Comment Re:And then, we.... (Score 1) 254
You mean the much anticipated Langoliers??
Comment Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS? (Score 1) 339
They are not dishonest they've stated they're making a $1. There is nothing that says you have to take more unless you're some low wage loser that has to get minwage because of a federal or state welfare by fiat scheme.
They're not assholes for building up a successful company while not being as malevolent as microsoft.
They're not selfish as the money they are not paid, unlike some CEO's sucking up bailout welfare, can go to their employees or stock holders.
They and their company have not been selfish at giving back to the world in several ways through open source code and monetary contributions to a wide variety of charities.
Comment Re:Sigh (Score 0, Troll) 675
Hint: Just because people disagree with you, does not mean there is a conspiracy of astroturfers working against you.
Sometimes, people just don't agree with you.
Comment Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time (Score 1) 418
They don't consider computational efficiencies due to complexity. For instance, if you count items by marking tally marks on sticks, then to count something into the billions, you run out of trees in the world to make those sticks. However, if you use indian-arabic notation, marking down 9 billion 500 thousand 201 takes up this much room: 9,000,500,201. That's it. This is the kind of computational efficiency that cannot be predicted. The human brain is a pretty fast computer and visual/audio singal analyzer, plus social nuance analyzer, etc, probably running around roughly 5 to 70 Hz semianalog. Though there are quite a few braincells, building supercomputers with equivalent number of transistors would most likely not give the same computational performance. There is a guess that the interconnectivity, the synapse density between the neurons is what makes the difference. The computational efficiency comes from complexity. In this sense, a neuron, like a notation number, instead of representing a single tally mark, can represent something like the 5 in the 9,000,500,201 billion. Its function and performance is super-enhanced by increased complexity of what it can do - it can be a number from 0 to 9, and it can be a placeholder. Such things can create an order of magnitude increase in efficiency, that Moore's Law analyses cannot predict. The move to multicore processors is most likely the only way to keep up with Moore's law, and currently this move is in its infancies. We know the brain is multicore-like, "interconnectedness" based. When eventually we have a few trillion cores interacting on a cpu, we might discover, by trial and error, methods of increased efficiency. We might even understand how our own brain works from playing with chips, as opposed to understanding it from brain research, since the ethical issues coming from the machine direction are much easier to deal with (or are they?) Low intelligence automation and robotization is an easy ethical question, and it will be welcome thing for humanity, but the big problem with increased supercomputing power and understanding how the brain works is the problem of artificial intelligence.
Currently we know of no other beings smarter than us, humans, in the universe. That's a big deal. Silicon based solar-robotic lifeforms might be able to spread through the vacuum of interstellar universe, they would not be interdependent on chemical lifeforms like those on planet Earth. Where would that leave hydrocarbon-water-chemical life as we know it? We love and care about nature around us, and even if we don't, we ultimately have to act as if we did. The interdependence of life eating life, plants being the photosynthesists, sort of holds the collective interests together, and makes all Life function as one. Though this rule of interdependence is not explicitly expressed in the behavior of lifeforms - and I wonder if some of the prehistoric mass-extinction events were not simply caused by the appearance of a new predator/virus/bacterial disease and the level of life activity simply reduced and reset to a new lower level balance being able to deal with that predator/virus/bacteria - currently all ecosystems function as a ecosystem, with no predators being "super successful", in a selfish, survival of me without the survival of everything around me attitude, the simplistic Darwinistic principle. Predators currently have an interest in the ecosystem beneath them functioning at a high level. Even space stations based on solar panel derived artificial-light using water-hydrocarbon-photosynthetic life farming would still be an ecosystem like ours. Solar panel derived fat/sugar/protein chemical synthesis in metal pots may be easier to deal with in a space station than a full scale ecosystem and farming, where only humans exist, and maybe just a very few species of plants and animals. Compare the farm to a jungle. All humans really need is the farm to survive, land with a few species of crops and few species of animals, or even just the cement/metal/glass city, and the jungle, and the variety of life it carries, may forever disappear. Even today, with the exception of a few "primitive" cultures, we don't know how to coexist in harmony with the jungle. Then comes the question of simply artificial intelligence with just simple batteries that does not need fat/sugar/protein, that does not even need an atmosphere or a space station, just a pure robotic solar being floating in the vacuum of space, being able to manufacture more of itself from asteroid rocks, living an eternal life. No death. No sex. No interdependence. No love.
Currently we know of no other beings smarter than us, humans, in the universe. That's a big deal. Silicon based solar-robotic lifeforms might be able to spread through the vacuum of interstellar universe, they would not be interdependent on chemical lifeforms like those on planet Earth. Where would that leave hydrocarbon-water-chemical life as we know it? We love and care about nature around us, and even if we don't, we ultimately have to act as if we did. The interdependence of life eating life, plants being the photosynthesists, sort of holds the collective interests together, and makes all Life function as one. Though this rule of interdependence is not explicitly expressed in the behavior of lifeforms - and I wonder if some of the prehistoric mass-extinction events were not simply caused by the appearance of a new predator/virus/bacterial disease and the level of life activity simply reduced and reset to a new lower level balance being able to deal with that predator/virus/bacteria - currently all ecosystems function as a ecosystem, with no predators being "super successful", in a selfish, survival of me without the survival of everything around me attitude, the simplistic Darwinistic principle. Predators currently have an interest in the ecosystem beneath them functioning at a high level. Even space stations based on solar panel derived artificial-light using water-hydrocarbon-photosynthetic life farming would still be an ecosystem like ours. Solar panel derived fat/sugar/protein chemical synthesis in metal pots may be easier to deal with in a space station than a full scale ecosystem and farming, where only humans exist, and maybe just a very few species of plants and animals. Compare the farm to a jungle. All humans really need is the farm to survive, land with a few species of crops and few species of animals, or even just the cement/metal/glass city, and the jungle, and the variety of life it carries, may forever disappear. Even today, with the exception of a few "primitive" cultures, we don't know how to coexist in harmony with the jungle. Then comes the question of simply artificial intelligence with just simple batteries that does not need fat/sugar/protein, that does not even need an atmosphere or a space station, just a pure robotic solar being floating in the vacuum of space, being able to manufacture more of itself from asteroid rocks, living an eternal life. No death. No sex. No interdependence. No love.
Comment Re:Only fair (Score 2, Informative) 267
....................
Right; It's totally unfair. After so many things were invented by Australians which everyone else benefits from. The motor car; the transistor; the windmill; money; even the wheel. It's time the Australian tax payer got their fair pay back for being the main driver of invention in the world.
I know your being sarcastic but
PAYUP as an australian tax payer I would like to
get my money back for
"Black Box" flight recorder
Aircraft Navigation (DME)
Penicillin (production in commercial amounts)
Cochlear implant
Contact lenses (long wearing)
Anthrax Vaccine
Heart Pacemaker
Relenza (flu medication)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measuring_equipment
http://www.questacon.edu.au/indepth/clever/100_years_of_innovations.html
Comment Re:Air vs. Rail (Score 2, Informative) 152
Apart from the lower vulnerability of trains already mentioned by other posters, the key thing about planes is that they can be used as guided missiles which makes them dangerous to targets other than themselves. A hijacked train is limited by it's tracks and in most cases has a simple counter measure (switch off the power supply) to stop it once you find out it is misbehaving.
Comment Re:Nonsense. (Score 1) 405
This is something the FOSS supporters and hackers of the world don't get, the 'writing the first draft of the software' part is the easy part, and its also puts you at about the 5 to 10% complete stage. Documentation, Quality Assurance and other bits of the presentation are actually far more important to the customer 9 times out of 10.
The rest of what you say is reasonable, but why pick on FOSS? I have known proprietary software companies to release stuff with inadequate testing, documentation, etc. often enough.
Do you really think that Apache is worse tested than IIS? Or that its documentation i is seriously lacking? Documentation for Linux desktops is somewhat scattered around the net (although some distros like Ubuntu have plenty in one place), but that is what search engines are for. Most major GUI FOSS apps have perfectly good documentation and anything popular gets well tested while in beta. Some server apps have superb documentation (e.g. Django).
Comment Re:Air vs. Rail (Score 2, Informative) 152
Certainly didn't happen in Japan. Train travel over there is still a dream -- even after the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks.
Comment Re:Not a right (Score 1) 875
A right is an ability or status that society thinks everyone should have.
So, if 'society' decides that we should no longer speak freely, that right disappears? And if 'society' decides that we should all have the right to our own space shuttle (or anything else imaginable), then it should be provided to us for free? And finally, if I can get 'society' to think that we should all have the right to kill off a particular group, or anything else abhorrent, then that's all fine and dandy?
Also, in your mind, what's the difference between 'rights' and 'what the government does for you'?
Comment Re:Theres one technical point (Score 1) 620
Who says WWW unless they intentionally mean World Wide Web? People just say goto google.com or wikipedia.com. Yes, I know wikipedia is under the
Comment Re:RED Hat, come on ppl (Score 0, Offtopic) 242
To clarify: Red November will apparently be Gnome driven.
Submission + - The Biofuel Myths (iht.com)
JagsLive writes: "this 'International Herald Tribune' article outlines the Biofuel Myths: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/opinion/edh olt.php
(1) Biofuels are clean and green.
Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we are told they are green. But when the full lifecycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearing to consumption, the moderate emission savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil-carbon losses.
(2) Biofuels will not result in deforestation.
Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on ecologically degraded lands will improve rather than destroy the environment. Perhaps the government of Brazil had this in mind when it reclassified some 200 million hectares of dry-tropical forests, grassland and marshes as degraded and apt for cultivation."
Submission + - Future of Keyboards and Mice: Touchscreen (osweekly.com)
OSW writes: "OSWeekly.com takes a look at Microsoft's Surface again and concludes that the future of keyboards and mice is touchscreen. Brandon Watts writes, "In a previous article, I had mixed feelings about the new Microsoft Surface project, as it was really difficult to understand where the market for such a thing would be. Then I watched some new footage on DL.TV and I will admit, even as a Linux guy, that I was blown away.
Consider for a moment, if Microsoft is able to get this technology down to the home user for the cost of today's home PCs. I'm not saying that keyboards and mice would become a thing of the past, but I could see them evolving into virtual devices to better suit Surface-like advancements. Remember those old virtual keyboards that were once available for the Palm Pilots? Imagine something like this as your future keyboard... it could happen."
Submission + - xml editors/browsers for Linux and Windows
Budenny writes: In the effort to move our organization away from a fairly small proprietary database using a locked format, we have discovered that it will export our data, but only as xml. What would you all suggest as appropriate tools to use and edit our data in this format? Whatever we use, we need to give access both browsing and editing from Windows as well as Linux — though probably we could use different packages if that were the only way. The database is a few thousand records of a few tens of fields. The ideal solution would be to use the xml that the package exports exactly as it comes out, and then we would have the added security of being able to go back if we ever needed to (some organisational nervousness is felt about leaving the old and familiar too far behind....)
Submission + - Companies attack EU music copyright (ft.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Financial Times writes that some of Europe's biggest media and telecoms groups have attacked the European Commission's policy on music copyrights, warning that their businesses and the continent's "cultural diversity" will suffer if Brussels refuses to change track.
The European Commission had expressed concern in 2004 that "the cross-licensing arrangements that the collecting societies have between themselves lead to an effective lock up of national territories, transposing into the Internet the national monopolies the societies have traditionally held in the offline world. The Commission believes that there should be competition between collecting societies to the benefit of companies that offer music on the Internet and to consumers that listen to it".
Full EC press release from 2004 here and even more details here (pdf).
The European Commission had expressed concern in 2004 that "the cross-licensing arrangements that the collecting societies have between themselves lead to an effective lock up of national territories, transposing into the Internet the national monopolies the societies have traditionally held in the offline world. The Commission believes that there should be competition between collecting societies to the benefit of companies that offer music on the Internet and to consumers that listen to it".
Full EC press release from 2004 here and even more details here (pdf).
