Good to see them going 100% fuel cell. I think the hybrid cars are a good step, but not enough (and people haven't been too impressed with the performance of the hybrids, from what I've heard).
An interesting point to note is that fuel cell cars, once mass-produced, may be more competitively priced than one would expect. There *are* federal subsidies for alternative-fuel vehicles. The reason hybrid cars are so expensive is that because they still use gas some of the time, they're technically not alternative-fuel vehicles. Stupid loophole standing in the way of progress.
That's not the caption of the far side cartoon. It's something along the lines of "Hey, my science project is ready. Yeah, I'm talking to you, bonehead!"
Completely. I saw a number of episodes of the wonderful BBC Robot Wars (with our beloved Craig Charles, a.k.a. David Lister, hosting, gotta love that guy) on PBS a year or two ago. Then a few months ago I saw an episode of the U.S. one that my friend's Tivo, had recorded. It was very short, because we spent the whole time fast-forwarding through idiotic filler and color-commentary segments just to get to the three minutes of action.
I don't know why it is, but the moment American media gets hold of something, it turns it into bland, flavorless mush. Is it really so hard to come up with a half hour of entertaining television, devoid of filler?
One of the biggest complaints I've heard about Halo from people used to playing FPSes on a PC is that you don't have a mouse, so aiming is slow and tedious and hence no fun. It will be interesting to see how much of a difference this makes in the game.
It would be particularly cool if Xboxers and PCers could play together in the same game, but I doubt it'll happen that way.
I'd be curious to know what the attack statistics are like for Macs. I remember hearing about how there are hardly any Mac viruses in the wild because nobody bothers to design them for such a small user community. I would expect something similar for network attacks. But Mac sales are on the rise, so I wonder if the trend is reversing. Anyone know?
Specious, as you well know. The whole purpose of statistics is extrapolation. Statistics can be used to deceive, but that doesn't change the fact that they do provide good information about probable future trends when properly interpreted.
On another note, your post totally reminds me of that time on the Simpsons when Disco Stu was talking about Disco sales rising in such-and-such years in the 70's. He says "If this trend continues... heeeeyyyy!"
It's incredible how often articles like this just fly right by without being questioned, because people don't bother to think about the statistical underpinnings of what's being said.
Okay, let's divide people into two classes: smart and dumb. Now, we go out and look and discover that smarter people are statistically more likely to own a Mac than dumber people, or equivalently that Mac owners are generally smarter than PC owners, on the average. Does this mean that owning a Mac is smarter? Certainly not.
In fact, these data give us very little information. Let me explain the scenario I've got in mind and you'll see why:
Anyone who's dumb will probably buy a PC because that's the easiest choice to make.
Anyone who's smart has a higher probability of ignoring the "easy choice," and instead selecting a computer which best fits their needs.
Macs are better for some people's needs, PCs for others.
Thus, smart people whose needs are better served by Macs will be more likely to realize this and buy a Mac than dumb people whose needs would also be best served by a Mac.
With this reading of the data, it becomes apparent that choosing a Mac is not necessarily the "better, smarter" choice for everyone. It might still be the case that maybe only 25% of people would be best served by a Mac. It's just that the dumb people are more likely to choose a PC, so their Mac-usage statistics are artificially low.
I'm not saying this is exactly how it works, but it does sound fairly plausible to me. To be sure, the situation is more complex than what I have described. But it's also more complex than "Mac users are smarter, so using a Mac is smarter."
Indeed. As warfare evolves, the idea of fighting in order to win wars seems more based in tradition than anything else. With "rules of war" and remote-control warfare (Haldeman's _Forever Peace_, anyone?), it's easy to lose track of what the threat really is. No, we're not going to hit civilian targets. Our robots are going to fight your robots, and whoever runs out of robots first loses. It brings to mind childish speculations along the lines of "why doesn't each side just send their best chess player, have them play, and decide the winner that way?" War is growing so abstract, and this remote-control warfare makes even the idea of using violence seem sort of arbitrary. Why *not* just play chess? How is it any different than playing robot wars?
I know, I know, it's more complicated than that. There are legitimate objectives in warfare, things that really do matter and wouldn't be accomplished in some arbitrary contest. But I think that the public, at least, easily forgets about these issues. The popular face of war is that soldiers battle it out and the side whose forces are defeated loses. But when the soldiers are mere constructs, it becomes clear that there must be more to it than that, and in fact there must *always* have been more to it than that. Meaning that the public perception of war is fairly distorted, which I find worrisome.
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the/. post has a repeated word "story" in it. Which would still be kind of a waste of time to point out. Oops, I think I'm about to disappear in a cloud of logic...
I'd have to check, but I distinctly recall seeing something like the following in the credits for Office Space:
"Based on the animated short 'Milton' by Mike Judge"
I had heard of Milton years before, when Liquid TV was still running (we miss you, Aeon Flux! Come back to us!), but had never seen it. I remember a friend of mine quoting the line "Hey Milton, what's happening?" but it wasn't until I saw that line in the credits that it all clicked and I saw the connection. So I'm pretty sure the cartoon was called Milton, though it may have later been changed to be called Office Space when it appeared on SNL, or after the movie came out.
Lest we forget, indentured servitude was also very prevalent in early America -- it was the only way many immigrants could fund their overseas voyage.
As long as we're talking about innovative new forms of slavery, shall we break into the topic of prison labor? With the ever-overflowing population of America's prisons, and the drug war eagerly stuffing more bodies into the system, there's an enormous amount of cheap labor available, creating a vested interest for those who benefit to perpetuate the system. It's really a brilliant workaround to that pesky anti-slavery amendment.
Inducing a heart attack to get rid of over-thickened tissue in the heart, that's a good idea. But can it get rid of over-thickened tissue elsewhere, say in the skull? I can think of a certain president who could do with some de-thickening, and this sounds like just the right procedure.
I think it's more insidious than that. We all know it's not about body heat, it's about processing power. That's right, the Matrix is -- wait for it -- a Beowulf cluster of brains.
There's a simple way to get rid of the ads in Opera. It's called full screen mode. With mouse gestures and intelligent ctrl-tabbing and whatnot, there's no need whatsoever for any menu bars, so why not go full screen? I believe you can even set up a command line switch to make it always load in full screen mode.
Opera is wonderful. I have been using it since version 3.41 for Windows. Opera users, unite! Set your browser to identify as Opera! Stand up and be counted!
Of course, if people would never die of old age, they'd be a lot more careful about risking their life. We'd see fewer accidents due to people taking stupid risks, a lower crime rate, less suicides (except maybe among the very old who were just tired of it all), etc. Safety measures would increase, because when you're responsible for the safety of immortals, you've got something more valuable to protect. Insurance rates (except life insurance) would skyrocket, whereas interest rates would plummet.
That's exactly what Ray Kurzweil believes may well happen within our lifetimes. He discusses that some in his (somewhat lengthy) article "The Law of Accelerating Returns."
He also thinks that due to technological progress being a double-exponential curve, we'll get something like 200 centuries of technical progress (at the current rate of progress) over the next 100 years. So, take it or leave it I guess. Would be nice.
Reminds me of a Batman problem I did in freshman calculus. Basically, they set up a situation where Batman is supposed to jump from one roof to another, given a certain physical configuration. You have to figure out whether he'll make it, and if you work out the numbers it looks like he won't. But the solution in the back of the book, while acknowledging that that's how the numbers work out, says "but he'll make it anyway, because he's Batman." Textbook authors can be really cool sometimes.
That's a reasonable argument, though of course inconclusive -- it could be possible, just really really unlikely without some sort of artificial interference, some set of circumstances that simply doesn't occur throughout all of nature. Or it isn't as noticeable as you'd think.
All of this talk really reminds me of ice-9 from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. We just need to find the right way to stack those cannon balls.
What if the gel were manufactured in a partial vacuum? Might it still gel with a lower air density, and still retain its rigidity when brought into a regular atmosphere? After all, it's supposed to be very rigid so assuming it would gel at all, it should be strong enough to hold when pressurized.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting point to note is that fuel cell cars, once mass-produced, may be more competitively priced than one would expect. There *are* federal subsidies for alternative-fuel vehicles. The reason hybrid cars are so expensive is that because they still use gas some of the time, they're technically not alternative-fuel vehicles. Stupid loophole standing in the way of progress.
Best of luck to GM!
That's not the caption of the far side cartoon. It's something along the lines of "Hey, my science project is ready. Yeah, I'm talking to you, bonehead!"
I don't know why it is, but the moment American media gets hold of something, it turns it into bland, flavorless mush. Is it really so hard to come up with a half hour of entertaining television, devoid of filler?
It would be particularly cool if Xboxers and PCers could play together in the same game, but I doubt it'll happen that way.
I don't get it. Are you saying that people who appear in porn are ruining their chances to have worthwhile lives? That's a very sex-negative attitude.
I'd be curious to know what the attack statistics are like for Macs. I remember hearing about how there are hardly any Mac viruses in the wild because nobody bothers to design them for such a small user community. I would expect something similar for network attacks. But Mac sales are on the rise, so I wonder if the trend is reversing. Anyone know?
On another note, your post totally reminds me of that time on the Simpsons when Disco Stu was talking about Disco sales rising in such-and-such years in the 70's. He says "If this trend continues... heeeeyyyy!"
Okay, let's divide people into two classes: smart and dumb. Now, we go out and look and discover that smarter people are statistically more likely to own a Mac than dumber people, or equivalently that Mac owners are generally smarter than PC owners, on the average. Does this mean that owning a Mac is smarter? Certainly not.
In fact, these data give us very little information. Let me explain the scenario I've got in mind and you'll see why:
- Anyone who's dumb will probably buy a PC because that's the easiest choice to make.
- Anyone who's smart has a higher probability of ignoring the "easy choice," and instead selecting a computer which best fits their needs.
- Macs are better for some people's needs, PCs for others.
- Thus, smart people whose needs are better served by Macs will be more likely to realize this and buy a Mac than dumb people whose needs would also be best served by a Mac.
With this reading of the data, it becomes apparent that choosing a Mac is not necessarily the "better, smarter" choice for everyone. It might still be the case that maybe only 25% of people would be best served by a Mac. It's just that the dumb people are more likely to choose a PC, so their Mac-usage statistics are artificially low.I'm not saying this is exactly how it works, but it does sound fairly plausible to me. To be sure, the situation is more complex than what I have described. But it's also more complex than "Mac users are smarter, so using a Mac is smarter."
I know, I know, it's more complicated than that. There are legitimate objectives in warfare, things that really do matter and wouldn't be accomplished in some arbitrary contest. But I think that the public, at least, easily forgets about these issues. The popular face of war is that soldiers battle it out and the side whose forces are defeated loses. But when the soldiers are mere constructs, it becomes clear that there must be more to it than that, and in fact there must *always* have been more to it than that. Meaning that the public perception of war is fairly distorted, which I find worrisome.
Apologies for minor incoherence. Thoughts?
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the /. post has a repeated word "story" in it. Which would still be kind of a waste of time to point out. Oops, I think I'm about to disappear in a cloud of logic...
Um, yes there are. I've got one. Check your facts before making assertions.
That's "cover sheet," fuckin' pedant. Didn't you get the memo?
"Based on the animated short 'Milton' by Mike Judge"
I had heard of Milton years before, when Liquid TV was still running (we miss you, Aeon Flux! Come back to us!), but had never seen it. I remember a friend of mine quoting the line "Hey Milton, what's happening?" but it wasn't until I saw that line in the credits that it all clicked and I saw the connection. So I'm pretty sure the cartoon was called Milton, though it may have later been changed to be called Office Space when it appeared on SNL, or after the movie came out.
As long as we're talking about innovative new forms of slavery, shall we break into the topic of prison labor? With the ever-overflowing population of America's prisons, and the drug war eagerly stuffing more bodies into the system, there's an enormous amount of cheap labor available, creating a vested interest for those who benefit to perpetuate the system. It's really a brilliant workaround to that pesky anti-slavery amendment.
Right, but nowhere does the blurb or the article say that optical mice use lasers. Which article did you read?
(Sorry, couldn't help it.)
Ever had a pet rat? I did, as a kid. Died maybe a bit shy of two years old, with a big fat tumor in her belly. This is typical. Rats get cancer a lot.
Agreed. Do not moderate that which you do not understand.
I think it's more insidious than that. We all know it's not about body heat, it's about processing power. That's right, the Matrix is -- wait for it -- a Beowulf cluster of brains.
Opera is wonderful. I have been using it since version 3.41 for Windows. Opera users, unite! Set your browser to identify as Opera! Stand up and be counted!
Of course, if people would never die of old age, they'd be a lot more careful about risking their life. We'd see fewer accidents due to people taking stupid risks, a lower crime rate, less suicides (except maybe among the very old who were just tired of it all), etc. Safety measures would increase, because when you're responsible for the safety of immortals, you've got something more valuable to protect. Insurance rates (except life insurance) would skyrocket, whereas interest rates would plummet.
He also thinks that due to technological progress being a double-exponential curve, we'll get something like 200 centuries of technical progress (at the current rate of progress) over the next 100 years. So, take it or leave it I guess. Would be nice.
Reminds me of a Batman problem I did in freshman calculus. Basically, they set up a situation where Batman is supposed to jump from one roof to another, given a certain physical configuration. You have to figure out whether he'll make it, and if you work out the numbers it looks like he won't. But the solution in the back of the book, while acknowledging that that's how the numbers work out, says "but he'll make it anyway, because he's Batman." Textbook authors can be really cool sometimes.
All of this talk really reminds me of ice-9 from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. We just need to find the right way to stack those cannon balls.
What if the gel were manufactured in a partial vacuum? Might it still gel with a lower air density, and still retain its rigidity when brought into a regular atmosphere? After all, it's supposed to be very rigid so assuming it would gel at all, it should be strong enough to hold when pressurized.