It seems everyone except the BBC knows why the show started to fail. Give us real world demonstrations that we can relate to!
Adam Hart Davies was great. It's a shame that everyone had already given up watching by the time he became a presenter. I didn't realise until it was announced that the show was being axed. Actually, perhaps they should have given him some creative control. "What the Romans did for us" had a lot of the elements that TW was missing. Hell, Local heroes did for that matter.
Carol Voderman wasn't as smart as people gave her credit for either.
Howard Stableford seems to still be around as a media presenter. I heard him on the radio last week talking about a family who live on an Alaskan island, miles away from any city.
I think the move towards that sort of format was what made me stop watchin TW. Okay, there wasn't the stretching, but they did have lots of "Coming up in case you think that 30 minutes is too long to be watching a single show", and all the bad CG stuff and arsty time fillers.
On the subject of CGI; When is the media world going to realise? We all like models!
The only docus that interest me on the BBC these days are history ones. they still seem to assume that people who like history have an attenton span.
What makes you so sure that in the future they`ll laugh at how we had loads of satellites, and not just three.
Who's laughing. It's just interesting how this is so different. Why would they want just three satellites? What would they do with all the other geostationary real estate?
I mean, if you're going to be a smart-arse, isn't one of the requirements that you are actually smart?
Has anyone actually read this report? While the concept was quite clever, it was clearly written long before anyone had got into space.
His proposal was to build no more than 3 comsats. These were huge beasts that would be constructed in space, and manned permanently. Each comsat would deal with communication over 120 degrees across the earth.
This is a far cry from dozens of highly specialised and semi disposable comsats that we actually use. I don;t mean to be too hard on Arthur C. Clarke, but people really ought to remember how wrong he was with a few gems of being right.
Why is it that everyone at slashdot feels like they have the rights to any information that is out there?
Well, I seem to have read a version of Slashdot where a large proportion of comments point out the guy illegaly appropriated trade secrets. A considerable number considering the generally pro-sharing attitude on this site. About the only point I'd disagree on is etymological nitpicking (he didn't steal, just appropriated illegally)
As soon as they enter the US as far as I can tell. Typically wording in bills will say something along the lines of "Producing, distributing or importing" to cover all bases. If you think that's ridiculous, you should check out the current insanity over a work derived from Peter Pan.
It's quite feasable that the screen was already there.
I think he used MySQL which sorts out one of the licencing costs. as for the computer - He must have had a couple of spares lieing around. What sort of a geek would he be if he didn't?
The argument for spinning is that it's easier to just allow spinning than to work out penalties for spinning, and determining whether it was a spin, or a slightly over zealous kick (although a spin detector would solve this one).
You're totally right about the functionality required. The problem I see here is user interface. While a tree diagram is quite easy to follow, a tree similar to the file browser one does take up rather a lot of space.
Thinking about it, I tend to use Mozilla's tabs as a means to launch several links from the same page, which allows me to flick thhough them, and return. This allows most of the functionality, but it does get confusing remembering where the pages were linked from. Perhaps what we need is a nested tabs view or something.
The current relative value of different sectors is largely irrelevent. The corporate view of a company with a diverse range of divisiuons sees each division in terms of two perpendicular components - Market share and growth of sector. Ideally we would like to have a large market share of a fast growing sector (so called Star businesses). The PVR market is a potentially fast growing sector, so they need to get their market share as high as possible.
A large market share of a slow growth industry is simply a cash cow. Time Warner own a large chunk of the media industry. The size of this chunk is unlikely to change in the near future, but it does provide them with a steady stream of revenue that they can invest in the fast moving technologies to maximise their own market share.
If the PVR market dies, then that's not too much of a problem. An expensive disappointment perhaps, but business is all about risks. It's no longer a threat to the exisiting business model, so they know they can invest the money in other potential growth areas. Businesses do not succeed by resting on their laurels.
This is a gross oversimplification, but the basic rules apply.
Maybe it can, but it has to be the right software, and the kid has to want to learn. If he's lazy, then he is not going to live up to his potential. If the software is set at too high a difficulty level, then the kid will lose interest since it is hard for it to adapt.
Even the best software will require a teacher to guide the student.
Even is MS do have a legitimate trademark, they could still lose it, simply because it has become a term that people associate with any windowing system. I've occasionally heard people call the Apple UI a Windows User interface, and far too many people refer to X as X-Windows. Windows was not a strong trademanrk in the first place, being a descriptive terms rather than an arbitrary or fancifal name (e.g. Apple or Kodak respectively)
This sort of trademark dilution can cost a company a trademark. Generic terms cannot be trademarked, and likewise, once a term becomes generic, the owner can lose it. An example of this is Cellophane.
Of course, the law is wildly variable in this matter. "Famous trademarks" get better protection, but whether Windows is a famous trademark is another matter.
It's ironic that a technical community like Slashdot is probably more critical of computers in education than non technical people.
Actually, I think the idea of a computer as an information reservoir is greatly underrated. Granted, a lot of the information is rather unreliable, but that's just something that requires a little education in critical thinking.
Other practical uses are simulations of physical experiments. We had a computer programme that simulated Milikan's oil drop experiment on the BBC micro. This is much cheaper and easier than setting up genuine equipment, and while not as satisfying, does give an idea of how this works. Also, in maths, a computer can perform thousands of complex operations in a fraction of a second, and display the results as a graph or othe human readable data.
What they can not do is replace teachers. A computer will not be able to push an intelligent child, or adapt for a slower child. It will not be able to explain the same concept several times until the child understands.
Far too much education is in "Computer Skills" i.e. Learning Word. These really annoy me because they tend to be rather Microsoft specific. No problem with learning how to use spreadsheets and
desktop publishing software in general, but it's foolish to stick to specific products. While MS may have a stranglehold on the industry today, this will not always be the case. IBM no longer control the computer industry, so why should we expect Microsoft's reign to continue forever.
How would I learn some useful skills from a book on a Microsoft Operating System? No book documents the OS adequately to gain an understanding of how it works, and they certainly will not go into great details about the design.
Of course learning the MS API would be a good idea, but getting that from a book seems a little pointless when there are enough online resources not to need a book. Besides, the Posix API would be just as useful, as would OS independent skills such as image processing algorithms, or compiler design. Actually, hacking the kernel is also a valuable skill. There's a lot of decent OS design in there.
European countries might well launch using Russian or American or whoever's rockets simply because of economics. Patriotism isn't the be-all and end-all of life here...
Quite. Patriotism would be the wrong reason. Still, I'd like to see some larger Ariane rockets. The technology seems to be progressing at a reasonable rate, unlike the shuttle which hasn't had any substantial improvements since the 70's. Hopefully they'll have a heavy lifter, and a few reuseable parts in a few more years.
Oh just for the record, the UK launched its own satellite (Propero) using its own rocket design (Black Arrow).
An impressive feat, considering the budget available. Perhaps NASA should have asked them for advice on how to save money.
IIRC, the UK's rocket wasn't based on stolen V2s either (compared with Russian and USA)
Well, it probably had some input from the American space programme. Don't really think thats too much of a problem though. Most of those rocket scientists did just want to get to the Moon. No point in squandering the technology because its been used for evil purposes.
Re:The UK Government strikes again! :/
on
To the Moon and Beyond
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sigh. So true.
Britain has some serious talent that would be beneficial to the project. Rolls Royce has always been one of the world leaders in Aero Engines, and we have always had competent aviation technology. Not only that, but we have already invested a lot in the development of air breathing rocket engines until the Thatcher government canned the project.
This is not a cost, but an investment. The main benefits of an aggressive space programme are the progression of science. Just the materials science aspect of the Apollo programme must have added billions to the economy - Just how much velcro and teflon is sold each year? Then there are ideas such as cordless power tools, and freeze dried food. According to one report (admittedly from NASA, so therefore probably a little biased), the US economy has received $7 back for each dollar spent on the space programme.
Troll? Seems a perfectly reasonable question. Stupid moderators....
Anyway, a bit of googling tells me:
The ESA's space programme has been going on since the 70's, with some input from the French space programme about a decade before. It appears to bepretty much based on the pilotless Ariane 4 and Ariane 5 rockets which can carry about 5 tonnes into space. These are not as powerful as the shuttle (which manages about 22 tonnes I think), and have had the occasional problem, but are being developed at a leisurely pace. They are designed in a highly adaptable component manner, and also aim for low cost and adaptability.
Many European countries have been producing satellites for some time. I think these often have to be launched by the US or Russia.
The site was clobbered when this article was fresh, so I could only rely on the article. That said they had this restriction: 'You shall not to share [sic] the information contained herein with any other party.'
If it did, it seems to have been changed now, and the current terms seem quite reasonable. You shall not republish the information contained herein, in any format including, but not limited to physical and electronic formats Which I guess means that you can tell people what you've learned, as long as you don't copy the text verbatim.
However, I think that the anti-collaboration atmosphere of many academic institutions is a fundamentally flawed idea.
I agree. If I need help in understanding something, I can find it in a textbook, on the web, or ask a friend. In most cases, these will not only show me the answer, but help me to understand why this is the answer, which is after all the whole point.
The correct solution would be to give relatively few marks for the code, and the bulk of the marks for an explantion of how it works. This helps in many other ways. It's a lot easier for those marking to follow a description than to follow code, and much easier to spot total plagarism in English than in C++.
Besides, some of that code was basic stuff that could be lifted verbatim from just about anywhere. I'm sure the example of a floating point adder can be found in many verilog text books, and heaps and trees are fundamental software building blocks that should be readily available in millions of places. Forcing the student to explain it will make sure he has to understand wherever he got it from.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems everyone except the BBC knows why the show started to fail. Give us real world demonstrations that we can relate to!
Adam Hart Davies was great. It's a shame that everyone had already given up watching by the time he became a presenter. I didn't realise until it was announced that the show was being axed. Actually, perhaps they should have given him some creative control. "What the Romans did for us" had a lot of the elements that TW was missing. Hell, Local heroes did for that matter.
Carol Voderman wasn't as smart as people gave her credit for either.
Howard Stableford seems to still be around as a media presenter. I heard him on the radio last week talking about a family who live on an Alaskan island, miles away from any city.
I think the move towards that sort of format was what made me stop watchin TW. Okay, there wasn't the stretching, but they did have lots of "Coming up in case you think that 30 minutes is too long to be watching a single show", and all the bad CG stuff and arsty time fillers.
On the subject of CGI; When is the media world going to realise? We all like models!
The only docus that interest me on the BBC these days are history ones. they still seem to assume that people who like history have an attenton span.
What makes you so sure that in the future they`ll laugh at how we had loads of satellites, and not just three.
Who's laughing. It's just interesting how this is so different. Why would they want just three satellites? What would they do with all the other geostationary real estate?
I mean, if you're going to be a smart-arse, isn't one of the requirements that you are actually smart?
It's a serious impediment in my experience.
I'm not criticising Clarke. Just commenting on the how interesting it is that another advance changed the potential future so much.
What people weren't expecting is much more interesting than what they were.
Has anyone actually read this report? While the concept was quite clever, it was clearly written long before anyone had got into space.
His proposal was to build no more than 3 comsats. These were huge beasts that would be constructed in space, and manned permanently. Each comsat would deal with communication over 120 degrees across the earth.
This is a far cry from dozens of highly specialised and semi disposable comsats that we actually use. I don;t mean to be too hard on Arthur C. Clarke, but people really ought to remember how wrong he was with a few gems of being right.
Why is it that everyone at slashdot feels like they have the rights to any information that is out there?
Well, I seem to have read a version of Slashdot where a large proportion of comments point out the guy illegaly appropriated trade secrets. A considerable number considering the generally pro-sharing attitude on this site. About the only point I'd disagree on is etymological nitpicking (he didn't steal, just appropriated illegally)
The EU has different rules on political donations. They also often have the same length copyright, but only on new works.
Where has piracy been committed?
As soon as they enter the US as far as I can tell. Typically wording in bills will say something along the lines of "Producing, distributing or importing" to cover all bases. If you think that's ridiculous, you should check out the current insanity over a work derived from Peter Pan.
It's quite feasable that the screen was already there.
I think he used MySQL which sorts out one of the licencing costs. as for the computer - He must have had a couple of spares lieing around. What sort of a geek would he be if he didn't?
The argument for spinning is that it's easier to just allow spinning than to work out penalties for spinning, and determining whether it was a spin, or a slightly over zealous kick (although a spin detector would solve this one).
They missed out 2 steps..
Step 5: ???
Okay, you know where this is going....
It's useful to do this sort of thing for practise in finding technological solutions.
I'm sure even for people who knew a lot, there was something to learn here.
I was going to post a similar comment.
You're totally right about the functionality required. The problem I see here is user interface. While a tree diagram is quite easy to follow, a tree similar to the file browser one does take up rather a lot of space.
Thinking about it, I tend to use Mozilla's tabs as a means to launch several links from the same page, which allows me to flick thhough them, and return. This allows most of the functionality, but it does get confusing remembering where the pages were linked from. Perhaps what we need is a nested tabs view or something.
The current relative value of different sectors is largely irrelevent. The corporate view of a company with a diverse range of divisiuons sees each division in terms of two perpendicular components - Market share and growth of sector. Ideally we would like to have a large market share of a fast growing sector (so called Star businesses). The PVR market is a potentially fast growing sector, so they need to get their market share as high as possible.
A large market share of a slow growth industry is simply a cash cow. Time Warner own a large chunk of the media industry. The size of this chunk is unlikely to change in the near future, but it does provide them with a steady stream of revenue that they can invest in the fast moving technologies to maximise their own market share.
If the PVR market dies, then that's not too much of a problem. An expensive disappointment perhaps, but business is all about risks. It's no longer a threat to the exisiting business model, so they know they can invest the money in other potential growth areas. Businesses do not succeed by resting on their laurels.
This is a gross oversimplification, but the basic rules apply.
Maybe it can, but it has to be the right software, and the kid has to want to learn. If he's lazy, then he is not going to live up to his potential. If the software is set at too high a difficulty level, then the kid will lose interest since it is hard for it to adapt.
Even the best software will require a teacher to guide the student.
Even is MS do have a legitimate trademark, they could still lose it, simply because it has become a term that people associate with any windowing system. I've occasionally heard people call the Apple UI a Windows User interface, and far too many people refer to X as X-Windows. Windows was not a strong trademanrk in the first place, being a descriptive terms rather than an arbitrary or fancifal name (e.g. Apple or Kodak respectively)
This sort of trademark dilution can cost a company a trademark. Generic terms cannot be trademarked, and likewise, once a term becomes generic, the owner can lose it. An example of this is Cellophane.
Of course, the law is wildly variable in this matter. "Famous trademarks" get better protection, but whether Windows is a famous trademark is another matter.
It's ironic that a technical community like Slashdot is probably more critical of computers in education than non technical people.
Actually, I think the idea of a computer as an information reservoir is greatly underrated. Granted, a lot of the information is rather unreliable, but that's just something that requires a little education in critical thinking. Other practical uses are simulations of physical experiments. We had a computer programme that simulated Milikan's oil drop experiment on the BBC micro. This is much cheaper and easier than setting up genuine equipment, and while not as satisfying, does give an idea of how this works. Also, in maths, a computer can perform thousands of complex operations in a fraction of a second, and display the results as a graph or othe human readable data.
What they can not do is replace teachers. A computer will not be able to push an intelligent child, or adapt for a slower child. It will not be able to explain the same concept several times until the child understands.
Far too much education is in "Computer Skills" i.e. Learning Word. These really annoy me because they tend to be rather Microsoft specific. No problem with learning how to use spreadsheets and desktop publishing software in general, but it's foolish to stick to specific products. While MS may have a stranglehold on the industry today, this will not always be the case. IBM no longer control the computer industry, so why should we expect Microsoft's reign to continue forever.
How would I learn some useful skills from a book on a Microsoft Operating System? No book documents the OS adequately to gain an understanding of how it works, and they certainly will not go into great details about the design.
Of course learning the MS API would be a good idea, but getting that from a book seems a little pointless when there are enough online resources not to need a book. Besides, the Posix API would be just as useful, as would OS independent skills such as image processing algorithms, or compiler design. Actually, hacking the kernel is also a valuable skill. There's a lot of decent OS design in there.
Nitpicking.
The point still stands. The spinoffs were tremendous.
European countries might well launch using Russian or American or whoever's rockets simply because of economics. Patriotism isn't the be-all and end-all of life here...
Quite. Patriotism would be the wrong reason. Still, I'd like to see some larger Ariane rockets. The technology seems to be progressing at a reasonable rate, unlike the shuttle which hasn't had any substantial improvements since the 70's. Hopefully they'll have a heavy lifter, and a few reuseable parts in a few more years.
Oh just for the record, the UK launched its own satellite (Propero) using its own rocket design (Black Arrow).
An impressive feat, considering the budget available. Perhaps NASA should have asked them for advice on how to save money.
IIRC, the UK's rocket wasn't based on stolen V2s either (compared with Russian and USA)
Well, it probably had some input from the American space programme. Don't really think thats too much of a problem though. Most of those rocket scientists did just want to get to the Moon. No point in squandering the technology because its been used for evil purposes.
Sigh. So true.
Britain has some serious talent that would be beneficial to the project. Rolls Royce has always been one of the world leaders in Aero Engines, and we have always had competent aviation technology. Not only that, but we have already invested a lot in the development of air breathing rocket engines until the Thatcher government canned the project.
This is not a cost, but an investment. The main benefits of an aggressive space programme are the progression of science. Just the materials science aspect of the Apollo programme must have added billions to the economy - Just how much velcro and teflon is sold each year? Then there are ideas such as cordless power tools, and freeze dried food. According to one report (admittedly from NASA, so therefore probably a little biased), the US economy has received $7 back for each dollar spent on the space programme.
Okay. I'll stop ranting now.
Troll? Seems a perfectly reasonable question. Stupid moderators....
Anyway, a bit of googling tells me:
The ESA's space programme has been going on since the 70's, with some input from the French space programme about a decade before. It appears to bepretty much based on the pilotless Ariane 4 and Ariane 5 rockets which can carry about 5 tonnes into space. These are not as powerful as the shuttle (which manages about 22 tonnes I think), and have had the occasional problem, but are being developed at a leisurely pace. They are designed in a highly adaptable component manner, and also aim for low cost and adaptability.
Many European countries have been producing satellites for some time. I think these often have to be launched by the US or Russia.
I once got a bill for $0 and my account suspended because I didn't pay the balance. It took me three trips to the registrar to fix that one!
Why didn;t you try the old solution from the old urban legend; Write a check for $0.00.
The site was clobbered when this article was fresh, so I could only rely on the article. That said they had this restriction: 'You shall not to share [sic] the information contained herein with any other party.'
If it did, it seems to have been changed now, and the current terms seem quite reasonable. You shall not republish the information contained herein, in any format including, but not limited to physical and electronic formats Which I guess means that you can tell people what you've learned, as long as you don't copy the text verbatim.
However, I think that the anti-collaboration atmosphere of many academic institutions is a fundamentally flawed idea.
I agree. If I need help in understanding something, I can find it in a textbook, on the web, or ask a friend. In most cases, these will not only show me the answer, but help me to understand why this is the answer, which is after all the whole point.
The correct solution would be to give relatively few marks for the code, and the bulk of the marks for an explantion of how it works. This helps in many other ways. It's a lot easier for those marking to follow a description than to follow code, and much easier to spot total plagarism in English than in C++.
Besides, some of that code was basic stuff that could be lifted verbatim from just about anywhere. I'm sure the example of a floating point adder can be found in many verilog text books, and heaps and trees are fundamental software building blocks that should be readily available in millions of places. Forcing the student to explain it will make sure he has to understand wherever he got it from.