Is simply equal to the amount of work hackers will have to do to get around it.
Claiming something hackproof is like saying a doorlock is tamper-proof. It *can* be opened, it's just how much work are you prepared to do that justifies doing it.
So what, you'll are space-age engineers who develop self-driving machines on a daily basis? You're all just so smart as to point out all the inherent flaws and the inevitable failure of such a system?
I think if GM has the *guts* to come publicly and claim "We are making a car that will seriously drive itself." then they diserve a lot of respect.
If they go as far as say that, then they most probably have done their homeworks real good. The system must have tons and tons of failsafes mechanisms, and will possibly engage in auto-drive only on commutes that you, the driver, have already taken several times to "teach" the cars all the subtleties of that specific commute.
I mean, I love bashing as the next guy, but by all means, please allow GM to demonstrate how good they can actually do this before claiming snake oil.
Then you would be a happy camper (pun intended) if you were to get yourself a nice Flavia machine.
Ahh those millions of plastic/mylar/whatever pouches piling up the landfills for centuries... can't beat the great taste of individuality by having personally chosen your coffee flavor every morning!
These chips weren't small and light... I hope your wife doesn't wear them for a too long period of time otherwise she'll get her ears stretched to her elbows!
And that's the kind of overclocking you don't want.
The interesting bit about genome research is that suppose we do find what the human genetic code all means. We can then start treatments to correct genetic problems, right? If we do so, and say we correct illness X on some kid. When this kid grows up, becomes an adult and have kids of his own, what kind of genetic heritage will he give his own kids? Will these kids inheric the original bad gene of their parent? If so, we'd be running at our lost since defects would multiply across generations...
IBM probably just miscalculated the complexity of such a project. Like the article states, a good portion of the problem is not "windows vs linux" itself, it'S that they've written quite a bunch of essential web based apps that run, possibly, as ActiveX components in IE.
If such is the case, they might want to take a look at the Mozilla ActiveX project, which might help them fix their IE modules to work in Mozilla, while they rewrite it with something better than ActiveX (like, Java possibly).
Replacing Windows with Linux was a very ambitious idea to begin with; hats off to IBM for having set themselves such a high goal, instead of just trailing with the crowd and keeping windows boxes forever.
After all, isn't a big part of the reason why corporations keep windows is because it's just less painful than to actually *work* on a migration to anything else? Sure the windows problems are huge, but companies like to see short term. And in the short term, fixing windows is easier. IBM is seeing long-term.
Let them the time to migrate what they didn't really think of when they called the project, and then we'll see.
But what about the drive-by-wire systems developped by either BMW or GM (For fuel cell), i forgot. If you drive by wire, does it gets your gas on the line and you're not wireless anymore?
MEH !
I want my 1 cubic centimeter cold fusion reactor in all my devices.
Slashdot posts a story with a link that goes (almost) directly to the file. And then it's 5 minutes later and the server happily crunches over a hundred kilobytes per second.
Now either eBausmworld knows how to put up a content server, or slashdot just lost its edge.
I'm kind of sick of CGI that looks real. I have real every day.
You know, when people wonder how far CGI will go and think how incredibly realistic movies will become one day, i just come to realize that if we ever get super-awesome-extremly realistic, we'll be there only fast enough to realize that we DON'T want to be there.
Like you say, we're surrounded with real. When the effects of movies will be so real that they genuinely feel real to us, there won't be a point anymore will it? It's like pushing the digital characters so far into realism that they're just like humans. Will we really enjoy seeing computer generated "humans" that are so realistic that we would swear they're really humans? What purpose would that serve? Other that to tweak a few hard to shoot scenes by replacing the actor with a computer generated sprite, there's no real point anymore.
Don't call it "violating one-sided copyright laws" -- some people I know work at the RIAA and apparently, that's what they do all day, violate copyright laws.
We need a compression method that is lossless, not one that creates compact files.
Well actually, many digital cameras already do this. When i set my Canon camera to "RAW", it does take the pictures in uncompressed data, but it certainly does not store them that way. They instead use some sort of lossless custom made-in-Canon compression format that squeezes the file a good 30% down if I recall correctly. So you can still have a good deal of pictures on your memory, and do that fast enough to be useful.
I mean, how hard would it be to fit a car with an LED/LCD readout...
It's not hard. It's costly. Some 20$ of parts plus some more manufacturing for it, plus a new supplier, plus new storage of these parts, plus more engineering to design and program it and so forth... in the end, way too expensive for most cars. There's a reason most cars still have drum brakes for the rear wheels instead of discs: cheaper!
On top of that, trying to diagnose problems too precisely will end up with greater chance of false diagnostics. With a big bright light coming on, there's no way it can go wrong. The driver will go to a dealership and they will properly and safely diagnose the problem.
I hear the pain though, my sentra turned on its Check Engine twice for the stupid gas cap not-tight-enough... but hey, at least i know the car actually CHECKS for leakages in the gas lines and tank. My old Lumina dripped gas on the ground and there was no light indicating a problem. Just lower mileage...
The point is to prove you can obtain more heat energy from this reaction than it took to make it and confine it. Once you have that working properly for a billionth of a second, you can tell your flash lasers to do that more often, say for example, one billion times per second.
The process they use is flash based, so one flash of their lasers will heat the pellet one time, which will do some fusion and dissipate some heat. Once this works, they will do it as often as needed to do a stable continuous fusion process.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have a nice Zaurus like the C3000 then.
Please, i need one :)
As a followup to your offtopic ranting, in Canada we have the exact same system where the rear-ender is automatically responsible.
And i applaude such a move.
from the terrible secrets of space!
Now that this is out, this robot's look is certainly fightening enough to keep the burglars away.
If he glued a half inch wooden block underneath the gas pedal he could probably get a 10% saving from most people's driving habits.
You mean like this?
Is simply equal to the amount of work hackers will have to do to get around it.
Claiming something hackproof is like saying a doorlock is tamper-proof. It *can* be opened, it's just how much work are you prepared to do that justifies doing it.
So what, you'll are space-age engineers who develop self-driving machines on a daily basis? You're all just so smart as to point out all the inherent flaws and the inevitable failure of such a system?
I think if GM has the *guts* to come publicly and claim "We are making a car that will seriously drive itself." then they diserve a lot of respect.
If they go as far as say that, then they most probably have done their homeworks real good. The system must have tons and tons of failsafes mechanisms, and will possibly engage in auto-drive only on commutes that you, the driver, have already taken several times to "teach" the cars all the subtleties of that specific commute.
I mean, I love bashing as the next guy, but by all means, please allow GM to demonstrate how good they can actually do this before claiming snake oil.
Let's add content, like news or music, too!
Content? You sir, are completely talking giberrish! The public would never accept such a thing.
Then you would be a happy camper (pun intended) if you were to get yourself a nice Flavia machine.
Ahh those millions of plastic/mylar/whatever pouches piling up the landfills for centuries... can't beat the great taste of individuality by having personally chosen your coffee flavor every morning!
Yay for humanity!
my wife has 8088
These chips weren't small and light... I hope your wife doesn't wear them for a too long period of time otherwise she'll get her ears stretched to her elbows!
And that's the kind of overclocking you don't want.
The interesting bit about genome research is that suppose we do find what the human genetic code all means. We can then start treatments to correct genetic problems, right? If we do so, and say we correct illness X on some kid. When this kid grows up, becomes an adult and have kids of his own, what kind of genetic heritage will he give his own kids? Will these kids inheric the original bad gene of their parent? If so, we'd be running at our lost since defects would multiply across generations...
I can buy a car at 0% interest....but if I pay cash it's $$$thousands$$$ less than if I do credit.
How come none of these advertisers are sued?
Actually, they do. There's a class action suit in Canada against car manufacturers for having this hidden "interests fee".
These are the people who did: http://www.consommateur.qc.ca/union/
I don't know how it turned out though...
IBM probably just miscalculated the complexity of such a project. Like the article states, a good portion of the problem is not "windows vs linux" itself, it'S that they've written quite a bunch of essential web based apps that run, possibly, as ActiveX components in IE.
If such is the case, they might want to take a look at the Mozilla ActiveX project, which might help them fix their IE modules to work in Mozilla, while they rewrite it with something better than ActiveX (like, Java possibly).
Replacing Windows with Linux was a very ambitious idea to begin with; hats off to IBM for having set themselves such a high goal, instead of just trailing with the crowd and keeping windows boxes forever.
After all, isn't a big part of the reason why corporations keep windows is because it's just less painful than to actually *work* on a migration to anything else? Sure the windows problems are huge, but companies like to see short term. And in the short term, fixing windows is easier. IBM is seeing long-term.
Let them the time to migrate what they didn't really think of when they called the project, and then we'll see.
But what about the drive-by-wire systems developped by either BMW or GM (For fuel cell), i forgot. If you drive by wire, does it gets your gas on the line and you're not wireless anymore?
MEH !
I want my 1 cubic centimeter cold fusion reactor in all my devices.
I don't get it.
Slashdot posts a story with a link that goes (almost) directly to the file. And then it's 5 minutes later and the server happily crunches over a hundred kilobytes per second.
Now either eBausmworld knows how to put up a content server, or slashdot just lost its edge.
Completely ceasing all TV watching was the best thing I ever did.
I've got to agree with you there. About 2 years ago, I completely stopped watching TV. No news, no shows, nothing from broadcast.
Nowadays, I only watch some movies I rent, and I'm all the happier. It's funny though, the look on people's faces when they go:
"Hey did you see that new advertisement about product X? You didn't? How couldn't you it's all over the place!!!"
Same thing for crappy shows or the news. Watching TV news is like piercing your cranium with knitting pins.
Meh, that rant for another thread!
The room is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I'm kind of sick of CGI that looks real. I have real every day.
You know, when people wonder how far CGI will go and think how incredibly realistic movies will become one day, i just come to realize that if we ever get super-awesome-extremly realistic, we'll be there only fast enough to realize that we DON'T want to be there.
Like you say, we're surrounded with real. When the effects of movies will be so real that they genuinely feel real to us, there won't be a point anymore will it? It's like pushing the digital characters so far into realism that they're just like humans. Will we really enjoy seeing computer generated "humans" that are so realistic that we would swear they're really humans? What purpose would that serve? Other that to tweak a few hard to shoot scenes by replacing the actor with a computer generated sprite, there's no real point anymore.
So what's next?
Don't call it "violating one-sided copyright laws" -- some people I know work at the RIAA and apparently, that's what they do all day, violate copyright laws.
We need a compression method that is lossless, not one that creates compact files.
Well actually, many digital cameras already do this. When i set my Canon camera to "RAW", it does take the pictures in uncompressed data, but it certainly does not store them that way. They instead use some sort of lossless custom made-in-Canon compression format that squeezes the file a good 30% down if I recall correctly. So you can still have a good deal of pictures on your memory, and do that fast enough to be useful.
Try this game then "American McGee's Alice".
Want trippy? It's a third person shooter. Basically you're alice, freaking out in wonderland, and you wanna get out.
Now if this isn't like Lewis' "f*cked up" book, nothing is.
Now Fox bought the right to that game, and are planning on making a film. Might be nice...
"And by 'metaphorically' I mean 'Get your coat.'"
I mean, how hard would it be to fit a car with an LED/LCD readout...
It's not hard. It's costly. Some 20$ of parts plus some more manufacturing for it, plus a new supplier, plus new storage of these parts, plus more engineering to design and program it and so forth... in the end, way too expensive for most cars. There's a reason most cars still have drum brakes for the rear wheels instead of discs: cheaper!
On top of that, trying to diagnose problems too precisely will end up with greater chance of false diagnostics. With a big bright light coming on, there's no way it can go wrong. The driver will go to a dealership and they will properly and safely diagnose the problem.
I hear the pain though, my sentra turned on its Check Engine twice for the stupid gas cap not-tight-enough... but hey, at least i know the car actually CHECKS for leakages in the gas lines and tank. My old Lumina dripped gas on the ground and there was no light indicating a problem. Just lower mileage...
One spammer less, two millions to go!
This will never succeed.
The point is to prove you can obtain more heat energy from this reaction than it took to make it and confine it. Once you have that working properly for a billionth of a second, you can tell your flash lasers to do that more often, say for example, one billion times per second.
The process they use is flash based, so one flash of their lasers will heat the pellet one time, which will do some fusion and dissipate some heat. Once this works, they will do it as often as needed to do a stable continuous fusion process.