but... can it integrate symbolically, multiply arbitrary length numbers, do trig functions, and draw 3D graphs? I agree, its maybe better than a 4-function calculator, but I like my 92 a lot more than a little 4-function (or scientific). As soon as you add reasonable size buttons to do all that, it fills up the whole screen and is unusable. Also, I like being able to feel the buttons and their edges. I can't touch type without it.
Interesting thoughts, but they seem a bit irrelevant to me. They demoed a laptop playing Q3A on a transmeta chip at the launch. The chip is definitely out there. THere just aren't products available. So total system power consumption is still unknown, but it will of course vary system-to-system. Chip power usage is publicized, and presumably very well understood within the company.
But that's only sorta the point. I can touch-type on my 92. It only took a couple days to figure it out. I can't touch-type with a stylus. And, there's how much screen left at that point? I mean, the specialized keyboard on my 92 (not counting the qwerty part) is almost as big as a palm screen anyway.
I would rather use this in math class than a PDA with math software. Personally, I am a TI fan (hate that RPN), and I use my TI92+ whenever I need to do math. If I'm sitting at the computer, and need to do a little math, be it addition or whatever, the calculator is easier than a calc program. Why? several reasons:
keyboard is specialized. I know, there's that little numeric thingy on the right, but it's still hard to use. Where's the parenthesis, exponentiation, integration, log, trig, and other buttons?
the keyboard is right next to the screen. Also, any program needs either mouse or typing to do anything interesting, and shifting b/w the little keypad and the full keyboard is a pain.
performance: Even if you write a good math software package for a PDA, a large part of that calculator's price tag goes to developing a very FAST math package. I tried writing some of it over, and it went SLOW. Palm doesn't want to add $10 to the list price so their PDA can integrate effectively. HP is fine adding $10 to list so it can do appointments, MP3, and other features, because people will pay for that (and the 66MHz processor).
lastly, anyone know how long the batteries last? My 92 runs 6mo at my usage pattern on 4AA. That's a lot of hours.
1) Yes, there is a significant difference. I don't have the article at hand, so these might be wrong, but here's what I remember. Crusoe uses a MAX 2W power (or so),and runs an average 1W under full load. Intel chips at similar performance (pure MHz or benchmark equiv), before the very latest stuff (speedstep, but not the latest gen) take a max 20W, average 3-5W under load playing DVD. These numbers include the northbridge, which is on chip in crusoe, off chip in intel.
2) I believe that the "code morphing" software is loaded at boot-time, but I could be wrong here. At the very least, all the little caches and everything that cache translated code (and provide a large part of the performance) would have to be flushed every time you switched from user-space to kernel-space in your example. This would (presumably) create a large performance hit.
If you want methane for hydrogen fusion, there's a much better way to go about it. I mean, you're already out there near Saturn anyway, just scoop up some hydrogen. Or from jupiter, depending on circumstances. It's much easier. I don't really have the authority to produce educated comments on this, but I think you can get to a point where the atmosphere is thin enough around Saturn (or jupiter) to scoop using magnetic fields while at orbital speeds. Not very dense at all, but you're moving fast. Also, orbital mech. teaches us that it's most efficient to burn inside the deepest grav well available, b/c the gradient is steepest and you change potential most in the shortest distance. That's how those "gravity slingshot" maneuvers work. You do a low power burn very deep in a grav well, and you get a big kick from the body producing it.
yep, that's kinda my point. I don't think that's the case, but the creationists have their viewpoint. I disagree, and I am glad society does too. Or if you want, take it even further: Science is all bunk, but the world was created some instant ago, with everything in place (memories, computer files, everything); it's completely consistent with everything we have observed, and we can't disprove it. It's also not useful. The reason science rejects this is fairly simple: it can't be disproved. Science is a set of tools for looking at data and generating hypotheses. A hypothesis needs to be disprovable to be scientific. So, "god created the earth in 4004 BC exactly the way it would have looked if evolution had occured" is not a valid hypothesis. Nor is "there are UFOs out there." However, both evolution and the absence of alien life are valid hypotheses, because they can be disproven. That's our belief system. Others have different systems. I prefer ours.
I am saying I don't think they are valid. period. Our society has made its judgement (I hope), and that will stand for some time at least. I agree with it. But I think that judgement should be made in a fairer way than those in power decreeing it so, whatever that judgement may be, whether or not it is what we want. If its not what we want, fight it. I think we'll win. But my point is, others WILL disagree with you, and its no more OK to shut them up than the other way round. What makes my post different than the post modern relativism you speak of, is that as I understand them such philosophies try very hard (and fail) to allow all views to be equal, which I think is a Bad Thing. I believe that it is not OK to treat intolerance, bigotry, religious fanaticism, and other views as equal. And the purpose of society (one of them) is to make those judgements: to say that bigotry is not OK, to say that evoltion is right, to enforce majority opinion to whatever degree it deems necessary. That's what it's always done, anyway. Or at least enforce the opinion of those in power. I just think that eelections are a better way to do it than blanket decrees by ANY group. Granted, their not perfect, and not even really the best, but their better than a lot of alternatives in use, and I happen to like them. So let them take their course, and fight for your side.
I'm not arguing with you. All I'm saying is, let those who disagree have their vote. "God made it so" does a nice job of explaining all that and more, doesn't it? It answers the questions. not in a manner satisfactory to me, but for some unknown reason it is satisfactory to others. As I pointed out in a response above, and should have said in the original post, the best argument for science (and perhaps the only one that doesn't depend on science) is that it offers everyone, including those who disagree with it, substantial improvements in quality of life, by any measure. But let those who don't want that have their vote.
I agree to some degree. However, I believe those who disagree have as much right to do so as we do to our beliefs. So let them vote. You can say I'd be arguing otherwise if I was on the losing side. Maybe I would be; I'd like to think I'd be arguing as to why my beliefs were better and then voting for them.
Science is a belief system. Other systems have what they claim is the Word of God on their side. We have evidence. Our system says evidence is more important. I think that is what should be taught in our schools, and that that is the judgement society needs to make. You seem to agree. But I don't think you can make an argument that you're right that is not dependent upon this belief system. Actually, scratch that. I think the only argument that can be made for it is that our belief system seems to be fairly good at increasing the general standard of living of everyone, including those who disagree with it.
Science isn't subject to elections. Neither is religion. What our society chooses to favor, teach, condone, etc. currently is. Maybe that would change if some people got elected, but I say let them vote then. I believe and hope they won't be elected, but its something worth considering. By all means, let the schools teach modern science and all its principles and discoveries. But also let them teach people to think, and form opinions, even ones which go against the very system that allowed them to do so.
Please -- before you mod this a troll, think about it. My personal belief is that evolution is right and should be taught, and religion has little if any place in schools.
HOWEVER, just because the geek community, self-appointed arbiter of all that is Right and Good, believes that evolution is Right and creationism is Wrong, doesn't inherently entitle us to force our beliefs on others any more than the Christian Right is. As one of my teachers put it a while ago, and one for whom I have a great deal of respect, the purpose of society is to make judgements. One judgement that our society has made, and I support, is that the religion of science is "correct." I say religion simply because it is a belief system that attempts to explain the world. There are plenty of ther such; I happen to think science is the best such. Others would disagree. So, so long as our society makes that judgement, then that is the one that stands. All are welcome to support or oppose it. But those who disagree must be given their voice, in my opinion through elections. They seem to be losing the elections, which I aprove of, but the lections must be held. Even if those who are currently losing would abolish them should they have complete control.
Make parents sign agreements before letting their kids use public internet if liability is the problem.
Now you have a different problem. Lots of parents will choose a censorship package at home, which I also have no problem with so long as they do teir research, But I am not about to try to force them to. Then, they'll send their kids to school, and complain about the agreement because the school doesn't provide them with a way to block Live Goat Porn or whatever and still use this valuable research tool we call the net. I have been _required_ to use the net for many different research projects at school. The approach my high school takes is a fairly simple one: They log everything, make rules against innapropriate things, and use the logs to substantiate if needed. I believe there was only one discreet case last year where this was used. (Three people sending inappropriate email through the world's best anonymous mail service. I can't claim to agree with the practice, and I've voiced my objections, but there's not a whole lot I can do. It seems more reasonable than many schools.
OK, so the FBI can give the ISP the CD, the agent can then watch as the ISP runs a checksum on the CD (MD5 or something equally hard to crack), and then continue watching as the ISP guy installs it. By having the checksum and open source we solve both problems. A quick perusal is certainly enough if you ahve a computer do it.
I have a different interpretation of the inexact wording of the quote. I think "essential liberty" is expressing Franklin's belief that all liberty is essential, and "temporary security" is expressing the similar belief that all security so obtained is temporary. I happen to agree with Franklin to a large degree. However, I am much less of an eloquent writer than he, and am not capable of writing something nearly so succinct and to the point. My own view is a fairly simple one in this regard. Perhaps its a little inconsistent with some of my other views, but I'm working on it. call it a pending bug fix. Anyway, I think that the maximum amount of liberty should be allowed such that other's liberties are not infringed upon to any different degree. So, having studied Franklin to some degree, I believe the proper response to your comment is "Franklin says no." Which is a perfectly valid response when backed up with a dash of original thought and explanation.
OK, how's this?
FBI opens the source, yadda yadda (insert more karma whoring here)
THen, the FBI creates a CD (or set) that installs EVERYTHING they want -- OS (also OSS -- Linux anyone?), carnivore, etc. The OSS community can then verify that the CDs released are really the product of that code. Then, when the FBI wants carnivore on a network, they give the ISP a box, the CDs, and a day or so to set it up. The ISP then boots the first CD, and inserts more as prompted. WITHOUT an FBI goon involved directly. Then, the OSS community could also verify that there is no (easy, intended) way for the FBI to modify the code. Of course, "security holes" that somehow didn't get fixed might be harder to find. But hey, its a start.
I thought IBM had out a larger microdrive... Why not use it? maybe its just too expensive or not out yet, but I would think more space would be at a premium, depending on what you are going to use it for. BTW, I agree its very cool, and yes, I want one, but what would you use it for?
They do... And, that section is very carefully suing itself for the publicity, paying off the people who lose the lawsuit, and continuing their business with the rest of us convinced this group doesn't exist.
I heard a piece about this on NPR this morning. I don't remember where to get text, is it available online? Anyway, the FBI was saying that if they opened it up, ppl could learn how to get around it. But can't we do that already? Encryption, etc. Yet another case where obscurity doesn't work -- those who want to can, and those who don't know how are stuck having their privacy invaded, with the result that the ones who they want to snoop on are stopping them...
What level of comp sci matters a LOT. I'll answer assuming intro classes, because that's probably hardest. While ideally the program should be entertaining to write, one step is to make something that is (at least somewhat) entertaining to use. Programs that play some game are good. In some sense, however, these don't emphasize basic concepts, like sorting an array or whatever, but they can instead emphasize things like algorithm design, which is at least as useful, IMHO. For example, a program that plays tic tac toe, while theoretically simple (we all know how to win this one, right?) can require some thought to implement efficiently. So the assignment becomes, 'write a perfect tic tac toe program'. This requires so little CPU power, it should be a requirement that it run very very fast -- but it won't if you don't put thought into it. Also, some kind of contest is a good idea. There was a piece on Slashdot a while back about a RoShamBo (rock/paper/scissors) contest, but that more emphasizes game theory and the like than programming. perhaps something like battleship or 3D tic tac toe (4x4x4, get 4 in a row). I think interest often has less to do with the program being challenging to write than haveing there be a purpose to the program. No one will be able to convince most students that there is any reason to sort this array using that algorithm; But if it does something, that's interesting. Conway's game of Life is also good, and fun to play with when you're done.
2) The point is it puts a LOT of traffic through the nodes. This is a good way to discourage people being nodes, and if it gets used for this, the number of nodes needed and bandwidth required goes UP.
3) That's what Freenet does already. I agree, this is a much-needed service. I approve. But does that really apply to the music thing? The point is, the RIAA isn't supposed to care cuz the don't own the copyright to the stuff being traded, and the artists being traded are helping. Therefore, unless you get censorship of the CONTENT of the songs, it should be legal.
4) OK, but why do we need crypto if the stuff being shared is LEGAL? If you read the article, Mr. Clarke is trying to keep it completely legal by US law, with approval of the artists being shared. If no one cares that I post it, why do I NEED anonymity?
I'm not saying that there aren't cases, even including ones like this, where Freenet is very useful, I just think that the application being talked about isn't (for the majority of stuff shared) one of them.
It seems to me that freenet is not really the right tool for the job. Freenet is intended as a way to anonymously post stuff in an uncensorable way, it has NO search mechanism, and its fairly bandwidth intensive -- all downloads get routed through the freenet software. Why do we need this level of protection, especially for a service that is supposed to have a way to be 100% LEGAL by ANYONE's definition??? If they don't plan to get sued, why the heavy crypto, etc?
I think the answer depends a _lot_ on what you want this thing to do. I really don't think your basic web browser, text editor, shell, or even most programs really need the extra resources offered by a distributed computer. As computers get faster, this will only become more true. Thus it really only makes sense for compute-intensive programs, and many of those are of a nature that they can be broken down into large compute-time chunks that can be handed out in small bandwidth, like in SETI, the Prime Search, the RC5 stuff, and a few others. For many others, things like MOSIX or Beowulf are just fine. So, what is the intended application? Just as for different applications, different OS's are useful, so goes for distributed applications, only more so.
Slashdot Mirror
but... can it integrate symbolically, multiply arbitrary length numbers, do trig functions, and draw 3D graphs? I agree, its maybe better than a 4-function calculator, but I like my 92 a lot more than a little 4-function (or scientific). As soon as you add reasonable size buttons to do all that, it fills up the whole screen and is unusable. Also, I like being able to feel the buttons and their edges. I can't touch type without it.
---
Interesting thoughts, but they seem a bit irrelevant to me. They demoed a laptop playing Q3A on a transmeta chip at the launch. The chip is definitely out there. THere just aren't products available. So total system power consumption is still unknown, but it will of course vary system-to-system. Chip power usage is publicized, and presumably very well understood within the company.
---
But that's only sorta the point. I can touch-type on my 92. It only took a couple days to figure it out. I can't touch-type with a stylus. And, there's how much screen left at that point? I mean, the specialized keyboard on my 92 (not counting the qwerty part) is almost as big as a palm screen anyway.
---
keyboard is specialized. I know, there's that little numeric thingy on the right, but it's still hard to use. Where's the parenthesis, exponentiation, integration, log, trig, and other buttons?
the keyboard is right next to the screen. Also, any program needs either mouse or typing to do anything interesting, and shifting b/w the little keypad and the full keyboard is a pain.
performance: Even if you write a good math software package for a PDA, a large part of that calculator's price tag goes to developing a very FAST math package. I tried writing some of it over, and it went SLOW. Palm doesn't want to add $10 to the list price so their PDA can integrate effectively. HP is fine adding $10 to list so it can do appointments, MP3, and other features, because people will pay for that (and the 66MHz processor).
lastly, anyone know how long the batteries last? My 92 runs 6mo at my usage pattern on 4AA. That's a lot of hours.
---
2) I believe that the "code morphing" software is loaded at boot-time, but I could be wrong here. At the very least, all the little caches and everything that cache translated code (and provide a large part of the performance) would have to be flushed every time you switched from user-space to kernel-space in your example. This would (presumably) create a large performance hit.
Anyway, I think the web site has more details.
---
If you want methane for hydrogen fusion, there's a much better way to go about it. I mean, you're already out there near Saturn anyway, just scoop up some hydrogen. Or from jupiter, depending on circumstances. It's much easier. I don't really have the authority to produce educated comments on this, but I think you can get to a point where the atmosphere is thin enough around Saturn (or jupiter) to scoop using magnetic fields while at orbital speeds. Not very dense at all, but you're moving fast. Also, orbital mech. teaches us that it's most efficient to burn inside the deepest grav well available, b/c the gradient is steepest and you change potential most in the shortest distance. That's how those "gravity slingshot" maneuvers work. You do a low power burn very deep in a grav well, and you get a big kick from the body producing it.
---
yep, that's kinda my point. I don't think that's the case, but the creationists have their viewpoint. I disagree, and I am glad society does too. Or if you want, take it even further: Science is all bunk, but the world was created some instant ago, with everything in place (memories, computer files, everything); it's completely consistent with everything we have observed, and we can't disprove it. It's also not useful. The reason science rejects this is fairly simple: it can't be disproved. Science is a set of tools for looking at data and generating hypotheses. A hypothesis needs to be disprovable to be scientific. So, "god created the earth in 4004 BC exactly the way it would have looked if evolution had occured" is not a valid hypothesis. Nor is "there are UFOs out there." However, both evolution and the absence of alien life are valid hypotheses, because they can be disproven. That's our belief system. Others have different systems. I prefer ours.
---
I am saying I don't think they are valid. period. Our society has made its judgement (I hope), and that will stand for some time at least. I agree with it. But I think that judgement should be made in a fairer way than those in power decreeing it so, whatever that judgement may be, whether or not it is what we want. If its not what we want, fight it. I think we'll win. But my point is, others WILL disagree with you, and its no more OK to shut them up than the other way round. What makes my post different than the post modern relativism you speak of, is that as I understand them such philosophies try very hard (and fail) to allow all views to be equal, which I think is a Bad Thing. I believe that it is not OK to treat intolerance, bigotry, religious fanaticism, and other views as equal. And the purpose of society (one of them) is to make those judgements: to say that bigotry is not OK, to say that evoltion is right, to enforce majority opinion to whatever degree it deems necessary. That's what it's always done, anyway. Or at least enforce the opinion of those in power. I just think that eelections are a better way to do it than blanket decrees by ANY group. Granted, their not perfect, and not even really the best, but their better than a lot of alternatives in use, and I happen to like them. So let them take their course, and fight for your side.
---
I'm not arguing with you. All I'm saying is, let those who disagree have their vote. "God made it so" does a nice job of explaining all that and more, doesn't it? It answers the questions. not in a manner satisfactory to me, but for some unknown reason it is satisfactory to others. As I pointed out in a response above, and should have said in the original post, the best argument for science (and perhaps the only one that doesn't depend on science) is that it offers everyone, including those who disagree with it, substantial improvements in quality of life, by any measure. But let those who don't want that have their vote.
---
Science is a belief system. Other systems have what they claim is the Word of God on their side. We have evidence. Our system says evidence is more important. I think that is what should be taught in our schools, and that that is the judgement society needs to make. You seem to agree. But I don't think you can make an argument that you're right that is not dependent upon this belief system. Actually, scratch that. I think the only argument that can be made for it is that our belief system seems to be fairly good at increasing the general standard of living of everyone, including those who disagree with it.
Science isn't subject to elections. Neither is religion. What our society chooses to favor, teach, condone, etc. currently is. Maybe that would change if some people got elected, but I say let them vote then. I believe and hope they won't be elected, but its something worth considering. By all means, let the schools teach modern science and all its principles and discoveries. But also let them teach people to think, and form opinions, even ones which go against the very system that allowed them to do so.
---
That's YOUR opinion. You're welcome to it, I disagree, and you are welcome to vote in whatever way that opinion leads you to.
---
HOWEVER, just because the geek community, self-appointed arbiter of all that is Right and Good, believes that evolution is Right and creationism is Wrong, doesn't inherently entitle us to force our beliefs on others any more than the Christian Right is. As one of my teachers put it a while ago, and one for whom I have a great deal of respect, the purpose of society is to make judgements. One judgement that our society has made, and I support, is that the religion of science is "correct." I say religion simply because it is a belief system that attempts to explain the world. There are plenty of ther such; I happen to think science is the best such. Others would disagree. So, so long as our society makes that judgement, then that is the one that stands. All are welcome to support or oppose it. But those who disagree must be given their voice, in my opinion through elections. They seem to be losing the elections, which I aprove of, but the lections must be held. Even if those who are currently losing would abolish them should they have complete control.
---
Now you have a different problem. Lots of parents will choose a censorship package at home, which I also have no problem with so long as they do teir research, But I am not about to try to force them to. Then, they'll send their kids to school, and complain about the agreement because the school doesn't provide them with a way to block Live Goat Porn or whatever and still use this valuable research tool we call the net. I have been _required_ to use the net for many different research projects at school. The approach my high school takes is a fairly simple one: They log everything, make rules against innapropriate things, and use the logs to substantiate if needed. I believe there was only one discreet case last year where this was used. (Three people sending inappropriate email through the world's best anonymous mail service. I can't claim to agree with the practice, and I've voiced my objections, but there's not a whole lot I can do. It seems more reasonable than many schools.
---
OK, so the FBI can give the ISP the CD, the agent can then watch as the ISP runs a checksum on the CD (MD5 or something equally hard to crack), and then continue watching as the ISP guy installs it. By having the checksum and open source we solve both problems. A quick perusal is certainly enough if you ahve a computer do it.
---
I have a different interpretation of the inexact wording of the quote. I think "essential liberty" is expressing Franklin's belief that all liberty is essential, and "temporary security" is expressing the similar belief that all security so obtained is temporary. I happen to agree with Franklin to a large degree. However, I am much less of an eloquent writer than he, and am not capable of writing something nearly so succinct and to the point. My own view is a fairly simple one in this regard. Perhaps its a little inconsistent with some of my other views, but I'm working on it. call it a pending bug fix. Anyway, I think that the maximum amount of liberty should be allowed such that other's liberties are not infringed upon to any different degree. So, having studied Franklin to some degree, I believe the proper response to your comment is "Franklin says no." Which is a perfectly valid response when backed up with a dash of original thought and explanation.
---
FBI opens the source, yadda yadda (insert more karma whoring here)
THen, the FBI creates a CD (or set) that installs EVERYTHING they want -- OS (also OSS -- Linux anyone?), carnivore, etc. The OSS community can then verify that the CDs released are really the product of that code. Then, when the FBI wants carnivore on a network, they give the ISP a box, the CDs, and a day or so to set it up. The ISP then boots the first CD, and inserts more as prompted. WITHOUT an FBI goon involved directly. Then, the OSS community could also verify that there is no (easy, intended) way for the FBI to modify the code. Of course, "security holes" that somehow didn't get fixed might be harder to find. But hey, its a start.
---
I thought IBM had out a larger microdrive... Why not use it? maybe its just too expensive or not out yet, but I would think more space would be at a premium, depending on what you are going to use it for. BTW, I agree its very cool, and yes, I want one, but what would you use it for?
---
They do... And, that section is very carefully suing itself for the publicity, paying off the people who lose the lawsuit, and continuing their business with the rest of us convinced this group doesn't exist.
---
I heard a piece about this on NPR this morning. I don't remember where to get text, is it available online? Anyway, the FBI was saying that if they opened it up, ppl could learn how to get around it. But can't we do that already? Encryption, etc. Yet another case where obscurity doesn't work -- those who want to can, and those who don't know how are stuck having their privacy invaded, with the result that the ones who they want to snoop on are stopping them...
---
What level of comp sci matters a LOT. I'll answer assuming intro classes, because that's probably hardest. While ideally the program should be entertaining to write, one step is to make something that is (at least somewhat) entertaining to use. Programs that play some game are good. In some sense, however, these don't emphasize basic concepts, like sorting an array or whatever, but they can instead emphasize things like algorithm design, which is at least as useful, IMHO. For example, a program that plays tic tac toe, while theoretically simple (we all know how to win this one, right?) can require some thought to implement efficiently. So the assignment becomes, 'write a perfect tic tac toe program'. This requires so little CPU power, it should be a requirement that it run very very fast -- but it won't if you don't put thought into it. Also, some kind of contest is a good idea. There was a piece on Slashdot a while back about a RoShamBo (rock/paper/scissors) contest, but that more emphasizes game theory and the like than programming. perhaps something like battleship or 3D tic tac toe (4x4x4, get 4 in a row). I think interest often has less to do with the program being challenging to write than haveing there be a purpose to the program. No one will be able to convince most students that there is any reason to sort this array using that algorithm; But if it does something, that's interesting. Conway's game of Life is also good, and fun to play with when you're done.
---
Better yet: make a boring movie of someone reading it, encrypt with CSS (is that code even out there?) and sell it on a DVD.
---
2) The point is it puts a LOT of traffic through the nodes. This is a good way to discourage people being nodes, and if it gets used for this, the number of nodes needed and bandwidth required goes UP.
3) That's what Freenet does already. I agree, this is a much-needed service. I approve. But does that really apply to the music thing? The point is, the RIAA isn't supposed to care cuz the don't own the copyright to the stuff being traded, and the artists being traded are helping. Therefore, unless you get censorship of the CONTENT of the songs, it should be legal.
4) OK, but why do we need crypto if the stuff being shared is LEGAL? If you read the article, Mr. Clarke is trying to keep it completely legal by US law, with approval of the artists being shared. If no one cares that I post it, why do I NEED anonymity?
I'm not saying that there aren't cases, even including ones like this, where Freenet is very useful, I just think that the application being talked about isn't (for the majority of stuff shared) one of them.
---
It seems to me that freenet is not really the right tool for the job. Freenet is intended as a way to anonymously post stuff in an uncensorable way, it has NO search mechanism, and its fairly bandwidth intensive -- all downloads get routed through the freenet software. Why do we need this level of protection, especially for a service that is supposed to have a way to be 100% LEGAL by ANYONE's definition??? If they don't plan to get sued, why the heavy crypto, etc?
---
I think the answer depends a _lot_ on what you want this thing to do. I really don't think your basic web browser, text editor, shell, or even most programs really need the extra resources offered by a distributed computer. As computers get faster, this will only become more true. Thus it really only makes sense for compute-intensive programs, and many of those are of a nature that they can be broken down into large compute-time chunks that can be handed out in small bandwidth, like in SETI, the Prime Search, the RC5 stuff, and a few others. For many others, things like MOSIX or Beowulf are just fine. So, what is the intended application? Just as for different applications, different OS's are useful, so goes for distributed applications, only more so.
---
But the little black holes emit light -- Hawking radiation and all that. I think they're just blaming the bugs on the user.
---