I like the idea. I find that I tend to look for desktop clients for a lot of connected stuff that I do. In fact I'm writing my own PyQT twitter client right now because I couldn't find a desktop client for linux that really works well and has the features I want. (The adobe air stuff is close but is flaky - crashes, etc.)
I wouldn't mind at all seeing more of this being pulled tighter into my workspace.
I've just cruised through this list of netbooks over at Amazon. It returned just over 5,000 results and I can't find one without a camera. I'll keep looking but this leads me to believe that you may just need to look at a regular laptop. And the wait is probably going to exist otherwise because you are obviously looking for something that is just outside the norm for these.
This discussion from last September didn't turn up anything, except the Mini 9 - which you already mention. Though they do bring up one option that I think is the best bet; to open up the case, yank the camera and fill in the spot where it went. It can't be that hard. If some guy can fit an LCD behind the apple logo - you can get the camera out.
The phone issue I find being brought up going back to 2005 and it's probably older - this seemed to offer hope and mentions a few models but it's old and I'm not sure how stuff would have carried forward. Most stuff I find mentions Blackberry which you already have. So my guess is that there is no treasure trove of camera free devices that you have missed. You are just in a tough spot.
No it was a Cyrix - MII I think. This was over 10 years ago so I'm not 100% positive on the details. It may have been possible to get that slackware install to work - but I wasn't going to get it done back then with it being my first ever install. I tried a ton of different things but couldn't get it to work. It would seem to install o.k. (which took quite a while and a lot of floppies) but it would crash when it tried to boot.
I did the same - got my copy of the book at Frys Electronics. Problem was, and I didn't know it at the time, my emachine I was trying to do the install on had a processor that wasn't going to work. I tried for weeks and finally gave up. A year or so later I picked up a copy of Suse at the same Frys. By then I also had a new machine with a different processor - things went smoothly. At roughly the same time I started using Redhat at work.
Making Things Happen is the second edition of The Art of Project Management. They cleaned some things up and I think added in some practical exercises - and changed the title. (I'm not sure about the exact differences because I never read the first edition) I think Berkun explains why they changed the name in the forward but my copy is at home and I can't remember for sure. It is unfortunately confusing.
There are a ton of books out there - his blog has a sample chapter to read so you can see if this will work for you. I thought it was easy to read and covered quite a bit without getting bogged down. The table of contents breaks things down to a pretty low level - so that is another good way to see if it hits on what you need or if it might cover a lot of stuff you don't care about. I know I wish some of the people I've worked for had read it and took it to heart - especially the stuff about how not to annoy people.
I don't have my copy at the office - so I can't give exact quotes - but when Juan is in the academy he relates a few discussions from the History and Moral Philosophy class. As an aside, he mentions an extra paper he had to write because he tried to argue that the Crusades were an exception to war being the result of population pressures.
This in combination with the fact that humanity is fighting with the bugs for real estate that both need - is what leads me to that conclusion. I guess one could be more specific in stating that war is inevitable for any species that is not in decline, according to what is put forward in Starship Troopers.
I think you are right that RAH argued that fighting to win only made sense - but this is because losing ultimately means ceasing to exist.
I had an interesting discussion once with a friend about whether or not Starship Troopers and Space Cadet were set in two worlds that co-existed. My friend did not think so, I did. The fact the discussion could take place at all is because, in my opinion, RAH used his books to explore a wide number of view points.
I'm not arguing Heinlein's point - I'm just saying it is the point that Starship Troopers makes. If other RAH work seems to contradict that I don't think it really makes any difference as to what is clearly stated in Starship Troopers.
Me, I think both authors miss the boat because they are looking for rational explanations for the behaviour of irrational beings. This is I think the greatest failure of RAH's libertarian ideology. While I think it would be cool if we could drop a bunch of people on the moon and let them murder off everyone who couldn't get along - creating a very polite bunch of people - I don't think it would actually work out that way. I agree with Pascal - "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know."
Unit cohesion is an answer on the individual level - on a larger scale his answer is simply that they fight to survive. This is pretty clearly illustrated in Juan's H&MP class when he is in the academy becoming an officer. Heinlein pretty much posits that all wars are a matter of population growth and limited resources.
I think that he does a great job of illustrating why war is inevitable. Then it makes sense that he venerates those who give completely of themselves to ensure the survival of others.
Haldeman just operates from another premise, that war is not inevitable and that we should all just get along.
The only thing I would say that goes against your point is that this is a 1/10th scale model of a Saturn V. That's enough in my mind to call it a model.
Even though it makes this stuff look pretty simple in comparison, it still makes me want to dig out my old home made launcher and build a rocket.
I remember as a teenager saving up for months to buy the Estes designer's kit. I set up a card table in my room where I designed and built quite a few rockets - nothing that used bigger than a D engine. I'll never forget the night I left a bottle of dope open on the table. Very bizarre dreams that night. Learned to keep the window open when I worked on stuff and to shut everything up when I was done.
Nice. I don't usually worry about stuff like this but just so that we are all clear on what a dumb ass reply that was - the one currently modded insightful - let's review:
Right in the middle of my comment is this little nugget, "There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan." (I've added emphasis here because obviously we are dealing with some people that struggle with reading comprehension.)
And his reply, "Er.... how about the US Special Forces?"
Thus my reply was not flamebait, it is an honest and valid question, that allows the poster an opportunity to actually take 5 seconds and pull their head out.
I saw a great poster once - it was a play on Top Gun (this was in the late 80's maybe early 90s) but featuring a P-3 and titled "Top Rack". And of course one of my favorite jokes is about an S-3 that meets up with a P-3, but you've probably heard that a hundred times.
I think ultimately the Navy may have the most diverse set of robotic tools since they operate in so many environments. I've been reading some very interesting stuff about sea gliders that look like super smart, somewhat mobile, sonobuoys.
I think smaller and less expensive UAVs may get used by civilian ships. I know a lot of ships are traveling more slowly now to save on fuel costs. But maybe knowing someone is close may encourage them to pick up the pace for a bit and try to avoid any encounter.
Yes. From what I've read- the younger uav pilots that grew up playing video games are better at managing multiple craft simultaneously than their older counterparts.
Pilots might be willing to take the risk, but the loss is not only visible and politically damaging, but expensive. Pilots are the cream of the crop and it takes a long time to train them.
Training UAV pilots takes much less time and is much less expensive. I've read about high school drop-outs that picked up their ged and are now top notch uav pilots for the army.
I think robots are going to change the world in many, many ways. I think UAVs will also start to be used more and more by police forces. Think of the cost for police helicopters and airplanes that are used for surveillance and the people who fly them. UAVs will provide more coverage at a much lower cost. And this is all just airborne stuff. We aren't even talking about the stuff on the ground and in the water.
UAVs don't take away the ability to gain visual id. In fact they make target identification safer. The sensors on aircraft will give operators an even better view than a pilot could get with his eyes. That view can be shared with multiple people who can be in the loop, and none of them will be in immediate danger. They can take time to assess the situation. A human pilot does not have those luxuries. With multiple UAVs in the air, a force cannot only afford to let the other side shoot first, they can afford to lose a drone to make sure the enemy is hostile before they take them out.
But I think the lethality and speed of automated systems will lead to wars where there are free fire zones - and anyone who does not want to be a target will just need to stay out. Waiting around to be sure of the situation will mean losing the fight.
This is only true to a point. A perfect example - horses. The Army was very resistant to moving from horses to motorized vehicles for quite a while. But I doubt you'll find a modern military in the world that uses horses now.
The resistance to firearms was even more fierce.
There will come a time when manned aircraft will be a distant memory. (There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan.) The fact that fighter pilots are not excited about this prospect is only natural.
As the rate of change accelerates, these moves will happen more quickly. So when we talk about UAVs replacing manned aircraft we are not talking about some far off point in the future.
Watch this video about the F-35 EO DAS and you may find yourself wondering as I did, why do they need a pilot? I especially like this line, "With DAS, maneuverability is irrelevant."
autonomous craft will take care of that problem. There are already autonomous robot guns deployed around the dmz in Korea. Eventually humans wont be able to keep up with the speed of the machines and they'll need to be able to act independently in order to survive.
I've always found slashdot commenters to represent a pretty wide range of opinion. I certainly haven't ever felt like there was a definite majority when it comes to political leanings. Though - this may be the first time I've seen what looks like one editor baiting another with a green-lit submission. That's a bit odd and with no other context it is tough to tell if it is a good natured jab or something more.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea. I find that I tend to look for desktop clients for a lot of connected stuff that I do. In fact I'm writing my own PyQT twitter client right now because I couldn't find a desktop client for linux that really works well and has the features I want. (The adobe air stuff is close but is flaky - crashes, etc.)
I wouldn't mind at all seeing more of this being pulled tighter into my workspace.
I've just cruised through this list of netbooks over at Amazon. It returned just over 5,000 results and I can't find one without a camera. I'll keep looking but this leads me to believe that you may just need to look at a regular laptop. And the wait is probably going to exist otherwise because you are obviously looking for something that is just outside the norm for these.
This discussion from last September didn't turn up anything, except the Mini 9 - which you already mention. Though they do bring up one option that I think is the best bet; to open up the case, yank the camera and fill in the spot where it went. It can't be that hard. If some guy can fit an LCD behind the apple logo - you can get the camera out.
The phone issue I find being brought up going back to 2005 and it's probably older - this seemed to offer hope and mentions a few models but it's old and I'm not sure how stuff would have carried forward. Most stuff I find mentions Blackberry which you already have. So my guess is that there is no treasure trove of camera free devices that you have missed. You are just in a tough spot.
No it was a Cyrix - MII I think. This was over 10 years ago so I'm not 100% positive on the details. It may have been possible to get that slackware install to work - but I wasn't going to get it done back then with it being my first ever install. I tried a ton of different things but couldn't get it to work. It would seem to install o.k. (which took quite a while and a lot of floppies) but it would crash when it tried to boot.
I did the same - got my copy of the book at Frys Electronics. Problem was, and I didn't know it at the time, my emachine I was trying to do the install on had a processor that wasn't going to work. I tried for weeks and finally gave up. A year or so later I picked up a copy of Suse at the same Frys. By then I also had a new machine with a different processor - things went smoothly. At roughly the same time I started using Redhat at work.
Making Things Happen is the second edition of The Art of Project Management. They cleaned some things up and I think added in some practical exercises - and changed the title. (I'm not sure about the exact differences because I never read the first edition) I think Berkun explains why they changed the name in the forward but my copy is at home and I can't remember for sure. It is unfortunately confusing.
I recommend Making Things Happen: Mastering Project Management (Theory in Practice) by Scott Berkun. Berkun has quite a bit of experience working on and managing teams. You can check out his blog for more info. and to get a taste of what his writing is like.
There are a ton of books out there - his blog has a sample chapter to read so you can see if this will work for you. I thought it was easy to read and covered quite a bit without getting bogged down. The table of contents breaks things down to a pretty low level - so that is another good way to see if it hits on what you need or if it might cover a lot of stuff you don't care about. I know I wish some of the people I've worked for had read it and took it to heart - especially the stuff about how not to annoy people.
I don't have my copy at the office - so I can't give exact quotes - but when Juan is in the academy he relates a few discussions from the History and Moral Philosophy class. As an aside, he mentions an extra paper he had to write because he tried to argue that the Crusades were an exception to war being the result of population pressures.
This in combination with the fact that humanity is fighting with the bugs for real estate that both need - is what leads me to that conclusion. I guess one could be more specific in stating that war is inevitable for any species that is not in decline, according to what is put forward in Starship Troopers.
I think you are right that RAH argued that fighting to win only made sense - but this is because losing ultimately means ceasing to exist.
I had an interesting discussion once with a friend about whether or not Starship Troopers and Space Cadet were set in two worlds that co-existed. My friend did not think so, I did. The fact the discussion could take place at all is because, in my opinion, RAH used his books to explore a wide number of view points.
I'm not arguing Heinlein's point - I'm just saying it is the point that Starship Troopers makes. If other RAH work seems to contradict that I don't think it really makes any difference as to what is clearly stated in Starship Troopers.
Me, I think both authors miss the boat because they are looking for rational explanations for the behaviour of irrational beings. This is I think the greatest failure of RAH's libertarian ideology. While I think it would be cool if we could drop a bunch of people on the moon and let them murder off everyone who couldn't get along - creating a very polite bunch of people - I don't think it would actually work out that way. I agree with Pascal - "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know."
Unit cohesion is an answer on the individual level - on a larger scale his answer is simply that they fight to survive. This is pretty clearly illustrated in Juan's H&MP class when he is in the academy becoming an officer. Heinlein pretty much posits that all wars are a matter of population growth and limited resources.
I think that he does a great job of illustrating why war is inevitable. Then it makes sense that he venerates those who give completely of themselves to ensure the survival of others.
Haldeman just operates from another premise, that war is not inevitable and that we should all just get along.
Or take a different route.
How is this different from a manned aircraft that has lost all nav and comm?
The only thing I would say that goes against your point is that this is a 1/10th scale model of a Saturn V. That's enough in my mind to call it a model.
Even though it makes this stuff look pretty simple in comparison, it still makes me want to dig out my old home made launcher and build a rocket.
I remember as a teenager saving up for months to buy the Estes designer's kit. I set up a card table in my room where I designed and built quite a few rockets - nothing that used bigger than a D engine. I'll never forget the night I left a bottle of dope open on the table. Very bizarre dreams that night. Learned to keep the window open when I worked on stuff and to shut everything up when I was done.
Nice. I don't usually worry about stuff like this but just so that we are all clear on what a dumb ass reply that was - the one currently modded insightful - let's review:
Right in the middle of my comment is this little nugget, "There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan." (I've added emphasis here because obviously we are dealing with some people that struggle with reading comprehension.)
And his reply, "Er.... how about the US Special Forces?"
Thus my reply was not flamebait, it is an honest and valid question, that allows the poster an opportunity to actually take 5 seconds and pull their head out.
I saw a great poster once - it was a play on Top Gun (this was in the late 80's maybe early 90s) but featuring a P-3 and titled "Top Rack". And of course one of my favorite jokes is about an S-3 that meets up with a P-3, but you've probably heard that a hundred times.
I think ultimately the Navy may have the most diverse set of robotic tools since they operate in so many environments. I've been reading some very interesting stuff about sea gliders that look like super smart, somewhat mobile, sonobuoys.
I think smaller and less expensive UAVs may get used by civilian ships. I know a lot of ships are traveling more slowly now to save on fuel costs. But maybe knowing someone is close may encourage them to pick up the pace for a bit and try to avoid any encounter.
Is my comment so long that you couldn't actually read it before replying?
Yes. From what I've read- the younger uav pilots that grew up playing video games are better at managing multiple craft simultaneously than their older counterparts.
Pilots might be willing to take the risk, but the loss is not only visible and politically damaging, but expensive. Pilots are the cream of the crop and it takes a long time to train them.
Training UAV pilots takes much less time and is much less expensive. I've read about high school drop-outs that picked up their ged and are now top notch uav pilots for the army.
I think robots are going to change the world in many, many ways. I think UAVs will also start to be used more and more by police forces. Think of the cost for police helicopters and airplanes that are used for surveillance and the people who fly them. UAVs will provide more coverage at a much lower cost. And this is all just airborne stuff. We aren't even talking about the stuff on the ground and in the water.
The jammers will have HARMS or the equivalent eating them alive. That is not a sustainable counter measure.
UAVs don't take away the ability to gain visual id. In fact they make target identification safer. The sensors on aircraft will give operators an even better view than a pilot could get with his eyes. That view can be shared with multiple people who can be in the loop, and none of them will be in immediate danger. They can take time to assess the situation. A human pilot does not have those luxuries. With multiple UAVs in the air, a force cannot only afford to let the other side shoot first, they can afford to lose a drone to make sure the enemy is hostile before they take them out.
But I think the lethality and speed of automated systems will lead to wars where there are free fire zones - and anyone who does not want to be a target will just need to stay out. Waiting around to be sure of the situation will mean losing the fight.
This is only true to a point. A perfect example - horses. The Army was very resistant to moving from horses to motorized vehicles for quite a while. But I doubt you'll find a modern military in the world that uses horses now.
The resistance to firearms was even more fierce.
There will come a time when manned aircraft will be a distant memory. (There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan.) The fact that fighter pilots are not excited about this prospect is only natural.
As the rate of change accelerates, these moves will happen more quickly. So when we talk about UAVs replacing manned aircraft we are not talking about some far off point in the future.
Watch this video about the F-35 EO DAS and you may find yourself wondering as I did, why do they need a pilot? I especially like this line, "With DAS, maneuverability is irrelevant."
I think something similar is already being done or in the works to help give ships more warning of incoming vessels that might be hostile.
autonomous craft will take care of that problem. There are already autonomous robot guns deployed around the dmz in Korea. Eventually humans wont be able to keep up with the speed of the machines and they'll need to be able to act independently in order to survive.
I've always found slashdot commenters to represent a pretty wide range of opinion. I certainly haven't ever felt like there was a definite majority when it comes to political leanings. Though - this may be the first time I've seen what looks like one editor baiting another with a green-lit submission. That's a bit odd and with no other context it is tough to tell if it is a good natured jab or something more.