Without proper funding, the space program can't do a heck of a lot. Right now, even the international space station has barely enough funding for maintenence, let along cutting-edge research.
Maybe commercial space flight will do something to jump-start space exploration once more.
Something else to consider is that, since all of these devices are identical, it may be possible for someone to reverse engineer the knocking sequences (i.e. it will be easy to obtain these devices). I assume that the knocking sequences will be of a relatively short duration (i.e. have few constituent knock components), and will be made up of a (possibly small) finite number of knock "rhythms." Thus, regardless of whether a would-be intruder possessed your passcode, it might be possible to construct a device which simply cycled through every possible combination of knock sequences. The fact that the knock sequence is dependant on both the passkey and a temporal component is irrelevant, provided that the sequence doesn't chage while you're cycling through the combinations.
the reason i think that the number of knock types will be small is because they must be done quickly, but also need to open the door every time the sequence is correct. if a device timer is slightly off, the manufacturers are not going to want people locked out of their homes; thus, some level of tolerance must be built in, which means that the "knock resolution" that this device must operate with is going to be smaller.
This is a really neat concept, and in light of the recent success of the DARPA grand challenge, I see that navigationally-useful "AI" is now finally making advances on the road (in the air, autopilot has been around for quite some time).
Nevertheless, I honestly can't see the masses (myself included) trusting one of these things to the point where they would acctually allow themselves to be driven by this car (or future versions) for quite some time. Even the Honda doesn't completely trust the car, as demonstrated by the fact that the human driver/passenger is required to respond every 10 seconds. Given that the car's software is constantly asking for reassurance, it's not like the human sitting in the driver seat can accomplish anything useful, or even sit back and enjoy the ride.
I think a few people are going to get in serious accidents with this car (assuming someone actually buys it) because either the car's designers have not taken some situation into account (which is likely), or because the car's users will use this car in ways not intended by the designers (which is also likely).
Ultimately, while this news is exciting, it makes me worried that the new technology will make the roads more dangerous
Does any version of windows come with anti-virus software? If they are talking about promoting the idea that windows anti-virus is not needed, they are making a big mistake. For any platform as popular as windows (which means a lot of stupid, gullible, banner-clicking, adware-installing people will be using it), anti-virus and anti-spyware software is needed, no matter how secure the operating system may be. Even if Vista will no longer allow malware to install itself without explicit user consent, the masses will find a way!
You make a good point. Since Mars has no Earth-like atmosphere, even small meteorites can make it though the atmosphere and have significant reprocussions -- possibly no more or less so than these bombs. Nevertheless, I'd argue that meteorites are natural for Mars, whereas humans bombing its surface are probably not. On Earth, although meteorites sometimes do make it through the atmosphere, I wouldn't want someone to simulate such a natural occurance near where I was located at the time.
An argument allowing us to behave as we choose by comparing our actions to various natural disasters frees us from responsibility of those actions. I think this is dangerous.
Do you know this from personal experience, or are you, like the people I mentioned in my post, making the assumption that by messing with something you don't really know about, you won't break it? If something bad were to happen to disrupt the Mars environment, these scientists will claim ignorance. I believe that there is a big difference between bombing the surface of a planet and "looking at it funny." The fact is, we don't know much about Mars, except what we see through telescopes and the very limited capabilities of the Mars rover. Before we start bombing things, we might want to stop to think about what we may be destroying in the process. Even if there isn't anything but rock on Mars, we might be destroying some neat-looking land formation which might have given us insights into understanding something we can't think of today.
You alluded to particle smashing in your response. I never argued that breaking something won't tell you about it. However, like with particle smashing, we're destroying something here without truly understanding it.
not to be overly cynical...but this seems to be the typical "human" method of studying new things. first, we take a cursory glance from a distance. next, we think about how we can study it. in the process, we destroy or cause harm to it.
i wonder if we'll ever stop to think that what we do may have some sort of greater impact. doesn't an intelligent species have some sort of responsibility for its actions?
Possibly true. However, in this case, I base my comment on ideas from Spitzer's The Mind Within The Net. You can read more about this here (it's a pdf): http://www.his.sunderland.ac.uk/ps/farivar.pdf/
If I recall correctly, mirror neurons are associated with imitation and self-visualization. Somehow, this meshes well with the idea of autistics lacking "higher level abstraction" abilities. Specifically, mirror neurons provide a means of abstracting the idea of self. Let me explain.
I've read that in some parts of the autistic brain, "layers" of neurons are connected directly to each other, such that every neuron in a particular layer is connected to every other neuron in the next layer. However, in normal brains, a third layer exists between pairs of layers. In this way, normal brains require fewer synaptic connections, but longer axonal pathways (i.e. a given signal takes longer to be processed, but may travel through internal layers which modify and abstract features from outer layers).
This property is theorized to give rise, in some autistics, to "idiot savant" abilities; such individuals often excel at a particular skill or set of skills (such as multiplying large numbers together very quickly). For example, one might be able to multiply 5 digit numbers together in a couple of seconds. However, because of the lack of inter-layers which allow for abstractions (and possibly understanding/comprehension of the processed information), the same person may have no concious concept of the numerical value of real world things.
If love was the result of the presence of this chemical, as you suggested, we would expect to see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationship at the time of the study.
Actually, I would bet that the researchers did see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationahip at the time of the study. The key word here is significant(ly)- this implies only that statistical testing was done and the associated p value was less than 0.05 or greater than 0.95.
In reality, complex emotions such as "the feeling of intense love in the early stages of romance" are often more complicated than the presence of NGF in the blood stream. Otherwise, simply injecting NGF into the bloodstream (as is done to treat some neuronal diseases) would produce the same feeling. Thus, I'd argue the relationship is correlated, but probably not causal (i.e. I agree with parent).
As the saying goes, "there are no small changes in a complex system." Removing (or introducing) a species to an area on a scale as described nearly always backfires, resulting in a situation worse than before (think of pigeons and english sparrows in the United States, or cane toads in Australia).
Removing all mosquitoes from the food chain may have far-reaching effects on other animals as well. At the present time, the system (i.e. nature) is so complex that we cannot possibly hope to predict these consequences in advance (although after the fact they will seem obvious). The notion that we can make these sweeping changes to the Natural Balance of Things without incurring the burden of "side effects" is absurd, given that we have not gained control of all the variables in the system.
in a time and place where cell phones have become affixed to our ears, the subway system once provided a welcome relief from the people who talk to thin air. practically anywhere else you go (out to dinner, at the movies, walking down the street), the everpresent hoards of obnoxious cell-phoners have taken over. it might be argued the subway has become one of the few urban areas where people are actually likely to talk to the people around them or to take in their surroundings.
in small doses technological advances in connectivity, which allow us to talk with people when we want and where we want, are generally a good thing. particularly in emergency situations, and in light of recent terrorist activity on subways, subway cell phones may bring greater safety. however, when cell phones, instant messengers, and ultra high speed internet start to dominate our lifestyles, the value of a face-to-face conversation is largely ignored.
I use Ubuntu currently (GNOME-based), but I saw an article (http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/2223 230) yesterday about KDE-based GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/), which sounds like it incorporates some neat ideas (for example, it re-organizes the standard directory hierarchy to be more intuitive for deskop users).
I've used Kubuntu (4.10 and 5.04), but have found they never seem to be quite as stable as Ubuntu. I haven't tried Kubuntu 5.10 yet, though.
Seven flavors means that Microsoft will be charging lots for Vista.
Because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the Operating Systems market, the laws of supply and demand alone no longer determine what they should charge. By overcharging customers, inefficiencies are introduced into the market, and Microsoft loses out (read any introductory economics text to see why).
In order to partially compensate, Microsoft will now offer different versions of Vista, catering to the variations in deposable income available across its customer base. People who don't have much money (but want/need to buy Vista) will decide on the Starter Edition package. However, the starter edition will be so severely crippled that most people will want to buy "better" packages.
On the other end of the spectrum, extreme gamers with tons of cash (or rich nerds who haven't discovered Linux or OS X) will be purchasing the Vista Ultimate edition. In other words, Microsoft will be maximizing its profit by charging as much as people are willing to spend for Vista. From Microsoft's point of view, it costs nothing more (aside from the neglegable cost of additional CD's or DVD's, if needed) to sell the Starter edition or the Ultimate edition, once both have been developed.
It is probably worth pointing out that any company offering a "deluxe" version of their product is doing the same thing, to some extent. Also, in Microsoft's defense, it seems that some of the Vista flavors will be catered toward small businesses, enterprises, etc, so it's not quite as simple as I'm pretending. Nevertheless, the fact that Microsoft is offering 7 flavors, with multiple flavors being targeted towards similiar interest groups (but with varied bank account sizes) is just another Microsoft attempt to squeeze every penny out of its customer base.
Slashdot Mirror
What a surprise that 18+ college students and recent college-aged grads, categorized as adults, enjoy video games more than young children!
Without proper funding, the space program can't do a heck of a lot. Right now, even the international space station has barely enough funding for maintenence, let along cutting-edge research.
Maybe commercial space flight will do something to jump-start space exploration once more.
Something else to consider is that, since all of these devices are identical, it may be possible for someone to reverse engineer the knocking sequences (i.e. it will be easy to obtain these devices). I assume that the knocking sequences will be of a relatively short duration (i.e. have few constituent knock components), and will be made up of a (possibly small) finite number of knock "rhythms." Thus, regardless of whether a would-be intruder possessed your passcode, it might be possible to construct a device which simply cycled through every possible combination of knock sequences. The fact that the knock sequence is dependant on both the passkey and a temporal component is irrelevant, provided that the sequence doesn't chage while you're cycling through the combinations.
the reason i think that the number of knock types will be small is because they must be done quickly, but also need to open the door every time the sequence is correct. if a device timer is slightly off, the manufacturers are not going to want people locked out of their homes; thus, some level of tolerance must be built in, which means that the "knock resolution" that this device must operate with is going to be smaller.
This is a really neat concept, and in light of the recent success of the DARPA grand challenge, I see that navigationally-useful "AI" is now finally making advances on the road (in the air, autopilot has been around for quite some time).
Nevertheless, I honestly can't see the masses (myself included) trusting one of these things to the point where they would acctually allow themselves to be driven by this car (or future versions) for quite some time. Even the Honda doesn't completely trust the car, as demonstrated by the fact that the human driver/passenger is required to respond every 10 seconds. Given that the car's software is constantly asking for reassurance, it's not like the human sitting in the driver seat can accomplish anything useful, or even sit back and enjoy the ride.
I think a few people are going to get in serious accidents with this car (assuming someone actually buys it) because either the car's designers have not taken some situation into account (which is likely), or because the car's users will use this car in ways not intended by the designers (which is also likely).
Ultimately, while this news is exciting, it makes me worried that the new technology will make the roads more dangerous
Does any version of windows come with anti-virus software? If they are talking about promoting the idea that windows anti-virus is not needed, they are making a big mistake. For any platform as popular as windows (which means a lot of stupid, gullible, banner-clicking, adware-installing people will be using it), anti-virus and anti-spyware software is needed, no matter how secure the operating system may be. Even if Vista will no longer allow malware to install itself without explicit user consent, the masses will find a way!
You make a good point. Since Mars has no Earth-like atmosphere, even small meteorites can make it though the atmosphere and have significant reprocussions -- possibly no more or less so than these bombs. Nevertheless, I'd argue that meteorites are natural for Mars, whereas humans bombing its surface are probably not. On Earth, although meteorites sometimes do make it through the atmosphere, I wouldn't want someone to simulate such a natural occurance near where I was located at the time.
An argument allowing us to behave as we choose by comparing our actions to various natural disasters frees us from responsibility of those actions. I think this is dangerous.
Do you know this from personal experience, or are you, like the people I mentioned in my post, making the assumption that by messing with something you don't really know about, you won't break it? If something bad were to happen to disrupt the Mars environment, these scientists will claim ignorance. I believe that there is a big difference between bombing the surface of a planet and "looking at it funny." The fact is, we don't know much about Mars, except what we see through telescopes and the very limited capabilities of the Mars rover. Before we start bombing things, we might want to stop to think about what we may be destroying in the process. Even if there isn't anything but rock on Mars, we might be destroying some neat-looking land formation which might have given us insights into understanding something we can't think of today.
You alluded to particle smashing in your response. I never argued that breaking something won't tell you about it. However, like with particle smashing, we're destroying something here without truly understanding it.
not to be overly cynical...but this seems to be the typical "human" method of studying new things. first, we take a cursory glance from a distance. next, we think about how we can study it. in the process, we destroy or cause harm to it.
i wonder if we'll ever stop to think that what we do may have some sort of greater impact. doesn't an intelligent species have some sort of responsibility for its actions?
Possibly true. However, in this case, I base my comment on ideas from Spitzer's The Mind Within The Net. You can read more about this here (it's a pdf): http://www.his.sunderland.ac.uk/ps/farivar.pdf/
If I recall correctly, mirror neurons are associated with imitation and self-visualization. Somehow, this meshes well with the idea of autistics lacking "higher level abstraction" abilities. Specifically, mirror neurons provide a means of abstracting the idea of self. Let me explain.
I've read that in some parts of the autistic brain, "layers" of neurons are connected directly to each other, such that every neuron in a particular layer is connected to every other neuron in the next layer. However, in normal brains, a third layer exists between pairs of layers. In this way, normal brains require fewer synaptic connections, but longer axonal pathways (i.e. a given signal takes longer to be processed, but may travel through internal layers which modify and abstract features from outer layers).
This property is theorized to give rise, in some autistics, to "idiot savant" abilities; such individuals often excel at a particular skill or set of skills (such as multiplying large numbers together very quickly). For example, one might be able to multiply 5 digit numbers together in a couple of seconds. However, because of the lack of inter-layers which allow for abstractions (and possibly understanding/comprehension of the processed information), the same person may have no concious concept of the numerical value of real world things.
Actually, I would bet that the researchers did see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationahip at the time of the study. The key word here is significant(ly)- this implies only that statistical testing was done and the associated p value was less than 0.05 or greater than 0.95.
In reality, complex emotions such as "the feeling of intense love in the early stages of romance" are often more complicated than the presence of NGF in the blood stream. Otherwise, simply injecting NGF into the bloodstream (as is done to treat some neuronal diseases) would produce the same feeling. Thus, I'd argue the relationship is correlated, but probably not causal (i.e. I agree with parent).
As the saying goes, "there are no small changes in a complex system." Removing (or introducing) a species to an area on a scale as described nearly always backfires, resulting in a situation worse than before (think of pigeons and english sparrows in the United States, or cane toads in Australia).
Removing all mosquitoes from the food chain may have far-reaching effects on other animals as well. At the present time, the system (i.e. nature) is so complex that we cannot possibly hope to predict these consequences in advance (although after the fact they will seem obvious). The notion that we can make these sweeping changes to the Natural Balance of Things without incurring the burden of "side effects" is absurd, given that we have not gained control of all the variables in the system.
in a time and place where cell phones have become affixed to our ears, the subway system once provided a welcome relief from the people who talk to thin air. practically anywhere else you go (out to dinner, at the movies, walking down the street), the everpresent hoards of obnoxious cell-phoners have taken over. it might be argued the subway has become one of the few urban areas where people are actually likely to talk to the people around them or to take in their surroundings. in small doses technological advances in connectivity, which allow us to talk with people when we want and where we want, are generally a good thing. particularly in emergency situations, and in light of recent terrorist activity on subways, subway cell phones may bring greater safety. however, when cell phones, instant messengers, and ultra high speed internet start to dominate our lifestyles, the value of a face-to-face conversation is largely ignored.
I use Ubuntu currently (GNOME-based), but I saw an article (http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/2223 230) yesterday about KDE-based GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/), which sounds like it incorporates some neat ideas (for example, it re-organizes the standard directory hierarchy to be more intuitive for deskop users).
I've used Kubuntu (4.10 and 5.04), but have found they never seem to be quite as stable as Ubuntu. I haven't tried Kubuntu 5.10 yet, though.
"there are no small changes in a complex system"
Seven flavors means that Microsoft will be charging lots for Vista.
Because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the Operating Systems market, the laws of supply and demand alone no longer determine what they should charge. By overcharging customers, inefficiencies are introduced into the market, and Microsoft loses out (read any introductory economics text to see why).
In order to partially compensate, Microsoft will now offer different versions of Vista, catering to the variations in deposable income available across its customer base. People who don't have much money (but want/need to buy Vista) will decide on the Starter Edition package. However, the starter edition will be so severely crippled that most people will want to buy "better" packages.
On the other end of the spectrum, extreme gamers with tons of cash (or rich nerds who haven't discovered Linux or OS X) will be purchasing the Vista Ultimate edition. In other words, Microsoft will be maximizing its profit by charging as much as people are willing to spend for Vista. From Microsoft's point of view, it costs nothing more (aside from the neglegable cost of additional CD's or DVD's, if needed) to sell the Starter edition or the Ultimate edition, once both have been developed.
It is probably worth pointing out that any company offering a "deluxe" version of their product is doing the same thing, to some extent. Also, in Microsoft's defense, it seems that some of the Vista flavors will be catered toward small businesses, enterprises, etc, so it's not quite as simple as I'm pretending. Nevertheless, the fact that Microsoft is offering 7 flavors, with multiple flavors being targeted towards similiar interest groups (but with varied bank account sizes) is just another Microsoft attempt to squeeze every penny out of its customer base.
330 feet / minute * 12 inches / foot = 3960 inches / minute
3960 inches / minute / 11 inches / page = 360 pages / minute.