Project Tuva

p4radox · 8 Aug 2009 at 18:18

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

Project Tuva is an enhanced video player platform released by Microsoft Research to host the Messenger Lectures series titled The Character of Physical Law given at Cornell University by Richard Feynman in 1964 and recorded by the BBC.[1] The project was a collaborative effort between Bill Gates and Microsoft Research that is designed to demonstrate the potential of enhanced video to teach people about the "core scientific concepts" of Feynman's lectures using interactive media. According to his video introduction, Gates saw the lectures when he was younger. He enjoyed the physics concepts and Feynman's lecturing style, and later acquired the rights to make the video available to the public. He hopes that this will encourage others to make educational content available for free.

Feynman is one of my favourite people, but I'd never seen any of his lectures, only his books. If you understand even a little bit about maths or physics these lectures are absolutely fascinating.

dangerstat · 8 Aug 2009 at 18:19

Quite old news - was on the register a while ago. You need MS Silverlight to view the videos - so COMPLETE FAIL!

semi-pro waster · 8 Aug 2009 at 19:12

Mr Feynmann was a fascinating character, I'm far from certain that I'll understand much of his lectures but I'll at least have a look.

At the risk of diverting this thread from where it should be: what particularly is wrong with Silverlight?

dangerstat · 8 Aug 2009 at 19:17

semi-pro waster said:
Mr Feynmann was a fascinating character, I'm far from certain that I'll understand much of his lectures but I'll at least have a look.

At the risk of diverting this thread from where it should be: what particularly is wrong with Silverlight?

Nothing , but there is something wrong (well at least that's how I view it) when a company or person gives the idea of making a significant resource (as I feel these lectures are) to the public - when insisting on it being viewed in a proprietary piece of software by the sponsoring comopany, For example I can't view these lectures at home as I'm a linux user.

To be honest - this smacks more of an advertising gimmick, than an attempt to make a great series of video lectures available to the public at large.

Meridian · 8 Aug 2009 at 19:22

semi-pro waster said:
Mr Feynmann was a fascinating character, I'm far from certain that I'll understand much of his lectures but I'll at least have a look.

My understanding is that the lectures were for first-year students and aren't too difficult.

M

p4radox · 8 Aug 2009 at 19:44

semi-pro waster said:
Mr Feynmann was a fascinating character, I'm far from certain that I'll understand much of his lectures but I'll at least have a look.

I just watched lecture 2 and I think it'd be fascinating for even the complete layman. Some parts are roughly A level standard though.

He has a very easy, casual way of presenting his material which comes across as quite endearing.

semi-pro waster · 8 Aug 2009 at 20:26

dangerstat said:
Nothing , but there is something wrong (well at least that's how I view it) when a company or person gives the idea of making a significant resource (as I feel these lectures are) to the public - when insisting on it being viewed in a proprietary piece of software by the sponsoring comopany, For example I can't view these lectures at home as I'm a linux user.

To be honest - this smacks more of an advertising gimmick, than an attempt to make a great series of video lectures available to the public at large.

It's available to a massive percentage of the computer using market though and is gratis, it's somewhat unfortunate it isn't freely available for all but complete altruism is hard to find if it is even a realistic prospect in any sense.

Meridian said:
My understanding is that the lectures were for first-year students and aren't too difficult.

M

p4radox said:
I just watched lecture 2 and I think it'd be fascinating for even the complete layman. Some parts are roughly A level standard though.

He has a very easy, casual way of presenting his material which comes across as quite endearing.

Thanks, I have read a couple of Mr Feynmann's books and do know a bit about the man, I'm just putting that in because I'm not too hot on either maths or physics so while it may or may not be beyond my current level of understanding I'm sure it will be nothing less than fascinating.

taz488 · 8 Aug 2009 at 21:13

first year maths phys student, these look pretty interesting, and i think silverlight is pretty good too.

dangerstat · 8 Aug 2009 at 21:29

semi-pro waster said:
It's available to a massive percentage of the computer using market though and is gratis, it's somewhat unfortunate it isn't freely available for all but complete altruism is hard to find if it is even a realistic prospect in any sense..

i couldn't disagree more. Firstly it's not a "massive percentage" and moreover the use of FREE operating systems is more prevalent in developing countries than it is in developed countries - so in fact this is more "free" for the rich than the poor (something decidedly wrong there, no?). Moreover if it was your choice on your death bed - would you rather donate these lectures to a free organisation and make them universally available (as per MIT's open courseware) or have them sold to Microsoft, the current greatest monopoly to have played as some sort of gimmick for there latest internet toy?

Gates and M$ had an opportunity to show a truly generous side of themselves with this, an olive branch to the world to show that they're not a hideous organisation. As it turns out they've just proved all our thoughts, and at the same time sullied a great physicists name in the same step.

iviv · 8 Aug 2009 at 21:32

dangerstat said:
when insisting on it being viewed in a proprietary piece of software by the sponsoring comopany.

Instead of using flash, which is oh so open source?

To be honest, you can't really blame Microsoft for doing this. They're making stuff free, so of course they're going to use their own technologies to push it. People get the free stuff, techies get to see how good, or otherwise, silverlight is.
Plus, it's an alternative to flash, which means there's going to be competition between the two companies, which is always good. Means more new features!

Edit:

Also: http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight

In September of 2007, Microsoft and Novell announced a technical collaboration that includes access to Microsoft's test suites for Silverlight and the distribution of a Media Pack for Linux users that will contain licensed media codecs for video and audio.

I don't know much about linux, but using that means you get silverlight functionality in Lunix, no?

drunkenmaster · 8 Aug 2009 at 23:19

dangerstat said:
Moreover if it was your choice on your death bed - would you rather donate these lectures to a free organisation and make them universally available (as per MIT's open courseware) or have them sold to Microsoft, the current greatest monopoly to have played as some sort of gimmick for there latest internet toy?

Gates and M$ had an opportunity to show a truly generous side of themselves with this, an olive branch to the world to show that they're not a hideous organisation. As it turns out they've just proved all our thoughts, and at the same time sullied a great physicists name in the same step.

As the guy above me said, firstly, linux users can apparently use it, secondly, why is it so terrible that MS want you to install their platform, you were happy to install Java, what if the situation were reversed and Silverlight had been around for a decade by MS and everybody used it and some no name company tried to push their product by making these lectures only available in their format. Its life, its their product and they are hosting it, boo hoo, you have to install Silverlight, if its not hacking into your files, deleting your porn and telling Bill gates personally how often you masturbate, its just another in a long line of software you've installed.

As for MIT, their courses are sorely lacking in many area's, though great in others, they require often the purchase of expensive books to really do a course and well, are a good thought and surely help some. But to pretend its there for nothing more than helping others is naive. Its a taster course, it allows prospective students worldwide to see MIT and see how great they are to students, its a great bit stonking advert that gets their name mentioned to students worldwide. I also believe they get some HEAVY funding to do what they do.

If they aren't asking you to pay, its hard to complain really. I can't name a company that won't push their own agenda when doing things like this, it would be stupid not to.

semi-pro waster · 8 Aug 2009 at 23:20

dangerstat said:
i couldn't disagree more. Firstly it's not a "massive percentage"

We can quibble about the exact figures but a good average here in the desktop market for Microsoft OSes would be around 90% market share - how is this not a massive percentage by any standard?

dangerstat said:
and moreover the use of FREE operating systems is more prevalent in developing countries than it is in developed countries - so in fact this is more "free" for the rich than the poor (something decidedly wrong there, no?).

That free doesn't always mean free and that it is given to he who needs it not? Again unfortunate but hardly unexpected.

dangerstat said:
Moreover if it was your choice on your death bed - would you rather donate these lectures to a free organisation and make them universally available (as per MIT's open courseware) or have them sold to Microsoft, the current greatest monopoly to have played as some sort of gimmick for there latest internet toy?

Once I'm dead it will make little odds to me but it's a rather loaded question you are asking. An equally apt question would be if you'd rather deal with someone who can publicise your work widely at the cost of promoting their technology at the same time or give it to someone who cannot hope to generate the same level of publicity but will not seek to enhance their name in quite the same way.

Neither question is entirely fair.

dangerstat said:
Gates and M$ had an opportunity to show a truly generous side of themselves with this, an olive branch to the world to show that they're not a hideous organisation. As it turns out they've just proved all our thoughts, and at the same time sullied a great physicists name in the same step.

How have they sullied Mr Feynmann's name?

Strife212 · 8 Aug 2009 at 23:23

dangerstat said:
Quite old news - was on the register a while ago. You need MS Silverlight to view the videos - so COMPLETE FAIL!

Oh no, it takes five seconds to install, and is hardly a malicious program. It's not even noticable unless you're watching silverlight content.

dangerstat · 8 Aug 2009 at 23:28

semi-pro waster said:
We can quibble about the exact figures but a good average here in the desktop market for Microsoft OSes would be around 90% market share - how is this not a massive percentage by any standard?

That free doesn't always mean free and that it is given to he who needs it not? Again unfortunate but hardly unexpected.

Once I'm dead it will make little odds to me but it's a rather loaded question you are asking. An equally apt question would be if you'd rather deal with someone who can publicise your work widely at the cost of promoting their technology at the same time or give it to someone who cannot hope to generate the same level of publicity but will not seek to enhance their name in quite the same way.

Neither question is entirely fair.

How have they sullied Mr Feynmann's name?

Well from figures I have seen (sorry no source) it's around 75% to MS and 25% to a combination of Linux, OS X etc.. So 1/4 of people not being able to access a "free" resource seems weird to me!

Yes free doesn't mean free at all in this case. It means it's not free it's basically a giant advert. So they shouldn't be marketing it as "free".

Feynmann is already a legend amongst physicists, and this adds to his legacy by ... advertising MS products - yep sure he'd love that

p4radox · 9 Aug 2009 at 00:14

dangerstat said:
Feynmann is already a legend amongst physicists, and this adds to his legacy by ... advertising MS products - yep sure he'd love that

I know nothing about the Silverlight debate, I just decided to watch the lectures because I'd read a few of the guy's books. The people who this is aimed at probably don't give a toss about open source software and MS, but they do get to watch some incredible lectures for free.

dangerstat · 9 Aug 2009 at 00:22

p4radox said:
I know nothing about the Silverlight debate, I just decided to watch the lectures because I'd read a few of the guy's books. The people who this is aimed at probably don't give a toss about open source software and MS, but they do get to watch some incredible lectures for free.

Hmm... we probably just disagree over the term "free". It's a bit like those online sites that used to exist that'd let you have a "free" computer if you'd put up with the adverts they had on them. For me, that's not free. It's just the fact that the way MS and Gates are advertising this is like "hey look at me we're so great we're giving you all this cool stuff for nothing" and in fact it's all just advertising.

Amp34 · 9 Aug 2009 at 00:39

Strife212 said:
Oh no, it takes five seconds to install, and is hardly a malicious program. It's not even noticable unless you're watching silverlight content.

And I bet it doesn't crash as much as Flash either... (they need to rebrand with a C instead of F really...)

dangerstat said:
Well from figures I have seen (sorry no source) it's around 75% to MS and 25% to a combination of Linux, OS X etc.. So 1/4 of people not being able to access a "free" resource seems weird to me!

Yes free doesn't mean free at all in this case. It means it's not free it's basically a giant advert. So they shouldn't be marketing it as "free".

Feynmann is already a legend amongst physicists, and this adds to his legacy by ... advertising MS products - yep sure he'd love that

25%? Where did you get those figures from, from all the stats i've seen (including users of my own websites) the figure is around 90% consistently, with 5% for OSX and Linux around 1%(embarrasingly pushed to 4th place after mobile safari (iPhone) for my sites...)

dangerstat said:
Hmm... we probably just disagree over the term "free". It's a bit like those online sites that used to exist that'd let you have a "free" computer if you'd put up with the adverts they had on them. For me, that's not free. It's just the fact that the way MS and Gates are advertising this is like "hey look at me we're so great we're giving you all this cool stuff for nothing" and in fact it's all just advertising.

I'd suggest the ananlogy is more like the free paper that gets pushed through your door every week. Yes there are adverts but there is also a large amount of useful stuff in there too. If it wasn't free it would still have ads (be pushed for another companies agenda).

iviv · 9 Aug 2009 at 01:18

dangerstat said:
Well from figures I have seen (sorry no source) it's around 75% to MS and 25% to a combination of Linux, OS X etc.. So 1/4 of people not being able to access a "free" resource seems weird to me!

Yes free doesn't mean free at all in this case. It means it's not free it's basically a giant advert. So they shouldn't be marketing it as "free".

Feynmann is already a legend amongst physicists, and this adds to his legacy by ... advertising MS products - yep sure he'd love that

I'm a supported of Open Source products, as long as they do the job just as well as the paid-for stuff. I run vista, open office, firefox, and so on. But your argument just seems flawed to me.

This site seems to indicate that windows has a 93% market share, and the site seems to be linked to by several reputable news sites, so the figures appear accurate.

Though as I linked to above, there's a linux version of Silverlight available. Oh, and a Mac version.
What more do you want? Should it be pre-isntalled on every system?