It represents the distinction between every student having to reinvent the wheel for every project, and future students being able to build more complex testing equipment by combining together others' works.
Saying this is bad can be liken to decrying scientists for standing on the shoulders of giants.
Well, capitalism is nice for paying the rent and all, but it's still contrary to the nature of the pursuit of knowledge. I'm just saying that the spirit of open source is spreading in a meaningful way into more facets of academia than software, and that's a good thing.
Additionally, I'm not starting a business and selling this crap for $50. I'm making it so that anyone who wants this equipment can easily assign some undergrad to toss it together over a weekend. I don't see why it should cost an arm and a leg for equipment when the knowledge behind its implementation is free. We should make the design and construction free, too, so that anyone could do it for cost, instead of supporting an endless stream of middlemen who do not add value. That's just more information, right? It just adds to the compendium of human knowledge, right? Why do I need to profit from it?
Regardless of what you think is the proper use of knowledge, not all of us want to be crooks.
Because even with stale topics to talk about, GNAA nonsense and completely offtopic rants, the comments here are an order of magnitude better than any other news site out there.
No matter how much we tweaked it, we couldn't get the undergrad coeds to do the second part without the first one. Oh well, I guess we can live with Orion slave girls.
I'm part of a team who did something similar (We're presenting it at IEEE MWSCAS, it's much less cool than this, though). We built several thousands of dollars worth of test equipment using cheap junk and came out with stuff that was just as good. DIY folks have been doing this for decades, of course, but PhD students are now starting to publish these things. This is a big deal, and means that legitimate researchers can pick up this work and very easily enter a field of research their institutions may have previously been unable to fund. Our school has always just enlisted students to design and build all of our test equipment, but still. This is good.
I didn't RTFA, but I certainly hope they've open-sourced their backend interface software and hardware designs as well. Of course, if you're disassembling a microwave, you can hardly patent the technology. Closing off access to your work kind of defeats the purpose in science, though.
I started using Firefox because it was faster than IE. This means, relatively, IE used to be the more "bloated" of the two. Now, IE loads faster, runs faster and navigates pages faster than Firefox. Now, out of the two, Firefox is the more bloated. I know this is anecdotal evidence and that there's some "unbiased" analysis out there demonstrating Firefox is faster, but on a fresh install of Windows 7, with a fresh install of the latest Firefox, Firefox was noticeably slower than IE. And hideous.
When you're losing out to Microsoft, that's bloat.
Compared to Chrome, there's no contest. Chrome is an order of magnitude faster to load up, and has much more screen space available. There are two task bars on top of my Chrome window, the tab/title bar and the address/search bar. Last time I tried Firefox, it had 4 by default (title, address, bookmark, tabs). I don't want to look at your stupid bars, I need that screen space for vital Slashdotting!
But I guess all those "bloat" related issues are too vague.
This is why I have high hopes for Chrome. If you go to Google, (and aren't logged in) you still get basically the same plain old Google page you've gotten since the 90's. It's got new features, but they're slim and fast. Chrome might escape the feature bloat that's destroyed Firefox.
Don't be too quick to disregard this as a joke, since breeder reactors have been outlawed for some time here, it not an unreasonable suggestion. Of course, as far as breeders are concerned, past political boondoggles are certainly a major issue.
NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence.
If NFL football is chess, soccer is go. The difference? It actually requires talent to be good at goh, whereas a supercomputer can beat anyone at chess. Skilled athletes excel at soccer, overweight drug addicts who should have failed out of high school win football games.
I think Donald Duck won a Senate seat once, in like Louisiana or something, and they just threw it out. I mean, it's insane that they threw out the majority vote, but, still. I can't find the story now, though.
No, that's not the correct response. The correct response is that the new technology is markedly inferior to the old, in that you need additional receiving equipment to reach the same level of operation. If digital television was better, you would get more channels clearer using a smaller antenna, instead of fewer, unwatchable channels using a new, better designed antenna.
I had the point distributer on my old 69 'vette so screwed up I had to open up the choke to about 30 mph at idle just to keep the damn thing from dying. If I could get it started, that is.
With it that wide, my wife wasn't actually strong enough to brake the car reliably. I don't know why, it always seemed to break reliably when I was driving it =].
Slashdot Mirror
Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.
Yes. Enlightened people. They just won't tolerate intolerance.
It represents the distinction between every student having to reinvent the wheel for every project, and future students being able to build more complex testing equipment by combining together others' works.
Saying this is bad can be liken to decrying scientists for standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm talking about universities, not industry. This is America, our academic institutions have no standards.
Don't misinterpret history. Those were all theocracies, except that the "Gods" for each were the folks you listed in your post.
Haha, book report... no, people don't get degrees from book reports, they get them for doing a "literature review!"
Well, capitalism is nice for paying the rent and all, but it's still contrary to the nature of the pursuit of knowledge. I'm just saying that the spirit of open source is spreading in a meaningful way into more facets of academia than software, and that's a good thing.
Additionally, I'm not starting a business and selling this crap for $50. I'm making it so that anyone who wants this equipment can easily assign some undergrad to toss it together over a weekend. I don't see why it should cost an arm and a leg for equipment when the knowledge behind its implementation is free. We should make the design and construction free, too, so that anyone could do it for cost, instead of supporting an endless stream of middlemen who do not add value. That's just more information, right? It just adds to the compendium of human knowledge, right? Why do I need to profit from it?
Regardless of what you think is the proper use of knowledge, not all of us want to be crooks.
That's why I got my degree from Thunderwood College. Plus, they have the best doctoral level cryptozoology program in the states.
Looks like your technique is flawed.
Why am I here?
Because even with stale topics to talk about, GNAA nonsense and completely offtopic rants, the comments here are an order of magnitude better than any other news site out there.
Slashdot mods realize this joke simply reinforces common misconceptions about the ratification of quantum mechanics with classical mechanics.
Haha, sorry, I never got to the point on that. The crooks are the people who charge $10,000 for something you can build in your garage for $50.
If this is your only news source, it's always new!
Well, unless it's a dupe...
No matter how much we tweaked it, we couldn't get the undergrad coeds to do the second part without the first one. Oh well, I guess we can live with Orion slave girls.
My god, it's like it's 2004 again!
I'm part of a team who did something similar (We're presenting it at IEEE MWSCAS, it's much less cool than this, though). We built several thousands of dollars worth of test equipment using cheap junk and came out with stuff that was just as good. DIY folks have been doing this for decades, of course, but PhD students are now starting to publish these things. This is a big deal, and means that legitimate researchers can pick up this work and very easily enter a field of research their institutions may have previously been unable to fund. Our school has always just enlisted students to design and build all of our test equipment, but still. This is good.
I didn't RTFA, but I certainly hope they've open-sourced their backend interface software and hardware designs as well. Of course, if you're disassembling a microwave, you can hardly patent the technology. Closing off access to your work kind of defeats the purpose in science, though.
More buttons than I actually use = bloated
More than one second to load = bloated
I started using Firefox because it was faster than IE. This means, relatively, IE used to be the more "bloated" of the two. Now, IE loads faster, runs faster and navigates pages faster than Firefox. Now, out of the two, Firefox is the more bloated. I know this is anecdotal evidence and that there's some "unbiased" analysis out there demonstrating Firefox is faster, but on a fresh install of Windows 7, with a fresh install of the latest Firefox, Firefox was noticeably slower than IE. And hideous.
When you're losing out to Microsoft, that's bloat.
Compared to Chrome, there's no contest. Chrome is an order of magnitude faster to load up, and has much more screen space available. There are two task bars on top of my Chrome window, the tab/title bar and the address/search bar. Last time I tried Firefox, it had 4 by default (title, address, bookmark, tabs). I don't want to look at your stupid bars, I need that screen space for vital Slashdotting!
But I guess all those "bloat" related issues are too vague.
it was _just_ a browser
This is why I have high hopes for Chrome. If you go to Google, (and aren't logged in) you still get basically the same plain old Google page you've gotten since the 90's. It's got new features, but they're slim and fast. Chrome might escape the feature bloat that's destroyed Firefox.
Don't be too quick to disregard this as a joke, since breeder reactors have been outlawed for some time here, it not an unreasonable suggestion. Of course, as far as breeders are concerned, past political boondoggles are certainly a major issue.
NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence.
If NFL football is chess, soccer is go. The difference? It actually requires talent to be good at goh, whereas a supercomputer can beat anyone at chess. Skilled athletes excel at soccer, overweight drug addicts who should have failed out of high school win football games.
Hey, isn't, like, fiber just tubes?
Retroviruses would work. Or, you know, normal viruses, but those are less science fictiony sounding, and usually don't get 100% coverage.
I think Donald Duck won a Senate seat once, in like Louisiana or something, and they just threw it out. I mean, it's insane that they threw out the majority vote, but, still. I can't find the story now, though.
No, that's not the correct response. The correct response is that the new technology is markedly inferior to the old, in that you need additional receiving equipment to reach the same level of operation. If digital television was better, you would get more channels clearer using a smaller antenna, instead of fewer, unwatchable channels using a new, better designed antenna.
That would only be a comparable analogy if congress had made it illegal to broadcast over the radio once TVs were invented.
I had the point distributer on my old 69 'vette so screwed up I had to open up the choke to about 30 mph at idle just to keep the damn thing from dying. If I could get it started, that is.
With it that wide, my wife wasn't actually strong enough to brake the car reliably. I don't know why, it always seemed to break reliably when I was driving it =].