give themselves a means to prevent it.
Napster has the means of blocking illegal activites and it profits from illegal activities, in the minds of the judges. The article explained all this. Did you read it?
File sharing is here to stay, including sharing music, movies, etc. Those that create the systems will be under constant legal attack until either the law changes or a legally defensible system is created.
This article draws a huge grey line between legal and illegal systems, and Naspter is clearly on the illegal side, and in a lot of trouble. If you disagree, read the article, and then come back and argue.
There is room on the legal side, however. The best news is, the most legal software would be anarchist open-source free software! Microsoft will never make it!
This may be the dividing line between Linux and Microsoft - Microsoft's product would be popular, legal, but limited, while the Linux equvalent would be geeky, illegal but unenforcable, and unlimited. Perhaps even a legal, open-source version could be created, to meet the criteria halfway.
Good news and bad news. Good news, more people will try Linux to satisfy their Napster desires. Bad news, Linux will get a further reputation as a haven for pirates and hackers (hackers in the media sense).
We all have a good idea of what the Microsoft solution will be: Encryption and copy protection enforced at the operating system level, designed to fit the desires of the RIAA. We should try to beat them to the punch, creating a legal system that allows some freedoms, rather than the anarchist systems proposed elsewhere.
The Jargon File claims that the famous B1FF was Joe Talmadge, creator of the Flamer's Bible - it doesn't say where he started out, but his current address is at HP. There might have been an original BIFF, but this guy apparently used scripts to help him along.
The Jargon File, maintained by esr, is an interesting reference - I've been through the thing, and you pick up little peices of lore. Not as good as experiencing it first hand, but you do find gems like Jeff K.
Nah, anyone with useful information has already left, or won't post what they know.
Microsoft doesn't seem too hurt, even though thousands of Slashdot AC's bash them and their products daily.
Suing over personal insults? The insults have risen in volume and frequency, it seems pointless. Can you really get offended at the ocean, or background noise?
The folks that should be suing are those at goatse.cx; they must get SlashDotted daily!
PSUVM? Not even Everything2 knew what that meant. Definition please?
It's mostly (I think) a lack of any true sense of responsibility for actions. This comes with age, as you begin to empathize with others, and respect the feelings of others. But it does come with age, and you can't apply adult morality to children and adolescents.
I feel I was a fairly good kid (my parents seem to agree, looking at my younger brothers), but I remember instances as a child and adolescent when I was cruel, when I destroyed other's property, and when I thought things like the anarchist's cookbook were cool. Looking back, it was as if I was a different person, and I'm glad I grew out of it, and I still think I was a good kid. If I did the same things today, though, I'd have to admit I was a bad adult.
Parents seem to understand this - that you can't reason with young children, and often a little spank is all that will stop their animalistic impulses. Eventually, the kids internalize what is right and wrong, and non-corporal punishment (grounding, extra chores, whatever) becomes a reasonable deterrent. Eventually, when they have matured some more, you can give them rational reasons for what is right and wrong, and indeed they demand them (heaven help the parents that are still saying "Because I told you!"). Sometime after they ask for rational reasons behind rules, they recognize that not all rules are rational, and either fight them (which is good, if the rule is bad), or they respect them, because of the rewards of following the rules (stay out of jail, earn the respect of those that love them and/or have control over them).
So, we can't do much for the annoying elements of SlashDot - they have to follow the rules themselves. We can hope that someday they try to run for office, or get promoted, and their goatse.cx links come back to haunt them (formative years my ass!!!).
I secretly hope that the Slashdot moderators are recording data about anonymous posters, etc, and will one day create SlashJustice, where you can find the names and addresses of the most annoying posters, ranked by how close they are to you. You could then exercise SlashJustice on their asses. Penny Arcade had a comic on the issue, but it's amoung those lost in the server move.
The USSR and the USA dealt with each other in a much more cordial manner at the height of the cold war, when each was prepared to completely annihilate the entire planet!
You also have to remember, for every US/USSR summit with its dignified and cordial atmosphere, there was a Sylvester Stallone movie or a Vietnam. We weren't always very nice to each other.
Hey, Moderators: Is it really off-topic if it was an honest responce to a previous post?
I'll miss the idealist Internet as well, but remember, that is mostly a white, middle-class, college educated dream, and even mostly European or even American. That kind of idealism only really exists in isolation, or in a few battle-hardened individuals who can no longer think another way.
My wife works in a literacy service, and she has be instrumental in integrating computer education into adult literacy services. Some of the students have really been amazed by the web, and have become self-taught web surfers. It's interactive nature, which also provides information on almost any subject, is great for motivating students to keep learning to read. They may start out on Britney Spears and Temptation Island, but they don't have to stop there.
It is hard for her, however, when one of these students wants to buy a computer for themselves. They feel limited by the computer lab, which often requires a bus trip downtown, during work hours. They want to surf at night, which would mean daily reading practive. However, even low-cost computers are prohibitively expensive at minimum wage.
The sense of community that many of us get on the web is fuelled by a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, where it is reasonable to pay $X per month for a computer, or even buy it all at once. We don't even have to decide between a computer, cable, a fast Internet connection, constant air conditioning and heating, eating out, having a car, and a game console.
This new phase in Internet growth, into mass media, will create a new class of newbies. We are already seeing them, the web page builders who don't bother with spell check, those that surf to web pages provided by television, who don't know about filters, DMCA, MPAA, RIAA, etc. But they bring with them lots of money, some to be invested in infrastructure, and gets this tech thing the respect of politicians and the media. Prices will continue to go down, letting more people get online, further narrowing any digital divide.
The "old school" messages will be competing with the "Valuetainment" messages, and the bad guys will win. Not because they are right, or the best, but because we will continue to act elite, evangelize the "one true way" to ourselves while never explaining it to outsiders, and general turn anyone off who may thing of joining us.
If we really wanted to win the culture war, we would be making the ultimate "Guide to the Web" website, explaining everything from how to turn on your computer to HTML to building a kernel and beyond. Instead, they'll go to www.disney.com for their information.
Sorry, trailed off in a rant there...
Oh, yes, they will. Those days you could still keep up with Usenet, the days 99% of posts was relevant to the group and the previous message, those days when "Flame" stood for an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal, instead of moronic incendiary gutter-drivel, the days of the Crystal Cave, the days the 'net _was_ free and open, and abuse and crass commercialism non-existent. They will be missed, Jon, until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers and nail the coffin shut. And I bet many will agree, if maybe not here.
I call bullshit. Maybe you really feel this way, but stop whining - if you really are hanging around bemoaning the good ol' days, then it means you have gotten slow.
September refers to the start of the fall semester, when a whole bunch of Freshmen in college got access to the Usenet, and all the veterans (many of them sophmores) had to start educating the newbies in ettiquitte and "the way things are done around here". It made things more civil, more of a tight-nit community, etc., because the numbers were small enough that the old users always outnumbered the new users.
The September that Never Ended refers to when AOL openned Usenet access for it's members, and the newbie outnumbered the old-timers by huge margins. Usenet got overwhelmed by uncouth barbarians who didn't learn the rules, didn't want to learn the rules, and were numerous enough never to be taught properly.
What did the old-timers do? Some tried to cope, updating the FAQ, and making sure that new folks knew that there were rules to be followed if they wanted to be accepted and respected. Others bitched and moaned, and were called elitist for their whining. Others, who couldn't stand the newbies, formed other, smaller newsgroups or mailing lists, and abandoned those when they got too popular.
Those that did not like associating with every Tom, Dick, or Harry paying $14.95 for AOL access has two choices: stay and complain, or create something new. Those creative types gave us many new forums: ICQ, excelent mailing lists, moderated newsgroups, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, etc. When their pet group gets too popular, they will move on to something new, and take their friends with them.
These forums (Usenet, Slashdot, etc) get good because creative folks invest themselves into making them good. Even the common user recognizes quality, and wants a part of it (or, more annoyingly, to destroy it). Good forums and good ideas will eventually get popular. Deal with it, or move on and make something better.
Besides, you will always have something to divide the lamers from the elites. AOL vs. "pure" ISP. MSIE vs. fringe browser. FrontPage vs. HTML by hand. Web user vs. web builder. RPM user vs. Make user. GUI vs. CLI. HLL vs. Assembly. Diable vs. Angband. Internet Multiplayer vs. LAN party. Whatever you use to make yourself more superior than the next guy, go ahead, latch yourself onto it.
For my part, I welcome an Internet that is less white, middle-class, college-educated Americans. One that doesn't get deomonized by politicians, or blamed for school shootings, but one that is part of our lives, with a supported backbone, and enough space for everyone to play.
It is true that MHz is less useful than FLOPS for determining performance. Also, with the numbers becoming huge, there isn't much difference betweem 766 MHz and 800 MHz, not as much as 100Mhz and 133 MHz. Still, with the same arcitecture, you can make rough estimates based on clock speed (100 Mhz Pentium vs 133 Mhz Pentium, if that is possible).
When you compare across processors, you have to start looking elsewhere. As another poster mentions, FLOPS (especially Multiple-Accumulate) is important for signal processing. Still, I would rather see benchmarks for two signal processing programs running on the same processor. That way, you are comparing apples to apples.
The mind boggles at what this new kind of tech means. What does a NOP mean? Do interrupts still work? Are multi-process pipelines still possible? How does memory (timed refresh, tight processor-to-memory channels) work? Video card interfaces? Other devices that may feed off the system clock? This device may be years away from commercial use, may never run Microsoft, and may take a while to even run Linux. The whole discussion seems rather academic, and the technology may only be used in academic or high-end applications.