While I agree that there are far more elegant ways to do this, You can still cool a room this way and not disobey the laws of Thermodynamics.
The heat generated by the Fridge stays in the Kitchen. Close the door and now you have effectively transfered heat from the cool room (bedroom or livingroom) to the kitchen. It is now far easier to relax.
Trying to lump "gaming" together as a single market is an extremely shortsighted and naive view. There are at least two "very different" types of gaming.
The trend in console games is to optimize for graphics. For certain types of games this is absolutely perfect. FPS, Racing, one on one fights, etc.
For Strategy games, (MMO)RPGs, RTS etc the gating factor is the game's decision making AI rather than the ability to render graphics. The PC hardware is optimized to maximize processor cycles, which is more suited toward neural nets and decision trees.
One other note: As long as people have PCs, there will be a PC gaming market. I need a PC for other reasons, and since I have one, I see NO reason to spring the $$$ to buy a console. If the console could do everything my PC can, then I might consider the switch.
The movies this summer sucked, bad. Gigli, the Hulk (which wasn't terrible), Terminator 3 (again, not terrible), American Wedding, etc, are all going to be dwarfed by such fine examples such as My Boss's Daughter, the Medallion, etc.
This actually shows some of the drawbacks of the "internet age" (sorry for using the term)
We have all seen the dangers that happen when you can respond quickly without thinking things through. It leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
In many ways communications has become too easy. In a face2face conversation, you have an instant feedback in facial expressions to tell you if you are offending. Unfortunately this isn't the case in internet communications. This leads to snap judgements.
In the case of movies, if one person is having a bad viewing experience (ie, the 10 year old behind him is kicking his seat) he may tell all his friends that the movie was horrible. The modern wealth of communications allows this instantly. Three years ago, the same person would drive home, and have some time to realize that it was the person behind him that pissed him of instead of the movie itself.
We all see instances of this drawback of speed communications, but few people remember to actually take it into account when looking at what other people say.
I'm reminded of the "From the Earth to the Moon" documentary put out by HBO. In testimony to the Senate regarding the accident, an astronaut (I can't remember the name off the top of my head) was asked to explain what killed the astronauts in Apollo 1.
His response was basically "Lack of Imagination". His claim was that no one imagined that the type of test that was occuring was actually dangerous.
It is always easy to sit here with the perspective of history and blame all sorts of people. The fact is that in the case of Apollo 1, with no intention of firing off the main rockets, it simply did not occur to ANYONE that there was serious danger.
If spending money on something you like is an addiction, then everything we do is silly anyway.
Our entire culture is addicted to (or at least obsessed with) gadgets.
1. Geeks spend $3-5K on computers so we can play Quake or some other game. (I know there are lots of legit uses, but still most people use only a fraction of the power of their computers).
2. 70 year old men buy $80K sports cars to drive to the mailbox and back.
3. People buy PDAs, Furbys, DVD players, movies, CDs, $300 Joysticks
My point is that we are a consumer economy. We spend money in ways that are not really cost effective. All that the audiophiles are doing is spending it on something other that what you spend it on.
Can Someone confirm or debunk the info I just got.
Someone just told me that the "preview" in Outlook (or was that Lookout) 2000 will trigger the virus.
If this is true then I am agast. This security hole has been exploited in the past, and instead of trying to at least partially close the hole, it appears that MS has widened it, by making it harder to protect yourself by just deleting things.
Just for background, I graduated from The Colorado College in 1994.
The article does not mention some very important facts. #1 CC is a private school which consistently ranks in the top 25 liberal arts schools in the nation.
#2 CC likes to try new things and prides itself on being on the cutting edge of education.
As has been pointed out by others, this program is not replacing SAT's with Legos. Yet again the media is misrepresenting something because it looks good in a byline. One small part of the battery of tests includes lego's, but most people would ignore an article titled "CC tries alternative to SAT's", whereas "CC replaces SAT's with Legos" will cause a frenzy such as we see here at/.
Minorities play an important role at CC, and the administration appreciates the diversity and is always attempting to promote that diversity. (Even if many of the minoritys constantly protest that not enough is being done.)
All I can say is that at least CC is trying to do something to give underprivileged kids a chance. This may not work, but it is an attempt.
I can think of a couple different forums that I regularly read/post to that could seriously benefit from a/. like moderation style.
The benifits to/. would be great, but I think lots of others would benefit even more.
we could put a powered by/. on each implementation:)
vi advertisment? I think not.
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
I think that the previous post confuses the opinions of a "vi" user with "vi" advocacy.
TC's essay does not come across to me as a "vi"-mercial. To me the message of the essay is that the current keyboard is a menace to the feeling of "oneness" that is prized by humans around the world. He points out that the keyboard restricts his ability to attain oneness and uses example that are close to his heart. This does not mean he is advocating "vi", but rather that he is using "vi" to illustrate a problem.
The feeling of being at one with your task is something that cannot be explained. I hope that everyone can experience the feeling sometime. When it comes to hacking, the keyboard makes this oneness very difficult to achieve.
This article illustrates many problems with the current state of the music industry. The music industry as a whole is proving that they cannot keep up with technology.
One of the main reasons that illegal mp3's are so popular is that buying legal copies of most music is prohibitively expensive for many people. This is especially true of teenagers. Heck, I work in Computer Software and have to be careful about how many CD's I buy.
Since the crux of the problem lies in money, that is the first place to look for a solution. #1 The only real problem is that that the artist doesn't get paid for illegal copies of their work.
In order to fight the illegal mp3's, we need to make legal sources of music more affordable. One way to do this would be to provide cheap mp3's through valid distribution channels.
Calculate the amount of money that the artist gets when a copy of their music is sold, add on a small distribution fee for the internet site and wala you can charge $2 for a CD worth of music and still make a profit.
There is no more risk to the artist than with conventional distribution channels. Anyone these days can copy a CD or make a tape off of a CD or tape, so the "mp3's are easy to pirate" argument doesn't hold water. Once music is affordable again, illegal mp3's will be much less of a problem. (Once you drop the amount of money saved by illegal activity, it becomes far less attractive.)
The one remaining problem is coming up with a way for people who don't have a credit card to use these theoretical music sites. I leave that to others, but what does need to happen is that the music companies need to realise that if they don't make a presense for themselves on the net, they will swiftly become dinosaurs and soon thereafter, become extinct.
This kind of probability seems pretty shaky to me. We have not even been able to solve the three body problem, but now someone says there is a 1:1700 chance that he is wrong about a theoretical 10th.
There are many other reasonable explanations that involve multiple smaller bodies, and unfortunately even Occam's Razor can't cut away at this one.
There have been many different people who tried to use variations in planetary orbits to find a 10th planet. (see Hypothetical Planets ) Unfortunately theories like this one are difficult to disprove because of the difficulty of finding a dark object in space. The idealist in me wants to find a 10th planet though, and this seems like as good a place to start searching as any.
I have not read this new book, but I have just finished reading Drexler's "Engines of Creation."
The review however says that you are probably a believe or not, and I wish to raise some of the concerns/issues I had with "Engines..."
First of all I firmly believe in nanotechnology. As far as I am concerned it will happen and it will happen soon. What I don't believe is that having nanotech will automatically open all of the doors that the nanotech gurus think it will.
In order to build something (or program something else to do it) you have to understand it. Using nanotech to build things is not a problem, because we understand rocket engines, cars, houses, etc.
The problem comes when we start to consider building things like brains, medical bots, etc. They by their nature are extremely complex entities that will take more than just basic nanotech to understand.
My other big issue is the assumption that we can manage the risks of nanotech. We will have nanotech, but I don't think we are ready for it. Drexler and others assume that we will be able to create nanotech to defend ourselves against hostile nano, but as crackers have proven time and time again, truely secure systems are rare (and usually only occur when the system is isolated).
Because of this, nanotech can lead our bodies (and if you believe Drexler our minds) open to attack from any nano cracker who is insane or power hungry. Many people express the hope that by the time nanotech progesses to that stage, we will have evolved as a species, but this is (sadly) a long shot. There will (most likely) continue to be deranged individuals. There will always be people who have agendas which are not in the best intrest of certain other people. Because of this, nanotech will cause problems, our hope will have to be that we can build defense faster than others can build offence, and that kind of arms race can end in either destruction or a stalemate. Hopefully those who first create nanotech will be wise enough to help us establish the stalemate.
Actually - according to an article in the NandoTimes there are answers to many of the questions posed. 1. The customers for the data will be Banks, lenders and Car dealers (probably others) 2. The party requesting the data will be responsible for gaining permission. (and it is based on an honor system. So the state will "believe" them if they say they have permission)
There will be auditors checking that they really have permission, but this will be on a spot basis and as far as I am concerned hardly provides any real protection to the individual.
With this kind of program in effect, it may soon be the case that you are refused a loan if you refuse to let the government make money off your information.
Slashdot Mirror
The goal was cooling a room.
While I agree that there are far more elegant ways to do this, You can still cool a room this way and not disobey the laws of Thermodynamics.
The heat generated by the Fridge stays in the Kitchen. Close the door and now you have effectively transfered heat from the cool room (bedroom or livingroom) to the kitchen. It is now far easier to relax.
Think it through before calling someone a moron.
You hit it spot on.
Trying to lump "gaming" together as a single market is an extremely shortsighted and naive view. There are at least two "very different" types of gaming.
The trend in console games is to optimize for graphics. For certain types of games this is absolutely perfect. FPS, Racing, one on one fights, etc.
For Strategy games, (MMO)RPGs, RTS etc the gating factor is the game's decision making AI rather than the ability to render graphics. The PC hardware is optimized to maximize processor cycles, which is more suited toward neural nets and decision trees.
One other note: As long as people have PCs, there will be a PC gaming market. I need a PC for other reasons, and since I have one, I see NO reason to spring the $$$ to buy a console. If the console could do everything my PC can, then I might consider the switch.
We have all seen the dangers that happen when you can respond quickly without thinking things through. It leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. In many ways communications has become too easy. In a face2face conversation, you have an instant feedback in facial expressions to tell you if you are offending. Unfortunately this isn't the case in internet communications. This leads to snap judgements.
In the case of movies, if one person is having a bad viewing experience (ie, the 10 year old behind him is kicking his seat) he may tell all his friends that the movie was horrible. The modern wealth of communications allows this instantly. Three years ago, the same person would drive home, and have some time to realize that it was the person behind him that pissed him of instead of the movie itself.
We all see instances of this drawback of speed communications, but few people remember to actually take it into account when looking at what other people say.
I'm reminded of the "From the Earth to the Moon" documentary put out by HBO. In testimony to the Senate regarding the accident, an astronaut (I can't remember the name off the top of my head) was asked to explain what killed the astronauts in Apollo 1.
His response was basically "Lack of Imagination". His claim was that no one imagined that the type of test that was occuring was actually dangerous.
It is always easy to sit here with the perspective of history and blame all sorts of people. The fact is that in the case of Apollo 1, with no intention of firing off the main rockets, it simply did not occur to ANYONE that there was serious danger.
If spending money on something you like is an addiction, then everything we do is silly anyway.
Our entire culture is addicted to (or at least obsessed with) gadgets.
1. Geeks spend $3-5K on computers so we can play Quake or some other game. (I know there are lots of legit uses, but still most people use only a fraction of the power of their computers).
2. 70 year old men buy $80K sports cars to drive to the mailbox and back.
3. People buy PDAs, Furbys, DVD players, movies, CDs, $300 Joysticks
My point is that we are a consumer economy. We spend money in ways that are not really cost effective. All that the audiophiles are doing is spending it on something other that what you spend it on.
Can Someone confirm or debunk the info I just got.
Someone just told me that the "preview" in Outlook (or was that Lookout) 2000 will trigger the virus.
If this is true then I am agast. This security hole has been exploited in the past, and instead of trying to at least partially close the hole, it appears that MS has widened it, by making it harder to protect yourself by just deleting things.
Please let me know if this is true.
PondScum
Just for background,
/.
I graduated from The Colorado College in 1994.
The article does not mention some very important facts.
#1 CC is a private school which consistently ranks in the top 25 liberal arts schools in the nation.
#2 CC likes to try new things and prides itself on being on the cutting edge of education.
As has been pointed out by others, this program is not replacing SAT's with Legos. Yet again the media is misrepresenting something because it looks good in a byline. One small part of the battery of tests includes lego's, but most people would ignore an article titled "CC tries alternative to SAT's", whereas "CC replaces SAT's with Legos" will cause a frenzy such as we see here at
Minorities play an important role at CC, and the administration appreciates the diversity and is always attempting to promote that diversity. (Even if many of the minoritys constantly protest that not enough is being done.)
All I can say is that at least CC is trying to do something to give underprivileged kids a chance. This may not work, but it is an attempt.
I love the idea of open sourcing /.
/. like moderation style.
/. would be great, but I think
/. on each implementation :)
I can think of a couple different forums that
I regularly read/post to that could seriously
benefit from a
The benifits to
lots of others would benefit even more.
we could put a powered by
I think that the previous post confuses the opinions of a "vi" user with "vi" advocacy.
TC's essay does not come across to me as a "vi"-mercial. To me the message of the essay is that the current keyboard is a menace to the feeling of "oneness" that is prized by humans around the world. He points out that the keyboard restricts his ability to attain oneness and uses example that are close to his heart. This does not mean he is advocating "vi", but rather that he is using "vi" to illustrate a problem.
The feeling of being at one with your task is something that cannot be explained. I hope that everyone can experience the feeling sometime. When it comes to hacking, the keyboard makes this oneness very difficult to achieve.
This article illustrates many problems with the
current state of the music industry. The music
industry as a whole is proving that they cannot
keep up with technology.
One of the main reasons that illegal mp3's are
so popular is that buying legal copies of most
music is prohibitively expensive for many people.
This is especially true of teenagers. Heck, I work
in Computer Software and have to be careful about
how many CD's I buy.
Since the crux of the problem lies in money, that
is the first place to look for a solution.
#1 The only real problem is that that the artist
doesn't get paid for illegal copies of their work.
In order to fight the illegal mp3's, we need to
make legal sources of music more affordable. One
way to do this would be to provide cheap mp3's
through valid distribution channels.
Calculate the amount of money that the artist
gets when a copy of their music is sold, add on
a small distribution fee for the internet site
and wala you can charge $2 for a CD worth of
music and still make a profit.
There is no more risk to the artist than with
conventional distribution channels. Anyone
these days can copy a CD or make a tape off
of a CD or tape, so the "mp3's are easy to
pirate" argument doesn't hold water. Once music
is affordable again, illegal mp3's will be much
less of a problem. (Once you drop the amount of
money saved by illegal activity, it becomes far
less attractive.)
The one remaining problem is coming up with a
way for people who don't have a credit card to
use these theoretical music sites. I leave that
to others, but what does need to happen is that
the music companies need to realise that if they
don't make a presense for themselves on the net,
they will swiftly become dinosaurs and soon thereafter, become extinct.
There are many other reasonable explanations that involve multiple smaller bodies, and unfortunately even Occam's Razor can't cut away at this one.
There have been many different people who tried to use variations in planetary orbits to find a 10th planet. (see Hypothetical Planets ) Unfortunately theories like this one are difficult to disprove because of the difficulty of finding a dark object in space. The idealist in me wants to find a 10th planet though, and this seems like as good a place to start searching as any.
I have not read this new book, but I have just finished reading Drexler's "Engines of Creation."
..."
The review however says that you are probably a believe or not, and I wish to raise some of the concerns/issues I had with "Engines
First of all I firmly believe in nanotechnology. As far as I am concerned it will happen and it will happen soon. What I don't believe is that having nanotech will automatically open all of the doors that the nanotech gurus think it will.
In order to build something (or program something else to do it) you have to understand it. Using nanotech to build things is not a problem, because we understand rocket engines, cars, houses, etc.
The problem comes when we start to consider building things like brains, medical bots, etc. They by their nature are extremely complex entities that will take more than just basic nanotech to understand.
My other big issue is the assumption that we can manage the risks of nanotech. We will have nanotech, but I don't think we are ready for it. Drexler and others assume that we will be able to create nanotech to defend ourselves against hostile nano, but as crackers have proven time and time again, truely secure systems are rare (and usually only occur when the system is isolated).
Because of this, nanotech can lead our bodies (and if you believe Drexler our minds) open to attack from any nano cracker who is insane or power hungry. Many people express the hope that by the time nanotech progesses to that stage, we will have evolved as a species, but this is (sadly) a long shot. There will (most likely) continue to be deranged individuals. There will always be people who have agendas which are not in the best intrest of certain other people. Because of this, nanotech will cause problems, our hope will have to be that we can build defense faster than others can build offence, and that kind of arms race can end in either destruction or a stalemate.
Hopefully those who first create nanotech will be wise enough to help us establish the stalemate.
Actually - according to an article in the NandoTimes there
are answers to many of the questions posed.
1. The customers for the data will be Banks, lenders and Car dealers (probably others)
2. The party requesting the data will be responsible for gaining permission. (and it is based on an honor system. So the state will "believe" them if they say they have permission)
There will be auditors checking that they really have permission, but this will be on a spot basis and as far as I am concerned hardly provides any real protection to the individual.
With this kind of program in effect, it may soon be the case that you are refused a loan if you refuse to let the government make money off your information.