Crap, I may already be a rich man! I think I have all those issues.
I even remember trying to file open a 1K CMOS RAM package to use as the image sensor for the "digital camera" featured in the Popular Electronics he's got there.
Oh well, that's my phone that's not ringing. I assume that's Bill Gates not calling me to say that he's also kept all those issues. There go my hopes at fame and fortune...:-(
That wasn't just false signals. The NSA deliberately focused on receiving the lunar reflected signals from Soviet launch telemetrics. They also experimented with using deliberate lunar bounce to transmit around the globe, before they had built their network of communications satellites.
Sorry, I didn't read enough of TFA to find out just how small this rock is. I was imagining a lot larger, with a sizeable amount of gravity, and wondering if the field could "sweep up" a couple on the way by.
As a geek, you ought to be ashamed
I am.:-(
We now return you to your regularly scheduled ramblings.
I wonder if anyone's thought about the effects if the asteroid doesn't directly strike earth. Could it cut a swath through the geosynchronous satellites, destroying one, two or dozens directly? Might it perturb their orbits enough to destabilize the whole lot of them?
I wonder how close it would have to come to have an effect like that, and what those probabilities would be like?
As it is, I'm not losing sleep over a %0.042 chance that this puppy will shorten my retirement.
Well, if you had position and orientation for each fingertip pad, there'd pretty much be only one position the hand could be in to achieve it. The rest of the parts of the fingers and hand could be interpolated.
Try an experiment: fix your wrist, then position your fingertips in any configuration. Now, try moving any of your hand or finger bones while keeping the fingertips in the exact same position and orientation. It's very difficult, and you probably can't move those other bones too far.
Besides, it would be very rare indeed if the orientation of the second and third knuckles independent of the fingertips would be relevant to the task being performed. And even if that were true, trying that experiment shows me the interpolated position probably wouldn't vary by more than a few degrees at most.
Getting back to data gloves in general, I always thought the real data glove from many years ago was a clever piece of engineering. The one I remember seeing had an IR transceiver mounted on one side of each joint, and the IR beam was interrupted by variable width "vanes" affixed to the other side of each joint. The degree of flex was correlated to the amount of IR that was passed through the isolator. No moving or rotating parts to wear out (except for the glove,) and no friction for the user.
( It's actually hard for me to comment on this because I've had such effective ad blocking software for the last four years I'm kind of out of the loop as to who is advertising what kind of products. I literally have no idea what kinds of products are being web marketed today, other than a few stock trading firms that show up on Yahoo's finance page and whatever OSDN is hawking on Slashdot. )
Are there web advertisements that are simply "brand builders"? For example, I wouldn't expect consumers to click on a simple "Coca-Cola" ribbon to consider it effective. The only way to rate them would be on a per-impression basis.
Oh, and as far as a few of the most annoying cookie-counters, I ended up sticking sites like siteminder.com in my hosts file. I do wish Firefox had a right-click cookie menu I could use to more easily fix cookie problems, but hey, now I'm just whining...:-)
Advertisers like to have an "independent" auditing firm do the counting page hits so they know they aren't getting scammed. Believe it or not, some unethical people are out there and might just put up a page filled with ads, have a script constantly getting the banners from the advertiser's servers, and then tell the advertisers they "had 100,000 page hits today!"
You'll often find this task is accomplished by "web bugs", tiny 1x1.GIF images that have no purpose other than to go to a third party to indicate the page was viewed, by what IP address, etc. They'll frequently try to give you cookies, too, in order to study browser habits. (I always block these cookies when requested, just to be obstinate.)
Adding layers will increase area, not density. A 20mm x 20mm x 17-layer chip of today has an effective area of 400mm^2 * 17, or 6800 mm^2. If you could increase that 10-fold to 170 layers, you'd have 68,000 mm^2 to work with. Transistor count would rise 10-fold, but only because the area rose 10-fold. The transistor density would remain constant.
(Yes, you purists, I know transistors occupy several layers and can cross layers, and that layers don't work precisely like that, but the general math principles work out the same in any case.)
The "density" does not double in a highly layered design, as the features remain a constant size. Transistor count/chip != density. Transistor count/mm^2 == density. That's all Moore's law said: "density would double every two years." And that's what he's pronounced the end of.
Transistor density leads directly to higher speeds and lower power consumption. Transistor count can help with computational speed by offering more on-chip functionality (you pointed out the good example of multiple cores) but it does not improve the clock speed. And a higher transistor count also directly increases power consumption.
I think the point is that most people believe Moore's Law roughly defined the pace of innovation, but specifically, he said "transistor density doubles every 24 months." Nothing else. And that's the part of the law he's declaring "dead".
You're right, it's going to lead to other innovations: we'll might start seeing expansion in a "wider" direction becoming more common than "faster" chips. (128-bit architectures, with the next step to 256 bit machines, etc.) And/or engineers will focus on different problems, perhaps something like coming up with innovative ways to dissipate on-die heat. Things like this usually lead to other breakthroughs, too. For example, the more efficiently you can get rid of heat, the more layers you could stack on the chip. Technically, the transistor density wouldn't increase, but the transistor count on a single chip could be multiplied by orders of magnitude.
It must suck to be Intel's CEO and be quoted 43 days ago as saying "No end in sight for Moore's Law." Especially when the person pronouncing it dead is its author.
Oh, well, it's been pronounced dead more often than BSD on Slashdot, so it actually means very little. Even coming from Gordon Moore.
So I wonder if that means Slashdot is slightly more important to Google News (with 6 references) than Asahi Shimbun or CBC Manitoba (with only 5 references each.)
But yeah, the implications are that data mining makes it pretty much impossible for Google to hide anything used from the public. I like it a lot.
If you're willing to adapt to a different standard of power (a single brick-style connector), why are you unwilling to assume that a PC power supply isn't similarly adaptable?
There is already USB support for power signalling. Many of today's peripherals shut themselves off when the system is powering down, even though they're attached through a powered USB hub (especially true of POS devices such as barcode scanners and mag stripe readers.) "Extra pins" are not required.
It's completely possible to make this change without requiring motherboard changes or software in the PC or BIOS. First, remember that the "Powered USB" connectors have additional hardware requirements (new shell shape) and therefore those connectors also have additional cable requirements (to deliver the power.) Now, imagine the power supply delivering those new wires also being an upstream hub on the USB bus. It could watch the downstream "current requirement" messages, and deliver the requested amount of current -- standby or operational.
As a matter of fact this exact same functionality could be added to an existing PC (with no internal changes) simply by adding an externally powered hub that provides the new Powered USB connectors. It would require its own power supply (of course) but it could provide all the power with a single transformer, rather than a dozen individual wall warts. Think about that: an 8-port hub you just add to your current machine that delivers power to Powered USB devices. That would be one way to drive the part to market in advance of Powered USB peripherals becoming commonly available.
I'm a big fan of the "one wire" solution. Anything that means I don't have to find another power strip, or cable-tie another handful of black wire makes it that much cleaner, and that much simpler for everyone. While a "standardized brick" makes a lot of sense, I'd jump on the chance to go with a "no brick at all" solution.
I'd be more then willing to spend the $150 I just spent on a computer power supply on a magic box that would provide everything from from 3v to 12v with standardized cables if it would remove the rats next of of power bars with 2-3 items connected to each.
I'd rather have USB commercially standardize on the higher voltage and power option that IBM developed for cash register systems. +5/+12 VDC (and even a single +24VDC station for a printer) VDC, 1000mA (or more). What's better is the plugs are backwards compatible with USB 1.0 standards (they simply have a second socket mounted above the first, and it contains the power conductors in a ground-first connector design.) Then I wouldn't have any wall warts or power cables at all -- I'd draw all of my many peripherals power from the PC's power supply.
A quick glance under my desk shows at least 12(!) wall warts and power bricks, not counting any devices that take 120 VAC directly, such as the computer and monitor. That's 12 power cables that I'd be happy to do without, and I could ditch three power strips.
Yup, over half these stupid USB peripherals take wall warts. The hubs take wall warts. The printers and scanners, tuner and speakers, cradle and charging station -- all those warts and wires would just be gone. That would be a dream. And the technology is here, right now -- but nobody's using it yet. Bummer.
There's a different flaw to the metareview process, and it's known in other circles as "googlebombing."
If I am a manufacturer and want a good review, I'll shop it around to a dozen pet sites. Or two dozen. Or whatever it takes to get a good rating. I'll steer clear of the brutally honest sites (get burned once and that's it -- no going back to them.)
In general, we humans give trust pretty easily, but most of us also can drop that trust at the plonk of a hat. If Foo's Hardware Review recommends the Omega Video Card as "the card to terminate all cards", and I buy one and it's crap, well, so much for my trust in Foo. The same logic will extend to Meta's Hardware Review Review. If I get burned by Meta, well, screw them too.
I think the best way to make something like this work is on the old NoCeM principle of "how much do I trust these other readers of these reviews?" Yes, the sum of the meta reviewers. As long as I can opt out of, say Jon Katz' opinion because I think he's been bought out, I'll be fairly happy with the results.
Yeah, I don't understand the name calling, swearing, etc., other than perhaps to recognize the frustruation people have with the current onslaught of advertising. You were merely honest enough to identify yourself (which I also appreciate.) That's not deserving of scorn.
But I'm still not convinced of the value of tracking cookies for those of us who deliberately have no intention of clicking the ads. The perceived harm (real or imagined) of the tying together of surfing habits from site to site seems justification enough to deny them.
"Depersonalization" may actually work to my advantage: if I don't have an established or recognizable profile, you might be less likely to serve up the ad for something I might really like, but would probably be foolish to spend my money on. (Virtually every Thinkgeek ad comes to mind here:-) Thus, I save my money (to my advantage) by avoiding a sale to Thinkgeek (to the advertiser's and OSDN's disadvantage.)
The doubleclick deal (even though it fell through due to bad PR) among other things, has painted your industry with a broad brush. Like it or not, the entire web advertising industry is regarded in the same light as WhenU, Gator, Claria, and all those other spyware/adware purveyors. Even if your company tries to act ethically, it's virtually impossible for us consumers to see that. It's like the old lawyer joke: it's only 99% of them that give lawyers their bad reputation.
If web advertising is going to work for an honest advertiser, I think you guys are going to have to start by doing a better job of selling your industry as ethical. Doubleclick tried to with their opt-out cookie and their privacy policy, but that goodwill evaporated with their merger announcement (for example: even though it failed, it's all I remember about DoubleClick.) Claria, Gator and other spyware companies have been loudly complaining to the anti-spyware communitiy that they are not "spy"ware, but "ad"ware -- a distinction completely lost on virtually everyone who runs a spyware cleaner. So even the ad biz isn't currently doing a good job of polishing their images. I think you guys need a trade council with published ethical standards, and something like a tiny but catchy "trust me" icon on either your banner ads or some other integrity/self-promotion in your ad rotation.
You wrote: One thing for sure is that internet advertising isn't going away, and sites that you like (this one included) stand a much better chance of staying subscription-free if the advertiser pays/. more for every impression or click. More optimized delivery = more money for publisher = less ads for you.
Sorry, not buying it. More money for publisher means more ads for publisher, not fewer. The business of business is making money. In other words, "if it works, milk it."
I also fail to see why a properly tagged URL in a banner wouldn't be identified with the advertisement I clicked on, and why cookies would be required to establish that relationship. Unless the viewee has referral-stealing malware installed on his machine, I don't understand this piece of your argument. Or is that exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, to tie the referrer to the ad so proper credit can be generated, even in the presence of said malware?
Regarding the tying of personal user identification to cookies, isn't that exactly what the buyout by doubleclick of (crap, memory failing, but there was a company with a huge personal database that doubleclick was trying to buy about two years ago.) Sigh, the ravages of age.
Anyway, the personalization of ads really doesn't affect me. Like virtually every human I know, I tune out the nonrelevant bits of the page. I've become mostly immune to advertising -- at least I like to think I have. Therefore, I have no vested interest in preventing repeat ads or permitting "targeted" ads, because a tampon advertisement is equally likely to catch my eye as an 802.11g wireless card advertisement (that is to say, none whatsoever.)
One thing I find incredibly distracting is motion. Because of the increasing use of Flash for advertising, I'm now running flashblock, and refuse to view any flash unless I know what it's planning to do. I have blocked popups and popunders for years. Similarly, I've had to disable DHTML. Pretty soon I'm going to be back to lynx, and the only thing I'll have to deal with is BLINK tags and ASCIImation alt tags.:-)
On the whole, I am not opposed to advertising on the pages I frequent, which is why I don't blanket block all ads. If page impressions help the site operators keep their sites running, good for them. But they have to understand that (except in very special cases where I intend to give them a clickthru as a bonus) I will not click their ads, nor will I buy from their advertisers. I much prefer a subscription model, which is why I pay for Slashdot.
The club is called Reward Zone. They talked me into joining it a couple of years ago, when I was making something like a $1300 purchase. Because of some screwup at the cash register, the dollars of the sale didn't get put into my account. It took three months and four phone calls to get the dollars in the right place.
Eventually, we received the promised $75 in Best Buy coupons.
So for using Reward Zone I ended up with B.B. coupons, which are much less useful to me than cash. As far as I'm concerned, this "program" is every bit as bad as rebates as far as customer annoyance factor, and probably offers less legal recourse for us consumers. The Best Buy employees were amazed that I didn't want to fork over the $10 to renew my "membership" last year. I was more amazed to find that people actually think these things are some kind of "deal."
Anyway, I'm sticking with General Nanosystems for my computer purchases. I might hit Best Buy for a TV set, but I'll definitely shop around.
Slashdot Mirror
I even remember trying to file open a 1K CMOS RAM package to use as the image sensor for the "digital camera" featured in the Popular Electronics he's got there.
Oh well, that's my phone that's not ringing. I assume that's Bill Gates not calling me to say that he's also kept all those issues. There go my hopes at fame and fortune ... :-(
Pretty damn creative spywork.
As a geek, you ought to be ashamed
I am. :-(
We now return you to your regularly scheduled ramblings.
I wonder how close it would have to come to have an effect like that, and what those probabilities would be like?
As it is, I'm not losing sleep over a %0.042 chance that this puppy will shorten my retirement.
Try an experiment: fix your wrist, then position your fingertips in any configuration. Now, try moving any of your hand or finger bones while keeping the fingertips in the exact same position and orientation. It's very difficult, and you probably can't move those other bones too far.
Besides, it would be very rare indeed if the orientation of the second and third knuckles independent of the fingertips would be relevant to the task being performed. And even if that were true, trying that experiment shows me the interpolated position probably wouldn't vary by more than a few degrees at most.
Getting back to data gloves in general, I always thought the real data glove from many years ago was a clever piece of engineering. The one I remember seeing had an IR transceiver mounted on one side of each joint, and the IR beam was interrupted by variable width "vanes" affixed to the other side of each joint. The degree of flex was correlated to the amount of IR that was passed through the isolator. No moving or rotating parts to wear out (except for the glove,) and no friction for the user.
Are there web advertisements that are simply "brand builders"? For example, I wouldn't expect consumers to click on a simple "Coca-Cola" ribbon to consider it effective. The only way to rate them would be on a per-impression basis.
Oh, and as far as a few of the most annoying cookie-counters, I ended up sticking sites like siteminder.com in my hosts file. I do wish Firefox had a right-click cookie menu I could use to more easily fix cookie problems, but hey, now I'm just whining ... :-)
Lucky for you it's a boolean, and not an integer!
You'll often find this task is accomplished by "web bugs", tiny 1x1 .GIF images that have no purpose other than to go to a third party to indicate the page was viewed, by what IP address, etc. They'll frequently try to give you cookies, too, in order to study browser habits. (I always block these cookies when requested, just to be obstinate.)
Adding layers will increase area, not density. A 20mm x 20mm x 17-layer chip of today has an effective area of 400mm^2 * 17, or 6800 mm^2. If you could increase that 10-fold to 170 layers, you'd have 68,000 mm^2 to work with. Transistor count would rise 10-fold, but only because the area rose 10-fold. The transistor density would remain constant.
(Yes, you purists, I know transistors occupy several layers and can cross layers, and that layers don't work precisely like that, but the general math principles work out the same in any case.)
Transistor density leads directly to higher speeds and lower power consumption. Transistor count can help with computational speed by offering more on-chip functionality (you pointed out the good example of multiple cores) but it does not improve the clock speed. And a higher transistor count also directly increases power consumption.
Oh, wait. We already have! :-)
You're right, it's going to lead to other innovations: we'll might start seeing expansion in a "wider" direction becoming more common than "faster" chips. (128-bit architectures, with the next step to 256 bit machines, etc.) And/or engineers will focus on different problems, perhaps something like coming up with innovative ways to dissipate on-die heat. Things like this usually lead to other breakthroughs, too. For example, the more efficiently you can get rid of heat, the more layers you could stack on the chip. Technically, the transistor density wouldn't increase, but the transistor count on a single chip could be multiplied by orders of magnitude.
Oh, well, it's been pronounced dead more often than BSD on Slashdot, so it actually means very little. Even coming from Gordon Moore.
But yeah, the implications are that data mining makes it pretty much impossible for Google to hide anything used from the public. I like it a lot.
There is already USB support for power signalling. Many of today's peripherals shut themselves off when the system is powering down, even though they're attached through a powered USB hub (especially true of POS devices such as barcode scanners and mag stripe readers.) "Extra pins" are not required.
It's completely possible to make this change without requiring motherboard changes or software in the PC or BIOS. First, remember that the "Powered USB" connectors have additional hardware requirements (new shell shape) and therefore those connectors also have additional cable requirements (to deliver the power.) Now, imagine the power supply delivering those new wires also being an upstream hub on the USB bus. It could watch the downstream "current requirement" messages, and deliver the requested amount of current -- standby or operational.
As a matter of fact this exact same functionality could be added to an existing PC (with no internal changes) simply by adding an externally powered hub that provides the new Powered USB connectors. It would require its own power supply (of course) but it could provide all the power with a single transformer, rather than a dozen individual wall warts. Think about that: an 8-port hub you just add to your current machine that delivers power to Powered USB devices. That would be one way to drive the part to market in advance of Powered USB peripherals becoming commonly available.
I'm a big fan of the "one wire" solution. Anything that means I don't have to find another power strip, or cable-tie another handful of black wire makes it that much cleaner, and that much simpler for everyone. While a "standardized brick" makes a lot of sense, I'd jump on the chance to go with a "no brick at all" solution.
I'd rather have USB commercially standardize on the higher voltage and power option that IBM developed for cash register systems. +5/+12 VDC (and even a single +24VDC station for a printer) VDC, 1000mA (or more). What's better is the plugs are backwards compatible with USB 1.0 standards (they simply have a second socket mounted above the first, and it contains the power conductors in a ground-first connector design.) Then I wouldn't have any wall warts or power cables at all -- I'd draw all of my many peripherals power from the PC's power supply.
A quick glance under my desk shows at least 12(!) wall warts and power bricks, not counting any devices that take 120 VAC directly, such as the computer and monitor. That's 12 power cables that I'd be happy to do without, and I could ditch three power strips.
Yup, over half these stupid USB peripherals take wall warts. The hubs take wall warts. The printers and scanners, tuner and speakers, cradle and charging station -- all those warts and wires would just be gone. That would be a dream. And the technology is here, right now -- but nobody's using it yet. Bummer.
Q: What's the difference between a Porsche and a porcupine?
A: With the porcupine, the prick is on the outside.
I think what he meant was "4gb ought to be enough for anyone." :-)
If I am a manufacturer and want a good review, I'll shop it around to a dozen pet sites. Or two dozen. Or whatever it takes to get a good rating. I'll steer clear of the brutally honest sites (get burned once and that's it -- no going back to them.)
In general, we humans give trust pretty easily, but most of us also can drop that trust at the plonk of a hat. If Foo's Hardware Review recommends the Omega Video Card as "the card to terminate all cards", and I buy one and it's crap, well, so much for my trust in Foo. The same logic will extend to Meta's Hardware Review Review. If I get burned by Meta, well, screw them too.
I think the best way to make something like this work is on the old NoCeM principle of "how much do I trust these other readers of these reviews?" Yes, the sum of the meta reviewers. As long as I can opt out of, say Jon Katz' opinion because I think he's been bought out, I'll be fairly happy with the results.
Yeah, I don't understand the name calling, swearing, etc., other than perhaps to recognize the frustruation people have with the current onslaught of advertising. You were merely honest enough to identify yourself (which I also appreciate.) That's not deserving of scorn.
But I'm still not convinced of the value of tracking cookies for those of us who deliberately have no intention of clicking the ads. The perceived harm (real or imagined) of the tying together of surfing habits from site to site seems justification enough to deny them.
"Depersonalization" may actually work to my advantage: if I don't have an established or recognizable profile, you might be less likely to serve up the ad for something I might really like, but would probably be foolish to spend my money on. (Virtually every Thinkgeek ad comes to mind here :-) Thus, I save my money (to my advantage) by avoiding a sale to Thinkgeek (to the advertiser's and OSDN's disadvantage.)
The doubleclick deal (even though it fell through due to bad PR) among other things, has painted your industry with a broad brush. Like it or not, the entire web advertising industry is regarded in the same light as WhenU, Gator, Claria, and all those other spyware/adware purveyors. Even if your company tries to act ethically, it's virtually impossible for us consumers to see that. It's like the old lawyer joke: it's only 99% of them that give lawyers their bad reputation.
If web advertising is going to work for an honest advertiser, I think you guys are going to have to start by doing a better job of selling your industry as ethical. Doubleclick tried to with their opt-out cookie and their privacy policy, but that goodwill evaporated with their merger announcement (for example: even though it failed, it's all I remember about DoubleClick.) Claria, Gator and other spyware companies have been loudly complaining to the anti-spyware communitiy that they are not "spy"ware, but "ad"ware -- a distinction completely lost on virtually everyone who runs a spyware cleaner. So even the ad biz isn't currently doing a good job of polishing their images. I think you guys need a trade council with published ethical standards, and something like a tiny but catchy "trust me" icon on either your banner ads or some other integrity/self-promotion in your ad rotation.
Sorry, not buying it. More money for publisher means more ads for publisher, not fewer. The business of business is making money. In other words, "if it works, milk it."
I also fail to see why a properly tagged URL in a banner wouldn't be identified with the advertisement I clicked on, and why cookies would be required to establish that relationship. Unless the viewee has referral-stealing malware installed on his machine, I don't understand this piece of your argument. Or is that exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, to tie the referrer to the ad so proper credit can be generated, even in the presence of said malware?
Regarding the tying of personal user identification to cookies, isn't that exactly what the buyout by doubleclick of (crap, memory failing, but there was a company with a huge personal database that doubleclick was trying to buy about two years ago.) Sigh, the ravages of age.
Anyway, the personalization of ads really doesn't affect me. Like virtually every human I know, I tune out the nonrelevant bits of the page. I've become mostly immune to advertising -- at least I like to think I have. Therefore, I have no vested interest in preventing repeat ads or permitting "targeted" ads, because a tampon advertisement is equally likely to catch my eye as an 802.11g wireless card advertisement (that is to say, none whatsoever.)
One thing I find incredibly distracting is motion. Because of the increasing use of Flash for advertising, I'm now running flashblock, and refuse to view any flash unless I know what it's planning to do. I have blocked popups and popunders for years. Similarly, I've had to disable DHTML. Pretty soon I'm going to be back to lynx, and the only thing I'll have to deal with is BLINK tags and ASCIImation alt tags. :-)
On the whole, I am not opposed to advertising on the pages I frequent, which is why I don't blanket block all ads. If page impressions help the site operators keep their sites running, good for them. But they have to understand that (except in very special cases where I intend to give them a clickthru as a bonus) I will not click their ads, nor will I buy from their advertisers. I much prefer a subscription model, which is why I pay for Slashdot.
The new guy asks, "Why didn't they laugh at that one?"
The lifer replies, "Oh, that's Charlie. He never could do an Irish accent."
Upon hearing this the computer begins firing at William Riker (aka #1).
I'd be interested.
Eventually, we received the promised $75 in Best Buy coupons.
So for using Reward Zone I ended up with B.B. coupons, which are much less useful to me than cash. As far as I'm concerned, this "program" is every bit as bad as rebates as far as customer annoyance factor, and probably offers less legal recourse for us consumers. The Best Buy employees were amazed that I didn't want to fork over the $10 to renew my "membership" last year. I was more amazed to find that people actually think these things are some kind of "deal."
Anyway, I'm sticking with General Nanosystems for my computer purchases. I might hit Best Buy for a TV set, but I'll definitely shop around.
Oh, to have mod points! That was funny!