I don't have any experience programming engineering problems period, much less doing it in C++. I read somewhere that strictly numerical problems don't translate very well into OO terms, so you might just be trying to apply a design technique that doesn't fit. On the other hand, it seems some people are programming engineering probolems using OO and publishing books about it. I went to the Barnes & Noble website and searched the book section with the keywords "numerical C++" and turned up half a dozen titles. Numerical Recipes in C++. There were links at the bottom of the web page that even looked more interesting, like C++ and Object Oriented Numeric Computing for Scientists and Engineers.
Good luck!
Those who wrote this article:
My Windoze 2000 machine has about 211,000 files on it. Now please show me how to oraganize all these files into a set of stacked desktops. While you're at it please show me what stacked desktops are.
I don't think these guys really understand what they're talking about. I don't think the hard disk icon is bad. Instead of doing away with the hard disk icon, the hard disk icon should become the desktop. This is because the metaphor should model the actual structure of what it represents. That's the whole idea of a metaphor for Pete's sake! If the hard disk is a hierarchical tree of directories and files, this should be reflected in the metaphor. If the metaphor doesn't reflect the actual structure of what it represents, then you end up with confusion because of the mismatch.
I think this article would be more interesting if John Katz had looked at why we Americans don't mind that their media has the intellectual content of a noodle. I have a hard time attributing this attitude to a sort of brainwashing on the part of the media conglomerates.
What's wrong with we Americans that we act like the Meloi of H. G. Well's The Time Traveler? Why do we accept such a low intellectual level of public discourse? How is it that "professional wrestling" is even considered a sport?
I think questions like these need answering before we grumble about the big bad conglomerates. After all, they do give us what we want. If we want pablum, they'll give it to us.
My first reaction to the article was rage: how could anyone suggest anything like that? After I calmed down, I realized it's just another panic reaction from the company.
The real challenge is, now that Microsoft believes that open intellectual property is dangerous to business, they should eliminate it from their own software. I want to see them stop their support of the TCP/IP, HTTP and HTML protocols, all of which depend on open intellectual property. If Jim Allchin is correct , then avoiding these standards will improve their business and make life better for everyone.
Jim Allchin is in an awkard position. He wants to convince our legislators that someone who creates something and gives it away for free should be stopped. I can just see the amazed look on a senator's face when he makes this absurd claim.
Don't stop now, Penguinistas! Microsoft is in a panic mode!
Anyone who tries to obtain thoughtful insight about serious issues from movies like this is deluded. Hollywood as serious art is simply laughable; to claim the higher ground of moral debate is even more silly.
I know Hollywood would like to make us think that their products are more than entertainment but that's simply not true. Get real: all they do is reach into our fantasies and fears and create movies out of them. We pay them money so we can go live our fantasies and fears vicariously.
I think the reason why Java is a snoozer on Linux is quite simple: lots of choices. Why bother with Java when you can choose from Perl, Python, C, C++, Fortran, Pascal, Forth, Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Guile, Haskell, TCL, Rexx, Snobol, Modula 2, Awk, C shell, Korn shell, bash, and so on. Why bother with the hassles of working with Java with so many other toys in the toybox? I strongly suspect Linux is the defacto standard platform to experiment with languages on. I doubt any other platform today has as many programming languages available on it for free.
"Linux is different than HP's Linux is different than Dell's Linux and (a customer) will have to recompile five times. You've broken it effectively. So you cannot depend on one Linux."
What he's saying here is that if you want your software to run on Solaris you only have to compile and test it for Solaris, while with Linux you have to do this for several distros. There's one teeny eensy detail he left out: Solaris is only one "fragment" of Unix. To get your software going on AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix, and SCO Unices you have to guess what: get it to compile and then test!
Then there's other issues he's conveniently left out. Getting software to run on different Linux distros is a lot easier than doing the same thing for Unix variants simply because the amount of variation between Linux distros is much smaller than Unix variants. Different Linuces have the same kernel and C library while Unices don't, among other things.
He's grumbling about the fragmentation of Linux while claiming that his own fragment of Unix is the one that will solve all your software compatibility problems. It should be obvious that if you only use one variant of Unix then you don't have to deal with any other variants. DUH!
It's the same old marketese that Micro$oft is always saying: use our stuff and all your problems will go away. You'll be able to retire at 15 to a deserted desert isle where bodacious babes will attend to your every need and want. It's also amusing to hear someone from Sun grumbling about Linux fragmentation while at the same time holding up their own fragment of Unix as the solution to the fragmentation problem!
The Gartner Group has had of history of gassy emanations about the future of Linux which have proven wrong. I think the problem is Linux simply doesn't fit into a mold that makes it predictable by some market research firm. Linux's strength has less to do with number of units shipped as a great idea that's taken hold of bright people worldwide. Linux is a way of thinking, not a new product created by some marketing department. I see it as essentially a reaction by engineers that are tired of being dictated to by marketing departments.
It's this idea that makes Linux act like an amoeba. It constantly changes shape and slithers around into all kinds of new and unexpected market sectors. I'm constantly surprised and gladdened at the vast array of applications Linux is put to. That's what you get when you have access to all the source code: amoeba-like flexibility. You can't have this in a commercial product. Vendors want to sell you a black box and not try to look inside it. Commercialized software is inflexible.
I expect someday soon Microsoft is going to wake up and realize that Linux psuedopods have occupied all the markets they want to enter. Even worse, big nasty psuedopods are slowly slithering and inching their way into all the markets Microsoft now occupies. They also won't be able to fight it because it's not possible to truly fight such an amorphous enemy. They best they'll be able to do is whine about "that big slimy monster" that has no head to chop off. But we Linuxers will just grin and keep pushing the psuedopods forward. Maybe the Linux mascot shouldn't be a pengion, but an amoeba.
Couldn't agree more. For some time I've believed that the "Moral Majority" and it's ilk have nothing to do with a religious awakening. Instead I believe it's a symptom of religious weakness. They have no compelling message that attracts people naturally and without coercion. Instead they're trying to grab political power and create a religious awakening by force. It's an old theme: if I can't convince you, I'll force you. During the dark ages it was this idea that burned people at the stake in the town square.
This kind of "spiritual awakening due to technology" idea isn't very new. Practically every new invention has been hailed as the dawning of a new era in which humanity will be reformed.
The problem is this: spiritual reformation by technology is a logical fallacy. The essential idea is once we start using some new technology it will bring about a sweeping change in human nature. And as we all know it hasn't happened. Telephones improved the way we communicate, but telephones haven't improved us. We use telephones to "reach out and touch someone", and we also use telephones for death threats. This, of course, is a mild example and anyone with a little thought came come up with numerous other examples. Just because new technology can be used for a better society doesn't mean it will be. It all depends on the way we use it.
Jon's article hit a raw nerve of mine. When I was in college taking my computer classes, I used to believe in a bright and beautiful future where fancy new technology would transform us all into a utopia of gentle geniuses. I used to read the pop futurism books by Alvin Toffler and John Niasbitt, and went around quoting them.
After graduating and getting a series of programming jobs my enthusiasm has turned into disillusionment and cynicism as the true nature of the computer industry became obvious. Software isn't written clean and elegant; it's almost invariably a mess patched together for years. Computers aren't being used to free up time for leisurely pursuits; they're being used to make us work longer hours. The computer industry isn't a new paradigm of doing business; it's just the same old cutthroat dog eat dog competition.
So when I hear "The Internet is the New Jerusalem", I just feel irritated. For the most part, I like John's articles, but I had a hard time with this one. Funny thing is I just might buy the book so I can add it to my collection of naive utopianism.
You're not the only one. I've also just about given up on games. For me, I played Total Annihilation and Warzone 2100 endlessly for months on end but just can't seem to get interested in games anymore. I've got a whole box of games I can't bring myself to play.
I've spent a lot of time wondering why and I think the core problem is that the games are so awfully repititious. In RTS games, they all seem to boil down to build a base and then go wipe the enemy of the map. After about 100 times of this, is it any wonder that building next base isn'nt fun? FPS games like Quake and Doom seem even worse, all you do is run around and blow things up.
Probably the game that has managed to hold my attention the best was Alpha Centauri because of the great depth of the game. But even that gets old real quick; all you seem to do is spend your time nudging units across the map and working your way up the tech tree in order to get an edge over your enemies.
No matter what game in what genre I try, they all quickly become repititious. I keep feeling like some little cog wheel stuck going round and round inside the "game engine".
It's interesting that this article came along when it did. For some months now I've been wondering if someone was going to abandon all this 3D/voxel/blah blah blah approach and focus on game play for a change. Eyecandy doesn't last very long; what keeps player's interest are other factors. I've been thinking of trying Empire, but am scared by the addiction warnings posted on the website. Can you imagine playing games that go on for as long as 2 years? Yeoww!
I appreciate your reply. I myself find it wrong for shoving pills at people who really need therapy. What I'm interested in is placing psychology on a firmer foundation than Freud's, not discard it. There is no doubt in my mind Freud's ideas have had large impact on our society, but if they are unsound they can't help us very much. Take a look at this article for some criticism of Freud that expresses most of my sentiments concerning Freud. The statement "As a research paradigm it's pretty much dead" sums up the the author's current assesment of Freudian theories.
My take on flaming is much simpler than Jon's. I think people who flame realize there's no real risk of retaliation, so they sling all the mud they can muster at their target. If flamers were forced to repeat their words face to face with their target, there'd be a lot less "gasoline" in their comments.
For my own part, I agree with Jon in that flamers are an indicator, but I disagree with what's being indicated. For me it's a filtering mechanism; once the "temperature" of the post reaches a certain point, I just ignore it. It's my bozo filter.
I have reservations as to Sigmund Freud having cogent observations on flaming. It's my impression that Freud is being abandoned by modern psychiatry because his theories are flawed. According to one skeptic I read, Freud's theories may one day be regarded like astrology and alchemy: precursors to valid science, but no longer useful.
Go to the Junkbusters website and print off their anti-telemarketing script. Keep it by your phone and use it when these pests call you. I've reduced my telemarketing calls to essentially zero by using this script. It's also gratifying when you start going down the list of questions, because you take control what's going on. Telemarketers suddenly get polite because they're trained to deal with this script and they know that they can get sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act if they don't watch what they're doing.
I concluded some years ago that Ramdisks aren't needed for Unix. This happened when I was a new SCO sysadmin and was trying to figure out how to speed things up. SCO Unix has Ramdisks, but the docs say it's better to rely on the Unix disk buffer cache. Coming from the DOS world, I didn't believe it (DOS really does have a buffer cache!) because I'd been been using Ramdisks for years and had seen how much faster things ran with them. So I configured a Ramdisk and ran a few tests. Guess what? Things ran slower with the Ramdisk, just like the docs said.
Of course SCO Unix isn't Linux, but I'm sure that this principle still applies. If you think about it, the buffer cache has more smarts than Ramdisks. It contains which disk blocks really have been most recently been used. Ramdisks, on the other hand, don't maintain any usage information, which means you're using your memory to hold disk blocks that aren't the most frequently used. Files can hog memory in a ramdisk that are never been used, while the buffer cache will eventually flush unused blocks.
Another problem with Ramdisks is sizing it properly. It's got to be big enough to hold everything that goes there with as little extra space as possible so you use as little precious RAM as possible. At the same time you want as much extra space as possible so it doesn't run out of room when Slashdot links to your site. And you can almost ensure it will run out of room anyway, probably in the wee hours of the morning.
Some other posters indicated that Linux will simply start using swap space when the Ramdisk fills. Not quite; Linux will treat the Ramdisk just like any other partition that fills up. This means that applications can't perform add anything to the disk, which in turn usually means your applications crash and burn.
So here's my view on Ramdisks: don't use them. It's better to just crank up the size of the disk buffer cache if you really need the increased performance.
When I started Outlook this morning I had 4 messages from the sysadmin warning me not to open these things. There were also 2 copies of the virus which I deleted. I just started up Outlook to see if I'd received any more copies of the virus, and guess what? There weren't any. Instead there's 5 more warnings from the sysadmin.
I think it works best to give the customer a basic manual thats a small "getting started" type of manual that tells how to get the gadget installed and running, along with information on how to contact tech support and/or get more information, web sites, etc.
Any more than this, I don't think it's really necessary to automatically include full printed manuals with the product. Instead, I think it's better to give the buyer the option of buying the full manuals seperately, or just using the online help. This way they can get your manuals or buy them from a third party.
I think HP's printers are a good example. They all include a small manual that tells how to hook it up and get it running, as well as how to do some simple troubleshooting. There's information on part numbers for replacement parts, as well as a lot of contact info via telephone and the web. If you REALLY want to know the full capabilities of your printer, you can order a set of manuals on how to program it in mind boggling detail.
Another good example is games. They all come with a short manual on how to get them up and running, as well as what all the controls do. There's also some backstory to set the mood. If you want more information, you go get the strategy guide.
And now for one thing I really hate: PDF. I guess other people replying seem to like it, but I find it terribly annoying. I really like HTML documentation.
As far as your development efforts go, what you need to do is find some way of quickly generating your documentation from one source in many different formats, whether it be HTML, PDF (groan), or printed out.
I'd to take this opportunity to say that I appreciate John's interesting and thought provoking articles. From the many other peurile comments posted, I know this view isn't shared by the other posters. Now the question: have you ever tried to figure out why so many people dislike your articles? Why is there such a strong negative reaction? I'm really puzzled because, like I said above, I like your articles. I'm almost led to believe that most slashdot readers could care less about the wider cultural implications of technology that you discuss. I find this chilling and hope I'm wrong.
As I see it, shielding is an enormous problem, because anyone near a power line could pick up the digital part of the signal and tap in to what's being transmitted. It's trivial to come up with a receiver to do this. Another technical problem is transformers: they have to come up with a way to pass the network signals past each and every transformer; otherwise the transformers will simply absorb the high frequency signals and not pass them on.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any experience programming engineering problems period, much less doing it in C++. I read somewhere that strictly numerical problems don't translate very well into OO terms, so you might just be trying to apply a design technique that doesn't fit. On the other hand, it seems some people are programming engineering probolems using OO and publishing books about it. I went to the Barnes & Noble website and searched the book section with the keywords "numerical C++" and turned up half a dozen titles. Numerical Recipes in C++. There were links at the bottom of the web page that even looked more interesting, like C++ and Object Oriented Numeric Computing for Scientists and Engineers. Good luck!
Those who wrote this article: My Windoze 2000 machine has about 211,000 files on it. Now please show me how to oraganize all these files into a set of stacked desktops. While you're at it please show me what stacked desktops are. I don't think these guys really understand what they're talking about. I don't think the hard disk icon is bad. Instead of doing away with the hard disk icon, the hard disk icon should become the desktop. This is because the metaphor should model the actual structure of what it represents. That's the whole idea of a metaphor for Pete's sake! If the hard disk is a hierarchical tree of directories and files, this should be reflected in the metaphor. If the metaphor doesn't reflect the actual structure of what it represents, then you end up with confusion because of the mismatch.
I don't know if Mozilla can be configured to lie about the user agent, but I know JunkBuster can be configured to lie about the user agent.
What's wrong with we Americans that we act like the Meloi of H. G. Well's The Time Traveler? Why do we accept such a low intellectual level of public discourse? How is it that "professional wrestling" is even considered a sport?
I think questions like these need answering before we grumble about the big bad conglomerates. After all, they do give us what we want. If we want pablum, they'll give it to us.
The real challenge is, now that Microsoft believes that open intellectual property is dangerous to business, they should eliminate it from their own software. I want to see them stop their support of the TCP/IP, HTTP and HTML protocols, all of which depend on open intellectual property. If Jim Allchin is correct , then avoiding these standards will improve their business and make life better for everyone.
Jim Allchin is in an awkard position. He wants to convince our legislators that someone who creates something and gives it away for free should be stopped. I can just see the amazed look on a senator's face when he makes this absurd claim.
Don't stop now, Penguinistas! Microsoft is in a panic mode!
I know Hollywood would like to make us think that their products are more than entertainment but that's simply not true. Get real: all they do is reach into our fantasies and fears and create movies out of them. We pay them money so we can go live our fantasies and fears vicariously.
I think the reason why Java is a snoozer on Linux is quite simple: lots of choices. Why bother with Java when you can choose from Perl, Python, C, C++, Fortran, Pascal, Forth, Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Guile, Haskell, TCL, Rexx, Snobol, Modula 2, Awk, C shell, Korn shell, bash, and so on. Why bother with the hassles of working with Java with so many other toys in the toybox? I strongly suspect Linux is the defacto standard platform to experiment with languages on. I doubt any other platform today has as many programming languages available on it for free.
What he's saying here is that if you want your software to run on Solaris you only have to compile and test it for Solaris, while with Linux you have to do this for several distros. There's one teeny eensy detail he left out: Solaris is only one "fragment" of Unix. To get your software going on AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix, and SCO Unices you have to guess what: get it to compile and then test!
Then there's other issues he's conveniently left out. Getting software to run on different Linux distros is a lot easier than doing the same thing for Unix variants simply because the amount of variation between Linux distros is much smaller than Unix variants. Different Linuces have the same kernel and C library while Unices don't, among other things.
He's grumbling about the fragmentation of Linux while claiming that his own fragment of Unix is the one that will solve all your software compatibility problems. It should be obvious that if you only use one variant of Unix then you don't have to deal with any other variants. DUH!
It's the same old marketese that Micro$oft is always saying: use our stuff and all your problems will go away. You'll be able to retire at 15 to a deserted desert isle where bodacious babes will attend to your every need and want. It's also amusing to hear someone from Sun grumbling about Linux fragmentation while at the same time holding up their own fragment of Unix as the solution to the fragmentation problem!
Take a look at the O'Reilly website. They have a whole section of books on Lnix and several for learning several distributions of Linux.
The problem is, computers haven't started thinking, but people have stopped thinking.
It's this idea that makes Linux act like an amoeba. It constantly changes shape and slithers around into all kinds of new and unexpected market sectors. I'm constantly surprised and gladdened at the vast array of applications Linux is put to. That's what you get when you have access to all the source code: amoeba-like flexibility. You can't have this in a commercial product. Vendors want to sell you a black box and not try to look inside it. Commercialized software is inflexible.
I expect someday soon Microsoft is going to wake up and realize that Linux psuedopods have occupied all the markets they want to enter. Even worse, big nasty psuedopods are slowly slithering and inching their way into all the markets Microsoft now occupies. They also won't be able to fight it because it's not possible to truly fight such an amorphous enemy. They best they'll be able to do is whine about "that big slimy monster" that has no head to chop off. But we Linuxers will just grin and keep pushing the psuedopods forward. Maybe the Linux mascot shouldn't be a pengion, but an amoeba.
Couldn't agree more. For some time I've believed that the "Moral Majority" and it's ilk have nothing to do with a religious awakening. Instead I believe it's a symptom of religious weakness. They have no compelling message that attracts people naturally and without coercion. Instead they're trying to grab political power and create a religious awakening by force. It's an old theme: if I can't convince you, I'll force you. During the dark ages it was this idea that burned people at the stake in the town square.
The problem is this: spiritual reformation by technology is a logical fallacy. The essential idea is once we start using some new technology it will bring about a sweeping change in human nature. And as we all know it hasn't happened. Telephones improved the way we communicate, but telephones haven't improved us. We use telephones to "reach out and touch someone", and we also use telephones for death threats. This, of course, is a mild example and anyone with a little thought came come up with numerous other examples. Just because new technology can be used for a better society doesn't mean it will be. It all depends on the way we use it.
Jon's article hit a raw nerve of mine. When I was in college taking my computer classes, I used to believe in a bright and beautiful future where fancy new technology would transform us all into a utopia of gentle geniuses. I used to read the pop futurism books by Alvin Toffler and John Niasbitt, and went around quoting them.
After graduating and getting a series of programming jobs my enthusiasm has turned into disillusionment and cynicism as the true nature of the computer industry became obvious. Software isn't written clean and elegant; it's almost invariably a mess patched together for years. Computers aren't being used to free up time for leisurely pursuits; they're being used to make us work longer hours. The computer industry isn't a new paradigm of doing business; it's just the same old cutthroat dog eat dog competition.
So when I hear "The Internet is the New Jerusalem", I just feel irritated. For the most part, I like John's articles, but I had a hard time with this one. Funny thing is I just might buy the book so I can add it to my collection of naive utopianism.
I've spent a lot of time wondering why and I think the core problem is that the games are so awfully repititious. In RTS games, they all seem to boil down to build a base and then go wipe the enemy of the map. After about 100 times of this, is it any wonder that building next base isn'nt fun? FPS games like Quake and Doom seem even worse, all you do is run around and blow things up.
Probably the game that has managed to hold my attention the best was Alpha Centauri because of the great depth of the game. But even that gets old real quick; all you seem to do is spend your time nudging units across the map and working your way up the tech tree in order to get an edge over your enemies.
No matter what game in what genre I try, they all quickly become repititious. I keep feeling like some little cog wheel stuck going round and round inside the "game engine".
It's interesting that this article came along when it did. For some months now I've been wondering if someone was going to abandon all this 3D/voxel/blah blah blah approach and focus on game play for a change. Eyecandy doesn't last very long; what keeps player's interest are other factors. I've been thinking of trying Empire, but am scared by the addiction warnings posted on the website. Can you imagine playing games that go on for as long as 2 years? Yeoww!
I appreciate your reply. I myself find it wrong for shoving pills at people who really need therapy. What I'm interested in is placing psychology on a firmer foundation than Freud's, not discard it. There is no doubt in my mind Freud's ideas have had large impact on our society, but if they are unsound they can't help us very much. Take a look at this article for some criticism of Freud that expresses most of my sentiments concerning Freud. The statement "As a research paradigm it's pretty much dead" sums up the the author's current assesment of Freudian theories.
For my own part, I agree with Jon in that flamers are an indicator, but I disagree with what's being indicated. For me it's a filtering mechanism; once the "temperature" of the post reaches a certain point, I just ignore it. It's my bozo filter.
I have reservations as to Sigmund Freud having cogent observations on flaming. It's my impression that Freud is being abandoned by modern psychiatry because his theories are flawed. According to one skeptic I read, Freud's theories may one day be regarded like astrology and alchemy: precursors to valid science, but no longer useful.
Go to the Junkbusters website and print off their anti-telemarketing script. Keep it by your phone and use it when these pests call you. I've reduced my telemarketing calls to essentially zero by using this script. It's also gratifying when you start going down the list of questions, because you take control what's going on. Telemarketers suddenly get polite because they're trained to deal with this script and they know that they can get sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act if they don't watch what they're doing.
Of course SCO Unix isn't Linux, but I'm sure that this principle still applies. If you think about it, the buffer cache has more smarts than Ramdisks. It contains which disk blocks really have been most recently been used. Ramdisks, on the other hand, don't maintain any usage information, which means you're using your memory to hold disk blocks that aren't the most frequently used. Files can hog memory in a ramdisk that are never been used, while the buffer cache will eventually flush unused blocks.
Another problem with Ramdisks is sizing it properly. It's got to be big enough to hold everything that goes there with as little extra space as possible so you use as little precious RAM as possible. At the same time you want as much extra space as possible so it doesn't run out of room when Slashdot links to your site. And you can almost ensure it will run out of room anyway, probably in the wee hours of the morning.
Some other posters indicated that Linux will simply start using swap space when the Ramdisk fills. Not quite; Linux will treat the Ramdisk just like any other partition that fills up. This means that applications can't perform add anything to the disk, which in turn usually means your applications crash and burn.
So here's my view on Ramdisks: don't use them. It's better to just crank up the size of the disk buffer cache if you really need the increased performance.
When I started Outlook this morning I had 4 messages from the sysadmin warning me not to open these things. There were also 2 copies of the virus which I deleted. I just started up Outlook to see if I'd received any more copies of the virus, and guess what? There weren't any. Instead there's 5 more warnings from the sysadmin.
Any more than this, I don't think it's really necessary to automatically include full printed manuals with the product. Instead, I think it's better to give the buyer the option of buying the full manuals seperately, or just using the online help. This way they can get your manuals or buy them from a third party.
I think HP's printers are a good example. They all include a small manual that tells how to hook it up and get it running, as well as how to do some simple troubleshooting. There's information on part numbers for replacement parts, as well as a lot of contact info via telephone and the web. If you REALLY want to know the full capabilities of your printer, you can order a set of manuals on how to program it in mind boggling detail.
Another good example is games. They all come with a short manual on how to get them up and running, as well as what all the controls do. There's also some backstory to set the mood. If you want more information, you go get the strategy guide.
And now for one thing I really hate: PDF. I guess other people replying seem to like it, but I find it terribly annoying. I really like HTML documentation.
As far as your development efforts go, what you need to do is find some way of quickly generating your documentation from one source in many different formats, whether it be HTML, PDF (groan), or printed out.
I'd to take this opportunity to say that I appreciate John's interesting and thought provoking articles. From the many other peurile comments posted, I know this view isn't shared by the other posters. Now the question: have you ever tried to figure out why so many people dislike your articles? Why is there such a strong negative reaction? I'm really puzzled because, like I said above, I like your articles. I'm almost led to believe that most slashdot readers could care less about the wider cultural implications of technology that you discuss. I find this chilling and hope I'm wrong.
As I see it, shielding is an enormous problem, because anyone near a power line could pick up
the digital part of the signal and tap in to
what's being transmitted. It's trivial
to come up with a receiver to do this. Another
technical problem is transformers: they have
to come up with a way to pass the network signals
past each and every transformer; otherwise the
transformers will simply absorb the high frequency
signals and not pass them on.