Anybody else notice that the 'helpful dog' in the article's screenshot has be resurrected into the default search helper for Windows XP? Now with animation and 3-D Rendering!
Apparently, there are some aspects that Microsoft is determined to keep alive; I guess you gotta have something for people to consider 'cute'.
Yes, google does load a lot of pages. It also has several thousand servers to do it for us.
Slashdot needs server space & the bandwidth for it as well.
All of it costs $$$. Lots of it. We know how much a cable/modem costs. Multiply that cost by several thousand, and you might get a clue how much SlashDot actually costs to run.
What did you expect? It seems that all of the "intellectuals" in America are either ignorant about history, or worse, know full well about what has happened in the past, and somehow delude themselves (And hence, much of America) into believing that "This time it'll be different. We've learned from this mistake" -- and then go and make the same mistake, the same way.
And what's worse, is an even larger number of people in America don't even bother to learn history, believing it to be completely irrelevant to their lives. So, they trust these people on TV (Whether some so-called intellectual, or the reporter) because they must know what they're talking about, they don't interview the clueless. So they are led like sheep-- straight into a mistake centuries old, known and documented.
I truly do pity people who somehow believe that 'humanity has evolved' since then. The only thing that's changed is the technology-- but people still do the same rotten things to each other, for the same reasons, and use the same sad excuses. (Kill your neighbor, terrorize the town, and claim it's 'god's will' that these things be done.)
No religion can claim to be exempt from this; saying that your deeds are "gods will" is as old as any concept of religion. And religion is not the only scapegoat used to hide behind.
Take "National Security" for example. Such things as an ID card may actually help; but at what cost?
And, finally, some forgotten massacres in history that many "intelectuals" choose to forget, ignore, and then eventually fight to allow in the name of peace:
13 Million Armenians: The Turks roughly during the peroid of World War I (Who still talks nowdays of the extermination of the Armenians? -- Adolf Hitler)
6 Million Jews, 6 Million additional "unwanted" others: Nazis during World War II.
Up to 40 Million (estimated): Stalin and Soviet Union's hospitality.
Between 32.25 and 61.7 million people --Mao Zedung (or whatever you spell it like) According to a 1971 report by the US Judiciary Comittee. (estimate started in 1949) Current estimates are higher.
8 Million Cambodians: 1975-1979. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. After the Vietnamese chased Pol Pot & Co. to Thailand, many western contries (Including the US, Canada, and Japan) supplied the thugs with food, shelter, and health care.
500,000 dead Hutus: Killed by the Tutsis starting during 1971 in Rwanda and Burundi. It took 15 years for anybody to give it much attention.
Croatia and Serbia -- No complete record exists.
Pacifists and intellectuals will gloss over these, and lie to try to convince you to join their cause. It's the same old story. It's happened before. It will happen again. Humanity has not evolved.
Just as some are trying to convince you that a National ID is a 'good thing', people have made very similar arguments for the massacres listed above.
Learn history for yourself, and do what you can to educate others. Please.
I never wanted to consider myself an audiophile, and yet I'm still concerned with how well my equipment reproduces the sound (At least whenever I am going to purchase something). I also listen to the 'equipment' in the form of the various compression codecs to determine which one sounds closer to the original before I go compressing the music I enjoy...
Can I at least say I'm not an audiophile because I'm not always doing this?!?
Considering that writing a virus could be considered terrorism, and prosecuted as suck, I don't know that this would be the best idea...
Although, I would certainly like the 10k Pounds...
(Now, if only I knew how to input the Pound symbol on my US keyboard...)
Linus has the RIGHT not to care.
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Quite frankly, Linus is writing code. He is contributing to Free Software.
The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.
Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.
Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.
Linus is coding, creating usable technology. It's HIS technology that acted as the catalyst in the Free Software world. Without Linux, GNU would still be a rather obscure name that many computer scientists don't even recognize. Sure, the GNU tools allowed Linux to start off sooner, but there was nothing special about the GNU tools at the time Linux was created -- save that it was free (gratuis), and our beloved Finn could afford them on a student's budget.
The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.
Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.
That, of course, depends on what your goals are; I would never sacrifice my efforts for a place of business-- unless doing so directly solved my own goals. Money, of course, is not a goal.
A few years back, I was seventeen and working as an IT manager - yes, manager. And, I worked whenever I wasn't in school.
I worked a lot of overtime hours - but for me, the goal was ca$h - college costs money, and I wanted to go. My parents can't help me out, and despite my grades and test scores, scholorships were lacking (due to my choice of major, my sex/ethnic background, and the trend towards diversity severely limiting offerings.)
So - I worked my tail off to earn money. And you know something? It paid off in a very big way - I learned every aspect of system administration - from the corporate UNIX machines to Macs, to PC's to dummy terminals; and what's more: This has given me a serious advantage now that I am in school, and am using software packages and tools that only exist for UNIX - I can finish my projects with ease, where others are bashing their heads in just to start the program!
There is a healthy attatchment - but only when it serves your personal interest directly. The hope for 'future recognition' is a useless endeavor.
In my experience those who live for and wait for the future do little more than waste their time waiting for it to happen.
Nothing is going to happen if you aren't working to your own goals first.
Actually, MS does have a stake and interest in OpenGL - from what I've read, not only are they part of the OpenGL ARB, but are also the only entity besides SGI that can liscence OpenGL.
Re:Borders in the Stellar Theme Park??
on
Tito In Space
·
· Score: 5
Station Alpha actually *WAS* designed with science in mind, as well as being a stepping stone to future misisons.
Anybody who aruges otherwise simply has no clue what it was designed for to begin with. Contrary to popular belief, Alpha was designed to house several lab modules- from the United States, Japan, Russia, and the ESA to name a few. The fact that they aren't in orbit yet is the only real argument that can be made.
I suppose it never occurs to many that a great many of the research projects in Alpha are related to human physiology, and how it reacts in space. Such as finding how to reduce or eliminate the loss of bone density while in space, microgravity orientation, heart and nervous system changes-
Not to mention the myriad of other technologies that are being put to the test - such as a VR robot that will take the place of a human spacewalk- extension of this technology, when fully developed, will allow remote sugery from anywhere in the world.
Air filtration, water purification, waste removal and disposal- also vital bits of science that Alpha is already experimenting with, and have very clear ramifications on earth- the time is not far off that it will be clean water that is more precious and sought after than oil. Being able to purify water from sewage at low cost is vital. Air filtration is already becoming an important issue in many metropolitan areas.
And, of course, there's launch costs - the single most expensive aspect of spaceflight. Dealing with Alpha requires the development of ever-more inexpensive methods of launching cargo into orbit.
And, lastly- whatever the environmentalists say about saving the Earth doesn't matter; even if all pollution was immediately stopped, mankind would be doomed in a few centuries anyway - humanity simply cannot support itself on the resources of Earth alone. Its population is already considered too large for the earth to support - and the human population is growing rapidply.
I find it unsettling that Slashdotters have the mentality of 'free or die' and 'bad, bad profit-mongers!' and still end up saying "You can't fund such a project unless you can be sure you will make a profit" - This amounts to arguing that the government should fund Microsoft's researchers, then letting Microsoft sell the results of the government sponsored research be sold, with exclusive rights going to MS.
It's a solid fact (US. Treasury statistic) that for each and every dollar spent on the space program - NASA, or otherwise, the government gets over seven dollars' worth of research, and actual worth in return, making the space program the most 'profitable' of anything any government has done.
Station Alpha is about serious work; some is done in space - the majority is done on Earth. There really is nothing political about Alpha, save that NASA has to convince several of the world's governments that it is a worthwhile effort. The fact that NASA launched and built most of the station is one reason why NASA gets so much of a say as to what happens there. Italy, for example, wants to add its own hab/science modules to Alpha - and if/when they do, they get rights to whatever happens in their module. The current state of Alpha is really no different; tito is allowed in the 'international' secions of the station, and not the modules considered 'US Owned.'
NASA's primary concern was always the timescale - it's just too dangerous, espescially with the current computer problems Alpha is having. It's also a rather well-documented case that the Russians have historically been far more cavalier about safety than the US is-- sometimes to the point of recklessness. Much of the conflict is NASA's safety policies clashing with Russia's.
MIR nearly killed its crew a great many times. NASA doesn't want to make the same mistakes, or have the same problems.
There is, of course, another example of prior art that is several years old as well.
Anybody ever see "Captain EO" at Disneyland? They also use surround light for some effects - strobe lights, etc. throught the entire theatre; not just the screen.
I doubt ther ewould be any leagal problems with people having seizures - there is enough flashing onscreen to trigger one; additional flashes would just increase the already present chance of triggering one.
Unfortunately, we're getting to the point that the actual speed of the transistor/gates is nearing the speed of the traces between the different gates. Simply having faster transistors won't help bring faster computers.
We've begun to reach the point where the distance between the gates is the limiting factor; the amount of time it takes a signal to traverse the distance between gates being the critical part.
Which is the biggest reason why the description, at least, is inaccurate. Faster transistors can help to a point - but by making the entire chip die smaller, and reducing the distance between the logic gates - that is where the speed gain is to be found.
I really don't think this is too big of a deal in many ways; the difference here seems to be that there is one large, centralized network of cameras. This in contrast to each department store, library, convenience store, etc having their own seperate camera system.
Were it a buisiness handling such a centralized system of surveylence, I would be terrified; the information would be sold to anybody ready to offer a few monetary units.
With a government controlling such a system, it is slightly less fearful, as the government usually doesn't exist to skin their citizens and take all their money; but rather to serve the people that it governs.
Americans are typically very distrustful of their government; I have not yet heard of an English or German version of the 'X-Files' (of course, I do have my head at a terminal, and not TV). Americans tend to not want anybody to know anything about them - unless they give their express permission.
Americans can be so paranoid as to believe that there is a secret hegemony that is really running things, and a similar camera system has been built into each TV for over 50 years. And the U.S. Government, which has been incapable of keeping nuclear secrets from China, hiding various political scandals, and of keeping units and measures straight (US/Imperial vs Metrics), is capable of hiding a conspiracy involving beings from another world.
The fact that most of these stories involve being heavily intoxicated before abduction, and forced human procreative activities during their absence seem to be more an excuse for sleeping with somebody when they were drunk.
From an American point of view, such a camera system is *Proof* that the government is 'out to get you'. Even if the benefits clearly outweigh the costs, there will always be mistrust and protests agsinst government survelience of any kind.
Personally, I've lived in a city where there are cameras everywhere - about every 50 m on each side of the street. I never found it bothersome in any way. Sure, a bored police officer can say 'hey, that man bought a Pepsi instead of his usual Coke!' - So what? If a corporation were to get hold of that data - say PepsiCo, then I would surely receive email/postal mail about Pepsi, and some ad executive would acclaim that the ad campaign must be working.
But it's called 'Generation Y' for a reason - the generation has seen so many advertisements before they leave elementary school- let alone are gainfully employed, that ads are always treated as a corporate boast.
With a government-operated system, the raw amount of data is so huge that it could take days before a criminal could be spotted and tracked to a particular location.
Facial recognition is currently poor at best: Why do you think high-security situations use fingerprint-scans or retinal scans -- even in an area that facial scan would prove sufficient? It's because facial recognition isn't that great.
Even handwriting recognition is only 95% accurate - and that is with a somewhat limited set of variability. But the human face? Waaay too much to process; it might work somewhat well if the search was limited to each state's 'most wanted' list, but would be an utter failure to track individual citizens.
The radio spectrum has been spread apart for various different uses; most often using some frequency ranges to fit a specific task that the frequency is suited for. Unlike most popular opinion, radio waves behave *very* differently at different wavelengths. What might be fine for TV and radio is near useless for networking. Some frequencies are line-of-sight only, while others follow the curve of the earth. Still others bounce off the ionosphere.
Most importantly - anything metallic can receive these radio transmissions. Nearly all of the leagal issues with starting a radio station have to do with being 100% sure that there is no interference with other frequencies/bands. The expertise required to achieve this is *so* far beyond what 'anyone' can do that nobody can start their own little station.
The laws on the books (In the U.S) state that any kind of transmitter has to meet certain criteria. For non-Ham/Ameteur radio operators, this includes that the transmitter must pass FCC certifications for the specific frequencies that the device uses. These devices cannot be modified or serviced in any way; if you want to change frequency, etc, you have to send the thing back to the factory. Home-built gear has to either operate on Ham frequencies, or be at such low power levels that the range is less than a few feet.
And even then, consumer goods can only use a very small wedge of the frequency - and the reasons are more than clear: The consumer radio spectrum is cluttered, unregulated, and very low power.
The high-power, high-range commercial frequencies (and the Ham frequencies) both require FCC licenced operators and equipment. (Although Hams get a huge amount of leeway as long as they use the Ham radio frequencies)
The idea of 'home' internet radio stations using wireless internet is crazy. The amount of regulation is too high, and is all-too necessary to actually have the idea work.
Besides: the broadcast TV/Radio bands are a *really* small part of the radio spectrum. If you want more radio/tv stations, try working on technologies to transmit the informatino in a smaller bandwidth.
Yes... radio bandwidth has to deal with both the frequency of the radio wave, as well as the amount of data it can carry. Want to have 100Mbps wireless ethernet? Fine... but it will take up a huge amount of frequency bandwidth to achieve that kind of data throughput.
People who don't understand just how difficult it is to get wireless technologies to work without interference of others shouldn't be advocating wireless at all.
There are much more Cable channels than broadcast... the reason is because there isn't enough bandwidth to carry the number of channels cable has over the airwaves.
Since when was DVD a 'Core' and 'Basic' thing?
on
OS X
·
· Score: 2
I realize that I'm a minority that actually watches DVD's on a computer...
But since WHEN was playing DVD's as much of a 'must have' feature as a HTML browser? Even Microsoft hasn't tried to claim that playing DVD movies is a core OS feature.
I know that Windows 2000, and supposedly XP support the ability of a user to use a remote terminal; enabling a user to run programs, etc. from a remote computer.
This is useful, of course. My question is this: As far as I'm aware, the Windows strategy is incompatible with X-Windows, with no sort of interoperability. I'm sure there are good reasons that this was done, but I still wonder: Why re-invent the wheel?
Of course, although 'Cold Fusion' did not seem to turn out to be any form of fusion, it is still a viable energy source, with small 'reactors' capable of creating 500 W of useful energy from water.
Now, the question is will we see the same thing with plastic superconductors? And even more important: What temperature do they have to be to superconduct?
Slashdot Mirror
Still sounds like Stef's special code classes to me...
Anybody else notice that the 'helpful dog' in the article's screenshot has be resurrected into the default search helper for Windows XP? Now with animation and 3-D Rendering!
Apparently, there are some aspects that Microsoft is determined to keep alive; I guess you gotta have something for people to consider 'cute'.
Yes, google does load a lot of pages. It also has several thousand servers to do it for us.
Slashdot needs server space & the bandwidth for it as well.
All of it costs $$$. Lots of it. We know how much a cable/modem costs. Multiply that cost by several thousand, and you might get a clue how much SlashDot actually costs to run.
And, GNU EMACS is also the version of EMACS which Linus has dubbed 'evil'.
What did you expect? It seems that all of the "intellectuals" in America are either ignorant about history, or worse, know full well about what has happened in the past, and somehow delude themselves (And hence, much of America) into believing that "This time it'll be different. We've learned from this mistake" -- and then go and make the same mistake, the same way.
And what's worse, is an even larger number of people in America don't even bother to learn history, believing it to be completely irrelevant to their lives. So, they trust these people on TV (Whether some so-called intellectual, or the reporter) because they must know what they're talking about, they don't interview the clueless. So they are led like sheep-- straight into a mistake centuries old, known and documented.
I truly do pity people who somehow believe that 'humanity has evolved' since then. The only thing that's changed is the technology-- but people still do the same rotten things to each other, for the same reasons, and use the same sad excuses. (Kill your neighbor, terrorize the town, and claim it's 'god's will' that these things be done.)
No religion can claim to be exempt from this; saying that your deeds are "gods will" is as old as any concept of religion. And religion is not the only scapegoat used to hide behind.
Take "National Security" for example. Such things as an ID card may actually help; but at what cost?
And, finally, some forgotten massacres in history that many "intelectuals" choose to forget, ignore, and then eventually fight to allow in the name of peace:
13 Million Armenians: The Turks roughly during the peroid of World War I (Who still talks nowdays of the extermination of the Armenians? -- Adolf Hitler)
6 Million Jews, 6 Million additional "unwanted" others: Nazis during World War II.
Up to 40 Million (estimated): Stalin and Soviet Union's hospitality.
Between 32.25 and 61.7 million people --Mao Zedung (or whatever you spell it like) According to a 1971 report by the US Judiciary Comittee. (estimate started in 1949) Current estimates are higher.
8 Million Cambodians: 1975-1979. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. After the Vietnamese chased Pol Pot & Co. to Thailand, many western contries (Including the US, Canada, and Japan) supplied the thugs with food, shelter, and health care.
500,000 dead Hutus: Killed by the Tutsis starting during 1971 in Rwanda and Burundi. It took 15 years for anybody to give it much attention.
Croatia and Serbia -- No complete record exists.
Pacifists and intellectuals will gloss over these, and lie to try to convince you to join their cause. It's the same old story. It's happened before. It will happen again. Humanity has not evolved.
Just as some are trying to convince you that a National ID is a 'good thing', people have made very similar arguments for the massacres listed above.
Learn history for yourself, and do what you can to educate others. Please.
Then I'm doomed.
I never wanted to consider myself an audiophile, and yet I'm still concerned with how well my equipment reproduces the sound (At least whenever I am going to purchase something). I also listen to the 'equipment' in the form of the various compression codecs to determine which one sounds closer to the original before I go compressing the music I enjoy...
Can I at least say I'm not an audiophile because I'm not always doing this?!?
Please!?!
Considering that writing a virus could be considered terrorism, and prosecuted as suck, I don't know that this would be the best idea...
Although, I would certainly like the 10k Pounds...
(Now, if only I knew how to input the Pound symbol on my US keyboard...)
Quite frankly, Linus is writing code. He is contributing to Free Software.
The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.
Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.
Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.
Linus is coding, creating usable technology. It's HIS technology that acted as the catalyst in the Free Software world. Without Linux, GNU would still be a rather obscure name that many computer scientists don't even recognize. Sure, the GNU tools allowed Linux to start off sooner, but there was nothing special about the GNU tools at the time Linux was created -- save that it was free (gratuis), and our beloved Finn could afford them on a student's budget.
The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.
Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.
Make sure you also send the URL or full text of the newsforge article - including author, to your representative.
And, maybe write the editors of other more 'mainstream' media, like ZDnet, the NY Times, etc.
I can see the point, but why bother if we can't even get the courts to recognize the artistry involved in writing software?
An architect can get rights on his design as free speech, and artistic expression.
Software designers get no such credit.
That, of course, depends on what your goals are; I would never sacrifice my efforts for a place of business-- unless doing so directly solved my own goals. Money, of course, is not a goal.
A few years back, I was seventeen and working as an IT manager - yes, manager. And, I worked whenever I wasn't in school.
I worked a lot of overtime hours - but for me, the goal was ca$h - college costs money, and I wanted to go. My parents can't help me out, and despite my grades and test scores, scholorships were lacking (due to my choice of major, my sex/ethnic background, and the trend towards diversity severely limiting offerings.)
So - I worked my tail off to earn money. And you know something? It paid off in a very big way - I learned every aspect of system administration - from the corporate UNIX machines to Macs, to PC's to dummy terminals; and what's more: This has given me a serious advantage now that I am in school, and am using software packages and tools that only exist for UNIX - I can finish my projects with ease, where others are bashing their heads in just to start the program!
There is a healthy attatchment - but only when it serves your personal interest directly. The hope for 'future recognition' is a useless endeavor.
In my experience those who live for and wait for the future do little more than waste their time waiting for it to happen.
Nothing is going to happen if you aren't working to your own goals first.
Actually, MS does have a stake and interest in OpenGL - from what I've read, not only are they part of the OpenGL ARB, but are also the only entity besides SGI that can liscence OpenGL.
Station Alpha actually *WAS* designed with science in mind, as well as being a stepping stone to future misisons.
Anybody who aruges otherwise simply has no clue what it was designed for to begin with. Contrary to popular belief, Alpha was designed to house several lab modules- from the United States, Japan, Russia, and the ESA to name a few. The fact that they aren't in orbit yet is the only real argument that can be made.
I suppose it never occurs to many that a great many of the research projects in Alpha are related to human physiology, and how it reacts in space. Such as finding how to reduce or eliminate the loss of bone density while in space, microgravity orientation, heart and nervous system changes-
Not to mention the myriad of other technologies that are being put to the test - such as a VR robot that will take the place of a human spacewalk- extension of this technology, when fully developed, will allow remote sugery from anywhere in the world.
Air filtration, water purification, waste removal and disposal- also vital bits of science that Alpha is already experimenting with, and have very clear ramifications on earth- the time is not far off that it will be clean water that is more precious and sought after than oil. Being able to purify water from sewage at low cost is vital. Air filtration is already becoming an important issue in many metropolitan areas.
And, of course, there's launch costs - the single most expensive aspect of spaceflight. Dealing with Alpha requires the development of ever-more inexpensive methods of launching cargo into orbit.
And, lastly- whatever the environmentalists say about saving the Earth doesn't matter; even if all pollution was immediately stopped, mankind would be doomed in a few centuries anyway - humanity simply cannot support itself on the resources of Earth alone. Its population is already considered too large for the earth to support - and the human population is growing rapidply.
I find it unsettling that Slashdotters have the mentality of 'free or die' and 'bad, bad profit-mongers!' and still end up saying "You can't fund such a project unless you can be sure you will make a profit" - This amounts to arguing that the government should fund Microsoft's researchers, then letting Microsoft sell the results of the government sponsored research be sold, with exclusive rights going to MS.
It's a solid fact (US. Treasury statistic) that for each and every dollar spent on the space program - NASA, or otherwise, the government gets over seven dollars' worth of research, and actual worth in return, making the space program the most 'profitable' of anything any government has done.
Station Alpha is about serious work; some is done in space - the majority is done on Earth. There really is nothing political about Alpha, save that NASA has to convince several of the world's governments that it is a worthwhile effort. The fact that NASA launched and built most of the station is one reason why NASA gets so much of a say as to what happens there. Italy, for example, wants to add its own hab/science modules to Alpha - and if/when they do, they get rights to whatever happens in their module. The current state of Alpha is really no different; tito is allowed in the 'international' secions of the station, and not the modules considered 'US Owned.'
NASA's primary concern was always the timescale - it's just too dangerous, espescially with the current computer problems Alpha is having. It's also a rather well-documented case that the Russians have historically been far more cavalier about safety than the US is-- sometimes to the point of recklessness. Much of the conflict is NASA's safety policies clashing with Russia's.
MIR nearly killed its crew a great many times. NASA doesn't want to make the same mistakes, or have the same problems.
There is, of course, another example of prior art that is several years old as well.
Anybody ever see "Captain EO" at Disneyland? They also use surround light for some effects - strobe lights, etc. throught the entire theatre; not just the screen.
I doubt ther ewould be any leagal problems with people having seizures - there is enough flashing onscreen to trigger one; additional flashes would just increase the already present chance of triggering one.
Unfortunately, we're getting to the point that the actual speed of the transistor/gates is nearing the speed of the traces between the different gates. Simply having faster transistors won't help bring faster computers.
We've begun to reach the point where the distance between the gates is the limiting factor; the amount of time it takes a signal to traverse the distance between gates being the critical part.
Which is the biggest reason why the description, at least, is inaccurate. Faster transistors can help to a point - but by making the entire chip die smaller, and reducing the distance between the logic gates - that is where the speed gain is to be found.
I really don't think this is too big of a deal in many ways; the difference here seems to be that there is one large, centralized network of cameras. This in contrast to each department store, library, convenience store, etc having their own seperate camera system.
Were it a buisiness handling such a centralized system of surveylence, I would be terrified; the information would be sold to anybody ready to offer a few monetary units.
With a government controlling such a system, it is slightly less fearful, as the government usually doesn't exist to skin their citizens and take all their money; but rather to serve the people that it governs.
Americans are typically very distrustful of their government; I have not yet heard of an English or German version of the 'X-Files' (of course, I do have my head at a terminal, and not TV). Americans tend to not want anybody to know anything about them - unless they give their express permission.
Americans can be so paranoid as to believe that there is a secret hegemony that is really running things, and a similar camera system has been built into each TV for over 50 years. And the U.S. Government, which has been incapable of keeping nuclear secrets from China, hiding various political scandals, and of keeping units and measures straight (US/Imperial vs Metrics), is capable of hiding a conspiracy involving beings from another world.
The fact that most of these stories involve being heavily intoxicated before abduction, and forced human procreative activities during their absence seem to be more an excuse for sleeping with somebody when they were drunk.
From an American point of view, such a camera system is *Proof* that the government is 'out to get you'. Even if the benefits clearly outweigh the costs, there will always be mistrust and protests agsinst government survelience of any kind.
Personally, I've lived in a city where there are cameras everywhere - about every 50 m on each side of the street. I never found it bothersome in any way. Sure, a bored police officer can say 'hey, that man bought a Pepsi instead of his usual Coke!' - So what? If a corporation were to get hold of that data - say PepsiCo, then I would surely receive email/postal mail about Pepsi, and some ad executive would acclaim that the ad campaign must be working.
But it's called 'Generation Y' for a reason - the generation has seen so many advertisements before they leave elementary school- let alone are gainfully employed, that ads are always treated as a corporate boast.
With a government-operated system, the raw amount of data is so huge that it could take days before a criminal could be spotted and tracked to a particular location.
Facial recognition is currently poor at best: Why do you think high-security situations use fingerprint-scans or retinal scans -- even in an area that facial scan would prove sufficient? It's because facial recognition isn't that great.
Even handwriting recognition is only 95% accurate - and that is with a somewhat limited set of variability. But the human face? Waaay too much to process; it might work somewhat well if the search was limited to each state's 'most wanted' list, but would be an utter failure to track individual citizens.
It's not a matter of technical limitations.
It's all leagal.
The radio spectrum has been spread apart for various different uses; most often using some frequency ranges to fit a specific task that the frequency is suited for. Unlike most popular opinion, radio waves behave *very* differently at different wavelengths. What might be fine for TV and radio is near useless for networking. Some frequencies are line-of-sight only, while others follow the curve of the earth. Still others bounce off the ionosphere.
Most importantly - anything metallic can receive these radio transmissions. Nearly all of the leagal issues with starting a radio station have to do with being 100% sure that there is no interference with other frequencies/bands. The expertise required to achieve this is *so* far beyond what 'anyone' can do that nobody can start their own little station.
The laws on the books (In the U.S) state that any kind of transmitter has to meet certain criteria. For non-Ham/Ameteur radio operators, this includes that the transmitter must pass FCC certifications for the specific frequencies that the device uses. These devices cannot be modified or serviced in any way; if you want to change frequency, etc, you have to send the thing back to the factory. Home-built gear has to either operate on Ham frequencies, or be at such low power levels that the range is less than a few feet.
And even then, consumer goods can only use a very small wedge of the frequency - and the reasons are more than clear: The consumer radio spectrum is cluttered, unregulated, and very low power.
The high-power, high-range commercial frequencies (and the Ham frequencies) both require FCC licenced operators and equipment. (Although Hams get a huge amount of leeway as long as they use the Ham radio frequencies)
The idea of 'home' internet radio stations using wireless internet is crazy. The amount of regulation is too high, and is all-too necessary to actually have the idea work.
Besides: the broadcast TV/Radio bands are a *really* small part of the radio spectrum. If you want more radio/tv stations, try working on technologies to transmit the informatino in a smaller bandwidth.
Yes... radio bandwidth has to deal with both the frequency of the radio wave, as well as the amount of data it can carry. Want to have 100Mbps wireless ethernet? Fine... but it will take up a huge amount of frequency bandwidth to achieve that kind of data throughput.
People who don't understand just how difficult it is to get wireless technologies to work without interference of others shouldn't be advocating wireless at all.
There are much more Cable channels than broadcast... the reason is because there isn't enough bandwidth to carry the number of channels cable has over the airwaves.
Unfortunately most force-feedback sticks/paddles use I-Logic's I-Force protocol.
Which is patented, closed, and not for release.
So they propose it in the ATA standard...
Another excellent reason to plug for SCSI here...
I realize that I'm a minority that actually watches DVD's on a computer... But since WHEN was playing DVD's as much of a 'must have' feature as a HTML browser? Even Microsoft hasn't tried to claim that playing DVD movies is a core OS feature.
OpenAL is not a graphics library, as you suggest. It is a 3D Sound library/API, similar in purpose to DirectSound 3D and EAX.
I know that Windows 2000, and supposedly XP support the ability of a user to use a remote terminal; enabling a user to run programs, etc. from a remote computer.
This is useful, of course. My question is this: As far as I'm aware, the Windows strategy is incompatible with X-Windows, with no sort of interoperability. I'm sure there are good reasons that this was done, but I still wonder: Why re-invent the wheel?
Oh sure, paint yourself into a corner...
Does that make Tron evil?
Of course, although 'Cold Fusion' did not seem to turn out to be any form of fusion, it is still a viable energy source, with small 'reactors' capable of creating 500 W of useful energy from water.
Now, the question is will we see the same thing with plastic superconductors? And even more important: What temperature do they have to be to superconduct?