Even building it yourself, sometimes I wouldn't trust it.... I'll refer you to Thompson's _Reflections on Trusting Trust_ at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95 its one of the classic hacks of all time.
I've carried my Gerber Scout 600 series for a little over a year. I use it on average of 18 times a day in the rack mount jungle. With all fully locking tools and one handed opening it fully replaced any Leatherman that I owned.
The Spyderco Spyderwrench is cool, but just doesn't have the form factor that I needed for everyday use. So it became my "dress" tool, fits easily enough in any jacket pocket without making itself obvious.
In fact it went down so bad that I can't even get the machine to install ANY MS OS (particularly painful because that's our entire setup... I prefer a good CLI myself). As long as the guys in ISS don't experience the problem I had, I think the problem will be resolved and the station will be back on its feet. I do worry that the lives of the crew are being handled solely on the MS code base, but I really can't do anything about that except wish the crew luck.
I'm sorry you feel that I don't know the subject matter already. My question on/. was a simple one, it was only a request for comment and further information. I will fully agree that I do not know the history of computers in its totality, however, I post this question with over two years of research time ahead of me in order to properly acquaint myself with the majority of the content matter. I know of no person that has undertaken a research project because he/she already knows the material, that would be redundant. Knowing what I have learned to date has given me cause to look seriously at taking what I can learn about the subject matter and passing it on to fellow students in the field. I understand that my question as posted may seem very basic and naive, but it is a very logical question when doing research of this kind. After perusing all the syllabi and text lists that have accumulated here and in email, you can be certain that I will have a job to do in reviewing those texts and compiling the information contained within them. It also goes without saying that I will try my best to conduct interviews with those who have helped create the future in the field and use that "fresh" material in my project. I too have worked on many of the systems you have mentioned, but just using those systems is not the focus of my research. The creation of systems and the acceptance of those systems and views by large groups of people are the key elements of my research. This is a vast undertaking that I am willing to persue on my own, however, I thought I could use the collective knowledge of those willing to give their input and knowledge to my advantage. Why else would the internet have been created in the first place?
I have never claimed to be a professional teacher, nor will I ever. But I do know this: given the resounding confidence and exuberance found in the/. community because of this post, I believe that I can continue my research and provide a unique learning experience to those that wish to become involved.
very true.. when spec'ing any machine I always call them PentiumX-class machines and everyone's happy. If I called them an Athlon-class machine they'd all balk. Damn suits.
Having come out of high school recently (two years) I can understand you're point of view. However, I pose the question this way: Is it better for a child to learn one point-and-click interface where a textbook shows them the button and exactly where that button is on the toolbar or to learn the general concepts and HOW to find the command that they are looking for? Personally, having used WP5.1 - 2000 and Word 95 - 2000, I don't remember where one button is on this interface and that interface and oh yea I forgot that one too.. but I remember that the general concepts for commands are the same. Let's say you're looking for margins... Page Setup, or Format Page are the two best guesses. It doesn't take an Expert system to teach that. I sincerely think children are spoon-fed too much interface and not enough concept. What happens when you upgrade to the next-latest-and-greatest and the toolbar changes? You adapt, plain and simple. But by learning the concept and having a good set of heuristics to "search" for your features from the start and you don't have to adapt, you just continue working. I'm not saying that it wouldn't take time to learn, because everyone has that urge to be able to just grab that button without looking... but it is a good first step.
In my first semester in college there was a business course required of all College of Business majors to take. It was the classic example of interface instruction. I didn't know it all, but then again who'd want to know every widget in Excel?, but I knew more than enough to fly through every assignment. There were two problems, however, one: we were graded on specificity to a given template(not all computers were identically installed in the lab, so almost impossible to have a match to the source doc) and the necessity to know in what menu a given command was in... that included submenus... now for a standard Word 2000 install that is very easy, however, when used to Publisher and PageMaker (I hardly ever use a standard word processor anymore) you tend to just slide through the menus and you get where you're going... but to test over that material is ludicrous. I'll end my rant with this question, How can one be classified as computer literate when they must be extensively retrained on the latest version of a piece of software when only a couple widgets have moved?
I would probably venture to say Palm makes their money on the deal. That is to say, licensing fees for the design of the product itself, not to mention the software platform, are what gives Palm operating capital. Handspring is definitely not the only Palm licensee, just maybe one of the most visible. IMHO I can see Palm moving out of the direct hardware production business entirely and move to strictly software production and platform enhancement. This would still mean hardware would be developed, but the production sourced out to the licensees who might tweak the design for full-out performance.
Apparently you watch, or have watched, enough Star Trek to get the gist of the plot. However, if one would stop to think about the shows, particularly TOS and TNG (while Roddenberry was still alive), they would notice that the episodes weren't necessarily about a bunch of people in a tin can exploring space and having fun with all sorts of technological gadgets... they were about the human condition, right here on Earth. Good example, and probably the most transparent of all episodes, is Let This Be Your Last Battlefield(TOS) where two aliens, one colored black on the left and white on the right and the other of the opposing coloration are the last of their respective races. Having destroyed their own planet with racial hatred and chased themselves throughout space, they end up on the Enterprise where Kirk tries to reason with them, but they end up destroying themselves and their entire species at the same time. Pretty deep storytelling in a simple analogy.
The reason nothing had consequences in the shows is the ability to maintain continuity... look at most of the shows that are from the same era... Did the Cartwrights ever suffer extreme losses on the Ponderosa that would change the entire landscape of the show? Roddenberry himself proclaimed that Star Trek was "Wagon Train to the Stars"... the show's design was simple to be extensible with character primatives that could be easily 'traded' back and forth among the cast with very distinct traits being found in the key cast members. Basically, all the toys had to be back in the box before you went home, because if that didn't happen then the shows didn't accomplish their desired task -- to be an analogy with a simple driving base story concept (people in space).
After Roddenberry's death, the shows changed focus a bit and allowed a deeper modification process to ensue. Happily, I don't believe it changed much of the basic principle that the show tried to achieve. But then again, I enjoy B5 and Crusade just as much as I do Star Trek.
----- I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
Re:Sad that Amercans are reduced to this ?
on
Solar Sails
·
· Score: 2
I don't believe this is sad at all, nor is it unprecedented. Corporate satellite launches and private science missions are often launched using non-US technology, such as the French Ariane launch system. One major consideration is cost when making these decisions, another is time. Basically if something can be launched for less when it needs to be launched, rather spend more to wait past the optimal window for launch to use domestic equipment, corporate and private launches will always choose cheap (read: not-as-expensive), reliable, and timely alternatives.
As far as using a Russian ICBM, I say go for it. ICBM technology can be well adapted to a low-orbital insertion, and it takes another weapon off the tally of the world. I'm not a pacifist typically, but really, if weapons technology can be put to non-weapons use, lets use it.. its already been tested and doesn't need an extensive engineering process to be feasible.
I will agree with you that the internet does affect the real world, and that the laws of the real world are binding on real people. There comes a problem with the internet, however, a problem that has been argued about profusely and I'll only briefly mention: the internet strips the borders of a country away. This, in turn, causes a problem with trying to enforce legal issues on the internet. This does not mean that the medium is the entire culprit of the problem, the laws themselves don't lend themselves easily to being used in the same manner on the internet. If someone could construct a model of how laws from a variety of countries could be applied to a global network that, save for the connective media, is under no control other than the users of that network which continues to promote the values of the internet community as a whole, then I might go for it. This happening, however, is not very likely and if it does it would be terribly expensive as far as cashflow and computer time.
This leads me into my second point, that the ISPs shouldn't be responsible for filtering the data of the internet that travels down their pipe. Even on the small scale, to filter every piece of data eats up computer time and bandwidth. Bandwidth is expensive as it is, and computer time, although not as expensive as it could be, is still expensive enough to prohibit buying the iron that it would take to continue to provide the same quality of service to their customers. Not to mention that this filtering process cannot be truly objective, and the debate over censorware has a lot to do with this type of system.
The internet was created in a chaotic time to make a chaotic array of computers be able to share data in an orderly way. All the networking code is designed to take the chaos of the internet and still be able to serve you the content you asked for. With the internet, opened a pandora's box that should, IMHO, never be closed. Although there is a multitude of "undermining" information on the internet, it is also full of good, solid information that is meant to be used all the time. As people started to link up to the net, their values and desires also creeped into the medium, everything you see on the net is there because someone wanted it there and someone else wanted to pull it down. That is the greatest thing about this medium, if you don't want it, don't pull it. The internet has provided a system of freer speech than is usually possible in the real world, because we are the publishers and the content designers.
Finally, in the end we are responsible for what we put on the internet. If someone wants to put questionable content outside of a given national border to avoid the legality of it, then he/she will do it. We must provide content and be the stewards of the medium as well. But that's just my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Even building it yourself, sometimes I wouldn't trust it.... I'll refer you to Thompson's _Reflections on Trusting Trust_ at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95 its one of the classic hacks of all time.
I've carried my Gerber Scout 600 series for a little over a year. I use it on average of 18 times a day in the rack mount jungle. With all fully locking tools and one handed opening it fully replaced any Leatherman that I owned.
The Spyderco Spyderwrench is cool, but just doesn't have the form factor that I needed for everyday use. So it became my "dress" tool, fits easily enough in any jacket pocket without making itself obvious.
I just had W2K BSOD and BSOD hard....
In fact it went down so bad that I can't even get the machine to install ANY MS OS (particularly painful because that's our entire setup... I prefer a good CLI myself). As long as the guys in ISS don't experience the problem I had, I think the problem will be resolved and the station will be back on its feet. I do worry that the lives of the crew are being handled solely on the MS code base, but I really can't do anything about that except wish the crew luck.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
at least read the license... great for a heartly laugh... or was that for a bowl of soup? I think I'll sign my screen now.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
I'm sorry you feel that I don't know the subject matter already. My question on /. was a simple one, it was only a request for comment and further information. I will fully agree that I do not know the history of computers in its totality, however, I post this question with over two years of research time ahead of me in order to properly acquaint myself with the majority of the content matter. I know of no person that has undertaken a research project because he/she already knows the material, that would be redundant. Knowing what I have learned to date has given me cause to look seriously at taking what I can learn about the subject matter and passing it on to fellow students in the field. I understand that my question as posted may seem very basic and naive, but it is a very logical question when doing research of this kind. After perusing all the syllabi and text lists that have accumulated here and in email, you can be certain that I will have a job to do in reviewing those texts and compiling the information contained within them. It also goes without saying that I will try my best to conduct interviews with those who have helped create the future in the field and use that "fresh" material in my project. I too have worked on many of the systems you have mentioned, but just using those systems is not the focus of my research. The creation of systems and the acceptance of those systems and views by large groups of people are the key elements of my research. This is a vast undertaking that I am willing to persue on my own, however, I thought I could use the collective knowledge of those willing to give their input and knowledge to my advantage. Why else would the internet have been created in the first place?
/. community because of this post, I believe that I can continue my research and provide a unique learning experience to those that wish to become involved.
I have never claimed to be a professional teacher, nor will I ever. But I do know this: given the resounding confidence and exuberance found in the
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
very true.. when spec'ing any machine I always call them PentiumX-class machines and everyone's happy. If I called them an Athlon-class machine they'd all balk. Damn suits.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
Having come out of high school recently (two years) I can understand you're point of view. However, I pose the question this way: Is it better for a child to learn one point-and-click interface where a textbook shows them the button and exactly where that button is on the toolbar or to learn the general concepts and HOW to find the command that they are looking for? Personally, having used WP5.1 - 2000 and Word 95 - 2000, I don't remember where one button is on this interface and that interface and oh yea I forgot that one too.. but I remember that the general concepts for commands are the same. Let's say you're looking for margins... Page Setup, or Format Page are the two best guesses. It doesn't take an Expert system to teach that. I sincerely think children are spoon-fed too much interface and not enough concept. What happens when you upgrade to the next-latest-and-greatest and the toolbar changes? You adapt, plain and simple. But by learning the concept and having a good set of heuristics to "search" for your features from the start and you don't have to adapt, you just continue working. I'm not saying that it wouldn't take time to learn, because everyone has that urge to be able to just grab that button without looking... but it is a good first step.
In my first semester in college there was a business course required of all College of Business majors to take. It was the classic example of interface instruction. I didn't know it all, but then again who'd want to know every widget in Excel?, but I knew more than enough to fly through every assignment. There were two problems, however, one: we were graded on specificity to a given template(not all computers were identically installed in the lab, so almost impossible to have a match to the source doc) and the necessity to know in what menu a given command was in... that included submenus... now for a standard Word 2000 install that is very easy, however, when used to Publisher and PageMaker (I hardly ever use a standard word processor anymore) you tend to just slide through the menus and you get where you're going... but to test over that material is ludicrous. I'll end my rant with this question, How can one be classified as computer literate when they must be extensively retrained on the latest version of a piece of software when only a couple widgets have moved?
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
I would probably venture to say Palm makes their money on the deal. That is to say, licensing fees for the design of the product itself, not to mention the software platform, are what gives Palm operating capital. Handspring is definitely not the only Palm licensee, just maybe one of the most visible. IMHO I can see Palm moving out of the direct hardware production business entirely and move to strictly software production and platform enhancement. This would still mean hardware would be developed, but the production sourced out to the licensees who might tweak the design for full-out performance.
Then again, this is just my opinion.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
Apparently you watch, or have watched, enough Star Trek to get the gist of the plot. However, if one would stop to think about the shows, particularly TOS and TNG (while Roddenberry was still alive), they would notice that the episodes weren't necessarily about a bunch of people in a tin can exploring space and having fun with all sorts of technological gadgets... they were about the human condition, right here on Earth. Good example, and probably the most transparent of all episodes, is Let This Be Your Last Battlefield(TOS) where two aliens, one colored black on the left and white on the right and the other of the opposing coloration are the last of their respective races. Having destroyed their own planet with racial hatred and chased themselves throughout space, they end up on the Enterprise where Kirk tries to reason with them, but they end up destroying themselves and their entire species at the same time. Pretty deep storytelling in a simple analogy.
The reason nothing had consequences in the shows is the ability to maintain continuity... look at most of the shows that are from the same era... Did the Cartwrights ever suffer extreme losses on the Ponderosa that would change the entire landscape of the show? Roddenberry himself proclaimed that Star Trek was "Wagon Train to the Stars"... the show's design was simple to be extensible with character primatives that could be easily 'traded' back and forth among the cast with very distinct traits being found in the key cast members. Basically, all the toys had to be back in the box before you went home, because if that didn't happen then the shows didn't accomplish their desired task -- to be an analogy with a simple driving base story concept (people in space).
After Roddenberry's death, the shows changed focus a bit and allowed a deeper modification process to ensue. Happily, I don't believe it changed much of the basic principle that the show tried to achieve. But then again, I enjoy B5 and Crusade just as much as I do Star Trek.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
I don't believe this is sad at all, nor is it unprecedented. Corporate satellite launches and private science missions are often launched using non-US technology, such as the French Ariane launch system. One major consideration is cost when making these decisions, another is time. Basically if something can be launched for less when it needs to be launched, rather spend more to wait past the optimal window for launch to use domestic equipment, corporate and private launches will always choose cheap (read: not-as-expensive), reliable, and timely alternatives.
As far as using a Russian ICBM, I say go for it. ICBM technology can be well adapted to a low-orbital insertion, and it takes another weapon off the tally of the world. I'm not a pacifist typically, but really, if weapons technology can be put to non-weapons use, lets use it.. its already been tested and doesn't need an extensive engineering process to be feasible.
-----
I think I'll call this one Bob.
Live with Love for Love is Life. --mine.
I will agree with you that the internet does affect the real world, and that the laws of the real world are binding on real people. There comes a problem with the internet, however, a problem that has been argued about profusely and I'll only briefly mention: the internet strips the borders of a country away. This, in turn, causes a problem with trying to enforce legal issues on the internet. This does not mean that the medium is the entire culprit of the problem, the laws themselves don't lend themselves easily to being used in the same manner on the internet. If someone could construct a model of how laws from a variety of countries could be applied to a global network that, save for the connective media, is under no control other than the users of that network which continues to promote the values of the internet community as a whole, then I might go for it. This happening, however, is not very likely and if it does it would be terribly expensive as far as cashflow and computer time.
This leads me into my second point, that the ISPs shouldn't be responsible for filtering the data of the internet that travels down their pipe. Even on the small scale, to filter every piece of data eats up computer time and bandwidth. Bandwidth is expensive as it is, and computer time, although not as expensive as it could be, is still expensive enough to prohibit buying the iron that it would take to continue to provide the same quality of service to their customers. Not to mention that this filtering process cannot be truly objective, and the debate over censorware has a lot to do with this type of system.
The internet was created in a chaotic time to make a chaotic array of computers be able to share data in an orderly way. All the networking code is designed to take the chaos of the internet and still be able to serve you the content you asked for. With the internet, opened a pandora's box that should, IMHO, never be closed. Although there is a multitude of "undermining" information on the internet, it is also full of good, solid information that is meant to be used all the time. As people started to link up to the net, their values and desires also creeped into the medium, everything you see on the net is there because someone wanted it there and someone else wanted to pull it down. That is the greatest thing about this medium, if you don't want it, don't pull it. The internet has provided a system of freer speech than is usually possible in the real world, because we are the publishers and the content designers.
Finally, in the end we are responsible for what we put on the internet. If someone wants to put questionable content outside of a given national border to avoid the legality of it, then he/she will do it. We must provide content and be the stewards of the medium as well. But that's just my opinion.