Anyone remember this article? It sounds like Science Fiction but as the poster mentioned, it would be cool. Even if it doesn't work, it sure makes for a great background story for a SciFi story. (Why do the Tie Fighters have those big sails/wings? Maybe they are angled against the Universal background quantum flux to provide inexpensive acceleration.)
I've just spent a couple of minutes perusing a "tech support" horror stories site (www.techcomedy.com) mentioned in a different article today. There seems to be a tremendous disconnect between what most people use their computer's for and what they are actually buying.
I think most people need appliances not computers. One completely self-contained box for handling email (maybe through their television). A completly separate word-processing box with a built-in printer.
In other words, the interaction of all the various components makes the computer much less stable than it needs to be for most uses. This is a programming/design problem, of course, but it is also a marketting problem, an advertising problem, and, perhaps most importantly, a user problem.
Finally, perhaps a written test should be required before allowing the purchase of a computer.
1) Different approaches should be followed, expanded, tested, and thrown out in the wild to see how they thrive.
2) There isn't enough brainpower to give Linux-level support to every new operating system that enters the mindspace.
This applies on a personal note as well. I'd love to spend a couple months diving into HURD. I've got a BeOS 4 CD at home that I'd like to give the time it deserves. I'd really like to work with Linux a bit more. I want to install OS-X on my fiance's iMac and see what the hype is about. Unfortunatly for me, I spend all my time on the computer working in NT...
On a related note, anyone else notice the full-paged add for Plan 9. There's another OS I'd like to check out.
I recently started a job developing CBT (training) applications. The company's tool of choice is an IDE called Visual Impact.
For something that I had never hear of before, this is a very slick package. I would call the language an "event-driven" BASIC (similar to Visual Basic) and it supports all of the handlers, functions, messages that one would expect. It ends up being very, very easy to use.
The IDE itself was, apparently, written in the iScript language and is therefor extensible by the user. I've been doing this after three weeks of work -- something that I wasn't comfortable trying after 6 months with Visual Basic.
Behind the scenes it compiles to platform independent byte-codes (like Java) which run on a VM under Windows and Linux (and a couple of other UNIX) or though a browser plug-in (I heard that Macintosh version is in the works.)
Anyway, pick a tool based on what you want to do. I wouldn't necessarily write an encryption engine with Visual Impact, but for visual/mutimedia applications this works very well.
I have to agree even though I also really enjoy the Diskworld books (at least the first 10 or so). For a different take on Pratchett's writing, however, you should check out Good Omens which I though was one of the funniest, fall out of the chair, great books of the last ten years.
On PBS there is a Money Week (or something like this) with Charles Ruckheiser (sp?). Every week he has a segment were he ranks various analysts predicitons.
I don't watch frequently, but it seems he checks them out for their mid-range correctness (6 months or so.) Only a few have been getting little "halos" the last couple of times I've watched the show.
The one things that really pisses me off is the media coverage of the XMas shoppoing season. From listening to the news you would think that no-one bought anything, but in fact there was an increase over last years record-breaking holidy sales. FYI, an increase over a record would, by definition, be a new record. Duh...
Online sales were also a record.
Unfortunately, the heard mentality seems to take over so that during up times only good news is reported and remembered. In harder times only bad news makes it to the headlines.
On a different tack, as has been mentioned before a downturn in the stock market != a recession. Cynically, some politicians may want to "talk us into a recession" so that, in four years, they can claim they "saved" us during the next cyclical up turn. Reps don't necessaarily have a lock on this type of spin, it just happens that the change in power is going that direction this year...
You're both right up to a point. A correction was obvious and inevitable. When the downturn would take effect is much, much harder to predict. Do you sell after one year, five years, or ten years of expansion? What if the NASDAQ went up for another 10 years before the correction?
The correct answer is: "anyone that was that sure the market would go down during the fall of 2000 would have sold short and made lots of money; if they sold short on the stocks that actually went down and not on the stocks that didn't go down... "
Saying that a downturn was inevitable is not the same as saying that you can use that information except to try and keep oneself insulated from the worst eventuality; keeping a little bit of cash liquidity, not over-expanding, maintaining cordial relationships with labor and suppliers, etc. etc..
I have a couple of questions as a non-terrorist, non-suspicious person (or am I;). At what point does the very volume of information -- whether plaintext, encrypted, hidden, or encoded -- make it impossible to detect an important but "non-targeted" message amid all of the noise?
By non-targeted, I mean a message that might or might not contain sensitive material. For example, assuming even modest abilities at the NSA, a email containing the string "I'm going to blow up the local mall" is probably a targeted message, but even something as simple as adding a character between the original characters would seem to make a message "non-targeted" (i.e. "I.'.m..g.o.i.n.g..t.o..b.l.o.w..u.p..t.h.e..l.o.c.a.l..m.a.l.l..."). Obviously, this wouldn't fool a minimal attempt to decrypt it -- as minimal as actually having a real person try and read it -- but wouldn't this slip right past most automated detectors?
How much processing/investigation time does it take to ensure that this message with the above comment isn't actually a terrorist threat?
Assuming the NSA can automatically scan all internet traffic for suspicious words (in every language?) this message gets flagged as a possible target and is stored locally until...
A second program or intellegence anaylyst scans this message to determine whether "blow up" is in the context of a terrorist target or if it refers to "Plastic Patty: the Blow Up Doll That's Fun to be With!".
Obviously, if I'm a research scientist or investment analyst, I'm more likly to be targeted by default and would need a higher level of security.
In other words, I wouldn't rely too heavily on technology, but in my opinion it _may_ be possible to rely on the realities of economoics and time.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone remember this article? It sounds like Science Fiction but as the poster mentioned, it would be cool. Even if it doesn't work, it sure makes for a great background story for a SciFi story. (Why do the Tie Fighters have those big sails/wings? Maybe they are angled against the Universal background quantum flux to provide inexpensive acceleration.)
I've just spent a couple of minutes perusing a "tech support" horror stories site (www.techcomedy.com) mentioned in a different article today. There seems to be a tremendous disconnect between what most people use their computer's for and what they are actually buying.
I think most people need appliances not computers. One completely self-contained box for handling email (maybe through their television). A completly separate word-processing box with a built-in printer.
In other words, the interaction of all the various components makes the computer much less stable than it needs to be for most uses. This is a programming/design problem, of course, but it is also a marketting problem, an advertising problem, and, perhaps most importantly, a user problem.
Finally, perhaps a written test should be required before allowing the purchase of a computer.
I've got two conflicting opinions on this.
1) Different approaches should be followed, expanded, tested, and thrown out in the wild to see how they thrive.
2) There isn't enough brainpower to give Linux-level support to every new operating system that enters the mindspace.
This applies on a personal note as well. I'd love to spend a couple months diving into HURD. I've got a BeOS 4 CD at home that I'd like to give the time it deserves. I'd really like to work with Linux a bit more. I want to install OS-X on my fiance's iMac and see what the hype is about. Unfortunatly for me, I spend all my time on the computer working in NT...
On a related note, anyone else notice the full-paged add for Plan 9. There's another OS I'd like to check out.
Some many OS so little time...
I just tracked down the web site: www.emediat.com
I recently started a job developing CBT (training) applications. The company's tool of choice is an IDE called Visual Impact.
For something that I had never hear of before, this is a very slick package. I would call the language an "event-driven" BASIC (similar to Visual Basic) and it supports all of the handlers, functions, messages that one would expect. It ends up being very, very easy to use.
The IDE itself was, apparently, written in the iScript language and is therefor extensible by the user. I've been doing this after three weeks of work -- something that I wasn't comfortable trying after 6 months with Visual Basic.
Behind the scenes it compiles to platform independent byte-codes (like Java) which run on a VM under Windows and Linux (and a couple of other UNIX) or though a browser plug-in (I heard that Macintosh version is in the works.)
Anyway, pick a tool based on what you want to do. I wouldn't necessarily write an encryption engine with Visual Impact, but for visual/mutimedia applications this works very well.
I have to agree even though I also really enjoy the Diskworld books (at least the first 10 or so). For a different take on Pratchett's writing, however, you should check out Good Omens which I though was one of the funniest, fall out of the chair, great books of the last ten years.
Co-written with Niel Gaiman
Not set on Diskworld
Deals with the original Y2k problem
Enjoy...
On PBS there is a Money Week (or something like this) with Charles Ruckheiser (sp?). Every week he has a segment were he ranks various analysts predicitons.
I don't watch frequently, but it seems he checks them out for their mid-range correctness (6 months or so.) Only a few have been getting little "halos" the last couple of times I've watched the show.
You're missing the obvious one: ONE-CLICK SHOPPING.
It was so innovative it was granted a patent!
The one things that really pisses me off is the media coverage of the XMas shoppoing season. From listening to the news you would think that no-one bought anything, but in fact there was an increase over last years record-breaking holidy sales. FYI, an increase over a record would, by definition, be a new record. Duh...
Online sales were also a record.
Unfortunately, the heard mentality seems to take over so that during up times only good news is reported and remembered. In harder times only bad news makes it to the headlines.
On a different tack, as has been mentioned before a downturn in the stock market != a recession. Cynically, some politicians may want to "talk us into a recession" so that, in four years, they can claim they "saved" us during the next cyclical up turn. Reps don't necessaarily have a lock on this type of spin, it just happens that the change in power is going that direction this year...
You're both right up to a point. A correction was obvious and inevitable. When the downturn would take effect is much, much harder to predict. Do you sell after one year, five years, or ten years of expansion? What if the NASDAQ went up for another 10 years before the correction?
The correct answer is: "anyone that was that sure the market would go down during the fall of 2000 would have sold short and made lots of money; if they sold short on the stocks that actually went down and not on the stocks that didn't go down... "
Saying that a downturn was inevitable is not the same as saying that you can use that information except to try and keep oneself insulated from the worst eventuality; keeping a little bit of cash liquidity, not over-expanding, maintaining cordial relationships with labor and suppliers, etc. etc..
Interesting (I wish I had some karma to give).
Also, for a brief article, check out The Register today for a brief overview of Tempest:
The Register, TEMPEST
By non-targeted, I mean a message that might or might not contain sensitive material. For example, assuming even modest abilities at the NSA, a email containing the string "I'm going to blow up the local mall" is probably a targeted message, but even something as simple as adding a character between the original characters would seem to make a message "non-targeted" (i.e. "I.'.m. .g.o.i.n.g. .t.o. .b.l.o.w. .u.p. .t.h.e. .l.o.c.a.l. .m.a.l.l..."). Obviously, this wouldn't fool a minimal attempt to decrypt it -- as minimal as actually having a real person try and read it -- but wouldn't this slip right past most automated detectors?
How much processing/investigation time does it take to ensure that this message with the above comment isn't actually a terrorist threat?
Assuming the NSA can automatically scan all internet traffic for suspicious words (in every language?) this message gets flagged as a possible target and is stored locally until...
A second program or intellegence anaylyst scans this message to determine whether "blow up" is in the context of a terrorist target or if it refers to "Plastic Patty: the Blow Up Doll That's Fun to be With!".
Obviously, if I'm a research scientist or investment analyst, I'm more likly to be targeted by default and would need a higher level of security.
In other words, I wouldn't rely too heavily on technology, but in my opinion it _may_ be possible to rely on the realities of economoics and time.