I don't know about Clarke, but I know Asimov used the idea in Robot series. They were called strips, and there were something like 5 of them. Each one moved faster than the other until you reached the center.
Kids would even play games on them, playing follow the leader;-)
I certainly hope others follow suit. ABCNews.com used to have a pop-up that would crash Internet Exploder, and then bring the rest of my system down with it. And I didn't like them before that...
Asteroids, Space Invaders, Q-bert, Battlezone and a gazillion other memories of lost years at the arcade. I probably won't shelling out $500-1200 on one any time soon, but the reminiscing is worth it!
I think the ACLU is actually going to have a pretty good chance at this. They have a well informed client who can explain the technology to the court. That is a key aspect to many of the cases involving high tech. If you let the other side dictate the education of the court on the technology, you're hosed. But with the client being an expert witness I'd have to say they're set up pretty good. I'm sure they have also done their research and are in a venue/ court that will be more open to their arguments. Best of luck to them though, its still going to be a dogfight!
Black boxes started out on airplanes because in the early days, a lot of planes would go down and not leave any evidence as to why. Because of that, the black boxes were developed as a way to record data in case of a crash. They are still extremely useful in figuring out what went wrong, and how the accident chain for such an incident can be broken in the future. I am not so sure that black boxes in cars would contribute in the same way. Typically the cause of the accident is a fairly straightforward thing to figure out, and the resolution process is already well established. Nonetheless, I would not put it past insurance companies to attempt to legislate the use of tracking devices as a way to increase their own revenue.
Oxymoron would imply that Window$ is actually secure. The point of the joke is to point out that it is not hence, redundant. But thanks anyway. No one else seems to understand it either. Oh well...
The conflict, as I see it, is one of perspective. The studios and entertainment industry makes its money from distributing entertainment. If that entertainment is distributed freely, or much more inexpensively, than they lose money. While the media and many others focus on the mega stars worth millions, you should also remember that there are hundreds of un-sung support folks who do need that pay-check, and they are the ones who are going to take any loss in the shorts first. The other perspective is that of the people who want information to remain free. If you do pay for the distibution of a particular entertainment, than you should be able to copy it all you like for yourself, and if you want to share that with your friends, then you should be able to do that as well. I think the real solution is for the studios to finally understand that the average folk just are not interested in piracy. And that those who are will continue to do so regardless of what encryption the studios attempt to wrap their wares in. Remember those underpaid un-sung support types? There's always a way.
I absolutely agree that $8.75 for a movie $10 for a coke and popcorn is extremely expensive (and we have kids!). However that doesn't necessarily translate into a large enough profit to swing $150k per screen for the digital upgrade. Does anyone know how much the movies cost the theatre owner? I know that on the first weekend half the take goes to the studio, and then a smaller percentage is given to the studio each week for something like a month until all the money goes to the theatre. Between that and the initial capital outlay, its understandable why theatres don't want to commit to digital.
Everyone knows the line has to be drawn somewhere, they just don't want to be on the outside of it. Maybe instead of trying to avoid paying royalties entirely, the should try and negotiate a lowering of the royalty to factor in the greater number of listeners.
Hopefully Sun's "ships" and "flotillas" won't go the way of the Spanish Armada;-) Will this be the new way to measure? "Sure this one has 10k ships, but they're only frigates. Even though this one only has 5k ships, they're all ships of the line."
What are your thoughts about CGI graphics being thought of as art? Have you ever thought that years from now, what you are doing could "hang" in museums?
I think the real question is, how do those of us who cannot afford a jaunt over to Edinborough manage to see these? Anyone going with a camcorder? Anyone?
I tend to read slashdot more for the Science and Sci-fi related nerd stuff, and am not real familiar with the programming world. I know the media uses the phrase "hacker" in a negative context, but "Kernel Hacker" seems very positive. Can anyone enlighten as to the appropriate use of "hacker"? Is this another example of the media creating its own connotations?
I have done IP work as a litigation paralegal in the past and I have a few thoughts from a grunts perspective. If M$ decides to push this and it ends up in court it will be a long 4 to 5 year road that they will have to travel. During which time everyone tied to the graphics industry will be operating under uncertainty and not a little bit of trepidation. Good luck finding steady investors!
M$ would most likely try and use the same uncertainty that they are causing as a bargaining chip in getting what the want.
As someone who has dealt with IP issues, and a creative writer as well, I cannot say how much actions like this sicken me. Patents were created as a way to inspire innovation and creative thought. M$ and their lawyers are bastardizing that as a way to ensure that they do NOT have to innovate. Its disgusting.
At some point, regardless of how decentralized the machines network is, a command is going to have to be issued. As long as that command comes from us, we're golden. If not... life quickly sucks. How can one ensure that that command process is never compromised?
In the field, if you have human soldiers and the commander goes nuts and starts ordering everyone shot on sight, the soldiers have the discretion to avoid a massacre of innocents. Bots won't care.
Potentially very dangerous to humanity as a whole. Not that will stop them from making it. If taking others lives is so important, I think its worth risking some of ours. If not, then the reaction is capricious.
This also reminds me of the Asimov short story (title escapes me) in which humans have lost the ability to do math. Only computers and calculators can do it. We are also in a war which is being guided by our computers. Since the other side has their computers also, everything is in stalemate due to the rigid logic of computers.
Enter a pentagon janitor who "rediscovers" arithmetic as a hobby. The generals take over, and suddenly humans are guiding events through their math, and the uncertainity causes victory for us. Long story short, humans do what machines can't. Period.
I was stupid enough a few years back to give my e-mail address at the Jack in the Box website. The Jack e-mails started after awhile and they were annoying, but I knew I only had myself to blame.
So I set up the filter on Outlook to send the Jack e-mail straight to the trash. Which it did. Along with every other e-mail that began with the letter "J".
Penance sucks.
You are absolutely correct. The best Sci-Fi is all about the what-if's. I have read essays by Bradbury, Asimov, and a few others all supporting this philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure the equipment is inside a case that's painted waterproof yellow;-)
I don't know about Clarke, but I know Asimov used the idea in Robot series. They were called strips, and there were something like 5 of them. Each one moved faster than the other until you reached the center.
Kids would even play games on them, playing follow the leader;-)
Good read.
For good or bad it was my own ass from which I pulled;-)
I certainly hope others follow suit. ABCNews.com used to have a pop-up that would crash Internet Exploder, and then bring the rest of my system down with it. And I didn't like them before that...
Unfortunately most of the Telephone Sanitizers were killed when the Ark crashed after its long journey from Golgafinch.
And I struggle to find the time just to weed! This has got to be the only thing this family did for months. Hats offto their enthusiasm and fortitude!
Asteroids, Space Invaders, Q-bert, Battlezone and a gazillion other memories of lost years at the arcade. I probably won't shelling out $500-1200 on one any time soon, but the reminiscing is worth it!
I think the ACLU is actually going to have a pretty good chance at this. They have a well informed client who can explain the technology to the court. That is a key aspect to many of the cases involving high tech. If you let the other side dictate the education of the court on the technology, you're hosed. But with the client being an expert witness I'd have to say they're set up pretty good. I'm sure they have also done their research and are in a venue/ court that will be more open to their arguments. Best of luck to them though, its still going to be a dogfight!
Black boxes started out on airplanes because in the early days, a lot of planes would go down and not leave any evidence as to why. Because of that, the black boxes were developed as a way to record data in case of a crash. They are still extremely useful in figuring out what went wrong, and how the accident chain for such an incident can be broken in the future. I am not so sure that black boxes in cars would contribute in the same way. Typically the cause of the accident is a fairly straightforward thing to figure out, and the resolution process is already well established. Nonetheless, I would not put it past insurance companies to attempt to legislate the use of tracking devices as a way to increase their own revenue.
Oxymoron would imply that Window$ is actually secure. The point of the joke is to point out that it is not hence, redundant. But thanks anyway. No one else seems to understand it either. Oh well...
Isn't unsecure Window$ a tad redundant?
The conflict, as I see it, is one of perspective. The studios and entertainment industry makes its money from distributing entertainment. If that entertainment is distributed freely, or much more inexpensively, than they lose money. While the media and many others focus on the mega stars worth millions, you should also remember that there are hundreds of un-sung support folks who do need that pay-check, and they are the ones who are going to take any loss in the shorts first. The other perspective is that of the people who want information to remain free. If you do pay for the distibution of a particular entertainment, than you should be able to copy it all you like for yourself, and if you want to share that with your friends, then you should be able to do that as well. I think the real solution is for the studios to finally understand that the average folk just are not interested in piracy. And that those who are will continue to do so regardless of what encryption the studios attempt to wrap their wares in. Remember those underpaid un-sung support types? There's always a way.
I absolutely agree that $8.75 for a movie $10 for a coke and popcorn is extremely expensive (and we have kids!). However that doesn't necessarily translate into a large enough profit to swing $150k per screen for the digital upgrade. Does anyone know how much the movies cost the theatre owner? I know that on the first weekend half the take goes to the studio, and then a smaller percentage is given to the studio each week for something like a month until all the money goes to the theatre. Between that and the initial capital outlay, its understandable why theatres don't want to commit to digital.
Everyone knows the line has to be drawn somewhere, they just don't want to be on the outside of it. Maybe instead of trying to avoid paying royalties entirely, the should try and negotiate a lowering of the royalty to factor in the greater number of listeners.
Hopefully Sun's "ships" and "flotillas" won't go the way of the Spanish Armada;-) Will this be the new way to measure? "Sure this one has 10k ships, but they're only frigates. Even though this one only has 5k ships, they're all ships of the line."
What are your thoughts about CGI graphics being thought of as art? Have you ever thought that years from now, what you are doing could "hang" in museums?
How does the M$ patent sabre rattling affect this?
I think the real question is, how do those of us who cannot afford a jaunt over to Edinborough manage to see these? Anyone going with a camcorder? Anyone?
Thank you both for answering my humble query. It all makes a lot more sense now!
I tend to read slashdot more for the Science and Sci-fi related nerd stuff, and am not real familiar with the programming world. I know the media uses the phrase "hacker" in a negative context, but "Kernel Hacker" seems very positive. Can anyone enlighten as to the appropriate use of "hacker"? Is this another example of the media creating its own connotations?
Your memory is indeed better than mine. That is the way that it goes now that you've jogged the remaining bits loose;-)
I have done IP work as a litigation paralegal in the past and I have a few thoughts from a grunts perspective. If M$ decides to push this and it ends up in court it will be a long 4 to 5 year road that they will have to travel. During which time everyone tied to the graphics industry will be operating under uncertainty and not a little bit of trepidation. Good luck finding steady investors! M$ would most likely try and use the same uncertainty that they are causing as a bargaining chip in getting what the want. As someone who has dealt with IP issues, and a creative writer as well, I cannot say how much actions like this sicken me. Patents were created as a way to inspire innovation and creative thought. M$ and their lawyers are bastardizing that as a way to ensure that they do NOT have to innovate. Its disgusting.
At some point, regardless of how decentralized the machines network is, a command is going to have to be issued. As long as that command comes from us, we're golden. If not... life quickly sucks. How can one ensure that that command process is never compromised? In the field, if you have human soldiers and the commander goes nuts and starts ordering everyone shot on sight, the soldiers have the discretion to avoid a massacre of innocents. Bots won't care. Potentially very dangerous to humanity as a whole. Not that will stop them from making it. If taking others lives is so important, I think its worth risking some of ours. If not, then the reaction is capricious. This also reminds me of the Asimov short story (title escapes me) in which humans have lost the ability to do math. Only computers and calculators can do it. We are also in a war which is being guided by our computers. Since the other side has their computers also, everything is in stalemate due to the rigid logic of computers. Enter a pentagon janitor who "rediscovers" arithmetic as a hobby. The generals take over, and suddenly humans are guiding events through their math, and the uncertainity causes victory for us. Long story short, humans do what machines can't. Period.
I was stupid enough a few years back to give my e-mail address at the Jack in the Box website. The Jack e-mails started after awhile and they were annoying, but I knew I only had myself to blame. So I set up the filter on Outlook to send the Jack e-mail straight to the trash. Which it did. Along with every other e-mail that began with the letter "J". Penance sucks.
You are absolutely correct. The best Sci-Fi is all about the what-if's. I have read essays by Bradbury, Asimov, and a few others all supporting this philosophy.