A co-worker and I were discussing this story today. He had a very poor education growing up and I had to explain a great deal for him to really 'get' what's going on at Epsilon Eridani.
Can anyone recommend a good basic astronomy/cosmology book that I can give him to bring him somewhat up to speed? For reference, I had to explain that all the stars in the sky are just like our sun; that's his level of understanding. He's very smart and motivated to learn, but has very little background in science.
"... the massive VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) had 1000 panels missing after the storm hit."
Each of them a unique size and shape, no doubt.
Eric in Seattle
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From a Mac perspective, the RealOne player is pretty darn good. It's small, attractive, and doesn't annoy with meaningless popups and advertising. I'm thrilled that CarTalk is switching back - their Windows Media files wouldn't even play last week.
Having just undergone a surrogacy procedure, I can shed some light on this.
Embryos are graded on their ability to grow and divide. In an introvito fertilization (IVF) procedure, a 'raw' egg is withdrawn from the female donor and combined in a laboratory with the sperm of the male donor. Fertilization takes place and the resulting embryo is permitted to divide several times.
However, not all embryos are created equal. Some of them divide, some of them divide faster, and some fail to divide at all. Embryos that divide faster are preferred over those that divide at slower rates.
Besides, in cloning situations, the genetic makeup of the cloned embryo would be identical to that of the genetic donor. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, we don't really know which genes cause specific diseases, so I don't think we need to worry too much about perfect babies. Give it a couple of years, though!
nebulo
I agree - it is absolutely vital for people to think in moral terms, in terms of what each and every decision they make means; what the reasons and consequences are that accompany each act; to understand their role in their environment.
However, I don't agree with much of RMS's convictions. I create, and I expect to benefit. No one has the right to take or benefit from my efforts, expressed as "intellectual property", without my permission and a proper exchange of value (in the world today, primarily money); this is called looting, and insults my ability to conceive and implement ideas. I don't work for insults.
It is rare to find someone who understands the rewards system; that when I produce something of value, I should expect to be rewarded for my efforts. I visited the link to RMS's why-free page and eventually turned away from the monitor, queasy.
He would have me believe that my efforts should be free for anyone to benefit from, without reimbursement to me. Well, that might be fine in a small population, but on the whole people are, indeed, motivated by the carrot at the end of the stick. This is not to say that people do not program for their own self-fulfillment (I myself do); but when they produce for others, others shall exchange some mutually-agreed-upon item or service of value. Any other system subjugates the creator and will eventually result in his death.
Replace the word "psycho" with the word "passionate" and you'll be closer to your target. Whatever you may say about either RMS or BG, they're both passionate. I don't believe either is "psycho".
Gay people aren't permitted to be candidates for blood donation because of our supposed "increased risk" of carrying STDs, especially HIV/AIDS. So even if I've just had an AIDS test yesterday, they won't let me donate blood.
Back when desktop publishing was really heating up on the Macintosh, Apple came out with the Full Page Monochrome (later RGB) Display that supported one resolution:
640x870
!!!
Yes, a "backwards" display ratio - 3:4 - 1/3 taller than it was wide. This was designed to show a single sheet of paper at 100%; and it worked, too, you could just about line up a sheet of paper to the display.
And others will remember the Radius Pivot display, which could "swing both ways", so to speak; you could tilt it over horizontal for spreadsheets and tilt it back vertical for page layout. The neat thing on the Mac was the fact that the computer would automagically detect this and resize your desktop to accomodate.
>Her [Ayn Rand's] ideas were ridiculous and she couldn't write.
Yikes! Even if you disagree with all of her ideas and think she's a complete wingnut, I think any reasonable person would read her work and think, "Wow, she could *REALLY* write."
I've read some of her work and although I don't agree with all of her ideas, they're so eloquently expressed that it's a pleasure to read them nonetheless. She has a passion in her writing that many authors lack in great quantities.
"What I want to know is this: what percentage of Macintosh users actually use Photoshop, and what percentage use it the majority of the time on their computer? I think less than five percent even use Photoshop, being generous in my guess.
The percentage will undoubtedly be higher for PowerMac purchasers rather than iMac purchasers, but I would still say it's less than 30% of those (PowerMac) users.
Only if a majority of users use Photoshop intensively would the use of Photoshop to indicate general performance be acceptable."
True enough. But these multi-processor machines are, it seems, specifically targeted towards the power designer that *does* spend a huge amount of time in programs like Photoshop that would benefit from multiple processors.
I agree with your point about it not being a blanket evaluation of the machine general usefulness, but it does have its uses.
>The cube sucks because you cant put anything on top of it.
Perhaps - but it's so small (and presumedly light) that I may put things underneath it!:)
Seriously, though, it really is a great space-saver. I use a lot of CDs, and having to back away from my desk to insert a CD into a ground-based CPU is a pain. Plus, I like to listen to the machine work (hard drive clicks, etc.). It's often a useful diagnostic tool (is the machine low on RAM and using virtual memory? is the machine crashed [no HD activity]?)
> The G4 cube is to the workplace as the iMac was to the home. A toy.
Oh, not at all. I'm a web designer at work, and I have one of the current Blue & White G3s on my desk - and boy, would I give a lot to get that elephant off my desk! It's much bigger and unwieldy than you might think. And you can't always place it on the floor because the cords frequently aren't long enough (and don't tell me to get a VGA extension cable: they always seem to mess up the picture and make me squint).
Because the Cube has everything I need (Ethernet, video, Firewire, USB, hefty hard drive), I don't really need all the expansion room of the larger chassis; but I do need the desk space. I'd love to have a Cube on my desk.
And the design is cool, to! But that just makes it a good balance of form and function.
"As for the dual processors - thats one answer to Motorola's problems with getting the G4 up to speed. Too bad you'll need Mac OS X to really take advantage of it."
That's not entirely true. There's a good reason Job trots out Photoshop to demonstrate the G4's capabilities: Photoshop is specially tuned to use the G4's Velocity Engine to accelerate its functions; and, Photoshop has been multi-processor aware for many years. While it's true that most applications won't notice the extra processor, people like me who basically *live* in Photoshop would benefit tremendously from a multi-processor machine.
I don't actually know, so I'll ask: does anybody know if other Adobe products (Premiere, Illustrator, After Effects, etc.) are multi-processor aware?
Does anybody see parallels with Clarke's '3001' here? Over any given long period of time, what is likely to survive? What paradigms for interacting with data with exist?
Will they even care, in (n)k years?
I think the best way to decide what information is relevant is to plunk some anthropoligists down at an archaeological site where there is no written record whatsoever, and ask them, if they had their wish, what they most like to see written on 10 stone tablets (1 GB data, whatever).
What do you want to know about the past? Do you want to know what I had for breakfast? Where I work?
Problem is, textual data can only hold facts - emotional content is severely degraded. Given enough storage and detailed imaging equipment, I think I'd prefer a 3-D walkthrough of the planet. But again, this runs up against data paradigms; VRML, wonderful as it might be today, will probably not persist as a standard in (n)k years.
Maybe Hari Seldon's Time Vault would be best - too bad our present technology rules this out.
You know, if I were Microsoft, I think I'd do something completely different.
OK. You're in a normal business office, one of millions across the globe. What's on the PCs?
Office + Windows.
Knowing this, I think I'd just integrate the two and eliminate the Windows product altogether.
I know this is shocking - but keep with me here. Microsoft is in this situation because it's possible to compete with only half of Microsoft: you can compete with the the Internet Explorer half, or you can compete with the Office half, or any other "half" you can care to mention.
Microsoft runs into problems because it controls the other half, the Windows "half" that their competitor needs to compete with the first half. So of course they produce a better browser: they own and operate the operating system!
So - still with me? - if I were Microsoft I'd just say, 'Screw this. If it's a problem that I own both pieces, and this opens me up to anticompetitive concerns, I'll just stop producing Windows altogether.'
I read somewhere that sales of Windows in the retail market has pretty much died down because everybody who was likely to upgrade has already done so, so Microsoft is already not selling many copies to end users. They're mostly selling Windows to OEMs. Well - sell them Windows Office instead. It's what most people are looking for, anyway; Office is a pretty nice, integrated bundle. It serves most people's needs.
Could the Justice Department really shoot this down? It seems to me that Microsoft should be free to develop any old product they wish. They also have the freedom to stop selling a product. Could the Justice Department really force Microsoft to continue selling Windows?
Think this over - I'm eager to see some more ideas.
Thank you for directing me to Stallman's article in Linux Today.
By the way, it's mostly horseshit.
His goal in writing his article appears to be clearly unrelated to the charges that Microsoft has been found guilty of. As I interpret Stallman's article, he is solely interested in promoting Free Software.
Wake up: Free Software is not at issue. Microsoft's behaviour is the issue. While it's true that Free Software may have been affected by Microsoft's actions, Free Software is not a party to this lawsuit in the normal sense.
The penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is just that: the penalty phase. Not the throw-a-bone-to-the-victim stage. Not the cripple-the-big-company-so-all-the-little-people-c an-have-a-chance stage. This is the point where we decide how to castigate Microsoft so that it does not repeat its behaviour in the future.
See my comments above about the other wacky proposal - they're relevant to Stallman's article, too.
Nebulo! (with an exclamation, because I really do mean it!)
Although the poster seems well-intentioned, this tromples all over one of what I consider to be the basic freedoms: freedom of association.
Under this person's proposal, the original developer would lose any semblance of control over who sees/uses/purchases their code. They would be obligated to enter into business transactions with people to whom they otherwise might not give the time of day. Even though the proposal does provide for reimbursement, it's hardly a sufficient justification to excuse such an atrocity.
Folks, let's not forget our principles in our eagerness to make Microsoft julienne. This is one of those proposals that, thankfully, thinking men will dismiss as rubbish.
Slashdot Mirror
A co-worker and I were discussing this story today. He had a very poor education growing up and I had to explain a great deal for him to really 'get' what's going on at Epsilon Eridani.
Can anyone recommend a good basic astronomy/cosmology book that I can give him to bring him somewhat up to speed? For reference, I had to explain that all the stars in the sky are just like our sun; that's his level of understanding. He's very smart and motivated to learn, but has very little background in science.
Thanks!
Each of them a unique size and shape, no doubt.
Eric in Seattle
From a Mac perspective, the RealOne player is pretty darn good. It's small, attractive, and doesn't annoy with meaningless popups and advertising. I'm thrilled that CarTalk is switching back - their Windows Media files wouldn't even play last week.
Eric in Seattle
Having just undergone a surrogacy procedure, I can shed some light on this. Embryos are graded on their ability to grow and divide. In an introvito fertilization (IVF) procedure, a 'raw' egg is withdrawn from the female donor and combined in a laboratory with the sperm of the male donor. Fertilization takes place and the resulting embryo is permitted to divide several times. However, not all embryos are created equal. Some of them divide, some of them divide faster, and some fail to divide at all. Embryos that divide faster are preferred over those that divide at slower rates. Besides, in cloning situations, the genetic makeup of the cloned embryo would be identical to that of the genetic donor. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, we don't really know which genes cause specific diseases, so I don't think we need to worry too much about perfect babies. Give it a couple of years, though! nebulo
AMEN.
Very lucid - better than I've ever heard it expressed outside of two (thick!) novels that I think you've probably read.
nebulo
I agree - it is absolutely vital for people to think in moral terms, in terms of what each and every decision they make means; what the reasons and consequences are that accompany each act; to understand their role in their environment.
However, I don't agree with much of RMS's convictions. I create, and I expect to benefit. No one has the right to take or benefit from my efforts, expressed as "intellectual property", without my permission and a proper exchange of value (in the world today, primarily money); this is called looting, and insults my ability to conceive and implement ideas. I don't work for insults.
nebulo
Thank you for your *truly* insightful comments.
It is rare to find someone who understands the rewards system; that when I produce something of value, I should expect to be rewarded for my efforts. I visited the link to RMS's why-free page and eventually turned away from the monitor, queasy.
He would have me believe that my efforts should be free for anyone to benefit from, without reimbursement to me. Well, that might be fine in a small population, but on the whole people are, indeed, motivated by the carrot at the end of the stick. This is not to say that people do not program for their own self-fulfillment (I myself do); but when they produce for others, others shall exchange some mutually-agreed-upon item or service of value. Any other system subjugates the creator and will eventually result in his death.
nebulo
Replace the word "psycho" with the word "passionate" and you'll be closer to your target. Whatever you may say about either RMS or BG, they're both passionate. I don't believe either is "psycho".
nebulo
nebulo
Gay people aren't permitted to be candidates for blood donation because of our supposed "increased risk" of carrying STDs, especially HIV/AIDS. So even if I've just had an AIDS test yesterday, they won't let me donate blood.
Check it out:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/13 /gay.blood.donors/
Besides, I'm deathly afraid of needles and prone to passing out.
nebulo
Back when desktop publishing was really heating up on the Macintosh, Apple came out with the Full Page Monochrome (later RGB) Display that supported one resolution:
640x870
!!!
Yes, a "backwards" display ratio - 3:4 - 1/3 taller than it was wide. This was designed to show a single sheet of paper at 100%; and it worked, too, you could just about line up a sheet of paper to the display.
And others will remember the Radius Pivot display, which could "swing both ways", so to speak; you could tilt it over horizontal for spreadsheets and tilt it back vertical for page layout. The neat thing on the Mac was the fact that the computer would automagically detect this and resize your desktop to accomodate.
Ahhhhh, those were the days....
nebulo
Aaaaaghk!
Now THERE's a flashback - QBasic. I got carpal tunnel from QBasic... at the tender age of 18...
Was your for-poke-next method any faster than PSET?
nebulo
>Her [Ayn Rand's] ideas were ridiculous and she couldn't write.
Yikes! Even if you disagree with all of her ideas and think she's a complete wingnut, I think any reasonable person would read her work and think, "Wow, she could *REALLY* write."
I've read some of her work and although I don't agree with all of her ideas, they're so eloquently expressed that it's a pleasure to read them nonetheless. She has a passion in her writing that many authors lack in great quantities.
nebulo
"What I want to know is this: what percentage of Macintosh users actually use Photoshop, and what percentage use it the majority of the time on their computer?
I think less than five percent even use Photoshop, being generous in my guess.
The percentage will undoubtedly be higher for PowerMac purchasers rather than iMac purchasers, but I would still say it's less than 30% of those (PowerMac) users.
Only if a majority of users use Photoshop intensively would the use of Photoshop to indicate general performance be acceptable."
True enough. But these multi-processor machines are, it seems, specifically targeted towards the power designer that *does* spend a huge amount of time in programs like Photoshop that would benefit from multiple processors.
I agree with your point about it not being a blanket evaluation of the machine general usefulness, but it does have its uses.
nebulo
>The cube sucks because you cant put anything on top of it.
:)
Perhaps - but it's so small (and presumedly light) that I may put things underneath it!
Seriously, though, it really is a great space-saver. I use a lot of CDs, and having to back away from my desk to insert a CD into a ground-based CPU is a pain. Plus, I like to listen to the machine work (hard drive clicks, etc.). It's often a useful diagnostic tool (is the machine low on RAM and using virtual memory? is the machine crashed [no HD activity]?)
To each their own -
nebulo
> The G4 cube is to the workplace as the iMac was to the home. A toy.
Oh, not at all. I'm a web designer at work, and I have one of the current Blue & White G3s on my desk - and boy, would I give a lot to get that elephant off my desk! It's much bigger and unwieldy than you might think. And you can't always place it on the floor because the cords frequently aren't long enough (and don't tell me to get a VGA extension cable: they always seem to mess up the picture and make me squint).
Because the Cube has everything I need (Ethernet, video, Firewire, USB, hefty hard drive), I don't really need all the expansion room of the larger chassis; but I do need the desk space. I'd love to have a Cube on my desk.
And the design is cool, to! But that just makes it a good balance of form and function.
nebulo
"As for the dual processors - thats one answer to Motorola's problems with getting the G4 up to speed. Too bad you'll need Mac OS X to really take advantage of it."
That's not entirely true. There's a good reason Job trots out Photoshop to demonstrate the G4's capabilities: Photoshop is specially tuned to use the G4's Velocity Engine to accelerate its functions; and, Photoshop has been multi-processor aware for many years. While it's true that most applications won't notice the extra processor, people like me who basically *live* in Photoshop would benefit tremendously from a multi-processor machine.
I don't actually know, so I'll ask: does anybody know if other Adobe products (Premiere, Illustrator, After Effects, etc.) are multi-processor aware?
nebulo
...no.
Single-processor cube.
Dual-processor behemoth desktop machines.
nebulo
Thank you thank you thank you! That also made my day! Hahahaha....
Nebulo!
Genesis ain't it.
Does anybody see parallels with Clarke's '3001' here? Over any given long period of time, what is likely to survive? What paradigms for interacting with data with exist?
Will they even care, in (n)k years?
I think the best way to decide what information is relevant is to plunk some anthropoligists down at an archaeological site where there is no written record whatsoever, and ask them, if they had their wish, what they most like to see written on 10 stone tablets (1 GB data, whatever).
What do you want to know about the past? Do you want to know what I had for breakfast? Where I work?
Problem is, textual data can only hold facts - emotional content is severely degraded. Given enough storage and detailed imaging equipment, I think I'd prefer a 3-D walkthrough of the planet. But again, this runs up against data paradigms; VRML, wonderful as it might be today, will probably not persist as a standard in (n)k years.
Maybe Hari Seldon's Time Vault would be best - too bad our present technology rules this out.
neublo
After all, didn't the UK intelligence system give us James Bond? Ehhh? You don't see 007 screwing up, now, do you?
nebulo
You know, if I were Microsoft, I think I'd do something completely different.
OK. You're in a normal business office, one of millions across the globe. What's on the PCs?
Office + Windows.
Knowing this, I think I'd just integrate the two and eliminate the Windows product altogether.
I know this is shocking - but keep with me here. Microsoft is in this situation because it's possible to compete with only half of Microsoft: you can compete with the the Internet Explorer half, or you can compete with the Office half, or any other "half" you can care to mention.
Microsoft runs into problems because it controls the other half, the Windows "half" that their competitor needs to compete with the first half. So of course they produce a better browser: they own and operate the operating system!
So - still with me? - if I were Microsoft I'd just say, 'Screw this. If it's a problem that I own both pieces, and this opens me up to anticompetitive concerns, I'll just stop producing Windows altogether.'
I read somewhere that sales of Windows in the retail market has pretty much died down because everybody who was likely to upgrade has already done so, so Microsoft is already not selling many copies to end users. They're mostly selling Windows to OEMs. Well - sell them Windows Office instead. It's what most people are looking for, anyway; Office is a pretty nice, integrated bundle. It serves most people's needs.
Could the Justice Department really shoot this down? It seems to me that Microsoft should be free to develop any old product they wish. They also have the freedom to stop selling a product. Could the Justice Department really force Microsoft to continue selling Windows?
Think this over - I'm eager to see some more ideas.
Nebulo!
Thank you for directing me to Stallman's article in Linux Today.
c an-have-a-chance stage. This is the point where we decide how to castigate Microsoft so that it does not repeat its behaviour in the future.
By the way, it's mostly horseshit.
His goal in writing his article appears to be clearly unrelated to the charges that Microsoft has been found guilty of. As I interpret Stallman's article, he is solely interested in promoting Free Software.
Wake up: Free Software is not at issue. Microsoft's behaviour is the issue. While it's true that Free Software may have been affected by Microsoft's actions, Free Software is not a party to this lawsuit in the normal sense.
The penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is just that: the penalty phase. Not the throw-a-bone-to-the-victim stage. Not the cripple-the-big-company-so-all-the-little-people-
See my comments above about the other wacky proposal - they're relevant to Stallman's article, too.
Nebulo!
(with an exclamation, because I really do mean it!)
Allow me to expound:
Although the poster seems well-intentioned, this tromples all over one of what I consider to be the basic freedoms: freedom of association.
Under this person's proposal, the original developer would lose any semblance of control over who sees/uses/purchases their code. They would be obligated to enter into business transactions with people to whom they otherwise might not give the time of day. Even though the proposal does provide for reimbursement, it's hardly a sufficient justification to excuse such an atrocity.
Folks, let's not forget our principles in our eagerness to make Microsoft julienne. This is one of those proposals that, thankfully, thinking men will dismiss as rubbish.
Nebulo!
Summarized:
Dear Judge Jackson,
I think all software developers should be required to relenquish control of their creations.
Yours truly,
Karl Marx