Slashdot Mirror

Laurens Simonis writes "Yesterday, the Dutch ISP Planet Internet introduced a games subscription service. For a small monthly fee, about $10, you get unlimited access to a growing list of (sort-of) current games which you can legally download from them. Currently, you can pick from 20 titles including Tomb Raider Chronicles, Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare and Commandos 2. New ones are added monthly. To my knowledge, this is the first time an ISP offers this kind of service. Personally, I'm all for the idea. Could this be the future? Half-Life developer Valve Software seems to think so." This looks really cool, but I'm curious as to how well it will catch on. It feels about 5 years too early to me, but here's hoping it performs well.

medscaper writes "Authorities in China are using computers to spam mobile phones of law-breakers until they turn themselves in. Apparently, lots of illegal advertisements as stickers with mobile-phone numbers listed are placed around large cities and are becoming an eyesore. So, the authorities call the cell phones incessantly with recorded messages that demand the "businessmen" to turn themselves in."

*no comment* writes "In what may be one of the funniest things since MSN's site saying iMac is the best computer, Apple's news site picked up a story from crazyapplerumors about how George Bush is demanding a recount an Al Gore's election to the Apple board." Rumor sites bad, parody sites good. Remember that the next time you ask for a press pass to Macworld.

charmer writes "According to a story in rediff, a company in India, Divinet Technologies, have developed a set top box that plays video cds, offers sms, email, chat, plays mp3s, acts as a game box, has a web cam, video on demand, and a digital VCR, and has a multilingual interface (a necessity in India.) And it looks pretty good too :-) No pricing given though."

dubl-u asks: "What do my fellow freelancers feel about the various shell companies out there? I've got a chunk of work coming up at a place with an especially persnickety contracts department, and I'll probably need to go through a third-party shell company. I used one a couple of years back and they were ok, but there are a lot of them out there, and I'd love to hear about real-world experiences before I sign up. For those unfamiliar with this part of the business, it goes like this: I find my own work; the shell company hires me as an 'employee' and handles my billing and tax withholding for me. Some also 'provide' things like health insurance and 401k plans, although I have to pay for it. You can think of it as outsourcing a lot of the paperwork of being a freelancer. Some outfits, large companies especially, demand this sort of thing."

jorr writes "Bob Liu's commentary 'Copyrights: More Work, More Headaches' questions whether the demands from the RIAA violates due process. He states 'According to FERPA, school officials are permitted to access student records but outside organizations like RIAA would need "to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena."'"

pimpbott writes "Apple is working with SoftwareToGo to install kiosks in CompUSA stores to deliver software on demand. Imagine walking into your local CompUSA and ordering some obscure title that nobody would ordinarily stock, paying for it, and walking out with a custom-burned CD-ROM. This not only gets more titles published and available to the public at large by reducing the need for expensive shelf space and other publishing costs, but it keeps embarassingly large, mostly empty software boxes from ending up in the landfill."

juntunen writes "According to the BBC, construction will start this week on Diamond: a £500 million synchrotron in Oxfordshire at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. These facilities are crucial to a deep understanding of structure in matter. With all the new emphasis on biotechnology, demand will certainly be high. Diamond has its own homepage, and the Accelerator Physics Group has publicly available tech notes."

rakolam asks: "I am involved with network management in the hosting department of a fairly large ISP. Constantly we have customers who dispute inbound bandwidth spikes and demand service credits on their burstable connections. Events such as the Slammer Virus literally have everyone knocking on their salesperson's door at the end of the billing cycle. My position is that the internet is a public space, and by placing themselves in that space, one has to realize the consequences (and the implications of burstable billing). I'd like Slashdot's perspective on this. Should ISP's ultimately eat the costs of malicious behavior? Is the customer ultimately responsible for the bandwidth they've generated, regardless if it's desired or not? Is this a new frontier for insurance companies?"

James Yonan writes "For years, the space elevator concept has been a staple of science fiction fare, popularized by Arthur C. Clark in The Fountains of Paradise, a convenient and plausibly feasible technology for building a vertical railroad of sorts, tens of thousands of kilometers tall, linking earth with geosynchronous orbit. Unsatisfied with the unquestioning consignment of the space elevator concept to science fiction status, authors Bradley C. Edwards and Eric A. Westling set out to understand why it could or couldn't be done. The result is a compelling new book, backed up by voluminous research, which concludes that space elevators are near-term-feasible. Edwards and Westling have not only convinced roomfuls of skeptics of the basic concept, but have also won serious funding from NASA for continuing their work. This book, The Space Elevator, is one of the fruits of their ongoing research." This is a long review (continued below), but the subject demands it. The Space Elevator -- A revolutionary Earth-to-space transportation system. author Bradley C. Edwards and Eric A. Westling pages 280 publisher Spageo Inc. rating 9 out of 10 reviewer James Yonan ISBN 0972604502 summary A compelling argument, backed up with a great deal of quantitative analysis on both scientific and economic grounds, that a space elevator is near-term-feasible.

As a child in the late 60s and early 70s, some of my earliest memories are TV images of the moon shots, the sense of excitement and adventure, and confident assertions by adults that this was only the beginning, that progress was indeed unstoppable, and that it was a near certainty that by the time I was old enough to ask a girl out on a date, the question "would you like a ride in my spaceship" would be greeted not with derision, but with awe. Of course the sad reality is that none of this has come to pass. Space has remained dangerous, expensive, and inaccessible to all except the rare test pilot, scientist, or those for whom capitalism has been unusually kind. Luckily, there are some promising new ideas in space transportation that could represent the breakthrough we have been waiting for in the years since walking on the moon became passé.

In their new book The Space Elevator, Bradley C. Edwards and Eric A. Westling present a compelling argument, backed up with a great deal of quantitative analysis on both scientific and economic grounds, that a space elevator is near-term-feasible. The authors argue that carbon nanotube fibers are both strong and light enough that a 100,000 km elevator, constructed of a 2m wide carbon nanotube "ribbon," could be constructed in 10 years for a cost of US $6 billion, and be capable of lifting a 13-ton payload to geosynchronous orbit once every few days. If feasible, it would present a stunning breakthrough in space accessibility, and likely usher in a new age of space development and exploration.

Edwards writes in the forward:

One day, a few years ago, I read a statement that the space elevator couldn't be done, and I set out to find out why. From there, things got very interesting and resulted in a research proposal being submitted to NASA. The proposal was funded and resulted in, first a six-month study and then a two year study. The core of this manuscript started out as the technical report from the six month investigation I conducted for NASA under the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program.

Edwards and Westling begin the book with some history. Until recently, it was thought that alternatives to chemical rockets as a means to reaching LEO (low Earth orbit) were, at least for the foreseeable future, the stuff of science fiction. The idea of a space elevator, foreseen as early as 1903 by the brilliant Russian science speculator Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, foresaw a tower to geosynchronous orbit and beyond.

He was the first to identify the concept that the part of the tower beyond geosynchronous orbit would have an outward "force" due to Earth's rotation that would support the portion of the tower below geosynchronous altitude.

Essentially a space elevator is a geosynchronous satellite with an unusually high aspect ratio. So high, in fact, that even though the satellite is in orbit over a fixed point on the Earth's surface, the lower portion of the satellite actually touches the surface of the Earth. The key, of course, to making this concept workable is to find a material that has the tensile strength to withstand the extreme forces that such a tower or cable would be subjected to. Though a space elevator would need to reach 35,785 km to geosynchronous orbit, since gravity drops off as the square of our distance from Earth, we can collapse the 35,785 km down to its equivalent height as if it were all in 1g, giving 4940 km. This magic number represents the self-support height that a space elevator cable would need to exceed. The self-support height is the maximum length of material, formed into a cable, that can support its own weight in a 1g gravity field before breaking, and can be calculated by dividing tensile strength by density.

It turns out that a steel cable has a self-support length of 54 km, graphite whiskers (fibers) 1050 km, and carbon nanotubes 10,204 km. This last figure is an important result that shows that carbon nanotubes are significantly stronger than would be needed to build a space elevator. The difference between the 4940 km minimum self-support length and the carbon nanotube self-support length of 10,204 km all translates into significant payloads that could be lifted into space using this technology.

So if the space elevator is feasible right now for only US$6 billion (less than half of NASA's annual budget), why aren't we building one ASAP and preparing to retire the shuttles? The answer is that carbon nanotube technology is so new (invented in 1991) that we haven't yet created the infrastructure for mass production. In fact, the authors admit that we haven't even created a nanotube in the lab that demonstrates the requisite strength. While carbon nanotubes have a theoretical tensile strength of 300 GPa (billion newtons per square meter), strengths of only 11.2 to 64.3 GPa have been experimentally measured thus far. Edwards and Westling have heavily based their thesis on nanotubes reaching a tensile strength of 130 GPa in mass-produced volume, so they are to some extent reaching for the future here. Clearly they are counting on a kind of Moore's law to kick in, where the efficiency to cost curve of nanotube production improves exponentially as breakthroughs are made, then asymptotically slows as the theoretical upper bound is approached.

Now assuming that we can economically mass produce carbon nanotube ribbon at a strength of 130 GPa, what's next? Here Edwards and Westling present a well-researched plan for turning the raw material of the carbon nanotube into a functioning space elevator within 10 years. An initial kind of bootstrap cable would be lifted into LEO on board several trips of the space shuttle. This cable would be constructed of carbon nanotubes arranged in parallel with a reinforcing cross-connect adhesive, so that if a nanotube was severed, the remaining tubes would take up the load. The cross sectional dimensions of the cable would be highly asymmetrical, 1 micron in thickness, 13.5 to 35.5 centimeters in width, hence the cable is referred to as a "ribbon". After some assembly in LEO, the initial ribbon and deployment mechanism would be integrated into a spacecraft and sent to geosynchronous orbit, where it would deploy by basically unwinding the spool of ribbon towards Earth, while the spacecraft-spool assembly itself is boosted higher to maintain the total system in geosynchronous orbit. Once a few km of ribbon is unspooled, gravity gradient forces will kick in, ensuring a stable vertical orientation as deployment proceeds. Eventually the end of the ribbon would reach Earth where it would be anchored to a mobile sea-platform, located near the equator, which would have the capability to move the lower end of the cable to dodge known space-junk and electrical storms.

This prototype space elevator will be relatively weak and vulnerable to damage from meteoroids and uncharted space junk, so it will be essential to quickly strengthen the ribbon by widening it. Edwards and Westling's plan calls for "climbers" (electric-powered vehicles that climb the ribbon using a mechanical traction drive) to immediately ascend the ribbon, splicing additional carbon nanotube material onto the existing ribbon, then permanently parking at the far end of the ribbon to add to the elevator's counterweight mass. After 230 iterations of this process, the ribbon will be complete, 2m wide and capable of lifting 20 tons of climber + payload.

Getting a 100,000 km space elevator into position and insuring its survival is a daunting engineering challenge, and much of the book is dedicated to answering what-if scenarios and attempting to prove to the skeptical mind that such an ambitious undertaking is feasible. To this end, each space elevator subsystem is analyzed at length and competing solutions are evaluated for cost and efficiency.

For example three different methods for supplying electrical power to the climbers are evaluated:

• run power up the cable,
• beam power via microwave, and
• beam power via laser.

Answer: use a laser.

An optimal shape (i.e. taper profile) for the ribbon is proposed, so that the part of the ribbon in the atmosphere is narrow to minimize wind-loading forces and the section between 500km and 1700km is widened and slightly curved to maximize survivability from meteoroid or space junk impacts. The destructive effects of wind, lightning, atomic oxygen, debris impacts, radiation damage, and ribbon oscillations are considered and solutions are presented. The conclusion: none of these adverse effects are show-stoppers.

Some basic FAQs are presented and answered, such as where does the energy come from to accelerate a climbing payload on the ribbon to orbital velocity. Answer: from the rotational inertia of the planet. If we shipped a whole continent into space, our days would get a bit longer.

After a comprehensive technical and engineering analysis of the space elevator concept, the authors move on to the economics of the concept and present a sort of skeletal business plan for "Space Elevator, Inc." They present many interesting uses for the space elevator including energy applications that could significantly improve the environment and reduce the combustion of fossil fuels. If the space elevator succeeded in reducing launch costs below $100/kg, large orbiting photovoltaic arrays might be built in space that would collect power and beam it to Earth via microwaves. These ideas are far from new (such an apparatus was patented in the early 1970s), but the reduced launch costs of the space elevator make them far more feasible.

The authors take a detour in explaining some promising results on the nuclear fusion front. Progress on the reduced-radiation IEF concept (Inertial Electrostatic Fusion) for fusion reactors would be accelerated by ³HE mining on the moon, which the space elevator would make feasible.

The rationale for building the ribbon up to 100,000 km is examined. The major advantage of such a tall ribbon is that the centripetal acceleration of the ribbon tip is substantial enough that payloads could be flung to Venus, Mars, or the asteroid belt with little additional energy expenditure. This, the authors argue, would bring down the cost of robotic planetary probes to the point where individual universities could afford their own space programs.

And finally, a working space elevator can be used to manufacture new space elevators at a much lower cost than the initial implementation. The authors suggest that the first significant commercial application of the space elevator might simply be in making additional space elevators and selling them to commercial clients. In this manner, elevators with payload capacities up to 200 tons could be deployed using wider ribbons, making possible a large-scale human presence at geosynchronous orbit and bringing the kind of commercial activities that would go along with that, such as tourism.

The book ends with a flight of fancy of sorts into a future where space elevators have become commonplace. Space elevators around Mars create an efficient Earth-Mars transportation network. Elevators on the moons of Jupiter throw spacecraft down into Jupiter's turbulent upper atmosphere to scoop up ³HE and ship it back to Earth in decade-long space convoys where it will power the latest and greatest IEF fusion power-plants.

While The Space Elevator goes a long way towards convincing skeptics of the feasibility of the general idea, the big question marks that remain in my mind are:

• Will carbon nanotubes really reach the 130 GPa level in cost-effective mass production that will be required for elevator construction?
• Much of the elevator deployment plans depend on the flawless execution of robotic mechanisms controlled remotely from Earth, including the trip from LEO to geostationary orbit, the deployment down to Earth, and the subsequent strengthening of the ribbon by robotic climbers that splice additional nanotube material onto the existing ribbon. As we learned with the Hubble Space Telescope, it is essential to have astronaut access for unexpected but critical repair missions. But much of the space elevator deployment will take place above LEO, out of access of human shuttle missions. What do we do if there is a glitch during deployment that requires an astronaut repair? We will need to seriously address such contingencies, lest we get saddled with a stuck elevator that could become the mother of all space junk.
• Have there been any successful tether missions to date in space? While the answer appears to be yes, I would have liked to learn more about them.

Doubts aside, this is a compelling work that will likely become both a manifesto and bible for the space elevator movement, presenting a convincing argument that the space elevator is our best chance yet to bring Moore's law economies to space. It is an engaging read and I highly recommend it.

Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

MoNickels writes "Back in January, the American Dialect Society voted the neologism "to google" as the most useful word of 2002. Now bring on the lawyers! Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else. Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb." Update: 02/26 03:19 GMT by T : MoNickels writes with an update: "Frank Abate is not an editor of the OED, but he is a former editor of the New Oxford American Dictionary, both published by Oxford University Press." Thanks for the amendment!

D3 wrote in with a submission about fiber to the home, or the lack of it, and the reasons behind this, and ways to work around the Bells to provide high-speed access despite them. A pretty decent article, which actually goes beyond the Baby Bell PR-speak that deregulation is the solution to everything. Maybe at some point state and Federal regulators will realize that the Bells are the problem, not the solution.

John Miles writes "Offering yet another persuasive argument in favor of employee substance-abuse testing at the US Patent and Trademark Office, SBC Communications is asserting exclusive ownership of the concept of links in browser frames. With SBC's convenient new rate plan, now you, too, can afford to license your favorite HTML feature!"

Tangential writes "New story on LinuxBusiness week says SCO is about to mount an effort to get all Linux sites to pay a per cpu license for so-called patent violations."SCO has been proposing to charge users $96 per CPU for a so-called one-time System 5 for Linux software license to protect their systems from SCO-enforced patent issues if they ante up as soon as demand is made." They've retained David Boies (DOJ prosecutor of Microsoft) to handle the legal issues." Note: I've been unable to substantiate this - which are fairly incendiary claims. Further updates as more is heard.

Hubert writes "Cooler Master, pioneer of the aluminum cases, overhauled one of their most popular models, and released something enthusiasts should consider when shopping for a new case." Cooler Master has also come out with some cases which might meet the often-expressed demand for PC enclosures which would look at home in an A/V rack. Pricey, though.

murky.waters writes "The New York Times (free registration, profiling) has an article about the opposing views of teacher's demanding attention and students seeking distraction; the current trend toward wireless Internet access in the classroom has students surfing the web and checking their email from the backrow, while instructors are climbing up the ladder... to disconnect the Access Point." Makarand writes "University Wi-Fi networks are heavily impacting student campus life according to this article on NewsObserver.com. In addition to allowing them to keep working while not in their computer labs, the wireless networks allow them to keep in touch with their family, better organize time, complete coursework in shorter periods of time, collaborate with other students and bring computing power into classrooms not available before."

nilesh writes "Yesterday, Reliance Infocomm launched one of the largest CDMA networks in the world [Google news]. This wireless network will cover 90% of India's population on a backbone of 60,000 kms of optic fibre. They have dreams of providing an Internet-enabled Java-powered CDMA2000 1x phone to almost every Indian citizen for around tariffs as low as 40 paise per minute or 0.8 cents per minute. The Samsung/LG/Kyocera phones will be replete with applications ranging from internet banking to video on demand and online gaming. Now all we need is Quake for Java and we'll have college kids playing deathmatches with each other in classroom at 144kbps. The next game revolution is in sight."

merodach writes "According to this story on Headlinenews.com the RIAA is now targeting retailers in it's 'war on piracy.' I think everyone will agree this is something that should be done if the retailer is deliberately pirating. The thing I wonder about in hearing this news is how many of the retailers include used copy stores. With the way the RIAA and some artists *cough*Garth Brooks*cough* have labeled these stores as pirates and theives in the past it seems likely they would be the biggest targets. Have any in the /. crowd actually seen one of the letters sent or know how many of the targeted businesses are used stores? Further - how would the RIAA know how much to demand in 'settlement fees' and is it possible these are being used to shut down the mom-and-pop outfits that trade in used CDs?"

number6x writes "The Physics Today website has an article by Robert Laughlin titled "Truth, Ownership, and the Scientific tradition". The article deals with some recent blunders in the scientific community like the falsification of data at lucent covered here on slashdot. The article is mainly about the conflict between the free exchange of ideas that the scientific community needs to survive, and the demand for property ownership that commercial sponsors demand."

sbombay writes "I just came back from Broadband Plus (formerly the Western Cable Show) and was disappointed to find that cable companies despise PVRs. In his keynote speech, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that the PVR amounts to 'the Napster of the future.' Cable World has a story about the speech and quotes from other cable execs bashing the PVR. The cable industry's opposition to the PVR boils down to two things -- PVRs help satellite companies (Dish and DirecTV) provide services like Video On Demand (VOD) and a PVR in a cable home cuts into VOD revenue. Any of the sessions at the show that touched the topic of PVRs were an opportunity for the cable industry to slam the PVR. The strongest attack came from Gary Lauder, a venture capitalist who has funded many cable related companies. During his 15-minute presentation, Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR. He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement. If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend." Update: 12/09 18:33 GMT by T : Gary Lauder wrote to say that this account misquotes and misinterprets his speech on certain points. Read below for his reaction. Gary Lauder writes: "I have 3 PVR's and love the functionality. My wife knows how to use it. The misquotation is that she did not know how to reboot it when it locked up. This was a piece of data in support of the following position:

My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):

1. VOD servers cost much less
   • If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
   • @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
   • PVRs cost >10X more
   • When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
2. Disk noise wakes my wife
3. Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
4. Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
5. Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
6. No pro-activity/anticipation required
7. Records multiple concurrent shows
8. NW storage could always have max. res.
9. Uses existing deployed base
10. Moving parts break more often
11. Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs

My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.

I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."