If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??
probably not:)
Actually, if you put any stock in space-time diagrams, relativity, or pretty much any other current theory of how things work, then yes, a signal travelling faster than light will travel backwards in time. Anyway...
About your rigid pole question. The other answers I read seemed to dodge the question, saying that the pole would not be infinitely rigid. They didn't say why, however: A pole of infinite rigidity would require infinite energy to create, and thus could not exist. That's the theory, anyway.
Clearly you've missed my point entirely. While I don't have the time to go in-depth, I will mention a few things:
So keep on using your hopelessly antiqued programming language
Now that's just ridiculous. Forth is more a way of programming than a language.
I'm sure it runs fast enough on your XT, but on my Pentium III
More evidence you've missed my point entirely. You don't have a Pentium III in your Diamond Rio. How come? Far too many reasons to list here, I'll let you come up with a few on your own.
And why use Forth anyway? It's wasteful. Use plain old assembly
Like I said, Forth is really more a thought process than a programming language. Ideas do not become obsolete. Java does. Forth is certainly not wasteful, and it's got so many advantages over asm it's not even worth going into them. Asm is NOT faster on a processor meant for Forth, and your code will NOT be tighter. But this isn't about Forth at all, even though you seemed to think it was.
And good luck getting a job programming in Forth, bucko
Bahaha... Ok, 'bucko'... Where you got the idea that my original post was about Forth escapes me, but I actually do know Lisp, asm for various microcontrollers, C, and Java, among other things. C is my language of choice. I use Java for some things, yes. It has several inherent coolnesses about it, but if you want to get right down on the metal and DO things, you just can't with Java.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm even replying to this. I suppose I'm stooping pretty low to even acknowledge such a post as yours, but hey, I'm only human. Probably no one will read this anyway, especially the apparently quite uninformed and misunderstanding AC to which I am replying. [sigh] Ah, well, back to my "life"...;)
Go ahead and flame me for thi, but here's how I see it:
Using Linux for things like MP3 players and such... is... silly. The line gets hazier when we talk about video devices, but my point remains. Do you really need all of that overhead and extra power? Now you're going to say, "What overhead, are you an idiot? Compare Linux to Win2k, THERE'S overhead..." All the same. I will acknowledge that there are legitimate uses for Linux in embedded applications, but it seems to me that the majority of the people here who scream "YES!!!!!" at the announcement of such a device want it simply because it runs their favorite OS.
I always feel like a geezer when I talk about this stuff (and I'm only 19) but all these object-oriented compilers, spare CPU cycles, hundreds of megs or RAM, etc... It just makes us so darned sloppy. Call it "good programming practice" if you want, but Java or C++ is no way to write good, tight, efficient code. It's the same as with using Linux to run my hypothetical MP3 player. Sure, we can do it. But can you imagine how much better a solution could be that's made for it?
I'm a Forth fan, myself. Get yourself a good processor that's made for it, get yourself some coders that know what they're doing that can make you a custom solution, and they'll probably be kicking the rival company's Linux version all over the place. I don't want to start a flame war (hehe..:) or anything, but I just think that jumping on the old Linux bandwagon just for the sake of running Linux is silly.
Disclaimer: Linux is pretty stinkin cool, and a joy to program on. I love it. It's not perfect for every situation, though.
There is something pretty cool about a TV that runs Linux -- to ME. But to a user, who will never try to port DOOM to it, or use it for anything other than its intended purpose... Just seems to me we could be a lot more efficient. If you're building an embedded device in your garage, then by all means make it run Linux. But if you're a big company with the resources... putting out a commercial product with a specific purpose... Make it as good as you can. And that, probably, would mean working from the ground up.
I might not have the interest in fashion to spend 30k on designer clothing but I don't quibble with those who do.
Quibbling with the quibblers, however, is another matter entirely.;) Anyway, my personal opinion is that there is no amount of "interest" that could make fashion worth $30k. Same goes for computers, A/V equipment, and pretty much anything else. If you've got $30k to blow on what you love... well go for it.
You seem to have more mouth than brains.
Ouch...
And it is an analog experience, ours ears don't hear ones and zeroes.
Funny... I didn't know speakers (or air) could even transfer ones and zeros... Anyway, my point is that you never "hear" a digital signal, only analog. So maybe today's CDs can't compare to a good LP (which I can't say I can tell, but hey...). But generalizations like "Digital can never compare to analog" (which you didn't necessarily make) are ludicrous. I am of the opinion that it wouldn't be THAT hard ("that" being $30k) to come up with a digital system capable of outputing analog waveforms *identical* to analog systems (to any reasonable degree). But who cares anyway... I can't believe I just wasted all that time typing all this out... [yawn] Back to coding...
There's a short story by Orson Scott Card (I forget which book, I read it years ago). It takes place in the future, and the society is too "humane" for the death penalty... It's just too mean to END a life like that, so what they do is they start growing a clone of you... Then they strap you into this "helmet" that copies not only the contents and structure of your brain, but it copies the memories you're STILL HAVING (it does this while you're conscious). THEN... they execute you. Take your brain recording, and pump it into a clone of yourself...Voila, a new "you", that is physically identical (or pretty darned close anyway), and has an identical brain. With this... what's the difference between the "real one" and the "fake one"?!??!?
Those of you who think of "self" as being the unity of your particular configuration of matter, coupled with your memories... Well what happens when the "real you" dies, but there's an EXACTLY IDENTICAL one that lives on? Is that the "real you"? If yes...what if the original *doesn't* die? If no... I think the clone would get pretty frustrated trying to make you believe it WAS the real one. I know if I woke up one morning, and you told me I was a clone of myself, and not the "real you"... even if I had evidence to prove it, I would BE a human being... In fact I would be identical to the "real me". Identical, and yet individual? Really makes you think, not only what "self" means exactly, but if it really means ANYTHING... hmm...
Anyway it was a really cool story. The clone would live on, with the memory of death. The knowledge of what death felt like...creepyweird. Anyhoo. Yeah.
One thing I think would be cool would be to develop a form of being inside a computer, but NOT model it after humans. Humans are what we are because of our hardware, PLUS our experiences. Our neurons get trained by the I/O we receive through our eyes, ears, nose, etc. It would be cool to develop a "creature" (or "species") from the ground up, capable of communicating with humans through the computer, without being even a simulation of a human. Afterall, a human isn't made to work inside a digital computer. We're analog creatures. If a human wants to talk to a computer, it has to talk in terms the computer can understand. When I curse at the computers in the lab here, they don't have a clue what I want them to do. Anyway...hooking me into a computer as some sort of cyborg (this is different from dumping my brain into a computer) wouldn't be as efficient as if I was MADE to be in there. If I was born and raised inside the computer. My senses would be like in Unix: Files. I would look upon other "servers" as retarded animals that can't think. Some of them are somewhat smart (like monkeys). Some of them will do work for you (search engines etc), like a pack animal. But the being inside the computer would reign. Yeah anyway, I love to ramble....
Come, my brother, we must join ranks and revive the wonder that is Forth! Today, the TI-85. Tomorrow, THE WORLD!!!! I mean seriously... Ok so you have to write in reverse Polish notation... It's so darn COOL tho... It makes you truly *understand* what is going on under the hood... It's so *powerful*, and yet so incredibly *simple*... We'll show them all.;)
There is no "law" of probability. Laws are our feeble attempts at guessing what is really happening. In reality, there is no "law of motion", "law of gravity", and CERTAINLY no "law of probability". Even things like dimensions are totally arbitrary and nonexistent (the universe doesn't constantly crunch numbers through "F=ma", and when I turn the handle to flush the toilet, don't try and tell me there's a rotation matrix or a quaternion governing what it does... such a system could not naturally exist, and even an *unnatural* one, if traced back far enough, would be revealed to have a more fundamental essence to it) but that's beside the point. But as others have stated... there is no automatic correlation between geography and cell phones. I guess the method could be used to get some really rough numbers tho. What do I care how they spend their money... It's like voting. What if Clinton hadn't won? Big freaking deal. My computer still runs fine....;) Anyway, if done right, this cellphone thing could be at least *decent*... ( end rant )
Sheesh... You believe it's 2000 already and we're still paying an arm and a leg for a piece of crap viewing device? Geez.... The resolution sucks... the price is insane... And please... what is the deal with this "52 inch virtual TV" crap? Give me a break. The stench of marketing hype is enough to make me gag.
Be sure and email me if you make any good ones! I'd love to see'em!:) I just started making a couple of new ones for my site from
http://www.virtualcamera.com/samplework.html
which has some good fly-arounds of stuff from commercials they've made. I'd love to have 2 FireWire video cameras and strap them together, and film a short movie or something... =) Get some good polarized filters and two nice digital video projectors, and some polarized glasses..... NICE. =)
You can "exctract" the third dimension from just about anything if you're careful. Someone turns their head, a car drives by... Problem is getting a good clean couple of frames to choose from where no other objects move and stuff. And if you're filming them yourself, you've gotta be careful if you "circle" your target, because it can screw things up, making it hard to see (as I found out the hard way;).
One movie I'd love to try this with is Enemy of the State, as they panned like crazy in that movie (not to mention a couple of the "fly-arounds"). I'd love to see anything you come up with tho.:) (It's a shame my video capture setup sucks so much... if anybody's got The Matrix on DVD and would mind making a few NICE resolution versions of the ones I made... DO IT! Geekkind will thank you!:)
One thing that I love about that (far overused) effect where they fly around the scene in slow motion is that you can capture consecutive frames and make stereograms of the scenes. I've made a couple of (granted, *very* low-quality) stereograms (cross your eyes to see them) from the movie, which I had fun doing... I think it'd be awesome to be able to watch the WHOLE MOVIE in true 3D tho... I wish that would catch on....
Nope, it wasn't Guillermo. His "invention" was merely a copy of the already patented device Tesla had invented almost 2 years previously. Tesla was the first. (And yes I know most history books say Guillermo invented it... they're wrong, plain and simple.)
The man basically invented the alternate current power supply system we use today, he invented the radio (yes, Tesla invented the radio)... Did much work with transformers... I mean come on, the man built a remote controlled boat 100 years ago... I forget all the other great stuff he did. But he was really underappreciated.
Quantum particles used to store information ("Qubits") can be either on, off, or they can be in superposition between on and off. It's sort of hard to explain, but what it basically means is it's BOTH on AND off at the same time. Not sorta anything. Very weird stuff. I like to believe the Universe is a little more organized than that, but who knows...
Personally, I always said Q was the best part in all the Bond movies. I always opened my eyes a little wider during the scenes taking place in his little "dungeon of devices"... Always loved watching is nifty gadgets. "Q" actually used to be my nick on IRC, but I had to change it, for various reasons... Just today, while playing Q3 Arena, I decided to change my name to "Q", just for the heck of it (first time I'd ever used that nick). Within minutes, I heard on the news that the man had died... We'll miss you, Q.
I was talking to a friend a while back, telling him that tomorrow's computers will not be like today's computers. I couldn't explain how they WOULD be, but just that they'd be *different*. Good technology is not complex, but simple (at least the fundamental ideas of it). Things will be unified more and more, until everything just works seamlessly with everything else. Clearly we won't have our current IP scheme forever, BUT... I think the instant messaging would be best applied (to some degree) at the ISP level. The ISP knows when you are online, and it knows your IP address. Perhaps a system could be set up that would have the ISP update an online database. Or perhaps the computers themselves could update the database... If some sort of "pointer" system was implemented (through the ISP, or through The Database, or whatever) it would not allow people access to your actual IP address, which could be a good thing (tho not a huge one)... That would be a pain tho, unless it was designed into the IM system from the start (Jabber?).
I don't know what I'm saying. Something about registering IP addresses with a somewhat central database (tho there could be more than one such database)... Yeah....
I think the point about authentication is a good one. Just how DO you know you've got who you think you do on the other end? But I think to *really* solve this problem you have to take a step back from the messaging client/server and examine the OS/computer. It would be better if the computer knew who you were based on physical characteristics, rather than some password that you might divulge to a "good friend". But the idea of scanning irises (irii?;) or retinas would be a ridiculous waste of time. Instead, thermal imaging could be used to take a photo of your head. It would then be able to identify a positive match based on the formation of blood vessels, bone structure, etc (which even identical twins do not share). So you just sit down in front of the computer (no putting your eye up to a scanner, or thumb on a reader) and it knows who you are for sure. No need for a password, nothing. Then the OS would simply allow you to log into your account, or *whatever*... But then the instant messaging program would *also* know who you were. So if somebody else sat down at your logged-in computer, they could not read your messages or talk to your friends (pretending to be you).
Speaking of thermal imaging... What about an instant messaging system where the checksum for your thermal image of your face would be your "ID number". Entered in a database somewhere would be your identifying checksum, as well as the information about yourself that you wish to divulge (so friends can find you, etc). This has the advantage that the computer always knows exactly who is sitting down (or they would know that this person does not have an instant messaging account registered in The Database)... it would be an extremely quick and simple method of identification (it could spot you from several meters away, if it was set up to)... and just think of the Coolness Factor(TM). I'd pay some big bucks for that....
Just a couple of somewhat related thoughts I figured I'd throw into the mix, since I never hear thermal imaging mentioned (and it beats fingerprints, digital signatures [that will be cracked like nuts under a steamroller soon], and eyeball scanning). As you were, soldier...
No need for calibration, as it doesn't cover the full windshield. It's just kind of a little window. I don't personally think it would be that *wonderful* of a thing, but I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
probably not :)
Actually, if you put any stock in space-time diagrams, relativity, or pretty much any other current theory of how things work, then yes, a signal travelling faster than light will travel backwards in time. Anyway...
About your rigid pole question. The other answers I read seemed to dodge the question, saying that the pole would not be infinitely rigid. They didn't say why, however: A pole of infinite rigidity would require infinite energy to create, and thus could not exist. That's the theory, anyway.
So keep on using your hopelessly antiqued programming language
Now that's just ridiculous. Forth is more a way of programming than a language.
I'm sure it runs fast enough on your XT, but on my Pentium III
More evidence you've missed my point entirely. You don't have a Pentium III in your Diamond Rio. How come? Far too many reasons to list here, I'll let you come up with a few on your own.
And why use Forth anyway? It's wasteful. Use plain old assembly
Like I said, Forth is really more a thought process than a programming language. Ideas do not become obsolete. Java does. Forth is certainly not wasteful, and it's got so many advantages over asm it's not even worth going into them. Asm is NOT faster on a processor meant for Forth, and your code will NOT be tighter. But this isn't about Forth at all, even though you seemed to think it was.
And good luck getting a job programming in Forth, bucko
Bahaha... Ok, 'bucko'... Where you got the idea that my original post was about Forth escapes me, but I actually do know Lisp, asm for various microcontrollers, C, and Java, among other things. C is my language of choice. I use Java for some things, yes. It has several inherent coolnesses about it, but if you want to get right down on the metal and DO things, you just can't with Java.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm even replying to this. I suppose I'm stooping pretty low to even acknowledge such a post as yours, but hey, I'm only human. Probably no one will read this anyway, especially the apparently quite uninformed and misunderstanding AC to which I am replying. [sigh] Ah, well, back to my "life"... ;)
Using Linux for things like MP3 players and such... is... silly. The line gets hazier when we talk about video devices, but my point remains. Do you really need all of that overhead and extra power? Now you're going to say, "What overhead, are you an idiot? Compare Linux to Win2k, THERE'S overhead..." All the same. I will acknowledge that there are legitimate uses for Linux in embedded applications, but it seems to me that the majority of the people here who scream "YES!!!!!" at the announcement of such a device want it simply because it runs their favorite OS.
I always feel like a geezer when I talk about this stuff (and I'm only 19) but all these object-oriented compilers, spare CPU cycles, hundreds of megs or RAM, etc... It just makes us so darned sloppy. Call it "good programming practice" if you want, but Java or C++ is no way to write good, tight, efficient code. It's the same as with using Linux to run my hypothetical MP3 player. Sure, we can do it. But can you imagine how much better a solution could be that's made for it?
I'm a Forth fan, myself. Get yourself a good processor that's made for it, get yourself some coders that know what they're doing that can make you a custom solution, and they'll probably be kicking the rival company's Linux version all over the place. I don't want to start a flame war (hehe.. :) or anything, but I just think that jumping on the old Linux bandwagon just for the sake of running Linux is silly.
Disclaimer: Linux is pretty stinkin cool, and a joy to program on. I love it. It's not perfect for every situation, though.
There is something pretty cool about a TV that runs Linux -- to ME. But to a user, who will never try to port DOOM to it, or use it for anything other than its intended purpose... Just seems to me we could be a lot more efficient. If you're building an embedded device in your garage, then by all means make it run Linux. But if you're a big company with the resources... putting out a commercial product with a specific purpose... Make it as good as you can. And that, probably, would mean working from the ground up.
Quibbling with the quibblers, however, is another matter entirely. ;) Anyway, my personal opinion is that there is no amount of "interest" that could make fashion worth $30k. Same goes for computers, A/V equipment, and pretty much anything else. If you've got $30k to blow on what you love... well go for it.
You seem to have more mouth than brains.
Ouch...
And it is an analog experience, ours ears don't hear ones and zeroes.
Funny... I didn't know speakers (or air) could even transfer ones and zeros... Anyway, my point is that you never "hear" a digital signal, only analog. So maybe today's CDs can't compare to a good LP (which I can't say I can tell, but hey...). But generalizations like "Digital can never compare to analog" (which you didn't necessarily make) are ludicrous. I am of the opinion that it wouldn't be THAT hard ("that" being $30k) to come up with a digital system capable of outputing analog waveforms *identical* to analog systems (to any reasonable degree). But who cares anyway... I can't believe I just wasted all that time typing all this out... [yawn] Back to coding...
...is what you'd prolly need to RUN the bloody thing....
Have you seen Aqua? If you ask me, Enlightenment can't hold a candle to it...
*Burned-out idealists
*Raving Loonies
And some of us are all three! :D
There's a short story by Orson Scott Card (I forget which book, I read it years ago). It takes place in the future, and the society is too "humane" for the death penalty... It's just too mean to END a life like that, so what they do is they start growing a clone of you... Then they strap you into this "helmet" that copies not only the contents and structure of your brain, but it copies the memories you're STILL HAVING (it does this while you're conscious). THEN... they execute you. Take your brain recording, and pump it into a clone of yourself...Voila, a new "you", that is physically identical (or pretty darned close anyway), and has an identical brain. With this... what's the difference between the "real one" and the "fake one"?!??!?
Those of you who think of "self" as being the unity of your particular configuration of matter, coupled with your memories... Well what happens when the "real you" dies, but there's an EXACTLY IDENTICAL one that lives on? Is that the "real you"? If yes...what if the original *doesn't* die? If no... I think the clone would get pretty frustrated trying to make you believe it WAS the real one. I know if I woke up one morning, and you told me I was a clone of myself, and not the "real you"... even if I had evidence to prove it, I would BE a human being... In fact I would be identical to the "real me". Identical, and yet individual? Really makes you think, not only what "self" means exactly, but if it really means ANYTHING... hmm...
Anyway it was a really cool story. The clone would live on, with the memory of death. The knowledge of what death felt like...creepyweird. Anyhoo. Yeah.
One thing I think would be cool would be to develop a form of being inside a computer, but NOT model it after humans. Humans are what we are because of our hardware, PLUS our experiences. Our neurons get trained by the I/O we receive through our eyes, ears, nose, etc. It would be cool to develop a "creature" (or "species") from the ground up, capable of communicating with humans through the computer, without being even a simulation of a human. Afterall, a human isn't made to work inside a digital computer. We're analog creatures. If a human wants to talk to a computer, it has to talk in terms the computer can understand. When I curse at the computers in the lab here, they don't have a clue what I want them to do. Anyway...hooking me into a computer as some sort of cyborg (this is different from dumping my brain into a computer) wouldn't be as efficient as if I was MADE to be in there. If I was born and raised inside the computer. My senses would be like in Unix: Files. I would look upon other "servers" as retarded animals that can't think. Some of them are somewhat smart (like monkeys). Some of them will do work for you (search engines etc), like a pack animal. But the being inside the computer would reign. Yeah anyway, I love to ramble....
Come, my brother, we must join ranks and revive the wonder that is Forth! Today, the TI-85. Tomorrow, THE WORLD!!!! I mean seriously... Ok so you have to write in reverse Polish notation... It's so darn COOL tho... It makes you truly *understand* what is going on under the hood... It's so *powerful*, and yet so incredibly *simple*... We'll show them all. ;)
There is no "law" of probability. Laws are our feeble attempts at guessing what is really happening. In reality, there is no "law of motion", "law of gravity", and CERTAINLY no "law of probability". Even things like dimensions are totally arbitrary and nonexistent (the universe doesn't constantly crunch numbers through "F=ma", and when I turn the handle to flush the toilet, don't try and tell me there's a rotation matrix or a quaternion governing what it does... such a system could not naturally exist, and even an *unnatural* one, if traced back far enough, would be revealed to have a more fundamental essence to it) but that's beside the point. But as others have stated... there is no automatic correlation between geography and cell phones. I guess the method could be used to get some really rough numbers tho. What do I care how they spend their money... It's like voting. What if Clinton hadn't won? Big freaking deal. My computer still runs fine.... ;) Anyway, if done right, this cellphone thing could be at least *decent*...
( end rant )
Sheesh... You believe it's 2000 already and we're still paying an arm and a leg for a piece of crap viewing device? Geez.... The resolution sucks... the price is insane... And please... what is the deal with this "52 inch virtual TV" crap? Give me a break. The stench of marketing hype is enough to make me gag.
Be sure and email me if you make any good ones! I'd love to see'em! :) I just started making a couple of new ones for my site from
;).
:) (It's a shame my video capture setup sucks so much... if anybody's got The Matrix on DVD and would mind making a few NICE resolution versions of the ones I made... DO IT! Geekkind will thank you! :)
http://www.virtualcamera.com/samplework.html
which has some good fly-arounds of stuff from commercials they've made. I'd love to have 2 FireWire video cameras and strap them together, and film a short movie or something... =) Get some good polarized filters and two nice digital video projectors, and some polarized glasses..... NICE. =)
You can "exctract" the third dimension from just about anything if you're careful. Someone turns their head, a car drives by... Problem is getting a good clean couple of frames to choose from where no other objects move and stuff. And if you're filming them yourself, you've gotta be careful if you "circle" your target, because it can screw things up, making it hard to see (as I found out the hard way
One movie I'd love to try this with is Enemy of the State, as they panned like crazy in that movie (not to mention a couple of the "fly-arounds"). I'd love to see anything you come up with tho.
One thing that I love about that (far overused) effect where they fly around the scene in slow motion is that you can capture consecutive frames and make stereograms of the scenes. I've made a couple of (granted, *very* low-quality) stereograms (cross your eyes to see them) from the movie, which I had fun doing... I think it'd be awesome to be able to watch the WHOLE MOVIE in true 3D tho... I wish that would catch on....
http://php.indiana.edu/~dgsharp/stereograms/
Nope, it wasn't Guillermo. His "invention" was merely a copy of the already patented device Tesla had invented almost 2 years previously. Tesla was the first. (And yes I know most history books say Guillermo invented it... they're wrong, plain and simple.)
Check this out, it's got some more info about the guy. A bloody genius, no question.
http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/
The man basically invented the alternate current power supply system we use today, he invented the radio (yes, Tesla invented the radio)... Did much work with transformers... I mean come on, the man built a remote controlled boat 100 years ago... I forget all the other great stuff he did. But he was really underappreciated.
Quantum particles used to store information ("Qubits") can be either on, off, or they can be in superposition between on and off. It's sort of hard to explain, but what it basically means is it's BOTH on AND off at the same time. Not sorta anything. Very weird stuff. I like to believe the Universe is a little more organized than that, but who knows...
Personally, I always said Q was the best part in all the Bond movies. I always opened my eyes a little wider during the scenes taking place in his little "dungeon of devices"... Always loved watching is nifty gadgets. "Q" actually used to be my nick on IRC, but I had to change it, for various reasons... Just today, while playing Q3 Arena, I decided to change my name to "Q", just for the heck of it (first time I'd ever used that nick). Within minutes, I heard on the news that the man had died... We'll miss you, Q.
I was talking to a friend a while back, telling him that tomorrow's computers will not be like today's computers. I couldn't explain how they WOULD be, but just that they'd be *different*. Good technology is not complex, but simple (at least the fundamental ideas of it). Things will be unified more and more, until everything just works seamlessly with everything else. Clearly we won't have our current IP scheme forever, BUT... I think the instant messaging would be best applied (to some degree) at the ISP level. The ISP knows when you are online, and it knows your IP address. Perhaps a system could be set up that would have the ISP update an online database. Or perhaps the computers themselves could update the database... If some sort of "pointer" system was implemented (through the ISP, or through The Database, or whatever) it would not allow people access to your actual IP address, which could be a good thing (tho not a huge one)... That would be a pain tho, unless it was designed into the IM system from the start (Jabber?).
I don't know what I'm saying. Something about registering IP addresses with a somewhat central database (tho there could be more than one such database)... Yeah....
I think the point about authentication is a good one. Just how DO you know you've got who you think you do on the other end? But I think to *really* solve this problem you have to take a step back from the messaging client/server and examine the OS/computer. It would be better if the computer knew who you were based on physical characteristics, rather than some password that you might divulge to a "good friend". But the idea of scanning irises (irii? ;) or retinas would be a ridiculous waste of time. Instead, thermal imaging could be used to take a photo of your head. It would then be able to identify a positive match based on the formation of blood vessels, bone structure, etc (which even identical twins do not share). So you just sit down in front of the computer (no putting your eye up to a scanner, or thumb on a reader) and it knows who you are for sure. No need for a password, nothing. Then the OS would simply allow you to log into your account, or *whatever*... But then the instant messaging program would *also* know who you were. So if somebody else sat down at your logged-in computer, they could not read your messages or talk to your friends (pretending to be you).
Speaking of thermal imaging... What about an instant messaging system where the checksum for your thermal image of your face would be your "ID number". Entered in a database somewhere would be your identifying checksum, as well as the information about yourself that you wish to divulge (so friends can find you, etc). This has the advantage that the computer always knows exactly who is sitting down (or they would know that this person does not have an instant messaging account registered in The Database)... it would be an extremely quick and simple method of identification (it could spot you from several meters away, if it was set up to)... and just think of the Coolness Factor(TM). I'd pay some big bucks for that....
Just a couple of somewhat related thoughts I figured I'd throw into the mix, since I never hear thermal imaging mentioned (and it beats fingerprints, digital signatures [that will be cracked like nuts under a steamroller soon], and eyeball scanning). As you were, soldier...
No need for calibration, as it doesn't cover the full windshield. It's just kind of a little window. I don't personally think it would be that *wonderful* of a thing, but I could be wrong.