You're not breaking anything to me - and you could and should take these up with Steve.
I'm not defending or decrying his propositions, opinions or anything else. And I could find a bunch of people who would take issue with your objections - that's not the point.
"How The Mind Works" and "The Language Instinct" made me want to know more about the subject, more so than most anything else I'd read.
Pinker writes stuff people want to read. Hopefully it makes them think. If they understand that the product of science it theories, and that they are in flux, subject to test and proof, great. If they don't, then they need something else.
Simply put, science and its role in the world needs more popular exposure, better writers, and evocative works.
As a teacher of science for close to three decades, a lot of what's out there is sleep-inducing, much more is flat out wroing. To get people thinking, I'll take a contested theory with a gripping story over either a boring article or alien autposies.
What do you think about science journalism? It's invaluable when it's good, it's depressing when it's bad. It's often put in the wrong hands (propagandized) and this causes entanglememts.
How can it better communicate to the general public about science and the scientific method?
it can start by stopping using the phrase "the scientific method" as if scientists don white coats, head into the lab at 9 and by using test tubes and computers, discover gravity by 5 and head home to smoke their pipes. The scientific method can be boiled down to simple steps: observe, measure, predict. Repeat as needed, and each consecutive time 'observe' serces as 'verify' and the ball starts rolling again.
Can science journalism do a better job of helping people distinguish science from pseudoscience?"
It had better, and damn soon, or else the dowsers and the channelers will be running things in short time. Overly technical sci/tech journalism turns things off - then folks glue themseves to overly-simplified, dumbed-down, corner-cutting explanations of crop circles, aliens, and (insert your favorite FOX show here).
Ask Randi, Mike Shermer, call John McPhee and the likes of Steve Pinker, Steve Hawking and a bunch of others.
More soon, but there's a roast duck coming out of the oven and the keyboard doesn't do drool all that well.
1. scour the web for news 2. add star trek is cool & bill is evil stories 3. invent toy economy / community building points system 4. ??? 4.5 damn! clickthru ads aren't working (hello?!) screw with #3 4.75 blast! screwing with 3 isn't working - screw with the very fabric of space/time itself 5. profit!
j'ever think of giving contributors a free pass after
Means I don't have to buy a whole album for one or two songs, the commpanies make just as much money so they're happy, aside from it's not free as in air, what's not to like?
That "cross platform" is even in the MS lexicon? They are the very embodiment of single platform thinking.
I still haven't figured out why they're so nice to Mac with their standard apps (OK, if I could get people to pay $500 for basic productivity apps, maybe I'd be nice to them too...) but I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on most everything they do for MacOS...
If you have a.mac account form apple, one of the freebies is a whole lot of such royalty free music. There may be a limit on what you can use, but there are 10, 15, 30 sec and fill length stuff for news, background, motivational, etc. themes. It's called "Freeplay" and it's in your/username/Software/Extras/ directory. Hope this helps.
"When the need arises - and it does - you must be able to shoot your own dog." A System 7.x Powerbook 1xx to do a mission critical sales presentation? It SHOULD have been put out of its misery.
I was told by tiaa-cref that all contributions to my retirement account had to be made by personal check - no more cash, money orders or bank checks - thanks to the Patriot Act it said - guess they don't want me laundering money through my teachers' retirement fund. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the direction we're heading.
Hey! What if we all promise to shield the model rocket parts securely in layers of AOL junk mail?
I'd get one in a minute, but at half the price. I own four bicycles (road, mountain, city, touring) and a car, and riding this thing, even just indoors, was like nothing else. You can't do it justice in a description. You pretty much have to see the goofy childlike look on everyone's face when they run around on it. The only close feeling is like you just sprouted wings. I train and travel on my bicycles, and am on them any time I can be, but if I have to be presentable after heading out over suburban/small city terrain, I'd rather have a scooter. Reasonably efficient, cleaner, and you smell better. But why have this 8 foot long contraption sticking out fore and aft when all you need are the wheels. I've spent as much as a grand ten years ago on my best bike, and would spend two grand on a Segway tomorrow. But not five. As for the cool/nerd debate, when I was a kid (60s), being seen on a skateboard was one of the easiest ways to get pummelled on principle. Then the 90s happened and voila - instant coolness. Taste is fickle.
...that this will be limited to spammers, guess again. Once MS figures out how to charge anyone for sending anything, they will patent it, make it a standard, and implement it in every product they sell. And with their still overewhelming monopoly, this will go Charlie Foxtrot in record time.
And by the way, my incoming spam cost me only aggravation, and I'd rather tweak my mail.app settings than to pay someone by the message. By 'recipient' they must be referring to people running their servers and having to filter this stuff. Boo-fricking-hoo. Solve your mail server problems and do it in the ost resilient monetary fashion.
Maybe they're lining up behind the gummint under the apparently delectable idea that we can trample everyone's rights and assumptions to make life a little easier for people who aren't doing their job in the first place.
This is the electronic equivalent of plastic sheets and duct tape.
"We're from Miscrosoft. We're here to help."
Yes, I know it's only research, and it may never see the light of day, but then explain the rest of the half baked MS implementations that have been sanctified, dogma-fied, shoved down our throats and caused us to question our sanity - directx,.net, IE, access, passport, the most vulnerable servers ever devised, and that christless butterfly.
What if you wish to act as your own attorney? Seems like the deck is stacked towards the pros - while understandable for the companies that do this, it is nonetheless your right to represent yourself. This just makes it hard.
From their site: Why do we keep pronounce VME is unbreakable, very simple:
When a transmission of conventional algorithm is sent, it includes an encrypted form of the actual data. Given that a hacker have enough computing power and time, any message can be deciphered. With the VME engine the case is different; the actual data is never transferred. Therefore, when intercepted by a hacker, the results will yield absolutely nothing.
Did I miss something, or how can you send an encrypted message without sending the encruypted message? What is the VME engine sending, if not an encrypted message? There's only four things you can be trafficking in: the plain message, the algorithm, the key(s), the encrypted message. Miss the algorithm or they key and you're into brute force - whether you're the intended receiver or the hacker. Miss the encrypted message and you can stare at the key and algorithm all day and you got bupkis, no matter who you are. Garbage in/garbage out or in this case, nothing in/nothing out. Maybe this is security through obscurity - sure is obscure sounding to me.
Dean has a neat trick - every year he unveils a contest that asks the kids to do something new, engineering-wise. In two of these, it seems it was something he'd already figured out - the iBot wheelchair and the Segway - this just blew our minds in FIRST when we realized he and his companies had already come up with one method for something, and we were working on the same idea, guerilla, six-weeks to ship, Apollo 13 style.
Damn neat. Leaves you speechless.
Site seems/.'d - can't wait to see an RCX on two wheels...
Let's see - the original manifesto reads like this:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- Yep. You can do this and still have Apple technologies (Cocoa, Carbon, Core Audio) handle the grunt work they were designed for. Pretty good compromise to attach all these ease-of-use goodies to your main event...
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- Yep also. Unless you need to have the control boxes mauve, puce and burnt sienna instead of red, yellow, and green. Or you need to reconfigure MIDI so that all the white keys are black. But really, how often does such low-level tinkering drive an app? This smacks of kids who play with the fonts instead of writing their paper...
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- Absolutely. Linking to core services doesn't stop this in the least.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- Again - no problem. Gets done every day.
This amounts to shoe banging.
As I said over on MacSlash, GNU's Not Unix, and It Ain't Intuit, Either. This sort of behavior will not get a doorstop-style, Jehovah's Wittness visit from Steve. Alienating the platform in question will not get anyone to open-source the proprietary technologies that they get to make money on.
Don't hand out recipes and then punish me because I need to Cuisinart to make it happen at my house.
Here's what yiour actions predict: Apple will continue with certain core technologies, make money to buy bananas, maybe never invoke the DCMA again for anything, do quite well in either case, and you guys will be the backwater of open source software for a darn good platform.
Outa steam (or antimatter) for sure. And at 44, I was raised on this stuff, waited on queue for the original movie, tore my hair out when the local tv station pre-empted The Best Of Both Worlds part II for over a month, can't watch Boston Public without expecting you know who to show up with facial hardware, etc. etc... There was a time when the disembarking of a reborn Enterprise to the strains of the main theme could just about bring tears to my eyes, but I honestly can't tease apart the plots of the last few movies. Especially when the strength of the show this crew was on is on a par with the movies, this stuff is beginning to taste too much like a Pokemon or Croc Hunter movie. Ouch, but hey.
1. Nobody looks at these ads. Pop-ups, maybe. 2. They'd have better luck putting posters in every Dunkin Donuts from Saugus to Ptown (the day he made the most wanted the gal at the Bourne DD's swore to us that he was in there that very morning) 3. The only one who could safely turn him in is his own brother (high profile, public figure) and he won't, so this really is a wild goose chase.
I know it was tongue in cheek, but this let's dispel this living-in-space-will-uncrowd the planet myth.
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, let's say you and I and the ghost of Gerry O'Neill and everyone else we can muster manages to put significant (community-scale) living quarters in space. Great. Since only 600 people have aver been there yet, what's a reasonable estimate for a load we could get up there? A small town? 20,000? maybe we could think bigger and talk about a medium sized town - 50,000 - a small city. Good.
Except - In China, a single earthquake has killed at least that many (probably several times more) in a single event - and it hasn't put a dent in the population. Similar events have occurred in Peru and Iran, and you certainly can't argue that any of those events reduced the burned on the earth's capacity.
There are lots of reasons to live in space, I'm all for those - but the population problem is not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not breaking anything to me - and you could and should take these up with Steve.
I'm not defending or decrying his propositions, opinions or anything else. And I could find a bunch of people who would take issue with your objections - that's not the point.
"How The Mind Works" and "The Language Instinct" made me want to know more about the subject, more so than most anything else I'd read.
Pinker writes stuff people want to read. Hopefully it makes them think. If they understand that the product of science it theories, and that they are in flux, subject to test and proof, great. If they don't, then they need something else.
Simply put, science and its role in the world needs more popular exposure, better writers, and evocative works.
As a teacher of science for close to three decades, a lot of what's out there is sleep-inducing, much more is flat out wroing. To get people thinking, I'll take a contested theory with a gripping story over either a boring article or alien autposies.
What do you think about science journalism?
It's invaluable when it's good, it's depressing when it's bad. It's often put in the wrong hands (propagandized) and this causes entanglememts.
How can it better communicate to the general public about science and the scientific method?
it can start by stopping using the phrase "the scientific method" as if scientists don white coats, head into the lab at 9 and by using test tubes and computers, discover gravity by 5 and head home to smoke their pipes. The scientific method can be boiled down to simple steps: observe, measure, predict. Repeat as needed, and each consecutive time 'observe' serces as 'verify' and the ball starts rolling again.
Can science journalism do a better job of helping people distinguish science from pseudoscience?"
It had better, and damn soon, or else the dowsers and the channelers will be running things in short time. Overly technical sci/tech journalism turns things off - then folks glue themseves to overly-simplified, dumbed-down, corner-cutting explanations of crop circles, aliens, and (insert your favorite FOX show here).
Ask Randi, Mike Shermer, call John McPhee and the likes of Steve Pinker, Steve Hawking and a bunch of others.
More soon, but there's a roast duck coming out of the oven and the keyboard doesn't do drool all that well.
j'ever think of giving contributors a free pass after a certain number of successful contributions?
or how about karma levels linked to ad reductions?
"The text label is one way we've decided to emphasize the point that karma doesn't matter. "
Ummm, yes it does - but not as an absolute - and therefore how about it matters for ads?
1. scour the web for news
2. add star trek is cool & bill is evil stories
3. invent toy economy / community building points system
4. ???
4.5 damn! clickthru ads aren't working (hello?!) screw with #3
4.75 blast! screwing with 3 isn't working - screw with the very fabric of space/time itself
5. profit!
j'ever think of giving contributors a free pass after
Means I don't have to buy a whole album for one or two songs, the commpanies make just as much money so they're happy, aside from it's not free as in air, what's not to like?
That "cross platform" is even in the MS lexicon? They are the very embodiment of single platform thinking.
I still haven't figured out why they're so nice to Mac with their standard apps (OK, if I could get people to pay $500 for basic productivity apps, maybe I'd be nice to them too...) but I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on most everything they do for MacOS...
To turn the graphic for the firearm into a proper ME weapon? Hilt? Bow? Hello?
If you have a .mac account form apple, one of the freebies is a whole lot of such royalty free music. There may be a limit on what you can use, but there are 10, 15, 30 sec and fill length stuff for news, background, motivational, etc. themes. It's called "Freeplay" and it's in your /username/Software/Extras/ directory. Hope this helps.
"When the need arises - and it does - you must be able to shoot your own dog."
A System 7.x Powerbook 1xx to do a mission critical sales presentation? It SHOULD have been put out of its misery.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=( $m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])$t^=(72, @z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16 -2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if ((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h =5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$ h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$ d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])9|ord$b[3];$d=$d8^ ($f=$t&($d12^$d4^ $d^$d/8))17,$e=$e8^($t&($g=($q=$e14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q6 ))9,$_=$t[$_]^ (($h=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@ a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
I was told by tiaa-cref that all contributions to my retirement account had to be made by personal check - no more cash, money orders or bank checks - thanks to the Patriot Act it said - guess they don't want me laundering money through my teachers' retirement fund. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the direction we're heading.
Hey! What if we all promise to shield the model rocket parts securely in layers of AOL junk mail?
I'd get one in a minute, but at half the price. I own four bicycles (road, mountain, city, touring) and a car, and riding this thing, even just indoors, was like nothing else. You can't do it justice in a description. You pretty much have to see the goofy childlike look on everyone's face when they run around on it. The only close feeling is like you just sprouted wings. I train and travel on my bicycles, and am on them any time I can be, but if I have to be presentable after heading out over suburban/small city terrain, I'd rather have a scooter. Reasonably efficient, cleaner, and you smell better. But why have this 8 foot long contraption sticking out fore and aft when all you need are the wheels. I've spent as much as a grand ten years ago on my best bike, and would spend two grand on a Segway tomorrow. But not five. As for the cool/nerd debate, when I was a kid (60s), being seen on a skateboard was one of the easiest ways to get pummelled on principle. Then the 90s happened and voila - instant coolness. Taste is fickle.
...that this will be limited to spammers, guess again. Once MS figures out how to charge anyone for sending anything, they will patent it, make it a standard, and implement it in every product they sell. And with their still overewhelming monopoly, this will go Charlie Foxtrot in record time.
.net, IE, access, passport, the most vulnerable servers ever devised, and that christless butterfly.
And by the way, my incoming spam cost me only aggravation, and I'd rather tweak my mail.app settings than to pay someone by the message. By 'recipient' they must be referring to people running their servers and having to filter this stuff. Boo-fricking-hoo. Solve your mail server problems and do it in the ost resilient monetary fashion.
Maybe they're lining up behind the gummint under the apparently delectable idea that we can trample everyone's rights and assumptions to make life a little easier for people who aren't doing their job in the first place.
This is the electronic equivalent of plastic sheets and duct tape.
"We're from Miscrosoft. We're here to help."
Yes, I know it's only research, and it may never see the light of day, but then explain the rest of the half baked MS implementations that have been sanctified, dogma-fied, shoved down our throats and caused us to question our sanity - directx,
I gotta go.
What if you wish to act as your own attorney? Seems like the deck is stacked towards the pros - while understandable for the companies that do this, it is nonetheless your right to represent yourself. This just makes it hard.
Did I miss something, or how can you send an encrypted message without sending the encruypted message? What is the VME engine sending, if not an encrypted message? There's only four things you can be trafficking in: the plain message, the algorithm, the key(s), the encrypted message. Miss the algorithm or they key and you're into brute force - whether you're the intended receiver or the hacker. Miss the encrypted message and you can stare at the key and algorithm all day and you got bupkis, no matter who you are. Garbage in/garbage out or in this case, nothing in/nothing out. Maybe this is security through obscurity - sure is obscure sounding to me.
you forget furby? aibo?
felcher & sons? they did get clued into this before it aired, right?
hope terry tate did. hate to have him pissed off for real.
Does it? They must've thought of this... I hope.
What's "earlier position'?
Dean has a neat trick - every year he unveils a contest that asks the kids to do something new, engineering-wise. In two of these, it seems it was something he'd already figured out - the iBot wheelchair and the Segway - this just blew our minds in FIRST when we realized he and his companies had already come up with one method for something, and we were working on the same idea, guerilla, six-weeks to ship, Apollo 13 style.
/.'d - can't wait to see an RCX on two wheels...
Damn neat. Leaves you speechless.
Site seems
Does this mean we'll be ablt to have those walkabout glass computer/tablet/pda/displays like on STNG?
Something else cheaper that that can be ubiquitous computing? That I can sit on and break?
Can the next DMCA outlaw back pockets?
Yaaaay.
Let's see - the original manifesto reads like this:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- Yep. You can do this and still have Apple technologies (Cocoa, Carbon, Core Audio) handle the grunt work they were designed for. Pretty good compromise to attach all these ease-of-use goodies to your main event...
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- Yep also. Unless you need to have the control boxes mauve, puce and burnt sienna instead of red, yellow, and green. Or you need to reconfigure MIDI so that all the white keys are black. But really, how often does such low-level tinkering drive an app? This smacks of kids who play with the fonts instead of writing their paper...
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- Absolutely. Linking to core services doesn't stop this in the least.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- Again - no problem. Gets done every day.
This amounts to shoe banging.
As I said over on MacSlash, GNU's Not Unix, and It Ain't Intuit, Either. This sort of behavior will not get a doorstop-style, Jehovah's Wittness visit from Steve. Alienating the platform in question will not get anyone to open-source the proprietary technologies that they get to make money on.
Don't hand out recipes and then punish me because I need to Cuisinart to make it happen at my house.
Here's what yiour actions predict: Apple will continue with certain core technologies, make money to buy bananas, maybe never invoke the DCMA again for anything, do quite well in either case, and you guys will be the backwater of open source software for a darn good platform.
Outa steam (or antimatter) for sure. And at 44, I was raised on this stuff, waited on queue for the original movie, tore my hair out when the local tv station pre-empted The Best Of Both Worlds part II for over a month, can't watch Boston Public without expecting you know who to show up with facial hardware, etc. etc... There was a time when the disembarking of a reborn Enterprise to the strains of the main theme could just about bring tears to my eyes, but I honestly can't tease apart the plots of the last few movies. Especially when the strength of the show this crew was on is on a par with the movies, this stuff is beginning to taste too much like a Pokemon or Croc Hunter movie. Ouch, but hey.
1. Nobody looks at these ads. Pop-ups, maybe.
2. They'd have better luck putting posters in every Dunkin Donuts from Saugus to Ptown (the day he made the most wanted the gal at the Bourne DD's swore to us that he was in there that very morning)
3. The only one who could safely turn him in is his own brother (high profile, public figure) and he won't, so this really is a wild goose chase.
I know it was tongue in cheek, but this let's dispel this living-in-space-will-uncrowd the planet myth.
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, let's say you and I and the ghost of Gerry O'Neill and everyone else we can muster manages to put significant (community-scale) living quarters in space. Great. Since only 600 people have aver been there yet, what's a reasonable estimate for a load we could get up there? A small town? 20,000? maybe we could think bigger and talk about a medium sized town - 50,000 - a small city. Good.
Except - In China, a single earthquake has killed at least that many (probably several times more) in a single event - and it hasn't put a dent in the population. Similar events have occurred in Peru and Iran, and you certainly can't argue that any of those events reduced the burned on the earth's capacity.
There are lots of reasons to live in space, I'm all for those - but the population problem is not one of them.
...using your laptop out there in anything approaching direct sunlight...