You're absolutely correct. The article doesn't explicitly mention whether radiation and other non-atmospheric conditions were taken into account. Hopefully it just didn't make it into the layman's terms version of the research summary.
Another important thing to think about (and I hope that people don't draw this conclusion) is that just because we've found something that could _conceiveably_ survive on Mars, it doesn't mean that it or anything like it ever did. I only mention this because the header of the/. post is somewhat misleading ("...raises the possibility of life on the Red Planet"). The article mentions nothing of actual life on Mars, past or present. The main focus, in fact, seems to be transplanting this earth-made organism _to_ Mars in order to create methane and change the climate somewhat (to facilitate human colonization).
The patent itself doesn't really say much. Judging by the first (primary) claim listed on the patent summary site, it still needs a program-specific "control mechanism" in order to find errors. Sounds like a rehash of error detection/ameobic variability programs we've seen before.
Actually, my friends and I have tried to come up with good ranges of when generations start and when they end. You're right, they do seem to be getting shorter and shorter. Here are our humble conclusions (with catchy names! good with milk!):
Baby Boomers: 1955-1963
Flower Power: 1963-1970
Just Plain High: 1971-1977
Days of Disco: 1977-1983
Bad Eighties Music: 1982-1989 (overlap, so sue me)
Generation X: 1990-1994
Generation Y (or Why?): 1995 ---Just didn't catch on
Generation Next: 1996-present
NOTE: These figures indicate when the people of that generation were in high school and college. That's why the baby boomers time frame appears so off.
By that logic, in six years they'll have a really nifty "four-generation study". They can talk about all the planning and foresight it took to span the generation gap and get this report together. I'll bet people would actually fall for it, too. The same sort of people who thought that Jar-Jar sucked. Heathens, all of them!
I must say, the list of people who use Linux on Macs has to be one of the most oddly conceived cross-sections of computer users there is. Let the irate replies from the minions of Mac-nix users out there commence. I'm genuinely looking forward to hearing your arguments. So far on this topic I've seen a few people defend the use of Linux on Macs, but none of them actually practiced this rare art themselves.
Re:This would be GREAT for armor piercing shells.
on
Element 118 detected
·
· Score: 1
"I'm not sure exactly why uranium is used in shells as opposed to something denser, but it still works."
The honest-to-god answer, straight from my Nuclear Engineering 101 professor this fall: We've got a shitload of the U-238 left over after normal fission reactors in light-water reactors*, and basically nothing else to do with it.
*An interesting note--in the "classic" light-water US reactors, U-235 was the only desired product and U-238 was the only left over (besides the trans-uranic wastes and such). With the newer style of IFB breeder reactors, we convert U-235 to plutonium, thereby "breeding" more fuel (U-238 is not used at all in a breeder reactor). However, the initial plutonium is turned into U-235. Because of the mass percentages and the core design, we gain more plutonium then we lose uranium, but we STILL accumulate U-235 as a leftover. Arg.
As I read the enthralling scientific posting, one thing stuck out in my mind: Every reference to Element 118 was, well, "Element 118". If we strike now, we can petition for Element 118 to be named in our honor!
I most humbly submit my suggestion for the name of Element 118: Slashdotium.
I know, I know. I'm reading too far into it. It was intentional. I offer my most humble and abject apologies.
So sue me for trying to be humorous.
Sue me for trying to brighten someone's day.
Sue me for making little hospitalized Johnny smile just one more time.
Sue me for trying to make us geeks worldwide slap their knees and guffaw with laughter!
Someone's got to do it! If not me, then who? Barry Manilow? I think not!
*sniff*
...And remember, you can't attack Brainania. It's not on the big map.
So do we really need this?
on
Empeg Shipping
·
· Score: 1
With these prices (for the moment), is this product _really_ needed? I mean, the main attraction of MP3s are that they're free. This product would seem to throw that advantage out the window. Combine that with the fact that CDs _do_ have better quality then MP3s, and I'm wondering whether it's worth it to pay the price of a cheap computer to be able to play MP3s in your car.
This also seems to be a bit of a backwards leap. I've been hearing for months that plans are "in the works" by CD player manufacturers to allow normal CD players to play CDs with songs encoded in MP3 format. I don't know how reliable those claims are, or how close the companies are to marketing this technology, but it seems to me that this would be much more advantageous then shelling out over a grand for an additional peripheral.
This was a really good article. It was informative, clear, and for the most part accurate with its information and definitions. There's just one problem. The X-Force sounds just plain lame, and I think the authors of this article knew it. Consider such choice lines as:
"This is where Cult of the Dead Cow released Back Orifice, ostensibly to expose Microsoft's security shortcomings."
"...Rouland got a copy to Jon Larimer, the X-Force's 'back door' guru."
If they're not trying to imply that these dudes are gay, be it intentionally or unintentionally, then I guess I'm just the sick and peverted one.
This was a really good article. It was informative, clear, and for the most part accurate with its information and definitions. There's just one problem. The X-Force sounds just plain lame, and I think the authors of this article knew it. Consider such choice lines as:
"This is where Cult of the Dead Cow released Back Orifice, ostensibly to expose Microsoft's security shortcomings."
"...Rouland got a copy to Jon Larimer, the X-Force's 'back door' guru."
If they're not trying to imply that these dudes are gay, be it intentionally or unintentionally, then I guess I'm just the sick and peverted one.
Re:Damn it. - we have a winner!
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
I'll admit you do have some valid points [YOU ANONYMOUS COWARD!!:) ], but I'll make some counterpoints to defend my analogies:
1) You are correct in that a corvette with a metro engine wouldn't sell, but neither would an Edsel that handled like a 'Vette.
2) Girls and cars, historically, have had selling power on their looks as well as what's "under the hood"--regardless if this is moral or not. No one would say that the VW Beetle was the best handling car ever, but its mass popularity caused a re-release twenty years later.
But no, I wouldn't recommend Windoze to a new computer user. Nor to much of anyone, for that matter.
You know, the thing that has always set the computer industry apart was that it WASN'T mainstream. You don't see commercials with bikini babes fondling monitors; you don't see advertisements at baseball games for the latest video accelerators. Public advertising tends to target the lowest common denominator in American society, and the PC industry--until recently--has managed to escape that fate. Frankly, I liked it that way.
Then came the iMac.
Suddenly, people I know started getting iMacs because, in their exact words, "they looked cool." I think I shuddered each and every time I heard that. Girls look cool. Cars look cool. Art (occasionally) looks cool. The main selling point of a computer should NOT be that it looks cool. We've all heard the age-old adage, "Don't judge a book by it's cover."
Well, don't judge a computer by one either. Take a look at what's inside, and not the idiots in day-glow radiation suits dancing around it.
Re:Drop the Space station, fund this kind of stuff
on
NASA and AI Testing
·
· Score: 1
I can't disagree with you more. Space travel is NOTORIOUSLY inefficient--it costs millions upon millions of dollars per component on each shuttle and probe NASA and other space agencies send into orbit. I should know, I work for Lockheed Martin. Absolutely nothing within the current world socioeconomic and scientific structure suggests that space travel is going to be feasible on a large scale any time in the year future--the space program has been active for decades and the price per mission keeps going up, not down.
You say: "We continue to sit on our 'asses' looking at the moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt, dreaming about them and doing nothing to bring them back to reality."
We made a manned moon landing in 1969, 30 years ago. It's a really big rock. There's nothing there. If there was, we'd still be going there.
We've been to Mars, via several unmanned probes. What's the point of sending people there? Again, it's just a big rock. If there was anything interesting, our super-expensive, super-accurate probes and surveying equipment would have picked it up by now.
We know what asteroids are made of. Scientists have been studying impact sites of landed meteorites for years. Guess what? They're rocks. Metallic rocks perhaps, but certainly not rare enough to justify SPENDING millions upon millions of dollars to retrieve them.
You claim that "if there is a push in the direction of Space it will sprout new industries to support itself thereby rendering the enconomic issue a moot point." Why is this? Things aren't going to get less expensive just because we have private companies footing the bill instead of NASA. Besides, there's still nowhere to go, and no point in going there.
Your romantic notions are, well, romantic, but they have absolutely no scientific basis behind them.
I agree with you completely. One of the best definitions I've heard for AI is:
"The ability to perform tasks not explicitly programmed by the creator."
Going with this, I'm sure that this Remote Agent was programmed with EVERY contingency in mind. It may be capable of discerning which action out of many occurred--even in complicated situations--but so what? That's just one big case (or else-if, if you like) statement.
Anyway, if you plug top-of-the-line speakers into your computer, then I can see being slightly irritated at the quality of MP3s (like anything else, some are near-perfect and some are quite horrible), but on the whole, I believe it's a viable alternative that more and more people are plugging into. With standard PC speakers, I usually don't detect enough of a difference to detract from the listening experience. Especially, like you said, if it's just for background entertainment:)
Frankly, I'm surprised I hadn't heard this train of thought before on this topic: I just finished up my freshman year at a the University of Illinois, which has a fairly good ethernet system for the public residence halls (and some of the private ones as well). The network was configured such that you could access just about anyone else's shared directories who was in the dorms. Not everyone knew how to do this, but I'd estimate that at least 5000 PCs were logged in at any given time.
Out of the 5000, perhaps half of those users knew enough about computers to set up shared directories.
Out of the remaining 2500, 95% of them had MP3s in the shared directory. And a LOT of them at that. Having 100+ files on the network wasn't uncommon at all. While i realize that music piracy is somewhat different than software piracy, the "perceived" effect on their respective industries is similar. Frankly, I can't see myself bying a music CD anytime in the near future. Recently, I thought about picking up the new Star Wars soundtrack while in the mall until i realized i could just go home and get them all in under 2 minutes. Software piracy is still for users "in the know"--with a medium-speed connection, it can still take hours to get the latest games or applications, something most casual users don't have the time or patience for. MP3s are compact, terrific quality, and easily accessible.
Software piracy has been going on for years--it's becoming much more prevailent now, but it's been there for decades. MP3s are a relatively new phenomenon, and one that have the music companies somewhat scared. I don't remember which company it was, but I recently saw an article in the newspaper where a bigshot at one of the major labels was complaining that it was getting harder and harder to target MP3 sites because it was moving OFF the college campuses and into "general" america--i.e. adults.
2/5 of software may be pirated, according to this article, but that number is rising slowly. I wouldn't be surprised if MP3s are at that mark already; and it's certain that the percentage is steeply rising.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely correct. The article doesn't explicitly mention whether radiation and other non-atmospheric conditions were taken into account. Hopefully it just didn't make it into the layman's terms version of the research summary.
/. post is somewhat misleading ("...raises the possibility of life on the Red Planet"). The article mentions nothing of actual life on Mars, past or present. The main focus, in fact, seems to be transplanting this earth-made organism _to_ Mars in order to create methane and change the climate somewhat (to facilitate human colonization).
Another important thing to think about (and I hope that people don't draw this conclusion) is that just because we've found something that could _conceiveably_ survive on Mars, it doesn't mean that it or anything like it ever did. I only mention this because the header of the
The patent itself doesn't really say much. Judging by the first (primary) claim listed on the patent summary site, it still needs a program-specific "control mechanism" in order to find errors. Sounds like a rehash of error detection/ameobic variability programs we've seen before.
Actually, my friends and I have tried to come up with good ranges of when generations start and when they end. You're right, they do seem to be getting shorter and shorter. Here are our humble conclusions (with catchy names! good with milk!):
Baby Boomers: 1955-1963
Flower Power: 1963-1970
Just Plain High: 1971-1977
Days of Disco: 1977-1983
Bad Eighties Music: 1982-1989 (overlap, so sue me)
Generation X: 1990-1994
Generation Y (or Why?): 1995 ---Just didn't catch on
Generation Next: 1996-present
NOTE: These figures indicate when the people of that generation were in high school and college. That's why the baby boomers time frame appears so off.
By that logic, in six years they'll have a really nifty "four-generation study". They can talk about all the planning and foresight it took to span the generation gap and get this report together. I'll bet people would actually fall for it, too. The same sort of people who thought that Jar-Jar sucked. Heathens, all of them!
I must say, the list of people who use Linux on Macs has to be one of the most oddly conceived cross-sections of computer users there is. Let the irate replies from the minions of Mac-nix users out there commence. I'm genuinely looking forward to hearing your arguments. So far on this topic I've seen a few people defend the use of Linux on Macs, but none of them actually practiced this rare art themselves.
"I'm not sure exactly why uranium is used in shells as opposed to something denser, but it still works."
The honest-to-god answer, straight from my Nuclear Engineering 101 professor this fall: We've got a shitload of the U-238 left over after normal fission reactors in light-water reactors*, and basically nothing else to do with it.
*An interesting note--in the "classic" light-water US reactors, U-235 was the only desired product and U-238 was the only left over (besides the trans-uranic wastes and such). With the newer style of IFB breeder reactors, we convert U-235 to plutonium, thereby "breeding" more fuel (U-238 is not used at all in a breeder reactor). However, the initial plutonium is turned into U-235. Because of the mass percentages and the core design, we gain more plutonium then we lose uranium, but we STILL accumulate U-235 as a leftover. Arg.
As I read the enthralling scientific posting, one thing stuck out in my mind: Every reference to Element 118 was, well, "Element 118". If we strike now, we can petition for Element 118 to be named in our honor!
I most humbly submit my suggestion for the name of Element 118: Slashdotium.
I know, I know. I'm reading too far into it. It was intentional. I offer my most humble and abject apologies.
So sue me for trying to be humorous.
Sue me for trying to brighten someone's day.
Sue me for making little hospitalized Johnny smile just one more time.
Sue me for trying to make us geeks worldwide slap their knees and guffaw with laughter!
Someone's got to do it! If not me, then who? Barry Manilow? I think not!
*sniff*
...And remember, you can't attack Brainania. It's not on the big map.
With these prices (for the moment), is this product _really_ needed? I mean, the main attraction of MP3s are that they're free. This product would seem to throw that advantage out the window. Combine that with the fact that CDs _do_ have better quality then MP3s, and I'm wondering whether it's worth it to pay the price of a cheap computer to be able to play MP3s in your car.
This also seems to be a bit of a backwards leap. I've been hearing for months that plans are "in the works" by CD player manufacturers to allow normal CD players to play CDs with songs encoded in MP3 format. I don't know how reliable those claims are, or how close the companies are to marketing this technology, but it seems to me that this would be much more advantageous then shelling out over a grand for an additional peripheral.
This was a really good article. It was informative, clear, and for the most part accurate with its information and definitions. There's just one problem. The X-Force sounds just plain lame, and I think the authors of this article knew it. Consider such choice lines as:
"This is where Cult of the Dead Cow released Back Orifice, ostensibly to expose Microsoft's security shortcomings."
"...Rouland got a copy to Jon Larimer, the X-Force's 'back door' guru."
If they're not trying to imply that these dudes are gay, be it intentionally or unintentionally, then I guess I'm just the sick and peverted one.
This was a really good article. It was informative, clear, and for the most part accurate with its information and definitions. There's just one problem. The X-Force sounds just plain lame, and I think the authors of this article knew it. Consider such choice lines as:
"This is where Cult of the Dead Cow released Back Orifice, ostensibly to expose Microsoft's security shortcomings."
"...Rouland got a copy to Jon Larimer, the X-Force's 'back door' guru."
If they're not trying to imply that these dudes are gay, be it intentionally or unintentionally, then I guess I'm just the sick and peverted one.
I'll admit you do have some valid points [YOU ANONYMOUS COWARD!! :) ], but I'll make some counterpoints to defend my analogies:
1) You are correct in that a corvette with a metro engine wouldn't sell, but neither would an Edsel that handled like a 'Vette.
2) Girls and cars, historically, have had selling power on their looks as well as what's "under the hood"--regardless if this is moral or not. No one would say that the VW Beetle was the best handling car ever, but its mass popularity caused a re-release twenty years later.
But no, I wouldn't recommend Windoze to a new computer user. Nor to much of anyone, for that matter.
You know, the thing that has always set the computer industry apart was that it WASN'T mainstream. You don't see commercials with bikini babes fondling monitors; you don't see advertisements at baseball games for the latest video accelerators. Public advertising tends to target the lowest common denominator in American society, and the PC industry--until recently--has managed to escape that fate. Frankly, I liked it that way.
Then came the iMac.
Suddenly, people I know started getting iMacs because, in their exact words, "they looked cool." I think I shuddered each and every time I heard that. Girls look cool. Cars look cool. Art (occasionally) looks cool. The main selling point of a computer should NOT be that it looks cool. We've all heard the age-old adage, "Don't judge a book by it's cover."
Well, don't judge a computer by one either. Take a look at what's inside, and not the idiots in day-glow radiation suits dancing around it.
I can't disagree with you more. Space travel is NOTORIOUSLY inefficient--it costs millions upon millions of dollars per component on each shuttle and probe NASA and other space agencies send into orbit. I should know, I work for Lockheed Martin. Absolutely nothing within the current world socioeconomic and scientific structure suggests that space travel is going to be feasible on a large scale any time in the year future--the space program has been active for decades and the price per mission keeps going up, not down.
You say: "We continue to sit on our 'asses' looking at the moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt, dreaming about them and doing nothing to bring them back to reality."
We made a manned moon landing in 1969, 30 years ago. It's a really big rock. There's nothing there. If there was, we'd still be going there.
We've been to Mars, via several unmanned probes. What's the point of sending people there? Again, it's just a big rock. If there was anything interesting, our super-expensive, super-accurate probes and surveying equipment would have picked it up by now.
We know what asteroids are made of. Scientists have been studying impact sites of landed meteorites for years. Guess what? They're rocks. Metallic rocks perhaps, but certainly not rare enough to justify SPENDING millions upon millions of dollars to retrieve them.
You claim that "if there is a push in the direction of Space it will sprout new industries to support itself thereby rendering the enconomic issue a moot point." Why is this? Things aren't going to get less expensive just because we have private companies footing the bill instead of NASA. Besides, there's still nowhere to go, and no point in going there.
Your romantic notions are, well, romantic, but they have absolutely no scientific basis behind them.
I agree with you completely. One of the best definitions I've heard for AI is:
"The ability to perform tasks not explicitly programmed by the creator."
Going with this, I'm sure that this Remote Agent was programmed with EVERY contingency in mind. It may be capable of discerning which action out of many occurred--even in complicated situations--but so what? That's just one big case (or else-if, if you like) statement.
Glad you agreed with MOST of my point :)
:)
Anyway, if you plug top-of-the-line speakers into your computer, then I can see being slightly irritated at the quality of MP3s (like anything else, some are near-perfect and some are quite horrible), but on the whole, I believe it's a viable alternative that more and more people are plugging into. With standard PC speakers, I usually don't detect enough of a difference to detract from the listening experience. Especially, like you said, if it's just for background entertainment
Frankly, I'm surprised I hadn't heard this train of thought before on this topic: I just finished up my freshman year at a the University of Illinois, which has a fairly good ethernet system for the public residence halls (and some of the private ones as well). The network was configured such that you could access just about anyone else's shared directories who was in the dorms. Not everyone knew how to do this, but I'd estimate
that at least 5000 PCs were logged in at any given time.
Out of the 5000, perhaps half of those users knew enough about computers to set up shared directories.
Out of the remaining 2500, 95% of them had MP3s in the shared directory. And a LOT of them at that. Having 100+ files on the network wasn't uncommon at all. While i realize that music piracy is somewhat different than software piracy, the "perceived" effect on their respective industries is similar. Frankly, I can't see myself bying a music CD anytime in the near future. Recently, I thought about picking up the new Star Wars soundtrack while in the mall until i realized i could just go home and get them all in under 2 minutes. Software piracy is still for users "in
the know"--with a medium-speed connection, it can still take hours to get the latest games or applications, something most casual users don't
have the time or patience for. MP3s are compact, terrific quality, and easily accessible.
Software piracy has been going on for years--it's becoming much more prevailent now, but it's been there for decades. MP3s are a relatively new phenomenon, and one that have the music companies somewhat scared. I don't remember which company it was, but I recently saw an article in the newspaper where a bigshot at one of the major labels was complaining that it was getting harder and harder to target MP3 sites because it was moving OFF the college campuses and into "general" america--i.e. adults.
2/5 of software may be pirated, according to this article, but that number is rising slowly. I wouldn't be surprised if MP3s are at that mark
already; and it's certain that the percentage is steeply rising.