science demands that we ask "what if this is true?"
Quite simply, no it doesn't. Science is if nothing practical. Practically speaking, the laws of thermodynamics are laws for a reason. Common sense tells you that you cannot get 'free' energy. No matter what kind of machine it is, the energy has to come from something. Why burden real world scientists with obvious crap? If you must, get some grad students together and have them do a paper on it. Then at least we will have applied the scientific method to it.
I can't afford spending $6/month for each site I find something useful on.
I agree, that would be outrageous. However, the model is trending to that very thing. The mentality of sites like Yahoo! is, "In order to stay afloat, we have to charge, even if it's for only one of our services."
If we as internet users keep practicing the "I will not pay as long as it is free somewhere else" mentality, then we will eventually have, IMO a web landscape dotted with large corporate sponsored sites that charge. Like the huge megacorps of today, except that the internet will (hopefully) always have a place for JoeAverage website. Unfortunately, Joe User doesn't have the $$ to run huge service oriented sites like search engines and file sharing. I haven't thought it all out yet, but I am sure the Internet is changing. It looks to me like the direction it is going is not a positive one for consumer choice or privacy...
Excellent post! To take it one step further, how much is all the free information worth to you? Some would argue that they already pay for the content of the internet when they pony up fees for their connection or ISP. So should the answer be that a portion of our monthly connection fees pay for services like Yahoo and/.? Personally, I feel like if the service is worth it, I want to support it the best I can. 9 times out of 10 that means forking over a little cash.
Whenever something really good comes along, there will always be detractors. Those who focus on the negatives and gripe incessantly. I say to you: Get a real cause./. has done nothing but make available to you a great service. Even if it's editors have done a 180 and unfairly modded or deleted your posts, what's the BFD? You are just jealous.
If it's a business model they are trying to produce, they will simply remove the relevant results from the google listings. Doesn't Yahoo! own Google? Then they are *the* only way to get certain results, and oh by the way, tat will be $5.00...
Re:Your own reference seems to contradict you
on
Black Holes Disputed
·
· Score: 1
Of course, if the traditional explanation for how a wing works were correct, planes would not be able to fly upside down.
Wrongo. Planes that fly upside down only do so because the pilot (I am a pilot) pushes on the yolk forward. This makes the stabilizer deform in order to push the air (and retroactively the stabilizer) enough to point the nose up (relative to the ground)and keep the plane in level flight. The natural tendency for a plane which is heads up is to rise. This effect is a function of velocity(air molecules flowing across the lifting surface) and altitude (number of said molecules). This hardly contradicts the "laymans" explanation.
Amen! However, I think you will agree that it depends on the environment. In a small one-man shop where changes effect very little in terms of production, system changes are less of a problem. It goes without saying that all sysadmins should exercise a modicum of professionalism regardless of their responsibilities. However, what I was trying to convey is that while control and planning are very important, like all things it can be carried too far.
My experience has been that most non-technical managers are extremely gun-shy about change. This places an inordinant burden on the sysadmins to delay patching servers or installing new software versions. Work piles up and eventually the backlog forces us to work long hours doing things that could have been done in much less time. Bottom line, moderation in all things. This decision seems to favor the tech fearful.
You should be able to use millions of dollars worth of your company's resourses in whatever way you see fit.
Actually, I was not referring to the perceived loss of revenue incurred by the University. I was referring to the increase in pressure that this court case (whether it has legal precedence or not) will have on *all* sysadmins. Employers can interpret their "Fair-use" rules in any way they wish. Experience has shown that if you are respected and liked, they tend to bend them in your favor. The opposite, of which most geeks tend to get the lions share of IMO, is that we are scrutinized that much more. It seems that this case will only hurt the Employer-Geek relationships as time moves on.
Although he got off relatively light, the precident set here is that sysadmins can no longer choose to install software at will. As a sysadmin for a large media congolmerate, I find it more and more difficult to simply administer my systems because all the suits want to know every move I make three weeks in advance. This decision simply adds an element of criminality to an already bad situation.
Good idea, but think about this. If you were in a realisticly designed model of this thing, it would weigh a whole lot. Think about the motors, batteries, CPU for AI and don't forget about the exoskeleton itself. I would wager for military, non-armored versions you would be looking at about 200-300 lbs. Not my idea of an easy load to walk around with...
How long is it until this becomes extremly dangerous? I'm not sure everyone can use one of these...
To quote from the article... "But François Pin, who heads the Oak Ridge effort, sees dozens of nonmilitary uses as well. "Construction is a $4 billion industry in this country, and it's very primitive. We are injuring people every day. Cargo handling, search and rescue--the possibilities are endless." Ultimately, exoskeletons could transform society. The elderly could regain the physical abilities of youth, and paraplegics could walk."
I think everyone could use one of these! And keep in mind that like all cool technology, the military always has a first crack at it. They learn how to tear it apart and find every exploit they can before letting the rest of society get a hold of it. Airplanes, submarines, nuclear power, etc... I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see commercial applications of the exoskeleton fo at least a decade.
It seems to me that it's not neccesarily what his opinion is, he will be flamed. Most reporters are in that position in the media today. Even if his facts are distorted, he is not a media pundit. He is spouting his version of reality, even if it is morbidly screwed. That is where the thinking comes in on our part. Think about what he says, and consider the whys and hows instead of swallowing it whole like so many 10 o'clock news viewers seem to do.
I don't know John personally so I will restrict my comments to his posts here on/.
Without a doubt, John has a fantastic ability to stir the pot of criticism among us geeks. And what a wonderful thing it is. All too often I see the nefarious intrusions of apathy creep into our replies and counter-replies. What Mr. Katz is accomplishing with or without his intent, is to keep us geeks from getting too confortable. Flame him if you want (I sure do), but the fact is, we need him and people like him to make us think. Especially when we want to jump on whatever bandwagon happens to roll by that day.
Thanks, John for playing devil's advocate so well.
Slashdot Mirror
the airport may sniff your packets.
Let 'em sniff my packets! I won't be SYN flooding anyone while National freakin' Guard troopers are walking around with M-16s...
Should I even point out the whole 24 hours you missed?
science demands that we ask "what if this is true?"
Quite simply, no it doesn't. Science is if nothing practical. Practically speaking, the laws of thermodynamics are laws for a reason. Common sense tells you that you cannot get 'free' energy. No matter what kind of machine it is, the energy has to come from something. Why burden real world scientists with obvious crap? If you must, get some grad students together and have them do a paper on it. Then at least we will have applied the scientific method to it.
I can't afford spending $6/month for each site I find something useful on.
I agree, that would be outrageous. However, the model is trending to that very thing. The mentality of sites like Yahoo! is, "In order to stay afloat, we have to charge, even if it's for only one of our services."
If we as internet users keep practicing the "I will not pay as long as it is free somewhere else" mentality, then we will eventually have, IMO a web landscape dotted with large corporate sponsored sites that charge. Like the huge megacorps of today, except that the internet will (hopefully) always have a place for JoeAverage website. Unfortunately, Joe User doesn't have the $$ to run huge service oriented sites like search engines and file sharing. I haven't thought it all out yet, but I am sure the Internet is changing. It looks to me like the direction it is going is not a positive one for consumer choice or privacy...
Excellent post! To take it one step further, how much is all the free information worth to you? Some would argue that they already pay for the content of the internet when they pony up fees for their connection or ISP. So should the answer be that a portion of our monthly connection fees pay for services like Yahoo and /.? Personally, I feel like if the service is worth it, I want to support it the best I can. 9 times out of 10 that means forking over a little cash.
For all those who dis the /.
/. has done nothing but make available to you a great service. Even if it's editors have done a 180 and unfairly modded or deleted your posts, what's the BFD? You are just jealous.
Whenever something really good comes along, there will always be detractors. Those who focus on the negatives and gripe incessantly. I say to you: Get a real cause.
If it's a business model they are trying to produce, they will simply remove the relevant results from the google listings. Doesn't Yahoo! own Google? Then they are *the* only way to get certain results, and oh by the way, tat will be $5.00...
Of course, if the traditional explanation for how a wing works were correct, planes would not be able to fly upside down.
Wrongo. Planes that fly upside down only do so because the pilot (I am a pilot) pushes on the yolk forward. This makes the stabilizer deform in order to push the air (and retroactively the stabilizer) enough to point the nose up (relative to the ground)and keep the plane in level flight. The natural tendency for a plane which is heads up is to rise. This effect is a function of velocity(air molecules flowing across the lifting surface) and altitude (number of said molecules). This hardly contradicts the "laymans" explanation.
And thank god for that.
Amen! However, I think you will agree that it depends on the environment. In a small one-man shop where changes effect very little in terms of production, system changes are less of a problem. It goes without saying that all sysadmins should exercise a modicum of professionalism regardless of their responsibilities. However, what I was trying to convey is that while control and planning are very important, like all things it can be carried too far.
My experience has been that most non-technical managers are extremely gun-shy about change. This places an inordinant burden on the sysadmins to delay patching servers or installing new software versions. Work piles up and eventually the backlog forces us to work long hours doing things that could have been done in much less time. Bottom line, moderation in all things. This decision seems to favor the tech fearful.
You should be able to use millions of dollars worth of your company's resourses in whatever way you see fit.
Actually, I was not referring to the perceived loss of revenue incurred by the University. I was referring to the increase in pressure that this court case (whether it has legal precedence or not) will have on *all* sysadmins. Employers can interpret their "Fair-use" rules in any way they wish. Experience has shown that if you are respected and liked, they tend to bend them in your favor. The opposite, of which most geeks tend to get the lions share of IMO, is that we are scrutinized that much more. It seems that this case will only hurt the Employer-Geek relationships as time moves on.
Although he got off relatively light, the precident set here is that sysadmins can no longer choose to install software at will. As a sysadmin for a large media congolmerate, I find it more and more difficult to simply administer my systems because all the suits want to know every move I make three weeks in advance. This decision simply adds an element of criminality to an already bad situation.
Good idea, but think about this. If you were in a realisticly designed model of this thing, it would weigh a whole lot. Think about the motors, batteries, CPU for AI and don't forget about the exoskeleton itself. I would wager for military, non-armored versions you would be looking at about 200-300 lbs. Not my idea of an easy load to walk around with...
How long is it until this becomes extremly dangerous? I'm not sure everyone can use one of these...
To quote from the article... "But François Pin, who heads the Oak Ridge effort, sees dozens of nonmilitary uses as well. "Construction is a $4 billion industry in this country, and it's very primitive. We are injuring people every day. Cargo handling, search and rescue--the possibilities are endless." Ultimately, exoskeletons could transform society. The elderly could regain the physical abilities of youth, and paraplegics could walk."
I think everyone could use one of these! And keep in mind that like all cool technology, the military always has a first crack at it. They learn how to tear it apart and find every exploit they can before letting the rest of society get a hold of it. Airplanes, submarines, nuclear power, etc... I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see commercial applications of the exoskeleton fo at least a decade.
Perhaps.
It seems to me that it's not neccesarily what his opinion is, he will be flamed. Most reporters are in that position in the media today. Even if his facts are distorted, he is not a media pundit. He is spouting his version of reality, even if it is morbidly screwed. That is where the thinking comes in on our part. Think about what he says, and consider the whys and hows instead of swallowing it whole like so many 10 o'clock news viewers seem to do.
I don't know John personally so I will restrict my comments to his posts here on /.
Without a doubt, John has a fantastic ability to stir the pot of criticism among us geeks. And what a wonderful thing it is. All too often I see the nefarious intrusions of apathy creep into our replies and counter-replies. What Mr. Katz is accomplishing with or without his intent, is to keep us geeks from getting too confortable. Flame him if you want (I sure do), but the fact is, we need him and people like him to make us think. Especially when we want to jump on whatever bandwagon happens to roll by that day.
Thanks, John for playing devil's advocate so well.