First way: I've recently been remembering these books but I had no idea what they were called. I just remembered reading them (especially the UFO story) one time. So now I know the author, book titles, publisher, etc--I can find them and re-read.
When People magazine does an issue devoted to "what's hot" in fashion, do they interview Jane Doe from Des Moines, Iowa? No.
So why are OS numbers reported with equal rating? Not all users are equally suited to *choose* an OS, therefore not all users *choices* are equally interesting. I'd really like to see a breakdown of OS by user-type (levels of education, field of degree if applicable, occupation, etc). Keep in mind this applies just as much to business. A technology company presumably put more informed thought into their choice of server than an art supply house or whatever. --
Geekizoid is a site devoted to trolls and trolling (especially focussed on/.). The on-going contest over there is to see who can get front page articles posted. flikx is an author and regular poster on Geekizoid.
Draw your own conclusions about the meaning (to say nothing of the reality) of this "Ask Slashdot". And read Geekizoid regularly. --
I was sitting across from my coworker when I overheard this:
Switch to the File Manager (this was Windows 3.1). OK, now on the menu bar...the MENU bar. Right under the title bar. The title bar is at the top of the screen--it's probably blue, with words in it. Right, there. The menu bar is right under that. No, that's the file list--above that. No, it's not the same as the title bar. It's *below* the title bar. No, that's the file list--look a little higher, but not as high as the title bar.
This went on for several minutes while we both switched to the File Manager ourselves to see if the menu bar could be hidden or something.... --
As you admit, water, solar and tidal (plus geothermal which you omit) are all partially viable. Why not diversify? Say, 10%-15% for each of the 4 (I know for a fact solar could easily handle that much, I'm not as familiar with the other 3). That brings us up to 40%-60%. Then let nuclear do the rest reducing as the other four get more efficient (or when fusion starts working). --
"...since there are far fewer genes than once thought, the old idea of "one gene, one protein" has fallen by the wayside.
I'd like to get hear an actual biologist a) claim that they ever thought that and b) that the idea is contradicted by the evidence. I'm not biologist myself, but I'm inclined to think that "one gene, one protein" still holds but that "one protein, one phenotypic effect" is out the window (not that it was ever really viable or likely before).
It's all about context. Gene A produces Protein A. But Protein A in "the brain" (read: in the presence of Proteins B, C and D) produces Phenotypic Effect 1 (say, math ability) while Protein A in "the skeletal system" (read: in the presence of Proteins X, Y and Z) produces Pheotypic Effect 2 (say, humped shoulders). I mean, think about it: a single protein is clearly not in charge of, say, your thumb. Many proteins are involved--there's no reason those same proteins can't be used for a different purpose somewhere else.
Example: Somebody finally reverse engineers a F16 fighter plane and produces the "DNA" blueprints. "WTF," we all cry, "there are only 14 different kinds of screws--how can that be??" It would be ridiculous to conclude that when the blueprint says "Screw A1" it might actually be "rendered" as any one of 5 different screw types (as we would have to conclude based on a rejection of "one gene, one protein"). It's much more reasonable to conclude that the inventory of parts used bears little or no relationship to the complexity of the item built.
Think about it: nobody is declaring a crisis of biology because of the fact that we are made of only a handful of different elements. They are just building blocks. So are proteins. --
"This argument always annoys me when it pops up, and unfortunately it tends to do so all too often. I find it fairly safe to assume that any alien civilization with technology advanced enough to cross light-years and keep our planet under continuous observation for thousands of years could reasonably also be expected to have stealth technology as far beyond ours as their propulsion and communications systems. Most likely, their technology would for all intents and purposes appear as "magic", according to Clarke's Law."
Crossing light-years and keeping a planet under observation doesn't require any new science. Just a lot of time and energy. A "cloaking device" requires new science. If we are going to posit the existence of a "cloaking device" why not just have them watching us through wormholes in the comfort of their own homes? Or maybe just sensing our "thought energy" across the light years? Or some other equally scientifically unsupported and unfalsifiable means? The question here isn't "could aliens logically be ancient gods." After all, we could be brains in vats owned by the aliens. The question here is "do we have any evidence of or reason to believe that aliens beings were ancient gods." Answer: No. --
That second book that I read (mentioned in another post) specifically addressed UFOs and ancient astronaut ideas. It took them seriously, but then showed how it unlikely they were.
For instance, ancient astronauts: The Earth is 4 billion years old. Recorded history is only 1 millionth that long. The chances of aliens showing up *just* when humans are starting to write things down is therefore pretty low. Alternatively, if aliens have been here all along, where are they now? You might say "UFOs" but then were is their base? There are no anomalous items in nearby space and certainly nothing on Earth. --
Incredible. Last week I checked two books out of the library about SETI. One was by Asimov, published in 1979. It was a little short on hard science, but did a very good job of showing calculations indicating the number of habitable planets in the Galaxy. Another was by "some guy", written in 1989 (ten years later). The writing style was chaotic, but the upshot seemed to be "if there are so many aliens out there, where are they?" The most interesting thing about this book is that it mentions much the same stuff that Asimov did--but then shows how it doesn't apply or has been changed, or whatever.
Notice the Dutch name--that's because they are Boers (Dutch colonialists in South Africa). Yes, this is the very same DeBeers that advertises on TV. --
"After Lockheed ran horribly over budget and behind schedule, NASA decided to can the program earlier this year. Apparently, the Air Force sees potential in this design of craft for a weapons delivery system."
It used to be bad enough: all military projects run over budget and behind schedule. Now it turns out worse: all over budget and behind schedule projects get taken over by the military. --
"Three-fourths of the time, two of the players will have hats of the same color and the third player's hat will be the opposite color. The group can win every time this happens by using the following strategy: Once the game starts, each player looks at the other two players' hats. If the two hats are different colors, he passes. If they are the same color, the player guesses his own hat is the opposite color."
I was going to post a solution like this (before reading the rest of the article, duh) but then I thought it didn't work. That's because I was taking a single point of view (which is Timothy's point). I should have gone ahead and done it....
There are 8 possible universes. The algorithm works as follows:
RRR = every player sees two reds, every player says "blue" - LOSS
BBB = every player sees two blues, every player says "red" - LOSS
RRB = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
RBR = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
BRR = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
RBB = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
BBR = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
BRB = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
That's 6 wins in 8 plays or 3 wins in 4 plays. I'm not going to try to extend this to further cases.
--
"...but we also had a major pre-Y2K hardware and software buying frenzy."
Is this a joke? I worked at a "buyer" company in 1998 and half of 1999 and a "producer" company since then. All hardware and especially software purchases were pretty much on hold. Don't add to a potentially enormous problem, seemed to be the philosophy. --
I'm a rabid FSFer. I cringe at the term "open source", preferring "free software". But even *I* can see this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Yes, by all means, try to persuade Big Business to play nice. But don't, for the love of God, say that's it's "payback" for benefits they've received from the community. The entire idea of "open source" (which is what the company's bought into, not free software) is that the company doing the releasing gets a benefit. So you can't try to make them "pay twice" by asking for a favor later.
Bruce, you cannot drive a man with a stick, you must lead him with a carrot. Point out the *benefits* of releasing patents, don't try to appeal to some nebulous "gratitude".
--
Cosource and SourceXchange both opened within a few months (days?) of each other. Both had a lot of promise. I would visit each one every few months, but the jobs on SourceXchange were too big and the process on Cosource WAY too complicated ("authority"? "affiliate"? Huh?).
This story reminded me to do my biannual check of Cosource and I find it just like I always do. And I mean that literally--the same projects are always just sitting there. Does anybody actually WORK on these things? I think that "FreeCiv to BeOS" thing has been there for two years or more.
These websites were great ideas but they don't seem to be working. Too bad. --
A lot of CEO's spend a lot of their time trying to "work deals"--partnerships, big contracts, co-branding, etc. A lot of these deals produce nothing, or next to it. But some of these deals are spectacular successes that propel a company into the stratosphere (on more than just paper).
What do you think RedHat's "dream deal" would be? --
"a) free software companies could get enough venture capital to fund developers"
Never mind the fact that nearly all free software comes from individuals and that "free software companies" are generally just repackagers.
"b) tech workers have been in such high demand that programmers and sysadmins have been able to work on free software on company time without getting fired. "
Conversely, now that so many programmers and sysadmins have been fired from the high-paying jobs that allowed them to sock money away, we should see a huge increase in their output.
"The simple fact is that the PC is a luxury good. It is far from being a necessity."
Only for home use. For business or scientific use it IS a necessity.
--
"Think about it: with companies laying people off and cheapening up, whats better than free software? They could lay off 5,000 people, OR quit shelling out that much in MS licenses and pay salaries!"
1) Large companies don't always do layoffs to "reduce expenses". They do it to reduce the supply because of a forecasted reduced demand.
2) If we are talking about technical people being laid off, it will still happen: they don't know Linux and so have to be replaced. Of course, firing an MSCE for being an MSCE might appeal to some...
3) MS licenses are not an operating expense, they are a capital expense (capital offense?). Meaning they already have money locked up in licenses--dumping the software loses that money. I know, I know--it's the fallacy of sunk costs. Nonetheless, some business people work that way. --
Slashdot Mirror
First way: I've recently been remembering these books but I had no idea what they were called. I just remembered reading them (especially the UFO story) one time. So now I know the author, book titles, publisher, etc--I can find them and re-read.
Second way: Duh, they are making more.
--
When People magazine does an issue devoted to "what's hot" in fashion, do they interview Jane Doe from Des Moines, Iowa? No.
So why are OS numbers reported with equal rating? Not all users are equally suited to *choose* an OS, therefore not all users *choices* are equally interesting. I'd really like to see a breakdown of OS by user-type (levels of education, field of degree if applicable, occupation, etc). Keep in mind this applies just as much to business. A technology company presumably put more informed thought into their choice of server than an art supply house or whatever.
--
- "kernal"
- Implication that Alan runs the "kernal"
- "Breathtaking performance" of DirectX
- Command line programs not "real"
"HTML programmer" was a little too far, but OTOH a lot of people bit.
--
WAKE UP, SLASHDOT!
/.). The on-going contest over there is to see who can get front page articles posted. flikx is an author and regular poster on Geekizoid.
Geekizoid is a site devoted to trolls and trolling (especially focussed on
Draw your own conclusions about the meaning (to say nothing of the reality) of this "Ask Slashdot". And read Geekizoid regularly.
--
You have a "very nice" .9? Where'd you get it, 'cuz mine sucks. Images are totally hosed and it's crashed 3 times in 36 hours. .8 was a LOT better.
--
I was sitting across from my coworker when I overheard this:
Switch to the File Manager (this was Windows 3.1). OK, now on the menu bar...the MENU bar. Right under the title bar. The title bar is at the top of the screen--it's probably blue, with words in it. Right, there. The menu bar is right under that. No, that's the file list--above that. No, it's not the same as the title bar. It's *below* the title bar. No, that's the file list--look a little higher, but not as high as the title bar.
This went on for several minutes while we both switched to the File Manager ourselves to see if the menu bar could be hidden or something....
--
As you admit, water, solar and tidal (plus geothermal which you omit) are all partially viable. Why not diversify? Say, 10%-15% for each of the 4 (I know for a fact solar could easily handle that much, I'm not as familiar with the other 3). That brings us up to 40%-60%. Then let nuclear do the rest reducing as the other four get more efficient (or when fusion starts working).
--
Keeping information out of schools is a "moderate stance"?
--
"...since there are far fewer genes than once thought, the old idea of "one gene, one protein" has fallen by the wayside.
I'd like to get hear an actual biologist a) claim that they ever thought that and b) that the idea is contradicted by the evidence. I'm not biologist myself, but I'm inclined to think that "one gene, one protein" still holds but that "one protein, one phenotypic effect" is out the window (not that it was ever really viable or likely before).
It's all about context. Gene A produces Protein A. But Protein A in "the brain" (read: in the presence of Proteins B, C and D) produces Phenotypic Effect 1 (say, math ability) while Protein A in "the skeletal system" (read: in the presence of Proteins X, Y and Z) produces Pheotypic Effect 2 (say, humped shoulders). I mean, think about it: a single protein is clearly not in charge of, say, your thumb. Many proteins are involved--there's no reason those same proteins can't be used for a different purpose somewhere else.
Example: Somebody finally reverse engineers a F16 fighter plane and produces the "DNA" blueprints. "WTF," we all cry, "there are only 14 different kinds of screws--how can that be??" It would be ridiculous to conclude that when the blueprint says "Screw A1" it might actually be "rendered" as any one of 5 different screw types (as we would have to conclude based on a rejection of "one gene, one protein"). It's much more reasonable to conclude that the inventory of parts used bears little or no relationship to the complexity of the item built.
Think about it: nobody is declaring a crisis of biology because of the fact that we are made of only a handful of different elements. They are just building blocks. So are proteins.
--
"This argument always annoys me when it pops up, and unfortunately it tends to do so all too often. I find it fairly safe to assume that any alien civilization with technology advanced enough to cross light-years and keep our planet under continuous observation for thousands of years could reasonably also be expected to have stealth technology as far beyond ours as their propulsion and communications systems. Most likely, their technology would for all intents and purposes appear as "magic", according to Clarke's Law."
Crossing light-years and keeping a planet under observation doesn't require any new science. Just a lot of time and energy. A "cloaking device" requires new science. If we are going to posit the existence of a "cloaking device" why not just have them watching us through wormholes in the comfort of their own homes? Or maybe just sensing our "thought energy" across the light years? Or some other equally scientifically unsupported and unfalsifiable means? The question here isn't "could aliens logically be ancient gods." After all, we could be brains in vats owned by the aliens. The question here is "do we have any evidence of or reason to believe that aliens beings were ancient gods." Answer: No.
--
That second book that I read (mentioned in another post) specifically addressed UFOs and ancient astronaut ideas. It took them seriously, but then showed how it unlikely they were.
For instance, ancient astronauts: The Earth is 4 billion years old. Recorded history is only 1 millionth that long. The chances of aliens showing up *just* when humans are starting to write things down is therefore pretty low. Alternatively, if aliens have been here all along, where are they now? You might say "UFOs" but then were is their base? There are no anomalous items in nearby space and certainly nothing on Earth.
--
Incredible. Last week I checked two books out of the library about SETI. One was by Asimov, published in 1979. It was a little short on hard science, but did a very good job of showing calculations indicating the number of habitable planets in the Galaxy. Another was by "some guy", written in 1989 (ten years later). The writing style was chaotic, but the upshot seemed to be "if there are so many aliens out there, where are they?" The most interesting thing about this book is that it mentions much the same stuff that Asimov did--but then shows how it doesn't apply or has been changed, or whatever.
Now this thing is out. Up or down?
--
Notice the Dutch name--that's because they are Boers (Dutch colonialists in South Africa). Yes, this is the very same DeBeers that advertises on TV.
--
"After Lockheed ran horribly over budget and behind schedule, NASA decided to can the program earlier this year. Apparently, the Air Force sees potential in this design of craft for a weapons delivery system."
It used to be bad enough: all military projects run over budget and behind schedule. Now it turns out worse: all over budget and behind schedule projects get taken over by the military.
--
Specifically, the free ride, the pardon and the lottery ticket. Depending on the situation, the some of the others may be as well.
On another note: Did you used to write for "News Radio"? Because this exact same joke was on last night's (re-run) episode.
--
"Three-fourths of the time, two of the players will have hats of the same color and the third player's hat will be the opposite color. The group can win every time this happens by using the following strategy: Once the game starts, each player looks at the other two players' hats. If the two hats are different colors, he passes. If they are the same color, the player guesses his own hat is the opposite color."
I was going to post a solution like this (before reading the rest of the article, duh) but then I thought it didn't work. That's because I was taking a single point of view (which is Timothy's point). I should have gone ahead and done it....
There are 8 possible universes. The algorithm works as follows:
RRR = every player sees two reds, every player says "blue" - LOSS
BBB = every player sees two blues, every player says "red" - LOSS
RRB = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
RBR = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
BRR = the reds see conflict and pass, the blue sees two reds and guesses "blue" - WIN
RBB = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
BBR = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
BRB = the blues see conflict and pass, the red sees two blues and guesses "red" - WIN
That's 6 wins in 8 plays or 3 wins in 4 plays. I'm not going to try to extend this to further cases.
--
"...but we also had a major pre-Y2K hardware and software buying frenzy."
Is this a joke? I worked at a "buyer" company in 1998 and half of 1999 and a "producer" company since then. All hardware and especially software purchases were pretty much on hold. Don't add to a potentially enormous problem, seemed to be the philosophy.
--
Internet1 could do this too--if we only had 3 sites connected, like Internet2 does. Quit telling me how great it is and let me on.
--
Insightful AND funny!
--
I'm a rabid FSFer. I cringe at the term "open source", preferring "free software". But even *I* can see this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Yes, by all means, try to persuade Big Business to play nice. But don't, for the love of God, say that's it's "payback" for benefits they've received from the community. The entire idea of "open source" (which is what the company's bought into, not free software) is that the company doing the releasing gets a benefit. So you can't try to make them "pay twice" by asking for a favor later.
Bruce, you cannot drive a man with a stick, you must lead him with a carrot. Point out the *benefits* of releasing patents, don't try to appeal to some nebulous "gratitude".
--
"...but you can only produce vapor for so long before exposing your soft fleshy belly."
Maybe they should have used this on the marketing brochures.
--
Cosource and SourceXchange both opened within a few months (days?) of each other. Both had a lot of promise. I would visit each one every few months, but the jobs on SourceXchange were too big and the process on Cosource WAY too complicated ("authority"? "affiliate"? Huh?).
This story reminded me to do my biannual check of Cosource and I find it just like I always do. And I mean that literally--the same projects are always just sitting there. Does anybody actually WORK on these things? I think that "FreeCiv to BeOS" thing has been there for two years or more.
These websites were great ideas but they don't seem to be working. Too bad.
--
A lot of CEO's spend a lot of their time trying to "work deals"--partnerships, big contracts, co-branding, etc. A lot of these deals produce nothing, or next to it. But some of these deals are spectacular successes that propel a company into the stratosphere (on more than just paper).
What do you think RedHat's "dream deal" would be?
--
"a) free software companies could get enough venture capital to fund developers"
Never mind the fact that nearly all free software comes from individuals and that "free software companies" are generally just repackagers.
"b) tech workers have been in such high demand that programmers and sysadmins have been able to work on free software on company time without getting fired. "
Conversely, now that so many programmers and sysadmins have been fired from the high-paying jobs that allowed them to sock money away, we should see a huge increase in their output.
"The simple fact is that the PC is a luxury good. It is far from being a necessity."
Only for home use. For business or scientific use it IS a necessity.
--
"Think about it: with companies laying people off and cheapening up, whats better than free software? They could lay off 5,000 people, OR quit shelling out that much in MS licenses and pay salaries!"
1) Large companies don't always do layoffs to "reduce expenses". They do it to reduce the supply because of a forecasted reduced demand.
2) If we are talking about technical people being laid off, it will still happen: they don't know Linux and so have to be replaced. Of course, firing an MSCE for being an MSCE might appeal to some...
3) MS licenses are not an operating expense, they are a capital expense (capital offense?). Meaning they already have money locked up in licenses--dumping the software loses that money. I know, I know--it's the fallacy of sunk costs. Nonetheless, some business people work that way.
--