Thanks for that Wikipedia link to the Zombie information. At first I didn't know what the hell you were talking about but then I read up on Zombies and their appetite for brains (BRAAAAAAINS!!) and I got a really good laugh.
The problem with the Thinkpad is that it doesn't taper at the edges (not that this helps anything except for aesthetics). Apple really created an illusion of thin when they adopted this design (the Air is only like an eighth of an inch thinner that the MacBook but it looks *much* thinner because of the taper).
Apple really pulled off a magic trick with the Air. Marketing genius.
The next big step in integration is integrated memory. Cache memories are consuming most of the die in your typical high-performance CPU, these days. If you can find a CMOS-compatible, high-density (e.g. - SRAM's six transistors per cell is toooo big) memory technology, then we're going to be at the point where we can simply replace the cache memory with on-board memory. If said on-chip memory technology is nonvolatile, then we're talking panacea cakes, batman.
Naturally, this will first occur in low-performance devices where huge amounts of memory are not necessary. Then, it will work its way into the PC and up from there.
This is why Intel is divesting itself of discrete memory technologies - they don't want to be holding the bag when they're obsoleted by on-chip memory.
SPU manufacturers had better be ready for this because discrete CPUs will be going the way of the horse and buggy if anyone can ever do such a thing.
Microsoft just posted great earnings. While I'm no fan of the Microsoft, I always see these wonderfully timed stories and wonder who is paying for them (e.g. - trying to scare up liquidity).
If the Motley Fool and others wanted any dignity at all, they'd shut up and do this sort of reporting for non-event days.
Just before I hit slashdot to find this article, I was *literally* just looking at the keyboard of my new Lenovo Thinkpad and thinking that keyboards don't hold up like they used to. The surfaces of the keys, in just a short while, have worn appreciably. The pessimist in me thinks that manufacturers are reducing durability of keyboard so as to keep that "new laptop smell" appeal.
But then I thought, "what if these things have the same lead problem as the Chinese toys?"
I'm quite certain that even the most well-designed lead-laden keyboard would be worse than the worst-design on this list.
I would add to that the idea that only PEOPLE can own patents-- not companies. If a company bankrolls the R&D, then the chief scientist should own the patent.
That is an excellent point that would go a long way to help fix a lot of problems with the system (though it may introduce other problems). Unfortunately, the current "democratic" system is owned by corporate personhood so this change in the patent system would not be allowed until that was disrupted.
Also, "realize a given patent" is pretty vague.
Yes it is. I'm just trying to be constructive. I don't have the answers. But I would like to find them through constructive discussion.
Thanks for your input. I hope that "they" are listening.
If two people are working on a problem, and both reach similar solutions in a short time frame, that makes the solution obvious? Hardly.
Agreed - I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative". Thanks for that feedback.
Using public submissions of "ideas" as a baseline for "obvious"? How does that work?
You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry.
Look, if you don't want to have a patent system, just say so.
I do want to have a patent system because I have many ideas that could make me wealthy. I'm just trying to fix it to facilitate innovation instead of thwarting it. Right now, if I want to make some software, then I might run into 10,000 related patents and patent applications. If each of these takes me an average of 30 minutes to inspect, license and/or work around, then I am out 5000 hours - that is 2.5 years @ 40 hours per week. There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy.
This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy.
Or better yet, just fucking get rid of it altogether.
I'm trying to be pragmatic whilst addressing this urge - you simply cannot go up against the establishment with this sort of knee jerk. But this sentiment is what I am trying to address with my last point (e.g. - most software patents can be implemented in a few hours in mom's basement and, as such, are not patent-able under my suggested structure).
I don't know if "they" are listening, but the last time that I opined constructively on the patent system, there was a response. I don't know if someone had the same idea but, hey, it is nice to think that just maybe they are looking for an honest solution.
What's truly amazing is that two men (perhaps more) were working, pretty much independently of each other, yet came up with the same basic idea in such a parallel fashion that they ended up arriving at the U.S. patent office withing HOURS of each other.
The system is essentially a "finders-keepers" deal, as it sits.
If you want to fix the patent system, then you will reconstruct it roughly as follows:
Accept all submissions that pass a basic sanity check
Keep all submissions secret for X [days|weeks|months]
If two submissions are received for the same "invention" within this timeframe, then disallow it as obvious
To help facilitate a baseline for obvious, allow the general public to submit their obvious ideas at no charge (no need to check this overwhelming amount of info - but keep it handy for posterity).
Require patent applicants to outline the level of investment necessary to realize a given patent - the system was designed to protect the investments of entrepreneurs so, if little to no investment is required, then there is no need for a patent on a given idea. Also, patent suit awards could be derived from this information accordingly.
The other day, someone commissioned me to do some data recovery on a hard drive with more than $700 in iTunes on it (no backup, of course).
Generally, I do my best to avert my eyes during transfer of customer data but this was a little more involved and I had to verify the integrity of many of the files. With the customer's permission, I played a lot of the music and suddenly began to feel very old: I hadn't previously heard of most of the artists/songs that were recovered.
I'm glad to see that the kids aren't taking the radio monopoly. In my day, we didn't have these mechanisms to stick it to The Man (not that there isn't a problem with having all these files locked up in DRM...)
Do the companies care that their consumers are being duped
I know that the tinfoil hat is a popular slashdotter stereotype but...
The credit card companies do *not* want fraud to go away - they need a small amount to justify their cut of every transaction on the planet.
A decade ago, I used to be able to swipe my ATM card (which was nothing more, at that time) at the grocery store or gas pump and - voila - the cost was deducted from my checking account. Then, all of a sudden, my bank decided that they wanted to place an artificial limit on the number of ATM transactions that I could perform every month. Conveniently enough, they introduced the "Visa direct-check card" in this same time period.
The thing was - the ATM transactions didn't cost either party more than the marginal cost of having the system in place. With the Visa (or Mastercard, etc) direct-check, my bank and Visa get to cut each other in on the deal. It is all a big racket.
I know that the posted story is about phishing, but if the credit card companies *really* wanted to eliminate fraud, they could do so through any easily-implementable means. But they won't - because they need fraud to justify their fees.
Just ask Canon about the failure of their Wifi printers - you could not buy them at *any* retail store (or even Dell, which carried the rest of Canon's lineup) because the printer did not enable the retailer to sell the $30 USB cables.
You are correct: employees *should* be able to manage this.
But, in the real world, situations vary.
Pagers have been around for millenia, Blackberrys simply give better message.
With pagers, someone had to make the conscious decision to bother someone at the other end of a pager. With Blackberry devices, someone in Japan might send an email - when it is convenient for them - to someone in New York when it is not convenient. If the recipient hasn't configured the device's privacy schedule, then they will be notified of the email. Again - not everyone is a geek and configuring a privacy profile on a Blackberry isn't easy for everyone.
I'd be inclined to agree with you completely if a technical fix weren't so trivial - if RIM simply created a privacy profile that could be enforced by employers, then we wouldn't be discussing this. If I set a week of vacation in my calendar, then the Blackberry should automatically force itself to disconnect during this period. And please don't get caught up in the minutiae - it goes without saying that exceptions could be easily accommodated.
I'm gonna take a guess to say that you learned this from Mr. Wizard?
I remember this episode well - it is a simple but very awe-inspiring (at least from a geek's perspective) experiment. It goes like this:
1) Fill a cookie tray with water
2) Pepper the top of the water in order to *see* the movements of the surface tension
3) Carefully place a small amount of soap in the center of the tray
4) Watch the pepper scatter to the edges of the pan as the tension breaks
If you have a kid, then you need to go do this experiment with them NOW!
RIP Don Herbert - you are one of the main reasons that I am a geek today.
Unassigned seating is currently implemented at the company where I am employed and this sort of request is accommodated easily because you generally don't see people moving around a lot - people settle in.
So the system need only accommodate the storage and logistics of personal effects. We use a box for this - store it in the file room when the employee is not in the office and put it out for them when they decide that they need a cubicle for a few weeks.
I keep my cubicle on the sterile side. This keeps me from suppressing the need to go home and be with my family.
Anyone concerned about security doesn't use a wireless keyboard....Durrrr
That might seem like a trivial concept to you but I saw a wireless keyboard in use at a doctors office some years ago. When I mentioned to the staff that I didn't want them typing my personal details on that particular keyboard, they looked at me like I was wearing an actual tin foil hat.
Geeks need to realize that geeks aren't the only people who work in IT. Sensationalizing this sort of story hurts nobody and might actually spread awareness.
Offer residential broadband-to-700mhz VoIP routers to customers who would, in turn, become cellular access points.
Just food for thought (there's a lot standing in the way of something like this). It would be nice to have privately-licensed spectrum available to the public because then we wouldn't be limited to 100 milliwatts.
Slashdot Mirror
Will this deathalizer tell me if someone is only mostly dead?
Thanks for that Wikipedia link to the Zombie information. At first I didn't know what the hell you were talking about but then I read up on Zombies and their appetite for brains (BRAAAAAAINS!!) and I got a really good laugh.
The problem with the Thinkpad is that it doesn't taper at the edges (not that this helps anything except for aesthetics). Apple really created an illusion of thin when they adopted this design (the Air is only like an eighth of an inch thinner that the MacBook but it looks *much* thinner because of the taper).
Apple really pulled off a magic trick with the Air. Marketing genius.
The next big step in integration is integrated memory. Cache memories are consuming most of the die in your typical high-performance CPU, these days. If you can find a CMOS-compatible, high-density (e.g. - SRAM's six transistors per cell is toooo big) memory technology, then we're going to be at the point where we can simply replace the cache memory with on-board memory. If said on-chip memory technology is nonvolatile, then we're talking panacea cakes, batman.
Naturally, this will first occur in low-performance devices where huge amounts of memory are not necessary. Then, it will work its way into the PC and up from there.
This is why Intel is divesting itself of discrete memory technologies - they don't want to be holding the bag when they're obsoleted by on-chip memory.
SPU manufacturers had better be ready for this because discrete CPUs will be going the way of the horse and buggy if anyone can ever do such a thing.
Microsoft just posted great earnings. While I'm no fan of the Microsoft, I always see these wonderfully timed stories and wonder who is paying for them (e.g. - trying to scare up liquidity).
If the Motley Fool and others wanted any dignity at all, they'd shut up and do this sort of reporting for non-event days.
I'm talking about the surface of the keys (which come into contact with your fingers) - not the internal components.
If the lead can be transferred onto the fingers, then it will no-doubt wind up in your mouth or otherwise introduced into the body.
See the news on the recent toy recalls, which stem from lead.
Just before I hit slashdot to find this article, I was *literally* just looking at the keyboard of my new Lenovo Thinkpad and thinking that keyboards don't hold up like they used to. The surfaces of the keys, in just a short while, have worn appreciably. The pessimist in me thinks that manufacturers are reducing durability of keyboard so as to keep that "new laptop smell" appeal.
But then I thought, "what if these things have the same lead problem as the Chinese toys?"
I'm quite certain that even the most well-designed lead-laden keyboard would be worse than the worst-design on this list.
Has anyone tested keyboards for lead yet?
Now, all we need to figure out is how to let the constituency modify it.
This is an exercise that is left to the reader.
Are there any girls there?
Sorry - this just hits too close to home (self-proclaimed geek).
NPR did a bit on Joybubbles (Joe's handle) some months ago.
Very good listen.
I would add to that the idea that only PEOPLE can own patents-- not companies. If a company bankrolls the R&D, then the chief scientist should own the patent.
That is an excellent point that would go a long way to help fix a lot of problems with the system (though it may introduce other problems). Unfortunately, the current "democratic" system is owned by corporate personhood so this change in the patent system would not be allowed until that was disrupted.
Also, "realize a given patent" is pretty vague.
Yes it is. I'm just trying to be constructive. I don't have the answers. But I would like to find them through constructive discussion.
Thanks for your input. I hope that "they" are listening.
If two people are working on a problem, and both reach similar solutions in a short time frame, that makes the solution obvious? Hardly.
Agreed - I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative". Thanks for that feedback.
Using public submissions of "ideas" as a baseline for "obvious"? How does that work?
You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry.
Look, if you don't want to have a patent system, just say so.
I do want to have a patent system because I have many ideas that could make me wealthy. I'm just trying to fix it to facilitate innovation instead of thwarting it. Right now, if I want to make some software, then I might run into 10,000 related patents and patent applications. If each of these takes me an average of 30 minutes to inspect, license and/or work around, then I am out 5000 hours - that is 2.5 years @ 40 hours per week. There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy.
This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy.
Or better yet, just fucking get rid of it altogether.
I'm trying to be pragmatic whilst addressing this urge - you simply cannot go up against the establishment with this sort of knee jerk. But this sentiment is what I am trying to address with my last point (e.g. - most software patents can be implemented in a few hours in mom's basement and, as such, are not patent-able under my suggested structure).
I don't know if "they" are listening, but the last time that I opined constructively on the patent system, there was a response. I don't know if someone had the same idea but, hey, it is nice to think that just maybe they are looking for an honest solution.
Yeah - and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
The system is essentially a "finders-keepers" deal, as it sits.
If you want to fix the patent system, then you will reconstruct it roughly as follows:
- Accept all submissions that pass a basic sanity check
- Keep all submissions secret for X [days|weeks|months]
- If two submissions are received for the same "invention" within this timeframe, then disallow it as obvious
- To help facilitate a baseline for obvious, allow the general public to submit their obvious ideas at no charge (no need to check this overwhelming amount of info - but keep it handy for posterity).
- Require patent applicants to outline the level of investment necessary to realize a given patent - the system was designed to protect the investments of entrepreneurs so, if little to no investment is required, then there is no need for a patent on a given idea. Also, patent suit awards could be derived from this information accordingly.
Just some common sense, people.The other day, someone commissioned me to do some data recovery on a hard drive with more than $700 in iTunes on it (no backup, of course).
Generally, I do my best to avert my eyes during transfer of customer data but this was a little more involved and I had to verify the integrity of many of the files. With the customer's permission, I played a lot of the music and suddenly began to feel very old: I hadn't previously heard of most of the artists/songs that were recovered.
I'm glad to see that the kids aren't taking the radio monopoly. In my day, we didn't have these mechanisms to stick it to The Man (not that there isn't a problem with having all these files locked up in DRM...)
Do the companies care that their consumers are being duped
I know that the tinfoil hat is a popular slashdotter stereotype but...
The credit card companies do *not* want fraud to go away - they need a small amount to justify their cut of every transaction on the planet.
A decade ago, I used to be able to swipe my ATM card (which was nothing more, at that time) at the grocery store or gas pump and - voila - the cost was deducted from my checking account. Then, all of a sudden, my bank decided that they wanted to place an artificial limit on the number of ATM transactions that I could perform every month. Conveniently enough, they introduced the "Visa direct-check card" in this same time period.
The thing was - the ATM transactions didn't cost either party more than the marginal cost of having the system in place. With the Visa (or Mastercard, etc) direct-check, my bank and Visa get to cut each other in on the deal. It is all a big racket.
I know that the posted story is about phishing, but if the credit card companies *really* wanted to eliminate fraud, they could do so through any easily-implementable means. But they won't - because they need fraud to justify their fees.
Just ask Canon about the failure of their Wifi printers - you could not buy them at *any* retail store (or even Dell, which carried the rest of Canon's lineup) because the printer did not enable the retailer to sell the $30 USB cables.
You are correct: employees *should* be able to manage this.
But, in the real world, situations vary.
Pagers have been around for millenia, Blackberrys simply give better message.
With pagers, someone had to make the conscious decision to bother someone at the other end of a pager. With Blackberry devices, someone in Japan might send an email - when it is convenient for them - to someone in New York when it is not convenient. If the recipient hasn't configured the device's privacy schedule, then they will be notified of the email. Again - not everyone is a geek and configuring a privacy profile on a Blackberry isn't easy for everyone.
I'd be inclined to agree with you completely if a technical fix weren't so trivial - if RIM simply created a privacy profile that could be enforced by employers, then we wouldn't be discussing this. If I set a week of vacation in my calendar, then the Blackberry should automatically force itself to disconnect during this period. And please don't get caught up in the minutiae - it goes without saying that exceptions could be easily accommodated.
with some surface-tension reducing soap
I'm gonna take a guess to say that you learned this from Mr. Wizard?
I remember this episode well - it is a simple but very awe-inspiring (at least from a geek's perspective) experiment. It goes like this:
1) Fill a cookie tray with water
2) Pepper the top of the water in order to *see* the movements of the surface tension
3) Carefully place a small amount of soap in the center of the tray
4) Watch the pepper scatter to the edges of the pan as the tension breaks
If you have a kid, then you need to go do this experiment with them NOW!
RIP Don Herbert - you are one of the main reasons that I am a geek today.
If nothing less, you need to see the picture: it was awesome.
There. Fixed that for you.
like books, personal items, photos, etc?
Unassigned seating is currently implemented at the company where I am employed and this sort of request is accommodated easily because you generally don't see people moving around a lot - people settle in.
So the system need only accommodate the storage and logistics of personal effects. We use a box for this - store it in the file room when the employee is not in the office and put it out for them when they decide that they need a cubicle for a few weeks.
I keep my cubicle on the sterile side. This keeps me from suppressing the need to go home and be with my family.
Anyone concerned about security doesn't use a wireless keyboard....Durrrr
That might seem like a trivial concept to you but I saw a wireless keyboard in use at a doctors office some years ago. When I mentioned to the staff that I didn't want them typing my personal details on that particular keyboard, they looked at me like I was wearing an actual tin foil hat.
Geeks need to realize that geeks aren't the only people who work in IT. Sensationalizing this sort of story hurts nobody and might actually spread awareness.
What does Google plan to do with this spectrum?
Offer residential broadband-to-700mhz VoIP routers to customers who would, in turn, become cellular access points.
Just food for thought (there's a lot standing in the way of something like this). It would be nice to have privately-licensed spectrum available to the public because then we wouldn't be limited to 100 milliwatts.
We'll call it a draw!
Ah - target weight is used for normalization. I hereby retract my knee-jerk reaction.
Thanks.