This gets into the deeper question: what are we really? Is there more to a man (or woman, for the 3 female/.ers out there) than matter?
If a person is merely matter, then we should be able to transfer the essence of them by analysing the matter thoroughly enough. Maybe the memories are stored data and the "essence" is the program that accesses it. If there is something more (a hotly debated subject since, well, subjects were invented) than perhaps no complete transfer is possible.
The other issue is how much of our "essence" is predicated on inhabiting a body such as ours? Would the human condition change if we were separated from it? Could the body be simulated accurately enough to suffice?
All big questions, not sure if the answers are on/.;-)
You could have your own personal store of information, previously vetted by yourself or some person or organization I trust. You might even separate info into categories based on source, e.g./. less trusted than, say, the National Inquirer. This is actually a bit like studying, only much faster and not as reliant on semi-reliable wetware. A broad search would only be a requirement for the things you haven't "studied."
I think it would ne fair if it were broadly available and not limited to an elite, which it probably would be at first. But think of when it spreads! Imagine if huge amounts of data were instantly available to you with perfect recall and control. Now imagine if everyone had this ability, with the added bonus of thought-speed communication with everyone else. This would be a fundamental change in the capacities of our species.
I think the distinction I am trying to make has to do with marginal cost. The marginal cost of another serving of food is nearly infinitely more than that of another digital recording. Every serving of food consumed is one less available for another hungry person, but a downloaded song deprives no one of hearing the music.
A live performance is more of a commodity, as a limited number of people can see it (one deprives another). For live performances I think an entertainer should charge whatever they want. But a recorded performance costs no more for each additional user if properly distributed.
There are also other ways for artists to earn a living. Commissions exist, most governments support the arts, ther are endorsement and advertising uses of many arts, there's even the age-old tradition of wealthy patrons putting artists to work at their craft.
I don't necessarily feel an artist _must_ give away their art, I merely feel that my perception of an artist changes when they complain that too many people are enjoying their art for free.
Besides, if we follow intellectual property too far, we'll all end up having to pay a nickel to whistle a song you heard on the radio.
Ther is a distinction that needs to be made here, I think. A musical performer has other methods to make money than selling recordings. Would the world be a worse place if performers were only paid for live shows? I think that would be a way for music artists to make money and yet have us able to share the recorded stuff. Painters could sell originals and limited edition prints while allowing digitized versions to be distributed freely.
A programmer, on the other hand, can't make live performances (or they would be boring, at least) and their "originals" are not distinguishable from the nth copy. There needs to be some mechanism for them to earn a living. With business software, an interested firm could pay to have the software developed and once done it could go open source. Games require a paying audience to cover the costs of development after the fact, so their business is tougher still.
All this hinges on whether you consider a programmer an artist, a debate I would't touch.;-)
You're right on the money (pardon the cheap pun). It always has been about control. If you follow the trend, pretty soon they would have us paying for person-songs: You pay based on the song played times the number of people who will hear it. Every time you play it. Forever.
I read all kinds of stories on Slashdot like this about someone being upset that someone else is enjoying some form of art without paying for the privilege. It always makes me wonder about the goals of the artists.
It seems to me that a true artist would want as many people as possible to enjoy their creation. The internet and file-sharing should be a great enabler for this, as anyone anywhere with internet access can see, hear or read their art. It is truly liberating and democratizing, making art available to all instead of only those who can afford it.
Whenever I hear an artist complain that too many people are enjoying their work without paying, I smell a rat. If you are creating art to get rich, you're not really an artist, at least by my admittedly narrow definition. Art should be its own reward. A true artist would create and distribute their work even if there was no compensation for it and they had to work a day job to make ends meet. There are countless examples of this. The passion for their craft drives them, not a desire for monetary gain (though this sometimes is a byproduct).
As to record companies and other copyright holding entities, I understand that for their business to survive, they must try to protect their assets. I just happen to think that their business model is hopelessly outdated in the midst of the digital revolution.
We are at a turning point of the information age. Will information become truly free or will access to it be controlled by "information barons"?
Somewhat counter-intuitively, gradual acceleration is not the ideal fuel economy move. According to a BMW study, accelerating smartly gets you into a higher, more economical gear more quickly and reduces the engine's pumping losses due to partial throttle.
The catch is, there is only a benefit if you accelerate no more than necessary. Thus accelerating quickly on a highway on-ramp yields a gain if you stop at the same cruising speed. If you streak from stoplight to stoplight, you only waste fuel reaching an unnecessarily high peak speed only to dissipate that energy when you apply the brakes.
I don't think it's a change in EPA measuring techniques, but a better understanding of them by the manufacturers. I suspect that some models are tuned to do well fuel economy-wise under the specific conditions of the EPA test. Kinda of like in a college course where some people only bother to learn what they will be tested on.
Donning my tinfoil hat, I would go a step further and say that some cars have ECUs that can recognize the EPA testing conditions and change their injection and ignition timing to turn them into fuel economy champs while yielding no benefit in real world driving.
This is the height of foolishness. For the mass of the drive system for the entire base, you could fly ten rovers to the moon. This would give much better redundancy than a single base-like vehicle. About the only advantage I see is using the same base to explore physically disparate locations.
Re:Maps are not copyrighted
on
Open Maps?
·
· Score: 1
By that argument, a photograph cannot be copyrighted either. After all, it is a representation of a fact. Anyways, a map is hardly a fact, it is an inherently innaccurate flat projection of a complex surface. It takes time, effort and money to generate a map, and therefore IP rules should apply.
As an interesting sidenote, some map companies deliberately place errors such a snon-existent streets on their maps to make it easier to detect when someone illicitly "traces" one.
The coolest thing about a laser weapon, IMHO, is not the power or range or even its technology..it's the accuracy.
Aiming is the same as hitting with an energy weapon in most scenarios, the lightspeed lag only becoming a factor at high speed/long range, light an orbital target. Even then, a computer-aided targeting system should be able to compensate.
Imagine if such a weapon system were mounted in a vehicle (I think I read something about a prototype of a different laser in a 737) where just having the target in the crosshairs is enough to guarantee its destruction. Gives a new perspective to sniping. Should also reduce civilian casualties.
Longhorn isn't supposed to debut until 2006, by which time those specs probably will represent a mid range machine. Just because they are not available yet (processor) doesn't mean that they can't desing with more resources in mind.
That said, it looks like my PIII-800 that struggles with XP will not have a hope of dealing with Longhorn. So much for backward compatibility. *sigh*
Star ratings are a fairly inaccurate way of measuring the safety of a vehicle. They only apply to a collision with a fixed object. In a collision between two vehicles, the more massive one will suffer less damage, all other things being equal. Hybrids are at the very low end of the mass spectrum for vehicles (with mass being an enemy of fuel efficiency) so they will likely be the loser in any collision with another vehicle.
How can they be called "standards" if they change from person to person? This muddy standard has devalued what an education is worth. If some one sees "High School Graduate" on a resume, how are they to know if they got "passed along" or if they are a mensa type? High school diplomas have degraded to certificates of attendance.
Re:"The computer you want always costs $5000".
on
The FragBook
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"The computer you want always costs $5000"
That's Machrone's Law, named for a PC Magazine editor.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1545647,00. as p
This is good, but I can't wait until WiFi coverage is as ubiquitous as, say, cell phone coverage. I wouldn't mind paying a per-packet fee for near universal wireless access. Who will fund this project? My guess would be wireless providers, they already have their foot in the door.
That said, some issues must be solved first. WiFi security is still too lax, and uneducated users only make it worse. We need a truly idiot-proof security protocol - the problem is that idiots are so ingenious;-P
Why do you assume 1G of acceleration? Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect. There is no arbitrary limit to accelerative G force other than the compound of the tires and the characteristics of the tarmac.
I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.
I think the permits only apply to launching and landing. An object moving as fast as these craft carries significant kinetic energy as well as explosive fuels so a crash is a public risk. The FAA probably has some minimum safety requirements about construction and laucnch zone.
Not very suprising that it doesn't matter to Xcor whether they win the prize or not. I don't think $10M will cover the development costs of most of the entries, so I think most of them are "in it for the money." They must be hoping for some sort of commercial success/government contract using their techniques. Think of it as a long term investment.
The X-Prize itself serves more of a publicity role, keeping the developing entries in the media (including/.) and greasing the wheels of the FAA to give permits. The permits are interesting-They are a milestone showing which of the entries are serious and which are vaporware.
I seem to remember global warming described as a self correcting phenomenon. The argument wnet as follows:
1. Earth warms. Could be due to pollution, increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity.
2. Ocean evaporation increases. Warmer air and water means easier evaporation.
3. Increased levels of water vapor in the air leads to increased global cloud cover.
4. Increased cloud cover raises the Earth's albedo (measure of reflectivity) causing less solar gain.
5. Less solar gain leads to global cooling trend.
So the atmosphere seems to be a feedback system, like a thermostat or buffer solution. Note that the reverse happens when the Earth is too cool. Also, the increased ocean evaporation mitigates somewhat the rising sea level due to melting ice caps.
I wouldn't say they help when someone is driving innattentively like you describe, but that doesn't mean they are never beneficial.
They make your car more visible, which is always useful. Another driver is more likely (but definitely NOT guaranteed) to see your vehicle and take necessary precautions.
Similarly, a garish paint color can help as well. Volvo had a hideous orange/yellow color available on some models in the 80's that was said to increase visibility, and they had studies to back them up. The option tanked because the color was, well, hideous.
As to DRLs, I don't understand the arguments against them. They cost next to nothing (some additional wiring/switching, nominally shorter bulb life) but increase the safety of the vehicle. When someone argues against DRLs, I usually lump them in with those people who don't wear seatbelts because they'd "rather be thrown from the car." Darwin should take care of them.
WRT DRL legality, here in Canada it is illegal to disable them if your car came so equipped. I haven't heard of anywhere where they are illegal, and I would be curious as to the justification. Anyone?
That solution won't work. Most DRLs use either the low beam bulbs or the high beams in series to produce lower intensity. Removing the DRL bulbs will disable most or all of your regular headlights. The exception is some GM/Saturn models, which use the front parking lights as DRLs. Remove those bulbs and you lose your turn signals (This does not matter to many drivers;-)
Slashdot Mirror
This gets into the deeper question: what are we really? Is there more to a man (or woman, for the 3 female /.ers out there) than matter?
/. ;-)
If a person is merely matter, then we should be able to transfer the essence of them by analysing the matter thoroughly enough. Maybe the memories are stored data and the "essence" is the program that accesses it. If there is something more (a hotly debated subject since, well, subjects were invented) than perhaps no complete transfer is possible.
The other issue is how much of our "essence" is predicated on inhabiting a body such as ours? Would the human condition change if we were separated from it? Could the body be simulated accurately enough to suffice?
All big questions, not sure if the answers are on
You could have your own personal store of information, previously vetted by yourself or some person or organization I trust. You might even separate info into categories based on source, e.g. /. less trusted than, say, the National Inquirer. This is actually a bit like studying, only much faster and not as reliant on semi-reliable wetware. A broad search would only be a requirement for the things you haven't "studied."
I think it would ne fair if it were broadly available and not limited to an elite, which it probably would be at first. But think of when it spreads! Imagine if huge amounts of data were instantly available to you with perfect recall and control. Now imagine if everyone had this ability, with the added bonus of thought-speed communication with everyone else. This would be a fundamental change in the capacities of our species.
I think the distinction I am trying to make has to do with marginal cost. The marginal cost of another serving of food is nearly infinitely more than that of another digital recording. Every serving of food consumed is one less available for another hungry person, but a downloaded song deprives no one of hearing the music.
A live performance is more of a commodity, as a limited number of people can see it (one deprives another). For live performances I think an entertainer should charge whatever they want. But a recorded performance costs no more for each additional user if properly distributed.
There are also other ways for artists to earn a living. Commissions exist, most governments support the arts, ther are endorsement and advertising uses of many arts, there's even the age-old tradition of wealthy patrons putting artists to work at their craft.
I don't necessarily feel an artist _must_ give away their art, I merely feel that my perception of an artist changes when they complain that too many people are enjoying their art for free.
Besides, if we follow intellectual property too far, we'll all end up having to pay a nickel to whistle a song you heard on the radio.
Ther is a distinction that needs to be made here, I think. A musical performer has other methods to make money than selling recordings. Would the world be a worse place if performers were only paid for live shows? I think that would be a way for music artists to make money and yet have us able to share the recorded stuff. Painters could sell originals and limited edition prints while allowing digitized versions to be distributed freely.
;-)
A programmer, on the other hand, can't make live performances (or they would be boring, at least) and their "originals" are not distinguishable from the nth copy. There needs to be some mechanism for them to earn a living. With business software, an interested firm could pay to have the software developed and once done it could go open source. Games require a paying audience to cover the costs of development after the fact, so their business is tougher still.
All this hinges on whether you consider a programmer an artist, a debate I would't touch.
You're right on the money (pardon the cheap pun). It always has been about control. If you follow the trend, pretty soon they would have us paying for person-songs: You pay based on the song played times the number of people who will hear it. Every time you play it. Forever.
I read all kinds of stories on Slashdot like this about someone being upset that someone else is enjoying some form of art without paying for the privilege. It always makes me wonder about the goals of the artists.
It seems to me that a true artist would want as many people as possible to enjoy their creation. The internet and file-sharing should be a great enabler for this, as anyone anywhere with internet access can see, hear or read their art. It is truly liberating and democratizing, making art available to all instead of only those who can afford it.
Whenever I hear an artist complain that too many people are enjoying their work without paying, I smell a rat. If you are creating art to get rich, you're not really an artist, at least by my admittedly narrow definition. Art should be its own reward. A true artist would create and distribute their work even if there was no compensation for it and they had to work a day job to make ends meet. There are countless examples of this. The passion for their craft drives them, not a desire for monetary gain (though this sometimes is a byproduct).
As to record companies and other copyright holding entities, I understand that for their business to survive, they must try to protect their assets. I just happen to think that their business model is hopelessly outdated in the midst of the digital revolution.
We are at a turning point of the information age. Will information become truly free or will access to it be controlled by "information barons"?
Somewhat counter-intuitively, gradual acceleration is not the ideal fuel economy move. According to a BMW study, accelerating smartly gets you into a higher, more economical gear more quickly and reduces the engine's pumping losses due to partial throttle.
The catch is, there is only a benefit if you accelerate no more than necessary. Thus accelerating quickly on a highway on-ramp yields a gain if you stop at the same cruising speed. If you streak from stoplight to stoplight, you only waste fuel reaching an unnecessarily high peak speed only to dissipate that energy when you apply the brakes.
I don't think it's a change in EPA measuring techniques, but a better understanding of them by the manufacturers. I suspect that some models are tuned to do well fuel economy-wise under the specific conditions of the EPA test. Kinda of like in a college course where some people only bother to learn what they will be tested on.
Donning my tinfoil hat, I would go a step further and say that some cars have ECUs that can recognize the EPA testing conditions and change their injection and ignition timing to turn them into fuel economy champs while yielding no benefit in real world driving.
This is the height of foolishness. For the mass of the drive system for the entire base, you could fly ten rovers to the moon. This would give much better redundancy than a single base-like vehicle. About the only advantage I see is using the same base to explore physically disparate locations.
By that argument, a photograph cannot be copyrighted either. After all, it is a representation of a fact. Anyways, a map is hardly a fact, it is an inherently innaccurate flat projection of a complex surface. It takes time, effort and money to generate a map, and therefore IP rules should apply.
As an interesting sidenote, some map companies deliberately place errors such a snon-existent streets on their maps to make it easier to detect when someone illicitly "traces" one.
The coolest thing about a laser weapon, IMHO, is not the power or range or even its technology..it's the accuracy.
Aiming is the same as hitting with an energy weapon in most scenarios, the lightspeed lag only becoming a factor at high speed/long range, light an orbital target. Even then, a computer-aided targeting system should be able to compensate.
Imagine if such a weapon system were mounted in a vehicle (I think I read something about a prototype of a different laser in a 737) where just having the target in the crosshairs is enough to guarantee its destruction. Gives a new perspective to sniping. Should also reduce civilian casualties.
Longhorn isn't supposed to debut until 2006, by which time those specs probably will represent a mid range machine. Just because they are not available yet (processor) doesn't mean that they can't desing with more resources in mind.
That said, it looks like my PIII-800 that struggles with XP will not have a hope of dealing with Longhorn. So much for backward compatibility. *sigh*
Star ratings are a fairly inaccurate way of measuring the safety of a vehicle. They only apply to a collision with a fixed object. In a collision between two vehicles, the more massive one will suffer less damage, all other things being equal. Hybrids are at the very low end of the mass spectrum for vehicles (with mass being an enemy of fuel efficiency) so they will likely be the loser in any collision with another vehicle.
The fellow geeks at Ars Technica have just what you need, a software dead man's switch. Check it out at:
http://daisyman.arsware.org/dms/
Just be careful you are diligent about checking in.
How can they be called "standards" if they change from person to person? This muddy standard has devalued what an education is worth. If some one sees "High School Graduate" on a resume, how are they to know if they got "passed along" or if they are a mensa type? High school diplomas have degraded to certificates of attendance.
"The computer you want always costs $5000"
. as p
That's Machrone's Law, named for a PC Magazine editor.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1545647,00
This is good, but I can't wait until WiFi coverage is as ubiquitous as, say, cell phone coverage. I wouldn't mind paying a per-packet fee for near universal wireless access. Who will fund this project? My guess would be wireless providers, they already have their foot in the door.
;-P
That said, some issues must be solved first. WiFi security is still too lax, and uneducated users only make it worse. We need a truly idiot-proof security protocol - the problem is that idiots are so ingenious
Why do you assume 1G of acceleration? Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect. There is no arbitrary limit to accelerative G force other than the compound of the tires and the characteristics of the tarmac.
I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.
Check out the deposit agreement for the Moller Skycar:
D ep osit%20Agreement.pdf
http://www.moller.com/purchase/M400%20Skycar%20
Invest at least $10,000 in a car that doesn't have it's price set yet and may be cancelled at any time? I think not.
I'd say someone else will deliver the first flying car. Moller has been schilling its vaporware for decades.
I think the permits only apply to launching and landing. An object moving as fast as these craft carries significant kinetic energy as well as explosive fuels so a crash is a public risk. The FAA probably has some minimum safety requirements about construction and laucnch zone.
Not very suprising that it doesn't matter to Xcor whether they win the prize or not. I don't think $10M will cover the development costs of most of the entries, so I think most of them are "in it for the money." They must be hoping for some sort of commercial success/government contract using their techniques. Think of it as a long term investment.
/.) and greasing the wheels of the FAA to give permits. The permits are interesting-They are a milestone showing which of the entries are serious and which are vaporware.
The X-Prize itself serves more of a publicity role, keeping the developing entries in the media (including
Exciting stuff nonetheless.
I seem to remember global warming described as a self correcting phenomenon. The argument wnet as follows:
1. Earth warms. Could be due to pollution, increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity.
2. Ocean evaporation increases. Warmer air and water means easier evaporation.
3. Increased levels of water vapor in the air leads to increased global cloud cover.
4. Increased cloud cover raises the Earth's albedo (measure of reflectivity) causing less solar gain.
5. Less solar gain leads to global cooling trend.
So the atmosphere seems to be a feedback system, like a thermostat or buffer solution. Note that the reverse happens when the Earth is too cool. Also, the increased ocean evaporation mitigates somewhat the rising sea level due to melting ice caps.
I wouldn't say they help when someone is driving innattentively like you describe, but that doesn't mean they are never beneficial.
They make your car more visible, which is always useful. Another driver is more likely (but definitely NOT guaranteed) to see your vehicle and take necessary precautions.
Similarly, a garish paint color can help as well. Volvo had a hideous orange/yellow color available on some models in the 80's that was said to increase visibility, and they had studies to back them up. The option tanked because the color was, well, hideous.
As to DRLs, I don't understand the arguments against them. They cost next to nothing (some additional wiring/switching, nominally shorter bulb life) but increase the safety of the vehicle. When someone argues against DRLs, I usually lump them in with those people who don't wear seatbelts because they'd "rather be thrown from the car." Darwin should take care of them.
WRT DRL legality, here in Canada it is illegal to disable them if your car came so equipped. I haven't heard of anywhere where they are illegal, and I would be curious as to the justification. Anyone?
That solution won't work. Most DRLs use either the low beam bulbs or the high beams in series to produce lower intensity. Removing the DRL bulbs will disable most or all of your regular headlights. The exception is some GM/Saturn models, which use the front parking lights as DRLs. Remove those bulbs and you lose your turn signals (This does not matter to many drivers ;-)