I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..
No they don't have us in a stranglehold. Maybe they believe they do, or the public does, believing it is forced to buy certain items. But I think this may be just a result of history, and the role of copyrights. Basically, a game of numbers. How many people there are (world population), how many of those are creative spirits, and how well people are connected.
Imagine a primitive world with only 5000 souls, where only 1 in 1000 is exceptionally gifted/smart/genius. Then you have only 5 of those to provide that world with new creative works, scientific breakthroughs and so on. The discovery/birth of another genius would be a major event. And in a primitive world, anything new could take a long time before it reaches remote corners of the world. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, makes a great loss for society. A copyright system that puts a lock on the works of those few, can make a huge difference in that world's development. I think that copyright as a concept is mostly based on the idea that creative spirits are a rare commodity.
Fast forward to here and now. With a world population of 6 billion+, modern mass media, and a general high-tech base to start with, the picture isn't anything like the above. That same 1 in 1000 people would mean 6 million creative spirits in this world, and anything they come up with, reaches far corners of the world in no-time. Then a single genius isn't as important as it used to be. Rather, you have some sort of 'environment', where scientific knowledge and creative works move in certain directions. At some point in time, the next step/development will become 'obvious' (read: very likely), and then... somebody (one of those many gifted folks) will do it. If that specific individual wouldn't, somebody else would. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, doesn't make much difference to society.
Copyright has a totally different meaning and effect in that situation (IMHO, something that is only about economics, and/or politics). Not to say that brilliant individuals don't matter anymore, but there's always enough of them to go round, copyright locks or not.
SE Linux real secure design? 'Security Enhanced', secure (probably), but secure by design? Don't think so, after all it's still running a Linux kernel under the hood. And how it's configured/administered also determines how secure it is.
For these really different systems you point to, RELIABILITY is also a key point (and closely related to security). You think >1 year uptime for a BSD box chugging away in a basement is good? How about 17 years uptime? And that's when they pulled the plug, not when it died.
I think for really secure + reliable designs you should look at micro-kernel based systems like L4Linux or Gnu's HURD (also moving towards L4). Note: not saying these systems are ready now, because they're still under development, and may have a long way to go before they're 'done'.
Leaves me to wonder: for RUNNING such systems, what hardware would be suitable, if you don't want to shell out the money for redundant, hot-swappable, server/cluster-style hardware? Any reasonable cheap, common hardware around with added reliability features included?
I know that this technology is supposed to be helpful, but something about the process makes me feel uncomfortable.
H2O molecules (and a vast number of other substances) are known to slip through tiny openings in cell membranes, but something about the process makes me feel uncomfortable.
Ditto here. Water, food and oxygen are like poison to the body.
Imagine if you made a product, and were fairly proud of the work you had put into it, and then someone grabs it, and publicly demonstrates that it's terribly flawed, making you appear to be a fool.
Actually that's helpful: show how something is flawed = show how it can be improved (constructive criticism). Fix that flaw, and you have a better product than before.
As opposed to "hey it sucks, because it's <xyz>", which provides no hints on how things could be improved (well, other than removing <xyz> from the equation, if that is what makes it suck).
It's just how you look at it. Any good coder (or vendor) shouldn't be afraid to take constructive criticism. In case you see me fuck up: tell me, and be sure to include details, so I can do a better job next time.
--He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever.
Was thinking about some sort of colony on the moon myself.
Seems to me as one of the better (long-term) reasons to re-visit the moon: establish a small 'backup' population of humans, so that humanity doesn't get totally wiped out in the event of say, a collision with a big enough comet/meteor.
Ofcourse, Murphy's law dictates that *you* wouldn't survive such an event: chances are you'd be one of the suckers left back on eart, but in case you were on the moon, the latest trajectory recalculation would show that the meteor would miss earth, and hit the moon instead (sigh). And not enough escape pods to evacuate everyone back to earth.
Besides, I could imagine other ways for humans to become extinct. Some nanotech science experiment gone horribly wrong, bringing the 'grey goo' upon us. Some new disease that spreads fast and kills everyone before a way to stop it is found. Or environmental damage that turns out to be irreversible, and leaves a planet where humans can't survive anymore. Maybe not a big chance of any of that happening, but the possibility is there.
Any poker player will tell you bluffing is where it's at.
And in case you are not playing online (a bit off-topic, I suppose), that is where your poker-face comes into play. Now for humans, a bit of Botox(tm) might help. But for bots, putting up a poker-face would be hard... without a face. Or would that make it easy? Will future bot programs include code for moving robotic face muscles? Will poker playing robots actually like playing poker, or will they hate their job? Will they drink beer and eat peanuts while they're at it?
I've never used a CueCat, but I think a barcode scanner (..) would be great for selling off a bunch of used books i have online.
I don't think you need a barcode scanner for that purpose. Ever notice that practically all barcodes have human-readable numbers printed below? You can just read those numbers with your eyes, and input them instead (into wherever a barcode was asked).
Maybe there are exceptions, but in general the barcode is just a machine-readable form of same number. And barcode readers serve no other purpose than provide an easier, faster way of entering those numbers (and with fewer mistakes).
So you only need a barcode scanner if human-readable numbers don't match, are missing, when you're in a hurry, or have a huge pile of items to process. Or when the application can't handle manual input of numbers, which would be stupid for any system that uses barcodes.
Nikolaos S. Karastathis: Is the letter confidential, can you post it for everyone to see?
Alexander Noé: The letter itself is not explicitely marked as such, but I'm not sure if I have the right to publish an email sent to me in general without the sender agreeing on this.
Yes he has that right. The recipient is free to do with the contents of that e-mail/letter as he/she wishes. If sender of a letter/e-mail doesn't like that, they shouldn't send letter/e-mail at all.
Non-disclosure can be agreed, but must be done IN ADVANCE. If this didn't happen, non-disclosure can't be enforced, because... the recipient didn't agree to it. Right?
Now before all of you start replying about "how about work-related e-mail that is supposed to remain confidential?", see above: The context of such messages can be viewed as: work-related, and as such, confidentiality is assumed, implied, and agreed upon in advance (by taking the job).
So if you want to disclose the contents of an e-mail or letter sent to you, just check that context. If it is clear from that context that you are expected to keep contents confidential, so be it. Otherwise, you are free to do as you like (copyrights or patents relating to included materials, still apply ofcourse).
I think computers based on reconfigurable hardware (where FPGA-based is one possibility) will be mainstream one day. The potential gains in computing power/energy efficiency are too good to ignore. But to summarise/continue on your comment:
The technology needed, has been around for quite a while
It is -relatively- easy to build the hardware
For mainstream use, you need an easy way to program it for general-purpose computing. The real problem here is software
The project the article talks about, does NOT offer a solution to this software problem
One tack is to allow programs to load chip designs themselves, thus creating specific hardware for that individual program.
Basically: expose hardware details, let applications control it. That was done in the past, and on simple 80's era homecomputers. Works up to a certain degree, if the hardware is simply enough. As the hardware gets more complex or varied, it's a dead end. For general-purpose computing that is, specialized applications are an exception. This is the reason why operating systems, drivers and software libraries where introduced.
The advantage of these systems is the streamlined, massively parallel computing that you can do with it. Many applications are a perfect match for that (audio/video en-/decoding, 3D graphics, some scientific apps, you name it). IMHO a breakthrough will be, when you have software that makes this 'massively parallel' implicit. So that a programmer need only code relations between data to compute, but NOT how to configure the hardware to do it (=functional programming?). AFAIK, hardware description languages (Verilog, VHDL,...) or things like Forth are the closest available today. Maybe someone else can elaborate on this?
.. see how much energy we would have to remove from the oceans..
If I understand correctly, the process involves pumping up cold water from the deep, using warmer surface waters to create a temperature difference, and extract useful energy from that heat exchange.
So the surface water will be cooled a bit (and quickly re-heated by the sun after it's dumped back in the ocean), and the cold water from the deep will be warmed (and released on the surface?). I assume (warmer) water from medium-depth layers in the ocean will replace the cold water that was pumped up from the deep.
Summary: technically, we're not talking about removing energy from the ocean, but about adding energy (heat) to it. And extracting some ready-to-use energy in the process.
Uhmm...because Linux is absolutely unusable compared to Mac OS X?
Sorry to disappoint you. I happen NOT to be a proud owner of one of those glorious Apple-built boxes, instead I have to make do with common x86 'crap'. But since I use x86 hardware, that makes Mac OSX totally useless to me, since last I heard, Mac OSX simply doesn't run on x86 (emulating aside).
On the other hand, Linux does perfectly well on my box. Maybe Mac OSX is way better (I wouldn't know, no experience with OS X myself), but I'm pretty happy with how Linux works for me.
Because the people we're talking about don't give a fuck about using whatever hardware they want?
If you mean most people don't care about what exactly is under the hood, then you're right. But some things they care about are plain and simple:
Bang-per-buck. Maybe Apple/PowerPC hardware is better quality-wise, but sheer numbers make x86 rule in the bang-per-buck department.
That it runs software they already have. For most folks, that means something that can run DOS and Win32-based software. Am I correct that Mac OSX doesn't run that either? Nor does Linux in any simple manner, BTW. And yes I know some popular games have Mac versions too. But let's face it, if you're an active gamer, your list of games to play becomes a lot shorter when you switch to Apple hardware.
Not to bash OS X or Apple in any way. Just remember that at the time being, it ONLY comes as a complete package (hardware, + OS that runs on it). OSX on anything besides Apple hardware doesn't fly, and x86 binaries on Apple hardware don't fly.
Hell, I'd seriously consider buying PowerPC based hardware myself. 2 things kept me from that sofar: 1) Pricing (bang-per-buck), and 2) having to toss out almost ALL software I currently have. Note that this is one reason for me to switch to Linux - to make the underlying hardware less important.
Re: Trackball is where it's at
on
Top Mice Compared
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I've been using trackballs for about 10 years now, can't stand regular mice anymore.
Not a 3D gamer, are you? Try doing that with a trackball. Mice are way better for 3D gaming since you can accelerate/decelerate them as quick as you want. There's a 1:1 relation between the postion of the mouse on the pad, and the pointer on the screen. That gives it a very natural feel, and allows you to quickly 'close in' on your target (or checkbox, for that matter).
I suppose trackballs ARE are good for some uses. Accurate pixel-by-pixel movement comes to mind. Maybe you're doing a lot of CAD/photo editing or something like that?
Anyway, from my experience, get a decent optical mouse, and enjoy responsiveness, accuracy and no more cleaning of moving parts. Beyond that, improved technology (higher dpi, laser etc.) is a path of quickly diminishing returns. When considering a next purchase, look at ergonomics instead.
It really was revolutionary, and we were all instantly hooked.
Came across some webpages recently on Pac-Man history. Apparantly it was inspired by a left-over pizza (with a slice cut out), and after introduction so popular in Japan, that there was a shortage in particular coins, because so many were thrown in the Pac-Man arcade machines(!!).
Personally, I think Pac-Man is so wonderful because it combines a deceivingly simple concept with addictive gameplay. Think about programming YAPMC (Yet Another Pac-Man Clone): at first sight, you think: simple. But you have to deal with timing, player controls, graphics/sprites etc., sounds, the game 'map' (pills, walls, powerups etc.), and even 'Artificial Intelligence' (ghost movement, yeah I know they're really dumb, but still). All the basic ingredients of modern games, except 3D or networked multiplayer. And that in a really small package, where any kid can grasp the object of the game in under 5 seconds.
Nonsense. This is not some private enterprise or for-profit company, the article talks about the Naperville Public Library System. Paid for by taxpayers (I assume), and (as public libraries usually are) meant to serve the public. IAW: Our game, our rules.
Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission
RTFA: "tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue" (emphasis mine).
So he was only denied the use of a particular location/facility, not denied to give his lecture. No rule broken there. And not strange either. It wouldn't be the first time that a teacher takes his/her class outside, to sit in a park on a sunny day. A university cafeteria would be unusual, nothing more.
Heck, in my country being a student meant getting free public transport as well (some years ago, not these days). Some professor had the bright idea of giving his lecture inside a moving train once. And why not, if it's driving around empty otherwise. IIRC, everybody loved the idea at the time, the novelty just wore off.
That's the luxury software developers have that civil engineers don't. Its not exactly possible to go back and fix a mistake you made while building a multi-million dollar bridge.
Funny you mention that. In engineering terms, software is like 'unlimited-strenght building material'. If done right, it never wears out, can be used as frequently/as long as you like, and never fails, no matter how much pressure you put on it (as long as the underlying hardware can take it).
Engineers can only dream of such a material to build bridges from. But strangely, software fails waaayyyy more often than bridges. It looks like (in general) bridge builders take their job far more serious than software developers.
Unlike buildings and bridges, no one is going to die if Netscape releases a quick-fix patch.
Probably not in the case of Netscape, but if someone dies or not, only depends on where the software is used, and when/where it fails. Space shuttle astronauts won't think so lightly about 'just another patch', when something fails during a mission. Neither would I, if a software-assisted breaking system (in a car) would fail when I need it most.
Regardless, any kind of patching cost money. Man-hours (yours!), storage, bandwidth, version management, etc. How much, varies. Somehow I suspect that, say, any fix needed for popular software like Netscape, Mozilla (or IE!) isn't exactly cheap, when you'd sum up all costs involved. Patches are only cheap if people's time costs nothing.
Sure, it'd be nice (in theory) to be able to clone a nice new kidney for someone whose kidneys were failing. But would the time necessary to carry out this process--from cloning the embryo to harvesting stem cells to growing the organ--negate the benefit for many people?
I don't suspect this would be a bottleneck. Take your example. Obvious thing to do, would be to have a replacement kidney grow inside the recipient's body, for as much of the process as possible. Implant it asap, when it's just big enough (=small) to be hooked up to the patient's body.
While growing, it could then slowly take on its normal role, replacing the need for 'outside help' gradually. A dialysis procedure would go from daily (?, just guessing) to a couple of days a week, weekly, two-weekly, etc. until not needed anymore.
Ofcourse failing organs can do other (permanent) damage in the mean while, but the main thing is that the patient survives. Besides that: if your kidneys are slowly failing and you're waiting for an organ donor to help you with a suitable kidney, what does your future look like? Uncertainty, agony, waiting for an unknown period of time (maybe die first), and when a kidney becomes available, heavy medication and uncertain outcome (body accepting the organ or not). When growing an organ from yourself would be possible, that would turn into: start asap, roughly known timeframe, improvement while the process is going on, acceptance by the body guaranteed, and fewer or no medication.
That difference in future prospects alone would make the patient feel better, read: healthier.
this is the first experiment that could confirm the existence or non existance of super strings.
Frankly, I'm a little bit annoyed by the treatment of scientific theories as 'absolute truths'. It's been a while since I studied physics, but basically, it works as follows:
You have empirical evidence: things you can feel, touch, hear, smell, see, etc. Beyond that, you have NOTHING. To be more precise: speculation (theory). The best theories are simply the ones that best, or most easily explain empirical findings (what you can see, touch, smell, etc.)
So the power of say, Einstein's relativity theories is not that they're 'true', but that they are theories that offer the most simple, and/or general explanation of everything we can see, hear, feel, etc. On a scale ranging from sub-atomic to inter-galactic.
Not that I'm trying to bash the parent poster in any way. I would be thrilled if something like the String Theory would gain in strength. But why? Not because it would be 'true', but because it could offer a single, unifying explanation about an incredible number of phenomena we see, feel, hear, measure, etc. A minimal set of rules that explains how our universe works. And (between the lines) offer some hints about the true nature of our universe.
But in the end: THEORY. Because I can't feel atoms or sub-atomic particles, or know anyone that can. Nor can I touch gravity waves, or imagine the speed of light in my head. But a few (relatively, no pun intended) simple rules that explain everything I could ever see, touch, hear, smell or feel, would be really, really awesome.
Does this mean that the whole world is getting dimmer? Since when has "learning a basic set of commands within a few minutes" been an almost infeasible task for soooo many people? Maybe we got lazy because of too much pampering? Maybe the technophobes of the time are those who now consider themselves leet hackers? I really don't know...
Food for toughts.
Maybe because computers these days are cheap, everywhere, and just not special anymore?
When the first homecomputers/PC's found their way into ordinary people's homes, things were different. Say, you're the first one in your friends+family circle to get your very own computer, it costs you like 2 months salary, and nobody (including you) really knows what you can do with that wonderful machine? In that case, ofcourse you're gonna take some time to find out how the use the included DOS.
Nowadays, when you'd be the last among your friends to have your own computer, an entry level system costs 'pocket money', and they're everywhere already, are you gonna bother to learn details about the included OS? I suppose for 90% of the population, the first thing would be to hook it up to the 'net, and get www/e-mail working. Ehh.. now, please.
Bottom line, HP is dipping their toes in the linux waters, (..)
Choice quote from the article: "Elizabeth Phillips, PR Manager for Integrity, Linux and Open Source at HP (..) However, she said she was not aware of the Ubuntu project."
PR Manager for Linux and Open Source, at a firm the size of HP, and not even aware of Ubuntu Linux? Hmmm... I smell a job opening coming up...;-)
And the people vote as the people would vote, and the new machines are actually recording true results, as opposed to what so many alarmists would have us think?
Yes, but how would you know that, when there's no paper trails, and no way to verify/make sure of that? I mean, if exit polls would confirm election results accurately, then you might as well do away with elections and use poll results instead to decide the outcome, right? Isn't the whole point of -honest- elections that voters can verify the proceedings?
IMHO voting is one application where technology better shouldn't be used. What was the reason for voting machines again? To get quicker results? Alright, if you really can't wait a few hours to see who'll run the country the next 4 years or so. For better accuracy? BS, do hand-counting in that case. Cheaper? Nope.
Slashdot Mirror
No they don't have us in a stranglehold. Maybe they believe they do, or the public does, believing it is forced to buy certain items. But I think this may be just a result of history, and the role of copyrights. Basically, a game of numbers. How many people there are (world population), how many of those are creative spirits, and how well people are connected.
Imagine a primitive world with only 5000 souls, where only 1 in 1000 is exceptionally gifted/smart/genius. Then you have only 5 of those to provide that world with new creative works, scientific breakthroughs and so on. The discovery/birth of another genius would be a major event. And in a primitive world, anything new could take a long time before it reaches remote corners of the world. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, makes a great loss for society. A copyright system that puts a lock on the works of those few, can make a huge difference in that world's development. I think that copyright as a concept is mostly based on the idea that creative spirits are a rare commodity.
Fast forward to here and now. With a world population of 6 billion+, modern mass media, and a general high-tech base to start with, the picture isn't anything like the above. That same 1 in 1000 people would mean 6 million creative spirits in this world, and anything they come up with, reaches far corners of the world in no-time. Then a single genius isn't as important as it used to be. Rather, you have some sort of 'environment', where scientific knowledge and creative works move in certain directions. At some point in time, the next step/development will become 'obvious' (read: very likely), and then... somebody (one of those many gifted folks) will do it. If that specific individual wouldn't, somebody else would. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, doesn't make much difference to society.
Copyright has a totally different meaning and effect in that situation (IMHO, something that is only about economics, and/or politics). Not to say that brilliant individuals don't matter anymore, but there's always enough of them to go round, copyright locks or not.I've heard it mentioned ocassionally, but don't know what this 'goatse' thing is all about.
Anyone got a link, so I can look into the matter?For these really different systems you point to, RELIABILITY is also a key point (and closely related to security). You think >1 year uptime for a BSD box chugging away in a basement is good? How about 17 years uptime? And that's when they pulled the plug, not when it died.
I think for really secure + reliable designs you should look at micro-kernel based systems like L4Linux or Gnu's HURD (also moving towards L4). Note: not saying these systems are ready now, because they're still under development, and may have a long way to go before they're 'done'.
Leaves me to wonder: for RUNNING such systems, what hardware would be suitable, if you don't want to shell out the money for redundant, hot-swappable, server/cluster-style hardware? Any reasonable cheap, common hardware around with added reliability features included?H2O molecules (and a vast number of other substances) are known to slip through tiny openings in cell membranes, but something about the process makes me feel uncomfortable.
Ditto here. Water, food and oxygen are like poison to the body.Actually that's helpful: show how something is flawed = show how it can be improved (constructive criticism). Fix that flaw, and you have a better product than before.
As opposed to "hey it sucks, because it's <xyz>", which provides no hints on how things could be improved (well, other than removing <xyz> from the equation, if that is what makes it suck).
It's just how you look at it. Any good coder (or vendor) shouldn't be afraid to take constructive criticism. In case you see me fuck up: tell me, and be sure to include details, so I can do a better job next time.
--He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever.Seems to me as one of the better (long-term) reasons to re-visit the moon: establish a small 'backup' population of humans, so that humanity doesn't get totally wiped out in the event of say, a collision with a big enough comet/meteor.
Ofcourse, Murphy's law dictates that *you* wouldn't survive such an event: chances are you'd be one of the suckers left back on eart, but in case you were on the moon, the latest trajectory recalculation would show that the meteor would miss earth, and hit the moon instead (sigh). And not enough escape pods to evacuate everyone back to earth.
Besides, I could imagine other ways for humans to become extinct. Some nanotech science experiment gone horribly wrong, bringing the 'grey goo' upon us. Some new disease that spreads fast and kills everyone before a way to stop it is found. Or environmental damage that turns out to be irreversible, and leaves a planet where humans can't survive anymore. Maybe not a big chance of any of that happening, but the possibility is there.
--YAUS: Yet Another Useless Sig (tm). Get it now for only $ 34.95!So our beloved Mr. Gates, and even Bin Laden, ARE really popular!
Who would have have thunk...And in case you are not playing online (a bit off-topic, I suppose), that is where your poker-face comes into play. Now for humans, a bit of Botox(tm) might help. But for bots, putting up a poker-face would be hard... without a face. Or would that make it easy? Will future bot programs include code for moving robotic face muscles? Will poker playing robots actually like playing poker, or will they hate their job? Will they drink beer and eat peanuts while they're at it?
Damn, my face... eh, head starts to hurt.I don't think you need a barcode scanner for that purpose. Ever notice that practically all barcodes have human-readable numbers printed below? You can just read those numbers with your eyes, and input them instead (into wherever a barcode was asked).
Maybe there are exceptions, but in general the barcode is just a machine-readable form of same number. And barcode readers serve no other purpose than provide an easier, faster way of entering those numbers (and with fewer mistakes).
So you only need a barcode scanner if human-readable numbers don't match, are missing, when you're in a hurry, or have a huge pile of items to process. Or when the application can't handle manual input of numbers, which would be stupid for any system that uses barcodes.Nikolaos S. Karastathis: Is the letter confidential, can you post it for everyone to see?
Alexander Noé: The letter itself is not explicitely marked as such, but I'm not sure if I have the right to publish an email sent to me in general without the sender agreeing on this.
Yes he has that right. The recipient is free to do with the contents of that e-mail/letter as he/she wishes. If sender of a letter/e-mail doesn't like that, they shouldn't send letter/e-mail at all.
Non-disclosure can be agreed, but must be done IN ADVANCE. If this didn't happen, non-disclosure can't be enforced, because... the recipient didn't agree to it. Right?
Now before all of you start replying about "how about work-related e-mail that is supposed to remain confidential?", see above: The context of such messages can be viewed as: work-related, and as such, confidentiality is assumed, implied, and agreed upon in advance (by taking the job).
So if you want to disclose the contents of an e-mail or letter sent to you, just check that context. If it is clear from that context that you are expected to keep contents confidential, so be it. Otherwise, you are free to do as you like (copyrights or patents relating to included materials, still apply ofcourse).One tack is to allow programs to load chip designs themselves, thus creating specific hardware for that individual program.
Basically: expose hardware details, let applications control it. That was done in the past, and on simple 80's era homecomputers. Works up to a certain degree, if the hardware is simply enough. As the hardware gets more complex or varied, it's a dead end. For general-purpose computing that is, specialized applications are an exception. This is the reason why operating systems, drivers and software libraries where introduced.
The advantage of these systems is the streamlined, massively parallel computing that you can do with it. Many applications are a perfect match for that (audio/video en-/decoding, 3D graphics, some scientific apps, you name it). IMHO a breakthrough will be, when you have software that makes this 'massively parallel' implicit. So that a programmer need only code relations between data to compute, but NOT how to configure the hardware to do it (=functional programming?). AFAIK, hardware description languages (Verilog, VHDL,... when you're the last remaining creature, standing on a barren planet (or what's left of it)
If I understand correctly, the process involves pumping up cold water from the deep, using warmer surface waters to create a temperature difference, and extract useful energy from that heat exchange.
So the surface water will be cooled a bit (and quickly re-heated by the sun after it's dumped back in the ocean), and the cold water from the deep will be warmed (and released on the surface?). I assume (warmer) water from medium-depth layers in the ocean will replace the cold water that was pumped up from the deep.
Summary: technically, we're not talking about removing energy from the ocean, but about adding energy (heat) to it. And extracting some ready-to-use energy in the process.Sorry to disappoint you. I happen NOT to be a proud owner of one of those glorious Apple-built boxes, instead I have to make do with common x86 'crap'. But since I use x86 hardware, that makes Mac OSX totally useless to me, since last I heard, Mac OSX simply doesn't run on x86 (emulating aside).
On the other hand, Linux does perfectly well on my box. Maybe Mac OSX is way better (I wouldn't know, no experience with OS X myself), but I'm pretty happy with how Linux works for me.
Because the people we're talking about don't give a fuck about using whatever hardware they want?
If you mean most people don't care about what exactly is under the hood, then you're right. But some things they care about are plain and simple:
Not to bash OS X or Apple in any way. Just remember that at the time being, it ONLY comes as a complete package (hardware, + OS that runs on it). OSX on anything besides Apple hardware doesn't fly, and x86 binaries on Apple hardware don't fly.
Hell, I'd seriously consider buying PowerPC based hardware myself. 2 things kept me from that sofar: 1) Pricing (bang-per-buck), and 2) having to toss out almost ALL software I currently have. Note that this is one reason for me to switch to Linux - to make the underlying hardware less important.Not a 3D gamer, are you? Try doing that with a trackball. Mice are way better for 3D gaming since you can accelerate/decelerate them as quick as you want. There's a 1:1 relation between the postion of the mouse on the pad, and the pointer on the screen. That gives it a very natural feel, and allows you to quickly 'close in' on your target (or checkbox, for that matter).
I suppose trackballs ARE are good for some uses. Accurate pixel-by-pixel movement comes to mind. Maybe you're doing a lot of CAD/photo editing or something like that?
Anyway, from my experience, get a decent optical mouse, and enjoy responsiveness, accuracy and no more cleaning of moving parts. Beyond that, improved technology (higher dpi, laser etc.) is a path of quickly diminishing returns. When considering a next purchase, look at ergonomics instead.Pen & paper? Too high-tech for me, I use a pencil, you insensitive clod!
Came across some webpages recently on Pac-Man history. Apparantly it was inspired by a left-over pizza (with a slice cut out), and after introduction so popular in Japan, that there was a shortage in particular coins, because so many were thrown in the Pac-Man arcade machines(!!).
Personally, I think Pac-Man is so wonderful because it combines a deceivingly simple concept with addictive gameplay. Think about programming YAPMC (Yet Another Pac-Man Clone): at first sight, you think: simple. But you have to deal with timing, player controls, graphics/sprites etc., sounds, the game 'map' (pills, walls, powerups etc.), and even 'Artificial Intelligence' (ghost movement, yeah I know they're really dumb, but still). All the basic ingredients of modern games, except 3D or networked multiplayer. And that in a really small package, where any kid can grasp the object of the game in under 5 seconds.Meh. Their game, their rules.
Nonsense. This is not some private enterprise or for-profit company, the article talks about the Naperville Public Library System. Paid for by taxpayers (I assume), and (as public libraries usually are) meant to serve the public. IAW: Our game, our rules.RTFA: "tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue" (emphasis mine).
So he was only denied the use of a particular location/facility, not denied to give his lecture. No rule broken there. And not strange either. It wouldn't be the first time that a teacher takes his/her class outside, to sit in a park on a sunny day. A university cafeteria would be unusual, nothing more.
Heck, in my country being a student meant getting free public transport as well (some years ago, not these days). Some professor had the bright idea of giving his lecture inside a moving train once. And why not, if it's driving around empty otherwise. IIRC, everybody loved the idea at the time, the novelty just wore off.Funny you mention that. In engineering terms, software is like 'unlimited-strenght building material'. If done right, it never wears out, can be used as frequently/as long as you like, and never fails, no matter how much pressure you put on it (as long as the underlying hardware can take it).
Engineers can only dream of such a material to build bridges from. But strangely, software fails waaayyyy more often than bridges. It looks like (in general) bridge builders take their job far more serious than software developers.
Unlike buildings and bridges, no one is going to die if Netscape releases a quick-fix patch.
Probably not in the case of Netscape, but if someone dies or not, only depends on where the software is used, and when/where it fails. Space shuttle astronauts won't think so lightly about 'just another patch', when something fails during a mission. Neither would I, if a software-assisted breaking system (in a car) would fail when I need it most.
Regardless, any kind of patching cost money. Man-hours (yours!), storage, bandwidth, version management, etc. How much, varies. Somehow I suspect that, say, any fix needed for popular software like Netscape, Mozilla (or IE!) isn't exactly cheap, when you'd sum up all costs involved. Patches are only cheap if people's time costs nothing.
The optimal solution is not needing one.I don't suspect this would be a bottleneck. Take your example. Obvious thing to do, would be to have a replacement kidney grow inside the recipient's body, for as much of the process as possible. Implant it asap, when it's just big enough (=small) to be hooked up to the patient's body.
While growing, it could then slowly take on its normal role, replacing the need for 'outside help' gradually. A dialysis procedure would go from daily (?, just guessing) to a couple of days a week, weekly, two-weekly, etc. until not needed anymore.
Ofcourse failing organs can do other (permanent) damage in the mean while, but the main thing is that the patient survives. Besides that: if your kidneys are slowly failing and you're waiting for an organ donor to help you with a suitable kidney, what does your future look like? Uncertainty, agony, waiting for an unknown period of time (maybe die first), and when a kidney becomes available, heavy medication and uncertain outcome (body accepting the organ or not). When growing an organ from yourself would be possible, that would turn into: start asap, roughly known timeframe, improvement while the process is going on, acceptance by the body guaranteed, and fewer or no medication.
That difference in future prospects alone would make the patient feel better, read: healthier.Frankly, I'm a little bit annoyed by the treatment of scientific theories as 'absolute truths'. It's been a while since I studied physics, but basically, it works as follows:
You have empirical evidence: things you can feel, touch, hear, smell, see, etc. Beyond that, you have NOTHING. To be more precise: speculation (theory). The best theories are simply the ones that best, or most easily explain empirical findings (what you can see, touch, smell, etc.)
So the power of say, Einstein's relativity theories is not that they're 'true', but that they are theories that offer the most simple, and/or general explanation of everything we can see, hear, feel, etc. On a scale ranging from sub-atomic to inter-galactic.
Not that I'm trying to bash the parent poster in any way. I would be thrilled if something like the String Theory would gain in strength. But why? Not because it would be 'true', but because it could offer a single, unifying explanation about an incredible number of phenomena we see, feel, hear, measure, etc. A minimal set of rules that explains how our universe works. And (between the lines) offer some hints about the true nature of our universe.
But in the end: THEORY. Because I can't feel atoms or sub-atomic particles, or know anyone that can. Nor can I touch gravity waves, or imagine the speed of light in my head. But a few (relatively, no pun intended) simple rules that explain everything I could ever see, touch, hear, smell or feel, would be really, really awesome.Does this mean that the whole world is getting dimmer? Since when has "learning a basic set of commands within a few minutes" been an almost infeasible task for soooo many people? Maybe we got lazy because of too much pampering? Maybe the technophobes of the time are those who now consider themselves leet hackers? I really don't know...
Food for toughts.
Maybe because computers these days are cheap, everywhere, and just not special anymore?
When the first homecomputers/PC's found their way into ordinary people's homes, things were different. Say, you're the first one in your friends+family circle to get your very own computer, it costs you like 2 months salary, and nobody (including you) really knows what you can do with that wonderful machine? In that case, ofcourse you're gonna take some time to find out how the use the included DOS.
Nowadays, when you'd be the last among your friends to have your own computer, an entry level system costs 'pocket money', and they're everywhere already, are you gonna bother to learn details about the included OS? I suppose for 90% of the population, the first thing would be to hook it up to the 'net, and get www/e-mail working. Ehh.. now, please.Choice quote from the article: "Elizabeth Phillips, PR Manager for Integrity, Linux and Open Source at HP (..) However, she said she was not aware of the Ubuntu project."
PR Manager for Linux and Open Source, at a firm the size of HP, and not even aware of Ubuntu Linux? Hmmm... I smell a job opening coming up...Yes, but how would you know that, when there's no paper trails, and no way to verify/make sure of that? I mean, if exit polls would confirm election results accurately, then you might as well do away with elections and use poll results instead to decide the outcome, right? Isn't the whole point of -honest- elections that voters can verify the proceedings?
IMHO voting is one application where technology better shouldn't be used. What was the reason for voting machines again? To get quicker results? Alright, if you really can't wait a few hours to see who'll run the country the next 4 years or so. For better accuracy? BS, do hand-counting in that case. Cheaper? Nope.
Better do without.