Wired 8.04 suggests that humans won't be particularily useful in the future, but I think we should assume that we'll want to keep nanobots in our control as long as possible. The question then comes down to our ability to destory them: if nanobots get out of hand, will we be able to guarantee that we can deactivate them? How much should we worry about nanobots getting out of control? (Obviously the media and therefore the general public will worry about it, but should the professionals?)
If you're looking for a more technical paper, talk about how we would go about making a kill switch and how nanobots could be used for evil. If you're looking for something softer, talk about how the public will view nanotechnology and how it might end up causing more subtle problems like an economic divide.
Expressing philosophy through science fiction seems more effective than Plato's dialogs, and certainly more entertaining than Judith Butler (if you've read her you'll know what I mean). Most [good] science fiction can be seen as a thought experiment -- not necessarily exploring a philosophical theme but a social or technological possibility. My question: what are some other examples of science fiction (or other genre of novels) that are strongly based on philosophy?
A more practical question might be: how should an undergraduate get started working on AI? Or how should they prepare for graduate work in AI in a universe with few specialised courses?
In my experience (as someone who has setup databases and interfaces for commercial ventures), the major concern of for-profit database owners is not that they won't be able to make money off the database (even if it's just ad revenues) but that someone will be able to grab all their information and resell it better than they can. I'd imagine that the major concern of not-for-profit database owners/creators is that someone will fragment the database through irregular mirroring.
The concerns of for-profit database owners is not paramount to a DGPL but the copying/mirroring of data should still be the focus. Towards this, it should be ensured that the DGPL addresses both dynamic and static databases and gives owners as much reason to use this license as the LGPL.
Wait a sec, if the Linux client and server are available online then wouldn't id/Loki have saved money by just releasing a single version?
I'd assume they didn't include the Linux version on the regular CD for the same reason that Unreal Tournament must be downloaded: support. So do I get Linux support if I buy the Linux box?
I had the same problem and there doesn't appear to be any meaningful tech support options on Corel's site. How many other people are having the same problem? Maybe we should try and figure out if there's any hardware similarities and help Corel out...
If you get your questions in quickly then all the knowledgable people checking out the site will have them answered in no time! After all, everyone will look at their areas of expertise before their areas of interest. This is provided the server stays up, of course.:)
Hasn't it been hit home enough times by the open source community that there are better ways of making your money than selling software? For that matter, is Opera making money? Starving university students (like me) would never pay over CDN$50 for any shareware — haven't enough arguments for smaller shareware fees been written long ago?
Besides, it doesn't matter if you make money as long as Wall Street thinks you might someday.
How much internal relevance is given to the animals? Is it somebody's job to manage them?
Is there a database that could be linked up?
I'm sure there are some good ancedotes concerning the animals (like how the pig ended up with Spam and the butterfly with Windows)
The animals seem to be the thing that stands out the most about O'Reilly books, even the most technically illiterate can tell they're cooler than other technical books (and since they're B&W it gives a dignified air).
It's always struck me as odd that Opera isn't open source. I mean they're trying to pass themselves off as an 'alternative' to the gorillas (coincidentally rhymes with 'mozilla'?), which seems like the standard stance of Linux and many other open source programs.
It seems like GPLing Opera back when their CSS support was non-existant would have helped them catch up. Then again, the only people I know who use Opera strike me as being the type who only like playing with computers if it will result in improvement. But how could the Linux community ever get cosy with a browser that's so non-free it costs money!
For that matter it almost seems quaint that a company would try and sell a browser. Maybe if you had a clear superiority over the competition -- but with a market share so low it's off the charts? Opera, what are you smoking? Open source the Linux browser if not the Windows!
Old Computers = Waste of Energy
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 1
Did anyone stop and consider what these legions of 486s in every Slashdotters' basement are doing to the environment? Granted, putting them in a landfill or burning them isn't a very good idea, but dedicating a 486 Beowulf cluster to SETI@Home or distributed.net could be using up natural resources or causing the construction of new nuclear power plants or dams. Modern computers should be spending time in sleep mode, not running processor-intensive screensavers. Okay a solar/tide/geothermal/etc. - powered Beowulf cluster for scientific use would be pretty cool.:)
The difference between the "hacker" stereotype and the "geek" stereotype, is that "geek" is mostly positive. Most people think we [?] must be intelligent, because they can't dream of figuring out how to do what we do.
I'm not saying he's a rolemodel because of Linux's technical aspects, but of how he's changing the way people use computers. Some obscure researcher with papers that have titles that can't be understood by 1st-years is not a good rolemodel.
To recap, Linus is a good rolemodel because:
Linux is an accessible, useful, and philosophically interesting achievement.
Linus has chosen the public good over money.
Linus is in the limelight enough that aspiring programmers don't have to rely on technical journals to hear about him.
The only other person I can think of that comes close to fulfilling those three criteria is Tim Berners-Lee.
How dare you Mac users tell us about your keyboards! You just received [Home] and [End] keys and probably still can't do everything with a keyboard. (If you can think of anything that requires a mouse in Windows, speak up; and Linux goes without saying.)
I remember it now, trying to word process on Macs from the 80s...the fastest way to get to the end of the line was to click...text selection was drag-only...and forget about using the [Alt] keys for anything the designers didn't feel like attaching to some [swirly_thing]-[letter] command...those were the days.
Now that mice finally have more than two buttons, why would we want to slim-down our keyboard? Oh wait, there is one type of modern computer that doesn't even have a two-button mouse... That's right, this whole article is a Mac plot!
Well they must be sending something, as proprietary as it may be, through the keyboard port. So if someone with more programming skill than I was to write a hardware-level keyboard port sniffer then we'd be on the road to remapping them. Of course it's surprising that Microsoft hasn't abolished the need for proprietary and specific multimedia keyboard drivers yet.
Does anyone happen to know what Linus wrote his Master's Degree thesis on? (Or would he be the guy to email about that?)
I'm curious because he's the closest thing to a hero that computer science students have. Most of the other big names in the computer industry are either managers, advocates, crackers, or profs -- there's no reason why any of those shoes must be filled by a talented programmer. Linus is a nice guy, a good (if not exceptional) programmer, and still young enough to be trusted.:) He's a far better role model than any sports star, why do journalists never think of him as such?
Picture this: The Making of the Blair Witch Project
You've got the crew running around, making piles of sticks and sliming stuff, and a crew's following them around making a documentary on these relatively unknown film techniques. Shoot it more professionally, but still not big-budget (ie: not their first time making a documentary, but it's still a documentary). Then weird stuff starts going on -- the crew of the original movie actually does disappear. The rest of the movie follows the search parties who are trying to find these kids.
Kind of Scream 2 meets The Fugitive, but keep the standard Hollywood practices out so it can try and capture a fraction of what the original has. Part of the reason for suggesting this is that a documentary about The Blair Witch Project would be really cool to see, anyway -- lots of the reviews and interviews touch on some of the entertaining stuff the crew did.
XFSetup is far from 'lovely' in many circumstances. I still cringe at trying to get an old (usually no-name) monitor to work at a decent resolution in X Windows. Since one of Linux's most impressive uses to non-technical users is its ability to revitalise old machines, this is a serious problem.
Why is it that a vintage monitor can display a Windows desktop at 800x600 with 256 colours after a simple Control Panel tweak (setting it as a Generic SuperVGA 800x600, I've never seen this not work), but hours of trying to guess refresh rates won't get more than a 320x200 physical desktop in X? This, combined with the 8 megs of RAM overhead, is what's keeping Linux off of millions of potentially useful 386s
What we need is a GUI that is scalable in complexity. To some extent that already exists due to the ability to use different window managers, but since they are mostly all designed for the same audience they aren't different enough.
Picture something like ICQ's Simple and Advanced modes, perhaps with a slider-bar somewhere on the desktop or even an agent that watches the user and tries to guess how literate they've become. When you're in the simpler modes, a lot of the features of the GUI are turned off (eg: you can't resize windows, there are no virtual desktops, etc.); the applications can read the level of complexity and use it to customise their own interfaces, particularily online help (eg: some of us can get what we need from man pages, some need wizards).
In particular this would assist in the installation of new programs (which inexperienced users don't do that much, anyway), eg: the package manager doesn't ask people in simple modes where to install things, it just puts them in the default. Even when installing the OS there should be different levels of hand-holding.
The way to prevent fragmentation for the sake of user-friendliness is to let companies like Corel and Caldera work on the Simple side and organisations like Debain work on the Advanced side. To this end a single distribution could have modes for different kinds of users, eg: Apple could provide short-cut keys, look & feel, etc. that would be friendly to a Mac refugee.
Does this current interest have to do with the fact that IPv6 will allow every traffic light to have its own IP? Just think of the possibilities for traffic reports!
Actually I can think of some advantages of including web servers in handhelds and similar devices -- it would raise journalism to a whole new speed. Now that I think about it, there's no reason other than the spirit of the Internet why it wouldn't be better to just use a central server...
Did anyone else get the feeling while looking at the pics of the models that the site reminded you of RealDoll? Not the sexual part, just the same eerie look...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe what we need is the "Slashdot Guide to Finding Information Online" -- we could email it to teachers...
Wired 8.04 suggests that humans won't be particularily useful in the future, but I think we should assume that we'll want to keep nanobots in our control as long as possible. The question then comes down to our ability to destory them: if nanobots get out of hand, will we be able to guarantee that we can deactivate them? How much should we worry about nanobots getting out of control? (Obviously the media and therefore the general public will worry about it, but should the professionals?)
If you're looking for a more technical paper, talk about how we would go about making a kill switch and how nanobots could be used for evil. If you're looking for something softer, talk about how the public will view nanotechnology and how it might end up causing more subtle problems like an economic divide.
Expressing philosophy through science fiction seems more effective than Plato's dialogs, and certainly more entertaining than Judith Butler (if you've read her you'll know what I mean). Most [good] science fiction can be seen as a thought experiment -- not necessarily exploring a philosophical theme but a social or technological possibility. My question: what are some other examples of science fiction (or other genre of novels) that are strongly based on philosophy?
A more practical question might be: how should an undergraduate get started working on AI? Or how should they prepare for graduate work in AI in a universe with few specialised courses?
Some background on GnuTella should be added as a Related Link.
This is such an innocent search that even NymphoSeek didn't return an adult site until the 12th hit!
Wouldn't best dressed be best awarded by a gift certificate to CopyLeft? Perhaps a retroactive one?
In my experience (as someone who has setup databases and interfaces for commercial ventures), the major concern of for-profit database owners is not that they won't be able to make money off the database (even if it's just ad revenues) but that someone will be able to grab all their information and resell it better than they can. I'd imagine that the major concern of not-for-profit database owners/creators is that someone will fragment the database through irregular mirroring.
The concerns of for-profit database owners is not paramount to a DGPL but the copying/mirroring of data should still be the focus. Towards this, it should be ensured that the DGPL addresses both dynamic and static databases and gives owners as much reason to use this license as the LGPL.
Wait a sec, if the Linux client and server are available online then wouldn't id/Loki have saved money by just releasing a single version?
I'd assume they didn't include the Linux version on the regular CD for the same reason that Unreal Tournament must be downloaded: support. So do I get Linux support if I buy the Linux box?
I had the same problem and there doesn't appear to be any meaningful tech support options on Corel's site. How many other people are having the same problem? Maybe we should try and figure out if there's any hardware similarities and help Corel out...
If you get your questions in quickly then all the knowledgable people checking out the site will have them answered in no time! After all, everyone will look at their areas of expertise before their areas of interest. This is provided the server stays up, of course. :)
Hasn't it been hit home enough times by the open source community that there are better ways of making your money than selling software? For that matter, is Opera making money? Starving university students (like me) would never pay over CDN$50 for any shareware — haven't enough arguments for smaller shareware fees been written long ago?
Besides, it doesn't matter if you make money as long as Wall Street thinks you might someday.
To expand on the animals question:
The animals seem to be the thing that stands out the most about O'Reilly books, even the most technically illiterate can tell they're cooler than other technical books (and since they're B&W it gives a dignified air).
It's always struck me as odd that Opera isn't open source. I mean they're trying to pass themselves off as an 'alternative' to the gorillas (coincidentally rhymes with 'mozilla'?), which seems like the standard stance of Linux and many other open source programs.
It seems like GPLing Opera back when their CSS support was non-existant would have helped them catch up. Then again, the only people I know who use Opera strike me as being the type who only like playing with computers if it will result in improvement. But how could the Linux community ever get cosy with a browser that's so non-free it costs money!
For that matter it almost seems quaint that a company would try and sell a browser. Maybe if you had a clear superiority over the competition -- but with a market share so low it's off the charts? Opera, what are you smoking? Open source the Linux browser if not the Windows!
Did anyone stop and consider what these legions of 486s in every Slashdotters' basement are doing to the environment? Granted, putting them in a landfill or burning them isn't a very good idea, but dedicating a 486 Beowulf cluster to SETI@Home or distributed.net could be using up natural resources or causing the construction of new nuclear power plants or dams. Modern computers should be spending time in sleep mode, not running processor-intensive screensavers. Okay a solar/tide/geothermal/etc. - powered Beowulf cluster for scientific use would be pretty cool. :)
The difference between the "hacker" stereotype and the "geek" stereotype, is that "geek" is mostly positive. Most people think we [?] must be intelligent, because they can't dream of figuring out how to do what we do.
As for religion, check out this Poll: After you die, what happens? clearly we need some more on this topic!
I'm not saying he's a rolemodel because of Linux's technical aspects, but of how he's changing the way people use computers. Some obscure researcher with papers that have titles that can't be understood by 1st-years is not a good rolemodel.
To recap, Linus is a good rolemodel because:
- Linux is an accessible, useful, and philosophically interesting achievement.
- Linus has chosen the public good over money.
- Linus is in the limelight enough that aspiring programmers don't have to rely on technical journals to hear about him.
The only other person I can think of that comes close to fulfilling those three criteria is Tim Berners-Lee.How dare you Mac users tell us about your keyboards! You just received [Home] and [End] keys and probably still can't do everything with a keyboard. (If you can think of anything that requires a mouse in Windows, speak up; and Linux goes without saying.)
I remember it now, trying to word process on Macs from the 80s...the fastest way to get to the end of the line was to click...text selection was drag-only...and forget about using the [Alt] keys for anything the designers didn't feel like attaching to some [swirly_thing]-[letter] command...those were the days.
Now that mice finally have more than two buttons, why would we want to slim-down our keyboard? Oh wait, there is one type of modern computer that doesn't even have a two-button mouse... That's right, this whole article is a Mac plot!
Well they must be sending something, as proprietary as it may be, through the keyboard port. So if someone with more programming skill than I was to write a hardware-level keyboard port sniffer then we'd be on the road to remapping them. Of course it's surprising that Microsoft hasn't abolished the need for proprietary and specific multimedia keyboard drivers yet.
Does anyone happen to know what Linus wrote his Master's Degree thesis on? (Or would he be the guy to email about that?)
I'm curious because he's the closest thing to a hero that computer science students have. Most of the other big names in the computer industry are either managers, advocates, crackers, or profs -- there's no reason why any of those shoes must be filled by a talented programmer. Linus is a nice guy, a good (if not exceptional) programmer, and still young enough to be trusted. :) He's a far better role model than any sports star, why do journalists never think of him as such?
Picture this: The Making of the Blair Witch Project
You've got the crew running around, making piles of sticks and sliming stuff, and a crew's following them around making a documentary on these relatively unknown film techniques. Shoot it more professionally, but still not big-budget (ie: not their first time making a documentary, but it's still a documentary). Then weird stuff starts going on -- the crew of the original movie actually does disappear. The rest of the movie follows the search parties who are trying to find these kids.
Kind of Scream 2 meets The Fugitive, but keep the standard Hollywood practices out so it can try and capture a fraction of what the original has. Part of the reason for suggesting this is that a documentary about The Blair Witch Project would be really cool to see, anyway -- lots of the reviews and interviews touch on some of the entertaining stuff the crew did.
So, any bids? :)
XFSetup is far from 'lovely' in many circumstances. I still cringe at trying to get an old (usually no-name) monitor to work at a decent resolution in X Windows. Since one of Linux's most impressive uses to non-technical users is its ability to revitalise old machines, this is a serious problem.
Why is it that a vintage monitor can display a Windows desktop at 800x600 with 256 colours after a simple Control Panel tweak (setting it as a Generic SuperVGA 800x600, I've never seen this not work), but hours of trying to guess refresh rates won't get more than a 320x200 physical desktop in X? This, combined with the 8 megs of RAM overhead, is what's keeping Linux off of millions of potentially useful 386s
What we need is a GUI that is scalable in complexity. To some extent that already exists due to the ability to use different window managers, but since they are mostly all designed for the same audience they aren't different enough.
Picture something like ICQ's Simple and Advanced modes, perhaps with a slider-bar somewhere on the desktop or even an agent that watches the user and tries to guess how literate they've become. When you're in the simpler modes, a lot of the features of the GUI are turned off (eg: you can't resize windows, there are no virtual desktops, etc.); the applications can read the level of complexity and use it to customise their own interfaces, particularily online help (eg: some of us can get what we need from man pages, some need wizards).
In particular this would assist in the installation of new programs (which inexperienced users don't do that much, anyway), eg: the package manager doesn't ask people in simple modes where to install things, it just puts them in the default. Even when installing the OS there should be different levels of hand-holding.
The way to prevent fragmentation for the sake of user-friendliness is to let companies like Corel and Caldera work on the Simple side and organisations like Debain work on the Advanced side. To this end a single distribution could have modes for different kinds of users, eg: Apple could provide short-cut keys, look & feel, etc. that would be friendly to a Mac refugee.
Does this current interest have to do with the fact that IPv6 will allow every traffic light to have its own IP? Just think of the possibilities for traffic reports!
Actually I can think of some advantages of including web servers in handhelds and similar devices -- it would raise journalism to a whole new speed. Now that I think about it, there's no reason other than the spirit of the Internet why it wouldn't be better to just use a central server...
Did anyone else get the feeling while looking at the pics of the models that the site reminded you of RealDoll? Not the sexual part, just the same eerie look...