I mean, other than for the thrill of finally doing it themselves, and for other various touristic purposes (look, ma, a picture!), why should they bother planning this event? I mean, I know I sound like an opressor, with the whole it's-already-been-done-why-reinvent-the-wheel slide to things, but it does seem a mightly large expenditure of efforts, money, and minds to get this together, unless they can send some of their less-great Engineers to do it (and save the top notchers for other more exciting research), and unless they just happen to have money lying around, and unless there really is a tactical/intellectual advantage here.
I also realize that this is merely an idea to plan an unmanned mission, but that's what makes my point evern stronger! I mean, Unmanned! geez!! that's such an old idea! I have to wonder why they recently decided to do this and didn't (as far as I know, and I know i'm not an expert at all) try at it before. Geezy wheezy! It makes the head spin. What I don't understand is the motivation, and, as many other critics have suggested, the supposed knowledge to be gained from such an endeavor. why not instead shoot for something more than unmanned. yes, yes, I know - if you've never done it before, work your way up. but also, if everyone else has done that, do something they haven't done!
If they're taking that stance on things, they might as well go ahead and commit themselves to a hospital for all the other diseases they know they're going to get. ;-)
I agree - I think that, if they must use this (i.e., get/send email while underwater) that they only do it when absolutely necessary - an event which I would find unlikely because heck, they've lived without it for this long!
I just hope that we don't do something drastic and stress out (further, of course, knowing that our presence stresses them as it is) a few more innocent species of life (and yes, I realize that I probably sound cheesy, or like I'm preaching from my little soap box. oh well)
Why should they go out and spend $100-400k (depending on whom you talk to) for a new machine that doesn't let them do anything more than they are doing right now for a small fraction of the cost?
They shouldn't (of course, I realize that's what you were hinting at, since your question was rhetorical). I think this is when it gets to the point of being ridiculous - that bigger isn't always better. Of course, if you were building a new theatre, had the money, and the urge, I'd say go ahead and buy all the digital movie projection equipment you wanted to. However, I don't see why theaters in existence should bother. I don't notice problems with movies in theatres now, except for when you can sometimes see where someone needs to reposition the film (you know, when the bottom half of the movie is above the top half).
Oh well, to each his own.. that's just my $0.03 worth.
Images TOO far ahead of or behind the screen will give you eyestrain - because your eyes have to focus at the distance to the screen, but the paralax depth cue says the object is far from the screen. So your eye muscles hunt and get tired.
wow, I must say your post was very interesting.. I sure didn't know all of that stuff, etc, etc.
But what I'm wondering is, what do you mean by images too far ahead of or behind the screen? I'm sorry, I'm just a bit slow at this.. do you mean images that are being attempted in 3-D that are too far in a depth beyond the physical location of the screen? (well, I guess so.) That's interesting.. so, that would mean the image effectively "hits" the screen and can't go any farther back, so wouldn't that kill some of the depth of the image and put things on the same plane that aren't mean to be?
I know this is old, but it reminds me of this guy who made a rust box.... of course, I realize that they're on different levels of innovation (one for looks, the other for functionality) but I suppose nostalgia can have its uses.
On another thought - for the daredevil in us all, why not make a computer case out of bullet proof material? Sure, we're not likely to get in the "line of fire" anytime soon, but with all the "flames" we see, it wouldn't hurt. (ok, so that was really corny.. I'm sorry.)
not that I hold these views, but just to play Devil's Advocate...
they are on shaky moral ground - nature was here first, how can you claim to have invented it?
I agree that humans cannot have claimed to have invented nature, but on the shaky moral ground aspect of your argument, I dare say that the cloners who created Dot (or Dotty?) the sheep were on shaky moral ground, but apparently that didn't stop them.
Well, forgive (and correct) me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft steal [some of] it's GUI [basics] from Apple? (It seems I've heard this many times before.) If so, then that is a more directed evolution that we shouldn't feel so bad about, because, hey, it's Apple and they're not Microsoft! (Sorry.. just had to do it)
Getting to my point, I was thinking that, assuming Microsoft stole/"borrowed" their GUI stuffs from Apple, and since it evolved into what it is now (i.e., the little folder icons, icons in general, etc., etc.) the GNOME folks are following in that evolutionary trend by designing something similar to what people are already used to - though I will admit that the point can be made that not everybody uses Outlook nor will everybody ever. I, for one, don't use Outlook - nor do I wish to. But I can see, on one hand, how this seems to be a logical sort of progression, but on the other hand, I can see how it isn't, because I figure that it's silly to presume that everybody likes/would like the look of Outlook and would want a nice open source alternative to Outlook, which is what this looks like. I guess it's just one of those executive decisions you've got to make when designing a product, and considering the fact that I don't know what variables they had to weigh, I don't know how much of an only choice they may have had... or maybe they just had an of softie for Microsoft on their staff...heh. (just kidding)
How well can we get the guys who did this? Assuming that the company the user actually bought the CPU from is the culprit, then is it likely, you think, that it'll be as open/shut of a case as it seems? (well, I'm just basing that on the evidence apparent: the pics, etc.) If it's not actually the company that's doing it, but someone else along the corporate line between the user and the origin, then I wonder how easily the perpetrator will be found. I think this stinks, and I'd just like to know that something can be done..
? Just imagine: the next time it crashes, you could wrestle to the floor and hold it in a triple-death-headcrush manouver until it promises not to do it again. And best of all,it wouldn't get damaged.
Yeah, you're right.. you could do that.
But then that takes some of the fun out of ripping it to shreds when it finally dies on you.
I mean, I realize that what you're concerned about is whether or not the company has actually built them yet, but I know that it can be done because I know (as I'm sure many of you do - besides the fact that I'm sure many of you have built one yourself) a friend of mine is building himself an MP3 player that he'll put in his car (when he gets one;-). I think it's really neat; right now he's held back by not having the case he wants, and he's got to get a power supply the right size for it. But it's nice that they're on the market now, as long as they're not so over priced, because they'll be targeting people who will have cds of mp3s... which will likely include a lot of people who could and would build their own mp3 player if the Aiwa one is too expensive. So, Aiwa had better watch themselves so they don't lose their market.
I don't think that one "counts" because I remember that, in one of the gospels (my Bible's indisposed at the moment, sorry for not supplying a verse), Jesus was talking with the Pharisees and the conversation went something like this:
Pharisees: Which is better, to sacrifice to God or to pay taxes? (I think that's how it started. If not, it began with something like the Pharisees charging Jesus with not tithing or taxing, one of the two). Jesus: Let me see a coin. Whose face do you see on it? Pharisees: Caesar's Jesus: Then give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's.
So, therefore, it can't be money, because they had it back then when Jesus was here.
I think that it's a great idea. Sure, laptops don't have to be the power equivalents of desktops, but why not have a few kickers at least? For some people (including myself), laptops have a certain aura that make them wanted, plus it's nice to know that you've got a full computer without having to keep up with all the pieces. So why not have a dual? I will admit it sounds yummy to me.
As cheesy as this post may sound (and trollish, for that matter), I agree. And I feel like ranting for a bit.
I think that, yes, patents began as a good thing (tm). People who are/were smart invented cool stuff (or, with respect to relevance of topic, wrote cool code) and wanted to protect it and say "hey, I'm the genius who did that!" Well, that's hunky dory. And sure, some of them were probably poor and needed money off of it so they maybed charged a bit for patent usage. I'm sure that not all of them did and i'm sure not all of them do now (linux? is it patented? *scratches head* I should know the answer to that question. sorry.) Anyway, back to the money - invariably, not everyone will charge, but even if they do, there comes a point when it's ridiculous. I'd say Unisys got there. I'd say Amazon did too. What I'm saying is: please, people, stop being so danged greedy and just do good things. When you do that, we'll be happy you did them, we'll be happy you were smart and insightful enough to do them, and we'll be glad you didn't go make a fuss just because you did them. The quality of your work can speak for itself, don't go charging unthinkable fees for it, and don't go patenting your left toe because you're the only one who's got it.
Phew. That's over with. Thanks everyone. Just my $0.02 worth. (Maybe someone should patent that too; they'd get a ton o' $ if they enforced it.)
You are free, I believe, to release a non-working version of a product
I certainly hope so. Not that I would want someone to begin distributing products that don't work, but honestly, can't you distribute what you dang well please as long as the product isn't illegal and you're not doing it in an illegal way? Of course I realize that [one of] the questions here is whether or not it's actually illegal to distribute non-working product but I firgure you can, simply because you're free to make it, even if you have to/do want to make it non-working. I would especially agree you're in the clear if you tell people that it doesn't work.
I mean, one of the purposes of distributed computing (well, at least in trying to crack algorithms) is that you're distributing "product" that doesn't work... trying to find some that does! (well, in a whacky sort of way)
another government of people who fear and fail to understand technology.
Not to mention the fact that by bringing this up as an issue, the Japanese government is broadcasting this idea to everyone, bringing it into the awareness of all of the people who could/would possible try to use it as such (or, more realistically, something else equally as "dangerous") - people who might or might not have already known about it, but sure as heck do now.
If they really didn't want people to use it as such, they could've come up with some other excuse, or just have forgotten the whole issue and let them slide. I mean, if you're dealing with missiles/nuclear weapons/stuff like that, you're dealing with expensive stuff and so I figure it wouldn't be out of your budget to have actually bought something made for that purpose rather than trying to buy a Playstation 2 and use it as your targeting device.
So university departments try very, very hard to spend every last dime, because if they don't, they'll have a lot less dimes to spend next year.
That, I doubt not, is true. But, using free software may not be so bad because, since the department isn't having to spend all that money buying software, the department can use it to buy more equipment/upgrade existing equipemnt, buy more printed materials, expand, etc..
In other words, they can catch up on all of the things that they haven't been able to catch up on due to having to dish out money for software, etc.
Heck, they could send me the money and I'll find something to do with it.;-)
I agree - I figured it was a bunch of hot air when I started getting to the bottom of it. They want to hold a repository and attempt to evaluate people's work and give them shares? Bah! How can you compare work done by people to one another? In one way, it seems easy, I'm sure, but OTOH, it seems like you're trying to compare apples to oranges. And then I've got to think that they don't really know what they're doing, with this whole "shares" thing and "oh, we'll let them work on further projects if needed" and something about "resumes for future jobs." bah!
Yes! Wouldn't that be wonderful? Then it'd be easy to network a house and have it running seamlessly together, if we only had such an illustrious OS installed. (heh)
But honestly, it'd be neat if they actually had an idea of what the source code for an OS like that would be like, and if they'd release it. We could make a Star Trek distro of Linux!
So what use is this to steal? Just to say you did it?
For that matter, why do criminals ever do the things they do? But yes, I agree with your point. There is no "logic" in the theft of this artifact because it's something that will be easily spotted wherever it is taken, because I'm going to assume that since it was stolen, the person who stole it knows that it's something very worthwhile to have and will therefore not just take it anywhere and leave it on a street corner when they find out it doesn't "do" much. Therefore, as you/we've speculated, it'll be spotted and - tada! - found. (Well, I certainly hope so.)
Or, to continue wildly speculating about the topic, the person could've stolen it just to:
see the reaction
see how long it would take it to be found
(in combination with above) test the skills of the Bletchley Park (sorry if it's misspelled) folks as they try to "decrypt" the location of the machine
because they knew they could (well, they did, didn't they? - and yes, I know this one's already been mentioned)
incite people like me to make speculations like these
The thief may, however, have a way to sell the piece if they know someone who's willing to "walk on the wild side" and buy the thing because they've got the money and figure that, as rich as they may/may not be, no one will ever come 'round and find them.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, other than for the thrill of finally doing it themselves, and for other various touristic purposes (look, ma, a picture!), why should they bother planning this event? I mean, I know I sound like an opressor, with the whole it's-already-been-done-why-reinvent-the-wheel slide to things, but it does seem a mightly large expenditure of efforts, money, and minds to get this together, unless they can send some of their less-great Engineers to do it (and save the top notchers for other more exciting research), and unless they just happen to have money lying around, and unless there really is a tactical/intellectual advantage here.
I also realize that this is merely an idea to plan an unmanned mission, but that's what makes my point evern stronger! I mean, Unmanned! geez!! that's such an old idea! I have to wonder why they recently decided to do this and didn't (as far as I know, and I know i'm not an expert at all) try at it before. Geezy wheezy! It makes the head spin. What I don't understand is the motivation, and, as many other critics have suggested, the supposed knowledge to be gained from such an endeavor. why not instead shoot for something more than unmanned. yes, yes, I know - if you've never done it before, work your way up. but also, if everyone else has done that, do something they haven't done!
well, enough of my rambling, I'm sure
They were obviously trying to get more Karma.. that's it.
Everything we ever do is merely a ploy to get more Karma..
;-)
If they're taking that stance on things, they might
as well go ahead and commit themselves to a hospital for all the other diseases they know they're going to get.
;-)
I agree - I think that, if they must use this (i.e., get/send email while underwater) that they only do it when absolutely necessary - an event which I would find unlikely because heck, they've lived without it for this long!
I just hope that we don't do something drastic and stress out (further, of course, knowing that our presence stresses them as it is) a few more innocent species of life (and yes, I realize that I probably sound cheesy, or like I'm preaching from my little soap box. oh well)
Why should they go out and spend $100-400k (depending on whom you talk to) for a new machine that doesn't let them do anything more than they are doing right now for a small fraction of the cost?
They shouldn't (of course, I realize that's what you were hinting at, since your question was rhetorical).
I think this is when it gets to the point of being ridiculous - that bigger isn't always better. Of course, if you were building a new theatre, had the money, and the urge, I'd say go ahead and buy all the digital movie projection equipment you wanted to. However, I don't see why theaters in existence should bother. I don't notice problems with movies in theatres now, except for when you can sometimes see where someone needs to reposition the film (you know, when the bottom half of the movie is above the top half).
Oh well, to each his own.. that's just my $0.03 worth.
Images TOO far ahead of or behind the screen will give you eyestrain - because your eyes have to focus at the distance to the screen, but the paralax depth cue says the object is far from the screen. So your eye muscles hunt and get tired.
wow, I must say your post was very interesting.. I sure didn't know all of that stuff, etc, etc.
But what I'm wondering is, what do you mean by images too far ahead of or behind the screen?
I'm sorry, I'm just a bit slow at this.. do you mean images that are being attempted in 3-D that are too far in a depth beyond the physical location of the screen? (well, I guess so.) That's interesting.. so, that would mean the image effectively "hits" the screen and can't go any farther back, so wouldn't that kill some of the depth of the image and put things on the same plane that aren't mean to be?
I know this is old, but it reminds me of this guy who made a rust box.... of course, I realize that they're on different levels of innovation (one for looks, the other for functionality) but I suppose nostalgia can have its uses.
On another thought - for the daredevil in us all, why not make a computer case out of bullet proof material? Sure, we're not likely to get in the "line of fire" anytime soon, but with all the "flames" we see, it wouldn't hurt. (ok, so that was really corny.. I'm sorry.)
root.is.god.
or did they?
And I, Duron, shall journey forth to the demonous land of Redmond, smite thee forlorn Iridium, and save the dame Williamette!
not that I hold these views, but just to play Devil's Advocate...
they are on shaky moral ground - nature was here first, how can you claim to have invented it?
I agree that humans cannot have claimed to have invented nature, but on the shaky moral ground aspect of your argument, I dare say that the cloners who created Dot (or Dotty?) the sheep were on shaky moral ground, but apparently that didn't stop them.
I only hope that something can stop these people.
Well, forgive (and correct) me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft steal [some of] it's GUI [basics] from Apple? (It seems I've heard this many times before.) If so, then that is a more directed evolution that we shouldn't feel so bad about, because, hey, it's Apple and they're not Microsoft! (Sorry.. just had to do it)
Getting to my point, I was thinking that, assuming Microsoft stole/"borrowed" their GUI stuffs from Apple, and since it evolved into what it is now (i.e., the little folder icons, icons in general, etc., etc.) the GNOME folks are following in that evolutionary trend by designing something similar to what people are already used to - though I will admit that the point can be made that not everybody uses Outlook nor will everybody ever. I, for one, don't use Outlook - nor do I wish to. But I can see, on one hand, how this seems to be a logical sort of progression, but on the other hand, I can see how it isn't, because I figure that it's silly to presume that everybody likes/would like the look of Outlook and would want a nice open source alternative to Outlook, which is what this looks like. I guess it's just one of those executive decisions you've got to make when designing a product, and considering the fact that I don't know what variables they had to weigh, I don't know how much of an only choice they may have had... or maybe they just had an of softie for Microsoft on their staff...heh. (just kidding)
How well can we get the guys who did this? Assuming that the company the user actually bought the CPU from is the culprit, then is it likely, you think, that it'll be as open/shut of a case as it seems? (well, I'm just basing that on the evidence apparent: the pics, etc.) If it's not actually the company that's doing it, but someone else along the corporate line between the user and the origin, then I wonder how easily the perpetrator will be found. I think this stinks, and I'd just like to know that something can be done..
? Just imagine: the next time it crashes, you could wrestle to the floor and hold it in a triple-death-headcrush manouver until it promises not to do it again. And best of all,it wouldn't get damaged.
Yeah, you're right.. you could do that.
But then that takes some of the fun out of ripping it to shreds when it finally dies on you.
I mean, I realize that what you're concerned about is whether or not the company has actually built them yet, but I know that it can be done because I know (as I'm sure many of you do - besides the fact that I'm sure many of you have built one yourself) a friend of mine is building himself an MP3 player that he'll put in his car (when he gets one ;-). I think it's really neat; right now he's held back by not having the case he wants, and he's got to get a power supply the right size for it. But it's nice that they're on the market now, as long as they're not so over priced, because they'll be targeting people who will have cds of mp3s... which will likely include a lot of people who could and would build their own mp3 player if the Aiwa one is too expensive. So, Aiwa had better watch themselves so they don't lose their market.
I don't think that one "counts" because I remember that, in one of the gospels (my Bible's indisposed at the moment, sorry for not supplying a verse), Jesus was talking with the Pharisees and the conversation went something like this:
Pharisees: Which is better, to sacrifice to God or to pay taxes? (I think that's how it started. If not, it began with something like the Pharisees charging Jesus with not tithing or taxing, one of the two).
Jesus: Let me see a coin.
Whose face do you see on it?
Pharisees: Caesar's
Jesus: Then give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's.
So, therefore, it can't be money, because they had it back then when Jesus was here.
I think that it's a great idea. Sure, laptops don't have to be the power equivalents of desktops, but why not have a few kickers at least? For some people (including myself), laptops have a certain aura that make them wanted, plus it's nice to know that you've got a full computer without having to keep up with all the pieces. So why not have a dual? I will admit it sounds yummy to me.
I didn't mean that your post was cheesy, but that mine was. I'm sorry!
this damn patent nonsense must stop.
As cheesy as this post may sound (and trollish, for that matter), I agree. And I feel like ranting for a bit.
I think that, yes, patents began as a good thing (tm). People who are/were smart invented cool stuff (or, with respect to relevance of topic, wrote cool code) and wanted to protect it and say "hey, I'm the genius who did that!" Well, that's hunky dory. And sure, some of them were probably poor and needed money off of it so they maybed charged a bit for patent usage. I'm sure that not all of them did and i'm sure not all of them do now (linux? is it patented? *scratches head* I should know the answer to that question. sorry.)
Anyway, back to the money - invariably, not everyone will charge, but even if they do, there comes a point when it's ridiculous. I'd say Unisys got there. I'd say Amazon did too. What I'm saying is: please, people, stop being so danged greedy and just do good things. When you do that, we'll be happy you did them, we'll be happy you were smart and insightful enough to do them, and we'll be glad you didn't go make a fuss just because you did them. The quality of your work can speak for itself, don't go charging unthinkable fees for it, and don't go patenting your left toe because you're the only one who's got it.
Phew. That's over with. Thanks everyone.
Just my $0.02 worth. (Maybe someone should patent that too; they'd get a ton o' $ if they enforced it.)
You are free, I believe, to release a non-working version of a product
I certainly hope so. Not that I would want someone to begin distributing products that don't work, but honestly, can't you distribute what you dang well please as long as the product isn't illegal and you're not doing it in an illegal way? Of course I realize that [one of] the questions here is whether or not it's actually illegal to distribute non-working product but I firgure you can, simply because you're free to make it, even if you have to/do want to make it non-working. I would especially agree you're in the clear if you tell people that it doesn't work.
I mean, one of the purposes of distributed computing (well, at least in trying to crack algorithms) is that you're distributing "product" that doesn't work... trying to find some that does! (well, in a whacky sort of way)
"Imagine a Beowful cluster of these babies!"
Or, at least another one, so you could actually play against someone.
another government of people who fear and fail to understand technology.
Not to mention the fact that by bringing this up as an issue, the Japanese government is broadcasting this idea to everyone, bringing it into the awareness of all of the people who could/would possible try to use it as such (or, more realistically, something else equally as "dangerous") - people who might or might not have already known about it, but sure as heck do now.
If they really didn't want people to use it as such, they could've come up with some other excuse, or just have forgotten the whole issue and let them slide. I mean, if you're dealing with missiles/nuclear weapons/stuff like that, you're dealing with expensive stuff and so I figure it wouldn't be out of your budget to have actually bought something made for that purpose rather than trying to buy a Playstation 2 and use it as your targeting device.
I mean, come on people!
So university departments try very, very hard to spend every last dime, because if they don't, they'll have a lot less dimes to spend next year.
;-)
That, I doubt not, is true. But, using free software may not be so bad because, since the department isn't having to spend all that money buying software, the department can use it to buy more equipment/upgrade existing equipemnt, buy more printed materials, expand, etc..
In other words, they can catch up on all of the things that they haven't been able to catch up on due to having to dish out money for software, etc.
Heck, they could send me the money and I'll find something to do with it.
I agree - I figured it was a bunch of hot air when I started getting to the bottom of it. They want to hold a repository and attempt to evaluate people's work and give them shares? Bah! How can you compare work done by people to one another? In one way, it seems easy, I'm sure, but OTOH, it seems like you're trying to compare apples to oranges. And then I've got to think that they don't really know what they're doing, with this whole "shares" thing and "oh, we'll let them work on further projects if needed" and something about "resumes for future jobs." bah!
release the source code for their Starships' OS.
Yes! Wouldn't that be wonderful? Then it'd be easy to network a house and have it running seamlessly together, if we only had such an illustrious OS installed. (heh)
But honestly, it'd be neat if they actually had an idea of what the source code for an OS like that would be like, and if they'd release it. We could make a Star Trek distro of Linux!
For that matter, why do criminals ever do the things they do?
But yes, I agree with your point. There is no "logic" in the theft of this artifact because it's something that will be easily spotted wherever it is taken, because I'm going to assume that since it was stolen, the person who stole it knows that it's something very worthwhile to have and will therefore not just take it anywhere and leave it on a street corner when they find out it doesn't "do" much. Therefore, as you/we've speculated, it'll be spotted and - tada! - found. (Well, I certainly hope so.)
Or, to continue wildly speculating about the topic, the person could've stolen it just to:
see the reaction
see how long it would take it to be found
(in combination with above) test the skills of the Bletchley Park (sorry if it's misspelled) folks as they try to "decrypt" the location of the machine
because they knew they could (well, they did, didn't they? - and yes, I know this one's already been mentioned)
incite people like me to make speculations like these
The thief may, however, have a way to sell the piece if they know someone who's willing to "walk on the wild side" and buy the thing because they've got the money and figure that, as rich as they may/may not be, no one will ever come 'round and find them.
Then again, I figure I'm just rambling now...