Why not hook the monkey brain right up to a robot arm and let them play the game, assemble Nike shoes. Robot arms wouldn't wear out as quickly as monkey arms.
Yeah, but do you want a tireless monkey/robot arm capable of launching poo vast distances? My god man, the horror.:-P
This isn't late night QVC magnetic therapy bracelets we're talking about here, it's cutting edge neuroscience.
Today's magnetic therapy magnets are next year's cutting edge neuroscience.
As I recall, 25 years ago modern science scoffed at acupuncture and said it was voo doo. Now, respectable medical institutions endorse the application of acupuncture as a valid medical procedure.
Sometimes, it's just a matter of actually looking into it. And, then looking into it more than you initially did.
(Note, I'm in no way saying that magnetic bracelets actually have any therapeutic effect. Merely that we've been wrong before.)
What's the problem? Random joes shouldn't be handing out IP addresses in an office; I'd ban those things too.
I mostly agree with you.
It was more of a comedy of errors. I agree that people shouldn't be handing out IP addresses. However, in this case, the router wasn't on a 192.168.* address, and *should* have been doing NAT so that when it went past the guys office drop, the packets would be handled like anything else and look like they were coming from a machine correctly.
Unfortunately, whatever strange combination of mis-configured stuff meant that machines in two completely different cities and on completely different subnets were getting conflicts on the same IP address. It actually took IT hours to find out why the finance machines had dropped off the network.
At the time, we just didn't think it would have been possible given the sheer number of different networks involved.
I was merely pointing out that the default 192.168.1.* probably isn't the best, since it's everyone's default. At the very least, if I'm going to use 192.168 I set it to a different one than.1.*.
I'm using 10.*.*.* addresses for my home and business networks. Overkill? Sure. But, pretty much every home and small business I've inspected the network of is using 192.168.1.*, and that's ridiculous and boring.
True story. A couple of years ago someone with not enough network drops in their office brought in an el-cheap-o router/firewall that did it's own DHCP and NAT.
It turns out the default 192.168.1.* was actually used internally as out finance servers. The newly confusing looking machine with the conflicting IP caused all sorts of badness as all of a sudden multiple machines showed up.
People setting up networks aren't trying to use every single address in their space.
It's far easier to use an entire a.b.c.* as a logical sub-domain than fiddling with netmasks and all that stuff so that a.b.c.1 and a.b.c.200 are on different subnets.
The amount of work people would need to invest to use every single IP address with no holes would be cumbersome. (I'm not saying you can't do it, it's just tedious.) And, you never know when you're going to need to allocate more machines -- I remember getting blocks of IP addresses for static machines in case I needed another machine in the future.
Now, why most people aren't using 10.*.*.* as their internal stuff I'll never know. Since the overwhelming majority of machines on the internet aren't (and shouldn't) be directly routable, it's an awful waste to not have organizations behind NAT-ed firewalls and not drawing from the common pool of route-able IP addresses.
Uh, if the chips ran cooler, wouldn't there be less heat to dissipate in the first place?
Yes, but which is easier: making the chips more efficient, or allowing them to run a little hotter without melting?
I honestly don't know. My first thought is that efficiency is harder than durability, but that's pulled completely out of my backside.
I still think they're right in asserting that if they could handle a little more heat, then data centers would spend less energy trying to cool them to their operating range.
Make them both more efficient (so they generate less heat) and run hotter (so they're less sensitive to that heat) and it seems like you win on two ends, no?
Seems that google's not really thinking green in this case (despite the pretension to do so in others), unless they plan on making use of the datacenter heat elsewhere.
The amount of energy you need to use to cool that stuff is quite significant. And, in case you haven't realized it, generating cool air also create more warm air, it's just not in the data center. It's usually vented right outside.
If the chips could run hotter, they'd have to use less energy to cool the data center, and generate less waste heat from that very cooling in the first place.
I'm not convinced that what they're asking for isn't a good idea.
If this was a 30 second video of a baby dancing to a Prince song, McCain wouldn't think that YouTube was doing anything untoward by obeying a take down video. The fact that this is a political message doesn't mean that YouTube pretty much has to comply with a DMCA notice if it actually looks valid, right?
This seems more like it's whining over the fact that it's his video which is being taken down. Maybe he should be pissed at CBS and Fox for ordering the takedown of his stuff and sue them.
This sounds like selective outrage to me. If Di$ney was issuing notices over Steam Boat Willie, McCain would think they're just protecting their interests and that's OK.
Way too much junk and irritating sites. A site which requires flash will be left and promptly forgotten about. If you can't provide an interface to your site without Flash, I don't care what your site has in it.
I would think that there _is_ a punishment for lying to Congress... Now, if Congress would just call them on the lies...
It's not a lie if you believe it.
If someone creates a think-tank for the express purpose of coming up with a white paper to support your position, and you don't technically know (or want to know) that the think-tank is intellectually dishonest about their report, then you can go in front of Congress and say, in good faith, that to the best of your knowledge what you say is true. And, as evidence of its truth, you hold up an opinion piece by a group of so-called experts.
No lie happens. Merely, reporting your own set of facts, which nobody will be able to verify.
Read TFA a few days ago... It's actually quite scary that lobbyists can throw around completely made up figures which convince lawmakers that we need law X for problem Y. There should be some kind of accountability for quoting random numbers...
Well, in a world where "think tanks" come up with their own bogus numbers to support whatever bullshit claim they want, why should we be surprised by any of this?? Industries which need to prop up their position do this crap all of the time.
Unfortunately, since people can't investigate all of these claims, and if you sound authoritative enough on a topic (even if you are lying) the public will get confused and actually think that there is some debate on the issue.
Sadly, this seems to be how politics and business is conducted in the US nowadays -- have some "institute" come up with a white paper favorable to your position and flog the hell out of the findings held in it. The fact that it has no verifiable facts, and it has sketchy conclusions is all the better, because you've managed to muddy the debate and put your spin on things.
Facts aren't relevant. What you can pass off as facts, and getting your interpretation of reality thrown out there is everything. We live in a world where "marketing" can have more influence that "fact".
What, like for small villages in the middle of nowhere without roads?
There are places in the world where people walk for miles so they can carry back heavy vessels of water, which may or may not be contaminated. The roads aren't likely to be much more than cart paths in many places. This aims at looking at that problem from end to end -- it carries the water, filters it for you, and is your round-trip conveyance.
This sounds like, while it's not a finished product, it's a hell of a good idea and a good start.
But in fairness to the IDEO team, they have stated that, âoeIn its current state, the Aquaduct is a prototype aimed squarely at demonstrating a concept and raising awareness around the issues of clean water in developing countries. The Aquaduct team plans to continue the conceptâ(TM)s development into an economically and technologically viable solution that addresses challenges such as cost, suitable purification technologies, and the logistics of addressing an issue that [affects] billions.â
When you have a better solution that doesn't have as many limitations, get back to us.
I say kudos to the company developing this, and good on 'em for trying to work on this problem.
Read the GGP post. You might be ranting at the wrong guy.
But, I have to rant at someone.:-P
Seriously, it was more of a response to you saying that Apple wasn't targeting the geek dollar, as I don't understand the ways in which iPods don't fit the bill. At least, some of the stuff that people claim is deficient in the iPod from a geek perspective seem downright bizarre to me.
Yes, I do need to carry my entire music collection on my portable player. I don't want to have to sit at home and think, ok, these are the 8GB of music I want to take with me TODAY. I just want to be able to listen to whatever music I feel like whenever I pick up my music player, and not have to worry "I wish I'd put album X on this thing this morning, that's what I really want to hear."
Wow, you and I listen to music entirely differently.
I've always played music by building playlists, choosing some subset of that playlist and putting it on the iPod, and playing that list in either order or random. I've got 3 non-intersecting playlists to cover ranges of what I want to listen to, and I play them.
For me, the same 4GB of music might stay on my iPod for weeks. I don't spend time actively trying to decide what to listen to.
I just can't fathom needing my entire music collection with me at any one time.
But, hey, it's your music collection. Use it how you need to.:-P
Be honest now, how much use have you gotten from the microphone? I don't listen to music on the radio, which is my I have an MP3 player, so I've never cared about that as functionality.
so I'd need something bigger like the 32GB Touch if I wanted a solid state storage player that held all my music
Do you need to carry your entire music collection on your portable player? My PC holds my entire music collection. My iPod has three different playlists of music that I get to choose from depending on my mood, and when I need to change it, I update the playlists and sync the damned thing. Some of my playlists are set to choose the songs from that grouping which are least recently played, so that I roll-over through my music library and hear it.
I find there's a limited amount of music I need to carry with me at any given time. The 400-500 songs I have is plenty. I think how you use it drives what features you need. My 4GB nano carries more than enough music to get me through an extended period of time.
It's got 8gig RAM, plus a microSD slot. Once I put Rockbox (!) on it, I can play flac, ogg, avi.
I'm loading last night's South Park on it right now, in fact.
It cost me 59 dollars.
I'm not so sure the iPod is "safe".
Only because you think that the majority of consumers will ever care about half of those features.
I'm betting that far more people aren't even remotely interested in them. I, for instance, don't see any value in any of that stuff for me. Every time someone mentions ogg I roll my eyes, because the vast majority of consumers will never even know what it is, let alone care or be swayed by it.
As a music player, I think the iPod is very safe for now.
There's a lot of stuff that's broken on the iPod Touch: text input is slow and error prone, screen rotation is sluggish and inconsistent, touch gestures are inconsistent, applications crash with fair frequency, the Mail interface sucks, there is no document viewer, off-line support is nearly non-existent, using it with multiple machines is impossible (laptop+desktop), and on and on. Until fairly recently, syncing often took 1/2h.
Wow, all that crap in a music player??? Talk about 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
WTF do I want a Mail interface on my MP3 player for??? Document viewer?? Off-line support??
I'll stick with my Nano. Load music, play music. Repeat. I probably use my iPod 10-30 hours per week depending on what's going on, and I use it for exactly one thing.
Granted, you can't sync an iPod to multiple machines, but I've never found that to be a limitation. I can charge it on any USB connection, but my music collection is all managed on a single desktop.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I have no idea why you guys want all of these features in a music player.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing ... cue "instrument waving in wind" jokes.
LOL
And, in an astonishing correlation, guy who has been in same job for over a decade decrees job pretty mundane.
Coincidence? I think not!!
Cheers
God, I hope not. Because that would mean wrong-doing was so widespread as to be something we tune out and don't really pay any attention to.
However, I wholeheartedly agree with your point.
Cheers
Wow.
Motion tracking, monkey-brain driven, automated excrement flinging, lawn fertilizing, and home security device. Is that patentable??
That's the funniest thing I've heard all week! :-P
Cheers
Man, for a moment I thought you were making a Spaceballs joke, instead of a physics reference. :-P
Cheers
Yeah, but do you want a tireless monkey/robot arm capable of launching poo vast distances? My god man, the horror. :-P
Talk about your Weapons of Mass Defecation!!
Cheers
It's hard to tell in the sea of infinite monkeys that were already here.
After a while, the monkey all start to blend together and become indistinct. :-P
Cheers
Today's magnetic therapy magnets are next year's cutting edge neuroscience.
As I recall, 25 years ago modern science scoffed at acupuncture and said it was voo doo. Now, respectable medical institutions endorse the application of acupuncture as a valid medical procedure.
Sometimes, it's just a matter of actually looking into it. And, then looking into it more than you initially did.
(Note, I'm in no way saying that magnetic bracelets actually have any therapeutic effect. Merely that we've been wrong before.)
Cheers
Me, I'd be designing fjords all over the place. :-P
Cheers
I mostly agree with you.
It was more of a comedy of errors. I agree that people shouldn't be handing out IP addresses. However, in this case, the router wasn't on a 192.168.* address, and *should* have been doing NAT so that when it went past the guys office drop, the packets would be handled like anything else and look like they were coming from a machine correctly.
Unfortunately, whatever strange combination of mis-configured stuff meant that machines in two completely different cities and on completely different subnets were getting conflicts on the same IP address. It actually took IT hours to find out why the finance machines had dropped off the network.
At the time, we just didn't think it would have been possible given the sheer number of different networks involved.
I was merely pointing out that the default 192.168.1.* probably isn't the best, since it's everyone's default. At the very least, if I'm going to use 192.168 I set it to a different one than .1.*.
Cheers
True story. A couple of years ago someone with not enough network drops in their office brought in an el-cheap-o router/firewall that did it's own DHCP and NAT.
It turns out the default 192.168.1.* was actually used internally as out finance servers. The newly confusing looking machine with the conflicting IP caused all sorts of badness as all of a sudden multiple machines showed up.
The solution, was to ban those routers. :-P
Cheers
People setting up networks aren't trying to use every single address in their space.
It's far easier to use an entire a.b.c.* as a logical sub-domain than fiddling with netmasks and all that stuff so that a.b.c.1 and a.b.c.200 are on different subnets.
The amount of work people would need to invest to use every single IP address with no holes would be cumbersome. (I'm not saying you can't do it, it's just tedious.) And, you never know when you're going to need to allocate more machines -- I remember getting blocks of IP addresses for static machines in case I needed another machine in the future.
Now, why most people aren't using 10.*.*.* as their internal stuff I'll never know. Since the overwhelming majority of machines on the internet aren't (and shouldn't) be directly routable, it's an awful waste to not have organizations behind NAT-ed firewalls and not drawing from the common pool of route-able IP addresses.
Cheers
Yes, but which is easier: making the chips more efficient, or allowing them to run a little hotter without melting?
I honestly don't know. My first thought is that efficiency is harder than durability, but that's pulled completely out of my backside.
I still think they're right in asserting that if they could handle a little more heat, then data centers would spend less energy trying to cool them to their operating range.
Make them both more efficient (so they generate less heat) and run hotter (so they're less sensitive to that heat) and it seems like you win on two ends, no?
Cheers
The amount of energy you need to use to cool that stuff is quite significant. And, in case you haven't realized it, generating cool air also create more warm air, it's just not in the data center. It's usually vented right outside.
If the chips could run hotter, they'd have to use less energy to cool the data center, and generate less waste heat from that very cooling in the first place.
I'm not convinced that what they're asking for isn't a good idea.
Cheers
Well, I've got at least 5 email addresses. Most people I know have at least 2.
And, there's nothing to say the same botnet isn't sending you multiple copies of the same spam (a lot of them certainly look similar).
Cheers
If this was a 30 second video of a baby dancing to a Prince song, McCain wouldn't think that YouTube was doing anything untoward by obeying a take down video. The fact that this is a political message doesn't mean that YouTube pretty much has to comply with a DMCA notice if it actually looks valid, right?
This seems more like it's whining over the fact that it's his video which is being taken down. Maybe he should be pissed at CBS and Fox for ordering the takedown of his stuff and sue them.
This sounds like selective outrage to me. If Di$ney was issuing notices over Steam Boat Willie, McCain would think they're just protecting their interests and that's OK.
Cheers
This is why I don't install flash on my machines.
Way too much junk and irritating sites. A site which requires flash will be left and promptly forgotten about. If you can't provide an interface to your site without Flash, I don't care what your site has in it.
Cheers
It's not a lie if you believe it.
If someone creates a think-tank for the express purpose of coming up with a white paper to support your position, and you don't technically know (or want to know) that the think-tank is intellectually dishonest about their report, then you can go in front of Congress and say, in good faith, that to the best of your knowledge what you say is true. And, as evidence of its truth, you hold up an opinion piece by a group of so-called experts.
No lie happens. Merely, reporting your own set of facts, which nobody will be able to verify.
Cheers
Well, in a world where "think tanks" come up with their own bogus numbers to support whatever bullshit claim they want, why should we be surprised by any of this?? Industries which need to prop up their position do this crap all of the time.
Unfortunately, since people can't investigate all of these claims, and if you sound authoritative enough on a topic (even if you are lying) the public will get confused and actually think that there is some debate on the issue.
Sadly, this seems to be how politics and business is conducted in the US nowadays -- have some "institute" come up with a white paper favorable to your position and flog the hell out of the findings held in it. The fact that it has no verifiable facts, and it has sketchy conclusions is all the better, because you've managed to muddy the debate and put your spin on things.
Facts aren't relevant. What you can pass off as facts, and getting your interpretation of reality thrown out there is everything. We live in a world where "marketing" can have more influence that "fact".
Cheers
There are places in the world where people walk for miles so they can carry back heavy vessels of water, which may or may not be contaminated. The roads aren't likely to be much more than cart paths in many places. This aims at looking at that problem from end to end -- it carries the water, filters it for you, and is your round-trip conveyance.
This sounds like, while it's not a finished product, it's a hell of a good idea and a good start.
When you have a better solution that doesn't have as many limitations, get back to us.
I say kudos to the company developing this, and good on 'em for trying to work on this problem.
Cheers
But, I have to rant at someone. :-P
Seriously, it was more of a response to you saying that Apple wasn't targeting the geek dollar, as I don't understand the ways in which iPods don't fit the bill. At least, some of the stuff that people claim is deficient in the iPod from a geek perspective seem downright bizarre to me.
Sorry for the splatter. :-P
Cheers
Wow, you and I listen to music entirely differently.
I've always played music by building playlists, choosing some subset of that playlist and putting it on the iPod, and playing that list in either order or random. I've got 3 non-intersecting playlists to cover ranges of what I want to listen to, and I play them.
For me, the same 4GB of music might stay on my iPod for weeks. I don't spend time actively trying to decide what to listen to.
I just can't fathom needing my entire music collection with me at any one time.
But, hey, it's your music collection. Use it how you need to. :-P
Cheers
Be honest now, how much use have you gotten from the microphone? I don't listen to music on the radio, which is my I have an MP3 player, so I've never cared about that as functionality.
Do you need to carry your entire music collection on your portable player? My PC holds my entire music collection. My iPod has three different playlists of music that I get to choose from depending on my mood, and when I need to change it, I update the playlists and sync the damned thing. Some of my playlists are set to choose the songs from that grouping which are least recently played, so that I roll-over through my music library and hear it.
I find there's a limited amount of music I need to carry with me at any given time. The 400-500 songs I have is plenty. I think how you use it drives what features you need. My 4GB nano carries more than enough music to get me through an extended period of time.
Cheers
Only because you think that the majority of consumers will ever care about half of those features.
I'm betting that far more people aren't even remotely interested in them. I, for instance, don't see any value in any of that stuff for me. Every time someone mentions ogg I roll my eyes, because the vast majority of consumers will never even know what it is, let alone care or be swayed by it.
As a music player, I think the iPod is very safe for now.
Cheers
Wow, all that crap in a music player??? Talk about 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
WTF do I want a Mail interface on my MP3 player for??? Document viewer?? Off-line support??
I'll stick with my Nano. Load music, play music. Repeat. I probably use my iPod 10-30 hours per week depending on what's going on, and I use it for exactly one thing.
Granted, you can't sync an iPod to multiple machines, but I've never found that to be a limitation. I can charge it on any USB connection, but my music collection is all managed on a single desktop.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I have no idea why you guys want all of these features in a music player. :-P
Cheers