"Originally designed for a 21-month mission, Pioneer 10 lasted more than 30 years..."
I think this is an interesting question - 'cause frankly it seems like they DON'T make them like they used to. Is Pioneer a fluke, like the odd VW Rabbit that racks up 350,000 miles? Or was there something special about the technology, team, design, and/or construction effort that we could really learn from in designing DEEP space probes... the kind DESIGNED to last decades... even centuries? (I honestly don't know the answer. Any input from space geeks?)
Obligatory science geek addition to this - yes, Rosalind Franklin's contribution to the discover of the structure of DNA, through her important contributions to both the theoretical basis and experimental evidence (through x-ray diffraction photography) of the double helix structure of DNA should not be underestimated.
Furthermore, what Watson and Crick published was, as I say, the discovery of the STRUCTURE of DNA, not of DNA itself. The chemical consituents of DNA and the fact that it was the agent of heredity was already established when the double helix structure was deduced.
To make it less shallow you could warn her about her future too... But AFTER you get yours, AFTER, 'cause she'd probably just think you're insane... Listen my XX year old self communicated with me from beyond the Slashdot...
I want to find out if a fundamental paradox really causes the universe to end! I mean, suicide is not my bag, but if I had the chance to take all of you with me...
You seem to imply there are some "special" theories that get promoted to "Law"
No, which is why I said it had "some kind of meaning, in a scientific sense." But I realize that what I meant by that is sort of a science-geek definition, which is not really clear from my post. My thought is that the term law as it is commonly used (and I agree that it has no strict scientific meaning) implies certain kinds of generally linear direct relationships between certain measurements - like the relationship between temperature, pressure and volume in the so-called "gas laws."
On reflection tho, I think the term reflects rather than creates the misconception, and really the author's point was more complex than that. I admit it, I didn't RTFA before I posted. Go and try to get people to mod you down overrated.
Well, my thought is that that term implies a linear, direct relationship (like the so-called "gas laws," which relate the volume, temperature and pressure of gasses in a not entirely accurate in the real world but decently accurate in the common cases way). Maybe this comment is suspect in that the use of the term Law more reflects the misunderstanding than causes it. And frankly, I think you're overestimating people if you think nobody thinks of this as a law of nature... I just read a post in that mixing oil and water story from a guy that said the story was bogus, because if you took all the dissolved gasses out of water, that would just mean you were taking all the oxygen out of H2O and all you would have left was hydrogen. No lie, man.
hooboy. I hope this is a troll, but just in case, I can't bear the thought of you being this ill-informed. So if IHJBT, so be it. The O in H2O is not "dissolved" in H2O. It is a chemical component of water. A water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen molecule. A covalent bond means that the hydrogen and oxygen actually share an electron. This is a fairly strong chemical bond: it takes a jolt of electric current to split hydrogen and oxygen.
Another clue is that hydrogen is also a gas (you may recall a ship called the Hindenberg). So even by your scientifically innacurate definition, if you took all the "dissolved gas" (i.e. atomic components that are gasses in their pure state) out of water, what you would have left would be nothing.
The dissolved gasses are actual gasses - air, essentially. Dissolving a gas in water is like dissolving salt in water - it is in solution but it is not chemically bonded to the molecular structure of the water the way oxygen is chemically bonded to the structure of water. Another example - carbonated water. CO2 is dissolved in the water but it is not bonded to the water, which is why it bubbles out when you pop the can.
So what they are showing is that the capacity of water to mix with oil changes when you remove the relatively small component of dissolved air in the water, which would actually be pretty interesting if it is borne out by further experiments.
It seems like a good start would be to stop calling it a "law," a term that has some kind of meaning, in a scientific sense. Exactly where that line gets drawn may be a little fuzzy, but I think it's fairly obvious that Moore's observations don't make the grade.
Number one, target E-Bay itself for choosing your privacy as the second class citizen when it thinks about which players to show preference in its business models.
Number two, target YOURSELF for clicking I agree without reading the small print, or reading it, feeling vaguely uncomfortable with the terms, and then letting the desire for cheap goods overwhelm your better judgement. I am going DIRECTLY to Ebay to cancel my account. Like Amazon, I will not trade my privacy or ideals for convenience. It won't mean shit because the majority of people will (if they even bother to notice their rights getting raped), but c'est la vie. Sure, it's my fault for not paying attention to the terms in the first place... but it's doubly my fault if I don't take my ass off eBay and let them know why.
It's a reasonable question, and of course in this context it is a purely rhetorical question - what does something look like that does not actually exist?
But I stand by my comments. It isn't a matter of perfection or the lack thereof. It is a matter of whether my brain accepts the versimilitude of the illusion. In the Gollum case, mine didn't. I don't know that I can pinpoint it, frankly... but something really says to me "that isn't there." It's getting closer, no doubt. But it still looks like animation to me. And I think it's fine in an all animation context (Shrek) and if it's done well, manipulation of real images (Hobbit Shrinking, Matrix stuff), and ditto Mechanical, non-living things (robots in the Matrix). But it still isn't working for me in a "s'posed to actually be there" context in a live action film. I think your comment about "sometimes the CG looks a little too clear" has something to do with it - there is something too precise, clear, "put there" about the details. I also think the other respondent has a point. 'Doesn't matter if that is how the computer says Spiderman would really move. It is a special effect that should give you that visceral punch that makes it seem real, feel real, not be as accurate as possible.
I certainly don't think the academy is anything but a manifestation of the peculiar and bizarre politics of Hollywood, but frankly I don't see any reason to assume the nomination was deserved, from the voice acting or the CGI character point of view. Of the supporting actor nominees I've only seen Chris Cooper (Adaptation) and John C. Reilly (Chicago), but there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these performances were far and above superior to the hammy charicature of Gollum. And I found the CGI character to be distractingly unreal as usual. As far as I'm concerned these CGI characters still aren't there. Yes, they are agonizingly detailed, writhingly articulated, mapped and textured and fractalled up one side and down the other, you can see every strand of "hair" and the reflections in the tiny beads of sweat on their noses... and they DON'T LOOK REAL. I look and what my brain says is, wow, that is an amazingly detailed cartoon. Every time Gollum came on screen it knocked me out of the illusion.
I couldn't say how significant this is but my personal experience, from growing up in rural Minnesota in an agricultural community, is that over the last 20-30 years aerial crop dusting became a much less frequent technique for applying chemicals. My home town has a tiny airstrip that is all but unused now.
Most of the meta-data (playlist, title, publisher, artists, etc. etc.) is not protected or protectable. Lyrics are another issue. If they are copyright protected they can't be published without permission (I know, I know, a lot of it goes on - but it would be a mistake to include it in a project like this that is striving for legitimacy).
All of this is just more evidence of the way things are going, incidentally. Although at a very early stage, I think the trend is very promising.
Hmm, yeah, well this is the first time someone has definitively claimed to have proven the answer to this issue. I don't really expect there to be any more back and forth on THIS one...
Damn, now we know the speed of gravity and the color of the universe, what's left? Let's shut down the patent office, man, science is done! Progress is so awesome - I think I'll just kick back in this technoparadise we've created until entropy consumes all things.
In this case, our protest will do no good. They have three areas for business: taxing data transmission based on these ridiculously broad patents, selling V-chips (what are you going to do, boycott televisions? Thanks to the federal government, they have a mandatory market for these products), and biochip technology. Good luck, kid, send them an email that says you won't be buying into that whole biochip thing.
I hate to be the one to say it but we're just little gnats in this scale of business. Write to your representatives about reforming patent law, if you want to waste your time. Or if you vote, spend a minute asking yourself why you keep voting for candidates who are funded by corporations. Oh yeah, because if you didn't vote for a lizard the wrong lizard might come to power.
And my argument is, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be, if the article is misleading or flat-out erroneous. Like pop music, the lowest common denominator can be pretty dumb. I think this article struck a good balance, and touched on issues of broader significance in a context that could appeal to a non-scientist.
the common folk and perhaps in non-science professionals
Ah, the little people. But in reality I think this kind of reporting can have a much broader appeal. A hundred years ago an educated person with the inclination and free time could access, synthesize and have some grasp on a fairly broad and significant cross-section of most of the serious work going on in the science community. In this day and age it is totally impossible for even a serious science professional to grasp more than a fraction of the breadth and depth of scientific research. At a time when more and more "average" people have virtually no comprehension of the basic issues of science (while the potential impacts of science on our lives and ecology steadily increase) and when science professionals become more and more specialized, good popular reporting is important and relevant. And a little "oooh-aaah" factor is a valid way to make that reporting accessible.
I think you're being overly hard on the idea proposed in this article and overly optimistic about the function of Slashdot. The point of the article is that this is an interesting hypothesis that fits known facts and eliminates some of the problems of other theories that have been proposed. Although it will be, as one scientist notes, very difficult to prove, the scientists proposing the theory do in fact suggest how they might pursue experimental evidence in support of their hypothesis.
Does it "matter?" I think this article is fascinating. The suggestion that specific adaptations might persist beyond their usefulness to an organism because they form a foundation for later adaptations raises really interesting questions about how complex neurological behaviors are "built up" in organisms, and research in this territory could lead to a greater understanding of the line between inherited and learned behaviors, and the evolution of neurological response. That's cutting edge.
Science is indeed more than speculation but science begins with speculation, hypothesis, and theory. When I want hard science news I go to the resources in the scientific community, I read my Chemical and Engineering News magazines. 95 percent of what I read there is so dry and technical it would be pointless to post it on Slashdot.
"Münchnones, or mesoionic 1,3-oxazolium-5-oxides, are versatile substrates for 1,3-dipolar additions in constructing biologically active heterocycles. They usually are made by multistep synthesis, but now, Bruce A. Arndtsen, an associate professor of chemistry at McGill University, Montreal, and coworkers have come up with an easier way [J. Am. Chem. Soc., 125, 1474 (2003)]."
That's "real" science reporting. And it is definately more groundbreaking, in the immediate sense, than an article speculating about hiccups. But there is nothing wrong with a "color" science article that makes me think and wonder and dream a little bit about larger issues.
It's easy to slag off these fools but let's face it: they are not going to give up their private candy store, they are not going to give up their lucrative lobbying contracts, they are not going to stand up in front of their shareholders and say, well, hell, we're wrong. Opening up to the realities and efficiencies of digital is not going to come from them or from politicians: it has to come from artists and patrons, the people who stand to gain.
The more serious, non-copyright-infringing projects are cooking, the better defense we have against indefensible legislation.
Wanna talk to a REAL visionary? check out the MAPS project at http://www.kingdomcomeinstitute.com
I think I'm probably a good example of why it tanked, whether it was good or not. Before this article popped up I had honestly forgotten that it existed. Now, I liked a lot of TNG fine, I've certainly seen most of the episodes at least a couple of times, and I saw the previous TNG movies, although I wasn't thrilled by either. It came out, I thought, oh, new Star Trek movie, I'd see that. But there was a lot of other stuff out that came higher on the list, I had no sense from the very light media coverage of what the movie was about, and the next thing it had disappeared and I forgot all about it. Maybe they got the idea that TNG fans are a captive audience and all they have to do is release the thing and sit back, maybe they were worried about it tanking and did the usual self-fulfilling low promotion thing. Its presence simply failed to make a sufficient impression on me, so it's probably destined to become a non-new-release rental some time in the future.
Some of the stuff that's been reported on Slashdot on Bayesian filtering seems capable of eliminating false spam identification at a minimal cost of false legit identifications. The benefit is that you could establish a borderline (Bayesian filtering, and I'm just going off my limited knowledge from reading a few articles so the wiser may please expand and correct) assigns a value on a spam or not scale based on a statistically generated profile from real world examples of what makes spam "spammy." This eliminates the black and white tendencies of automatic filters (I say, delete everything that says "bigger penis," then miss the email where a friend complains that his girlfriend left him for someone because he...). You could also assign a borderline range so that you could review the few emails that may or may not be spam. If the service were well set up, you could even have a reply function to let whoever was running the filter know, yes, the questionable message was spam or no, it was legit, which would continue to make the filters more robust.
The problem is, it would have to be adjusted continually to adapt to the evolution of spam, so this would ultimately need to be a paid service. Personally I would gladly cough up 5 bucks a month to eliminate spam.
People really seem to be missing the point of this review, apparently because (surprise surpise) few seem to have really read it. Dyson is not making some kind of blanket condemnation of Prey, or On The Beach... in fact, the article clearly affirms the value of these types of works as vehicles for cautionary messages DESPITE their (disputed, at least in the case of Prey) technical shortcomings. The rest of the article is a reasoned consideration, which includes generous helpings of opposing opinion, of what the appropriate response to the dangers of technological development are.
I don't agree with everything in this article. But it is a very reasonable approach to considering a very broad topic in a very limited piece. Unfortunately, it isn't a sufficiently reactionary assertion of black-and-white dogmatism to appeal to this crowd.
While people pick their sides and play tug of war over the "issues," while politicians see every issue as leverage to maintain their positions of power, trading slogans for solutions and consistently getting too little done, while wealth interests continue to gaze intently at the quarterly earnings at the expense of any rational consideration of the future, we can assume that we will continue to impact the evolution of life on earth the old-fashioned way: blindly, dumbly, mutely.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is an interesting question - 'cause frankly it seems like they DON'T make them like they used to. Is Pioneer a fluke, like the odd VW Rabbit that racks up 350,000 miles? Or was there something special about the technology, team, design, and/or construction effort that we could really learn from in designing DEEP space probes... the kind DESIGNED to last decades... even centuries? (I honestly don't know the answer. Any input from space geeks?)
Furthermore, what Watson and Crick published was, as I say, the discovery of the STRUCTURE of DNA, not of DNA itself. The chemical consituents of DNA and the fact that it was the agent of heredity was already established when the double helix structure was deduced.
yeah... or an assasin in a cell...
To make it less shallow you could warn her about her future too... But AFTER you get yours, AFTER, 'cause she'd probably just think you're insane... Listen my XX year old self communicated with me from beyond the Slashdot...
Yeah, that's right, kill yourself, you heard me.
I want to find out if a fundamental paradox really causes the universe to end! I mean, suicide is not my bag, but if I had the chance to take all of you with me...
No, which is why I said it had "some kind of meaning, in a scientific sense." But I realize that what I meant by that is sort of a science-geek definition, which is not really clear from my post. My thought is that the term law as it is commonly used (and I agree that it has no strict scientific meaning) implies certain kinds of generally linear direct relationships between certain measurements - like the relationship between temperature, pressure and volume in the so-called "gas laws."
On reflection tho, I think the term reflects rather than creates the misconception, and really the author's point was more complex than that. I admit it, I didn't RTFA before I posted. Go and try to get people to mod you down overrated.
Well, my thought is that that term implies a linear, direct relationship (like the so-called "gas laws," which relate the volume, temperature and pressure of gasses in a not entirely accurate in the real world but decently accurate in the common cases way). Maybe this comment is suspect in that the use of the term Law more reflects the misunderstanding than causes it. And frankly, I think you're overestimating people if you think nobody thinks of this as a law of nature... I just read a post in that mixing oil and water story from a guy that said the story was bogus, because if you took all the dissolved gasses out of water, that would just mean you were taking all the oxygen out of H2O and all you would have left was hydrogen. No lie, man.
Another clue is that hydrogen is also a gas (you may recall a ship called the Hindenberg). So even by your scientifically innacurate definition, if you took all the "dissolved gas" (i.e. atomic components that are gasses in their pure state) out of water, what you would have left would be nothing.
The dissolved gasses are actual gasses - air, essentially. Dissolving a gas in water is like dissolving salt in water - it is in solution but it is not chemically bonded to the molecular structure of the water the way oxygen is chemically bonded to the structure of water. Another example - carbonated water. CO2 is dissolved in the water but it is not bonded to the water, which is why it bubbles out when you pop the can.
So what they are showing is that the capacity of water to mix with oil changes when you remove the relatively small component of dissolved air in the water, which would actually be pretty interesting if it is borne out by further experiments.
It seems like a good start would be to stop calling it a "law," a term that has some kind of meaning, in a scientific sense. Exactly where that line gets drawn may be a little fuzzy, but I think it's fairly obvious that Moore's observations don't make the grade.
Number two, target YOURSELF for clicking I agree without reading the small print, or reading it, feeling vaguely uncomfortable with the terms, and then letting the desire for cheap goods overwhelm your better judgement. I am going DIRECTLY to Ebay to cancel my account. Like Amazon, I will not trade my privacy or ideals for convenience. It won't mean shit because the majority of people will (if they even bother to notice their rights getting raped), but c'est la vie. Sure, it's my fault for not paying attention to the terms in the first place... but it's doubly my fault if I don't take my ass off eBay and let them know why.
But I stand by my comments. It isn't a matter of perfection or the lack thereof. It is a matter of whether my brain accepts the versimilitude of the illusion. In the Gollum case, mine didn't. I don't know that I can pinpoint it, frankly... but something really says to me "that isn't there." It's getting closer, no doubt. But it still looks like animation to me. And I think it's fine in an all animation context (Shrek) and if it's done well, manipulation of real images (Hobbit Shrinking, Matrix stuff), and ditto Mechanical, non-living things (robots in the Matrix). But it still isn't working for me in a "s'posed to actually be there" context in a live action film. I think your comment about "sometimes the CG looks a little too clear" has something to do with it - there is something too precise, clear, "put there" about the details. I also think the other respondent has a point. 'Doesn't matter if that is how the computer says Spiderman would really move. It is a special effect that should give you that visceral punch that makes it seem real, feel real, not be as accurate as possible.
I certainly don't think the academy is anything but a manifestation of the peculiar and bizarre politics of Hollywood, but frankly I don't see any reason to assume the nomination was deserved, from the voice acting or the CGI character point of view. Of the supporting actor nominees I've only seen Chris Cooper (Adaptation) and John C. Reilly (Chicago), but there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these performances were far and above superior to the hammy charicature of Gollum. And I found the CGI character to be distractingly unreal as usual. As far as I'm concerned these CGI characters still aren't there. Yes, they are agonizingly detailed, writhingly articulated, mapped and textured and fractalled up one side and down the other, you can see every strand of "hair" and the reflections in the tiny beads of sweat on their noses... and they DON'T LOOK REAL. I look and what my brain says is, wow, that is an amazingly detailed cartoon. Every time Gollum came on screen it knocked me out of the illusion.
I couldn't say how significant this is but my personal experience, from growing up in rural Minnesota in an agricultural community, is that over the last 20-30 years aerial crop dusting became a much less frequent technique for applying chemicals. My home town has a tiny airstrip that is all but unused now.
All of this is just more evidence of the way things are going, incidentally. Although at a very early stage, I think the trend is very promising.
Probably not.
Jeeze, man. That's cold.
Hmm, yeah, well this is the first time someone has definitively claimed to have proven the answer to this issue. I don't really expect there to be any more back and forth on THIS one...
Damn, now we know the speed of gravity and the color of the universe, what's left? Let's shut down the patent office, man, science is done! Progress is so awesome - I think I'll just kick back in this technoparadise we've created until entropy consumes all things.
I hate to be the one to say it but we're just little gnats in this scale of business. Write to your representatives about reforming patent law, if you want to waste your time. Or if you vote, spend a minute asking yourself why you keep voting for candidates who are funded by corporations. Oh yeah, because if you didn't vote for a lizard the wrong lizard might come to power.
the common folk and perhaps in non-science professionals
Ah, the little people. But in reality I think this kind of reporting can have a much broader appeal. A hundred years ago an educated person with the inclination and free time could access, synthesize and have some grasp on a fairly broad and significant cross-section of most of the serious work going on in the science community. In this day and age it is totally impossible for even a serious science professional to grasp more than a fraction of the breadth and depth of scientific research. At a time when more and more "average" people have virtually no comprehension of the basic issues of science (while the potential impacts of science on our lives and ecology steadily increase) and when science professionals become more and more specialized, good popular reporting is important and relevant. And a little "oooh-aaah" factor is a valid way to make that reporting accessible.
Does it "matter?" I think this article is fascinating. The suggestion that specific adaptations might persist beyond their usefulness to an organism because they form a foundation for later adaptations raises really interesting questions about how complex neurological behaviors are "built up" in organisms, and research in this territory could lead to a greater understanding of the line between inherited and learned behaviors, and the evolution of neurological response. That's cutting edge.
Science is indeed more than speculation but science begins with speculation, hypothesis, and theory. When I want hard science news I go to the resources in the scientific community, I read my Chemical and Engineering News magazines. 95 percent of what I read there is so dry and technical it would be pointless to post it on Slashdot.
"Münchnones, or mesoionic 1,3-oxazolium-5-oxides, are versatile substrates for 1,3-dipolar additions in constructing biologically active heterocycles. They usually are made by multistep synthesis, but now, Bruce A. Arndtsen, an associate professor of chemistry at McGill University, Montreal, and coworkers have come up with an easier way [J. Am. Chem. Soc., 125, 1474 (2003)]."
That's "real" science reporting. And it is definately more groundbreaking, in the immediate sense, than an article speculating about hiccups. But there is nothing wrong with a "color" science article that makes me think and wonder and dream a little bit about larger issues.
The more serious, non-copyright-infringing projects are cooking, the better defense we have against indefensible legislation.
Wanna talk to a REAL visionary? check out the MAPS project at http://www.kingdomcomeinstitute.com
I think I'm probably a good example of why it tanked, whether it was good or not. Before this article popped up I had honestly forgotten that it existed. Now, I liked a lot of TNG fine, I've certainly seen most of the episodes at least a couple of times, and I saw the previous TNG movies, although I wasn't thrilled by either. It came out, I thought, oh, new Star Trek movie, I'd see that. But there was a lot of other stuff out that came higher on the list, I had no sense from the very light media coverage of what the movie was about, and the next thing it had disappeared and I forgot all about it. Maybe they got the idea that TNG fans are a captive audience and all they have to do is release the thing and sit back, maybe they were worried about it tanking and did the usual self-fulfilling low promotion thing. Its presence simply failed to make a sufficient impression on me, so it's probably destined to become a non-new-release rental some time in the future.
The problem is, it would have to be adjusted continually to adapt to the evolution of spam, so this would ultimately need to be a paid service. Personally I would gladly cough up 5 bucks a month to eliminate spam.
Yeah, that's true.
I don't agree with everything in this article. But it is a very reasonable approach to considering a very broad topic in a very limited piece. Unfortunately, it isn't a sufficiently reactionary assertion of black-and-white dogmatism to appeal to this crowd.
While people pick their sides and play tug of war over the "issues," while politicians see every issue as leverage to maintain their positions of power, trading slogans for solutions and consistently getting too little done, while wealth interests continue to gaze intently at the quarterly earnings at the expense of any rational consideration of the future, we can assume that we will continue to impact the evolution of life on earth the old-fashioned way: blindly, dumbly, mutely.