McCarthy built the monster and animated it. She might not control it now, she might not support it, she might even detest it or hate it, but it's her creation, at least insofar as how powerful it became. She was the one running to all of the talk shows to rant and rave about what vaccines did.
If the CBC doesn't want people to retrieve the content with readily available tools using protocols designed by independent or semi-independent standards-bodies for the express purpose of fostering open communication, then why are they publishing their content using protocols designed for this express purpose?
If they want to limit access to entirely within their control they are perfectly free to write an end-user application that retrieves encrypted content and displays it solely within their application. Indeed, before HTTP and Gopher this was a very common way to retrieve content. EBSCO and other Library Retrieval software was quite popular.
The article in-question that was the straw breaking the camel's back was about a particular form of ballroom dance. The article did not actually describe how the dance was performed. Didn't mention time signature or beats per minute, didn't describe the basics of the footwork (the "box step" that is common to a dozen dances of European heritage) or anything about the grip or how lead-follow works.
When I remember back to reading the encyclopedia as a child, was that the article would have some practical description of what the topic was and if it was an action, what that action entailed, followed by history and possibly a comparison of competing schools of thought on the subject. The Wiki lacked the practical part; reading the article would not tell someone what the dance actually was; one could not recognize the dance if seeing someone do it after reading the article.
I described the dance. I had paragraphs on box-step, lead expectations for lead and follow, types of "position", and time signature and speed along with the kinds of music commonly danced-to. Within minutes the changes I had made were reverted with a line, "this should be on Wikihow," or something like that. No discussion on the discussion page, no suggestion for doing something like forking-off the box-step, or anything else related to using the content that at that point did not exist.
While I grant that I did not specifically dig through the rules to figure out an appeal process, I have a life, a job, and hobbies. If Wikipedia is not able to figure out how to use contributions from people like me without requiring me to spend an inordinate amount of time making those contributions stick, then they do not deserve contributions from people like me.
...the fact that the editorial system still follows the king-of-the-hill model, where those that choose to sit on pet-pages win simply by undoing any other changes simply because they don't like them, will leave the entire thing biased in some fashion or another.
I will not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. I've had edits that I could provide support for undone by some self-important busybody whose only credentials were the ones they defined when they signed up for an account on Wikipedia. Forget that.
I spent some time working QA on a carrier-level system that was being developed for what was at the time Cingular. The biggest problem is that the investors that propped-up the company wanted it to ship as absolutely as soon as possible, so the company could go from a money-sink to a money-producer for them. Our investor was some heir to a fortune that was made in chemicals back in the day, he didn't really know anything about the technology of telco-grade communications systems. He was ill-qualified to even know if his money was going to producing something functional.
The idea (basically take-in anything, process it for meaning, and then turn around and convert and resend or else store and notify) was a good one and at the time there wasn't really anything else on the market doing this at carrier-grade. The problem was, while the central core of the product was reasonably well written, so many input/output daemons and filters were just garbage. The rush to get the product making money meant it shipped well before it was ready, and in the end it became the only sale that the company had.
A couple of years later the whole product/project could've been had for something like $200,000. They'd sold the only production system for more like $1,000,000.
The Apple motto, it's been that way for decades. Why expect it to change?
In the past, Apple's changes were usually for Apple-propietary interfaces. Apple's proprietary serial interface. Apple's proprietary keyboard and mouse port ADB. Even Firewire, while not 100% Apple, was not all that widely adopted outside of Apple circles.
If Apple wants to play port-of-the-week for proprietary interfaces then fine, but if they expect everyone that requires a degree of vendor interoperability to follow suit then there's a problem. Some technologies do not change very quickly, or people who buy into a technology will use it for a very long time. Cameras and SD is an example of this, as are cameras that connect to the computer via cable like conventional USB. If a professional photographer is going to go and take school pictures for a couple thousand kids over a few days they need all of the equipment to behave the same way, even if different models of cameras and different models of computers are used. They can't afford to have only camera X work with laptop A, or Camera Y only work with Laptop B, etc. They also are photographers, not the IT department, and downtime attempting to troubleshoot problems with connections and interoperability is costing them money. They're paying staff that isn't being productive. They're possibly adding an extra day to a given shoot without more income from that shoot, so they can't do as many customers in a year.
I get why ports get deprecated-out. Parallel was an easy choice. Serial, well, since we already need a cable anyway and there are USB-via-FTDI-to-anything cables (like USB-FTDI-CiscoRJ45) it's also not too bad. But when you start getting into fairly new connectors or interfaces then it's just annoying.
Ultimately, Gentry Lee's novels are not a story about Rama... it's about people. The Left Hand of Darkness (Ursula K Le Guin) is maybe something in the same... genre as Gentry Lee's Rama books.
Good to know.
I'd previously read Eon by Greg Bear. Some of Rama's initial conditions reminded me of Eon's; with the obvious differences in the reveal of the origin, like Bear was inspired by Clarke but didn't want to write the same book.
Interpretation of, or importance placed on a skin color might be a social construct, but it's very much a real phenomenon. To stick your head in the sand and ask assert that race is not real requires wilful naivete.
As for names it's simply a combination of perceptions weighed against what someone feels are averages. In short, it looks like for white people, somewhat unusual names are more commonly found given to the children of wealthy households. Common names are commonly given to children in wealthy, middle-income, and poor households. There are very few names that indicate that a white person grew up in a poor household, so it's hard to pre-judge a name on a screen if it's something like John or Judy or William. By contrast, it appears that among black people, uncommon or unusual names are more often found among those who were born into poor households than those born into middle-income or wealthy households. Those latter two appear to source names from basically the same set as everyone else. It's probably also accurate to say that lots of children born into poor black households also get common names.
Now, how this applies to the world we live in. America has a fairly socially-mobile society. Poor people might become rise to middle-income or wealth in the right circumstances and those who started out life in other ranges themselves could end up better or worse off. Unfortunately a lot of people that start out life poor don't get the best upbringing in terms of education or parental example and discipline. When someone has a name that is commonly found among all walks of life then that name does not tell someone else anything about the person, but if someone's name is most likely found among a segment of of the population that has all of the negative perceptions of being poor associated with it and might imply negative things about the parent that gave the name and raised the child, then it's very easy for someone to make conclusions, right or wrong, about the person. Add racial prejudice in on top of that and it's a recipe for problems.
A lot of Americans of Asian ancestry realized this and basically stopped giving their children names that are obviously of Asian origin. A friend of mine that's Muslim has suggested to his friends that they not give their children names that are very obviously Arab or Persian or Pakistani. That doesn't mean that they have to use "Christian" names, but there are plenty of other names that are more ambiguous.
The name given to one's child is very important. Any desire for whimsy must be balanced against real consideration for how that name will let the child, and later the adult, be perceived.
I don't get how at this point there's any doubt at all.
The language of "ride sharing" implies that the driver is already heading in that direction for their own unrelated business, and is merely attempting to make their costs back by taking someone else along as a paid passenger.
Basically no short-haul drivers that do this. I expect that there are probably at least a few road-trip drivers that would, but that's the exception, not the norm.
A friend of mine drove for Uber for awhile and now drives for Lyft. He did very poorly driving for Uber. He does a little better driving for Lyft, but certainly not well enough to make a living at it.
Of course it is dependent on Earth. We evolved on Earth. We cannot live anywhere else long term, unless we find an Earth like planet. The idea of living on Mars for long periods of time is comical. You would be better off trying to build cities in the ocean. It would be much cheaper and successful.
People constantly get colony and outpost confused.
A colony is usually described as somewhat self-sustaining. It's able to manufacture or otherwse provide for itself much of what it needs locally. It may still import, but if it's cut-off from its founders it won't immediately whither on the vine and die.
An outpost is a basically a forward-deployed facility. It does not self-sustain. If it does manage to produce anything locally, it's usually somewhat singular of-purpose, like a mining installation. Think of those bat-guano mines that were common in the days of sail, or the whaling facilites that operated down near Antarctica. Almost everything has to be brought-in.
I expect in my lifetime, human space settlement will be in outpost-form. Some Outposts will work toward being colonies, but they're probably not going to get much beyond growing some food for themselves and possibly refining some mined ore into useful raw materials. They're certainly not going to be able to operate independently of their founding states or corporations.
Coincidentally I just read Rendezvous with Rama for the first time last month. I don't remember anything about Rama itself disqualifying it from being an O'Neill Cylinder. If anything it was an O'Neill Cylinder that was tailored to fit the forces that longitudinal space travel would impart upon it, with the high wall on one side of the "ocean". If anything that the contents of the insides still obeyed Newtonian physics along with using that same physics to impart the centripetal acceleration for gravity was much better that so much modern technobabble used in science fiction. "Gravity" varied dramatically as one entered from the central shaft and made one's way down the the floor, the ability to fly within the atmosphere was there but it was risky, and various phenomena based on temperature were observed as the material was no a perfect insulator like so many science fiction stories like to assume.
Still trying to decide if I want to read the somewhat ghost-written sequels or not. I'd read Nolan and Johnson's Logan's Run, and then Nolan's subsequent sequels without Johnson, and the sequels just didn't live up to the original. I'm concerned that the other Rama books will be like that.
Actually at the time there was no RTC solution for the early AMD Athlon 64 with that particular chipset.
You have to remember, with Linux there's always the chance that no one wants to work on a particular problem. Back in the early days of 802.11 I wrote to the guy that created the first 802.11b implementation to find out if he'd do one for 802.11a. Even offered to send him hardware. He declined. By the time 802.11a was supported, "g" was out and "n" was in the works, so the speed advantages of "a" were negated.
Apparently the RTC issue was fixed. Two or three years later.
...we'll defeat it with stairs. Or a ladder. Or an unimproved surface. Or a thick carpet. Or a piece of wood left laying on the floor. Or a doorway that's slightly too narrow.
And if they're going to try to go LTE, then why would I bother with using Centurylink? I'll just add an extra-line for $10/month to my cell phone provider and port the number over, and then get a bluetooth accessory to connect it to my home phone wiring. Doesn't even need data if it's just for a phone line for the house.
The reason to use the copper is so when there's a disaster or some other emergency, there's a phone system that's not dependent on fairly vulnerable cell towers. I've seen T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T cell tower sites inside their equipment rooms. AT&T's are actually pretty good, like a miniature data center with proper interior climate control, proper access control, regular cleaning and other maintenance, but the rest of them are pretty shoddy things. Hell, Cricket's are just trailers that are parked and the tower cranked-up, and T-Mobile's are outdoor-rated four-post cabinets with little air conditioners strapped to the side, with a generator sitting there that hopefully will kick-in when the power goes out.
When I came here, it was all just empty vacuum and a swampy planet. Everyone said I was daft to build a space station orbiting a swampy planet, but I built it all the same, just to show them.
It fell from orbit, sank into the swamp.
So I built a second one. That one fell from orbit, sank into the swamp.
So I built a third. That exploded, fell from orbit, then sank into the swamp.
The fourth one, that one was ripped from time and space by the great machine on the planet below.
So I built a fifth one. That one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Ivanova, the strongest space station in all of Earthforce!
The only I could see for reasonable air circulation was to put a core in the cylinder that then can be used to force rain/cooling actions.
That would probably help solve a bunch of other problems too, actually. If it was necessary to have more than one section in-rotation, so that counter-rotating forces allow the structure to otherwise maintain stationkeeping assuming that the center core sticks out the ends of the structure, that not-rotating core would be the place for the critical infrastructure to be housed. It would also allow for a transit-point between counter-rotating sections where the amount of risk for things like simple gasket failure would be small, and would let stores that don't need gravity or an approximation thereof to be stored such that less forces are imparted on the outer cylinders of the rotating sections. It would also serve as a good microgravity laboratory that's easily accessed from compartments that are better for the occupants, and if there's risk of radiation storms, the inhabitants could retreat to the core for the duration so that both outer and inner layers are protecting them.
Transiting from the rotating section to the core could be accomplished by use of basically a moving sidewalk and a ladder/clamp system. The moving sidewalk speeds the occupant to match the ladder on the stationary core, then one simply grabs on and now in microgravity, pulls one's self along, tying on to safety points as one goes. Alternately they could operate some kind of motorized car or lift, but that probably would only be necessary for moving larger goods.
That central core could also act as the point where "daylight" emits from, and as you point out, could be used to stir the air in the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
It was probably part of their standard image.
Some software uses the local network or even the Internet connection to the vendor to determine active count.
McCarthy built the monster and animated it. She might not control it now, she might not support it, she might even detest it or hate it, but it's her creation, at least insofar as how powerful it became. She was the one running to all of the talk shows to rant and rave about what vaccines did.
If the CBC doesn't want people to retrieve the content with readily available tools using protocols designed by independent or semi-independent standards-bodies for the express purpose of fostering open communication, then why are they publishing their content using protocols designed for this express purpose?
If they want to limit access to entirely within their control they are perfectly free to write an end-user application that retrieves encrypted content and displays it solely within their application. Indeed, before HTTP and Gopher this was a very common way to retrieve content. EBSCO and other Library Retrieval software was quite popular.
That ship sailed when Microsoft introduced the first browser that was a direct vector to the OS kernel.
So I have the Jenny McCarthy anti-vax crowd there to fact-check about vaccines? Sounds great! Where do I sign up?
No.
This is it in a nutshell.
The article in-question that was the straw breaking the camel's back was about a particular form of ballroom dance. The article did not actually describe how the dance was performed. Didn't mention time signature or beats per minute, didn't describe the basics of the footwork (the "box step" that is common to a dozen dances of European heritage) or anything about the grip or how lead-follow works.
When I remember back to reading the encyclopedia as a child, was that the article would have some practical description of what the topic was and if it was an action, what that action entailed, followed by history and possibly a comparison of competing schools of thought on the subject. The Wiki lacked the practical part; reading the article would not tell someone what the dance actually was; one could not recognize the dance if seeing someone do it after reading the article.
I described the dance. I had paragraphs on box-step, lead expectations for lead and follow, types of "position", and time signature and speed along with the kinds of music commonly danced-to. Within minutes the changes I had made were reverted with a line, "this should be on Wikihow," or something like that. No discussion on the discussion page, no suggestion for doing something like forking-off the box-step, or anything else related to using the content that at that point did not exist.
While I grant that I did not specifically dig through the rules to figure out an appeal process, I have a life, a job, and hobbies. If Wikipedia is not able to figure out how to use contributions from people like me without requiring me to spend an inordinate amount of time making those contributions stick, then they do not deserve contributions from people like me.
...the fact that the editorial system still follows the king-of-the-hill model, where those that choose to sit on pet-pages win simply by undoing any other changes simply because they don't like them, will leave the entire thing biased in some fashion or another.
I will not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. I've had edits that I could provide support for undone by some self-important busybody whose only credentials were the ones they defined when they signed up for an account on Wikipedia. Forget that.
I spent some time working QA on a carrier-level system that was being developed for what was at the time Cingular. The biggest problem is that the investors that propped-up the company wanted it to ship as absolutely as soon as possible, so the company could go from a money-sink to a money-producer for them. Our investor was some heir to a fortune that was made in chemicals back in the day, he didn't really know anything about the technology of telco-grade communications systems. He was ill-qualified to even know if his money was going to producing something functional.
The idea (basically take-in anything, process it for meaning, and then turn around and convert and resend or else store and notify) was a good one and at the time there wasn't really anything else on the market doing this at carrier-grade. The problem was, while the central core of the product was reasonably well written, so many input/output daemons and filters were just garbage. The rush to get the product making money meant it shipped well before it was ready, and in the end it became the only sale that the company had.
A couple of years later the whole product/project could've been had for something like $200,000. They'd sold the only production system for more like $1,000,000.
The Apple motto, it's been that way for decades. Why expect it to change?
In the past, Apple's changes were usually for Apple-propietary interfaces. Apple's proprietary serial interface. Apple's proprietary keyboard and mouse port ADB. Even Firewire, while not 100% Apple, was not all that widely adopted outside of Apple circles.
If Apple wants to play port-of-the-week for proprietary interfaces then fine, but if they expect everyone that requires a degree of vendor interoperability to follow suit then there's a problem. Some technologies do not change very quickly, or people who buy into a technology will use it for a very long time. Cameras and SD is an example of this, as are cameras that connect to the computer via cable like conventional USB. If a professional photographer is going to go and take school pictures for a couple thousand kids over a few days they need all of the equipment to behave the same way, even if different models of cameras and different models of computers are used. They can't afford to have only camera X work with laptop A, or Camera Y only work with Laptop B, etc. They also are photographers, not the IT department, and downtime attempting to troubleshoot problems with connections and interoperability is costing them money. They're paying staff that isn't being productive. They're possibly adding an extra day to a given shoot without more income from that shoot, so they can't do as many customers in a year.
I get why ports get deprecated-out. Parallel was an easy choice. Serial, well, since we already need a cable anyway and there are USB-via-FTDI-to-anything cables (like USB-FTDI-CiscoRJ45) it's also not too bad. But when you start getting into fairly new connectors or interfaces then it's just annoying.
Ultimately, Gentry Lee's novels are not a story about Rama... it's about people. The Left Hand of Darkness (Ursula K Le Guin) is maybe something in the same ... genre as Gentry Lee's Rama books.
Good to know.
I'd previously read Eon by Greg Bear. Some of Rama's initial conditions reminded me of Eon's; with the obvious differences in the reveal of the origin, like Bear was inspired by Clarke but didn't want to write the same book.
Interpretation of, or importance placed on a skin color might be a social construct, but it's very much a real phenomenon. To stick your head in the sand and ask assert that race is not real requires wilful naivete.
As for names it's simply a combination of perceptions weighed against what someone feels are averages. In short, it looks like for white people, somewhat unusual names are more commonly found given to the children of wealthy households. Common names are commonly given to children in wealthy, middle-income, and poor households. There are very few names that indicate that a white person grew up in a poor household, so it's hard to pre-judge a name on a screen if it's something like John or Judy or William. By contrast, it appears that among black people, uncommon or unusual names are more often found among those who were born into poor households than those born into middle-income or wealthy households. Those latter two appear to source names from basically the same set as everyone else. It's probably also accurate to say that lots of children born into poor black households also get common names.
Now, how this applies to the world we live in. America has a fairly socially-mobile society. Poor people might become rise to middle-income or wealth in the right circumstances and those who started out life in other ranges themselves could end up better or worse off. Unfortunately a lot of people that start out life poor don't get the best upbringing in terms of education or parental example and discipline. When someone has a name that is commonly found among all walks of life then that name does not tell someone else anything about the person, but if someone's name is most likely found among a segment of of the population that has all of the negative perceptions of being poor associated with it and might imply negative things about the parent that gave the name and raised the child, then it's very easy for someone to make conclusions, right or wrong, about the person. Add racial prejudice in on top of that and it's a recipe for problems.
A lot of Americans of Asian ancestry realized this and basically stopped giving their children names that are obviously of Asian origin. A friend of mine that's Muslim has suggested to his friends that they not give their children names that are very obviously Arab or Persian or Pakistani. That doesn't mean that they have to use "Christian" names, but there are plenty of other names that are more ambiguous.
The name given to one's child is very important. Any desire for whimsy must be balanced against real consideration for how that name will let the child, and later the adult, be perceived.
I really hope that no one is naming their baby girls after a bathroom.
I don't get how at this point there's any doubt at all.
The language of "ride sharing" implies that the driver is already heading in that direction for their own unrelated business, and is merely attempting to make their costs back by taking someone else along as a paid passenger.
Basically no short-haul drivers that do this. I expect that there are probably at least a few road-trip drivers that would, but that's the exception, not the norm.
A friend of mine drove for Uber for awhile and now drives for Lyft. He did very poorly driving for Uber. He does a little better driving for Lyft, but certainly not well enough to make a living at it.
Of course it is dependent on Earth. We evolved on Earth. We cannot live anywhere else long term, unless we find an Earth like planet. The idea of living on Mars for long periods of time is comical. You would be better off trying to build cities in the ocean. It would be much cheaper and successful.
People constantly get colony and outpost confused.
A colony is usually described as somewhat self-sustaining. It's able to manufacture or otherwse provide for itself much of what it needs locally. It may still import, but if it's cut-off from its founders it won't immediately whither on the vine and die.
An outpost is a basically a forward-deployed facility. It does not self-sustain. If it does manage to produce anything locally, it's usually somewhat singular of-purpose, like a mining installation. Think of those bat-guano mines that were common in the days of sail, or the whaling facilites that operated down near Antarctica. Almost everything has to be brought-in.
I expect in my lifetime, human space settlement will be in outpost-form. Some Outposts will work toward being colonies, but they're probably not going to get much beyond growing some food for themselves and possibly refining some mined ore into useful raw materials. They're certainly not going to be able to operate independently of their founding states or corporations.
Coincidentally I just read Rendezvous with Rama for the first time last month. I don't remember anything about Rama itself disqualifying it from being an O'Neill Cylinder. If anything it was an O'Neill Cylinder that was tailored to fit the forces that longitudinal space travel would impart upon it, with the high wall on one side of the "ocean". If anything that the contents of the insides still obeyed Newtonian physics along with using that same physics to impart the centripetal acceleration for gravity was much better that so much modern technobabble used in science fiction. "Gravity" varied dramatically as one entered from the central shaft and made one's way down the the floor, the ability to fly within the atmosphere was there but it was risky, and various phenomena based on temperature were observed as the material was no a perfect insulator like so many science fiction stories like to assume.
Still trying to decide if I want to read the somewhat ghost-written sequels or not. I'd read Nolan and Johnson's Logan's Run, and then Nolan's subsequent sequels without Johnson, and the sequels just didn't live up to the original. I'm concerned that the other Rama books will be like that.
No, that would be Dune...
Actually at the time there was no RTC solution for the early AMD Athlon 64 with that particular chipset.
You have to remember, with Linux there's always the chance that no one wants to work on a particular problem. Back in the early days of 802.11 I wrote to the guy that created the first 802.11b implementation to find out if he'd do one for 802.11a. Even offered to send him hardware. He declined. By the time 802.11a was supported, "g" was out and "n" was in the works, so the speed advantages of "a" were negated.
Apparently the RTC issue was fixed. Two or three years later.
...we'll defeat it with stairs. Or a ladder. Or an unimproved surface. Or a thick carpet. Or a piece of wood left laying on the floor. Or a doorway that's slightly too narrow.
I can't wait for the leaked video to be sped up to 2x and set to the tune Yakety Sax...
That's an old joke and dates-back to when dealing with JMS or with Harlan Ellison on the topic of the show...
If that fiber connection shows up at my house then I'll believe it. Until then, no dice.
And if they're going to try to go LTE, then why would I bother with using Centurylink? I'll just add an extra-line for $10/month to my cell phone provider and port the number over, and then get a bluetooth accessory to connect it to my home phone wiring. Doesn't even need data if it's just for a phone line for the house.
The reason to use the copper is so when there's a disaster or some other emergency, there's a phone system that's not dependent on fairly vulnerable cell towers. I've seen T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T cell tower sites inside their equipment rooms. AT&T's are actually pretty good, like a miniature data center with proper interior climate control, proper access control, regular cleaning and other maintenance, but the rest of them are pretty shoddy things. Hell, Cricket's are just trailers that are parked and the tower cranked-up, and T-Mobile's are outdoor-rated four-post cabinets with little air conditioners strapped to the side, with a generator sitting there that hopefully will kick-in when the power goes out.
When I came here, it was all just empty vacuum and a swampy planet. Everyone said I was daft to build a space station orbiting a swampy planet, but I built it all the same, just to show them.
It fell from orbit, sank into the swamp.
So I built a second one. That one fell from orbit, sank into the swamp.
So I built a third. That exploded, fell from orbit, then sank into the swamp.
The fourth one, that one was ripped from time and space by the great machine on the planet below.
So I built a fifth one. That one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Ivanova, the strongest space station in all of Earthforce!
The only I could see for reasonable air circulation was to put a core in the cylinder that then can be used to force rain/cooling actions.
That would probably help solve a bunch of other problems too, actually. If it was necessary to have more than one section in-rotation, so that counter-rotating forces allow the structure to otherwise maintain stationkeeping assuming that the center core sticks out the ends of the structure, that not-rotating core would be the place for the critical infrastructure to be housed. It would also allow for a transit-point between counter-rotating sections where the amount of risk for things like simple gasket failure would be small, and would let stores that don't need gravity or an approximation thereof to be stored such that less forces are imparted on the outer cylinders of the rotating sections. It would also serve as a good microgravity laboratory that's easily accessed from compartments that are better for the occupants, and if there's risk of radiation storms, the inhabitants could retreat to the core for the duration so that both outer and inner layers are protecting them.
Transiting from the rotating section to the core could be accomplished by use of basically a moving sidewalk and a ladder/clamp system. The moving sidewalk speeds the occupant to match the ladder on the stationary core, then one simply grabs on and now in microgravity, pulls one's self along, tying on to safety points as one goes. Alternately they could operate some kind of motorized car or lift, but that probably would only be necessary for moving larger goods.
That central core could also act as the point where "daylight" emits from, and as you point out, could be used to stir the air in the environment.