Re:Books, catalogs, and *.coms
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 2
Although I've bought books online they've always been books that I've already wanted before I went to the site. OTOH, practically whenever I go into a big bookshop there will be something on the shelf I've never heard of before that I like the look of, and I'll buy it. By doing this I've been introduced to some of my all-time favourite authors.
Online catalogues remove the "browse" factor from shopping. They can be great if you know what it is you want, but if you're just looking out of curiosity then you're far better off with a paper catalogue, or even better, a shop.
Fear of embracing change ? Wow, that sounds familliar.
Kind of like the zealous group of people who refuse to go from console based operating systems from the 60's (or 70's?) and leap into todays pool of graphical user interfaces?
Oh God, I hope this doesn't turn into another console vs. GUI flamewar. Anyway I'm still firmly in favour over paper books at the moment simply because of the usability factor. When the E-book becomes as convenient to use as a regular book, I'll switch over. It's got nothing to do with a fear of change.
What would it take to do this? Well, the actual unit used for the display needs to be as convenient as paper, and not give you eye-strain after an hour. This is the real kicker IMHO at the moment. I also doubt an E-book will ever be able to give you that real new book smell either:)
Re:Books will stay on paper
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 2
What are you talking about, any book qualifies as a bathroom (toilet) book, it just depends on how much time you want to sit on the crapper.
Yes, but unless I've got the runs, I generally don't spend enough time there to read any useful part of, say "CORBA Distributed Objects Using UNIX":)
I was quite interested by the observation that some internet companies are experimenting with paper catalogues
While it may certainly be easier to find a specific product using an online catalogue, if you're just browsing to see if there is anything you might want to buy then a paper catalogue wins hands down. Lets face it, who wants to spend all their time going through God knows how many links on a website just to see what they've got.
And then there's the majority of these websites which are designed really badly, again putting users off looking through them. Paper catalogues can't really go wrong in that respect (unless the company are complete idiots).
Aaagh! Country and Western is the music that would be playing in hell IMHO. There I'd be forced to wear cowboy gear with tassles and engage in formation line dancing for all eternity...
Today, you can still find new LPs, but not for ever album. Their market is mostly audiophiles who can hear and understand the difference. It is a limited market.
I'm not sure about the situation in the US but over here in Europe there has been a huge revival in 12" records due to the huge popularity of dance music in Europe. Because it is designed to be beat mixed vinyl is the best media because it can be cued by hand as well as sped up or slowed down easily. Almost all albums and singles that fall into the dance catagory are released on 12" to cater for the thousands of DJs who buy vinyl every week. So in this market the popularity of vinyl is actually increasing.
Books will stay on paper
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 5
Publishers approaching meltdown about the future of books can visit any Borders or Barnes & Noble, where salespeople constantly suggest that customers find books online, and where it's also clear that people aren't even close to giving up reading words on paper even if they also read words on computer screens. Although online book sales are growing on sites like Fatbrain, Amazon and BN.com, so are the sales of books in stores. The technological absolutism invoked by the rise of the Net - everything will go digital - is not coming to pass.
I doubt very much that books will become obsolete for quite a long time, even when the E-book finally becomes a reality for consumers. While some texts, particularly scientific textbooks, could do with the concept of hyperlinked sections, the majority of books would gain no real benefit to being digitised. Yes, it might be nice to search a book for a particular passge, but it's hardly essential for the enjoyment of the book.
While I love computers, there's nothing more frustrating than trying to read something that's more than 100 or so lines on a monitor. It just doesn't feel right and hurts your eyes, even on this brand-new 19" monitor. And I don't think curling up on your bed with your E-book will take off.
And I'm not even going to go in to the phenomenon of toilet books - you know, those books full of easily digestible sections which sit in the bathroom for when you need a quick read:)
I don't really know anyone who'd buy an American car even though they're now available over here in the UK. Why would you want something that eats petrol like there's no tomorrow?
Maybe CS should be taught at universities through the use of cartoons? It might actually increase interest, and certainly couldn't be worse than some lecturers:)
Considering it's already approaching $2.50/gal in our area that threat will be taken seriously.
<sarcasm>$2.50/gallon. Really?</sarcasm> Based on the current exchange rate of £1 = $1.6 and an average price over here in the UK of about 75p a litre, that's about $4.50/gallon. I think you've got it easy over there with your fuel prices. Probably why our cars are more fuel efficient:)
P.S. For some evidence on that last part, see my post here, which has some facts on fuel consumption.
The usa uses an amazingly disproportionate amount of fuel vs. popluation.
For more info on pollution produced by cars, go to this site here. Here's a summary of some results:
Cadillac Escalade - 14 miles/gallon, 13.7 tonnes of CO2/year.
Honda Accord - 26 miles/gallon, 7.3 tonnes of CO2/year.
Quite a difference there. The US is the single biggest source of pollution in the world, and the most unwilling to do anything about it from all indications.
Damn straight. The only way I've found to get rid of it is not to have it installed in the first place:) It's so fucking annoying to press F1 to get help on that obsure topic and get that paperclip appear. Not really in line with the Microsoft standard keyboard commands is it? But then I suppose they think that it "helps":)
There is even a person who created the "It looks like you're writing a letter" auto-annoyance feature in Word. I had to sign a separate confidentiality clause promising not to name him.
Wow, there must be people really gunning for him if he gets his own separate confidentiality clause just to protect him:)
It's not really moving away from us in the sense we're used to, it's the space-time of the Universe which is expanding, so as time goes on there is more of it between us and it appears as though it's moving away.
A truly excellent series of books, which are in order:
Timelike Infinity
Flux
Ring
Vacuum Diagrams (about 20 short stories set throughout the entire billion year+ time scale of the sequence)
Raft (an offshoot of the Xeelee sequence set in another Universe)
They are very much worth reading and have probably one of the grandest scopes of any hard science fiction I've ever read, and some amazing ideas about the history of the Universe and physics.
Firstly, from calculations of a galaxy's structure. Even using simple methods like the Virial Theorem (2T=V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy IIRC) it can be shown that given the mass of stars in a galaxy, the diameter of the galaxy and the speed of rotation the gravitational potential of the galaxy is only about 10% of the value required to prevent the stars being flung out by centrifugal force. Seeing as galaxies are stable physicists must assume that the other 90% of this mass is "dark matter" which we cannot detect using current means. More detailed calculations show this is most likely to exist as a huge disc in which the visible galaxy is embedded.
The other reason has to do with the cosmological constant from Einstein's General Relativity. This value determines the "flatness" of empty space-time, and experimentally this as been measured as being less than 10^-120 i.e. almost certainly zero. However if the Universe is flat then the density of matter must be equal to some critical value. Current calculations of the matter density of the Universe vary from between 1% and 10% of this critcal value, and so again physicists have to assume the presence of dark matter which the cannot observe to account for this discrepancy. Given this critical density the Universe will eventually expand at a constant rate and there will be no Big Crunch.
Of course, the other explanation is that all these theories could be totally wrong, but this would require changing a lot of the physical theories of this century so it isn't too likely IMHO.
Sorry, but I think you are hopelessly ignorant of the true issues behind the drug war. There has been almost a century of propaganda from the government and other parties interested in the demonisation of drugs. Drugs like cocaine and heroin were legal and used for medicinal purposes for quite a while before they were made illegal after campaigns of propaganda, which you obviously believe wholesale.
IIRC opium was used heavily by Chinese immigrants in sweat-shops at the turn of the century, allowing them to work longer hours without getting bored and slowing down. Seeing how the Chinese were making more money because of this, rival businesses started a campaign of disinformation about the evils of opium.
And lets not forget the propaganda issued in the 30's about how marijuana made black people turn into violent psychopaths and attack people. This was the brainchild of someone who owned a large paper-making business and wanted to get rid of hemp because it could make paper cheaper than his methods.
Anyone who makes a living off of creating misery and death for others ought to be imprisoned, shot, or worse.
Well, lets see. I've taken cocaine, LSD, speed and ecstacy regularly for the last five or six years, and I can't really say that it's caused me "misery and death" - I've had some great times with some great people. I've got a good job, lots of friends and an active social life. And I've sold stuff before, generally to people I know, and I don't recall any of them suffering "misery and death" either.
I'm not advocating the use of drugs for everyone - people should make their own decisions in this (as in everything) - but at least try to have an understanding of the facts behind your position before you start ranting.
HDCP uses a 56-bit key, with individual keys distributed to the various vendors. A violated key could be tracked down and revoked over a satellite broadcast network, for example.
Is there anyone else who thinks that this is a bit dodgy? It seems to be saying that there will be some kind of two-way connection to the HDCP system, linked to the broadcaster. This raises all kinds of concerns about what the system will be sending them to so as to "secure" the system. I don't really fancy any kind of information flow from my PC saying what I am currently displaying, even if it completely innocent.
Damn straight:) I don't have a mouse at the moment seeing as my (very-old) PC is on its last legs, and one thing I can say about Windows is that I can do everything w/o a mouse. There are keyboard shortucts for almost everything in the basic GUI, and with MouseKeys turned on I can control the pointer with the number pad. Without these features I might as well give up using it altogether.
Okay, the movie sucked compared to the book, but that's always going to be the case (with the sole exception of the Running Man). Given the books depth and complexity the film version was never going to fit the entire book into it. It wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been.
America has a simple choice, IMHO. It can spend vast sums of money on weapons, most of which are likely to be banned by International treaties before they are ever deployed. OR it can spend that same cash on raising educational standards, improving the conditions of those on welfare, AND enhancing space technology.
Yes, but the weapons developed by the US military are still there, and if push comes to shove I very much doubt the US would hesitate to use them if push came to shove. Lets face it, the US hasn't really ever worried about using overwhelming force before, even in the face of international opposition. And the military mentality says that if you don't develop them, someone else will and then they'll have the tactical advantage over you.
If your technology is advanced enough, there -are- no "potential" invaders. There is no threat so great that a sufficiently enlightened civilisation cannot build a non-offensive defence.
Yes, but it's the phrase "advanced enough" which is the stumbling block. The technology required to develop a non-offensive defence to a given offence is usually more advanced than the techbology required to develop the offence itself. A spear or club is simpler than a suit of armour, a gun is simpler than a kevlar composite body armour and so on. So in the time it takes to research and develop the defence you are at a distinct disadvantage. Again, this is what the military will argue. Unfortunately this has lead to the arms race which is a bad thing.
I guess my point is that cranking out cheaper spacecraft in a hurry is not the best way to go about things. (Gee... sounds like software development) It would seem prudent to possibly have fewer missions if the extra time and budget to devote to testing and double-checking. (Granted, landing a spacecraft on another planet *is* a tricky thing, but hey, the Viking series seemed to do pretty well..)
In an ideal world yes, but NASA isn't half the agency it used to be. Even apart from the funding issue, it doesn't have the overwhelming public support that it enjoyed in the heyday of the space race, when beating the USSR was a matter of national pride. People (and I mean the average Joe here, not the enlightened/. elite:) ) don't really care any more about what NASA are doing or what's going on - "Oh, it's another Shuttle launch to put a satellite into orbit. *Yawn*."
If NASA don't do at least something then the budget-makers are going to decimate their funding even further, saying "Oh well, they aren't using the money any way." If they were to attempt a large-scale mission such as the ones you mentioned this would take up all of their budget for years and leave them open to criticisms of being wasteful with their money. While the current spate of small, cheap missions isn't doing as well as they might have hoped, they can do enough missions so that they can turn around at any point and say "Look, here's what we've accomplished in the last year. We're still active and worthwhile."
One of the major problems I think is that the technology for acheiving these kind of smaller missions isn't entirely there yet, or at least isn't in line with NASA policy. NASA needs to work on their methodologies - how they launch the missions, how they are managed etc. When they get to the point where almost all missions are successful and cheap then they will be at a point where they can claim they've chosen the correct strategy.
Lets face it, while the Viking series may have done well, the cost of launching them was most likely astronomical compared to the cost of the Mars lander. Those days were a haven of politics as much as science, and it wasn't usually the best solution that was used, it was whichever company were persuasive enough to get the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I've bought books online they've always been books that I've already wanted before I went to the site. OTOH, practically whenever I go into a big bookshop there will be something on the shelf I've never heard of before that I like the look of, and I'll buy it. By doing this I've been introduced to some of my all-time favourite authors.
Online catalogues remove the "browse" factor from shopping. They can be great if you know what it is you want, but if you're just looking out of curiosity then you're far better off with a paper catalogue, or even better, a shop.
Fear of embracing change ? Wow, that sounds familliar.
Kind of like the zealous group of people who refuse to go from console based operating systems from the 60's (or 70's?) and leap into todays pool of graphical user interfaces?
Oh God, I hope this doesn't turn into another console vs. GUI flamewar. Anyway I'm still firmly in favour over paper books at the moment simply because of the usability factor. When the E-book becomes as convenient to use as a regular book, I'll switch over. It's got nothing to do with a fear of change.
What would it take to do this? Well, the actual unit used for the display needs to be as convenient as paper, and not give you eye-strain after an hour. This is the real kicker IMHO at the moment. I also doubt an E-book will ever be able to give you that real new book smell either :)
What are you talking about, any book qualifies as a bathroom (toilet) book, it just depends on how much time you want to sit on the crapper.
Yes, but unless I've got the runs, I generally don't spend enough time there to read any useful part of, say "CORBA Distributed Objects Using UNIX" :)
I was quite interested by the observation that some internet companies are experimenting with paper catalogues
While it may certainly be easier to find a specific product using an online catalogue, if you're just browsing to see if there is anything you might want to buy then a paper catalogue wins hands down. Lets face it, who wants to spend all their time going through God knows how many links on a website just to see what they've got.
And then there's the majority of these websites which are designed really badly, again putting users off looking through them. Paper catalogues can't really go wrong in that respect (unless the company are complete idiots).
Aaagh! Country and Western is the music that would be playing in hell IMHO. There I'd be forced to wear cowboy gear with tassles and engage in formation line dancing for all eternity...
Today, you can still find new LPs, but not for ever album. Their market is mostly audiophiles who can hear and understand the difference. It is a limited market.
I'm not sure about the situation in the US but over here in Europe there has been a huge revival in 12" records due to the huge popularity of dance music in Europe. Because it is designed to be beat mixed vinyl is the best media because it can be cued by hand as well as sped up or slowed down easily. Almost all albums and singles that fall into the dance catagory are released on 12" to cater for the thousands of DJs who buy vinyl every week. So in this market the popularity of vinyl is actually increasing.
Publishers approaching meltdown about the future of books can visit any Borders or Barnes & Noble, where salespeople constantly suggest that customers find books online, and where it's also clear that people aren't even close to giving up reading words on paper even if they also read words on computer screens. Although online book sales are growing on sites like Fatbrain, Amazon and BN.com, so are the sales of books in stores. The technological absolutism invoked by the rise of the Net - everything will go digital - is not coming to pass.
I doubt very much that books will become obsolete for quite a long time, even when the E-book finally becomes a reality for consumers. While some texts, particularly scientific textbooks, could do with the concept of hyperlinked sections, the majority of books would gain no real benefit to being digitised. Yes, it might be nice to search a book for a particular passge, but it's hardly essential for the enjoyment of the book.
While I love computers, there's nothing more frustrating than trying to read something that's more than 100 or so lines on a monitor. It just doesn't feel right and hurts your eyes, even on this brand-new 19" monitor. And I don't think curling up on your bed with your E-book will take off.
And I'm not even going to go in to the phenomenon of toilet books - you know, those books full of easily digestible sections which sit in the bathroom for when you need a quick read :)
You forgot one thing: Cars!
I don't really know anyone who'd buy an American car even though they're now available over here in the UK. Why would you want something that eats petrol like there's no tomorrow?
Maybe CS should be taught at universities through the use of cartoons? It might actually increase interest, and certainly couldn't be worse than some lecturers :)
... eat loads of fluff off of the carpet and then make retching noises and puke up in the corner? :)
How about...
Considering it's already approaching $2.50/gal in our area that threat will be taken seriously.
<sarcasm>$2.50/gallon. Really?</sarcasm> Based on the current exchange rate of £1 = $1.6 and an average price over here in the UK of about 75p a litre, that's about $4.50/gallon. I think you've got it easy over there with your fuel prices. Probably why our cars are more fuel efficient :)
P.S. For some evidence on that last part, see my post here, which has some facts on fuel consumption.
The usa uses an amazingly disproportionate amount of fuel vs. popluation.
For more info on pollution produced by cars, go to this site here. Here's a summary of some results:
Quite a difference there. The US is the single biggest source of pollution in the world, and the most unwilling to do anything about it from all indications.
Damn straight. The only way I've found to get rid of it is not to have it installed in the first place :) It's so fucking annoying to press F1 to get help on that obsure topic and get that paperclip appear. Not really in line with the Microsoft standard keyboard commands is it? But then I suppose they think that it "helps" :)
There is even a person who created the "It looks like you're writing a letter" auto-annoyance feature in Word. I had to sign a separate confidentiality clause promising not to name him.
Wow, there must be people really gunning for him if he gets his own separate confidentiality clause just to protect him :)
If you could go back to when you designed C++, what would you change and why?
It's not really moving away from us in the sense we're used to, it's the space-time of the Universe which is expanding, so as time goes on there is more of it between us and it appears as though it's moving away.
A truly excellent series of books, which are in order:
They are very much worth reading and have probably one of the grandest scopes of any hard science fiction I've ever read, and some amazing ideas about the history of the Universe and physics.
Firstly, from calculations of a galaxy's structure. Even using simple methods like the Virial Theorem (2T=V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy IIRC) it can be shown that given the mass of stars in a galaxy, the diameter of the galaxy and the speed of rotation the gravitational potential of the galaxy is only about 10% of the value required to prevent the stars being flung out by centrifugal force. Seeing as galaxies are stable physicists must assume that the other 90% of this mass is "dark matter" which we cannot detect using current means. More detailed calculations show this is most likely to exist as a huge disc in which the visible galaxy is embedded.
The other reason has to do with the cosmological constant from Einstein's General Relativity. This value determines the "flatness" of empty space-time, and experimentally this as been measured as being less than 10^-120 i.e. almost certainly zero. However if the Universe is flat then the density of matter must be equal to some critical value. Current calculations of the matter density of the Universe vary from between 1% and 10% of this critcal value, and so again physicists have to assume the presence of dark matter which the cannot observe to account for this discrepancy. Given this critical density the Universe will eventually expand at a constant rate and there will be no Big Crunch.
Of course, the other explanation is that all these theories could be totally wrong, but this would require changing a lot of the physical theories of this century so it isn't too likely IMHO.
Sorry, but I think you are hopelessly ignorant of the true issues behind the drug war. There has been almost a century of propaganda from the government and other parties interested in the demonisation of drugs. Drugs like cocaine and heroin were legal and used for medicinal purposes for quite a while before they were made illegal after campaigns of propaganda, which you obviously believe wholesale.
IIRC opium was used heavily by Chinese immigrants in sweat-shops at the turn of the century, allowing them to work longer hours without getting bored and slowing down. Seeing how the Chinese were making more money because of this, rival businesses started a campaign of disinformation about the evils of opium.
And lets not forget the propaganda issued in the 30's about how marijuana made black people turn into violent psychopaths and attack people. This was the brainchild of someone who owned a large paper-making business and wanted to get rid of hemp because it could make paper cheaper than his methods.
Anyone who makes a living off of creating misery and death for others ought to be imprisoned, shot, or worse.
Well, lets see. I've taken cocaine, LSD, speed and ecstacy regularly for the last five or six years, and I can't really say that it's caused me "misery and death" - I've had some great times with some great people. I've got a good job, lots of friends and an active social life. And I've sold stuff before, generally to people I know, and I don't recall any of them suffering "misery and death" either.
I'm not advocating the use of drugs for everyone - people should make their own decisions in this (as in everything) - but at least try to have an understanding of the facts behind your position before you start ranting.
HDCP uses a 56-bit key, with individual keys distributed to the various vendors. A violated key could be tracked down and revoked over a satellite broadcast network, for example.
Is there anyone else who thinks that this is a bit dodgy? It seems to be saying that there will be some kind of two-way connection to the HDCP system, linked to the broadcaster. This raises all kinds of concerns about what the system will be sending them to so as to "secure" the system. I don't really fancy any kind of information flow from my PC saying what I am currently displaying, even if it completely innocent.
Damn straight :) I don't have a mouse at the moment seeing as my (very-old) PC is on its last legs, and one thing I can say about Windows is that I can do everything w/o a mouse. There are keyboard shortucts for almost everything in the basic GUI, and with MouseKeys turned on I can control the pointer with the number pad. Without these features I might as well give up using it altogether.
Okay, the movie sucked compared to the book, but that's always going to be the case (with the sole exception of the Running Man). Given the books depth and complexity the film version was never going to fit the entire book into it. It wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been.
America has a simple choice, IMHO. It can spend vast sums of money on weapons, most of which are likely to be banned by International treaties before they are ever deployed. OR it can spend that same cash on raising educational standards, improving the conditions of those on welfare, AND enhancing space technology.
Yes, but the weapons developed by the US military are still there, and if push comes to shove I very much doubt the US would hesitate to use them if push came to shove. Lets face it, the US hasn't really ever worried about using overwhelming force before, even in the face of international opposition. And the military mentality says that if you don't develop them, someone else will and then they'll have the tactical advantage over you.
If your technology is advanced enough, there -are- no "potential" invaders. There is no threat so great that a sufficiently enlightened civilisation cannot build a non-offensive defence.
Yes, but it's the phrase "advanced enough" which is the stumbling block. The technology required to develop a non-offensive defence to a given offence is usually more advanced than the techbology required to develop the offence itself. A spear or club is simpler than a suit of armour, a gun is simpler than a kevlar composite body armour and so on. So in the time it takes to research and develop the defence you are at a distinct disadvantage. Again, this is what the military will argue. Unfortunately this has lead to the arms race which is a bad thing.
I guess my point is that cranking out cheaper spacecraft in a hurry is not the best way to go about things. (Gee... sounds like software development) It would seem prudent to possibly have fewer missions if the extra time and budget to devote to testing and double-checking. (Granted, landing a spacecraft on another planet *is* a tricky thing, but hey, the Viking series seemed to do pretty well..)
In an ideal world yes, but NASA isn't half the agency it used to be. Even apart from the funding issue, it doesn't have the overwhelming public support that it enjoyed in the heyday of the space race, when beating the USSR was a matter of national pride. People (and I mean the average Joe here, not the enlightened /. elite :) ) don't really care any more about what NASA are doing or what's going on - "Oh, it's another Shuttle launch to put a satellite into orbit. *Yawn*."
If NASA don't do at least something then the budget-makers are going to decimate their funding even further, saying "Oh well, they aren't using the money any way." If they were to attempt a large-scale mission such as the ones you mentioned this would take up all of their budget for years and leave them open to criticisms of being wasteful with their money. While the current spate of small, cheap missions isn't doing as well as they might have hoped, they can do enough missions so that they can turn around at any point and say "Look, here's what we've accomplished in the last year. We're still active and worthwhile."
One of the major problems I think is that the technology for acheiving these kind of smaller missions isn't entirely there yet, or at least isn't in line with NASA policy. NASA needs to work on their methodologies - how they launch the missions, how they are managed etc. When they get to the point where almost all missions are successful and cheap then they will be at a point where they can claim they've chosen the correct strategy.
Lets face it, while the Viking series may have done well, the cost of launching them was most likely astronomical compared to the cost of the Mars lander. Those days were a haven of politics as much as science, and it wasn't usually the best solution that was used, it was whichever company were persuasive enough to get the contract.