I can't believe I'm writing this. Note I haven't seen the episode in question.
However!
The reason you can't write on atoms is tht there isn't any "thing" to write on! Atoms are clouds of electrons zipping around a (to your eye if you could see them, which can't precisely) loosely knit bunch of neutrons and protons.
Electrons don't stand still to be written on. And altering the contents of an atoms simply changes it into another element.
Gluons, Quarks, neutrinos, etc. also need to keep moving as well. Quarks don't float about by themselves and you couldn't line them up to spell anything out on an atom anyway. Gluons and neutrinos are inapropriate for this as well.
Molucule sized writing is much more realistic and as you say, has been done.
Addressing the issue of technobabble in all the ST series; How many episodes was the resolution to a problem suddenly found via science, solving all problems, letting the writers off the hook. I call this disease the "sonic screwdriver syndrom" after some 3rd and 4th regeneration Doctor Who writers abused the sonic screw drivers.
Using words like "Plasma Conduit" isn't the problem. "Reversing the stream of Tachyon emissions to cause an overload" is. Doing this occassionally could be overlooked, but some episodes are nothing more than a massive showcase for the writer's lack of technical care or understanding.
The ST:TOS usually took care that technology never became the main point of the story. If something unusual was needed, then it became the result of "higher technology" and was treated as magic. ST:TNG would try to even explain this stuff, but it isn't important to the story! Star Wars's technology is incidental. You could replace it with knights, swords, horses and magic spells and it would still work.
Can you imagine Jordy, the Magician theorizing about the newt-eye/bat-wing ratio of a potion and not be board by it? Of course, like anything you could do this in moderation, but you can't build a plot around talking about hypothetical technology or magic.
The advantage of ST of course is that the next episode might be better. Star Wars only has a few "episodes" (4). But even if last weeks Star Trek episode sucks, next weeks may rock.
I suspect that what the RIAA is talking about, in their Dave Matthews Band paragraph is that if a song in ripped with a non-phase 2 product, that the p2 players will allow it to run (where before RIAA said it wouldn't).
However, if you rip something with a new phase 2 product, then it'll not work in any p2 device. Presumably, there would be a way to let it work on yours.
So this implies that you can side-step this if
Use an older encoder.
Use a non-p2 player.
All "pirates" use the same ID on the players and when ripping the song.
This is just silly, in my opinion. The new p2 players would have to be superior to the non-p2 player for people to want to buy them. I'm willing to bet that even after "p2" you'll still find people selling non-p2 players and such.
I sure am not going to throw away the mp3 stuff I have now and re-invest in new p2 players and encoders. My current stuff works fine, sounds great.
Is this stuff even enforcable? I don't think it is, but IANAL.
Regarding the Economist's editorial, I can't say I agree with their analysis: They don't take into consideration ergonomics, the cost if dvorak or qwerty is learned from the start, and the fact that there are no unbiased studies showing one is better than the other. (The GSA study was biased, Mr. Strong had an investment in QWERTY, having put lots of effort into improving/using it).
It is easily shown that that the dvorak keyboard moves the more commonly used keys under the stronger fingers, important to prevent RSI. In addition, the alteration of keys is much better than the QWERTY keyboard, important for speed. (The QWERTY keyboard has this property too, but they keys are on the weakest fingers. This is the accidental benifit mentioned by the economist, tho it possibly risks injury.)
Even Sholes thought that the original keyboard needed improvement, having taken out a patent on this keyboard: X P M C H R T N S D G K J B W F L A E I O U Y Q V (punctuation goes here) Notice that the vowels are under one hand and that most common words would alternate well.
Regarding Dvorak being baised; I think not. The book, Typewriting Behavior: Psychology Applied to Teaching and Learning Typewriting , is authored by four people (Dvorak being only one) and consists of information pertinent to all aspects of typing. In fact, the Dvorak keyboard is only called the simplified keyboard at this point. The book cites several hundred case studies. This book is the result of the $130,000 dollars from the Carnegie Commission for Education.
This is the quintessential book for understanding how humans use keyboards. There isn't anything like it since (tho some have built upon it).
Finally, I have to state my opinion on Economists in general; Most don't know simple math. A good explination of what I mean can be seen on AdBusters'Economists Must Learn to Subtract. This wouldn't be the first time an economist was unable to see past the obvious dollars. Why should they worry about the pain a person will have, later in life? Especially if they can fire that person first?
Economics is currently where physics was in ancient greece. We know a few concepts, one or two working formula, but we're missing huge chunks. Human health, long term viability and quality of living are all left out.
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure I'll get at least one colorful response. Oh, BTW, CmdrTaco, what irks you about the QWERTY origin story/mythos? That dvorak is touted as better for speed? That dvorak is possibly better for your hands? Or that it acts as a possible exception or counter-proof for current economic theory?
Personally, I'm only interested in ease of use and my precious wrists. And since dvorak makes my wrists feel better (even now that I'm back to my QWERTY speed) and switching most systems to dvorak is trivial....
I don't buy that direct democracy doesn't work. I'm not sure that it does work well, but I can't believe that it doesn't.
In other (non-US) countries, there is a much higher voter turn outs, voters make efforts to educate themselves with the issues and vote smartly. It appears that this isn't a hard and fast rule but is rather based upon the culture.
The US obviously convinced its self that democracy doesn't work; as shown by extreamly low voter turn out.
Before I sign off, I'd like to add that I think that excessive calls for votes, or voting for every little detail, would probably fail outright. If not from burn out, then from eventual apathy as many topics would appear unimportant.
Using the theory that anyone who wants to be a moderator is unfit to be a moderator; I would like to suggest that moderators are picked 100% at random.
As one poster pointed out, we're playing with statistics here, anyway. We cannot hope for perfect moderation, anyway. And as SlashDot becomes bigger, then we will need moderator-moderators (meta-moderators) to watch and remove improper moderators.
Slashdot is only as good as it's contributors, anyway. So I think that everyone should have a nearly equal chance to be picked as a moderator for a month. I wouldn't eliminate people from the running for appearing useless, even the "I'm first" posters.
You never know, the guy who was driving everone nuts with inane comments might gain some respect for the job of the moderators and the importance of being useful, and contribute in ways we can't dream of.
If a person is forced to choose to moderate or post exclusively, the I would fear that someone would moderate with the goal of making their feelings on the subject clear.
I'm not saying this is deliberate, but that moderators are human and are not given extensive training to understand their own motivations for their actions.
So, I'd like to suggest the following: That a moderator be allowed to either post or moderate on thread level. If a someone posts on a thread then that person cannot moderate on any subthread posts or on any posts at the level of the parent post.
This would help keep things in balance, eliminate some potential conflict of interests, and not ban these people entirely from discussions they are interested in or knowledgeable. Note also, this can still block out a person's ability to moderate for an entire article if they post at the root or child of root level!
From: The Doctor What To: support@cddb.com Subject: Please remove my entries
I have submitted entries to CDDB in the past, however, upon checking your web-page I see that you have added a section saying that any entries into the database become your property.
I never have (and never will) agree to these terms. I added my data, in good faith, with the idea that it is free (like speech) not restricted or owned.
Since this policy is different then it was when I entered CD data, I fully expect you to remove all the data entered under my email addresses: docwhat@gerf.org and docwhat@uiuc.edu
Thank you for your co-operation, Christian Holtje
-- "There are monkey boys in the facility." --Yoyodyne Comm System (Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai)
The Doctor What: "What, Doctor What" http://www.gerf.org/~docwhat/ docwhat@gerf.org (finger docwhat@gerf.org for PGP key)
Slashdot Mirror
However!
The reason you can't write on atoms is tht there isn't any "thing" to write on! Atoms are clouds of electrons zipping around a (to your eye if you could see them, which can't precisely) loosely knit bunch of neutrons and protons.
Electrons don't stand still to be written on. And altering the contents of an atoms simply changes it into another element.
Gluons, Quarks, neutrinos, etc. also need to keep moving as well. Quarks don't float about by themselves and you couldn't line them up to spell anything out on an atom anyway. Gluons and neutrinos are inapropriate for this as well.
Molucule sized writing is much more realistic and as you say, has been done.
Addressing the issue of technobabble in all the ST series; How many episodes was the resolution to a problem suddenly found via science, solving all problems, letting the writers off the hook. I call this disease the "sonic screwdriver syndrom" after some 3rd and 4th regeneration Doctor Who writers abused the sonic screw drivers.
Using words like "Plasma Conduit" isn't the problem. "Reversing the stream of Tachyon emissions to cause an overload" is. Doing this occassionally could be overlooked, but some episodes are nothing more than a massive showcase for the writer's lack of technical care or understanding.
The ST:TOS usually took care that technology never became the main point of the story. If something unusual was needed, then it became the result of "higher technology" and was treated as magic. ST:TNG would try to even explain this stuff, but it isn't important to the story! Star Wars's technology is incidental. You could replace it with knights, swords, horses and magic spells and it would still work.
Can you imagine Jordy, the Magician theorizing about the newt-eye/bat-wing ratio of a potion and not be board by it? Of course, like anything you could do this in moderation, but you can't build a plot around talking about hypothetical technology or magic.
The advantage of ST of course is that the next episode might be better. Star Wars only has a few "episodes" (4). But even if last weeks Star Trek episode sucks, next weeks may rock.
Anyway, gotta go, pardon the errors.
Ciao!
However, if you rip something with a new phase 2 product, then it'll not work in any p2 device. Presumably, there would be a way to let it work on yours.
So this implies that you can side-step this if
This is just silly, in my opinion. The new p2 players would have to be superior to the non-p2 player for people to want to buy them. I'm willing to bet that even after "p2" you'll still find people selling non-p2 players and such.
I sure am not going to throw away the mp3 stuff I have now and re-invest in new p2 players and encoders. My current stuff works fine, sounds great.
Is this stuff even enforcable? I don't think it is, but IANAL.
Ciao!
Mr. Brooks has some good comments about Dvorak vs. QWERTY, including comments on why the Liebowitz and Margolis article isn't exactly proof that dvorak isn't better. He goes over each of the major points of their article.
Regarding the Economist's editorial, I can't say I agree with their analysis: They don't take into consideration ergonomics, the cost if dvorak or qwerty is learned from the start, and the fact that there are no unbiased studies showing one is better than the other. (The GSA study was biased, Mr. Strong had an investment in QWERTY, having put lots of effort into improving/using it).
It is easily shown that that the dvorak keyboard moves the more commonly used keys under the stronger fingers, important to prevent RSI. In addition, the alteration of keys is much better than the QWERTY keyboard, important for speed. (The QWERTY keyboard has this property too, but they keys are on the weakest fingers. This is the accidental benifit mentioned by the economist, tho it possibly risks injury.)
Even Sholes thought that the original keyboard needed improvement, having taken out a patent on this keyboard:
X P M C H R T N S D G K
J B W F L A E I O U Y
Q V (punctuation goes here)
Notice that the vowels are under one hand and that most common words would alternate well.
Regarding Dvorak being baised; I think not. The book, Typewriting Behavior: Psychology Applied to Teaching and Learning Typewriting , is authored by four people (Dvorak being only one) and consists of information pertinent to all aspects of typing. In fact, the Dvorak keyboard is only called the simplified keyboard at this point. The book cites several hundred case studies. This book is the result of the $130,000 dollars from the Carnegie Commission for Education.
This is the quintessential book for understanding how humans use keyboards. There isn't anything like it since (tho some have built upon it).
Finally, I have to state my opinion on Economists in general; Most don't know simple math. A good explination of what I mean can be seen on AdBusters' Economists Must Learn to Subtract . This wouldn't be the first time an economist was unable to see past the obvious dollars. Why should they worry about the pain a person will have, later in life? Especially if they can fire that person first?
Economics is currently where physics was in ancient greece. We know a few concepts, one or two working formula, but we're missing huge chunks. Human health, long term viability and quality of living are all left out.
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure I'll get at least one colorful response. Oh, BTW, CmdrTaco, what irks you about the QWERTY origin story/mythos? That dvorak is touted as better for speed? That dvorak is possibly better for your hands? Or that it acts as a possible exception or counter-proof for current economic theory?
Personally, I'm only interested in ease of use and my precious wrists. And since dvorak makes my wrists feel better (even now that I'm back to my QWERTY speed) and switching most systems to dvorak is trivial....
Ciao!
In other (non-US) countries, there is a much higher voter turn outs, voters make efforts to educate themselves with the issues and vote smartly. It appears that this isn't a hard and fast rule but is rather based upon the culture.
The US obviously convinced its self that democracy doesn't work; as shown by extreamly low voter turn out.
Before I sign off, I'd like to add that I think that excessive calls for votes, or voting for every little detail, would probably fail outright. If not from burn out, then from eventual apathy as many topics would appear unimportant.
As one poster pointed out, we're playing with statistics here, anyway. We cannot hope for perfect moderation, anyway. And as SlashDot becomes bigger, then we will need moderator-moderators (meta-moderators) to watch and remove improper moderators.
Slashdot is only as good as it's contributors, anyway. So I think that everyone should have a nearly equal chance to be picked as a moderator for a month. I wouldn't eliminate people from the running for appearing useless, even the "I'm first" posters.
You never know, the guy who was driving everone nuts with inane comments might gain some respect for the job of the moderators and the importance of being useful, and contribute in ways we can't dream of.
I'm not saying this is deliberate, but that moderators are human and are not given extensive training to understand their own motivations for their actions.
So, I'd like to suggest the following:
That a moderator be allowed to either post or moderate on thread level. If a someone posts on a thread then that person cannot moderate on any subthread posts or on any posts at the level of the parent post.
This would help keep things in balance, eliminate some potential conflict of interests, and not ban these people entirely from discussions they are interested in or knowledgeable. Note also, this can still block out a person's ability to moderate for an entire article if they post at the root or child of root level!
Just curious.
From: The Doctor What
To: support@cddb.com
Subject: Please remove my entries
I have submitted entries to CDDB in the past, however, upon checking your
web-page I see that you have added a section saying that any entries into
the database become your property.
I never have (and never will) agree to these terms. I added my data, in
good faith, with the idea that it is free (like speech) not restricted or owned.
Since this policy is different then it was when I entered CD data, I fully
expect you to remove all the data entered under my email addresses:
docwhat@gerf.org
and
docwhat@uiuc.edu
Thank you for your co-operation,
Christian Holtje
--
"There are monkey boys in the facility."
--Yoyodyne Comm System (Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai)
The Doctor What: "What, Doctor What" http://www.gerf.org/~docwhat/
docwhat@gerf.org (finger docwhat@gerf.org for PGP key)