"Lightsaber technology was developed over thousands of years. The first lightsaber models, used thousands of years BBY, had to be connected to an external power source since a power source small enough to fit in a saber's hilt had not yet been discovered. Power sources often consisted of a power pack worn on the back and connected to the lightsaber's hilt by a power cord."
I have never really understood signatures; most I find silly. I have never had one, either, but I am stealing one of your lines for my first ever. I had to truncate it a bit. I hope this is alright with you.
Well, I can think of one instance where your behavioral model will break down: Humans born with, or perhaps having even developed intellectual disabilities. Does someone with Down syndrome have no human rights? Fewer? Certainly, their behavior is different from most other humans. Perhaps you would argue we are to account for behavior as a species. But, I think still this outward-in model can distort how we view things; it places emphasis on capability. Why should we appreciate a life after all which is not even capable of taking care of itself?
I cannot say that DNA is the best basis for these things either, but regardless, I think this is a wonderful step in the right direction. I think we should do the best we can to value all life.
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies.
I find people often live up to the expectations you have of them. While I do not disagree that the US population seems to be largely complacent, I find idle complaints about others irksome. All you have to do is your part. Are you voting, writing your Congressperson, etc? Do everything you can and be a model for people to admire. I cannot imagine that speaking ill of your fellow citizens (& have you met all 300 million to know they're stupid?) is going to instill them with a great sense of urgency for personal change.
Thanks for your comment. Very logical, I like the breakdown. I think you are largely right. However, I couldn't make recommendations since I don't know the receivers, which was my point. It should be something personalized, catered to the individual.
Also, I wouldn't expect my pre-teen or teenage niece to be so forward as to tell me she doesn't like the sci-fi book I got her last year. I've recieved awkward gifts in the past from relatives and I felt obliged when I was young to be grateful and kind regardless.
Have they asked for science fiction? (Disregard if so). Or shown any interest in reading it, in the least? It seems clear you are into it, and that's pretty awesome. But maybe you should aim to buy something that your nieces and nephews really enjoy. Something you know they will enjoy, based on their tastes, not yours. Not something that will collect dust on their shelves. You don't want to be the weird uncle (I'm assuming you're male due to the nature of your question) who always gives dopy books none of them like.
Probabilistically, what are the odds that they are all interested in sci-fi/fantasy? Nothing is "essential" as you put it, it's all a matter of taste. I read some growing up, but disliked a lot of it. So even if they are studious or like to read (an assumption right there, maybe a CD is what they would really appreciate) the topics could be as far ranging as biography, architecture, 18th century literature.
Giving the same genre across the board doesn't speak to any of them personally, and showcases what you think they should be interested in, not what they actually seek out themselves.
And, I believe, the season of giving is about selflessness and doing for others. Perhaps, rethink your strategy?
And if not, all these other suggestions here are good too.
Um. Okay. I think you might be assuming that the intent behind the murder is retribution for Congressional negligence or crookery. But, what happens when Joe Representative gets all killed for personal reasons?
Or what if I really want to kill someone and I live in a small county? Help them get elected and then take them out?
And this is of course to say nothing of the potential abuses.... I mean, you were joking, right?
Take it easy - I'm from 1980 myself and employing ironic humor
Whoa, you're from 1980? I heard it's nice there; lots of coke and sex, like a constant party. But I just haven't had the time myself to visit. Welcome to 2005!
Uh? What? My uid is lower than that, I know pretty much nil about security and don't follow Mr. Mitnick's post-hacking career. I just happen to have geeky tendencies and stumbled across the site awhile ago and then registered. My point is: don't make assumptions, especially ones based on things as silly as a/. uid #!
Once in college I had a sometimes grumpy prof who was nevertheless very well respected and very knowledgeable. We were giving presentations of our projects for the semester that week and he had been lecturing us all about professionalism and what it will take to make it in the world, etc.
Well, during my presentation, he was impressed with what I had done and also by the fact that I could speak without stammering (I think his cynicism gave him low expectations). Then a cellphone started ringing.
I kept going, but he interrupted saying "See this is what I'm talking about people... Unprofessional... You can't allow this to happen in the real world...." And then he got annoyed that it wasn't being turned off.
I said after a pause "Uh, actually, I think it's my phone....."
I know we have discussed his more recent work on ZUI and whatnot here before and some people are a big fan of it and others are not. But I wonder what will happen with the project, or if it will be continued by others he was working with. He seems to be the one who really spear-headed the effort. Does anyone know? It would be a shame if he couldn't finish his project as he conceived it and it got dropped because there was no one to take it over. Condolences to anyone who knew him well.
So, I know its us the loyal readership that is supposed to do the editing essentially (which makes me think we should have a moderation-style system for voting on which stories in the queue should go live (editors, you reading this?!!) but hey!) but when our favorite web tool has spell-checking built in, and you can search up to 32 words at a time.... I mean you might as well just cut and paste.
What's really interesting, that even though this is a geek site, we can't even get mathematician right. Even more silly is if you check the link above from google, you'll see that the first two results (of 3) are also from right here at the dot.
All I'm saying is: if it's power to the nerd masses, let's do it. Many posts so far are already complaining about the story. Not to mention it's from MSNBC. Not to mention I've already read it, because it's from almost four weeks ago.
I realize I am off-topic and complaining, but I wanted to see if we couldn't get a discussion going about a smarter, more democratic way to elect submissions to go live.
You have all of the facts and a good perspective on what we're talking about. (After looking at your journal, I realize I'm not the only one on/. who knows who Jazze Pha is).
But consider this: The Beatles didn't do anything new. (Well of course they did, later, but stick with me). They bit all these black american blues artists. All they did was popularize it. Same thing is (more) true of Elvis. So, do they not deserve their recognition? Maybe you'd say no, but I think they do. The important thing they did was bring all this music to the masses. They brought attention to it, which allowed for things to move forward (or sideways or whatever). That's important. That's worth mentioning.
Haha. Yes, it was just a little joke I threw in to amuse myself. I'm glad you caught it. Now that you mention it, I have seen it in a few blogs, but I that didn't cross my mind at the time of posting. Funny.
I agree with most of what you say. The open bias of blogs does not bother me. However, there are other shortcomings. Namely, the thing I don't like about blogs (or, usually just the portrayal of blogs) is the treatment of them as writings. Indeed, I have read many posts that could be considered an article, though usually those are even on the short side of things.
All-too-often, some blogger will post an entry regarding a very interesting and thought-provoking idea, but mostly it's a few sentences and a hyperlink. The blog entry is just an arrow, a finger pointing at the moon. Why should the blogger get credit? Not only is the idea not theirs, they also didn't even offer an in-depth analysis of it (or more often: any analysis). Quite commonly, blogs are devoid of real content. When I look at a lot of the blogs--even professional ones--and they are essentially just posting summaries and references, I question the validity of blogs as a writing medium. Which is to say, it might be one for reference or information, biased or not, but not one of substance.
The really funny thing to me is sometimes it becomes circular, or even recursive. This blog posts about a concept via another blog which posted something they found over here which was just a little blurb about Apple buying out TiVo. Again, the idea proves very interesting--the short degrees of separation and locus of interest allow for quick news online--but it is not very weighty.
There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Plenty of bloggers, especially those with a political bent can get long-winded. And, furthermore, this is not to discredit the weblog as a medium. I think its pretty great and has quite a bit of potential. But I use blogs (or more specifically, their rss feeds) as information harvesters, not as sources of well reasoned, well written articles.
Yes, that reminds me of something my friend relayed to me. While he was speaking with an acquaintance, she said to him: "I don't like microwaves. I don't feel good about being near all those waves." And he replied: "What are you talking about? You're living in a microwave!" It's all around us, and indeed, in us, as you say. At all kinds of frequencies. Which is not to say its harmless or not. I just thought it was a perspective you don't hear as often.
The only problem with your particular idea is that in the article, one of the examples cited is September 11th, 2001. The numbers began deviating and showed an anomaly four hours prior to the actual attacks, according to the article. Considering that the events that transpired later required lots of planning (months worth: tickets, training, etc), it is doubtful that a few black boxes around the world spitting out 1s and 0s could cause them. Especially considering that data probably went no further than the university lab (at least before the events).
While I am as skeptical as you seem to be, I think the idea of the black boxes causing the events requires putting a good bit of stock in chaos theory (specifically the "butterfly effect") and is just as "out there" as the idea of the black boxes foretelling of them. And it still would not answer the reason for the deviations in the first place.
For either hypothesis, further investigation is needed. One skeptical bit I can add is this: They don't give a date for the deviations related to the tsunami of late last year, only "December," so maybe they are trying to relate two unrelated things.
Or maybe the boxes sensed the earths tectonic plates moving several weeks in advance (cue X-Files theme music)!
Hm. I think the article was just attempting to highlight some often-overlooked contributions by the Barrons. I mean, I've never even heard of them, so I found it quite interesting. The submitter is the one who seems to have goofed here, by presenting this short blurb as "The Birth of Electronic Music". The article itself makes no such claims; its focus is simply the Barrons. If you do have an interest, there are plentyofgreatresources out there for one to peruse. Yes, Theremin was way ahead of his time, as was Cage, Schaeffer, and on and on. For computer music in specific, look at Lejaren Hiller and Max Mathews. I had the great honor of meeting Max Mathews and man is he interesting. He was speaking to a class I was taking and he said "digital computer". Every time instead of saying computer, he said "digital computer". This confused me at first, but I thought about that and realized that he has a bit more perspective and history on these things and began working on analog computers.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize you are joking, but:
"Lightsaber technology was developed over thousands of years. The first lightsaber models, used thousands of years BBY, had to be connected to an external power source since a power source small enough to fit in a saber's hilt had not yet been discovered. Power sources often consisted of a power pack worn on the back and connected to the lightsaber's hilt by a power cord."
Taken from Wikipedia.
This may be a point when dorkiness crosses the line into pedantry.
I have never really understood signatures; most I find silly. I have never had one, either, but I am stealing one of your lines for my first ever. I had to truncate it a bit. I hope this is alright with you.
Great post.
I was struck by the simplicity and beauty of it.
Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules for writing fiction
Thank you, Mr. Vonnegut. Thank you.
Do you happen to know the gentleman's name? Or do you have a link? I would like to read more about him.
Well, I can think of one instance where your behavioral model will break down: Humans born with, or perhaps having even developed intellectual disabilities. Does someone with Down syndrome have no human rights? Fewer? Certainly, their behavior is different from most other humans. Perhaps you would argue we are to account for behavior as a species. But, I think still this outward-in model can distort how we view things; it places emphasis on capability. Why should we appreciate a life after all which is not even capable of taking care of itself?
I cannot say that DNA is the best basis for these things either, but regardless, I think this is a wonderful step in the right direction. I think we should do the best we can to value all life.
Please mod the parent up; very well said.
Also, the comment of a brain and robo-ears is particularly amusing to me.
Suggested alteration:
Walkman Creator Walks, man.
I don't have no purse or nothin in my pockets and I still carry all my IT equipment with me, if you know what I mean.
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies.
I find people often live up to the expectations you have of them. While I do not disagree that the US population seems to be largely complacent, I find idle complaints about others irksome. All you have to do is your part. Are you voting, writing your Congressperson, etc? Do everything you can and be a model for people to admire. I cannot imagine that speaking ill of your fellow citizens (& have you met all 300 million to know they're stupid?) is going to instill them with a great sense of urgency for personal change.
Thanks for your comment. Very logical, I like the breakdown. I think you are largely right. However, I couldn't make recommendations since I don't know the receivers, which was my point. It should be something personalized, catered to the individual.
Also, I wouldn't expect my pre-teen or teenage niece to be so forward as to tell me she doesn't like the sci-fi book I got her last year. I've recieved awkward gifts in the past from relatives and I felt obliged when I was young to be grateful and kind regardless.
Have they asked for science fiction? (Disregard if so). Or shown any interest in reading it, in the least? It seems clear you are into it, and that's pretty awesome. But maybe you should aim to buy something that your nieces and nephews really enjoy. Something you know they will enjoy, based on their tastes, not yours. Not something that will collect dust on their shelves. You don't want to be the weird uncle (I'm assuming you're male due to the nature of your question) who always gives dopy books none of them like.
Probabilistically, what are the odds that they are all interested in sci-fi/fantasy? Nothing is "essential" as you put it, it's all a matter of taste. I read some growing up, but disliked a lot of it. So even if they are studious or like to read (an assumption right there, maybe a CD is what they would really appreciate) the topics could be as far ranging as biography, architecture, 18th century literature.
Giving the same genre across the board doesn't speak to any of them personally, and showcases what you think they should be interested in, not what they actually seek out themselves.
And, I believe, the season of giving is about selflessness and doing for others. Perhaps, rethink your strategy?
And if not, all these other suggestions here are good too.
Um. Okay.
I think you might be assuming that the intent behind the murder is retribution for Congressional negligence or crookery. But, what happens when Joe Representative gets all killed for personal reasons?
Or what if I really want to kill someone and I live in a small county? Help them get elected and then take them out?
And this is of course to say nothing of the potential abuses.... I mean, you were joking, right?
Take it easy - I'm from 1980 myself and employing ironic humor
Whoa, you're from 1980? I heard it's nice there; lots of coke and sex, like a constant party. But I just haven't had the time myself to visit. Welcome to 2005!
Uh? What? My uid is lower than that, I know pretty much nil about security and don't follow Mr. Mitnick's post-hacking career. I just happen to have geeky tendencies and stumbled across the site awhile ago and then registered. /. uid #!
My point is: don't make assumptions, especially ones based on things as silly as a
Sigh..... I mention this for your pleasure.
Once in college I had a sometimes grumpy prof who was nevertheless very well respected and very knowledgeable. We were giving presentations of our projects for the semester that week and he had been lecturing us all about professionalism and what it will take to make it in the world, etc.
Well, during my presentation, he was impressed with what I had done and also by the fact that I could speak without stammering (I think his cynicism gave him low expectations). Then a cellphone started ringing.
I kept going, but he interrupted saying "See this is what I'm talking about people... Unprofessional... You can't allow this to happen in the real world...." And then he got annoyed that it wasn't being turned off.
I said after a pause "Uh, actually, I think it's my phone....."
Whoops.
I know we have discussed his more recent work on ZUI and whatnot here before and some people are a big fan of it and others are not. But I wonder what will happen with the project, or if it will be continued by others he was working with. He seems to be the one who really spear-headed the effort. Does anyone know? It would be a shame if he couldn't finish his project as he conceived it and it got dropped because there was no one to take it over. Condolences to anyone who knew him well.
So, I know its us the loyal readership that is supposed to do the editing essentially (which makes me think we should have a moderation-style system for voting on which stories in the queue should go live (editors, you reading this?!!) but hey!) but when our favorite web tool has spell-checking built in, and you can search up to 32 words at a time.... I mean you might as well just cut and paste.
What's really interesting, that even though this is a geek site, we can't even get mathematician right. Even more silly is if you check the link above from google, you'll see that the first two results (of 3) are also from right here at the dot.
All I'm saying is: if it's power to the nerd masses, let's do it. Many posts so far are already complaining about the story. Not to mention it's from MSNBC. Not to mention I've already read it, because it's from almost four weeks ago.
I realize I am off-topic and complaining, but I wanted to see if we couldn't get a discussion going about a smarter, more democratic way to elect submissions to go live.
You have all of the facts and a good perspective on what we're talking about. (After looking at your journal, I realize I'm not the only one on /. who knows who Jazze Pha is).
But consider this: The Beatles didn't do anything new. (Well of course they did, later, but stick with me). They bit all these black american blues artists. All they did was popularize it. Same thing is (more) true of Elvis. So, do they not deserve their recognition? Maybe you'd say no, but I think they do. The important thing they did was bring all this music to the masses. They brought attention to it, which allowed for things to move forward (or sideways or whatever). That's important. That's worth mentioning.
Haha. Yes, it was just a little joke I threw in to amuse myself. I'm glad you caught it.
Now that you mention it, I have seen it in a few blogs, but I that didn't cross my mind at the time of posting. Funny.
I agree with most of what you say. The open bias of blogs does not bother me. However, there are other shortcomings. Namely, the thing I don't like about blogs (or, usually just the portrayal of blogs) is the treatment of them as writings. Indeed, I have read many posts that could be considered an article, though usually those are even on the short side of things.
All-too-often, some blogger will post an entry regarding a very interesting and thought-provoking idea, but mostly it's a few sentences and a hyperlink. The blog entry is just an arrow, a finger pointing at the moon. Why should the blogger get credit? Not only is the idea not theirs, they also didn't even offer an in-depth analysis of it (or more often: any analysis). Quite commonly, blogs are devoid of real content. When I look at a lot of the blogs--even professional ones--and they are essentially just posting summaries and references, I question the validity of blogs as a writing medium. Which is to say, it might be one for reference or information, biased or not, but not one of substance.
The really funny thing to me is sometimes it becomes circular, or even recursive. This blog posts about a concept via another blog which posted something they found over here which was just a little blurb about Apple buying out TiVo. Again, the idea proves very interesting--the short degrees of separation and locus of interest allow for quick news online--but it is not very weighty.
There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Plenty of bloggers, especially those with a political bent can get long-winded. And, furthermore, this is not to discredit the weblog as a medium. I think its pretty great and has quite a bit of potential. But I use blogs (or more specifically, their rss feeds) as information harvesters, not as sources of well reasoned, well written articles.
Yes, that reminds me of something my friend relayed to me. While he was speaking with an acquaintance, she said to him:
"I don't like microwaves. I don't feel good about being near all those waves."
And he replied: "What are you talking about? You're living in a microwave!"
It's all around us, and indeed, in us, as you say. At all kinds of frequencies.
Which is not to say its harmless or not. I just thought it was a perspective you don't hear as often.
Yo, every failed dot com from 1999 called. They want their decorating tips back.
Seriously.
The only problem with your particular idea is that in the article, one of the examples cited is September 11th, 2001. The numbers began deviating and showed an anomaly four hours prior to the actual attacks, according to the article. Considering that the events that transpired later required lots of planning (months worth: tickets, training, etc), it is doubtful that a few black boxes around the world spitting out 1s and 0s could cause them. Especially considering that data probably went no further than the university lab (at least before the events).
While I am as skeptical as you seem to be, I think the idea of the black boxes causing the events requires putting a good bit of stock in chaos theory (specifically the "butterfly effect") and is just as "out there" as the idea of the black boxes foretelling of them. And it still would not answer the reason for the deviations in the first place.
For either hypothesis, further investigation is needed.
One skeptical bit I can add is this: They don't give a date for the deviations related to the tsunami of late last year, only "December," so maybe they are trying to relate two unrelated things.
Or maybe the boxes sensed the earths tectonic plates moving several weeks in advance (cue X-Files theme music)!
Hm. I think the article was just attempting to highlight some often-overlooked contributions by the Barrons. I mean, I've never even heard of them, so I found it quite interesting.
The submitter is the one who seems to have goofed here, by presenting this short blurb as "The Birth of Electronic Music". The article itself makes no such claims; its focus is simply the Barrons.
If you do have an interest, there are plenty of great resources out there for one to peruse. Yes, Theremin was way ahead of his time, as was Cage, Schaeffer, and on and on.
For computer music in specific, look at Lejaren Hiller and Max Mathews. I had the great honor of meeting Max Mathews and man is he interesting. He was speaking to a class I was taking and he said "digital computer". Every time instead of saying computer, he said "digital computer". This confused me at first, but I thought about that and realized that he has a bit more perspective and history on these things and began working on analog computers.
I see. A well-formed and informative response to the grandparent post. Let's hear something a bit more persuasive, maybe?