"Canadian show Food Jammers had a segment recently on this"
When I started to read that, I thought you were going to say something different. Because the first thought that came to mind was, which floor did they have the restaurant on, which was using the other floors for supplies!
It would save on food transport costs etc..
Plus maybe we could also get to meet and choose our own ingredients!
A lot of TV channels earn their living via adverts. The more people can find shows the better. It makes business sense to provide free listings. I suspect is more a case of the studios not being able to centrally organise their show listings.
However there's a simple solution. All studios simply need to be encouraged to distribute their show listings via RSS. Once a few start to do it, others will want to do it as well, because they will not want to loose out.
Better for who?... That's the key to why you are wrong to think it could be better.
If its better for 1 person and worse for say 10 people, then overall its worse.
For example, to quote the UN Environment Programme (4 June 2007):
"Impacts are likely to include significant changes in the availability of water supplies for drinking and agriculture, rising sea levels affecting low lying coasts and islands and an increase in hazards such as subsidence of currently frozen land.
An estimated 40 per cent of the world's population could be affected by loss of snow and glaciers on the mountains of Asia says the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in the Global Outlook for Ice and Snow.
Similar challenges are facing countries, communities, farmers and power generators in the Alps to the Andes and the Pyrenees, says the report."
"anyone who has got used to Linux-esque ways"
I'm still new to Linux, but the one thing that stands out for me already, is Linux code is simply designed to do a job. (If the code could then be ported to a different OS, then that's actually seen as a good thing). Whereas with M$ code, Microsoft want it to be designed in such a way that its defensive against portability and to build lock in. They seem to be very often guarding against being displaced from control of their OS. Which I guess is understandable, as they have to earn a living from it, but it leads to worse code and wasted porting efforts. To be brief, With Linux code I feel I'm in control and can tell it what to do. With Microsoft code, i feel its in control and tells me how and what I can do.
Also I can't see how M$ can _ever_ change this basic stance. They will always be defensive to anyone else wanting to do things to their core OS. (They don't want to give any other business the chance to compete with them on equal ground). Also if an open source group tried to create an open source version of Windows, then Microsoft would loose vast amounts of money.
"Seriously, what this means is that MS will become more compatible with Linux"
The word "interoperability" may not have much to do with program interoperability and maybe more to do with business 2 business interoperability. Such as coordinated strategy meetings, coordinated release schedules etc.. plus working on building up and continuing their current Linux licensing chess game.
Microsoft don't want code and/or data interoperability with Linux. To do that, would be risking a more level playing field between the two.
So working by this theory, I guess it makes the "ZX Spectrum = Scientology" (Very smaller userbase, unwilling to consider its an out dated, cult like way of thinking).
"... to the first/. article to discuss this without using the term "saber rattling," somewhere."
"Bonus points if you can avoid "mud slinging," as well."
Ok, how about M$ are "saber slinging" and "mud rattling" at Linux... Ok, come on, pay up, where's me $10 I don't have all day to wait you know.;)
(1) Windows market share isn't at its zenith. First, M$ hasn't got a fraction of the phone market OS. Also, there are other emerging OS markets M$ can be aiming at (e.g. Various forms of embedded OS). You can only say its near a zenith for desktop PC, but its been there for a decade. So that doesn't justify its new actions against Linux.
(2) "wants to start disarming a potentially nuclear patent war"... That's totally wrong, because if anything, its greatly heating up the chances of a major confrontation between itself and Linux.
(3) "It is possible that there isn't a conspiracy"... Its not a conspiracy, its happening for real. If an animal looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog, then its most likely a dog. The point is, corporations are and have to be tactical with long term thinking. Corporations have done some very underhanded things in the past, to win greater market shares. There are precedents for such underhanded behaviour. M$ are evidently targeting distros and their actions with the 235 fictitious patents (none of which they have even shown) shows part of their tactics is an on going propaganda war against Linux, which is very evidently part of getting distros to sign to them. This isn't a conspiracy, its happening, we have the evidence to show this is what has already happened.
(4) "and that they just want some 1) good PR"... its very far from good PR. Its totally underhanded and its becoming ever more evident they are repeatedly building on the same tactics of trying to imply something is wrong with unlicensed Linux. That is going to increase the number of people against M$.
(5) "and 2) to avoid an ugly suit"... yes they would loose it, on the basis of their current evidence of fictitious patents. However M$ are trying to get implied extra evidence by getting Distros to sign *legal agreements* which effectively state that distro company *legally accepts and agrees* M$ owns the rights which Linux is implied to violate. Once a distro signs legal agreements with M$ then M$ win an effective admission of guilt from the distro.
Its actually a very clever tactic by M$, but I'm not sure what can legally be done to head off this new approach by M$.
"Long term"... It looks like M$ are playing for the long term.
First we had the M$+Novell stunt. Then the 235 fictitious patents and now the "deal" with Xandros.
Its looking ever more likely, this is part of an ongoing serious tactical move by M$ to damage the name of Linux, by implication alone, that its somehow unsafe from legal action, unless licensed by them.
I'll just quickly paste in a section out from my previous/. post on the subject...
"Microsoft could well be using this "patent news" in a very underhanded, but very tactical way to scare corporations away from adopting open source tools and/or OS, in an attempt to tip the balance so corporations buy Vista. Non-technical Corporation bosses would be afraid of this kind of underhanded sabre rattling tactic of Microsoft, as they would fear wasting time and effort on Linux and so go the "safe" route of using Microsoft tools & OS. ("Safe"=What M$ tell them is safe)."
Now with this Xandros move, it looks like its part of a bigger overall strategy. It looks ever more likely this is a much more serious tactical move than just sabre rattling to just sell more copies of Vista.
I can only hope organisations and even governments who use Linux, can quickly take serious legal action against M$ for this strategically very devious mud slinging.
If this isn't stopped fast, M$ are going to scare other Distros into signing up and each that do, add implied weight from a legal perspective, in the eyes of non-technical judges, that something is up with unlicensed Linux. Its a very underhanded strategy to imply something is wrong with Linux.
If enough Distros sign up, then M$ just has to say in court "hey look judge, even these big Distros admit there was something wrong with Linux. So now, we want everyone else to pay up".
Microsoft look like they are playing a very big chess game to win control over Linux and it needs to be stopped fast.
"I'm wondering if transcranial magnetic stimulation could be useful in non-invasively delivering such a field."
I was thinking a similar thing, but from a different perspective. This frequency range is already used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency... and some of these transmitters are very high power (100kW or more).
This work shows there's a definite biological effect from low frequency RF. The biological safety argument often uses the position that electromagnetic frequencies are considered safe provided they are below non-ionizing frequencies (i.e. unsafe only at and above ultraviolet frequencies).
The idea is that non-ionizing frequencies will not cause biological changes. Yet this work shows they do cause changes.
From the article...
"It uses electrical fields to disrupt tumor growth by interfering with cell division of cancerous cells, causing them to stop proliferating and die off instead of dividing and growing. Healthy brain cells rarely divide and have different electrical properties than cancerous brain cells. This allows the device to target cancer cells without affecting the healthy cells."
That doesn't mean normal cells cannot be affected _Long term_ by electromagnetic fields. It means that as normal cells don't divide much and have different electrical properties they are not affected as much... the big question however is define "much". Over what time span are we talking about here?... Say the resistance of a normal cell was 100 times that of cancer cell, so it would take 100 times a long to alter its biochemistry as much. How long is each treatment and at what power level compared with say someone living for say a decade just a mile from say a 1MW radio transmitter, plus combined with all the other sources of electromagnetic they are exposed to?
This sounds like really fascinating research which may well have great potential for helping maybe many other forms of cancer as well. However this work also highlights we are still learning about the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
Thats potentially great news for maybe one day treating some forms of cancers, but what other health effects are there from electromagnetic fields we still need to learn about?
We are all exposed to a lot of electromagnetic fields during our lifetime (some of which are relatively high powered), and thats currently increasing generation after generation. Also on a time scale of a lifetime, some cells in our bodies most definitely undergo normal changes which could as this work highlights be potentially influenced by electromagnetic fields.
From the main article, "have far more defensive than offensive value in the marketplace today" and from the parent post "MS. They are not used to being in competition"
Microsoft could well be using this "patent news" in a very underhanded, but very tactical way to scare corporations away from adopting open source tools and/or OS, in an attempt to tip the balance so corporations buy Vista. Non-technical Corporation bosses would be afraid of this kind of underhanded sabre rattling tactic of Microsoft, as they would fear wasting time and effort on Linux and so go the "safe" route of using Microsoft tools & OS. ("Safe"=What M$ tell them is safe).
Its blatant scare tactics hidden behind a supposed news story, which Microsoft's own PR departments created the news story.
The government, any government from any party is made up of people who's career has been to seek power. In other words, seek power over other people. Its no surprise anyone in power would seek to gain more power over others and technology allows this, so there's an inevitable drift towards wanting more power. This applies to all governments in all countries, its not just American, although its more saddening to hear from countries which claim to allow personal freedom. But that freedom has always been mostly an illusion caused by the people in power lacking the resources to control to the level some of them would wish to have.
This is why people throughout the political spectrum would 1) think its a good idea and 2) allow this to happen.
Without restraint then unfortunately I think the world could walk into a big brother scenario. All the time people in power fear opponents seeking to oppose them or bully them in their point of view, or simply undermine their power, they will want to secure stronger controls of people.
Its being driven by basic human natures, (such as fear), rather than being driven specifically by any one political ideology.
"So How long until it becomes ILLEGAL to cover your mouth or try and talk without showing your lips" and "anyone who covers their face"
It would be better if they just get it over with and chip us all. That way they can get our GPS position, anything we say and even our emotional states. Then we can all finally rest free from the fear of anyone attempting to bully us into their point of view.
Like the old saying, "Out of the frying pan, into the fire".
Both sides want to control. The Terrorists want their way and these kinds of Big Brother ideas are members of the government wanting their control. The rest of us are helplessly caught in between. Its such an irony. The problem we face are people who want to control others into their point of view and will stop at nothing to force others into their point of view.
I can't help being reminded of another old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Your definition ignores subatomic particles... in other words, talking from an Etymological perspective, the definition of "atom" in the context of physics has been redefined over time. Saying an atom is something which cannot be divided is an outdated concept. Etymologically speaking;)
Well, it would explain all the dark matter in the universe.
Technologically advanced planets, who get to the point where they build their own LHC style machine. Then at the point of understanding, all knowledge in the universe, they experience a Douglas Adams style moment, and then get crushed to the size of pea in a Singularity.
Unfortunately I think my head bangering days are over now... too old:(... but I think this reporter could also be a head banger?
I found another article by him, which shows he has been watching (and knows) this same cultural group of people for some time and this article also explains (more than a few) rock chicks I've met over the years.:)
The way it is currently, the only people who are winning are the bosses who own the submission sites. One of the biggest problems I keep finding is trying to find researchers work. I read about some great new paper then when I try to find it, it turns out its only on some pay to view site. In the end I give up, so the researcher looses out as far less people see their work and I loose out as I can't see their work. I can't afford to pay (out of my own pocket) every time I want to read up on a paper.
This isn't the way to conduct science. The researchers are loosing out.
I would have thought the answer would be for all Universities & Research Centres etc.. to effectively work together by publishing (for free) on a science specific paper publishing kind of wiki site which they could easily setup between them. (Not the wikipedia itself, but one which is dedicated to science paper submissions and able to handle pier reviews etc..)
That way its free and open for everyone to view it and the researchers can get far more coverage of their work.
"Not only that, but is the history of searches you made over 2 years ago relevant to your current searches performed today"
It is to Google as they want to know more about you, so they can build up a clearer profile about you. Just because they (say they) are going to delete the data after 2 years, doesn't mean they will not use the data in that two years to build up a profile about what you like. Then they can still keep updating that profile over time while deleting data. So even once they delete the data after two years the profile will still persist (in an ever changing and growing form).
The whole Google "do no harm talk" sounds more like PR spin talk to cover up what their real intentions are... its like the old saying, "Knowledge Is Power".
From a research point of view, Google is basically a vast data mining research company. They are forever looking for more new ways to do data mining.
So now imagine in say a few years from now, you could work out how to build up a profile of searches from a company instead of a person. Then you would be able to know what that company is interested in. Its also the logical extension of profiling individuals. But it would also be pure industrial espionage. But we are told, Google will do no harm, so its ok then. Imaging how valuable that data profiling would be to sell it to a competitor of that company.
I think in a few years from now, we will see countries starting to create their own search engines so all their research doesn't get feed though other countries search engines, which are basically gigantic information filtering and collection systems for what people (and companies) are interested in.
"I had one as a kid, and I was wildly disappointed. I followed the directions in the manual, and made circuits that did things, but I had no idea how anything worked"
I had a few of the earlier kits like this back when I was still at school. (Thinking back it must have been around about 24 years ago!)... I think they are a great way to get into learning about electronics. They also allow building circuits faster than with a soldering iron so again good for learning. They are also a starting point to find new ways to adapt the circuits they provide with the kits.
The problem isn't the kits. The problem is with your approach to the subject. You imply you want a ready made package of all you need to know to understand electronics. That will not happen. The field of electronics is potentially a life time of studying. You can go as deep into the subject as you wish. No one book or one kit can every show it all. Anyone truly enthusiastic about a subject seeks out information wherever they can. The great thing about learning these days is the internet now provides a vast extra resource to help study just about any subject.
Slashdot Mirror
"Canadian show Food Jammers had a segment recently on this"
When I started to read that, I thought you were going to say something different. Because the first thought that came to mind was, which floor did they have the restaurant on, which was using the other floors for supplies!
It would save on food transport costs etc..
Plus maybe we could also get to meet and choose our own ingredients!
"that's going to require a business relationship"
A lot of TV channels earn their living via adverts. The more people can find shows the better. It makes business sense to provide free listings. I suspect is more a case of the studios not being able to centrally organise their show listings.
However there's a simple solution. All studios simply need to be encouraged to distribute their show listings via RSS. Once a few start to do it, others will want to do it as well, because they will not want to loose out.
"Who is to say warmer won't be better?"
... That's the key to why you are wrong to think it could be better.
If its better for 1 person and worse for say 10 people, then overall its worse.
t .asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5599&l=en
Better for who?
For example, to quote the UN Environment Programme (4 June 2007):
"Impacts are likely to include significant changes in the availability of water supplies for drinking and agriculture, rising sea levels affecting low lying coasts and islands and an increase in hazards such as subsidence of currently frozen land.
An estimated 40 per cent of the world's population could be affected by loss of snow and glaciers on the mountains of Asia says the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in the Global Outlook for Ice and Snow.
Similar challenges are facing countries, communities, farmers and power generators in the Alps to the Andes and the Pyrenees, says the report."
Here's the link, its got a lot more details of the effects:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Defaul
"To un-freeify Linux"3 87631
I totally agree. I think M$ are playing a long term very underhanded game here to win control over Linux. For example, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237297&cid=19
"anyone who has got used to Linux-esque ways"
I'm still new to Linux, but the one thing that stands out for me already, is Linux code is simply designed to do a job. (If the code could then be ported to a different OS, then that's actually seen as a good thing). Whereas with M$ code, Microsoft want it to be designed in such a way that its defensive against portability and to build lock in. They seem to be very often guarding against being displaced from control of their OS. Which I guess is understandable, as they have to earn a living from it, but it leads to worse code and wasted porting efforts. To be brief, With Linux code I feel I'm in control and can tell it what to do. With Microsoft code, i feel its in control and tells me how and what I can do.
Also I can't see how M$ can _ever_ change this basic stance. They will always be defensive to anyone else wanting to do things to their core OS. (They don't want to give any other business the chance to compete with them on equal ground). Also if an open source group tried to create an open source version of Windows, then Microsoft would loose vast amounts of money.
"Seriously, what this means is that MS will become more compatible with Linux"
The word "interoperability" may not have much to do with program interoperability and maybe more to do with business 2 business interoperability. Such as coordinated strategy meetings, coordinated release schedules etc.. plus working on building up and continuing their current Linux licensing chess game.
Microsoft don't want code and/or data interoperability with Linux. To do that, would be risking a more level playing field between the two.
"Windows = Christian", "Linux = Buddhism" & "Mac = Islam" etc...
x .jpg a ma.jpg
So working by this theory, I guess it makes the "ZX Spectrum = Scientology" (Very smaller userbase, unwilling to consider its an out dated, cult like way of thinking).
Maybe there's something to this theory, especially when you compare a photo of Clive Sinclair with one of Xenu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sinclair.600pi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xenu_BBC_Panor
"... to the first /. article to discuss this without using the term "saber rattling," somewhere."
... Ok, come on, pay up, where's me $10 I don't have all day to wait you know. ;)
"Bonus points if you can avoid "mud slinging," as well."
Ok, how about M$ are "saber slinging" and "mud rattling" at Linux
"The Wikipedia article says it was mentioned in the movie "Solaris". Anyone remember what this particle did in the movie?"
Yeah, the particle had a walk on bit part, playing I think, Elmer Fudd. It wasn't a challenging acting role, but it was ok.
(1) Windows market share isn't at its zenith. First, M$ hasn't got a fraction of the phone market OS. Also, there are other emerging OS markets M$ can be aiming at (e.g. Various forms of embedded OS). You can only say its near a zenith for desktop PC, but its been there for a decade. So that doesn't justify its new actions against Linux.
... That's totally wrong, because if anything, its greatly heating up the chances of a major confrontation between itself and Linux.
... Its not a conspiracy, its happening for real. If an animal looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog, then its most likely a dog. The point is, corporations are and have to be tactical with long term thinking. Corporations have done some very underhanded things in the past, to win greater market shares. There are precedents for such underhanded behaviour. M$ are evidently targeting distros and their actions with the 235 fictitious patents (none of which they have even shown) shows part of their tactics is an on going propaganda war against Linux, which is very evidently part of getting distros to sign to them. This isn't a conspiracy, its happening, we have the evidence to show this is what has already happened.
... its very far from good PR. Its totally underhanded and its becoming ever more evident they are repeatedly building on the same tactics of trying to imply something is wrong with unlicensed Linux. That is going to increase the number of people against M$.
... yes they would loose it, on the basis of their current evidence of fictitious patents. However M$ are trying to get implied extra evidence by getting Distros to sign *legal agreements* which effectively state that distro company *legally accepts and agrees* M$ owns the rights which Linux is implied to violate. Once a distro signs legal agreements with M$ then M$ win an effective admission of guilt from the distro.
(2) "wants to start disarming a potentially nuclear patent war"
(3) "It is possible that there isn't a conspiracy"
(4) "and that they just want some 1) good PR"
(5) "and 2) to avoid an ugly suit"
Its actually a very clever tactic by M$, but I'm not sure what can legally be done to head off this new approach by M$.
"Long term" ... It looks like M$ are playing for the long term.
/. post on the subject...
First we had the M$+Novell stunt. Then the 235 fictitious patents and now the "deal" with Xandros. Its looking ever more likely, this is part of an ongoing serious tactical move by M$ to damage the name of Linux, by implication alone, that its somehow unsafe from legal action, unless licensed by them.
I'll just quickly paste in a section out from my previous
"Microsoft could well be using this "patent news" in a very underhanded, but very tactical way to scare corporations away from adopting open source tools and/or OS, in an attempt to tip the balance so corporations buy Vista. Non-technical Corporation bosses would be afraid of this kind of underhanded sabre rattling tactic of Microsoft, as they would fear wasting time and effort on Linux and so go the "safe" route of using Microsoft tools & OS. ("Safe"=What M$ tell them is safe)."
Now with this Xandros move, it looks like its part of a bigger overall strategy. It looks ever more likely this is a much more serious tactical move than just sabre rattling to just sell more copies of Vista.
I can only hope organisations and even governments who use Linux, can quickly take serious legal action against M$ for this strategically very devious mud slinging.
If this isn't stopped fast, M$ are going to scare other Distros into signing up and each that do, add implied weight from a legal perspective, in the eyes of non-technical judges, that something is up with unlicensed Linux. Its a very underhanded strategy to imply something is wrong with Linux.
If enough Distros sign up, then M$ just has to say in court "hey look judge, even these big Distros admit there was something wrong with Linux. So now, we want everyone else to pay up".
Microsoft look like they are playing a very big chess game to win control over Linux and it needs to be stopped fast.
"I'm wondering if transcranial magnetic stimulation could be useful in non-invasively delivering such a field."
... and some of these transmitters are very high power (100kW or more).
...
... the big question however is define "much". Over what time span are we talking about here?... Say the resistance of a normal cell was 100 times that of cancer cell, so it would take 100 times a long to alter its biochemistry as much. How long is each treatment and at what power level compared with say someone living for say a decade just a mile from say a 1MW radio transmitter, plus combined with all the other sources of electromagnetic they are exposed to?
I was thinking a similar thing, but from a different perspective. This frequency range is already used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency
This work shows there's a definite biological effect from low frequency RF. The biological safety argument often uses the position that electromagnetic frequencies are considered safe provided they are below non-ionizing frequencies (i.e. unsafe only at and above ultraviolet frequencies).
The idea is that non-ionizing frequencies will not cause biological changes. Yet this work shows they do cause changes.
From the article
"It uses electrical fields to disrupt tumor growth by interfering with cell division of cancerous cells, causing them to stop proliferating and die off instead of dividing and growing. Healthy brain cells rarely divide and have different electrical properties than cancerous brain cells. This allows the device to target cancer cells without affecting the healthy cells."
That doesn't mean normal cells cannot be affected _Long term_ by electromagnetic fields. It means that as normal cells don't divide much and have different electrical properties they are not affected as much
This sounds like really fascinating research which may well have great potential for helping maybe many other forms of cancer as well. However this work also highlights we are still learning about the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
Thats potentially great news for maybe one day treating some forms of cancers, but what other health effects are there from electromagnetic fields we still need to learn about?
We are all exposed to a lot of electromagnetic fields during our lifetime (some of which are relatively high powered), and thats currently increasing generation after generation. Also on a time scale of a lifetime, some cells in our bodies most definitely undergo normal changes which could as this work highlights be potentially influenced by electromagnetic fields.
... and they iced a few main characters in X3
From the main article, "have far more defensive than offensive value in the marketplace today" and from the parent post "MS. They are not used to being in competition"
Microsoft could well be using this "patent news" in a very underhanded, but very tactical way to scare corporations away from adopting open source tools and/or OS, in an attempt to tip the balance so corporations buy Vista. Non-technical Corporation bosses would be afraid of this kind of underhanded sabre rattling tactic of Microsoft, as they would fear wasting time and effort on Linux and so go the "safe" route of using Microsoft tools & OS. ("Safe"=What M$ tell them is safe).
Its blatant scare tactics hidden behind a supposed news story, which Microsoft's own PR departments created the news story.
The government, any government from any party is made up of people who's career has been to seek power. In other words, seek power over other people. Its no surprise anyone in power would seek to gain more power over others and technology allows this, so there's an inevitable drift towards wanting more power. This applies to all governments in all countries, its not just American, although its more saddening to hear from countries which claim to allow personal freedom. But that freedom has always been mostly an illusion caused by the people in power lacking the resources to control to the level some of them would wish to have.
This is why people throughout the political spectrum would 1) think its a good idea and 2) allow this to happen.
Without restraint then unfortunately I think the world could walk into a big brother scenario. All the time people in power fear opponents seeking to oppose them or bully them in their point of view, or simply undermine their power, they will want to secure stronger controls of people.
Its being driven by basic human natures, (such as fear), rather than being driven specifically by any one political ideology.
"The Ark. That's right: Noah's Ark."
What so the quantum state animals were both inside and outside the ark, until he counted them?
I guess he must have also had some Schrödinger Cats onboard as well then.
"patent this, patent that etc.."
... now you all have to pay up or I can exclude you from my reality.
Ok, I've just patented The Big Bang
"So How long until it becomes ILLEGAL to cover your mouth or try and talk without showing your lips" and "anyone who covers their face"
It would be better if they just get it over with and chip us all. That way they can get our GPS position, anything we say and even our emotional states. Then we can all finally rest free from the fear of anyone attempting to bully us into their point of view.
Like the old saying, "Out of the frying pan, into the fire".
Both sides want to control. The Terrorists want their way and these kinds of Big Brother ideas are members of the government wanting their control. The rest of us are helplessly caught in between. Its such an irony. The problem we face are people who want to control others into their point of view and will stop at nothing to force others into their point of view.
I can't help being reminded of another old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
What a world we are heading into.
"atom = "something that cannot be divided""
... in other words, talking from an Etymological perspective, the definition of "atom" in the context of physics has been redefined over time. Saying an atom is something which cannot be divided is an outdated concept. Etymologically speaking ;)
Your definition ignores subatomic particles
Well, it would explain all the dark matter in the universe.
Technologically advanced planets, who get to the point where they build their own LHC style machine. Then at the point of understanding, all knowledge in the universe, they experience a Douglas Adams style moment, and then get crushed to the size of pea in a Singularity.
Unfortunately I think my head bangering days are over now ... too old :( ... but I think this reporter could also be a head banger?
:)
1 905
I found another article by him, which shows he has been watching (and knows) this same cultural group of people for some time and this article also explains (more than a few) rock chicks I've met over the years.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0701/0701
"needs a thoroughly good rethink"
The way it is currently, the only people who are winning are the bosses who own the submission sites. One of the biggest problems I keep finding is trying to find researchers work. I read about some great new paper then when I try to find it, it turns out its only on some pay to view site. In the end I give up, so the researcher looses out as far less people see their work and I loose out as I can't see their work. I can't afford to pay (out of my own pocket) every time I want to read up on a paper.
This isn't the way to conduct science. The researchers are loosing out.
I would have thought the answer would be for all Universities & Research Centres etc.. to effectively work together by publishing (for free) on a science specific paper publishing kind of wiki site which they could easily setup between them. (Not the wikipedia itself, but one which is dedicated to science paper submissions and able to handle pier reviews etc..)
That way its free and open for everyone to view it and the researchers can get far more coverage of their work.
"Make that an SCBA (like a firefighter wears), the 'U' in Scuba stands for underwater."
;)
Come to think of it, filling the computer room with water isn't such a bad idea. First it stops any fires and you get water cooling for free.
And for security (and a free screen saver at the IT room window!), you could put a few sharks in there
I would like to tell you something to help calm your nerves, but I'm too busy digging out my shelter to stop just yet.
"Not only that, but is the history of searches you made over 2 years ago relevant to your current searches performed today"
... its like the old saying, "Knowledge Is Power".
It is to Google as they want to know more about you, so they can build up a clearer profile about you. Just because they (say they) are going to delete the data after 2 years, doesn't mean they will not use the data in that two years to build up a profile about what you like. Then they can still keep updating that profile over time while deleting data. So even once they delete the data after two years the profile will still persist (in an ever changing and growing form).
The whole Google "do no harm talk" sounds more like PR spin talk to cover up what their real intentions are
From a research point of view, Google is basically a vast data mining research company. They are forever looking for more new ways to do data mining.
So now imagine in say a few years from now, you could work out how to build up a profile of searches from a company instead of a person. Then you would be able to know what that company is interested in. Its also the logical extension of profiling individuals. But it would also be pure industrial espionage. But we are told, Google will do no harm, so its ok then. Imaging how valuable that data profiling would be to sell it to a competitor of that company.
I think in a few years from now, we will see countries starting to create their own search engines so all their research doesn't get feed though other countries search engines, which are basically gigantic information filtering and collection systems for what people (and companies) are interested in.
This is better than wine from dresses, its the start of Alcoholic Edible Clothing!
"I had one as a kid, and I was wildly disappointed. I followed the directions in the manual, and made circuits that did things, but I had no idea how anything worked"
... I think they are a great way to get into learning about electronics. They also allow building circuits faster than with a soldering iron so again good for learning. They are also a starting point to find new ways to adapt the circuits they provide with the kits.
I had a few of the earlier kits like this back when I was still at school. (Thinking back it must have been around about 24 years ago!)
The problem isn't the kits. The problem is with your approach to the subject. You imply you want a ready made package of all you need to know to understand electronics. That will not happen. The field of electronics is potentially a life time of studying. You can go as deep into the subject as you wish. No one book or one kit can every show it all. Anyone truly enthusiastic about a subject seeks out information wherever they can. The great thing about learning these days is the internet now provides a vast extra resource to help study just about any subject.