This doesn't mean that they are stupid, only that they are non-rational
This irrationality, if it continues for much longer, will be the death of the human race. It sickens me to see it continue, here in the 21st century. I am currently reading a book (don't remember the title exactly - something like "Descartes' Secret Notebook"), which I haven't finished yet, in which the author gives a biographical account of Descartes' life, and his struggle against irrationality in the face of the Inquisition. For instance, he wrote a book named "Le Monde", which backed up Gallileo's assertions about bodies in motion, especially that concerning heliocentric theory - but didn't publish it (it wasn't published until after his death) for fear that he would end up in the same situation as his contemporary. Letters between him and Mersenne (a Catholic monk, whom he was close friends with), reveal how Descartes had to couch his language in such a manner so as not to possibly bring the wrath of the Church down upon him (it is twisted to see - he wants to confide in his friend, but at the same time realizes his friend might sell him out). Basically, the book is about what may (or was?) contained in another book, now lost, that Descartes wrote but never published, of which we have but a fragment which was copied by Leibniz (IIRC), after he pursuaded the keeper of the original book (who was entrusted with it after Descartes death) to let him look at it. What was in that original book we may never really know, but the author of the book I am reading details a bunch of twists and turns. It seems a tragic tale. At the same time, a glimpse of the man who was Descartes reveals him to be an amazing character who had many interesting journeys in life.
Will we lose another secret "notebook" this time around? Are there geneticists today who are couching their language, fearing another similar Inquisition? What will we lose, and why, oh why, are we so willing to lose it?! One would think we had learned our lesson after 300+ years!
This, to me, just seems so odd. I think it is because we are seeing (yet another) conflict between what we expect in meatspace, colliding with what is possible in virtual space. I have never played SL (or any other similar MMORPG, for that matter), but I understand what is going on: I have played around with and read enough about virtual worlds and such since 1992 or thereabout, and I have read most of Gibson's and other's works - so I understand what is being done.
What I don't understand, or at least I am having trouble forming it into words...let me see...
In real life (meatspace), we have property, buildings, things, people, and means of transportation, some fast, some not-so-fast, and some slow. Typically, the faster you need to go, and the further the distance, costs more money. If you are rich, you can go fast for long distances (extreme example, think Concorde). If you are poor, you can only go slow for short distances (extreme example, walking your goat to the market). Many people are in the middle somewhere. People can own property, buildings, and things, but these items occupy space, and thus value is placed on them by their location (relative to each other), size, and distance between each other. We end up with real world spaces that are seemingly valued more than other real world spaces (malls, suburbs, airports, downtown offices, etc). Regardless, we end up with distances it takes to travel to these places. Everything is constrained, it is real world. No matter how wealthy you are, you can't travel instantly between two points.
Enter the virtual world that most of us know: the internet. Here, there is no such thing as "space" - ultimately, you are only constrained by bandwidth and the size of a hard drive. The playing field is almost level (and it would be completely level if we had something closer to "peering" with our ISP's as users, instead of the assymetric drivel most of us are stuck with). Yes, there are currently things that make us continue with inequalities - more bandwidth costs more money, larger hard drives cost more, faster servers (or having hosting/colo, whatever - cost even more). Even so, most of us if we wanted to, can and do afford a virtual hosting service with so much bandwidth and a real "presence" on the internet (as a real web site), and it doesn't break the bank. Middle class on the internet is a virtual host (or business DSL and server) and a URL.
There is no concept of space, and travel is instantaneous. A click-to-click "travel" experience. Does this make Google fearful that their web site is no longer worth anything? What about other web site owners? It doesn't seem to. Everyone has a chance, and some are better at marketing themselves than others (a lot of this has to do with meatspace inter-communication as well - and it doesn't even take money - google is known by nearly everyone, but it was all mainly done by word of mouth). On the web, the value of your virtual property doesn't seem to be diminished by the fact that travel is instantaneous (or close enough).
So, why is it bad in Second Life (or other MMORPG games)? Just because things and property and buildings (presence) can now by 3D interactive experiences instead of 2D web pages? Not allowing, or restricting travel in any virtual world is an artificial limitation. Imagine if the only way to get to google was where you had to click through multiple links (imagine getting to any web site like that - it would suck! - imagine not having a URL entry box, or the ability to create bookmarks - it is difficult to imagine, because we have had such a system for so long - and it seems right). Why should there be a concept of space in a virtual world? Virtual worlds should not be constrained by concepts of space, because such a thing is meaningless in the realm of a computer. Think of it this way - in a virtual world, you can have a building the size of a phone booth, but open the door, and go inside, and the interior is the size of a skyscraper! Or up becomes down, left becomes right!
Actually, I did some brief research (google) on this topic not too long ago, after somebody mentioned it on Fark.
There are actually several cargo ship travel agencies out there, that help you book cabins aboard cargo ships all over the world. Plus, there are a few sites detailing what your experience will be like, include FAQs and pictures of ammenities and sights (as such).
The cost is more than flying, but way cheaper than an ocean cruise. It is also (of course) a slower way to get around, but from what I could see, it seemed like a very interesting way to "see the world". Cabins range from "fairly nice" (I have stayed in worse hotels), to "bare minimum" (think something like a train berth). You typically eat in the mess on-board (from what I could see, you could eat with the crew, or with the officers, your choice - on most ships). Be aware, though, that if you decide to go, your "enjoyment" is up to you - you are on a working ship, after all. You might get a room whose view, at best, is that of a wall (or out over) of cargo containers. Officers and crew, if you speak their language, won't have time for idle chatting - and may not even want to talk with you during meals. However, meal time is supposed to be fairly interesting, and depending on the ship, good food. Not much in the way of entertainment, maybe a TV and VCR/DVD player, so bring your own (and a set of voltage converters).
Also, while you might book to embark/disembark for a certain day, the ship may be late or early, so you have to plan around that as well. You also can't bring much in the way of luggage on board with you, either. On the plus side, if you set things up right, you can easily ship your car or motorcycle with you (I know, it seems like that violates the prior luggage rule). All in all, it seems like it would be an interesting way to travel (combine it with backpacking in-country, and you will have a very interesting trip to recall years later, no doubt).
Just google "passenger freighter" and you will find a bunch of info...
$600.00 for this, a "virtual" 105 inch screen at 12 feet. This is crap, people. Marketing crap. More than 10 years gone by on head mounted display design, and all we can still get for anything under $1000.00 - more crap!!! I am sick of it!
First off, don't waste your money on this, unless you want to be disappointed. Not much information was given in the article, but assumming the dimmensions are correct, and the 105 inch virtual size screen they are discussing is the diagonal measurement, and assumming a 4:3 screen ratio (likely), a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (which I admit I could be wrong in, but I don't think so) shows that the view frustum from the eyeball (at 12 feet) results in 32 degree horizontal field-of-view (FOV), and the 20 degree vertical FOV. With a 640x480 VGA LCD (I assume this is what they are using - someone mentioned it, and it seems reasonable), that is 20 pixels per degree visual acuity! Even if they were using an 800x600 SVGA LCD (doubtful), it would still be 25 pixels per degree. I am not going to do the calculations for it (check this PDF here if you want to try), but I know from past experience and reading that this is way worse than "legally blind".
The image this thing displays is probably watchable, if you like viewing through a "toilet paper tube", but it probably won't work well for any textual output (unless the letters are really big), nor will it work for any form of immersion (not a large enough FOV, by far). Augmented reality is mostly out, too, due to both of these issues. Of course, none of these uses are what it is designed for, but every time something like this comes up, I always expect more...
I don't know why - I guess I just expect that since prices have come down on everything else, and quality up, that HMDs and similar devices should somehow follow suit. The parts and design haven't changed much in the past 10+ years. For over $500.00, but under $1000.00 - I expect to be able to get at least 800x600 SVGA at 45 degree horizontal FOV (in a full-size HMD). The VictorMaxx CyberMaxx (NOT the StuntMaster) HMD in the mid-1990's had 640x480 resolution at 51 degrees horizontal FOV, and was priced around $800.00.
I guess I am just expecting way too much. I had hoped that by today we would be much further along than we seem to be in the whole virtual environment playground. I started playing around with this stuff back in 1993 with a hacked StuntMaster and PowerGlove hooked up to my Amiga 1200. Later, I moved to a PC and Rend386. It seemed like everyone was on the verge of virtual reality and the like being "the next big thing", then commercial internet usage came along and seemingly blew it out of the water. Films like Lawnmower Man, while fun to watch, didn't help, because the public's expectations were made higher than what the technology could deliver. Today, we have the rendering engines on everyone's desks (and consoles) to deliver the content needed at desired framerates - any current FPS is proof of that. What we don't have are the I/O devices to immerse the player. Sadly, only a very small minority of players even seem to want full immersion. I have no idea why this is so. I can only speculate that the people who could afford it today remember the poor results of yesterday, and don't adopt it. That, or it is a chicken and egg problem, whereby they don't realize how fun it is to actually be in the game versus watching the game as it progresses. The thing I really don't understand, despite the fact that there are plenty of case-modders, hardware hackers, and an entire internet, is that there doesn't seem to be anybody out there homebrewing their own HMDs from COTS parts. Why is this? Is can't be because the knowleddge has nearly disappeared from the homebrew scene (PCVR Magazine, sadly, is no more) - it certainly hasn't stopped the number of people homebrewing their own video projectors. So, why?
What is equally amazing about Hiroshima is that it proved it was possible (for very low values of possible) to survive a ground-zero detonation. IIRC, there was one survivor in the hospital whose courtyard was effectively ground-zero. Of course, this is with the rather puny (compared to later years and today's nuclear warheads) device used. It is one of several strange stories from Hiroshima that really make you scratch your head. Ultimately, though, with a real nuclear exchange, with the size of warheads we have today, such a war would likely not be very survivable, short or long term...
Any idea if the parts are still there in NY? If you think that maybe they are, you need to send an email to David Geer c/o Servo Magazine. Several issues ago, I approached him with a suggestion about reviewing these machines (the Hardiman suit, especially) and Ralph Mosser (probably mangled the spelling there), as well as the Odetics ODEX-1 robot, which he then wrote articles about. Very informative, but I don't remember if he mentioned anything about a junkyard with the stuff...
I still own my 300 baud modem which I used extensively when I was in the 7th grade to "browse" BBS sites all over my hometown (using a TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with 64k of RAM). Would I go back to it, though? HELL NO! But, sometimes, I miss those days...
Not quite the same as being depressed, but I think some of this "blues" feeling might be the stress of the holiday. My wife and I found that the best way to alleviate the stress of this overcommercialized piece-o-crap that is the holiday season is to simply stop celebrating it! Oh, sure, we tell people "happy holidays" and such, and we really mean it. We also give gifts to the kids and such (not our own - we don't have any - our friends kids. That is another stress reliever - we enjoy kids, as long as we don't have to deal with them when we go home, works great). We just know that for us (and we suspect a lot of other people), just saying "NO" to the holidays has made them so much more easy to deal with.
We don't have to worry about what to get each other for Christmas, whether we have spent too much, or the credit card bills (or lack of money in the checking account) after the binge is over. We don't have to stress about going to the mall (and the tons of people shopping), or making sure a gift is shipped on-time from a seller on Ebay or whatnot. After slogging through them for years, we decided last year (after the 2003 holiday season) it just wasn't for us, and we haven't liked it better. Yeah, the holidays still suck in a manner (too much traffic, and too many people out and about while you just want to do some simple thing like grocery shop), but they are much better now than they have ever been.
As for gifts? Why do we need them? We know we each love each other. We give each other gifts for "no reason at all - just because" throughout the year, and for those things we really want, we just buy them when we want them (if it is a really big purchase, we consult each other and decide). This actually works out really well, and we don't bitch to each other over the crap we buy ourselves. Sometimes, we even manage to find and purchase really cool things, things that our SO would likely never think of, and even if they did, they would never find them. Case in point, earlier this year I managed to purchase (very cheap - $100.00!) an Altair 8800 with a ton of S-100 cards from a junkyard I visit. It needs an assload of work to get it cleaned up and working, but I will eventually get to it. This is something I have wanted for a long time, but outside of a museum I have never seen one, and have only seen them sold on Ebay and other auctions, for WELL over $100.00. It was luck shining on me, and not something my wife would likely ever had found (and even if she did, she probably wouldn't buy it, because frankly it looks like a "piece-o-junk").
We are happy with this arrangement, we enjoy our life together, we don't bitch at each other over purchases like many other couples do, and during the holiday season, we are stress free - and not depressed...
This will probably never be answered, way to late posting, but I am asking in case it is:
Where are the reviews, etc for the "really high end" graphics stuff? Not that I would be able to afford them (I am currently running a GeForce 2 for crap-sake! Meets my needs under Linux, tho), but I would be interested in what is really coming down the pipe. I remember seeing reviews and such (long time back) on graphics processor "boxes" fed via a SCSI channel or such from Evans and Sutherland, which was meant for flight simulators - $25,000+ high-end graphics subsystems, which of course by now have been easily surpassed by common graphics cards.
So, where are these high-end graphics systems now? Do they have some wack card(s) out there that has like quad HDMI outputs, each delivering some ungodly resolution, with textured and lit polygons out the wazoo? Whatever happened to hitting and surpassing the "polygons per second" limit that defined "real world" interaction (this was a big "buzz" to acheive in the VR realm back in the mid-1990's - I don't remember what the limit was off-hand, but it was a pretty big number)?
Lastly, whatever happenned to these old high-end graphics boxes? People had to eventually upgrade, were they just scrapped? I have seen some formerly "high end" VR gear on Ebay, but I have never seen any E & S or other graphics subsystems, beyond old cards like the Wildcat and such. I can only assume that they were too niche-market devices that not many were sold to appear on Ebay much, if at all (similar to 3D position tracking systems from places like Polhemus and Ascension - though even those I have seen and bought off of Ebay before)...
I don't normally "feed trolls", but since you posted as your username and not as AC (not that it means much), I figure maybe you are serious, and really wanted to make a point. So first off, you don't want to be marked "troll"? Part of it was how you wrote your posting. Let's examine the original post:
this doesn't really change the fact that BTX blows and that the only people who even need BTX are the ones running Xeon furnaces even though Opterons that cost the same perform up to twice as fast and produce less heat and use less electricity.
and for the number of ads that are at "thetechzone" i would think they would be able to afford better hosting so there wouldn't be any slashdot effect.
One big run on sentence, with no punctuation, and nary a bit of capitalization makes it sound (when you read it) as if you are saying something quickly and out of breath. The only thing worse would be if you eliminated the spaces. Furthermore, you use an inflamatory word (blows), and you don't back up anything with links to prove your point. So, let's change this. Here is how I would have phrased your post, which likely wouldn't be marked as a troll:
The availability of these cases doesn't change the fact that BTX is a bad form factor. The only users of the form factor tend to be those running Xeons. Had they instead chose a different form factor coupled with Opterons, they likely would have found their servers performing better while producing less heat (thus saving electricity).
Notice the change in tone and wording. Notice the punctuation and capitalization. The links don't go anywhere, but for your assertions to "stick", you would want to supply reference URLs to make your point hold up. Lastly, I eliminated that last line digging at thetechzone's hosting, since it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
These simple changes, had they been performed (or something similar), would likely have garnered your post an "insightful", "interesting", or "informative" rating, up to and including +5 if you supplied the URLs to back up the assertions you were making. Try this next time you post. While everything you post may be the absolute truth, and even if you are an authority on the subject, your post will likely be marked as a troll unless you take your time, and back up your statements...
this doesn't really change the fact that BTX blows and that the only people who even need BTX are the ones running Xeon furnaces even though Opterons that cost the same perform up to twice as fast and produce less heat and use less electricity.
and for the number of ads that are at "thetechzone" i would think they would be able to afford better hosting so there wouldn't be any slashdot effect.
You might want to read Stephen Wolfram's book, "A New Kind of Science", which explores the idea of complexity arising from very simple sets of rules (The Principle of Computational Equivalence). In this book (which, while long, is not too difficult to read - although the appendices will probably leave you scratching your head), he details a very simple set of 6 rules, which he utilizes to show how such simple rules, being used in a 2D cellular automata, can easily give rise to many complex patterns, including that of a UTM (Universal Turing Machine). While it isn't discussed in extreme depth, the topic of DNA is explored, how it may have come to be, etc. No, it doesn't require "magical" thinking, either...
Very late on this - took a look at the phx2600 site - pretty cool. How are things going? I used to meet up with ppl back around 1995-97ish or so when the meets were being held around the Metrocenter area. Maybe someday I will stop in at one of the new meetups - I would love to see how things have changed, etc (though I would probably be the "old man" there)...
There is a partial ban on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.
The truth is closer to:
There is a ban on performing embryonic stem cell research (outside of the few established stem cell lines, most of which are contaminated or otherwise unviable) in a research facility which uses federal funds for any research.
That is where the problem lies. There are plenty of research facilities in the United States, both public and private, willing to do embryonic stem cell research using non-public (ie, non-federal) funding, but because they already do research in other areas (not even related to stem cell research) using federal, public funds, they have been told that if they pursue embryonic stem cell research (outside of those established lines), even with private funding, that the federal funding to their other research projects would be in jeopardy and be cut off.
I only ask this because I grew up in Bakersfield, California in the 1980's when oil drilling there was still pretty big. A friend of my parents had a son who would visit us from time to time (my parents and their family knew each other for a long time), one of his first (of many) jobs he had was working on an oil rig. One day he came over after working in the fields to show us something.
He showed us where a bolt fell off the top of a rig he was working on and hit his steel work helmet. It dented it in about 3/4's inch, just barely before the webbing around his head.
Now, I was kid at the time, and impressed, but I never got the idea that he was lying about that incident, or just making up bullshit for a story. I suppose it is possible, though...
Now, a bullet (depending) isn't likely as big as a bolt, but I would imagine that a large enough calibre bullet would have as much or more mass than a bolt, and tumbling or not, it would be falling from a greater distance. I can't imagine that if it hit you (head, body, or anywhere) that it would just leave a bruise - I would expect more damage than that (and if it hit you on the head, I would expect major damage up to and including death).
Does this seem plausible, or am I completely wrong?
Check out this Wikipedia entry, then visit the Unicomp link (current manufacturer of Model M's). Also, be sure to check out the ClickyKeyboards.com site listed - they sell original Model M keyboards (as well as a USB adapter - w00t!)...
Personally, I think the Gaia Theory got spun weird because when the theory was developed, the theory of emergence and chaos theory weren't yet well formed. Since understanding of these two theories are preresquisite to understanding what Gaia is really about, but they weren't yet ready, mysticism and "religion" of "mother goddess" and other nonsense quickly set in.
Even so, the idea is sound, if you look at it from the point of chaos theory, emergence, and network theory.
Essentially, Gaia is the idea that the Earth, in and of itself, is an emergent phenomenon being, whose base parts are composed of everything on the earth interacting with network effects (feedback loops and such). This "being", if it truely exists, is barely more fathomable to us than the human is to a skin cell (or neuron, if you prefer). We have the advantage over a skin cell in that we ourselves are emergent phenomena beings full of networking effects. We also have smaller such beings which we are only now beginning to study, in the form of bureucracies (ie, governments and corporations). Whether the Gaia theory is true or not is up for debate, but we have plenty of precedents to show it might be true.
What is really amazing is when you consider that intelligence (and in more complex forms, sentience) seem to require feedback and network effects, in order to emerge from the base set of nodes (whatever those nodes are). At a very base level, we have atoms and atomic interaction (actually, it goes below this into sub-atomic particles, etc), building up into molecules, to cells, to organisms, to colonies, to insects/animals, to humans, to bureaucracies, to (Gaia?), to ???. Indeed, it is that last one that can make you wonder, and is where science fiction begins (are the "stars" intelligent? can we even tell?)...
One could say (transhuman philosophy approaching):
That which is evolving is not life, but intelligence - life is merely the substrate of intelligence
Computers are the beginning of a "speciation" jump (of intelligence) from a carbon-based substrate to a more robust silicon-based substrate
Please note that not all transhumanists believe in the above two points - some may believe one or the other, neither, or both. Furthermore, the above points have been heavily simplified. For those interested, there is plenty of information out there regarding them...
In our public schools, we do not. In some of our private schools (mainly those affilliated with the Jesuits and the Catholic Church), I believe there is such a similar class, but I don't believe it strays far outside the teachings of the sponsor church (although the Jesuits are a wacky lot).
Most of this revolves around the separation clause of the first ammendment of our Constitution. For public schools, it is a very touchy issue, so nobody approaches (even in an "all inclusive, non-demoninational, let's discuss everything " manner) it lest their government funds get cut off. Can't blame them. Look at this mess. Multiply it by 1000 if a class was taught to kids discussing religious topics like paganistic practices, witchcraft, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.
You see, in the western world, the idea that there might be other means to enlightenment and knowledge beyond an "invisible dude in the sky", is something that is taught as being taboo at best, heresy at worst. You mention that in your own country of Poland, the supposed "religion" lessons are actually not lessons on religion at all, but lessons on Christianity. Doesn't it make you question the whole concept if the teachers and administrators themselves aren't resolved and sure enough to call it what it is, and instead hide behind generalizations? In a way, this is the same thing ID'ers are attempting with Creationism - slap a new name on it and hope nobody notices.
There are other things that aren't typically taught in public schools (and rarely in private schools), that I wish were taught (of course, if they were, the populace would be educated then, and probably could see through the lies as they grew older and voted): Philosophy, and Reason/Logic. Both of these topics, at least here in America, are not things that are taught in our public schools. If you manage to gain any of it, you gain it from the little you learn in your Science and Mathematics classes. Only there do you learn anything about logic and deductive reasoning, and really only in the more advanced math and science classes (geometry, calculus, chemistry, and physics - in learning mathematical proofs and scientific method).
Things get better after public school, if you move on to university (public and private), where you do find classes on these topics. However, due to the lack of teaching them at the elementary level during earlier years, you don't tend to find students clammoring for such lessons, either.
Yes, the United States' educational system is very underfunded, very messed up, and sucks donkey balls - probably more so than any other western education system. Is it any wonder we have these issues that make us the laughing stock on the world stage...?
You sound like what I could have become (actually, I probably would have turned out far worse). I am not that comfortable around strangers, especially females, in social situations. Please note that I say this as someone in his early-30's who is married.
Yeah, you heard right - I am married, to a wonderful woman who has had the fortitude to stick it out with me (and put up with my strangeness) for over 10 years, now. In that time, she (and, in thier own way, her family) have helped to change me from the extreme introverted geek that I was, into the more socially-less-awkward, but still somewhat-introverted geek that I am today.
I would have to say, knowing how I was then, and knowing how I am now, that your biggest issue had to be that you just didn't say "Hi, my name is Cally, how are you doing?". I know how this is: you are shy, you may feel that she will ignore what you say/ask/do, you may feel she will reject you outright. You may think you won't express yourself right, or that something will go wrong, or, or, or...
Stop being so analytical about this - if you have to, smoke the skunk (or down the 40 - or both), and try again. Remember, the worst she can say is "No". It isn't the end of the world (and yes, I know it may feel like it is). It is going to be an awkward thing now, that you saw her for a while, that eye contact was made, that something may have been there but you and her let it float too long. Maybe, just saying something to her will help...
Hey - you just have a need for one of those books on her shelf. It doesn't matter which one. Go up to her office/cube and ask to borrow one. Tell her you are needing to know how to pull some arcane/obscure SQL trick using Oracle or some such bull. Ask her if you can borrow one of her books, and which one she would reccommend. This might get your foot in the door to conversation. Try to find out what interests her (what is she doing there - talk about work, at first). Ask her about projects. Be interested in what she does. If something piques your interest, ask her about that, or tell her "Hey, that is interesting - would you like to discuss it over lunch with me?".
A couple of things could happen here. If she is still interested in you beyond "work aquaintance" status, you might get a lunch thing going. This is a good thing. Go with it. After a few times, work up into meeting up for a time out at night or on the weekend (movies, dinner, hanging out at the comic book shop, whatever - one of the first dates I had with my wife involved sneaking into a resort hotel in the middle of the day).
If she turns you down, ask to borrow the book anyhow - she may still let you, then you will have to return it at some point (another potential in-point to talk again). If you do this a few times, and still are not able to simple walk (or whatever) to go get lunch, there may be another reason, and you should move on (unfortunately). Don't let it effect how you treat her at work, continue to be a professional. Just realize that she isn't dating material, and move on (don't confront her about it, it could possibly blow up into a sexual harrassment thing).
I can't tell you exactly how I got from point A to point B - most of it was a bunch of little changes, and a lot of luck. I know inside me I am still the socially awkward geek I have always been. Somewhere along the way though I have built up, through the patience of my (now) wife, an abstraction layer between the what I really am and the real world. It isn't perfect, it fails me at times. Something I do know, and is difficult to admit, is that being married has made me more able (though less than normal, still) to be able to speak socially with females, since I don't have to worry about moving beyond a certain point. I feel that I might still fall flat if I ever had to go beyond that point, though. However, I honestly do know for a certainty that would be the case.
I know I haven't offered too much here - but seriously, go talk to that girl. Just say "Hi". Talk - that is all it is. I know it sounds difficult - I can feel how I would have felt, back when I was in your shoes many years ago. Just talk. Be yourself, and quit being angry. Just talk. In some way or another, she will talk back.
Look at the @ symbol. Until email, few people would ever consider using @, in fact, I can't even remember why the symbol existed before email.
The history of this symbol is vague in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a recognised name for the symbol (like there is for the "&" symbol, or the ampersand), at least in the English language. Since I knew what an ampersand was, and hoping there would be a link to other character symbols in whatever I found, I googled on that, found a definition, which fortunately did have a link:
Apparently, a lot may be inferred what what we use it in place of; the word "at". According to the above definition, it also apparently meant "each", and "each at", as well as "at" (which is hinted in the above definition by the idea that the symbol is a stylised form of an "e" and an "a", thus contracting "each at", perhaps?) - a single symbol standing for a few words. I haven't been able to find a solid answer on the history regarding this symbol, but I would imagine that it came about by printers wanting to save on movable type (and proofing), as well as using less space. Eventually, it moved on to being used on typewriters (for perhaps the same or similar reasons), then eventually to computer keyboards where it remains with us.
As another respondent to your question told you, the "@" symbol was used in AutoCAD for coordinate entry. This would line up with the idea of it being a contraction of the word "at". I would also like to point out that a few dialects of the programming language BASIC used the "@" symbol to specify printing locations on the screen, as in something like PRINT @ 20,10 "HELLO WORLD!".
Dungeons of Daggorath (cartridge) on a TRS-80 Color Computer - in 1983. Arguably one of the very first (but not *the first*) 3D "hack-n-slash" dungeon games on a computer...
The difference between Colossus and ENIAC (although I don't think of ENIAC as being the first electronic computer either - that distinction clearly goes to the ABC, which predates ENIAC by a few years, and it was later found via the courts that ENIAC's designers "stole" techniques from Antanasoff and Berry) is in being able to reconfigure the machine to handle new tasks. Colossus, while it was a true electronic computer (and a parallel processing one to boot!), could not be reconfigured to handle a task outside of its design, whereas ENIAC could (via plugboards and such).
Arguably, ENIAC wasn't even a true computer, though, but rather a calculating machine. What is interesting here is that ENIAC wasn't digital (that is, base 2), but rather used a base-10 ring-counter system for its "registers" (made of vacuum tubes). While these registers did use something akin to a flip-flop, due to the unreliability of the tubes and the sheer number needed, a base 2 system couldn't be reliably constructed for the purpose at hand (at which ENIAC wasn't even completed in time for - it was needed for WW2, but it was never used for it, because it wasn't completed in time for use).
Furthermore, another interesting note about computers of the era, was that it wasn't until your man Alan Turing (pity he was hounded to suicide) realized that computers could be made as symbol processing machines rather than calculators that the whole modern idea and uses of computers could be made. It is a strange segment in the development of computers, but up until paper in which he introduces and discusses the his Turing Machine, computers were thought of as operating on numbers only, and nothing more (in a way, this is similar to the whole rigid mindset of base 10 instead of base 2 - Charles Babbage, who being a great mathematician knew of George Boole's work in logic and mathematics, as well as knew of electricity, batteries, and relays (because telegraphy was in use at the time) - Babbage should have been able to build his machines, using the tech of the time, to use base 2 logic and electrical elements - but he didn't, and opted for base 10 and mechanical elements!).
Once Turing thought outside the box, the world was open for real computers, based on electronics, and a base 2 system. When you really go and study the history of computers - I mean in depth, looking at the ton of sources (and I wonder about the ton that have been lost over the years) still available, how it all fits together and how things happenned, you begin to realize how much of a "directed accident" it all was. The creation of the modern computer was very organic and evolutionary. In many ways, due to whatever "rigid thinking" of the period, people who should have did something different (like Babbage using mechanical elements rather than electromechanical ones) took a different route. Furthermore, the rigid thinking that computers were tools for numbers, instead of tools for symbol manipulation - that was another big "jump" in the history of it all.
You what really makes me wonder? What rigid thinking of today is robbing us from making the "next leap" - in computers or another field? Is there something that we keep glossing over that would lead to human-level intelligence and conciousness in a machine? Is there something that we keep missing due to some other prejudice that prevents us from being able to truely harness fusion power? Why can't we travel to the stars cheaply - are we thinking about it all wrong?
When you study the history of computers, you realize that it was, in many ways, a happy accident. If it weren't for certain key people (on both sides of the pond), we easily may not be where we are now...
My parents were never rich. But they did want me to have a good education. In the 1980's, everybody and their brother just knew that the secret of a good education was to get your kid(s) a computer. Now, of course, the leader of this charge was mainly Apple, with their IIe and IIc lines (the Mac had just barely come out, and it was expensive and not targetted toward kids), Radio Shack had their Color Computer line, Atari had the 600 and 800, and Commodore had the Vic-20 and 64. Hardly any of the schools had computers - I remember when my elementary school got its first Apple IIe, they wheeled it around on a cart, and each class got it for a week. Our school was small enough that we managed to get it twice a year (!). It was popular enough, though, that in a couple of years they openned up an Apple "lab" next to the school library, with about 20 Apple IIe's for the kids and teachers.
Play your games, learn typing, learn spelling, play with LOGO, and if you really knew what you were doing, you could play with BASIC.
Those were the days - me and a few of my friends all had computers. One of us had a Timex Sinclair (ugh), a couple of us had C64's, I personally had a TRS-80 Color Computer. None of us cared about incompatibility - we played with BASIC, traded code written down on paper or printouts - I remember the effort we put in to get a maze drawing program working that a friend of my friend who lived nearby, who had a TRS-80 Model 4 (power!), had given him. We were in the 5th grade. Our computers were hooked up to TVs in our bedrooms, and we were hooked.
A couple of years passed, most of us had floppy drives by then, and a few of us got lucky: we begged, we pleaded, and we got modems. Not anything fancy, most of us got 300 baud manual dial/pickup things - one of the lucky guys got a 1200 baud screamer. This was in the 7th grade. We BBS'ed and had a blast dialing locally when we could. I had a friend who was a little more daring (and in high school) at the time, who had a phone junction box outside his bedroom. He managed to get it open, jack into someone's line, and would dial long-distance to LA, and bring back rare downloads from places like the the MetalShop BBS (I still have a printout of those files I traded with him, somewhere)...
We surfed the beginning - I later discovered things like TymeNet and such, but never managed to get internet access (not possible unless you were really lucky and went to one of the local universities or colleges) - that had to wait. But BBS'ing was where it was. I was a kid, and still I managed to get that dreaded evil of parents: Porn. Yeah, it was black and white or 4 color at best, blocky, and not the greatest stuff - but yeah, I delved into teh 3v1L. We all did. We all had fun. We went to school, we came home, we hacked our machines. I still have a lightgun I fashioned for mine out of junk parts, a toilet paper tube, some cardboard, and a magnifying lens - grafted onto a joystick. We coded. We learned. For all of it, we got an education, learned to program, improved our grades, and stuck with it through school...
Today, I am proud to say I am a professional software developer. I am proud of my skills, in software, and in hardware. I continue to increase my knowledge of these magical boxes daily. I don't know where I would be today had my parents never bought me one so long ago.
My parents never limited my time - unless my grades got low (yeah, I had problems just like every other kid). That would happen, my computer would be taken away for a while - that forced me to be a better student, to study more, and to keep my grades up. I learned how to use my machine to allow me to make my grades better, to learn how to learn. My computer was always in my room, and eventually, I got others (just before leaving high school in 1991, I had three computers in my room, two of them "networked" via the serial ports - the third was a laptop).
All I am trying to get at here is how my life would have, could have,
Mechanics do a lot more RTFM than they'd like you to think, as people assume "reading the manual"="you don't know what you're doing"
This is the truth - I wish those damn nifty CD-ROM/DVD-ROMs they have on their shop computers (where you can click, drag, and rotate the parts/exploded diagrams in 3D) weren't so damn expensive. It would save me a ton of time on some repairs I have had to do at home. I guess for the time being (read: forever) I am stuck with Haynes and Chilton dead-tree editions...
Slashdot Mirror
This irrationality, if it continues for much longer, will be the death of the human race. It sickens me to see it continue, here in the 21st century. I am currently reading a book (don't remember the title exactly - something like "Descartes' Secret Notebook"), which I haven't finished yet, in which the author gives a biographical account of Descartes' life, and his struggle against irrationality in the face of the Inquisition. For instance, he wrote a book named "Le Monde", which backed up Gallileo's assertions about bodies in motion, especially that concerning heliocentric theory - but didn't publish it (it wasn't published until after his death) for fear that he would end up in the same situation as his contemporary. Letters between him and Mersenne (a Catholic monk, whom he was close friends with), reveal how Descartes had to couch his language in such a manner so as not to possibly bring the wrath of the Church down upon him (it is twisted to see - he wants to confide in his friend, but at the same time realizes his friend might sell him out). Basically, the book is about what may (or was?) contained in another book, now lost, that Descartes wrote but never published, of which we have but a fragment which was copied by Leibniz (IIRC), after he pursuaded the keeper of the original book (who was entrusted with it after Descartes death) to let him look at it. What was in that original book we may never really know, but the author of the book I am reading details a bunch of twists and turns. It seems a tragic tale. At the same time, a glimpse of the man who was Descartes reveals him to be an amazing character who had many interesting journeys in life.
Will we lose another secret "notebook" this time around? Are there geneticists today who are couching their language, fearing another similar Inquisition? What will we lose, and why, oh why, are we so willing to lose it?! One would think we had learned our lesson after 300+ years!
What I don't understand, or at least I am having trouble forming it into words...let me see...
In real life (meatspace), we have property, buildings, things, people, and means of transportation, some fast, some not-so-fast, and some slow. Typically, the faster you need to go, and the further the distance, costs more money. If you are rich, you can go fast for long distances (extreme example, think Concorde). If you are poor, you can only go slow for short distances (extreme example, walking your goat to the market). Many people are in the middle somewhere. People can own property, buildings, and things, but these items occupy space, and thus value is placed on them by their location (relative to each other), size, and distance between each other. We end up with real world spaces that are seemingly valued more than other real world spaces (malls, suburbs, airports, downtown offices, etc). Regardless, we end up with distances it takes to travel to these places. Everything is constrained, it is real world. No matter how wealthy you are, you can't travel instantly between two points.
Enter the virtual world that most of us know: the internet. Here, there is no such thing as "space" - ultimately, you are only constrained by bandwidth and the size of a hard drive. The playing field is almost level (and it would be completely level if we had something closer to "peering" with our ISP's as users, instead of the assymetric drivel most of us are stuck with). Yes, there are currently things that make us continue with inequalities - more bandwidth costs more money, larger hard drives cost more, faster servers (or having hosting/colo, whatever - cost even more). Even so, most of us if we wanted to, can and do afford a virtual hosting service with so much bandwidth and a real "presence" on the internet (as a real web site), and it doesn't break the bank. Middle class on the internet is a virtual host (or business DSL and server) and a URL.
There is no concept of space, and travel is instantaneous. A click-to-click "travel" experience. Does this make Google fearful that their web site is no longer worth anything? What about other web site owners? It doesn't seem to. Everyone has a chance, and some are better at marketing themselves than others (a lot of this has to do with meatspace inter-communication as well - and it doesn't even take money - google is known by nearly everyone, but it was all mainly done by word of mouth). On the web, the value of your virtual property doesn't seem to be diminished by the fact that travel is instantaneous (or close enough).
So, why is it bad in Second Life (or other MMORPG games)? Just because things and property and buildings (presence) can now by 3D interactive experiences instead of 2D web pages? Not allowing, or restricting travel in any virtual world is an artificial limitation. Imagine if the only way to get to google was where you had to click through multiple links (imagine getting to any web site like that - it would suck! - imagine not having a URL entry box, or the ability to create bookmarks - it is difficult to imagine, because we have had such a system for so long - and it seems right). Why should there be a concept of space in a virtual world? Virtual worlds should not be constrained by concepts of space, because such a thing is meaningless in the realm of a computer. Think of it this way - in a virtual world, you can have a building the size of a phone booth, but open the door, and go inside, and the interior is the size of a skyscraper! Or up becomes down, left becomes right!
We are being f
There are actually several cargo ship travel agencies out there, that help you book cabins aboard cargo ships all over the world. Plus, there are a few sites detailing what your experience will be like, include FAQs and pictures of ammenities and sights (as such).
The cost is more than flying, but way cheaper than an ocean cruise. It is also (of course) a slower way to get around, but from what I could see, it seemed like a very interesting way to "see the world". Cabins range from "fairly nice" (I have stayed in worse hotels), to "bare minimum" (think something like a train berth). You typically eat in the mess on-board (from what I could see, you could eat with the crew, or with the officers, your choice - on most ships). Be aware, though, that if you decide to go, your "enjoyment" is up to you - you are on a working ship, after all. You might get a room whose view, at best, is that of a wall (or out over) of cargo containers. Officers and crew, if you speak their language, won't have time for idle chatting - and may not even want to talk with you during meals. However, meal time is supposed to be fairly interesting, and depending on the ship, good food. Not much in the way of entertainment, maybe a TV and VCR/DVD player, so bring your own (and a set of voltage converters).
Also, while you might book to embark/disembark for a certain day, the ship may be late or early, so you have to plan around that as well. You also can't bring much in the way of luggage on board with you, either. On the plus side, if you set things up right, you can easily ship your car or motorcycle with you (I know, it seems like that violates the prior luggage rule). All in all, it seems like it would be an interesting way to travel (combine it with backpacking in-country, and you will have a very interesting trip to recall years later, no doubt).
Just google "passenger freighter" and you will find a bunch of info...
First off, don't waste your money on this, unless you want to be disappointed. Not much information was given in the article, but assumming the dimmensions are correct, and the 105 inch virtual size screen they are discussing is the diagonal measurement, and assumming a 4:3 screen ratio (likely), a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (which I admit I could be wrong in, but I don't think so) shows that the view frustum from the eyeball (at 12 feet) results in 32 degree horizontal field-of-view (FOV), and the 20 degree vertical FOV. With a 640x480 VGA LCD (I assume this is what they are using - someone mentioned it, and it seems reasonable), that is 20 pixels per degree visual acuity! Even if they were using an 800x600 SVGA LCD (doubtful), it would still be 25 pixels per degree. I am not going to do the calculations for it (check this PDF here if you want to try), but I know from past experience and reading that this is way worse than "legally blind".
The image this thing displays is probably watchable, if you like viewing through a "toilet paper tube", but it probably won't work well for any textual output (unless the letters are really big), nor will it work for any form of immersion (not a large enough FOV, by far). Augmented reality is mostly out, too, due to both of these issues. Of course, none of these uses are what it is designed for, but every time something like this comes up, I always expect more...
I don't know why - I guess I just expect that since prices have come down on everything else, and quality up, that HMDs and similar devices should somehow follow suit. The parts and design haven't changed much in the past 10+ years. For over $500.00, but under $1000.00 - I expect to be able to get at least 800x600 SVGA at 45 degree horizontal FOV (in a full-size HMD). The VictorMaxx CyberMaxx (NOT the StuntMaster) HMD in the mid-1990's had 640x480 resolution at 51 degrees horizontal FOV, and was priced around $800.00.
I guess I am just expecting way too much. I had hoped that by today we would be much further along than we seem to be in the whole virtual environment playground. I started playing around with this stuff back in 1993 with a hacked StuntMaster and PowerGlove hooked up to my Amiga 1200. Later, I moved to a PC and Rend386. It seemed like everyone was on the verge of virtual reality and the like being "the next big thing", then commercial internet usage came along and seemingly blew it out of the water. Films like Lawnmower Man, while fun to watch, didn't help, because the public's expectations were made higher than what the technology could deliver. Today, we have the rendering engines on everyone's desks (and consoles) to deliver the content needed at desired framerates - any current FPS is proof of that. What we don't have are the I/O devices to immerse the player. Sadly, only a very small minority of players even seem to want full immersion. I have no idea why this is so. I can only speculate that the people who could afford it today remember the poor results of yesterday, and don't adopt it. That, or it is a chicken and egg problem, whereby they don't realize how fun it is to actually be in the game versus watching the game as it progresses. The thing I really don't understand, despite the fact that there are plenty of case-modders, hardware hackers, and an entire internet, is that there doesn't seem to be anybody out there homebrewing their own HMDs from COTS parts. Why is this? Is can't be because the knowleddge has nearly disappeared from the homebrew scene (PCVR Magazine, sadly, is no more) - it certainly hasn't stopped the number of people homebrewing their own video projectors. So, why?
Am I
What is equally amazing about Hiroshima is that it proved it was possible (for very low values of possible) to survive a ground-zero detonation. IIRC, there was one survivor in the hospital whose courtyard was effectively ground-zero. Of course, this is with the rather puny (compared to later years and today's nuclear warheads) device used. It is one of several strange stories from Hiroshima that really make you scratch your head. Ultimately, though, with a real nuclear exchange, with the size of warheads we have today, such a war would likely not be very survivable, short or long term...
Any idea if the parts are still there in NY? If you think that maybe they are, you need to send an email to David Geer c/o Servo Magazine. Several issues ago, I approached him with a suggestion about reviewing these machines (the Hardiman suit, especially) and Ralph Mosser (probably mangled the spelling there), as well as the Odetics ODEX-1 robot, which he then wrote articles about. Very informative, but I don't remember if he mentioned anything about a junkyard with the stuff...
I still own my 300 baud modem which I used extensively when I was in the 7th grade to "browse" BBS sites all over my hometown (using a TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with 64k of RAM). Would I go back to it, though? HELL NO! But, sometimes, I miss those days...
We don't have to worry about what to get each other for Christmas, whether we have spent too much, or the credit card bills (or lack of money in the checking account) after the binge is over. We don't have to stress about going to the mall (and the tons of people shopping), or making sure a gift is shipped on-time from a seller on Ebay or whatnot. After slogging through them for years, we decided last year (after the 2003 holiday season) it just wasn't for us, and we haven't liked it better. Yeah, the holidays still suck in a manner (too much traffic, and too many people out and about while you just want to do some simple thing like grocery shop), but they are much better now than they have ever been.
As for gifts? Why do we need them? We know we each love each other. We give each other gifts for "no reason at all - just because" throughout the year, and for those things we really want, we just buy them when we want them (if it is a really big purchase, we consult each other and decide). This actually works out really well, and we don't bitch to each other over the crap we buy ourselves. Sometimes, we even manage to find and purchase really cool things, things that our SO would likely never think of, and even if they did, they would never find them. Case in point, earlier this year I managed to purchase (very cheap - $100.00!) an Altair 8800 with a ton of S-100 cards from a junkyard I visit. It needs an assload of work to get it cleaned up and working, but I will eventually get to it. This is something I have wanted for a long time, but outside of a museum I have never seen one, and have only seen them sold on Ebay and other auctions, for WELL over $100.00. It was luck shining on me, and not something my wife would likely ever had found (and even if she did, she probably wouldn't buy it, because frankly it looks like a "piece-o-junk").
We are happy with this arrangement, we enjoy our life together, we don't bitch at each other over purchases like many other couples do, and during the holiday season, we are stress free - and not depressed...
Where are the reviews, etc for the "really high end" graphics stuff? Not that I would be able to afford them (I am currently running a GeForce 2 for crap-sake! Meets my needs under Linux, tho), but I would be interested in what is really coming down the pipe. I remember seeing reviews and such (long time back) on graphics processor "boxes" fed via a SCSI channel or such from Evans and Sutherland, which was meant for flight simulators - $25,000+ high-end graphics subsystems, which of course by now have been easily surpassed by common graphics cards.
So, where are these high-end graphics systems now? Do they have some wack card(s) out there that has like quad HDMI outputs, each delivering some ungodly resolution, with textured and lit polygons out the wazoo? Whatever happened to hitting and surpassing the "polygons per second" limit that defined "real world" interaction (this was a big "buzz" to acheive in the VR realm back in the mid-1990's - I don't remember what the limit was off-hand, but it was a pretty big number)?
Lastly, whatever happenned to these old high-end graphics boxes? People had to eventually upgrade, were they just scrapped? I have seen some formerly "high end" VR gear on Ebay, but I have never seen any E & S or other graphics subsystems, beyond old cards like the Wildcat and such. I can only assume that they were too niche-market devices that not many were sold to appear on Ebay much, if at all (similar to 3D position tracking systems from places like Polhemus and Ascension - though even those I have seen and bought off of Ebay before)...
this doesn't really change the fact that BTX blows and that the only people who even need BTX are the ones running Xeon furnaces even though Opterons that cost the same perform up to twice as fast and produce less heat and use less electricity.
and for the number of ads that are at "thetechzone" i would think they would be able to afford better hosting so there wouldn't be any slashdot effect.
One big run on sentence, with no punctuation, and nary a bit of capitalization makes it sound (when you read it) as if you are saying something quickly and out of breath. The only thing worse would be if you eliminated the spaces. Furthermore, you use an inflamatory word (blows), and you don't back up anything with links to prove your point. So, let's change this. Here is how I would have phrased your post, which likely wouldn't be marked as a troll:
The availability of these cases doesn't change the fact that BTX is a bad form factor. The only users of the form factor tend to be those running Xeons. Had they instead chose a different form factor coupled with Opterons, they likely would have found their servers performing better while producing less heat (thus saving electricity).
Notice the change in tone and wording. Notice the punctuation and capitalization. The links don't go anywhere, but for your assertions to "stick", you would want to supply reference URLs to make your point hold up. Lastly, I eliminated that last line digging at thetechzone's hosting, since it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
These simple changes, had they been performed (or something similar), would likely have garnered your post an "insightful", "interesting", or "informative" rating, up to and including +5 if you supplied the URLs to back up the assertions you were making. Try this next time you post. While everything you post may be the absolute truth, and even if you are an authority on the subject, your post will likely be marked as a troll unless you take your time, and back up your statements...
this doesn't really change the fact that BTX blows and that the only people who even need BTX are the ones running Xeon furnaces even though Opterons that cost the same perform up to twice as fast and produce less heat and use less electricity.
and for the number of ads that are at "thetechzone" i would think they would be able to afford better hosting so there wouldn't be any slashdot effect.
You might want to read Stephen Wolfram's book, "A New Kind of Science", which explores the idea of complexity arising from very simple sets of rules (The Principle of Computational Equivalence). In this book (which, while long, is not too difficult to read - although the appendices will probably leave you scratching your head), he details a very simple set of 6 rules, which he utilizes to show how such simple rules, being used in a 2D cellular automata, can easily give rise to many complex patterns, including that of a UTM (Universal Turing Machine). While it isn't discussed in extreme depth, the topic of DNA is explored, how it may have come to be, etc. No, it doesn't require "magical" thinking, either...
Very late on this - took a look at the phx2600 site - pretty cool. How are things going? I used to meet up with ppl back around 1995-97ish or so when the meets were being held around the Metrocenter area. Maybe someday I will stop in at one of the new meetups - I would love to see how things have changed, etc (though I would probably be the "old man" there)...
The truth is closer to:
There is a ban on performing embryonic stem cell research (outside of the few established stem cell lines, most of which are contaminated or otherwise unviable) in a research facility which uses federal funds for any research.
That is where the problem lies. There are plenty of research facilities in the United States, both public and private, willing to do embryonic stem cell research using non-public (ie, non-federal) funding, but because they already do research in other areas (not even related to stem cell research) using federal, public funds, they have been told that if they pursue embryonic stem cell research (outside of those established lines), even with private funding, that the federal funding to their other research projects would be in jeopardy and be cut off.
I only ask this because I grew up in Bakersfield, California in the 1980's when oil drilling there was still pretty big. A friend of my parents had a son who would visit us from time to time (my parents and their family knew each other for a long time), one of his first (of many) jobs he had was working on an oil rig. One day he came over after working in the fields to show us something.
He showed us where a bolt fell off the top of a rig he was working on and hit his steel work helmet. It dented it in about 3/4's inch, just barely before the webbing around his head.
Now, I was kid at the time, and impressed, but I never got the idea that he was lying about that incident, or just making up bullshit for a story. I suppose it is possible, though...
Now, a bullet (depending) isn't likely as big as a bolt, but I would imagine that a large enough calibre bullet would have as much or more mass than a bolt, and tumbling or not, it would be falling from a greater distance. I can't imagine that if it hit you (head, body, or anywhere) that it would just leave a bruise - I would expect more damage than that (and if it hit you on the head, I would expect major damage up to and including death).
Does this seem plausible, or am I completely wrong?
Check out this Wikipedia entry, then visit the Unicomp link (current manufacturer of Model M's). Also, be sure to check out the ClickyKeyboards.com site listed - they sell original Model M keyboards (as well as a USB adapter - w00t!)...
Even so, the idea is sound, if you look at it from the point of chaos theory, emergence, and network theory.
Essentially, Gaia is the idea that the Earth, in and of itself, is an emergent phenomenon being, whose base parts are composed of everything on the earth interacting with network effects (feedback loops and such). This "being", if it truely exists, is barely more fathomable to us than the human is to a skin cell (or neuron, if you prefer). We have the advantage over a skin cell in that we ourselves are emergent phenomena beings full of networking effects. We also have smaller such beings which we are only now beginning to study, in the form of bureucracies (ie, governments and corporations). Whether the Gaia theory is true or not is up for debate, but we have plenty of precedents to show it might be true.
What is really amazing is when you consider that intelligence (and in more complex forms, sentience) seem to require feedback and network effects, in order to emerge from the base set of nodes (whatever those nodes are). At a very base level, we have atoms and atomic interaction (actually, it goes below this into sub-atomic particles, etc), building up into molecules, to cells, to organisms, to colonies, to insects/animals, to humans, to bureaucracies, to (Gaia?), to ???. Indeed, it is that last one that can make you wonder, and is where science fiction begins (are the "stars" intelligent? can we even tell?)...
Please note that not all transhumanists believe in the above two points - some may believe one or the other, neither, or both. Furthermore, the above points have been heavily simplified. For those interested, there is plenty of information out there regarding them...
Most of this revolves around the separation clause of the first ammendment of our Constitution. For public schools, it is a very touchy issue, so nobody approaches (even in an "all inclusive, non-demoninational, let's discuss everything " manner) it lest their government funds get cut off. Can't blame them. Look at this mess. Multiply it by 1000 if a class was taught to kids discussing religious topics like paganistic practices, witchcraft, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.
You see, in the western world, the idea that there might be other means to enlightenment and knowledge beyond an "invisible dude in the sky", is something that is taught as being taboo at best, heresy at worst. You mention that in your own country of Poland, the supposed "religion" lessons are actually not lessons on religion at all, but lessons on Christianity. Doesn't it make you question the whole concept if the teachers and administrators themselves aren't resolved and sure enough to call it what it is, and instead hide behind generalizations? In a way, this is the same thing ID'ers are attempting with Creationism - slap a new name on it and hope nobody notices.
There are other things that aren't typically taught in public schools (and rarely in private schools), that I wish were taught (of course, if they were, the populace would be educated then, and probably could see through the lies as they grew older and voted): Philosophy, and Reason/Logic. Both of these topics, at least here in America, are not things that are taught in our public schools. If you manage to gain any of it, you gain it from the little you learn in your Science and Mathematics classes. Only there do you learn anything about logic and deductive reasoning, and really only in the more advanced math and science classes (geometry, calculus, chemistry, and physics - in learning mathematical proofs and scientific method).
Things get better after public school, if you move on to university (public and private), where you do find classes on these topics. However, due to the lack of teaching them at the elementary level during earlier years, you don't tend to find students clammoring for such lessons, either.
Yes, the United States' educational system is very underfunded, very messed up, and sucks donkey balls - probably more so than any other western education system. Is it any wonder we have these issues that make us the laughing stock on the world stage...?
Only if you slam a 40 and overload your bladder...
Yeah, you heard right - I am married, to a wonderful woman who has had the fortitude to stick it out with me (and put up with my strangeness) for over 10 years, now. In that time, she (and, in thier own way, her family) have helped to change me from the extreme introverted geek that I was, into the more socially-less-awkward, but still somewhat-introverted geek that I am today.
I would have to say, knowing how I was then, and knowing how I am now, that your biggest issue had to be that you just didn't say "Hi, my name is Cally, how are you doing?". I know how this is: you are shy, you may feel that she will ignore what you say/ask/do, you may feel she will reject you outright. You may think you won't express yourself right, or that something will go wrong, or, or, or...
Stop being so analytical about this - if you have to, smoke the skunk (or down the 40 - or both), and try again. Remember, the worst she can say is "No". It isn't the end of the world (and yes, I know it may feel like it is). It is going to be an awkward thing now, that you saw her for a while, that eye contact was made, that something may have been there but you and her let it float too long. Maybe, just saying something to her will help...
Hey - you just have a need for one of those books on her shelf. It doesn't matter which one. Go up to her office/cube and ask to borrow one. Tell her you are needing to know how to pull some arcane/obscure SQL trick using Oracle or some such bull. Ask her if you can borrow one of her books, and which one she would reccommend. This might get your foot in the door to conversation. Try to find out what interests her (what is she doing there - talk about work, at first). Ask her about projects. Be interested in what she does. If something piques your interest, ask her about that, or tell her "Hey, that is interesting - would you like to discuss it over lunch with me?".
A couple of things could happen here. If she is still interested in you beyond "work aquaintance" status, you might get a lunch thing going. This is a good thing. Go with it. After a few times, work up into meeting up for a time out at night or on the weekend (movies, dinner, hanging out at the comic book shop, whatever - one of the first dates I had with my wife involved sneaking into a resort hotel in the middle of the day).
If she turns you down, ask to borrow the book anyhow - she may still let you, then you will have to return it at some point (another potential in-point to talk again). If you do this a few times, and still are not able to simple walk (or whatever) to go get lunch, there may be another reason, and you should move on (unfortunately). Don't let it effect how you treat her at work, continue to be a professional. Just realize that she isn't dating material, and move on (don't confront her about it, it could possibly blow up into a sexual harrassment thing).
I can't tell you exactly how I got from point A to point B - most of it was a bunch of little changes, and a lot of luck. I know inside me I am still the socially awkward geek I have always been. Somewhere along the way though I have built up, through the patience of my (now) wife, an abstraction layer between the what I really am and the real world. It isn't perfect, it fails me at times. Something I do know, and is difficult to admit, is that being married has made me more able (though less than normal, still) to be able to speak socially with females, since I don't have to worry about moving beyond a certain point. I feel that I might still fall flat if I ever had to go beyond that point, though. However, I honestly do know for a certainty that would be the case.
I know I haven't offered too much here - but seriously, go talk to that girl. Just say "Hi". Talk - that is all it is. I know it sounds difficult - I can feel how I would have felt, back when I was in your shoes many years ago. Just talk. Be yourself, and quit being angry. Just talk. In some way or another, she will talk back.
The history of this symbol is vague in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a recognised name for the symbol (like there is for the "&" symbol, or the ampersand), at least in the English language. Since I knew what an ampersand was, and hoping there would be a link to other character symbols in whatever I found, I googled on that, found a definition, which fortunately did have a link:
Definition of the "at" symbol, or "@"
Apparently, a lot may be inferred what what we use it in place of; the word "at". According to the above definition, it also apparently meant "each", and "each at", as well as "at" (which is hinted in the above definition by the idea that the symbol is a stylised form of an "e" and an "a", thus contracting "each at", perhaps?) - a single symbol standing for a few words. I haven't been able to find a solid answer on the history regarding this symbol, but I would imagine that it came about by printers wanting to save on movable type (and proofing), as well as using less space. Eventually, it moved on to being used on typewriters (for perhaps the same or similar reasons), then eventually to computer keyboards where it remains with us.
As another respondent to your question told you, the "@" symbol was used in AutoCAD for coordinate entry. This would line up with the idea of it being a contraction of the word "at". I would also like to point out that a few dialects of the programming language BASIC used the "@" symbol to specify printing locations on the screen, as in something like PRINT @ 20,10 "HELLO WORLD!".
Ok, enough idle speculation on my part. Here is the Wikipedia entry...
Dungeons of Daggorath (cartridge) on a TRS-80 Color Computer - in 1983. Arguably one of the very first (but not *the first*) 3D "hack-n-slash" dungeon games on a computer...
Arguably, ENIAC wasn't even a true computer, though, but rather a calculating machine. What is interesting here is that ENIAC wasn't digital (that is, base 2), but rather used a base-10 ring-counter system for its "registers" (made of vacuum tubes). While these registers did use something akin to a flip-flop, due to the unreliability of the tubes and the sheer number needed, a base 2 system couldn't be reliably constructed for the purpose at hand (at which ENIAC wasn't even completed in time for - it was needed for WW2, but it was never used for it, because it wasn't completed in time for use).
Furthermore, another interesting note about computers of the era, was that it wasn't until your man Alan Turing (pity he was hounded to suicide) realized that computers could be made as symbol processing machines rather than calculators that the whole modern idea and uses of computers could be made. It is a strange segment in the development of computers, but up until paper in which he introduces and discusses the his Turing Machine, computers were thought of as operating on numbers only, and nothing more (in a way, this is similar to the whole rigid mindset of base 10 instead of base 2 - Charles Babbage, who being a great mathematician knew of George Boole's work in logic and mathematics, as well as knew of electricity, batteries, and relays (because telegraphy was in use at the time) - Babbage should have been able to build his machines, using the tech of the time, to use base 2 logic and electrical elements - but he didn't, and opted for base 10 and mechanical elements!).
Once Turing thought outside the box, the world was open for real computers, based on electronics, and a base 2 system. When you really go and study the history of computers - I mean in depth, looking at the ton of sources (and I wonder about the ton that have been lost over the years) still available, how it all fits together and how things happenned, you begin to realize how much of a "directed accident" it all was. The creation of the modern computer was very organic and evolutionary. In many ways, due to whatever "rigid thinking" of the period, people who should have did something different (like Babbage using mechanical elements rather than electromechanical ones) took a different route. Furthermore, the rigid thinking that computers were tools for numbers, instead of tools for symbol manipulation - that was another big "jump" in the history of it all.
You what really makes me wonder? What rigid thinking of today is robbing us from making the "next leap" - in computers or another field? Is there something that we keep glossing over that would lead to human-level intelligence and conciousness in a machine? Is there something that we keep missing due to some other prejudice that prevents us from being able to truely harness fusion power? Why can't we travel to the stars cheaply - are we thinking about it all wrong?
When you study the history of computers, you realize that it was, in many ways, a happy accident. If it weren't for certain key people (on both sides of the pond), we easily may not be where we are now...
My parents were never rich. But they did want me to have a good education. In the 1980's, everybody and their brother just knew that the secret of a good education was to get your kid(s) a computer. Now, of course, the leader of this charge was mainly Apple, with their IIe and IIc lines (the Mac had just barely come out, and it was expensive and not targetted toward kids), Radio Shack had their Color Computer line, Atari had the 600 and 800, and Commodore had the Vic-20 and 64. Hardly any of the schools had computers - I remember when my elementary school got its first Apple IIe, they wheeled it around on a cart, and each class got it for a week. Our school was small enough that we managed to get it twice a year (!). It was popular enough, though, that in a couple of years they openned up an Apple "lab" next to the school library, with about 20 Apple IIe's for the kids and teachers.
Play your games, learn typing, learn spelling, play with LOGO, and if you really knew what you were doing, you could play with BASIC.
Those were the days - me and a few of my friends all had computers. One of us had a Timex Sinclair (ugh), a couple of us had C64's, I personally had a TRS-80 Color Computer. None of us cared about incompatibility - we played with BASIC, traded code written down on paper or printouts - I remember the effort we put in to get a maze drawing program working that a friend of my friend who lived nearby, who had a TRS-80 Model 4 (power!), had given him. We were in the 5th grade. Our computers were hooked up to TVs in our bedrooms, and we were hooked.
A couple of years passed, most of us had floppy drives by then, and a few of us got lucky: we begged, we pleaded, and we got modems. Not anything fancy, most of us got 300 baud manual dial/pickup things - one of the lucky guys got a 1200 baud screamer. This was in the 7th grade. We BBS'ed and had a blast dialing locally when we could. I had a friend who was a little more daring (and in high school) at the time, who had a phone junction box outside his bedroom. He managed to get it open, jack into someone's line, and would dial long-distance to LA, and bring back rare downloads from places like the the MetalShop BBS (I still have a printout of those files I traded with him, somewhere)...
We surfed the beginning - I later discovered things like TymeNet and such, but never managed to get internet access (not possible unless you were really lucky and went to one of the local universities or colleges) - that had to wait. But BBS'ing was where it was. I was a kid, and still I managed to get that dreaded evil of parents: Porn. Yeah, it was black and white or 4 color at best, blocky, and not the greatest stuff - but yeah, I delved into teh 3v1L. We all did. We all had fun. We went to school, we came home, we hacked our machines. I still have a lightgun I fashioned for mine out of junk parts, a toilet paper tube, some cardboard, and a magnifying lens - grafted onto a joystick. We coded. We learned. For all of it, we got an education, learned to program, improved our grades, and stuck with it through school...
Today, I am proud to say I am a professional software developer. I am proud of my skills, in software, and in hardware. I continue to increase my knowledge of these magical boxes daily. I don't know where I would be today had my parents never bought me one so long ago.
My parents never limited my time - unless my grades got low (yeah, I had problems just like every other kid). That would happen, my computer would be taken away for a while - that forced me to be a better student, to study more, and to keep my grades up. I learned how to use my machine to allow me to make my grades better, to learn how to learn. My computer was always in my room, and eventually, I got others (just before leaving high school in 1991, I had three computers in my room, two of them "networked" via the serial ports - the third was a laptop).
All I am trying to get at here is how my life would have, could have,
This is the truth - I wish those damn nifty CD-ROM/DVD-ROMs they have on their shop computers (where you can click, drag, and rotate the parts/exploded diagrams in 3D) weren't so damn expensive. It would save me a ton of time on some repairs I have had to do at home. I guess for the time being (read: forever) I am stuck with Haynes and Chilton dead-tree editions...