...to, instead of writing software for the code-morphing and then run it on the normal chip, instead make two smaller chips, one being the Crusoe and the other being another chip that would be optimized for the functions code-morphing needs? He mentions that most x86 chips have all these functions on the chip, and the chip is optimized for those functions, which translates into a bigger/hotter chip but also a faster chip. In Crusoe, the stuff is done in software, which actually means that Crusoe still has to do it, except in a different way and without optimized hardware. Now, the reason for this is to keep heat/size/energy use down.
So, why not make two chips (you could put a heatsink on both if you wanted them to be well cooled), and first send the instructions through one (the 'Friday,' as it were) which would translate the x86 instructions, do the branch predict, register rename, and instruction reorder. Then you send it along to your main chip (the 'Crusoe') which would then do the processes. In other words, instead of just making the chip smaller and then running what you took off the hardware in the software, move it on to another chip. This would:
A) Increase the amount of airflow you could get over your chips (because there are two chips instead of one). And...
B) Increase the amount of work the Crusoe could do, because it isn't doing all that translation anymore. This would have the added bonus of making the Crusoe even cooler.
Now, I suppose the tradeoff would be that, since you're running on two chips instead of one, the information has to go farther (it has to travel between the chips instead of within the chip). Except that if you put your 'Friday' in the way between your Crusoe and it's input, you'd be replacing that much wire. I don't know how much of a speed loss it would be, but I don't think it would be much. And since you'd never have to send information from the Crusoe to the Friday, there wouldn't be any problem there; when the Crusoe does its thing, it can just send the output directly to whatever needs it, bypassing the Friday.
Also, it might not fit in a standard motherboard, except that since the Crusoe doesn't seem like it will be sold alone (it looks like it will be built into portable devices), it shouldn't be a problem.
one I can load with pure alcohol and turn into a 71 degree flamethrower =) now THAT'D be one hell of a water fight...streams of blue flame flying through the air...
I remember a fictional story in Wired about a team of terrorists using a combination of cyberterrorism and automated systems to nearly bring the country to its knees. They did things like electromagnetic pulse bombs (to cripple computer systems) and taking down power grids and other parts of infrastructure mostly controlled by computers. On the more traditional side, they booby-trapped their (evacuated) base with a machine gun set up with servos and motion detectors to automatically fire at anyone nearby.
I'm surprised that cyberwarfare has taken this long to really become established (although there were rumours about USA-paid hackers and crackers attacking the systems of enemies recently, they aren't confirmed). Most likely the reason is that most of the enemies and potential enemies aren't as reliant on computer systems and networks as most countries. Sure, you could probably mess up the computer networks of your average EU member pretty badly, and that would probably deal more damage than a dozen cruise missiles, but we aren't exactly at war (or likely to be at war) with those countries.
Really, the most vulnerable country is the USA itself. As the article tells us, many critical networks are vulnerable to infiltration. The only conceivable reasons that they haven't been a large target of terrorism are:
A) Terrorists usually don't want to do damage on that large a scale. Terrorism is all about showing strength and instilling terror into the populace, but not doing a lot of damage. Terrorists would rather kill 5 people with a bomb in Times Square, which is a concrete and very real threat and would make a lot of people afraid, than disrupt the power grid of the eastern seaboard. The power grid problem would be big (especially if they could bring it down for days or weeks at a time) but it isn't as 'real' as a bomb or other violent threat.
B) Many terrorists don't have the skills and equipment needed to do that kind of thing. You need pretty good programming skills to infiltrate an important database and disrupt in a concrete, immediately noticeable and threatening way. It is very easy to build a pipe bomb and plant it somewhere, in comparison.
Besides that, you need an internet connection and a computer, which can cost money that a terrorist group doesn't have.
C) The biggest terrorist threat nowadays is groups that aren't making ransom demands, but are just trying to kill people. Fanatical groups that believe that [insert group] is evil, for instance. They won't give any warning, they won't make any demands, and they won't have any sort of logical targets for their attacks.
For instance, the PLO and IRA were political groups who wanted to be recognized as such, and for that reason were relatively mellow, not trying to come across as ruthless or crazy. Since they had political agendas, they made attacks which made sense when analyzed and someone who was studying the situation might make logical guesses as to vulnerable areas. For them, disrupting power grids and such would be a logical target because it isn't very lethal but it is VERY inconvienant and noticeable, and as such gets them press coverage. For a fanatical group, cyberterrorism isn't as useful as violence because it doesn't really kill anyone and the effects don't last very long.
I'm willing to bet that cyberwarfare will be used in more subtle ways than terrorism and direct attacks.
It seems like it would be ideal for espionage (although most important information will be encrypted, ANY information is useful. If you know that something was sent from a certain place to a certain other place, even if you don't know what the message was, you can make logical guesses about what it meant: see Cryptonomicon for a good example of this) and also sabotage (like the man in that article said: it would be excellent to disrupt missile defence systems right before an air raid). Taking down the power grid wouldn't be as useful against a military target, which will likely have generators (remember that decommisioned bunker that got turned into a data storage facility? check it out here. That place has diesel generators that'll last a couple months, i think). But I'd expect that most of the important systems won't be accessible: you'd probably have to physically infiltrate the target to get into a missile control system. A military-only optical fiber network might be common if cyberwarfare is dangerous enough. In that case, you'd need a combination of skilled hackers and crackers (to do the actual cyberwarfare) and normal soldiers (to get into the country and infiltrate the military network).
Hmm, sounds like a cheezy computer game/action flick.
to the amount of different designs of object you can have the scanner look for. And guns can be built into nearly anything, especially as we get better at making small bits of metal and propellants get more potent. you really don't need more than a.38 to hold up an airplane, because you can aim well enough against unarmed attackers to kill them with a rather small caliber, and they most likely won't attack you anyway.
I bet I could fit a pistol into a slightly outofdate laptop (you know, where the CD-ROM or floppy drive goes? just glue the little filler plastic onto the back and slide it in). For that matter, I could probably fit a submachinegun into a laptop if i didn't feel like playing solitaire while I waited on the plane...but it's better not to try that sort of thing because you're more likely to get caught.
Anyway, back from blatantly plotting to commit terrorism.
Open sourcing software is a good idea, I know that, and it is great for debugging. But the problem is that the time between "bug found" and "bug fixed and patch deployed to airports, patch installed, patch working" is enough to hijack an airplane. I'm not saying that it's incredibly likely that open sourcing this stuff would make huge gaps in security, but it could happen.
he most likely bought it at the corner from some dutch guy selling imported contraptions...
(substitute "probably" for "most likely" and note how less reputable the statement seems. when I say "probably" it sounds like I'm guessing. when I say "most likely" it sounds like I'm quoting a leading source on the subject)
why? it isn't like most people could just download the software, fool around with it, and then try it out on their own body scanner. to see if stuff works you'd probably need a $125000 piece of equipment...ouch!
I guess there could be a few benefits, but they might not outweigh the threat of people looking at your software and just (for instance) designing new guns that wouldn't be recognized. best to keep this one closed source, imo.
it really isn't really that invasive, from reading the article. and after all you can say 'i want to be frisked' instead. if you don't want to stand in front of this scanner, then you can elect to just get a regular frisking.
now, if they were secretly installing these in doorways or something, so that you were scanned without knowing it and unwillingly, then i'd be upset. but the threat of terrorism is obviously real, and we need to take the correct countermeasures. I bet i could smuggle a metallic handgun onto a plane, if I had enough time and money =)
personally, i think i might possibly elect for this over frisking, if only because it is less private (well, it is more private, but it isn't overtly so. you're fully clothed and no one touches you, so you don't feel as uncomfortable as in a frisking).
this would all be simpler if we weren't so uptight about personal space (ie: touching means standing on the same carpet).
Science fiction has more than one father..
on
The Timekeeper
·
· Score: 1
First of all: someone should put out a more user friendly distribution. RedHat would be a good candidate, just call it RedHat Deluxe (can you tell I'm not in marketing?) and ship it as a alternate to RH 6.0 (or 7.0 or whatever). basically it needs:
1) Painfree installation. Windows 98 is surprisingly easy to install. Not that I didn't half to take a shower afterwards, but it's pretty simple, you don't really need any computer skills to do it. it configures most of the stuff for you, and when it needs your input it explains what each choice is. Mostly this is a support thing. If Linux can get enough support that it can configure most hardware automatically, we're in business.
2) No command line interface skill needed. it should boot up into a GUI when you press the on switch. There should of course be a command line option (either using a window from within the GUI, or by rebooting into the command line), but the user's first experience should be in a graphic enviroment, which is MUCH more intuitive. I hate to say it, but it'd be a good idea to have the GUI design bordering on copyright infringement, it's so close to Windows. i'm not suggesting that windows is a better interface, but it is what people know. To capture the less experienced used market, it is important to make them feel comfortable using the OS. People who hear about this OS off the web will not need this level of pandering, but people who are looking for their first or second computer (in other words, the majority of the world, and therefore exactly what Linux wants to selling to) will need to walk into the store, look at the display, sit down, and immediately pick it up. Accessibility is the key word today. Once the user is familiar and comfortable in the enviroment, the advantages of Linux over Windows or MacOS will stand out more.
3) More hardware support! If the latest and greatest isn't supported by Linux, there will be problems. I don't mean searching websites for drivers, i mean in the box when you buy your new piece of hardware there has to be Linux support. Obviously the programmers can't really affect this directly. It's all about how popular Linux is: once there is a sizable market for Linux products, the hardware companies will start giving big support for it.
4) More software support! To take it to an extreme: Linux must be so popular that MICROSOFT has to include Linux versions of their software or they won't get the profits they want. MS is the measure of success: once MS is putting out Age of Kings for Linux, it'll be obvious that the OS is really a success. =)
Some of these things aren't in the hands of the programmers, at least not directly. But once the market is there, products will follow.
The problem is that we aren't good enough at genetics. We don't really have total maps of the plants we want to modify: which genes are linked to others? How does changing this one affect growth and development? There are so many variables that fully documenting even one species would take huge amounts of resources. A probable hypothesis is that genes aren't so cut and dry: you can't just attach some more pesticide resistance. The genes are more like guidelines of how the structures in the plant are grown: mostly they tell how to make enzymes and proteins, basic building blocks of the cells.
In other words, the leap from DNA to plant is so complex that changing one thing might have totally unforeseen consequences might occur: Changing this segment might result in a totally new enzyme, and suddenly you've got corn that is nitrogen fixing. Wow! That's amazingly useful, because corn takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil--farmers have known it for years, so they usually rotate corn with other crops like soybeans, which add nitrogen to the soil. recently they just dump fertilizers with lots of nitrogen in them on the fields. But with nitrogen-fixing corn, you don't have to do that, so it's a lot cheaper to grow corn. but what if that same modification that made your plant nitrogen fixing also makes it have smaller root structures, because without the need for nitrogen from the soil it doesn't need to have so many roots down there? now you have to irrigate more or your corn will die of drought.
This scenario is pretty simple. it probably wouldn't happen. but it's an example: changing a tiny thing that makes the plant better in some way will change it in some other, possibly crucial way. the trick is to figure out which changes you can make and still have a viable, enviromentally sound and useful plant. We could give our apples long hairs to vent excess heat so we can grow them in arizona...but do you really want hairy apples?
I'm not quite sure why everyone jumps up and down like happy 1st-graders who just got out early. This article evokes images of small children who will get ecstatic whenever anyone mentions them, because they love the attention. Usually, people who like the limelight that much will end up doing stupid things to get it back when it fades.
Can't we just accept that Linux has been noticed by the big boys? It isn't like Linus is a huge surprise on the Fortune list. I agree that it's good that Linux still has that limelight. Do you think Fortune picked him because he had helped start a stable, fast, open source operating system?
Well, maybe. But more likely, they chose him because he's the figurehead of a movement which has of late been spawning Wall Streets biggest IPOs in history. Fortune 500 notices that sort of thing.
Okay, Linux has been noticed. Everyone knows it's there, everyone knows what it is (more or less) and everyone knows what it's doing. Anyone interested in business has done at least a little research into the subject of this thing. We can stop leaping for joy and shaking hands now. Accept it: Linux is famous. Famous, famous, famous. Now push up your sleeves (or not, if you're wearing a t-shirt) and do something about that fame. Retain it. Make Linux an operating system worthy of market share. (you might say it is already, but it isn't. if it was, it'd have the market share already)
The work is yet to come. The Linux movement has yet to put out a product that can compete on every level with Windows. Sure, it's more stable and probably a bit faster. But do you think that's what Joe Computer-User looks for? He wants something that'll run all his existing programs, run all the future programs he might need, and most importantly, be easy to use. He needs to sit down at that Linux computer in the store and pick it up so fast that he might as well be using windows. Then, after he gets a feel for the differences, lay him with the stability, cost, and all that jazz.
A lot of the people working with Linux look down on GUIs and prefer their command lines. But we have to face the fact that without the most user friendly interface possible, Linux will never survive outside of hackers and others who like to type cryptic commands into a black screen with white letters and make things happen.
So, using a free file that you didn't even get from RealNetworks for your own purposes, and not taking a cent out of Real's pocket (it isn't like you would have bought the version they sell anyway, does anyone buy that?) is wrong. Oh, all right. Dum dee dum dee dum...
WAIT!
That's moronic!
So, who wants to make the Geocities site that has both programs so that distribution can go on? Now that I've heard about these programs I really want 'em. But of course Streambox took them off the site for the duration of the trial.
"...where the forms could be automatically read, via the RF interface, without even opening the envelopes."
Er, what's to stop me from swiping your mail (somewhere in the chain there's bound to be a weak link, or even from within the mail system itself, we know how dependable they are) and reading it myself? I realize that Census records aren't that interesting, although I'm sure many corporations would love the market research. But if that sorta thing caught on: what if your taxes were filled via paper computer? Sounds like an easy way to get confidential information out of unsuspecting victims.
And anyway, why send a paper computer (which would cost more than paper, and takes a while to reach the destination) when you can send email (with an attachment if need be)? This might be a good idea in a very small amount of applications (in areas where email isn't a viable option for security reasons, for instance), but it seems like it has been outdated by more recent, cheaper, and faster alternatives. Once encryption reaches the right levels, we should be able to do much of what he suggests online (in fact, we already can). If you factor in the fact that all the technology in that paper computer could easily be built into the wall next to your front door (or anywhere), it seems like getting computer-paper mail would be a waste of resources. Factor in portable computers (both PDAs and the more techno-keen wearable computers) and e-books and you have a pretty small market.
I think that, sad as it may be, the market for paper computers is almost past. It would have been a perfect technology for the transition to a more technologically integrated culture (read: computers built into the infrastructure and daily life, but they're so inconspicuous you hardly notice them), but since we seem to be on the road there already--see the computer touchphone, the on-hand PC and driving with night vision--I don't think it's going to work in this late stage. I'm sorry for Jim, but I just don't think he's gonna have luck with the invention. Damn cool invention though.
Sony is in pretty much every market around...besides the gigantic consumer electronics force, they've got PCs, the PSX2 (which Sony wants to pretty much be the main machine in your house; forget the PC!), and now Palm...they're teaming up with everyone. And not only that, they're making their own OS.
Maybe this time we'll get a more benevolent ruler...
I can't see why people are up-in-arms about this paticular release, it's just the continuation of the graphics-card cycle. nVidia, S3, and the rest will continue to release new chipsets along with 3dfx. 3dfx is far from king of the hill: namely, they release products at such a slow rate that for much of the time it's better to get a TNT2 Ultra, for instance, instead of a Voodoo3.
Sometimes 3dfx will be on top, sometimes nVidia will be reigning champion (the NV15 is in the works, i hear...)
The Savage2000 and ATI Maxx are almost out...it really doesn't matter. These cards are way more powerful than anyone really needs, or will need, for a while. Until software comes out that really needs a couple hundred megatexels a second, I don't really care who's on top of the hill (and by that time, there will be even more powerful cards coming out)...
what's with this first post mania? it isn't like anyone really *cares*. First of all, the whole 'immortality on a message board' thing isn't true. I personally have my messages arranged highest scoring first, so that I get the most interesting threads, while safely stowing the -1 and 0 posts away at the bottom, in case I need a laugh. Second of all, posting something like 'hey! i've got first post!' is not gonna go over well with the moderators... First Moderator: Hmm, this post says 'Hey! I got first post!' Second Moderator: So do all the other posts... First Moderator: Hmm, -1 to all of them? So your little rating gets shot to hell. Okay, now...on to that article (oh yeah! the article!)... This approach seems exceedingly interesting, but I have a few questions: I assume this won't be used in manned flights? I'm not exactly sure, but isn't 6-G enough to make you black out? Mommy, I don't wanna be an astronaut anymore... Okay, they've got you on this track...now how do they get you from going horizontal (along a track) to vertical (into orbit)? Do they have a steep incline at the end (like a roller coaster? whee! look Houston, no hands!), or is the entire track on an incline? If so, what angle? 45 degrees would be best I suppose...does anyone else care to hazard a guess? Maybe the entire track is vertical, 90 degrees up. Seems like that would take more than 200 kilovolt amps, though. Where are they going to do this, anyway? Personally, I think Cape Canaveral is a really dumb place to launch rockets from. It's at sea level, n'est ce pas? So you have to go through the entire atmosphere...plus all that pesky gravity before you get into orbit. A better place would be in the rockies somewhere (you could turn that place in Florida into a trendy beach resort for government employees on Arbor-Boxing-Skeeball Day Vacation). Not only would the trip to orbit be shorter, but it would be thinner air up there...the only problem might be getting the shuttles up there again; you can't use a ship, you'd have to use trains or trucks (or just land there, which doesn't seem likely). Well, whatever happens, I want a ticket to the first launch =)
Slashdot Mirror
A robot might not recognize how much hurts...is it a 'one-robot-massages-all' thing?
"ahh, that's nice...ahhhhhh...AHHHH!"
...to, instead of writing software for the code-morphing and then run it on the normal chip, instead make two smaller chips, one being the Crusoe and the other being another chip that would be optimized for the functions code-morphing needs? He mentions that most x86 chips have all these functions on the chip, and the chip is optimized for those functions, which translates into a bigger/hotter chip but also a faster chip. In Crusoe, the stuff is done in software, which actually means that Crusoe still has to do it, except in a different way and without optimized hardware. Now, the reason for this is to keep heat/size/energy use down.
So, why not make two chips (you could put a heatsink on both if you wanted them to be well cooled), and first send the instructions through one (the 'Friday,' as it were) which would translate the x86 instructions, do the branch predict, register rename, and instruction reorder. Then you send it along to your main chip (the 'Crusoe') which would then do the processes. In other words, instead of just making the chip smaller and then running what you took off the hardware in the software, move it on to another chip. This would:
A) Increase the amount of airflow you could get over your chips (because there are two chips instead of one). And...
B) Increase the amount of work the Crusoe could do, because it isn't doing all that translation anymore. This would have the added bonus of making the Crusoe even cooler.
Now, I suppose the tradeoff would be that, since you're running on two chips instead of one, the information has to go farther (it has to travel between the chips instead of within the chip). Except that if you put your 'Friday' in the way between your Crusoe and it's input, you'd be replacing that much wire. I don't know how much of a speed loss it would be, but I don't think it would be much. And since you'd never have to send information from the Crusoe to the Friday, there wouldn't be any problem there; when the Crusoe does its thing, it can just send the output directly to whatever needs it, bypassing the Friday.
Also, it might not fit in a standard motherboard, except that since the Crusoe doesn't seem like it will be sold alone (it looks like it will be built into portable devices), it shouldn't be a problem.
one I can load with pure alcohol and turn into a 71 degree flamethrower =) now THAT'D be one hell of a water fight...streams of blue flame flying through the air...
The Code War has begun.
I remember a fictional story in Wired about a team of terrorists using a combination of cyberterrorism and automated systems to nearly bring the country to its knees. They did things like electromagnetic pulse bombs (to cripple computer systems) and taking down power grids and other parts of infrastructure mostly controlled by computers. On the more traditional side, they booby-trapped their (evacuated) base with a machine gun set up with servos and motion detectors to automatically fire at anyone nearby.
I'm surprised that cyberwarfare has taken this long to really become established (although there were rumours about USA-paid hackers and crackers attacking the systems of enemies recently, they aren't confirmed). Most likely the reason is that most of the enemies and potential enemies aren't as reliant on computer systems and networks as most countries. Sure, you could probably mess up the computer networks of your average EU member pretty badly, and that would probably deal more damage than a dozen cruise missiles, but we aren't exactly at war (or likely to be at war) with those countries.
Really, the most vulnerable country is the USA itself. As the article tells us, many critical networks are vulnerable to infiltration. The only conceivable reasons that they haven't been a large target of terrorism are:
A) Terrorists usually don't want to do damage on that large a scale. Terrorism is all about showing strength and instilling terror into the populace, but not doing a lot of damage. Terrorists would rather kill 5 people with a bomb in Times Square, which is a concrete and very real threat and would make a lot of people afraid, than disrupt the power grid of the eastern seaboard. The power grid problem would be big (especially if they could bring it down for days or weeks at a time) but it isn't as 'real' as a bomb or other violent threat.
B) Many terrorists don't have the skills and equipment needed to do that kind of thing. You need pretty good programming skills to infiltrate an important database and disrupt in a concrete, immediately noticeable and threatening way. It is very easy to build a pipe bomb and plant it somewhere, in comparison.
Besides that, you need an internet connection and a computer, which can cost money that a terrorist group doesn't have.
C) The biggest terrorist threat nowadays is groups that aren't making ransom demands, but are just trying to kill people. Fanatical groups that believe that [insert group] is evil, for instance. They won't give any warning, they won't make any demands, and they won't have any sort of logical targets for their attacks.
For instance, the PLO and IRA were political groups who wanted to be recognized as such, and for that reason were relatively mellow, not trying to come across as ruthless or crazy. Since they had political agendas, they made attacks which made sense when analyzed and someone who was studying the situation might make logical guesses as to vulnerable areas. For them, disrupting power grids and such would be a logical target because it isn't very lethal but it is VERY inconvienant and noticeable, and as such gets them press coverage. For a fanatical group, cyberterrorism isn't as useful as violence because it doesn't really kill anyone and the effects don't last very long.
I'm willing to bet that cyberwarfare will be used in more subtle ways than terrorism and direct attacks.
It seems like it would be ideal for espionage (although most important information will be encrypted, ANY information is useful. If you know that something was sent from a certain place to a certain other place, even if you don't know what the message was, you can make logical guesses about what it meant: see Cryptonomicon for a good example of this) and also sabotage (like the man in that article said: it would be excellent to disrupt missile defence systems right before an air raid). Taking down the power grid wouldn't be as useful against a military target, which will likely have generators (remember that decommisioned bunker that got turned into a data storage facility? check it out here. That place has diesel generators that'll last a couple months, i think). But I'd expect that most of the important systems won't be accessible: you'd probably have to physically infiltrate the target to get into a missile control system. A military-only optical fiber network might be common if cyberwarfare is dangerous enough. In that case, you'd need a combination of skilled hackers and crackers (to do the actual cyberwarfare) and normal soldiers (to get into the country and infiltrate the military network).
Hmm, sounds like a cheezy computer game/action flick.
to the amount of different designs of object you can have the scanner look for. And guns can be built into nearly anything, especially as we get better at making small bits of metal and propellants get more potent. you really don't need more than a .38 to hold up an airplane, because you can aim well enough against unarmed attackers to kill them with a rather small caliber, and they most likely won't attack you anyway.
I bet I could fit a pistol into a slightly outofdate laptop (you know, where the CD-ROM or floppy drive goes? just glue the little filler plastic onto the back and slide it in). For that matter, I could probably fit a submachinegun into a laptop if i didn't feel like playing solitaire while I waited on the plane...but it's better not to try that sort of thing because you're more likely to get caught.
Anyway, back from blatantly plotting to commit terrorism.
Open sourcing software is a good idea, I know that, and it is great for debugging. But the problem is that the time between "bug found" and "bug fixed and patch deployed to airports, patch installed, patch working" is enough to hijack an airplane. I'm not saying that it's incredibly likely that open sourcing this stuff would make huge gaps in security, but it could happen.
he most likely bought it at the corner from some dutch guy selling imported contraptions...
(substitute "probably" for "most likely" and note how less reputable the statement seems. when I say "probably" it sounds like I'm guessing. when I say "most likely" it sounds like I'm quoting a leading source on the subject)
why? it isn't like most people could just download the software, fool around with it, and then try it out on their own body scanner. to see if stuff works you'd probably need a $125000 piece of equipment...ouch!
I guess there could be a few benefits, but they might not outweigh the threat of people looking at your software and just (for instance) designing new guns that wouldn't be recognized. best to keep this one closed source, imo.
it really isn't really that invasive, from reading the article. and after all you can say 'i want to be frisked' instead. if you don't want to stand in front of this scanner, then you can elect to just get a regular frisking.
now, if they were secretly installing these in doorways or something, so that you were scanned without knowing it and unwillingly, then i'd be upset. but the threat of terrorism is obviously real, and we need to take the correct countermeasures. I bet i could smuggle a metallic handgun onto a plane, if I had enough time and money =)
personally, i think i might possibly elect for this over frisking, if only because it is less private (well, it is more private, but it isn't overtly so. you're fully clothed and no one touches you, so you don't feel as uncomfortable as in a frisking).
this would all be simpler if we weren't so uptight about personal space (ie: touching means standing on the same carpet).
..and no mothers.
how does that work out? must have been adopted.
First of all: someone should put out a more user friendly distribution. RedHat would be a good candidate, just call it RedHat Deluxe (can you tell I'm not in marketing?) and ship it as a alternate to RH 6.0 (or 7.0 or whatever). basically it needs:
1) Painfree installation. Windows 98 is surprisingly easy to install. Not that I didn't half to take a shower afterwards, but it's pretty simple, you don't really need any computer skills to do it. it configures most of the stuff for you, and when it needs your input it explains what each choice is. Mostly this is a support thing. If Linux can get enough support that it can configure most hardware automatically, we're in business.
2) No command line interface skill needed. it should boot up into a GUI when you press the on switch. There should of course be a command line option (either using a window from within the GUI, or by rebooting into the command line), but the user's first experience should be in a graphic enviroment, which is MUCH more intuitive. I hate to say it, but it'd be a good idea to have the GUI design bordering on copyright infringement, it's so close to Windows. i'm not suggesting that windows is a better interface, but it is what people know. To capture the less experienced used market, it is important to make them feel comfortable using the OS. People who hear about this OS off the web will not need this level of pandering, but people who are looking for their first or second computer (in other words, the majority of the world, and therefore exactly what Linux wants to selling to) will need to walk into the store, look at the display, sit down, and immediately pick it up. Accessibility is the key word today. Once the user is familiar and comfortable in the enviroment, the advantages of Linux over Windows or MacOS will stand out more.
3) More hardware support! If the latest and greatest isn't supported by Linux, there will be problems. I don't mean searching websites for drivers, i mean in the box when you buy your new piece of hardware there has to be Linux support. Obviously the programmers can't really affect this directly. It's all about how popular Linux is: once there is a sizable market for Linux products, the hardware companies will start giving big support for it.
4) More software support! To take it to an extreme: Linux must be so popular that MICROSOFT has to include Linux versions of their software or they won't get the profits they want. MS is the measure of success: once MS is putting out Age of Kings for Linux, it'll be obvious that the OS is really a success. =)
Some of these things aren't in the hands of the programmers, at least not directly. But once the market is there, products will follow.
The problem is that we aren't good enough at genetics. We don't really have total maps of the plants we want to modify: which genes are linked to others? How does changing this one affect growth and development? There are so many variables that fully documenting even one species would take huge amounts of resources. A probable hypothesis is that genes aren't so cut and dry: you can't just attach some more pesticide resistance. The genes are more like guidelines of how the structures in the plant are grown: mostly they tell how to make enzymes and proteins, basic building blocks of the cells.
In other words, the leap from DNA to plant is so complex that changing one thing might have totally unforeseen consequences might occur: Changing this segment might result in a totally new enzyme, and suddenly you've got corn that is nitrogen fixing. Wow! That's amazingly useful, because corn takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil--farmers have known it for years, so they usually rotate corn with other crops like soybeans, which add nitrogen to the soil. recently they just dump fertilizers with lots of nitrogen in them on the fields. But with nitrogen-fixing corn, you don't have to do that, so it's a lot cheaper to grow corn. but what if that same modification that made your plant nitrogen fixing also makes it have smaller root structures, because without the need for nitrogen from the soil it doesn't need to have so many roots down there? now you have to irrigate more or your corn will die of drought.
This scenario is pretty simple. it probably wouldn't happen. but it's an example: changing a tiny thing that makes the plant better in some way will change it in some other, possibly crucial way. the trick is to figure out which changes you can make and still have a viable, enviromentally sound and useful plant. We could give our apples long hairs to vent excess heat so we can grow them in arizona...but do you really want hairy apples?
I'm not quite sure why everyone jumps up and down like happy 1st-graders who just got out early. This article evokes images of small children who will get ecstatic whenever anyone mentions them, because they love the attention. Usually, people who like the limelight that much will end up doing stupid things to get it back when it fades.
Can't we just accept that Linux has been noticed by the big boys? It isn't like Linus is a huge surprise on the Fortune list. I agree that it's good that Linux still has that limelight. Do you think Fortune picked him because he had helped start a stable, fast, open source operating system?
Well, maybe. But more likely, they chose him because he's the figurehead of a movement which has of late been spawning Wall Streets biggest IPOs in history. Fortune 500 notices that sort of thing.
Okay, Linux has been noticed. Everyone knows it's there, everyone knows what it is (more or less) and everyone knows what it's doing. Anyone interested in business has done at least a little research into the subject of this thing. We can stop leaping for joy and shaking hands now. Accept it: Linux is famous. Famous, famous, famous. Now push up your sleeves (or not, if you're wearing a t-shirt) and do something about that fame. Retain it. Make Linux an operating system worthy of market share. (you might say it is already, but it isn't. if it was, it'd have the market share already)
The work is yet to come. The Linux movement has yet to put out a product that can compete on every level with Windows. Sure, it's more stable and probably a bit faster. But do you think that's what Joe Computer-User looks for? He wants something that'll run all his existing programs, run all the future programs he might need, and most importantly, be easy to use. He needs to sit down at that Linux computer in the store and pick it up so fast that he might as well be using windows. Then, after he gets a feel for the differences, lay him with the stability, cost, and all that jazz.
A lot of the people working with Linux look down on GUIs and prefer their command lines. But we have to face the fact that without the most user friendly interface possible, Linux will never survive outside of hackers and others who like to type cryptic commands into a black screen with white letters and make things happen.
So, using a free file that you didn't even get from RealNetworks for your own purposes, and not taking a cent out of Real's pocket (it isn't like you would have bought the version they sell anyway, does anyone buy that?) is wrong. Oh, all right. Dum dee dum dee dum...
WAIT!
That's moronic!
So, who wants to make the Geocities site that has both programs so that distribution can go on? Now that I've heard about these programs I really want 'em. But of course Streambox took them off the site for the duration of the trial.
"...where the forms could be automatically read, via the RF interface, without even opening the envelopes."
Er, what's to stop me from swiping your mail (somewhere in the chain there's bound to be a weak link, or even from within the mail system itself, we know how dependable they are) and reading it myself? I realize that Census records aren't that interesting, although I'm sure many corporations would love the market research. But if that sorta thing caught on: what if your taxes were filled via paper computer? Sounds like an easy way to get confidential information out of unsuspecting victims.
And anyway, why send a paper computer (which would cost more than paper, and takes a while to reach the destination) when you can send email (with an attachment if need be)? This might be a good idea in a very small amount of applications (in areas where email isn't a viable option for security reasons, for instance), but it seems like it has been outdated by more recent, cheaper, and faster alternatives. Once encryption reaches the right levels, we should be able to do much of what he suggests online (in fact, we already can). If you factor in the fact that all the technology in that paper computer could easily be built into the wall next to your front door (or anywhere), it seems like getting computer-paper mail would be a waste of resources. Factor in portable computers (both PDAs and the more techno-keen wearable computers) and e-books and you have a pretty small market.
I think that, sad as it may be, the market for paper computers is almost past. It would have been a perfect technology for the transition to a more technologically integrated culture (read: computers built into the infrastructure and daily life, but they're so inconspicuous you hardly notice them), but since we seem to be on the road there already--see the computer touchphone, the on-hand PC and driving with night vision--I don't think it's going to work in this late stage. I'm sorry for Jim, but I just don't think he's gonna have luck with the invention. Damn cool invention though.
Sony is in pretty much every market around...besides the gigantic consumer electronics force, they've got PCs, the PSX2 (which Sony wants to pretty much be the main machine in your house; forget the PC!), and now Palm...they're teaming up with everyone. And not only that, they're making their own OS.
Maybe this time we'll get a more benevolent ruler...
I can't see why people are up-in-arms about this paticular release, it's just the continuation of the graphics-card cycle. nVidia, S3, and the rest will continue to release new chipsets along with 3dfx. 3dfx is far from king of the hill: namely, they release products at such a slow rate that for much of the time it's better to get a TNT2 Ultra, for instance, instead of a Voodoo3.
Sometimes 3dfx will be on top, sometimes nVidia will be reigning champion (the NV15 is in the works, i hear...)
The Savage2000 and ATI Maxx are almost out...it really doesn't matter. These cards are way more powerful than anyone really needs, or will need, for a while. Until software comes out that really needs a couple hundred megatexels a second, I don't really care who's on top of the hill (and by that time, there will be even more powerful cards coming out)...
what's with this first post mania? it isn't like anyone really *cares*. First of all, the whole 'immortality on a message board' thing isn't true. I personally have my messages arranged highest scoring first, so that I get the most interesting threads, while safely stowing the -1 and 0 posts away at the bottom, in case I need a laugh. Second of all, posting something like 'hey! i've got first post!' is not gonna go over well with the moderators... First Moderator: Hmm, this post says 'Hey! I got first post!' Second Moderator: So do all the other posts... First Moderator: Hmm, -1 to all of them? So your little rating gets shot to hell. Okay, now...on to that article (oh yeah! the article!)... This approach seems exceedingly interesting, but I have a few questions: I assume this won't be used in manned flights? I'm not exactly sure, but isn't 6-G enough to make you black out? Mommy, I don't wanna be an astronaut anymore... Okay, they've got you on this track...now how do they get you from going horizontal (along a track) to vertical (into orbit)? Do they have a steep incline at the end (like a roller coaster? whee! look Houston, no hands!), or is the entire track on an incline? If so, what angle? 45 degrees would be best I suppose...does anyone else care to hazard a guess? Maybe the entire track is vertical, 90 degrees up. Seems like that would take more than 200 kilovolt amps, though. Where are they going to do this, anyway? Personally, I think Cape Canaveral is a really dumb place to launch rockets from. It's at sea level, n'est ce pas? So you have to go through the entire atmosphere...plus all that pesky gravity before you get into orbit. A better place would be in the rockies somewhere (you could turn that place in Florida into a trendy beach resort for government employees on Arbor-Boxing-Skeeball Day Vacation). Not only would the trip to orbit be shorter, but it would be thinner air up there...the only problem might be getting the shuttles up there again; you can't use a ship, you'd have to use trains or trucks (or just land there, which doesn't seem likely). Well, whatever happens, I want a ticket to the first launch =)