If the population of the world also included all the dead humans who ever lived in the past 100,000 years the population would be roughly three times our 6 billions. That's the miracle of compound interest.
Fifty years of increased duration of fertility combined with immortality would do that to us - barring famine and war, which are the natural result of such excess.
>Now, it could be assumed that the average woman won't be fertile longer,
Why on earth would you assume that? That just doesn't make sense.
I would recommend you read Methusela's Children. The point there is that immortality for the few will not be accepted by the common man, and it's true. If you find yourself one of the favored few we will have the secret from you even if disassembly is required -- even if it's not a secret but an accident of birth. Who are you to say who is deserving?
>Now...which politician will speak out in favor of wiping out aging?
Presumably it will be one who can't do the math: A mammal that takes 16 years to mature and then spends 500 years breeding. You think gas is expensive now? Does retirement look far away? I assume it will look further away when retirement age rises to 450, with annual increases.
When X was released the price of Y was Z is irrelevant because today Vista is still not Novell Netware compatible. How do you explain that this is not Microsoft's continued attempt to kill Novell?
Surrender to the tyrant and you will enjoy his tyranny for the rest of your days.
I like oysters on the half shell. They're not for everybody. I certainly understand why someone accosted with a funnel and five pounds of oysters would have issues.
BTW, you missed Windows/286. That was choice.
I'm going to get vulgar. Our shit worked in XP. Our shit doesn't work in Vista. The people who expect us to implement this dog think we're idiots because they believe more in their software vendor than they do in us. Some of us are quite aware that our deparment heads are Redmond plants for the specific purpose of adopting Vista, but even political force can't make this pig fly. Vista isn't the shit. It is shit.
Do you get the hate now, or should I explain it more?
Try go2assist beta. It works great for supporting Windows, OSX or Linux clients. You give them a link and before they know it you have remote control of their desktop.
It's sweet software. While it's in beta it's free, and they'll soon have a professional version.
I used to think wine was a useless project. Why would you want to run Windows programs when you have Linux. Now I see the wisdom of the wine developers.
I think the turning point for me was when I installed the Windows version of Firefox so that I could run the.ica client for citrix on a diskless LTSP client. It worked. Flawlessly the first time. No install scripts, configuration tweaking or whatever. Run the installer and it works. The diskless client boots in seconds and If I can run Firefox and.ica client to remote desktop to a citrix server and access both my Outlook and my local files; if I can run Office natively and access my Exchange server, WTH do I need Windows for? Really, what? All of the clients work the same way -- install the app on my account and I can access the app from any of 50 clients.
I also used to be a big detractor of the server-centric thin client architecture. I was wrong. Have another look. Apparently the server-centric world is not dead yet.
So nobody's outside geekworld is saying "Should I install Vista". If they think about OS issues at all, they're thinking, "Hey, I hear Vista really sucks. Maybe I should get an XP system while I still can."
A lot of real people are really trying to implement Vista and finding it does not work for them. Trying hard. A lot of people who know their stuff. People who believe in their "Windows shop".
They're buying new equipment that is supposed to work. They're tasking teams to test their apps. They're downloading patches and searching Google for workarounds. In every case they're finding their enterprise has some people who just can't migrate, some apps that just don't work. People and stuff that have to work in order for the organization to fulfill its mission. In many cases these are apps built on Microsoft's own recent application development technologies. If your "critical" apps won't run you have no choice - it's downgrade to XP or migrate. When downgrading to XP ceases to be an option, migrating is the only choice. Microsoft thinks they're forcing people to adopt Vista and nothing could be further divorced from what's happening on the ground.
Thankfully, wine runs those apps just fine. Even Microsoft technologies that Microsoft wants to deprecate run great under wine now. More and more people are discovering that Linux is the cure to their Vista Virus. Just wait until they discover how easy it is to port to open architectures - how nice it is to use an IDE like Eclipse, how easy it is to maintain projects not written in the proprietary platform of the week. They won't be back.
Vista does not fit. Vista is bad. If W7 is Vista II, we need not even try it.
One of the wise things Microsoft did with ME is that they disavowed any further development of it. When XP came out it was "From the legacy of NT and W2K". Associating in people's minds W7 with WVista is perhaps the worst thing MS can do from a marketing W7 standpoint. Here they could say they built it on Server 2008, which is based on Vista tech but not too bad. Instead they're going to take a negative brand while the sting of branding is still warm and singe it into a product that isn't made yet. Are drool cups standard equipment in Redmond?
For a marketing Linux standpoint, though, it's brilliant. A GIFT. Let us make the most of it.
Let me be the first to say: W7 = Vista II: Groundhog Day!
Thanks. That's the ticket. I assume if it takes 15-30 minutes to configure, you are downloading and chain booting a disk image. I suppose if I take that route I can preload the disk images on a spare server with one boot image that then puts the server back to sleep. Then when the load comes up the provisioned server can be awakened in short order.
It takes under a minute to bring up my clients because everything runs in the ramdisk so far.
I'd let the load get much lower -- maybe.5 on each cpu before I started killing off servers, but I suppose that's a good spot for a configurable parameter.
What's got me curious is how to make the management piece redundant and load balanced as well. I'll just have to work on it.
Actually, the information in that article is enough for me. Code would just introduce potential IP issues. Ideally though you would want a set of lasers, lights or diffraction gratings to project a grid onto the object to improve the resolution. I think four course diffraction gratings in different colors and lit by point light sources would do the trick. I'll work on it when I have time.
There is no true randomness in the universe that I have encountered (and I am a physics grad) only chaos.
That's because by the time you've encountered it, it's in the past and so it's determined. Chaos does deceptively look like randomness. The difference is subtle. It's in the moving present instant that the randomness becomes determined from our point of view. It may be that the determination defines our perspective, you might say. To say that the outcome is predetermined and so there is only one world line requires faith in Fate. That's not scientific, but it's a very old argument that's on point for this discussion. BTW, Everett-Wheeler does not contradict your view. In that theory every possible outcome has a predetermined world-line in which that outcome was Fate. It's just that with Everett-Wheeler all possibilities happen, spawning near-infinite worldlines. To the observer the universe with and without Everett-Wheeler look the same because it is not possible to observe events that have not occurred, yet. Perhaps after we measure the quantum unit of probability this will be possible, but I believe we will just be able to select views of the outcomes we desire and we'll wind up with the Delphi Oracle.
Personally I'm not a big believer in chaos. Misunderstood order, yes. Chaos not so much. In a multiverse where every outcome is preordained for its particular worldline, chaos goes undefined. Chaos theory, maybe. Is that weird? It's important that Everett-Wheeler be correct for a number of reasons, and certainly I believe it plausible -- but I'm not an anonymous physics grad.
For some really out-there metaphysics, consider the possibility that observers get to select their worldlines by believing in a particular outcome. A consensus vote of faith might select some outcome for a particular group of observers. This doesn't contradict Everett-Wheeler because for each possible outcome some subset of observers select the resultant worldline. In this philosophy, all things are possible through faith. Which brings us back to the topic of the thread. Perhaps BF wasn't so wacky after all.
Do you think you would be sued by Toyota if you published a photograph of one of a car manufactured by them?
If the photo displayed their trademark badging, reflected the product in poor light and was used to market another brand of car, yep youbetcha.
Also remember that companies take out trademark protection on the unlikeliest things. I'm pretty sure the moob forms on the front of a Jaguar are so protected. Of course there's that landmark case where Harley Davidson sued another motorcycle manufacturer for violating their trademark engine sound (which begs the question, "did they trademark the sound of a broken down Harley being pushed?").
Is millions of wireframe models being yanked from the Internet. Gentlemen... start your Blenders!
Actually, apparently the court ruled that the modellers didn't own the copyright because it's a representation of Toyota's design. I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued by Toyota.
Slashdot Mirror
You had a good point. You didn't have to Godwin the thread.
If the population of the world also included all the dead humans who ever lived in the past 100,000 years the population would be roughly three times our 6 billions. That's the miracle of compound interest.
Fifty years of increased duration of fertility combined with immortality would do that to us - barring famine and war, which are the natural result of such excess.
>Now, it could be assumed that the average woman won't be fertile longer,
Why on earth would you assume that? That just doesn't make sense.
>No! Not bears. They're godless killing machines.
Alternatively, they're God's killing machines.
The more you know...
>How else do you think that the next generation will pay for the social security and national debt of the baby boomers?
Soylent Green.
And yes, I wish I were kidding.
I would recommend you read Methusela's Children. The point there is that immortality for the few will not be accepted by the common man, and it's true. If you find yourself one of the favored few we will have the secret from you even if disassembly is required -- even if it's not a secret but an accident of birth. Who are you to say who is deserving?
>Now...which politician will speak out in favor of wiping out aging?
Presumably it will be one who can't do the math: A mammal that takes 16 years to mature and then spends 500 years breeding. You think gas is expensive now? Does retirement look far away? I assume it will look further away when retirement age rises to 450, with annual increases.
But will he have Time Enough for Love?
Where's your Ezra Howard now?
Ooh. I want the TLD .slash
Then I can have the website http://slashdot.slash/
When X was released the price of Y was Z is irrelevant because today Vista is still not Novell Netware compatible. How do you explain that this is not Microsoft's continued attempt to kill Novell?
Surrender to the tyrant and you will enjoy his tyranny for the rest of your days.
I like oysters on the half shell. They're not for everybody. I certainly understand why someone accosted with a funnel and five pounds of oysters would have issues.
BTW, you missed Windows/286. That was choice.
I'm going to get vulgar. Our shit worked in XP. Our shit doesn't work in Vista. The people who expect us to implement this dog think we're idiots because they believe more in their software vendor than they do in us. Some of us are quite aware that our deparment heads are Redmond plants for the specific purpose of adopting Vista, but even political force can't make this pig fly. Vista isn't the shit. It is shit.
Do you get the hate now, or should I explain it more?
Explorer needs to shut down now. Vista needs to shut down now.
These are actual quotes from users peeved with Vista.
Try go2assist beta. It works great for supporting Windows, OSX or Linux clients. You give them a link and before they know it you have remote control of their desktop.
It's sweet software. While it's in beta it's free, and they'll soon have a professional version.
I used to think wine was a useless project. Why would you want to run Windows programs when you have Linux. Now I see the wisdom of the wine developers.
Office works,You can run Everquest I and II in wine just fine. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=358
I think the turning point for me was when I installed the Windows version of Firefox so that I could run the .ica client for citrix on a diskless LTSP client. It worked. Flawlessly the first time. No install scripts, configuration tweaking or whatever. Run the installer and it works. The diskless client boots in seconds and If I can run Firefox and .ica client to remote desktop to a citrix server and access both my Outlook and my local files; if I can run Office natively and access my Exchange server, WTH do I need Windows for? Really, what? All of the clients work the same way -- install the app on my account and I can access the app from any of 50 clients.
I also used to be a big detractor of the server-centric thin client architecture. I was wrong. Have another look. Apparently the server-centric world is not dead yet.
A lot of real people are really trying to implement Vista and finding it does not work for them. Trying hard. A lot of people who know their stuff. People who believe in their "Windows shop".
They're buying new equipment that is supposed to work. They're tasking teams to test their apps. They're downloading patches and searching Google for workarounds. In every case they're finding their enterprise has some people who just can't migrate, some apps that just don't work. People and stuff that have to work in order for the organization to fulfill its mission. In many cases these are apps built on Microsoft's own recent application development technologies. If your "critical" apps won't run you have no choice - it's downgrade to XP or migrate. When downgrading to XP ceases to be an option, migrating is the only choice. Microsoft thinks they're forcing people to adopt Vista and nothing could be further divorced from what's happening on the ground.
Thankfully, wine runs those apps just fine. Even Microsoft technologies that Microsoft wants to deprecate run great under wine now. More and more people are discovering that Linux is the cure to their Vista Virus. Just wait until they discover how easy it is to port to open architectures - how nice it is to use an IDE like Eclipse, how easy it is to maintain projects not written in the proprietary platform of the week. They won't be back.
Vista does not fit. Vista is bad. If W7 is Vista II, we need not even try it.
One of the wise things Microsoft did with ME is that they disavowed any further development of it. When XP came out it was "From the legacy of NT and W2K". Associating in people's minds W7 with WVista is perhaps the worst thing MS can do from a marketing W7 standpoint. Here they could say they built it on Server 2008, which is based on Vista tech but not too bad. Instead they're going to take a negative brand while the sting of branding is still warm and singe it into a product that isn't made yet. Are drool cups standard equipment in Redmond?
For a marketing Linux standpoint, though, it's brilliant. A GIFT. Let us make the most of it.
Let me be the first to say: W7 = Vista II: Groundhog Day!
Or so he said.
Thanks. That's the ticket. I assume if it takes 15-30 minutes to configure, you are downloading and chain booting a disk image. I suppose if I take that route I can preload the disk images on a spare server with one boot image that then puts the server back to sleep. Then when the load comes up the provisioned server can be awakened in short order.
It takes under a minute to bring up my clients because everything runs in the ramdisk so far.
I'd let the load get much lower -- maybe .5 on each cpu before I started killing off servers, but I suppose that's a good spot for a configurable parameter.
What's got me curious is how to make the management piece redundant and load balanced as well. I'll just have to work on it.
Actually, the information in that article is enough for me. Code would just introduce potential IP issues. Ideally though you would want a set of lasers, lights or diffraction gratings to project a grid onto the object to improve the resolution. I think four course diffraction gratings in different colors and lit by point light sources would do the trick. I'll work on it when I have time.
doubleplus thanks to the gp.
I think you did pretty well, for what that's worth.
That's because by the time you've encountered it, it's in the past and so it's determined. Chaos does deceptively look like randomness. The difference is subtle. It's in the moving present instant that the randomness becomes determined from our point of view. It may be that the determination defines our perspective, you might say. To say that the outcome is predetermined and so there is only one world line requires faith in Fate. That's not scientific, but it's a very old argument that's on point for this discussion. BTW, Everett-Wheeler does not contradict your view. In that theory every possible outcome has a predetermined world-line in which that outcome was Fate. It's just that with Everett-Wheeler all possibilities happen, spawning near-infinite worldlines. To the observer the universe with and without Everett-Wheeler look the same because it is not possible to observe events that have not occurred, yet. Perhaps after we measure the quantum unit of probability this will be possible, but I believe we will just be able to select views of the outcomes we desire and we'll wind up with the Delphi Oracle.
Personally I'm not a big believer in chaos. Misunderstood order, yes. Chaos not so much. In a multiverse where every outcome is preordained for its particular worldline, chaos goes undefined. Chaos theory, maybe. Is that weird? It's important that Everett-Wheeler be correct for a number of reasons, and certainly I believe it plausible -- but I'm not an anonymous physics grad.
For some really out-there metaphysics, consider the possibility that observers get to select their worldlines by believing in a particular outcome. A consensus vote of faith might select some outcome for a particular group of observers. This doesn't contradict Everett-Wheeler because for each possible outcome some subset of observers select the resultant worldline. In this philosophy, all things are possible through faith. Which brings us back to the topic of the thread. Perhaps BF wasn't so wacky after all.
Where in the multiverse is John Titor?
The Hubble, however, will most definitely not.
If the photo displayed their trademark badging, reflected the product in poor light and was used to market another brand of car, yep youbetcha.
Also remember that companies take out trademark protection on the unlikeliest things. I'm pretty sure the moob forms on the front of a Jaguar are so protected. Of course there's that landmark case where Harley Davidson sued another motorcycle manufacturer for violating their trademark engine sound (which begs the question, "did they trademark the sound of a broken down Harley being pushed?").
Yeah, I'll get right on that. Maybe some nice slashdotter will volunteer, for Sourceforge fame?
How right you are. My apologies to the Autralian Centre for Visual Technology.
Is millions of wireframe models being yanked from the Internet. Gentlemen... start your Blenders!
Actually, apparently the court ruled that the modellers didn't own the copyright because it's a representation of Toyota's design. I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued by Toyota.
Oh, and I wonder if it will grow the market for this clever device.
While we're on the subject... where's a great free library of blender-compatible models?
I hear some clever japanese gents are working on autogenerating wireframe models from multiple pictures like you find on Google street view as well.