I said it would be handy to have an SSD (as in, permanent storage) mapped directly into the memory bus- Not everything that is mapped into memory is writable, or should be treated like RAM you know. Some memory IO addresses point to nothing, and are used for such various and sundry things as "Virtual memory" space, etc.
The block driver should look for a signature at the top of the SSD's raw contents, then allocate the whole memory range as a locked, non-paged allocation. That would prevent ANYTHING else from even LOOKING at that memory range, unless your OS is a buggy pile of shit. It would be OWNED by the block device driver. The only process that would have privileges to write to it would be the block device driver's.
To prevent the OS from frying the SSD with abusive writes (who does that anyway?) the block driver should allocate a resizable write buffer from actual RAM as well, then offload the buffer as CPU load and time permits. If the buffer gets full, the driver should tell the OS to wait.
Ideally, the offloading process should not occur until after a certain number of miliseconds pass, so that rapidly acessed data can be read from the buffer instead of from the SSD. That way your abusive program's spam of filesystem calls wouldnt kill the SSD.
Essentially, think "Ramdisk", but with flash memory there, and a read/write buffer allocated by the block driver. NO programs other than the block driver itself should ever try to touch that memory directly; ALL accesses should go through filesystem API calls TO the block driver instead.
As far as the OS is concerned, the SSD would appear like a disk drive, via the block driver.
Didn't I comment on this being the inevitable outcome for this bill last night? Pretty sure I did..
The reasons havent changed. Whining about it wont fix it either.
Right now our options are pretty limited:
1) We can, against all odds, accept lower wages in order to compete with material goods manufactured by slaves in China, to lessen our depedence upon intelletual properties in the world market. (HAH!)
2) Bite the bullet, accept that the US as we know it is basically over, and accept "also ran" status in the world marketplace, (implies that 1 will happen as a consequence) and offer "cheap" IP, with reasonable terms- (HAH!)
3) We can enforce draconian copyrights, pass every patent imaginable with rediculously long terms, and try to squeeze that teat for all it's worth to try to stay relevant in the world market. (DING! we have a winner!)
4) We can become highly insular, do EVERYTHING ourselves, totally ignore the world market, and operate as IP pirates openly (What we did when the nation was an infant, much to the chagrin of European publishers.) (Implies 1 and 2, and demotion to 2nd or even 3rd world conditions due to natural scarcities) [HAH!]
Since our congress critters suffer a crack-like addiction to money and power, option 3 is the only one they are even willing to consider. As such, measures like the DMCA, and now COIACA (whatever it's letters are) will ALWAYS pass. ALWAYS. Raise a fuss all you want. It WILL pass.
However, if one of the other options seems preferable to you, you can always invoke the power of the angry torch bearing mob--- Or, you can do the non-violent protest, Ghandi style-- But the ultimate result would still be the same; the US's gravy train would get derailed.
While the write speed would be painful compared to real DRAM, the read speed would be comparable.
For large static arrays, and for custom data applications, it could have uses in the form the GP suggests, though it WOULD be a nasty throwback to the days of user ROMs...
However, I could definitely see the potential in having such a thing mapped directly to system memory, then loading a special block device driver to allocate all that "memory", so that memory IO could be used for data storage. It would eliminate the SATA controller's IO bottleneck, but would impose a slight CPU penalty. For systems with multiple CPUs, that wouldnt be much of a problem. You would need to allocate that memory fast though, to prevent the OS from trying to use it like RAM.
Depending on the CCDs in the cameras, you could replace the IR diodes with UV ones in one of the units to avoid the interference issue. (the projector part that is.)
It would also be great for 3D artists, since it would partially bridge the gap between physical and digital modeling. This could let somebody with old-school sculpting 'skillz' create some really nice 3D object meshes. Required hardware: Lazy suzan, Microsoft Kinect, 3D scanning software, well lit room. (the most expensive item being the software.)
Not just for detail objects either-- Could realistically be mounted to a rotary table, and placed inside a building to grab the interior as a 3D mockup. Great for inserting CG into a live action set, or for mocking up an interior in meatspace cheaply, and then cleaning it up digitally for production use later. (Styrofoam and plaster are pretty cheap.)
If 3D printers ever make their debut in the home marketplace, it would allow all kinds of 3D collaborative effort over the internet.
The option for applied violence was tendered, not as the recommended course of action, but to be informative that it was the ONLY way to prevent the legislation, for those individuals that would find keeping their rights preferable to having food on the table. (the latter outcome I think we both well explained.) It was not intended as a rallying cry, but instead as a matter-of-fact pronouncement.
The "lame duck" issue does hold relevence, as right now the new congress-elect will be under heavy scrutiny, having been elected under very noteworthy conditions in terms of voter confidence in their predecessors. Further, the new crowd has a liberal spattering of untested politicians that ran under the teaparty banner. We could contest how important that might be later, but the possibility that these new congress critters might actually oppose this kind of legislation needs to be considered. It is possible, if somewhat dubious to assert, that the new congress would strongly debate and derail such legislation. (at least at first anyway.) That is why I think it is being tried now, in the lame duck congress.
I agree that IP protection is vital to the continued economic prosperity of our nation, however, I disagree that giving the entertainment industry carte-blanc is the best solution; Look what it did to the banking industry, when they permitted deregulation.
1) The democratic congress is a lame duck congress. They are looking for new jobs. They have nothing to lose, and the senate is still democrat controlled. 2) The democratic party has a long standing unspoken agreement with the entertainment industry. (Much like the GOP has a similar agreement with big oil, and big biz.) 3) The incumbant congress wont pass up on the windfall that this gives them; With one side of their mouth, they would state that they would never propose such legislation, with the other they will happily enforce and use said legislation. Such action has been the de-facto norm for at least 2 decades now. 4) The supreme court will bend over backwards to support this measure, and pull the constitution through a knothole backwards to make it fit, for similar interest reasons. 5) The government in general LIKES the idea of draconian IP protection, BECAUSE it makes an end-run around that nasty first amendment; AND because the US has pretty much NO real tangible goods exports in the world market other than food stuffs (which as the 2nd world rises to prominence, is becoming less and less profitable.), and as such, it sees the handwriting on the wall if it doesnt take drastic measures to keep a firm grip on the reigns of invention and ideas. "IP" and "Patents" are just about the only profitable things left in the US, and they go bye-bye if corporations leave. The corporations use this fact to control the US government. This is what it means by "Too big to fail."-- it means that the government cannot afford to have them go under, because if they did, the government wouldnt have anything to replace the income/bargaining power in the world market with.
Thus, even if this bill is shot down, it will be reintroduced silently as a rider, and passed later.
The ONLY way to make this bill NEVER pass, is if a French Revolution-style mob descended upon Hollywood, while simultaneously, on the other side of the country, another angry mob did the same in DC. The people have no power in this matter; they have delegated it to government, and government is complicit in the crime. You cannot expect to get justice from a corrupt constabulary. That leaves ONLY vigilante-ism.
As the founding fathers demonstrated, the intrinsic power of the people, is the power of the people to revolt. That's the reason for the second amendment, and the reason for much of the rhetoric of Jefferson and Co. in the federalist papers. Voting is a proxy for that power, to channel it into a less destructive force for change in government. However, when voting has been rendered useless, the only recourse left is violence.
So, unless you think you can organize such a revolt, (or even a passive one, ghandi-style,) this bill will pass, the MAFIAA *WILL* get what it wants, and we WILL get bent over the barrel by both them AND our government, and we will be ridden, and ridden, and ridden.
[Note: For those that think that violence never solves anything, Tell me-- what power do you think you as a voter have over a lame-duck congress, which is demonstrating that it doesn't care about your interests? They are going out the door anyway, and your vote does not have the power to put them in jail, or to stop them in any way.]
Welcome to the USA-- Where everyone is equal, but some 'persons' are more equal than others.
The issue I have with the current financial industry, and the whole lending infrastructure, is the dependence on prior debts as the basis for assessing risk:
EG, If you DON'T own and use a credit card, or have several lines of credit with your banking institution, your credit score looks just as bad as the repeat bankruptcy offender with a credit report a mile long filled with unpayed debts in collections, because there is no history from which to measure your "risk."
Essentially, you HAVE to carry debt of some sort in order to have a good credit score. If you don't have a good credit score, you get shitty interest rates on things like houses and cars, even if you are financially solvent with good income-- Hell, you might not even get approved for a line of credit from your bank when you actually need one, or if you do, you will get a really lousy deal.
Case in point: Myself.
I have only ONE outstanding debt; My house. I make payments on time, and am more than halfway through my mortgage. I have enough liquid capital to pay it off immediately if necessary. I do not use credit cards, because I acknowledge that they are a shister's con-game, designed to suck your bank accounts dry. Instead, I use a bank card that links to real money. The issue? Purchases made with the bank card do not improve your credit score, like purchases made with a real credit card. Result-- My credit score is sub optimal. Thank gawd I have a fixed rate.
What does this do to me? In the recent aftermath of the financial meltdown, pretty much every industry that deals with any sort of financial risk has re-assessed their rates, including insurers. Guess what-- My home owner's insurance, which USED to be around 600$ a year, is now closer to 2K a year, simply because of my credit score. (I know, I called and asked-- Wouldnt you?)
It shouldn't be too hard to see how this is a serious problem.
Because it is below the schwartzchild radius. This means that the electro-strong and electro-weak forces become impotent, and normal matter interaction becomes impossible. What results is an "object" of infinite density, but finite mass. Hence, "Singularity."
Neutron star matter is just a teeny weenie bit above this critical limit, and still has enough charge force to prevent gravitational collapse. It is the most dense material in the universe that is still recognizable as matter.
In this case, there is a resource crunch; That resource being land to own.
mars has plenty of land to own, and being a whole planet, is sure to have natural resources that can be exploited, even if they are metaphorically "Higher up fruit" on the tree than those on earth.
When the lower branches are exhausted, that high up fruit looks more and more tempting.
Not exactly; the second link states that it keys the card to the device, suggesting that it enables the "not so well known" security modes of the SD card.
Since the new device you are putting it in (camera, PC, etc.) doesn't know the code, the card does not respond (or does not respond in the correct manner.) result-- Foreign device thinks the card is broken.
This was probably implemented to engage in one-upsmanship with Apple, concerning who can make the most draconian content control system. Sure, you can put the apps you downloaded onto an SD card-- But, since we dont really want you keeping a removable library of apps or other tidbits, we will make it so that once you insert the card, you have to keep it there or risk fluxxoring your phone up, and further, we will make it so that you cant even read it outside of the phone anyway. But, HEY program developers! Your precious install base is SAFE with us! We patched that nasty sneakernet problem! Oh, and FBI/CIA/[insert agency], we made it so that those nasty information terrorists cant just hide their phone's SD card in their shoe or something-- Not if they still want their phones to work! See, we're doing our part to make the world SAFER!
Nevermind if you are a developer yourself, and want a fast and convenient way to put your home-grown application on the phone for testing, or if your application intends to use generic filesystem controls to make a cross compilable application for all 3 phone platforms.. no no. That's just a sad side effect of doing what's best for you, afterall-- "Seriously now Mr Developer, We were just doing WHAT YOU WANTED, Right? You said you wanted your apps not to get pirated-- We just did what we thought was best for you! Why aren't you happy!?"
Etc... Etc... Etc...
this is why hardware makers should not be expected to go out of their way to secure a platform other than what is necessary for ordinary functionality. DRM is and should be the sole discretion of the application creator, not of the platform's creator. EG, [purely hypothetical here] "iTunes for Android" (HAH, like that will ever happen..) can do whatever kinds of calisthenics apple seems necessary to secure their precious music files, and communicate "safely" with the itunes market on the "Untrusted" (AKA, "we don't own it") android platform, but EG, motorola or Google should not try to ham-fist a DRM mechanism on the platform. This is how the platform itself remains application agnostic, an thus more "open."
As-is, the special filesystem method used by the windows 7 phones would require lots of specialist code to support that platform, where nearly identical code could be used for iOS and android.
Additionally, this non-standard interface nonsense makes it impossible to use any kind of SD hardware upgrade, like found in some GPS packages. (this is a full size SD solution, but it is probable that such things will come to be in the smaller micro SD format eventually, since they are pretty much identical except for size.) http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/27/spectec-rolls-out-microsd-packin-sdio-gps-receiver/
By being a non-standard slot, with a non-standard interface type, this makes windows 7 phones fundamentally incompatible with such hardware. Putting one in might well damage both the card AND the phone.
Not exactly. The lift capacity of helium is how much atmosphere it can displace; Creative use of an air compressor in the lift vehicle would reduce it's volume, thus increasing density, and thus reducing lift.
Thus, to "Descend", you just turn on a solar powered air compressor, suck up the HE in the lift bag, and the whole show slowly sinks back to earth.
The amygdala has other neurological functions, including regulating/originating aggression. (there is LOTS of literature on that one.) It also plays a significant role in the retention of emotional memories, and emotional states.
Removal of the amygdala would be very bad for humans. It would result in a kind of severe autism.
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but the main reason why all these "green" devices and such are being pandered, is BECAUSE of the "increased oil prices."
Personally, I think it is GREAT that we are being overcharged-- why? Because it FORCES the issue of change away from this demonstrably destructive energy source. Are the alternatives "good" ones? Probably not, if you are looking for something to sate you hunger for cheap energy, so you can continue being wasteful with it---
In effect, this only benefits oil comanys in the short term; in the long term, it will drive the engine of necessity-- the necessity to replace oil.
Or, we could have, you know-- tapped hydroelectric power in Colorado (LOTS of mountain streams before it reaches the major river systems), and wind energy here in Kansas-- (the average windspeed year-round is 12mph, with windy days constituting more than 2/3. This is more than enough to harvest sizable quantities of "green" energy.)
The major falacy with "Alternative energy wont work! (cites energy density VS hydrocarbons)" is that it makes at least 3 assumptions, almost all of the time:
1) Only one kind of alternative energy is cited. A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.
2) Wind energy is discounted due to variability. Arguments against tactlessly ignore pumped hydro as a solution to the variability and availability problems.
3) "Wont power our cars!" Which, of course it wont, if your car is designed to run on hydrocarbons. Of course, nobody wants to trade in their "Perfectly working" hydrocarbon burning rattle trap, despite that the much vaunted "Energy Density" issue being pretty much garbage here, because nearly all of the energy liberated by the combustion leaves the tailpipe as wasted heat. Total system efficiency with a rechargable battery array + powerplant + transmission lines is rapidly approaching the absymal total efficiency of the internal combustion heat engine, but with considerably less pollution. (arguably, this depends on the battery chemistry used, and how it is recycled.. but that kind of pollution is more easily contained than is flippant CO2 emission.) The major reasons people dont want an electric vehicle are: 1) A lie by the automotive industry that electric vehicles are gutless. [tell that to a diesel electric train. The pulling power comes fromt he electric motor, not the diesel generator.] 2) inferior drive distances (battery technology is rapidly resolving this.) 3) Price. (artificially controlled for the most part.)
4) "All that alternative energy would require a new power distribution system! That costs money!" Cry me a river. We need a new power distribution system anyway, unless you look forward to "California brownouts part II" nation wide, along with 'National emergency' type power grid failures when we have another category 4 or higher solar storm, like we did in the 20s. Feel free to ignore that problem though-- just dont come crying when your power goes out. Did you know that most of the power generated and pushed into the existing grid gets bled out as wast heat and or radio emissions? Why do you suppose that is? What do you suppose the result of replacing that leaky "hose" would be on power prices? (Long term here. Yes, I know the utility companies would charge to replace the lines in the short term.)
Long story short, The "Problem" with alternative energy is that it would upset the apple-cart for the current energy stakeholders. It is a purely political problem.
Being tethered to the support "pylons", if you had a good balast system installed you might not need to pressurize at that shallow of a depth, since that pressure is well within the bounds of current and conventional construction materials to endure. (Several hundred PSI at worst.)
You would "weigh down" the structure with dirt, and use a pumped ballast system to control the bouancy of the complex. There would be an emergency pressurization system to cause rapid ascent in the event of a major mechanical disaster (interconnects between modules breaks, balast system experiences extreme fault, etc--) which would pressurize individual modules, and make them self-bouyant in order to prevent having people in them sink to davy jone's locker, but this system would only activate in the "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! AHHH!" type circumstances.
Basically, the idea is to have the connected modules have "neutral bouancy" at that depth, by having static ballast to overcome their water displacement. With that achieved, direct airway access to the surface is possible, as long as the skin is made of a material strong enough to endure the crushing weight of the water around it.
As you go deeper down, the pressure difference is too high for materials science to keep 1 atm pressure, so they have to "reinforce" the skin by pressurizing the interior; this is when you start having decompression issues and the like.
Even then, there are effective maximum depths at which ordinary atmospheric gas becomes a problem, but you already seem to have a full working knowledge of that problem.
At the extreme, the pressure inside the vessel (needed to keep it from crushing up like a soda can) is itself deleterious to the health of the occupants, causing biological disorders in and of itself. (the pressure starts mucking up with cellular metabolism and various vital processes, simply because of the different chemical properties that the body's fluids take on in such conditions.)
As such, "Living on the deep ocean floor" is probably never going to happen.
This "Shallow, neutrally bouyant" approach looks plausible though.
As an engineer, I like to think about screwy problems from time to time myself, and have even devoted a little time to the concept of floating housing and infrastructure;
The problems with building in the ocean are immense:
1) The ocean is not "smooth and placid", even on a calm day. The cyclical action of small waves lapping against, and rolling under the surfaces of any floating structure causes abrasive damage to those surfaces. This is worsened by "Cavitation", when the water is moving quickly, (basically dissolved gases in the water get turned into little erosive bubbles as the water gets 'torn' by small surface imperfections as it flows over it) such as when there is high wind. This means that any non-self-regenerating surface (pretty much anything other than living tissue of some sort, like coral) is going to end up as nanoparticulate goo in one of the ocean's gyres.
2) Bouyancy is a major, non-trivial issue. Bouyancy will degrade over time as organic "Cling-ons" stick to the water-exposed surfaces. (In the ocean, this includes coral buds, kelp fronds, barnacles, and friends.) Additionally, "uneven" construction above on top of the "plate" will cause listing of the bouyant building surface. You would need to displace an obscene amount of water to hold up a traditional wood-frame house. (I know, I did calculations for it!) Even more if you intend to have any kind of yard or agricultural system running, since dirt weighs MORE than water. (meaning you must displace MORE water than the same volume of soil.)
3) Strapping discrete units together causes mechanical stresses at the joints, as the whole under-surfaces of the floating plates act as levers, applying blunt prying force on the joins. You can alleviate this somewhat by using a cantilouvered (sp? whatever.) design, but then you end up with mechanical wear as the joints rub from the undulating motion of the connected platforms.
All of these problems are major issues for "Fair weather" construction-- The implications of weathering a hurricane or coastal tsunami wave (remote ocean, where the water is deep, Tsunami are not a major factor.) impose whole orders of magnitude greater difficulties.
Based on some observations I have made on water turbulence, any "Floating city" would be better off about 6 meters under the water's surface, than it would be at the surface. Most ordinary wind driven water flow is greatly slowed and stabilized by the time it reaches that depth, reducing cavitational damage on the outer skin of the complex. Bouancy is more easily controlled with a ballast system, and due to the subdued wave-action at that depth, the mechanical forces between modules is greatly reduced.
Such a complex could be constructed between what would essentially be "deep ocean oil platforms", but without the oil pipelines. These would function as pylons to help constrain the floating complex, and provide the infrastructure to enter and leave the complex at the surface.
Building UNDER the water has other problems though-- Namely, risk of flooding, people getting trapped in airlocks, and the whole ball of wax of air, air quality, and atmospheric reprocessing/exchange. (Sad truth-- pumping air is expensive.) At such a shallow depth (basically 18 feet or so) there is little risk of developing nitrogen narcosis, but there would still be psychological effects of living in a tin-can.
Pretty much, the difficulties in constructing and maintaining a general purpose, habitable structure that is underwater is why there are so few of them, and none of them are 'large scale' construction projects.
Your interpretation conveniently overlooks some more subtle aspects of the fiction;
1) From the main thesis of the narrative, "God is all knowing, and all powerful"
Thus, your interpretation boils down to "God is a prick, because he created beings knowing full well that they would succumb, and that he would have to punish them."
However, that same narrative could be seen not as punishment, but as natural consequences:
God created faulty beings, so that they could become more perfect beings, which is an unavoidably painful process; The consequence of knowledge is accountability.
Thus, God created man, and the garden-- Yes. He also created the tree, AND the serpent, FOR man.
Mankind's current suffering is the necessary process to transform man into an accountable being, who is able to properly use his knowledge. The knowledge is not explicitly evil; It allows evil to exist, and forces mankind to deal with the consequences of that evil. Put bluntly, it forces mankind to recognize that doing evil things is not in anyone's best ineterst, and forces him to recognize what is and is not evil.
It is the same kind of lesson that a parent gives a teenager when they go to college-- They give them money, and allow them to spend it; then suffer the consequences when/if that money is misused-- Only taken to a crazy cosmic extreme;
The reason for this extreme lesson plan, is because the ultimate plan for mankind is to "become like God" ("We shall know him, for we shall be like him", et al)-- It would be horrifically irresponsible for God to NOT take the extreme, harsh, and brutally honest tact with mankind.
Which do you find better-- A god that brutally instructs "pre-gods" about the consequences of evil, to instill in them a natural aversion to it-- or one that simply swoops in like a hellicopter parent when their rotten progeny abuses it's power for its own amusement?
God does not find mankind's suffering even the slightest bit "amusing"-- The bible is quite explicit in numberous locations that God greatly lament's mankind's plight; But having perfect knowlege and foresight, has no choice but to accept that such suffering is what is needed to ensure the very best outcome for his "children."
When you analyze the narrative and remove the rhetorical spin added by religious officials, you realize that the bible never once describes the dogmatic "hell". Instead, you find that the punishment for "complete failure to accept the consequences of your actions, and change accordingly" (aka, willful sin) is "being unmade"/"Eternal death"-- Not eternal suffering.
The bible alludes to this process in many allegorical ways, the most prominent of which is the smelting of silver from dirty ore, in the raging fires of the oven, and as the often abused proverb "spare the rod, spoil the child", which stems from an old testiment assertion that God punishes mankind because he loves it, (and wants it to learn not to do evil things), and that likewise parents should apply stern punishment to their children, to ensure that they grow up to live good, just, and profitable lives.
When taken all together, it is not so much "God is a prick for setting us up to fail", so much as it is "God is a super-genius for setting us up to fall, so that we can learn to fly."
The assertion that "God kicked us out of paradise", is like a baby eaglet saying its mother is a heartless bitch for kicking it out of the safe warm nest, and doubly so for having raised it in that nest, knowing full well it would have to kick it out-- It totally discounts that being kicked out of the nest is necessary for it to grow into a mighty eagle itself; and that ultimately the chick will either learn to fly on the way down, or will die when it hits the bottom as a natural consequence. "Sadistic cruelty" never once enters the equasion, Same with God, and the "wages of Sin."
At least, that is what the Biblical Narrative says, if you actually read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about "Replacing" RAM?
I said it would be handy to have an SSD (as in, permanent storage) mapped directly into the memory bus- Not everything that is mapped into memory is writable, or should be treated like RAM you know. Some memory IO addresses point to nothing, and are used for such various and sundry things as "Virtual memory" space, etc.
The block driver should look for a signature at the top of the SSD's raw contents, then allocate the whole memory range as a locked, non-paged allocation. That would prevent ANYTHING else from even LOOKING at that memory range, unless your OS is a buggy pile of shit. It would be OWNED by the block device driver. The only process that would have privileges to write to it would be the block device driver's.
To prevent the OS from frying the SSD with abusive writes (who does that anyway?) the block driver should allocate a resizable write buffer from actual RAM as well, then offload the buffer as CPU load and time permits. If the buffer gets full, the driver should tell the OS to wait.
Ideally, the offloading process should not occur until after a certain number of miliseconds pass, so that rapidly acessed data can be read from the buffer instead of from the SSD. That way your abusive program's spam of filesystem calls wouldnt kill the SSD.
Essentially, think "Ramdisk", but with flash memory there, and a read/write buffer allocated by the block driver. NO programs other than the block driver itself should ever try to touch that memory directly; ALL accesses should go through filesystem API calls TO the block driver instead.
As far as the OS is concerned, the SSD would appear like a disk drive, via the block driver.
Again, *NOT AS SYSTEM RAM*
Didn't I comment on this being the inevitable outcome for this bill last night? Pretty sure I did..
The reasons havent changed. Whining about it wont fix it either.
Right now our options are pretty limited:
1) We can, against all odds, accept lower wages in order to compete with material goods manufactured by slaves in China, to lessen our depedence upon intelletual properties in the world market. (HAH!)
2) Bite the bullet, accept that the US as we know it is basically over, and accept "also ran" status in the world marketplace, (implies that 1 will happen as a consequence) and offer "cheap" IP, with reasonable terms- (HAH!)
3) We can enforce draconian copyrights, pass every patent imaginable with rediculously long terms, and try to squeeze that teat for all it's worth to try to stay relevant in the world market. (DING! we have a winner!)
4) We can become highly insular, do EVERYTHING ourselves, totally ignore the world market, and operate as IP pirates openly (What we did when the nation was an infant, much to the chagrin of European publishers.) (Implies 1 and 2, and demotion to 2nd or even 3rd world conditions due to natural scarcities) [HAH!]
Since our congress critters suffer a crack-like addiction to money and power, option 3 is the only one they are even willing to consider. As such, measures like the DMCA, and now COIACA (whatever it's letters are) will ALWAYS pass. ALWAYS. Raise a fuss all you want. It WILL pass.
However, if one of the other options seems preferable to you, you can always invoke the power of the angry torch bearing mob--- Or, you can do the non-violent protest, Ghandi style-- But the ultimate result would still be the same; the US's gravy train would get derailed.
While the write speed would be painful compared to real DRAM, the read speed would be comparable.
For large static arrays, and for custom data applications, it could have uses in the form the GP suggests, though it WOULD be a nasty throwback to the days of user ROMs...
However, I could definitely see the potential in having such a thing mapped directly to system memory, then loading a special block device driver to allocate all that "memory", so that memory IO could be used for data storage. It would eliminate the SATA controller's IO bottleneck, but would impose a slight CPU penalty. For systems with multiple CPUs, that wouldnt be much of a problem. You would need to allocate that memory fast though, to prevent the OS from trying to use it like RAM.
Depending on the CCDs in the cameras, you could replace the IR diodes with UV ones in one of the units to avoid the interference issue. (the projector part that is.)
Many cheap CCDs can pick up both IR and UV.
It would also be great for 3D artists, since it would partially bridge the gap between physical and digital modeling. This could let somebody with old-school sculpting 'skillz' create some really nice 3D object meshes. Required hardware: Lazy suzan, Microsoft Kinect, 3D scanning software, well lit room. (the most expensive item being the software.)
Not just for detail objects either-- Could realistically be mounted to a rotary table, and placed inside a building to grab the interior as a 3D mockup. Great for inserting CG into a live action set, or for mocking up an interior in meatspace cheaply, and then cleaning it up digitally for production use later. (Styrofoam and plaster are pretty cheap.)
If 3D printers ever make their debut in the home marketplace, it would allow all kinds of 3D collaborative effort over the internet.
That the Kinect could be used to spy on users for marketing reasons seems awfully familiar-- Oh, that's right. I brought it up last week.
Fancy that.
Here's hoping my concerns about law enforcement co-opting it bear less fruit...
The option for applied violence was tendered, not as the recommended course of action, but to be informative that it was the ONLY way to prevent the legislation, for those individuals that would find keeping their rights preferable to having food on the table. (the latter outcome I think we both well explained.) It was not intended as a rallying cry, but instead as a matter-of-fact pronouncement.
The "lame duck" issue does hold relevence, as right now the new congress-elect will be under heavy scrutiny, having been elected under very noteworthy conditions in terms of voter confidence in their predecessors. Further, the new crowd has a liberal spattering of untested politicians that ran under the teaparty banner. We could contest how important that might be later, but the possibility that these new congress critters might actually oppose this kind of legislation needs to be considered. It is possible, if somewhat dubious to assert, that the new congress would strongly debate and derail such legislation. (at least at first anyway.) That is why I think it is being tried now, in the lame duck congress.
I agree that IP protection is vital to the continued economic prosperity of our nation, however, I disagree that giving the entertainment industry carte-blanc is the best solution; Look what it did to the banking industry, when they permitted deregulation.
No, they have brains, they just exhibit below average activity in the cortex, and above average activity in the limbic system.
That's why they think that any measure that is intended to "Protect the children" is OK.
(Consequently, it is also why they spend such an inordinate amount of time and resources chasing people around bathroom stalls and cloak rooms.)
Here is why:
1) The democratic congress is a lame duck congress. They are looking for new jobs. They have nothing to lose, and the senate is still democrat controlled.
2) The democratic party has a long standing unspoken agreement with the entertainment industry. (Much like the GOP has a similar agreement with big oil, and big biz.)
3) The incumbant congress wont pass up on the windfall that this gives them; With one side of their mouth, they would state that they would never propose such legislation, with the other they will happily enforce and use said legislation. Such action has been the de-facto norm for at least 2 decades now.
4) The supreme court will bend over backwards to support this measure, and pull the constitution through a knothole backwards to make it fit, for similar interest reasons.
5) The government in general LIKES the idea of draconian IP protection, BECAUSE it makes an end-run around that nasty first amendment; AND because the US has pretty much NO real tangible goods exports in the world market other than food stuffs (which as the 2nd world rises to prominence, is becoming less and less profitable.), and as such, it sees the handwriting on the wall if it doesnt take drastic measures to keep a firm grip on the reigns of invention and ideas. "IP" and "Patents" are just about the only profitable things left in the US, and they go bye-bye if corporations leave. The corporations use this fact to control the US government. This is what it means by "Too big to fail."-- it means that the government cannot afford to have them go under, because if they did, the government wouldnt have anything to replace the income/bargaining power in the world market with.
Thus, even if this bill is shot down, it will be reintroduced silently as a rider, and passed later.
The ONLY way to make this bill NEVER pass, is if a French Revolution-style mob descended upon Hollywood, while simultaneously, on the other side of the country, another angry mob did the same in DC. The people have no power in this matter; they have delegated it to government, and government is complicit in the crime. You cannot expect to get justice from a corrupt constabulary. That leaves ONLY vigilante-ism.
As the founding fathers demonstrated, the intrinsic power of the people, is the power of the people to revolt. That's the reason for the second amendment, and the reason for much of the rhetoric of Jefferson and Co. in the federalist papers. Voting is a proxy for that power, to channel it into a less destructive force for change in government. However, when voting has been rendered useless, the only recourse left is violence.
So, unless you think you can organize such a revolt, (or even a passive one, ghandi-style,) this bill will pass, the MAFIAA *WILL* get what it wants, and we WILL get bent over the barrel by both them AND our government, and we will be ridden, and ridden, and ridden.
[Note: For those that think that violence never solves anything, Tell me-- what power do you think you as a voter have over a lame-duck congress, which is demonstrating that it doesn't care about your interests? They are going out the door anyway, and your vote does not have the power to put them in jail, or to stop them in any way.]
Welcome to the USA-- Where everyone is equal, but some 'persons' are more equal than others.
The issue I have with the current financial industry, and the whole lending infrastructure, is the dependence on prior debts as the basis for assessing risk:
EG, If you DON'T own and use a credit card, or have several lines of credit with your banking institution, your credit score looks just as bad as the repeat bankruptcy offender with a credit report a mile long filled with unpayed debts in collections, because there is no history from which to measure your "risk."
Essentially, you HAVE to carry debt of some sort in order to have a good credit score. If you don't have a good credit score, you get shitty interest rates on things like houses and cars, even if you are financially solvent with good income-- Hell, you might not even get approved for a line of credit from your bank when you actually need one, or if you do, you will get a really lousy deal.
Case in point: Myself.
I have only ONE outstanding debt; My house. I make payments on time, and am more than halfway through my mortgage. I have enough liquid capital to pay it off immediately if necessary. I do not use credit cards, because I acknowledge that they are a shister's con-game, designed to suck your bank accounts dry. Instead, I use a bank card that links to real money. The issue? Purchases made with the bank card do not improve your credit score, like purchases made with a real credit card. Result-- My credit score is sub optimal. Thank gawd I have a fixed rate.
What does this do to me? In the recent aftermath of the financial meltdown, pretty much every industry that deals with any sort of financial risk has re-assessed their rates, including insurers. Guess what-- My home owner's insurance, which USED to be around 600$ a year, is now closer to 2K a year, simply because of my credit score. (I know, I called and asked-- Wouldnt you?)
It shouldn't be too hard to see how this is a serious problem.
Because it is below the schwartzchild radius. This means that the electro-strong and electro-weak forces become impotent, and normal matter interaction becomes impossible. What results is an "object" of infinite density, but finite mass. Hence, "Singularity."
Neutron star matter is just a teeny weenie bit above this critical limit, and still has enough charge force to prevent gravitational collapse. It is the most dense material in the universe that is still recognizable as matter.
In this case, there is a resource crunch; That resource being land to own.
mars has plenty of land to own, and being a whole planet, is sure to have natural resources that can be exploited, even if they are metaphorically "Higher up fruit" on the tree than those on earth.
When the lower branches are exhausted, that high up fruit looks more and more tempting.
Not exactly; the second link states that it keys the card to the device, suggesting that it enables the "not so well known" security modes of the SD card.
Since the new device you are putting it in (camera, PC, etc.) doesn't know the code, the card does not respond (or does not respond in the correct manner.) result-- Foreign device thinks the card is broken.
This was probably implemented to engage in one-upsmanship with Apple, concerning who can make the most draconian content control system. Sure, you can put the apps you downloaded onto an SD card-- But, since we dont really want you keeping a removable library of apps or other tidbits, we will make it so that once you insert the card, you have to keep it there or risk fluxxoring your phone up, and further, we will make it so that you cant even read it outside of the phone anyway. But, HEY program developers! Your precious install base is SAFE with us! We patched that nasty sneakernet problem! Oh, and FBI/CIA/[insert agency], we made it so that those nasty information terrorists cant just hide their phone's SD card in their shoe or something-- Not if they still want their phones to work! See, we're doing our part to make the world SAFER!
Nevermind if you are a developer yourself, and want a fast and convenient way to put your home-grown application on the phone for testing, or if your application intends to use generic filesystem controls to make a cross compilable application for all 3 phone platforms.. no no. That's just a sad side effect of doing what's best for you, afterall-- "Seriously now Mr Developer, We were just doing WHAT YOU WANTED, Right? You said you wanted your apps not to get pirated-- We just did what we thought was best for you! Why aren't you happy!?"
Etc... Etc... Etc...
this is why hardware makers should not be expected to go out of their way to secure a platform other than what is necessary for ordinary functionality. DRM is and should be the sole discretion of the application creator, not of the platform's creator. EG, [purely hypothetical here] "iTunes for Android" (HAH, like that will ever happen..) can do whatever kinds of calisthenics apple seems necessary to secure their precious music files, and communicate "safely" with the itunes market on the "Untrusted" (AKA, "we don't own it") android platform, but EG, motorola or Google should not try to ham-fist a DRM mechanism on the platform. This is how the platform itself remains application agnostic, an thus more "open."
As-is, the special filesystem method used by the windows 7 phones would require lots of specialist code to support that platform, where nearly identical code could be used for iOS and android.
Additionally, this non-standard interface nonsense makes it impossible to use any kind of SD hardware upgrade, like found in some GPS packages. (this is a full size SD solution, but it is probable that such things will come to be in the smaller micro SD format eventually, since they are pretty much identical except for size.)
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/27/spectec-rolls-out-microsd-packin-sdio-gps-receiver/
By being a non-standard slot, with a non-standard interface type, this makes windows 7 phones fundamentally incompatible with such hardware. Putting one in might well damage both the card AND the phone.
Way to go microsoft!
Not exactly. The lift capacity of helium is how much atmosphere it can displace; Creative use of an air compressor in the lift vehicle would reduce it's volume, thus increasing density, and thus reducing lift.
Thus, to "Descend", you just turn on a solar powered air compressor, suck up the HE in the lift bag, and the whole show slowly sinks back to earth.
Only if the stated goal is to deliver a screaming child ever higher into the atmosphere, with video and sound.
Bonus points if they come down in one piece.
The amygdala has other neurological functions, including regulating/originating aggression. (there is LOTS of literature on that one.) It also plays a significant role in the retention of emotional memories, and emotional states.
Removal of the amygdala would be very bad for humans. It would result in a kind of severe autism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but the main reason why all these "green" devices and such are being pandered, is BECAUSE of the "increased oil prices."
Personally, I think it is GREAT that we are being overcharged-- why? Because it FORCES the issue of change away from this demonstrably destructive energy source. Are the alternatives "good" ones? Probably not, if you are looking for something to sate you hunger for cheap energy, so you can continue being wasteful with it---
In effect, this only benefits oil comanys in the short term; in the long term, it will drive the engine of necessity-- the necessity to replace oil.
What a lovely bunch of ad-hominems-- There they are standing in a row...
Or, we could have, you know-- tapped hydroelectric power in Colorado (LOTS of mountain streams before it reaches the major river systems), and wind energy here in Kansas-- (the average windspeed year-round is 12mph, with windy days constituting more than 2/3. This is more than enough to harvest sizable quantities of "green" energy.)
The major falacy with "Alternative energy wont work! (cites energy density VS hydrocarbons)" is that it makes at least 3 assumptions, almost all of the time:
1) Only one kind of alternative energy is cited. A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.
2) Wind energy is discounted due to variability. Arguments against tactlessly ignore pumped hydro as a solution to the variability and availability problems.
3) "Wont power our cars!" Which, of course it wont, if your car is designed to run on hydrocarbons. Of course, nobody wants to trade in their "Perfectly working" hydrocarbon burning rattle trap, despite that the much vaunted "Energy Density" issue being pretty much garbage here, because nearly all of the energy liberated by the combustion leaves the tailpipe as wasted heat. Total system efficiency with a rechargable battery array + powerplant + transmission lines is rapidly approaching the absymal total efficiency of the internal combustion heat engine, but with considerably less pollution. (arguably, this depends on the battery chemistry used, and how it is recycled.. but that kind of pollution is more easily contained than is flippant CO2 emission.) The major reasons people dont want an electric vehicle are: 1) A lie by the automotive industry that electric vehicles are gutless. [tell that to a diesel electric train. The pulling power comes fromt he electric motor, not the diesel generator.] 2) inferior drive distances (battery technology is rapidly resolving this.) 3) Price. (artificially controlled for the most part.)
4) "All that alternative energy would require a new power distribution system! That costs money!" Cry me a river. We need a new power distribution system anyway, unless you look forward to "California brownouts part II" nation wide, along with 'National emergency' type power grid failures when we have another category 4 or higher solar storm, like we did in the 20s. Feel free to ignore that problem though-- just dont come crying when your power goes out. Did you know that most of the power generated and pushed into the existing grid gets bled out as wast heat and or radio emissions? Why do you suppose that is? What do you suppose the result of replacing that leaky "hose" would be on power prices? (Long term here. Yes, I know the utility companies would charge to replace the lines in the short term.)
Long story short, The "Problem" with alternative energy is that it would upset the apple-cart for the current energy stakeholders. It is a purely political problem.
The question is-- Is the GP wrong, or was it that nobody wanted to admit to it? ;)
No, That would be fungus. We Americans are mushrooms.
Our corporate media keeps us in the dark and feeds us pure bullshit.
The interesting thing about "Infinities", is that they are not all created equal.
Take for instance, these two infinite sets:
All even numbers.
All numbers divisible by 4.
the first one is provably larger than the second, while both are infinite quantities. (In fact, the second is a provable subset of the first.)
This is why "Infinity" is not a "Value".
Being tethered to the support "pylons", if you had a good balast system installed you might not need to pressurize at that shallow of a depth, since that pressure is well within the bounds of current and conventional construction materials to endure. (Several hundred PSI at worst.)
You would "weigh down" the structure with dirt, and use a pumped ballast system to control the bouancy of the complex. There would be an emergency pressurization system to cause rapid ascent in the event of a major mechanical disaster (interconnects between modules breaks, balast system experiences extreme fault, etc--) which would pressurize individual modules, and make them self-bouyant in order to prevent having people in them sink to davy jone's locker, but this system would only activate in the "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! AHHH!" type circumstances.
Basically, the idea is to have the connected modules have "neutral bouancy" at that depth, by having static ballast to overcome their water displacement. With that achieved, direct airway access to the surface is possible, as long as the skin is made of a material strong enough to endure the crushing weight of the water around it.
As you go deeper down, the pressure difference is too high for materials science to keep 1 atm pressure, so they have to "reinforce" the skin by pressurizing the interior; this is when you start having decompression issues and the like.
Even then, there are effective maximum depths at which ordinary atmospheric gas becomes a problem, but you already seem to have a full working knowledge of that problem.
At the extreme, the pressure inside the vessel (needed to keep it from crushing up like a soda can) is itself deleterious to the health of the occupants, causing biological disorders in and of itself. (the pressure starts mucking up with cellular metabolism and various vital processes, simply because of the different chemical properties that the body's fluids take on in such conditions.)
As such, "Living on the deep ocean floor" is probably never going to happen.
This "Shallow, neutrally bouyant" approach looks plausible though.
As an engineer, I like to think about screwy problems from time to time myself, and have even devoted a little time to the concept of floating housing and infrastructure;
The problems with building in the ocean are immense:
1) The ocean is not "smooth and placid", even on a calm day. The cyclical action of small waves lapping against, and rolling under the surfaces of any floating structure causes abrasive damage to those surfaces. This is worsened by "Cavitation", when the water is moving quickly, (basically dissolved gases in the water get turned into little erosive bubbles as the water gets 'torn' by small surface imperfections as it flows over it) such as when there is high wind. This means that any non-self-regenerating surface (pretty much anything other than living tissue of some sort, like coral) is going to end up as nanoparticulate goo in one of the ocean's gyres.
2) Bouyancy is a major, non-trivial issue. Bouyancy will degrade over time as organic "Cling-ons" stick to the water-exposed surfaces. (In the ocean, this includes coral buds, kelp fronds, barnacles, and friends.) Additionally, "uneven" construction above on top of the "plate" will cause listing of the bouyant building surface. You would need to displace an obscene amount of water to hold up a traditional wood-frame house. (I know, I did calculations for it!) Even more if you intend to have any kind of yard or agricultural system running, since dirt weighs MORE than water. (meaning you must displace MORE water than the same volume of soil.)
3) Strapping discrete units together causes mechanical stresses at the joints, as the whole under-surfaces of the floating plates act as levers, applying blunt prying force on the joins. You can alleviate this somewhat by using a cantilouvered (sp? whatever.) design, but then you end up with mechanical wear as the joints rub from the undulating motion of the connected platforms.
All of these problems are major issues for "Fair weather" construction-- The implications of weathering a hurricane or coastal tsunami wave (remote ocean, where the water is deep, Tsunami are not a major factor.) impose whole orders of magnitude greater difficulties.
Based on some observations I have made on water turbulence, any "Floating city" would be better off about 6 meters under the water's surface, than it would be at the surface. Most ordinary wind driven water flow is greatly slowed and stabilized by the time it reaches that depth, reducing cavitational damage on the outer skin of the complex. Bouancy is more easily controlled with a ballast system, and due to the subdued wave-action at that depth, the mechanical forces between modules is greatly reduced.
Such a complex could be constructed between what would essentially be "deep ocean oil platforms", but without the oil pipelines. These would function as pylons to help constrain the floating complex, and provide the infrastructure to enter and leave the complex at the surface.
Building UNDER the water has other problems though-- Namely, risk of flooding, people getting trapped in airlocks, and the whole ball of wax of air, air quality, and atmospheric reprocessing/exchange. (Sad truth-- pumping air is expensive.) At such a shallow depth (basically 18 feet or so) there is little risk of developing nitrogen narcosis, but there would still be psychological effects of living in a tin-can.
Pretty much, the difficulties in constructing and maintaining a general purpose, habitable structure that is underwater is why there are so few of them, and none of them are 'large scale' construction projects.
Your interpretation conveniently overlooks some more subtle aspects of the fiction;
1) From the main thesis of the narrative, "God is all knowing, and all powerful"
Thus, your interpretation boils down to "God is a prick, because he created beings knowing full well that they would succumb, and that he would have to punish them."
However, that same narrative could be seen not as punishment, but as natural consequences:
God created faulty beings, so that they could become more perfect beings, which is an unavoidably painful process; The consequence of knowledge is accountability.
Thus, God created man, and the garden-- Yes. He also created the tree, AND the serpent, FOR man.
Mankind's current suffering is the necessary process to transform man into an accountable being, who is able to properly use his knowledge. The knowledge is not explicitly evil; It allows evil to exist, and forces mankind to deal with the consequences of that evil. Put bluntly, it forces mankind to recognize that doing evil things is not in anyone's best ineterst, and forces him to recognize what is and is not evil.
It is the same kind of lesson that a parent gives a teenager when they go to college-- They give them money, and allow them to spend it; then suffer the consequences when/if that money is misused-- Only taken to a crazy cosmic extreme;
The reason for this extreme lesson plan, is because the ultimate plan for mankind is to "become like God" ("We shall know him, for we shall be like him", et al)-- It would be horrifically irresponsible for God to NOT take the extreme, harsh, and brutally honest tact with mankind.
Which do you find better-- A god that brutally instructs "pre-gods" about the consequences of evil, to instill in them a natural aversion to it-- or one that simply swoops in like a hellicopter parent when their rotten progeny abuses it's power for its own amusement?
God does not find mankind's suffering even the slightest bit "amusing"-- The bible is quite explicit in numberous locations that God greatly lament's mankind's plight; But having perfect knowlege and foresight, has no choice but to accept that such suffering is what is needed to ensure the very best outcome for his "children."
When you analyze the narrative and remove the rhetorical spin added by religious officials, you realize that the bible never once describes the dogmatic "hell". Instead, you find that the punishment for "complete failure to accept the consequences of your actions, and change accordingly" (aka, willful sin) is "being unmade"/"Eternal death"-- Not eternal suffering.
The bible alludes to this process in many allegorical ways, the most prominent of which is the smelting of silver from dirty ore, in the raging fires of the oven, and as the often abused proverb "spare the rod, spoil the child", which stems from an old testiment assertion that God punishes mankind because he loves it, (and wants it to learn not to do evil things), and that likewise parents should apply stern punishment to their children, to ensure that they grow up to live good, just, and profitable lives.
When taken all together, it is not so much "God is a prick for setting us up to fail", so much as it is "God is a super-genius for setting us up to fall, so that we can learn to fly."
The assertion that "God kicked us out of paradise", is like a baby eaglet saying its mother is a heartless bitch for kicking it out of the safe warm nest, and doubly so for having raised it in that nest, knowing full well it would have to kick it out-- It totally discounts that being kicked out of the nest is necessary for it to grow into a mighty eagle itself; and that ultimately the chick will either learn to fly on the way down, or will die when it hits the bottom as a natural consequence. "Sadistic cruelty" never once enters the equasion, Same with God, and the "wages of Sin."
At least, that is what the Biblical Narrative says, if you actually read it.