you know what? I don't think there should be copyright anymore.
there should just be, notoriety-right, creator-right: but copyright just isn't making sense anymore.
the name itself is misleading. it looks to speak of the right to copy. but if I used a word, say "freedomright" in the same meaning it would say that I, I, I, have the right to freedom, it guarantees you nothing. in fact, used in the exact same meaning it would say that ONLY I, I, I, have freedom by right.
With the ubiquity of copying devices allowing consumers to create industry grade duplications (and original works at industry grade - might I add) this current notion of copyright is starting to show some serious compatibility problems IMnshO.
Take this example. The owner of a patent can actually say, "no, you can't use this" even if that patent is for some kind of revolutionary life- saving device. they have that right!?
even if you can memorize the design with ease, and can construct this patented device to save a life, the patent owner - by law - can sue you!
Is it not enough reward to have your name on something? After all, if you create enough great things then for certain some interested people would give you things for working for them; things like...money, cars, a house, a big ass boat.
take this other example.
let's say that I create a program that creates original works. It randomly goes about making a melody, harmony and rhythm. I broadcast the music created by it via internet radio.
Now, what happens if by pure dumb luck my music generation program goes ahead and plays "roxanne" by The Police? am I liable for infringement?
More to the point; can I copyright any and every song this device creates? Meaning to say, can I just have a script set to convert each song into notation and an mp3 and automatically ship it out to the copyright office? I mean. I could literally generate thousands of full-length songs every day!!! maybe 10s o' thousands! right?
copyright is really really starting to become archaic in it's entirety, mithinks
Ok, this type of argument has got to stop.
To me it seems that proprietary software has more potential for sabotage.
If someone, for some reason, wants to exploit some part of some open source software, A) everyone knows the source, many intimately B) it's unlikely that the vulnerability would be unknown or uncovered (since the source is open to all to be scoured - very very often very very thoroughly).
Closed-source software on the other hand A) has only select people who know and have access to the source, often not very intimately (because they are likely working on it for the paycheck, rather than satisfaction or enjoyment). B) Not only are vulnerabilities likely to be unknown; but a malicious programmer can slip backdoors and the like into closed software without detection much easier than "plain-sight" open software.
foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists can easily infiltrate the Linux community to contribute subversive software Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for a foreign agent to get inside a corporate setting...
True, a clever open-source programmer could still theoretically hide his malicious routines - however, the source is after all open; so therefore his hiding would be the equivalent of camouflage - with closed source it's like fort-Knox. Fort-Knox keeps only that which is inside it safe.
how about the example of placing a bomb. is it better to A) hide the bomb? (hiding means it's covered by something) or B) in plain sight, say on a big platform that says "please look at me".
One last analogy: would you have a better chance thwarting an attack if A) you had a clear design of every possible way the enemy could attack. Or B) you had no idea whatsoever.
many, many intelligent people take issue with the current direction of copyright. Many of those same people actually don't even care for the current notion of copyright in the first place.
These same people (within the US - perhaps elsewhere soon), myself included, will be forced by law to comply if these new laws are passed.
I feel it is every cogent person's responsibility to disuse and disregard any works which ascribe to these new laws, and instead subscribe and add to the notions and creations of open works - made for the benefit of all, not just the benefit of one.
If most (if not all) intelligent people were to do this, then most (if not all) works created under the new laws would be rubbish. These works would be of little or no value since the input of smart, creative folk would be directed and contained within open works - seperate and above these restrictive laws.
In other words, let them keep thier gold - We'll take the silicon.
Now the final piece, all we need are some smart farmers willing to take free, intellectual works to keep us all fed with open food:)
I've always thought a good application of microsurgical robotics would be internet-based multi-surgeon environments.
I would think having 5 or 6 neurosurgeons working simultaneously could acheive rather extrordianry things. Say, reattachment of much beloved body parts (that's always been my favorite sugical application).
Or, multi-surgeon environments could simply make lenghty operations much more speedy (getting a surgery done as soon as safely possible is certainly benificial in most situations).
Come to think of it, why stop at 5 sugeons? make it a 64 surgeon server. I'm sure the insurance companies will love footing the bill for 64 neurosurgeons:)
Just make sure your hospital has installed punk-buster.
eureka!
thanks sinner you gave me an idea.
maybe this sounds stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to make the base a giant sphere? essentially a hamster ball.
Two spheres really. An external sphere in contact with the moon's surface and a free-floating internal sphere - with the living quarters and such.
how to keep it floating? well, first we need a nuclear power plant (but of course). then we could find good use from our good old friend magnetism...or whatever.
then, drive it the same way a hamster drives his ball; create an magnetic impulse between the internal and external sphere. the internal sphere will try to climb the inner-wall of the external sphere and the external sphere will counter with an equal and opposite reaction which will result in forward movement.
Nuclear meltdown aside, it sounds like a relatively simple concept. and it's bound to have less moving parts than some trackless-locomotive or star-wars-power-droid-lookin' hundred legged breakdown-machine.
that's only $1400 per year for a decade.
$116 a month, about $4 a day!
if we all just stop eating taco bell one meal a day we can do this!
So, who do I make a paypal donation to?
who's the leader in carbon nanotube research?
I have a big, fat $20 bill with 'C' written all over it!
seriously, I do. I wrote it with a marker.
The space elevator coupled with a nuclear rocket is really the way to get things going (in my blissfull imagination).
The moon base is looking better and better, closer to 'reality' everyday...or every year, I should perhaps say.
The nuclear rocket would be great for getting the inital big heavy stuff up into space; primary building materials, the initial spools and anchors, people..etc..
I would think the space elevator would be good (at first) to reserve for hefting non-living things like food, water, and my personal favorite - oxygen, up to the anchor station and transfering them to the moon-base's anchor.
From the earth's anchor-station you basically just give the big 'ol bag of air a nice gentle push (maybe use a 'simple' solar sail, and who cares if it takes a month to make the journey over to the moon anchor (I think it would probably take less); becuase you'll have already sent 1000 ('cheap') other bags of supplies already in transit; a nice, floating convoy of happy consumables/breathables migrating on over to the moon (and back for recycling). Nice perpetual supply chain.
Heck, you could just have a 'snorkle' tube, dipped into the atmosphere, drinking up oxygen and water to fill the supply balloons. Dedicated supply elevators. When they get to the moon, empty them out and send 'em back.
To get the people to the moon base we would use the more-funner nuclear rocket ship (at first).
Now what if the ribbon breaks? you just have to ask, don't you? of course you have to ask; if you didn't you'd be ignorant (which is supposed to be bliss, but were that true there would be more happy people).
Well, if the ribbon breaks, that sucks. Basically you just make sure you have contingency, two elevators/ribbons and a good insurance agent. That way you can keep the lifeline going while we change-out the nanotube-paper-towel-roll on the other elevator.
As for the 62,000 miles of ribbon falling to the earth - the worst place for a break would be right at the anchor. This would mean the entire ribbon would begin falling to earth. This problem could be handled via several means. one way we could do it would be to have some sort of explosive bolt system that would blow the cable into small segments that could burn up in the atmosphere...hopefully (maybe they would be light enough, with enough drag to simply flutter down (let's just not worry about the unfavorable aspects of nanotube particles in the atmosphere for now - we, uh, have a glue that keeps them from turning into horrible carbon dust..yeah).
the other, more conservative method would be to have a quick retract device at the ocean-based-mobile-ground-station (ocean, ground, mobile, station...some oxymorons there) This would spool down the elevator ribbon at a speed that would keep it from 'tipping'. resulting in a straight to the ocean floor descent (imagine a kite's-tail - only vertical).
Perhaps the ribbon could even have parachute points at intervals along it's ascent. Long and short of it - if I can start dreaming up ways to handle this I think a couple physicists could figure something up that would work.
TERRORISTS!!! WHAT ABOUT THEM!? Sure, they crashed a civilian plane into the pentagon. But they didn't crash it into an airforce base, now did they? Why? S.A.Ms.
It sounds wild, but to me the space elevator just seems so elegant; almost natural. I mean, carbon; come on. We all Love carbon right? -(my friend mike for some reason hates carbon, but he's a chemist and that's another story)
I always think of the analogy of space as a tall cliff. You need to get to the top. Do you..
A) catapult yourself up there, try to land on your feet without breaking things and then base-jump back down?
or
B) throw a grappling hook, climb up, and climb down?
can you think of a better non-explosive way to get to space?
I wonder; what kind of approval do you need in order to fly into space? Is there some governmental green light?
I ask because it seems to me that a private, reusable, unmanned delivery spacecraft could be a valuable commodity in certain instances. It could certainly get to space and back much faster than something requiring full-fledged life support.
Let's take delivery of donor organs. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm used to it), certain organs must be transplanted very soon after the host dies. So if someone in Japan needs said organ and someone in New York is killed in a motorcycle accident, a private company could ultra-priority ship this organ overseas via a 90 minute sub-orbital flight.
Or would such a market just be too niche to be viable?
What other kinds of things would someone be willing to pay any price (exorbitant to be sure) to get something somewhere ASAsoP (As Soon As Sub-Orbitally Possible)?
perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I've about had it up to here with copyright.
Let my put it this way, in the good old days of the middle ages if you wanted a book, say the bible, you would aquire a transcription: not a copy. Some monk or whatnot would actually create the article by hand, painstakingly.
Therefore the idea of illegal copies was nonexistent - because it would take forever to make such a copy. you were essentially paying for the transcription service, not really the intellectual property contained within the work - if you were paying at all, that is.
then came the gutenberg press, a great creation, and fun to say too. Copies could be made in a much more effecient manner, but the consumer was still paying for the service more than the copies; after all the bible was the first thing printed - and unless you consider tithe a type of royalty - no money was payed for the creators. I think tithe is more like a membership charge.
Still, the concept of the consumer making thier own copies was unheard of - unless that consumer had a press and the expertise to use it.
Up until the 60's consumers didn't really have any good methods for making cheap copies of any intellectual works; books, music, movies. But then the xerox, and then the magnetic cassete tape.
Basically i'm saying that the current methods of copy protection are a backwards technology. you see, because the freaking consumer now has the ability to create documents that have all the quality expected. The gutenberg press is in every household in the form of HP and Memorex.
Copy protection, IMO is tantamount to sabatoge. It impedes the capability of the consumer to utilize thier equipment to it's full extent - in effect decreasing the functionality.
Money is a great example of this; it is vital that cash be as difficult as possible to copy. But, it is a chasing of the tail. you see, the money of the 20's can probably be duplicated fairly accurately via consumer-level hardware. Money is a type of proof saying "hey, this paper says what i'm worth, you must trust me because george washington says so"; but the physical document (dollar bill) can be duplicated - Gold, not so easy; goods and services likewise. In other words, the value contained within the bill is an illusion. (all value arguably is, but the value of a doctor in times of emergency is not so etheral - service and goods my friends; the only real values).
Eventually, if the hardware manufactures are smart enough, and industrious enough, consumer-level will match corporate-level in every aspect.
Already, consumer-level music is oft-times better than corporate-level; likewise with movies; and likewise with software (read: consumers created linux).
I don't know. the half life 2 faces didn't look too creepy to me. they looked great.
Perhaps the creepiness is in part to blame for the designers lack of education in the field of human facial expression and such.
I argue that even if skin textures are just a bit off in games, and even if there are little whirring noises in androids, humans will have no trouble relating so long as the entity smiles correctly.
I understand that the article states that its the very subtle, basically tiny "offs" that are the creepiness factor, but I think it is the wax museum effect.
Those wax replicas in a museum look very realistic. but thier facial expressions are horrid! they smile, but do NOT look lifelike
In half life 2, at least from the trailer, the characters didn't seem to bother me at all.
I believe this is the result of the development team wisely bringing in an expert on such matters, rather than trying to tackle this subtle bit of human interaction on thier own. The facial expressions in Half-Life 2 are all based on the work of Dr. Paul Eckman's work at the University of California on the taxonomy of facial expressions, and it is amazing just how much emotion the models can express with 40 animated facial muscles, ranging from noticeable sadness to anger to giddiness.
How many programmers and/or electronic engineers are considered experts at social interaction?
nuclear reactions are one of ( it not )the most abundant natural reaction(s) in the known universe. everything "green", plants, wind; is owed to the energy from our sun. A big, bright nuclear reaction.
The reason nuclear has such a bad rap is that it was introduced first as a weapon, instead of an energy supply. Look up "nuclear" on google images and you'll see what people first think of when they hear the word.
Had we created nuclear power plants before blowing stuff up people might view that infamous nuclear symbol as innocuous as the "+-" of electrical current.
Anyone think of even one music video director who has gone on to make a successful full length feature? I can't.
can anyone think of a time when no author had yet married sci-fi and comedy? (read: there's a first for everything, and it's can be pretty fresh when it's new)
besides, spike jonze is a good example of such a cross-genre director - his directoral path to success a bit different, albeit.
I really think that with the arising cinematic gaming experience, a broadcast of a video game match could be every bit as compelling to watch as any action movie; perhaps moreso...in fact, I'm pretty sure moreso.
And I don't mean broadcast in stickly the television sense. John Carmack has theorized that eventually there will be "THE graphics engine". A standard engine which can be just as integrated into operating systems as any GUI server is today.
Couple that with more robust human interface devices and you could browse to a full-scale war; resplendent with all the physics and sights one would expect from the real world (and quite a few extras I'm sure). In a world of gigabit connections and clockless CPUs it's not hard to imagine a Game world so immense and immersive that people would spend thier lives in it; and just as our world, there will be celebrities.
However, as opposed to our celebrities, these virtual stars will have to fufill a noteably different set of criteria then our current rock, movie and sports stars. In many ways, I think they will have to have something of all of these.
But not only will these celebrities make thier livings online, but I foresee a plethora of people simply working full time jobs inside these worlds. Some of these workers will be like amusement park employees (perhaps making sure the AI behaves within parameters; like the guy that makes sure the automatonic pirates keep singing "yo ho"), others will make money the same way current workers inside MMORPGs do - via sales of virtually-gained commodities.
With a photo-realistic graphics engine, bandwidth galore and CPU to burn what can't you see in the virtual world that you can in ours?
I've always been bothered by the "the universe will expand forever, and it's accelerating" theories.
Not that I have an a fraction the knowledge or mathematical skills of these scientists; but correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't gravity effecct objects regardless of the distance between them? Meaning to say, that gravity, however weak, will always have this attractive force.
so, won't this energy causing this accelerating expansion eventually burn up/out?
couldn't the universe be Like the release of a stretched-out, very long rubber band (played back in slow motion). At first release starting from a velocity of 0 and then accelerating. but after expending it's energy, slowing? heck, then even retracting?
in other words, what evidence supports that this thing is going to expand at an accelerating rate forever? seems like gravity is going to get a little upset about that eventually.
seeding is an awfully loaded way of referring to material from celestial bodies winding up on each other.
What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?
Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.
Would anyone be willing to posthumously open thier email history publicly?
I mean, how cool would that be if 200 years from now anyone could look up your or anyone elses life in great historical detail.
Historical letters are wonderful because they not only reflect the events of the time, but they show the lives of those who lived there.
imagine that, billions of historical emails, searchable.
Of course there may be an event or two you wish to take to the eternal recycle bin, but I'd leave in a couple that I think people of the future would prbably enjoy reading...probably.
Would you rather hike or would you rather go four-wheeling?
Both get you outdoors, but the experience and price is decidedly different.
Consoles are simple and easy: if that is your kind of fun then great -they are also much cheaper
PCs are complicated and tricky, but thier ever-increasing power and flexibility gives you options that simply don't and can't exist on any current consoles.
The interesting thing is this: those who prefer consoles (in my experience) tend to have other real-world ways of having fun. for example, these console buffs tend to have nice cars, boats, motorcycles; other things they enjoy and drop 1000s on.
die-hard PC gamers tend to have really nice computers.
You're right. Chuck Yeager was actually training our first to-be-space-pilots back in the 60s.
We had the X-15; still unmatched in speed. and we had experimental jet/rocket hybrids.
But then the funding was ripped away and dumped into our little non-war in vietnam and to try to fix some social problems with people not wanting to sit next to each other on the bus.
I have no doubts whatsoever that had the air force continued to recieve funding we would have a moon base, nuclear rockets and probably much better computers.
I blame ignorance for every problem ever (especially the problem of ignorance).
most blame greed, but I think that greedy people are ignorant.
p.s. love the name! the DynaSoar was the predecessor to the space shuttle: tested by the USAF. Lastly, had the USAF built the space shuttle you can bet it would have actually been what it was originally intended to be; 6 times as expensive and a damn sight better.
Slashdot Mirror
you know what? I don't think there should be copyright anymore.
there should just be, notoriety-right, creator-right: but copyright just isn't making sense anymore.
the name itself is misleading. it looks to speak of the right to copy. but if I used a word, say "freedomright" in the same meaning it would say that I, I, I, have the right to freedom, it guarantees you nothing. in fact, used in the exact same meaning it would say that ONLY I, I, I, have freedom by right.
With the ubiquity of copying devices allowing consumers to create industry grade duplications (and original works at industry grade - might I add) this current notion of copyright is starting to show some serious compatibility problems IMnshO.
Take this example. The owner of a patent can actually say, "no, you can't use this" even if that patent is for some kind of revolutionary life- saving device. they have that right!?
even if you can memorize the design with ease, and can construct this patented device to save a life, the patent owner - by law - can sue you!
Is it not enough reward to have your name on something? After all, if you create enough great things then for certain some interested people would give you things for working for them; things like...money, cars, a house, a big ass boat.
take this other example.
let's say that I create a program that creates original works. It randomly goes about making a melody, harmony and rhythm. I broadcast the music created by it via internet radio.
Now, what happens if by pure dumb luck my music generation program goes ahead and plays "roxanne" by The Police? am I liable for infringement?
More to the point; can I copyright any and every song this device creates? Meaning to say, can I just have a script set to convert each song into notation and an mp3 and automatically ship it out to the copyright office? I mean. I could literally generate thousands of full-length songs every day!!! maybe 10s o' thousands! right?
copyright is really really starting to become archaic in it's entirety, mithinks
Ok, this type of argument has got to stop.
To me it seems that proprietary software has more potential for sabotage.
If someone, for some reason, wants to exploit some part of some open source software, A) everyone knows the source, many intimately B) it's unlikely that the vulnerability would be unknown or uncovered (since the source is open to all to be scoured - very very often very very thoroughly).
Closed-source software on the other hand A) has only select people who know and have access to the source, often not very intimately (because they are likely working on it for the paycheck, rather than satisfaction or enjoyment). B) Not only are vulnerabilities likely to be unknown; but a malicious programmer can slip backdoors and the like into closed software without detection much easier than "plain-sight" open software.
foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists can easily infiltrate the Linux community to contribute subversive software
Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for a foreign agent to get inside a corporate setting...
True, a clever open-source programmer could still theoretically hide his malicious routines - however, the source is after all open; so therefore his hiding would be the equivalent of camouflage - with closed source it's like fort-Knox. Fort-Knox keeps only that which is inside it safe.
how about the example of placing a bomb. is it better to A) hide the bomb? (hiding means it's covered by something) or B) in plain sight, say on a big platform that says "please look at me".
One last analogy: would you have a better chance thwarting an attack if A) you had a clear design of every possible way the enemy could attack. Or B) you had no idea whatsoever.
THE EARTH GETS BLOWN UP!???!!!
Ah man! now the movie's ruined for me!
follow me here,
:)
many, many intelligent people take issue with the current direction of copyright. Many of those same people actually don't even care for the current notion of copyright in the first place.
These same people (within the US - perhaps elsewhere soon), myself included, will be forced by law to comply if these new laws are passed.
I feel it is every cogent person's responsibility to disuse and disregard any works which ascribe to these new laws, and instead subscribe and add to the notions and creations of open works - made for the benefit of all, not just the benefit of one.
If most (if not all) intelligent people were to do this, then most (if not all) works created under the new laws would be rubbish. These works would be of little or no value since the input of smart, creative folk would be directed and contained within open works - seperate and above these restrictive laws.
In other words, let them keep thier gold - We'll take the silicon.
Now the final piece, all we need are some smart farmers willing to take free, intellectual works to keep us all fed with open food
You would probably keep losing.
I'm guessing that the final loser would have to perform a forfeit, which was usually obscenely biological.
I've always thought a good application of microsurgical robotics would be internet-based multi-surgeon environments. :)
I would think having 5 or 6 neurosurgeons working simultaneously could acheive rather extrordianry things. Say, reattachment of much beloved body parts (that's always been my favorite sugical application).
Or, multi-surgeon environments could simply make lenghty operations much more speedy (getting a surgery done as soon as safely possible is certainly benificial in most situations).
Come to think of it, why stop at 5 sugeons? make it a 64 surgeon server. I'm sure the insurance companies will love footing the bill for 64 neurosurgeons
Just make sure your hospital has installed punk-buster.
eureka!
thanks sinner you gave me an idea.
maybe this sounds stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to make the base a giant sphere? essentially a hamster ball.
Two spheres really. An external sphere in contact with the moon's surface and a free-floating internal sphere - with the living quarters and such.
how to keep it floating? well, first we need a nuclear power plant (but of course). then we could find good use from our good old friend magnetism...or whatever.
then, drive it the same way a hamster drives his ball; create an magnetic impulse between the internal and external sphere. the internal sphere will try to climb the inner-wall of the external sphere and the external sphere will counter with an equal and opposite reaction which will result in forward movement. Nuclear meltdown aside, it sounds like a relatively simple concept. and it's bound to have less moving parts than some trackless-locomotive or star-wars-power-droid-lookin' hundred legged breakdown-machine.
that's only $1400 per year for a decade. $116 a month, about $4 a day! if we all just stop eating taco bell one meal a day we can do this! So, who do I make a paypal donation to? who's the leader in carbon nanotube research? I have a big, fat $20 bill with 'C' written all over it! seriously, I do. I wrote it with a marker.
The space elevator coupled with a nuclear rocket is really the way to get things going (in my blissfull imagination).
The moon base is looking better and better, closer to 'reality' everyday...or every year, I should perhaps say.
The nuclear rocket would be great for getting the inital big heavy stuff up into space; primary building materials, the initial spools and anchors, people..etc..
I would think the space elevator would be good (at first) to reserve for hefting non-living things like food, water, and my personal favorite - oxygen, up to the anchor station and transfering them to the moon-base's anchor.
From the earth's anchor-station you basically just give the big 'ol bag of air a nice gentle push (maybe use a 'simple' solar sail, and who cares if it takes a month to make the journey over to the moon anchor (I think it would probably take less); becuase you'll have already sent 1000 ('cheap') other bags of supplies already in transit; a nice, floating convoy of happy consumables/breathables migrating on over to the moon (and back for recycling). Nice perpetual supply chain.
Heck, you could just have a 'snorkle' tube, dipped into the atmosphere, drinking up oxygen and water to fill the supply balloons. Dedicated supply elevators. When they get to the moon, empty them out and send 'em back.
To get the people to the moon base we would use the more-funner nuclear rocket ship (at first).
Now what if the ribbon breaks? you just have to ask, don't you? of course you have to ask; if you didn't you'd be ignorant (which is supposed to be bliss, but were that true there would be more happy people).
Well, if the ribbon breaks, that sucks. Basically you just make sure you have contingency, two elevators/ribbons and a good insurance agent. That way you can keep the lifeline going while we change-out the nanotube-paper-towel-roll on the other elevator.
As for the 62,000 miles of ribbon falling to the earth - the worst place for a break would be right at the anchor. This would mean the entire ribbon would begin falling to earth. This problem could be handled via several means. one way we could do it would be to have some sort of explosive bolt system that would blow the cable into small segments that could burn up in the atmosphere...hopefully (maybe they would be light enough, with enough drag to simply flutter down (let's just not worry about the unfavorable aspects of nanotube particles in the atmosphere for now - we, uh, have a glue that keeps them from turning into horrible carbon dust..yeah).
the other, more conservative method would be to have a quick retract device at the ocean-based-mobile-ground-station (ocean, ground, mobile, station...some oxymorons there) This would spool down the elevator ribbon at a speed that would keep it from 'tipping'. resulting in a straight to the ocean floor descent (imagine a kite's-tail - only vertical).
Perhaps the ribbon could even have parachute points at intervals along it's ascent. Long and short of it - if I can start dreaming up ways to handle this I think a couple physicists could figure something up that would work.
TERRORISTS!!! WHAT ABOUT THEM!? Sure, they crashed a civilian plane into the pentagon. But they didn't crash it into an airforce base, now did they? Why? S.A.Ms.
It sounds wild, but to me the space elevator just seems so elegant; almost natural. I mean, carbon; come on. We all Love carbon right? -(my friend mike for some reason hates carbon, but he's a chemist and that's another story)
I always think of the analogy of space as a tall cliff. You need to get to the top. Do you..
A) catapult yourself up there, try to land on your feet without breaking things and then base-jump back down?
or
B) throw a grappling hook, climb up, and climb down?
can you think of a better non-explosive way to get to space?
I wonder; what kind of approval do you need in order to fly into space? Is there some governmental green light?
I ask because it seems to me that a private, reusable, unmanned delivery spacecraft could be a valuable commodity in certain instances. It could certainly get to space and back much faster than something requiring full-fledged life support.
Let's take delivery of donor organs. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm used to it), certain organs must be transplanted very soon after the host dies. So if someone in Japan needs said organ and someone in New York is killed in a motorcycle accident, a private company could ultra-priority ship this organ overseas via a 90 minute sub-orbital flight.
Or would such a market just be too niche to be viable?
What other kinds of things would someone be willing to pay any price (exorbitant to be sure) to get something somewhere ASAsoP (As Soon As Sub-Orbitally Possible)?
perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I've about had it up to here with copyright.
Let my put it this way, in the good old days of the middle ages if you wanted a book, say the bible, you would aquire a transcription: not a copy. Some monk or whatnot would actually create the article by hand, painstakingly.
Therefore the idea of illegal copies was nonexistent - because it would take forever to make such a copy. you were essentially paying for the transcription service, not really the intellectual property contained within the work - if you were paying at all, that is.
then came the gutenberg press, a great creation, and fun to say too. Copies could be made in a much more effecient manner, but the consumer was still paying for the service more than the copies; after all the bible was the first thing printed - and unless you consider tithe a type of royalty - no money was payed for the creators. I think tithe is more like a membership charge.
Still, the concept of the consumer making thier own copies was unheard of - unless that consumer had a press and the expertise to use it.
Up until the 60's consumers didn't really have any good methods for making cheap copies of any intellectual works; books, music, movies. But then the xerox, and then the magnetic cassete tape.
Basically i'm saying that the current methods of copy protection are a backwards technology. you see, because the freaking consumer now has the ability to create documents that have all the quality expected. The gutenberg press is in every household in the form of HP and Memorex.
Copy protection, IMO is tantamount to sabatoge. It impedes the capability of the consumer to utilize thier equipment to it's full extent - in effect decreasing the functionality.
Money is a great example of this; it is vital that cash be as difficult as possible to copy. But, it is a chasing of the tail. you see, the money of the 20's can probably be duplicated fairly accurately via consumer-level hardware. Money is a type of proof saying "hey, this paper says what i'm worth, you must trust me because george washington says so"; but the physical document (dollar bill) can be duplicated - Gold, not so easy; goods and services likewise. In other words, the value contained within the bill is an illusion. (all value arguably is, but the value of a doctor in times of emergency is not so etheral - service and goods my friends; the only real values).
Eventually, if the hardware manufactures are smart enough, and industrious enough, consumer-level will match corporate-level in every aspect.
Already, consumer-level music is oft-times better than corporate-level; likewise with movies; and likewise with software (read: consumers created linux).
Copy protection should be illegal.
I don't know. the half life 2 faces didn't look too creepy to me. they looked great.
Perhaps the creepiness is in part to blame for the designers lack of education in the field of human facial expression and such.
I argue that even if skin textures are just a bit off in games, and even if there are little whirring noises in androids, humans will have no trouble relating so long as the entity smiles correctly.
I understand that the article states that its the very subtle, basically tiny "offs" that are the creepiness factor, but I think it is the wax museum effect.
Those wax replicas in a museum look very realistic. but thier facial expressions are horrid! they smile, but do NOT look lifelike
In half life 2, at least from the trailer, the characters didn't seem to bother me at all.
I believe this is the result of the development team wisely bringing in an expert on such matters, rather than trying to tackle this subtle bit of human interaction on thier own.
The facial expressions in Half-Life 2 are all based on the work of Dr. Paul Eckman's work at the University of California on the taxonomy of facial expressions, and it is amazing just how much emotion the models can express with 40 animated facial muscles, ranging from noticeable sadness to anger to giddiness.
How many programmers and/or electronic engineers are considered experts at social interaction?
nuclear reactions are one of ( it not )the most abundant natural reaction(s) in the known universe. everything "green", plants, wind; is owed to the energy from our sun. A big, bright nuclear reaction.
The reason nuclear has such a bad rap is that it was introduced first as a weapon, instead of an energy supply. Look up "nuclear" on google images and you'll see what people first think of when they hear the word.
Had we created nuclear power plants before blowing stuff up people might view that infamous nuclear symbol as innocuous as the "+-" of electrical current.
Anyone think of even one music video director who has gone on to make a successful full length feature? I can't.
can anyone think of a time when no author had yet married sci-fi and comedy?
(read: there's a first for everything, and it's can be pretty fresh when it's new)
besides, spike jonze is a good example of such a cross-genre director - his directoral path to success a bit different, albeit.
the interesting thing to me is, that while caffeine is probably the worlds most widely used drug, it's effects (on spiders, albeit) actually seem to be more detramental than that of even marjuanna.
Yes, I know this is a spider and not a human; but it's still some food for thought....
Fry: Fancy cigar why don't you smoke it already? Puff puff go go go go go!
I really think that with the arising cinematic gaming experience, a broadcast of a video game match could be every bit as compelling to watch as any action movie; perhaps moreso...in fact, I'm pretty sure moreso.
And I don't mean broadcast in stickly the television sense. John Carmack has theorized that eventually there will be "THE graphics engine". A standard engine which can be just as integrated into operating systems as any GUI server is today.
Couple that with more robust human interface devices and you could browse to a full-scale war; resplendent with all the physics and sights one would expect from the real world (and quite a few extras I'm sure). In a world of gigabit connections and clockless CPUs it's not hard to imagine a Game world so immense and immersive that people would spend thier lives in it; and just as our world, there will be celebrities.
However, as opposed to our celebrities, these virtual stars will have to fufill a noteably different set of criteria then our current rock, movie and sports stars. In many ways, I think they will have to have something of all of these.
But not only will these celebrities make thier livings online, but I foresee a plethora of people simply working full time jobs inside these worlds. Some of these workers will be like amusement park employees (perhaps making sure the AI behaves within parameters; like the guy that makes sure the automatonic pirates keep singing "yo ho"), others will make money the same way current workers inside MMORPGs do - via sales of virtually-gained commodities.
With a photo-realistic graphics engine, bandwidth galore and CPU to burn what can't you see in the virtual world that you can in ours?
I've always been bothered by the "the universe will expand forever, and it's accelerating" theories.
Not that I have an a fraction the knowledge or mathematical skills of these scientists; but correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't gravity effecct objects regardless of the distance between them? Meaning to say, that gravity, however weak, will always have this attractive force.
so, won't this energy causing this accelerating expansion eventually burn up/out?
couldn't the universe be Like the release of a stretched-out, very long rubber band (played back in slow motion). At first release starting from a velocity of 0 and then accelerating. but after expending it's energy, slowing? heck, then even retracting?
in other words, what evidence supports that this thing is going to expand at an accelerating rate forever? seems like gravity is going to get a little upset about that eventually.
if movies are considered an artform then indeed, why not games?..well, some games at least- but some movies, spy kids, not really artsy.
.
there are many parallels
seeding is an awfully loaded way of referring to material from celestial bodies winding up on each other.
What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?
Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.
Would anyone be willing to posthumously open thier email history publicly?
I mean, how cool would that be if 200 years from now anyone could look up your or anyone elses life in great historical detail.
Historical letters are wonderful because they not only reflect the events of the time, but they show the lives of those who lived there.
imagine that, billions of historical emails, searchable.
Of course there may be an event or two you wish to take to the eternal recycle bin, but I'd leave in a couple that I think people of the future would prbably enjoy reading...probably.
Would you rather hike or would you rather go four-wheeling?
Both get you outdoors, but the experience and price is decidedly different.
Consoles are simple and easy: if that is your kind of fun then great -they are also much cheaper
PCs are complicated and tricky, but thier ever-increasing power and flexibility gives you options that simply don't and can't exist on any current consoles.
The interesting thing is this: those who prefer consoles (in my experience) tend to have other real-world ways of having fun. for example, these console buffs tend to have nice cars, boats, motorcycles; other things they enjoy and drop 1000s on.
die-hard PC gamers tend to have really nice computers.
The first tanks could only go a thousand yards before breaking down, and they had a 7 man crew.
it didn't take long for things to change.
sounds like fairly simple circumvention technique; similar to the chinese google workaround.
You're right. Chuck Yeager was actually training our first to-be-space-pilots back in the 60s.
We had the X-15; still unmatched in speed. and we had experimental jet/rocket hybrids.
But then the funding was ripped away and dumped into our little non-war in vietnam and to try to fix some social problems with people not wanting to sit next to each other on the bus.
I have no doubts whatsoever that had the air force continued to recieve funding we would have a moon base, nuclear rockets and probably much better computers.
I blame ignorance for every problem ever (especially the problem of ignorance).
most blame greed, but I think that greedy people are ignorant.
p.s. love the name! the DynaSoar was the predecessor to the space shuttle: tested by the USAF. Lastly, had the USAF built the space shuttle you can bet it would have actually been what it was originally intended to be; 6 times as expensive and a damn sight better.
A piece of the future died in 1969.
well, good point: of the best selling games of 2003 NONE were PC.
However, it's hard to design a new level for your console.