Several commercial satellites already possessed similar capabilities. For instance, radarsat 1 has a 7 metre resolution, and can grab images even through cloud cover. Not quite as good as this one, but close.
But I do remember when radarsat was being used to search for that yacht in the race around the south pole that got lost. Apparently they were just a little short of the resolution needed to find it, so maybe this would have been useful in such situations.
If they want to take a picture of my roof, it really doesn't bother me. Just don't tell me that I can't write rude messages on my roof -- just another form of censorship!:)
As you probably know from having lived in Canada, the government can try and try to 'protect' its citizens from 'harmful information', but let's face it, the government sucks at it. (I am also a Canadian, and it should be noted that we are overtaxed and over-regulated, from my point of view.)
What needs to be done is filtering at the institutional level. If a school wants to filter its internet access, then at least you are not filtering out information from an entire country!
Just imagine if the government 'accidentally' filtered all information relating to the opposition parties -- that would be bad. Democracy is about freedom, and minimum shackles from the government...
This may just be a shot in the dark, but here's how I imagine that it works:
You build the screen so there are two pictures interleaved pixel by pixel, and physically, only one of the two pixels is visible to each eye. That way your eyes see different pictures at what appears to be the same place, thus giving the illusion of 3D.
The grid might look like this:
R00 L00 R01 L01... R10 L10 R11 L11... . . .
Where R and L refer to right and left eye images. Then you have to construct the screen such that from the angle of the right eye, only the R pixels are viewable, and from the angle of the left eye, only the L pixels can be seen (simple optical filters can do this).
The screen has to track your head because you have to face the screen directly for it to work.
At least you have to click the button to vaporize them. The user decides. It's much worse if someone else clicks that button for you. Censorship is when you don't even know that something is being blocked.
I don't object to being able to selectively remove certain users' comments, but I do object to someone else choosing on my behalf.
So Disney sensors you? You should stop slandering Mickey Mouse!:)
But really, I must say that censorship is not the same thing as choosing what you see or hear. If I choose, on Slashdot, not to see articles by Mr. Katz here, then that's very different than having some Net Nanny program decide what I want and don't want to see. The first is choice, the second is censorship.
Furthermore, this issue borders on parents not wanting to be parents. Adults and legislators call for some of this software because they don't want to take responsibility themselves. Instead of watching what your kid is doing, or even asking them, they want some mechanical means of controlling what they see. Is this responsible?
I think you're being a little condescending there. Who's to say that future generations of computing will even be based on what is taught in computer science? Will quantum computer code be anything like C or C++?? Probably not.
I'm in an engineering program now at university, and given the chance to decide again, I might have taken a community college electrical engineering course instead. It is always up to you to keep yourself updated, whether you have a BSc. or not.
If anyone is dumb enough to pay for Windows in the first place, then they deserve to pay for the bug fixes too.
Why would you pay for crap like win95 or win98 if a writeable CD only costs a couple bucks?:)
BTW, if anyone at all is considering the IE5 browser, DON'T! When it crashes, it takes down the whole bloody system - so much for 'integration'!
Sorry for the rant...
Bloody furby clones...
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't have feelings, right? It doesn't come to you because it likes you, but rather because it is *programmed* to, right?
Robots are good for one thing: slave labour. Make it pick up my laundry - then I'll be impressed... other than that, this is a waste of silicon.
I'm not discounting the ability to create and AI in the future that is capable of emotion and thought, even if it's only at the level of a pet's intelligence, and if so, put the AI in our little robot thingy here, and then I'll be interested.
Maybe those Sony Engineers need to get out more. I find trees and birds and even grass far more stimulating than a robotic pet dog.:-)
He obviously thinks that keeping Debian non-intuitive and non-user-friendly makes him a special person because he could figure it out.
Yet, we have to look at our goals as a community. Don't we want to replace Windows as the desktop OS of choice? Maybe. Remember that most windows users could fall into the category of clueless, not because they don't want to learn, but because they are using computers to do *other* tasks, and don't have the time. They want a *tool*, not a *toy*, and that's what differentiates the two types of users.
Putting some user-friendliness into Linux distributions isn't a bad thing, as long as we don't lose the ability to run a CLI, or however we want to customize it. I don't see the CLI ever being replaced, because who's going to take it away? Linus? Yeah, right!
In summary - putting user friendly tools on top of Linux is good. Those of us who don't want to use them just don't have to install them. Those who don't want to give technical advice to the newbies or the clueless don't have to. It's up to everyone.
Question: I was programming assembly language in high school (early 90's) but I only recently installed Linux. Am I a newbie? Am I clueless if I ask for help? I thought we were here to help each other - hacking isn't about keeping the secrets to yourself, is it?
Might want to try a grammar checker too... to get those misused 'than' vs. 'then' words, etc.
Rule #1) *Always* have someone *else* proofread it, and find someone that has no problems telling you off in person!:) They will have much better advice.
Kinda reminds you of the old days and DOS, doesn't it?:) Back when only a few of us actually felt comfortable with computers... When BBS's were more popular than the internet...
Disclaimer: I'm running a Microsoft-less system, and I'm proud of it.
Really? I'm in the conversion process right now, but it doesn't help that everyone I know uses MS Office... WordPerfect is better than Word 97 and it's compatible, but I still haven't found a good spreadsheet that could communicate with Excel. In my work, you need an Excel compatible spreadsheet. Any ideas? email me!
Having written an RTOS for the 68000, and studied the subject of OS's, I do understand that Linux is not "just a bugless version of Windows". I'm actually a little insulted by that, but I don't think you meant to, so that's okay.
Linux (or GNU/Linux) was started by hackers with the right intentions, and continues to be supported by a community that views Linux as its child, which makes them really want to make it perfect. That's not the case in any commercial operating system (except, perhaps QNX, whose micro-kernel is maintained by just one person) because programmers writing code because they like what they're writing, create code that is 10 times more efficient than a hired programmer.
However, getting back to the name recognition, here's my 2cents: What kernel do I use? Linux What compiler? GNU gcc What Gui? Xwindows What word processor? Corel WP8 What "system"? hmm, could you be more specific?
Since a system (particularly Linux based) is infinitely reconfigurable, perhaps we shouldn't be naming systems anything, unless they are off the shelf distributions such as RedHat, Debian, etc... I don't really know.
I would just like to say that this article is well written and composed. It was honest, to the point, and not flamboyant. Thank you for the quality literature.
As to a "system", do I have to call mine a Corel/GNU/Linux system because I use Corel WordPerfect for Linux now? How about Mozilla/Corel/GNU/Linux? I think that names are used to differentiate systems... so if I say I run Linux, I believe that conveys the point - I don't run M$!;)
I also think that GNU is great, and it will get the recognition it deserves, but isn't it kinda shameful to go around "donating" software out of the "goodness of your heart", and then begging for recognition?
After all, hackers should be judged by their coding, and not their political views.
The rule is, with enough eyes looking at your code, all bugs are shallow. -E. Raymond
Linux gets tested by hundreds of thousands of people every day, only the difference is that Linux users can fix the bugs *themselves* and then post the fix for everyone else to use.
Look at it this way, you can run a product through all the contrived scenarios you like, but that won't catch as many bugs as releasing it to the public and letting them find the bugs.
Plus, with Linux, you get the fix as soon as it's completed - you don't have to wait for the next product release and *PAY* for the company to fix what should have been correct in the first place!
Let's be a little more objective, shall we?
on
But To What Purpose?
·
· Score: 1
Kant? Heck, even Aristotle was easier to follow than this article (and I'm NOT a fan of Aristotle's writing).
Mr. Thieme... feel free to try again. I will read it, but get some people to offer comments before you post it! Fire extinguishers are in short supply around this place.
One more thought... if I was on acid, reading this article would have been a really, REALLY good trip!
Let's be a little more objective, shall we?
on
But To What Purpose?
·
· Score: 2
The article started well and had good intentions: to show us how this online world is our creation, both physically and perceptually.
Unfortunately, the author did not target his audience very well. Slashdot readers have little tolerance for verbose, flamboyant pseudoprose (to coin a term). We generally view it as a waste of time. Give me something concrete and meaningful!
As well, the author seemed to drift in and out of his topic, and reading the article felt like floating through a dream, one of those ones that you know you're dreaming, but can't seem to wake yourself out of.
Finally, I think the article could have used some more editing and planning. For instance, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 seemed loosely connected, yet they are adjacent. It only served to confuse my understanding. Perhaps this is symbolic of how the online world works - sound bites from this and excerpts from that, all merged together, but I don't think it works well in this sense.
In summation, I think the author tried to write the article straight from his subconscious (perhaps to highlight his point?) but only a precious few authors can do this, and be effective at the same time -- for instance Steven King. There is hope for this author - practice makes perfect, and constructive criticism would probably be more helpful than "Egads, that was auful!":)
True. There is nothing wrong with a programmer aspiring to make money from his/her craft. I don't even begrudge Microsoft for charging exorbitant amounts of money for their products, because I think it's the public's fault for paying far too much for a 'fad'. Everyone is internet this, or dotcom that...
That doesn't mean that microsoft did everything ethically, and they should be made to pay for their crimes.
What we do need is a more efficient e-commerce system, so that you can pay the author a dollar to download a program, without the overhead eating up that dollar. I would pay a dollar sendmail, if I thought the author deserves it.
However, charging a dollar to my VISA card is simply not practical.
Plus, let's also not forget that a lot of people would like the *recognition* of their work, and not necessarily the profit. If we set up an institution where free software is archived and the author's name permanently attached to their work... wait a second...:)
I recently purchased "Coles notes for speed reading", and believe it or not, I doubled my reading rate. It is a very good little lesson, and for under $5 US, you can't go wrong. I can't read a novel in 10 minutes, but it certainly helps with my reading.
Doth not a Rose, by any other name smell as sweet?
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
Look, realistically, Linux will continue to be called Linux by the users, even if the name were officially changed to GNU/Linux, because we all tend to shorten unnecessary verbiage. (Y2K?)
I call my computer an operating system an "OS", microsoft "MS", or "M$", or whatever I want to because they can't force me to call it something else. Same with Linux -- Linus called it Linux, and Linux is catchy, punny, etc. Get over it RMS... practice what you preach.
Anyone want to go into business with me making a $199 computer with fine print reading "monitor, hard disk and cpu not included"? We can at least say that it's upgradable...
Really though - cheap computers are a great idea, but they should come with a monitor, and Linux so that you could put a 486 in it if you want, and still get decent performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Several commercial satellites already possessed similar capabilities. For instance, radarsat 1 has a 7 metre resolution, and can grab images even through cloud cover. Not quite as good as this one, but close.
:)
But I do remember when radarsat was being used to search for that yacht in the race around the south pole that got lost. Apparently they were just a little short of the resolution needed to find it, so maybe this would have been useful in such situations.
If they want to take a picture of my roof, it really doesn't bother me. Just don't tell me that I can't write rude messages on my roof -- just another form of censorship!
As you probably know from having lived in Canada, the government can try and try to 'protect' its citizens from 'harmful information', but let's face it, the government sucks at it. (I am also a Canadian, and it should be noted that we are overtaxed and over-regulated, from my point of view.)
What needs to be done is filtering at the institutional level. If a school wants to filter its internet access, then at least you are not filtering out information from an entire country!
Just imagine if the government 'accidentally' filtered all information relating to the opposition parties -- that would be bad. Democracy is about freedom, and minimum shackles from the government...
Now I wish our government would figure that out.
Actually, you could make the pixels half as wide, twice as bright, and use the optics to make them appear full size to each eye. QED
:-)
This may just be a shot in the dark, but here's how I imagine that it works:
... ...
You build the screen so there are two pictures interleaved pixel by pixel, and physically, only one of the two pixels is visible to each eye. That way your eyes see different pictures at what appears to be the same place, thus giving the illusion of 3D.
The grid might look like this:
R00 L00 R01 L01
R10 L10 R11 L11
.
.
.
Where R and L refer to right and left eye images. Then you have to construct the screen such that from the angle of the right eye, only the R pixels are viewable, and from the angle of the left eye, only the L pixels can be seen (simple optical filters can do this).
The screen has to track your head because you have to face the screen directly for it to work.
Any other ideas?
At least you have to click the button to vaporize them. The user decides. It's much worse if someone else clicks that button for you. Censorship is when you don't even know that something is being blocked.
I don't object to being able to selectively remove certain users' comments, but I do object to someone else choosing on my behalf.
So Disney sensors you? You should stop slandering Mickey Mouse! :)
But really, I must say that censorship is not the same thing as choosing what you see or hear. If I choose, on Slashdot, not to see articles by Mr. Katz here, then that's very different than having some Net Nanny program decide what I want and don't want to see. The first is choice, the second is censorship.
Furthermore, this issue borders on parents not wanting to be parents. Adults and legislators call for some of this software because they don't want to take responsibility themselves. Instead of watching what your kid is doing, or even asking them, they want some mechanical means of controlling what they see. Is this responsible?
Assembly. I'm moving to machine code later in my life, but assembly is as high as I go.
I think you're being a little condescending there. Who's to say that future generations of computing will even be based on what is taught in computer science? Will quantum computer code be anything like C or C++?? Probably not.
I'm in an engineering program now at university, and given the chance to decide again, I might have taken a community college electrical engineering course instead. It is always up to you to keep yourself updated, whether you have a BSc. or not.
If anyone is dumb enough to pay for Windows in the first place, then they deserve to pay for the bug fixes too.
:)
Why would you pay for crap like win95 or win98 if a writeable CD only costs a couple bucks?
BTW, if anyone at all is considering the IE5 browser, DON'T! When it crashes, it takes down the whole bloody system - so much for 'integration'!
Sorry for the rant...
It doesn't have feelings, right? It doesn't come to you because it likes you, but rather because it is *programmed* to, right?
:-)
Robots are good for one thing: slave labour. Make it pick up my laundry - then I'll be impressed... other than that, this is a waste of silicon.
I'm not discounting the ability to create and AI in the future that is capable of emotion and thought, even if it's only at the level of a pet's intelligence, and if so, put the AI in our little robot thingy here, and then I'll be interested.
Maybe those Sony Engineers need to get out more. I find trees and birds and even grass far more stimulating than a robotic pet dog.
... and monkeys will fly out of my a$$...
... and I'm a Chinese fighter pilot...
I don't really know if he's right...
He obviously thinks that keeping Debian non-intuitive and non-user-friendly makes him a special person because he could figure it out.
Yet, we have to look at our goals as a community. Don't we want to replace Windows as the desktop OS of choice? Maybe. Remember that most windows users could fall into the category of clueless, not because they don't want to learn, but because they are using computers to do *other* tasks, and don't have the time. They want a *tool*, not a *toy*, and that's what differentiates the two types of users.
Putting some user-friendliness into Linux distributions isn't a bad thing, as long as we don't lose the ability to run a CLI, or however we want to customize it. I don't see the CLI ever being replaced, because who's going to take it away? Linus? Yeah, right!
In summary - putting user friendly tools on top of Linux is good. Those of us who don't want to use them just don't have to install them. Those who don't want to give technical advice to the newbies or the clueless don't have to. It's up to everyone.
Question: I was programming assembly language in high school (early 90's) but I only recently installed Linux. Am I a newbie? Am I clueless if I ask for help? I thought we were here to help each other - hacking isn't about keeping the secrets to yourself, is it?
Might want to try a grammar checker too... to get those misused 'than' vs. 'then' words, etc.
:) They will have much better advice.
Rule #1) *Always* have someone *else* proofread it, and find someone that has no problems telling you off in person!
Kinda reminds you of the old days and DOS, doesn't it? :) Back when only a few of us actually felt comfortable with computers... When BBS's were more popular than the internet...
Disclaimer: I'm running a Microsoft-less system, and I'm proud of it.
Really? I'm in the conversion process right now, but it doesn't help that everyone I know uses MS Office... WordPerfect is better than Word 97 and it's compatible, but I still haven't found a good spreadsheet that could communicate with Excel. In my work, you need an Excel compatible spreadsheet. Any ideas? email me!
Sorry I'm off topic -- end of thread!
Having written an RTOS for the 68000, and studied the subject of OS's, I do understand that Linux is not "just a bugless version of Windows". I'm actually a little insulted by that, but I don't think you meant to, so that's okay.
Linux (or GNU/Linux) was started by hackers with the right intentions, and continues to be supported by a community that views Linux as its child, which makes them really want to make it perfect. That's not the case in any commercial operating system (except, perhaps QNX, whose micro-kernel is maintained by just one person) because programmers writing code because they like what they're writing, create code that is 10 times more efficient than a hired programmer.
However, getting back to the name recognition, here's my 2cents:
What kernel do I use? Linux
What compiler? GNU gcc
What Gui? Xwindows
What word processor? Corel WP8
What "system"? hmm, could you be more specific?
Since a system (particularly Linux based) is infinitely reconfigurable, perhaps we shouldn't be naming systems anything, unless they are off the shelf distributions such as RedHat, Debian, etc... I don't really know.
I would just like to say that this article is well written and composed. It was honest, to the point, and not flamboyant. Thank you for the quality literature.
;)
As to a "system", do I have to call mine a Corel/GNU/Linux system because I use Corel WordPerfect for Linux now? How about Mozilla/Corel/GNU/Linux? I think that names are used to differentiate systems... so if I say I run Linux, I believe that conveys the point - I don't run M$!
I also think that GNU is great, and it will get the recognition it deserves, but isn't it kinda shameful to go around "donating" software out of the "goodness of your heart", and then begging for recognition?
After all, hackers should be judged by their coding, and not their political views.
The rule is, with enough eyes looking at your code, all bugs are shallow. -E. Raymond
Linux gets tested by hundreds of thousands of people every day, only the difference is that Linux users can fix the bugs *themselves* and then post the fix for everyone else to use.
Look at it this way, you can run a product through all the contrived scenarios you like, but that won't catch as many bugs as releasing it to the public and letting them find the bugs.
Plus, with Linux, you get the fix as soon as it's completed - you don't have to wait for the next product release and *PAY* for the company to fix what should have been correct in the first place!
Kant? Heck, even Aristotle was easier to follow than this article (and I'm NOT a fan of Aristotle's writing).
Mr. Thieme... feel free to try again. I will read it, but get some people to offer comments before you post it! Fire extinguishers are in short supply around this place.
One more thought... if I was on acid, reading this article would have been a really, REALLY good trip!
The article started well and had good intentions: to show us how this online world is our creation, both physically and perceptually.
:)
Unfortunately, the author did not target his audience very well. Slashdot readers have little tolerance for verbose, flamboyant pseudoprose (to coin a term). We generally view it as a waste of time. Give me something concrete and meaningful!
As well, the author seemed to drift in and out of his topic, and reading the article felt like floating through a dream, one of those ones that you know you're dreaming, but can't seem to wake yourself out of.
Finally, I think the article could have used some more editing and planning. For instance, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 seemed loosely connected, yet they are adjacent. It only served to confuse my understanding. Perhaps this is symbolic of how the online world works - sound bites from this and excerpts from that, all merged together, but I don't think it works well in this sense.
In summation, I think the author tried to write the article straight from his subconscious (perhaps to highlight his point?) but only a precious few authors can do this, and be effective at the same time -- for instance Steven King. There is hope for this author - practice makes perfect, and constructive criticism would probably be more helpful than "Egads, that was auful!"
True. There is nothing wrong with a programmer aspiring to make money from his/her craft. I don't even begrudge Microsoft for charging exorbitant amounts of money for their products, because I think it's the public's fault for paying far too much for a 'fad'. Everyone is internet this, or dotcom that...
:)
That doesn't mean that microsoft did everything ethically, and they should be made to pay for their crimes.
What we do need is a more efficient e-commerce system, so that you can pay the author a dollar to download a program, without the overhead eating up that dollar. I would pay a dollar sendmail, if I thought the author deserves it.
However, charging a dollar to my VISA card is simply not practical.
Plus, let's also not forget that a lot of people would like the *recognition* of their work, and not necessarily the profit. If we set up an institution where free software is archived and the author's name permanently attached to their work... wait a second...
I recently purchased "Coles notes for speed reading", and believe it or not, I doubled my reading rate. It is a very good little lesson, and for under $5 US, you can't go wrong. I can't read a novel in 10 minutes, but it certainly helps with my reading.
Look, realistically, Linux will continue to be called Linux by the users, even if the name were officially changed to GNU/Linux, because we all tend to shorten unnecessary verbiage. (Y2K?)
I call my computer an operating system an "OS", microsoft "MS", or "M$", or whatever I want to because they can't force me to call it something else. Same with Linux -- Linus called it Linux, and Linux is catchy, punny, etc. Get over it RMS... practice what you preach.
What a rip...
Anyone want to go into business with me making a $199 computer with fine print reading "monitor, hard disk and cpu not included"? We can at least say that it's upgradable...
Really though - cheap computers are a great idea, but they should come with a monitor, and Linux so that you could put a 486 in it if you want, and still get decent performance.
Can someone confirm if this $299 bargain comes with or without a monitor? It wasn't clear in the article.