The NAT problem is definitely NOT overrated for residential gateways. There is no SBC in this case.
Sure, SIP can use TCP as a transport, so a client can punch a signaling connection out through a residential NAT/gateway, but a SIP client still needs to advertise an address and port to receive RTP on. He can't very well advertise his NATed address if he's connecting to a client outside of his NAT.
STUN - RFC 3489 - (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3489.txt) partially addressed this problem, by allowing an application to discover its public address and port mappings.
TURN (http://www1.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenb erg-midcom-turn-04.txt) addressed the problem, but in an inelegant manner, by routing all RTP through a public server.
ICE (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mm usic-ice-01.txt) describes a method of using STUN and/or TURN to discover, describe, and prioritize many potential addresses. Using ICE, two SIP clients can choose the best possible route for RTP, through several NATs that might separate them.
And it's backwards compatible.
It should also be noted that ICE is independent of SIP, and could also be applied by H.323 clients, or RTSP streaming client/server for that matter.
...Mac OS 9 and Apple's first 802.11b gateway. Before flaming, at least read my anecdote...
In Spring 2001 I bought a 1st gen G4 Powerbook and a 1st gen 802.11 Gateway from Apple. After tinkering with my Powerbook for a couple of days, I took the Gateway out of the box and plugged it in. I reached for the manual to see what to do next, when an alert popped up on my Powerbook screen: "A new Airport Basestation has been detected. Would you like to set it up?"
Cool: my Powerbook was already talking to my Gateway. I pressed "OK". A new alert popped up: "This computer is already connected to the internet. Would you like to use this computer's settings for the Airport Basestation?"
Why, yes! I would! I pressed "OK". A third alert popped up: "Please disconnect this computer from the internet, and connect the Base Station." I did, and pressed OK. "Updating Airport Basestation. Please Wait." A progress bar ticked off 5 seconds. Then, a fourth alert: "You are now connected to the internet." For the fourth time, I pressed OK.
And it worked...
I'm paraphrasing the alert text. Had I known it was going to set the bar for ease-of-use, I would have taken screenshots along the way. Interestingly, even OS X would not do this with the 802.11g Basestation I bought from Apple one year ago.
Boy, the Sharp website sure does stink --and it hasn't yet been updated with the 6000L info. I haven't been able to Google up a spec sheet for the 6000L either. Anyone have a link?
I'm disappointed that built-in Bluetooth was dropped for the U.S. version. To quote the PDALive.com source: The SL-6000L is an English version of the device and has integrated Wi-Fi only. However, the Japanese SL-6000 is available in either dual networking (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) or networking-less versions.
I suppose I can live with a PC Card. I was hoping to use the 6000L with a Bluetooth headset for a project I'm working on. Has anyone had success getting audio in/out of a Zaurus 5xxx or 6000x using Bluetooth?
It looks like SL-5600 has audio in/out via a minidin jack. Can anyone confirm that the 6000L has the same?
While this iPod jacket from Burton is probably not bizarre pastiche enough to make the fashion show, I'd say it's a practical example of Wearable Technology.
RTFA. No $ involved. Insightful?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
I've had great success converting super8 and 8mm film at home. I bought a Video Work Printer from a guy named Roger Evans.
Roger rebuilds old projectors, removes the lens, replaces the bulb w/ a low-watt bulb so the film can't burn, and mounts the projector on a base with a 6-inch lens. By focusing a camera through the lens, one can image directly from the film itself. You need at least a 10x zoom.
He's not into software, so he's modified the projectors to run at variable speeds (1-30 fps), and wired up a microswitch to generate a low-voltage pulse each time the film advances. He wires up a standard mouse so that it can plug into to the microswitch, and generate a mouse-down when the switch fires. For software, he recommends running Adobe Premiere in "grab-a-frame" mode, placing the mouse over the "grab" button, and turning on the projector.
I wanted to do this on a mac, since iMovie and iDVD are fantastic tools. I was also concerned with dropping frames and other synchronization issues using the "grab one frame" method, so run my projector at 6fps and film unsynchronized at 30fps w/ a mini DV camera. I then import from the DV cam using iMove, and post-process the film with a tool I wrote that uses frame-differencing w/ tolerance to detect frame changes. My tool plucks exactly one image per super8 frame. The result is a beautiful, perfectly synchronized, full screen movie in DV format. I can then edit in iMovie, burn to DVD with iDVD. or archive to miniDV tape.
I have some samples online, but they are scaled down and encoded in H.263 for better streaming. To get an idea of image quality, some stills are online also, but these were my first experimentations with the Work Printer: my camcorder was not fully zoomed, and the aspect ratio is off.
If anyone is interested in the tool, it's free (mac only), Send email to telecine at black frog dot com
If anyone is interested in a short (1-2 seconds) clip in full DV format, email me and I can make arrangements.
The only downside is $$. The Work Printer is not cheap, and neither is a high quality camera. Depending on the amount of film you have, it may be cheaper to use a service for the miniDV conversion. However, you have to mail the film in (it could get lost), and generally they splice all your reels together. I really like keeping the films as they were, in the original boxes, with the original notes. Plus I must admit I take a lot of satisfaction from doing it myself.
Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple??
on
G5 Benchmark Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Hey there Apple person. Couple of questions for you.
The Haxial article was mostly debunked (de-debunked?), but two suspicious issues stand out as unexplained: (1) the "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option was used for the G5, but not for the Dells, and (2) a custom optimized malloc library was used for the G5, but not for the Dells.
I don't pretend to understand the implications of the "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option, but I am disturbed by the custom malloc library. It was not thread-safe, was optimized for speed over efficiency, and was optimized for small mallocs of less than 4 bytes. Clearly, this malloc library is only useful for SPEC testing.
Is there anything positive you can tell me about those two issues? I would love to see Apple's speed claims vindicated --almost as much as I'd love a G5 on my desk.
Last year, I was turned onto a book titled Rare Earth that proposes that bacterial life may be extremely abundant in the universe, but the factors that led to the evolution of higher life on Earth is a series of incredibly uncommon events.
It's a great read, especially if you, like me, have not been following the advances in Evolutionary Biology of the last 10 years.
I agree -- it's like ReplayTV execs had no idea that sharing shows was going to let the genie out of the bottle.
Apple got into trouble with their MP3 app when they implemented music sharing. Their fix was reasonable - to limit sharing to the local network. Seems to me that ReplayTV could adopt the same strategy, and possibly placate the studios that way.
No matter how much you want them to, general purpose computers still don't work as well as dedicated hardware devices. When you use your computer for anything important, there's always the chance your computer will be down, and you'll be unable to use it when you need to.
Your generalisms run contrary to both Microsoft and Apple consumer strategy: place the PC in the center of an assortment of digital products. The PVR is no different. In fact, I'd say that an easy-to-use application is a much better solution for editing/archiving than anything controlled with a hand-held remote.
Besides, you never have a problem with your Tivo not working, as you certainly do with computers.
Maybe you misunderstood me. The PVR should function just fine on its own. The PC is not required for normal use.
ANd how about those many many many people that either don't have a PC, or aren't comfortable enough with a PC?
Sucks to be them. They edit home movies with two VCR's, keep photos in shoe boxes, and can't edit/archive shows from their PVR's.
It costs too much to throw all the features we want into a PVR box. The PVR should cost less than $500.
The right answer is the ReplayTV strategy, where a PC can download, edit, archive, and upload media to/from the ReplayTV box. As a bonus, ReaplyTV can access and play media residing on a PC, without having to plug your PC directly into the TV.
PVR's should focus on quality A/V digitizing and output. The PC can handle the rest.
Sort of like a video camera vs. a PC -- you wouldn't try editing your vids with your camera, now would you?
AOL got cash (which it needs badly), CD distribution (which may help its subscriber base), and royalty-free licenses to IE and WMP 9.
MS got the AOL lawsuit off its back, and got MSN/AIM interoperability --although another poster already pointed out that the FCC requires interoperability before audio/video may be added (#6072015).
There is nothing in the article that implies that AOL must use these IE or WMP exclusively. This is very different from past MS maneuvers attempting to force exclusivity.
In fact, AOL would be wise to remain as independent of MS as possible for browser and multimedia technology, while at the same time bundling IE and WMP for customers who wish to use them. Bunding IE and WMP for free, I might add, since the licenses are royalty-free.
his silly RFID thing undermines the one good reason I've heard why euros will beat dollars
Good. Maybe this will help curb the dollar's recent drop in value against the Euro.
This drop is due, I might at, by the present administration's abysmal fiscal policy. Bush took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a deficit of more than $2 trillion and growing. This fiscal reversal amounts to $7,800,000,000.00.
Ok, DNA is almost the same, but does not mean anything.
True. Nearly identical DNA, by itself, does not mean anything.
But here's something meaningful. When man's and chimps' ancestors' DNA is sequenced, guess what: the further back towards the split (8 million years ago) we go, the closer the DNA sequences become. At the period of the split, the samples are indistinguishable - the same species. The DNA does not lie. We share an 8 million years old common ancestor with chimps.
Humans dress with clothes, speak with language, write poems, have travelled to the moon, invented computers and the internet, and many other things.
All the other species, and I mean all, don't do any of these: they continue to live the same life as their ancestors million years ago, hunting for food, reproducing and sleeping.
Wow. You sure have a fuzzy view of history. 65 million years ago, 85% of the species on earth were wiped out in a mass extinction event. Since then, mammals have thrived - in part because the predatory dinosaurs were wiped out. Our direct ancestors showed up about 8 million years ago. The fossil record does not lie.
Aren't humans unique ? My opinion is that not only they are unique, but they are genetically manipulated in order to become humans
huh? A cosmic conspiracy! Who's been manipulating my genes!?! btw, in the near future, we'll be manipulating our own genes. That'll be exciting.
Because, according to evolution, there was no need for the monkey brain to evolve like this.
Correct. More specifically, Chimpanzees have been successfully breeding and adapting to their changing environment for 4-5 million years. Their survival is testament that their current physiology and intelligence is quite successful for their environment.
If you say that "nature drived some monkeys to evolve", I would reply "why not all the monkeys ? what was so special in those evolved monkeys ?".
Differences in environments. For the past 4-5 million years, we have evolved in parallel to the Chimps, from a common ancestor. Overcrowding, changes in climate, and other factors created an environment for would-be-Humans that promoted intelligence over other characteristics. The dumb died. The smart lived to breed. At some point, physical isolation from would-be-Chimps allowed enough genetic diversification that prevented inter-breeding with the evolving chimps, at which point we found ourselves on a separate branch of the evolutional tree. In our case, high intelligence was key to survival in our environment. For the Chimps' environment, other characteristics proved more important to survival. The fossil record does not lie.
Fast forward to 50,000 years ago. By this time, Humans had achieved the physical and intellectual characteristics we have today. What we didn't have was an accumulation of knowledge. There was, therefore, not much difference between a day in the life of a Human, and a day in the life of a Chimp. We were more adept at tool-making, had mastered fire, and had conquered more diverse environments than the chimps, but we still lived day-to-day: hunting, reproducing, and sleeping (yes, I am quoting you).
8000 or so years ago some clever humans discovered the art of agriculture, allowing us to live in larger groups. Large groups allowed for cultural and religious growth, and provided a huge boost to our collective knowledge. Then some other clever humans invented writing. Writing allowed us to store a whole lot of knowledge. Just a few years ago, some other clever humans invented computers and the internet. Now we can store and access TONS of information. In fact, we now have enough information to bypass natural selection, and begin manipulating our genes ourselves. Woo hoo!
It doesn't make sense.
Here's the deal. Relative to flat worms, we are only slightly more intelligent than Chimps. It's our collective knowlege that makes the gulf between chimps and humans seem so wide. Genetically, we're not as different as you think. The DNA does not lie.
You know, Galileo was imprisoned by the Catholic Church for declaring that the earth went around the sun instead of the other way around. Church officials were more concerned with preserving the impression that the bible contained the absolute truth, than in the truth itself.
Science backs the theory of Evolution. Each new discovery in Geology, Archeology, Biology,
huh? What's so dumb about that comment? Ants have existed for at least 120 million years. They survived the Late Triassic mass extinction event that wiped out not just the dinosaurs, but 85% of the species on earth.
If Earth was to suffer a similar mass extinction event tomorrow, we humans would perish. The Ants might survive.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe is a great book that advances a theory that microbial life is common and abundant, but the events that led to the evolution of higher life on Earth are incredibly rare.
It's a great read, especially if you, like me, have been out of school for a while: the past ten years have brought some very interesting advances in Biology, Geology, and evolutionary theory.
This may be a naive question, but how do I go about closing a.Net Passport account? I want Microsoft to remove all of my personal information from their servers.
There seems to be no way to do this online. A call to MS customer service resulted in an "I dunno, I can't do that." answer.
btw, I'm not dumb enough to actively participate in Passport. I bought something online last summer from a small company, and after completing the purchase, I was shocked to see that Microsoft was handling the transaction with Passport. Damn it! Now they have my credit card info, shipping address, etc. Guess I should have read the fine print before I clicked Sumbit...
Slashdot Mirror
He was most definitely not trying to be funny when he appeared on Crossfire.
Comedy is in the eye of the beholder, but I'd argue that he's not a complete idiot. He's quite bright.
The fact that you disagree with him politically (my inference) does not automatically make him an idiot.
Nice job answering the question.
Silly me, I thought your question was rhetorical.
which is worse, The fool who cries fool or the fool? Fool
This sounds Rhumsfeldian rhetoric. Rhummy, don't you have better things to do than posting on Slashdot, like running a war, or packing up your office?
The NAT problem is definitely NOT overrated for residential gateways. There is no SBC in this case.
b erg-midcom-turn-04.txt) addressed the problem, but in an inelegant manner, by routing all RTP through a public server.
m usic-ice-01.txt) describes a method of using STUN and/or TURN to discover, describe, and prioritize many potential addresses. Using ICE, two SIP clients can choose the best possible route for RTP, through several NATs that might separate them.
Sure, SIP can use TCP as a transport, so a client can punch a signaling connection out through a residential NAT/gateway, but a SIP client still needs to advertise an address and port to receive RTP on. He can't very well advertise his NATed address if he's connecting to a client outside of his NAT.
STUN - RFC 3489 - (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3489.txt) partially addressed this problem, by allowing an application to discover its public address and port mappings.
TURN (http://www1.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosen
ICE (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-m
And it's backwards compatible.
It should also be noted that ICE is independent of SIP, and could also be applied by H.323 clients, or RTSP streaming client/server for that matter.
click here for my proposed solution to the energy crisis.
Unfortunately, could only be enacted by a dictator.
...Mac OS 9 and Apple's first 802.11b gateway. Before flaming, at least read my anecdote...
In Spring 2001 I bought a 1st gen G4 Powerbook and a 1st gen 802.11 Gateway from Apple. After tinkering with my Powerbook for a couple of days, I took the Gateway out of the box and plugged it in. I reached for the manual to see what to do next, when an alert popped up on my Powerbook screen: "A new Airport Basestation has been detected. Would you like to set it up?"
Cool: my Powerbook was already talking to my Gateway. I pressed "OK". A new alert popped up: "This computer is already connected to the internet. Would you like to use this computer's settings for the Airport Basestation?"
Why, yes! I would! I pressed "OK". A third alert popped up: "Please disconnect this computer from the internet, and connect the Base Station." I did, and pressed OK. "Updating Airport Basestation. Please Wait." A progress bar ticked off 5 seconds. Then, a fourth alert: "You are now connected to the internet." For the fourth time, I pressed OK.
And it worked...
I'm paraphrasing the alert text. Had I known it was going to set the bar for ease-of-use, I would have taken screenshots along the way. Interestingly, even OS X would not do this with the 802.11g Basestation I bought from Apple one year ago.
Boy, the Sharp website sure does stink --and it hasn't yet been updated with the 6000L info. I haven't been able to Google up a spec sheet for the 6000L either. Anyone have a link?
I'm disappointed that built-in Bluetooth was dropped for the U.S. version. To quote the PDALive.com source: The SL-6000L is an English version of the device and has integrated Wi-Fi only. However, the Japanese SL-6000 is available in either dual networking (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) or networking-less versions.
I suppose I can live with a PC Card. I was hoping to use the 6000L with a Bluetooth headset for a project I'm working on. Has anyone had success getting audio in/out of a Zaurus 5xxx or 6000x using Bluetooth?
It looks like SL-5600 has audio in/out via a minidin jack. Can anyone confirm that the 6000L has the same?
While this iPod jacket from Burton is probably not bizarre pastiche enough to make the fashion show, I'd say it's a practical example of Wearable Technology.
PaLEEZE
I'm surprised the RIAA response was so low-key.
Won't we see a thousand dumb kids reenable sharing in misguided attempts to garner fame and fortune by appearing in a Pepsi iTMS add...?
You are correct, except that super8 is 18fps, not 24fps...:-)
I've had great success converting super8 and 8mm film at home. I bought a Video Work Printer from a guy named Roger Evans.
Roger rebuilds old projectors, removes the lens, replaces the bulb w/ a low-watt bulb so the film can't burn, and mounts the projector on a base with a 6-inch lens. By focusing a camera through the lens, one can image directly from the film itself. You need at least a 10x zoom.
He's not into software, so he's modified the projectors to run at variable speeds (1-30 fps), and wired up a microswitch to generate a low-voltage pulse each time the film advances. He wires up a standard mouse so that it can plug into to the microswitch, and generate a mouse-down when the switch fires. For software, he recommends running Adobe Premiere in "grab-a-frame" mode, placing the mouse over the "grab" button, and turning on the projector.
I wanted to do this on a mac, since iMovie and iDVD are fantastic tools. I was also concerned with dropping frames and other synchronization issues using the "grab one frame" method, so run my projector at 6fps and film unsynchronized at 30fps w/ a mini DV camera. I then import from the DV cam using iMove, and post-process the film with a tool I wrote that uses frame-differencing w/ tolerance to detect frame changes. My tool plucks exactly one image per super8 frame. The result is a beautiful, perfectly synchronized, full screen movie in DV format. I can then edit in iMovie, burn to DVD with iDVD. or archive to miniDV tape.
I have some samples online, but they are scaled down and encoded in H.263 for better streaming. To get an idea of image quality, some stills are online also, but these were my first experimentations with the Work Printer: my camcorder was not fully zoomed, and the aspect ratio is off.
If anyone is interested in the tool, it's free (mac only), Send email to telecine at black frog dot com
If anyone is interested in a short (1-2 seconds) clip in full DV format, email me and I can make arrangements.
The only downside is $$. The Work Printer is not cheap, and neither is a high quality camera. Depending on the amount of film you have, it may be cheaper to use a service for the miniDV conversion. However, you have to mail the film in (it could get lost), and generally they splice all your reels together. I really like keeping the films as they were, in the original boxes, with the original notes. Plus I must admit I take a lot of satisfaction from doing it myself.
Hey there Apple person. Couple of questions for you.
The Haxial article was mostly debunked (de-debunked?), but two suspicious issues stand out as unexplained: (1) the "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option was used for the G5, but not for the Dells, and (2) a custom optimized malloc library was used for the G5, but not for the Dells.
I don't pretend to understand the implications of the "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option, but I am disturbed by the custom malloc library. It was not thread-safe, was optimized for speed over efficiency, and was optimized for small mallocs of less than 4 bytes. Clearly, this malloc library is only useful for SPEC testing.
Is there anything positive you can tell me about those two issues? I would love to see Apple's speed claims vindicated --almost as much as I'd love a G5 on my desk.
Last year, I was turned onto a book titled Rare Earth that proposes that bacterial life may be extremely abundant in the universe, but the factors that led to the evolution of higher life on Earth is a series of incredibly uncommon events.
It's a great read, especially if you, like me, have not been following the advances in Evolutionary Biology of the last 10 years.
I agree -- it's like ReplayTV execs had no idea that sharing shows was going to let the genie out of the bottle.
Apple got into trouble with their MP3 app when they implemented music sharing. Their fix was reasonable - to limit sharing to the local network. Seems to me that ReplayTV could adopt the same strategy, and possibly placate the studios that way.
No matter how much you want them to, general purpose computers still don't work as well as dedicated hardware devices. When you use your computer for anything important, there's always the chance your computer will be down, and you'll be unable to use it when you need to.
Your generalisms run contrary to both Microsoft and Apple consumer strategy: place the PC in the center of an assortment of digital products. The PVR is no different. In fact, I'd say that an easy-to-use application is a much better solution for editing/archiving than anything controlled with a hand-held remote.
Besides, you never have a problem with your Tivo not working, as you certainly do with computers.
Maybe you misunderstood me. The PVR should function just fine on its own. The PC is not required for normal use.
ANd how about those many many many people that either don't have a PC, or aren't comfortable enough with a PC?
Sucks to be them. They edit home movies with two VCR's, keep photos in shoe boxes, and can't edit/archive shows from their PVR's.
It costs too much to throw all the features we want into a PVR box. The PVR should cost less than $500.
The right answer is the ReplayTV strategy, where a PC can download, edit, archive, and upload media to/from the ReplayTV box. As a bonus, ReaplyTV can access and play media residing on a PC, without having to plug your PC directly into the TV.
PVR's should focus on quality A/V digitizing and output. The PC can handle the rest.
Sort of like a video camera vs. a PC -- you wouldn't try editing your vids with your camera, now would you?
The news.com article has more meat.
AOL got cash (which it needs badly), CD distribution (which may help its subscriber base), and royalty-free licenses to IE and WMP 9.
MS got the AOL lawsuit off its back, and got MSN/AIM interoperability --although another poster already pointed out that the FCC requires interoperability before audio/video may be added (#6072015).
There is nothing in the article that implies that AOL must use these IE or WMP exclusively. This is very different from past MS maneuvers attempting to force exclusivity.
In fact, AOL would be wise to remain as independent of MS as possible for browser and multimedia technology, while at the same time bundling IE and WMP for customers who wish to use them. Bunding IE and WMP for free, I might add, since the licenses are royalty-free.
his silly RFID thing undermines the one good reason I've heard why euros will beat dollars
Good. Maybe this will help curb the dollar's recent drop in value against the Euro.
This drop is due, I might at, by the present administration's abysmal fiscal policy. Bush took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a deficit of more than $2 trillion and growing. This fiscal reversal amounts to $7,800,000,000.00.
Ok, DNA is almost the same, but does not mean anything.
True. Nearly identical DNA, by itself, does not mean anything.
But here's something meaningful. When man's and chimps' ancestors' DNA is sequenced, guess what: the further back towards the split (8 million years ago) we go, the closer the DNA sequences become. At the period of the split, the samples are indistinguishable - the same species. The DNA does not lie. We share an 8 million years old common ancestor with chimps.
Humans dress with clothes, speak with language, write poems, have travelled to the moon, invented computers and the internet, and many other things.
All the other species, and I mean all, don't do any of these: they continue to live the same life as their ancestors million years ago, hunting for food, reproducing and sleeping.
Wow. You sure have a fuzzy view of history. 65 million years ago, 85% of the species on earth were wiped out in a mass extinction event. Since then, mammals have thrived - in part because the predatory dinosaurs were wiped out. Our direct ancestors showed up about 8 million years ago. The fossil record does not lie.
Aren't humans unique ? My opinion is that not only they are unique, but they are genetically manipulated in order to become humans
huh? A cosmic conspiracy! Who's been manipulating my genes!?! btw, in the near future, we'll be manipulating our own genes. That'll be exciting.
Because, according to evolution, there was no need for the monkey brain to evolve like this.
Correct. More specifically, Chimpanzees have been successfully breeding and adapting to their changing environment for 4-5 million years. Their survival is testament that their current physiology and intelligence is quite successful for their environment.
If you say that "nature drived some monkeys to evolve", I would reply "why not all the monkeys ? what was so special in those evolved monkeys ?".
Differences in environments. For the past 4-5 million years, we have evolved in parallel to the Chimps, from a common ancestor. Overcrowding, changes in climate, and other factors created an environment for would-be-Humans that promoted intelligence over other characteristics. The dumb died. The smart lived to breed. At some point, physical isolation from would-be-Chimps allowed enough genetic diversification that prevented inter-breeding with the evolving chimps, at which point we found ourselves on a separate branch of the evolutional tree. In our case, high intelligence was key to survival in our environment. For the Chimps' environment, other characteristics proved more important to survival. The fossil record does not lie.
Fast forward to 50,000 years ago. By this time, Humans had achieved the physical and intellectual characteristics we have today. What we didn't have was an accumulation of knowledge. There was, therefore, not much difference between a day in the life of a Human, and a day in the life of a Chimp. We were more adept at tool-making, had mastered fire, and had conquered more diverse environments than the chimps, but we still lived day-to-day: hunting, reproducing, and sleeping (yes, I am quoting you).
8000 or so years ago some clever humans discovered the art of agriculture, allowing us to live in larger groups. Large groups allowed for cultural and religious growth, and provided a huge boost to our collective knowledge. Then some other clever humans invented writing. Writing allowed us to store a whole lot of knowledge. Just a few years ago, some other clever humans invented computers and the internet. Now we can store and access TONS of information. In fact, we now have enough information to bypass natural selection, and begin manipulating our genes ourselves. Woo hoo!
It doesn't make sense.
Here's the deal. Relative to flat worms, we are only slightly more intelligent than Chimps. It's our collective knowlege that makes the gulf between chimps and humans seem so wide. Genetically, we're not as different as you think. The DNA does not lie.
You know, Galileo was imprisoned by the Catholic Church for declaring that the earth went around the sun instead of the other way around. Church officials were more concerned with preserving the impression that the bible contained the absolute truth, than in the truth itself.
Science backs the theory of Evolution. Each new discovery in Geology, Archeology, Biology,
huh? What's so dumb about that comment? Ants have existed for at least 120 million years. They survived the Late Triassic mass extinction event that wiped out not just the dinosaurs, but 85% of the species on earth.
If Earth was to suffer a similar mass extinction event tomorrow, we humans would perish. The Ants might survive.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe is a great book that advances a theory that microbial life is common and abundant, but the events that led to the evolution of higher life on Earth are incredibly rare.
It's a great read, especially if you, like me, have been out of school for a while: the past ten years have brought some very interesting advances in Biology, Geology, and evolutionary theory.
Chimps can drive!
...then I'd think about moving them onto the same level with us.
And use a computer!
And even go to the Moon --or at least get pretty high!
Hey man, Koko makes art too.
Luckily, it's not up to you.
This may be a naive question, but how do I go about closing a .Net Passport account? I want Microsoft to remove all of my personal information from their servers.
There seems to be no way to do this online. A call to MS customer service resulted in an "I dunno, I can't do that." answer.
btw, I'm not dumb enough to actively participate in Passport. I bought something online last summer from a small company, and after completing the purchase, I was shocked to see that Microsoft was handling the transaction with Passport. Damn it! Now they have my credit card info, shipping address, etc. Guess I should have read the fine print before I clicked Sumbit...
Anyone successfully done this?