I'm not sympathetic to edu's that want a free ride for all sorts of worthless research.
It's tragic that a significant portion of the private sector takes this kind of a stance. The Media Lab, in it's day, was a unique place where sometimes extremely disparate companies were able to work together, share ideas, and advance not only their businesses, but technology in a much more significant way than they would have separately.
What happens when Intel sits down with Lego and some creative, bright students? Lego gets Mindstorms... Intel gets an entirely new product line. This was the place where corporate R&D hit the academic cutting edge. It brought you HDTV, Mindstorms, Electronic Ink (which is turning very quickly into printable transistors). It's working on building automation with cooperation from both appliance companies and building companies. MEMS, Education, Agents, News Delivery... Hell, students there even had a part in remeasuring Mt. Everest. Worthless indeed.
As for "frivolous perks," the professors at the lab get paid academic salaries. Many of them, who consult with their sponsors as a condition of their sponsorship contracts, travel 150-200k miles/year. Have you tried logging that much travel in coach, without a cell phone?
Yes, there are significant parts of the Media Lab designed to make it "plush" for both sponsors and researchers, but you don't attract some of the brightest and most creative people on the planet by giving them a cinder block office $5.25 an hour.
It's a bit disturbing considering they will be the next generation of technology workers."
Isn't this a little bit of an overreaction? Of course people without any experience aren't going to have much insight. Two year olds defecate in their pants and smile, but we don't go around complaining that "these are the future leaders of our country."
What concerns me more is the (subset of the) current generation of technology workers who think that Microsoft is a superior choice.
...not to mention the present leaders of our country who defecate in their pants and smile.
A nice, inexpensive piece of equipment running an OS that looks like PalmOS but doesn't actually run Palm apps...
I'm a big fan of Linux, but why would I want this instead of kicking a few bucks extra and actually getting a Palm device?
I'm serious here; my Visor does what I want it to, does this solve some problem that existing PDAs don't? It seems like sort of a tough sell, especially when the device has only 15 apps.
Sorry, but the original comment is correct (although it might be a little confusing). A blow "for" consumers is one in their favor. A blow "to" consumers is one struck against them.
A google search on the prase "struck a blow" gives gives us common uses:
There as been a significant amount of pressure (from both non-CS administration and some CS-because-it-pays-well,-not-because-I-want-to-lea rn students) to change to Java or some other "real world" language, but thankfully, the instructors haven't given in.
The differentiation between good programmers and bad, isn't in the number of languages they "know." Programming is a methodology, and Lisp/Scheme is a great tool to teach it.
This is the beauty of having a variety of software products to choose from.
If kmail does the job for you, beautiful! Use kmail.
Competing packages, like kmail and evolution (to the extent that they 'compete') are good for the linux community. Different environments ensure that more users find the functionality they're looking for.
I always find it troubling the seemingly militant conflicts between hard core KDE users and the pro-Gnome users. Both seem to think there's only one real solution to the desktop "problem," but a loss of either would be a significant blow to the Linux community.
As for the people who say that linux is a "server" OS, and that we should abandon the desktop battle, consider what losing the (admittedly small) group of people who use linux for a primary user OS means... a larger user base and development of desktop apps inherently means more attention to your OS, and more resources into making the server aspect better. If Linux goes server-only, there will be considerably fewer resources sunk into developing the OS as a whole.
I worked on a project closely related to the project you write of; LifeShirt was the original contractor, iirc.
The lifesaving aspect was their emphasis, unfortunately, the US DOD views wound characterization in a different light.
The chief benefit, from a military perspective, of being able to check on battlefield casualties remotely, is actually in the form of triage.
Being able to identify areas where footsoldiers are "beyond repair" or are in lesser need of assistance gives the battlefield commander (safe in his tent) the ability to direct limited medical resources where they will be most effective.
Cool idea in all, but there was widespread speculation that rather than using the technology to save lives, it would allow fewer medical personnel handle the load. From an economic perspective, doctors and medics are expensive (and don't kill opposing forces); grunts are cheap and lethal.
The one disagreement I had with the technology was that it seemed to be another business tool to make the military machine run more smoothly, and LifeShirt was pitching it as though it would save lives.
I have to question the validity of any simulation that thinks that 100% of the average user's 8 hour work day is spent doing things that a computer isn't orders of magnitude too fast for.
I write code for a living, and while I've got a well tuned linux box to do all my compiling, any (speed) advantages it has over an $800 low-end Windows box when I'm writing emails or posting to/. is lost when I pause at the end of a sentence to consider my next thought.
(voiceover indicating speed being wasted goes here)
Your "average" user, in all likelihood, isn't running 100% processor intensive tasks. They're composing emails, or preparing presentations, or IMing their coworkers about the wording of some useless document. An 11% slowdown is going to cost them seconds on a day, not minutes. Certainly not 53 minutes.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate Windows with a passion, but isn't this the same kind of FUD we've been laughing at for years, just going in the other direction?
You can go to the public library.
Library cards are free, and you get books for a couple of weeks.
Overdue fees in my area are a ghastly ten cents a week... maximum of $0.50.
Great new soundbytes like:
"Hello this is Bill Gates, and I pronounce Linux, 'Oh God, help me, they're making me look like a fool!'"
Re:They are alot farther then us
on
Bionic Nurses
·
· Score: 5
Anyone else think that the Japanese might be a little farther then us in the Robitics area?...I saw a show about what the best minds at MIT were doing with Robitics right now and it doesn't seem like we are even near what the japanese have.
First, congratulations on being at MIT, although in the interest of appealing to a broader audience, I'll assume that when you write "further than us" what you mean is "than the U.S.," (even though this response actually deals with MIT).
From what I have seen, Japanese companies have (generally) focused on industrial scale robots with somewhat traditional methods of movement. They have been much work on large biped and quadriped robots, often with servos or linear hydraulic actuators as their primary methods of motion. The goal of many of these robots, it seems, is to allow humans to apply machine force and precision in industrial settings.
Academic research (both in the US and abroad), on the other hand, is focused (for the most part) more on advanced control control issues for for robots and innovative methods of actuation.
The MIT Leg Lab is one of the best known robotics lab in the U.S., and their work with active feedback, one legged locomotion, and gymnastic robots is still some of the most advanced robotic control system work being done. There is other work being done at MIT exploring polymers that shorten when electrical current is applied to them. Bundles of them could be used to build robotic "muscles" for more animal-like movement, or, in a far-off scenario, bionic replacements for damaged body parts.
There are several reasons it seems like Japanese companies are "ahead." Academic work involves a lot of simulation. Some of the best designed robots only exist in virtual worlds, simply because it's too expensive for academic institutions to construct them, purely for proof-of-concept research. Also, it's unclear that there's a difinitive "goal" for robotics. Industrial robotic design is aimed at factory/workplace automation. The Leg Lab is concerned with understanding legged locomotion in all its forms (both natural and invented). Sony is concerned with making a dog that can push around a little plastic ball. In short, it's tough to say someones "ahead," because everyone's going in different directions.
As an aside, it's dangerous to think of advanced research as an "us vs. them" race. This isn't cold war military work. Many research facilities, MIT included, operate off sponsored research funds from many international sources. Many of the students at U.S. institutions are not from the U.S.. Most importantly, the results of almost all academic research is openly shared. There isn't a nationalistic aspect to this research.
Yes, it seems like the Japanese produce more in the area of industrial, applied robotics than does the U.S., but that's only one aspect to "the robotics area."
A compulsory license forces a copyright or patent owner to permit someone else to use the work for a predetermined fee...if the parties cannot agree on a royalty for a given copyright license, then an arbitration panel would decide the rate for them...the trial court could require the parties to try to negotiate a royalty and, if they failed to agree, impose a royalty set by binding arbitration.
So instead of Napster users paying the RIAA an RIAA set per-song price, they'll be paying the RIAA a court arbitrated per-song price.
Also, how does this prevent the RIAA from shutting down <insert favorite music trading post> for not being able to track 100% of the transfers?
I don't know about you, but my Palm is great for the limited things I call on it to do.
It essentially replaces my organizer, which was, as far as I can tell, it's intended purpose.
Why does it need to get faster. More memory I understand, color and backlighting and better batteries also, but are people really feeling the lag when looking up phone numbers or appointments?
How about making the things cheaper? I don't want a palm to replace a computer... if I did, I'd buy an iPaq (and put linux on it). I want it to take care of scheduling, take notes and remember phone numbers.
...oh, and I guess a few simple games never hurt anybody.
What I want to know is, why does my palm really need to be faster?
If the phonebook listed phone sex numbers instead of residential numbers, nobody would use it.
Just the same, if search engines return irrelevant results, nobody's going to use them.
Can you imagine the nightmare if the government ran search engines? First of all, it would take six months to get anything indexed, but the number of lawsuits and amount of taxpayer money wasted addressing complaints submitted by people feeling entitled to top biling?
We'd have a whole new grass-roots organization... something like the "National Organization to Supervise Engines and Require Consumersafe Hits" at least NOSEARCH is a good acronym.
I really don't see what the big deal about it is, as long as people know what they are getting.
What's the big deal even if people don't know what they are getting? If I run a web site and put a search engine on it, I should be able to return anything I want? What obliges me to tell a visitor if (and let's hope it never comes to this) I'm going to return goatse.cx links as the top entry for every search?
Search engines aren't a public service. Your tax dollars don't fund them. The only ones who have a beef here is companies who have paid and led to believe they're going to get top billing and then don't, but that's not what the complaint is about.
This is one of those times I think the phrase "Company X makes no guarantees about the usability of Product Y."
So what if they re-prioritize results based on paid submissions? It's a free service. Are these "consumer watchdog" groups actually implying that site contents have to be accurate, useful, or impartial?
The SWAS observations of IRC+10216 paint a picture of the future of our solar system. "We think we are witnessing the type of apocalypse that will ultimately befall our own planetary system," said SWAS team member Dr. David Neufeld, a Johns Hopkins professor of physics and astronomy.
I'm sick of all these doomsday theorists. Isn't it obvious? Some script kiddies saw another IRC hub to take down and accidentally vaporized an entire solar system!
I can just see the slasback heading this week... EFNet IRC blows up, so does IRC in another galaxy.
They're already "tracking" you. Your phone (when on) reports to the system where it is. The system tracks your phone's ID through the various cells. If they didn't, they'd have to broadcast an incoming call request to every cell on the system in order to get it through to you.
What this is suggesting, it seems, is using information about the rate at which IDs move from cell to cell in order to describe traffic patterns. Seems like a useful application of existing collateral information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's tragic that a significant portion of the private sector takes this kind of a stance. The Media Lab, in it's day, was a unique place where sometimes extremely disparate companies were able to work together, share ideas, and advance not only their businesses, but technology in a much more significant way than they would have separately.
What happens when Intel sits down with Lego and some creative, bright students? Lego gets Mindstorms... Intel gets an entirely new product line. This was the place where corporate R&D hit the academic cutting edge. It brought you HDTV, Mindstorms, Electronic Ink (which is turning very quickly into printable transistors). It's working on building automation with cooperation from both appliance companies and building companies. MEMS, Education, Agents, News Delivery... Hell, students there even had a part in remeasuring Mt. Everest. Worthless indeed.
As for "frivolous perks," the professors at the lab get paid academic salaries. Many of them, who consult with their sponsors as a condition of their sponsorship contracts, travel 150-200k miles /year. Have you tried logging that much travel in coach, without a cell phone?
Yes, there are significant parts of the Media Lab designed to make it "plush" for both sponsors and researchers, but you don't attract some of the brightest and most creative people on the planet by giving them a cinder block office $5.25 an hour.
Isn't this a little bit of an overreaction? Of course people without any experience aren't going to have much insight.
Two year olds defecate in their pants and smile, but we don't go around complaining that "these are the future leaders of our country."
What concerns me more is the (subset of the) current generation of technology workers who think that Microsoft is a superior choice.
Lawn darts... they were my favorite. We used to make the neighbor kid catch 'em.
I'm a big fan of Linux, but why would I want this instead of kicking a few bucks extra and actually getting a Palm device?
I'm serious here; my Visor does what I want it to, does this solve some problem that existing PDAs don't? It seems like sort of a tough sell, especially when the device has only 15 apps.
Of course, wise parents will realize that the smoking is more of a health hazard than the sex.
So much for the Thumb. I've got to get Marvin to come fix this thing.
Sorry, but the original comment is correct (although it might be a little confusing). A blow "for" consumers is one in their favor. A blow "to" consumers is one struck against them.
A google search on the prase "struck a blow" gives gives us common uses:
"...saw himself as someone who struck a blow for freedom..."
vs
"...struck a blow to employers' flexibility."
Apologies, but a casual search didn't find any more interesting context to link.
There as been a significant amount of pressure (from both non-CS administration and some CS-because-it-pays-well,-not-because-I-want-to-lea rn students) to change to Java or some other "real world" language, but thankfully, the instructors haven't given in.
The differentiation between good programmers and bad, isn't in the number of languages they "know." Programming is a methodology, and Lisp/Scheme is a great tool to teach it.
If kmail does the job for you, beautiful! Use kmail.
Competing packages, like kmail and evolution (to the extent that they 'compete') are good for the linux community. Different environments ensure that more users find the functionality they're looking for.
I always find it troubling the seemingly militant conflicts between hard core KDE users and the pro-Gnome users. Both seem to think there's only one real solution to the desktop "problem," but a loss of either would be a significant blow to the Linux community.
As for the people who say that linux is a "server" OS, and that we should abandon the desktop battle, consider what losing the (admittedly small) group of people who use linux for a primary user OS means... a larger user base and development of desktop apps inherently means more attention to your OS, and more resources into making the server aspect better. If Linux goes server-only, there will be considerably fewer resources sunk into developing the OS as a whole.
The lifesaving aspect was their emphasis, unfortunately, the US DOD views wound characterization in a different light.
The chief benefit, from a military perspective, of being able to check on battlefield casualties remotely, is actually in the form of triage.
Being able to identify areas where footsoldiers are "beyond repair" or are in lesser need of assistance gives the battlefield commander (safe in his tent) the ability to direct limited medical resources where they will be most effective.
Cool idea in all, but there was widespread speculation that rather than using the technology to save lives, it would allow fewer medical personnel handle the load. From an economic perspective, doctors and medics are expensive (and don't kill opposing forces); grunts are cheap and lethal.
The one disagreement I had with the technology was that it seemed to be another business tool to make the military machine run more smoothly, and LifeShirt was pitching it as though it would save lives.
I write code for a living, and while I've got a well tuned linux box to do all my compiling, any (speed) advantages it has over an $800 low-end Windows box when I'm writing emails or posting to /. is lost when I pause at the end of a sentence to consider my next thought.
(voiceover indicating speed being wasted goes here)
Your "average" user, in all likelihood, isn't running 100% processor intensive tasks. They're composing emails, or preparing presentations, or IMing their coworkers about the wording of some useless document. An 11% slowdown is going to cost them seconds on a day, not minutes. Certainly not 53 minutes.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate Windows with a passion, but isn't this the same kind of FUD we've been laughing at for years, just going in the other direction?
(Besides, who works an 8 hour day?)
I'm not buying it; he's the Starman!.
Then again, this is the same director that brought us Angelina Jolie as a l33th4x0r.
http://remix.overclocked.org
A ton of old NES-era games remixed with new instrumentation and some downright questionable rescoring.
Fun memories, if nothing else.
You can go to the public library. Library cards are free, and you get books for a couple of weeks. Overdue fees in my area are a ghastly ten cents a week... maximum of $0.50.
Great new soundbytes like: "Hello this is Bill Gates, and I pronounce Linux, 'Oh God, help me, they're making me look like a fool!'"
First, congratulations on being at MIT, although in the interest of appealing to a broader audience, I'll assume that when you write "further than us" what you mean is "than the U.S.," (even though this response actually deals with MIT).
From what I have seen, Japanese companies have (generally) focused on industrial scale robots with somewhat traditional methods of movement. They have been much work on large biped and quadriped robots, often with servos or linear hydraulic actuators as their primary methods of motion. The goal of many of these robots, it seems, is to allow humans to apply machine force and precision in industrial settings.
Academic research (both in the US and abroad), on the other hand, is focused (for the most part) more on advanced control control issues for for robots and innovative methods of actuation.
The MIT Leg Lab is one of the best known robotics lab in the U.S., and their work with active feedback, one legged locomotion, and gymnastic robots is still some of the most advanced robotic control system work being done. There is other work being done at MIT exploring polymers that shorten when electrical current is applied to them. Bundles of them could be used to build robotic "muscles" for more animal-like movement, or, in a far-off scenario, bionic replacements for damaged body parts.
There are several reasons it seems like Japanese companies are "ahead." Academic work involves a lot of simulation. Some of the best designed robots only exist in virtual worlds, simply because it's too expensive for academic institutions to construct them, purely for proof-of-concept research. Also, it's unclear that there's a difinitive "goal" for robotics. Industrial robotic design is aimed at factory/workplace automation. The Leg Lab is concerned with understanding legged locomotion in all its forms (both natural and invented). Sony is concerned with making a dog that can push around a little plastic ball. In short, it's tough to say someones "ahead," because everyone's going in different directions.
As an aside, it's dangerous to think of advanced research as an "us vs. them" race. This isn't cold war military work. Many research facilities, MIT included, operate off sponsored research funds from many international sources. Many of the students at U.S. institutions are not from the U.S.. Most importantly, the results of almost all academic research is openly shared. There isn't a nationalistic aspect to this research.
Yes, it seems like the Japanese produce more in the area of industrial, applied robotics than does the U.S., but that's only one aspect to "the robotics area."
So instead of Napster users paying the RIAA an RIAA set per-song price, they'll be paying the RIAA a court arbitrated per-song price.
Also, how does this prevent the RIAA from shutting down <insert favorite music trading post> for not being able to track 100% of the transfers?
Security through obscurity: Get hundreds of empty cases and leave them on your lawn, camoflaging your one PC that actually works.
Security through insects: Fill it with hornets.
Security through insecurty: Install outlook. Label accordingly, and leave anywhere near the VA linux offices.
It essentially replaces my organizer, which was, as far as I can tell, it's intended purpose.
Why does it need to get faster. More memory I understand, color and backlighting and better batteries also, but are people really feeling the lag when looking up phone numbers or appointments?
How about making the things cheaper? I don't want a palm to replace a computer... if I did, I'd buy an iPaq (and put linux on it). I want it to take care of scheduling, take notes and remember phone numbers.
...oh, and I guess a few simple games never hurt anybody.
What I want to know is, why does my palm really need to be faster?
Just the same, if search engines return irrelevant results, nobody's going to use them.
Can you imagine the nightmare if the government ran search engines? First of all, it would take six months to get anything indexed, but the number of lawsuits and amount of taxpayer money wasted addressing complaints submitted by people feeling entitled to top biling?
We'd have a whole new grass-roots organization... something like the "National Organization to Supervise Engines and Require Consumersafe Hits" at least NOSEARCH is a good acronym.
What's the big deal even if people don't know what they are getting? If I run a web site and put a search engine on it, I should be able to return anything I want? What obliges me to tell a visitor if (and let's hope it never comes to this) I'm going to return goatse.cx links as the top entry for every search?
Search engines aren't a public service. Your tax dollars don't fund them. The only ones who have a beef here is companies who have paid and led to believe they're going to get top billing and then don't, but that's not what the complaint is about.
This is one of those times I think the phrase "Company X makes no guarantees about the usability of Product Y."
So what if they re-prioritize results based on paid submissions? It's a free service. Are these "consumer watchdog" groups actually implying that site contents have to be accurate, useful, or impartial?
While they're at it, maybe they should go after The Onion for offering free Israeli homelands for all non-arab refugees.
How about shutting down /. for dispensing legal advice from a bunch of unlicenced crackpots.
I'm sick of all these doomsday theorists. Isn't it obvious? Some script kiddies saw another IRC hub to take down and accidentally vaporized an entire solar system!
I can just see the slasback heading this week... EFNet IRC blows up, so does IRC in another galaxy.
It seems like a competition to come up with extremely short and witty quips.
Frankly, I've seen much more clever prose generated much more quickly in the early stages of a new slashdot article.
Did anyone try entering the contest with "FP!" or "Can you imagine..." ?
They're already "tracking" you. Your phone (when on) reports to the system where it is. The system tracks your phone's ID through the various cells. If they didn't, they'd have to broadcast an incoming call request to every cell on the system in order to get it through to you.
What this is suggesting, it seems, is using information about the rate at which IDs move from cell to cell in order to describe traffic patterns. Seems like a useful application of existing collateral information.