Huh? Not available yet? The article says available form 4th quarter 2000. My sister has been using one of these for several months, as she had to leave her cold fusion programming job 'caus of a severe autonomic nerve condition that developed from computer related RSI. she finds this 3M device to be good, in conjunction with Dragon Naturally Speaking to avoid using the keyboard.
Its not really that joystick like though since it is the whole base that moves.
The reason it is better for RSI is that the thumb nerves are supposed to be far less fragile
That's a fair point, in that the true success of any free collaborative project - including open source software - will be dependent on the creators being happy comfortable and well fed! I guess I am interested in a GNU public domain art for what I imagine are the same reasons 'Zen' style coders like open source. It frees you to go beyond the limitations of your own energy, spare time and need to earn a living. Most good artists are working on a specific idea, not really a single isolated work. If an artist was able to collaborate or manage a complex project by firstly, sketching out the aims and parameters of the artwork, and secondly, then managing the input of many other informed artists: then perhaps truly complex or refined works could eventuate. I don't think this is an easy goal though. Most artists are reclusive or egotistical which might be one reason many open source projects are technically excellent but primitive in their GUI.
I have only just now been able to view the un-slashdotted site, and have to say the results so far are not really what collaborative art can be. I suspect this is because of the fact that the artists were not really collaborating in terms of them communicating. I am interested in the group's aspirations however, because true collaborative net art is an idea that has been bugging me for many months; can art, as in visual or creative 'fine' art be truly collaborative in the GPL sense? That is, can a GNU/GPL style license apply to fine art creative projects which encourage collaboration between artists and not egotistical competition (and yes, I have been following closely the is-code-is-art arguments but disagree with the YES orthodoxy that prevails here). I am an artist, not a programmer, yet am very attracted to open source (eg am mucking around with php-nuke etc) partly because I think most artists, musicians and the like have been stuck in the rut of believing Copyright and patronage are the only way to further their only true interest. That is, to get on with the artistic process and to communicate 'beauty' or 'difficult ideas'.
To give a concrete example of what I mean, is it practical/'legal' to start a project where, say, everyone is REQUIRED to submit their photographs or compositions under a open source GNU type license? I hate the professional monopoly that lawyers have over our society as much as anyone, and I can see how it has got even artists hoodwinked into believing that such things as Copyright is an unquestionable Right. I personally would like to see the fine arts break out of this legalistic mould - the 'it was created by me, its mine' - and concentrate on the process of communicating with other artists in a collaborative art project that spans decades such as Linux. Can the fine arts truly do open source?
I think it is bad news in terms of media control and the web that suck.com has failed (?) but from a personal perspective the site for me was like reading Sanskrit routed several times through Babelfish. (Feedmag is a different issue, but its appeal was never as broad) I just assumed every time I checked out www.suck.com that the content must make sense to USA denizens only, but left scratching my head. Just look through the details of many Slashdot posters and you will find Europeans, New Zealanders and the like, not so Plastic.com and its sister site Suck. Yet though I tried for many months to take a shine to sites such as Plastic.com it was always USA talking to USA about USA issues. I don't think this is insignificant in the success of more topic focused sites like Slashdot. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, some sort of common dialogue is assumed here so it is a good discussion point for a potential few hundred million World At Large People and not just a few million in the USA. That, in the long term, makes business sense.
Also being Libertarian is an offensively ideological perspective for many in the rest of the world. Although I think the quality of journalism in the Wired/Suck/Feedmag webring is quite high, I don't really like having a biased political point of view tainting so many articles. I think that if Suck.com had tried to find a wider more objective appeal (to the average internet user, NOT the average TV watcher) it would have survived. Then again, anyone can be wise in hindsight; the web is tough at the moment. The capital sheep flee from optimism to overreaction methinks in shunning Suck.com.
The physical size does matter
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 1
This is so cool. The thing I like about the idea of using a flywheel as a UPS is that it is a 3D realworld earthy 'thing' that I can relate to. Unlike say the somewhat abstract concept of electricity. Assuming my house could stand the weight of this thing - which it could as I'd just put it in the soil on my raised home ('Queenslander' style on stilts) If the price was okay, which it is not at the moment sadly, it would be worth it just for the toy value. The love many guys have with cars strongly relates to the 1000kg of metal and constant volatile explosions which any non-techie can love.
And battreies are environmentally wasteful and my USP goes through them at an expensive rate.
Side off-the-topic note: has anybody had success with truck batteries as a cheap UPS replacement when the internal batteries die. I can't see the problem personally as the voltage is the same. And like this flywheel thing, it would rok to have a truck battery on the desktop!
I'm not disputing that in an abstract way that "some of this technology in of itself is cool technology with other applications." Hell, some of the funkiest technology of the last century was developed as a direct result of WWII. More what saddened me was the lack of response to an "gee isn't this cool blow it up shit and stuff developed by uncle Sam." When what's hidden is that "that.mil is there to guarantee your freedom" is not MY freedom; the 90% precent of non-US world-at-large. What 'free world' are you referring to? Certainly not mine (Australia/Asia). I would have to agree with your insinuation, that I am probably a coward, hating the idea of explosions burning skin, crushing bone, charring flesh. Not my scene sorry, despite cool USA computerised tech open sourced killkillkill.
Sorry for sounding a little sore in this (and I thank you for responding to my un-American comment in what is essentially a US forum). Just that I find slashdot bizarre in that the community is about hoping for a better world, but constantly denies that the US acts only in the interests of a small proportion of the world's people.
(I think that the Russian military, any Middle Eastern milita and the Chinese army is a toy in comparison to US firepower).
It took me a few hours before I could reply to this. The link to the tradoc.army.mil made me sick. I'm quite sure that a similar looking (lots of garish pix and jingoism) link to, oh say a Middle East site would have been ridiculed by the slashdot community in general. Do you realise that "looks pretty cool" refers to instruments of death. Its a kind of religion, to pretend that (technology) and the sweet USA are not some of the most destructive and negative forces on this planet at the moment. Please ppl, use some of that wonderful intelligence and empathy that you show producing free (as in freedom) software towards imagining what it would be like to be on the other end of that "cool".mil
Hey...this is an important question...thanks for framing it for me. (hint::mod up please) I too would like to know why there cannot be a 'fair use OF AT LEAST A SMALL PORTION of the offending section. At least for academic criticism purposes.
In particular I would like to know because I intend to experiment with a way of reproducing politically/legally censored copyright texts in their complete form by allowing discussion group posters to write small sections of a copyright text...then hyperlink that text to another sequential such review. The idea is to have a legal, if long-winded, version of these politically/legally repressed texts.
IANAL
Any answers from legal folks?
I found this to be an informative comment which typically comes as a late post. The comment recognises that at the heart of the "is this a revolution debate" is semantics and definition. For one side of the debate the working definition is "is this a revolution in a tech Industrial Revolution?" sense. The second definition, which is taken by most to be an oppositional stance, is "is this a revolution in the Emancipation sense?"
Since the author takes an historical perspective at answering the question "Is this a revolution", the conclusion drawn is that both greater freedom and technological upheaval are forces in the same previous historical "tech revolutions".
I feel too that the close study of history would answer best "what sort of revolution do we have here and what are likely to be its medium term effects?" The answer seems a reasonable one, given the thrust of human history, that "the next wave of elect will be those that can grasp the technical knowledge needed to keep the Information Age going." One can only hope though, that "More people will have more power." From my reading of history, the individual has never been as free in the Emancipation sense as when they lived under a less hierarchal hunter-gatherer structure.
While I can see that the main hurdle will be that the project progressing too slowly will make it seem out-of-date compared to other commercial titles around, this need not kill it. I enjoy playing Subspace with its retro gameplay, despite the fact that the source is closed. Part of the reason it has a small cult following is that the original commercial owners have abandoned it, leaving the community to develop maps and rules as they see fit. Further, that it is behind-the-times is actually to my advantage...56K will be the majority of the net for decades to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Not available yet? The article says available form 4th quarter 2000. My sister has been using one of these for several months, as she had to leave her cold fusion programming job 'caus of a severe autonomic nerve condition that developed from computer related RSI. she finds this 3M device to be good, in conjunction with Dragon Naturally Speaking to avoid using the keyboard.
Its not really that joystick like though since it is the whole base that moves.
The reason it is better for RSI is that the thumb nerves are supposed to be far less fragile
That's a fair point, in that the true success of any free collaborative project - including open source software - will be dependent on the creators being happy comfortable and well fed! I guess I am interested in a GNU public domain art for what I imagine are the same reasons 'Zen' style coders like open source. It frees you to go beyond the limitations of your own energy, spare time and need to earn a living. Most good artists are working on a specific idea, not really a single isolated work. If an artist was able to collaborate or manage a complex project by firstly, sketching out the aims and parameters of the artwork, and secondly, then managing the input of many other informed artists: then perhaps truly complex or refined works could eventuate. I don't think this is an easy goal though. Most artists are reclusive or egotistical which might be one reason many open source projects are technically excellent but primitive in their GUI.
I have only just now been able to view the un-slashdotted site, and have to say the results so far are not really what collaborative art can be. I suspect this is because of the fact that the artists were not really collaborating in terms of them communicating. I am interested in the group's aspirations however, because true collaborative net art is an idea that has been bugging me for many months; can art, as in visual or creative 'fine' art be truly collaborative in the GPL sense? That is, can a GNU/GPL style license apply to fine art creative projects which encourage collaboration between artists and not egotistical competition (and yes, I have been following closely the is-code-is-art arguments but disagree with the YES orthodoxy that prevails here). I am an artist, not a programmer, yet am very attracted to open source (eg am mucking around with php-nuke etc) partly because I think most artists, musicians and the like have been stuck in the rut of believing Copyright and patronage are the only way to further their only true interest. That is, to get on with the artistic process and to communicate 'beauty' or 'difficult ideas'.
To give a concrete example of what I mean, is it practical/'legal' to start a project where, say, everyone is REQUIRED to submit their photographs or compositions under a open source GNU type license? I hate the professional monopoly that lawyers have over our society as much as anyone, and I can see how it has got even artists hoodwinked into believing that such things as Copyright is an unquestionable Right. I personally would like to see the fine arts break out of this legalistic mould - the 'it was created by me, its mine' - and concentrate on the process of communicating with other artists in a collaborative art project that spans decades such as Linux. Can the fine arts truly do open source?
I think it is bad news in terms of media control and the web that suck.com has failed (?) but from a personal perspective the site for me was like reading Sanskrit routed several times through Babelfish. (Feedmag is a different issue, but its appeal was never as broad) I just assumed every time I checked out www.suck.com that the content must make sense to USA denizens only, but left scratching my head. Just look through the details of many Slashdot posters and you will find Europeans, New Zealanders and the like, not so Plastic.com and its sister site Suck. Yet though I tried for many months to take a shine to sites such as Plastic.com it was always USA talking to USA about USA issues. I don't think this is insignificant in the success of more topic focused sites like Slashdot. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, some sort of common dialogue is assumed here so it is a good discussion point for a potential few hundred million World At Large People and not just a few million in the USA. That, in the long term, makes business sense.
Also being Libertarian is an offensively ideological perspective for many in the rest of the world. Although I think the quality of journalism in the Wired/Suck/Feedmag webring is quite high, I don't really like having a biased political point of view tainting so many articles. I think that if Suck.com had tried to find a wider more objective appeal (to the average internet user, NOT the average TV watcher) it would have survived. Then again, anyone can be wise in hindsight; the web is tough at the moment. The capital sheep flee from optimism to overreaction methinks in shunning Suck.com.
This is so cool. The thing I like about the idea of using a flywheel as a UPS is that it is a 3D realworld earthy 'thing' that I can relate to. Unlike say the somewhat abstract concept of electricity. Assuming my house could stand the weight of this thing - which it could as I'd just put it in the soil on my raised home ('Queenslander' style on stilts) If the price was okay, which it is not at the moment sadly, it would be worth it just for the toy value. The love many guys have with cars strongly relates to the 1000kg of metal and constant volatile explosions which any non-techie can love.
And battreies are environmentally wasteful and my USP goes through them at an expensive rate.
Side off-the-topic note: has anybody had success with truck batteries as a cheap UPS replacement when the internal batteries die. I can't see the problem personally as the voltage is the same. And like this flywheel thing, it would rok to have a truck battery on the desktop!
I'm not disputing that in an abstract way that "some of this technology in of itself is cool technology with other applications." Hell, some of the funkiest technology of the last century was developed as a direct result of WWII. More what saddened me was the lack of response to an "gee isn't this cool blow it up shit and stuff developed by uncle Sam." When what's hidden is that "that .mil is there to guarantee your freedom" is not MY freedom; the 90% precent of non-US world-at-large. What 'free world' are you referring to? Certainly not mine (Australia/Asia). I would have to agree with your insinuation, that I am probably a coward, hating the idea of explosions burning skin, crushing bone, charring flesh. Not my scene sorry, despite cool USA computerised tech open sourced killkillkill.
Sorry for sounding a little sore in this (and I thank you for responding to my un-American comment in what is essentially a US forum). Just that I find slashdot bizarre in that the community is about hoping for a better world, but constantly denies that the US acts only in the interests of a small proportion of the world's people.
(I think that the Russian military, any Middle Eastern milita and the Chinese army is a toy in comparison to US firepower).
It took me a few hours before I could reply to this. The link to the tradoc.army.mil made me sick. I'm quite sure that a similar looking (lots of garish pix and jingoism) link to, oh say a Middle East site would have been ridiculed by the slashdot community in general. Do you realise that "looks pretty cool" refers to instruments of death. Its a kind of religion, to pretend that (technology) and the sweet USA are not some of the most destructive and negative forces on this planet at the moment. Please ppl, use some of that wonderful intelligence and empathy that you show producing free (as in freedom) software towards imagining what it would be like to be on the other end of that "cool" .mil
Hey...this is an important question...thanks for framing it for me. (hint::mod up please) I too would like to know why there cannot be a 'fair use OF AT LEAST A SMALL PORTION of the offending section. At least for academic criticism purposes. In particular I would like to know because I intend to experiment with a way of reproducing politically/legally censored copyright texts in their complete form by allowing discussion group posters to write small sections of a copyright text...then hyperlink that text to another sequential such review. The idea is to have a legal, if long-winded, version of these politically/legally repressed texts. IANAL Any answers from legal folks?
I found this to be an informative comment which typically comes as a late post. The comment recognises that at the heart of the "is this a revolution debate" is semantics and definition. For one side of the debate the working definition is "is this a revolution in a tech Industrial Revolution?" sense. The second definition, which is taken by most to be an oppositional stance, is "is this a revolution in the Emancipation sense?" Since the author takes an historical perspective at answering the question "Is this a revolution", the conclusion drawn is that both greater freedom and technological upheaval are forces in the same previous historical "tech revolutions". I feel too that the close study of history would answer best "what sort of revolution do we have here and what are likely to be its medium term effects?" The answer seems a reasonable one, given the thrust of human history, that "the next wave of elect will be those that can grasp the technical knowledge needed to keep the Information Age going." One can only hope though, that "More people will have more power." From my reading of history, the individual has never been as free in the Emancipation sense as when they lived under a less hierarchal hunter-gatherer structure.
While I can see that the main hurdle will be that the project progressing too slowly will make it seem out-of-date compared to other commercial titles around, this need not kill it. I enjoy playing Subspace with its retro gameplay, despite the fact that the source is closed. Part of the reason it has a small cult following is that the original commercial owners have abandoned it, leaving the community to develop maps and rules as they see fit. Further, that it is behind-the-times is actually to my advantage...56K will be the majority of the net for decades to come.