The concept of a major scientific breakthrough coming just at the end of a war isn't so far fetched - look at WW2 and the atomic bomb. Wars seem to be when the fastest scientific and technological progress is made, if only for the purpose of killing the enemy better.
I don't know if the screenwriters planned this out, but it is sorta plausible that warp technology was almost perfected during WW3 (for powering missiles or whatever) and then this guy just took the final step.
As for the queen of the borg - that seems to be a direct lift from the insect kingdom - ants or bees, for instance. They demonstrate that it's certainly possible to have a highly structured society with almost mindless drones working in unison, and have a queen at the centre of it all.
Good grief, somebody actually made it? I was joking!
That's the most ridiculous piece of equipment I've ever seen. How are you meant to use it? Do you strap the whole apparatus to your head (and put your neck under severe strain), or do you hold it in front of you (in which case you're missing a hand to operate the PSP), or do you just put the whole contraption on a table and look down into it?
Whichever way, anyone around you is going to be doubled up in stitches laughing so hard...
Or how about fitting arms to the side of the PSP that fold round and hook over your ears, so that you can wear it like a pair or shades?
With the screen just an inch or so in front of your eyes, it's bound to appear HUGE! Just like those virtual reality goggles - "gives the appearance of a 52 inch screen at a distance of 3 feet"...
They're not taking my VCR away!
on
TiVo Buries the VCR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I like my VCR. It records what I tell it to. I don't have to put up with any crap about shows deleting themselves, or not being allowed to record them in the first place. I don't have to connect it to a phone line. I don't have to pay any sort of subscription fee. It lets me skip through any bits I don't want to see. It was dirt cheap to buy and operate. I have unlimited storage capacity. I can buy movies cheaper than any DVD, and that fill the frame of my cheap 4:3 TV.
The trouble with such a short address is that there's no redundancy. Get one digit wrong and the letter's never going to get there. And with automated machines reading addresses in sorting offices, that's bound to happen too often.
Also, it looks like Canada doesn't have a unique phone code, sharing +1 with the US. I wonder if there are any other countries that share phone codes.
Most people are right-handed, meaning that they'd wear a sword on their left side, so that if they needed it, they could reach across and pull it out of its scabbard (there's no way you can pull a sword out on the same side).
Therefore, people used to ride on the left, so that if for whatever reason you needed to attack the person coming towards you, you could reach across to your left, yank out your sword, and then swipe at the assailant on your right.
Therefore, the custom was to ride on the left.
This all worked swimmingly until Napoleon. Who was left handed. Which is where everything went to hell. Europe switched over to his way of doing things, and later the US copied that too.
The irony here being that it was the French who scuppered the EU constitution, rather than the UK (although the UK would probably have done the same, if they'd ever been given the chance.)
For pity sake. I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but editors, please, could you not at least make sure that ARTICLE HEADLINES are at least written in some semblance of English? Or is that too much to ask? Sheesh...
Yeah, except Tesla would have used a couple of million volts, giving rise to massive bloody great bursts of lightning that have a nasty habbit of electrocuting passing cattle, and whose cracks of thunder *really* annoy the villagers ten miles down the valley...
Actually, a sizeable fraction of the world's population do not have a reliable electricity connection to their home. I'm not assuming that everyone is like me - you did that (and got it wrong).
All I'm saying is that attacking a network-based app for not working without a network is about as stupid as attacking a computer for not working without electricity.
If for whatever reason, a network-based office suite isn't suitable, don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to. Use a locally-installed app instead.
Holy crap - a remote application host. That's an awesome idea. Seriously - it sounds like a fine distinction from a web browser, but it would make a world of difference.
It could include all the fiddly bits that are difficult to do in a browser (menus, drag and drop, printing), could do most of the processing on the user's PC, could be optimised to minimize network traffic (could cache most of the code for each app locally for instance), etc, etc. And means that Google would have a known target for their apps.
Yes indeed, why muck around developing a Google browser when there are already plenty of perfectly good browsers. Instead, they should be developing a Google Application Host. You download that once onto your PC (or Mac or Linux box, if they write the host with something like Qt), and when you run it, get to choose from a selection of Google apps.
A native app specifically designed to host remote apps? That's brilliant. Parent poster, I salute you.
Was it necessary for GMail to import Outlook files to be useful? Of course not.
If you have super complicated documents that only Office can deal with, then deal with them in Office.
But for not-so-complicated new documents, it might be worthwhile banging them in to this new system, so that you can access them anywhere, just like GMail.
While people may be living a bit longer than they used to, I'd argue that it's only because we're preventing people from dying prematurely, rather than actively extending life span in general.
Say that the average lifespan of a human body under optimum conditions is 90 years (a figure I just made up, bear with me). By getting people to stop smoking and eat better, we're simply getting closer to those "optimum conditions" whatever they are.
But no amount of non-smoking and eating well is going to get you to live to 150. That would require fundamental breakthroughs in medicine and, as such, is entirely unconnected with historical life expectancy figures.
There seems to be a huge elephant in the closet concerning life expectancy, that no-one ever talks about. Namely, that life expectancy refers to the average lifespan in a population, not the maximum life span of an individual. Big difference.
Arguably, the main reason that life expectancy is increasing, is not that people are living longer, but that less people are dying young.
Consider a group where half the population die as infants, but the ones that survive live to be 100. The average life expectancy of the group is 50 years. Now imagine that ways are found to prevent the infant deaths of that half of the population: the average life expectancy has now gone up to 100 years. But, and this is the important bit: at no point does this imply that people were living longer than 100 years. The maximum life span never increased at all.
This seems to be the case in most western populations. Life expectancy isn't going up because people are starting to 120, it's going up because infant mortality is coming down.
The point of all this is that its debateable whether people are living much longer at all, regardless of what the life expectancy figures say.
Sure, we may be able to add a few years by the application of technology such as pacemakers, surgery, and better diet, and it may even be the case that technology will eventually be able to cure most of the things that cause us to die today (apart from accidents, obviously), but this is in no way implied by rising life expectancy figures.
I don't care if there was a top-quality version doing the rounds on the web.
Lemme see: I can save a couple of bucks and see it on a shitty little computer monitor or...
I can stop being such a tightwad and shell out the requisite few bucks to go and see it on the biggest screen avaiable, with an image and sound system that blows anything I could possibly afford clean out of the water.
Hmm...
This was the last Star Wars film. Those who were content only to watch it at home were already a lost cause - Hollywood lost exactly nothing to them. But even of those who *did* download it, I bet that most went to the cinema too.
My point being, the losses due to the "release" of this screener were probably close to nil.
Couldn't some sort of spray-on coating fix the problem? Might require a bit of masking tape around the screen while applying it, but still...
I seem to recall a few months ago that TDK (I think) developed a new ultra-hard coating to protect either Blu Ray or HD-DVD discs (can't remember which). Sounds like a suitable coating, since it obviously has to be optically clear. While it's probably best applied at the factory, I wonder if they could turn it into an after-market spray for iPods?
Umm, wasn't Windows NT ultimately a fantastic success story? It went on to completely eclipse the 9x version of Windows, finally banished DOS, and forms the basis for all current versions of Windows.
The last time MS embarked on a substantial re-write was for Windows 2000, which was also a significant leap forwards from what came before.
Based on this history, I'd say their rewrites tend to work rather well.
Say that Mars really is undergoing global warming, and that the rate matches that of Earth's. Say also that this proves conclusively that the warming we're experiencing here on Earth is entirely due to an increase in solar output, and nothing at all to do with the actions of man.
It still doesn't change anything. We still need to do something here on Earth, otherwise it's going to get hotter and hotter - *especially* if we know that the sun's output is increasing.
So it makes no difference whatsoever what the cause of global warming on Earth is. Either way, we need to adjust the chemistry of our atmosphere to stop it getting worse.
From reading the article, it sounds like the problems had almost nothing to do with the software aspect of the system, whether on a mainframe or not, and everything to do with the physical design of the tracks.
The fact that bags fell off the tracks because the corners weren't banked has nothing to do with the control system. Same for using unstable pallets to hold the bags.
This whole article seems to be based on a flagrant redefinition of the term "bug" as we understand it. It wasn't software bugs that caused the problems, it was crap engineering.
Which begs the question why, when other airports (such as Heathrow) have miles of tracks that work just fine, couldn't Denver do the same?
Ah, but the studios *do* have a huge influence on the prices at cinemas.
It's the studios that are paying actors $X million per movie.
It's the studios that are blowing $X million on special effects, even when they're not necessary.
And, my favourite, it's now the studios that are pushing hard to have cinemas adopt digital projection systems, so that the studios can save on duplication and distribution costs. Of course, the cinemas never get to see any of this saving - just the reverse; they get landed with hefty bills for the new equipment.
So don't be too hard on the cinema chains. They have to break even somehow. Blame the studios.
Of course you could always just strap an actual fridge to the underside of your F16, and batter the incoming missile with that.
I daresay that a fridge with a closing velocity of over mach 2 is not something to be trifled with. Particularly if it had been well stocked beforehand with say, cans of beer or something.
Slashdot Mirror
The concept of a major scientific breakthrough coming just at the end of a war isn't so far fetched - look at WW2 and the atomic bomb. Wars seem to be when the fastest scientific and technological progress is made, if only for the purpose of killing the enemy better.
I don't know if the screenwriters planned this out, but it is sorta plausible that warp technology was almost perfected during WW3 (for powering missiles or whatever) and then this guy just took the final step.
As for the queen of the borg - that seems to be a direct lift from the insect kingdom - ants or bees, for instance. They demonstrate that it's certainly possible to have a highly structured society with almost mindless drones working in unison, and have a queen at the centre of it all.
Good grief, somebody actually made it? I was joking!
That's the most ridiculous piece of equipment I've ever seen. How are you meant to use it? Do you strap the whole apparatus to your head (and put your neck under severe strain), or do you hold it in front of you (in which case you're missing a hand to operate the PSP), or do you just put the whole contraption on a table and look down into it?
Whichever way, anyone around you is going to be doubled up in stitches laughing so hard...
Or how about fitting arms to the side of the PSP that fold round and hook over your ears, so that you can wear it like a pair or shades?
With the screen just an inch or so in front of your eyes, it's bound to appear HUGE! Just like those virtual reality goggles - "gives the appearance of a 52 inch screen at a distance of 3 feet"...
I like my VCR. It records what I tell it to. I don't have to put up with any crap about shows deleting themselves, or not being allowed to record them in the first place. I don't have to connect it to a phone line. I don't have to pay any sort of subscription fee. It lets me skip through any bits I don't want to see. It was dirt cheap to buy and operate. I have unlimited storage capacity. I can buy movies cheaper than any DVD, and that fill the frame of my cheap 4:3 TV.
Explain to me again, why is the VCR dead?
The trouble with such a short address is that there's no redundancy. Get one digit wrong and the letter's never going to get there. And with automated machines reading addresses in sorting offices, that's bound to happen too often.
Also, it looks like Canada doesn't have a unique phone code, sharing +1 with the US. I wonder if there are any other countries that share phone codes.
Here's the version I heard:
Most people are right-handed, meaning that they'd wear a sword on their left side, so that if they needed it, they could reach across and pull it out of its scabbard (there's no way you can pull a sword out on the same side).
Therefore, people used to ride on the left, so that if for whatever reason you needed to attack the person coming towards you, you could reach across to your left, yank out your sword, and then swipe at the assailant on your right.
Therefore, the custom was to ride on the left.
This all worked swimmingly until Napoleon. Who was left handed. Which is where everything went to hell. Europe switched over to his way of doing things, and later the US copied that too.
Supposedly.
The irony here being that it was the French who scuppered the EU constitution, rather than the UK (although the UK would probably have done the same, if they'd ever been given the chance.)
For pity sake. I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but editors, please, could you not at least make sure that ARTICLE HEADLINES are at least written in some semblance of English? Or is that too much to ask? Sheesh...
Yeah, except Tesla would have used a couple of million volts, giving rise to massive bloody great bursts of lightning that have a nasty habbit of electrocuting passing cattle, and whose cracks of thunder *really* annoy the villagers ten miles down the valley...
Actually, a sizeable fraction of the world's population do not have a reliable electricity connection to their home. I'm not assuming that everyone is like me - you did that (and got it wrong).
All I'm saying is that attacking a network-based app for not working without a network is about as stupid as attacking a computer for not working without electricity.
If for whatever reason, a network-based office suite isn't suitable, don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to. Use a locally-installed app instead.
And how is MS Office going to help you when you have no electricity?
Get a reliable network connection, just as you would do for your other utilities.
Holy crap - a remote application host. That's an awesome idea. Seriously - it sounds like a fine distinction from a web browser, but it would make a world of difference.
It could include all the fiddly bits that are difficult to do in a browser (menus, drag and drop, printing), could do most of the processing on the user's PC, could be optimised to minimize network traffic (could cache most of the code for each app locally for instance), etc, etc. And means that Google would have a known target for their apps.
Yes indeed, why muck around developing a Google browser when there are already plenty of perfectly good browsers. Instead, they should be developing a Google Application Host. You download that once onto your PC (or Mac or Linux box, if they write the host with something like Qt), and when you run it, get to choose from a selection of Google apps.
A native app specifically designed to host remote apps? That's brilliant. Parent poster, I salute you.
Was it necessary for GMail to import Outlook files to be useful? Of course not.
If you have super complicated documents that only Office can deal with, then deal with them in Office.
But for not-so-complicated new documents, it might be worthwhile banging them in to this new system, so that you can access them anywhere, just like GMail.
While people may be living a bit longer than they used to, I'd argue that it's only because we're preventing people from dying prematurely, rather than actively extending life span in general.
Say that the average lifespan of a human body under optimum conditions is 90 years (a figure I just made up, bear with me). By getting people to stop smoking and eat better, we're simply getting closer to those "optimum conditions" whatever they are.
But no amount of non-smoking and eating well is going to get you to live to 150. That would require fundamental breakthroughs in medicine and, as such, is entirely unconnected with historical life expectancy figures.
There seems to be a huge elephant in the closet concerning life expectancy, that no-one ever talks about. Namely, that life expectancy refers to the average lifespan in a population, not the maximum life span of an individual. Big difference.
Arguably, the main reason that life expectancy is increasing, is not that people are living longer, but that less people are dying young.
Consider a group where half the population die as infants, but the ones that survive live to be 100. The average life expectancy of the group is 50 years. Now imagine that ways are found to prevent the infant deaths of that half of the population: the average life expectancy has now gone up to 100 years. But, and this is the important bit: at no point does this imply that people were living longer than 100 years. The maximum life span never increased at all.
This seems to be the case in most western populations. Life expectancy isn't going up because people are starting to 120, it's going up because infant mortality is coming down.
The point of all this is that its debateable whether people are living much longer at all, regardless of what the life expectancy figures say.
Sure, we may be able to add a few years by the application of technology such as pacemakers, surgery, and better diet, and it may even be the case that technology will eventually be able to cure most of the things that cause us to die today (apart from accidents, obviously), but this is in no way implied by rising life expectancy figures.
I don't care if there was a top-quality version doing the rounds on the web.
Lemme see: I can save a couple of bucks and see it on a shitty little computer monitor or...
I can stop being such a tightwad and shell out the requisite few bucks to go and see it on the biggest screen avaiable, with an image and sound system that blows anything I could possibly afford clean out of the water.
Hmm...
This was the last Star Wars film. Those who were content only to watch it at home were already a lost cause - Hollywood lost exactly nothing to them. But even of those who *did* download it, I bet that most went to the cinema too.
My point being, the losses due to the "release" of this screener were probably close to nil.
I want a solar powered light bulb.
So go buy one then, what's stopping you?
There's a fair selection at the B&Q store in Britain, here
Couldn't some sort of spray-on coating fix the problem? Might require a bit of masking tape around the screen while applying it, but still...
I seem to recall a few months ago that TDK (I think) developed a new ultra-hard coating to protect either Blu Ray or HD-DVD discs (can't remember which). Sounds like a suitable coating, since it obviously has to be optically clear. While it's probably best applied at the factory, I wonder if they could turn it into an after-market spray for iPods?
Umm, wasn't Windows NT ultimately a fantastic success story? It went on to completely eclipse the 9x version of Windows, finally banished DOS, and forms the basis for all current versions of Windows.
The last time MS embarked on a substantial re-write was for Windows 2000, which was also a significant leap forwards from what came before.
Based on this history, I'd say their rewrites tend to work rather well.
Say that Mars really is undergoing global warming, and that the rate matches that of Earth's. Say also that this proves conclusively that the warming we're experiencing here on Earth is entirely due to an increase in solar output, and nothing at all to do with the actions of man.
It still doesn't change anything. We still need to do something here on Earth, otherwise it's going to get hotter and hotter - *especially* if we know that the sun's output is increasing.
So it makes no difference whatsoever what the cause of global warming on Earth is. Either way, we need to adjust the chemistry of our atmosphere to stop it getting worse.
I'm surprised no-one seems to have yet mentioned the mnemonic I was taught:
Some Old Hangars
Can Almost Hold
Two Old Aeroplanes
It would seem to make a lot more sense (and thus be easier to remember) than the completely arbitrary hippos and angels, or the even worse sohcahtoa.
Obviously Google isn't content to simply dominate the internet on this planet, they want to dominate the interplanetary internet too.
Context sensitive ads for Mars rovers anyone?
From reading the article, it sounds like the problems had almost nothing to do with the software aspect of the system, whether on a mainframe or not, and everything to do with the physical design of the tracks.
The fact that bags fell off the tracks because the corners weren't banked has nothing to do with the control system. Same for using unstable pallets to hold the bags.
This whole article seems to be based on a flagrant redefinition of the term "bug" as we understand it. It wasn't software bugs that caused the problems, it was crap engineering.
Which begs the question why, when other airports (such as Heathrow) have miles of tracks that work just fine, couldn't Denver do the same?
Ah, but the studios *do* have a huge influence on the prices at cinemas.
It's the studios that are paying actors $X million per movie.
It's the studios that are blowing $X million on special effects, even when they're not necessary.
And, my favourite, it's now the studios that are pushing hard to have cinemas adopt digital projection systems, so that the studios can save on duplication and distribution costs. Of course, the cinemas never get to see any of this saving - just the reverse; they get landed with hefty bills for the new equipment.
So don't be too hard on the cinema chains. They have to break even somehow. Blame the studios.
Of course you could always just strap an actual fridge to the underside of your F16, and batter the incoming missile with that.
I daresay that a fridge with a closing velocity of over mach 2 is not something to be trifled with. Particularly if it had been well stocked beforehand with say, cans of beer or something.