Ethan Miller, professor of computer science at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says that plastic memory might be incorporated into e-paper. "Suppose you have a sheet with memory and a pressure sensor underneath it--you could write something and store the data, without a scanner," he says.
Yes, this is very cool. I owned the analog versions some years back:
Now, if you think I'm taking a cheap shot - I'm not. The magic tablet and carbon paper technologies were quite significant and did shape our communications - they both broadened the writing medium.
This, now, like the things above, possibly becoming cheap enough for ubiquitous use, could have the same effect.
So - this is one case where "neener neener neener, we had that before" isn't an inaccurate catcall - it's really to say, "neener neener neener, we had that before - and we told everyone we would need it again!"
I for one hope that this doesn't become more forgotten vaporware.
Yes, many thanks. However - in the show they did make a rather large point of exploiting the force demonstrated at Harvard using quantum particle creation / dissipation in a vacuum as (somehow) the basis for that drive. That was my point of confusion and crossover, as it seemed the same root as that described in the paper. Again, many thanks for the help.
Prof Kaku has a show on the Science Channel called Sci-Fi Science. I saw the episode this week on how to build a working warp drive. Based on negative energy paper by researcher from Mexico's top university (sorry, can't remember name of prestigious institution or researcher) - sure sounds like the same sort of thing from TFA.
Apologies if it's just Friday thinking and the TV show and this new article aren't related - but I think they are.
I turned 25 after the introduction of no-fault insurance - that actually did lower my rates - in one state. I moved to a fault state - rates went up - then they adopted "no fault" - had no similarity whatsoever to the true no-fault goodness I'd gotten elsewhere - and they upped rates again. That was between 19 and 25 for me.
It varies by generation and state as well, I suppose. When I was 25, I was promised reductions when I turned 40. When I turned 40, the "new" data came out - bye bye reduction.
No, I've been driving for close to 40 years - and have usually maintained zero points (had at most whatever a stop sign in a residential zone got me) and very few new cars (2). And I'm not a total idiot at buying insurance. Maybe with your record and less experience over time, you've saved money when backing away from probation and so forth.
If you're a lifelong safe driver, the rates do not steadily decrease to reward your great driving - despite the commercials.
Oh no - you work for a living - let's check that odometer - more miles to more work=higher risk=higher premiums. More experience with any trouble=you're overdue and you're high risk, especially _given_ that your reaction time _will simply lower_ as you get past 40 years old.
In fact it states that this new service is for all users with all operating systems. So while indeed 99% of all users run Microsoft, niche systems like Linux and Mac will be helped too.
I like the way you think.
It's very different from the support centers that I call with hardware problems - like when an update bricked my router - that suggested I:
a) re-install Linux to fix the problem, alternately, b) don't use a Mac, because they don't do REAL networking, c) if I were only using Windows, I wouldn't be having this problem,
and my favorite -
d) I must be lying because no one has three operating systems in their house - and if I do, then maybe that's what bricked my router.
But - as I said, I like the way you think, and I wish them many good lucks with this endeavor.
The ISPs should be free to charge end users rates based on the OS the end user is doing.
Are you completely insane? (And I'm asking that in the friendliest voice.)
Do you have any idea just how quickly that would turn into unprovable organized crime?
Because after all, this scenario could happen very quickly: OS Company A goes to the ISP X, and cites incentives, rebates or outright kickbacks for lower rates for OS A - while OS B and OS C are surcharged. An especially effective scenario if OS Company A just happens to be the one with the most trouble - and the most cash to throw around to shore up market share.
And OS Company A even helps the ISP with metrics to show that they're product is better / safer - whether it is or not. Example - 80% of all of one ISP's malware troubles come from OS A. (In the pretend-reality of my example, it could be coming from a handful of lost souls). But - OS A has a 90% market share - so it's mal-rate of 80% being less than the market penetration of 90% makes it.... better.
And how would OS B or C make up for the other 20% of hits? OS A would simply have to put a purposefully-infected - heavily infected - OS B or OS C machine on that ISP's net - and the lie with statistics is complete.
Like insurance rates for different drivers of different cars as end users present threats to the net based on their OS and experience the rates charged to support a malware elimination office should depend on what is being connected.
You get much better insurance than I do. In the USA, they tell us that that's what the rates are based on - but in reality, nothing I drive never ends up with an insurance reduction.
They take you for every nickel that they can imagine ways to justify and get from you.
Given that the FCC already has their ham fist all over the market, I don't know why you would shudder when someone insists that they actually do a good job of regulating.
I shudder at the idea that regulating is being postulated as if special interests will NOT prevent a good job from being done.
I'm all for good regulation - but after seeing some of the shenanigans with the DTV transition, I'm simply highly skeptical.
Regulation is a two-edged sword. Just as it can ideally enforce standards - it can hamper innovation when taken to lowest common denominators.
"I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet."
I'm neither trolling nor taking cheap shots here.
TFS is right if the implication is that things only change from market forces or regulatory ones.
Market forces are held back when there are few choices - such as that faced by a large number of TV consumers that can't get decent over-the-air (OTA) reception - or their favorite shows via OTA. For many people, it's a take it or leave it option for cable OR satellite.
Now enter streaming video. Market forces - especially among/.'rs - might well prefer that - but then, we hit the take-it-or-leave-it ISP download options - and in many markets, the tech is apparently running well behind the demand due to payoff (return on investment?) considerations for the various network providers.
Now - add in TV and ISP interests and hope for regulatory salvation. While laudable theoretically, it's a formula for even more special interest lobbying.
FWIW - note that cable companies seem to successfully lobby many states for an added tax on satellite TV, as one example of infighting hitting the consumers.
Don't forget the ever-present MPAA and programming conglomerates for cable / satellite - they want the cable feeds to be hard to copy, or circumvent.
Like it or not - cable or sat can with present tech deliver a LOT of programming in their respective pipes - streaming is not ready to fully compete in terms of delivery systems, DRM that the industry will allow, and ease of use for the consumers.
I, for one, do not see a viable solution to this situation.
First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.
'Too cerebral' allows the network to break it off without hurting the feelings of the fans or the producers.
Seriously - you believe the phrase "it's not you, it's me" ever spared anyone's feelings? It's always sounded like the most sarcastic form of "it's not me, it's you" - a point grasped much earlier in the conversation.
Or that at the admonition that the Cage was "too cerebral" was met with any phrase besides "what the fuck....?"
I do appreciate you're explaining the motivation for those phrases, though - no sarcasm, no kidding. Prior to this, I simply attributed their use to stupid people.
Maybe if it does not turn out well the pilot and I can just be friends.
Well, if that happens, at least the pilot won't be the kind of friend that stopped sleeping with you and had already bad-mouthed you to anyone you did want to sleep with.
And - isn't that what TV is really all about? (rotfl)
Well, I thought the discussion was in fact limited to the post-WWII period.
However - the confusion between flashy and technology is yours alone.
The Hittites - the iron sword, the Egyptians - the chariot, the Greeks - the Spartan shield and triremes, the Romans - the ballista - and I could go on.
Technology has always advanced war.
And if you think that the invention of the tank wasn't significant to winning wars, then you're blind to the history of the end of WWI and Germany's successful invasions at the onset of WWII.
I appreciate you're correcting my knowledge - on matters that were not addressed and not on-topic.
Yes - the large number of Soviet tanks was exactly what drove the development of the Abrams - the idea being that superior stand-off attack was the only answer to larger numbers.
In fact, that happens to be the two popular technological approaches to war - large numbers of less expensive, less capable systems vs. smaller numbers of more expensive, more advanced systems.
So, you're either missing the point that the discussion is about _levels_ of technology - or you're considering the mass-number approach to be a technological _level_ - and it's not, it's a technological approach to offset level superiority.
And before you jump too quickly, here's the short version - my thesis is that the _level_ of Soviet technology was often much higher than what they were credited for.
Jeez, give it a rest. Mine was a point response to a point question without a need to respond to who's brother can beat up who's brother.
Because a big helicopter fleet and or tank fleet supporting sufficient infantry can take out the missile launching backpackers - oh yeah, well a tactical nuke can take out those guys - oh yeah, well mass drivers moving asteroids and sending them to the right spot can take out the nuke forces - oh yeah, well photon torpedos can take out the orbital mass drivers...
My reply for technology circa pre-1968 - and we didn't do a lot of laser guided weapons then.
And if you'd gone further back, you'd find that the Israelis did not lose that war in 1973 - and the end result was effected with Israeli tanks.
The only thing that you accomplished was to support my original thesis - that the Soviet technology was better than the person to whom I was responding gave them credit for.
Slashdot Mirror
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
Eggggselent.
From TFA:
Ethan Miller, professor of computer science at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says that plastic memory might be incorporated into e-paper. "Suppose you have a sheet with memory and a pressure sensor underneath it--you could write something and store the data, without a scanner," he says.
Yes, this is very cool. I owned the analog versions some years back:
http://elab.eserver.org/hfl0257.html
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_paper
Now, if you think I'm taking a cheap shot - I'm not. The magic tablet and carbon paper technologies were quite significant and did shape our communications - they both broadened the writing medium.
This, now, like the things above, possibly becoming cheap enough for ubiquitous use, could have the same effect.
So - this is one case where "neener neener neener, we had that before" isn't an inaccurate catcall - it's really to say, "neener neener neener, we had that before - and we told everyone we would need it again!"
I for one hope that this doesn't become more forgotten vaporware.
Yes, many thanks. However - in the show they did make a rather large point of exploiting the force demonstrated at Harvard using quantum particle creation / dissipation in a vacuum as (somehow) the basis for that drive. That was my point of confusion and crossover, as it seemed the same root as that described in the paper. Again, many thanks for the help.
Dean drive?
Dean ... Venture?
Prof Kaku has a show on the Science Channel called Sci-Fi Science. I saw the episode this week on how to build a working warp drive. Based on negative energy paper by researcher from Mexico's top university (sorry, can't remember name of prestigious institution or researcher) - sure sounds like the same sort of thing from TFA.
Apologies if it's just Friday thinking and the TV show and this new article aren't related - but I think they are.
I turned 25 after the introduction of no-fault insurance - that actually did lower my rates - in one state. I moved to a fault state - rates went up - then they adopted "no fault" - had no similarity whatsoever to the true no-fault goodness I'd gotten elsewhere - and they upped rates again. That was between 19 and 25 for me.
It varies by generation and state as well, I suppose. When I was 25, I was promised reductions when I turned 40. When I turned 40, the "new" data came out - bye bye reduction.
Actually, that was supposed to say that reaction time will increase. See? I just proved their case. :-P
No, I've been driving for close to 40 years - and have usually maintained zero points (had at most whatever a stop sign in a residential zone got me) and very few new cars (2). And I'm not a total idiot at buying insurance. Maybe with your record and less experience over time, you've saved money when backing away from probation and so forth.
If you're a lifelong safe driver, the rates do not steadily decrease to reward your great driving - despite the commercials.
Oh no - you work for a living - let's check that odometer - more miles to more work=higher risk=higher premiums. More experience with any trouble=you're overdue and you're high risk, especially _given_ that your reaction time _will simply lower_ as you get past 40 years old.
They get you coming and going.
In fact it states that this new service is for all users with all operating systems. So while indeed 99% of all users run Microsoft, niche systems like Linux and Mac will be helped too.
I like the way you think.
It's very different from the support centers that I call with hardware problems - like when an update bricked my router - that suggested I:
a) re-install Linux to fix the problem,
alternately, b) don't use a Mac, because they don't do REAL networking,
c) if I were only using Windows, I wouldn't be having this problem,
and my favorite -
d) I must be lying because no one has three operating systems in their house - and if I do, then maybe that's what bricked my router.
But - as I said, I like the way you think, and I wish them many good lucks with this endeavor.
The ISPs should be free to charge end users rates based on the OS the end user is doing.
Are you completely insane? (And I'm asking that in the friendliest voice.)
Do you have any idea just how quickly that would turn into unprovable organized crime?
Because after all, this scenario could happen very quickly: OS Company A goes to the ISP X, and cites incentives, rebates or outright kickbacks for lower rates for OS A - while OS B and OS C are surcharged. An especially effective scenario if OS Company A just happens to be the one with the most trouble - and the most cash to throw around to shore up market share.
And OS Company A even helps the ISP with metrics to show that they're product is better / safer - whether it is or not. Example - 80% of all of one ISP's malware troubles come from OS A. (In the pretend-reality of my example, it could be coming from a handful of lost souls). But - OS A has a 90% market share - so it's mal-rate of 80% being less than the market penetration of 90% makes it .... better.
And how would OS B or C make up for the other 20% of hits? OS A would simply have to put a purposefully-infected - heavily infected - OS B or OS C machine on that ISP's net - and the lie with statistics is complete.
Like insurance rates for different drivers of different cars as end users present threats to the net based on their OS and experience the rates charged to support a malware elimination office should depend on what is being connected.
You get much better insurance than I do. In the USA, they tell us that that's what the rates are based on - but in reality, nothing I drive never ends up with an insurance reduction.
They take you for every nickel that they can imagine ways to justify and get from you.
Given that the FCC already has their ham fist all over the market, I don't know why you would shudder when someone insists that they actually do a good job of regulating.
I shudder at the idea that regulating is being postulated as if special interests will NOT prevent a good job from being done.
I'm all for good regulation - but after seeing some of the shenanigans with the DTV transition, I'm simply highly skeptical.
Regulation is a two-edged sword. Just as it can ideally enforce standards - it can hamper innovation when taken to lowest common denominators.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
"I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet."
I'm neither trolling nor taking cheap shots here.
TFS is right if the implication is that things only change from market forces or regulatory ones.
Market forces are held back when there are few choices - such as that faced by a large number of TV consumers that can't get decent over-the-air (OTA) reception - or their favorite shows via OTA. For many people, it's a take it or leave it option for cable OR satellite.
Now enter streaming video. Market forces - especially among /.'rs - might well prefer that - but then, we hit the take-it-or-leave-it ISP download options - and in many markets, the tech is apparently running well behind the demand due to payoff (return on investment?) considerations for the various network providers.
Now - add in TV and ISP interests and hope for regulatory salvation. While laudable theoretically, it's a formula for even more special interest lobbying.
FWIW - note that cable companies seem to successfully lobby many states for an added tax on satellite TV, as one example of infighting hitting the consumers.
Don't forget the ever-present MPAA and programming conglomerates for cable / satellite - they want the cable feeds to be hard to copy, or circumvent.
Like it or not - cable or sat can with present tech deliver a LOT of programming in their respective pipes - streaming is not ready to fully compete in terms of delivery systems, DRM that the industry will allow, and ease of use for the consumers.
I, for one, do not see a viable solution to this situation.
But - I shudder at the word "regulatory."
Now that they've cut the head off the Hydra, life should be good.
One hit, one miss, so that's a batting average of 500 for the courts.
I'd give them a 750 if they let the 1.1 guy off for time served by virtue of effort - at 19, he is - by definition - thinking of the children.
Thanks. I was missing the point. I think I've got it now.
I do a lot of business deals, high money - just don't see the need for this nit-nit-nit-nit.
But, maybe that's just me.
First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.
'Too cerebral' allows the network to break it off without hurting the feelings of the fans or the producers.
Seriously - you believe the phrase "it's not you, it's me" ever spared anyone's feelings? It's always sounded like the most sarcastic form of "it's not me, it's you" - a point grasped much earlier in the conversation.
Or that at the admonition that the Cage was "too cerebral" was met with any phrase besides "what the fuck....?"
I do appreciate you're explaining the motivation for those phrases, though - no sarcasm, no kidding. Prior to this, I simply attributed their use to stupid people.
Maybe if it does not turn out well the pilot and I can just be friends.
Well, if that happens, at least the pilot won't be the kind of friend that stopped sleeping with you and had already bad-mouthed you to anyone you did want to sleep with.
And - isn't that what TV is really all about? (rotfl)
Cheers.
Doh - I've duplicated info posted an hour earlier - this is what happens when you start to post and then stop to watch stuff!!!
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444120&cid=30105058
If you're a fan of the ST TOS, go look at the embedded clip in the TFA - you've seen this episode.
As one commenter at the TFA stated: "Different music, graphics, some additional dialogue."
It was a great episode - Sally Kellerman (babe alert) and Gary Lockwood - where the eyes turn silver and mental powers abound.
http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/star-trek-the-original-series/3461344488-star-trek-where-no-man-has-gone-before
Season 1, episode 3.
See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_No_Man_Has_Gone_Before
So - that was the alternate pilot. I did not know that. Very cool.
I mention all this for those us not on the Blu-ray bandwagon who will have to wait for this one.
Well, I thought the discussion was in fact limited to the post-WWII period.
However - the confusion between flashy and technology is yours alone.
The Hittites - the iron sword, the Egyptians - the chariot, the Greeks - the Spartan shield and triremes, the Romans - the ballista - and I could go on.
Technology has always advanced war.
And if you think that the invention of the tank wasn't significant to winning wars, then you're blind to the history of the end of WWI and Germany's successful invasions at the onset of WWII.
I appreciate you're correcting my knowledge - on matters that were not addressed and not on-topic.
Your mind reading skills are indeed substantial.
Hey, we're all in this together - cheers.
K, I'm whoa'd. Misread you, sorry.
Yes - the large number of Soviet tanks was exactly what drove the development of the Abrams - the idea being that superior stand-off attack was the only answer to larger numbers.
In fact, that happens to be the two popular technological approaches to war - large numbers of less expensive, less capable systems vs. smaller numbers of more expensive, more advanced systems.
So, you're either missing the point that the discussion is about _levels_ of technology - or you're considering the mass-number approach to be a technological _level_ - and it's not, it's a technological approach to offset level superiority.
And before you jump too quickly, here's the short version - my thesis is that the _level_ of Soviet technology was often much higher than what they were credited for.
Seriously? You really think it's a wee bit early to attack the idea that the US will be of no consequence within two decades?
The Roman Empire, as I mentioned it, was in comparison to our stated decline and decadence in the 70s.
I never said - nor even got in the neighbor of saying - or predicting - how long the US would endure. All I said was that I question less than 20.
If you're gonna snipe, pick words, concepts or sentiments that I actually express as a target.
Jeez, give it a rest. Mine was a point response to a point question without a need to respond to who's brother can beat up who's brother.
Because a big helicopter fleet and or tank fleet supporting sufficient infantry can take out the missile launching backpackers - oh yeah, well a tactical nuke can take out those guys - oh yeah, well mass drivers moving asteroids and sending them to the right spot can take out the nuke forces - oh yeah, well photon torpedos can take out the orbital mass drivers...
My reply for technology circa pre-1968 - and we didn't do a lot of laser guided weapons then.
And if you'd gone further back, you'd find that the Israelis did not lose that war in 1973 - and the end result was effected with Israeli tanks.
The only thing that you accomplished was to support my original thesis - that the Soviet technology was better than the person to whom I was responding gave them credit for.
Happy now?