A bit off topic, but when I saw the headline I started to laugh as it reminded me of "The Monarch" from the 'toon Venture Brothers on Cartoon Network/Adult Swim. I kept thinking about the Monarch's pathetic supercomputer that he had to reboot when giving a powerpoint presentation on how evil his plans were to another super villan. I supsect if he had the System reviewed in this topic he would still be incompetent, but at least he'd be having fun fragging his enemies.
Part of me would like to think that CA did this for purely good reasons, but I suspect there is a practical reason behind this. Many companies donate patents (intellectual property) to non-profit institutions for tax cut purposes. A company can "claim" a value of $x for the patents that it knows it will never use or find a license for, and give them to a university or non-profit as a charitable donation, in effect lowering their tax bill which improves their earnings per share. This is done in the chemical industry all the time. So we should look at the patents being donated - are they really key patents, or extra patents that cover some niche or really should have never been issued in the first place? I'm betting that none of these patents really prevent the open source community from doing anything currently, and their release is probably a tax-cut plan for CA.
She's got to be kidding: "Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co., said Wednesday. 'The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers,' said Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America. 'The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of American schools.'"
We (the highly educated unwilling to work for minimum wage) all got high education because a high school education would not get you a job that you can actually live on. Maybe even 20 years ago a high school education was enough for some jobs, but even trades require additional education - and then you can command a good living wage. Even in China - their wage may be our minimum wage, but with their lower cost of living it comes out to about equal to what we make most of the time. So what Ms. Fiorina the Oligarch should be preaching is lowering the cost of living in the US and then you won't need protectionism...but then she'd lose millions in assets so we know that won't happen.
If you're looking for a great view of the stars, I recommend one of the many lakeshore campgrounds along the upper penisula of Michigan. Specifically, the northern side with Lake Superior. Bring your telescope or even binonculars and you'll be able to see all of the night sky (no light pollution) as well as the Aurora Borealis.
Directed Energy Weapons can mean any sort of thing in today's military parlance, which unfortunately is starting to look like a combination of legalese and business doublespeak.
Anyway, today's ship mounted cannons/machine guns are techincally "directed energy weapons". You hit the firing pin which detonates the gunpowder that directs the energy into the barrel that pushes the bullet down range into the target. My guess is that with this much extra power, what they'll have will be more electrically detonated rounds (rather than firing pins) and weapon systems, along with more electric motors rather than hydraulic systems to move the turrets.
While the image of a ship with Guass Rifles/Rail Guns would be interesting to imagine, I don't think we'll see this in the next carrier design, as ship warfare, especially when at sea or firing over the horizon, prefers non-straight paths for the bullets to fly. Direct paths can hit waves or the sea if your target is moving over the horizon.
Yes, you're right that it is now the 21st century. However, nanotechnology by today's definition began possibly as early as the 1960s (which was 20th century) depending on how you interpret the scientific papers of the time.
My comment was an analogy, not meant to be taken literally, and our descendents in the 30th century may still well make the above statement...or not.
Just as tech moves around the world today, it did then. The pieces I'm referring to were dug out near Herculeum, the other city destroyed by Vesuvius when it erupted. Estimated dating was 1st century AD. Now did the romans learn it from the Persians, or was it the other way around? Heck, for all we know it could have been a different group that introduced the technique to both cultures. My point was that this type of technology has been around for centuries, but we're just now understanding what it really is.
Regarding the colloidal metals, which are nanoscale, referred to in this article, the Renaissance potters may have just been practicing, or re-learning, a skill that the Romans had used since at least the 1st century AD. There are several examples of ornamental dishes (goblets, plates, etc.) where the Romans applied colloidal gold or other metals to the surfaces to get the right appearance. They didn't know what it was they were making, they just knew how to make it. So while they were manipulating nanoscale particles to fabricate into a decorative coating - is it nanotechnology by today's definition? No, its not. However, it is impressive that such things have been around as long as they have, but we're just now beginning to understand what has been around for centuries. I suspect when our descendents 1000 years from now look back, they'll say "look: Those 20th century yahoos were practicing picotechnology and they didn't even know it"
Re:Like anything else ...
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Serendipitous discoveries are very important - look at Thomas Edison. He tried everything until he found what worked. However, the problem here is that the company did not try everything - they just merely suggested that it could work and were granted rights to practice that technology. There is NO WAY that the company could test all inorganic chemicals made from all 94 (I'm only including the stable elements of the periodic table) elements present and say that they all work and therefore can claim them all. This is the problem with the broad patents that the USPTO allows - they should only allow what the patent applier can truly prove they actually tried and proved to work - not what they made up.
You understand it exactly. Even though the company which claimed any inorganic chemical would work, they only provide evidence that one specific material that actually worked. Any new discoveries would be blocked and prevented from being practiced, without paying royalties first. And...paying royalties makes the non-patent holder's material more expensive to produce, which means it's not competitive with the material produced by the patent-holding company. Therefore, the patent prevents innovation from other organizations (even non-competitors) by stifling it through patent enforcement.
Re:Like anything else ...
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, you're right that certainly there is nothing wrong with an actual inventor protecting his invention and getting paid for it. The original patent system was designed to get inventors to get paid for their work so that they shared it with others via the patent. Back when patents were first granted and created, usually what would happen was that the new invention was kept under wraps and not shared with the greater scientific community, thus slowing down progress. So patents were created as an incentive to share that information.
Now let's fast forward to today. In major corporations (I work in one), I'm paid to work on scientific research. ALL of my inventions are property not of me, but of the company. My new innovations are patented by the company, and they own it, not me. Okay - so my "benefit" for providing patents to the company is my pay which compensates me for my innovation and advancement to science. No problem there. The problem is how those patents are then used. Since my ideas are the property of the company, I have no control over them once they're owned by the company. So what you see today are patents being used not to protect a new innovation, but to prevent others from using that new innovation. This is the key point. Patents are granted to companies who have no intention of making the innovation a reality to benefit mankind, but rather, something to use in competition with other companies to prevent the other company from gaining an edge over them.
See the difference between how patents used to be and how they're used now? You are also right that the USPTO is part of the problem, granting patents for things that should not be granted. My personal favorite is one where a company claimed a small amount of an inorganic chemical provided a benefit in a plastic, and the inorganic chemical could be made of anything in the periodic table of the elements. Utter bullshit. The point of the whole matter is that the patent system is broken in how it is used, and how patents are created - but the abuse of how patents are used is THE major problem here.
My recommendation for good summer reading, based upon my past summer readings, are three good SciFi authors. (well - one is alternative history but I'll get to that) Harry Harrison: The Stainless Steel Rat series. Or Bill the Galactic Hero. Not hard SciFi, but a very good read and very funny.
Harry Turtledove: Well renowned for "Guns of the South" where time travellers introduce AK-47's to Lee's army at Gettysburg, changing the outcome of the war. While he's got lots of great alternative history, some of his other works are very good stand-alone reads or series that don't have as much alternative history: Agent of Byzantium: James Bond, Byzantine Empire style The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump: Funny reading, and a very interesting take on what modern life would be like if everything was based on magic today. Videssos Cycle series: A legion from Rome gets transported to an alternate dimension of magic and sorcery. Much better than it sounds, and the character development in this story is excellent.
Arthur C. Clarke: If you haven't read any of Clarke's works, you should really pick some of them up. They're hard SF, so much of what is presented, while fiction, is based on good science fact. Rather than reading the 2001: A Space Odyssey, I would read the full version: The Lost Worlds of 2001, instead. Many of his other works (Fountains of Paradise, Rendevous with Rama, The Sentinel, Childhood's End) are also very good ones worth reading.
This summer for reading I'm going to focus on Robert Heinlein, who so far I've liked what I've read (Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land).
What do you read?
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Mr. Niven,
I'm always curious about what authors read for either inspiration, or what they find to be good literature. What books (science fiction or otherwise) have influenced your work, or do you find to be delightful reads. Any favorite authors?
If you're looking for some other sources of H2O2, here are some suggestions: 1. SNPE - they make oxidizers for France's munitions industry, and should be willing to sell if FMC and others are not. 2. Contract manufacturing. Most commercial H2O2 is sold as a 30% solution, and then diluted down to the 1-3% solution you buy in medical supply. The more concentrated material (50%) is made by distallation. Perhaps by purchasing the diluted material, you can hire someone to distill it for you. You may have some success there. 3. Purchase sodium percarbonate and use that as your H2O2 source. Sodium percarbonate is Na2CO3+2(H2O2). Its the same material that makes Oxyclean work when dissolved in water. Water basically releases the H2O2 from the sodium carbonate structure. Sodium percarbonate should work as a solid propellant, as it releases H2O2, and, upon heating/flame conditions would also release CO2.
I don't know if any of this will be of help to you, but I hope you are able to get your program forward.
If you're looking for the best new SciFi authors, check out Analog. It's a paperback magazine, published monthly (www.analogsf.com), with lots of great SciFi and science fact articles. Sometimes its just a selection of short stores, but you'll also find novellas and serials, some of which have been turned into full published novels. Lots of new authors, as well as few older ones, publish great Science Fiction.
Robot dinosaur kicked by snotty kids - or better yet chased down as part of the "Jurasic Park" exhibit, and said robot yelling out: "Why was I programmed to feel pain?"
Later - the Wild Wild West robotic set: Again with Prof. Frink at the helm of a Giant steam powered spider: "Oh-hoy! With the stepping and the squishing and the webs made of NYLONNNN!!"
My apologies to Simpsons fans everywhere, but I'm beginning to wonder if the Imagineers are spending too much time watching the Simpsons, or have a stash of "Imagination" that the Feds would like to know about.
Science Humor - Annals of Improbable Research
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 2
I suspect many here may already know of this "scientific journal" but for those who don't, and would enjoy scientific humor, I would stronly suggest you either get a subscription to, or at least check out the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) www.improbable.com
It is "THE Journal of Record for Inflated Research and Personalities" This journal is also the sponsor for the IgNobel awards.
If you get a chance, read the article "Electron Band Structure in Germanium, My Ass" by Lucas Kovar, in the May/June 2001 Issue (Vol. VII, No. 3) By far, the best in scientific humor I have ever read, and the best part is that most of the really funny stuff is based on REAL research actually done by a researcher.
The following phrase: "Monkey-manageable (tm)" had me laughing for a good 10 minutes. I had this image of a monkey getting really angry with the PC and throwing his shit at it.
Hey, maybe this is something we should all do with Microsoft Products. It'd be damn messy, but we might all feel better afterwards. Then again, maybe we should fling poo at Microsoft and scream like angry chimpanzees when we get frustrated with Windows.
Let's say IBM is able to set up a way to do what they propose, here's some basic utility concepts I'm curious how they will adddress: 1. Transferring product from generator (IBM supercomputer) to location. If you've just used 1 month of supercomputer time to model DNA folding, how will IBM transfer that data back to you? What if the computations and use are faster than the transmission rate? [Modem vs. DSL vs. T1 line] 2. Dependency - you rely up on natural gas and electricity to be there, and yes they go down, but can they guarentee their utility won't have worse problems - especially if its Windows run and goes down once a week, cutting into your bought utility time. 3. Regulation. Most utilities are regulated, and those that were deregulated have not always worked out for the consumer. Let's say company A gets rid of its expensive infrastructure for computing resources and uses IBM's utility. What if IBM becomes the only utility and charges way more than it should - there's no competition so Company A can't shop around. Along this same vien, if Company A is smart enough, they'll never enter into a utility agreement with IBM if they can generate their own computing cycles and be sure that they'll always be there, versus putting all their eggs in one basket.
IBM's idea may have merit, but anytime someone throws out the idea of a new Utility, that suggests that the resource they're selling is mainstream and essential, and therefore, is treated as a commodity. Those commodities are regulated and made reliable so that they never go down. I can't see supercomputing cycles as being something that is commodity, or for that matter, something I (or any company) needs to buy on a metered basis.
"Better yet, we may see more innovation in theatres like the Cinema and Drafthouse. If you've never been to one of those, you don't know what you're missing."
In Columbia, SC, they have a small film theatre called the "Nickel Odeon" (used to be right next to a coffee house called the Immaculate Consumption - I kid you not)- which greatly improves on the whole movie experience. Not only do you have a small theatre with reasonable sized big screen, but the place is set up more like a small cafe - except the seats all face forward. The theatre serves beer, wine, gourmet snacks (first time I ever saw Toblerone at the concession stand) and so on. The selection of films was always independent and what some people call "art films", but the alternate environment made it well worth the price. I could sit in a nice environment, watch a film that wouldn't be shown at the large megaplex, sip on a beer in a confortable chair, and get a big screen experience.
After experiencing that, the big theatres were just not as good anymore. Sticky floors, rude folks in front and back of you, etc. Mind you, I wasn't going to be able to see blockbusters at this small theatre, but I would have paid if the option was there.
So maybe the primary distribution system for the movies (your local movie theatre conglomerate) out of hollywood ought to innovate and create these type of places. I think they'd be surprised what someone would pay for a pleasurable night at the movies.
Awhile back I read an article in the Detroit News on the "Grey Market" for Autos made in the US but sold in Canada. Given local market conditions, the US car sold in Canada is cheaper than if you sold the exact same car in the US. The "Grey Market" comes from Detroit dealers driving up to Canada, buying a lot of the cars cheaper, shipping them back to Detroit, and then charging full price - making a handy profit. The big three (GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler) are trying to put a stop to the practice, as they sometimes sell the cars in Canada at a slight loss, but charge more south of the border (the US) to make up for it, while still maintaining market share in Canada.
Now let's look at Microsoft. MS decides not to pursue piracy to gain an "advertising" edge in the OS market. So how do they make up for those losses? They charge more for the software in markets with a higher cost of living, or markets where they really chase after the software pirates, as it really cuts into their profit margins. So basically we consumers (who may be stuck buying Windows - that's a different story) are stuck with the bill for the piracy. Why would a company in a monopoly position really care if they loose money in one place when they can get away with charging more for it in another place?
This problem even hits the health care industry. Once I had a workman comp case when I was a student (injured in the lab) and had to get an itemized bill back from the hospital. $25 for a throw away stiches kit, $50 for gauze, $220 for "Emergency Room Service/Bed Rental". When I asked why so high - I was basically told that the hospital pads its costs do be able to provide care to those who don't have insurance, or those who decided to not pay their bills. Not piracy, but you get the idea. Those of us who have the money carry the burden for those who don't. I don't mind the angle of providing care for the poor, but for those who didn't want to pay their bills?!? WTF?!?
So how does this all relate to MS's non-piracy clause. Simple, they now have subscription based software costs to make up for lost money due to piracy. They also charge more for the base OS, which is so buggy and unstable it ought to be them paying me to use it. So now not only might I be paying for software which doesn't work as well as it should, but I'm paying for MS's advertising in new markets where they lose money. Grumble. One more reason I plan to try and make my house MS free.
To respond to this one point: "There is a good chance that the error was pointed out to them by someone *outside* their research team. That would be negligence on their part." That is indeed possible, but the way the peer review process works is to get someone who is very competent in the field, but did not actually do the work, so that you can get an unbiased review of the work. If you've ever worked so long on a report - after awhile you start missing your own mistakes. That's why you give it to someone else to catch any of your mistakes.
If the scientist had made a mistake, gave a press release saying "I discovered Element X" and then the peer review process said "No you didn't", then its up to the original scientist to verify the original claims. If the original scientist lied right from the start - then THAT is when the scientist is in deep shit and usually gets fired and ostracized by the scientific community. Retractions of data are made ALL THE TIME, and probably 40-50% of them are caught after publication by other researchers. The other 60-50% of the data is retracted by the original researchers who caught the mistake after publication when they shared the data with another scientist.
This is not a cause for concern. This is a case where the system is working just fine.
The rest of the lab did verify his claims, which is why the scientist who made the discovery was fired. It takes a VERY LONG TIME to peer-review high energy atomic physics, let alone duplicate the experiment. So just because they didn't catch it when they first read the data DOES NOT MEAN THEY OBVIOUSLY NEGLECTED TO VERIFY HIS CLAIMS.
Data fraud does occur, but it is almost always caught by the peer review process.
The media has always been market driven. Take a look at the late 19th century, when sensationalist stories (often outright lies) were used to sell papers to the public. It was called "Yellow Journalism" since it began to happen at the same time the first comic strip "The Yellow Kid" came out in the papers. It's often been said that the "Yellow Journalism" stories probably started the Spanish-American war of 1898, or at least they were a factor leading up to it. Competition in the media was strong then, and the media went to any length it could to get it's "Exclusive side of the story" to sell more papers and run the other paper out of business.
I don't think anything has really changed. I suppose if we could dig into it, we'd probably find the media has always chosen to report what sells more papers or what titilates/scandalizes the public. Occasionally you find the truth in the papers, but often a great deal of important information is left out because the subject matter is so dry that even lies won't improve the story. So I'm not surprised that this is still going on, and I suspect it will continue to do so. The nice thing about today is that there are now so many alternate news sources so that one has the freedom to gather all the information and make their own educated guess on what is really important and what is just superficial fluff designed to sell papers.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit off topic, but when I saw the headline I started to laugh as it reminded me of "The Monarch" from the 'toon Venture Brothers on Cartoon Network/Adult Swim. I kept thinking about the Monarch's pathetic supercomputer that he had to reboot when giving a powerpoint presentation on how evil his plans were to another super villan.
I supsect if he had the System reviewed in this topic he would still be incompetent, but at least he'd be having fun fragging his enemies.
Part of me would like to think that CA did this for purely good reasons, but I suspect there is a practical reason behind this.
Many companies donate patents (intellectual property) to non-profit institutions for tax cut purposes. A company can "claim" a value of $x for the patents that it knows it will never use or find a license for, and give them to a university or non-profit as a charitable donation, in effect lowering their tax bill which improves their earnings per share. This is done in the chemical industry all the time.
So we should look at the patents being donated - are they really key patents, or extra patents that cover some niche or really should have never been issued in the first place? I'm betting that none of these patents really prevent the open source community from doing anything currently, and their release is probably a tax-cut plan for CA.
I'd love to be wrong though.
She's got to be kidding:
"Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co., said Wednesday. 'The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers,' said Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America. 'The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of American schools.'"
We (the highly educated unwilling to work for minimum wage) all got high education because a high school education would not get you a job that you can actually live on. Maybe even 20 years ago a high school education was enough for some jobs, but even trades require additional education - and then you can command a good living wage. Even in China - their wage may be our minimum wage, but with their lower cost of living it comes out to about equal to what we make most of the time. So what Ms. Fiorina the Oligarch should be preaching is lowering the cost of living in the US and then you won't need protectionism...but then she'd lose millions in assets so we know that won't happen.
If you're looking for a great view of the stars, I recommend one of the many lakeshore campgrounds along the upper penisula of Michigan. Specifically, the northern side with Lake Superior. Bring your telescope or even binonculars and you'll be able to see all of the night sky (no light pollution) as well as the Aurora Borealis.
Best of luck on your trip.
Directed Energy Weapons can mean any sort of thing in today's military parlance, which unfortunately is starting to look like a combination of legalese and business doublespeak.
Anyway, today's ship mounted cannons/machine guns are techincally "directed energy weapons". You hit the firing pin which detonates the gunpowder that directs the energy into the barrel that pushes the bullet down range into the target. My guess is that with this much extra power, what they'll have will be more electrically detonated rounds (rather than firing pins) and weapon systems, along with more electric motors rather than hydraulic systems to move the turrets.
While the image of a ship with Guass Rifles/Rail Guns would be interesting to imagine, I don't think we'll see this in the next carrier design, as ship warfare, especially when at sea or firing over the horizon, prefers non-straight paths for the bullets to fly. Direct paths can hit waves or the sea if your target is moving over the horizon.
Yes, you're right that it is now the 21st century. However, nanotechnology by today's definition began possibly as early as the 1960s (which was 20th century) depending on how you interpret the scientific papers of the time.
My comment was an analogy, not meant to be taken literally, and our descendents in the 30th century may still well make the above statement...or not.
Just as tech moves around the world today, it did then. The pieces I'm referring to were dug out near Herculeum, the other city destroyed by Vesuvius when it erupted. Estimated dating was 1st century AD. Now did the romans learn it from the Persians, or was it the other way around? Heck, for all we know it could have been a different group that introduced the technique to both cultures. My point was that this type of technology has been around for centuries, but we're just now understanding what it really is.
Regarding the colloidal metals, which are nanoscale, referred to in this article, the Renaissance potters may have just been practicing, or re-learning, a skill that the Romans had used since at least the 1st century AD. There are several examples of ornamental dishes (goblets, plates, etc.) where the Romans applied colloidal gold or other metals to the surfaces to get the right appearance. They didn't know what it was they were making, they just knew how to make it. So while they were manipulating nanoscale particles to fabricate into a decorative coating - is it nanotechnology by today's definition? No, its not. However, it is impressive that such things have been around as long as they have, but we're just now beginning to understand what has been around for centuries.
I suspect when our descendents 1000 years from now look back, they'll say "look: Those 20th century yahoos were practicing picotechnology and they didn't even know it"
Serendipitous discoveries are very important - look at Thomas Edison. He tried everything until he found what worked. However, the problem here is that the company did not try everything - they just merely suggested that it could work and were granted rights to practice that technology. There is NO WAY that the company could test all inorganic chemicals made from all 94 (I'm only including the stable elements of the periodic table) elements present and say that they all work and therefore can claim them all. This is the problem with the broad patents that the USPTO allows - they should only allow what the patent applier can truly prove they actually tried and proved to work - not what they made up.
You understand it exactly. Even though the company which claimed any inorganic chemical would work, they only provide evidence that one specific material that actually worked. Any new discoveries would be blocked and prevented from being practiced, without paying royalties first. And...paying royalties makes the non-patent holder's material more expensive to produce, which means it's not competitive with the material produced by the patent-holding company. Therefore, the patent prevents innovation from other organizations (even non-competitors) by stifling it through patent enforcement.
Well, you're right that certainly there is nothing wrong with an actual inventor protecting his invention and getting paid for it. The original patent system was designed to get inventors to get paid for their work so that they shared it with others via the patent. Back when patents were first granted and created, usually what would happen was that the new invention was kept under wraps and not shared with the greater scientific community, thus slowing down progress. So patents were created as an incentive to share that information.
Now let's fast forward to today. In major corporations (I work in one), I'm paid to work on scientific research. ALL of my inventions are property not of me, but of the company. My new innovations are patented by the company, and they own it, not me. Okay - so my "benefit" for providing patents to the company is my pay which compensates me for my innovation and advancement to science. No problem there. The problem is how those patents are then used. Since my ideas are the property of the company, I have no control over them once they're owned by the company. So what you see today are patents being used not to protect a new innovation, but to prevent others from using that new innovation. This is the key point. Patents are granted to companies who have no intention of making the innovation a reality to benefit mankind, but rather, something to use in competition with other companies to prevent the other company from gaining an edge over them.
See the difference between how patents used to be and how they're used now? You are also right that the USPTO is part of the problem, granting patents for things that should not be granted. My personal favorite is one where a company claimed a small amount of an inorganic chemical provided a benefit in a plastic, and the inorganic chemical could be made of anything in the periodic table of the elements. Utter bullshit. The point of the whole matter is that the patent system is broken in how it is used, and how patents are created - but the abuse of how patents are used is THE major problem here.
My recommendation for good summer reading, based upon my past summer readings, are three good SciFi authors. (well - one is alternative history but I'll get to that)
Harry Harrison: The Stainless Steel Rat series. Or Bill the Galactic Hero. Not hard SciFi, but a very good read and very funny.
Harry Turtledove: Well renowned for "Guns of the South" where time travellers introduce AK-47's to Lee's army at Gettysburg, changing the outcome of the war. While he's got lots of great alternative history, some of his other works are very good stand-alone reads or series that don't have as much alternative history:
Agent of Byzantium: James Bond, Byzantine Empire style
The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump: Funny reading, and a very interesting take on what modern life would be like if everything was based on magic today.
Videssos Cycle series: A legion from Rome gets transported to an alternate dimension of magic and sorcery. Much better than it sounds, and the character development in this story is excellent.
Arthur C. Clarke: If you haven't read any of Clarke's works, you should really pick some of them up. They're hard SF, so much of what is presented, while fiction, is based on good science fact. Rather than reading the 2001: A Space Odyssey, I would read the full version: The Lost Worlds of 2001, instead. Many of his other works (Fountains of Paradise, Rendevous with Rama, The Sentinel, Childhood's End) are also very good ones worth reading.
This summer for reading I'm going to focus on Robert Heinlein, who so far I've liked what I've read (Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land).
Mr. Niven,
I'm always curious about what authors read for either inspiration, or what they find to be good literature. What books (science fiction or otherwise) have influenced your work, or do you find to be delightful reads. Any favorite authors?
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Carmack,
If you're looking for some other sources of H2O2, here are some suggestions:
1. SNPE - they make oxidizers for France's munitions industry, and should be willing to sell if FMC and others are not.
2. Contract manufacturing. Most commercial H2O2 is sold as a 30% solution, and then diluted down to the 1-3% solution you buy in medical supply. The more concentrated material (50%) is made by distallation. Perhaps by purchasing the diluted material, you can hire someone to distill it for you. You may have some success there.
3. Purchase sodium percarbonate and use that as your H2O2 source. Sodium percarbonate is Na2CO3+2(H2O2). Its the same material that makes Oxyclean work when dissolved in water. Water basically releases the H2O2 from the sodium carbonate structure. Sodium percarbonate should work as a solid propellant, as it releases H2O2, and, upon heating/flame conditions would also release CO2.
I don't know if any of this will be of help to you, but I hope you are able to get your program forward.
If you're looking for the best new SciFi authors, check out Analog. It's a paperback magazine, published monthly (www.analogsf.com), with lots of great SciFi and science fact articles. Sometimes its just a selection of short stores, but you'll also find novellas and serials, some of which have been turned into full published novels. Lots of new authors, as well as few older ones, publish great Science Fiction.
I can just see it now:
Robot dinosaur kicked by snotty kids - or better yet chased down as part of the "Jurasic Park" exhibit, and said robot yelling out:
"Why was I programmed to feel pain?"
Later - the Wild Wild West robotic set:
Again with Prof. Frink at the helm of a Giant steam powered spider:
"Oh-hoy! With the stepping and the squishing and the webs made of NYLONNNN!!"
My apologies to Simpsons fans everywhere, but I'm beginning to wonder if the Imagineers are spending too much time watching the Simpsons, or have a stash of "Imagination" that the Feds would like to know about.
I suspect many here may already know of this "scientific journal" but for those who don't, and would enjoy scientific humor, I would stronly suggest you either get a subscription to, or at least check out the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR)
www.improbable.com
It is "THE Journal of Record for Inflated Research and Personalities" This journal is also the sponsor for the IgNobel awards.
If you get a chance, read the article "Electron Band Structure in Germanium, My Ass" by Lucas Kovar, in the May/June 2001 Issue (Vol. VII, No. 3)
By far, the best in scientific humor I have ever read, and the best part is that most of the really funny stuff is based on REAL research actually done by a researcher.
The following phrase: "Monkey-manageable (tm)"
had me laughing for a good 10 minutes. I had this image of a monkey getting really angry with the PC and throwing his shit at it.
Hey, maybe this is something we should all do with Microsoft Products. It'd be damn messy, but we might all feel better afterwards. Then again, maybe we should fling poo at Microsoft and scream like angry chimpanzees when we get frustrated with Windows.
Let's say IBM is able to set up a way to do what they propose, here's some basic utility concepts I'm curious how they will adddress:
1. Transferring product from generator (IBM supercomputer) to location. If you've just used 1 month of supercomputer time to model DNA folding, how will IBM transfer that data back to you? What if the computations and use are faster than the transmission rate? [Modem vs. DSL vs. T1 line]
2. Dependency - you rely up on natural gas and electricity to be there, and yes they go down, but can they guarentee their utility won't have worse problems - especially if its Windows run and goes down once a week, cutting into your bought utility time.
3. Regulation. Most utilities are regulated, and those that were deregulated have not always worked out for the consumer. Let's say company A gets rid of its expensive infrastructure for computing resources and uses IBM's utility. What if IBM becomes the only utility and charges way more than it should - there's no competition so Company A can't shop around. Along this same vien, if Company A is smart enough, they'll never enter into a utility agreement with IBM if they can generate their own computing cycles and be sure that they'll always be there, versus putting all their eggs in one basket.
IBM's idea may have merit, but anytime someone throws out the idea of a new Utility, that suggests that the resource they're selling is mainstream and essential, and therefore, is treated as a commodity. Those commodities are regulated and made reliable so that they never go down. I can't see supercomputing cycles as being something that is commodity, or for that matter, something I (or any company) needs to buy on a metered basis.
"Better yet, we may see more innovation in theatres like the Cinema and Drafthouse. If you've never been to one of those, you don't know what you're missing."
In Columbia, SC, they have a small film theatre called the "Nickel Odeon" (used to be right next to a coffee house called the Immaculate Consumption - I kid you not)- which greatly improves on the whole movie experience. Not only do you have a small theatre with reasonable sized big screen, but the place is set up more like a small cafe - except the seats all face forward. The theatre serves beer, wine, gourmet snacks (first time I ever saw Toblerone at the concession stand) and so on. The selection of films was always independent and what some people call "art films", but the alternate environment made it well worth the price. I could sit in a nice environment, watch a film that wouldn't be shown at the large megaplex, sip on a beer in a confortable chair, and get a big screen experience.
After experiencing that, the big theatres were just not as good anymore. Sticky floors, rude folks in front and back of you, etc. Mind you, I wasn't going to be able to see blockbusters at this small theatre, but I would have paid if the option was there.
So maybe the primary distribution system for the movies (your local movie theatre conglomerate) out of hollywood ought to innovate and create these type of places. I think they'd be surprised what someone would pay for a pleasurable night at the movies.
Thanks alot for the info. I do appreciate it.
Awhile back I read an article in the Detroit News on the "Grey Market" for Autos made in the US but sold in Canada. Given local market conditions, the US car sold in Canada is cheaper than if you sold the exact same car in the US. The "Grey Market" comes from Detroit dealers driving up to Canada, buying a lot of the cars cheaper, shipping them back to Detroit, and then charging full price - making a handy profit. The big three (GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler) are trying to put a stop to the practice, as they sometimes sell the cars in Canada at a slight loss, but charge more south of the border (the US) to make up for it, while still maintaining market share in Canada.
Now let's look at Microsoft. MS decides not to pursue piracy to gain an "advertising" edge in the OS market. So how do they make up for those losses? They charge more for the software in markets with a higher cost of living, or markets where they really chase after the software pirates, as it really cuts into their profit margins. So basically we consumers (who may be stuck buying Windows - that's a different story) are stuck with the bill for the piracy. Why would a company in a monopoly position really care if they loose money in one place when they can get away with charging more for it in another place?
This problem even hits the health care industry. Once I had a workman comp case when I was a student (injured in the lab) and had to get an itemized bill back from the hospital. $25 for a throw away stiches kit, $50 for gauze, $220 for "Emergency Room Service/Bed Rental". When I asked why so high - I was basically told that the hospital pads its costs do be able to provide care to those who don't have insurance, or those who decided to not pay their bills. Not piracy, but you get the idea. Those of us who have the money carry the burden for those who don't. I don't mind the angle of providing care for the poor, but for those who didn't want to pay their bills?!? WTF?!?
So how does this all relate to MS's non-piracy clause. Simple, they now have subscription based software costs to make up for lost money due to piracy. They also charge more for the base OS, which is so buggy and unstable it ought to be them paying me to use it. So now not only might I be paying for software which doesn't work as well as it should, but I'm paying for MS's advertising in new markets where they lose money. Grumble. One more reason I plan to try and make my house MS free.
To respond to this one point:
"There is a good chance that the error was pointed out to them by someone *outside* their research team. That would be negligence on their part."
That is indeed possible, but the way the peer review process works is to get someone who is very competent in the field, but did not actually do the work, so that you can get an unbiased review of the work. If you've ever worked so long on a report - after awhile you start missing your own mistakes. That's why you give it to someone else to catch any of your mistakes.
If the scientist had made a mistake, gave a press release saying "I discovered Element X" and then the peer review process said "No you didn't", then its up to the original scientist to verify the original claims. If the original scientist lied right from the start - then THAT is when the scientist is in deep shit and usually gets fired and ostracized by the scientific community. Retractions of data are made ALL THE TIME, and probably 40-50% of them are caught after publication by other researchers. The other 60-50% of the data is retracted by the original researchers who caught the mistake after publication when they shared the data with another scientist.
This is not a cause for concern. This is a case where the system is working just fine.
The rest of the lab did verify his claims, which is why the scientist who made the discovery was fired.
It takes a VERY LONG TIME to peer-review high energy atomic physics, let alone duplicate the experiment. So just because they didn't catch it when they first read the data DOES NOT MEAN THEY OBVIOUSLY NEGLECTED TO VERIFY HIS CLAIMS.
Data fraud does occur, but it is almost always caught by the peer review process.
The media has always been market driven. Take a look at the late 19th century, when sensationalist stories (often outright lies) were used to sell papers to the public. It was called "Yellow Journalism" since it began to happen at the same time the first comic strip "The Yellow Kid" came out in the papers. It's often been said that the "Yellow Journalism" stories probably started the Spanish-American war of 1898, or at least they were a factor leading up to it. Competition in the media was strong then, and the media went to any length it could to get it's "Exclusive side of the story" to sell more papers and run the other paper out of business.
I don't think anything has really changed. I suppose if we could dig into it, we'd probably find the media has always chosen to report what sells more papers or what titilates/scandalizes the public. Occasionally you find the truth in the papers, but often a great deal of important information is left out because the subject matter is so dry that even lies won't improve the story. So I'm not surprised that this is still going on, and I suspect it will continue to do so. The nice thing about today is that there are now so many alternate news sources so that one has the freedom to gather all the information and make their own educated guess on what is really important and what is just superficial fluff designed to sell papers.