Funny. I had a physics professor who said "Rocket science is rather straightforward compared to this stuff" during a lecture on quantum mechanics.
I think the point isn't so much that it's difficult to understand as that there is little room for error, as that quote points out. I imagine liability insurance must account for a pretty large percentage of the 6 million dollar price tag.
I guess these guys really have the technology. They can rebuild it, better than it was before, etc.
I was watching something on the Learning Channel about Mars. They showed this strange face-looking thing on the surface. Wouldn't it be wild if there were actually water on Mars? That would almost certainly mean life and maybe, given this weird face thing, even some ancient civilization.
Of course, these Learning Channel shows always encourage the viewer to believe in crazy speculation -- sort of irresponsible really. I would really have to rethink a lot of things if there turned out to be life on Mars though. Everyone would.
It's good to see that people are still pursuing space exploration.
I have to say, this is quite a promising technology. As someone who works with computer aided design (CAD) programs quite a bit, I know how important it is to be able to switch graphics drivers quickly and efficiently.
Personally, I always thought Linux's solution of recompiling and/or reloading/rebooting the kernel/modules when new ones are needed is an elegant solution that all but the most dimwitted users would have no trouble with. But this idea of Microsoft's almost makes that look silly. Of course, I don't expect any miracles from them, but it is exciting nonetheless.
This is always how things go. Companies always look for ways to do just a little less to increase profits. The only cure is an informed consumer.
On the other hand, in the case of HDTV, we have a government mandated standard that manufacturers must meet by, I believe, January 2006 (so real soon!). It is no surprise that when the government interferes with Free Market activity this way, that problems like this crop up. Some manufacturers simply aren't prepared for the digital revolution, but it's do or die, so they start cutting corners.
It would be ideal if we just left the various corporations involved to create their own open standards and prepare for them in their own good time, rather than using Statist intervention to push technology along. Ultimately, the legal issues surrounding the government mandated crossover will probably be a hindrance to whatever new technology succeeds HD.
It's time to get the government out of the technology business!
When I was at Stanford, I had the same decision to make. I wanted a dual major in Physics and something useful, so I had to make a choice: EE or CS?
In the end, I found that the challenges of EE were better suited to my interests and that I could learn as much CS as I'd ever need on my own. I was more interested in the sort of high end problem domains you see in processor design and such. I was not so interested in the sorts of semi-skilled professions of coding and systems administrations. I wanted to unlock the secrets of the universe!
I still haven't gotten around to that part, but I am doing work in the field I love and that's what's important.
I suppose BitTorrent can be used for legitimate purposes. For example, I've heard of people serving homemade videofiles and to hundreds of people without using much bandwidth of their own using BitTorrent. On the other hand, the vast majority of traffic generated by BitTorrent users is trafficking of copyright-protected content, i.e. IP Theft.
I think a better analogy is the opium trade in Imperial China. Sure, opium has some legitimate medical uses, but the government found that the the effect was largely negative and that it was used for illegitimate purposes in nearly all cases.
Maybe the right way to deal with BitTorrent and similar technologies is some sort of regulation structure, similar to the FDA and other food and drug regulating bodies in other countries.
We may not be getting the flying cars promised to us in the sixties and seventies by Hannah-Barbara and company, but the day of handheld devices that can do nearly anything is quickly approaching. As the BBC points out, this device, though not quite there yet, is a big step in that direction.
It is important, however, to reflect upon the advancements of the late twentieth century and how they've impacted our way of life. In particular, have TV, the internet, computers, and all the rest of today's modern miracles made us more virtuous? Have they made us less virtuous? What are the dangers inherent in having everything at our fingertips?
There's a great deal of social criticism these days about the so-called "Generation Now," the sense of entitlement and so forth. These matters are especially important for us, as afficianados of technology, to consider, particularly in an open forum such as this.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yes, this is always a problem. How can you possibly know whether or not a site is spam just by looking at who's linked to it? A lot of great sites have very few external links to them and often they're from blogs and other sites that will likely be identified as spam prone.
This is a basic problem of filtering web-content. How do you avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water? I'm running into that problem in designing a custom filter to keep my son from inadvertently seeing pornography as he looks for his "r0mz," but that's peanuts compared to Google's dilemma.
The fact is, spam filtering is inherently censorship. This kind of interference will always have a negative impact on the marketplace of ideas that is the modern internet. On the other hand, as a side effect, removing blogs from search results (as this trust metric very likely will) may increase the usability of Google overall. I suspect there will be some people who are not as happy about that as I am.
I'd rather my child be an innocent little angel
on
Google Upgrades AdSense
·
· Score: 1, Funny
than a sneaky pervert.
Whether it's natural to want to look at pornography is not the point. The point is that pornography is degrading and turns good kids into creeps. Believe me, I know. I grew up with a lot of guys whose parents let them watch porn (mainly because they were never around -- even they wouldn't have allowed it if they had known). Every single one grew up to be a creepy weirdo.
I will never, ever tell my son that it is okay for him to watch pornography. It promotes a disgusting view of sex and women that I don't want my son to be exposed to. He will grow up with proper guidance where sex is concerned and that is more than enough. I only wish my mother were as engaged with my as I am with my son.
Finally, I resent the implication that you know how to raise my children better than I do. If I want advice, I'll write Dr. Laura.
I've been cooking up some scripts that'll do the blocking before it gets to his computer. Basically, it looks at the page and the ads and replaces the page with a randomly selected image that tells him he better find another site if it has anything unseemly on it.
Just a little weekend perl hack. I've been working out the kinks though. Don't want to be overbearing, obviously.
I thought about adblock, but after giving Jeffrey that lecture about stealing "r0mz" and so forth, I didn't see how I could do it. The way I see it, when someone puts ads on their site, that's an asking price for their content. They're giving you their bandwidth and work (though not really their work in the case of the "r0mz d00dz," I know). All they ask is that you look at and maybe click their ads.
I know it's annoying. I stopped reading a couple online newspapers just because I couldn't stand their ads. It's a shame, but as an ethical consumer, that's the choice I'm stuck with.
Of course I confronted him. I expect my children not to use their internet privileges to look at pornography. I think most any parent would agree.
As to the ads, the logs clearly showed that they only showed up when he visited certain sites, which he visits frequently, as I said. I would have expected to find another "r0mz" site without pornographic banner ads after he saw the first one. In fairness, most of the ads (there are an incredible number on these sites) are for fixed rate morgages and other nonsense I understand even less than the pornography ads. I mean, Jeffrey is only nine. What does he need with car insurance and cruises to Tahiti? Honestly, what horrible user profiling. Who is going to want car insurance and pirated versions of Mario Brothers at the same time?
And to your last bit -- as the saying goes, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
I think Google ads are great. They're not too intrusive and they serve out relevant content, unlike many of the banner ad services out there.
As a tech savvy parent, I know only too well how some ad services work. For example, in the course of looking over the logs on my home network's main server, I found that somehow my son had been receiving some very questionable banner ads through some of the sites he frequents. When I confronted him about it, he said he had been downloading "r0mz," which are basically dumps of old video game ROMs that can be played using software emulators. Of course, I talked to him about the ethical issues inherent in using other people's work without paying whatever price they ask for (if any), but that seemed much less serious to me than the content of those ads!
I tell you, the smut they put on those sites -- I couldn't believe it! I would think these webmasters would have the sense not to put that sort of material on sites that presumably only children would be interested in. I can only assume their banner ad provider just doesn't have the kind of targetting technology Google uses.
That would be economic and fiscal policy, dear.
I have to agree that corporations should stay out of social policy, however. Corporate leaders involved in the political maneuvering we hear so much about are extremely wealthy individuals whose experience is largely limited to the upper echelons of urban, business society. How can people like this possibly represent the majority of Americans?
The fact is they can't. Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. I had a physics professor who said "Rocket science is rather straightforward compared to this stuff" during a lecture on quantum mechanics.
I think the point isn't so much that it's difficult to understand as that there is little room for error, as that quote points out. I imagine liability insurance must account for a pretty large percentage of the 6 million dollar price tag.
I guess these guys really have the technology. They can rebuild it, better than it was before, etc.
I was watching something on the Learning Channel about Mars. They showed this strange face-looking thing on the surface. Wouldn't it be wild if there were actually water on Mars? That would almost certainly mean life and maybe, given this weird face thing, even some ancient civilization.
Of course, these Learning Channel shows always encourage the viewer to believe in crazy speculation -- sort of irresponsible really. I would really have to rethink a lot of things if there turned out to be life on Mars though. Everyone would.
It's good to see that people are still pursuing space exploration.
I have to say, this is quite a promising technology. As someone who works with computer aided design (CAD) programs quite a bit, I know how important it is to be able to switch graphics drivers quickly and efficiently.
Personally, I always thought Linux's solution of recompiling and/or reloading/rebooting the kernel/modules when new ones are needed is an elegant solution that all but the most dimwitted users would have no trouble with. But this idea of Microsoft's almost makes that look silly. Of course, I don't expect any miracles from them, but it is exciting nonetheless.
This is always how things go. Companies always look for ways to do just a little less to increase profits. The only cure is an informed consumer.
On the other hand, in the case of HDTV, we have a government mandated standard that manufacturers must meet by, I believe, January 2006 (so real soon!). It is no surprise that when the government interferes with Free Market activity this way, that problems like this crop up. Some manufacturers simply aren't prepared for the digital revolution, but it's do or die, so they start cutting corners.
It would be ideal if we just left the various corporations involved to create their own open standards and prepare for them in their own good time, rather than using Statist intervention to push technology along. Ultimately, the legal issues surrounding the government mandated crossover will probably be a hindrance to whatever new technology succeeds HD.
It's time to get the government out of the technology business!
When I was at Stanford, I had the same decision to make. I wanted a dual major in Physics and something useful, so I had to make a choice: EE or CS?
In the end, I found that the challenges of EE were better suited to my interests and that I could learn as much CS as I'd ever need on my own. I was more interested in the sort of high end problem domains you see in processor design and such. I was not so interested in the sorts of semi-skilled professions of coding and systems administrations. I wanted to unlock the secrets of the universe!
I still haven't gotten around to that part, but I am doing work in the field I love and that's what's important.
I suppose BitTorrent can be used for legitimate purposes. For example, I've heard of people serving homemade videofiles and to hundreds of people without using much bandwidth of their own using BitTorrent. On the other hand, the vast majority of traffic generated by BitTorrent users is trafficking of copyright-protected content, i.e. IP Theft.
I think a better analogy is the opium trade in Imperial China. Sure, opium has some legitimate medical uses, but the government found that the the effect was largely negative and that it was used for illegitimate purposes in nearly all cases.
Maybe the right way to deal with BitTorrent and similar technologies is some sort of regulation structure, similar to the FDA and other food and drug regulating bodies in other countries.
We may not be getting the flying cars promised to us in the sixties and seventies by Hannah-Barbara and company, but the day of handheld devices that can do nearly anything is quickly approaching. As the BBC points out, this device, though not quite there yet, is a big step in that direction.
It is important, however, to reflect upon the advancements of the late twentieth century and how they've impacted our way of life. In particular, have TV, the internet, computers, and all the rest of today's modern miracles made us more virtuous? Have they made us less virtuous? What are the dangers inherent in having everything at our fingertips?
There's a great deal of social criticism these days about the so-called "Generation Now," the sense of entitlement and so forth. These matters are especially important for us, as afficianados of technology, to consider, particularly in an open forum such as this.
Yes, this is always a problem. How can you possibly know whether or not a site is spam just by looking at who's linked to it? A lot of great sites have very few external links to them and often they're from blogs and other sites that will likely be identified as spam prone.
This is a basic problem of filtering web-content. How do you avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water? I'm running into that problem in designing a custom filter to keep my son from inadvertently seeing pornography as he looks for his "r0mz," but that's peanuts compared to Google's dilemma.
The fact is, spam filtering is inherently censorship. This kind of interference will always have a negative impact on the marketplace of ideas that is the modern internet. On the other hand, as a side effect, removing blogs from search results (as this trust metric very likely will) may increase the usability of Google overall. I suspect there will be some people who are not as happy about that as I am.
than a sneaky pervert.
Whether it's natural to want to look at pornography is not the point. The point is that pornography is degrading and turns good kids into creeps. Believe me, I know. I grew up with a lot of guys whose parents let them watch porn (mainly because they were never around -- even they wouldn't have allowed it if they had known). Every single one grew up to be a creepy weirdo.
I will never, ever tell my son that it is okay for him to watch pornography. It promotes a disgusting view of sex and women that I don't want my son to be exposed to. He will grow up with proper guidance where sex is concerned and that is more than enough. I only wish my mother were as engaged with my as I am with my son.
Finally, I resent the implication that you know how to raise my children better than I do. If I want advice, I'll write Dr. Laura.
I've been cooking up some scripts that'll do the blocking before it gets to his computer. Basically, it looks at the page and the ads and replaces the page with a randomly selected image that tells him he better find another site if it has anything unseemly on it.
Just a little weekend perl hack. I've been working out the kinks though. Don't want to be overbearing, obviously.
I thought about adblock, but after giving Jeffrey that lecture about stealing "r0mz" and so forth, I didn't see how I could do it. The way I see it, when someone puts ads on their site, that's an asking price for their content. They're giving you their bandwidth and work (though not really their work in the case of the "r0mz d00dz," I know). All they ask is that you look at and maybe click their ads.
I know it's annoying. I stopped reading a couple online newspapers just because I couldn't stand their ads. It's a shame, but as an ethical consumer, that's the choice I'm stuck with.
Of course I confronted him. I expect my children not to use their internet privileges to look at pornography. I think most any parent would agree.
As to the ads, the logs clearly showed that they only showed up when he visited certain sites, which he visits frequently, as I said. I would have expected to find another "r0mz" site without pornographic banner ads after he saw the first one. In fairness, most of the ads (there are an incredible number on these sites) are for fixed rate morgages and other nonsense I understand even less than the pornography ads. I mean, Jeffrey is only nine. What does he need with car insurance and cruises to Tahiti? Honestly, what horrible user profiling. Who is going to want car insurance and pirated versions of Mario Brothers at the same time?
And to your last bit -- as the saying goes, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
I think Google ads are great. They're not too intrusive and they serve out relevant content, unlike many of the banner ad services out there.
As a tech savvy parent, I know only too well how some ad services work. For example, in the course of looking over the logs on my home network's main server, I found that somehow my son had been receiving some very questionable banner ads through some of the sites he frequents. When I confronted him about it, he said he had been downloading "r0mz," which are basically dumps of old video game ROMs that can be played using software emulators. Of course, I talked to him about the ethical issues inherent in using other people's work without paying whatever price they ask for (if any), but that seemed much less serious to me than the content of those ads!
I tell you, the smut they put on those sites -- I couldn't believe it! I would think these webmasters would have the sense not to put that sort of material on sites that presumably only children would be interested in. I can only assume their banner ad provider just doesn't have the kind of targetting technology Google uses.
That would be economic and fiscal policy, dear. I have to agree that corporations should stay out of social policy, however. Corporate leaders involved in the political maneuvering we hear so much about are extremely wealthy individuals whose experience is largely limited to the upper echelons of urban, business society. How can people like this possibly represent the majority of Americans? The fact is they can't. Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!