You can get seismograms from as far back as people have been recording them. You can specify the time, location, and duration, and they'll retreive the data file for you. I won't post the link so they won't get slammed. But it is readily available from university and government sites.
titanium wedding rings are pretty nifty. it'd be cool to find ones made out of other out-of-the-ordinary materials. maybe get one of those iButton deals as the ring, so your s.o. can access your futuristic house without keys. it's the ultimate sign of your love, that you give them access to the inner sanctum.
The fujitsu 2040 series has a base battery life of 5ish hours with the six cell main battery. If you take out the dvd drive and stick in the secondary battery, the time goes up to like 12 hours. I've got the 2046, and I'm completely satisfied with it. The 800mhz crusoe cpu doesn't feel slow in the least. I've seen the 2040 on sale at Fry's for USD$1399
The brain has about 10^12 neurons, with about 10^15 connections between them. Each of those connections has a semantic meaning based on it's location and specific connections. If you were to create a purely digital copy of all of that information (ie transcribe everything in a sample brain onto a computer so you could simulate it perfectly) it would likely be an order of magnitude over that (three zeroes between a the 10^12 of a terabyte, and the 10^15 of the connections)
The current state of the US Patent system aside, there's no real difference between a creation in software, and a creation in hardware. People often make the argument that software is like music, or that it's just a mathematical expression and therefore shouldn't be patentable. This is neglecting the fact that anything you make in the world is exactly the same, it's both expression and and math. Calling software pure expression, like music, is misleading because music has no constant function that it performs. It does different things to different people. Sofware or Hardware perform exactly reproduceable tasks each and every time. What do you think an internal combustion engine is? It's the application of a bunch of pipes, some processing, and an interface. So is your word processor. You can talk about any piece of software or hardware in the same terms. Just because we don't normally start out with the mathematical representation of an engine when we build one doesn't mean that it's any different. It just means that the domain that you work in is different. The reality inside a computer is not the same as the reality you work with outside. Outside requires you to work with physics, which is just a layer of abstraction for math. Computers have their own abstractions and rules. And yes, there should be separate rules to get a software patent. It should be a lot harder in my opinion, because the amount of work to do something with software is a lot less than it is outside. One has to keep in mind the different levels that the two systems work at. Right now it seems like the current level of software patents are like if we tried to patent a drinking glass, or some basic form, like a wheel. We're still learning the basics. So, in granting a software patent, the artifact in question should be something Way Out There. Or it shouldn't be trivial changes to basic ideas.
If we had the patent system back when we were inventing wheels and levers, we'd have retarded our progress by not allowing the critical mass to develop, where the basics of the world around us were made apparent to everyone. I think we're at the stage in computer development of wheels and levers. We need to let everyone in on the secrets that we stumble upon. I'm not saying we shouldn't have rewards still. We can still give limited monopolies or other benefits, just for shorter periods and with fewer rights.
The way I interpreted those two paragraphs were in an educational context. They are making their points, then telling what might be wrong with the competing theory. It happens all the time with other theories. "We proved this and that, so theory X needs to be revised or thrown out". This fits if you subscribe to 'creation science' as it's been labeled recently.
Simply have the bit big enough. Let's say you're using one of those old-fashioned binary computers, and want to compress everything to 1/Nth the size. No problem, you simply need a bit with 2^N states. Everything then fits on that single bit
No, bit stands for binary digit. The bit with 2^N states needs to be called a 'nit'. And thanks to our friends at ZeoSync, we can all enjoy the benefits of their patented Nit-Wit(TM) 'smart' technology.
i never said that the current systems worked in the least. i was just pointing out that we have it much better than the majority of people, and we shouldn't have to think twice about doing something that will help out the situation. one has to start somewhere right? if we can't even commit to giving some paltry sum, how can we do anything at all?
Do you people even realize how much difference there is between the third world and the first world? We should do anything we can to raise the lowest common denomonator up to current levels in developed countries. Not just technology transfers, ie internet, but medical, educational, etc. The less of a gap there is, the fewer problems we have as a world population. Stop being so selfish, realize just how darn good we have it in the US, UK, etc. And look at the level of poverty in other places. Remember your humanity and help our fellow people.
if it's still using the bttv card, any of the normal capture programs work. i use fxtv or some such program. i don't know about the actual teleconferencing part though, i've never tried it.
Slashdot Mirror
that's incorrect. you can have it keep multiple copies\revisions of your backups.
You can get seismograms from as far back as people have been recording them. You can specify the time, location, and duration, and they'll retreive the data file for you. I won't post the link so they won't get slammed. But it is readily available from university and government sites.
Another site I found has some great pictures.
big earth movers are really cool. there are a number of them that have been turned into museums.
titanium wedding rings are pretty nifty. it'd be cool to find ones made out of other out-of-the-ordinary materials. maybe get one of those iButton deals as the ring, so your s.o. can access your futuristic house without keys. it's the ultimate sign of your love, that you give them access to the inner sanctum.
http://www.fujitsupc.com
The fujitsu 2040 series has a base battery life of 5ish hours with the six cell main battery. If you take out the dvd drive and stick in the secondary battery, the time goes up to like 12 hours. I've got the 2046, and I'm completely satisfied with it. The 800mhz crusoe cpu doesn't feel slow in the least. I've seen the 2040 on sale at Fry's for USD$1399
The brain has about 10^12 neurons, with about 10^15 connections between them. Each of those connections has a semantic meaning based on it's location and specific connections. If you were to create a purely digital copy of all of that information (ie transcribe everything in a sample brain onto a computer so you could simulate it perfectly) it would likely be an order of magnitude over that (three zeroes between a the 10^12 of a terabyte, and the 10^15 of the connections)
The current state of the US Patent system aside, there's no real difference between a creation in software, and a creation in hardware. People often make the argument that software is like music, or that it's just a mathematical expression and therefore shouldn't be patentable. This is neglecting the fact that anything you make in the world is exactly the same, it's both expression and and math. Calling software pure expression, like music, is misleading because music has no constant function that it performs. It does different things to different people. Sofware or Hardware perform exactly reproduceable tasks each and every time. What do you think an internal combustion engine is? It's the application of a bunch of pipes, some processing, and an interface. So is your word processor. You can talk about any piece of software or hardware in the same terms. Just because we don't normally start out with the mathematical representation of an engine when we build one doesn't mean that it's any different. It just means that the domain that you work in is different. The reality inside a computer is not the same as the reality you work with outside. Outside requires you to work with physics, which is just a layer of abstraction for math. Computers have their own abstractions and rules. And yes, there should be separate rules to get a software patent. It should be a lot harder in my opinion, because the amount of work to do something with software is a lot less than it is outside. One has to keep in mind the different levels that the two systems work at. Right now it seems like the current level of software patents are like if we tried to patent a drinking glass, or some basic form, like a wheel. We're still learning the basics. So, in granting a software patent, the artifact in question should be something Way Out There. Or it shouldn't be trivial changes to basic ideas.
If we had the patent system back when we were inventing wheels and levers, we'd have retarded our progress by not allowing the critical mass to develop, where the basics of the world around us were made apparent to everyone. I think we're at the stage in computer development of wheels and levers. We need to let everyone in on the secrets that we stumble upon. I'm not saying we shouldn't have rewards still. We can still give limited monopolies or other benefits, just for shorter periods and with fewer rights.
Don't forget another practical distributed project. Stanford's protein folding project: folding@home
The way I interpreted those two paragraphs were in an educational context. They are making their points, then telling what might be wrong with the competing theory. It happens all the time with other theories. "We proved this and that, so theory X needs to be revised or thrown out". This fits if you subscribe to 'creation science' as it's been labeled recently.
One theory is that wings developed out of the paddles that water skimming insects use to propel themselves over the surface of the water.
This gives some related information on evolution of insect wings.
This talks about it some too.
This is where I left off looking.
Simply have the bit big enough. Let's say you're using one of those old-fashioned binary computers, and want to compress everything to 1/Nth the size. No problem, you simply need a bit with 2^N states. Everything then fits on that single bit
No, bit stands for binary digit. The bit with 2^N states needs to be called a 'nit'. And thanks to our friends at ZeoSync, we can all enjoy the benefits of their patented Nit-Wit(TM) 'smart' technology.
I can't wait for my car to get jealous the next time me and my date are in the back seat fogging up the windows.
Oh yea, and ocaml also has bytecode, and has an extention that let's it run in the java vm.
http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/editorial.sht ml The programming language shootout gives some more reasons why ocaml is good.
http://www.sdsc.edu/Press/00/010500_topranks.html http://stats.distributed.net/rc5-64/psummary.php3? id=243289 now that is a fast computer
i never said that the current systems worked in the least. i was just pointing out that we have it much better than the majority of people, and we shouldn't have to think twice about doing something that will help out the situation. one has to start somewhere right? if we can't even commit to giving some paltry sum, how can we do anything at all?
Do you people even realize how much difference there is between the third world and the first world? We should do anything we can to raise the lowest common denomonator up to current levels in developed countries. Not just technology transfers, ie internet, but medical, educational, etc. The less of a gap there is, the fewer problems we have as a world population. Stop being so selfish, realize just how darn good we have it in the US, UK, etc. And look at the level of poverty in other places. Remember your humanity and help our fellow people.
if it's still using the bttv card, any of the
normal capture programs work. i use fxtv or some such program. i don't know about the actual teleconferencing part though, i've never tried it.
There is a package called rsynth available over at the FreeBSD ports site. It works well enough to understand most of what it says.