If you hyperventilate and then empty your lungs, you will last about thirty seconds in the vacuum of space. However,because space is so vastly hugely mind bogglingly big, getting picked up by another ship within those thirty seconds is almost infinitely improbable.
How come nobody makes a CPU with the heat spreader and the main Heat sink as one solid piece? Then you'd only have one junction that needs goo, between the die and the heat spreader, right? Or am I oversimplifying the problem?
Also Leo Buscaglia, Liz Claiborne, Shirley Jones, Herb Alpert, Rhea Perlman, Al Gore, Marc McClure, and... Ewan McGregor, who was born in Scotland, just like David Tennant... I digress -- but nevertheless had a little fun with wikipedia:)
The first episode airs on my birthday! Too bad I'll have to wait a year or more to see it, since I'm not in the UK... NOT!starts up torrent client and waits patiently...
I actually just finished reading "Number of the Beast", for the first time, having read (and at least liked, mostly very much) almost everything else he had ever written.
I can understand thinking that characters in the NotB are sexist, but I think that he is actually hard on his characters for their sexist attitudes, they often learn the hard way that their sexism is harmful. Case in point, when "Sharpie" is (ultimately) deemed the best commanding officer of the crew, not because she is a man or a woman, but simply because she has the best skills for the job.
"To Sail Beyond the Sunset", which I also just read for the first time, is the life story of Maureen Johnson Smith (Long) -- and sort of picks up where NotB leaves off... it (I think) demonstrates Heinlein's very strongly anti-sexist (by his generation's definitions anyway) attitudes. It is his "craziest" and probably "sexiest" book, being his last, and having gotten to be (apparently) an even older and dirtier old man. But I enjoyed both books immensely, entertainment value alone was worth it.
I literally jumped for joy when I got to meet Lazarus Long again in NotB and tSBtS. Read I may sometimes disagree (sometimes strongly) with some of his (which are possibly Heinlein's actual) philosophy, but I find that I agree strongly with most of the really important things he has to say. Read "Notebook of Lazarus Long" for a thorough sampling, including such (still apropos) gems as:
Always store beer in a dark place.
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.
Rub her feet.
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)
I sincerely doubt that he was a capitalist, at least not in the current sense of the term. Perhaps his ideas could be classified as Anarcho-Capitalist, or even Anarcho-syndicalist.
One of his most important (because it's the most true) social ideas (imho) is that one of society's (in the US) biggest problems is prudishness about sex. It was the case when he started writing, and continued to be so throughout his writing career, so I think he kept turning up the volume on that particular issue. And perhaps he was a "horny old goat" to boot.
Anyway, I like Asimov (even) better also. Foundation rocked my world, and his robot novels are some of my favorite novels, period. In any genre of fiction (and I like a lot of non-scifi).
So why do geeks love Heinlein? I think it's because he cuts through a lot of bullshit, and is entertaining for those that like his particular brand of wit. Also for the pure action/adventure style of his writing (particularly in novels like Friday), which admittedly, isn't very "literary". It's pulpy, but fun.
I mean come on, "Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism"? Most geeks eat that kind of shit up.
I've never read Starship Troopers, although I'm sad to say I watched the "movie" they made "from it". I wish we had the technology so I could erase those two hours from my head.
Hmmm, you're probably right. Cancer and AIDS are ultimately products of our modern world as much as they are "natural" diseases, and having better environmental conditions (which includes, and indeed, necessitates, better, smarter & wiser humans) is the ultimate solution, although I still think that we will see med-tech "cures" for them, in the not too distant future.
But, yes, with these too, the real cure is eliminating the root cause: Human ignorance. Fortunately, or unfortunately, this only happens one person at a time: we have to start with our own.
One area of medical science that IS promising (partly, because it takes all this into account) is "neuropsychology" (I use quotes, becuase that can mean lots of different things) pioneered by Candace Pert and others. She postulated the formation of a new class of "drugs" that aren't the "cure" for anything, but help to promote wellness by balancing the immune system as well as bringing the "bodymind" into it's natural state of wellness. Only problem is that we already have some of these "drugs" and they're classified as schedule 1 narcotics, which makes them too dangerous to use, not for their effects, but for the prospect of jail time. Perhaps this will change, or else she (or someone else) will develop something like psilocybin or MDMA that doesn't actually get you "high" -- although I doubt it, since we tend to feel "high" when our "bodymind" is brought back into balance with our conciousness, and we actually get to feel as a connected part of the whole of nature, as well as individuals. It's quite something:)
Eliminating the cause of violence is indeed another nut to crack, although I suspect that it is rooted in the same issues: social and economic inequality, polluted environments, etc. Basically a tiny minority of humanity, screwing the world up for the rest of us with lies and hate and fear.
I agree. I think that healing is fundamentally a low-tech artform. There's no accounting for, but also no underestimating the power of genuine human caring and empathy.
Technology can certainly help, but at it's essence, the healing arts is talking with people, and understanding them and their problems. It's human to human, not human to computer to human.
As far as the mumps and vaccination, here's an excerpt of data:
Of the 133 patients with investigated vaccine history, 87 (65%) had documentation of receiving 2 doses, 19 (14%) 1 dose, and eight (6%) no doses; vaccine status could not be documented in 19 (14%) patients.
That's nearly an 80% vaccination rate in the people infected, granted only two thirds actually had the recommended 2 doses. Something else is going on here besides "paranoid" people not getting vaccinated, as some people in this thread seem to be suggesting.
I'm not saying vaccinations are inherently "bad", but I think there needs to be more long-term study on large populations as to the overall effectiveness of vaccinations on disease control and perhaps more importantly, overall wellness.
Which brings me to my point. Our current "healthcare" system isn't simply "broken" -- it focuses on "sick people" instead of a from-the-ground-up model of actually teaching people how to be well.
Am I dreaming? Perhaps.
Anyway, I really doubt that (in the short/medium term) MORE fancy technology is going to make us any healthier. Perhaps it will make us live (a little) longer, and be able to SURVIVE (a few) more diseases, but it's not going to help us (and by us, I mean the richest billion people) PREVENT any more people from getting diseases than we do now.
I suppose the exception would be a cure for cancer, and a cure for AIDS.
As far as the other 5 billion people, their needs are extremely low-tech. Mosquito netting. Access to basic sanitation and medicine. More trained Doctors and Nurses.
The WKRP reference made me laugh out loud. Dunno why exactly, I havn't even thought about that show since sometime in the eighties. Was that Ed Asner, or someone else?
And before you point out - correctly - that with a sufficiently large energy input we could indeed synthesize all the components that make up "dirt" out of hydrogen, you haven't solved the problem.
Ah, but try making your own hydrogen, or neutrons, or quarks, or photons, or whatever, from absolutely nothing . Then, you get to be the creator of your own universe, after you find a place to put, your new, created from nothing, universe, that is.
Actually, I couldn't agree more, I guess when I said 'modernize' I really meant 'get-back-to-basics', although the Constitution is definitely 'modern' compared to 4BC Athens.
Though I think that even the constitution has failed us, not because there's anything wrong with it, per se, however, as you say the feds have basically eroded away any meaning the constitution used to have.
I think town-meeting style 'government' is the way to go. I DO agree with Plato, 5000 or so is a good cap for a governing body -- something even smaller than most congressional districts.
The 'modernization' I was really talking about would be a way to have the local governments 'peer' with one-another, short-circuting the need for a federal (or even a state!) system. The Greek city-state ideal, federated by modern communication systems, and nothing else. No big legislative body, no ugly bogged-down court system, no national police state -- no 'national' ANYTHING -- except identity, and an interconnectedness.
What would have happened in Greece 2400 years ago if Athens and Sparta had the internet to talk to each other about the Persians?
Granted, something like that would mean a TOTALLY different way of life for the "USA" -- but I for one, would welcome it.
Do I think this will happen? Not likely. The feds are too intrenched. It'd take a miracle. Interesting to think about though...
democracy, from the Greek: demos, people; kratein, to rule
Literally, Rule by the PEOPLE, not elected representatives at all. So technically, we don't have a democracy at all, but a REPUBLIC...
In the Ancient Anthenian democracy, all CITIZENS had an actual SAY in making up the laws of the city-state: however, slaves, peasants, women and resident aliens were NOT citizens... anyway this body of citizens was not terribly large, so in fact, they could actually more-or-less MEET and discuss what they wanted for the rule of law, collectively, and by concensus, "rule themselves".
Town Meetings are really the only vestage of this original democracy left in the US.
Plato, in the 4th century BC suggested that the ideal number of citizens is 5040 adult males.
Obviously, things are different in a country with 200+ million "citizens..." so the ancient model needs to be modernized, in some way.
We still, IMO, don't have anything approaching an ideal system, however, given what technology we have available, we certianly could do better than a few hundred neo-aristocratic Congresspeople.
I am heartened to see people agreeing that sexual content is less "damaging" than violent content.
Though there is still the argument that "violence in the media" be it video games, movies, TV, what-have-you is somehow totally unrelated to real-world violence.
It is my humble opinion that there is indeed a connection, a culture of violence where violence is tolerated or even desired for "entertainment" is somewhat sick.
Granted, nearly every society, has had this sickness to some degree or another, so the latest first-person-shooter is no different than public executions in the 16th century, from a conceptual point of view (except that the public executions are obviously worse by a very large factor) -- it's all a matter of degrees.
So it's not that hollywood or whoever is producing this violent content is totally "bad" or should take all kinds of blame, however, they certianly are not HELPING the situation.
People, kids or adults, that live in a society where the government bombs the shit out of whomever they don't like, justifiably or not, AND they absorb violent FICTION on the boob-toob or wherever, are getting it from all sides, and again, in my opinion, this is less than ideal.
I'm not saying there is a simple 'fix' for all this, but there IS a problem (or a whole set of problems) that are resulting in a violent society, and while "fictional violence" is not the primary problem, it is at best a symptom, and at worst, a contributing factor.
...so long as it benefits the company they work for?
Unfortunately, I think many corporations would be more interested in having a contract that binds their employees to NOT doing anything that will benefit their competition... Which is rather sticky, since if an employee works on free software, and then a competitor uses that free software, that employee could get into trouble. Anyone know of a case where that has happened?
I'm sure that there are corps that wouldn't really care, especially those that use free software, but this is a complex issue.
I'm just as keen on meeting aliens as the next guy, but even given that there are aliens, why is it so impossible to belive that us Humans once had a civilization even MORE advanced than anything on this planet now? Perhaps with spacecraft and construction techniques that would make modern construction look like kids playing with tinkertoys?
Anyway, the Great Pyramid and it's two little brothers are probably _much_ older than the hundreds of other little pyramids scattered all over Egypt... probably more than 4500 yrs. old.
A theory I find interesting is that all the other little ones are _attempts_ at re-creating the big one.
Well, if the whole argument here is about a principle concerning intellectual property being stolen... Well to use Lars' argument about cars that are too expensive, if you steal ONE copy of a copyrighted album by making a tape or cd of it: then that's totally OK? But more than one is NOT OK? So if you teal ONE car that costs $47,000 that is OK... you just can't steal MORE than one car?
Even if these things are safe, what about the fact that they are MORE EXPENSIVE TO RUN than traditional power plants like coal and oil?
Also what about the fact that uranium is a non-renewable resource, just like oil and coal.
Nuclear power is a sideways-step in technology, not an evolution.
We need less-expensive (free even!) non-polluting energy sources that don't give the people that run them permanent orange afros after 20 years of being near it.
Solar, lightning collection systems, wind and thermo-electric are technologies that spring to mind...
I dunno about these days, but last time I checked to support a VME backplane, you're looking at like 100-200 grand... these are for high-demand industrial applications. Of course I want one anyway:)
This stuff is usually MilSpec, i.e. can deal with extremely harsh environments and keep functioning. They used to blow up one (or two) of these for testing nukes and other stupid stuff like that.
some probably trash... if you've got a few months to kill search through the patent database sometime. Scary stuff in there. Chicken glasses... sheesh.
Sounds like a good idea! Frequency pooling could alleivate some of the congestion in the airwaves, especially with point-to-point types of wireless like cell phones...
A little scary about slices of the spectrum going to the highest bidder... but that's the way big business works no?
Greed. Plain and simple. This kind of stuff gets me mad too. I can't respect corporations or governments that behave this way. Although in many ways this kind of thing is the least offensive form of corruption that goes on in government... but don't get me started...
Slashdot Mirror
http://cookieculler.mozdev.org/
lets you "protect" certain cookies, and has a tool to delete all but your "protected" cookies. Works pretty well for me.
How come nobody makes a CPU with the heat spreader and the main Heat sink as one solid piece? Then you'd only have one junction that needs goo, between the die and the heat spreader, right? Or am I oversimplifying the problem?
Also Leo Buscaglia, Liz Claiborne, Shirley Jones, Herb Alpert, Rhea Perlman, Al Gore, Marc McClure, and... Ewan McGregor, who was born in Scotland, just like David Tennant... I digress -- but nevertheless had a little fun with wikipedia :)
The first episode airs on my birthday! Too bad I'll have to wait a year or more to see it, since I'm not in the UK... NOT! starts up torrent client and waits patiently...
I can understand thinking that characters in the NotB are sexist, but I think that he is actually hard on his characters for their sexist attitudes, they often learn the hard way that their sexism is harmful. Case in point, when "Sharpie" is (ultimately) deemed the best commanding officer of the crew, not because she is a man or a woman, but simply because she has the best skills for the job.
"To Sail Beyond the Sunset", which I also just read for the first time, is the life story of Maureen Johnson Smith (Long) -- and sort of picks up where NotB leaves off... it (I think) demonstrates Heinlein's very strongly anti-sexist (by his generation's definitions anyway) attitudes. It is his "craziest" and probably "sexiest" book, being his last, and having gotten to be (apparently) an even older and dirtier old man. But I enjoyed both books immensely, entertainment value alone was worth it.
I literally jumped for joy when I got to meet Lazarus Long again in NotB and tSBtS. Read I may sometimes disagree (sometimes strongly) with some of his (which are possibly Heinlein's actual) philosophy, but I find that I agree strongly with most of the really important things he has to say. Read "Notebook of Lazarus Long" for a thorough sampling, including such (still apropos) gems as:
I sincerely doubt that he was a capitalist, at least not in the current sense of the term. Perhaps his ideas could be classified as Anarcho-Capitalist, or even Anarcho-syndicalist.
One of his most important (because it's the most true) social ideas (imho) is that one of society's (in the US) biggest problems is prudishness about sex. It was the case when he started writing, and continued to be so throughout his writing career, so I think he kept turning up the volume on that particular issue. And perhaps he was a "horny old goat" to boot.
Anyway, I like Asimov (even) better also. Foundation rocked my world, and his robot novels are some of my favorite novels, period. In any genre of fiction (and I like a lot of non-scifi).
So why do geeks love Heinlein? I think it's because he cuts through a lot of bullshit, and is entertaining for those that like his particular brand of wit. Also for the pure action/adventure style of his writing (particularly in novels like Friday), which admittedly, isn't very "literary". It's pulpy, but fun.
I mean come on, "Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism"? Most geeks eat that kind of shit up.
I've never read Starship Troopers, although I'm sad to say I watched the "movie" they made "from it". I wish we had the technology so I could erase those two hours from my head.
Hmmm, you're probably right. Cancer and AIDS are ultimately products of our modern world as much as they are "natural" diseases, and having better environmental conditions (which includes, and indeed, necessitates, better, smarter & wiser humans) is the ultimate solution, although I still think that we will see med-tech "cures" for them, in the not too distant future.
:)
But, yes, with these too, the real cure is eliminating the root cause: Human ignorance. Fortunately, or unfortunately, this only happens one person at a time: we have to start with our own.
One area of medical science that IS promising (partly, because it takes all this into account) is "neuropsychology" (I use quotes, becuase that can mean lots of different things) pioneered by Candace Pert and others. She postulated the formation of a new class of "drugs" that aren't the "cure" for anything, but help to promote wellness by balancing the immune system as well as bringing the "bodymind" into it's natural state of wellness. Only problem is that we already have some of these "drugs" and they're classified as schedule 1 narcotics, which makes them too dangerous to use, not for their effects, but for the prospect of jail time. Perhaps this will change, or else she (or someone else) will develop something like psilocybin or MDMA that doesn't actually get you "high" -- although I doubt it, since we tend to feel "high" when our "bodymind" is brought back into balance with our conciousness, and we actually get to feel as a connected part of the whole of nature, as well as individuals. It's quite something
Eliminating the cause of violence is indeed another nut to crack, although I suspect that it is rooted in the same issues: social and economic inequality, polluted environments, etc. Basically a tiny minority of humanity, screwing the world up for the rest of us with lies and hate and fear.
Technology can certainly help, but at it's essence, the healing arts is talking with people, and understanding them and their problems. It's human to human, not human to computer to human.
As far as the mumps and vaccination, here's an excerpt of data:
Mumps Epidemic --- Iowa, 2006 -- CDC
That's nearly an 80% vaccination rate in the people infected, granted only two thirds actually had the recommended 2 doses. Something else is going on here besides "paranoid" people not getting vaccinated, as some people in this thread seem to be suggesting.
I'm not saying vaccinations are inherently "bad", but I think there needs to be more long-term study on large populations as to the overall effectiveness of vaccinations on disease control and perhaps more importantly, overall wellness.
Which brings me to my point. Our current "healthcare" system isn't simply "broken" -- it focuses on "sick people" instead of a from-the-ground-up model of actually teaching people how to be well.
Am I dreaming? Perhaps.
Anyway, I really doubt that (in the short/medium term) MORE fancy technology is going to make us any healthier. Perhaps it will make us live (a little) longer, and be able to SURVIVE (a few) more diseases, but it's not going to help us (and by us, I mean the richest billion people) PREVENT any more people from getting diseases than we do now.
I suppose the exception would be a cure for cancer, and a cure for AIDS.
As far as the other 5 billion people, their needs are extremely low-tech. Mosquito netting. Access to basic sanitation and medicine. More trained Doctors and Nurses.
The WKRP reference made me laugh out loud. Dunno why exactly, I havn't even thought about that show since sometime in the eighties. Was that Ed Asner, or someone else?
May be a primary cause of Sudden Infant Desth Syndrome (SIDS).
A lot of research has been done in this area recently.
It may not be a conspiracy, but there seems to be something to it.
Actually, I couldn't agree more, I guess when I said 'modernize' I really meant 'get-back-to-basics', although the Constitution is definitely 'modern' compared to 4BC Athens.
Though I think that even the constitution has failed us, not because there's anything wrong with it, per se, however, as you say the feds have basically eroded away any meaning the constitution used to have.
I think town-meeting style 'government' is the way to go. I DO agree with Plato, 5000 or so is a good cap for a governing body -- something even smaller than most congressional districts.
The 'modernization' I was really talking about would be a way to have the local governments 'peer' with one-another, short-circuting the need for a federal (or even a state!) system. The Greek city-state ideal, federated by modern communication systems, and nothing else. No big legislative body, no ugly bogged-down court system, no national police state -- no 'national' ANYTHING -- except identity, and an interconnectedness.
What would have happened in Greece 2400 years ago if Athens and Sparta had the internet to talk to each other about the Persians?
Granted, something like that would mean a TOTALLY different way of life for the "USA" -- but I for one, would welcome it.
Do I think this will happen? Not likely. The feds are too intrenched. It'd take a miracle. Interesting to think about though...
democracy, from the Greek: demos, people; kratein, to rule
Literally, Rule by the PEOPLE, not elected representatives at all. So technically, we don't have a democracy at all, but a REPUBLIC...
In the Ancient Anthenian democracy, all CITIZENS had an actual SAY in making up the laws of the city-state: however, slaves, peasants, women and resident aliens were NOT citizens... anyway this body of citizens was not terribly large, so in fact, they could actually more-or-less MEET and discuss what they wanted for the rule of law, collectively, and by concensus, "rule themselves".
Town Meetings are really the only vestage of this original democracy left in the US.
Plato, in the 4th century BC suggested that the ideal number of citizens is 5040 adult males.
Obviously, things are different in a country with 200+ million "citizens..." so the ancient model needs to be modernized, in some way.
We still, IMO, don't have anything approaching an ideal system, however, given what technology we have available, we certianly could do better than a few hundred neo-aristocratic Congresspeople.
I am heartened to see people agreeing that sexual content is less "damaging" than violent content.
Though there is still the argument that "violence in the media" be it video games, movies, TV, what-have-you is somehow totally unrelated to real-world violence.
It is my humble opinion that there is indeed a connection, a culture of violence where violence is tolerated or even desired for "entertainment" is somewhat sick.
Granted, nearly every society, has had this sickness to some degree or another, so the latest first-person-shooter is no different than public executions in the 16th century, from a conceptual point of view (except that the public executions are obviously worse by a very large factor) -- it's all a matter of degrees.
So it's not that hollywood or whoever is producing this violent content is totally "bad" or should take all kinds of blame, however, they certianly are not HELPING the situation.
People, kids or adults, that live in a society where the government bombs the shit out of whomever they don't like, justifiably or not, AND they absorb violent FICTION on the boob-toob or wherever, are getting it from all sides, and again, in my opinion, this is less than ideal.
I'm not saying there is a simple 'fix' for all this, but there IS a problem (or a whole set of problems) that are resulting in a violent society, and while "fictional violence" is not the primary problem, it is at best a symptom, and at worst, a contributing factor.
blah.
Crap, I meant to mod this up, and I seem to have screwed up the mod. :( Hopefully posting un-does the mod. Someone please mod it up.
Unfortunately, I think many corporations would be more interested in having a contract that binds their employees to NOT doing anything that will benefit their competition... Which is rather sticky, since if an employee works on free software, and then a competitor uses that free software, that employee could get into trouble. Anyone know of a case where that has happened?
I'm sure that there are corps that wouldn't really care, especially those that use free software, but this is a complex issue.
I'm just as keen on meeting aliens as the next guy, but even given that there are aliens, why is it so impossible to belive that us Humans once had a civilization even MORE advanced than anything on this planet now? Perhaps with spacecraft and construction techniques that would make modern construction look like kids playing with tinkertoys?
Anyway, the Great Pyramid and it's two little brothers are probably _much_ older than the hundreds of other little pyramids scattered all over Egypt... probably more than 4500 yrs. old.
A theory I find interesting is that all the other little ones are _attempts_ at re-creating the big one.
Well, if the whole argument here is about a principle concerning intellectual property being stolen... Well to use Lars' argument about cars that are too expensive, if you steal ONE copy of a copyrighted album by making a tape or cd of it: then that's totally OK? But more than one is NOT OK? So if you teal ONE car that costs $47,000 that is OK... you just can't steal MORE than one car?
Sounds like a pretty shaky argument to me.
Even if these things are safe, what about the fact that they are MORE EXPENSIVE TO RUN than traditional power plants like coal and oil?
Also what about the fact that uranium is a non-renewable resource, just like oil and coal.
Nuclear power is a sideways-step in technology, not an evolution.
We need less-expensive (free even!) non-polluting energy sources that don't give the people that run them permanent orange afros after 20 years of being near it.
Solar, lightning collection systems, wind and thermo-electric are technologies that spring to mind...
Hey, how about an open-source power company!
I dunno about these days, but last time I checked to support a VME backplane, you're looking at like 100-200 grand ... these are for high-demand industrial applications. Of course I want one anyway :)
This stuff is usually MilSpec, i.e. can deal with extremely harsh environments and keep functioning. They used to blow up one (or two) of these for testing nukes and other stupid stuff like that.
Only thing in Fort Knox is a few "Guards" sitting around playing cards. No gold or silver there, was gone long ago... :>
There are a LOT of weird patents, some may be valid, like maybe this one:
US04182651
some probably trash... if you've got a few months to kill search through the patent database sometime. Scary stuff in there. Chicken glasses... sheesh.
Sounds like a good idea! Frequency pooling could alleivate some of the congestion in the airwaves, especially with point-to-point types of wireless like cell phones...
A little scary about slices of the spectrum going to the highest bidder... but that's the way big business works no?
Greed. Plain and simple. This kind of stuff gets me mad too. I can't respect corporations or governments that behave this way. Although in many ways this kind of thing is the least offensive form of corruption that goes on in government... but don't get me started...
I'm terrible at math and all, but that's like one percent right? Sheesh. Democracy my foot.