I think the problem here, though, is that state changes will occur that not everyone sees, so their count will be off, and you run the risk of never getting out.
Imagine you're picked for the first time on the 51st day. The light is off. How many people have been picked before you? You have no idea.
(Well, you know at least two people have been picked, but perhaps the warden's been alternating between those two for the past 50 days. But on the other hand, 50 people could have been out. If so, and you started your state-change count at two now, you'd never reach 100.)
Without some accurate way of counting, no one can be sure they've seen all the state changes, and so no one can say with positivity that all 100 people have been out. You end up with a prison full of people with inaccurate counts waiting to reach a number that never comes. Right?
Well, I came up with a solution, but somehow it just seems inelegant to me. Any other solutions out there?
100 prisoners in solitary cells. There's a central living room with one light bulb; the bulb is initially off. Everyday, the warden picks a prisoner at random, and that prisoner goes to the central living room. While there, the prisoner can toggle the bulb if he or she wishes. Also, the prisoner has the option of asserting the claim that all 100 prisoners have been to the living room. If this assertion is false (that is, some prisoners still haven't been to the living room), all 100 prisoners will be shot for their stupidity. However, if it is indeed true, all prisoners are set free and inducted into MENSA, since the world can always use more smart people. Thus, the assertion should only be made if the prisoner is 100% certain of its validity. The prisoners are allowed to get together one night, to discuss a plan. What plan should they agree on, so that eventually, someone will make a correct assertion?
* SPOILER *
.
* SPOILER *
.
* SPOILER *
.
* SPOILER *
The rule is: Turn on the light if it's off, unless you've already done this once, in which case, do nothing.
The day all 100 of you meet, designate one person to turn off the light. Have them count each light they turn off. When they reach 100, they will know everyone else has been out already, and can safely demand their freedom.
(Of course, assuming the warden really does pick someone at random, he could pick the same person every day, forever. Or not pick one person, every day, forever. Either way, there's no guarantee you're ever getting out.)
The mac.com address was a great viral marketing tool for Apple. It's essentially like wearing a t-shirt 24 hours a day that says, "I own a Mac and love it. Ask me questions about switching."
Now what happens when people drop their mac.com addresses in droves, angry with Apple for their bait-and-switch?
Apple has earned so much goodwill over the past few years for their embrace of UNIX and Open Source technologies. I guess they think it's time to burn some karma.
I noticed it too. The consensus seems to be that the new font is Adobe Myriad Roman. I think it's just... too boring. It lacks wit. I hope they wise up.
Check out their homepage. The slightly effete but expressive classic Apple Garamond font has been replaced by a plain, rather ugly version of Adobe Myriad Roman. Say it ain't so! But it is.
They started it with the eMac, but I assumed it was some education-only market differentiator. Apparently not. There's a little more at Mired.
Personally, I think it's a terrible change. And a stupid one. They'd built a huge amount of brand identity with Apple Garamond, to the point where anything written in it reminded you of Apple. The new font has no personality at all. Is that what they were going for?
P.S. The Myriad Roman link is a Google cache of a page that 404's now.
If your Mom runs, say, Windows 98, what happens when she needs something fixed? She calls you. You drive over to her house. You muck about with your computer while she asks you when you're finally going to graduate from college or how long it's going to be until she has grandkids.
A Linux install and SSH saves both of you time and effort. For example:
Mom: "Something's wrong. I got an instant message link in my e-mail and it won't work."
You (typing in background): "Got it. It's already fixed!"
Instead of sipping from the cup of lukewarm techno that is most modern electronica, I'd suggest diving into the 16-bit wonderland that was and is the MODscene.
Back before there were MP3s or computers fast enough to play them, there were MODs -- 4 channel music files that began on the Amiga, and contained their own samples. MODs encouraged experimentation in electronic music on a level never seen before -- you could download a MOD, load it up in your tracker, and start coding a new song using the samples already there.
MODs branched out from their 4 channel beginnings into multiple channels and a variety of new extensions like.S3M,.XM, *.ULT, *.IT., and the more powerful the tracking software became, the more people were drawn to the scene. It was the online equivalent of jazz clubs in the '30s. I think it's one of the great secret stories of the web.
Then RealAudio hit. And after that, MP3. Online music aficionados began to follow a different path, and MODs, like BBS culture, slowly died. The MOD culture is still around, eclipsed but not forgotten. I'd suggest starting with The Kosmic Free Music Foundation, arguably the most prolific and influencial modgroup of that era. You could also check out the Hornet archive or the Modarchive. Either Winamp or XMMS should play them.
_________________________ Check your karma. It's changed.
Lack of cheap energy is at the root of so many of the world's major problems, it's a wonder we're still pumping petrochemicals around. Lunar-generated solar power could be beamed to Earth via microwave and easily solve our energy shortage. We could have more power than we'd know what to do with AND begin colonizing our solar system at the same time. What could be better?
As a side note, I wonder, too, if orbitally-generated solar power couldn't solve some of our political problems here on Earth. If we could destroy the oil economy, we'd destroy most of the funding that Middle Eastern terrorist organizations depend upon.
Even as Bush prepares to attack Iraq we continue to import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq every month -- as much as they will sell us. Our oil money directly funds terrorist organizations like Al Qaida and the regimes that harbor them. Dry up the oil economy and you dry up their funding -- it's an interesting hypothesis, at any rate. In my opinion, instead of national ID cards, so-called Patriot Acts, and new cabinet-level Terror Czars, we ought to be spending our money in a much more productive way -- solving the energy problems that fund terrorism in the first place.
Thanks for the link. I noticed further down the page that Nokia 7650 has a built-in Sound Recorder. Is there any info on what format this records in and whether or not you can attach those files to an e-mail sent wirelessly? Could you attach both sound and pictures?
I don't know anything about J2ME, the version of Java for mobile devices that the 7650 uses, but might it be possible to hack the camera into recording video, too?
Lindows is such a terrible idea I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was really a secret Microsoft plot to discredit and destroy Linux.
One can almost imagine Gates, Balmer and Co., huddled in a secret midnight meeting, determining that the best way to undermine the Linux juggernaut is to create a monstrously terrible version of Linux itself. A version which brags of Windows compatibility while crashing any Windows app the user tries to run. A version which touts the laurels of Linux's open source history, but rejects them in favor of a cash-for-code scenario. Better yet, Gates might say, we'll make the code not even work! Muhahaha!
Lindows isn't Windows; Lindows IS terrible Linux. It looks backward, not forward; it is a black eye to all the golden work accomplished by Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, and the million unpaid coders who helped make Linux so much easier to use in the past few years, a platform that stands on its own, a platform that Doesn't Need Microsoft For Anything. Lindows is the Benedict Arnold of Linux.
Of course, I think we have a duty to help support those whose first foray into the Linux world is Lindows -- but I think the best support we can give is to hand over a CD with the distro of our choice on it and tell them, "Forget about Lindows... THIS is Linux."
Not in browser share, but something more subtle and important: Mozilla has destroyed permanently Microsoft's monopolistic control of the browser.
Without Mozilla, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft leveraged the power of its browser share to make more money. In a pre-Mozilla world, Microsoft could've made IE v.9.0 have a permanent default home page of MSN.com. Not anymore. Switching is too easy.
Even if Mozilla's browser share never makes it to double digits, it will always loom in the background, casting a long shadow, threatening to overtake IE should Microsoft fumble the ball. I call that a victory any day.
Re:Use Sneakmail to keep from getting spammed
on
P2P Roaming Chat
·
· Score: 2
I know Sneakemail has been around for a while (I've just never gotten around to trying them until now) but I see your point.
This doesn't seem like it'd be too hard a script to write, though. I'll look around, and if I find one, I'll post a link to it in a reply to this thread.
Re:Use Sneakmail to keep from getting spammed
on
P2P Roaming Chat
·
· Score: 2
Just tried it. It was super fast. I'm sure I'll be using it again. Thanks for the tip!
A few years ago, I remember posting something on Slashdot about how Mozilla was too little, *way* too late. Netscape was dead, and worse than that, it was kludgy and buggy. IE was, in spite of its faults, the most standards compliant browser out there, and it was hella fast, too.
I really thought Mozilla was doomed. And all those notices on mozilla.org! "Download at your own risk! This software is buggy! It'll probably make your 'puter explode!" It seemed like they didn't even want to succeed.
I've been keeping track of Mozilla since then though, and downloading new versions every so often. Today, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Mozilla team, congratulate them, and apologize to them. I thought you couldn't do it. But you did do it. And you did it well. You've made me a stronger believer in open source than I was before, and you've made a kickass browser, too.
Before I install anything Quicktime related again, Apple is going to have to win me back with a much better interface and functionality. I used to enjoy Quicktime, back when you could fullscreen videos without registering, back when the controls were usable and ergonomic, back when there wasn't a constant nag screen, back when there wasn't some overpaid designer's faux brushed metal skin cluttering up the window.
To anyone who's installed the new beta: Have these issues been fixed at all? Since OSX, Apple has been getting things right again, and I'd love to see them make Quicktime function like it did in the past. As it is now, I even choose (gack!) RealMedia before Quicktime.
The Flash video was nicely done, but I think trying to paint corporations as villains for trying to "keep their profits high" is a strategy waiting to backfire. Keeping profits high is what corporations are supposed to do. No one in power is going to spank them for doing that.
The whole issue isn't about profits in the first place. It's about control. THEY want to control the things YOU buy AFTER you buy them. And they're using all their corporate powers -- money, lobbying, technology -- to stop you from owning things at all. In their world, you don't own CDs, just licenses to listen to them.
I think we'd all be doing better if we lampooned these corporations as communist dictators instead of capitalists. The analogy fits better, and it's funnier, too.
Significant: The figure quoted for ice on the moon is 6.6 billion tons. That oughtta fill your Dixie cup.
Obtainable: "...the latest results show the water may be more concentrated in localized areas (roughly 1850 square km, or 650 square miles, at each pole)."
But let's ignore the fact that you didn't read the link. Because I don't think your argument holds, um, water.:)
The question is whether or not it's more practical to build our first colonies on the Moon or on Mars. I think the simplest argument here relies on capitalism.
The Moon already has a built-in industry that it can use to generate dollars to pay for importing water: Tourism. The Moon is a 3 day trip away. We also know there's a significant group of millionaires who would be early adopters, and they alone could subsidize the cost of bringing water to the Moon. (This is assuming, of course, that it would be cheaper to import water than it would be to mine and refine it. If mining and refining native ice was cheaper, the millionaire trips could subsidize other materials.)
As lunar tourism becomes accessible, more and more people will go. (Wouldn't you go to Disneyland Luna?) These people will bring the Earth resources needed to expand colonization and create an economy.
In contrast, Mars doesn't have anywhere near the practical capitalist possibilites as a tourist destination that the Moon does. To go to Mars you essentially have to abandon your entire life for several years. Not even most millionaires can afford to do that. Add to the that the increased risks of cell damage and the fact that there's no help should you encounter any unforeseen circumstances, and you'll see why I think it's inarguable that building on the Moon is the most practical way to begin.
I'd still like to see us make it to Mars eventually... but it's a bad choice as a first step.
The question of whether there's water on the Moon is still open. It's believed there is ice at the north and south poles, and perhaps even frozen in the shadows of craters. We don't know, though. We just haven't looked hard enough.
Besides, we can always ship water to the Moon if they need it. We can't ship similar unexpected necessities to Mars colonists.
I know Mars is the trendy spot in our solar system right now, with its beautiful Southwestern-style landscape, but can I hear an answer as to why we don't try building a base on the Moon first?
Both have very similar challenges involved; one just happens to be 300 days closer. Doesn't it make sense to start closest to us and work our way outward? Development on the Moon could give us crucial insights into how we should develop Mars, and besides: The Moon is really the only likely space tourism destination in our lifetimes.
The Sea of Tranquility, The Bay of Rainbows, The Ocean of Storms, the Lake of Dreams... if nothing else, the Moon is the most beautifully named object in our solar system. So can anyone give me a reason why we should colonize Mars before we colonize the Moon?
Back in the old MajorBBS days, there was a multi-user text adventure game called (IIRC) Quest of the Alchemists. Potions were scattered throughout the game, and could be combined to create new potions. These new potions could also be combined, and this led to a world where you needed to share your information in order to reach the highest levels.
For some reason, the idea of a multiplayer Myst reminded me of this old game. Anyone else remember it? Anyone ever summon Azz? Anyone ever win the game?
Re:The End of the Anonymous Listener?
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 2
Thanks for the correction.
I don't think broadcasting a UHF or VHF station needs to be as expensive as all that, though. With a modern transmitter, a tall building, and a volunteer staff, you could run a small station for virtually the cost of electricity. (Okay, slight hyperbole there, but cheap.)
Content doesn't have to be a problem, either. Desktop editing and current high-level consumer cameras are more than acceptable, and there are hundreds of frustrated indie filmmakers who would love a bigger venue for their work (think GNN). This sort of thing is definitely in the public interest.
If nothing else, it would be an interesting experiment. Licenses for noncommercial, nonprofit stations like this should be $100, and distributed in a lottery to applicants every 3 years. Now that would kick cable's ass.
The End of the Anonymous Listener?
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Reed's quote about "network operation increasing capacity" obscures an important loss -- the loss of the anonymous listener. It seems that for this technology to work, receivers are going to have to be independently addressable, broadcasting your listening or viewing choices to the public. How's that grab you?
The anonymous listener is fundamental to democracy. Imagine a world where you fear to stay on a given channel too long, for fear that someone is going to associate you with the views being expressed. This is the kind of thing that we should be steering away from with new technologies, not toward.
Couple this with the fact that there's not exactly a lack of spectrum in the first place: 90% of the channels on your UHF dial are sitting there doing nothing right now because the FCC and Congress prefer THAT to leasing them to nonprofit organizations at a reduced rate.
Like most of our current "technological" problems, what's broken isn't electronic but human.
"I have seen the future of the cinema, and it is not digital. How can this be? How can a technology that is a century old possibly be preferable to new digital gizmos? This is a story of the limitations of video projection, and the hidden resources of light-through-celluloid. Please read carefully. The future of traditional cinema is at stake."
"Noted film critic Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times has been one of the most vocal opponents to the new technology. At a recent industry trade show, Ebert implored theater owners not to ditch film for digital files since he believes digital projection has yet to match the best that film can do.
'In my opinion, digital does not look as good as film,' says Ebert. 'I am amazed at how oblivious most moviegoers are to picture and sound quality.'"
Ebert's no technophobe, and he appreciates digital technology in filmmaking. Just not on the projection end.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem here, though, is that state changes will occur that not everyone sees, so their count will be off, and you run the risk of never getting out.
Imagine you're picked for the first time on the 51st day. The light is off. How many people have been picked before you? You have no idea.
(Well, you know at least two people have been picked, but perhaps the warden's been alternating between those two for the past 50 days. But on the other hand, 50 people could have been out. If so, and you started your state-change count at two now, you'd never reach 100.)
Without some accurate way of counting, no one can be sure they've seen all the state changes, and so no one can say with positivity that all 100 people have been out. You end up with a prison full of people with inaccurate counts waiting to reach a number that never comes. Right?
.
* SPOILER *
.
* SPOILER *
.
* SPOILER *
The rule is: Turn on the light if it's off, unless you've already done this once, in which case, do nothing.
The day all 100 of you meet, designate one person to turn off the light. Have them count each light they turn off. When they reach 100, they will know everyone else has been out already, and can safely demand their freedom.
(Of course, assuming the warden really does pick someone at random, he could pick the same person every day, forever. Or not pick one person, every day, forever. Either way, there's no guarantee you're ever getting out.)
I think you're totally right here.
The mac.com address was a great viral marketing tool for Apple. It's essentially like wearing a t-shirt 24 hours a day that says, "I own a Mac and love it. Ask me questions about switching."
Now what happens when people drop their mac.com addresses in droves, angry with Apple for their bait-and-switch?
Apple has earned so much goodwill over the past few years for their embrace of UNIX and Open Source technologies. I guess they think it's time to burn some karma.
I noticed it too. The consensus seems to be that the new font is Adobe Myriad Roman. I think it's just... too boring. It lacks wit. I hope they wise up.
Check out their homepage. The slightly effete but expressive classic Apple Garamond font has been replaced by a plain, rather ugly version of Adobe Myriad Roman. Say it ain't so! But it is.
They started it with the eMac, but I assumed it was some education-only market differentiator. Apparently not. There's a little more at Mired.
Personally, I think it's a terrible change. And a stupid one. They'd built a huge amount of brand identity with Apple Garamond, to the point where anything written in it reminded you of Apple. The new font has no personality at all. Is that what they were going for?
P.S. The Myriad Roman link is a Google cache of a page that 404's now.
If your Mom runs, say, Windows 98, what happens when she needs something fixed? She calls you. You drive over to her house. You muck about with your computer while she asks you when you're finally going to graduate from college or how long it's going to be until she has grandkids.
A Linux install and SSH saves both of you time and effort. For example:
Mom: "Something's wrong. I got an instant message link in my e-mail and it won't work."
You (typing in background): "Got it. It's already fixed!"
Mom: "So when are you --"
You: "Oops! Pizza's here gottago loveya bye!"
I'm gonna get my Mom using Linux this year.
Instead of sipping from the cup of lukewarm techno that is most modern electronica, I'd suggest diving into the 16-bit wonderland that was and is the MODscene.
.S3M, .XM, *.ULT, *.IT., and the more powerful the tracking software became, the more people were drawn to the scene. It was the online equivalent of jazz clubs in the '30s. I think it's one of the great secret stories of the web.
Back before there were MP3s or computers fast enough to play them, there were MODs -- 4 channel music files that began on the Amiga, and contained their own samples. MODs encouraged experimentation in electronic music on a level never seen before -- you could download a MOD, load it up in your tracker, and start coding a new song using the samples already there.
MODs branched out from their 4 channel beginnings into multiple channels and a variety of new extensions like
Then RealAudio hit. And after that, MP3. Online music aficionados began to follow a different path, and MODs, like BBS culture, slowly died. The MOD culture is still around, eclipsed but not forgotten. I'd suggest starting with The Kosmic Free Music Foundation, arguably the most prolific and influencial modgroup of that era. You could also check out the Hornet archive or the Modarchive. Either Winamp or XMMS should play them.
_________________________
Check your karma. It's changed.
Lack of cheap energy is at the root of so many of the world's major problems, it's a wonder we're still pumping petrochemicals around. Lunar-generated solar power could be beamed to Earth via microwave and easily solve our energy shortage. We could have more power than we'd know what to do with AND begin colonizing our solar system at the same time. What could be better?
As a side note, I wonder, too, if orbitally-generated solar power couldn't solve some of our political problems here on Earth. If we could destroy the oil economy, we'd destroy most of the funding that Middle Eastern terrorist organizations depend upon.
Even as Bush prepares to attack Iraq we continue to import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq every month -- as much as they will sell us. Our oil money directly funds terrorist organizations like Al Qaida and the regimes that harbor them. Dry up the oil economy and you dry up their funding -- it's an interesting hypothesis, at any rate. In my opinion, instead of national ID cards, so-called Patriot Acts, and new cabinet-level Terror Czars, we ought to be spending our money in a much more productive way -- solving the energy problems that fund terrorism in the first place.
Another Slashdotter further down hipped me to Hantro's video messaging software for the 7650. Cool.
Thanks for the link. I noticed further down the page that Nokia 7650 has a built-in Sound Recorder. Is there any info on what format this records in and whether or not you can attach those files to an e-mail sent wirelessly? Could you attach both sound and pictures?
I don't know anything about J2ME, the version of Java for mobile devices that the 7650 uses, but might it be possible to hack the camera into recording video, too?
Lindows is such a terrible idea I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was really a secret Microsoft plot to discredit and destroy Linux.
One can almost imagine Gates, Balmer and Co., huddled in a secret midnight meeting, determining that the best way to undermine the Linux juggernaut is to create a monstrously terrible version of Linux itself. A version which brags of Windows compatibility while crashing any Windows app the user tries to run. A version which touts the laurels of Linux's open source history, but rejects them in favor of a cash-for-code scenario. Better yet, Gates might say, we'll make the code not even work! Muhahaha!
Lindows isn't Windows; Lindows IS terrible Linux. It looks backward, not forward; it is a black eye to all the golden work accomplished by Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, and the million unpaid coders who helped make Linux so much easier to use in the past few years, a platform that stands on its own, a platform that Doesn't Need Microsoft For Anything. Lindows is the Benedict Arnold of Linux.
Of course, I think we have a duty to help support those whose first foray into the Linux world is Lindows -- but I think the best support we can give is to hand over a CD with the distro of our choice on it and tell them, "Forget about Lindows... THIS is Linux."
Not in browser share, but something more subtle and important: Mozilla has destroyed permanently Microsoft's monopolistic control of the browser.
Without Mozilla, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft leveraged the power of its browser share to make more money. In a pre-Mozilla world, Microsoft could've made IE v.9.0 have a permanent default home page of MSN.com. Not anymore. Switching is too easy.
Even if Mozilla's browser share never makes it to double digits, it will always loom in the background, casting a long shadow, threatening to overtake IE should Microsoft fumble the ball. I call that a victory any day.
I know Sneakemail has been around for a while (I've just never gotten around to trying them until now) but I see your point.
This doesn't seem like it'd be too hard a script to write, though. I'll look around, and if I find one, I'll post a link to it in a reply to this thread.
Just tried it. It was super fast. I'm sure I'll be using it again. Thanks for the tip!
Wow. Thanks for the post. I've got a new bookmark now.
A few years ago, I remember posting something on Slashdot about how Mozilla was too little, *way* too late. Netscape was dead, and worse than that, it was kludgy and buggy. IE was, in spite of its faults, the most standards compliant browser out there, and it was hella fast, too.
I really thought Mozilla was doomed. And all those notices on mozilla.org! "Download at your own risk! This software is buggy! It'll probably make your 'puter explode!" It seemed like they didn't even want to succeed.
I've been keeping track of Mozilla since then though, and downloading new versions every so often. Today, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Mozilla team, congratulate them, and apologize to them. I thought you couldn't do it. But you did do it. And you did it well. You've made me a stronger believer in open source than I was before, and you've made a kickass browser, too.
Let the browser wars begin again!
Before I install anything Quicktime related again, Apple is going to have to win me back with a much better interface and functionality. I used to enjoy Quicktime, back when you could fullscreen videos without registering, back when the controls were usable and ergonomic, back when there wasn't a constant nag screen, back when there wasn't some overpaid designer's faux brushed metal skin cluttering up the window.
To anyone who's installed the new beta: Have these issues been fixed at all? Since OSX, Apple has been getting things right again, and I'd love to see them make Quicktime function like it did in the past. As it is now, I even choose (gack!) RealMedia before Quicktime.
The Flash video was nicely done, but I think trying to paint corporations as villains for trying to "keep their profits high" is a strategy waiting to backfire. Keeping profits high is what corporations are supposed to do. No one in power is going to spank them for doing that.
The whole issue isn't about profits in the first place. It's about control. THEY want to control the things YOU buy AFTER you buy them. And they're using all their corporate powers -- money, lobbying, technology -- to stop you from owning things at all. In their world, you don't own CDs, just licenses to listen to them.
I think we'd all be doing better if we lampooned these corporations as communist dictators instead of capitalists. The analogy fits better, and it's funnier, too.
Significant: The figure quoted for ice on the moon is 6.6 billion tons. That oughtta fill your Dixie cup.
:)
Obtainable: "...the latest results show the water may be more concentrated in localized areas (roughly 1850 square km, or 650 square miles, at each pole)."
But let's ignore the fact that you didn't read the link. Because I don't think your argument holds, um, water.
The question is whether or not it's more practical to build our first colonies on the Moon or on Mars. I think the simplest argument here relies on capitalism.
The Moon already has a built-in industry that it can use to generate dollars to pay for importing water: Tourism. The Moon is a 3 day trip away. We also know there's a significant group of millionaires who would be early adopters, and they alone could subsidize the cost of bringing water to the Moon. (This is assuming, of course, that it would be cheaper to import water than it would be to mine and refine it. If mining and refining native ice was cheaper, the millionaire trips could subsidize other materials.)
As lunar tourism becomes accessible, more and more people will go. (Wouldn't you go to Disneyland Luna?) These people will bring the Earth resources needed to expand colonization and create an economy.
In contrast, Mars doesn't have anywhere near the practical capitalist possibilites as a tourist destination that the Moon does. To go to Mars you essentially have to abandon your entire life for several years. Not even most millionaires can afford to do that. Add to the that the increased risks of cell damage and the fact that there's no help should you encounter any unforeseen circumstances, and you'll see why I think it's inarguable that building on the Moon is the most practical way to begin.
I'd still like to see us make it to Mars eventually... but it's a bad choice as a first step.
The question of whether there's water on the Moon is still open. It's believed there is ice at the north and south poles, and perhaps even frozen in the shadows of craters. We don't know, though. We just haven't looked hard enough.
Besides, we can always ship water to the Moon if they need it. We can't ship similar unexpected necessities to Mars colonists.
I know Mars is the trendy spot in our solar system right now, with its beautiful Southwestern-style landscape, but can I hear an answer as to why we don't try building a base on the Moon first?
Both have very similar challenges involved; one just happens to be 300 days closer. Doesn't it make sense to start closest to us and work our way outward? Development on the Moon could give us crucial insights into how we should develop Mars, and besides: The Moon is really the only likely space tourism destination in our lifetimes.
The Sea of Tranquility, The Bay of Rainbows, The Ocean of Storms, the Lake of Dreams... if nothing else, the Moon is the most beautifully named object in our solar system. So can anyone give me a reason why we should colonize Mars before we colonize the Moon?
Back in the old MajorBBS days, there was a multi-user text adventure game called (IIRC) Quest of the Alchemists. Potions were scattered throughout the game, and could be combined to create new potions. These new potions could also be combined, and this led to a world where you needed to share your information in order to reach the highest levels.
For some reason, the idea of a multiplayer Myst reminded me of this old game. Anyone else remember it? Anyone ever summon Azz? Anyone ever win the game?
Thanks for the correction.
I don't think broadcasting a UHF or VHF station needs to be as expensive as all that, though. With a modern transmitter, a tall building, and a volunteer staff, you could run a small station for virtually the cost of electricity. (Okay, slight hyperbole there, but cheap.)
Content doesn't have to be a problem, either. Desktop editing and current high-level consumer cameras are more than acceptable, and there are hundreds of frustrated indie filmmakers who would love a bigger venue for their work (think GNN). This sort of thing is definitely in the public interest.
If nothing else, it would be an interesting experiment. Licenses for noncommercial, nonprofit stations like this should be $100, and distributed in a lottery to applicants every 3 years. Now that would kick cable's ass.
Reed's quote about "network operation increasing capacity" obscures an important loss -- the loss of the anonymous listener. It seems that for this technology to work, receivers are going to have to be independently addressable, broadcasting your listening or viewing choices to the public. How's that grab you?
The anonymous listener is fundamental to democracy. Imagine a world where you fear to stay on a given channel too long, for fear that someone is going to associate you with the views being expressed. This is the kind of thing that we should be steering away from with new technologies, not toward.
Couple this with the fact that there's not exactly a lack of spectrum in the first place: 90% of the channels on your UHF dial are sitting there doing nothing right now because the FCC and Congress prefer THAT to leasing them to nonprofit organizations at a reduced rate.
Like most of our current "technological" problems, what's broken isn't electronic but human.
Hi Ray,
I think Ebert can say it better than I can:
"I have seen the future of the cinema, and it is not digital. How can this be? How can a technology that is a century old possibly be preferable to new digital gizmos? This is a story of the limitations of video projection, and the hidden resources of light-through-celluloid. Please read carefully. The future of traditional cinema is at stake."
And from ABC News:
"Noted film critic Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times has been one of the most vocal opponents to the new technology. At a recent industry trade show, Ebert implored theater owners not to ditch film for digital files since he believes digital projection has yet to match the best that film can do.
'In my opinion, digital does not look as good as film,' says Ebert. 'I am amazed at how oblivious most moviegoers are to picture and sound quality.'"
Ebert's no technophobe, and he appreciates digital technology in filmmaking. Just not on the projection end.