I beg to differ. The last entry on the developer page (here) was dated 19 March 2003. I think that spells about cancelledware to me. Maintaining a website just isn't good enough.
But aren't VCRs used for the same thing? I usually do. Tape a show, and hit FF every time a commercial comes on. The only difference with TiVo is that it is easier to use... and it is new(er).
Just look at the casette: Everybody could tape their favourite music. Nobody really made a fuss about The CD only made it easier to copy music (ok and in better quality) and it became a scapegoat. If you have a drop in revenue blame it on the CD-copying.
Since TiVo's do not have better quatity than VCR's, isn't this the same thing happening all over again?
Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage
on
ISS Fender Bender
·
· Score: 1
Except that the body in Armageddon didnt move with 30000 km/h compared to the shuttle, as it had fallen out of a spaceship with the same speed and direction of the first craft
Ok. Bad example. But in the film there were some basketball-sized stones flying around...
Wait a minute... That body could never have hit the second shuttle in the first place. It has the same speed as the first shuttle, and since there is no atmosphere to slow him down, it should float alongside it.
Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage
on
ISS Fender Bender
·
· Score: 3
Here are some links that might be interesting in this respect:
30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage
on
ISS Fender Bender
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I recall an insident with a space shuttle a few years ago. A flick of paint hit a window and left a fist-sized star in that window. That's the danger of space 30,000 km/s isn't a big deal in space, but having a collision at that speed is quite an impact.
So anyone who still think the movie Armageddon is based on scientific facts. (Remember the body being flung againt the windscreen and it didn't even have a scratch?) Think again...
Ok, So you'll have to keep pumping all the time to keep the battery pressurized...
I'm seeing it right now.
A mobile phoncall from man-dear:
"Honey, who's that womans voice at the other line?"
"Well, that's m..." *Disconnected*
*Phone rings*
"Sorry honey, I forgot to keep pumping... erm... my battery"
I personally the solution in te Forever Flashlight is a much more robust and feasible solution than this.
As far as I understand it, The glass around the chaneels is charged; for easy let's say it's positively charged. When water with ions (read: salt) is pumped through the tubes the positive ions cannot pass: they are repelled and stay behind, whereas the negative ions can move freely through the tube and out the other end. Entrance is positive, exit is negative, hence the potential difference and current can be extracted. The energy comes from the pumping power and is converted to electrical power. I just don't see how you can keep water pressurised for months while the floodgates (tubes) are open, because that's what you'll have to do if you want to make it into a battery...
All in all it's not as intricate as the BBC makes it out to be...
Since this is, I presume, a water-based organism, it can only survive such high temperatures deep down in the ocean. At sealevel, the water inside the organism will boil and make the thing explode. Also I wonder how it can keep it's aminoacids and DNA intact. At 120 degrees C there is enough energy to break the Hydrogen bonds which give the proteines and DNA it's stability...
Could somebody give me some indications on the pressures sown there?
I wonder how small it's decay time is. I know the elements before it have halflives of several nano- to picoseconds. It'll be gone before you can say "fast". These scientist better not have a cold: Press the button to start experiment. HATSJOO!!!". Oh darned, missed it.
Ununnillium gone, Darmstadtium in. Mendelev would be proud.
I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.
I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...
I don't think you can make an computer programme that is ethicly capable. If you see the amount of trouble these AI's have with normal language, which is the more (I would say: most) structured and transparent parts of human behaviour, how could you ever think that it could grasp something as vague as ethics? If most humans has trouble understanding ethics, how can a computer ever hope to succeed?
But the fact that a patent has been granted is not necessarily a bad thing: When computer have evolved enough to become ethically aware (lets say an eon or so), the patent will have expired and a new one cannot be issued...
It's a pity that we still have to detect planets by there gravitational pull on the suns they orbit. This will only alow us to "see" gaseous giants (like jupiter) who have lotsa mass. The earth-like planet have much too little mass to ever see with this method.
I know people are tring to detect the reflection of the stars (of it's sun) light, but that's pretty hard since you have to filter it out from the light directly recieved from that star. But if we would really try and be lucky, could we see the planet directly when another planet is blocking our view of the star?
Just my $0.02. $0.04 with inflation correction and VAT.
> Who's is going to stand there and photograph every page...?
Is it so much more unrealistic then somebody going to a Star Wars movie and sets up his video camera in the middle of the movie theatre? That's happened too! Don't underestimate what people are willing to do if they can save a buck...
>..., but who the heck wants to open tons of images to read a lame magazine article that you can probably get online in a number of minutes?
Magazines maybe, but whole books never go (fully) online. So flipping 197 pages is the only alternative. Also, you can make PDF's of a row of images, therefore no flipping needed. Or you could use ACDSee where you only need to push to PgDown key to go to the next image.
P.S. Don't you mean asinine?
Main Entry: asinine Pronunciation: 'a-s&n-"In Function: adjective Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass Date: 15th century 1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass synonym see SIMPLE - asininely adverb - asininity/"a-s&-'ni-n&-tE/ noun
This worm doesn't use this, but some windows computers are set up to hide "known extentions". So when an attachment is sent of the form "Observations.doc.exe" the user would only see "Observation.doc" and open it without a second thought.
On the other hand: Viewing, opening and running an attachment is all done with the same click of the same mouse button. Most people just don't know the difference. (People have trouble enough using outlook, because it is such an incredibly illogical programme)
And let's be honest: Even if you would put a neon sign over the e-mail that read: "Don't open this: It contains a virus!", they would just go right ahead and open it. And NEVER underestimate how many people are totally stupid (I know from experience).
The (Royal Dutch) Philips company is putting quite some effort into flexible display technology for some years now.
Here the Sales Pitch on their own website. There's not an awfull lot of information, but they do have some nice pics and movies (N.B. Link was broken when I checked; I'm not sure if this is a Mozilla problem or the sites). They really should put more on their websie because they are really doing some cutting edge work there...
Spammers are smart people. You are never going to get the definition of spam such that it will block out all the forms of spam. And if there is a hole, spammers will rush to take advantage of it.
I'll illustrate with a snail-mail example: A few years back everybody could get a sticker (the yes/no* an no/no* stickers) which we could stick on our mailbox to prevent "unadressed mail" (read: yunkmail) from flooding your mailbox. Good initiative: saves paper, time, money and irritation. BUT: Suddenly all yunkmail got addresses prionted on them and we were stuck with the same pile of paper we didn't read and had to take out to the paper recycle bins. Nice initiative, didn't work. Wait, that's not entirely true; it still has a function: It blocks the local newspapers.
* yes/no for local (free) newspapers; no for unadressed mail.
Monopoly kills the incentive(s) to innovate. Since 'we' are the biggest why should we change? That's why many contries, including the US, have anti-monopoly laws. Somehow Microsoft managed to circumvent these laws. (I wonder why?) And now that the monopoly is slightly fading (it's not gone by a long shot), Microsoft is realizing that if they want to survive they need to innovate.
Let's see how the big M will be doing in the real world.
Ok, when is this going to be introduced in Europe? Let's make it a bet. I bet 100 slashdollars (the virtual currency used here at slashdot) that it will not be introduced before 2015.
The reason I'm saying this is that most introduction dates for new communication technologies are far too optimistic.
For instance, UMTS was supposed to be introduced by now. Haven't seen it yet. That miscalculation nearly bankrupted KPN Telecom (the Dutch telephone co.). Every home a (A)DSL connection? It's coming but not quite. Every youth an i-Mode? Nope.
Problem is: introducing a new communication protocol usually requires a new infrastructure and that requires a lot of money. And when it is all about investing people (and especially europeans) like too wait for the competitor to make that investment.
If you just eject oxygen from a structure, it would be likely that you are left with a very brittle structure, if not a powder. Remember the oxigen in the SiO2 (the sand) bridges the silicon atoms therfore the structure must be completely ruined.
Therefore the collected silicon mus be remelted, drawn, cleaned, sliced into tiny placks, etched, washed and polished. However this is also has to be done with silicon obtained in other ways. Nowadays there are machines who can perform most of these procedures in one run.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, I sure hope that robo-dog doesn't fetch the boms I launch at the enemy...
Is this the first step to the development of REAL Mechwarriors?
I beg to differ. The last entry on the developer page (here) was dated 19 March 2003. I think that spells about cancelledware to me. Maintaining a website just isn't good enough.
I never had any problem with my e-mail...
/usr/bin/getmail > /dev/null :w :q
crontab -e
0,30 * * * *
Is all you need...
I'm getting the CD vs. MC jitters here.
But aren't VCRs used for the same thing? I usually do. Tape a show, and hit FF every time a commercial comes on. The only difference with TiVo is that it is easier to use... and it is new(er).
Just look at the casette: Everybody could tape their favourite music. Nobody really made a fuss about The CD only made it easier to copy music (ok and in better quality) and it became a scapegoat. If you have a drop in revenue blame it on the CD-copying.
Since TiVo's do not have better quatity than VCR's, isn't this the same thing happening all over again?
Ok. Bad example. But in the film there were some basketball-sized stones flying around...
Wait a minute... That body could never have hit the second shuttle in the first place. It has the same speed as the first shuttle, and since there is no atmosphere to slow him down, it should float alongside it.
High Speed Collisions
Debris and Furture Space Activities
I recall an insident with a space shuttle a few years ago. A flick of paint hit a window and left a fist-sized star in that window. That's the danger of space 30,000 km/s isn't a big deal in space, but having a collision at that speed is quite an impact.
So anyone who still think the movie Armageddon is based on scientific facts. (Remember the body being flung againt the windscreen and it didn't even have a scratch?) Think again...
I'm seeing it right now. A mobile phoncall from man-dear:
"Honey, who's that womans voice at the other line?"
"Well, that's m..." *Disconnected*
*Phone rings*
"Sorry honey, I forgot to keep pumping... erm... my battery"
I personally the solution in te Forever Flashlight is a much more robust and feasible solution than this.
As far as I understand it, The glass around the chaneels is charged; for easy let's say it's positively charged. When water with ions (read: salt) is pumped through the tubes the positive ions cannot pass: they are repelled and stay behind, whereas the negative ions can move freely through the tube and out the other end. Entrance is positive, exit is negative, hence the potential difference and current can be extracted. The energy comes from the pumping power and is converted to electrical power. I just don't see how you can keep water pressurised for months while the floodgates (tubes) are open, because that's what you'll have to do if you want to make it into a battery...
All in all it's not as intricate as the BBC makes it out to be...
Or this one:
"Thus begin now already strongly with saving."
Is a very bezar way of saying: Start saving now!
Or this one:
"I remain natural at the ball..."
I can only com up with: Of course I keep posession of the ball. (Of course, It's my move?)
By the way "vorbestellongen" are pre-orders.
For the people who don't read German, here's the page translated by babelfish... Which is, unfortunately readable at best...
Since this is, I presume, a water-based organism, it can only survive such high temperatures deep down in the ocean. At sealevel, the water inside the organism will boil and make the thing explode. Also I wonder how it can keep it's aminoacids and DNA intact. At 120 degrees C there is enough energy to break the Hydrogen bonds which give the proteines and DNA it's stability...
Could somebody give me some indications on the pressures sown there?
I wonder how small it's decay time is. I know the elements before it have halflives of several nano- to picoseconds. It'll be gone before you can say "fast". These scientist better not have a cold: Press the button to start experiment. HATSJOO!!!". Oh darned, missed it.
Ununnillium gone, Darmstadtium in. Mendelev would be proud.
I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.
I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...
I don't think you can make an computer programme that is ethicly capable. If you see the amount of trouble these AI's have with normal language, which is the more (I would say: most) structured and transparent parts of human behaviour, how could you ever think that it could grasp something as vague as ethics? If most humans has trouble understanding ethics, how can a computer ever hope to succeed?
But the fact that a patent has been granted is not necessarily a bad thing: When computer have evolved enough to become ethically aware (lets say an eon or so), the patent will have expired and a new one cannot be issued...
It's a pity that we still have to detect planets by there gravitational pull on the suns they orbit. This will only alow us to "see" gaseous giants (like jupiter) who have lotsa mass. The earth-like planet have much too little mass to ever see with this method.
I know people are tring to detect the reflection of the stars (of it's sun) light, but that's pretty hard since you have to filter it out from the light directly recieved from that star. But if we would really try and be lucky, could we see the planet directly when another planet is blocking our view of the star?
Just my $0.02. $0.04 with inflation correction and VAT.
I love these astronomical time scales:
"Sorry I'm 15 min late..."
"Oh never mid, here we don't mind a billion years more or less..."
> Who's is going to stand there and photograph every page...?
..., but who the heck wants to open tons of images to read a lame magazine article that you can probably get online in a number of minutes?
/"a-s&-'ni-n&-tE/ noun
Is it so much more unrealistic then somebody going to a Star Wars movie and sets up his video camera in the middle of the movie theatre? That's happened too!
Don't underestimate what people are willing to do if they can save a buck...
>
Magazines maybe, but whole books never go (fully) online. So flipping 197 pages is the only alternative.
Also, you can make PDF's of a row of images, therefore no flipping needed. Or you could use ACDSee where you only need to push to PgDown key to go to the next image.
P.S. Don't you mean asinine?
Main Entry: asinine
Pronunciation: 'a-s&n-"In
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass
Date: 15th century
1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment
2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
synonym see SIMPLE
- asininely adverb
- asininity
This worm doesn't use this, but some windows computers are set up to hide "known extentions". So when an attachment is sent of the form "Observations.doc.exe" the user would only see "Observation.doc" and open it without a second thought.
On the other hand: Viewing, opening and running an attachment is all done with the same click of the same mouse button. Most people just don't know the difference. (People have trouble enough using outlook, because it is such an incredibly illogical programme)
And let's be honest: Even if you would put a neon sign over the e-mail that read: "Don't open this: It contains a virus!", they would just go right ahead and open it. And NEVER underestimate how many people are totally stupid (I know from experience).
The (Royal Dutch) Philips company is putting quite some effort into flexible display technology for some years now.
Here the Sales Pitch on their own website. There's not an awfull lot of information, but they do have some nice pics and movies (N.B. Link was broken when I checked; I'm not sure if this is a Mozilla problem or the sites). They really should put more on their websie because they are really doing some cutting edge work there...
Spammers are smart people. You are never going to get the definition of spam such that it will block out all the forms of spam. And if there is a hole, spammers will rush to take advantage of it.
I'll illustrate with a snail-mail example:
A few years back everybody could get a sticker (the yes/no* an no/no* stickers) which we could stick on our mailbox to prevent "unadressed mail" (read: yunkmail) from flooding your mailbox. Good initiative: saves paper, time, money and irritation. BUT: Suddenly all yunkmail got addresses prionted on them and we were stuck with the same pile of paper we didn't read and had to take out to the paper recycle bins.
Nice initiative, didn't work. Wait, that's not entirely true; it still has a function: It blocks the local newspapers.
* yes/no for local (free) newspapers; no for unadressed mail.
Ah! Competition. Don't you just love it?
Monopoly kills the incentive(s) to innovate. Since 'we' are the biggest why should we change? That's why many contries, including the US, have anti-monopoly laws. Somehow Microsoft managed to circumvent these laws. (I wonder why?) And now that the monopoly is slightly fading (it's not gone by a long shot), Microsoft is realizing that if they want to survive they need to innovate.
Let's see how the big M will be doing in the real world.
Ok, when is this going to be introduced in Europe? Let's make it a bet. I bet 100 slashdollars (the virtual currency used here at slashdot) that it will not be introduced before 2015.
The reason I'm saying this is that most introduction dates for new communication technologies are far too optimistic.
For instance, UMTS was supposed to be introduced by now. Haven't seen it yet. That miscalculation nearly bankrupted KPN Telecom (the Dutch telephone co.). Every home a (A)DSL connection? It's coming but not quite. Every youth an i-Mode? Nope.
Problem is: introducing a new communication protocol usually requires a new infrastructure and that requires a lot of money. And when it is all about investing people (and especially europeans) like too wait for the competitor to make that investment.
Hence my skeptisism.
Therefore the collected silicon mus be remelted, drawn, cleaned, sliced into tiny placks, etched, washed and polished. However this is also has to be done with silicon obtained in other ways. Nowadays there are machines who can perform most of these procedures in one run.
A short explanation of this can be found here