It depends on what the subscribes want to use it for. When I pay for Internet I do so because it provides some functionality that I value.
If the functionality that I value the most is playing games then there should be no restrictions on me doing that. This goes for whatever you value. If masses of people get sick and go home and start playing WOW (also Internet commerce, just ask Blizzard) so much so that others cannot log into their banks website then the majority has spoken.
If I ever find out that my ISP is filtering content like this then that's the day I switch to another ISP. If I wanted my Internet filtered then I might as well move to China.
The Internet is not a utility and therefore there should not have any governmental control in place whatsoever. It seems like more and more since 911 that people are willing to hand over their rights to the government in hopes that this false sense of security will help them sleep better at night. Many people forget that the Internet is a no man's land, as it was designed to be, its only function is to move bits around regardless of the nature of those bits.
If any government, specifically the US government, wants a data network that is treated like a utility which they can control / police then they should build it. The Internet is not a single network that anyone owns. Every ISP that connects to the Internet or specifically adds to it, such as tier-1 Internet providers, owns a piece of the Internet. As a former ISP I would never provide any information to any 3rd party without a court order to do so nor would I provide any kind of filtering or bandwidth shaping.
How dare someone think they can control the Internet it is owned by the people!
As a privacy advocate I recommend that, whenever possible, one should encrypt everything regardless of the sensitivity of the particular data.
This will effectively keep law enforcement from tagging encrypted network traffic as being suspicious because encrypted network traffic will become the norm.
How will the police track down dangerous criminals using the Internet you may ask? My answer would be who cares? In my book criminals have just as much right to privacy as do any law abiding citizen. Plus more law abiding citizens will have their right to privacy violated in the pursuit of criminals than do the actual criminals.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Maybe next time I should do more double checking my figures and less time writing my posts.... Sorry for my bad math!
My field is Computer Science (applied mathematics) but my strongest math area is base number systems...
I'm not going to be able to retire with my 1 ounce of Pu238 after all:(
But, I still think RTGs have many real world applications. My minisub could be mapping the worlds ocean's right now... rather than sitting in a Physics professors office if it was powered by a RTG.
Also, I never meant to imply that an average Joe should be allowed to build one, or pick one up at his local Wal-mart. But, I do think that the NRC should be more open minded, and not reinforce the public's unrealistic fears about nuclear power, and be much less restrictive about who they license.
A modern reactor is much simpler to run and magnitudes safer than their predecessors. The big argument against nuclear energy is waste disposal. I would think much of what a fission reactor considers waste could still power a RTG application for quite some time.
The dirty bomb fear is mute IMHO. If I was crazy enough to want to create a dirty bomb, I'M NOT, I could get the material, and I'm not a well funded terrorist. I recall reading about some teenager that took barium (from broken smoke alarms) and used a lead cube to make an ion gun, which held the collected barium, that he aimed at a block of aluminum. This produced enough radioactive material that when the NRC swooped in he had a small breeder reactor up and running! I'm sure they over reacted even though this was obviously reckless behavior, insane might be a better word, when they quarantined the entire town.
After taking a deeper look at the article these are more battery than RTG but I don't understand the applications they suggested. I don't want to replace my pacemaker battery with that kind of half life! But I doubt an RTG could be scaled down to fit in the human body either, LOL!
So, thanks for keeping me on my toes... and the interesting conversation!
Something that produces energy from the decay of radioisotopes is called a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) whereas a battery is an array of electrochemical cells for electricity storage.
3 Mile Island and more recently Chernobyl have our society so afraid of nuclear power, the dreaded China syndrome, that regardless of how safe it becomes we will refuse to adopt it.
RTG technology is the safest way to produce energy and the greenest energy known to man. It takes something that would otherwise be dangerous and turns it into something productive. NASA uses this technology to power space probes, Voyager-1 is still being powered by one today, and will continue to do so until the year 2025. Plutonium 238 is the best fuel for a RTG, because of its long half-life and the fact that it cannot (yes CANNOT) sustain a chain reaction is somehow any of it started to fuse.
I looked into this technology when I built a mini robotic submarine in graduate school. But, that's when I found out two things: 1) I would have to submit to an anal probe before the Nuclear Regulatory Commiseration (NRC) would denied me the right to posses any more radioactive material than can be found in about 3 smoke detectors and 2) The room, labeled radioactive storage, in the Science building, where I attended University, with the big yellow radioactive sign is there to impress benefactors and since it lacks a smoke detector contains no radioactive material (LOL).
Improvements in power generation from nuclear fuel has become pretty safe over the last few years. Pebble bed reactor technology can theoretically remain stable indefinitely even without external cooling, though I don't think that has been put to the test. But, to be a viable energy solution a country really needs to adopt this method on mass because each reactor can only power a portion of a city so to be a major benefit a country would have one of these in everyone's backyard. RTG technology is even safer. It generates energy from the heat that occurs from the natural decay of a nuclear fuel.
If I could get my hands on say an ounce of Pu 238 I could build a RTG that would power my home, all my vehicles, and enable me to quit my job and live of the check my local electricity provider would have to pay me for the excess power I would generate. It would generate full power for ~ 87 years and not only wold I be using the greenest power available I would be providing a community service of disposing of a radioactive material.
But, echelon might flag me for even writing this post (looks around nervously)... The irrational fear of a China Syndrome scenario combined with the recent dose of terrorism (fear of dirty bombs) would never allow me to build one, even if I was a nuclear scientist, which I am not.
So, make an inventory of the smoke detectors you own. If the total is above 3 then you are in possession of enough nuclear material that would require you to get a license from the NRC. If you don't have a license from the NRC and own more than 3 smoke detectors you are likely in possession of an illegal amount of barium and could be flagged as an enemy combative and thanks to George W. Bush enemy combative have no right to any legal representation and can be summarily executed or detained for an indefinite amount of time without even informing anyone that they took you into custody.
The Nobel Prize has become a pawn of the economical political system we live in. So, now it's only a farce for the weak minded masses. You know, the same people who think that being in "Who's Who" is an honor and not a money making scam to sell you a false sense of recognition.. right?
To me, they have given him this for not being George W. Bush. Hey, I'll take one.. I'm not him either! I can prove it, I have a backbone! *chuckle*
So, when I invent a energy / mater sequencing device (a replicator) I'll just have to be happy with the knowledge that I ended world hunger and poverty because I'll just get another Nobel to add to my paperweight collection then? (LOL)
This is just one example of how easily protocols can be subverted on the Internet. I don't feel bad for the people that are unknowingly facilitating criminal activity on the Internet. They are not victims they are a big part of the problem. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it ignorance should not be an excuse for underestimating the dangers of participating as a user on a public, untrusted, network (uhhhmm the Internet).
The way these black-hat crackers are subverting the system is nothing new. It boils down to a simple man in the middle attack. I wouldn't be surprised if the Google search engine results that the OP stated that he didn't know where they were originating from didn't originate from Google. Google is likely profiting from this interaction as well. If someone can get in front of you and your destination (likely they have put themselves between you and the rest of the Internet community) then they can assume the identity of any content that you receive. So, if it Root DNS Servers and certificate authorities so they can phish your private information or increase someone's click revenue, as described in the OP, the fact remains that the ignorant pawns in this overt act are partners in the conspiracy.
If you are stupid enough to keep paying for clicks that don't land fruit then you deserve to loose your money. It's just bad business.
The more that people are reminded that the Internet is a no man's land and paying your $50 a month doesn't provide you any protection from the nefarious subculture that exists in every aspect of human interaction (including the Internet) the better. Hopefully pawns will wake up and realize that they need to take responsibility for their security and that of others (if you are a upstanding individual). Plus security is a reactive function. If nobody had ever started sniffing packets in efforts to steal private information we likely wouldn't have encrypted certificate signed HTTP today. This kind of activity will lead to further security enhancements though I don't think society should ever let their guard down because regardless of how tight security gets there will always be someone out there that can subvert it. The war is over, but the battle never ends.
NASA has been focusing on searching for signs of extraterrestrial life for some time now.
I don't think we should be focusing on that at this point in human development. I think our resources would be better spent in efforts to explore and colonize space. The only chance for the long term survival of the human species is for us to get off this rock. It's not if Earth is going to face an ELE (extinction level event) but when.
We raced to our moon and then abandon it when we got there! I hope NASA follows through with their plans to establish a moon base. This seems like an obvious first step in humanities efforts to establish a human presence beyond our home planet.
We have done a thorough enough exploration to know that there is no intelligent life within our reach with of our current state of technological development. I don't see why it so important to see if we can find some bacteria hidden away on Mars. Especially when I'm sure there is since such basic life forms likely traveled there from Earth hitchhiking on the many landers and rovers we have sent to the surface of mars not to mention all the probes and satellites we have crashed into it. Finding proof of microbial life on an extraterrestrial body is not going to make me feel any less alone in the universe.
Plus, don't you think that it is a little closed minded and very much arrogant for us to assume that since we require water for life that any life beyond Earth would also depend on it? There could be an alien civilization that is aware of our presence but who avoids entering our solar system because our planet is covered in H2O, the most poisonous element in the Universe (because all kinds of microbial life thrives in it!). I would hope that if we did find life of any level it would be like what Bones on Star Trek said "It's life Jim, but not as we know it!" Now, that would be interesting.
Instead of spending billions of dollars to remotely search for microbial life on Mars wouldn't it be more productive to try bombarding the surface of Mars with microbial life from Earth that thrives in similar harsh environments on Earth? Or even engineering such lifeforms to not only survive on the surface of Mars but also start the process that would allow us to continue to introduce more and more advanced life forms there? Even if we fail in our attempts to terraform Mars, imagine how much we could learn just by trying! If we take these first steps now then maybe before some cosmic events destroys our species we will have learned enough to start colonizing other worlds for us to live on.
I am really disappointed in our space program. Mir was a cheap and dirty bachelor pad version of a space station. The ISS is brand new and kept cleaner but doesn't provide much more functionality than Mir did. I would rather have the Russians in charge of our space program. A good example of why is that NASA spent over 2 Billion dollars to design and build a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity while the Russians brought a pencil. The ISS is the largest and most expensive venture undertaken by humanity and it doesn't have proper crew quarters, a hydroponics bay, nor does it even try to explore any of the theories our scientists have about creating artificial gravity beyond strapping astronauts down to a treadmill!
Lets build a real space station on our moon and star learning how to make ourselves more self sufficient on an extraterrestrial body. Instead of spending billions on a tube frame jeep that looks like it could topple over attempting to traverse a modest elevation give the contract to build dump trucks and excavators that operate on the lunar surface to Caterpillar who could design something 20 stories tall, we've all seen these monsters on Modern Marvels! Then we could start serious investigation on the composition of our moon and what could be mined and refined to expand our footprint there and make life easier to the human colonist there. We are pretty confident that there is metallic ore and even parti
I don't subscribe to the train of thought that the best security specialists are ex black-hats. Mainly because most black-hats are only out, open about it, because they have been caught. IMHO this doesn't make them good it just goes to show that they are rather poor at it. They did get caught right?
Though they would never admit it, I imagine that most of the best white-hats / security specialists I have known have likely wore a black-hat at some point in their past.
Just as I would state that the best computer scientists are those that grew up with a curiosity and interest in computing that cannot be extinguished one has to have the ability to put themselves in their opponent's mindset (the white-hat in the mind of the black-hat) or they won't be very successful.
I have done so much information / network security tasks combined with countless internal security audits (Sarbanes, etc) that I cannot connect to a network or walk into a new building without thinking about how one would theoretically subvert the systems in place. This doesn't mean I am acting on this knowledge but I would say it is a switch that gets turned on in the best security professionals that cannot be turned off. I'll meet someone at their office for the first time and find myself saying something like: "Physical security is terrible here, why would anyone waste time hacking into a network located in this facility when they could just walk right through the front door?" This is constructive criticism, though I shouldn't be giving away my knowledge as doing so reduces the perceived impression of the value of people in my profession.
I was working on Bank of America's firewall team, early in my career, and a potential candidate had made it past our teams rigorous technical screening and though maybe unknown to him he was going to be offered the job, as he had impressed us with his knowledge, and the meeting with our manager that turned into lunch with the team was just a formality. That was until during lunch when he openly stated "He had worn so man color hats, white, black, gray that he often gets confused on which he is currently wearing." We all looked at one another and sighed because we all knew such a statement had made him ineligible for the position. We were not upset that we might have hired a former black-hat but rather disappointed that he was so naive about the environment that he would openly state such a stupid declaration in front of us and our manager. If he were experienced enough to realize his mistake before making it he would have likely been a valuable member of that team.
It's like a television show called MasterMinds on the History channel that shows supposedly criminal master-minds, the details of their crimes, and the story of how they were eventually caught. I wouldn't call any of these people criminal master-minds. A show about criminal master-minds would not be that entertaining because they would say this is how it was concluded that a crime had been committed, if they could even determine that, and then they would explain how they don't know how the crime(s) were committed, and that the unknown suspects have yet to be identified. This is because a true criminal master-mind would have never been identified and the crime would be so unique as to defy description.
I tried to explain to a close-minded information security professor, during my Masters program, that going through detailed descriptions of known security exploits was a waste of time. I tried to no avail to explain that known (named) security exploits posed no threat, as they would have a countermeasure in place already and that the real risk was security exploits that have yet to be identified because their is no current countermeasure for them. I suggested that discussing the inherent security risks of deploying UDP on a network, for which I later wrote a research paper, or similar such topics would be a better use of our time. Rather than taking advice from a graduate student, the professor instead had us s
The main beef I have with Microsoft is I don't like doing business with companies that commit crimes as part of their standard operating procedure, even if they can afford it.
The best the police can do is try and stay only a few steps away from the criminals, instead of miles. With computer crime FUGET ABOUT TIT!
Copy protection doesn't work. Never has, never will.
It used to take someone with GURU computer skills to be a pirate, now all it takes is a kid with access to the Internet.
The problem is not piracy, it is the distribution and cost of media (content not storage).
I would feel confident in saying that the majority of American homes have one, likely more, instances of pirated content in their homes. That sounds like a referendum on piracy. Though, if you could buy a new DVD movie for $1 then who would wait hours for a movie to download?
They are not criminals they are just tired of working within a system that is broke. FUDGE the system!
If Microsoft pulls another stunt, like this, to rape the American people for every last dime then Maybe our government will grow a sack and ban any software from Dublin. Or better yet put a tariff on software imported into the US to offset them using yet another loophole to avoid paying for the COB (Cost of doing business).
I hope I live long enough to visit Gate's grave. Even though I'm sure his evil empire will live well beyond him we have to live for the little things.
"A practitioner of comp. science for 10 years" eah? Well, if I count my total experience in CS then I have been at it for over 35 years, pretty good for someone 27 years old right? What degrees do you hold? When did you get them?
Do you realize that you stated you have worked with computers for 10 years even after I told you I had 15 years of top level IT experience, not counting any time obtaining my advanced degrees in the subject. The only thing we know about you is you have a Slashdot account! Pathetic!
When I do graduate with my MS in CS I will likely know more about Computer Science than the professors teaching me. This is the same for all the graduates, with a few exceptions because we have a more modern education in the field than they do. So, the newer a degree the more it should be respected.
Plus you sound like a idiot programmer, who loves his.NOT programs, and makes less than my pool guy.
As far as being finished, I hope to never finish learning. That's when your education starts to degrade.
I assume since you are inciting flames that you have finished learning long ago and would have to pull your head out of your but to even be qualified to get me a cup of coffee (1 sugar, 2 cream please).
I don't "know everything" and I thank God I don't! If I knew everything there was to know about CS then it would likely bore me.
Though, I could do without people like you spouting off flames that don't even support any of their arguments with any evidence or alternative perspectives.
Since you haven't identified what you do, if anything, I can only assume you are a programmer that got offended because you have not caught on that your job is the bottom rung of the IT world, and only a learning tool for actual computer science.
In that case, I'll close with go fork(); yourself!
Most undergraduate students don't have enough time to learn the basics of computer programming, never mind software design.
As I stated in a separate post in this same thread people with IT degrees should be doing the majority of programing. When I got my undergraduate there was no IT degree, if you wanted to work in IT you got a BS in CS.
In a perfect world, Computer Scientists (like myself, MS in CS) would be doing research and developing new advancements in CS.
Regardless, in graduate programing courses you learn things like how to mathematically analysis different algorithms to determine which are superior. How much of this goes into modern coding? Very little, if any.
Cheaper, faster, easier is the motto of most programs written today. This increases with the more business management that gets thrown into the mix. That's how something like MS Windows Vista comes into existence. Give any real Computer Scientist the project along with the right to choose a developmental path and almost all of them would opt to scrap it and start over. But either extreme is bad in one we get crappy software and the other nothing is ever released. Currently we lean towards crappy software because hardware has developed so much faster than software. If some physical law, universal law, prevented computers from having over 1 GB RAM and 100 MHZ CPU, then the focus would have shifted and I would still have 8 programs running on my computer and would be experiencing the same computing experience I currently am because programmers would be writing better code.
So is it engineering? In it's current incarnation, no. Could it ever be considered engineering? Sure, but it would take a massive shift in the software development life cycle.
Personally I cannot wait until Moore's Law becomes Moore's Theory when it breaks because of some physical law stalls hardware development. Then maybe we will see some good code.
Plus, isn't an idea supposed to be a theory until proven to be a law? I mean does anyone really think it will continue indefinitely? I bet Moore didn't even think so. It seems we started calling it a law and it will continue until proven to be a theory.
I have my BS in Computer Science, am 1 course away from having my MS in Computer Science, as well as have 15 years experience in general IT with a focus on Network Security.
My BS in Computer Science was nearly 100% coding languages and techniques. My MS has had some coding in it and I would say that any computer scientist should have a strong grasp of coding. But, when you look at Computer Science as a discipline it should be these new undergraduates with an IT degree that do the coding jobs. This distinction didn't exist when I was getting my undergraduate degree, there was no IT degrees.
After going through my MS in Computer Science I have realized the discipline of Computer Science to be what it really is and that is applied mathematics. I am hoping that the IT industry will appreciate my vast knowledge of how computers work that I gained during my graduate studies, though I may not put that knowledge into whatever daily tasks I am responsible for. Looking at my background and education the best fit for me in the IT industry would be as a CIO or CTO. Though, I'm sure those jobs are a rare and of the type where you have to know someone.
Computer Science is just that a science. Not only that a mathematical science. I always wondered why people got math degrees, being they don't have a direct career path for them, other than academics itself. Now, I look back and realize I'm about to have a Masters in Applied Mathematics (Computer Science). How will that affect my future? Only time will tell. Like I said I got 15 years experience with my BS in Computer Science (Programming) and thankfully programming has never been my primary role during my professional career.
I'm at a crossroads, do I go back into the "real world" and see what I get for my upgrade to Masters in CS or do I stay in the academic world, get my Ph.D. and teach CS? Teaching pays a lot less but there is more job security.
But, one thing is fore sure I won't write you a program for the same reasons I won't fix your computer. Not that I won't code something if doing so makes my job easier or my company more efficient but I am a Computer Scientist and not an IT guy. So, you'll have to find someone else to change the toner in the printer.
There will always have to be people in the loop in all stages of program development but I think we have come far enough where the IT guys should be doing that and the Computer Scientists should be doing more advanced work. Let the secretary change the toner.
The only way people will be taken out of the loop is if someday Computer Scientists learn enough knowledge to create sentient beings, with an intelligence of its own, through a combination of hardware and software. Notice I said intelligence. Artificial intelligence is generally used incorrectly. Computer Science is currently at a stage where we cannot even simulate intelligence accurately. But, if we ever do create intelligent computers there will be nothing artificial about it. Once that happens it's likely that we will no longer be the most intelligent beings, we know of, in the universe. By Definition if we can create something smarter than ourselves then that something would be smart enough to create something smarter then their selves. Though, I don't think this will lead to a Matrix like scenario. Why do most people always imagine the worse case scenario? Though IMHO we don't even have to worry about such an event, unless it somehow happens by accident, because Computer Scientists cannot even define intelligence to any degree, never mind understand it enough to write intelligent code.
ANYWAYS, if people keep treating Computer Scientists like lowly IT guys we might just have to stick a 'pointer' into your eye.
Plus being a computer scientist I get the advantage of random implied youthfulness. That's why I was born Jan, 1970 and am currently 27 years old. It's all due to applied mathematics. How many Java or.NOT programmers understand why?
The world needs a language that everyone is required to learn. Like in the MORPG games their can be different races with different languages but they can communicate with each other using the language "COMMON".
Being from the USA, and since we are the world power, and we are so good at forcing our will down other culture's throat then "COMMON" should be English... no not English, American... because American is really a derivative of English, we just don't call it American because why should we give our English forefathers credit for their language when we can just take it for ourselves.
On a more serious level I do believe that every country should learn a common language so that regardless of one's native tongue any two people would be able to communicate. This goes way beyond coding but programs surely would be written and commented in the common language.
I would assume whatever a comity decided on what language to use, if it was not decided to create an entirely new language, that it would be a Latin based language (rather than an Asian dialect). Though I was pointing out how ridiculous and obnoxious my country is I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't English(American) even though if things continue as they are now within a few decades the Hispanic culture will be the majority in the USA. So, you would think that it would be some form of Spanish but there is a lot of truth in what I said about America's arrogant nature that would likely influence / manipulate the comity into choosing English(American) for the common language so that our fat lazy arrogant selves don't have to waste any TV/couch time learning a new language.
Do a whois on 85.255.210.131 and you will see the following (I would have posted it but Slashdot wouldn't let me because it had too many junk characters)
So, if you look at the data RIPE Network Coordination Centre has allocated a subrange of IP addresses (85.255.208.0 - 85.255.223.255) to: TrueServer B.V. (www.trueserver.nl). From all of this I wouldn't want to work for them because #1 they don't have their own allocation of IP addresses from ARIN. #2 Their website is not even hosted with the IP address that RIPE has sub allocated to them. #3 They seem to be a glorified ISP / web hosting company. None of that sounds like a place I want to work for. Also, not to put down anyone's profession but IMHO programming is the armpit of the IT industry. A portion of the industry that is moving more and more to outsourced solutions in India.
I might be wrong on who these people are, and I hope I am because their challenge is childish at best, but whoever they are it seems that they have forgotten that an interview is not a one way process. Whenever I go to an interview not only are they deciding if they want me to work for them I am deciding if I want to work form them. I can't recall the number of times that I have been interviewed, been offered the job, and then come back and say something like: "Well, thanks that sounds like a fine offer but I don't think this is the best opportunity for me right now." I wouldn't want to work for a company that makes you jump through hoops just to get an interview. There are plenty of other places that would gladly give me an interview just for submitting my resume. They want people to figure out who they are to get an interview. My question to them instead is who in the heck do you think you are?
A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a simple electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay.
Since this uses the heat from the natural radioactive decay there is no fission involved. With a very simple design every home in in the USA could get all their power for their homes and even their cars (charge up at home). The production of electricity using this method is fairly simple and does not require all the infrastructure and man power to control it.
Unfortunately, society has been lead to believe that radioactive materials are highly dangerous and that anytime you bring up an idea that involves radioactive material they refuse to listen. Most people don't realize that most every smoke detector made uses a small amount of radioactive material. I bet if they did many of them would be ripping them out of their homes in fears of being radiated.
There are dangers in producing electricity using radioactive materials but most of the current ways we produce electricity is dangerous. If you don't think so burn some coal in your back yard and see how safe you feel about it.
I was working on a graduate project in the physics labs of where I attend school and I brought up the idea of using an RTG to power the mini robotic submarine we were working on. The school has at least 1000 times the amount of radioactive material I would need to build an RTG that would power the sub for 80 or more years but refused to even consider the idea. Why have the material unless you are going to let students work with it? The perfect fuel for an RTG is plutonium 238 because it cannot sustain a chain reaction. So, if even some highly unlikely freak accident caused some partials to fuse the reaction would not continue. The only argument I can see against using such fuel in an RTG is that someone could use the fuel to be the dirty part of a dirty bomb. But, if you are a terrorist how hard would it be to get your hands on some radioactive material for your bomb? I could easily get enough plutonium 238 to power the mini submarine without having to go through proper channels but I wouldn't because without a license the nuclear regulatory commission I would be breaking the law. I don't think terrorist are worried about breaking the law.
The majority of the nuclear reactors in the USA produce electricity from nuclear material using the most unsafe process available. I can see reason for being afraid of these but both China and Japan have been using pebble reactors for some years now and that their are incapable of the great fear "the china syndrome" and are far less complex to operate.
To quote FDR the "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". At least when it comes to nuclear energy I think society needs to be educated not only the dangers of nuclear material but also the benefits. Then maybe society would have a more realistic idea of the risk/benefit ratio of nuclear fuel. That is how we feel safe driving around with large quantities of highly combustible gasoline in our cars, we are aware of the risks and accept them in trade for the benefit. But, we (as in the masses) only believe what the government/media tell us and right now they are blasting the message that anything radioactive is dangerous regardless of how it is used. These are the same people that were telling kids to hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack!
Nick Powers
Once cracked every computer will have mastered GO
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
While cracking, exhaustively, the game of GO they will be creating some kind of data structure, some kind of decision tree, and then ever computer in the world will be able to use the stored file and make the best possible move every time.
You have to realize that out of those 10^60 possible moves many are redundant, like moving the same piece back and forth that does not change the outcome the game except for extending its duration. It's just a guess but I would not be surprised if the data structure to hold a perfect game of GO would easily fit on a DVD or CDROM. There are huge portions of the total possible moves that get deleted from the finished decision tree because they lead to defeat and can be avoided or are just silly and do not impact the outcome of the game. Any solution that doesn't end in victory or in worst case stalemate and is avoidable, will be deleted. It is possible that their might be solutions that lead to defeat that cannot be avoided but as soon as the computer realized it was in that scenario it would forfeit making the tree even smaller because the computer wouldn't need to know the moves once it reached that portion of the tree that it cannot win or stalemate. I doubt any human could beat any computer playing with such a tree, unless the human had memorized one of the scenarios, if any exist, from the tree that leads to human victory of which the computer could not avoid.
It would be like playing tic-tac-toe with a third grader. They think it is possible to win but even young players know that you can always force a stale mate and you can only win if someone does something stupid.
I have had talks with many people more intelligent than myself about doing this for the game of chess. They all believe that it is not possible to do with todays computing power. Chess is estimated to have around 10^153 possible moves. Though they all agreed with me that many of those moves could be removed from a final game play tree and that after creating and pruning the tree it is likely that any personal computer would be able to use it to play a perfect game. There would be very little processing to do in making any move. This is because the chess application would not need all 43, the average possible number of moves in a single turn, it would only need the one that is ranked the highest. This also shows another way the final tree for the game of chess would be reduce in size. Until a complete tree for all the possible moves, for the game of chess or GO (or any game), had been computed and stored nobody will know how long the final tree might be. Who knows by then you may be able to have play a perfect game of chess against on your cell phone or it may be too large to be practical.
I have created a decision tree for the game of tic-tac-toe, from my head (not computed), but I think everyone knows that one (lol).
It would be interesting to see if these kinds of problems could be solved using distributed computing over the Internet, like SETI does.
When you take a step back into reality and notice that you can buy a full blown laptop from dell for less than what you can buy an iPhone it comes into focus what a big mistake Apple has made with this product.
So now they are actually showing that it IS in fact possible to develop full blown applications on this just makes everyone that has been screaming about the lack of a SDK gasp in disgust.
It's obvious that it's not a technical issue they just don't want the common person to be able to develop applications for the iPhone. They say it is because it's a smart phone and not a PDA but since it has more memory, processing power, connectivity, display, and input than my current Cingular 8125 PDA / phone by 100 fold that logic trail just doesn't hold water.
I love Apple and happily dumped my Windows desktop, laptop, etc for Apple and OS X. I am a total convert. I was a Mac bigot. Mainly because of the lack of a CLI but being a die hard UNIX user bash won me over heart and soul.
But, I'll keep my 8125 with WM5 (Windows Mobile 5) that I can install free, or low cost, applications on, or develop my own applications using several programming languages (LabView being my favorite).
People that are buying an iPhone these days must have money to blow without doing any practical research into what they are buying. It's locked down to AT&T (formerly Cingular), even though you get no discounts for committing to AT&T. Apple is only going to let select 3rd party developers write full blown applications that I am sure comes with tight strings and hefty licensing fees that will be passed onto the consumer. And no, I don't buy into that crap about Safari being an application platform. First of all if I had this phone this first thing I would want to do is to install Firefox to replace Safari. I use OS X everyday and I played with Safari long enough to know that it was even a worse browser than Internet Explorer; Yeah it's that bad.
Add to that the whole no warranty bonus and see how you feel about your $500 brick after the newness wears off and you start treating it like exactly what it is, a phone, and drop it on the kitchen floor and the parking lot a few times. I know many people that purchased the extended warranty on their iPod nano and are without music for 3 to 4 months of the year waiting for Apple to send them a new unit. That might be acceptable for an MP3 player being that music is not a necessity but now they have turned their MP3 player into a phone and made it were one cannot go a day without it.
I have never wanted for a product to fail more than this piece of crap in my life. I love Apple but this high dollar toy is a joke. The only thing I find more ignorant than this phone is the dumb asses buying it.
The only thing I think that would make me change my mind would be if they released a full public SDK for XCODE on OS X, removed the restrictions on rebates (so you could pick one up for $150 with a 2 year contract), and Steve Jobs publicly apologized for complete misunderstanding of the market.
I threw that last one in there because it has about as much chance of happening as the other 2.
One last note, did you know that if I liked the iPhone interface there are many sites that have skins and dialers available to run on my WM5 device that would make it behave identical to Apple's new Newton?
Steve, let's get real here! You have enough money why not buy yourself a CLUE?
If it works and it was truly an artificial virus then you could have the third whammy in the side effect that it would be distributed through unsafe sex and sharing of needles.
Talk about an effective delivery system. HIV would be wiped out quicker than it got started (pretty dang quick)!
But then I guess it would be hard to make money off of it. It really stinks how our society is driven by greed. Maybe I would change my mind on this if I was Oprah rich. Everyone PayPal me $5 towards making this happen:P
I like this kind of medicine. It uses your own body as a donor I am sure your left eye wouldn't reject cells from your right. rejection is the major problem with transplants today (beyond demand surpassing supply).
Now bring on the clones and grow me a new liver! I just bought a new bottle of Jim Beam!:)
Since this is GPL then neither MS or Apple would dare touch it. If it was BSD then it might be possible that Apple might adopt it but they are not going to put something into their kernel that they don't own. The same goes for MS with the added difficulty of their operating system not being POSIX compliant.
This is why I am prefer BSD license over GPL. Though, I am sure the majority of the readers on here would disagree with me. Anytime I look at open software I always check if there is a BSD licensed equivalent as compared to GPL. Just in case I want to develop it into a commercial application and all. That way I don't have to distribute a license that passes rights onto the users. I can simply take the BSD license version make my modifications and slap a (C) on it. I know the GPL advocates would argue that is what makes GPL good, keeping people like me from doing just that but Apple and MS are people like me. That is why Darwin was derived from BSD not because they were so hot on the Mach kernel but because of it's license. If MS ever goes to a POSIX based UNIX type OS with a Windows GUI, just like Apple did, they would do the same thing but they wouldn't be nice enough to maintain an open source version like Apple has done with Darwin.
Most people that buy laptops buy big 17" wide screen units and barely does it leave their desk, not to mention their home.
They use it as a replacement desktop and sometimes take it on a trip so they can use it on the flight.
I have both desktop(s) and a laptop. My laptop has a 12" screen and is very light. It is no powerhouse and would never perform well trying to play a game but I have always thought of a laptop as something that was meant to be portable and a quasi replacement for a desktop that was mobile. That is what I use mine for. Though I see more and more that I am in the minority. Most people are going for powerhouse laptops that would put my desktop(s) to shame. Though doing so at the expensive of the weight of their big portable desktops because when is the last time you saw one of the beasts in someone's lap? The heat would probably make you sterile!
So, I could see a future where the desktop is portable but not because it makes any sense but because that's what the majority wants. I could list all the reasons desktops are superior to laptops but I am sure many have already done so in this thread.
With that said I also must add that I am big into embedded computing and seeing that market develop and how powerful and compact those devices are getting I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't very long before people are making their own laptops. I know people doing this with PDAs right now.
I think there will always be a demand for desktops / workstations. I see the possibility of thin clients taking over before laptops kill the desktop market but I am forever the optimist.
Slashdot Mirror
To, me the answer is it depends.
It depends on what the subscribes want to use it for. When I pay for Internet I do so because it provides some functionality that I value.
If the functionality that I value the most is playing games then there should be no restrictions on me doing that. This goes for whatever you value. If masses of people get sick and go home and start playing WOW (also Internet commerce, just ask Blizzard) so much so that others cannot log into their banks website then the majority has spoken.
If I ever find out that my ISP is filtering content like this then that's the day I switch to another ISP. If I wanted my Internet filtered then I might as well move to China.
The Internet is not a utility and therefore there should not have any governmental control in place whatsoever. It seems like more and more since 911 that people are willing to hand over their rights to the government in hopes that this false sense of security will help them sleep better at night. Many people forget that the Internet is a no man's land, as it was designed to be, its only function is to move bits around regardless of the nature of those bits.
If any government, specifically the US government, wants a data network that is treated like a utility which they can control / police then they should build it. The Internet is not a single network that anyone owns. Every ISP that connects to the Internet or specifically adds to it, such as tier-1 Internet providers, owns a piece of the Internet. As a former ISP I would never provide any information to any 3rd party without a court order to do so nor would I provide any kind of filtering or bandwidth shaping.
How dare someone think they can control the Internet it is owned by the people!
Nick Powers
As a privacy advocate I recommend that, whenever possible, one should encrypt everything regardless of the sensitivity of the particular data.
This will effectively keep law enforcement from tagging encrypted network traffic as being suspicious because encrypted network traffic will become the norm.
How will the police track down dangerous criminals using the Internet you may ask? My answer would be who cares? In my book criminals have just as much right to privacy as do any law abiding citizen. Plus more law abiding citizens will have their right to privacy violated in the pursuit of criminals than do the actual criminals.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Nick Powers
"We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Maybe next time I should do more double checking my figures and less time writing my posts.... Sorry for my bad math!
My field is Computer Science (applied mathematics) but my strongest math area is base number systems...
I'm not going to be able to retire with my 1 ounce of Pu238 after all :(
But, I still think RTGs have many real world applications. My minisub could be mapping the worlds ocean's right now... rather than sitting in a Physics professors office if it was powered by a RTG.
Also, I never meant to imply that an average Joe should be allowed to build one, or pick one up at his local Wal-mart. But, I do think that the NRC should be more open minded, and not reinforce the public's unrealistic fears about nuclear power, and be much less restrictive about who they license.
A modern reactor is much simpler to run and magnitudes safer than their predecessors. The big argument against nuclear energy is waste disposal. I would think much of what a fission reactor considers waste could still power a RTG application for quite some time.
The dirty bomb fear is mute IMHO. If I was crazy enough to want to create a dirty bomb, I'M NOT, I could get the material, and I'm not a well funded terrorist. I recall reading about some teenager that took barium (from broken smoke alarms) and used a lead cube to make an ion gun, which held the collected barium, that he aimed at a block of aluminum. This produced enough radioactive material that when the NRC swooped in he had a small breeder reactor up and running! I'm sure they over reacted even though this was obviously reckless behavior, insane might be a better word, when they quarantined the entire town.
After taking a deeper look at the article these are more battery than RTG but I don't understand the applications they suggested. I don't want to replace my pacemaker battery with that kind of half life! But I doubt an RTG could be scaled down to fit in the human body either, LOL!
So, thanks for keeping me on my toes... and the interesting conversation!
Nick Powers
Something that produces energy from the decay of radioisotopes is called a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) whereas a battery is an array of electrochemical cells for electricity storage.
3 Mile Island and more recently Chernobyl have our society so afraid of nuclear power, the dreaded China syndrome, that regardless of how safe it becomes we will refuse to adopt it.
RTG technology is the safest way to produce energy and the greenest energy known to man. It takes something that would otherwise be dangerous and turns it into something productive. NASA uses this technology to power space probes, Voyager-1 is still being powered by one today, and will continue to do so until the year 2025. Plutonium 238 is the best fuel for a RTG, because of its long half-life and the fact that it cannot (yes CANNOT) sustain a chain reaction is somehow any of it started to fuse.
I looked into this technology when I built a mini robotic submarine in graduate school. But, that's when I found out two things: 1) I would have to submit to an anal probe before the Nuclear Regulatory Commiseration (NRC) would denied me the right to posses any more radioactive material than can be found in about 3 smoke detectors and 2) The room, labeled radioactive storage, in the Science building, where I attended University, with the big yellow radioactive sign is there to impress benefactors and since it lacks a smoke detector contains no radioactive material (LOL).
Improvements in power generation from nuclear fuel has become pretty safe over the last few years. Pebble bed reactor technology can theoretically remain stable indefinitely even without external cooling, though I don't think that has been put to the test. But, to be a viable energy solution a country really needs to adopt this method on mass because each reactor can only power a portion of a city so to be a major benefit a country would have one of these in everyone's backyard. RTG technology is even safer. It generates energy from the heat that occurs from the natural decay of a nuclear fuel.
If I could get my hands on say an ounce of Pu 238 I could build a RTG that would power my home, all my vehicles, and enable me to quit my job and live of the check my local electricity provider would have to pay me for the excess power I would generate. It would generate full power for ~ 87 years and not only wold I be using the greenest power available I would be providing a community service of disposing of a radioactive material.
But, echelon might flag me for even writing this post (looks around nervously)... The irrational fear of a China Syndrome scenario combined with the recent dose of terrorism (fear of dirty bombs) would never allow me to build one, even if I was a nuclear scientist, which I am not.
So, make an inventory of the smoke detectors you own. If the total is above 3 then you are in possession of enough nuclear material that would require you to get a license from the NRC. If you don't have a license from the NRC and own more than 3 smoke detectors you are likely in possession of an illegal amount of barium and could be flagged as an enemy combative and thanks to George W. Bush enemy combative have no right to any legal representation and can be summarily executed or detained for an indefinite amount of time without even informing anyone that they took you into custody.
Heck, I don't need smoke detectors that much!
Nick Powers
OMG! The day has come...
The Nobel Prize has become a pawn of the economical political system we live in. So, now it's only a farce for the weak minded masses. You know, the same people who think that being in "Who's Who" is an honor and not a money making scam to sell you a false sense of recognition.. right?
To me, they have given him this for not being George W. Bush. Hey, I'll take one.. I'm not him either! I can prove it, I have a backbone! *chuckle*
So, when I invent a energy / mater sequencing device (a replicator) I'll just have to be happy with the knowledge that I ended world hunger and poverty because I'll just get another Nobel to add to my paperweight collection then? (LOL)
Strange days!
Nick Powers
This is just one example of how easily protocols can be subverted on the Internet. I don't feel bad for the people that are unknowingly facilitating criminal activity on the Internet. They are not victims they are a big part of the problem. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it ignorance should not be an excuse for underestimating the dangers of participating as a user on a public, untrusted, network (uhhhmm the Internet).
The way these black-hat crackers are subverting the system is nothing new. It boils down to a simple man in the middle attack. I wouldn't be surprised if the Google search engine results that the OP stated that he didn't know where they were originating from didn't originate from Google. Google is likely profiting from this interaction as well. If someone can get in front of you and your destination (likely they have put themselves between you and the rest of the Internet community) then they can assume the identity of any content that you receive. So, if it Root DNS Servers and certificate authorities so they can phish your private information or increase someone's click revenue, as described in the OP, the fact remains that the ignorant pawns in this overt act are partners in the conspiracy.
If you are stupid enough to keep paying for clicks that don't land fruit then you deserve to loose your money. It's just bad business.
The more that people are reminded that the Internet is a no man's land and paying your $50 a month doesn't provide you any protection from the nefarious subculture that exists in every aspect of human interaction (including the Internet) the better. Hopefully pawns will wake up and realize that they need to take responsibility for their security and that of others (if you are a upstanding individual). Plus security is a reactive function. If nobody had ever started sniffing packets in efforts to steal private information we likely wouldn't have encrypted certificate signed HTTP today. This kind of activity will lead to further security enhancements though I don't think society should ever let their guard down because regardless of how tight security gets there will always be someone out there that can subvert it. The war is over, but the battle never ends.
Yeah...
Nick Powers
NASA has been focusing on searching for signs of extraterrestrial life for some time now.
I don't think we should be focusing on that at this point in human development. I think our resources would be better spent in efforts to explore and colonize space. The only chance for the long term survival of the human species is for us to get off this rock. It's not if Earth is going to face an ELE (extinction level event) but when.
We raced to our moon and then abandon it when we got there! I hope NASA follows through with their plans to establish a moon base. This seems like an obvious first step in humanities efforts to establish a human presence beyond our home planet.
We have done a thorough enough exploration to know that there is no intelligent life within our reach with of our current state of technological development. I don't see why it so important to see if we can find some bacteria hidden away on Mars. Especially when I'm sure there is since such basic life forms likely traveled there from Earth hitchhiking on the many landers and rovers we have sent to the surface of mars not to mention all the probes and satellites we have crashed into it. Finding proof of microbial life on an extraterrestrial body is not going to make me feel any less alone in the universe.
Plus, don't you think that it is a little closed minded and very much arrogant for us to assume that since we require water for life that any life beyond Earth would also depend on it? There could be an alien civilization that is aware of our presence but who avoids entering our solar system because our planet is covered in H2O, the most poisonous element in the Universe (because all kinds of microbial life thrives in it!). I would hope that if we did find life of any level it would be like what Bones on Star Trek said "It's life Jim, but not as we know it!" Now, that would be interesting.
Instead of spending billions of dollars to remotely search for microbial life on Mars wouldn't it be more productive to try bombarding the surface of Mars with microbial life from Earth that thrives in similar harsh environments on Earth? Or even engineering such lifeforms to not only survive on the surface of Mars but also start the process that would allow us to continue to introduce more and more advanced life forms there? Even if we fail in our attempts to terraform Mars, imagine how much we could learn just by trying! If we take these first steps now then maybe before some cosmic events destroys our species we will have learned enough to start colonizing other worlds for us to live on.
I am really disappointed in our space program. Mir was a cheap and dirty bachelor pad version of a space station. The ISS is brand new and kept cleaner but doesn't provide much more functionality than Mir did. I would rather have the Russians in charge of our space program. A good example of why is that NASA spent over 2 Billion dollars to design and build a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity while the Russians brought a pencil. The ISS is the largest and most expensive venture undertaken by humanity and it doesn't have proper crew quarters, a hydroponics bay, nor does it even try to explore any of the theories our scientists have about creating artificial gravity beyond strapping astronauts down to a treadmill!
Lets build a real space station on our moon and star learning how to make ourselves more self sufficient on an extraterrestrial body. Instead of spending billions on a tube frame jeep that looks like it could topple over attempting to traverse a modest elevation give the contract to build dump trucks and excavators that operate on the lunar surface to Caterpillar who could design something 20 stories tall, we've all seen these monsters on Modern Marvels! Then we could start serious investigation on the composition of our moon and what could be mined and refined to expand our footprint there and make life easier to the human colonist there. We are pretty confident that there is metallic ore and even parti
I don't subscribe to the train of thought that the best security specialists are ex black-hats. Mainly because most black-hats are only out, open about it, because they have been caught. IMHO this doesn't make them good it just goes to show that they are rather poor at it. They did get caught right?
Though they would never admit it, I imagine that most of the best white-hats / security specialists I have known have likely wore a black-hat at some point in their past.
Just as I would state that the best computer scientists are those that grew up with a curiosity and interest in computing that cannot be extinguished one has to have the ability to put themselves in their opponent's mindset (the white-hat in the mind of the black-hat) or they won't be very successful.
I have done so much information / network security tasks combined with countless internal security audits (Sarbanes, etc) that I cannot connect to a network or walk into a new building without thinking about how one would theoretically subvert the systems in place. This doesn't mean I am acting on this knowledge but I would say it is a switch that gets turned on in the best security professionals that cannot be turned off. I'll meet someone at their office for the first time and find myself saying something like: "Physical security is terrible here, why would anyone waste time hacking into a network located in this facility when they could just walk right through the front door?" This is constructive criticism, though I shouldn't be giving away my knowledge as doing so reduces the perceived impression of the value of people in my profession.
I was working on Bank of America's firewall team, early in my career, and a potential candidate had made it past our teams rigorous technical screening and though maybe unknown to him he was going to be offered the job, as he had impressed us with his knowledge, and the meeting with our manager that turned into lunch with the team was just a formality. That was until during lunch when he openly stated "He had worn so man color hats, white, black, gray that he often gets confused on which he is currently wearing." We all looked at one another and sighed because we all knew such a statement had made him ineligible for the position. We were not upset that we might have hired a former black-hat but rather disappointed that he was so naive about the environment that he would openly state such a stupid declaration in front of us and our manager. If he were experienced enough to realize his mistake before making it he would have likely been a valuable member of that team.
It's like a television show called MasterMinds on the History channel that shows supposedly criminal master-minds, the details of their crimes, and the story of how they were eventually caught. I wouldn't call any of these people criminal master-minds. A show about criminal master-minds would not be that entertaining because they would say this is how it was concluded that a crime had been committed, if they could even determine that, and then they would explain how they don't know how the crime(s) were committed, and that the unknown suspects have yet to be identified. This is because a true criminal master-mind would have never been identified and the crime would be so unique as to defy description.
I tried to explain to a close-minded information security professor, during my Masters program, that going through detailed descriptions of known security exploits was a waste of time. I tried to no avail to explain that known (named) security exploits posed no threat, as they would have a countermeasure in place already and that the real risk was security exploits that have yet to be identified because their is no current countermeasure for them. I suggested that discussing the inherent security risks of deploying UDP on a network, for which I later wrote a research paper, or similar such topics would be a better use of our time. Rather than taking advice from a graduate student, the professor instead had us s
The main beef I have with Microsoft is I don't like doing business with companies that commit crimes as part of their standard operating procedure, even if they can afford it.
The best the police can do is try and stay only a few steps away from the criminals, instead of miles. With computer crime FUGET ABOUT TIT!
Copy protection doesn't work. Never has, never will.
It used to take someone with GURU computer skills to be a pirate, now all it takes is a kid with access to the Internet.
The problem is not piracy, it is the distribution and cost of media (content not storage).
I would feel confident in saying that the majority of American homes have one, likely more, instances of pirated content in their homes. That sounds like a referendum on piracy. Though, if you could buy a new DVD movie for $1 then who would wait hours for a movie to download?
They are not criminals they are just tired of working within a system that is broke. FUDGE the system!
If Microsoft pulls another stunt, like this, to rape the American people for every last dime then Maybe our government will grow a sack and ban any software from Dublin. Or better yet put a tariff on software imported into the US to offset them using yet another loophole to avoid paying for the COB (Cost of doing business).
I hope I live long enough to visit Gate's grave. Even though I'm sure his evil empire will live well beyond him we have to live for the little things.
"A practitioner of comp. science for 10 years" eah? Well, if I count my total experience in CS then I have been at it for over 35 years, pretty good for someone 27 years old right? What degrees do you hold? When did you get them?
Do you realize that you stated you have worked with computers for 10 years even after I told you I had 15 years of top level IT experience, not counting any time obtaining my advanced degrees in the subject. The only thing we know about you is you have a Slashdot account! Pathetic!
When I do graduate with my MS in CS I will likely know more about Computer Science than the professors teaching me. This is the same for all the graduates, with a few exceptions because we have a more modern education in the field than they do. So, the newer a degree the more it should be respected.
Plus you sound like a idiot programmer, who loves his .NOT programs, and makes less than my pool guy.
As far as being finished, I hope to never finish learning. That's when your education starts to degrade.
I assume since you are inciting flames that you have finished learning long ago and would have to pull your head out of your but to even be qualified to get me a cup of coffee (1 sugar, 2 cream please).
I don't "know everything" and I thank God I don't! If I knew everything there was to know about CS then it would likely bore me.
Though, I could do without people like you spouting off flames that don't even support any of their arguments with any evidence or alternative perspectives.
Since you haven't identified what you do, if anything, I can only assume you are a programmer that got offended because you have not caught on that your job is the bottom rung of the IT world, and only a learning tool for actual computer science.
In that case, I'll close with go fork(); yourself!
Most undergraduate students don't have enough time to learn the basics of computer programming, never mind software design.
As I stated in a separate post in this same thread people with IT degrees should be doing the majority of programing. When I got my undergraduate there was no IT degree, if you wanted to work in IT you got a BS in CS.
In a perfect world, Computer Scientists (like myself, MS in CS) would be doing research and developing new advancements in CS.
Regardless, in graduate programing courses you learn things like how to mathematically analysis different algorithms to determine which are superior. How much of this goes into modern coding? Very little, if any.
Cheaper, faster, easier is the motto of most programs written today. This increases with the more business management that gets thrown into the mix. That's how something like MS Windows Vista comes into existence. Give any real Computer Scientist the project along with the right to choose a developmental path and almost all of them would opt to scrap it and start over. But either extreme is bad in one we get crappy software and the other nothing is ever released. Currently we lean towards crappy software because hardware has developed so much faster than software. If some physical law, universal law, prevented computers from having over 1 GB RAM and 100 MHZ CPU, then the focus would have shifted and I would still have 8 programs running on my computer and would be experiencing the same computing experience I currently am because programmers would be writing better code.
So is it engineering? In it's current incarnation, no. Could it ever be considered engineering? Sure, but it would take a massive shift in the software development life cycle.
Personally I cannot wait until Moore's Law becomes Moore's Theory when it breaks because of some physical law stalls hardware development. Then maybe we will see some good code.
Plus, isn't an idea supposed to be a theory until proven to be a law? I mean does anyone really think it will continue indefinitely? I bet Moore didn't even think so. It seems we started calling it a law and it will continue until proven to be a theory.
I have my BS in Computer Science, am 1 course away from having my MS in Computer Science, as well as have 15 years experience in general IT with a focus on Network Security.
My BS in Computer Science was nearly 100% coding languages and techniques. My MS has had some coding in it and I would say that any computer scientist should have a strong grasp of coding. But, when you look at Computer Science as a discipline it should be these new undergraduates with an IT degree that do the coding jobs. This distinction didn't exist when I was getting my undergraduate degree, there was no IT degrees.
After going through my MS in Computer Science I have realized the discipline of Computer Science to be what it really is and that is applied mathematics. I am hoping that the IT industry will appreciate my vast knowledge of how computers work that I gained during my graduate studies, though I may not put that knowledge into whatever daily tasks I am responsible for. Looking at my background and education the best fit for me in the IT industry would be as a CIO or CTO. Though, I'm sure those jobs are a rare and of the type where you have to know someone.
Computer Science is just that a science. Not only that a mathematical science. I always wondered why people got math degrees, being they don't have a direct career path for them, other than academics itself. Now, I look back and realize I'm about to have a Masters in Applied Mathematics (Computer Science). How will that affect my future? Only time will tell. Like I said I got 15 years experience with my BS in Computer Science (Programming) and thankfully programming has never been my primary role during my professional career.
I'm at a crossroads, do I go back into the "real world" and see what I get for my upgrade to Masters in CS or do I stay in the academic world, get my Ph.D. and teach CS? Teaching pays a lot less but there is more job security.
But, one thing is fore sure I won't write you a program for the same reasons I won't fix your computer. Not that I won't code something if doing so makes my job easier or my company more efficient but I am a Computer Scientist and not an IT guy. So, you'll have to find someone else to change the toner in the printer.
There will always have to be people in the loop in all stages of program development but I think we have come far enough where the IT guys should be doing that and the Computer Scientists should be doing more advanced work. Let the secretary change the toner.
The only way people will be taken out of the loop is if someday Computer Scientists learn enough knowledge to create sentient beings, with an intelligence of its own, through a combination of hardware and software. Notice I said intelligence. Artificial intelligence is generally used incorrectly. Computer Science is currently at a stage where we cannot even simulate intelligence accurately. But, if we ever do create intelligent computers there will be nothing artificial about it. Once that happens it's likely that we will no longer be the most intelligent beings, we know of, in the universe. By Definition if we can create something smarter than ourselves then that something would be smart enough to create something smarter then their selves. Though, I don't think this will lead to a Matrix like scenario. Why do most people always imagine the worse case scenario? Though IMHO we don't even have to worry about such an event, unless it somehow happens by accident, because Computer Scientists cannot even define intelligence to any degree, never mind understand it enough to write intelligent code.
ANYWAYS, if people keep treating Computer Scientists like lowly IT guys we might just have to stick a 'pointer' into your eye.
Plus being a computer scientist I get the advantage of random implied youthfulness. That's why I was born Jan, 1970 and am currently 27 years old. It's all due to applied mathematics. How many Java or .NOT programmers understand why?
Hello,
The world needs a language that everyone is required to learn. Like in the MORPG games their can be different races with different languages but they can communicate with each other using the language "COMMON".
Being from the USA, and since we are the world power, and we are so good at forcing our will down other culture's throat then "COMMON" should be English... no not English, American... because American is really a derivative of English, we just don't call it American because why should we give our English forefathers credit for their language when we can just take it for ourselves.
On a more serious level I do believe that every country should learn a common language so that regardless of one's native tongue any two people would be able to communicate. This goes way beyond coding but programs surely would be written and commented in the common language.
I would assume whatever a comity decided on what language to use, if it was not decided to create an entirely new language, that it would be a Latin based language (rather than an Asian dialect). Though I was pointing out how ridiculous and obnoxious my country is I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't English(American) even though if things continue as they are now within a few decades the Hispanic culture will be the majority in the USA. So, you would think that it would be some form of Spanish but there is a lot of truth in what I said about America's arrogant nature that would likely influence / manipulate the comity into choosing English(American) for the common language so that our fat lazy arrogant selves don't have to waste any TV/couch time learning a new language.
Go fork yourselves:
main{ while(1) fork();}
Nick Powers
Do a whois on 85.255.210.131 and you will see the following (I would have posted it but Slashdot wouldn't let me because it had too many junk characters)
So, if you look at the data RIPE Network Coordination Centre has allocated a subrange of IP addresses (85.255.208.0 - 85.255.223.255) to: TrueServer B.V. (www.trueserver.nl). From all of this I wouldn't want to work for them because #1 they don't have their own allocation of IP addresses from ARIN. #2 Their website is not even hosted with the IP address that RIPE has sub allocated to them. #3 They seem to be a glorified ISP / web hosting company. None of that sounds like a place I want to work for. Also, not to put down anyone's profession but IMHO programming is the armpit of the IT industry. A portion of the industry that is moving more and more to outsourced solutions in India.
I might be wrong on who these people are, and I hope I am because their challenge is childish at best, but whoever they are it seems that they have forgotten that an interview is not a one way process. Whenever I go to an interview not only are they deciding if they want me to work for them I am deciding if I want to work form them. I can't recall the number of times that I have been interviewed, been offered the job, and then come back and say something like: "Well, thanks that sounds like a fine offer but I don't think this is the best opportunity for me right now." I wouldn't want to work for a company that makes you jump through hoops just to get an interview. There are plenty of other places that would gladly give me an interview just for submitting my resume. They want people to figure out who they are to get an interview. My question to them instead is who in the heck do you think you are?
Nick Powers
A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a simple electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay.
Since this uses the heat from the natural radioactive decay there is no fission involved. With a very simple design every home in in the USA could get all their power for their homes and even their cars (charge up at home). The production of electricity using this method is fairly simple and does not require all the infrastructure and man power to control it.
Unfortunately, society has been lead to believe that radioactive materials are highly dangerous and that anytime you bring up an idea that involves radioactive material they refuse to listen. Most people don't realize that most every smoke detector made uses a small amount of radioactive material. I bet if they did many of them would be ripping them out of their homes in fears of being radiated.
There are dangers in producing electricity using radioactive materials but most of the current ways we produce electricity is dangerous. If you don't think so burn some coal in your back yard and see how safe you feel about it.
I was working on a graduate project in the physics labs of where I attend school and I brought up the idea of using an RTG to power the mini robotic submarine we were working on. The school has at least 1000 times the amount of radioactive material I would need to build an RTG that would power the sub for 80 or more years but refused to even consider the idea. Why have the material unless you are going to let students work with it? The perfect fuel for an RTG is plutonium 238 because it cannot sustain a chain reaction. So, if even some highly unlikely freak accident caused some partials to fuse the reaction would not continue. The only argument I can see against using such fuel in an RTG is that someone could use the fuel to be the dirty part of a dirty bomb. But, if you are a terrorist how hard would it be to get your hands on some radioactive material for your bomb? I could easily get enough plutonium 238 to power the mini submarine without having to go through proper channels but I wouldn't because without a license the nuclear regulatory commission I would be breaking the law. I don't think terrorist are worried about breaking the law.
The majority of the nuclear reactors in the USA produce electricity from nuclear material using the most unsafe process available. I can see reason for being afraid of these but both China and Japan have been using pebble reactors for some years now and that their are incapable of the great fear "the china syndrome" and are far less complex to operate.
To quote FDR the "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". At least when it comes to nuclear energy I think society needs to be educated not only the dangers of nuclear material but also the benefits. Then maybe society would have a more realistic idea of the risk/benefit ratio of nuclear fuel. That is how we feel safe driving around with large quantities of highly combustible gasoline in our cars, we are aware of the risks and accept them in trade for the benefit. But, we (as in the masses) only believe what the government/media tell us and right now they are blasting the message that anything radioactive is dangerous regardless of how it is used. These are the same people that were telling kids to hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack!
Nick Powers
While cracking, exhaustively, the game of GO they will be creating some kind of data structure, some kind of decision tree, and then ever computer in the world will be able to use the stored file and make the best possible move every time.
You have to realize that out of those 10^60 possible moves many are redundant, like moving the same piece back and forth that does not change the outcome the game except for extending its duration. It's just a guess but I would not be surprised if the data structure to hold a perfect game of GO would easily fit on a DVD or CDROM. There are huge portions of the total possible moves that get deleted from the finished decision tree because they lead to defeat and can be avoided or are just silly and do not impact the outcome of the game. Any solution that doesn't end in victory or in worst case stalemate and is avoidable, will be deleted. It is possible that their might be solutions that lead to defeat that cannot be avoided but as soon as the computer realized it was in that scenario it would forfeit making the tree even smaller because the computer wouldn't need to know the moves once it reached that portion of the tree that it cannot win or stalemate. I doubt any human could beat any computer playing with such a tree, unless the human had memorized one of the scenarios, if any exist, from the tree that leads to human victory of which the computer could not avoid.
It would be like playing tic-tac-toe with a third grader. They think it is possible to win but even young players know that you can always force a stale mate and you can only win if someone does something stupid.
I have had talks with many people more intelligent than myself about doing this for the game of chess. They all believe that it is not possible to do with todays computing power. Chess is estimated to have around 10^153 possible moves. Though they all agreed with me that many of those moves could be removed from a final game play tree and that after creating and pruning the tree it is likely that any personal computer would be able to use it to play a perfect game. There would be very little processing to do in making any move. This is because the chess application would not need all 43, the average possible number of moves in a single turn, it would only need the one that is ranked the highest. This also shows another way the final tree for the game of chess would be reduce in size. Until a complete tree for all the possible moves, for the game of chess or GO (or any game), had been computed and stored nobody will know how long the final tree might be. Who knows by then you may be able to have play a perfect game of chess against on your cell phone or it may be too large to be practical.
I have created a decision tree for the game of tic-tac-toe, from my head (not computed), but I think everyone knows that one (lol).
It would be interesting to see if these kinds of problems could be solved using distributed computing over the Internet, like SETI does.
Nick Powers
When you take a step back into reality and notice that you can buy a full blown laptop from dell for less than what you can buy an iPhone it comes into focus what a big mistake Apple has made with this product.
So now they are actually showing that it IS in fact possible to develop full blown applications on this just makes everyone that has been screaming about the lack of a SDK gasp in disgust.
It's obvious that it's not a technical issue they just don't want the common person to be able to develop applications for the iPhone. They say it is because it's a smart phone and not a PDA but since it has more memory, processing power, connectivity, display, and input than my current Cingular 8125 PDA / phone by 100 fold that logic trail just doesn't hold water.
I love Apple and happily dumped my Windows desktop, laptop, etc for Apple and OS X. I am a total convert. I was a Mac bigot. Mainly because of the lack of a CLI but being a die hard UNIX user bash won me over heart and soul.
But, I'll keep my 8125 with WM5 (Windows Mobile 5) that I can install free, or low cost, applications on, or develop my own applications using several programming languages (LabView being my favorite).
People that are buying an iPhone these days must have money to blow without doing any practical research into what they are buying. It's locked down to AT&T (formerly Cingular), even though you get no discounts for committing to AT&T. Apple is only going to let select 3rd party developers write full blown applications that I am sure comes with tight strings and hefty licensing fees that will be passed onto the consumer. And no, I don't buy into that crap about Safari being an application platform. First of all if I had this phone this first thing I would want to do is to install Firefox to replace Safari. I use OS X everyday and I played with Safari long enough to know that it was even a worse browser than Internet Explorer; Yeah it's that bad.
Add to that the whole no warranty bonus and see how you feel about your $500 brick after the newness wears off and you start treating it like exactly what it is, a phone, and drop it on the kitchen floor and the parking lot a few times. I know many people that purchased the extended warranty on their iPod nano and are without music for 3 to 4 months of the year waiting for Apple to send them a new unit. That might be acceptable for an MP3 player being that music is not a necessity but now they have turned their MP3 player into a phone and made it were one cannot go a day without it.
I have never wanted for a product to fail more than this piece of crap in my life. I love Apple but this high dollar toy is a joke. The only thing I find more ignorant than this phone is the dumb asses buying it.
The only thing I think that would make me change my mind would be if they released a full public SDK for XCODE on OS X, removed the restrictions on rebates (so you could pick one up for $150 with a 2 year contract), and Steve Jobs publicly apologized for complete misunderstanding of the market.
I threw that last one in there because it has about as much chance of happening as the other 2.
One last note, did you know that if I liked the iPhone interface there are many sites that have skins and dialers available to run on my WM5 device that would make it behave identical to Apple's new Newton?
Steve, let's get real here! You have enough money why not buy yourself a CLUE?
Nick Powers
If it works and it was truly an artificial virus then you could have the third whammy in the side effect that it would be distributed through unsafe sex and sharing of needles.
:P
Talk about an effective delivery system. HIV would be wiped out quicker than it got started (pretty dang quick)!
But then I guess it would be hard to make money off of it. It really stinks how our society is driven by greed. Maybe I would change my mind on this if I was Oprah rich. Everyone PayPal me $5 towards making this happen
Nick Powers
I like this kind of medicine. It uses your own body as a donor I am sure your left eye wouldn't reject cells from your right. rejection is the major problem with transplants today (beyond demand surpassing supply).
:)
Now bring on the clones and grow me a new liver! I just bought a new bottle of Jim Beam!
Nick Powers
Since this is GPL then neither MS or Apple would dare touch it. If it was BSD then it might be possible that Apple might adopt it but they are not going to put something into their kernel that they don't own. The same goes for MS with the added difficulty of their operating system not being POSIX compliant.
This is why I am prefer BSD license over GPL. Though, I am sure the majority of the readers on here would disagree with me. Anytime I look at open software I always check if there is a BSD licensed equivalent as compared to GPL. Just in case I want to develop it into a commercial application and all. That way I don't have to distribute a license that passes rights onto the users. I can simply take the BSD license version make my modifications and slap a (C) on it. I know the GPL advocates would argue that is what makes GPL good, keeping people like me from doing just that but Apple and MS are people like me. That is why Darwin was derived from BSD not because they were so hot on the Mach kernel but because of it's license. If MS ever goes to a POSIX based UNIX type OS with a Windows GUI, just like Apple did, they would do the same thing but they wouldn't be nice enough to maintain an open source version like Apple has done with Darwin.
My 2 cents and change!
Nick Powers
Most people that buy laptops buy big 17" wide screen units and barely does it leave their desk, not to mention their home.
They use it as a replacement desktop and sometimes take it on a trip so they can use it on the flight.
I have both desktop(s) and a laptop. My laptop has a 12" screen and is very light. It is no powerhouse and would never perform well trying to play a game but I have always thought of a laptop as something that was meant to be portable and a quasi replacement for a desktop that was mobile. That is what I use mine for. Though I see more and more that I am in the minority. Most people are going for powerhouse laptops that would put my desktop(s) to shame. Though doing so at the expensive of the weight of their big portable desktops because when is the last time you saw one of the beasts in someone's lap? The heat would probably make you sterile!
So, I could see a future where the desktop is portable but not because it makes any sense but because that's what the majority wants. I could list all the reasons desktops are superior to laptops but I am sure many have already done so in this thread.
With that said I also must add that I am big into embedded computing and seeing that market develop and how powerful and compact those devices are getting I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't very long before people are making their own laptops. I know people doing this with PDAs right now.
I think there will always be a demand for desktops / workstations. I see the possibility of thin clients taking over before laptops kill the desktop market but I am forever the optimist.
Nick Powers
Now that would have been something!
Good luck, hope this leads to that otherwise I don't see the point.
Nick Powers