I just sent a 5.25" DSDD disk with system files from a 1982 Otrona Attache to someone else who noted I had the disks.
Grabbed the machine out of storage (took a while to figure out where I stuck it). Put the disk in and booted up. The horizontal sync on the Attache video is getting a bit wonky, but the disks and computer worked fine.
For cameras, it's virtually every single modern one that supports EXIF. Printers, I don't know much about. I imagine that Google does, however.
I like the fact that the EXIF data has the camera serial number. Over the years, I've used a number of different cameras. Even multiple versions of the same model. It's nice to have that information in the database. Giving it to anyone else is another issue entirely. But here again, the onus is on the individual to know how to deal with one's complex modern objects. For EXIF data, it's easy to strip entirely or individually.
What EFF needs to do is to bring this issue up to a level where 'normal' people at least understand the problems. It would be nice if manufacturers would give us the tools to control the flow of data better, but until the drum starts to beat louder, they have little incentive to do so.
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts.:)
More likely the explosive bolts exploded a wee bit early....
From what I've been able to gather from the commentary and looking at the clip a bunch of times, it looks like it lost attitudinal control first, then the upper stage failed. Can't be sure exactly when the RSO blew the rocket up, but I think it occurs much later in the sequence when it's clear that the booster failed. Typically an errant booster is given a bit of time to fall apart before it's blown up as the destruct sequence is manual and one would like to get some video of what failed before everything turns into a bunch of expensive fireworks.
Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.
It is their most ambitious booster to date, and AFAIK, it has more 'indigenous' technology than previous systems. If the Indians are like everybody else, they're gonna go boom for a while.
Yeah, like Patrick Smith (aka 'Ask the Pilot), a professional pilot and writer who has been complaining, and writing, about these exact things for years.
Maybe he will get a lump of coal in his stocking tomorrow.
Why supposedly educational institutions keep teams of what is essentially professional entertainers and let this business overshadow education? At the extent of admitting "special" (as in "short bus") students and pretend to educate them, spending budget on things 99% of students can never use, hiring a coach who is paid more than any other person working for the school, etc.?
The technological products available to the average consumer have a level of sophistication that would have been unimaginable even to Byte's earliest readers.
While this may well be true, you're next sentence.
Technological products require more in the way of abstract reasoning, and today's consumers (especially the young ones) seem equal to the task.
What? The iPhone / Facebook / Modern web browser / overly engineered washing machine with the 'computer' readout requires 'abstract reasoning' beyond very basic English? Abstract as in painting or are you using another definition? Those examples (and countless others) are popular because they are so simple that my Labrador Retriever can use them. Maybe Twitter requires some fairly interesting rationalization as to why anyone is interested in your life, 140 characters at a time, but 'abstract' reasoning, it isn't.
Those who confuse remembering zillions of details (like HEX representations of opcodes) with being intelligent might not agree, but it's because they are confused, not because they are smart.
I think you're you're confused. Now, perhaps those designers of these technological wonders have training well beyond those of the average BYTE reader of days yore, but the users, not so much. Not by a long shot.
Umm, try reversing the order on you list. It might work better. Be most careful, however, of the inadvertent conversion of $GIRLFRIEND to $WIFE as that automatically produces a GOTO END argument that you cannot change.
The Kodak you see in Best Buy is only a tiny fraction of the 'real' Kodak. They do quite a bit of medical and industrial imaging. This has nothing to do with their potential to be a patent troll, but it isn't correct to say that Kodak is just a bunch of crappy 100 dollar cameras. Yes, they have a lot of crappy 100 dollar cameras, but it's only a small part of their business.
can it sequence as fast as slashdotters can claim first post?
Nope, but it is following an exponential cost curve. Get it cheap, get it fast, hook it to some truly impressive computing technology to make some sense out of it and you've got?
1984 looking like the Elysian fields? Paradise? Something in between?
As the old Chinese curse goes "May you live in interesting times".
Nothing like the growth of apathy as a rationalization for closed, hacker-unfriendly systems!
Come off it and get out of the basement. On a population basis, the number of people interested in 'hacker friendly, open systems' is a rounding error. THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT. There IS money in simple. There is money in just works.
The writer of TFB (The Fine Blog) needs some 'increased IT literacy':
Early mobile phones like the Motorola Dynatac were basically big dumb lumps of analogue hardware, there was no operating system as such and if one were to compare them to computers they would be on a par with those big desktop calculators accountants have.
Big lumps of analogue hardware? DSP (Digital Signal Processors) anyone? Complex RF on a chip? Hypervisors?
Just because it doesn't run a game doesn't mean it's not digital. And T9 keypads are 'simple' are they?
The blogger is a looser. (Don't make that mistake if your going to publish something.... )
Basically, these guys just got an article posted to slashdot (and nature) describing how they just confirmed that evolution probably happened more or less how we expected that it did.
Nice snark, eh? Maybe you should drop some acid and read the paper. Might open your mind to some fantastic little details like coming up with an explanation of how most life on the planet manages to look at act like it does.
Yes, TFRP (The Fine Research Paper) broadly agrees with current evolutionary theory. No, it's not the Higgs Boson or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It does represent an interesting new look of a vastly important time in our biosphere - one that is fantastically difficult to study.
But keep on minimizing everything if it suits you. Your loss.
No, I read the article because it was potentially interesting and ran counter to some previous research. Unfortunately, the blurb you referenced doesn't change my feelings much, in part because the it seems that researcher was apparently trying to pull the same logical fallacy. (Given that it's a lay journalist quoting somebody, I'm open to giving the researcher benefit of the doubt concerning his thoughts).
We already know that some exercise helps (compared to the couch potato life style). Little doubt about that, however "some" is a pretty vague concept. But does more = better? Is there an 'exercise floor' or 'ceiling'? Hard to know. Most of the extant literature following elite athletes, military people, astronauts and other typically fairly small populations suggests that there is benefit to staying fit, it's not a huge benefit and the "most elite" athletes didn't fare any better than just good ones.
This sort of research is nearly impossible to do. When you look at these sorts of small, handpicked populations you have all sorts of problems - an enormous selection bias, statistical power issues, end point definitions and the observational or retrospective nature of the research. Thus one ought to be very modest when attempting to make conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
I just sent a 5.25" DSDD disk with system files from a 1982 Otrona Attache to someone else who noted I had the disks.
Grabbed the machine out of storage (took a while to figure out where I stuck it). Put the disk in and booted up. The horizontal sync on the Attache video is getting a bit wonky, but the disks and computer worked fine.
PIP A=B *.*
For cameras, it's virtually every single modern one that supports EXIF. Printers, I don't know much about. I imagine that Google does, however.
I like the fact that the EXIF data has the camera serial number. Over the years, I've used a number of different cameras. Even multiple versions of the same model. It's nice to have that information in the database. Giving it to anyone else is another issue entirely. But here again, the onus is on the individual to know how to deal with one's complex modern objects. For EXIF data, it's easy to strip entirely or individually.
What EFF needs to do is to bring this issue up to a level where 'normal' people at least understand the problems. It would be nice if manufacturers would give us the tools to control the flow of data better, but until the drum starts to beat louder, they have little incentive to do so.
Calm down, he's just frustrated that we don't like Cricket.
Stop that. Stop that this very second.
I'm trying to be mildly amusing and you go and get all pedantic about it.
On Christmas, of all days.
I am so not inviting you to parties next year.
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts. :)
More likely the explosive bolts exploded a wee bit early....
From what I've been able to gather from the commentary and looking at the clip a bunch of times, it looks like it lost attitudinal control first, then the upper stage failed. Can't be sure exactly when the RSO blew the rocket up, but I think it occurs much later in the sequence when it's clear that the booster failed. Typically an errant booster is given a bit of time to fall apart before it's blown up as the destruct sequence is manual and one would like to get some video of what failed before everything turns into a bunch of expensive fireworks.
Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.
It is their most ambitious booster to date, and AFAIK, it has more 'indigenous' technology than previous systems. If the Indians are like everybody else, they're gonna go boom for a while.
It is Rocket Science.
Tech support staff in the future will be all female? With healing jingling orbs?
Progress as promised!
Yes, I would have to agree that they're jumping the boat a tad. A long ways to go to fill up a rocket.
But the name is way cool. Kudos to the marketing team!
Yeah, like Patrick Smith (aka 'Ask the Pilot), a professional pilot and writer who has been complaining, and writing, about these exact things for years.
Maybe he will get a lump of coal in his stocking tomorrow.
Why supposedly educational institutions keep teams of what is essentially professional entertainers and let this business overshadow education? At the extent of admitting "special" (as in "short bus") students and pretend to educate them, spending budget on things 99% of students can never use, hiring a coach who is paid more than any other person working for the school, etc.?
Money. Just like everything else in the world.
Sheesh. Kid's these days.
The technological products available to the average consumer have a level of sophistication that would have been unimaginable even to Byte's earliest readers.
While this may well be true, you're next sentence.
Technological products require more in the way of abstract reasoning, and today's consumers (especially the young ones) seem equal to the task.
What? The iPhone / Facebook / Modern web browser / overly engineered washing machine with the 'computer' readout requires 'abstract reasoning' beyond very basic English? Abstract as in painting or are you using another definition? Those examples (and countless others) are popular because they are so simple that my Labrador Retriever can use them. Maybe Twitter requires some fairly interesting rationalization as to why anyone is interested in your life, 140 characters at a time, but 'abstract' reasoning, it isn't.
Those who confuse remembering zillions of details (like HEX representations of opcodes) with being intelligent might not agree, but it's because they are confused, not because they are smart.
I think you're you're confused. Now, perhaps those designers of these technological wonders have training well beyond those of the average BYTE reader of days yore, but the users, not so much. Not by a long shot.
1. A kid
2. Sex
3. A girlfriend
Umm, try reversing the order on you list. It might work better. Be most careful, however, of the inadvertent conversion of $GIRLFRIEND to $WIFE as that automatically produces a GOTO END argument that you cannot change.
Looser.
Well that and the fact that if you have a microwave and a common baking ingredient you can make your own crack at home with the delivered coke...
Every time I try that the stuff fizzes all over the place and I end up having to clean up the kitchen.
The Kodak you see in Best Buy is only a tiny fraction of the 'real' Kodak. They do quite a bit of medical and industrial imaging. This has nothing to do with their potential to be a patent troll, but it isn't correct to say that Kodak is just a bunch of crappy 100 dollar cameras. Yes, they have a lot of crappy 100 dollar cameras, but it's only a small part of their business.
Also, it's used standalone as identification, so maybe we could get unforgeable (or at least VERY hard to forge) IDs.
Not a problem. I can get lots of your DNA. Without you even knowing it.
can it sequence as fast as slashdotters can claim first post?
Nope, but it is following an exponential cost curve. Get it cheap, get it fast, hook it to some truly impressive computing technology to make some sense out of it and you've got?
1984 looking like the Elysian fields? Paradise? Something in between?
As the old Chinese curse goes "May you live in interesting times".
Nothing like the growth of apathy as a rationalization for closed, hacker-unfriendly systems!
Come off it and get out of the basement. On a population basis, the number of people interested in 'hacker friendly, open systems' is a rounding error. THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT. There IS money in simple. There is money in just works.
Big lumps of analogue hardware? DSP (Digital Signal Processors) anyone? Complex RF on a chip? Hypervisors?
Just because it doesn't run a game doesn't mean it's not digital. And T9 keypads are 'simple' are they?
The blogger is a looser. (Don't make that mistake if your going to publish something.... )
"letters, meetings, hearings" - If that doesn't scare the bejesus out of Google, I don't know what will.
The Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Basically, these guys just got an article posted to slashdot (and nature) describing how they just confirmed that evolution probably happened more or less how we expected that it did.
Nice snark, eh? Maybe you should drop some acid and read the paper. Might open your mind to some fantastic little details like coming up with an explanation of how most life on the planet manages to look at act like it does.
Yes, TFRP (The Fine Research Paper) broadly agrees with current evolutionary theory. No, it's not the Higgs Boson or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It does represent an interesting new look of a vastly important time in our biosphere - one that is fantastically difficult to study.
But keep on minimizing everything if it suits you. Your loss.
so, gimmee something here, how do you discuss geologic events when people seem so driven to think in terms of their own lifespans?
Very, very slowly.
No, I read the article because it was potentially interesting and ran counter to some previous research. Unfortunately, the blurb you referenced doesn't change my feelings much, in part because the it seems that researcher was apparently trying to pull the same logical fallacy. (Given that it's a lay journalist quoting somebody, I'm open to giving the researcher benefit of the doubt concerning his thoughts).
We already know that some exercise helps (compared to the couch potato life style). Little doubt about that, however "some" is a pretty vague concept. But does more = better? Is there an 'exercise floor' or 'ceiling'? Hard to know. Most of the extant literature following elite athletes, military people, astronauts and other typically fairly small populations suggests that there is benefit to staying fit, it's not a huge benefit and the "most elite" athletes didn't fare any better than just good ones.
This sort of research is nearly impossible to do. When you look at these sorts of small, handpicked populations you have all sorts of problems - an enormous selection bias, statistical power issues, end point definitions and the observational or retrospective nature of the research. Thus one ought to be very modest when attempting to make conclusions.
The only time I've seen Dropbox chew up CPU on OS X is when Spotlight has to deal with a bunch of new files. Then it whines and complains.
Older iterations however would hit the CPU rather had for a while. This has gone away in the last number of builds.
Agreed. Dropbox is what iDisk should have been. If only Dropbox could sync contacts and email without going through Google it would be perfect.