Why is a scribble considered legally binding? A handwritten signature is much more easy to counterfeit than a strong digital signature using PKi.
It seems to me like this is bending backwards to get some sort of digital signature of documents. Why is it that they have to use a Palm front-end to collect a signature? What's to prevent from capturing the signature as a JPG and then putting it elsewhere? What I mean is, some sort of pixelised display is not a valid way to sign a digital document.
Why not use a simple PKi architecture for signatures? The keyspace is certainly larger than a low-res collection of pixels. You don't have to do signature recognition.
It's a sad fact that the industry is taking forever to understand digital signature and identification. It's the same thing for e-commerce, for instance... Yes, you can get cracked. But you can also get tapped when saying it aloud on a phone line. Yet the first case flares up the imagination, whereas the later is just seen as a pretty unimaginative technical feat.
What I want is a central digital authentification authority, be it run by the Government or what have you. Then we can dispense with the petty scribbles.
I want my... I want my PKi...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Disclaimer: Yes, I know how I'm using hacker. Just assume hacker == cracker for this article.
Disclaimer++: I'm not flaming [cr|h]ackers nor am I denouncing the principles listed in the book's review. If anything, I'm curious to read the book. I'm outlining an apparent contradiction and trying to resolve it.
Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
I always thought that was something of a dychotomy. On one side, the hacker mindset is that all computer systems should be wide open. On the other hand, the hacker mistrusts organizations and governments.
And herein lies the contradiction: if it's alright to break into a system because you have the technical skill and invested efforts to do so, the hacker ethic says you can. Yet if a government breaks into your system, it's wrong and unethical, and a break of the sacrosanct privacy.
I think this ties in to the elitist approach to hacker standing: a hacker proves its worth by his hacks. The point being, if you have to use technical skill and cracking knowledge to get into a system, you can. If all that is being used is political weight to finance an intrusion campaign, then it's wrong, because no effort is spent on actually penetrating the system.
And so, the hacker maxim has to be revised: I think it should read, the level of information you are allowed to get is proportional to the skill you display.
And so we're back to an elitist system, where not much thought is given to equality, but where strength determines the level of freedom you have. I can't help but feel this is a wrong system, because it sounds like anarchy without concern for the other members of your society. The law of the jungle, if you will.
Anyone wish to contradict me? I'd love to know what you guys think.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I don't see what revelations were made in this article; it compares the different consoles, mostly buying into the hype. Playstation 2 is the most impressive. Yeah, that's what I say too. But all I saw was screenshots, and I doubt the author has played with a PSX2 either.
Anyway, the computer game industry has always been a bloody battlefield. Remember the good old days of Atari? Atari tried to copyright and patent the concept of game console, and for a while other platforms had to pay a big amount of money to avoid getting sued to kingdom come. (Sounds familiar?)
There is hardly anything new with the "next generation" platforms coming. People still want pretty graphics, nice games, a few household names. Advance in technology and new features (such as Internet connectivity) will work if they don't obscure the core elements. The technology is progressing, but the fight is the same it was back in the Intellivision/Atari war.
The interesting upstart in this industry is Microsoft. They're basically trying to find the middle ground between gaming platform and personal computer. Too bad it will fail miserably! People either blow $3,000 on a killer machine, or they blow $300 on a gaming console with equivalent graphics. No one will be interested in a compromise that is neither one or the other.
I don't think Microsoft is capable of thinking as an upstart company anymore. It's not like they're stepping into a smaller market and injecting more money than competitors can (think the browser wars.) They're going up against GIANTS such as Nintendo and Sony. These guys have been in the game for a long time.
And so, the Dolphin and the PSX2 will come out, and Microsoft's box will do as well. People will be torn over which platform to buy for a while. Then, one or two platforms will emerge as superior, and the market will move in that direction.
And for once, Microsoft will be a roadkill on the side of the gaming industry history. I'll laugh all the way through WipeOut 3.
Won't that be fun to watch?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Reading this, I'm surprised no one has ever tried to sue Slashdot for, I don't know, "irresponsible use of URL" or something as silly. Yes, the Slashdot Effect is, for all intents and purposes, a distributed DOS attack.
However, it's interesting to note that the Slashdot Effect has never been used with ill intent. I've seen a few people in forums suggesting we turn to a particular site and bomb their server out of existence, but no one has ever rallied under such a cause.
And that's the really interesting part: the Slashdot Effect is very real, yet it doesn't seem it can be wielded. No one complains of the Slashdot Effect, because it brings thousands of interested readers to a particular site. It's like choking on too many chocolate bars; it's too much of a good thing, but it's a good thing nonetheless.
The closest I've seen to a Slashdot Effect used as a form of attack was the Hotmail crack, that didn't take long to appear in the Slashdot forums. If one cracker getting through didn't make Microsoft react, a thousand of them certainly make them pale in panic. And I still maintain Slashdot is the site that tipped off CNN!
My question is: how could the Slashdot Effect be wielded, either as a tool, or as a weapon? Does anything think it's feasible to put it to good or ill use? How?
I personally think it cannot be wielded, and certainly not as a weapon. But I'd like to hear others on the subject.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I mean, admit it. Overdone visuals are fun, and they're the stuff of Hollywood movies.
Personally, I'd like to see more applications like that. Not a mandatory feature of an OS, but cool toys you can use to impress people. Stuff like:
Daemon processes: Visit the Infernal Realms (again, a la Doom) and meet your Daemons in person!
Login: Finally! We can have a giant 'ACCESS DENIED' when we're denied login! Alternately, you could see a locked door as in Doom.
Network architecture: Imagine being able to navigate your network as in all those Gibsonian worlds... In a Doom environment, no less. A room is a particular server, and doors are gateways. You get that moving skyline when you're about to go on the Internet.
Antivirus software: pump that shotgun with the latest shells, and go hunt for some bugs, as you navigate your file system and kill infected files!
Well, alright, that's humorous. But I still think there's plenty of potential with 'over-visualising' processes and commands. It's fun, and it helps the layman understand what's going on.
However:
Making it "mandatory" is just plain wrong. Microsoft is the champion in the over-visualisation. There's some times when you just need a bloody command prompt to do something. It's silly to always have graphics everywhere, and it bugs down your performance.
So... Cool toys, yes. Features? Please, no!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
As others have pointed out, there are a few things wrong with that contest; first, the fact it sounds as if you're doing someone else's work for cheap, considering the cost of the book they're giving as a first prize. Second, the fact that if you can win this contest, well, you don't need the damn book anyway.
However, I quite like the idea behind this. It sounds like a wonderfully geek contest! I don't recall seeing other contests which relied on technical capabilities (if you exclude cracking contests), and I'm wondering if it's possible to design a contest which is not someone else's work, and relies on ingenuosity and technical skill.
Say, perhaps, useless things like programming a specific program under a certain amount of memory, or somesuch...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You know, I remember back when the first commercial websites were opening up, and everyone was hyped about the WWW being some sort of gigantic Web-based encyclopedia...
The first things I tried to do was: 1) Access the Encyclopaedia Britannica online (had to pay) and 2) visit the Louvres (had to pay too, at the time.) That was a major bummer.
So this is a nice change of pace, and it's about time it came about, too. The simple fact of the matter is, you can't compete against a clever search engine and a modicum of intelligence when it comes to looking for information on the Web.
EB is doing a smart move, and they probably realise they'll make much more money with well-targeted ads than by charging a membership fee. However, I'm not sure if it means the EB won't be obsolete. Its strong point is a variety of expert writeups and a central collection of articles. Its weak points? It's still a book trying to become an Internet knowledge database.
When will we see an "Encyclopaedia Interneta"? A knowledge-oriented, peer-reviewed compendium of human knowledge? How could such a process benefit from the Slashdot model, as seen in the Jane Cyberterrorism story?
I'm certain the key to storing and indexing knowledge is in there somewhere, but I don't think it's been done properly yet. (And I mean no disrespect to Everything.:) )
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Cross the motors for the back right leg and the front left leg. Put them on the same motor output, one on top of the other. It means that they'll both work at the same time, though with half the power. Use plenty of gears, and voilà.
As for head, you can do with only one motor... One direction moves it left to right, the other up and down. You need a differential for that.
I'm not saying it won't be a nightmare of engineering, and if you manage it, I'll be in complete awe.:) But it's feasible, in theory, with one brick, five motors and three motor outputs.
Also, remember that you can use two bricks and make them communicate between them, so using two of them would work just as well.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Useful? "Just" a curiosity thing? Chemical spills?
This is a geek site, man! What are you talking about! Of course it's a curiosity thing. Of course it's about fun. Since when do we need something useful (and I have to disagree with your definition; what do you want to do with it, use it for space exploration?) to play with it?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I agree with you; but I think the real geeks will always try to understand things however sugar-coated they are. I mean; a television is just a television, right? Then why do geek kids open them up and try to figure it out?
I think that, alas, we'll also have dumb users no matter how hard we try to teach them.:)
But I don't fear for kids' curiosity with things like Lego Mindstorms. These babies make kids and grownups want to play and invent. And that's what's really needed: not something that forces you to learn, but something that makes learning fun.
I'd even say that the fun part is the reason why people are so reluctant to do mathematics or programming. They figure it has to be a chore. I've seen non-technical grownups (Sociology graduates... Heh heh) toy around with the simple Mindstorms language and make it do things, then clap their hands in wonder as the thing behaved like it should. When I explain to them they're doing simple object-oriented programming, they stare at me blankly, trying to reconcile that fact with the idea they've just had a heck of a good time.
Heck; I didn't get a job in IT before two years ago, because I figured it was illegal to have a job in something you learned easily and out of pure enjoyment.:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I bought the Lego Mindstorms kit last year, then quickly followed with the two extension kits (for the parts.) Mindstorms are heaven, and I haven't tired of sitting on my bed and designing machines, or simply making a simple vehicle and figuring out better ways to run it through Linux.
I've toyed with projects such as making an Enigma machine out of Lego bricks (doing the encryption mechanically, as opposed to simply running the algorithm on a computer), and the day I get a T1 connection at home, I'm programming a remote control program in Java... So I can play with my toys from work.:)
And trust me, it scares the cats witless! Mine had a holy terror of it after I used a light sensor to make it a motion detector, and start running after the cats making loud noises. After that, I made a simple robot that gives out a cat treat when they press a touch sensor, and plays with them by wagging a tail. So now my cats are neurotic!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Not to be insulting, but you're only limited by your imagination.
Can you create something that could map out a terain of a room on demand.
Certainly. I've seen it done. (Can't find a URL, though.) Just keep track of the robot's position, and feed the presence/absence of objects to a computer database.
It can be done. One way I see of doing it is by using two bricks, and placing them at a distance from one another, then use the "echoes" of the infrared emitter via light sensors.
All you mentioned is feasible with one or two Mindstorms kits, and basic ingenuity. You might need more Lego bricks, but that's it.
Check out The Lego Mindstorms page, and visit the Hall of Fame, Expert section. Then tell me you can't do anything with Lego Mindstorms... You can do digital cameras and scanners. I think you can do anything.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Hope my initial response didn't sound too harsh... deefer, You're raising a few good points in your reply, and I'd like to address them further:
I do agree with you that basics are important, but you don't have to know every basic element that makes a system work in order to master elements of it. For instance, I don't need to know how basic circuitry works in order to program object-oriented code; yes, it will make me a more complete coder if I know my hardware inside out, but I can still master coding and only understand the basics of hardware interaction.
You argue that being able to skip the basics means that you won't have to deal with serious problem-solving, and that means you're not learning well. I disagree, and my point is, if you can go over the basics more easily and without problems, it means you can find your problems in the more advanced stuff.
I used the NN example as an example, even though I know people of our generation couldn't possibly deal with NN when we were kids. But NN are exactly what I mean: now that technology is more readily available, you can go over the basics quickly, then deal with stuff like learning algorithms. (There are people playing around with NN on Lego Mindstorms out there; I'm doing it too, since I learned NN inside out in Physics Grad.)
The argument is similar to the old coders complaining that people don't know how to program in assembler anymore... Yeah, I have no clue how to order the 0's and 1's to even create a simple OR gate. What I do know is C++, perl and Java. You can still learn and do a great deal if you take a few things for granted; the learning curve is still there as you progress further. It's just on another level.
So: whether you're building a robot out of household furniture (which is quite an exploit, I'll grant you that) or programming a shrink-wrap Lego kit with adaptive learning algorithms, I think you're just working on a different level. I'm sure it'll give you the curiosity bug, and it'll make you sweat all the same.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
It's not because technology becomes more accessible that it's being dumbed down! Ok, so people now won't know how to build a robot from scratch. However, the time you spent building robots, they're spending pushing the enveloppe on how artificial intelligence works. Did you have time to design neural networks when you were a kid? No, you were welding parts together.
This is exactly like the calculator argument... Sure, having calculators readily available means that kids nowadays can't calculate anything operations on anything above a two-figure number off the top of their heads. But it also means they can move on more quickly to stuff like Calculus.
Having strong bases is important, sure. But it doesn't mean it has to be difficult for everyone out of "fairness" for the "old guard". I for one am happy to see that today, it is as easy building a robot as building Lego sets. It means the kids can concentrate on the cooler stuff. Like designing more complex AI, for instance.
To answer your question on OSS: what do you mean, an "equivalent" to Mindstorms? Lego Mindstorms are Open Source, because they give you the "code" (plans) and they're free, so you can expand on them!
If you mean the software that comes with the Lego Mindstorms kit, then Not Quite C (NQC) is what you're looking for. Runs under Linux, too.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You bet the Lego Mindstorms is good. It's incredible.
Buy the kit, it's an investment. Later, you can pass it on to your kids so they'll learn object-oriented code before they're 10 year-old. It's educative, it's thrilling, and you'll never tire of playing with it.
If you've ever been a Lego fan, pick it up. Remember the thrill of playing with Lego? Same thing here. Except that you're coupling this with the thrill of coding.
Geek heaven.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Who cares? What you want is the Programmable Lego Brick, not the CD ROM. Consider the CD ROM as a freeby.
The kit itself, however, can easily be programmed with NQC, and that runs fine under Linux.
Take it like bying a new PC: it might come with Windows, but you just have to reformat and partition. I mean, why wouldn't Lego package their product for Windows? The majority of users have Windows, and they're selling a toy, not a piece of software. Boycotting Mindstorms for this reason is plain silly. And you're the one missing on the fun.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
This is such great news.:) I've been looking for a compendium of Lego Mindstorms knowledge that went beyond the colourful books that come with the kit.
I'm not surprised such a book is coming out. I think even Lego must be surprised at the range of applications people are thinking up for these babies. Lego Mindstorms is the sole reason why I have gotten back into Lego after many joyless years of Legoless life... It's every geek child's wet dream. It's an adult geek's wet dream. From digital cameras to scanners to Enigma machines (I'm working on that one), the possibilities are just endless. I'm glad to see some serious literature being put out on the subject.
Could someone please review this book on Slashdot?
P.S.: For fans of Star Wars and Lego Mindstorms... It's been announced that Lego will put out a AT-AT Mindstorms kit. Am I the only one drooling at this? My childhood Lego fantasy was to have a AT-AT Lego model... I spent hours trying to build one. And now... I'll have one, and it'll be controlled through my computer... *happy sigh*
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Learn to spell, people!
on
Snow Crash
·
· Score: 1
The name is Neal, not Neil. Niel is far off. Bob is downright out there.
It says so right up there in the review...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Re:Niel should read more smut.
on
Snow Crash
·
· Score: 1
Maybe that was the point.
The point of writing a sex scene, for some writers, is to provide a dramatic point to move the story forward (in this case, so Raven can... Uugh, I'd rather not think about it!), and not provide teenagers with a quick and easy jerking fantasy...
Oh, for the last time...
It's Neal.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Further thoughts on Snow Crash
on
Snow Crash
·
· Score: 3
Yes, the cyberpunk genre has been going on for a while. Yes, there are similarities between Stephenson's Snow Crash and Gibson's world.
But there's a generation gap between the two, and that's why I love Snow Crash and am lukewarm to anything Gibson wrote beyond Neuromancer. Whereas Gibson writes for a general public fascinated by technology, Stephenson is a second-generation cyberpunk writer (insofar as his effort on Snow Crash goes; the rest is mildly cyberpunk.) Stephenson writes for people who read cyberpunk. And who reads cyberpunk? Hackers.
And that's where the genius of Snow Crash comes in. Stephenson obviously plays on the clichés of the genre. His novel is highly humorous, yet it deals with very real people facing very real danger. Characters such as Raven are both satirical yet very much human.
Same goes for the Metaverse; it's a wild place, filled with avatars of giant penises and such behavior you might expect from the normal brainless troll populating the Web years from now. Yet it is also a place that's barely real, and Stephenson makes a point of reminding us of that fact throughout the novel. The Metaverse is an illusion, yet it carries a good part of the drama. Contrast this with Gibson's hyperrealism, where Cyberspace is more real than the real world.
All this, in my mind, makes of Snow Crash the groundbreaking novel it is. And even without them, it'd still be a witty and entertaining read. Snow Crash has injected humour and self-reflection in a genre that was in desperate need of a dose of self-derision.
Now, if only Stephenson could learn to end a novel properly, without having to resort to the #&$^ showdown between the forces of Good and Evil...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Slashdot Mirror
Why is a scribble considered legally binding? A handwritten signature is much more easy to counterfeit than a strong digital signature using PKi.
It seems to me like this is bending backwards to get some sort of digital signature of documents. Why is it that they have to use a Palm front-end to collect a signature? What's to prevent from capturing the signature as a JPG and then putting it elsewhere? What I mean is, some sort of pixelised display is not a valid way to sign a digital document.
Why not use a simple PKi architecture for signatures? The keyspace is certainly larger than a low-res collection of pixels. You don't have to do signature recognition.
It's a sad fact that the industry is taking forever to understand digital signature and identification. It's the same thing for e-commerce, for instance... Yes, you can get cracked. But you can also get tapped when saying it aloud on a phone line. Yet the first case flares up the imagination, whereas the later is just seen as a pretty unimaginative technical feat.
What I want is a central digital authentification authority, be it run by the Government or what have you. Then we can dispense with the petty scribbles.
I want my... I want my PKi...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Disclaimer++: I'm not flaming [cr|h]ackers nor am I denouncing the principles listed in the book's review. If anything, I'm curious to read the book. I'm outlining an apparent contradiction and trying to resolve it.
I always thought that was something of a dychotomy. On one side, the hacker mindset is that all computer systems should be wide open. On the other hand, the hacker mistrusts organizations and governments.
And herein lies the contradiction: if it's alright to break into a system because you have the technical skill and invested efforts to do so, the hacker ethic says you can. Yet if a government breaks into your system, it's wrong and unethical, and a break of the sacrosanct privacy.
I think this ties in to the elitist approach to hacker standing: a hacker proves its worth by his hacks. The point being, if you have to use technical skill and cracking knowledge to get into a system, you can. If all that is being used is political weight to finance an intrusion campaign, then it's wrong, because no effort is spent on actually penetrating the system.
And so, the hacker maxim has to be revised: I think it should read, the level of information you are allowed to get is proportional to the skill you display.
And so we're back to an elitist system, where not much thought is given to equality, but where strength determines the level of freedom you have. I can't help but feel this is a wrong system, because it sounds like anarchy without concern for the other members of your society. The law of the jungle, if you will.
Anyone wish to contradict me? I'd love to know what you guys think.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Anyway, the computer game industry has always been a bloody battlefield. Remember the good old days of Atari? Atari tried to copyright and patent the concept of game console, and for a while other platforms had to pay a big amount of money to avoid getting sued to kingdom come. (Sounds familiar?)
There is hardly anything new with the "next generation" platforms coming. People still want pretty graphics, nice games, a few household names. Advance in technology and new features (such as Internet connectivity) will work if they don't obscure the core elements. The technology is progressing, but the fight is the same it was back in the Intellivision/Atari war.
The interesting upstart in this industry is Microsoft. They're basically trying to find the middle ground between gaming platform and personal computer. Too bad it will fail miserably! People either blow $3,000 on a killer machine, or they blow $300 on a gaming console with equivalent graphics. No one will be interested in a compromise that is neither one or the other.
I don't think Microsoft is capable of thinking as an upstart company anymore. It's not like they're stepping into a smaller market and injecting more money than competitors can (think the browser wars.) They're going up against GIANTS such as Nintendo and Sony. These guys have been in the game for a long time.
And so, the Dolphin and the PSX2 will come out, and Microsoft's box will do as well. People will be torn over which platform to buy for a while. Then, one or two platforms will emerge as superior, and the market will move in that direction.
And for once, Microsoft will be a roadkill on the side of the gaming industry history. I'll laugh all the way through WipeOut 3.
Won't that be fun to watch?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
However, it's interesting to note that the Slashdot Effect has never been used with ill intent. I've seen a few people in forums suggesting we turn to a particular site and bomb their server out of existence, but no one has ever rallied under such a cause.
And that's the really interesting part: the Slashdot Effect is very real, yet it doesn't seem it can be wielded. No one complains of the Slashdot Effect, because it brings thousands of interested readers to a particular site. It's like choking on too many chocolate bars; it's too much of a good thing, but it's a good thing nonetheless.
The closest I've seen to a Slashdot Effect used as a form of attack was the Hotmail crack, that didn't take long to appear in the Slashdot forums. If one cracker getting through didn't make Microsoft react, a thousand of them certainly make them pale in panic. And I still maintain Slashdot is the site that tipped off CNN!
My question is: how could the Slashdot Effect be wielded, either as a tool, or as a weapon? Does anything think it's feasible to put it to good or ill use? How?
I personally think it cannot be wielded, and certainly not as a weapon. But I'd like to hear others on the subject.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Personally, I'd like to see more applications like that. Not a mandatory feature of an OS, but cool toys you can use to impress people. Stuff like:
Daemon processes: Visit the Infernal Realms (again, a la Doom) and meet your Daemons in person!
Login: Finally! We can have a giant 'ACCESS DENIED' when we're denied login! Alternately, you could see a locked door as in Doom.
Network architecture: Imagine being able to navigate your network as in all those Gibsonian worlds... In a Doom environment, no less. A room is a particular server, and doors are gateways. You get that moving skyline when you're about to go on the Internet.
Antivirus software: pump that shotgun with the latest shells, and go hunt for some bugs, as you navigate your file system and kill infected files!
Well, alright, that's humorous. But I still think there's plenty of potential with 'over-visualising' processes and commands. It's fun, and it helps the layman understand what's going on.
However:
Making it "mandatory" is just plain wrong. Microsoft is the champion in the over-visualisation. There's some times when you just need a bloody command prompt to do something. It's silly to always have graphics everywhere, and it bugs down your performance.
So... Cool toys, yes. Features? Please, no!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
However, I quite like the idea behind this. It sounds like a wonderfully geek contest! I don't recall seeing other contests which relied on technical capabilities (if you exclude cracking contests), and I'm wondering if it's possible to design a contest which is not someone else's work, and relies on ingenuosity and technical skill.
Say, perhaps, useless things like programming a specific program under a certain amount of memory, or somesuch...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
The first things I tried to do was: 1) Access the Encyclopaedia Britannica online (had to pay) and 2) visit the Louvres (had to pay too, at the time.) That was a major bummer.
So this is a nice change of pace, and it's about time it came about, too. The simple fact of the matter is, you can't compete against a clever search engine and a modicum of intelligence when it comes to looking for information on the Web.
EB is doing a smart move, and they probably realise they'll make much more money with well-targeted ads than by charging a membership fee. However, I'm not sure if it means the EB won't be obsolete. Its strong point is a variety of expert writeups and a central collection of articles. Its weak points? It's still a book trying to become an Internet knowledge database.
When will we see an "Encyclopaedia Interneta"? A knowledge-oriented, peer-reviewed compendium of human knowledge? How could such a process benefit from the Slashdot model, as seen in the Jane Cyberterrorism story?
I'm certain the key to storing and indexing knowledge is in there somewhere, but I don't think it's been done properly yet. (And I mean no disrespect to Everything. :) )
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Don't tell my boss, and I won't tell yours. ;)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Cross the motors for the back right leg and the front left leg. Put them on the same motor output, one on top of the other. It means that they'll both work at the same time, though with half the power. Use plenty of gears, and voilà.
As for head, you can do with only one motor... One direction moves it left to right, the other up and down. You need a differential for that.
I'm not saying it won't be a nightmare of engineering, and if you manage it, I'll be in complete awe. :) But it's feasible, in theory, with one brick, five motors and three motor outputs.
Also, remember that you can use two bricks and make them communicate between them, so using two of them would work just as well.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Useful? "Just" a curiosity thing? Chemical spills?
This is a geek site, man! What are you talking about! Of course it's a curiosity thing. Of course it's about fun. Since when do we need something useful (and I have to disagree with your definition; what do you want to do with it, use it for space exploration?) to play with it?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I think that, alas, we'll also have dumb users no matter how hard we try to teach them. :)
But I don't fear for kids' curiosity with things like Lego Mindstorms. These babies make kids and grownups want to play and invent. And that's what's really needed: not something that forces you to learn, but something that makes learning fun.
I'd even say that the fun part is the reason why people are so reluctant to do mathematics or programming. They figure it has to be a chore. I've seen non-technical grownups (Sociology graduates... Heh heh) toy around with the simple Mindstorms language and make it do things, then clap their hands in wonder as the thing behaved like it should. When I explain to them they're doing simple object-oriented programming, they stare at me blankly, trying to reconcile that fact with the idea they've just had a heck of a good time.
Heck; I didn't get a job in IT before two years ago, because I figured it was illegal to have a job in something you learned easily and out of pure enjoyment. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I've toyed with projects such as making an Enigma machine out of Lego bricks (doing the encryption mechanically, as opposed to simply running the algorithm on a computer), and the day I get a T1 connection at home, I'm programming a remote control program in Java... So I can play with my toys from work. :)
And trust me, it scares the cats witless! Mine had a holy terror of it after I used a light sensor to make it a motion detector, and start running after the cats making loud noises. After that, I made a simple robot that gives out a cat treat when they press a touch sensor, and plays with them by wagging a tail. So now my cats are neurotic!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Certainly. I've seen it done. (Can't find a URL, though.) Just keep track of the robot's position, and feed the presence/absence of objects to a computer database.
Yes.
It can be done. One way I see of doing it is by using two bricks, and placing them at a distance from one another, then use the "echoes" of the infrared emitter via light sensors.
All you mentioned is feasible with one or two Mindstorms kits, and basic ingenuity. You might need more Lego bricks, but that's it.
Check out The Lego Mindstorms page, and visit the Hall of Fame, Expert section. Then tell me you can't do anything with Lego Mindstorms... You can do digital cameras and scanners. I think you can do anything.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I do agree with you that basics are important, but you don't have to know every basic element that makes a system work in order to master elements of it. For instance, I don't need to know how basic circuitry works in order to program object-oriented code; yes, it will make me a more complete coder if I know my hardware inside out, but I can still master coding and only understand the basics of hardware interaction.
You argue that being able to skip the basics means that you won't have to deal with serious problem-solving, and that means you're not learning well. I disagree, and my point is, if you can go over the basics more easily and without problems, it means you can find your problems in the more advanced stuff.
I used the NN example as an example, even though I know people of our generation couldn't possibly deal with NN when we were kids. But NN are exactly what I mean: now that technology is more readily available, you can go over the basics quickly, then deal with stuff like learning algorithms. (There are people playing around with NN on Lego Mindstorms out there; I'm doing it too, since I learned NN inside out in Physics Grad.)
The argument is similar to the old coders complaining that people don't know how to program in assembler anymore... Yeah, I have no clue how to order the 0's and 1's to even create a simple OR gate. What I do know is C++, perl and Java. You can still learn and do a great deal if you take a few things for granted; the learning curve is still there as you progress further. It's just on another level.
So: whether you're building a robot out of household furniture (which is quite an exploit, I'll grant you that) or programming a shrink-wrap Lego kit with adaptive learning algorithms, I think you're just working on a different level. I'm sure it'll give you the curiosity bug, and it'll make you sweat all the same.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
It's not because technology becomes more accessible that it's being dumbed down! Ok, so people now won't know how to build a robot from scratch. However, the time you spent building robots, they're spending pushing the enveloppe on how artificial intelligence works. Did you have time to design neural networks when you were a kid? No, you were welding parts together.
This is exactly like the calculator argument... Sure, having calculators readily available means that kids nowadays can't calculate anything operations on anything above a two-figure number off the top of their heads. But it also means they can move on more quickly to stuff like Calculus.
Having strong bases is important, sure. But it doesn't mean it has to be difficult for everyone out of "fairness" for the "old guard". I for one am happy to see that today, it is as easy building a robot as building Lego sets. It means the kids can concentrate on the cooler stuff. Like designing more complex AI, for instance.
To answer your question on OSS: what do you mean, an "equivalent" to Mindstorms? Lego Mindstorms are Open Source, because they give you the "code" (plans) and they're free, so you can expand on them!
If you mean the software that comes with the Lego Mindstorms kit, then Not Quite C (NQC) is what you're looking for. Runs under Linux, too.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Buy the kit, it's an investment. Later, you can pass it on to your kids so they'll learn object-oriented code before they're 10 year-old. It's educative, it's thrilling, and you'll never tire of playing with it.
If you've ever been a Lego fan, pick it up. Remember the thrill of playing with Lego? Same thing here. Except that you're coupling this with the thrill of coding.
Geek heaven.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
The kit itself, however, can easily be programmed with NQC, and that runs fine under Linux.
Take it like bying a new PC: it might come with Windows, but you just have to reformat and partition. I mean, why wouldn't Lego package their product for Windows? The majority of users have Windows, and they're selling a toy, not a piece of software. Boycotting Mindstorms for this reason is plain silly. And you're the one missing on the fun.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I'm not surprised such a book is coming out. I think even Lego must be surprised at the range of applications people are thinking up for these babies. Lego Mindstorms is the sole reason why I have gotten back into Lego after many joyless years of Legoless life... It's every geek child's wet dream. It's an adult geek's wet dream. From digital cameras to scanners to Enigma machines (I'm working on that one), the possibilities are just endless. I'm glad to see some serious literature being put out on the subject.
Could someone please review this book on Slashdot?
P.S.: For fans of Star Wars and Lego Mindstorms... It's been announced that Lego will put out a AT-AT Mindstorms kit. Am I the only one drooling at this? My childhood Lego fantasy was to have a AT-AT Lego model... I spent hours trying to build one. And now... I'll have one, and it'll be controlled through my computer... *happy sigh*
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
It says so right up there in the review...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
The point of writing a sex scene, for some writers, is to provide a dramatic point to move the story forward (in this case, so Raven can... Uugh, I'd rather not think about it!), and not provide teenagers with a quick and easy jerking fantasy...
Oh, for the last time...
It's Neal.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
But there's a generation gap between the two, and that's why I love Snow Crash and am lukewarm to anything Gibson wrote beyond Neuromancer. Whereas Gibson writes for a general public fascinated by technology, Stephenson is a second-generation cyberpunk writer (insofar as his effort on Snow Crash goes; the rest is mildly cyberpunk.) Stephenson writes for people who read cyberpunk. And who reads cyberpunk? Hackers.
And that's where the genius of Snow Crash comes in. Stephenson obviously plays on the clichés of the genre. His novel is highly humorous, yet it deals with very real people facing very real danger. Characters such as Raven are both satirical yet very much human.
Same goes for the Metaverse; it's a wild place, filled with avatars of giant penises and such behavior you might expect from the normal brainless troll populating the Web years from now. Yet it is also a place that's barely real, and Stephenson makes a point of reminding us of that fact throughout the novel. The Metaverse is an illusion, yet it carries a good part of the drama. Contrast this with Gibson's hyperrealism, where Cyberspace is more real than the real world.
All this, in my mind, makes of Snow Crash the groundbreaking novel it is. And even without them, it'd still be a witty and entertaining read. Snow Crash has injected humour and self-reflection in a genre that was in desperate need of a dose of self-derision.
Now, if only Stephenson could learn to end a novel properly, without having to resort to the #&$^ showdown between the forces of Good and Evil...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Besides, Bill said it, we don't need more than 16K of RAM!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."