...how that particular commercial NEVER says what the product does? One can only imaging it is for headache relief, but it isn't really clear (actually, it isn't clear at all).
For all anyone knows HeadOn could be a mind control device, or maybe just a way to see if people will buy shit and stick it to their head (probably says "Kick Me HARD" on the outside)...
This makes absolutely no sense at all since it is extra work and require more technical knowledge for all involved plus it does zilch for presentations. When you present, you want those pairs of eyes on you.
Ah, so it is more about people looking at you, than it is about what you are presenting - look at me, I am head monkey here!
People also don't want to hold up their notebook, point to a little dot, and hope everyone sees the same in front of their monitors - they want to point at a big screen and show their pie chart or whatever.
That is why shared desktops exist. One guy is the "presenter", and the rest can easily follow what he is doing on their screens. If you absolutely need a big screen (and there are times), hook one up to the presenter's laptop, dual screen the thing, and then when needed (or when people need it), they can look at it. There isn't any need for somebody to stand up and point (and if you absolutely have to, they have these things called laser pointers, which can be used from a sitting position).
Plus, if the boss is making an important presentation about next quarters earnings expectations, etcetera, he wants to know he has your attention, not that you are checking your email or some nonsense clandestinely.
Maybe the boss needs to put more trust in the people that he has hired, and if those people break that trust, then maybe they need to be talked to, and failing that, let them go. Of course, I have a feeling this is more about point one (ie, being the head monkey), and less about whatever is being talked about. Vain monkeys tend to get upset when the other monkeys don't preen on about how good they look.
Meanwhile, us humans just try to get the damn work done so we can go home at the end of the day to relax with a beer and some sex with our SOs.
I agree with you on this - for something that expensive, I would rather have the other guy drop it than me.
However, I still wonder why many people, who usually have at least two cars, never make a truck one of them. It doesn't have to be a big truck, either - a small Ford Ranger, a Nissan Frontier - hell, even an old Datsun - and you can handle 90% of the loads you will ever likely come across, even as a homeowner.
No, you won't be moving big loads of rock or brick with such a small truck, but you can haul wood and other building materials, and all sorts of other large loads like refrigerators, TVs, and washing machines. Get a 6 or 4 banger, and you won't even have to worry about using much gas (still more than most small cars, but it isn't that bad).
The first boss I ever had (doing yardwork and home alarm installation as a kid) told me some sage advice: "Get a vehicle that can work for you, not a vehicle you work for". In just about all areas of life, that means a truck (or a van) - something that even in the most dire of times where you can't find a job, you can at least do delivery jobs of some sort with (or construction, or welding, or plumbing, or yard maintenance, etc).
Seems like a lot people never get this advice, or if they do, they don't understand it and take it to heart...
What if you purchased "school supplies" with the money, then resold them at a loss (say, for student books) or at a profit (refurbished computers, maybe?), then used that money to invest with? Ok, maybe not the best idea, and you would still owe the money back to the government, and they also would still raise eyebrows like you note (and probably get you on money laundering charges to boot)...
Maybe it isn't such a good idea (I wasn't really serious, anyhow)...
Yeah, that would be a problem - I wonder how long it stays "hot" that way? Maybe put some temperature probes in the surrounding area, have multiple buried sinks in spaced apart locations, and round-robin the system? Probably all of that complexity would outweigh any gains (all the energy gain total would go into keeping that system working).
TNSTAAFL and all - that I know, but there should be a way to use Stirling engines to generate power on land without requiring massive dishes, mirror arrays, or solar panels to drive one small engine (personally, I would love to see a system that could give you enough output to run a house and cost way less than what is needed for a solar panel setup - even if it takes up more room).
Take a look at advertisements and promotions in the US.
Regardless of the product being sold (shaving cream, butter, cars, liquor, beer, computers, clothing, soft drinks, food, etc), the advertisement will almost invariably have a sexual element to it. Why? Because sex sells products. The advertisers know this, we know this - because it works (unless you're a bastard like me who simply buys whatever is cheapest or works best, regardless of adverts). The actors and actresses involved in making those advertisements are typically young and sexy. Even if they aren't young, they tend to be sexy and good looking.
Ultimately it comes down to "buy our product and you will be sexy and/or get this guy/girl".
But woe be it to those who actually try to act on the feelings these advertisements tease (litterally) out of us. Sure, that girl may be sexy, but if you dare look for too long at a girl on the street who IS sexy, you are a pervert. If you are female and do the same, you a slut or whore. If you discuss sex, want sex, get sex, do sex, act sexy, are sexy - you are labeled "bad" - but buy our products anyhow, please?
All of this is shown to our children, and they make the connections, and see the illogic of it, and those who have children can't explain it to their kids because they would have to explain sex, and Sex=Bad, remember? These commercials and advertisements, that our children can see and understand (magazine covers, radio ads, department store flyers, commercials on TV, even shows targetting children it sometimes seems, because parents inevitably watch them, too) - they all have a sexual element to them, to sell the product.
The adverts say "sex is good, consume our products, sex is good", while society and parents scream about "SEX IS BAAAAD - THINK ABOUT THE CHIIIIIILLLLLLDDDDDRRRRRREEEENNNN!!!!"
Meanwhile pornography in the US is one of the growth industries during a recession (like it has never been a growth industry, no pun intended). But remember - Sex=Bad, but Sex=Product=Good (hmm, maybe this is why porn is consumed here in the US, because it is the ultimate expression of Sex as a Product?)...
Our children see all of this, take all of this in, and we punish them for exhibiting any sexual urges, though it is undeniable that they are or ultimately will become sexual beings. The cognitive dissonance, the view of the hypocrisy, without the understanding of its existence (not to mention the why or how of it - I understand its existence, but I can't even honestly answer the why or how, and any answer I could give probably isn't half the story) - is it any wonder our children are confused?
Is it any wonder the adults are, too...? Pass the soma, please...
They don't want to see you destroyed; that's the BIG LIE here. They want your country to stop messing about in the middle east.
I know this, you know this, sadly, most Americans do not.
I was listening to NPR this morning driving into work, and they were talking about a speech Prime Minister Malaki was giving (regarding not backing down to insurgents and how they don't represent true Muslims and Islam, etc), which was interrupted briefly by someone in the gallery urging loudly that the American troops need to "go home". This individual was hauled off by security and the speech resumed.
I found it troubling that in this supposed new "democracy" of Iraq (yeah, right), that an individual's right to speak freely was abridged in such a manner (true, he could have chosen a better venue to do so in - interrupting a speech uninvited isn't the best way to get your point across), and how it seems like something people accept (there and here in the USA), is disturbing to say the least. At least he got to say it, though - most of the time here in the States you are herded into "Free Speech Zones" to speak freely (or similarly if you interrupt a speech of the party in power, you get hauled away as well - just ask Cindy).
--- !!! PUKE !!! ---
This isn't the "Land of the Free" I was taught about in school - who the fuck are these fascists, anyway?
Consider that there are between 90 and 100 million legal firearm owners in the US and the NRA only have about 3-4 million members and you'll know what I mean. and the NRA is a not only well known organization but I have NEVER been in a gun store that hasn't had NRA membership form and booklets floating around.
I am not the poster you replied to, but I understand what you mean. At one point, I was a member of both the ACLU and the NRA (also, at one time I had an EFF membership - I should renew), now I am just a member of the ACLU.
The problem I had with the NRA is that they seem to be just another fundraising arm for the Republican party. Everytime their magazine came to the door I had to grit my teeth, since it just seemed like more conservative republican propaganda. I tried to read the magazine, I really did, but it just didn't seem to offer anything to me. It seemed like they actively discourage people who may legally own firearms, but who are liberal in viewpoints (social, economic, or otherwise). In these people's minds, it is like you can't both own a gun and be pro-choice or anti-death penalty at the same time - that just isn't an option to them. This is why I drop my membership like a hot potatoe, though I wished it could be otherwise.
I may not agree with everything the ACLU does, but I can see the logic behind their decisions and causes. It is mostly based upon a logical rational approach to constitutional freedoms and human rights. They don't seem to be "anti-conservative" or "anti-republican", nor "anti-liberal" or "anti-" any party. They are, however, pro-freedom, for all - regardless of race, religion, or creed. That I can stand for, even if I may not agree with everything entirely. If the NRA was more like this, I would be more apt to rejoin.
I don't see them swinging that way, though, any time soon...
...and don't let someone try to sell you any, either.
I don't have much experience in workflow or business process management (BPM - please, when you use acronyms, spell them out the first time prior to first use, to help those who don't know what the acronym stands for), but what I have experienced at my current job (a very small company) has taught me many things in this problem domain.
The biggest thing has been, in regards to workflow and BPM, you need to talk to the people doing the task. To do this properly, you need to:
Define the problem the process should solve.
Once you have the problem defined, then define the steps of the process to solve the problem.
Place those steps in a logical order - a flowchart works best (more on this later).
Decide who (person or group) should be handling each step. Mark it on the flowchart next to the step.
Now comes a fun part: Analyze your flowchart. Do you see possibilities for errors? Do you handle those errors gracefully? Are there any possibilities for "endless loops" in your flowchart - if so, you need to iron those out. If you notice lines crossing hither and thither, there is probably an issue with complexity and/or layout that needs to be solved - solve it now! Your flowchart should be simple and easy to read - that doesn't mean it can't be long. However, if it is long, consider that you may be defining sub-processes within an overall larger process, instead of defining the process itself. Step back, determine if this is the case, and if so, identify those sub-processes, and save them elsewhere, and replace that larger sub-process with a single step in the main process (referencing the sub-process flowchart - don't throw away the work!). Something to also keep in mind for these flowcharts are what I am going to call "ladder/grid design" (I am pretty sure there is an actual term for this flowchart design): Basically, the flowchart is organized in such a way as to show when the process "moves" across/down different business areas, and the steps in the flowchart are plotted and organized in these grid areas to show the flow of the process as it influences/comes in contact with these different groups. If you can "guess on it" up-front, go for it. If not, keep it in mind for the next step:
Talk to the people you have identified as being involved in the process.
If you can swing it - if the process doesn't involve too many people - try to bring them all together in one room, hand out copies of the process you have designed, and meet to discuss whether the process seems realistic. Do they follow the steps in that order? Are all the steps represented? Are some steps "soft" vs. "hard" (that is, are some simply non-automateable, while others should be)? What happens in those steps? Are the people/groups you identified as being involved actually involved? Have you missed any? Now is the time for discussion - to determine what the real current process is, and whether it actually has problems itself, and how they can possibly be fixed.
You will discuss. You will argue. You will take notes. You will redraw and scribble all over your flowcharts. Keep the meeting under two hours, and at the end, agree to and schedule to meet again in a week, after you have revised the flowchart of the process to meet the expectations what was discussed. Then, repeat this process again and again until it is decided that it looks correct enough to implement it.
In theory, you should be able to implement the entire process without having severe automation of every step - if you can't in some way do it on paper, your business will fail (or at least be set back) the next time the power goes out. Once you are able to determine "how to do it on paper", you can then automate those steps where you can to speed them up - but don't forget about the paper possibility, because some day you may need it.
When you have it all defined, then put the process to work - hand out "final copies" of the process flow, get everyone int
I have wondered if such a device is possible - I am sure you have heard of an OTEC - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion - where you basically hook a Stirling engine driving a generator up to a system where your temp differential is obtained from two different ocean thermal layers. So, why not something Land/Desert-based? Your thermal gradient would be the difference between the outside air and/or a black heated metal plate (or buried copper tubing lines in asphalt - a use for all of that road surface, maybe?), and another set buried 20 feet or so underground (where the temperature is pretty stable and very cool). Possibly at night you could even reverse the process (use the metal plate as a night sky radiator and heat from the soil just below the surface), though it would probably be less efficient. I really think something like this could work if you could find the appropriate working fluid for the Stirling engine (not sure, is helium the best?)...
Here in Arizona there is a publicly "accessible" form of this at the Boyce Thompson Arboretum - albeit just with the "cool" tower. They typically operate it in the dry summer months (not during monsoons) - basically the same system as you describe, except with a fan at the bottom of the cool tower to draw the air down, which is then pumped into their outside "lobby" area. It makes the lobby area a very nice place to be after walking through the park...
If you are interested at all in this (and by the fact that you have tried to read it four times seems to indicate that you are), you should really try to "get through it".
I am not too sure what you mean by "wanking" - when I read it, I felt it was the opposite - that he was self-deprecating his research. He constantly refers to others research in the same areas, and notes copiously who they are/were. He does talk about how he feels he is the first to put 1+1 together, about how others have done similar research but never came to the conclusions he has. I haven't read all of the material out there on the varied and wide subjects, but I have read a lot (CA, complexity, emergence, chaos, etc) - and none of them ever came to the conclusions Wolfram has.
His basic conclusion - what the book goes over and over with, nearly "pounding" it into your head - is that complexity can and does arise in nature from simple sets of "rules". He found one of these sets (I think it was 6 rules for a 2D CA that he uses as an example throughout) using Mathematica, speculating that the six rules were the simplest he found, but by no means necessary the simplest possible. This simple set of rules, given certain input patterns, he shows how it can simulate the outputs of much of what we discern as natural "chaotic" processes - wind and water patterns, weather, seashell designs, zebra striping, and snowflakes - to name a few. Furthermore, the same system of rules can be coaxed into acting and working exactly like a UTM (Universal Turing Machine). Imagine - six simple rules which can replicate any other UTM (including the PC you are using right now, by the way, given enough time to run, of course). He goes to show that even when you make the system more complex (for example, by adding more rules or extra dimensions), slices through the data set show that the output devolves into the simpler two-dimensional six rule implementation. This is the essence of what he calls the "Theory of Universal Computation".
Yes, other authors disagree with him - including authors that I hold in high regard as well (Ray Kurzweil comes to mind). Who is right, who is wrong? No one really knows, but the code is simple to reproduce and play with (many have wrote implementations of it in many languages since the book's publication), so there is a foundation upon which to explore. It is a concept that has people frothing and gnashing similarly to the whole original AI debate (top down vs. bottom up, hard vs. soft). I think that some interesting discoveries and applications could come from the idea if we would quit nit-picking at its flaws, whatever they may be, and actually start trying to apply and explore the concepts.
Try reading it again - if you have to skip sections because of boredom or whatever, then do so (it is written in such a way that it doesn't need to be read 100 percent linearly). After you finish (or not, as the case may be), I could reccommend to you a whole host of other books to read on similar (and I tend to believe related) subjects (if you are interested, email me - I have also posted these lists here before on/. - look at my old posting history to find them).
I won't argue the "peer-reviewed" argument, you are definitely right on this (although, why should every little bit be scrutinized? Wolfram was attempting to show the connections between all of the work, not the individual pieces themselves). However, I don't think you are being fair to the issue of citings.
Had you read the book as you seem to indicate, you would know that on nearly every page of it Wolfram goes on (ad nauseum, it seems) about how he wasn't the first, telling you who originally did it, and wondering why they didn't see the connections (or why letter researchers didn't either). He notes that some did see some of the connections, but none seem to have seen all of the connections and implications. Finally, Wolfram provides copious footnotes and other references throughout the book that do reference others. The last part of the book (you know, the part that condenses about 1500 pages into 500 and is so dense as to make your eyes bleed) goes into even more detail and explanation, with still more footnotes and citings. He never once says "I invented all of this" - indeed, he mentions over and over again so many times how he is "shoulder standing", and upon who those are, that it is nauseating in its redundancy.
I am not saying this work is a perfect book - no book is. However, it is the kind of book that causes a lot of people, learned or not, to dismiss it outright because it "didn't go through proper channels". These kind of books/research generally wind up in one of two categories after a lot of time has passed: the crackpot/delusional bin, and the "OMFG! His research is right!" bin. You and many others seem to be pushing hard for this work to fall into the former. I personally believe it will fall into the latter.
Where I currently work, we have whiteboards hung on every wall of the office I share with another individual. We fill up and erase them constantly. They are great for jotting down ideas, notes, diagrams, flowcharts, doodles - you name it. We have a large "stock" of dry erase markers which are kept close at hand. In addition we keep rags, erasers, and white board "cleaning fluid" (alcohol) nearby as well.
Some other things to note:
DO NOT BUY YOUR WHITEBOARDS THROUGH AN OFFICE SUPPLY CHAIN. You will be ripped off. Go down to your local "big box" home supply warehouse (Lowes, Home Depot here in the States), and purchase melamine backer board. It comes in 4x8 foot sheets, and it very cheap compared to what you can buy elsewhere. It will be where plywood and particle board is located, and is used in bathrooms (I think for tiling). While it won't be as square or have any fancy alluminium edging, it is the same thing. When you are doing wall-to-wall installations of whiteboards, the cost difference will show itself. Hang it using drywall screws or liquid-nail style glues.
Finally, don't stick those extra large 3M "Post-It" brand flip-chart pages to the whiteboard for too long. The sticky gum they use tends to leave a residue that is VERY DIFFICULT to remove without copius amounts of cleaning fluid - and even then you have to throw away the rag (because then the dry erase will stick to the gum on the rag, and if you use the cleaning fluid again, you will smear the dry erase ink/cleaning fluid/sticky gum all over - making erasing the board a real chore, which will typically happen during a technical presentation - can you tell I have experience with this?)...
ICE-driven cars break down, as everyone knows. With so many moving parts, vast temperature fluxations, etc, they very rarely last longer than 150,000 miles, which is around 10 years for most drivers.
Only if you neglect them. If you take care of your engine - most importantly changing the oil and filter religiously (approx. every 3000 miles or so), your engine is going to last a long while. On top of this important step, you need to remember to replace your timing belt (or, if you have a timing chain, have it inspected and/or adjusted) every 60,000 miles or so. Replace your spark plugs and wires, belts, hoses, etc. In short, you need to care for your engine.
Too often, for whatever stupid reason, a lot of people think that they can just not do any of these things, and everything will be OK. Perhaps leasing causes part of this reasoning, perhaps also people don't like to think about it, rush-rush-rush, and going three years before trading-in, while on the same oil, plugs, belts, etc - they can "get away" with it.
If these same people weren't so bad at math, they would realize that, for the most part, they are simply flushing money away.
Sure, after 150-200,000 miles, your engine is going to be a bit "tired", but it doesn't take much to perk it back up - a tear-down and rebuild is not that expensive when compared to buying (or OMG leasing) an entire new car. About the only thing you get when buying a new car is (maybe) better fuel efficiency. Even I recognize this - I figure that the day will come that I will have to buy a new (or more likely, used, but not too old) car for better fuel efficiency - though my 4-banger Ranger isn't too bad (its the weight of the truck that kills it, though).
Ultimately, it is cheaper to repair/replace/rebuild (unless you are doing a full restoration, of course) than it is to "buy new". If people would keep their vehicles in good shape by performing required maintenance on time and regularly, then when it came time to do that rebuild, they could spend only the amount of the down payment and have a like-new running car, instead of sinking themselves (and ultimately the country) into further debt to pay for a new shiny.
Actually, if you knew anything of Tesla or his patents, you would know that he did patent it - only it wasn't a specialized patent for powering cars only. Tesla envisioned a world in which power generation and use was "free", only when Westinghouse, his financial backer, learned of his plans, he pulled the funding. Tesla envisioned that electricity would be generated to run what were essentially overgrown "Tesla Coils", which would be tuned to the earth's resonant frequency (there was also something about the ionosphere and such in this "trick"), to "pump" the earth with potential energy. People would then be able to use similar, though smaller, Tesla coil-like devices in their cars, homes, etc - to extract this potential energy to power whatever devices they wished to. Wardenclyff was meant to be the first testing tower (Tesla did quite a few experiments in Colorado which proved the viability of the idea). In addition to power, Tesla also envisioned sending information as well. Note that a radio (also invented by Tesla) is essentially a very miniaturized version of all of this. Particularly a crystal-radio (which has no power source other than the electromagnetic radio waves which power it). In theory, you could take a metric-ton of crystal "radios" (believe me, it would take a lot of them) and have the resulting rectified power run a small motor or light an LED (might make an interesting science fair project)...
Kinda late post, but I had to. While what you say is true, that running cars off of electricity moves the pollution to the generating station, arguably it is more efficient and less polluting to do that. The reason is because by centralizing the pollution generation, you are able to centralize the pollution cleanup/reuse. The scrubbers for the pollution are much more efficient than the catalytic converters on individual cars, plus you can potentially do interesting things with the various exhaust gases that you can't do as easily, if at all, in individual vehicles - for example, with the CO and CO2 output, turning it into liquid/solid form for industrial/commercial uses. Of course, this requires that there be laws, regulations, and inspections of powerplants to make sure said scrubbers are in place and are working, but it can (and has) been done. Also note that what you are saying can be turned on its head - if it is so much more efficient and environmentally friendly for us to have engines in each of our cars than electric motors being supplied by a centralized source, why don't each of us run our houses using individual generation systems?
As far as hydrogen is concerned, unless we come up with a good, easy to fill, easy to use, nearly foolproof storage system (for production, transport, holding, and use), we won't be using it any time soon as an energy carrier (it isn't a fuel). Furthermore, we won't be using platinum-based catalytic fuel cells either, as there isn't enough platinum in the world to do so. Unless a breakthrough is made (by being able to use much less platinum as a catalyst, or a different catalyst is found), fuel-cell based vehicles are likely a dead end. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a hydrogen vehicle - I can easily imagine a hydrogen-based vehicle doing direct-burn - either in an ICE-type engine, or gas turbine (perhaps in hybrid mode on either)...
Well, comparing the Robosapien to either the Robonova or other "real" humanoid robots is like comparing apples to oranges, almost. I will say that the Robosapien is a very nice hackable device - the designers left a lot of room for this, which is a good thing. However, it can't really compare to the Robonova or others because it isn't as "dynamically unstable" - that is, the Robosapien, with its "huge feet", isn't as likely to topple over as something like the Robonova. Ideally, a real bipedal design wouldn't even be able to stand without power being applied and some kind of processing happenning to keep it balanced, like humans perform.
With that said, as far as AI is concerned, I would go ahead with using the Robosapien - what I would think you would want for AI research (at least at a hobbyist or student level) would be a cheap mobile platform, easily customizable. The Robosapien fits this bill well, while still giving the AI a "real" body (as opposed to a more "synthetic" body of say, an R/C truck). If you get things working well there, migrating the design to a Robonova-style platform shouldn't be too much of an issue. In this approach, dynamically stable or unstable walking is not something to worry about for AI research (unless you are looking to solve problems/issues in this domain using AI, of course).
What I have I found at a local electronics junk yard, as they were cleaning up/clearing out their outside yard (Apache Reclamation and Electronics in Phoenix). I saw the case (missing its top cover, unfortunately), and said to myself "Holy ****! An Altair!" - I went over to one of the guys, asked how much. He tells me $100.00 - I ask if he can do better (heh), he tells me someone told him it was an antique and worth at least that much (of course it is), and that he was firm on the price. I bought it.
It came with the case (sans top cover), power supply (which I have been told is likely a custom supply), front panel (with all of the LEDs and switches - flat toggles, too, so it one of the older models!), floppy controller card, parallel/serial interface card, several 16K cards, a Z80 card, and a few other cards that I can't remember what they are for.
Oh, and dust! TONS OF DUST AND DIRT ON EVERYTHING! This thing looks like it just sat forever, and without a cover dust is everywhere. The case shows a few of signs of homebrew work (card holders are slotted dowels). I don't have any manuals or such. I have gone back to the place looking for the cover and anything else. Unfortunately, it was in a room in a trailer outside where there is a TON of junk in the way - you can't easily search the room, although I can see from a doorway what I think is a Pertec 8 inch floppy drive system (which might actually go with my Altair, because IIRC, the controller card was a Pertec card). Unfortunately, that does me little good since it is impossible to find 8 inch floppies (I recently found some new old-stock DSDD 5.25 floppies for my Color Computer and thought I struck gold!).
Right now, when I get to restoring it I plan on taking extreme care and time with it. I know that if I go in with too much gusto I will cause damage. I am trying to find out if I can get a new top cover - the manufacturer of the Optima cabinet no longer sells the case, but they are looking into seeing if they can make me a top cover or something (I hope it isn't too expensive). I have been told that if I can get everything restored, my system will probably be worth around $900.00 or so (heck, I could probably part it out today and make that much - but I won't - this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to own a working Altair).
I'm a little younger (1978), but one of the greatest toys ever was the old yellow "big hunk of metal" Tonka dump truck.
Oh, man, are you bringing back memories - those trucks were the greatest, you could do crazy stuff with them that would make today's toys just fall apart. I remember sticking a brick in the back of mine, running with it down the dirt path in my backyard and launching it off a dirt ramp. End-over-end tumbling action, and nothing broken whatsoever!
Eventually, all the paint chipped off, the plastic windows busted out - but overall it stayed in playable condition...
Man, I loved mine. It's sad that they don't make it like they used to anymore.
No, they don't, and unfortunately my mom got rid of mine in time. If I had it today, I could probably sell it for $100.00 (if it was mint, I could sell it for much, much more).
Re:Changing times call for changing business model
on
Re-Inventing Hotwheels
·
· Score: 1
That said, does anyone recall what happened to Fischer-Technik? Those were the most amazing toys when I was growing up... expensive, but I got a solid foundation in mechanics from play.
You must have been a very lucky kid or lived in Europe:) - those were (still are) expensive kits. As far as I know, they are still being made and sold, but they are difficult to find here in the US (not like they have ever been easy to find). I know that Fry's Electronics sold a few them at one time (right next to the Tamiaya motors) - not sure if they still do, but that is the only B&M store I have seen that carries them here.
Here is a place I found by googling - I am sure there are other online stores which sell FT as well...
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I just don't believe the boss is better than me because of his fancy haircut, suit, and tie.
For all anyone knows HeadOn could be a mind control device, or maybe just a way to see if people will buy shit and stick it to their head (probably says "Kick Me HARD" on the outside)...
Ah, so it is more about people looking at you, than it is about what you are presenting - look at me, I am head monkey here!
People also don't want to hold up their notebook, point to a little dot, and hope everyone sees the same in front of their monitors - they want to point at a big screen and show their pie chart or whatever.
That is why shared desktops exist. One guy is the "presenter", and the rest can easily follow what he is doing on their screens. If you absolutely need a big screen (and there are times), hook one up to the presenter's laptop, dual screen the thing, and then when needed (or when people need it), they can look at it. There isn't any need for somebody to stand up and point (and if you absolutely have to, they have these things called laser pointers, which can be used from a sitting position).
Plus, if the boss is making an important presentation about next quarters earnings expectations, etcetera, he wants to know he has your attention, not that you are checking your email or some nonsense clandestinely.
Maybe the boss needs to put more trust in the people that he has hired, and if those people break that trust, then maybe they need to be talked to, and failing that, let them go. Of course, I have a feeling this is more about point one (ie, being the head monkey), and less about whatever is being talked about. Vain monkeys tend to get upset when the other monkeys don't preen on about how good they look.
Meanwhile, us humans just try to get the damn work done so we can go home at the end of the day to relax with a beer and some sex with our SOs.
However, I still wonder why many people, who usually have at least two cars, never make a truck one of them. It doesn't have to be a big truck, either - a small Ford Ranger, a Nissan Frontier - hell, even an old Datsun - and you can handle 90% of the loads you will ever likely come across, even as a homeowner.
No, you won't be moving big loads of rock or brick with such a small truck, but you can haul wood and other building materials, and all sorts of other large loads like refrigerators, TVs, and washing machines. Get a 6 or 4 banger, and you won't even have to worry about using much gas (still more than most small cars, but it isn't that bad).
The first boss I ever had (doing yardwork and home alarm installation as a kid) told me some sage advice: "Get a vehicle that can work for you, not a vehicle you work for". In just about all areas of life, that means a truck (or a van) - something that even in the most dire of times where you can't find a job, you can at least do delivery jobs of some sort with (or construction, or welding, or plumbing, or yard maintenance, etc).
Seems like a lot people never get this advice, or if they do, they don't understand it and take it to heart...
Maybe it isn't such a good idea (I wasn't really serious, anyhow)...
TNSTAAFL and all - that I know, but there should be a way to use Stirling engines to generate power on land without requiring massive dishes, mirror arrays, or solar panels to drive one small engine (personally, I would love to see a system that could give you enough output to run a house and cost way less than what is needed for a solar panel setup - even if it takes up more room).
Regardless of the product being sold (shaving cream, butter, cars, liquor, beer, computers, clothing, soft drinks, food, etc), the advertisement will almost invariably have a sexual element to it. Why? Because sex sells products. The advertisers know this, we know this - because it works (unless you're a bastard like me who simply buys whatever is cheapest or works best, regardless of adverts). The actors and actresses involved in making those advertisements are typically young and sexy. Even if they aren't young, they tend to be sexy and good looking.
Ultimately it comes down to "buy our product and you will be sexy and/or get this guy/girl".
But woe be it to those who actually try to act on the feelings these advertisements tease (litterally) out of us. Sure, that girl may be sexy, but if you dare look for too long at a girl on the street who IS sexy, you are a pervert. If you are female and do the same, you a slut or whore. If you discuss sex, want sex, get sex, do sex, act sexy, are sexy - you are labeled "bad" - but buy our products anyhow, please?
Sex=Bad, Sex=Product=Good, cognitive dissonance reigns supreme...
All of this is shown to our children, and they make the connections, and see the illogic of it, and those who have children can't explain it to their kids because they would have to explain sex, and Sex=Bad, remember? These commercials and advertisements, that our children can see and understand (magazine covers, radio ads, department store flyers, commercials on TV, even shows targetting children it sometimes seems, because parents inevitably watch them, too) - they all have a sexual element to them, to sell the product.
The adverts say "sex is good, consume our products, sex is good", while society and parents scream about "SEX IS BAAAAD - THINK ABOUT THE CHIIIIIILLLLLLDDDDDRRRRRREEEENNNN!!!!"
Meanwhile pornography in the US is one of the growth industries during a recession (like it has never been a growth industry, no pun intended). But remember - Sex=Bad, but Sex=Product=Good (hmm, maybe this is why porn is consumed here in the US, because it is the ultimate expression of Sex as a Product?)...
Our children see all of this, take all of this in, and we punish them for exhibiting any sexual urges, though it is undeniable that they are or ultimately will become sexual beings. The cognitive dissonance, the view of the hypocrisy, without the understanding of its existence (not to mention the why or how of it - I understand its existence, but I can't even honestly answer the why or how, and any answer I could give probably isn't half the story) - is it any wonder our children are confused?
Is it any wonder the adults are, too...? Pass the soma, please...
I know this, you know this, sadly, most Americans do not.
I was listening to NPR this morning driving into work, and they were talking about a speech Prime Minister Malaki was giving (regarding not backing down to insurgents and how they don't represent true Muslims and Islam, etc), which was interrupted briefly by someone in the gallery urging loudly that the American troops need to "go home". This individual was hauled off by security and the speech resumed.
I found it troubling that in this supposed new "democracy" of Iraq (yeah, right), that an individual's right to speak freely was abridged in such a manner (true, he could have chosen a better venue to do so in - interrupting a speech uninvited isn't the best way to get your point across), and how it seems like something people accept (there and here in the USA), is disturbing to say the least. At least he got to say it, though - most of the time here in the States you are herded into "Free Speech Zones" to speak freely (or similarly if you interrupt a speech of the party in power, you get hauled away as well - just ask Cindy).
--- !!! PUKE !!! ---
This isn't the "Land of the Free" I was taught about in school - who the fuck are these fascists, anyway?
I am not the poster you replied to, but I understand what you mean. At one point, I was a member of both the ACLU and the NRA (also, at one time I had an EFF membership - I should renew), now I am just a member of the ACLU.
The problem I had with the NRA is that they seem to be just another fundraising arm for the Republican party. Everytime their magazine came to the door I had to grit my teeth, since it just seemed like more conservative republican propaganda. I tried to read the magazine, I really did, but it just didn't seem to offer anything to me. It seemed like they actively discourage people who may legally own firearms, but who are liberal in viewpoints (social, economic, or otherwise). In these people's minds, it is like you can't both own a gun and be pro-choice or anti-death penalty at the same time - that just isn't an option to them. This is why I drop my membership like a hot potatoe, though I wished it could be otherwise.
I may not agree with everything the ACLU does, but I can see the logic behind their decisions and causes. It is mostly based upon a logical rational approach to constitutional freedoms and human rights. They don't seem to be "anti-conservative" or "anti-republican", nor "anti-liberal" or "anti-" any party. They are, however, pro-freedom, for all - regardless of race, religion, or creed. That I can stand for, even if I may not agree with everything entirely. If the NRA was more like this, I would be more apt to rejoin.
I don't see them swinging that way, though, any time soon...
I don't have much experience in workflow or business process management (BPM - please, when you use acronyms, spell them out the first time prior to first use, to help those who don't know what the acronym stands for), but what I have experienced at my current job (a very small company) has taught me many things in this problem domain.
The biggest thing has been, in regards to workflow and BPM, you need to talk to the people doing the task. To do this properly, you need to:
Now comes a fun part: Analyze your flowchart. Do you see possibilities for errors? Do you handle those errors gracefully? Are there any possibilities for "endless loops" in your flowchart - if so, you need to iron those out. If you notice lines crossing hither and thither, there is probably an issue with complexity and/or layout that needs to be solved - solve it now! Your flowchart should be simple and easy to read - that doesn't mean it can't be long. However, if it is long, consider that you may be defining sub-processes within an overall larger process, instead of defining the process itself. Step back, determine if this is the case, and if so, identify those sub-processes, and save them elsewhere, and replace that larger sub-process with a single step in the main process (referencing the sub-process flowchart - don't throw away the work!). Something to also keep in mind for these flowcharts are what I am going to call "ladder/grid design" (I am pretty sure there is an actual term for this flowchart design): Basically, the flowchart is organized in such a way as to show when the process "moves" across/down different business areas, and the steps in the flowchart are plotted and organized in these grid areas to show the flow of the process as it influences/comes in contact with these different groups. If you can "guess on it" up-front, go for it. If not, keep it in mind for the next step:
Talk to the people you have identified as being involved in the process.
If you can swing it - if the process doesn't involve too many people - try to bring them all together in one room, hand out copies of the process you have designed, and meet to discuss whether the process seems realistic. Do they follow the steps in that order? Are all the steps represented? Are some steps "soft" vs. "hard" (that is, are some simply non-automateable, while others should be)? What happens in those steps? Are the people/groups you identified as being involved actually involved? Have you missed any? Now is the time for discussion - to determine what the real current process is, and whether it actually has problems itself, and how they can possibly be fixed.
You will discuss. You will argue. You will take notes. You will redraw and scribble all over your flowcharts. Keep the meeting under two hours, and at the end, agree to and schedule to meet again in a week, after you have revised the flowchart of the process to meet the expectations what was discussed. Then, repeat this process again and again until it is decided that it looks correct enough to implement it.
In theory, you should be able to implement the entire process without having severe automation of every step - if you can't in some way do it on paper, your business will fail (or at least be set back) the next time the power goes out. Once you are able to determine "how to do it on paper", you can then automate those steps where you can to speed them up - but don't forget about the paper possibility, because some day you may need it.
When you have it all defined, then put the process to work - hand out "final copies" of the process flow, get everyone int
I have wondered if such a device is possible - I am sure you have heard of an OTEC - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion - where you basically hook a Stirling engine driving a generator up to a system where your temp differential is obtained from two different ocean thermal layers. So, why not something Land/Desert-based? Your thermal gradient would be the difference between the outside air and/or a black heated metal plate (or buried copper tubing lines in asphalt - a use for all of that road surface, maybe?), and another set buried 20 feet or so underground (where the temperature is pretty stable and very cool). Possibly at night you could even reverse the process (use the metal plate as a night sky radiator and heat from the soil just below the surface), though it would probably be less efficient. I really think something like this could work if you could find the appropriate working fluid for the Stirling engine (not sure, is helium the best?)...
Here in Arizona there is a publicly "accessible" form of this at the Boyce Thompson Arboretum - albeit just with the "cool" tower. They typically operate it in the dry summer months (not during monsoons) - basically the same system as you describe, except with a fan at the bottom of the cool tower to draw the air down, which is then pumped into their outside "lobby" area. It makes the lobby area a very nice place to be after walking through the park...
I am not too sure what you mean by "wanking" - when I read it, I felt it was the opposite - that he was self-deprecating his research. He constantly refers to others research in the same areas, and notes copiously who they are/were. He does talk about how he feels he is the first to put 1+1 together, about how others have done similar research but never came to the conclusions he has. I haven't read all of the material out there on the varied and wide subjects, but I have read a lot (CA, complexity, emergence, chaos, etc) - and none of them ever came to the conclusions Wolfram has.
His basic conclusion - what the book goes over and over with, nearly "pounding" it into your head - is that complexity can and does arise in nature from simple sets of "rules". He found one of these sets (I think it was 6 rules for a 2D CA that he uses as an example throughout) using Mathematica, speculating that the six rules were the simplest he found, but by no means necessary the simplest possible. This simple set of rules, given certain input patterns, he shows how it can simulate the outputs of much of what we discern as natural "chaotic" processes - wind and water patterns, weather, seashell designs, zebra striping, and snowflakes - to name a few. Furthermore, the same system of rules can be coaxed into acting and working exactly like a UTM (Universal Turing Machine). Imagine - six simple rules which can replicate any other UTM (including the PC you are using right now, by the way, given enough time to run, of course). He goes to show that even when you make the system more complex (for example, by adding more rules or extra dimensions), slices through the data set show that the output devolves into the simpler two-dimensional six rule implementation. This is the essence of what he calls the "Theory of Universal Computation".
Yes, other authors disagree with him - including authors that I hold in high regard as well (Ray Kurzweil comes to mind). Who is right, who is wrong? No one really knows, but the code is simple to reproduce and play with (many have wrote implementations of it in many languages since the book's publication), so there is a foundation upon which to explore. It is a concept that has people frothing and gnashing similarly to the whole original AI debate (top down vs. bottom up, hard vs. soft). I think that some interesting discoveries and applications could come from the idea if we would quit nit-picking at its flaws, whatever they may be, and actually start trying to apply and explore the concepts.
Try reading it again - if you have to skip sections because of boredom or whatever, then do so (it is written in such a way that it doesn't need to be read 100 percent linearly). After you finish (or not, as the case may be), I could reccommend to you a whole host of other books to read on similar (and I tend to believe related) subjects (if you are interested, email me - I have also posted these lists here before on
I won't argue the "peer-reviewed" argument, you are definitely right on this (although, why should every little bit be scrutinized? Wolfram was attempting to show the connections between all of the work, not the individual pieces themselves). However, I don't think you are being fair to the issue of citings.
Had you read the book as you seem to indicate, you would know that on nearly every page of it Wolfram goes on (ad nauseum, it seems) about how he wasn't the first, telling you who originally did it, and wondering why they didn't see the connections (or why letter researchers didn't either). He notes that some did see some of the connections, but none seem to have seen all of the connections and implications. Finally, Wolfram provides copious footnotes and other references throughout the book that do reference others. The last part of the book (you know, the part that condenses about 1500 pages into 500 and is so dense as to make your eyes bleed) goes into even more detail and explanation, with still more footnotes and citings. He never once says "I invented all of this" - indeed, he mentions over and over again so many times how he is "shoulder standing", and upon who those are, that it is nauseating in its redundancy.
I am not saying this work is a perfect book - no book is. However, it is the kind of book that causes a lot of people, learned or not, to dismiss it outright because it "didn't go through proper channels". These kind of books/research generally wind up in one of two categories after a lot of time has passed: the crackpot/delusional bin, and the "OMFG! His research is right!" bin. You and many others seem to be pushing hard for this work to fall into the former. I personally believe it will fall into the latter.
Only time will tell, though...
Actually, it probably tastes like ostrich, which tastes nothing like chicken (actually, it tastes like beef - it is a red meat, after all)...
Where I currently work, we have whiteboards hung on every wall of the office I share with another individual. We fill up and erase them constantly. They are great for jotting down ideas, notes, diagrams, flowcharts, doodles - you name it. We have a large "stock" of dry erase markers which are kept close at hand. In addition we keep rags, erasers, and white board "cleaning fluid" (alcohol) nearby as well.
Some other things to note:
DO NOT BUY YOUR WHITEBOARDS THROUGH AN OFFICE SUPPLY CHAIN. You will be ripped off. Go down to your local "big box" home supply warehouse (Lowes, Home Depot here in the States), and purchase melamine backer board. It comes in 4x8 foot sheets, and it very cheap compared to what you can buy elsewhere. It will be where plywood and particle board is located, and is used in bathrooms (I think for tiling). While it won't be as square or have any fancy alluminium edging, it is the same thing. When you are doing wall-to-wall installations of whiteboards, the cost difference will show itself. Hang it using drywall screws or liquid-nail style glues.
Finally, don't stick those extra large 3M "Post-It" brand flip-chart pages to the whiteboard for too long. The sticky gum they use tends to leave a residue that is VERY DIFFICULT to remove without copius amounts of cleaning fluid - and even then you have to throw away the rag (because then the dry erase will stick to the gum on the rag, and if you use the cleaning fluid again, you will smear the dry erase ink/cleaning fluid/sticky gum all over - making erasing the board a real chore, which will typically happen during a technical presentation - can you tell I have experience with this?)...
Only if you neglect them. If you take care of your engine - most importantly changing the oil and filter religiously (approx. every 3000 miles or so), your engine is going to last a long while. On top of this important step, you need to remember to replace your timing belt (or, if you have a timing chain, have it inspected and/or adjusted) every 60,000 miles or so. Replace your spark plugs and wires, belts, hoses, etc. In short, you need to care for your engine.
Too often, for whatever stupid reason, a lot of people think that they can just not do any of these things, and everything will be OK. Perhaps leasing causes part of this reasoning, perhaps also people don't like to think about it, rush-rush-rush, and going three years before trading-in, while on the same oil, plugs, belts, etc - they can "get away" with it.
If these same people weren't so bad at math, they would realize that, for the most part, they are simply flushing money away.
Sure, after 150-200,000 miles, your engine is going to be a bit "tired", but it doesn't take much to perk it back up - a tear-down and rebuild is not that expensive when compared to buying (or OMG leasing) an entire new car. About the only thing you get when buying a new car is (maybe) better fuel efficiency. Even I recognize this - I figure that the day will come that I will have to buy a new (or more likely, used, but not too old) car for better fuel efficiency - though my 4-banger Ranger isn't too bad (its the weight of the truck that kills it, though).
Ultimately, it is cheaper to repair/replace/rebuild (unless you are doing a full restoration, of course) than it is to "buy new". If people would keep their vehicles in good shape by performing required maintenance on time and regularly, then when it came time to do that rebuild, they could spend only the amount of the down payment and have a like-new running car, instead of sinking themselves (and ultimately the country) into further debt to pay for a new shiny.
You might want to rethink that...
Actually, if you knew anything of Tesla or his patents, you would know that he did patent it - only it wasn't a specialized patent for powering cars only. Tesla envisioned a world in which power generation and use was "free", only when Westinghouse, his financial backer, learned of his plans, he pulled the funding. Tesla envisioned that electricity would be generated to run what were essentially overgrown "Tesla Coils", which would be tuned to the earth's resonant frequency (there was also something about the ionosphere and such in this "trick"), to "pump" the earth with potential energy. People would then be able to use similar, though smaller, Tesla coil-like devices in their cars, homes, etc - to extract this potential energy to power whatever devices they wished to. Wardenclyff was meant to be the first testing tower (Tesla did quite a few experiments in Colorado which proved the viability of the idea). In addition to power, Tesla also envisioned sending information as well. Note that a radio (also invented by Tesla) is essentially a very miniaturized version of all of this. Particularly a crystal-radio (which has no power source other than the electromagnetic radio waves which power it). In theory, you could take a metric-ton of crystal "radios" (believe me, it would take a lot of them) and have the resulting rectified power run a small motor or light an LED (might make an interesting science fair project)...
As far as hydrogen is concerned, unless we come up with a good, easy to fill, easy to use, nearly foolproof storage system (for production, transport, holding, and use), we won't be using it any time soon as an energy carrier (it isn't a fuel). Furthermore, we won't be using platinum-based catalytic fuel cells either, as there isn't enough platinum in the world to do so. Unless a breakthrough is made (by being able to use much less platinum as a catalyst, or a different catalyst is found), fuel-cell based vehicles are likely a dead end. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a hydrogen vehicle - I can easily imagine a hydrogen-based vehicle doing direct-burn - either in an ICE-type engine, or gas turbine (perhaps in hybrid mode on either)...
With that said, as far as AI is concerned, I would go ahead with using the Robosapien - what I would think you would want for AI research (at least at a hobbyist or student level) would be a cheap mobile platform, easily customizable. The Robosapien fits this bill well, while still giving the AI a "real" body (as opposed to a more "synthetic" body of say, an R/C truck). If you get things working well there, migrating the design to a Robonova-style platform shouldn't be too much of an issue. In this approach, dynamically stable or unstable walking is not something to worry about for AI research (unless you are looking to solve problems/issues in this domain using AI, of course).
Sounds like a cross between what Jeff Hawkins described in On Intelligence, and the FPGA evolvable hardware of the CAM-Brain Machine project...
It came with the case (sans top cover), power supply (which I have been told is likely a custom supply), front panel (with all of the LEDs and switches - flat toggles, too, so it one of the older models!), floppy controller card, parallel/serial interface card, several 16K cards, a Z80 card, and a few other cards that I can't remember what they are for.
Oh, and dust! TONS OF DUST AND DIRT ON EVERYTHING! This thing looks like it just sat forever, and without a cover dust is everywhere. The case shows a few of signs of homebrew work (card holders are slotted dowels). I don't have any manuals or such. I have gone back to the place looking for the cover and anything else. Unfortunately, it was in a room in a trailer outside where there is a TON of junk in the way - you can't easily search the room, although I can see from a doorway what I think is a Pertec 8 inch floppy drive system (which might actually go with my Altair, because IIRC, the controller card was a Pertec card). Unfortunately, that does me little good since it is impossible to find 8 inch floppies (I recently found some new old-stock DSDD 5.25 floppies for my Color Computer and thought I struck gold!).
Right now, when I get to restoring it I plan on taking extreme care and time with it. I know that if I go in with too much gusto I will cause damage. I am trying to find out if I can get a new top cover - the manufacturer of the Optima cabinet no longer sells the case, but they are looking into seeing if they can make me a top cover or something (I hope it isn't too expensive). I have been told that if I can get everything restored, my system will probably be worth around $900.00 or so (heck, I could probably part it out today and make that much - but I won't - this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to own a working Altair).
Oh, man, are you bringing back memories - those trucks were the greatest, you could do crazy stuff with them that would make today's toys just fall apart. I remember sticking a brick in the back of mine, running with it down the dirt path in my backyard and launching it off a dirt ramp. End-over-end tumbling action, and nothing broken whatsoever!
Eventually, all the paint chipped off, the plastic windows busted out - but overall it stayed in playable condition...
Man, I loved mine. It's sad that they don't make it like they used to anymore.
No, they don't, and unfortunately my mom got rid of mine in time. If I had it today, I could probably sell it for $100.00 (if it was mint, I could sell it for much, much more).
You must have been a very lucky kid or lived in Europe
Here is a place I found by googling - I am sure there are other online stores which sell FT as well...