How about this impeccably accurate translation... from Babelfish?
(É brincadeira só.)
Actually, I'm a little impressed by Babelfish. A lot of it is actually not too bad.
I
They had heard of the Ipiranga the placid edges
Of a heroic people the thundering shout,
E the sun of the Freedom, in fúlgidos rays,
It shone in the sky of the Native land in this instant.
If the distrain of this equality
We obtain to conquer with strong arm,
In your seio, ó Freedom,
The proper death defies our chest!
Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!
Brazil, an intense dream, a vivid ray
Of love and hope to the land it goes down,
If in your formoso sky, limpid risonho and,
The image of the Cruise shines.
Giant for the proper nature,
You are beautiful, you are strong, fearless colossus,
E your future espelha this largeness
Adored land,
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!
Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!
II
Lying perpetual in splendid cradle,
To the sound of the sea and the light of the deep sky,
Fulguras, ó Brazil, florão of America,
Illuminated to the sun of the New World!
Of that the garrida land more
Your risonhos, pretty fields have more flowers;
Our forests have more life,
Our life in your seio more loves.
Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!
Brazil, of perpetual love is symbol
Lábaro that you exhibit covered with star,
E says the green-parrot of this flammule
- Peace in the future and glory in the past.
But, if you raise of justice clava it strong,
You will see that a son yours does not run away to the fight,
Nor he fears, who adores you, the proper death.
Adored land
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!
Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!
Well, I agree that Mars will be a much better destination, but I also think it's a good idea to test our principles and ideas on the moon, and make sure we can make it all work. If we can survive on the Luna, we can survive on Mars. It's like a beta version.
The cost of a silicon wafer increases exponentially with its area. For example, four 2 cm^2 wafers cost MUCH less than one 4 cm^2 wafer, even though the total area is the same. By decreasing die size, we lower the cost of the actual silicon, which is a significant expense in chip-making.
Yes, it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever find a planet that's an exact, ecological match for our own. But it doesn't have to have the same complex ecosystem that we have -- it just has to have SOME ecosystem. It will likely be complex, just like ours is, but it can be completely different. There's no problem with that. Is it only earth-like if platypusses, cardinals, sloths, and small-pox have evolved on it? No. I think we'll be sending colonists (someday) just as long as we could set up an environment there that we could survive in -- much better if it even has a breathable atmosphere. (Size and composition of the planet will largely account for that.)
Right. For example, if they shave their head and paint it like a soccer ball and bury themselves up to the neck in the middle of the field just before practice, yeah, they'll probably get kicked in the head.
I have a little trouble with your "it's all speculation as to what designs might conceivably be used."
I don't think he's saying we don't know what will work, I think he's saying that it's just a lot of dreaming until somebody actually puts one of these (all probably feasible) pieces of equipment into a rocket and takes them there. I'm sure there are lots of things that would work, but until one of them is on its way to Mars, it's all speculation as to what will actually be used.
First: "If an advertiser buys `NYPD Blue' on Tuesday night, and 10 percent of its audience watches it on Friday after midnight, should that audience be given equal value as the `live' prime- time audience?"
Pur idiocy! An advertiser isn't paying for the time of day that his ad runs, he's paying for how many people watch it. If 10% of those people watch it at midnight instead of at 7:00 p.m., still the same number of people are watching it! The reason prime-time ads cost more is because that's when most people are watching! (People skipping over commercials is at least a valid concern, but this part is ludicrous.)
Second: "We need to start to understand how we're going to have to reach our consumers with this new technology," said Mollie Weston, a product manager for Best Buy's image advertising. "It is going to force us to put advertisements out there that people are actually going to choose to watch."
Duh! If you want people to pay attention to something they don't want to pay attention to, you're fighting a losing battle. People aren't going to be watching the commercials anyway, if they don't want to. They'll be at the toilet or at the refrigerator, or surfing other channels. (And maybe finding another program they'd rather watch.) It seems to me that ads would be a lot more effective if they were more entertaining. (There are some that I can't wait to see again, because they're so hilarious -- I'm sure you've had the same experience.)
You're right about that -- one of the things that made the Apollo missions beneficial was the spinoff technologies. Doing something that we didn't have the tech to do really helped us learn a lot.
Do you think a mission to Mars is within our current technological reach? It may be. But I think it's probably a little beyond our current capability. But not so much as Apollo was at the time.
One of the opening comments in the bill states that we need a "challenging goal." I heartily agree with that. If going to Mars isn't challenging enough, maybe we should have a goal of sending an interstellar probe. And maybe go to Mars as a preparatory / test run, to test the technologies we'd be developing for interstellar travel.
Sure it'd take a long time for our probe to get to another star system -- but it'd be a HUGE technological breakthrough. The amount of innovation in communications and propulsion requirements would be comparable to the Apollo missions. We rose to the occasion for the moon; why not for the stars?
Not likely. Schumacher-Levy 9 was very small and hit Jupiter full in the center, instead of hitting it at an angle low enough to knock some material into orbit.
That's a really, REALLY big if. It's unlikely enough that it can't account for the diversity of life on the earth. I don't disagree that the Punctuated Evolution theory can work in rare cases, but I don't buy that it could be a significant factor in so much variety we have on Earth. That's my main point, I guess.
I'm afraid I don't buy that theory. It seems to say that evolutionary innovation only occurs in small, isolated groups. The fact is, the innovations the isolated group develop would be more likely to occur in the larger group, because the larger group has a wider domain of agents for mutation and innovation. If only the smaller group is forced to adapt to the new environment, why would its adaptation be likely to be better suited to survival in the original environment? (After re-contact.) I guess I challenge the ideas that any change will be a "strengthening," and that evolution would occur faster or better in an isolated environment.
That aside, I think you summed up the business model that he's talking about pretty well. It's a good parallel.
I think the "intuition" he was referring to is Morita's dreams that people would buy things -- but those innovations were based on a real understanding of how people live and what people do. Like the walkman -- people jog, and people travel -- wouldn't it be great if they could listen to music while they do it?
VC's nowadays who use just their intuition probably don't succeed as much because they don't know what makes an innovative company succeed and what makes it fail. To overcome this problem, they use statistics and keep a large portfolio so they can make a profit even if a lot of their companies fail.
The point of the article, at least in my mind, is to show the VCs what they need to know to make more intelligent bets. In short, this study tried to figure out the attributes of innovative companies that really succeed.
I think the analysis and prediction on the part of the investors could (and should) more closely resemble the intuitive product selection and development by Morita and his group.
However, the article was focusing on the lack of planes in the air because of the attack on 9/11. Never have modern meteorologists had the opportunity to study weather patterns in conditions without airplanes because we have been flying planes longer than they have been studying the weather!
Longer than we've been studying weather? Well, longer than most scientists alive today have personally, anyway.;)
But I agree with some other posts, which remark that three days without airplanes is not enough statistically (scientifically) to show ANYTHING conclusive about their effects whatsoever. If we could study it for a year, it would give us at least something to go on, but three days is not nearly enough to accumulate enough meteorological data to do anything useful with.
As the chaotic butterfly demonstrates, everything is widespread.
I was referring to direct short-term effect, not chaotic, long-term effect.
Under copyright, you could use a piece of material and face the consequences. The DMCA replaces the copyright system with cold, hard technology.... It takes human judgment out of the system and drains the fluidity out of what was a humanely designed and evolved system.
Wow, that point hit home. If we remove all the instances of human judgement from our social activities and interactions (like what we do with our spare time, music, movies, etc.), our society ceases to be a human, flexible, diverse society, and becomes a rigid, homogenous, and sterile machine which is merely comprised of humans.
If this legislation (and consequential social shift) sets the precedent for removal of the human factor in our societal system, where will it end?
The amount of dust and debris that were thrown into the air on 9/11 was far, FAR too little to have a significant impact on the climate. (Other than the chaotic butterfly effect, of course.) Compared with some of the larger volcano eruptions just in RECENT history, the WTC dust was just a cup of water compared to all the water in the Great Lakes.
I don't know what the short-term, localized (to NYC) effect it had. Probably measurable, but certainly not widespread.
You say a viable business model will be found because we're in a free market society. Well, what about Microsoft? Sure, it may well be a viable business model, since they have $40 billion in cash, but its success has more to do (at least, for the last 5 or so years) with anti-competitive practices being used illegally to maintain its monopoly. The RIAA is in much the same situation as Microsoft, except that it's an oligopoly. But only in name. They act as one, to keep prices high and to rip off the artists who produce their wealth.
Personally I applaud KaZaA and their efforts, and I intend to support their suggestion. It may not be the final, best answer, but it's a whole lot better than things are now.
In short, this measure helps break up the oligopoly and puts the money where it should go -- in the artists' pockets.
I don't think the music companies should be left completely out of the loop -- and they won't. The market has shown that filesharing increases CD buying. This sounds like a great plan.
Slashdot Mirror
(É brincadeira só.)
Actually, I'm a little impressed by Babelfish. A lot of it is actually not too bad.
I
They had heard of the Ipiranga the placid edges
Of a heroic people the thundering shout,
E the sun of the Freedom, in fúlgidos rays,
It shone in the sky of the Native land in this instant.
If the distrain of this equality
We obtain to conquer with strong arm,
In your seio, ó Freedom,
The proper death defies our chest!
Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!
Brazil, an intense dream, a vivid ray
Of love and hope to the land it goes down,
If in your formoso sky, limpid risonho and,
The image of the Cruise shines.
Giant for the proper nature,
You are beautiful, you are strong, fearless colossus,
E your future espelha this largeness
Adored land,
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!
Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!
II
Lying perpetual in splendid cradle,
To the sound of the sea and the light of the deep sky,
Fulguras, ó Brazil, florão of America,
Illuminated to the sun of the New World!
Of that the garrida land more
Your risonhos, pretty fields have more flowers;
Our forests have more life,
Our life in your seio more loves.
Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!
Brazil, of perpetual love is symbol
Lábaro that you exhibit covered with star,
E says the green-parrot of this flammule
- Peace in the future and glory in the past.
But, if you raise of justice clava it strong,
You will see that a son yours does not run away to the fight,
Nor he fears, who adores you, the proper death.
Adored land
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!
Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!
is here. Still takes a sec, though, since the image is so large. I've never seen google getting this close to being slashdotted.
Well, I agree that Mars will be a much better destination, but I also think it's a good idea to test our principles and ideas on the moon, and make sure we can make it all work. If we can survive on the Luna, we can survive on Mars. It's like a beta version.
Shed old think. I like it.
The deciding factor will be if it really works.
The cost of a silicon wafer increases exponentially with its area. For example, four 2 cm^2 wafers cost MUCH less than one 4 cm^2 wafer, even though the total area is the same. By decreasing die size, we lower the cost of the actual silicon, which is a significant expense in chip-making.
Yes, it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever find a planet that's an exact, ecological match for our own. But it doesn't have to have the same complex ecosystem that we have -- it just has to have SOME ecosystem. It will likely be complex, just like ours is, but it can be completely different. There's no problem with that. Is it only earth-like if platypusses, cardinals, sloths, and small-pox have evolved on it? No. I think we'll be sending colonists (someday) just as long as we could set up an environment there that we could survive in -- much better if it even has a breathable atmosphere. (Size and composition of the planet will largely account for that.)
Just pump those photons through this thing and you'll end up with the interesting combination of extremely high bandwidth with extremely low speed.
Right. For example, if they shave their head and paint it like a soccer ball and bury themselves up to the neck in the middle of the field just before practice, yeah, they'll probably get kicked in the head.
I don't think he's saying we don't know what will work, I think he's saying that it's just a lot of dreaming until somebody actually puts one of these (all probably feasible) pieces of equipment into a rocket and takes them there. I'm sure there are lots of things that would work, but until one of them is on its way to Mars, it's all speculation as to what will actually be used.
"If an advertiser buys `NYPD Blue' on Tuesday night, and 10 percent of its audience watches it on Friday after midnight, should that audience be given equal value as the `live' prime- time audience?"
Pur idiocy! An advertiser isn't paying for the time of day that his ad runs, he's paying for how many people watch it. If 10% of those people watch it at midnight instead of at 7:00 p.m., still the same number of people are watching it! The reason prime-time ads cost more is because that's when most people are watching! (People skipping over commercials is at least a valid concern, but this part is ludicrous.)
Second:
"We need to start to understand how we're going to have to reach our consumers with this new technology," said Mollie Weston, a product manager for Best Buy's image advertising. "It is going to force us to put advertisements out there that people are actually going to choose to watch."
Duh! If you want people to pay attention to something they don't want to pay attention to, you're fighting a losing battle. People aren't going to be watching the commercials anyway, if they don't want to. They'll be at the toilet or at the refrigerator, or surfing other channels. (And maybe finding another program they'd rather watch.) It seems to me that ads would be a lot more effective if they were more entertaining. (There are some that I can't wait to see again, because they're so hilarious -- I'm sure you've had the same experience.)
What about The Last Starfighter?
Do you think a mission to Mars is within our current technological reach? It may be. But I think it's probably a little beyond our current capability. But not so much as Apollo was at the time.
One of the opening comments in the bill states that we need a "challenging goal." I heartily agree with that. If going to Mars isn't challenging enough, maybe we should have a goal of sending an interstellar probe. And maybe go to Mars as a preparatory / test run, to test the technologies we'd be developing for interstellar travel.
Sure it'd take a long time for our probe to get to another star system -- but it'd be a HUGE technological breakthrough. The amount of innovation in communications and propulsion requirements would be comparable to the Apollo missions. We rose to the occasion for the moon; why not for the stars?
Not likely. Schumacher-Levy 9 was very small and hit Jupiter full in the center, instead of hitting it at an angle low enough to knock some material into orbit.
That aside, I think you summed up the business model that he's talking about pretty well. It's a good parallel.
VC's nowadays who use just their intuition probably don't succeed as much because they don't know what makes an innovative company succeed and what makes it fail. To overcome this problem, they use statistics and keep a large portfolio so they can make a profit even if a lot of their companies fail.
The point of the article, at least in my mind, is to show the VCs what they need to know to make more intelligent bets. In short, this study tried to figure out the attributes of innovative companies that really succeed.
I think the analysis and prediction on the part of the investors could (and should) more closely resemble the intuitive product selection and development by Morita and his group.
Just my thoughts.
It's a pretty good excercise in heartlessness.
Longer than we've been studying weather? Well, longer than most scientists alive today have personally, anyway. ;)
But I agree with some other posts, which remark that three days without airplanes is not enough statistically (scientifically) to show ANYTHING conclusive about their effects whatsoever. If we could study it for a year, it would give us at least something to go on, but three days is not nearly enough to accumulate enough meteorological data to do anything useful with.
As the chaotic butterfly demonstrates, everything is widespread.
I was referring to direct short-term effect, not chaotic, long-term effect.
Are you claiming that your comments are licensed under the GPL? You should put that in your .sig. :o)
Wow, that point hit home. If we remove all the instances of human judgement from our social activities and interactions (like what we do with our spare time, music, movies, etc.), our society ceases to be a human, flexible, diverse society, and becomes a rigid, homogenous, and sterile machine which is merely comprised of humans.
If this legislation (and consequential social shift) sets the precedent for removal of the human factor in our societal system, where will it end?
I didn't like Brave New World.
I don't know what the short-term, localized (to NYC) effect it had. Probably measurable, but certainly not widespread.
... Iceland? I thought they were going to be first.
You say a viable business model will be found because we're in a free market society. Well, what about Microsoft? Sure, it may well be a viable business model, since they have $40 billion in cash, but its success has more to do (at least, for the last 5 or so years) with anti-competitive practices being used illegally to maintain its monopoly. The RIAA is in much the same situation as Microsoft, except that it's an oligopoly. But only in name. They act as one, to keep prices high and to rip off the artists who produce their wealth.
Personally I applaud KaZaA and their efforts, and I intend to support their suggestion. It may not be the final, best answer, but it's a whole lot better than things are now.
In short, this measure helps break up the oligopoly and puts the money where it should go -- in the artists' pockets.
I don't think the music companies should be left completely out of the loop -- and they won't. The market has shown that filesharing increases CD buying. This sounds like a great plan.
What about AOLiza?