I'd agree with you, but the chance that the lander would land close to an object that is 'large' is too great a possibility to not have accounted for it? When writing code, you should always look to trap or overcome any circumstances that might confuse/cripple/kill your program. The same goes for autonomous vehicles.
As an example, hobby robotics poses a simple problem that is very much like the one the rovers face: how to run around the house all day and "not get stuck behind the couch" with limited sensory facilities. Say you were to take a Lego robotics kit and try this, it's not easy and takes quite some engineering skills. I'm just surprised that the rover developers didn't account for this. It *IS* impressive how they are able to modify the code and upload it though.
but I have to wonder why they didn't send it up there with the ability to plane long and short treks?
The more I learn about (semi)autonomous robotics, the more impressed I am with what the Mars rovers have accomplished already and the people who built/maintain/program them.
My forays into hobby robotics tells me that this isn't as easy as it first appears it might be.
Because, damnit! The guy holding the chair kept yelling at them and wanting to know when it will be ready? They changed the name and he put the chair back on the floor!
No matter how funny I find what you said, if people are watching YouTube on their pc's and not 'must see tv' then the only ads that will be worth paying for are the ones that manufacturers pay YouTube for. If the networks are not knocking on YouTube's door soon, they will lose out worse than the *AA's are losing out now.
soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.
I think I did the analogies just right on that one...
The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
There are laws for slander, libel, and other manner of social discord that allow us to deal with such problems already. The fact that the Internet and computers have added a new dimension to society does not mean that we need new laws. We simply need to revise current laws to include this new dimension.
That it happens in a school social setting is not new, as was stated, but the lack of training for students as to what constitutes libel, slander, or other actions that could result in litigation or penalties is sad.
Education is what is needed, not regulation. Less government, not more. Intelligence, not money will go the furthest towards eliminating such problems.
Yes, I believe that if they break a law on the Internet, it is a civil courts place to punish that person rather than the school's place. No more he said, she said. Lets have them show the judge and let the judge decide if there is anything to punish. Perhaps a special court to streamline such cases, but make it court. Punishment is then meted out in a legally binding way rather than arbitrary decisions of school leaders.
Punishments for minors is not a bad thing as schools, parks, and other public places need cleaning and looking after. A little community service gives them time to think about what they did.
and there are always groups of individuals in every company that DO NOT fit the one-size-fits-all software/security model.
Some people/groups really need a sandbox to work in, without interference from good intentioned IT departments.
A virus spread wildly throughout my company recently because IT had thought to conveniently map some not so useful drives for everyone... guess how that virus spread?
IT needs to learn to provide and protect without being so intrusive as to hinder real work being done.
It was Ms Streep, but the problem was epilepsy, and the movie is called ".. First, do no harm" The movies outlines a diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_Diet called the ketogenic diet, consisting of a coctail of fats basically. I should have went to IMDB.com first. From IMDB.com:
10 out of 10 people found the following comment useful:- PG-13 - intense emotional and physical depiction of a child's illness, 20 December 2004 Author: ryanlupin from London, England
In this alternately heartbreaking and uplifting drama inspired by actual events, a small town Midwest family discovers that their youngest son suffers from epilepsy. Left without hope after their insurance runs out, the mother presses on, studies everything she can find out about the illness, and, against the wishes of her local doctor, takes her son to Baltimore for treatment with the controversial ketogenetic diet.
The title of this movie-made-for-television, First Do No Harm, comes from the Hippocratic oath which doctors take as part of their vocation.
However, in many cases physicians are loath to recommend procedures not because they do anyone harm but because their efficacy is not supported by scientific research. This is the case when four-year-old Robbie (Seth Adkins) is diagnosed as having a type of epilepsy for which the cause is unknown. His parents, Lori (Meryl Streep) and Dave (Fred Ward), agree to a series of excruciating drug treatments which only seem to worsen his condition. Their situation becomes more complicated when they learn that their health insurance policy has lapsed.
Then Lori discovers a regimen called the Ketogenic Diet; one-third of the epileptic children on this diet have experienced no additional seizures. Robbie's parents are furious with his doctor (Allison Janney) for not telling them about this treatment and then refusing to facilitate their trying it. Instead, she recommends brain surgery for the boy.
The finale of the drama demonstrates the distance some families have to go to take control of the health and welfare of their loved ones. First Do No Harm presents a blistering attack on the rigidity and insensitivity of the medical establishment.
Outstanding performances from both Meryl Streep and child sensation, Seth Adkins. Definitely a 'must-watch!!'
IIRC, there was a film about this years ago. Can't remember the actress' name, might have been Meryl Streep??? Basically this mom didn't want the doctors to tell her nothing could be done, so she found some info blah blah and in the end started feeding the kid crisco or some such and all turned out better for the kid?
Does anyone else remember this? It was a made for tv type movie.
Actually, you have a point, and there are quite a few studies on why traffic behaves as it does. The one thing you have to keep in mind is relativity, well sort of. It is the relative difference of speed between driver and other drivers and obstacles that causes problems/accidents with regard to reaction time. Those people that camp out in the passing lane are causing an obstacle relative to the expectation of other drivers. This is what causes accidents. Besides braking and causing aggressive drivers to swerve in and out of traffic, it also causes the traffic to bunch up. It takes several miles of clear driving before the traffic unbunches again.
Where I live, it only takes one rain drop from a cloudy sky to start this hazardous chain of events.
FTFS "Szulik is encouraging customers to take Microsoft up on their support voucher offer [CC] for Novell's rival Linux system in order to "get the issue over with.""
If people do say 'hey, I want support now please' it will end any question about whether RedHat has something to worry about. I'm leaning toward the thought that the results of asking MS for Linux support will turn up on viral news sites all over the place with hilarious results. Can you remember the Verizon Math? or any number of other customer support nightmares that got published on the Internet?
YouTube is arguably one of the largest video sites on the Internet and people are upset when they want to charge for the service of policing the world's multimedia efforts?
Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.
If YouTube did this free, they would become IP policemen, and that can't be cheap. Why wouldn't they charge for this service? To me, this doesn't sound like mafia tactics so much as it sounds like business tactics. Offer a service and charge for it. I am thinking that Google et al haven't figured out how to generate ad revenue from this service so they want to charge for it.
Sounds like simple business practice to me. I might be wrong though.
"China's so full of compromised hosts that whoever's actually cracking DoD machines is probably sitting in an internet cafe in Milan, piping data through some rooted.gov.cn box..."
I wonder how easy it would be to pin this on MS products that have been pirated?
Its an interesting twist of thought to think that MS is responsible for cyber attacks on the DOD. While that isn't true, it's still interesting in a 'haha' kind of way.
Makes me believe that there will be counter-attack strategies that include government sponsored worms traversing the Internet trying to secure those compromised hosts.
There was recently a story about a company in Texas that has similar claims for this type of technology. Not sure what happened to them, but if either or both of them gets it right, I'll be converting my car to electric very quickly after the technology is proven not to be a huge maintenance bill waiting to happen, or worse.
In fact, I will probably invest in solar/other technology to supplement my use of electricity for the vehicle(s) as well. There are a couple of tax cuts for this, and I would like to not be dependent on fossil fuels. Yes, I know that electric generation does rely on them to some extent, but if I'm using solar it will reduce that dependence even further.
I hope this is true. I'd gladly charge up at a station that is currently selling gasoline if I was going to have to travel more than a single charge, but I'd like a single charge to go for more than 30-40 miles. Storage technology is the real hindering factor right now. I hope they are right, and not wanting to charge too much for the storage systems.
Exactly. If this one company can't archive emails successfully, what does that say for the likely success of sarbanes-oxley compliance in the US business world?
I'm kind of confused why this story is being treated as it is in the comments. MS is supposed to be helping other businesses avoid the possibility of losing data... hmmmmm MS wants to be the preferred supplier of software to government agencies and this is a bad mark on them if you ask me. Sure, they might have lost tapes which is not part of their software per se' but they are supposed to be designing software / systems that provide REALLY good backup processes in mind. If you can't demonstrate that you know how backup processes should work, perhaps your software shouldn't be used by anyone with legal requirements to backup data?
If the grid solution finds THE cure for H5N1, will it be patentable? If not, who pays for the R&D to implement it? Who gets the patent? Do the thousands of people who allowed their PCs to be used get anything? Will big drug companies be able to use this and keep the prices low for the final product?
Actually, I don't think that you are far wrong. Peer review has helped make a lot of processes more competent. It would also relieve the patent reviewers of the burden of having to be experts in all types of varied fields. The patent listings are not the sole source of prior art, and should also not be used to determine uniqueness and other reasons for granting a patent. As it is, if they don't know of prior art they seem to just grant the patent.
Things are easy to understand or figure an answer for some types of patents, but others present a much larger issue(s) with regard to patents. Does anyone remember how the recent cancer treatment was treated in the news because it couldn't be patented? Patents are driving businesses in directions that are not in the interest of the community. Peer review might well stop the onslaught of stupid patents leaving more room in the business roster for developing things that can't be patented in order to simply make some money and take bragging rights.
The current patent system has 'frozen' the business community into a position where many won't invent or improve if it can't be protected by patents. This destroys the value of patents rather than protects them. Company A may have patented an invention... fine. Now if company B wants to innovate on their products, they will have to fight company A's patent or take their chances in court. This is due to company A being given a stupid patent on obvious technological furtherance of prior technology.
Peer review would help to bring sense to this situation, even if at first it brings confusion IMO.
I know why people will give it up... DRM, or more specifically the hoops you have to jump through to install Vista. Many people are trying to not pay the license fee now, and Vista will only push them farther toward trying Linux. Hey, the price is right, and it does all that they want to do anyway, so now is the time to drop MS products.
Sure, businesses will still find the money and time to upgrade, but most of them will do a forklift upgrade with a business maintenance plan on the desktop machines. This is a luxury that home pc owners do not have. The only real choice is to switch or suffer the pains of upgrades, license fees, support issues, software headaches, and the continued use of an OS that is the malware hackers preferred target.
This isn't trolling or Linux fanboi-ism, just an observation of what I'm seeing in the general populace.
FTFA Appendix B. is cheekily titled Fun with the Registry and is an introduction, with examples, to the notorious registry which is carried over from XP and predecessors. Most authors writing for this level of reader tend to avoid discussion of the registry, but Pogue provides just enough material to intrigue the intermediate user.
I do not want to be the one to try fixing what happens when general users get 'intrigued'
FTFA Appendix C. is a short itemization of whats missing in Vista from previous Windows operating systems. It makes it easy to figure out why something youve used before cant be located and used.
If there is enough of that going on, might as well switch to Linux or Apple and get the pain over with once and for all!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd agree with you, but the chance that the lander would land close to an object that is 'large' is too great a possibility to not have accounted for it? When writing code, you should always look to trap or overcome any circumstances that might confuse/cripple/kill your program. The same goes for autonomous vehicles.
As an example, hobby robotics poses a simple problem that is very much like the one the rovers face: how to run around the house all day and "not get stuck behind the couch" with limited sensory facilities. Say you were to take a Lego robotics kit and try this, it's not easy and takes quite some engineering skills. I'm just surprised that the rover developers didn't account for this. It *IS* impressive how they are able to modify the code and upload it though.
but I have to wonder why they didn't send it up there with the ability to plane long and short treks?
The more I learn about (semi)autonomous robotics, the more impressed I am with what the Mars rovers have accomplished already and the people who built/maintain/program them.
My forays into hobby robotics tells me that this isn't as easy as it first appears it might be.
Because, damnit! The guy holding the chair kept yelling at them and wanting to know when it will be ready? They changed the name and he put the chair back on the floor!
No matter how funny I find what you said, if people are watching YouTube on their pc's and not 'must see tv' then the only ads that will be worth paying for are the ones that manufacturers pay YouTube for. If the networks are not knocking on YouTube's door soon, they will lose out worse than the *AA's are losing out now.
soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.
I think I did the analogies just right on that one...
The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
There are laws for slander, libel, and other manner of social discord that allow us to deal with such problems already. The fact that the Internet and computers have added a new dimension to society does not mean that we need new laws. We simply need to revise current laws to include this new dimension.
That it happens in a school social setting is not new, as was stated, but the lack of training for students as to what constitutes libel, slander, or other actions that could result in litigation or penalties is sad.
Education is what is needed, not regulation. Less government, not more. Intelligence, not money will go the furthest towards eliminating such problems.
Yes, I believe that if they break a law on the Internet, it is a civil courts place to punish that person rather than the school's place. No more he said, she said. Lets have them show the judge and let the judge decide if there is anything to punish. Perhaps a special court to streamline such cases, but make it court. Punishment is then meted out in a legally binding way rather than arbitrary decisions of school leaders.
Punishments for minors is not a bad thing as schools, parks, and other public places need cleaning and looking after. A little community service gives them time to think about what they did.
not another president that needs to be told what ISS is ?
and there are always groups of individuals in every company that DO NOT fit the one-size-fits-all software/security model.
Some people/groups really need a sandbox to work in, without interference from good intentioned IT departments.
A virus spread wildly throughout my company recently because IT had thought to conveniently map some not so useful drives for everyone... guess how that virus spread?
IT needs to learn to provide and protect without being so intrusive as to hinder real work being done.
Sighhh
It was Ms Streep, but the problem was epilepsy, and the movie is called ".. First, do no harm"
:-
The movies outlines a diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_Diet called the ketogenic diet, consisting of a coctail of fats basically. I should have went to IMDB.com first. From IMDB.com:
10 out of 10 people found the following comment useful
PG-13 - intense emotional and physical depiction of a child's illness, 20 December 2004
Author: ryanlupin from London, England
In this alternately heartbreaking and uplifting drama inspired by actual events, a small town Midwest family discovers that their youngest son suffers from epilepsy. Left without hope after their insurance runs out, the mother presses on, studies everything she can find out about the illness, and, against the wishes of her local doctor, takes her son to Baltimore for treatment with the controversial ketogenetic diet.
The title of this movie-made-for-television, First Do No Harm, comes from the Hippocratic oath which doctors take as part of their vocation.
However, in many cases physicians are loath to recommend procedures not because they do anyone harm but because their efficacy is not supported by scientific research. This is the case when four-year-old Robbie (Seth Adkins) is diagnosed as having a type of epilepsy for which the cause is unknown. His parents, Lori (Meryl Streep) and Dave (Fred Ward), agree to a series of excruciating drug treatments which only seem to worsen his condition. Their situation becomes more complicated when they learn that their health insurance policy has lapsed.
Then Lori discovers a regimen called the Ketogenic Diet; one-third of the epileptic children on this diet have experienced no additional seizures. Robbie's parents are furious with his doctor (Allison Janney) for not telling them about this treatment and then refusing to facilitate their trying it. Instead, she recommends brain surgery for the boy.
The finale of the drama demonstrates the distance some families have to go to take control of the health and welfare of their loved ones. First Do No Harm presents a blistering attack on the rigidity and insensitivity of the medical establishment.
Outstanding performances from both Meryl Streep and child sensation, Seth Adkins. Definitely a 'must-watch!!'
IIRC, there was a film about this years ago. Can't remember the actress' name, might have been Meryl Streep??? Basically this mom didn't want the doctors to tell her nothing could be done, so she found some info blah blah and in the end started feeding the kid crisco or some such and all turned out better for the kid?
Does anyone else remember this? It was a made for tv type movie.
that the name of the merged company isn't iSatellite radio....
Actually, you have a point, and there are quite a few studies on why traffic behaves as it does. The one thing you have to keep in mind is relativity, well sort of. It is the relative difference of speed between driver and other drivers and obstacles that causes problems/accidents with regard to reaction time. Those people that camp out in the passing lane are causing an obstacle relative to the expectation of other drivers. This is what causes accidents. Besides braking and causing aggressive drivers to swerve in and out of traffic, it also causes the traffic to bunch up. It takes several miles of clear driving before the traffic unbunches again.
Where I live, it only takes one rain drop from a cloudy sky to start this hazardous chain of events.
Well, maybe in 20 years we'll have plenty of power for electric cars, but then in 20+ years, what will we do with all that bio-fuel?
I don't know, he might have a point.
FTFS "Szulik is encouraging customers to take Microsoft up on their support voucher offer [CC] for Novell's rival Linux system in order to "get the issue over with.""
If people do say 'hey, I want support now please' it will end any question about whether RedHat has something to worry about. I'm leaning toward the thought that the results of asking MS for Linux support will turn up on viral news sites all over the place with hilarious results. Can you remember the Verizon Math? or any number of other customer support nightmares that got published on the Internet?
After all, this is job related, but I bet the expense report is probably funny
YouTube is arguably one of the largest video sites on the Internet and people are upset when they want to charge for the service of policing the world's multimedia efforts?
Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.
If YouTube did this free, they would become IP policemen, and that can't be cheap. Why wouldn't they charge for this service? To me, this doesn't sound like mafia tactics so much as it sounds like business tactics. Offer a service and charge for it. I am thinking that Google et al haven't figured out how to generate ad revenue from this service so they want to charge for it.
Sounds like simple business practice to me. I might be wrong though.
That is an interesting statement:
.gov.cn box..."
"China's so full of compromised hosts that whoever's actually cracking DoD machines is probably sitting in an internet cafe in Milan, piping data through some rooted
I wonder how easy it would be to pin this on MS products that have been pirated?
Its an interesting twist of thought to think that MS is responsible for cyber attacks on the DOD. While that isn't true, it's still interesting in a 'haha' kind of way.
Makes me believe that there will be counter-attack strategies that include government sponsored worms traversing the Internet trying to secure those compromised hosts.
There was recently a story about a company in Texas that has similar claims for this type of technology. Not sure what happened to them, but if either or both of them gets it right, I'll be converting my car to electric very quickly after the technology is proven not to be a huge maintenance bill waiting to happen, or worse.
In fact, I will probably invest in solar/other technology to supplement my use of electricity for the vehicle(s) as well. There are a couple of tax cuts for this, and I would like to not be dependent on fossil fuels. Yes, I know that electric generation does rely on them to some extent, but if I'm using solar it will reduce that dependence even further.
I hope this is true. I'd gladly charge up at a station that is currently selling gasoline if I was going to have to travel more than a single charge, but I'd like a single charge to go for more than 30-40 miles. Storage technology is the real hindering factor right now. I hope they are right, and not wanting to charge too much for the storage systems.
Exactly. If this one company can't archive emails successfully, what does that say for the likely success of sarbanes-oxley compliance in the US business world?
I'm kind of confused why this story is being treated as it is in the comments. MS is supposed to be helping other businesses avoid the possibility of losing data... hmmmmm MS wants to be the preferred supplier of software to government agencies and this is a bad mark on them if you ask me. Sure, they might have lost tapes which is not part of their software per se' but they are supposed to be designing software / systems that provide REALLY good backup processes in mind. If you can't demonstrate that you know how backup processes should work, perhaps your software shouldn't be used by anyone with legal requirements to backup data?
If the grid solution finds THE cure for H5N1, will it be patentable? If not, who pays for the R&D to implement it? Who gets the patent? Do the thousands of people who allowed their PCs to be used get anything? Will big drug companies be able to use this and keep the prices low for the final product?
Actually, I don't think that you are far wrong. Peer review has helped make a lot of processes more competent. It would also relieve the patent reviewers of the burden of having to be experts in all types of varied fields. The patent listings are not the sole source of prior art, and should also not be used to determine uniqueness and other reasons for granting a patent. As it is, if they don't know of prior art they seem to just grant the patent.
Things are easy to understand or figure an answer for some types of patents, but others present a much larger issue(s) with regard to patents. Does anyone remember how the recent cancer treatment was treated in the news because it couldn't be patented? Patents are driving businesses in directions that are not in the interest of the community. Peer review might well stop the onslaught of stupid patents leaving more room in the business roster for developing things that can't be patented in order to simply make some money and take bragging rights.
The current patent system has 'frozen' the business community into a position where many won't invent or improve if it can't be protected by patents. This destroys the value of patents rather than protects them. Company A may have patented an invention... fine. Now if company B wants to innovate on their products, they will have to fight company A's patent or take their chances in court. This is due to company A being given a stupid patent on obvious technological furtherance of prior technology.
Peer review would help to bring sense to this situation, even if at first it brings confusion IMO.
I know why people will give it up... DRM, or more specifically the hoops you have to jump through to install Vista. Many people are trying to not pay the license fee now, and Vista will only push them farther toward trying Linux. Hey, the price is right, and it does all that they want to do anyway, so now is the time to drop MS products.
Sure, businesses will still find the money and time to upgrade, but most of them will do a forklift upgrade with a business maintenance plan on the desktop machines. This is a luxury that home pc owners do not have. The only real choice is to switch or suffer the pains of upgrades, license fees, support issues, software headaches, and the continued use of an OS that is the malware hackers preferred target.
This isn't trolling or Linux fanboi-ism, just an observation of what I'm seeing in the general populace.
There is supposed to be a kaboom! or some bells ringing or something... Finally, a cure for cancer and the reaction seems just a little too ho-hum.
Shouldn't someone be shouting holyfsck and doing back flips up and down the halls of the AMA?
Maybe we're just shell shocked, or quietly waiting for the sticker shock?
I'm with you on this one, and quite interested to see how this works out....
FTFA
Appendix B. is cheekily titled Fun with the Registry and is an introduction, with examples, to the notorious registry which is carried over from XP and predecessors. Most authors writing for this level of reader tend to avoid discussion of the registry, but Pogue provides just enough material to intrigue the intermediate user.
I do not want to be the one to try fixing what happens when general users get 'intrigued'
FTFA
Appendix C. is a short itemization of whats missing in Vista from previous Windows operating systems. It makes it easy to figure out why something youve used before cant be located and used.
If there is enough of that going on, might as well switch to Linux or Apple and get the pain over with once and for all!