I had the impression (uh, no quotes, sorry) that one of the primary problems was not simply pumping blood, but pumping the right amount of blood. A natural heart adjusts depending on the needs of the body - for an artificial heart, is this a big issue? Does anyone know how it is addressed, in general, and in this specific case?
Uh, yeah. . How about "for the price of a good camera". Putting it like that, I guess the resulting question would be "What for?". I use my IT equipment for IT 90% of the time. If I didn't have a computer, I wouldn't need a computer, as it were. The other 10%? Uh, games?
My word. I _did_ leave out an "in my opinion" or "I think that" at the beginning there. Thus, I take back my statement, and declare the opposite: The first wheel ever actually pumped air into people's lungs. No, wait, I'll go ask that Australian guy, who just invented the wheel. He's the man.
One thing I find interesting is that many of the guys who built this stuff are still around. I feel ancient showing the PFYs around here my ZX81, and they go "Oh, neat. So small. Is it new?" (Aaaargh!). On occasion I imagine going back just 40 years, and trying to convince anyone who wasn't certifiable, that yes, GHz speeds, under the desk, running off the power of a fsking lightbulb, for less than 1k$ is pretty much the norm. It's probably less interesting for the 604 guys, who came the long way around (as it were), but talk about exciting. (goes all starry-eyed).
(Gigs, Megs - whatever).
I think of categories. The rotary engine is different from the piston engine, but they're both internal (infernal?) combustion engines. A sliver of silicon is different from a vacuum tube, but they both act as electric gates (or, well, millions of them) Along these lines, yes, there's no big, big difference, but real innovation _is_ rare. The wheel is my favourite example: excruciatingly simple, yet a breathtaking innovation in it's day (and it hasn't fundamentally changed since. The next step? Magnetic barings, perhaps? A mere couple of millennia later.) But why is this so? Look at computers: how else to solve a problem other than to formulate rules, and in a boneheaded manner, apply the rules billions of time in as short a time as possible (i.e. program. Next step: if I had a clue, I believe I just might obscenely rich). Or display: How to generate an arbitrary image, other than to split it up into as many little coloured dots as possible, and put them all into a matrix? (Next step: holographic displays... but probably along the same lines)
Yes, but accountable to whom? Accountable to the law, or to anyone who disagrees, and has no better use of sometimes formidable resources to toast you?
(Even better: unjust laws. I predict that in fifty years time, our descendants will look back upon this age with puzzlement: "They outlawed *grass*? Freaky. Now, prohibition, that I can understand. alcohol is a killer, but this? And at the same time tobacco was legal? Freakish, hey?")
n.b.: not posted as AC. Will I regret this?
Re:Sure, the hell with the rule of law...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Cops: I postulate that Jews in the third reich (as well as disabled people, catholics, gays, gipsies, etc.) had a harder time due to the excecutive not showing any civil disobedience, rather than showing too much. The cops were enforcing unjust laws.
Do the work? Do you mean people are only entitled to an opinion on GE if they work in GE? I think there have been instances in the past where big companies have inflicted things on the world where it has afterwards turned out that homework had not been done. Why? The profit motive. That's why there are such things as the FDA. Without some kind of control, no-one will feel accountable; politics is centered more and more around big business; and yes, I worry. And, unknowing as I admittedly am, I voice that worry, too.
Finally: I do agree with you on the point that this kind of terrorism is counter-productive. But that the opinions it is based on are an essential, albeit radical, element in the whole discourse. I would also say that a lifestyle is not above criticism, and that yes, someone else driving a SUV does has an effect on me, even if that person never comes within 200 miles of me. Just not nearly enough to justify torching it.
There is an interesting debate going on in parts of Europe right now concerning the insertion of engineered plants / animals into the food chain (acceptance in Yurp isn't as high as in the US). There was a radio interview the other day in which a point was brought up which I thought was interesting:
Engineered food is an unknown risk, but in a new way. Other large-scale risks can be calculated with more precision, e.g. nuclear power, direct contamination of water supply etc. Engineered food may have a very large scale impact 20 years down the road, and however small chances are, they must be "multiplied" by this potential impact. The question was of insurance, and the point was: insurance in this instance is doing nothing other than allowing companies to take risks they would otherwise not take, by paying for someone else to take over not only the risk, but actually the accountability.
The worst-case scenario would be a cross between Thalidomid ("Contergan") for the masses and, well, lots and lots of insurance companies in chapter 13.
I have the feeling that the cameras, as described, will only be able to pick out the criminals who are "every day joes with less than conservative viewpoints" (as waterhouse puts it, #6).
Any serious criminals will make the effort to disguise themselves - as ever.
What we have here is a dragnet for social misfits - the the land of freedom.
I agree, but even more: "e.g. voting".
What occurs to me is that this development is completely rational. It can be argued through top to bottom, and there is no mistake in it. Short version: The law is made, or agreed upon by the people, the cops enforce the law to their utmost ability, with is nothing less than what the people want.
However - taking one of the more controversial issues of today as an exapmle, namely hemp, it is clear that the law cannot agree with everyone at all times. And what happens if the law, or certain parts of it, suddenly are no longer agreeable to a majority the people, because they were drafted by "someone else" (*cough*big business*cough*)?
Ybor City is only 17 years behind schedule (due to software release dates, no doubt), but going strong.
But other rocket experts are worried, not least because the Thunderbird capsule is actually a converted cement mixer, containing sheets of hardboard and a few computer joysticks.
...it occurrs to me that maybe he should be putting the hardboard on the outside, the way the Chinese do it (No. 96). Or perhaps he intends for the mixer to break up, so he can float down a la Lawn Chair Larry, no doubt frantically gripping his SideWinder 3D.
On that note (I am far, far from being a rocket scientist): does anyone know what the reentry problems are? AFAIK, the atmosphere reaches up to 40km (well, just gets thinner and thinner, but 40km is a nice number), so crashing down from 100km gives 60km of free fall, giving him a reentry speed of mach 2.7 - so not exactly the MIR, but still perhaps an LD50. Or are my numbers completely screwed?
No kidding.
a) Of course, I reuse passwords a lot, too. As a PFY I picked up s/th from the local BOFH a while back: Do not change passwords all too often, instead keep the passwords you do use secure. Make several "levels" of passwords: e.g. for banking I use the "securest" one, which I give nobody, for gmx,/. etc. I use a medium one, which I might tell friends if necessary, for hotmail I use a throwaway one, assuming it's public knowledge anyway.
b) Paranoid? Sure!...but am I paranoid enough?
I still mourn the Newton/eMate. The smallest integrated computer which was big enough to act as it's own development environment, and had no legacy issues in the OS. Closest thing to the Sandbender (Idoru). *sigh*
I concur ("me too!"2).
What I do is keep a load of text files (about 4 dozen at the last count) with all my PWs, in "obfuscated clear-text", and zip them all up with a(nother) password.
For the lesser-used ones, I open the zip, open the corresponding text file (...and then forget to delete the doc in the temp folder - not). Whatever could be easier? (Keeping the logins on a remote server @ Fudompany with a rep for iffy sec? Nah. Ridiculous. Laughable.)
Yah. And the guys who put up the monoliths set ablaze uncounted swaths of flora and fauna, just so we wouldn't trip over it.
A bit like mowing down the nettles before letting the kids into the yard.
No all I want from our "parents" is for them to come back, hand us a platinum galacticard, and send us on our post-adolescent backpacking trip round the galaxy. Dibs!
I agree that Mostly Harmless was the most cynical work by Douglas Adams, and that it didn't really fit in with the rest, but I also find that quite apt. Apart from killing off all possibility of a sequel (although I would love to read the complete history of the Cathedral of Chalesm), it could be understood as a comment on the popularity of the series (of the books, not the original radio~), and what it had become.
In that, it was quite visionary, albeit darkly so. I postulate parallels between the development of the Guide within the series and the Internet in the real world - how long before netNanny et al watch over all of us, from some black box plopped on every router everywhere? How long before the common technology Internet, brought to you by Microsoft? I mean - Neuromancer is more positive in outlook.
But before descending irredeemably into a rant - Salmon of Doubt: bring it on. I have the complete collection, including both Liffs, the short story with Zaphod, and last Chance. It's going to be published anyway, and I, for one, will show great appreciation being able to witness it.
Not a day goes by where I don't ask myself "What would Arthur do?" (ending up in me indulging in activities in a very wide range, from making sandwiches to putting on Dire Straits)
Good point.
One direction MS wants to go (obviously), is integrating software into machines, processes, what-have-you, but in a completely opaque manner.
Imagine a car, where it's impossible for you, the owner, to legally take it apart, find out how it works, or modify it in any way. Or an aeroplane - built by MSAircrafts, serviced (exclusively) by MSAircrafts, fuel supplied (exclusively) by MSAircrafts, and so on.
Now for mechanical devices, this is really inconceivable - but for computers? Digital Video Recorders? WMF-players? Your stereo?
The philosophical issue is the following: One side regards software, in the abstract, to be a tool, to be used in any business or private process - from running a bank's back-office to watching a film (a.k.a. "movie"). The focus is getting the job done, the payment for writing GPL SW is better tools, made by other GPL SW developers.
The other side regards software as a packaged product to be sold, as-is, no-you-don't-need-to-understand-how-it-works-thank -you, potentially pretty much without regard as to whether it gets the job done the way the consumer wants. (I, for one, don't want my video in a form in which it can't be media-shifted - which doesn't actually mean that I'm going to steal it, BTW).
The point of the last post, as I understand it, is that GPL software development actually would work on a large scale in a business environment, that innovation would happen in software even if *all* of it were GPL'ed, and that there would still be payed jobs for programmers, because it would still make sense for people to pay programmers, even if the result were open source / free / GPL'd.
But then, I'm preaching to the choir here, aren't I?
Slashdot Mirror
"ADWANK"... ehehehe
SHD("sitting here grinning")
I had the impression (uh, no quotes, sorry) that one of the primary problems was not simply pumping blood, but pumping the right amount of blood. A natural heart adjusts depending on the needs of the body - for an artificial heart, is this a big issue? Does anyone know how it is addressed, in general, and in this specific case?
Uh, yeah. . How about "for the price of a good camera". Putting it like that, I guess the resulting question would be "What for?". I use my IT equipment for IT 90% of the time. If I didn't have a computer, I wouldn't need a computer, as it were. The other 10%? Uh, games?
My word. I _did_ leave out an "in my opinion" or "I think that" at the beginning there.
Thus, I take back my statement, and declare the opposite: The first wheel ever actually pumped air into people's lungs.
No, wait, I'll go ask that Australian guy, who just invented the wheel. He's the man.
One thing I find interesting is that many of the guys who built this stuff are still around. I feel ancient showing the PFYs around here my ZX81, and they go "Oh, neat. So small. Is it new?" (Aaaargh!).
On occasion I imagine going back just 40 years, and trying to convince anyone who wasn't certifiable, that yes, GHz speeds, under the desk, running off the power of a fsking lightbulb, for less than 1k$ is pretty much the norm. It's probably less interesting for the 604 guys, who came the long way around (as it were), but talk about exciting. (goes all starry-eyed).
(Gigs, Megs - whatever). ... but probably along the same lines)
I think of categories. The rotary engine is different from the piston engine, but they're both internal (infernal?) combustion engines.
A sliver of silicon is different from a vacuum tube, but they both act as electric gates (or, well, millions of them)
Along these lines, yes, there's no big, big difference, but real innovation _is_ rare. The wheel is my favourite example: excruciatingly simple, yet a breathtaking innovation in it's day (and it hasn't fundamentally changed since. The next step? Magnetic barings, perhaps? A mere couple of millennia later.)
But why is this so? Look at computers: how else to solve a problem other than to formulate rules, and in a boneheaded manner, apply the rules billions of time in as short a time as possible (i.e. program. Next step: if I had a clue, I believe I just might obscenely rich). Or display: How to generate an arbitrary image, other than to split it up into as many little coloured dots as possible, and put them all into a matrix? (Next step: holographic displays
Yes, but accountable to whom? Accountable to the law, or to anyone who disagrees, and has no better use of sometimes formidable resources to toast you?
(Even better: unjust laws. I predict that in fifty years time, our descendants will look back upon this age with puzzlement: "They outlawed *grass*? Freaky. Now, prohibition, that I can understand. alcohol is a killer, but this? And at the same time tobacco was legal? Freakish, hey?")
n.b.: not posted as AC. Will I regret this?
Cops: I postulate that Jews in the third reich (as well as disabled people, catholics, gays, gipsies, etc.) had a harder time due to the excecutive not showing any civil disobedience, rather than showing too much. The cops were enforcing unjust laws.
Do the work? Do you mean people are only entitled to an opinion on GE if they work in GE? I think there have been instances in the past where big companies have inflicted things on the world where it has afterwards turned out that homework had not been done. Why? The profit motive. That's why there are such things as the FDA. Without some kind of control, no-one will feel accountable; politics is centered more and more around big business; and yes, I worry. And, unknowing as I admittedly am, I voice that worry, too.
Finally: I do agree with you on the point that this kind of terrorism is counter-productive. But that the opinions it is based on are an essential, albeit radical, element in the whole discourse. I would also say that a lifestyle is not above criticism, and that yes, someone else driving a SUV does has an effect on me, even if that person never comes within 200 miles of me. Just not nearly enough to justify torching it.
There is an interesting debate going on in parts of Europe right now concerning the insertion of engineered plants / animals into the food chain (acceptance in Yurp isn't as high as in the US). There was a radio interview the other day in which a point was brought up which I thought was interesting:
Engineered food is an unknown risk, but in a new way. Other large-scale risks can be calculated with more precision, e.g. nuclear power, direct contamination of water supply etc. Engineered food may have a very large scale impact 20 years down the road, and however small chances are, they must be "multiplied" by this potential impact. The question was of insurance, and the point was: insurance in this instance is doing nothing other than allowing companies to take risks they would otherwise not take, by paying for someone else to take over not only the risk, but actually the accountability.
The worst-case scenario would be a cross between Thalidomid ("Contergan") for the masses and, well, lots and lots of insurance companies in chapter 13.
I have the feeling that the cameras, as described, will only be able to pick out the criminals who are "every day joes with less than conservative viewpoints" (as waterhouse puts it, #6).
Any serious criminals will make the effort to disguise themselves - as ever.
What we have here is a dragnet for social misfits - the the land of freedom.
I agree, but even more: "e.g. voting". What occurs to me is that this development is completely rational. It can be argued through top to bottom, and there is no mistake in it. Short version: The law is made, or agreed upon by the people, the cops enforce the law to their utmost ability, with is nothing less than what the people want. However - taking one of the more controversial issues of today as an exapmle, namely hemp, it is clear that the law cannot agree with everyone at all times. And what happens if the law, or certain parts of it, suddenly are no longer agreeable to a majority the people, because they were drafted by "someone else" (*cough*big business*cough*)? Ybor City is only 17 years behind schedule (due to software release dates, no doubt), but going strong.
- But other rocket experts are worried, not least because the Thunderbird capsule is actually a converted cement mixer, containing sheets of hardboard and a few computer joysticks.
...it occurrs to me that maybe he should be putting the hardboard on the outside, the way the Chinese do it (No. 96).Or perhaps he intends for the mixer to break up, so he can float down a la Lawn Chair Larry, no doubt frantically gripping his SideWinder 3D.
On that note (I am far, far from being a rocket scientist): does anyone know what the reentry problems are? AFAIK, the atmosphere reaches up to 40km (well, just gets thinner and thinner, but 40km is a nice number), so crashing down from 100km gives 60km of free fall, giving him a reentry speed of mach 2.7 - so not exactly the MIR, but still perhaps an LD50. Or are my numbers completely screwed?
No kidding. /. etc. I use a medium one, which I might tell friends if necessary, for hotmail I use a throwaway one, assuming it's public knowledge anyway.
...but am I paranoid enough?
a) Of course, I reuse passwords a lot, too. As a PFY I picked up s/th from the local BOFH a while back: Do not change passwords all too often, instead keep the passwords you do use secure. Make several "levels" of passwords: e.g. for banking I use the "securest" one, which I give nobody, for gmx,
b) Paranoid? Sure!
I still mourn the Newton/eMate.
The smallest integrated computer which was big enough to act as it's own development environment, and had no legacy issues in the OS. Closest thing to the Sandbender (Idoru). *sigh*
I concur ("me too!"2).
What I do is keep a load of text files (about 4 dozen at the last count) with all my PWs, in "obfuscated clear-text", and zip them all up with a(nother) password.
For the lesser-used ones, I open the zip, open the corresponding text file (...and then forget to delete the doc in the temp folder - not). Whatever could be easier? (Keeping the logins on a remote server @ Fudompany with a rep for iffy sec? Nah. Ridiculous. Laughable.)
Bingo.
Is that so hard to accept?
Why - yes.
Can I invoke Godwin's law on
Yah. And the guys who put up the monoliths set ablaze uncounted swaths of flora and fauna, just so we wouldn't trip over it.
A bit like mowing down the nettles before letting the kids into the yard.
No all I want from our "parents" is for them to come back, hand us a platinum galacticard, and send us on our post-adolescent backpacking trip round the galaxy. Dibs!
I agree that Mostly Harmless was the most cynical work by Douglas Adams, and that it didn't really fit in with the rest, but I also find that quite apt. Apart from killing off all possibility of a sequel (although I would love to read the complete history of the Cathedral of Chalesm), it could be understood as a comment on the popularity of the series (of the books, not the original radio~), and what it had become.
In that, it was quite visionary, albeit darkly so. I postulate parallels between the development of the Guide within the series and the Internet in the real world - how long before netNanny et al watch over all of us, from some black box plopped on every router everywhere? How long before the common technology Internet, brought to you by Microsoft?
I mean - Neuromancer is more positive in outlook.
But before descending irredeemably into a rant - Salmon of Doubt: bring it on. I have the complete collection, including both Liffs, the short story with Zaphod, and last Chance. It's going to be published anyway, and I, for one, will show great appreciation being able to witness it.
Not a day goes by where I don't ask myself "What would Arthur do?" (ending up in me indulging in activities in a very wide range, from making sandwiches to putting on Dire Straits)
Good point.
k -you, potentially pretty much without regard as to whether it gets the job done the way the consumer wants. (I, for one, don't want my video in a form in which it can't be media-shifted - which doesn't actually mean that I'm going to steal it, BTW).
One direction MS wants to go (obviously), is integrating software into machines, processes, what-have-you, but in a completely opaque manner.
Imagine a car, where it's impossible for you, the owner, to legally take it apart, find out how it works, or modify it in any way. Or an aeroplane - built by MSAircrafts, serviced (exclusively) by MSAircrafts, fuel supplied (exclusively) by MSAircrafts, and so on.
Now for mechanical devices, this is really inconceivable - but for computers? Digital Video Recorders? WMF-players? Your stereo?
The philosophical issue is the following: One side regards software, in the abstract, to be a tool, to be used in any business or private process - from running a bank's back-office to watching a film (a.k.a. "movie"). The focus is getting the job done, the payment for writing GPL SW is better tools, made by other GPL SW developers.
The other side regards software as a packaged product to be sold, as-is, no-you-don't-need-to-understand-how-it-works-than
The point of the last post, as I understand it, is that GPL software development actually would work on a large scale in a business environment, that innovation would happen in software even if *all* of it were GPL'ed, and that there would still be payed jobs for programmers, because it would still make sense for people to pay programmers, even if the result were open source / free / GPL'd.
But then, I'm preaching to the choir here, aren't I?