...Broadband - need computer, ~CAN$1500, very little benifit.
[1] If you know someone who paid $1500 CAD for
a computer recently, you know some who paid way too much... Perfectly acceptable brand new computers are available
here in Toronto for more like $600 CAD (about
$400 USD for you yanks).
[2] I am sure that this is being justified as an expenditure that will make this generation of Canadians more productive, and the generation who are coming of age now smarter and more competitive. That is how Ottawa Mandarins think.
I am sure they see it as an investment, just as if
they upped the Federal grants for pure scientific research.
So will it work out that way? Or will we raise a nation of the best Quake "Death-match" players?
Personally, I am going to guess it will be
worth it.
[Dennis Tito was asked...]
Could his millions have been better spent on those in need rather than a
personal vacation in zero gravity?
"This money should have been spent on the poor. And it was. One hundred dollars a
month is the average salary of a Russian aerospace worker," Tito quipped.
This is my favourite quote from the
CNN article.
I think it is a good point.
The arm collided with a stationary space station coming the other way.
If an object is stationary, then striking it is not a "collision" it is an "allision".
I think that space _stations_ are, by definition, stationary 8-).
...As in the game, despite her access to some stunningly
sophisticated firepower, Croft prefers the 9mm pistols strapped prominently to
her hips, wielding them against robots, commandos, even supernatural creatures
of yore. Only in the movie, she never runs out of ammo. There is, in fact, no foe
that can't be brought down by enough smoking 9 mm shells. It's interesting how
supposedly hi-tech movies like this one and The Matrix are wedded to the contemporary equivalent of the six-gun.
Leaving aside all the griping over whether this is or isn't a good movie, or whether the reviews are or aren't unfair, Katz makes a good point about
high-tech heroes with low-tech guns.
Mind you, Hollywood dumbs down new weapons too.
In the Arnold Schwartznegger film "Eraser" Arnie battles guys with particle beam weapons. You can
see the beams. They glow blue, like Cherenkov
radiation. And they travel so slowly you can
see them head towards our heroes. They are almost
slow enough to dodge. I don't think even "slow"
neutrons go that slow.
Aren't some American GIs issued with M16s that
come with an attached grenade launcher slung
under the barrel? I've never seen one used in
a movie however.
This was the funniest review I have read in ages.
I don't know why/John posted anonymously, but
it certainly deserves to be modded up considerably
higher than zero.
How do you teach someone to use a mouse effectively?
One thing I have observed is that many older
people encounter problems when they first use
a mouse because they have trouble learning how to hold the mouse. Their hands are stiffer. They lack the same kinesthetic sense as younger people,
and so it take a lot longer for them to get the hang of using one.
I suggest that you can save them a very frustrating first half hour if you make sure they are holding the mouse properly right from the very beginning. Many old people hold the mouse at an
angle. They don't compensate for the angle with which they are holding it, and so when they push
directly away from themselves, they are confused to see the mouse cursor follow a diagonal path.
Make sure they hold the mouse perpendicular to the edge of the table for the first couple of sessions.
In order to bring this back on topic, for other slashdot readers, I'll repeat CmdrTaco's observation, that using devices like the vest for "teledildonics", is a very safe form of sexual expression. More on this below.
In case the anonymous poster really did get the bad news that they are HIV positive -- you have my sympathy.
Should you go around and tell everyone who might be infected? Yes, you absolutely must do this.
How do you look someone in the face and tell them you might have infected them? Well, maybe it will help if you remember that it might be the other way around. They may have been the one to infect you.
If you are not close to you family, if you think the pain they will cause you is greater than the support they will give you, don't tell them.
Depending where you live the public health department may be willing to contact your former partners for you, if you can't bring yourself to do so. You must tell them in case they were the one who infected you, and they don't know they are contagious.
"Teledildonics" was the term Ted Nelson coined when he first speculated about computer intermediated sex in his 1974 classic
"Computer Lib/Dream Machines". Technically, I can't help wondering whether hooking the device up to the audio out is the wrong approach. Shouldn't
internet sex toys hook up to the MIDI port? MIDI instruments can be daisy-chained, can't they? Allowing for multiple toys. Galvanic skin response, pulse, blood pressure, temperature?
This may be their first real contact with a computer, correct? Or if it isn't their first,
that first contact was probably to informal all it
taught them was misconceptions.
I am not suggesting you cover boolean algebra, or binary arithmetic, because these are just kids.
But you could teach them what an algorithm is.
I taught computer literacy, a couple of generations of software ago. And I helped friends who had been taught badly unlearn their bad training. Based on that experience I would strongly urge you to avoid teaching specific task-oriented skills, alone. Yes, people get impatient with abstraction -- particularly if they
don't really respect you. But tightly focussed, practical, training, that avoids putting the skill or application in a wider context, can be absolutely crippling. Many people who are given a-theoretical training cannot adapt
to using systems that are different than those on which they were trained.
You never want to have your students asking "How
do I do a 'control KR' in this program". Rather
you want them to know that ^KR is a specific instance of a more general operation.
Let's take away someone's multi-million dollar industry because we just think they don't quite play fair. Get a grip.
Hold on there cowboy. The airwaves are a shared
resource. Broadcast bandwidth is a shared resource. How did this multi-million dollar
industry get access to this shared resource?
They got a liscence based on promises made to a
body mandated to make sure the airwaves are used
in a way that serves the public. They don't own
them. The have a liscense to use them.
The "public good" is not a communist invention.
Sheesh.
Your intellectual points would appear more
meaningful if you didn't post anonymously.
Word gets out, Slashdot spigots spouts torrents of nasty verbage at grocery stores for selling space on end-caps.
He is being sarcastic, but he brings up a worthwhile point. Have you ever gone into a
store with a magazine rack, and inquired as to
whether they might carry a magazine you might be
interested in?
They can't do it. They don't handle that part of the store. Some big corporation has an arrangement to manage those racks. They keep them
stocked. They decide which magazines to carry,
and whether to place them in the front row.
So, what happened to BYTE? BYTE was a truly excellent magazine. It was once the premier computer magazine. But then computers became
really popular, and BYTE became harder
to find. Crappier, more homogenized, less informative magazines started squeezing BYTE
out. How the heck did that happen?
I figured it was a triumph of marketing muscle
over editorial excellence.
Buran was basically a 2/3 scale copy of the American space shuttle...
If you use google, you will find sites with
information about Buran. Larger capacity than
the American shuttles. It borrowed some elements
from the American shuttle. The Soviets made some changes, like liquid fueled boosters and ejections seats for the cockpit crew.
Second most useful feature - the emergency "snowplow" ski stop as all wheels turn inward at once.
Without claiming to be an auto geek I have to
wonder whether this would be a useful technique.
When your wheels lock, you lose the ability to
steer. You skid, correct? This is why you are
told to "steer into the skid" in order to regain
steering control.
So, you turn all the wheels inward. What happens?
Either all the wheels skid, and you lose control
of where you are going. Or the wheels on one side
of the vehicle skid, while the wheels on the other
side try to roll in the direction they are pointing. Your car spins, and you lose control.
US history 101. In the young United States war with Tripoli, Congress framed the order to the
young USN poorly. USN vessels were directed to "sink, burn or destroy" Tripolitan vessels. Wily
Tripolitans realized that if they were losing a battle, all they had to do was surrender. Having
done so, the commanders of the USN vessels were
obliged to let the Tripolitan vessels sail away.
Congress revised their instructions, directing USN vessels to "take", ie capture, Tripolitan vessels.
My point? May I suggest that early American officials had a higher sense of honorable behavior than current FBI officials!
The Russians did have their own space shuttle. I don't remember the Russian name, but it translates as Blizzard in English.
Someone else posted this link, which points to a detailed description of the Soviet shuttle, here, just a few days ago. It did fly one unmanned mission to Mir.
It was equipped with ejection seats for the
four cabin crew (none for any additional mission
specialists though). The article doesn't say
whether the Challenger astronauts could have
been saved if the American shuttles had had
a similar system.
Moderators, isn't it obvious this is flamebait?
As I write this, this foolish post has been
moderated up to a "3"!
...But if Canada begins to aggressively pursue space, this might change. Already, you are seeing conservative publications such as WorldNetDaily and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh lash out at Canada.
Rush Limbaugh?
If you turn on AM talk radio, you don't have to scan far to hear these people lecture their followers about the high
incidence of atheism, homosexuality, feminism, Islam, etc. in our Neighbor to the North.
Isn't free speech one of American's most widely
espoused values?
Canada's socialist policies (and in particular, its national healthcare system) are constantly under attack from the right.
So we find ourselves coming back full-circle. A nation, that is perceived by many to have Communist leanings, is starting to pursue space exploration.
Communist leanings! Socialist medicine! I can't believe this fool found moderators who took his accusations seriously!
You Americans are supposed to believe in Free Speech. I don't understand why this doesn't
include espousing political choices different
than those your nation has chosen. Practically
every democratic industrialized nation has
some kind of universal medical insurance, except
for yours. Are you going to call us all
communists?
That money would be better spent on the International Space Station.
This is the kind of post that gives the internet a bad name. Pure opinion, with no facts or reasoning to back it up.
First, Canada has already paid for a big share of
the ISS. The recent arm, built in Canada, cost double the projected cost of this proposed Mars probe.
May I suggest that you would look less foolish
if you waited until
the details of what instruments the probe will be
taking were specified before you criticized
their usefulness?
FWIW, $500 CAD is within the same ballpark as
some of NASA's recent, "simpler, cheaper, better"
probes.
i was in quebec city in april to protest against the FTAA.. Bush gave a speech about Samuel de Champlain (the french that founded quebec city, the oldest city in north america btw) but he gave his speech in... spanish!!
I've heard other candidates for this description.
I think some Americans will claim St. Augustine.
I think Newfoundlanders will claim St. John's.
But, unless you add the restriction that the
city has to have been founded by Europeans,
surely Mexico City, formerly capital of the
Aztecs, predates the rest.
Say, maybe that is why Dubya was speaking
Spanish?
Yes, we do have a tendency to scuttle projects when a new government comes in. Some day we'll restart the Arrow program and have ourselves the fanciest fighter jet N of the 49th.
Mind you, the Americans are not immune to putting an end to good ideas when a new gov't comes into
power-- anyone remember the Kyoto Protocol? Oh right, we want to find ways to burn more oil, not less.
Or look at the Abrams M1 tank. It is the lineal
descendant of a program to build a main battle
tank for the 1970s, to replace the M60. But the first production models weren't introduced until the late 80s.
They had alternating whims to build a tank that
was truly, markedly superior than any other tank in the
world -- no matter what the cost -- and to build
a tank was in-line with the costs of other nation's tanks, even if it wasn't markedly
superior.
Q: What would be the most invulnerable American
weapon's system?
A: That would have to be the one that has a defence sub-contractor in every congressional
district!
Canada built some launchers of its own in the
early sixties. That was uneconomic, in part,
because of the higher latitude of any Canadian launch sites. Telesat Canada was created by an
act of Parliament in 1969, and built the Anik series of satellites. The site below says:
"Telesat's Anik A1, the world's first commercial, domestic communications satellite in geostationary orbit...
So what? All that means is that some people get crap earlier than others. Ooh...I'm watching the season finale of Jackass hours ahead of time...look at me...I'm so special. My brain is now decomposing hours ahead of the rest of the populations'...
What is the big deal? Check the final paragraph
of the CNET story. The "wildfeeds" are broadcast without commercials.
The reason the networks broadcast the shows a
couple of days early is to allow the local
station to stripe in their own commercials.
The Lone Gunmen was starting to get on my nerves. Every other episode had someone wearing what
looked like an orthodontic retainer that changed their voice (complete with poor lip-synching)...
I thought this device was really, really lame
when it was used in John Woo's goofy Mission Impossible 2.
When Lone Gunmen used it I didn't think it was goofy. I thought it was a clever
implied criticism of the goofy MI2.
To my way of thinking it would be a goofy device
in a vehicle that took itself seriously, as MI2
did. But Lone Gunmen was not supposed to be
taken 100% seriously. Isn't there an interview
out there, from before the first broadcast, where
Carter said he intended to make TLG borrow
elements of the
wonderful old "Get Smart" TV show in addition to
the wonderful old original "Mission
Impossible" TV show?
OK, a number of you guys have mentioned a pilot
for TLG, that did not feature Yves, or Jimmy.
When was this broadcast, and what was it about?
I've just spent two hours reading the comments
of other slashdotters on Lone Gunmen.
Many slashdotters criticized the Lone Gunmen
because they found it contained too many technical
inaccuracies. I won't argue with that. But they
got the most important thing about the dark side
of geek culture nailed down.
You see the dark side of geek culture where
technical accuracy becomes a tool for emotional
expression and the assertion of social dominance.
Langley and Frohicke aren't really friends.
They have an armed truce, where they agree not
to fight out who was the true mojo, the right
stuff -- in other words -- who can be most
technically accurate. And they fail. They fight
all the time. And they brought in visiting geek
experts, who use their greater technical
knowledge to dump all over L & F.
Is it possible that
the real problem some detractors had with the
show was that it hit too close to home?
Slashdot Mirror
Firesign theater did a comedy album about this. "Nick Danger and the case of the missing shoe"
[1] If you know someone who paid $1500 CAD for a computer recently, you know some who paid way too much... Perfectly acceptable brand new computers are available here in Toronto for more like $600 CAD (about $400 USD for you yanks).
[2] I am sure that this is being justified as an expenditure that will make this generation of Canadians more productive, and the generation who are coming of age now smarter and more competitive. That is how Ottawa Mandarins think. I am sure they see it as an investment, just as if they upped the Federal grants for pure scientific research.
So will it work out that way? Or will we raise a nation of the best Quake "Death-match" players?
Personally, I am going to guess it will be worth it.
This is my favourite quote from the CNN article. I think it is a good point.
If an object is stationary, then striking it is not a "collision" it is an "allision". I think that space _stations_ are, by definition, stationary 8-).
Leaving aside all the griping over whether this is or isn't a good movie, or whether the reviews are or aren't unfair, Katz makes a good point about high-tech heroes with low-tech guns.
Mind you, Hollywood dumbs down new weapons too. In the Arnold Schwartznegger film "Eraser" Arnie battles guys with particle beam weapons. You can see the beams. They glow blue, like Cherenkov radiation. And they travel so slowly you can see them head towards our heroes. They are almost slow enough to dodge. I don't think even "slow" neutrons go that slow.
Aren't some American GIs issued with M16s that come with an attached grenade launcher slung under the barrel? I've never seen one used in a movie however.
This was the funniest review I have read in ages. I don't know why /John posted anonymously, but
it certainly deserves to be modded up considerably
higher than zero.
One thing I have observed is that many older people encounter problems when they first use a mouse because they have trouble learning how to hold the mouse. Their hands are stiffer. They lack the same kinesthetic sense as younger people, and so it take a lot longer for them to get the hang of using one.
I suggest that you can save them a very frustrating first half hour if you make sure they are holding the mouse properly right from the very beginning. Many old people hold the mouse at an angle. They don't compensate for the angle with which they are holding it, and so when they push directly away from themselves, they are confused to see the mouse cursor follow a diagonal path.
Make sure they hold the mouse perpendicular to the edge of the table for the first couple of sessions.
In order to bring this back on topic, for other slashdot readers, I'll repeat CmdrTaco's observation, that using devices like the vest for "teledildonics", is a very safe form of sexual expression. More on this below.
In case the anonymous poster really did get the bad news that they are HIV positive -- you have my sympathy.
Should you go around and tell everyone who might be infected? Yes, you absolutely must do this.
How do you look someone in the face and tell them you might have infected them? Well, maybe it will help if you remember that it might be the other way around. They may have been the one to infect you.
If you are not close to you family, if you think the pain they will cause you is greater than the support they will give you, don't tell them.
Depending where you live the public health department may be willing to contact your former partners for you, if you can't bring yourself to do so. You must tell them in case they were the one who infected you, and they don't know they are contagious.
"Teledildonics" was the term Ted Nelson coined when he first speculated about computer intermediated sex in his 1974 classic "Computer Lib/Dream Machines" . Technically, I can't help wondering whether hooking the device up to the audio out is the wrong approach. Shouldn't internet sex toys hook up to the MIDI port? MIDI instruments can be daisy-chained, can't they? Allowing for multiple toys. Galvanic skin response, pulse, blood pressure, temperature?
I am not suggesting you cover boolean algebra, or binary arithmetic, because these are just kids. But you could teach them what an algorithm is.
I taught computer literacy, a couple of generations of software ago. And I helped friends who had been taught badly unlearn their bad training. Based on that experience I would strongly urge you to avoid teaching specific task-oriented skills, alone. Yes, people get impatient with abstraction -- particularly if they don't really respect you. But tightly focussed, practical, training, that avoids putting the skill or application in a wider context, can be absolutely crippling. Many people who are given a-theoretical training cannot adapt to using systems that are different than those on which they were trained.
You never want to have your students asking "How do I do a 'control KR' in this program". Rather you want them to know that ^KR is a specific instance of a more general operation.
Hold on there cowboy. The airwaves are a shared resource. Broadcast bandwidth is a shared resource. How did this multi-million dollar industry get access to this shared resource?
They got a liscence based on promises made to a body mandated to make sure the airwaves are used in a way that serves the public. They don't own them. The have a liscense to use them.
The "public good" is not a communist invention. Sheesh.
Your intellectual points would appear more meaningful if you didn't post anonymously.
He is being sarcastic, but he brings up a worthwhile point. Have you ever gone into a store with a magazine rack, and inquired as to whether they might carry a magazine you might be interested in?
They can't do it. They don't handle that part of the store. Some big corporation has an arrangement to manage those racks. They keep them stocked. They decide which magazines to carry, and whether to place them in the front row.
So, what happened to BYTE? BYTE was a truly excellent magazine. It was once the premier computer magazine. But then computers became really popular, and BYTE became harder to find. Crappier, more homogenized, less informative magazines started squeezing BYTE out. How the heck did that happen?
I figured it was a triumph of marketing muscle over editorial excellence.
Somebody mod this one up please. The guy has a good reason for posting anonymously. This post shouldn't stay at zero.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/buran. htm
Note, several launchers were built.
If you use google, you will find sites with information about Buran. Larger capacity than the American shuttles. It borrowed some elements from the American shuttle. The Soviets made some changes, like liquid fueled boosters and ejections seats for the cockpit crew.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/buran. htm
Without claiming to be an auto geek I have to wonder whether this would be a useful technique. When your wheels lock, you lose the ability to steer. You skid, correct? This is why you are told to "steer into the skid" in order to regain steering control.
So, you turn all the wheels inward. What happens? Either all the wheels skid, and you lose control of where you are going. Or the wheels on one side of the vehicle skid, while the wheels on the other side try to roll in the direction they are pointing. Your car spins, and you lose control.
Congress revised their instructions, directing USN vessels to "take", ie capture, Tripolitan vessels.
My point? May I suggest that early American officials had a higher sense of honorable behavior than current FBI officials!
Someone else posted this link, which points to a detailed description of the Soviet shuttle, here, just a few days ago. It did fly one unmanned mission to Mir.
It was equipped with ejection seats for the four cabin crew (none for any additional mission specialists though). The article doesn't say whether the Challenger astronauts could have been saved if the American shuttles had had a similar system.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/buran. htm
Rush Limbaugh?
Isn't free speech one of American's most widely espoused values?
Communist leanings! Socialist medicine! I can't believe this fool found moderators who took his accusations seriously!
You Americans are supposed to believe in Free Speech. I don't understand why this doesn't include espousing political choices different than those your nation has chosen. Practically every democratic industrialized nation has some kind of universal medical insurance, except for yours. Are you going to call us all communists?
This is the kind of post that gives the internet a bad name. Pure opinion, with no facts or reasoning to back it up.
First, Canada has already paid for a big share of the ISS. The recent arm, built in Canada, cost double the projected cost of this proposed Mars probe.
May I suggest that you would look less foolish if you waited until the details of what instruments the probe will be taking were specified before you criticized their usefulness?
FWIW, $500 CAD is within the same ballpark as some of NASA's recent, "simpler, cheaper, better" probes.
I've heard other candidates for this description. I think some Americans will claim St. Augustine. I think Newfoundlanders will claim St. John's.
But, unless you add the restriction that the city has to have been founded by Europeans, surely Mexico City, formerly capital of the Aztecs, predates the rest.
Say, maybe that is why Dubya was speaking Spanish?
Or look at the Abrams M1 tank. It is the lineal descendant of a program to build a main battle tank for the 1970s, to replace the M60. But the first production models weren't introduced until the late 80s.
They had alternating whims to build a tank that was truly, markedly superior than any other tank in the world -- no matter what the cost -- and to build a tank was in-line with the costs of other nation's tanks, even if it wasn't markedly superior.
Q: What would be the most invulnerable American weapon's system?
A: That would have to be the one that has a defence sub-contractor in every congressional district!
Telesat Canada
What is the big deal? Check the final paragraph of the CNET story. The "wildfeeds" are broadcast without commercials. The reason the networks broadcast the shows a couple of days early is to allow the local station to stripe in their own commercials.
OK, a number of you guys have mentioned a pilot for TLG, that did not feature Yves, or Jimmy. When was this broadcast, and what was it about?
Many slashdotters criticized the Lone Gunmen because they found it contained too many technical inaccuracies. I won't argue with that. But they got the most important thing about the dark side of geek culture nailed down.
You see the dark side of geek culture where technical accuracy becomes a tool for emotional expression and the assertion of social dominance. Langley and Frohicke aren't really friends. They have an armed truce, where they agree not to fight out who was the true mojo, the right stuff -- in other words -- who can be most technically accurate. And they fail. They fight all the time. And they brought in visiting geek experts, who use their greater technical knowledge to dump all over L & F.
Is it possible that the real problem some detractors had with the show was that it hit too close to home?