Re:Sleezy Yahoo Business Practices
on
Hacking Web Services
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
[...] and potentially our patent on these techniques.
The US patent system makes it trivial to protect your intellectual property. If you had a patent on the techniques, then you should seek legal recourse (i.e., a lawsuit) against Yahoo for patent infringement. If you didn't have a patent, well, that's the risk you take for showing a potential competitor an obviously copyable idea.
Headline example:
bnois writes, "The California Highway Patrol has been reporting that during rush hour today several large bridges in San Francisco, including the Golden Gate Bridge, have had sections collapse, sending cars and trucks hurtling to their demise below." If only some qualified engineers had drawn up the plans in their free time and let the general public view them first for errors. Does anyone know of some plans like that on Fresharch?
Linux is a great example of the open-source mindset at work. And there are other great examples of open source projects that work. But the idea that Open Source is the cure-all for all projects big and small is ludicrous. Whoever wrote "If only they were using Open Source Software in the aviation industry" has obviously never been involved in a 100-person project that spanned years and was responsible for critical operations.
Declaring Open Source to be a cure for all ills is like treating every disease with the same pill. It just doesn't work that way. Open Source software is great when people can unite for a common cause (usually against a common competitor, which Microsoft convienently happens to be) and produce a good product. But thre's no evidence that an Open Source project would have worked where this upgrade failed.
Closed source might not be your model of choice, but it solves the same problem. Software engineers writing code which is never released to the public don't do their jobs any worse because of it. You might think that the purity of the code is flawed by company management bent on releasing buggy products for profit, but the open source alternative is a Mozillian, buggy product that is years behind schedule and never quite ready. Don't assume that just because a model you don't like has a failure the model that you do like would have worked.
Additionally, the loss of Anakin would mean the "loss" of Vader, the benefit of which to the galaxy as a whole is obvious.
Not true. According to "the prophecy," a Jedi would bring the two sides of the force together. Without Anakin there would've been no Luke, and we know how that story goes... So Anakin's survival was more essential to Yoda's belief of the future than Dooku's escape was.
Now whether or not Yoda thought about all that as he tried to save his friends is another matter entirely...;-)
I've had a chance to use the Samsung I300, and while it's a very nice phone/PDA combination, one thing in particular stuck out in my mind: no buttons. Now some people might see this as a blessing, but on a cell phone I think being able to press a tactile button is a wonderful thing.
A lot of devices that go with the buttonless approach--remotes, cell phones, readers, etc.--run into this problem. Flat-touch surfaces provide no user feedback and are error-prone for data entry. Touchscreens are extremely adaptable and nice to develop for, but as a user interface they're not very nice for the user. Not only do the lack of buttons make finding the button harder (physical buttons on a remote or cell phone are easily memorized), but pressing the screen leaves a visible fingerprint from oils and dirt that accumulate on our skin. So people find themselves trying to tap the screen with the back of their fingernail, which is a really contorted way to try to touch something. (What they don't show on Star Trek is the ensigns whipping out their handy Windex spritzers after every command.)
Perhaps someone will develop a membrane-like screen with good clarity and the ability to morph itself into different buttons that can be depressed. But until then, I'll do just fine with a smaller screen and my handy buttons.
...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message.
Hopefully Matrox will discontinue the DualHead, TripleHead, etc., naming conventions before they get to the sixth generation (for the same reason that Intel didn't release a Sextium).
I was reading the Parhelia review at HardwareZone when the server chugged to a stop and I wondered, "I wonder if Slashdot just linked to the article?"
Just when I thought that my workplace would never spring for a card with these features, up popped Page 6 (just ignore all those pictures of people playing games with the card) with Glyph Antialiasing for "business appeal!" Three monitors, here I come.
This wasn't mentioned in the article, but apparently young Skorobogatov discovered the smart-card vulnerability during the bright flashes of his dad's exploives tests at the tender age of six.
Gee, that wasn't nearly as funny as I thought it would be...
Mr. Skorobogatov is a Russian emigrant who was once employed in the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons program, where his job was to maintain bombs.
This wasn't mentioned in the article, but apparently young Skorobogatov discovered the smart-card vulnerability during the bright flashes of his dad's exploives tests at the tender age of six.
And since the Mad.Scientist server seems to be down...
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- There's no need to wait for big-ticket, big-money space programs to secure the public right of entry into Earth orbit, says a group of maverick rocketeers. A community of upstart startups is convinced that there is more than one way to create cheap access to space.
Their offerings? Huge balloon platforms anchored at the boundary of air and space to handle traffic to and from Earth orbit; passenger space travel as a booming business thanks to sleek, quick-to-turn-around vehicles that operate in rapid response, FedEx-like fashion. Imagine free-fall family outings courtesy of suborbital space planes that regularly depart from sprawling spaceports.
Moving forward
All these radical ideas have germinated beyond the bureaucratic snarl of government and aerospace industry officialdom, with many of the designers and engineers bringing their hopes and hardware to Space Access '02, held here April 25-27, and sponsored by the Space Access Society (SAS).
"Frankly, the reason new things are happening is pressure from the bottom," said Henry Vanderbilt, head of the SAS and chief coordinator of the meeting. Just like rocket thrust, reactive pressure has begun from the bottom up, he said, a force created by private groups who are forming an exclusive, sky-high alliance.
"These people have flown rockets, recovered them, refueled them, and have flown them again. We're not talking model rockets here, but rockets having complex controls, liquid-fueled and so on. It's an expanding club," Vanderbilt said.
However, it has not all been smooth sailing for the always cash-starved private rocket outfits.
Several entrepreneurial rocket projects have gone awry. A number of efforts have folded completely, spending millions of dollars in the process without a contrail to show for themselves. Other groups are riding on financial fumes or have altered their space business strategy altogether.
Some rocketeers blame the marketplace. Some blame the government. Some blame the rocket gods. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable passion radiating from do-it-yourself space access groups.
"We all thought we would be a lot further than this 10 years go, but at least we're moving forward," Vanderbilt said.
Wal-Mart of space
"Look at the space shuttle," says John Powell, president and founder of JP Aerospace of Rancho Cordova, California. "I see a billion-dollar biplane. Something went wrong along the way. People are convinced it is rocket science. That it takes a big government program and superman astronauts to fly at a cost of millions of dollars."
Powell points out that he and many others are busily working in the trenches looking for alternatives. Everyone is hungry to break the rules. "If somebody pulls it off, everything keeping us out of access to space is going to crumble away. It's just an illusion," he said.
JP Aerospace is focusing money, time and talent on fabricating a microsatellite booster, as well as balloon platforms that soar to the outskirts of the atmosphere.
"It's kind of our playground," Powell noted, detailing recent flights of the Dark Sky Station - a five-armed balloon platform capable of transporting payloads high above Earth. Still-larger balloon platforms are on the drawing boards. Envisioned is a huge, piloted, free-floating atmospheric launch pad from which outgoing rockets streak into orbit, later returning to the high-flying complex.
"We want to be the Wal-Mart of space, not the LockMart [Lockheed Martin] of space," Powell emphasized. "We are America's other space program," he said.
Neat is a commodity
A leading do-it-yourselfer is John Carmack, perhaps better known in computer game circles as a founder of id software, and the brain behind such PC action games as Doom and Quake. But he also heads Armadillo Aerospace of Dallas, Texas and a group intent on building vehicles that transport people to the edge of space.
Personally bankrolling his space company, Carmack reported that good progress is being made and he expects to spend upwards of a $1 million on a craft that propels three people on a suborbital jaunt. In working up to the vehicle, the software sage and volunteers have been building and launching a series of inexpensive, small rocket platforms, shot into the air on hydrogen peroxide-fueled engines.
"I'm a big proponent of little experiments," Carmack emphasized.
Sometimes those experiments work. Sometimes they crash.
"The truth is we learn more from one crash than people can learn from months and months of simulation," Carmack said. "The challenges of rocket science have been mythologized out of all proportion to their true difficulty," he added, and that constructing, testing and flying rockets is not as expensive as people think.
The platform design -- eventually to be flown by an onboard pilot -- has recently evolved to include rotor blades. In the crosshairs of Carmack and his rocket mates is demolishing a climb-to-altitude record now held by a Russian jet pilot. Launching passengers, first to suborbital heights and later into orbit is a goal of Armadillo Aerospace.
"I plan on making money off this. I believe that if it's neat to me, it will likely be neat to other people. And neat is a commodity...you can make money off neat," Carmack said.
KISS and tell technology
At the Experimental Rocket Propulsion Society (ERPS), the philosophy of choice is Keep It Simple Scientists, or KISS for short.
Founded in 1993, the society is based in the San Jose area and researches high-density storable propellant combinations. Single-stage-to-orbit rocketry is under study, as is another society venture, the Private Rocket to Orbit Tiny Objects (PROTO).
ERPS is developing reusable rocket technology, including designs that take off and land vertically under control of an on-board computer. Using off-the-shelf model aircraft parts, the society's GizmoCopter Project tests gyroscopes, accelerometers and computer software necessary for vertical takeoff, vertical landing rockets.
Randall Claque, vice president of ERPS, said their KISS rocket was flown twice within three hours in early April. That shows the society is on the right track in adopting the credo: "Build a little, test a little".
Reliability and reusability in rocket designs, he said, is central to reaching low Earth orbit in an affordable and routine manner.
Can-do competence
Also showing their rocket wares at last month's SAS get-together was XCOR Aerospace of Mojave, California. This young startup organization is staffed by a band of nonconformist tinkerers, resolute in cranking out safe, reliable and reusable rocket engines and rocket-powered vehicles.
Already taking flight is XCOR's EZ-Rocket, a souped-up airplane outfitted with rocket motors.
"We're showing that rocket engines are easy to operate, and that they are safe, attainable, reliable and reusable, just like a jet engine," said XCOR's Aleta Jackson. "We stand behind our product, but not when the engine's firing," she said.
Jackson underscored the company's can-do competence. "One running rocket engine is better than one PowerPoint talk," she said.
Although guarded in revealing all their future plans, XCOR officials see the company's next generation vehicles matched to the suborbital market place: Science experimenters and tourists alike can benefit by free-fall for-a-fee rides. Furthermore, an XCOR reusable suborbital craft, they explained, can boost to height a toss-away upper stage that then blasts a microsatellite into Earth orbit.
"We are not the answer...we're an answer to getting into space," Jackson said.
Icebreaker market
Several private rocket groups are taking up space in Oklahoma.
There, the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority is offering tax credits to like-minded space transportation companies. JP Aerospace and Armadillo Aerospace, for instance, have set up operations at the Oklahoma Spaceport, the former Clinton-Sherman Air Base, in the town of Burns Flat.
Given lots of ground and open air space, the Oklahoma Spaceport is catering to clientele wanting to test fly their space hardware.
A recent addition to those using the Oklahoma Spaceport is Pioneer Rocketplane of Solvang, California.
Mitchell Burnside Clapp, founder and president of Pioneer Rocketplane, said his firm has reconfigured an earlier space plane design. They see suborbital passenger travel as a potential "icebreaker market" for space. A way to chip away at that market, he continued, is by way of the company's still-in-the-making four-seater fighter-sized Pioneer XP craft.
Turbulent times
Clapp, as did others attending Space Access '02, wax and wane as to what space markets can be serviced, or propelled into being by far less-expensive access to space.
Pioneer Rocketplane, like other entrepreneurial access to space groups, have gone through turbulent times.
"The year 2001 was hardly a space odyssey," Clapp said. "The idea that we seemed to have decades ago that the sky was going to be dark with all kinds of space stuff...it just didn't happen," he said.
"We were wrong about the size and scope of the projected market," Clapp said.
For one, the hype over ringing the Earth with constellations of low Earth orbiting telecommunication satellites, then maintaining those satellite networks, did not materialize. As that market disintegrated, so too did the hopes of private rocketeers to build and offer low-cost space transportation.
However, two other markets look promising as well. Promotions and sponsorships -- flying corporate logos and products, for example -- is a moneymaker. So too is microgravity research and Earth observation investigations done during suborbital runs of their space plane, Clapp said.
High-rollers
For the time being, locating venture capital for space may take a spiritual advisor. Thanks to the multi-billion dollar Iridium satellite debacle and investors losing major bucks, finding wellsprings of free-flowing cash isn't easy.
"Iridium has hurt. There's no doubt about it," said investor Paul Hans of P. Hans & Company in Scottsdale, Arizona. "The market for satellites has been far, far, far overestimated. Nobody looks at that as being a realistic market anymore. That does not play well," he said.
Hans believes that one likely driver for the entire space industry is the tourism market. "Right now, the Russians are more capitalist about this than we are...because they need the money," he said.
Added Joseph Pistritto of Belmont, California, an investor in several high-tech areas, including space: "The vast majority of venture capitalists aren't very adventuresome. What's needed is an 'adventure' capitalist."
Pistritto suggested that the venture capital world doesn't have a clue about what's going on in access to space and budding markets. However, matching investors with the longer time horizons required for a return-on-investment in space is still promising, he said.
"It is possible to find money," Pistritto said, likening private space projects to the time horizons acceptable within the pharmaceutical industry.
Real high, real fast, and real often
The good news from the assembly of hot shot rocket groups that attended Space Access '02 is that econo-class space flight may truly be on the horizon.
Meeting organizer, Henry Vanderbilt, summed up the three-day gathering by identifying a theme he felt had emerged.
"Building a place to stand", Vanderbilt told SPACE.com. "The various low-cost launch startups are getting into position to move fast. They'll make their move when investment conditions and existing launch markets heat up again. Also, they will be building the means to address some of the exciting new markets opening up, not the least of which is space tourism," he said.
It is the belief of a corps of 21st century crusaders that getting up into space requires less of a down payment than ever before. There's been a reduction in development time and risk to build vehicles able to offer routine, cheap access to space. Lastly, it appears that a flourishing of non-traditional space markets is near at hand, Vanderbilt said. "All this seems to be converging on a spot where the business case for these ventures makes sense," he said.
Over the decades, pushing spacecraft into orbit has primarily meant taking the "disintegrating totem pole" approach, said Clapp of Pioneer Rocketplane. Critically needed are true spaceships that fly "real high, real fast, and real often," he said.
At days end, it remains the thrill of space flight that stirs the soul, Clapp added. "It's almost as if we all share this religion...this enthusiasm for doing something in space. It's a passion that people who are very religious, I think, would understand."
"One celebrated counterfeiter, Emmanuel Ninger, an immigrant Dutch sign painter
known as Jim the Penman, passed bills for 14 years, from 1882 to 1896, before
being caught. He created his $50 and $100 notes with pen, ink, and a camel's
hair brush, and passed about 5 a month in New York City. He probably would
have gotten away with it if a bartender hadn't noticed the ink on his fingers
after picking a note up."
Hmmm...is it slashdotted already? Here's what I had from my cache:
Gates admits stripped-down Windows possible By Paul Abrahams in Washington Published: April 24 2002 18:52 | Last Updated: April 24 2002 22:00
In what was probably his final day of testimony at the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings Bill Gates (pictured), chairman and co-founder, admitted on Wednesday that it might be possible to create a stripped-down version of Windows for personal computers that use one of its existing products.
The admission was important because Mr Gates had previously argued that it was not feasible to create such a version of Windows, while maintaining the performance of the world's dominant PC operating system.
The nine litigating states want the software giant to provide a basic version of Windows, without applications such as the browser Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so that computer makers can install rivals' software.
Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines, allowed programmers to pick and chose which functions they wanted. However, Mr Gates pointed out that Windows XP Embedded required considerable testing after the options had been selected, and would not allow third-party software to be subsequently added.
Mr Gates has argued during three days of testimony that the states' proposals were cobbled together by its corporate rivals, and that the states have not thought through the proposals' feasibility or implications. He has used a number of examples in an attempt to show that reasonable business behaviour would be banned under the states' remedies, and that consumers would suffer. Throughout his testimony, Mr Gates remained calm and relaxed, in contrast to his performance during the original antitrust trial two years ago.
Through cross-examination, Steven Kuney, the states' lawyer, has tried to show that Microsoft is concerned that the remedies would create competition. He has also tried to demonstrate that Mr Gates' reading of the proposals are extreme and unreasonable.
Mr Gates argued that the proposals allowed rivals to strip out anything they wanted and still call it Windows. "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Mr Gates also said that the discounts that Microsoft would have to offer under the proposals for stripped-down versions of Windows would lead to savings for computer makers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr Gates said his group's sales to computer manufacturers were worth between $6bn-$7bn a year, and that the discounts could reach 25 per cent of those revenues.
The nine litigating states believe that the proposed settlement between the company and the nine other states and the Justice Department is too lax. Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, a decision that was upheld at appeal. The current hearings, which may last until the middle of May, are to decide what conditions should be imposed on its future behaviour. Either side could appeal the judge's ruling.
Since the site's slashdotted, here's what I was able to pull off a Google cache.
Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium Technology
Long-time reviewer clampe writes with this piece on Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium. This is not a book you're likely to find at the corner bookshop, but if you're serious about keeping track of goings-on in the field of HCI, Cliff argues this one is worth seeking out.
Reviewer's Note: Most of the people in the book I'm reviewing could crush me beneath their heels, given I'm a lowly doctoral student in the HCI field. However, it's not a simple question of whether the collection is good or bad, but whether it will be good for the reader in their context. Besides, I can give you good inside information on lots of the authors. Like George Furnas, as cool a cat as you'll meet, gets nervous when he does magic tricks and Paul Resnick picks a mean fiddle. Yep, I got tons of dirt.
The Scenario
Anyone who has taken an HCI class has probably come across a gigantic blue paperback book called Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, which has acted as a de facto text in HCI classes in the past. In 1998, leaders in the HCI field realized that this book would soon be obsolete, and started organizing the players who would contribute to this worthy successor. This book is a collection of 29 articles from the lead researchers in the HCI academic research community, and it attempts to outline the research programs that will dominate the HCI field, if not for the next millennium as advertised, then at least for the next 10 years. The book is divided into seven sections:
Models, Theories, and Frameworks Usability Engineering Methods and Concepts User Interface Software and Tools Groupware and Cooperative Activity Media and Information Integrating Computation and Real Environments HCI and Society Each section has 3-5 articles on the section's topic. Examples of the research included:
Terry Winograd proposes a conceptual framework for the design of interactive spaces, or more basically computing environments built into the architecture of a space and seamlessly integrated with personal context. Hollan, Hutchins and Kirsh follow up some of Hutchins work on distributed cognition as an HCI research area, including a call for more ethnographic studies in the area and a better understanding of how people and tools interact. Olson and Olson outline the problems of distant work collaboration, and outline situations in which distant work makes more sense than not. Terveen and Hill give a great review of work in collaborative filtering, and then outline several approaches to making recommender systems better able to return positive hits. Doug Schuler in one article and Paul Resnick in another argue how HCI issues go beyond desktop computing or small groups and can be applied to larger groups, including communities both online and off. Other topics include situated computing, participatory design, new user interfaces like tangible user interfaces or gesture recognition, cognitive modelling and so on. Some common themes that emerge are the expectation that user interface needs to go beyond the desktop environment, the application of HCI principle to things other than the individual or small group, the importance of groupware and the development of a unifying theory for the field.
Really, one could write a pretty long review on any of the 29 chapters, since each one does have serious weight, as well as an innovative edge as these investigators attempt to outline directions for the next several years. Some of the articles included here have already struck a chord in this research community and have become widely cited in their draft forms, or from appearances in special journals. Each section of the book typically appeared as as journal article in Human-Computer Interactions, or were specifically solicited by John Carroll.
The Good and the Bad
These are some heavy hitters. The authors list reads like my general prelims, and it takes someone like Carroll to pull together a group like this. Each of the 29 articles stands strong on its own, though one may quibble with claims here and there, yet still manage to paint a remarkably cohesive picture of the area as a whole. This book contains serious research in a single bound volume that should grace the desk of any person interested in HCI issues. It is simply unarguable that this is going to be the HCI book for the foreseeable future.
The book bears some of the problems of the field, which is that it comes from a specific set of disciplines like cognitive psychology and computer science, so may preclude applicable theories from other disciplines. That is the nature of academic boundary making, and is not the specific fault of the book. Just so you are aware of it.
And speaking of academics, some readers may be turned off by the academic edge of this book. HCI in general has always had a foot in both the university and the corporate sector, as evinced by the list of speakers at this year's ACM-SIGCHI conference, but this book tends towards the academic side. Although specific applications get mentioned here, large parts of the book may be a turn off to people like my brother-in-law who is a sysadmin and definitely not interested in new macrotheory for HCI research. Or shaving.
This book takes commitment. It is not for lily-livered pedants who want something to fill the space until the next Harry Potter book comes out. That's neither good nor bad, just fair warning. Don't expect this to be as eminently accessible as a Don Norman book. Still, like in most things the work is very worthwhile.
So What's In It For Me?
It seems that in every field there is That One Book that people will point you to as the ultimate source to quickly get a sense of what it is all about. This book plays that role for the HCI field. If you are at all interested in the state of HCI research, mostly in the U.S. of course, then this is the book you should get. Even if you are already some tricked out, super-HCI guru, there is likely to be some research in here from outside your specific area that you will get value from.
This is not a book for someone who has to do a usability test for the boss next week and needs to know how to conduct one. Nor will this book tell you how to make your website look really cool. What it will do is give you incredible insight into the history and future of an exceedingly interesting field of endeavor.
But that's OK, because the computer has to be in the closet out of site, instead of just underneath the computer desk which was designed to have a computer underneath it.
I'll bet she enjoyed walking over to the closet every time she needed to change a CD or floppy.
Sorry, but I don't have time to look them up and post references. But for one quick example: take a look at the recent financial crisis in Argentina. The entire population was unwilling to make short-term financial cuts to return to long-term stability. See recent articles in the Economist, Financial Times, etc.
I don't see how moving the democratic process back into the hands of THE PEOPLE could be considered mob rule!
The democratic process in this country doesn't entitle the populace to make every major decision. Rather, it allows you to pick your leader, who will then make those decision for an appointed period of time. If you don't like those decisions, either don't vote for him in the first place or don't vote to re-elect him.
If major decisions were made by the majority of the United States we probably would've nuked several Arab countries shortly after Sept. 11 and immediately sent in ground troops, then pulled them back as soon as someone died, effectively accomplishing nothing. If major decisions were made by a simple majority what would stop 51% of Serbs from killing 49% of Croats?
That doesn't sound democratic to me.
A pure democracy is a dangerous thing. The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Two quotes come to mind:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." --Anon
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" --Winston Churchill
Mr. Talking head in a suit making $250K/yr does NOT represent the majority.
Then why does the majority elect him? If you feel that you better represent the majority of voters then you should run for office and logically win! If not, get behind the candidate who most closely represents your views and vote for him or her. But instead of lamenting about the problems, use our democratic process for its advantages!
If I still lived in Cali I'd try and get a proposition on the ballot that new expenditures over $(n)M have to be approved by the voter.
Do that and you'll never accomplish anything. Rarely does a community vote for referendums that will tax them more, even when things like schools, libraries and public works are desperately needed.
Ditto for raises for elected officials, we should be able to fire these idiots as easily as we elect them.
You obviously know little about democracy. If we did what you proposed we'd be no better than the ancient Athenians who let their "democracy" succumb to mob rule, where no one really ruled and the fate of any ruler was decided by the whim of a mob. And that's worse than wasting $95 million, recession or none.
Re:Wireless Monitor? Not happening...
on
Wireless Monitors?
·
· Score: 2
960 kB x 60 Hz = 57.6 MB / s! And that doesn't account for automatic rate switching, interference, and other nodes on the network.
And most of all, it doesn't account for the fact that PC Anywhere and others have already been doing it for years with less than 56K.
Slashdot Mirror
The US patent system makes it trivial to protect your intellectual property. If you had a patent on the techniques, then you should seek legal recourse (i.e., a lawsuit) against Yahoo for patent infringement. If you didn't have a patent, well, that's the risk you take for showing a potential competitor an obviously copyable idea.
bnois writes, "The California Highway Patrol has been reporting that during rush hour today several large bridges in San Francisco, including the Golden Gate Bridge, have had sections collapse, sending cars and trucks hurtling to their demise below." If only some qualified engineers had drawn up the plans in their free time and let the general public view them first for errors. Does anyone know of some plans like that on Fresharch?
Linux is a great example of the open-source mindset at work. And there are other great examples of open source projects that work. But the idea that Open Source is the cure-all for all projects big and small is ludicrous. Whoever wrote "If only they were using Open Source Software in the aviation industry" has obviously never been involved in a 100-person project that spanned years and was responsible for critical operations.
Declaring Open Source to be a cure for all ills is like treating every disease with the same pill. It just doesn't work that way. Open Source software is great when people can unite for a common cause (usually against a common competitor, which Microsoft convienently happens to be) and produce a good product. But thre's no evidence that an Open Source project would have worked where this upgrade failed.
Closed source might not be your model of choice, but it solves the same problem. Software engineers writing code which is never released to the public don't do their jobs any worse because of it. You might think that the purity of the code is flawed by company management bent on releasing buggy products for profit, but the open source alternative is a Mozillian, buggy product that is years behind schedule and never quite ready. Don't assume that just because a model you don't like has a failure the model that you do like would have worked.
Not true. According to "the prophecy," a Jedi would bring the two sides of the force together. Without Anakin there would've been no Luke, and we know how that story goes... So Anakin's survival was more essential to Yoda's belief of the future than Dooku's escape was.
Now whether or not Yoda thought about all that as he tried to save his friends is another matter entirely... ;-)
A lot of devices that go with the buttonless approach--remotes, cell phones, readers, etc.--run into this problem. Flat-touch surfaces provide no user feedback and are error-prone for data entry. Touchscreens are extremely adaptable and nice to develop for, but as a user interface they're not very nice for the user. Not only do the lack of buttons make finding the button harder (physical buttons on a remote or cell phone are easily memorized), but pressing the screen leaves a visible fingerprint from oils and dirt that accumulate on our skin. So people find themselves trying to tap the screen with the back of their fingernail, which is a really contorted way to try to touch something. (What they don't show on Star Trek is the ensigns whipping out their handy Windex spritzers after every command.)
Perhaps someone will develop a membrane-like screen with good clarity and the ability to morph itself into different buttons that can be depressed. But until then, I'll do just fine with a smaller screen and my handy buttons.
There is a PDF on the FCC's website with lots of pretty pictures.
...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message.
Hopefully Matrox will discontinue the DualHead, TripleHead, etc., naming conventions before they get to the sixth generation (for the same reason that Intel didn't release a Sextium).
Just when I thought that my workplace would never spring for a card with these features, up popped Page 6 (just ignore all those pictures of people playing games with the card) with Glyph Antialiasing for "business appeal!" Three monitors, here I come.
I predict it will evolve first in Uruguay, then Argentine and finally Chile.
Gee, that wasn't nearly as funny as I thought it would be...
This wasn't mentioned in the article, but apparently young Skorobogatov discovered the smart-card vulnerability during the bright flashes of his dad's exploives tests at the tender age of six.
And since the Mad.Scientist server seems to be down...
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- There's no need to wait for big-ticket, big-money space programs to secure the public right of entry into Earth orbit, says a group of maverick rocketeers. A community of upstart startups is convinced that there is more than one way to create cheap access to space.
Their offerings? Huge balloon platforms anchored at the boundary of air and space to handle traffic to and from Earth orbit; passenger space travel as a booming business thanks to sleek, quick-to-turn-around vehicles that operate in rapid response, FedEx-like fashion. Imagine free-fall family outings courtesy of suborbital space planes that regularly depart from sprawling spaceports.
Moving forward
All these radical ideas have germinated beyond the bureaucratic snarl of government and aerospace industry officialdom, with many of the designers and engineers bringing their hopes and hardware to Space Access '02, held here April 25-27, and sponsored by the Space Access Society (SAS).
"Frankly, the reason new things are happening is pressure from the bottom," said Henry Vanderbilt, head of the SAS and chief coordinator of the meeting. Just like rocket thrust, reactive pressure has begun from the bottom up, he said, a force created by private groups who are forming an exclusive, sky-high alliance.
"These people have flown rockets, recovered them, refueled them, and have flown them again. We're not talking model rockets here, but rockets having complex controls, liquid-fueled and so on. It's an expanding club," Vanderbilt said.
However, it has not all been smooth sailing for the always cash-starved private rocket outfits.
Several entrepreneurial rocket projects have gone awry. A number of efforts have folded completely, spending millions of dollars in the process without a contrail to show for themselves. Other groups are riding on financial fumes or have altered their space business strategy altogether.
Some rocketeers blame the marketplace. Some blame the government. Some blame the rocket gods. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable passion radiating from do-it-yourself space access groups.
"We all thought we would be a lot further than this 10 years go, but at least we're moving forward," Vanderbilt said.
Wal-Mart of space
"Look at the space shuttle," says John Powell, president and founder of JP Aerospace of Rancho Cordova, California. "I see a billion-dollar biplane. Something went wrong along the way. People are convinced it is rocket science. That it takes a big government program and superman astronauts to fly at a cost of millions of dollars."
Powell points out that he and many others are busily working in the trenches looking for alternatives. Everyone is hungry to break the rules. "If somebody pulls it off, everything keeping us out of access to space is going to crumble away. It's just an illusion," he said.
JP Aerospace is focusing money, time and talent on fabricating a microsatellite booster, as well as balloon platforms that soar to the outskirts of the atmosphere.
"It's kind of our playground," Powell noted, detailing recent flights of the Dark Sky Station - a five-armed balloon platform capable of transporting payloads high above Earth. Still-larger balloon platforms are on the drawing boards. Envisioned is a huge, piloted, free-floating atmospheric launch pad from which outgoing rockets streak into orbit, later returning to the high-flying complex.
"We want to be the Wal-Mart of space, not the LockMart [Lockheed Martin] of space," Powell emphasized. "We are America's other space program," he said.
Neat is a commodity
A leading do-it-yourselfer is John Carmack, perhaps better known in computer game circles as a founder of id software, and the brain behind such PC action games as Doom and Quake. But he also heads Armadillo Aerospace of Dallas, Texas and a group intent on building vehicles that transport people to the edge of space.
Personally bankrolling his space company, Carmack reported that good progress is being made and he expects to spend upwards of a $1 million on a craft that propels three people on a suborbital jaunt. In working up to the vehicle, the software sage and volunteers have been building and launching a series of inexpensive, small rocket platforms, shot into the air on hydrogen peroxide-fueled engines.
"I'm a big proponent of little experiments," Carmack emphasized.
Sometimes those experiments work. Sometimes they crash.
"The truth is we learn more from one crash than people can learn from months and months of simulation," Carmack said. "The challenges of rocket science have been mythologized out of all proportion to their true difficulty," he added, and that constructing, testing and flying rockets is not as expensive as people think.
The platform design -- eventually to be flown by an onboard pilot -- has recently evolved to include rotor blades. In the crosshairs of Carmack and his rocket mates is demolishing a climb-to-altitude record now held by a Russian jet pilot. Launching passengers, first to suborbital heights and later into orbit is a goal of Armadillo Aerospace.
"I plan on making money off this. I believe that if it's neat to me, it will likely be neat to other people. And neat is a commodity...you can make money off neat," Carmack said.
KISS and tell technology
At the Experimental Rocket Propulsion Society (ERPS), the philosophy of choice is Keep It Simple Scientists, or KISS for short.
Founded in 1993, the society is based in the San Jose area and researches high-density storable propellant combinations. Single-stage-to-orbit rocketry is under study, as is another society venture, the Private Rocket to Orbit Tiny Objects (PROTO).
ERPS is developing reusable rocket technology, including designs that take off and land vertically under control of an on-board computer. Using off-the-shelf model aircraft parts, the society's GizmoCopter Project tests gyroscopes, accelerometers and computer software necessary for vertical takeoff, vertical landing rockets.
Randall Claque, vice president of ERPS, said their KISS rocket was flown twice within three hours in early April. That shows the society is on the right track in adopting the credo: "Build a little, test a little".
Reliability and reusability in rocket designs, he said, is central to reaching low Earth orbit in an affordable and routine manner.
Can-do competence
Also showing their rocket wares at last month's SAS get-together was XCOR Aerospace of Mojave, California. This young startup organization is staffed by a band of nonconformist tinkerers, resolute in cranking out safe, reliable and reusable rocket engines and rocket-powered vehicles.
Already taking flight is XCOR's EZ-Rocket, a souped-up airplane outfitted with rocket motors.
"We're showing that rocket engines are easy to operate, and that they are safe, attainable, reliable and reusable, just like a jet engine," said XCOR's Aleta Jackson. "We stand behind our product, but not when the engine's firing," she said.
Jackson underscored the company's can-do competence. "One running rocket engine is better than one PowerPoint talk," she said.
Although guarded in revealing all their future plans, XCOR officials see the company's next generation vehicles matched to the suborbital market place: Science experimenters and tourists alike can benefit by free-fall for-a-fee rides. Furthermore, an XCOR reusable suborbital craft, they explained, can boost to height a toss-away upper stage that then blasts a microsatellite into Earth orbit.
"We are not the answer...we're an answer to getting into space," Jackson said.
Icebreaker market
Several private rocket groups are taking up space in Oklahoma.
There, the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority is offering tax credits to like-minded space transportation companies. JP Aerospace and Armadillo Aerospace, for instance, have set up operations at the Oklahoma Spaceport, the former Clinton-Sherman Air Base, in the town of Burns Flat.
Given lots of ground and open air space, the Oklahoma Spaceport is catering to clientele wanting to test fly their space hardware.
A recent addition to those using the Oklahoma Spaceport is Pioneer Rocketplane of Solvang, California.
Mitchell Burnside Clapp, founder and president of Pioneer Rocketplane, said his firm has reconfigured an earlier space plane design. They see suborbital passenger travel as a potential "icebreaker market" for space. A way to chip away at that market, he continued, is by way of the company's still-in-the-making four-seater fighter-sized Pioneer XP craft.
Turbulent times
Clapp, as did others attending Space Access '02, wax and wane as to what space markets can be serviced, or propelled into being by far less-expensive access to space.
Pioneer Rocketplane, like other entrepreneurial access to space groups, have gone through turbulent times.
"The year 2001 was hardly a space odyssey," Clapp said. "The idea that we seemed to have decades ago that the sky was going to be dark with all kinds of space stuff...it just didn't happen," he said.
"We were wrong about the size and scope of the projected market," Clapp said.
For one, the hype over ringing the Earth with constellations of low Earth orbiting telecommunication satellites, then maintaining those satellite networks, did not materialize. As that market disintegrated, so too did the hopes of private rocketeers to build and offer low-cost space transportation.
However, two other markets look promising as well. Promotions and sponsorships -- flying corporate logos and products, for example -- is a moneymaker. So too is microgravity research and Earth observation investigations done during suborbital runs of their space plane, Clapp said.
High-rollers
For the time being, locating venture capital for space may take a spiritual advisor. Thanks to the multi-billion dollar Iridium satellite debacle and investors losing major bucks, finding wellsprings of free-flowing cash isn't easy.
"Iridium has hurt. There's no doubt about it," said investor Paul Hans of P. Hans & Company in Scottsdale, Arizona. "The market for satellites has been far, far, far overestimated. Nobody looks at that as being a realistic market anymore. That does not play well," he said.
Hans believes that one likely driver for the entire space industry is the tourism market. "Right now, the Russians are more capitalist about this than we are...because they need the money," he said.
Added Joseph Pistritto of Belmont, California, an investor in several high-tech areas, including space: "The vast majority of venture capitalists aren't very adventuresome. What's needed is an 'adventure' capitalist."
Pistritto suggested that the venture capital world doesn't have a clue about what's going on in access to space and budding markets. However, matching investors with the longer time horizons required for a return-on-investment in space is still promising, he said.
"It is possible to find money," Pistritto said, likening private space projects to the time horizons acceptable within the pharmaceutical industry. Real high, real fast, and real often
The good news from the assembly of hot shot rocket groups that attended Space Access '02 is that econo-class space flight may truly be on the horizon.
Meeting organizer, Henry Vanderbilt, summed up the three-day gathering by identifying a theme he felt had emerged.
"Building a place to stand", Vanderbilt told SPACE.com. "The various low-cost launch startups are getting into position to move fast. They'll make their move when investment conditions and existing launch markets heat up again. Also, they will be building the means to address some of the exciting new markets opening up, not the least of which is space tourism," he said.
It is the belief of a corps of 21st century crusaders that getting up into space requires less of a down payment than ever before. There's been a reduction in development time and risk to build vehicles able to offer routine, cheap access to space. Lastly, it appears that a flourishing of non-traditional space markets is near at hand, Vanderbilt said. "All this seems to be converging on a spot where the business case for these ventures makes sense," he said.
Over the decades, pushing spacecraft into orbit has primarily meant taking the "disintegrating totem pole" approach, said Clapp of Pioneer Rocketplane. Critically needed are true spaceships that fly "real high, real fast, and real often," he said.
At days end, it remains the thrill of space flight that stirs the soul, Clapp added. "It's almost as if we all share this religion...this enthusiasm for doing something in space. It's a passion that people who are very religious, I think, would understand."
From http://ftp.chaven.com/pub/G-Files/Anarchy_Mechanic al/COUNTERFEITING
"One celebrated counterfeiter, Emmanuel Ninger, an immigrant Dutch sign painter known as Jim the Penman, passed bills for 14 years, from 1882 to 1896, before being caught. He created his $50 and $100 notes with pen, ink, and a camel's hair brush, and passed about 5 a month in New York City. He probably would have gotten away with it if a bartender hadn't noticed the ink on his fingers after picking a note up."
Wow, with the money Mark Shuttleworth spent for a 5-day space flight he could've bought 3 of these instead!
I can see admitting stuff you've done wrong in the past, but this is the epitomy of self-immolation!
This was on Slashdot just a little bit ago, here.
Hmmm...is it slashdotted already? Here's what I had from my cache:
Gates admits stripped-down Windows possible
By Paul Abrahams in Washington
Published: April 24 2002 18:52 | Last Updated: April 24 2002 22:00
In what was probably his final day of testimony at the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings Bill Gates (pictured), chairman and co-founder, admitted on Wednesday that it might be possible to create a stripped-down version of Windows for personal computers that use one of its existing products.
The admission was important because Mr Gates had previously argued that it was not feasible to create such a version of Windows, while maintaining the performance of the world's dominant PC operating system.
The nine litigating states want the software giant to provide a basic version of Windows, without applications such as the browser Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so that computer makers can install rivals' software.
Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines, allowed programmers to pick and chose which functions they wanted. However, Mr Gates pointed out that Windows XP Embedded required considerable testing after the options had been selected, and would not allow third-party software to be subsequently added.
Mr Gates has argued during three days of testimony that the states' proposals were cobbled together by its corporate rivals, and that the states have not thought through the proposals' feasibility or implications. He has used a number of examples in an attempt to show that reasonable business behaviour would be banned under the states' remedies, and that consumers would suffer. Throughout his testimony, Mr Gates remained calm and relaxed, in contrast to his performance during the original antitrust trial two years ago.
Through cross-examination, Steven Kuney, the states' lawyer, has tried to show that Microsoft is concerned that the remedies would create competition. He has also tried to demonstrate that Mr Gates' reading of the proposals are extreme and unreasonable.
Mr Gates argued that the proposals allowed rivals to strip out anything they wanted and still call it Windows. "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Mr Gates also said that the discounts that Microsoft would have to offer under the proposals for stripped-down versions of Windows would lead to savings for computer makers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr Gates said his group's sales to computer manufacturers were worth between $6bn-$7bn a year, and that the discounts could reach 25 per cent of those revenues.
The nine litigating states believe that the proposed settlement between the company and the nine other states and the Justice Department is too lax. Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, a decision that was upheld at appeal. The current hearings, which may last until the middle of May, are to decide what conditions should be imposed on its future behaviour. Either side could appeal the judge's ruling.
Since the site's slashdotted, here's what I was able to pull off a Google cache.
Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium Technology
Long-time reviewer clampe writes with this piece on Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium. This is not a book you're likely to find at the corner bookshop, but if you're serious about keeping track of goings-on in the field of HCI, Cliff argues this one is worth seeking out.
Reviewer's Note:
Most of the people in the book I'm reviewing could crush me beneath their heels, given I'm a lowly doctoral student in the HCI field. However, it's not a simple question of whether the collection is good or bad, but whether it will be good for the reader in their context. Besides, I can give you good inside information on lots of the authors. Like George Furnas, as cool a cat as you'll meet, gets nervous when he does magic tricks and Paul Resnick picks a mean fiddle. Yep, I got tons of dirt.
The Scenario
Anyone who has taken an HCI class has probably come across a gigantic blue paperback book called Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, which has acted as a de facto text in HCI classes in the past. In 1998, leaders in the HCI field realized that this book would soon be obsolete, and started organizing the players who would contribute to this worthy successor. This book is a collection of 29 articles from the lead researchers in the HCI academic research community, and it attempts to outline the research programs that will dominate the HCI field, if not for the next millennium as advertised, then at least for the next 10 years. The book is divided into seven sections:
Models, Theories, and Frameworks
Usability Engineering Methods and Concepts
User Interface Software and Tools
Groupware and Cooperative Activity
Media and Information
Integrating Computation and Real Environments
HCI and Society
Each section has 3-5 articles on the section's topic. Examples of the research included:
Terry Winograd proposes a conceptual framework for the design of interactive spaces, or more basically computing environments built into the architecture of a space and seamlessly integrated with personal context.
Hollan, Hutchins and Kirsh follow up some of Hutchins work on distributed cognition as an HCI research area, including a call for more ethnographic studies in the area and a better understanding of how people and tools interact.
Olson and Olson outline the problems of distant work collaboration, and outline situations in which distant work makes more sense than not.
Terveen and Hill give a great review of work in collaborative filtering, and then outline several approaches to making recommender systems better able to return positive hits.
Doug Schuler in one article and Paul Resnick in another argue how HCI issues go beyond desktop computing or small groups and can be applied to larger groups, including communities both online and off.
Other topics include situated computing, participatory design, new user interfaces like tangible user interfaces or gesture recognition, cognitive modelling and so on. Some common themes that emerge are the expectation that user interface needs to go beyond the desktop environment, the application of HCI principle to things other than the individual or small group, the importance of groupware and the development of a unifying theory for the field.
Really, one could write a pretty long review on any of the 29 chapters, since each one does have serious weight, as well as an innovative edge as these investigators attempt to outline directions for the next several years. Some of the articles included here have already struck a chord in this research community and have become widely cited in their draft forms, or from appearances in special journals. Each section of the book typically appeared as as journal article in Human-Computer Interactions, or were specifically solicited by John Carroll.
The Good and the Bad
These are some heavy hitters. The authors list reads like my general prelims, and it takes someone like Carroll to pull together a group like this. Each of the 29 articles stands strong on its own, though one may quibble with claims here and there, yet still manage to paint a remarkably cohesive picture of the area as a whole. This book contains serious research in a single bound volume that should grace the desk of any person interested in HCI issues. It is simply unarguable that this is going to be the HCI book for the foreseeable future.
The book bears some of the problems of the field, which is that it comes from a specific set of disciplines like cognitive psychology and computer science, so may preclude applicable theories from other disciplines. That is the nature of academic boundary making, and is not the specific fault of the book. Just so you are aware of it.
And speaking of academics, some readers may be turned off by the academic edge of this book. HCI in general has always had a foot in both the university and the corporate sector, as evinced by the list of speakers at this year's ACM-SIGCHI conference, but this book tends towards the academic side. Although specific applications get mentioned here, large parts of the book may be a turn off to people like my brother-in-law who is a sysadmin and definitely not interested in new macrotheory for HCI research. Or shaving.
This book takes commitment. It is not for lily-livered pedants who want something to fill the space until the next Harry Potter book comes out. That's neither good nor bad, just fair warning. Don't expect this to be as eminently accessible as a Don Norman book. Still, like in most things the work is very worthwhile.
So What's In It For Me?
It seems that in every field there is That One Book that people will point you to as the ultimate source to quickly get a sense of what it is all about. This book plays that role for the HCI field. If you are at all interested in the state of HCI research, mostly in the U.S. of course, then this is the book you should get. Even if you are already some tricked out, super-HCI guru, there is likely to be some research in here from outside your specific area that you will get value from.
This is not a book for someone who has to do a usability test for the boss next week and needs to know how to conduct one. Nor will this book tell you how to make your website look really cool. What it will do is give you incredible insight into the history and future of an exceedingly interesting field of endeavor.
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1487&a=25260 , 0.asp
I'll bet she enjoyed walking over to the closet every time she needed to change a CD or floppy.
Sorry, but I don't have time to look them up and post references. But for one quick example: take a look at the recent financial crisis in Argentina. The entire population was unwilling to make short-term financial cuts to return to long-term stability. See recent articles in the Economist, Financial Times, etc.
I don't see how moving the democratic process back into the hands of THE PEOPLE could be considered mob rule!
The democratic process in this country doesn't entitle the populace to make every major decision. Rather, it allows you to pick your leader, who will then make those decision for an appointed period of time. If you don't like those decisions, either don't vote for him in the first place or don't vote to re-elect him.
If major decisions were made by the majority of the United States we probably would've nuked several Arab countries shortly after Sept. 11 and immediately sent in ground troops, then pulled them back as soon as someone died, effectively accomplishing nothing. If major decisions were made by a simple majority what would stop 51% of Serbs from killing 49% of Croats?
That doesn't sound democratic to me.
A pure democracy is a dangerous thing. The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Two quotes come to mind:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." --Anon
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" --Winston Churchill
Mr. Talking head in a suit making $250K/yr does NOT represent the majority.
Then why does the majority elect him? If you feel that you better represent the majority of voters then you should run for office and logically win! If not, get behind the candidate who most closely represents your views and vote for him or her. But instead of lamenting about the problems, use our democratic process for its advantages!
Do that and you'll never accomplish anything. Rarely does a community vote for referendums that will tax them more, even when things like schools, libraries and public works are desperately needed.
Ditto for raises for elected officials, we should be able to fire these idiots as easily as we elect them.
You obviously know little about democracy. If we did what you proposed we'd be no better than the ancient Athenians who let their "democracy" succumb to mob rule, where no one really ruled and the fate of any ruler was decided by the whim of a mob. And that's worse than wasting $95 million, recession or none.
And that doesn't account for automatic rate switching, interference, and other nodes on the network.
And most of all, it doesn't account for the fact that PC Anywhere and others have already been doing it for years with less than 56K.