Maybe it's just my lack of experince in the real world, but how many times, in all honesty, have you had a hard drive crash on you? With today's technology in back-ups and the such, it just doesn't seem to me that this needs to be an issue. I have been in the Computer/Network racket for about 3 years now, and I have only had two hard drives crash hard on me. One was on a RAID 5 server, so it didn't matter. I just think that this is a waste of time for the "Unsinkable Hardrive". Let's call it Titantic and watch her dive on her maiden voyage. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (copyright Dennis Miller)
I've had a hard drive fail before, too, but mine was a really lousy experience. It was a laptop hard drive and I lived in a city without a decent electronics store. The warranty replacement took a week to arrive, so I was high and dry until it got here; nevermind the fact that the drive started dying slowly well before it was apparent that the hard drive was dying (odd, my display driver seems a bit funky...huh. That file was fine yesterday...damn Windows, why are you crashing now?)
Bear in mind that the drives used in most decent network centers are already quite well designed and live in well-controlled environments. If you work on a laptop (or even a desktop in a hot, humid climate without air conditioning,) you really do want to have the Unsinkable Hard Drive. Imagine what might happen to your network disks if you went around the server room and gave them a good, sound bump once every few hours.
Yeah, a hard drive failure doesn't happen often, but it can really, really suck when it does happen; thus, having a good, sturdy hard drive in the first place is a nice thing.
...one may wish to reserve statements such as "Microsoft was brought down by the arrogant, delusional monomania of its founder" until such a time as Microsoft is actually brought down. As it stands, he still has a fair chance of wriggling out of this...
from an article at dpreview.com (examining a different OEL being produced by Sanyo and Kodak:)
The new 5.5-inch panel has a quarter-VGA resolution (240 x 320 pixels) with a brightness of 200 candela per square meter. It consumes 2 watts running at 10 volts. Yoneda claimed that the power consumption is lower than comparably-sized LCDs, which eat 2.5 W on average. The pixel transistors are optimized to maintain uniform brightness over the surface of the panel. The aperture ratio is about 50 percent, an improvement over the 30 percent ratio of the earlier 2.4-inch panel.
Recently, organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) have attracted a lot of attention, mainly due to their simplicity of fabrication, low operating voltage and power consumption, large view angle, high brightness and efficiency, ultra-thin structure, mechanical flexibility, and light weight.1 Their potential use in display applications, such as ultra-thin flat panel, roll-up, and head-mounted displays is being seriously considered by numerous companies.
So to answer your question, it looks like the technology as it currently stands performs roughly as well as backlit LCDs, with perhaps even a slight advantage. This technology takes the middleman of backlighting out of the equation by using electroluminescent materials in the first place. Thus, the above claims make some sense, as you are only pumping power to the pixels themselves, and not the pixels and the backlight.
On a bit of a tangent, this looks to be similar to the LEP technology Slashdot reported about some time ago (see Cambridge Display's homepage for more info.)
Yes, a metal detector at the door would have stopped McVeigh from driving the truck into the garage.
Damn straight it would have. Would've kept anyone from driving a vehicle made of metal into that garage, by gum.
Unfortunately, he parked it on the street.
Why not strip search everyone comming out of a store to protect us from theft? Or making everyone use chopsticks to eat on plane because a fork and knife can be used to kill. What about handcuffing everyone into their seats because some nut might break into the cockpit?
So explain to me, then, why we even bother asking people not to carry handguns and grenades onto planes. I mean, by your rationale, it's just another stupid means of trying to tell people how they should act and stripping them of their right to do what they want. The obvious answer to society's ills is total and unequivocable trust in every single anonymous individual that ever crosses your path, right? Doing anything else would instantly strip them of their most basic rights, and just ends up being a mindless excercise to keep good people from living free.
Welcome to life on Planet Earth. If you simply can't accept social pragmatism overriding some degree of your personal freedoms, I strongly advise that you take whatever steps are necessary to fully isolate yourself from society.
And besides, for those of us who submit to dialup, wouldn't it be nice to have a modem that runs the 2.0.38 kernel?
Heck, yeah! Then all you'd need is a video card running the 2.0.38 kernel, too!
And a sound card running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a DVD-ROM running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a CD-R running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a keyboard running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a mouse running the 2.0.38 kernel.
I'm sure we could cram a kernel or two into a wrist rest, too...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Re:Things I don't need
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 4
Yeah, that's what I've been clamoring for. Yet another OS to run on my x86, preferably one without a killer app or widespread support, and even better if it's one that won't support my existing apps.
...you mean like virtually anything that already runs on BSD? Or did you mean all your Java apps? Or was it basically anything ever written for Macintosh? Apple did their homework on this one; even though true Cocoa apps aren't abundant in the wild yet, there does indeed exist a sizeable software base already, much of which has been freely (beer and speech) available to the UNIX world for years.
I want something pretty. It doesn't need to do anything that Linux/Windows/Beos does...Seriously, folks, what is it about Mac OS X that would make you shell out money for it when Linux is free? Do you think it can compete with Windows where Linux can't? Do you think it's genuinely better? I don't get it.
Well, let's see. One, it has a great graphical user interface. To even suggest that any of the competing Linux GUIs can be seriously compared to that of OSX is utterly laughable; we can't even drag and drop properly between apps yet! Two, it has a learning curve of about a week for people who are fundamentally computer illiterate. Compare that to the learning curve of the average Linux experience--Linux is free just so long as one considers the weeks/months it takes to learn it as disposable time. Three, it runs on BSD. It runs for weeks without crashing. Yep, Linux does this too, but then again, Linux has always trumpeted this as an advantage over Windows and other "pretty" systems.
OSX offers, for the very, very first time ever, a system built on a BSD core with a virtually idiot-proof user interface. Linux can compete on the under-the-hood aspects of OSX; it can't even begin to hold a candle to the user experience, though. What's not to get about an operating system that has both a real CLI and an absolutely beautiful, easy-to-use GUI?
Mac OS X won't penetrate large organizations, either. Network admins have their hands full with 95/98 desktops, 2000 desktops, 2000 servers, Linux servers, and Netware servers. Mac OS X will be looked at as just another unproven alternative with no real history, an answer looking for a question.
I agree with you to a point on this one. Many large corporrations won't welcome OSX for the very reasons you point out: they already have their hands full trying to get a hodge-podge of OSes playing nicely with each other, and don't need another, thank you very much. Other orgs, though, may do exactly what the Linux community has been clamoring for: drop everything and start from scratch (but with OSX instead of Linux.) There's enough appeal in OSX for both power users and point-and-grunters that it could present a tempting option, especially if Apple were to sweeten the deal somewhat for large corporate accounts. As for the unproven alternative, answer looking for a question bit, well, you just described the situation with Linux circa 1998. That, and I can think of a number of questions to the answer, "a UNIX system that a total novice can use".
I also can't believe posters haven't mentioned the failed 3rd-party hardware problems generated when Apple let other manufacturers build PowerPC boxes. Remember that? Apple couldn't stand letting other people build boxes and run Apple software. Now we're hearing rumbles that not only will it run on other boxes, but it'll be boxes that Apple hasn't put their golden blessing on.
A very valid point, and one that I see as being one of the bigger potential stumbling blocks out there. A possible answer for Apple is to partner with one or two major peecee manufacturers and spec out a narrow range of "Apple Certfied" x86 systems. This helps absolve Apple from having to release n! drivers every week, and since they're already used to dictating their own hardware terms, it shouldn't be too tough of a policy for them to stand firm on. Yes, they got burned once by the licensing fiasco, but it's entirely possible that they've learned form their mistakes and feel ready to give it another go.
OSX stands to be a genuinely impressive operating system. It's still too early to tell, but everything I've seen of it so far has been really promising. Apple seems to be on track for a repeat of 1984 in a lot of respects, and it is entirely possible that the in-house version of OSX they have on Intel may exist for reasons other than sheer novelty...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
It will NEVER compete with silicon on the computational speed bit (the conductance of plastic just isn't high enough) so they are aiming on the cost bit(cheaper than 0.05 euro a pice) which is theoretically possible.
Sure, it sounds cheap at 0.05 €, but exchange rates makes it sound a lot cheaper than it might actually be. Consider, for example, that you'd need to shell out roughly 31,500 Turkish Lira to get one of these puppies!
Doesn't sound so cheap anymore, huh?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I'd have given up hope for OSX on x86 a while ago (the arguments against considerably outweigh the arguments for, IMHO) if not for one little factor called Steve Jobs.
If there is anything at all I have learned about the man, it's that he is utterly unpredictable, he probably has a grand scheme in mind, and he loves surprises. I think that the biggest question to ask isn't one of technical hurdles or risk/benefit analyses of Apple's hardware sales, but "What's really bouncing around in Steve's head?"
Sadly, it's impossible to answer this question. One thing is for sure, though--if Apple does release OSX for x86, Jobs is going to have a blast in announcing it. And it's going to catch everybody pretty much off-guard, even those of us who want it the most.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Just because you or your country has good intentions, that does *not* mean that other nations do! Never let your guard down when it comes to international affairs! Not unless you want the U.S. to become a socialist state.
Oh, come on. You post a well-argued opinion and then throw the socialist scare card?
Socialism is NOT BAD. Neither is communism. Despotism masquerading as socialism (or communism, or capitalism) is bad. Are all socialist states despotisms masquerading as socialist states? Hardly. A properly run socialist state can provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that of a properly run capitalist state.
I'm currently living in a country where healthcare is genuinely universal (rated the best in the world by the WHO;) people can work without fear of getting dropped on the street by poorly-run companies scrounging for the last buck; public transportation is so good that it's easier not to own a car; you can walk down virtually any city street after dark without fear of being mugged, shot, or attacked; and companies answer to the goverenment, not vice versa. Now, if only this nation weren't a socialist state (shudder, cower, rally the troops) it'd probably be a fairly good place to live, huh?
Yeah, France has it's share of problems, and there are a number of things that I miss about living in a capitalist state. But believe me, there exist socialist nations where life is pretty damn good, both in the comfort sense and in the moral sense. There exist a good many things here that I'll sorely miss if and when I return to the States.
Break out of the propaganda we've been fed for nearly 50 years and realize that socialism is not the plaguebringer we've been taught it is.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
...a serach engine with nearly dozens of wireless access points!
Ok, ok. Granted, this news item came with the "but remember, it's brand spankin' new, hence currently useful to about 500 people" disclaimer, but still. Front page?
That said, it's a really cool service. Next time I'm out and about and need to find a wireless access point, all I need to do is fire up my wireless internet and query this search engine and...
Oh, wait. I'd need to know where the nearest access point was to do that. D'ohh.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I respect that they put up the satellite, and started the TV service.. however....
THey are broadcasting signals over PUBLIC airspace, including INTO MY YARD. If I feel like putting up a dish to capture that signal and manipulate it *however I want* within my own property, that should be my absolute right (though the law may not agree). If they don't want me to receive the signal, don't broadcast it into my yard. PERIOD.
THe airwaves are PUBLIC.
...and by this same reasoning, DirecTV has every right to send signals that will disable Hughes chips. If you don't want to receive these signals, you shouldn't be listening for them in the first place. It isn't DirecTV's fault if your self-hacked hardware doesn't react properly to their signal.
The airwaves are public, after all.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I mean, it's one thing to make a tomato that stays juicy for longer, it's a different thing entirely to play around with the chemical that regulates the immune system!
Umm....because it's harder to understand, or somehow scarier to imagine us in control our own bodies as opposed to those of tomato plants? Or is it a simple matter of keeping up with the latest Frankentech, and GA tomatoes are sooo last week?
I mean come on folks, this is getting to the point where there are immense risks to the health of millions. As the article says, mice which couldn't make the protein CD45 died very quickly from cancers and auto-immune diseases. This sounds like a perfect opportunity for nefarious rogue states to develop biological weapons for use against Western targets. I'm sure Saddamn would like to have a "cancer bomb" with which to threaten the US.
..."cancer bomb"? I may be off my rocker, but I'd think that "nefarious rogue states" would choose the ability to vaporize a city or cause the spontaneous nervous system failure of millions over the ability to cause a bunch of cancer (even if it's a whole bunch of cancer.) In either case, though, "Saddamn" (cute) Hussein not in any position to embark on advanced genetics research, and one can already build a perfectly effective "cancer bomb" by dropping a relatively small amount of low-grade radioactive waste in a city's water supply.
The last thing we'd want is some crackpot technology that might allow us to reverse the effects of such a terrorist attack.
Is nothing sacred?
Actually, lots of things are sacred. Heck, Jesus' crown of thorns is just down the road a ways from me; I'm told that it is sacred. If you want "only scientific research which I can understand and personally approve as being safe" to be sacred, well, I'm afraid that's probably a bit less likely to happen.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
My muscles will not get bigger by forgetting that they are 'small'. I won't increase my cardio-vascular performance by watching the game on cable. And I won't learn to make myself fitter by watching an Olympic athlete do the high jump. I mean, that's way too advanced. I need something more on my own level, like a Pillates video, that I can begin to practice with.
Yes, generally it can be inspiring to see what the body is capable of, but once inspired, I have to get out of my chair and go swimming or join the gym. And it's just soooo much easier to say, "later", and change channel.
Hmm. My post was somewhat incomplete, I fear. I consider entertainment as more of a catalyst than an element in the pursuit of higher needs. I agree that it is up to the individual to actually capitalize on the opportunity, and agree further that many never do; however, I do firmly believe that entertainment can and does serve as a vehicle for encouraging individuals to better themselves.
A lot of it boils down to any given individual, and whether or not they have the will to act on their impulses. In the case of somebody, for example, who watches and enjoys baseball on TV and not once actually goes out and plays it in life, I pose the following question: would that person have been better off or worse off had they never watched baseball on TV? Would the individual in question have gone out and done some other activity that would have lead to further pursuit of the higher needs, or would they have simply squandered that time in some other fashion? I believe the latter to be true more often than not; we may very well have diverging opionions on this point, but consider the outcome of this opinion for the moment. If the individual in question simply fills that time with an activity that they find less pleasurable (with no further progress towards fulfilling the higher needs,) is that individual not worse off for not having enjoyed that time? What value is there to life besides personal pleasure, if the higher needs are not pursued?
But not all culture is entertainment. I tried reading a couple of philosophy books, and that was not a pleasant experience. I doubt that the hard discipline required for achievement in sport is considered 'fun'.
I agree that not all culture is fun, but of all cultural activities you have taken place in, which would you consider contributed most to your pursuit of the higher needs: those activities you found entertaining, or those you found more tedious than pleasurable? People tend to gain more from things they enjoy doing, and if you enjoy doing something, is it not entertainment?
While it is perfectly possible to not enjoy the hard dicipline required for achievement in sport, I would also argue that those who attain the greatest success and fulfillment in sport have generally taken great pleasure in it's pursuit, even in the tedium of daily training. Entertainment can come in micro-doses, in the form of a runners' high during a 12 mile training run, performing an exceptional play in the middle of a four-hour training session, and the like. An athlete who does not take great pleasure in what they do is unlikely to truly fulfill their higher needs, even if they do attain a professional level of ability.
Self actualisation is a very hard and difficult task. Very few people are willing to do it.
Agreed, resoundingly! Herein lies the gist of my feelings towards entertainment, though: for the individual who, for whatever reason, does not or cannot pursue self-actualisation, what is there? Some turn to spirituality, which leads to a kind of external actualization of the self. Others simply exist, in a genuinely day-to-day sense. For those that simply exist (as well as those that pursue spirituality, but most importantly for those that do not,) entertainment almost becomes a need in and of itself.
For a person who has fulfilled as much of the hierarchy of needs as they are able or willing to, what reason is there to pursue living if not for the sake of enjoyment? (Here is where I see a great deal of the value of computer gaming--I admit that it does less than other forms of entertainment to increase one's fulfillment of higher needs, but it provides an excellent means of diversion for those unable, unwilling or unprepared to do so. If you're not going to pursue fulfillment, why not pursue mindless pleasure?)
"Entertainment" can give relief from our deficiencies, in the same way that going to sleep gives relief from the day, but I wouldn't give entertainment any more value than just a feel-good drug.
Entertainment can act as a catalyst for those willing to delve farther into the higher needs; for everybody else, it acts as a feel-good drug. A society without it's feel-good drug, though, is a society at risk of serious trouble.
A few wildly gifted people are capable of amazing things. For everybody else, there's entertainment. Therein lies it's value.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Re:We need more writers like Julian Assange
on
Underground Surfaces
·
· Score: 3
Have you considered the possibility that there are some fields of work and study that just aren't cut out for women? I realize that if you want to toe the liberal line, you have to claim that women are ready and able for anything from construction work to professional football, but if you're brave enough to accept the "unpopular" truth, you realize that there are certain things that men are genetically talented at and there are certain things that women are genetically talented at.
Yes, there are certain things that men and women are inclined to be better at, or that are exclusive to one gender. Men tend to be physically stronger than women; women tend to be more dextrous than men. Only women can bear children, and only men can produce sperm.
The catch is, society is often bent on enforcing inclinations as fact. Yes, AC, men do tend to make better football players than women. But there's a sizeable and vocal population that tries to insist that women can't or shouldn't play football. Nevermind that the woman in question may be able to hit her receivers 19 times out of 20 with perfect spirals, or can call plays like nobody's business. These same types mock men for doing things like ballet. Clearly, women are better equipped as a whole for the required dexterity and fluidity of motion; why should a man even be trying to do ballet, when he'll never be as good as a woman can be?
When was the last time that you heard a man complain when somebody said that he should not stay at home with the children and cook and clean? Do men whine and say "I can if I want?" No. They accept it.
Oh, bullshit. Men whine like nobody's business, just like women. I know plenty of pampered little mama's boys who tremble at the mention of "manual labor" (or "changing a diaper",) and I know plenty of women who silently put up with hell on a daily basis.
A little less whining and a little bit more productive output would do this world a hell of a lot of good.
I assure you that there is far more energy wasted in trying to deliniate acceptable men's and women's activities than is wasted in just letting people do what they set their hearts, minds, and bodies to. Women have a large number of purely artificial barriers they must overcome to do so today; being told that they're better designed for some things instead of other, more manly things is one of them.
Of course, society generally recognizes this fact when the men folk all get sent overseas to fight in wars and somebody has to do all the little things like build battleships and repair tanks.
Of course, that's just the exception. Women don't really belong in manufacturing and construction jobs, do they?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I'd disagree. There's plenty of modes, and not one is dominant. Do you think the homeless guy on the street is worried more about entertainment or his next meal? Boredom or freezing that night? How about those people in the earthquake in El Salvador right now? Boredom? Or, a more mundane example, the secretary working on a contact list for the marketing division of your favorite corporation? There are more things going on than the alleviation of boredom, even in the world of computing.
Well, consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. While entertainment certainly doesn't come into play with physiological and safety needs (your examples of the homeless person and the earthquake victim, respectively,) once one reaches the third and subsequent level of the hierarchy, the value of entertainment can be quite high. Bear with me on this one.
Consider, for a moment, that your basic physiological and safety needs are met. You live in a permanent domicile, you have a steady job, and you are in no forseeable danger of losing your physiological or safety needs. Thus, you are free to pursue the remaining three needs: Love/Affection/Belongingness, Esteem, and Self-Actualization needs. For various reasons, not many people ever succeed in pursuing all three of the above. Some people manage to find love, but never chase their dreams and opportunities. Others have powerful personalities and vast success, but lack anyone to share this with. Even more people live day to day, alone, without achievement or pride, going through the motions of life.
I see entertainment as a means of filling these gaps. People who couldn't run a mile without collapsing regularly watch professional sports, absorbing the abilites of the atheletes in place of their own inadequacies. People watch "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and go window shopping to fill percieved shortcomings in their own career achievements. People purchase self-affirming Chicken-Soup-style books and buy into things like the Spice Girls' "Girl Power" to artificially bolster their own lacking self-esteem. All of the above are forms of entertainment; entertainment allows us to feel better about who we are.
In addition to making us feel better about who we are, though, entertainment can provide a very real impetus for self-improvement. Kids watch Michael Jordan play basketball and set themselves to become professional atheletes. Some even succeed; many others gain a valuable appreciation for physical conditioning and personal health that lasts their entire lives. People go to the theater, the opera, or the films to introduce new thoughts to their minds, and to help themselves grow intellectually. People visit singles bars and clubs searching for friendship and love; quite often, they find it. Entertainment, beyond being a simple diversion, becomes the very means for delving deeper into these last three levels of need.
Computer entertainment brings exciting new possibilites. One can play Quake with people you've known for years but never met in person. One becomes capable of flying, space exploration, and gravity-defying acrobatics without having to leave one's seat. One can even make a fulfilling career out of computer entertainment, acting as a developer, guide, advice columnist, commentator, or any number of things. Computer entertainment provides a degree and depth of interaction that surpasses all other forms of entertainment except face-to-face interaction with another human being.
Yes, the applications for computers are wide-ranging, but rarely carry much personal importance for the user. It's wonderful to have a fully-geatured word processor, powerful database, and security services. But these things have little immediate value to the individual user, even if you use them every day for work. Unless your self-actualization needs are met by them (for example, your life's work is designing and developing screamingly fast database servers, and you take great pride in what you do,) it's not as important to you as doing something entertaining. Like playing Solitare or Minesweeper, or finally fragging that really good player in Norway (and getting "whoa, nice shot" in return.)
This, in my opinion, is why entertainment-based computing devices will play a huge role in the future of computing. I'm good with SQL and I make a living off coding web sites, but I enjoy picking people off from 1 km with the Sniper Rifle in Tribes. I like coding, but it's what pays the bills. (Mind you, I've been spending a lot more time running around the city with my wife than gaming, but hey, that's more fun to me right now.)
After you've fulfilled the basics of survival and are living a relatively safe life, entertainment becomes quite valuable. It helps you forget your own shortcomings, while simultaneously providing the opportunity to learn how to overcome them.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Consider the combination of said transparent transistors with Cambridge Display's Light Emitting Polymer (LEP) technology. It is conceivable that one could create "Terminator glasses", store windows that can automatically display ads, and virtually anything else you'd ever want a pane of transparent material to display. The added bonus with the LEP technology is that backlighting is not necessary; the polymers themselves emit the necessary light when stimulated.
There's some potential here, I think...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
The article cites several times that the overall increase in energy consumption was lower in the late 1990's than it was in the 1980's. The article also mentions that a small army of independant researchers have blasted the notion that the 'net is responsible for some 8% of national power consumption. If the Internet becomes the Scapegoat du Jour for California's embarrasing little energy crisis, it'll be quite the win for the forces of FUD.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I'm quite frankly amazed at the hubris that NASA are showing with this ill-conceived plan! I mean, who in the hell are they do decide that it's alright to blast a 100 foot deep hole in a comet just to gather a little bit of data? The Solar System is supposed to be a common resource for all humanity, not just a load of targets for America to test its fancy guidance systems on, even in the name of science.
Actually, there's an amazingly charitable basis behind NASA's actions. Read on to learn what these champions of Universal Matter Suffrage are really up to.
Every day, over 400 metric tons of matter are shamelessly ripped from their peaceful trajectories and deposited on the Earth. This has been happening for billions of years, without any consideration whatsoever for the wishes and general well-being of the matter in question. We understand today that all space rocks have an inherent and fundamental right to exist free of unwanted interference from outside influences, and for the first time in our history, we are actually taking steps to end this brutality.
Now, if NASA can glean enough information from this comet collision, it stands a chance of being able to develop systems to prevent the Earth from enslaving these 400 tons of previously free-drifting, independant matter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the ramifications of their endeavors.
NASA's hope is that by sacrificing some matter one one comet, they can hopefully prevent countless other cases of senseless, unseen matter abuse. It was a decision they did not come to lightly, but rest assured, NASA is taking every step it can to stop the Earth's rampant interference in the workings of the universe once and for all.
Fnord.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
It just seems stupid. But what the hell do I know. I'm not in it for the money. So I guess that means I'm evil, evil, evil!
Well, look at it this way. If you could spend $2000 of your own money every month without banner ads to have other people look at your stuff or $1500 with banner ads, which would you prefer? These people are often spending sizeable amounts of their own money to keep their site going for the sole purpose of entertaining the public.
They're not in it for the money, either, or else they wouldn't be spending their own just to keep their site up! Blocking their ads is the rough equivalent of saying, "I want you to have to pay more so I can see your site every day."
I consider that to be evil, evil, evil.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
The United States (with the help of some European Enlightenment radicals) invented the legal notion of individual, constitutionally- protected privacy
For crying out loud, Jon. The concept of personal privacy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Every single time you start waving the "And You Can Thank The United States For..." banner over your head like a lunatic, you not only make yourself out to be more of an ass, but you provide immesurable cannon fodder for equally idiotic people to perpetuate the "Americans Are Big Headed Blithering Idiots" mantra.
Yes, the United States have revolutionized modern government, and they stand as an example to the world in many things. No, not everything you touch can be turned into Home Team Glory. The government of the United States was crafted by a group of genuinely brilliant men who based much of their own thought on generations' worth of work done by European thinkers, scholars, leaders, and revolutionaries. Your assertion that "some European Enlightenment radicals" helped the United States invent personal privacy is about as accurate as me asserting that Europe provided the framework for personal privacy, and that framework was first implemented by some Colonial separatist radicals.
Why do you insist on labeling everything you see as good and just in this world as American?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Slashdot Mirror
If so, I guess 0000-01-01 00:00:00!
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
I've had a hard drive fail before, too, but mine was a really lousy experience. It was a laptop hard drive and I lived in a city without a decent electronics store. The warranty replacement took a week to arrive, so I was high and dry until it got here; nevermind the fact that the drive started dying slowly well before it was apparent that the hard drive was dying (odd, my display driver seems a bit funky...huh. That file was fine yesterday...damn Windows, why are you crashing now?)
Bear in mind that the drives used in most decent network centers are already quite well designed and live in well-controlled environments. If you work on a laptop (or even a desktop in a hot, humid climate without air conditioning,) you really do want to have the Unsinkable Hard Drive. Imagine what might happen to your network disks if you went around the server room and gave them a good, sound bump once every few hours.
Yeah, a hard drive failure doesn't happen often, but it can really, really suck when it does happen; thus, having a good, sturdy hard drive in the first place is a nice thing.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
from an article at dpreview.com (examining a different OEL being produced by Sanyo and Kodak:)
The new 5.5-inch panel has a quarter-VGA resolution (240 x 320 pixels) with a brightness of 200 candela per square meter. It consumes 2 watts running at 10 volts. Yoneda claimed that the power consumption is lower than comparably-sized LCDs, which eat 2.5 W on average. The pixel transistors are optimized to maintain uniform brightness over the surface of the panel. The aperture ratio is about 50 percent, an improvement over the 30 percent ratio of the earlier 2.4-inch panel.
and this, from the University of Arizona's Optical Sciences Center (discussing Organic LEDs, full authors' credits on page:)
Recently, organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) have attracted a lot of attention, mainly due to their simplicity of fabrication, low operating voltage and power consumption, large view angle, high brightness and efficiency, ultra-thin structure, mechanical flexibility, and light weight.1 Their potential use in display applications, such as ultra-thin flat panel, roll-up, and head-mounted displays is being seriously considered by numerous companies.
So to answer your question, it looks like the technology as it currently stands performs roughly as well as backlit LCDs, with perhaps even a slight advantage. This technology takes the middleman of backlighting out of the equation by using electroluminescent materials in the first place. Thus, the above claims make some sense, as you are only pumping power to the pixels themselves, and not the pixels and the backlight.
On a bit of a tangent, this looks to be similar to the LEP technology Slashdot reported about some time ago (see Cambridge Display's homepage for more info.)
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Damn straight it would have. Would've kept anyone from driving a vehicle made of metal into that garage, by gum.
Unfortunately, he parked it on the street.
Why not strip search everyone comming out of a store to protect us from theft? Or making everyone use chopsticks to eat on plane because a fork and knife can be used to kill. What about handcuffing everyone into their seats because some nut might break into the cockpit?
So explain to me, then, why we even bother asking people not to carry handguns and grenades onto planes. I mean, by your rationale, it's just another stupid means of trying to tell people how they should act and stripping them of their right to do what they want. The obvious answer to society's ills is total and unequivocable trust in every single anonymous individual that ever crosses your path, right? Doing anything else would instantly strip them of their most basic rights, and just ends up being a mindless excercise to keep good people from living free.
Welcome to life on Planet Earth. If you simply can't accept social pragmatism overriding some degree of your personal freedoms, I strongly advise that you take whatever steps are necessary to fully isolate yourself from society.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Heck, yeah! Then all you'd need is a video card running the 2.0.38 kernel, too!
And a sound card running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a DVD-ROM running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a CD-R running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a keyboard running the 2.0.38 kernel.
And a mouse running the 2.0.38 kernel.
I'm sure we could cram a kernel or two into a wrist rest, too...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
I want something pretty. It doesn't need to do anything that Linux/Windows/Beos does...Seriously, folks, what is it about Mac OS X that would make you shell out money for it when Linux is free? Do you think it can compete with Windows where Linux can't? Do you think it's genuinely better? I don't get it.
Well, let's see. One, it has a great graphical user interface. To even suggest that any of the competing Linux GUIs can be seriously compared to that of OSX is utterly laughable; we can't even drag and drop properly between apps yet! Two, it has a learning curve of about a week for people who are fundamentally computer illiterate. Compare that to the learning curve of the average Linux experience--Linux is free just so long as one considers the weeks/months it takes to learn it as disposable time. Three, it runs on BSD. It runs for weeks without crashing. Yep, Linux does this too, but then again, Linux has always trumpeted this as an advantage over Windows and other "pretty" systems.
OSX offers, for the very, very first time ever , a system built on a BSD core with a virtually idiot-proof user interface. Linux can compete on the under-the-hood aspects of OSX; it can't even begin to hold a candle to the user experience, though. What's not to get about an operating system that has both a real CLI and an absolutely beautiful, easy-to-use GUI?
Mac OS X won't penetrate large organizations, either. Network admins have their hands full with 95/98 desktops, 2000 desktops, 2000 servers, Linux servers, and Netware servers. Mac OS X will be looked at as just another unproven alternative with no real history, an answer looking for a question.
I agree with you to a point on this one. Many large corporrations won't welcome OSX for the very reasons you point out: they already have their hands full trying to get a hodge-podge of OSes playing nicely with each other, and don't need another, thank you very much. Other orgs, though, may do exactly what the Linux community has been clamoring for: drop everything and start from scratch (but with OSX instead of Linux.) There's enough appeal in OSX for both power users and point-and-grunters that it could present a tempting option, especially if Apple were to sweeten the deal somewhat for large corporate accounts. As for the unproven alternative, answer looking for a question bit, well, you just described the situation with Linux circa 1998. That, and I can think of a number of questions to the answer, "a UNIX system that a total novice can use".
I also can't believe posters haven't mentioned the failed 3rd-party hardware problems generated when Apple let other manufacturers build PowerPC boxes. Remember that? Apple couldn't stand letting other people build boxes and run Apple software. Now we're hearing rumbles that not only will it run on other boxes, but it'll be boxes that Apple hasn't put their golden blessing on.
A very valid point, and one that I see as being one of the bigger potential stumbling blocks out there. A possible answer for Apple is to partner with one or two major peecee manufacturers and spec out a narrow range of "Apple Certfied" x86 systems. This helps absolve Apple from having to release n! drivers every week, and since they're already used to dictating their own hardware terms, it shouldn't be too tough of a policy for them to stand firm on. Yes, they got burned once by the licensing fiasco, but it's entirely possible that they've learned form their mistakes and feel ready to give it another go.
OSX stands to be a genuinely impressive operating system. It's still too early to tell, but everything I've seen of it so far has been really promising. Apple seems to be on track for a repeat of 1984 in a lot of respects, and it is entirely possible that the in-house version of OSX they have on Intel may exist for reasons other than sheer novelty...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Sure, it sounds cheap at 0.05 €, but exchange rates makes it sound a lot cheaper than it might actually be. Consider, for example, that you'd need to shell out roughly 31,500 Turkish Lira to get one of these puppies!
Doesn't sound so cheap anymore, huh?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
If there is anything at all I have learned about the man, it's that he is utterly unpredictable, he probably has a grand scheme in mind, and he loves surprises. I think that the biggest question to ask isn't one of technical hurdles or risk/benefit analyses of Apple's hardware sales, but "What's really bouncing around in Steve's head?"
Sadly, it's impossible to answer this question. One thing is for sure, though--if Apple does release OSX for x86, Jobs is going to have a blast in announcing it. And it's going to catch everybody pretty much off-guard, even those of us who want it the most.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Oh, come on. You post a well-argued opinion and then throw the socialist scare card?
Socialism is NOT BAD. Neither is communism. Despotism masquerading as socialism (or communism, or capitalism) is bad. Are all socialist states despotisms masquerading as socialist states? Hardly. A properly run socialist state can provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that of a properly run capitalist state.
I'm currently living in a country where healthcare is genuinely universal (rated the best in the world by the WHO;) people can work without fear of getting dropped on the street by poorly-run companies scrounging for the last buck; public transportation is so good that it's easier not to own a car; you can walk down virtually any city street after dark without fear of being mugged, shot, or attacked; and companies answer to the goverenment, not vice versa. Now, if only this nation weren't a socialist state (shudder, cower, rally the troops) it'd probably be a fairly good place to live, huh?
Yeah, France has it's share of problems, and there are a number of things that I miss about living in a capitalist state. But believe me, there exist socialist nations where life is pretty damn good, both in the comfort sense and in the moral sense. There exist a good many things here that I'll sorely miss if and when I return to the States.
Break out of the propaganda we've been fed for nearly 50 years and realize that socialism is not the plaguebringer we've been taught it is.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Ok, ok. Granted, this news item came with the "but remember, it's brand spankin' new, hence currently useful to about 500 people" disclaimer, but still. Front page?
That said, it's a really cool service. Next time I'm out and about and need to find a wireless access point, all I need to do is fire up my wireless internet and query this search engine and...
Oh, wait. I'd need to know where the nearest access point was to do that. D'ohh.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
THey are broadcasting signals over PUBLIC airspace, including INTO MY YARD. If I feel like putting up a dish to capture that signal and manipulate it *however I want* within my own property, that should be my absolute right (though the law may not agree). If they don't want me to receive the signal, don't broadcast it into my yard. PERIOD.
THe airwaves are PUBLIC.
The airwaves are public, after all.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Someone fill me in. I don't get the joke.
Or is it just a really bad typo?
No, no...it's just a minor problem with MySQL data integrity. It seems to happen a lot here on Salshdot...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Dude, you forgot Tang(TM).
How could you forget Tang(TM), arguably the beverage with the most extreme orange taste and color known to humankind?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Umm....because it's harder to understand, or somehow scarier to imagine us in control our own bodies as opposed to those of tomato plants? Or is it a simple matter of keeping up with the latest Frankentech, and GA tomatoes are sooo last week?
I mean come on folks, this is getting to the point where there are immense risks to the health of millions. As the article says, mice which couldn't make the protein CD45 died very quickly from cancers and auto-immune diseases. This sounds like a perfect opportunity for nefarious rogue states to develop biological weapons for use against Western targets. I'm sure Saddamn would like to have a "cancer bomb" with which to threaten the US.
The last thing we'd want is some crackpot technology that might allow us to reverse the effects of such a terrorist attack.
Is nothing sacred?
Actually, lots of things are sacred. Heck, Jesus' crown of thorns is just down the road a ways from me; I'm told that it is sacred. If you want "only scientific research which I can understand and personally approve as being safe" to be sacred, well, I'm afraid that's probably a bit less likely to happen.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Yes, generally it can be inspiring to see what the body is capable of, but once inspired, I have to get out of my chair and go swimming or join the gym. And it's just soooo much easier to say, "later", and change channel.
Hmm. My post was somewhat incomplete, I fear. I consider entertainment as more of a catalyst than an element in the pursuit of higher needs. I agree that it is up to the individual to actually capitalize on the opportunity, and agree further that many never do; however, I do firmly believe that entertainment can and does serve as a vehicle for encouraging individuals to better themselves.
A lot of it boils down to any given individual, and whether or not they have the will to act on their impulses. In the case of somebody, for example, who watches and enjoys baseball on TV and not once actually goes out and plays it in life, I pose the following question: would that person have been better off or worse off had they never watched baseball on TV? Would the individual in question have gone out and done some other activity that would have lead to further pursuit of the higher needs, or would they have simply squandered that time in some other fashion? I believe the latter to be true more often than not; we may very well have diverging opionions on this point, but consider the outcome of this opinion for the moment. If the individual in question simply fills that time with an activity that they find less pleasurable (with no further progress towards fulfilling the higher needs,) is that individual not worse off for not having enjoyed that time? What value is there to life besides personal pleasure, if the higher needs are not pursued?
But not all culture is entertainment. I tried reading a couple of philosophy books, and that was not a pleasant experience. I doubt that the hard discipline required for achievement in sport is considered 'fun'.
I agree that not all culture is fun, but of all cultural activities you have taken place in, which would you consider contributed most to your pursuit of the higher needs: those activities you found entertaining, or those you found more tedious than pleasurable? People tend to gain more from things they enjoy doing, and if you enjoy doing something, is it not entertainment?
While it is perfectly possible to not enjoy the hard dicipline required for achievement in sport, I would also argue that those who attain the greatest success and fulfillment in sport have generally taken great pleasure in it's pursuit, even in the tedium of daily training. Entertainment can come in micro-doses, in the form of a runners' high during a 12 mile training run, performing an exceptional play in the middle of a four-hour training session, and the like. An athlete who does not take great pleasure in what they do is unlikely to truly fulfill their higher needs, even if they do attain a professional level of ability.
Self actualisation is a very hard and difficult task. Very few people are willing to do it.
Agreed, resoundingly! Herein lies the gist of my feelings towards entertainment, though: for the individual who, for whatever reason, does not or cannot pursue self-actualisation, what is there? Some turn to spirituality, which leads to a kind of external actualization of the self. Others simply exist, in a genuinely day-to-day sense. For those that simply exist (as well as those that pursue spirituality, but most importantly for those that do not,) entertainment almost becomes a need in and of itself.
For a person who has fulfilled as much of the hierarchy of needs as they are able or willing to, what reason is there to pursue living if not for the sake of enjoyment? (Here is where I see a great deal of the value of computer gaming--I admit that it does less than other forms of entertainment to increase one's fulfillment of higher needs, but it provides an excellent means of diversion for those unable, unwilling or unprepared to do so. If you're not going to pursue fulfillment, why not pursue mindless pleasure?)
"Entertainment" can give relief from our deficiencies, in the same way that going to sleep gives relief from the day, but I wouldn't give entertainment any more value than just a feel-good drug.
Entertainment can act as a catalyst for those willing to delve farther into the higher needs; for everybody else, it acts as a feel-good drug. A society without it's feel-good drug, though, is a society at risk of serious trouble.
A few wildly gifted people are capable of amazing things. For everybody else, there's entertainment. Therein lies it's value.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Yes, there are certain things that men and women are inclined to be better at, or that are exclusive to one gender. Men tend to be physically stronger than women; women tend to be more dextrous than men. Only women can bear children, and only men can produce sperm.
The catch is, society is often bent on enforcing inclinations as fact. Yes, AC, men do tend to make better football players than women. But there's a sizeable and vocal population that tries to insist that women can't or shouldn't play football. Nevermind that the woman in question may be able to hit her receivers 19 times out of 20 with perfect spirals, or can call plays like nobody's business. These same types mock men for doing things like ballet. Clearly, women are better equipped as a whole for the required dexterity and fluidity of motion; why should a man even be trying to do ballet, when he'll never be as good as a woman can be?
When was the last time that you heard a man complain when somebody said that he should not stay at home with the children and cook and clean? Do men whine and say "I can if I want?" No. They accept it.
Oh, bullshit. Men whine like nobody's business, just like women. I know plenty of pampered little mama's boys who tremble at the mention of "manual labor" (or "changing a diaper",) and I know plenty of women who silently put up with hell on a daily basis.
A little less whining and a little bit more productive output would do this world a hell of a lot of good.
I assure you that there is far more energy wasted in trying to deliniate acceptable men's and women's activities than is wasted in just letting people do what they set their hearts, minds, and bodies to. Women have a large number of purely artificial barriers they must overcome to do so today; being told that they're better designed for some things instead of other, more manly things is one of them.
Of course, society generally recognizes this fact when the men folk all get sent overseas to fight in wars and somebody has to do all the little things like build battleships and repair tanks.
Of course, that's just the exception. Women don't really belong in manufacturing and construction jobs, do they?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Well, consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. While entertainment certainly doesn't come into play with physiological and safety needs (your examples of the homeless person and the earthquake victim, respectively,) once one reaches the third and subsequent level of the hierarchy, the value of entertainment can be quite high. Bear with me on this one.
Consider, for a moment, that your basic physiological and safety needs are met. You live in a permanent domicile, you have a steady job, and you are in no forseeable danger of losing your physiological or safety needs. Thus, you are free to pursue the remaining three needs: Love/Affection/Belongingness, Esteem, and Self-Actualization needs. For various reasons, not many people ever succeed in pursuing all three of the above. Some people manage to find love, but never chase their dreams and opportunities. Others have powerful personalities and vast success, but lack anyone to share this with. Even more people live day to day, alone, without achievement or pride, going through the motions of life.
I see entertainment as a means of filling these gaps. People who couldn't run a mile without collapsing regularly watch professional sports, absorbing the abilites of the atheletes in place of their own inadequacies. People watch "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and go window shopping to fill percieved shortcomings in their own career achievements. People purchase self-affirming Chicken-Soup-style books and buy into things like the Spice Girls' "Girl Power" to artificially bolster their own lacking self-esteem. All of the above are forms of entertainment; entertainment allows us to feel better about who we are.
In addition to making us feel better about who we are, though, entertainment can provide a very real impetus for self-improvement. Kids watch Michael Jordan play basketball and set themselves to become professional atheletes. Some even succeed; many others gain a valuable appreciation for physical conditioning and personal health that lasts their entire lives. People go to the theater, the opera, or the films to introduce new thoughts to their minds, and to help themselves grow intellectually. People visit singles bars and clubs searching for friendship and love; quite often, they find it. Entertainment, beyond being a simple diversion, becomes the very means for delving deeper into these last three levels of need.
Computer entertainment brings exciting new possibilites. One can play Quake with people you've known for years but never met in person. One becomes capable of flying, space exploration, and gravity-defying acrobatics without having to leave one's seat. One can even make a fulfilling career out of computer entertainment, acting as a developer, guide, advice columnist, commentator, or any number of things. Computer entertainment provides a degree and depth of interaction that surpasses all other forms of entertainment except face-to-face interaction with another human being.
Yes, the applications for computers are wide-ranging, but rarely carry much personal importance for the user. It's wonderful to have a fully-geatured word processor, powerful database, and security services. But these things have little immediate value to the individual user, even if you use them every day for work. Unless your self-actualization needs are met by them (for example, your life's work is designing and developing screamingly fast database servers, and you take great pride in what you do,) it's not as important to you as doing something entertaining. Like playing Solitare or Minesweeper, or finally fragging that really good player in Norway (and getting "whoa, nice shot" in return.)
This, in my opinion, is why entertainment-based computing devices will play a huge role in the future of computing. I'm good with SQL and I make a living off coding web sites, but I enjoy picking people off from 1 km with the Sniper Rifle in Tribes. I like coding, but it's what pays the bills. (Mind you, I've been spending a lot more time running around the city with my wife than gaming, but hey, that's more fun to me right now.)
After you've fulfilled the basics of survival and are living a relatively safe life, entertainment becomes quite valuable. It helps you forget your own shortcomings, while simultaneously providing the opportunity to learn how to overcome them.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
There's some potential here, I think...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Actually, there's an amazingly charitable basis behind NASA's actions. Read on to learn what these champions of Universal Matter Suffrage are really up to.
Every day, over 400 metric tons of matter are shamelessly ripped from their peaceful trajectories and deposited on the Earth. This has been happening for billions of years, without any consideration whatsoever for the wishes and general well-being of the matter in question. We understand today that all space rocks have an inherent and fundamental right to exist free of unwanted interference from outside influences, and for the first time in our history, we are actually taking steps to end this brutality.
Now, if NASA can glean enough information from this comet collision, it stands a chance of being able to develop systems to prevent the Earth from enslaving these 400 tons of previously free-drifting, independant matter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the ramifications of their endeavors.
NASA's hope is that by sacrificing some matter one one comet, they can hopefully prevent countless other cases of senseless, unseen matter abuse. It was a decision they did not come to lightly, but rest assured, NASA is taking every step it can to stop the Earth's rampant interference in the workings of the universe once and for all.
Fnord.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Generally agreed, though I honestly have trouble labeling Steve Jobs as "weak-minded", regardless of what I think about how he runs Apple...
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Well, look at it this way. If you could spend $2000 of your own money every month without banner ads to have other people look at your stuff or $1500 with banner ads, which would you prefer? These people are often spending sizeable amounts of their own money to keep their site going for the sole purpose of entertaining the public.
They're not in it for the money, either, or else they wouldn't be spending their own just to keep their site up! Blocking their ads is the rough equivalent of saying, "I want you to have to pay more so I can see your site every day."
I consider that to be evil, evil, evil.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
For crying out loud, Jon. The concept of personal privacy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Every single time you start waving the "And You Can Thank The United States For..." banner over your head like a lunatic, you not only make yourself out to be more of an ass, but you provide immesurable cannon fodder for equally idiotic people to perpetuate the "Americans Are Big Headed Blithering Idiots" mantra.
Yes, the United States have revolutionized modern government, and they stand as an example to the world in many things. No, not everything you touch can be turned into Home Team Glory. The government of the United States was crafted by a group of genuinely brilliant men who based much of their own thought on generations' worth of work done by European thinkers, scholars, leaders, and revolutionaries. Your assertion that "some European Enlightenment radicals" helped the United States invent personal privacy is about as accurate as me asserting that Europe provided the framework for personal privacy, and that framework was first implemented by some Colonial separatist radicals.
Why do you insist on labeling everything you see as good and just in this world as American?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.