I'm a space enthusiast and I actually do support the idea that people should go into space, but we must balance out our desire to expand with our environmental obligations. We should be better prepared to tackle environmental problems before we colonise space. On Earth the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, as well as the biosphere, help us keep our environmental footprint low. On other planets, especially those that are geologically inactive, there won't be any process to clean up our factory waste. If you throw away mercury on a lunar crater, it may stay there for long periods of time, while on Earth any waste is usually distributed in large areas and its effects are less noticeable, but on the Moon it probably won't be like this. We already count dead from our space programmes as we seem reluctant to invest enough money in safety, and I wouldn't like to see such mistakes repeated on other planets. We must become more environmentally conscious before we settle on the Moon or Mars, otherwise we will be just hopping from planet to planet after we get them full of junk.
I think it's too paranoid to never use your real name and being beware of mailing lists. Not having an online presence, preferably under your real name, can be a disadvantage in job applications or subcontracting, not to say even in simple social interaction. Those who are accustomed on the Internet ***expect*** to find something about you online, and if they don't many times they may be suspicious.
I cannot comment on this researcher or the worth of their findings/research, but I want to say that I strongly support fundraising for research through donations and time volunteering. I think we must detach academic research from government funds, as when we allow the government to fund our research we find ourselves controlled by the government and big business in the end. Scientific research must be supported by the community, as happens in open source. Common people should volunteer their time and money to enable trustworthy researchers with proven ability to solve important problems. Researchers should also publish their findings on the Web and open journals for all to see, not only to expensive elitist journals that very few have access. Unfortunately few common people understand science, so we may be thousands of years away from the point where grassroots-democratic scientific research supported by communities independent from governments and big businesses becomes a social reality.
Customers pay for service. If they are willing to pay more for privacy, this means that privacy is equated with a service that can be bought. Since then is privacy something you buy? Isn't privacy a right? Should we pay to enjoy our rights? I am afraid that the blatant lack of privacy has made even the customers to abandon the idea that they have this right as an unrealistic romantic ideal and accept the harsh reality that in today's corporate jungle there are no rights and everything can be sold and bought.
Microsoft like most companies out there has a very short-term view. They give away a limited version of VS for free, with a licence that prohibits "circumventing" its limitations. What do you think would happen if people and smaller companies started developing plugins for the free VS version, thus extending its capabilities? Microsoft seems to think that its profitability would be threatened. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the result would be simply more users, more market share, for the free VS version. MS appears to believe that more market share of the free version would not translate into higher sales of the professional versions. This could happen in the short-term. However, in the long-term, the higher market share of the free VS version would get so much gravity that it would become an unstoppable snowball, getting bigger and bigger in the way. When you have lots of people using your free product, there are also lots of ways to make money from it. A large userbase is like a celebrity with lots of fame. Most celebrities find ways to translate their fame into wealth: They sell interviews, they sell their photos, they socialise with other wealthy celebrities, etc. In software, you can give away the code for free and earn money by selling services, certifications, training, books, participating in conferences, etc. Actually many open-source businesses such as GNU/Linux distributors work in this way. I think capitalising on reputation rather than a restrictive licence and the accompanying legal enforcement of it is a much more enlightened way to conduct business. By using a licence to force people to pay you is like poking them with a gun. You get their money by a combination of persuasion and threat: The performance of the product persuades the people that they need it, and the threat of legal action ensures that the only way they can acquire it is by making you rich. Using fame is a softer approach, where you persuade customers about the usefulness of the product, and then you create various para-products that support the main product. It's easier to persuade existing users of your product that they also need an additional paid-for para=product to enhance their experience of using the main product. Or, in other words, it's easy to make someone walk another kilometre if you have already persuaded them to walk along two continents. The only problem with the fame-based approach to business is that it takes time to monetise. This makes this approach unsuitable for the personal careerist interests of many managers, who want to show direct results on the bottom line from day zero. Therefore, many business managers focus only on whatever can create positive cash flows in their monthly or quarterly financial statements. After they have some quarters of positive results they go to the boss or the investors begging for a promotion. Short-term profitability may help their career (especially if the boss or the investors are clueless about business) but actually hurt the business in the long-term (not of their problem, in fact, as the business isn't theirs - managers are just elevated employees and wouldn't give a fsck about whether the company survives the next recession - not everyone is like this of course but I suspect that this must describe the majority). With such dynamics in place, it's no surprise that most companies are as clueless as MS in managing their reputation, an endeavour which necessitates a long-term bird-eye view. Microsoft has not learnt to conduct business with a soft reputation-based approach, and it may never do. In fact the company has a long track record of excellence in creating negative reputation of itself, even among people who wish to play within its own ecosystem. Whether a licence has been violated must be taken into account within a larger more all-encompassing business view. I'm not arguing that this guy isn't in the wrong, they might be. What I say is that Microsoft should re-consider its very basic business model (they code software, package it and sell it under
Personally I believe that the reason we have not been contacted by extraterrestrial intelligence is that humans are dumb as hell. Who would ever want to communicate with such stupid and warlike creatures like us? A significant portion of our scientific research is driven by our militaries in their attempts to build bigger and more sinister weapons. Many academics doing research are more interested in their reputation and careers rather than the truth of science. Extraterrestrials are probably hiding from humanity, not because they are afraid of us, but simply because they feel that we do not deserve any contact with intelligent beings.
If you really need Pantone colours, why switch to a closed-source and expensive product and not have the feature implemented in the next version of GIMP? If you know how to program, you could implement it yourself, or suggest the feature in the GIMP mailing lists. If nobody wants to implement your favourite feature for free, you can always pay someone to do it.
I run Windows Mobile 5 on HTC Universal and it makes my life difficult. The perfect hardware combined with the most stupid software. It sucks big time.
Both Windows Mobile and XP are not user-friendly and make the life of the users difficult. The future is Linux. The advantage of Linux is that is is open and users's wishes make it into the codebase very quickly. In fact, I find a GNOME or KDE desktop easier to use than Windows XP in many respects. The only problem that makes Linux difficult for new users is the non-cooperation of hardware makers, thus causing unavailability of drivers. Had we had drivers for every device, we could very easily create superior OSes based on Linux. Try getting your favourite feature coded in Windows... you can't, unless you are a multi-billion customer. If your OS is Linux and you need a specific feature, the only thing you need to do in order to implement it is to send an e-mail to the developers, gain support in their mailing lists, and sometimes provide a patch yourself if you are a programmer. If your requested feature is unpopular, that's no problem for you, you can just code it yourself or pay someone do it for you on your machine. The fact that a platform is open guarantees that the users will find a way to make it look and function exactly as they want.
HTC makes perfect hardware, but the software it runs sucks big time. Yes, I talk about Windows Mobile. I am an owner of an HTC Universal, also known as Qtek 9000, which looks like a small laptop. The first problem I had with the device was that although the TFT screen is capable of displaying 640x480 resolution, Windows Mobile limit the output to 320x240, making the device unsuitable for the original reason I bought it (Slashdot, eh..., Internet surfing over 3G cellular networks, later also Python hacking and SSHing while on the road). Thanks to a little Russian hack, OzVga, I have an easy interface to switch between 640x480 and 320x240 anytime I want (ie never, as I only use 640x480). I really can't understand why MS stupidly sets 320x240 as th default resolution, without offering any interface to change it except through the registry. Windows Mobile crash very frequently, are very slow (even on Universal's 520MHz ARM CPU), have the most user-unfriendly and stupid interface I have ever seen since Spectrum's keyboard, and makes my life as a user very difficult. There is a project to port Linux on Universal but it is still in its infancy. I would really describe HTC's Universal as a device combining the perfect hardware with the most unusable software you could ever imagine. HTC really destroys its reputation by cooperating with MS. I am sure HTC could exponentially increase its sales by loading a non-MS OS, preferably open-source like Linux, on all its new PDAs. The best thing HTC can do is to open its hardware platform documentation and let Linux hackers create a Linux port on Universal or future similar device, then sponsor the effort and make Linux the default OS.
AFAIK the humans were always wrong, caring only about money without any regard for anyone else, in many cases even for family members. No need to make you depressed, as this seems to be the normal natural functioning of humanity. The good news is that you can help fix it, and contributing to open-source is one way to do that.
It really looks like a Flybook subnotebook, which is about the same size and has the same 1024x600 resolution. I own two of them. The good thing about Flybook is that it can connect to the Internet through cellular networks supporting GPRS (53 kbps), UMTS (384 kbps), and HSDPA (1.8 to 3.6 mbps) and that it runs on a x86 processor (Transmeta or Pentium M). The bad thing is that its standard battery has just 1-2 hour autonomy depending how you use it (but the extended battery has much more, from 3 to 4 hours depending on use) and it lacks an integrated DVD drive. I would like to point out that Flybook is designed to be usable while you walk, as the pointing device is located at the top right position (unfortunately there is no left-hand version!). I notice that this Palm Foleo machine has its pointing device on the centre, which would make it difficult to use it while walking. Palm's claimed battery life is 5 hours, which is too low for an ARM-based machine (my HTC Universal with the extended battery has 22 hours autonomy, and I'm able to connect to the Internet through cellular GPRS and UMTS networks from it, connect to my servers via SSH, code in Python, and browse Slashdot at 640x480 thanks to OzVGA. Actually I would say that HTC Universal would be completely perfect if it had more memory, wasn't based on Winblows, and could connect via HSDPA just like Nokia's E90 does). I also notice that the Palm Foleo's keyboard seems very well designed, while I can't say the same about Flybook's keyboard (try coding in C or another language with lots of brackets, or use any application requiring heavy use of PgUp and PgDown keys on a Flybook keyboard while standing up and you'll understand). There are many interesting mobile devices out there (see HTC's new toy or Sharp's Zaurus) and only time will tell whether Palm's new machine will be a hit in the mobile warriors's market. It's interesting to note that as x86 subnotebooks become smaller and ARM machines larger there are less and less differences between them, to the point where we may have difficulty distinguishing them at first glance.
They are over our heads, and they are many. Most stars should have more than one exoplanet around them, and there are a wholla lot of stars out there. The only thing we need to discover them is good equipment and determination. There are many people with determination to discover exoplanets. We only have to look at the sky and utilise the proper equipment and methods (there are two methods for exoplanet detection: one is to detect gravitational anomalies that can be explained only by the presence of a big ball of mass in orbit around the star, ie a planet, and the other method is to detect the dimming of a star's light when a planet passes in front of them - the problem is that both methods work best with planets that are either too big or too close to their star, or both, and what would be a breakthrough in exoplanet research would be the development of a method for discovering very small objects in orbit around stars, eg small planets, moons, and asteroids). If you think about it, Galileo discovered 4 moons around Jupiter within one week, because we had the right tool and the determination to use it. Here you can see what he saw with his telescope, 4 balls (the moons) around a big ball (Jupiter). All discovered in a single week, just because they were already there and someone had the motivation to look at them.
It's very easy to repeat something already done. Any techniques, theories, and technology used for the discovery have been practically proven after the first discovery, and other scientists are more willing to invest their precious time on theories and techniques that are proven to produce results. Furthermore, discovering things is usually very good for your career (but not always - depending on where you live and how you communicate your findings you may find yourself in trouble, eg Galileo). After a scientist discovers something entirely new, others want to give a boost to their careers as well, so they are trying to repeat the discovery in order to seem equal to the first discoverer.
I actually think that the Pentagon is beautiful. However, I think its shape is too distinct, and is prone to aerial attack. A pilot would easily find it even without a map. Shouldn't such an important building have an ordinary shape, be camouflaged, or lie completely underground?
Monitoring climate change is important, but solving it even more important. As plants are natural consumers of CO2, they could help us a bit. We would probably need lots of space to control the current CO2 levels by planting trees, so I am wondering whether we could genetically modify some plants, preferably phytoplankton, to consume CO2 very rapidly. Then we could just throw some of them in every ocean and let them feed on our CO2 emmissions. Our problem then would be to find what to do with the excess oxygen.
Governments are dysfunctional at starting things, but are often very capable at sustaining what has already been done. Provide generous tax cuts to entrepreneurs wishing to invest in scientifically proven low-carbon technologies. Let them build new non-polluting power plants. Make sure that whatever technology they use is not limited by copyrights and patents, and when they succeed in large-scale low-carbon electricity generation, copy what they do at the government level. Iceland started using hydropower only after an entrepreneur invested in it. According to Wikipedia, an Icelandic entrepreneur built the first hydropower plant in 1904, and then a municipality built another in 1921. By 1950's the government had invested in hydropower and now Iceland satisfies 81% of its energy needs by hydropower. Geothermal power also started in a similar fashion, when a farmer utilised it in 1907 to heat their house. After more geothermal use in Reykjavik in 1930s, the government invested in it in 1940s and now geothermal power satisfies 18.9% of Iceland's energy needs. The rest 0.01% is satisfied from imported oil, but Icelandic professor Bragi Arnason proposed in 1970s to use hydrogen as a fuel and Iceland opened its first hydrogen station in 2003. They want to completely stop using oil by 2050, and it looks like they can do it. We should all learn from Iceland!
The Creation Museum is "powered" by the organisation Answers in Genesis, which as an employer requires something more than a good CV:
"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith." - AiG website.
Isn't this a form of disrimination? Is this legal?
I am now happily running Debian 4.0 etch as my default desktop and laptop OS. Novell committed a serious offence in the open source world by signing a deal with Microsoft, and their recent partnership with EFF can't change that. No machine runs SUSE anymore here. Perhaps you should consider Debian the next time you have to install an OS, as it'll enable you to become part of a much more healthy community and avoid becoming a customer of a corporation that WILL step over you if it's good for their bottom line.
I was also making money before I was 13, and Elementeo doesn't surprise me.
It is much more easier for children to be engaged in business than adults. First, children have lots of imagination, while in general few adults retain it after they turn 22-23. Furthermore, children are usually free of debt and get free food and financial support from their parents, and children normally have no responsibilities; compare that to an adult who is indebted, needs to work in order to eat, and has a family to support. Moreover, children have more free time than adults. Another important factor that is in children's favour is that they usually have good health, while many adults do not. Lastly, laws in general seek to protect children, an advantage mature entrepreneurs cannot have.
Children always ask questions. The job of a scientist is to answer questions to satisfy our curiosity. However, scientists like to answer questions in a specific way: By doing (experimenting). Philosophers also answer questions, but they do so by thinking, not by doing. Religious prophets answer questions as well, but only by using their imagination. You can explain your job AND the scientific method in this way. Ask your child what makes a piece of iron different from a cup of tea. Bring in some LEGO bricks and explain that everything we touch is made of tiny LEGOs. The way these tiny LEGOs are sticked together, and the colour of them, determines whether a set of LEGOs is iron or tea, just like your child can build a house or a car using the same LEGOs.
All exoplanets around the Gliese 581 star were found by HARPS, an instrument installed on European Southern Observatory. HARPS is only one of the two instruments that exist worldwide with high precision capabilities, so imagine what we could find if we had a Beowulf cluster of these. You may like to see the software used to run HARPS.
Here's a good judge. It's very professional to admit that he doesn't understand something.
Perhaps one would think that it would be easy to explain what a web site is. However, the definition of a website might not be so easy as you may think. Judges, like computer scientists, often have to tackle with very fine details and seek answers to subtle questions. For example: Should every website use the HTTP protocol? If yes, what if there is a law saying terrorist websites are illegal but the defendands used a slightly customised HTTP version? Furthermore, should every website include webpages? What if the law prohibits terrorist webpages, but the defendands just placed some gzip or pdf files on a public indexed directory served by Apache httpd? Is a non-indexed directory served by Apache a website? Can a website on the Principality of Sealand be prosecuted under US law? If you tunnel HTTP traffic through another protocol, would this qualify as website data? Is a website a publication? Is it still a publication if you open a website on a non-networked server? If you create a website unreadable by humans but readable by computers, would this qualify as a publication? Is a website that was online only for 3 minutes a kind of publication? Is the printout of a website still a website? Would the browser cache be regarded as copying potentially copyrighted material? If a very sucky webserver can only handle 3 requests per minute and you hit your Refresh/Reload button 4 times within a minute bringing the server down, would this be a DoS attack?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a space enthusiast and I actually do support the idea that people should go into space, but we must balance out our desire to expand with our environmental obligations. We should be better prepared to tackle environmental problems before we colonise space. On Earth the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, as well as the biosphere, help us keep our environmental footprint low. On other planets, especially those that are geologically inactive, there won't be any process to clean up our factory waste. If you throw away mercury on a lunar crater, it may stay there for long periods of time, while on Earth any waste is usually distributed in large areas and its effects are less noticeable, but on the Moon it probably won't be like this. We already count dead from our space programmes as we seem reluctant to invest enough money in safety, and I wouldn't like to see such mistakes repeated on other planets. We must become more environmentally conscious before we settle on the Moon or Mars, otherwise we will be just hopping from planet to planet after we get them full of junk.
I think it's too paranoid to never use your real name and being beware of mailing lists. Not having an online presence, preferably under your real name, can be a disadvantage in job applications or subcontracting, not to say even in simple social interaction. Those who are accustomed on the Internet ***expect*** to find something about you online, and if they don't many times they may be suspicious.
When a particle flying at c hits the brain of a nerd, a world-class genius is born!
I cannot comment on this researcher or the worth of their findings/research, but I want to say that I strongly support fundraising for research through donations and time volunteering. I think we must detach academic research from government funds, as when we allow the government to fund our research we find ourselves controlled by the government and big business in the end. Scientific research must be supported by the community, as happens in open source. Common people should volunteer their time and money to enable trustworthy researchers with proven ability to solve important problems. Researchers should also publish their findings on the Web and open journals for all to see, not only to expensive elitist journals that very few have access. Unfortunately few common people understand science, so we may be thousands of years away from the point where grassroots-democratic scientific research supported by communities independent from governments and big businesses becomes a social reality.
Customers pay for service. If they are willing to pay more for privacy, this means that privacy is equated with a service that can be bought. Since then is privacy something you buy? Isn't privacy a right? Should we pay to enjoy our rights? I am afraid that the blatant lack of privacy has made even the customers to abandon the idea that they have this right as an unrealistic romantic ideal and accept the harsh reality that in today's corporate jungle there are no rights and everything can be sold and bought.
Microsoft like most companies out there has a very short-term view. They give away a limited version of VS for free, with a licence that prohibits "circumventing" its limitations. What do you think would happen if people and smaller companies started developing plugins for the free VS version, thus extending its capabilities? Microsoft seems to think that its profitability would be threatened. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the result would be simply more users, more market share, for the free VS version. MS appears to believe that more market share of the free version would not translate into higher sales of the professional versions. This could happen in the short-term. However, in the long-term, the higher market share of the free VS version would get so much gravity that it would become an unstoppable snowball, getting bigger and bigger in the way. When you have lots of people using your free product, there are also lots of ways to make money from it. A large userbase is like a celebrity with lots of fame. Most celebrities find ways to translate their fame into wealth: They sell interviews, they sell their photos, they socialise with other wealthy celebrities, etc. In software, you can give away the code for free and earn money by selling services, certifications, training, books, participating in conferences, etc. Actually many open-source businesses such as GNU/Linux distributors work in this way. I think capitalising on reputation rather than a restrictive licence and the accompanying legal enforcement of it is a much more enlightened way to conduct business. By using a licence to force people to pay you is like poking them with a gun. You get their money by a combination of persuasion and threat: The performance of the product persuades the people that they need it, and the threat of legal action ensures that the only way they can acquire it is by making you rich. Using fame is a softer approach, where you persuade customers about the usefulness of the product, and then you create various para-products that support the main product. It's easier to persuade existing users of your product that they also need an additional paid-for para=product to enhance their experience of using the main product. Or, in other words, it's easy to make someone walk another kilometre if you have already persuaded them to walk along two continents. The only problem with the fame-based approach to business is that it takes time to monetise. This makes this approach unsuitable for the personal careerist interests of many managers, who want to show direct results on the bottom line from day zero. Therefore, many business managers focus only on whatever can create positive cash flows in their monthly or quarterly financial statements. After they have some quarters of positive results they go to the boss or the investors begging for a promotion. Short-term profitability may help their career (especially if the boss or the investors are clueless about business) but actually hurt the business in the long-term (not of their problem, in fact, as the business isn't theirs - managers are just elevated employees and wouldn't give a fsck about whether the company survives the next recession - not everyone is like this of course but I suspect that this must describe the majority). With such dynamics in place, it's no surprise that most companies are as clueless as MS in managing their reputation, an endeavour which necessitates a long-term bird-eye view. Microsoft has not learnt to conduct business with a soft reputation-based approach, and it may never do. In fact the company has a long track record of excellence in creating negative reputation of itself, even among people who wish to play within its own ecosystem. Whether a licence has been violated must be taken into account within a larger more all-encompassing business view. I'm not arguing that this guy isn't in the wrong, they might be. What I say is that Microsoft should re-consider its very basic business model (they code software, package it and sell it under
Personally I believe that the reason we have not been contacted by extraterrestrial intelligence is that humans are dumb as hell. Who would ever want to communicate with such stupid and warlike creatures like us? A significant portion of our scientific research is driven by our militaries in their attempts to build bigger and more sinister weapons. Many academics doing research are more interested in their reputation and careers rather than the truth of science. Extraterrestrials are probably hiding from humanity, not because they are afraid of us, but simply because they feel that we do not deserve any contact with intelligent beings.
If you really need Pantone colours, why switch to a closed-source and expensive product and not have the feature implemented in the next version of GIMP? If you know how to program, you could implement it yourself, or suggest the feature in the GIMP mailing lists. If nobody wants to implement your favourite feature for free, you can always pay someone to do it.
I run Windows Mobile 5 on HTC Universal and it makes my life difficult. The perfect hardware combined with the most stupid software. It sucks big time.
Both Windows Mobile and XP are not user-friendly and make the life of the users difficult. The future is Linux. The advantage of Linux is that is is open and users's wishes make it into the codebase very quickly. In fact, I find a GNOME or KDE desktop easier to use than Windows XP in many respects. The only problem that makes Linux difficult for new users is the non-cooperation of hardware makers, thus causing unavailability of drivers. Had we had drivers for every device, we could very easily create superior OSes based on Linux. Try getting your favourite feature coded in Windows... you can't, unless you are a multi-billion customer. If your OS is Linux and you need a specific feature, the only thing you need to do in order to implement it is to send an e-mail to the developers, gain support in their mailing lists, and sometimes provide a patch yourself if you are a programmer. If your requested feature is unpopular, that's no problem for you, you can just code it yourself or pay someone do it for you on your machine. The fact that a platform is open guarantees that the users will find a way to make it look and function exactly as they want.
HTC makes perfect hardware, but the software it runs sucks big time. Yes, I talk about Windows Mobile. I am an owner of an HTC Universal, also known as Qtek 9000, which looks like a small laptop. The first problem I had with the device was that although the TFT screen is capable of displaying 640x480 resolution, Windows Mobile limit the output to 320x240, making the device unsuitable for the original reason I bought it (Slashdot, eh..., Internet surfing over 3G cellular networks, later also Python hacking and SSHing while on the road). Thanks to a little Russian hack, OzVga, I have an easy interface to switch between 640x480 and 320x240 anytime I want (ie never, as I only use 640x480). I really can't understand why MS stupidly sets 320x240 as th default resolution, without offering any interface to change it except through the registry. Windows Mobile crash very frequently, are very slow (even on Universal's 520MHz ARM CPU), have the most user-unfriendly and stupid interface I have ever seen since Spectrum's keyboard, and makes my life as a user very difficult. There is a project to port Linux on Universal but it is still in its infancy. I would really describe HTC's Universal as a device combining the perfect hardware with the most unusable software you could ever imagine. HTC really destroys its reputation by cooperating with MS. I am sure HTC could exponentially increase its sales by loading a non-MS OS, preferably open-source like Linux, on all its new PDAs. The best thing HTC can do is to open its hardware platform documentation and let Linux hackers create a Linux port on Universal or future similar device, then sponsor the effort and make Linux the default OS.
AFAIK the humans were always wrong, caring only about money without any regard for anyone else, in many cases even for family members. No need to make you depressed, as this seems to be the normal natural functioning of humanity. The good news is that you can help fix it, and contributing to open-source is one way to do that.
It really looks like a Flybook subnotebook, which is about the same size and has the same 1024x600 resolution. I own two of them. The good thing about Flybook is that it can connect to the Internet through cellular networks supporting GPRS (53 kbps), UMTS (384 kbps), and HSDPA (1.8 to 3.6 mbps) and that it runs on a x86 processor (Transmeta or Pentium M). The bad thing is that its standard battery has just 1-2 hour autonomy depending how you use it (but the extended battery has much more, from 3 to 4 hours depending on use) and it lacks an integrated DVD drive. I would like to point out that Flybook is designed to be usable while you walk, as the pointing device is located at the top right position (unfortunately there is no left-hand version!). I notice that this Palm Foleo machine has its pointing device on the centre, which would make it difficult to use it while walking. Palm's claimed battery life is 5 hours, which is too low for an ARM-based machine (my HTC Universal with the extended battery has 22 hours autonomy, and I'm able to connect to the Internet through cellular GPRS and UMTS networks from it, connect to my servers via SSH, code in Python, and browse Slashdot at 640x480 thanks to OzVGA. Actually I would say that HTC Universal would be completely perfect if it had more memory, wasn't based on Winblows, and could connect via HSDPA just like Nokia's E90 does). I also notice that the Palm Foleo's keyboard seems very well designed, while I can't say the same about Flybook's keyboard (try coding in C or another language with lots of brackets, or use any application requiring heavy use of PgUp and PgDown keys on a Flybook keyboard while standing up and you'll understand). There are many interesting mobile devices out there (see HTC's new toy or Sharp's Zaurus) and only time will tell whether Palm's new machine will be a hit in the mobile warriors's market. It's interesting to note that as x86 subnotebooks become smaller and ARM machines larger there are less and less differences between them, to the point where we may have difficulty distinguishing them at first glance.
They are over our heads, and they are many. Most stars should have more than one exoplanet around them, and there are a wholla lot of stars out there. The only thing we need to discover them is good equipment and determination. There are many people with determination to discover exoplanets. We only have to look at the sky and utilise the proper equipment and methods (there are two methods for exoplanet detection: one is to detect gravitational anomalies that can be explained only by the presence of a big ball of mass in orbit around the star, ie a planet, and the other method is to detect the dimming of a star's light when a planet passes in front of them - the problem is that both methods work best with planets that are either too big or too close to their star, or both, and what would be a breakthrough in exoplanet research would be the development of a method for discovering very small objects in orbit around stars, eg small planets, moons, and asteroids). If you think about it, Galileo discovered 4 moons around Jupiter within one week, because we had the right tool and the determination to use it. Here you can see what he saw with his telescope, 4 balls (the moons) around a big ball (Jupiter). All discovered in a single week, just because they were already there and someone had the motivation to look at them.
It's very easy to repeat something already done. Any techniques, theories, and technology used for the discovery have been practically proven after the first discovery, and other scientists are more willing to invest their precious time on theories and techniques that are proven to produce results. Furthermore, discovering things is usually very good for your career (but not always - depending on where you live and how you communicate your findings you may find yourself in trouble, eg Galileo). After a scientist discovers something entirely new, others want to give a boost to their careers as well, so they are trying to repeat the discovery in order to seem equal to the first discoverer.
I actually think that the Pentagon is beautiful. However, I think its shape is too distinct, and is prone to aerial attack. A pilot would easily find it even without a map. Shouldn't such an important building have an ordinary shape, be camouflaged, or lie completely underground?
Monitoring climate change is important, but solving it even more important. As plants are natural consumers of CO2, they could help us a bit. We would probably need lots of space to control the current CO2 levels by planting trees, so I am wondering whether we could genetically modify some plants, preferably phytoplankton, to consume CO2 very rapidly. Then we could just throw some of them in every ocean and let them feed on our CO2 emmissions. Our problem then would be to find what to do with the excess oxygen.
Governments are dysfunctional at starting things, but are often very capable at sustaining what has already been done. Provide generous tax cuts to entrepreneurs wishing to invest in scientifically proven low-carbon technologies. Let them build new non-polluting power plants. Make sure that whatever technology they use is not limited by copyrights and patents, and when they succeed in large-scale low-carbon electricity generation, copy what they do at the government level. Iceland started using hydropower only after an entrepreneur invested in it. According to Wikipedia, an Icelandic entrepreneur built the first hydropower plant in 1904, and then a municipality built another in 1921. By 1950's the government had invested in hydropower and now Iceland satisfies 81% of its energy needs by hydropower. Geothermal power also started in a similar fashion, when a farmer utilised it in 1907 to heat their house. After more geothermal use in Reykjavik in 1930s, the government invested in it in 1940s and now geothermal power satisfies 18.9% of Iceland's energy needs. The rest 0.01% is satisfied from imported oil, but Icelandic professor Bragi Arnason proposed in 1970s to use hydrogen as a fuel and Iceland opened its first hydrogen station in 2003. They want to completely stop using oil by 2050, and it looks like they can do it. We should all learn from Iceland!
The Creation Museum is "powered" by the organisation Answers in Genesis, which as an employer requires something more than a good CV:
"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith." - AiG website.
Isn't this a form of disrimination? Is this legal?
I am now happily running Debian 4.0 etch as my default desktop and laptop OS. Novell committed a serious offence in the open source world by signing a deal with Microsoft, and their recent partnership with EFF can't change that. No machine runs SUSE anymore here. Perhaps you should consider Debian the next time you have to install an OS, as it'll enable you to become part of a much more healthy community and avoid becoming a customer of a corporation that WILL step over you if it's good for their bottom line.
linux.killed.ms
I was also making money before I was 13, and Elementeo doesn't surprise me. It is much more easier for children to be engaged in business than adults. First, children have lots of imagination, while in general few adults retain it after they turn 22-23. Furthermore, children are usually free of debt and get free food and financial support from their parents, and children normally have no responsibilities; compare that to an adult who is indebted, needs to work in order to eat, and has a family to support. Moreover, children have more free time than adults. Another important factor that is in children's favour is that they usually have good health, while many adults do not. Lastly, laws in general seek to protect children, an advantage mature entrepreneurs cannot have.
Children always ask questions. The job of a scientist is to answer questions to satisfy our curiosity. However, scientists like to answer questions in a specific way: By doing (experimenting). Philosophers also answer questions, but they do so by thinking, not by doing. Religious prophets answer questions as well, but only by using their imagination. You can explain your job AND the scientific method in this way. Ask your child what makes a piece of iron different from a cup of tea. Bring in some LEGO bricks and explain that everything we touch is made of tiny LEGOs. The way these tiny LEGOs are sticked together, and the colour of them, determines whether a set of LEGOs is iron or tea, just like your child can build a house or a car using the same LEGOs.
All exoplanets around the Gliese 581 star were found by HARPS, an instrument installed on European Southern Observatory. HARPS is only one of the two instruments that exist worldwide with high precision capabilities, so imagine what we could find if we had a Beowulf cluster of these. You may like to see the software used to run HARPS.
Here's a good judge. It's very professional to admit that he doesn't understand something.
Perhaps one would think that it would be easy to explain what a web site is. However, the definition of a website might not be so easy as you may think. Judges, like computer scientists, often have to tackle with very fine details and seek answers to subtle questions. For example: Should every website use the HTTP protocol? If yes, what if there is a law saying terrorist websites are illegal but the defendands used a slightly customised HTTP version? Furthermore, should every website include webpages? What if the law prohibits terrorist webpages, but the defendands just placed some gzip or pdf files on a public indexed directory served by Apache httpd? Is a non-indexed directory served by Apache a website? Can a website on the Principality of Sealand be prosecuted under US law? If you tunnel HTTP traffic through another protocol, would this qualify as website data? Is a website a publication? Is it still a publication if you open a website on a non-networked server? If you create a website unreadable by humans but readable by computers, would this qualify as a publication? Is a website that was online only for 3 minutes a kind of publication? Is the printout of a website still a website? Would the browser cache be regarded as copying potentially copyrighted material? If a very sucky webserver can only handle 3 requests per minute and you hit your Refresh/Reload button 4 times within a minute bringing the server down, would this be a DoS attack?