Oh please. Since when is email near-useless? Despite the spam, it has become a unique form of communication that has an entire culture built around it. With it, you can make quick, informal communications without the cost/speed/convenience penalties of snail mail or a phone call, avoid responding to someone in a far better way than screening calls...people aren't *stopping* using it because of spam. People haven't stopped using the phone because of tele-marketers and haven't stopped watching TV because of advertisments. My dear ol' Mum, totally devoid of technical knowledge of computers, uses it regularly, as do I, someone quite technically able. This is absurb logic. Spam is something that is dealt with - it doesn't drive you away.
Actually, that's not as funny as it sounds. Obviously not taken literally, but I think that the typical NASA model of building up hard, complex systems that frequently break down may some day be considered bad design. What could function better are many, small resilient things that can compensate for destruction rather than succumb to it.
You're right - first thing I spotted when reading it.
That's OK - original poster probably learned the meaning of the word from the Alanis Morrisette song by the same name, just like half of the rest of North America.:p
Exactly! Look at the MS world and there are hundreds of programmers hacking away on their (mostly) shareware products that supposedly improve upon their higher-cost or less functional cousins. The only difference between them and the Opensource community at large is the philosophies behind them and why they're doing it(i.e. making a small buck vs contributing to a group they want to support). That's fine - both models can work in their own way.
However, this issue of comparing those "wasted efforts" of working on desktops like enlightenment is unfair and trollish - what about Stardock in Windows? Are they "wasting" their time? If they are - then they'll go out of business - if not then they'll thrive. I've tried some of their stuff, and it's not any less buggy than OS desktops I've used.
I understand the motivation behind the article - it's true that if Linux is perceived as being all these uncoordinated software projects, it can't beat MS. However, that's *precisely* what the distros are for. Redhat obviously at the forefront in the business world - but that why Redhat, Mandrake, and yes, even Lindows are there: to provide a consistent package of usable tools that work. These are the people that should be perceived as competition to MS.
So the inference that the opensource approach can't work and we need to somehow dispose of all this "wasted" programming time is misguided - the problem needs to be one of education of what the distros are all about.
DT
Re:This is becoming an interesting discussion.
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Yup, I understand your argument...and it's certainly valid to pose what-ifs based on the fact that nothing we know is true.:) That's about the only truth - in the future, scientists will look back on our currently "true" notions of many, many things and describe them as "charming", just as we commonly do know with many Victorian "facts". I see no harm in that, just as I see no harm in scifi taking those highly philosophical and sociological issues and running with them - that's what scifi is all about. However, there's a tendancy to perceive almost everything as solvable - we know more today than at any point in history so therefore it's just a matter of time until... Self-awareness is such an amazingly intangible thing - it almost defies the principles of science. Unlike other things, which can be observed and measured, about all we can do is record things like brain activity, physiology, etc., and come up with theories. There's even been theories that link conciousness to quantum mechanics(something I find interesting) and that by observing conciousness, you change it. However, even now, there's talk of quantum mechanics going away to be replaced by yet a different theory. You can't "measure" sentience because we haven't got a frickin' clue what it is - it's like trying to define art. But all this is moot, because IMHO we are *so* far away from even the most rudimentary understanding of this topic, all these cute little "AI" programs are frankly laughable in the scheme of things. Computers are great, I work on them every day, wonderful tools. Programming one to emulate a human mind in terms of observable behaviour is a parlour trick, and nothing more. Obviously IMHO.:)
So yes, we can say "what if they knew all about conciousness and sentience", and say "what if they implemented that in a machine", and then pose the philosophical questions, but why bother in the real world when we know diddly-squat about *either* of those processes, or even if they're compatible? I could come up with dozens of theories why you can't talk about machinery being "impregnated" with self-awareness - and that might even make a good novel! But I couldn't prove it, just as no-one can come even close to proving to me that their Amiga has feelings. Plus, I happen to think there's lots of grant money and prestige at stake here, and people are trying to make a living. Ever since Science started paying well, I've been skeptical.:)
And yes, this topic is very near and dear to my heart and I'm happy to discuss, not debate. Just for the record, there's a tendency for anti-AI people to be classed into a category of stiff-necked old farts that either have religious convictions, or somehow think that humans are somehow "sacred" and above the mere crudeness of machinery, or even animals for that matter. I don't fall into either category - I don't think we're a special case, I think some other animals are capable of sentience, whatever that is. Certainly there must be other life forms in the universe with it, and it appears to be some sort of natural process. But yah can't program Big Blue to *be* it - it can only emulate it.;)
DT
Re:Not as far fetched as it would seem
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
You're comparing a race of people to machines? Not even close. You're talking about cultural beliefs that we know now were rooted in racism and colonialism. "Yes," you argue back, "but how do we know that we're not making the same mistake now with my Commodore PET?" Well, with that attitude, why aren't we questioning the horrible slavery we inflict on rubber tires, lawnmowers, and my personal favourite: toasters (a la RedDwarf)? It becomes a meaningless argument, just like the "Elvis is on Mars" crowd who challenge NASA to *prove* them wrong. About the only difference is that we can program computers(note: it's just the software, not the hardware) to charmingly seem sorta-kinda like some sort of limited human being, when using an agreed-upon codex(language). We can't even define what sentience is - even Turning's test isn't an absolute fact - it's a *theory* - a belief - name it what you will. The original article was very populist and mainstream in it's approach - although I'll admit some of the drivel I read from "serious" AI proponents is more annoying!
When I was a kid in the 60's, my brother bought me a game called "NIM" - it was an angled surface with curved, rotatable segments that allowed you to define a simple algorithm by allowing, or denying, a marble to roll down the path they defined. Loved that thing to pieces! My favourite "horse-sense" argument against AI is this: imagine you have a massive game of NIM - more than 30 boards, 100, 1000...you are creating increasingly more complicated algorithms. At some point, when your NIM board is the size of a mountain, you'll have a seriously sophisticated program that will... become... sentient? A massive collection of marbles and plastic connectors? Thinking for itself? This is no different than someone programming Big Blue or the latest quantum system - it's software somehow encapsulated by hardware. That doesn't make it alive. We are more than that, and I'm an atheist! Problem is, we're wrapping them in these cute packages like "robots", with gentle, synthesized voices, or perhaps programmed to write in the style of Jane Austin. This is anthropomorphizing, not creating life.
All this stuff is great fun when used in a scifi context, but I hardly take it seriously.
Absolutely - I work in this industry and what you say is true(although lets get it straight, folks - "James Cameron" didn't decide to go Linux fer cryin' out loud - the folks at Digital Domain did. Crike.) Also, there is a massive leap between the renderfarm for Titanic and workstation penetration. Ask anyone that implemented the former and they would have laughed in your face if you said "Linux will take over your industry". At the time, there were absolutely no usable graphics drivers, and no apps. It's been a struggle to get this to happen, market forces drove it, not DD. SGI's stranglehold on the industry(onscene prices and *far* more obscene support contracts) was first assailed by windows, and then Linux. They finally broke - and now they're primarily serving military and research markets - back where they started. I for one am glad - an intel option, and no MS.
You have a bad eye if you think this is photorealism, and know little of the FX biz. That last 10% of "photoreal" is a killer, and it moves every few years. When Jurrasic Park came out - it was called "photoreal". It's been considered improved upon mightly since then.
I spent 8 years of my life living with a woman with "EI". Obviously that biases somewhat, but as someone that has(had) no such troubles, and yet was extremely close to one that was, it gives me at least a modicum of useful experience, I think. To keep it short(although that's one word I'd never associate with living with EI), I found that EI is a generic expression that encompasses such a massive range of potential reactions to the environment, it really defies being clumped together as one thing. As to your suggestion - it's *very* true - it's almost impossible to separate a psychological and physiological approach. There seems to be a certain sort of person that has these troubles, and it is *all*-consuming. Every day is a search to find yet another problem - mercury fillings, wheat flour, certain bacteria in the gut, house insulation, furnace filters - it never stops. Each one is the "saviour" - once it's addressed then all will be well...until...the next bout of symptoms and you move on to the next round. These people are desparate, they're suffering with real physical symptoms, and their lives have become medical textbooks. I'm not sure what to do about it - I know for a fact that certain people really do have a negative physical response to certain things that many of us can live with daily, and without trouble. There are some grains of truth in there, no question. What are we supposed to do about it? Alter the way all houses are built for everyone, even the vast majority who are fine with these things? Make a law that every baker must carry a spelt line of products? I personally see it like diabetes - there are a very few concessions made for the diabetic in modern culture, but restaurants certainly don't feel the need to provide a diabetic menu. There are some specialty products for them, there is a market for it, but it really doesn't affect the vast majority. I think this is no different. And in case you're wondering - yes, it was hell living with someone you love that suffers from this - whatever it is.
Well, I can tell you why *I* flame them, in a loud voice, and it's got nothing to do with any corporate smell they may or may not have. I only used Gnome in the past - I much preferred it to KDE which felt too much like windows to me. Then...along came RH8 and Gnome 2, and their *lamebrained* decision to make Havoc's little pet project in user management, metacity, the default wm. It's been talked to death, I won't repeat it here, but cusomizability is *critical*. The KDE folks summed it up best, right off the top of that great interview, with the simple, factual comment that seriously limiting configurability just hurts the advanced users that *need* them, and the newbies don't even notice. It should be about *default* configs, not whether to allow configs at all. Metacity broke our workflow. We use $25K/cut software to get our jobs done, and if Havoc seriously thinks he's helping matters by breaking from the "tyranny" of app coders, he's really got to get out more. We're professionals here - this is how we make our money, and I pushed hard to get Linux into the flow because it *works*. Then along comes this coder with a screwed up attitude and everything went to hell. Luckily, KDE3+ has improved immensely and we use it now, but it's a shame that all the other great Gnome work will be ignored by us until this attitude goes away, if ever.
And yup, I'd like to echo that I was shocked at the complete lack of knowledge of XP those folks had. Despite what most here might think - not *everything* is screwed with XP - they did some things right, and it's important to know your competition!
It's important to question new things, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I think the point of this whole thing wasn't to save a surgeon an 8 hour car ride(the weather here was awful - he couldn't have flown). It was small steps - just starting out...the purpose is to allow possibilities that could never happen before - and could happen very *quickly*. This is critical - why should someone living far from a major urban centre be forced to have a limited selection of qualified surgeons? What if they need surgery *now*? Risks? Yup, there's risks - the geeky stuff joked about here like inet lines going down, latency, network failure in general. But don't forget that a qualified surgeon is at the patient end also! In such a disaster, there's someone there who can at least recover. There's risks just having surgery. I would argue this is probably *safer* than a typical operation done in a hospital - look at all the horrible things that happen in the traditional hospitals, such as that poor girl given an incorrect organ recently. The hitech trappings serve to accentuate the focus of all involved.
DT
Re:MODERATORS: This is a valid question
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 1
Well, I guess Larry will answer if this question makes it, but since he "ripped off" the concept of a Dyson Sphere(Ringworld is just a cheaper, more practical Dyson sphere), I doubt he would feel slighted. Hope not, anyway...
Fine, but guess what? He personally wasn't responsible for all those "movements" - he was coached not only by Jackson, but by the FX supervisor. The digital team had a *phenomonal* amount to do with the success that is "Gollum". That's not to put down the actor - he was part of the team, an integral one - but that was *not* Serkis on the screen - it was a fabrication. I find myself in the bizarre and awkward position of agreeing with the Academy that it is inappropriate to consider awarding Serkis for the work of that huge team. He inspired them - he did not *do* it.
For the record - I think the work was better for having Serkis along - it was a wonderful team effort.
It's also possible that it had nothing to do with digital technology - the Academy, such is their wont - has been known to pass over performances before!
Forget all the tech arguments(it's *fiction*, folks) this guy has some serious issues - he seems incapable of writing realistic female characters. Jurassic Park - the little girl was constantly whining and crying - at least Spielberg gave her some intelligence("Hey - this is Unix! I know this!:) ). Andromeda Strain- I only recall some nurses. Now, in Prey, the hero's wife goes to the dark side and conjures up some Clones(see: Attack of). Mebbe Mr. Critchton should go for a little sensitivity training? Dyson rocks, though.
Man, if there was *ever* an argument for the original poster to try something other than scifi, it's this. I read Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon based on rantings and ravings I've read on/., and I almost didn't make it through SC. Come on! A 15 year old, sexually active imp of a girl that "pontoons" passing cars and hitches rides on her high tech skateboard? Avatars in VR? Talk about adolescent scifi sleaze! *Really* bad writing. Crypt was definitely better and a much more mature work, but he started losing me 3/4 of the way through...his premises outshine his endings. Hey - not meaning to totally slag the guy - it's easy to criticize and it's frickin' *hard* to write well! I'm more criticizing the blind adoration of the guy from geeks.
I didn't even need to trace this thread back - I could tell by your description what this was. I work in visual FX, and one time we were toying with the idea of making a ufo hoax as a pr gimmick(we never got around to it). Anyway, I spent a fair bit of time analysing that movie, and I hate to disappoint any abductees out there, but you're right - it's a fake. Even discounting the common sense things you mention, there are motion blur problems with the UFO for those few frames when it zips past and it cuts to the shot straight up. It's obviously a CG element. I also noticed some artifacting issues when they did a hold-back matte for the saucer when it emerged from behind the building. It's a *good* fake, mind you! But it's a fake.:)
You're simply wrong. I envy you your station that actually does something new, but here in Toronto, you hear the same 20 frickin' songs over. and over. and over. Sure, you can change to another channel, and you get *another* 20 songs - some overlap. Over. and over. and over. There's plenty of good music out there. There's no venue for them on the airwaves, that's all. My favourite oxymoronic classification is "Alternative". Alternative? To What? Britney Spears, I guess. Same garbage, incessently repeated. I personally don't think this will threaten radio - too many lemmings out there that can't conceive of pay radio and too much power that would be given up - but it's the *sort*of thing that I hope, one day, will start to creep into radio. I remember in the "old days" that I would be shocked to occasionally hear Penguin Cafe Orchestra creep into the mix. The only place I can hear stuff like that now is on our late night, government funded CBC network.
Just to spoil everyone's fun:) , actually Asimov didn't refer to the HAL-killing, he made the comment about the moons of Jupiter lining up as they did in 2001...in fact this wouldn't (and didn't) happen, and both Asimov and Clarke knew it, leading to the famous tease and retort from Clarke at the movie theatre premiere...
You've been lucky. I setup an email for my girlfriend that has, literally, not been used - ever. I started checking it for her on a whim and sure enough, at least twice a week she gets spam. This isn't msn or hotmail - it's on rogers.com!
DT
Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi
on
Human-Mouse Hybrids?
·
· Score: 1
I thought this was a joke post, but it appears with all the serious responses I was incorrect. "you should have more faith in us to do what is right" Are you kidding? The Nazi's said the same line. "to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else" What? Look, I love the process of science, but you are either stunningly naive or deliberately misleading yourself. At it's most idealistic centre, Science is about analysis and discovery, but there's nothing in it's history that indicates any reverence *or* despising of life. Scientists are *people*. Thus, they are selfish, caring, power-hungry, giving, naive, racist, stupid...you name it. Any of these and more could apply. In addition to all the obviously wonderful things it has brought us, there's also:
Nuclear weapons Agent Orange Thalidomide kids Nazi experiments at the death camps Diet pill addicts Eugenics All the armamants more complicated than a stick or rock
All of the above were created with "all the best intentions." I agree with you that articles like this always make them as sensational and outrageous as possible, but to suggest that "we" are supposed to trust "you" is as arrogant as it is naive. There are a large number of scientists that strongly disagree with this type of research. For the record, I'm an atheist, and someone that has been fascinated and in love with the scientific process since I was a child. This isn't an anti-science rant, it's a humanist response to what is a stunningly uneducated comment, IMHO. I'm not talking about education as in your degree, which you seem to feel the need to mention, but in common sense education. Strive to rise above your ignorance. Don't be like Oppenheimer and recognize it too late.
Then you've got a long, expensive path ahead of you. Are you so insecure that someone questioning something you believe in outrages you to the point that public money must be spent to prove them otherwise? *Everything* is questioned by *someone*. Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society? Poor Columbus(and the Vikings for that matter)! How about creationists? There will always be wackos/disbelievers. Ignore them and move on...the time(on the telescope) and mental exercises are best spent elsewhere.
I also found it humorous when he stated: "Windows is based on the revolutionary work of Xerox research"
Ummm....huh? Didn't this guy ever hear about Apple?
What an utterly nonsensical piece of crap. I also couldn't find any indication that computers are used for more than simply data access - they're used to *create* data - such as music, writing, graphics. You need more than an OS, or his replacement, for this.
Well, I would imagine the cost would be shared by all the institutions contributing to the site...essentially it will be a service, offered by the universities. Just like online courses are there now - it's growth. Doesn't seem all that outrageous to me...especially as more universities join up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, Paul Erdos would have been disappointed...this "solution" was not elegant...
http://www.paulerdos.com/
DT
Oh please. Since when is email near-useless? Despite the spam, it has become a unique form of communication that has an entire culture built around it. With it, you can make quick, informal communications without the cost/speed/convenience penalties of snail mail or a phone call, avoid responding to someone in a far better way than screening calls...people aren't *stopping* using it because of spam. People haven't stopped using the phone because of tele-marketers and haven't stopped watching TV because of advertisments. My dear ol' Mum, totally devoid of technical knowledge of computers, uses it regularly, as do I, someone quite technically able. This is absurb logic.
Spam is something that is dealt with - it doesn't drive you away.
DT
Actually, that's not as funny as it sounds. Obviously not taken literally, but I think that the typical NASA model of building up hard, complex systems that frequently break down may some day be considered bad design. What could function better are many, small resilient things that can compensate for destruction rather than succumb to it.
:)
Can you say "nana-Shuttle", ladies and germs?
Cheers,
DT
You're right - first thing I spotted when reading it.
:p
That's OK - original poster probably learned the meaning of the word from the Alanis Morrisette song by the same name, just like half of the rest of North America.
DT
Exactly! Look at the MS world and there are hundreds of programmers hacking away on their (mostly) shareware products that supposedly improve upon their higher-cost or less functional cousins. The only difference between them and the Opensource community at large is the philosophies behind them and why they're doing it(i.e. making a small buck vs contributing to a group they want to support). That's fine - both models can work in their own way.
However, this issue of comparing those "wasted efforts" of working on desktops like enlightenment is unfair and trollish - what about Stardock in Windows? Are they "wasting" their time? If they are - then they'll go out of business - if not then they'll thrive. I've tried some of their stuff, and it's not any less buggy than OS desktops I've used.
I understand the motivation behind the article - it's true that if Linux is perceived as being all these uncoordinated software projects, it can't beat MS. However, that's *precisely* what the distros are for. Redhat obviously at the forefront in the business world - but that why Redhat, Mandrake, and yes, even Lindows are there: to provide a consistent package of usable tools that work. These are the people that should be perceived as competition to MS.
So the inference that the opensource approach can't work and we need to somehow dispose of all this "wasted" programming time is misguided - the problem needs to be one of education of what the distros are all about.
DT
Yup, I understand your argument...and it's certainly valid to pose what-ifs based on the fact that nothing we know is true. :) That's about the only truth - in the future, scientists will look back on our currently "true" notions of many, many things and describe them as "charming", just as we commonly do know with many Victorian "facts". :)
:)
;)
I see no harm in that, just as I see no harm in scifi taking those highly philosophical and sociological issues and running with them - that's what scifi is all about.
However, there's a tendancy to perceive almost everything as solvable - we know more today than at any point in history so therefore it's just a matter of time until... Self-awareness is such an amazingly intangible thing - it almost defies the principles of science. Unlike other things, which can be observed and measured, about all we can do is record things like brain activity, physiology, etc., and come up with theories. There's even been theories that link conciousness to quantum mechanics(something I find interesting) and that by observing conciousness, you change it. However, even now, there's talk of quantum mechanics going away to be replaced by yet a different theory. You can't "measure" sentience because we haven't got a frickin' clue what it is - it's like trying to define art. But all this is moot, because IMHO we are *so* far away from even the most rudimentary understanding of this topic, all these cute little "AI" programs are frankly laughable in the scheme of things. Computers are great, I work on them every day, wonderful tools. Programming one to emulate a human mind in terms of observable behaviour is a parlour trick, and nothing more. Obviously IMHO.
So yes, we can say "what if they knew all about conciousness and sentience", and say "what if they implemented that in a machine", and then pose the philosophical questions, but why bother in the real world when we know diddly-squat about *either* of those processes, or even if they're compatible? I could come up with dozens of theories why you can't talk about machinery being "impregnated" with self-awareness - and that might even make a good novel! But I couldn't prove it, just as no-one can come even close to proving to me that their Amiga has feelings.
Plus, I happen to think there's lots of grant money and prestige at stake here, and people are trying to make a living. Ever since Science started paying well, I've been skeptical.
And yes, this topic is very near and dear to my heart and I'm happy to discuss, not debate. Just for the record, there's a tendency for anti-AI people to be classed into a category of stiff-necked old farts that either have religious convictions, or somehow think that humans are somehow "sacred" and above the mere crudeness of machinery, or even animals for that matter. I don't fall into either category - I don't think we're a special case, I think some other animals are capable of sentience, whatever that is. Certainly there must be other life forms in the universe with it, and it appears to be some sort of natural process. But yah can't program Big Blue to *be* it - it can only emulate it.
DT
You're comparing a race of people to machines? Not even close. You're talking about cultural beliefs that we know now were rooted in racism and colonialism. "Yes," you argue back, "but how do we know that we're not making the same mistake now with my Commodore PET?" Well, with that attitude, why aren't we questioning the horrible slavery we inflict on rubber tires, lawnmowers, and my personal favourite: toasters (a la RedDwarf)? It becomes a meaningless argument, just like the "Elvis is on Mars" crowd who challenge NASA to *prove* them wrong.
About the only difference is that we can program computers(note: it's just the software, not the hardware) to charmingly seem sorta-kinda like some sort of limited human being, when using an agreed-upon codex(language). We can't even define what sentience is - even Turning's test isn't an absolute fact - it's a *theory* - a belief - name it what you will.
The original article was very populist and mainstream in it's approach - although I'll admit some of the drivel I read from "serious" AI proponents is more annoying!
When I was a kid in the 60's, my brother bought me a game called "NIM" - it was an angled surface with curved, rotatable segments that allowed you to define a simple algorithm by allowing, or denying, a marble to roll down the path they defined. Loved that thing to pieces! My favourite "horse-sense" argument against AI is this: imagine you have a massive game of NIM - more than 30 boards, 100, 1000...you are creating increasingly more complicated algorithms. At some point, when your NIM board is the size of a mountain, you'll have a seriously sophisticated program that will... become... sentient? A massive collection of marbles and plastic connectors? Thinking for itself? This is no different than someone programming Big Blue or the latest quantum system - it's software somehow encapsulated by hardware. That doesn't make it alive. We are more than that, and I'm an atheist! Problem is, we're wrapping them in these cute packages like "robots", with gentle, synthesized voices, or perhaps programmed to write in the style of Jane Austin. This is anthropomorphizing, not creating life.
All this stuff is great fun when used in a scifi context, but I hardly take it seriously.
DT
Absolutely - I work in this industry and what you say is true(although lets get it straight, folks - "James Cameron" didn't decide to go Linux fer cryin' out loud - the folks at Digital Domain did. Crike.)
Also, there is a massive leap between the renderfarm for Titanic and workstation penetration. Ask anyone that implemented the former and they would have laughed in your face if you said "Linux will take over your industry". At the time, there were absolutely no usable graphics drivers, and no apps. It's been a struggle to get this to happen, market forces drove it, not DD. SGI's stranglehold on the industry(onscene prices and *far* more obscene support contracts) was first assailed by windows, and then Linux. They finally broke - and now they're primarily serving military and research markets - back where they started. I for one am glad - an intel option, and no MS.
DT
You have a bad eye if you think this is photorealism, and know little of the FX biz. That last 10% of "photoreal" is a killer, and it moves every few years.
When Jurrasic Park came out - it was called "photoreal". It's been considered improved upon mightly since then.
DT
I spent 8 years of my life living with a woman with "EI". Obviously that biases somewhat, but as someone that has(had) no such troubles, and yet was extremely close to one that was, it gives me at least a modicum of useful experience, I think.
To keep it short(although that's one word I'd never associate with living with EI), I found that EI is a generic expression that encompasses such a massive range of potential reactions to the environment, it really defies being clumped together as one thing. As to your suggestion - it's *very* true - it's almost impossible to separate a psychological and physiological approach. There seems to be a certain sort of person that has these troubles, and it is *all*-consuming. Every day is a search to find yet another problem - mercury fillings, wheat flour, certain bacteria in the gut, house insulation, furnace filters - it never stops. Each one is the "saviour" - once it's addressed then all will be well...until...the next bout of symptoms and you move on to the next round. These people are desparate, they're suffering with real physical symptoms, and their lives have become medical textbooks.
I'm not sure what to do about it - I know for a fact that certain people really do have a negative physical response to certain things that many of us can live with daily, and without trouble. There are some grains of truth in there, no question.
What are we supposed to do about it? Alter the way all houses are built for everyone, even the vast majority who are fine with these things? Make a law that every baker must carry a spelt line of products? I personally see it like diabetes - there are a very few concessions made for the diabetic in modern culture, but restaurants certainly don't feel the need to provide a diabetic menu. There are some specialty products for them, there is a market for it, but it really doesn't affect the vast majority. I think this is no different.
And in case you're wondering - yes, it was hell living with someone you love that suffers from this - whatever it is.
DT
Well, I can tell you why *I* flame them, in a loud voice, and it's got nothing to do with any corporate smell they may or may not have. I only used Gnome in the past - I much preferred it to KDE which felt too much like windows to me. Then...along came RH8 and Gnome 2, and their *lamebrained* decision to make Havoc's little pet project in user management, metacity, the default wm. It's been talked to death, I won't repeat it here, but cusomizability is *critical*. The KDE folks summed it up best, right off the top of that great interview, with the simple, factual comment that seriously limiting configurability just hurts the advanced users that *need* them, and the newbies don't even notice. It should be about *default* configs, not whether to allow configs at all.
Metacity broke our workflow. We use $25K/cut software to get our jobs done, and if Havoc seriously thinks he's helping matters by breaking from the "tyranny" of app coders, he's really got to get out more. We're professionals here - this is how we make our money, and I pushed hard to get Linux into the flow because it *works*. Then along comes this coder with a screwed up attitude and everything went to hell.
Luckily, KDE3+ has improved immensely and we use it now, but it's a shame that all the other great Gnome work will be ignored by us until this attitude goes away, if ever.
And yup, I'd like to echo that I was shocked at the complete lack of knowledge of XP those folks had. Despite what most here might think - not *everything* is screwed with XP - they did some things right, and it's important to know your competition!
DT
It's important to question new things, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I think the point of this whole thing wasn't to save a surgeon an 8 hour car ride(the weather here was awful - he couldn't have flown). It was small steps - just starting out...the purpose is to allow possibilities that could never happen before - and could happen very *quickly*. This is critical - why should someone living far from a major urban centre be forced to have a limited selection of qualified surgeons? What if they need surgery *now*?
Risks? Yup, there's risks - the geeky stuff joked about here like inet lines going down, latency, network failure in general. But don't forget that a qualified surgeon is at the patient end also! In such a disaster, there's someone there who can at least recover.
There's risks just having surgery. I would argue this is probably *safer* than a typical operation done in a hospital - look at all the horrible things that happen in the traditional hospitals, such as that poor girl given an incorrect organ recently. The hitech trappings serve to accentuate the focus of all involved.
DT
Well, I guess Larry will answer if this question makes it, but since he "ripped off" the concept of a Dyson Sphere(Ringworld is just a cheaper, more practical Dyson sphere), I doubt he would feel slighted. Hope not, anyway...
DT
Fine, but guess what? He personally wasn't responsible for all those "movements" - he was coached not only by Jackson, but by the FX supervisor. The digital team had a *phenomonal* amount to do with the success that is "Gollum". That's not to put down the actor - he was part of the team, an integral one - but that was *not* Serkis on the screen - it was a fabrication. I find myself in the bizarre and awkward position of agreeing with the Academy that it is inappropriate to consider awarding Serkis for the work of that huge team. He inspired them - he did not *do* it.
For the record - I think the work was better for having Serkis along - it was a wonderful team effort.
It's also possible that it had nothing to do with digital technology - the Academy, such is their wont - has been known to pass over performances before!
DT
Forget all the tech arguments(it's *fiction*, folks) this guy has some serious issues - he seems incapable of writing realistic female characters. Jurassic Park - the little girl was constantly whining and crying - at least Spielberg gave her some intelligence("Hey - this is Unix! I know this! :) ). Andromeda Strain- I only recall some nurses. Now, in Prey, the hero's wife goes to the dark side and conjures up some Clones(see: Attack of).
Mebbe Mr. Critchton should go for a little sensitivity training?
Dyson rocks, though.
DT
Man, if there was *ever* an argument for the original poster to try something other than scifi, it's this. I read Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon based on rantings and ravings I've read on /., and I almost didn't make it through SC. Come on! A 15 year old, sexually active imp of a girl that "pontoons" passing cars and hitches rides on her high tech skateboard? Avatars in VR? Talk about adolescent scifi sleaze! *Really* bad writing. Crypt was definitely better and a much more mature work, but he started losing me 3/4 of the way through...his premises outshine his endings.
Hey - not meaning to totally slag the guy - it's easy to criticize and it's frickin' *hard* to write well! I'm more criticizing the blind adoration of the guy from geeks.
DT
I didn't even need to trace this thread back - I could tell by your description what this was. I work in visual FX, and one time we were toying with the idea of making a ufo hoax as a pr gimmick(we never got around to it). Anyway, I spent a fair bit of time analysing that movie, and I hate to disappoint any abductees out there, but you're right - it's a fake. Even discounting the common sense things you mention, there are motion blur problems with the UFO for those few frames when it zips past and it cuts to the shot straight up. It's obviously a CG element. I also noticed some artifacting issues when they did a hold-back matte for the saucer when it emerged from behind the building. :)
It's a *good* fake, mind you! But it's a fake.
DT
You're simply wrong. I envy you your station that actually does something new, but here in Toronto, you hear the same 20 frickin' songs over. and over. and over. Sure, you can change to another channel, and you get *another* 20 songs - some overlap. Over. and over. and over.
There's plenty of good music out there. There's no venue for them on the airwaves, that's all. My favourite oxymoronic classification is "Alternative". Alternative? To What? Britney Spears, I guess. Same garbage, incessently repeated.
I personally don't think this will threaten radio - too many lemmings out there that can't conceive of pay radio and too much power that would be given up - but it's the *sort*of thing that I hope, one day, will start to creep into radio. I remember in the "old days" that I would be shocked to occasionally hear Penguin Cafe Orchestra creep into the mix. The only place I can hear stuff like that now is on our late night, government funded CBC network.
DT
Just to spoil everyone's fun :) , actually Asimov didn't refer to the HAL-killing, he made the comment about the moons of Jupiter lining up as they did in 2001...in fact this wouldn't (and didn't) happen, and both Asimov and Clarke knew it, leading to the famous tease and retort from Clarke at the movie theatre premiere...
DT
You've been lucky. I setup an email for my girlfriend that has, literally, not been used - ever. I started checking it for her on a whim and sure enough, at least twice a week she gets spam. This isn't msn or hotmail - it's on rogers.com!
DT
I thought this was a joke post, but it appears with all the serious responses I was incorrect.
"you should have more faith in us to do what is right"
Are you kidding? The Nazi's said the same line.
"to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else"
What? Look, I love the process of science, but you are either stunningly naive or deliberately misleading yourself. At it's most idealistic centre, Science is about analysis and discovery, but there's nothing in it's history that indicates any reverence *or* despising of life. Scientists are *people*. Thus, they are selfish, caring, power-hungry, giving, naive, racist, stupid...you name it. Any of these and more could apply. In addition to all the obviously wonderful things it has brought us, there's also:
Nuclear weapons
Agent Orange
Thalidomide kids
Nazi experiments at the death camps
Diet pill addicts
Eugenics
All the armamants more complicated than a stick or rock
All of the above were created with "all the best intentions."
I agree with you that articles like this always make them as sensational and outrageous as possible, but to suggest that "we" are supposed to trust "you" is as arrogant as it is naive. There are a large number of scientists that strongly disagree with this type of research.
For the record, I'm an atheist, and someone that has been fascinated and in love with the scientific process since I was a child. This isn't an anti-science rant, it's a humanist response to what is a stunningly uneducated comment, IMHO. I'm not talking about education as in your degree, which you seem to feel the need to mention, but in common sense education.
Strive to rise above your ignorance. Don't be like Oppenheimer and recognize it too late.
DT
*Faster* than light.
Got it at Roswell. Can't comment further or *ack*
DT
Then you've got a long, expensive path ahead of you. Are you so insecure that someone questioning something you believe in outrages you to the point that public money must be spent to prove them otherwise? *Everything* is questioned by *someone*. Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society? Poor Columbus(and the Vikings for that matter)! How about creationists?
There will always be wackos/disbelievers. Ignore them and move on...the time(on the telescope) and mental exercises are best spent elsewhere.
DT
I also found it humorous when he stated:
"Windows is based on the revolutionary work of Xerox research"
Ummm....huh? Didn't this guy ever hear about Apple?
What an utterly nonsensical piece of crap.
I also couldn't find any indication that computers are used for more than simply data access - they're used to *create* data - such as music, writing, graphics. You need more than an OS, or his replacement, for this.
DT
Well, I would imagine the cost would be shared by all the institutions contributing to the site...essentially it will be a service, offered by the universities. Just like online courses are there now - it's growth. Doesn't seem all that outrageous to me...especially as more universities join up.
DT