Steve Ciarcia of Circuit Cellar fame once said "Soldering iron is my favorite computer language."
Well, it's mine too. For those who don't know who Steve is, there was this magazine on the newstands that was really cool to read and it was called "Byte". Steve ranked up there with the Woz for hardware crafting.
I remember back in the day when you would go to the store and it was the only computer magazine there.
If you like crafting hardware, you can have a lot of fun by finding a library (most likely university) that has the back issues shelved somewhere.
No, I don't think that's it. Listeners already know where to find the right on the radio dial if they find that to their taste (indeed, it's hard to miss).
What they are afraid of is that people might find intelligent discussion/local affairs programming that is actually interesting.
What that means is they are no longer listening to NPR. Subsequently NPR's revenue stream of pledges and ads (they have ads now, though they don't call it that) dries up.
Same with clear channel. Clear channel hates it when they can't control the music that you hear so they can receive payola. Before you know it the big record labels hurt too but all the indie stuff is flying off the shelves. Thus they (and the RIAA) also lose control and their steam dries up.
I think that the online subscription business model stands a chance.
The thing that I have difficulty with is the price point. As your suggestion alludes to, there are those who are going to want a 'one-off' for an article. But given the choice between not getting the article or a full subscription, people will probably spend a quarter to xerox it at the library the next time they are there.
Your suggestion points out the problem most people have with online subscriptions. A regular magazine subscription can be had for most magazines for $20-$25. But many online subscriptions cost $60 dollars a year.
This works for the Wall Street Journal as they have trusted original content. Not just what the AP sends down the wire.
And besides, a lot of people don't like to deal with all the dead trees that WSJ sends to the house.
For me, it's all in the math. Why not get 8 subscribers at $20 each rather than 2 subscribers at $60? If the latter works more for you than the former, then I would suggest that maybe your content is not up to snuff.
I think that until publishers get the price point right (this means you too slashdot) and have substantial original content, the WSJ will be the exception rather than the rule.
Sure it makes sense to you and me as a whole, but my point is that there is consumer reluctance in the marketplace. And film suppliers will find ways to help keep it that way.
My mother is tied to the ritual of using a film camera and getting film developed at the supermarket. She knows what she can do with a film camera and what she can expect from it.
She is fully aware of digital cameras. But she is not going to buy one herself. I will have to buy it for her and upgrade her computer to deal with the downloaded images. She might like the idea of not having the film expense. But I bet I have to plug it in and download the media to the computer for her. Sure it sounds stupid to you and me, but she is a senior citizen
To show you where she is at, I installed a CD writer on her computer.
She doen't know how/want to use it. Every once in a while she'll have me come over to back up files for her.
Sure she could get a mac blah blah blah. But she isn't going to do that either. Why spend the money when she gets everything done with office that she already has and knows how to use (sound familar?). She doesn't wan't to spend the money to upgrade anyway. I give her "upgrades" as gifts (I think she receives it the same way kids receive "clothes" at christmas).
People are stuck in their ways. There are millions like her.
The people who own congress in this area, NPR and NAB, will not let this happen.
They will haul out their so-called "engineers" that will prove that a 10 watt station interferes with the 100,000 watt station up on the hill. They will drag out their old engineering papers that contradict everything that the FCC has documented. As if the FCC engineers never went to grade school. And a congress person will then have an excuse to throw a wrench in the works. This will happen at the last moment, by attaching a rider to the omnibus funding bill, just like before.
Just remember, you're pledge money is going to buy off a senator somewhere.
Sure, but not everybody wants to deal with a computer either, or a camera that needs its batteries replaced every week. Many digitals don't have the "click" feel you get with a shutter, and you have to wait for it to take a picture. Only higher end digitals can compete with cheap 35mm film detail.
People are used to dealing with film and photographs. They already know what it's all about. They fit in scrapbooks and albums without a hassle. It's easy to grab an all-in-one disposable at the store and start clicking away and get decent pictures in return. You don't have to hassle with loading the film or batteries. If it gets destroyed, it's not a big deal, you just buy another. They fit in the pocket real easy. I could go on.
Sure it's nice not having to buy film. Digitals are no utopia either. You still have a battery expense/hassle. Rechargables still need recharging all the time. You still have to buy digital media that you have to find a way to download somewhere every so often. There is still doubt about what the camera does when it squishes down the pictures to fit the media. Your going to be afraid of your camera shorting out when rain shows up.
I was just looking at the pictures taken by large format cameras.
Conclusion. Digital Cameras are cheaper, more effective and more fun. Analogue cameras will slowly die out, with only a few Zealots still using them.
Your assumption may be incorrect.
It is true that digital is more versatile, but film still has it's place (as other posters have noted).
What will happen is that film processors will need to come up with added value to remain competitive in a digital enviroment.
For one service, I think it is the price point. If they can include a cd rom with your regular film development for the same price as regular development, they can keep much of the masses loyal. Where I'm at, it's more expensive for this option. With bandwidth becoming cheaper, maybe they could skip the cdrom and email me a download link for the pictures and mail me the prints/negatives. That way all I would need to do is drop off the film and not worry about making the return trip to pick it up.
Also, it might be nice to take my digital media and have it printed to real film. I do not know what the quality of the kiosks are, but anything that would enhance the quality of my pictures might be worthwhile.
I also do not think that it is coincidence that many stores (Walgreens, Albertsons) have installed a one-hour (or even half-hour) film developer in their stores. These machines have gotten to the point of operating themselves (as they would need to if a clerk is pushing the buttons).
Why bother with buying a digital when you can get your pictures in the time it takes to do your shopping? This is a win-win situation. It keeps people in the store aisles and companies sell more film/film developing equipment and supplies.
And who does the shopping for the family? Click happy moms.
The thing that I do when I see a math paper like this is first head to the conclusion, and if you RTFP (Read The Fine Paper) it does not rule out all types of obfuscation.
It only rules out one type of obfuscation (virtual black box type)
One type of obfuscation in particular that it does not rule out by the proof is the indistinguishability or "differing inputs" obfuscator.
There does seem to be similarities between this and what Cringely was talking about.
I could not find any patent-pending application by this company as Cringely described. Maybe because it has already been discussed in math papers. I will let other more apt searchers correct me on this.
While the paper does not rule out the "differing inputs" obfuscator, remember that it might fall into the "impossibile obfuscation" category.
I would read what Cringely had to say about this with a jaundiced eye. I think that obfuscating code falls under "making water not wet" conjecture. Which means crackers will have to throw away their hex disassemblers and learn how to program new tools to divine code operation.
Which leads to the gaping omission in Cringely's rave.
Rather than buy a company, it's much easier to save money and use the bought politician you already have to get legislation passed. This is a much more likely outcome than somebody buying the company (preemptive) and would instantly make them irrelevant and worthless.
What Cringely blindingly forgets is that Microsoft already has a way to deal with reverse engineering anyway. This in one word is "palladium".
Microsoft already knows that software obfuscation is impossible . Besides, they would rather go to the logical conclusion anyway. It's better than chancing some intermediate software solution that might be cracked and spread accross the internet faster than NT/2000 source was.
So they are putting the hardware solution palladium in place.
A hardware solution like palladium will make software cracking an impossibility. I do not know how it will work, but reverse-engineering won't be a part of the "trusted computing" enviroment. Crackers could learn how to use a soldering iron. The only problem is that you won't be able to mod your friends computer in the next state over to run the code that you have ahem-"modified"
But expect the DMCA to be enhanced to prevent this legally anyway. Expect it to be given a spin name like "secure computing" for a "safe homeland". Expect computers that don't have it to be outlawed.
If you do find a hardware entry point, you won't be able to tell your friends about it, a la 2600. If you are an academic, you will be sued into silence, a la Felton.
But the law is only part of it. Expect only "trusted" computers to open an office document.
Check and Mate.
I fear the day will come that it will be easier to buy a gun than obtain a drm free computer.
I will probably craft my own computer, like the days of altair. I won't be able to tell anybody about it, and I won't be able to sell plans for it on ebay.
Which future do you think is more likely, mine or Cringely's?
from all you whippersnappers. You don't know nuthin'
We were talking across the world and making friends with strangers before Al Gore was a twinkle in his father's eye, and we were doing it for free. Not only did we invent 133t speak, we but we refined it.
We had to deal with inteference from the neighbor's electronic organ, changing band conditions, sloppy handkeying, line interference, nests on the antennas, having to make our own equipment, the massive russian woodpeckers equipment problems that we had to fix ourselves, and having to log our operations.
until the white dwarf cools off that is. Then it becomes a crystalline diamond core surrounded by rock.
It takes about ten billion years for a white dwarf (average) to cool off to the point of not being visible. The age of the universe is about 13-14 billion years old.
However, do not plan on going to the white dwarf to go diamond mining, as it is still quite hot, and it's gravity would squish you flat.
But eventually they will become dark cold diamond cinders.
But one interesting thing is that white dwarfs can accumulate material from companion stars over time. When this white dwarf obtains 1.4 solar mass it reaches the Chandrasekhar limit, and a type 1a supernova explosion occurs. You don't want to be around.
If you were thinking of collecting boken diamonds from the aftermath, think again.
Diamond undergoes catastrophic allotropic conversion conversion to graphite at 1800 C. This is exceeded a few million times in a supernova producing carbon ions.
So, the conclusion I draw from this -- the carbon in our bodies could have come from diamonds, having originated from a white dwarf that crystallized and later became a type 1a supernova
Also, if you are going to be paying money to fuel your car would you rather pay it to American farmers and corporations or foreign oil barons and corporations
Or foreign governments that sponsor Al qaeda activities *cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*.
One has to wonder if the day comes where their revenue stream starts to dries up, they will start to get a lot more friendlier to the U.S. and get serious about removing terrorists like they do somebody who steals an apple out of one of their markets.
When I saw this in the news, I was all over it. This really could be an opec-buster if we wanted it to be.
I did RTFA by the way. You can buy it for $10 from Science. What makes this thing intriguing is it's simplicity. The artcle does not have a picture per se, but a simple schematic.
At one end is an auto injector where the ethanol is enjected and a port where oxygen (air) would be sent in. The mixture flow hits the heated tube (at 300 F) and is vaporized. As it travels through the tube it is heated to 1700 F then the mixture encounters the catalyst where the reaction takes place and hydrogen is produced.
C2H5OH + 2H2O + 1/2O2 --> 2CO2 + 5H2
The total time for the mixture to travel through the tube is 50 milliseconds
As can be seen, the conversion is complete. If you "burn" ethanol, you're going to have undesirable particulates. While CO2 is a "greenhouse gas", it still is a lot cleaner than burning gasoline.
I should mention here that the article is all chemistry and no mechanical details are given. But one really does get the sense you could knock one off in your garage. You will need college chemistry to understand the details, but it is straight forward. It's a pretty complete article.
The "secret sauce" is keeping the ethanol from catching fire.
There is a lot of FUD in the comments here about how enviromentally unfriendly/uneconomical growing corn is.
Ethanol is being made from other sources, like super enviromentally friendy switchgrass that can grow in 3/4 of the US
Advantages to this technology;
1) It's going to be quiet, and with a quiet fuel cell, would be appropriate for a small powerplant in a house. It would be more quiet than the furnace that blows air through your house.
2) It is an efficent process. Coupled with the high conversion rates and efficeint fuel cells it becomes economically viable.
3) Ethanol can be distributed easily using current distribution channels.
4) Ethanol is a renewable energy source, that could boost the farm economy, give jobs to Americans, lower the trade deficit, and give us something to export for a change. It does not need to be "found", it's "grown".
5) There are straightforward engineering solutions to the few problems that might remain.
Drawbacks;
1) It takes 1700 F heat for the process
2) Large companies are not going to want to see you leave the grid, and will do anything to influence corrupt politicians to tie it in red tape. Expect to see legislation because "it is a fire hazard".
3) It does produce CO2. However, it can't be any worse than what natural gas, coal fired plants produce. This also might be mitigated by the development of inexpensive CO2 scrubbers.
Actually legal widespread hemp growing is not a ridiculous idea.
It's an entirely political debate, not based on science whatsoever.
"Industrial" hemp as a crop has many useful benifits. And such hemp also has very little THC, in fact so little that it is difficult to get "high" off from it.
If this really was the issue behind it, the government could find a way to regulate it, as they do alcohol.
People who want to get "high" will find a way to do so one way or another. The fact is industrial hemp plants make a very poor drug.
Sure someone might find a way to get a bunch of hemp and distill out more THC, but it would be easier sneaking it over the border.
The fact is people are already making meth from cough syrup, but does that mean we stop the sale of cough syrup?
I'm all for a crop that would put our farmers to work, decrease government subsidies, is enviromental friendly, and decrease our foreign imports.
Industrial Hemp could do this. The number of pot smokers would not increase either.
The account continues in verse seven if you don't know how it turned out. I agree with Groklaw's advice. Leave it be!
Please choose your worldview;
worldview 1)
Well, unfortunately they did not leave the forbidden fruit alone.
Since we all are descendants of Adam and his transgression, we inherit the propensity to commit sin.
Therefore there are those of us among us who cannot resist the temptation, will partake of the sweet fruit, and will be beguiled by the evil forces once again.
We should prepare for the worst, and be ready to watch episodes of "Cops" busting nerds for copyright violations. Or at the very least read on Groklaw the fate of nerd souls as they are the subject of much legal action, most of which is unfair.
The outcome is nerds repent, and align themselves with the forces of good. They become resolute in their purpose, forming alliances among themselves that allows them to produce OSS that is competitive in a market economy, and embraced by all. Corporate propriety code is rendered irrelevant.
worldview 2)
The same evolutionary forces that gifted fish with the ability to walk will once again affect the evolution of humans. As those nerds who are jailed for their infringing OSS projects they are effectively removed from the nerd genepool and cannot reproduce. Other nerds through fear, uncertainty and doubt are driven into deeper social isolation and fail to reproduce also. The remaining nerds who through acts of pity from the opposite sex produce progeny who have the ability to produce functional code on their own, free from infringing material.
However, because the number of nerds has actually been reduced through this attrition, they are at a competitive disadvantage to corporate propriety interests. They are subsequently harassed into submission and have to work for "The Man" producing closed-source software.
worldview 3)
There is a malevolent alien on a mountain trapped by lasers somewhere. His name is a lot like element Xenon atomic number 54 except the end rhymes with "gnu" or "boo". Anyway there are these harmful things that are called "thetans" that are removed through a strange process called "auditing". In order to prevent harm from these malicious forces, nerds "audit" their OSS projects and learn that it is actually composed of software owned by corporate interests.
They also learn that corporations produce superior code through their closed-source ways. It becomes obvious that they should obey whatever the corporate interest wants concerning their IP. If somebody questions anything, they are "silenced" one way or another, usually by suing them into oblivion. Nerds are at peace with this.
worldview 4)
Comet C/2002 T7 (Linear) is about to swing by in May. This is actually a spaceship, and with the way things are going your gonna want to be on it.
Part of being a nerd is exploring technology and how it works technically and works in our lives.
By looking at our history and the roads we have travelled, we get a better sense of where we are at in time and where we want to be in the future.
Seeing this story on slashdot, I thought about the usefulness of this application and reflected that it was all done on a eight bit 6502 derivative operating at 1 Mhz with 64k of memory.
I know many on here reflected the same way and immediately started thinking of applications that might be generated. I didn't even know that "Contiki" or "Lunix" existed. These would be easy to port to an embedded device.
Many of us on slashdot have ham-radio licenses. Much of the "old" technology that ham's were investigating in the seventies have become economic realities now thirty years later. I remember when I was riding on a bus and I made a phone call on a repeater with my handy-talkie. Every body thought that was "cool". Now people just get annoyed when it's done on a cellphone. So by reflecting on "old" technology, we can maybe recycle it for use into "new" technology
Many on here like to listen to "glass audio", or "antique radio". You can learn a lot about technolgy and design issues when restoring an old radio. Many of these same issues occur in modern day electronics as well (like dried out capacitors).
For christmas I bought one of those joystick "namco" game that plug directly into the TV. It was loaded with five arcade games which included pac-man, dig dug (my personal favorite), and galaxian. I thought that my six year old niece would be the only one to get a kick out of it, but the whole family did. Just because these games were "old" did not make them any less fun. And Namco was brilliant for taking this "old" technology and repackaging it in an accessible and fun format. The thing that's nice about these games is they have a zero learning curve. You can sit down and immediately play a game and relax and not have to worry about game complexity that many PS2 games have.
Just because these things are not "new" does not make them "irrelevant" to a nerd's life. On the contrary, nerds embrace such things.
Old radio, glass audio, retro-gaming, and antique computing represent technologies that brought us to this particular point in time. So it is very much a part of a "nerd's history" (this one's anyway).
Even though I may not be actively participating in them, I enjoy reading about the adventures of others, and see what they are learning and developing with them. With a sentimental eye in this "throw away" society we live in, I'm glad to see others keep the (nerd's) flame alive.
So, it's all about interest in technology, whether it be old or brand new that makes a nerd "a nerd". These things, both "old and new" will matter to the nerd on a deep, cerebral level. As compared to an average person that is "just a user" and would just as likely throw away the antique radio than repair it. Or the old computer, as it "does not matter" to them any more.
I think you fall in this latter category of "user".
I mean no offense and I hate to say it, but for the above reasons, you may not be a "nerd".
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ciarcia of Circuit Cellar fame once said "Soldering iron is my favorite computer language."
Well, it's mine too. For those who don't know who Steve is, there was this magazine on the newstands that was really cool to read and it was called "Byte". Steve ranked up there with the Woz for hardware crafting.
I remember back in the day when you would go to the store and it was the only computer magazine there.
If you like crafting hardware, you can have a lot of fun by finding a library (most likely university) that has the back issues shelved somewhere.
Yes, I'm older than most of you here.
No, I don't think that's it. Listeners already know where to find the right on the radio dial if they find that to their taste (indeed, it's hard to miss).
What they are afraid of is that people might find intelligent discussion/local affairs programming that is actually interesting.
What that means is they are no longer listening to NPR. Subsequently NPR's revenue stream of pledges and ads (they have ads now, though they don't call it that) dries up.
Same with clear channel. Clear channel hates it when they can't control the music that you hear so they can receive payola. Before you know it the big record labels hurt too but all the indie stuff is flying off the shelves. Thus they (and the RIAA) also lose control and their steam dries up.
That's their real fear.
I think that the online subscription business model stands a chance.
The thing that I have difficulty with is the price point. As your suggestion alludes to, there are those who are going to want a 'one-off' for an article. But given the choice between not getting the article or a full subscription, people will probably spend a quarter to xerox it at the library the next time they are there.
Your suggestion points out the problem most people have with online subscriptions. A regular magazine subscription can be had for most magazines for $20-$25. But many online subscriptions cost $60 dollars a year.
This works for the Wall Street Journal as they have trusted original content. Not just what the AP sends down the wire.
And besides, a lot of people don't like to deal with all the dead trees that WSJ sends to the house.
For me, it's all in the math. Why not get 8 subscribers at $20 each rather than 2 subscribers at $60? If the latter works more for you than the former, then I would suggest that maybe your content is not up to snuff.
I think that until publishers get the price point right (this means you too slashdot) and have substantial original content, the WSJ will be the exception rather than the rule.
Sure it makes sense to you and me as a whole, but my point is that there is consumer reluctance in the marketplace. And film suppliers will find ways to help keep it that way.
My mother is tied to the ritual of using a film camera and getting film developed at the supermarket. She knows what she can do with a film camera and what she can expect from it.
She is fully aware of digital cameras. But she is not going to buy one herself. I will have to buy it for her and upgrade her computer to deal with the downloaded images. She might like the idea of not having the film expense. But I bet I have to plug it in and download the media to the computer for her. Sure it sounds stupid to you and me, but she is a senior citizen
To show you where she is at, I installed a CD writer on her computer.
She doen't know how/want to use it. Every once in a while she'll have me come over to back up files for her.
Sure she could get a mac blah blah blah. But she isn't going to do that either. Why spend the money when she gets everything done with office that she already has and knows how to use (sound familar?). She doesn't wan't to spend the money to upgrade anyway. I give her "upgrades" as gifts (I think she receives it the same way kids receive "clothes" at christmas).
People are stuck in their ways. There are millions like her.
Film is still not going away anytime soon.
The people who own congress in this area, NPR and NAB, will not let this happen.
They will haul out their so-called "engineers" that will prove that a 10 watt station interferes with the 100,000 watt station up on the hill. They will drag out their old engineering papers that contradict everything that the FCC has documented. As if the FCC engineers never went to grade school. And a congress person will then have an excuse to throw a wrench in the works. This will happen at the last moment, by attaching a rider to the omnibus funding bill, just like before.
Just remember, you're pledge money is going to buy off a senator somewhere.
Sure, but not everybody wants to deal with a computer either, or a camera that needs its batteries replaced every week. Many digitals don't have the "click" feel you get with a shutter, and you have to wait for it to take a picture. Only higher end digitals can compete with cheap 35mm film detail.
People are used to dealing with film and photographs. They already know what it's all about. They fit in scrapbooks and albums without a hassle. It's easy to grab an all-in-one disposable at the store and start clicking away and get decent pictures in return. You don't have to hassle with loading the film or batteries. If it gets destroyed, it's not a big deal, you just buy another. They fit in the pocket real easy. I could go on.
Sure it's nice not having to buy film. Digitals are no utopia either. You still have a battery expense/hassle. Rechargables still need recharging all the time. You still have to buy digital media that you have to find a way to download somewhere every so often. There is still doubt about what the camera does when it squishes down the pictures to fit the media. Your going to be afraid of your camera shorting out when rain shows up.
I was just looking at the pictures taken by large format cameras.
Film is not going away anytime soon.
Conclusion. Digital Cameras are cheaper, more effective and more fun. Analogue cameras will slowly die out, with only a few Zealots still using them.
Your assumption may be incorrect.
It is true that digital is more versatile, but film still has it's place (as other posters have noted).
What will happen is that film processors will need to come up with added value to remain competitive in a digital enviroment.
For one service, I think it is the price point. If they can include a cd rom with your regular film development for the same price as regular development, they can keep much of the masses loyal. Where I'm at, it's more expensive for this option. With bandwidth becoming cheaper, maybe they could skip the cdrom and email me a download link for the pictures and mail me the prints/negatives. That way all I would need to do is drop off the film and not worry about making the return trip to pick it up.
Also, it might be nice to take my digital media and have it printed to real film. I do not know what the quality of the kiosks are, but anything that would enhance the quality of my pictures might be worthwhile.
I also do not think that it is coincidence that many stores (Walgreens, Albertsons) have installed a one-hour (or even half-hour) film developer in their stores. These machines have gotten to the point of operating themselves (as they would need to if a clerk is pushing the buttons).
Why bother with buying a digital when you can get your pictures in the time it takes to do your shopping? This is a win-win situation. It keeps people in the store aisles and companies sell more film/film developing equipment and supplies.
And who does the shopping for the family? Click happy moms.
Actually, Microsoft is not a technology company. Rather it is the "Standard Oil" of software.
Thanks for the informative link.
The thing that I do when I see a math paper like this is first head to the conclusion, and if you RTFP (Read The Fine Paper) it does not rule out all types of obfuscation.
It only rules out one type of obfuscation (virtual black box type)
One type of obfuscation in particular that it does not rule out by the proof is the indistinguishability or "differing inputs" obfuscator.
There does seem to be similarities between this and what Cringely was talking about.
I could not find any patent-pending application by this company as Cringely described. Maybe because it has already been discussed in math papers. I will let other more apt searchers correct me on this.
While the paper does not rule out the "differing inputs" obfuscator, remember that it might fall into the "impossibile obfuscation" category.
I would read what Cringely had to say about this with a jaundiced eye. I think that obfuscating code falls under "making water not wet" conjecture. Which means crackers will have to throw away their hex disassemblers and learn how to program new tools to divine code operation.
Which leads to the gaping omission in Cringely's rave.
Rather than buy a company, it's much easier to save money and use the bought politician you already have to get legislation passed. This is a much more likely outcome than somebody buying the company (preemptive) and would instantly make them irrelevant and worthless.
What Cringely blindingly forgets is that Microsoft already has a way to deal with reverse engineering anyway. This in one word is "palladium".
Microsoft already knows that software obfuscation is impossible . Besides, they would rather go to the logical conclusion anyway. It's better than chancing some intermediate software solution that might be cracked and spread accross the internet faster than NT/2000 source was.
So they are putting the hardware solution palladium in place.
A hardware solution like palladium will make software cracking an impossibility. I do not know how it will work, but reverse-engineering won't be a part of the "trusted computing" enviroment. Crackers could learn how to use a soldering iron. The only problem is that you won't be able to mod your friends computer in the next state over to run the code that you have ahem-"modified"
But expect the DMCA to be enhanced to prevent this legally anyway. Expect it to be given a spin name like "secure computing" for a "safe homeland". Expect computers that don't have it to be outlawed.
If you do find a hardware entry point, you won't be able to tell your friends about it, a la 2600. If you are an academic, you will be sued into silence, a la Felton.
But the law is only part of it. Expect only "trusted" computers to open an office document.
Check and Mate.
I fear the day will come that it will be easier to buy a gun than obtain a drm free computer.
I will probably craft my own computer, like the days of altair. I won't be able to tell anybody about it, and I won't be able to sell plans for it on ebay.
Which future do you think is more likely, mine or Cringely's?
If it doesn't use bullets, I don't want to hear about it.
from all you whippersnappers. You don't know nuthin'
.
We were talking across the world and making friends with strangers before Al Gore was a twinkle in his father's eye, and we were doing it for free. Not only did we invent 133t speak, we but we refined it
We had to deal with inteference from the neighbor's electronic organ, changing band conditions, sloppy handkeying, line interference, nests on the antennas, having to make our own equipment, the massive russian woodpeckers equipment problems that we had to fix ourselves, and having to log our operations.
And we were grateful
NA7E
There's a lot that goes into CD distribution, from marketing to production to hiring to etc
you forgot, they need money for drugs.
He is Ben, King of Rats"
until the white dwarf cools off that is. Then it becomes a crystalline diamond core surrounded by rock.
It takes about ten billion years for a white dwarf (average) to cool off to the point of not being visible. The age of the universe is about 13-14 billion years old.
However, do not plan on going to the white dwarf to go diamond mining, as it is still quite hot, and it's gravity would squish you flat.
But eventually they will become dark cold diamond cinders.
But one interesting thing is that white dwarfs can accumulate material from companion stars over time. When this white dwarf obtains 1.4 solar mass it reaches the Chandrasekhar limit, and a type 1a supernova explosion occurs. You don't want to be around.
If you were thinking of collecting boken diamonds from the aftermath, think again.
Diamond undergoes catastrophic allotropic conversion conversion to graphite at 1800 C. This is exceeded a few million times in a supernova producing carbon ions.
So, the conclusion I draw from this -- the carbon in our bodies could have come from diamonds, having originated from a white dwarf that crystallized and later became a type 1a supernova
Correct me if I'm wrong, physicists.
Also, if you are going to be paying money to fuel your car would you rather pay it to American farmers and corporations or foreign oil barons and corporations
Or foreign governments that sponsor Al qaeda activities *cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*.
One has to wonder if the day comes where their revenue stream starts to dries up, they will start to get a lot more friendlier to the U.S. and get serious about removing terrorists like they do somebody who steals an apple out of one of their markets.
When I saw this in the news, I was all over it. This really could be an opec-buster if we wanted it to be.
I did RTFA by the way. You can buy it for $10 from Science. What makes this thing intriguing is it's simplicity. The artcle does not have a picture per se, but a simple schematic.
At one end is an auto injector where the ethanol is enjected and a port where oxygen (air) would be sent in. The mixture flow hits the heated tube (at 300 F) and is vaporized. As it travels through the tube it is heated to 1700 F then the mixture encounters the catalyst where the reaction takes place and hydrogen is produced.
C2H5OH + 2H2O + 1/2O2 --> 2CO2 + 5H2
The total time for the mixture to travel through the tube is 50 milliseconds
As can be seen, the conversion is complete. If you "burn" ethanol, you're going to have undesirable particulates. While CO2 is a "greenhouse gas", it still is a lot cleaner than burning gasoline.
I should mention here that the article is all chemistry and no mechanical details are given. But one really does get the sense you could knock one off in your garage. You will need college chemistry to understand the details, but it is straight forward. It's a pretty complete article.
The "secret sauce" is keeping the ethanol from catching fire.
There is a lot of FUD in the comments here about how enviromentally unfriendly/uneconomical growing corn is.
Ethanol is being made from other sources, like super enviromentally friendy switchgrass that can grow in 3/4 of the US
Advantages to this technology;
1) It's going to be quiet, and with a quiet fuel cell, would be appropriate for a small powerplant in a house. It would be more quiet than the furnace that blows air through your house.
2) It is an efficent process. Coupled with the high conversion rates and efficeint fuel cells it becomes economically viable.
3) Ethanol can be distributed easily using current distribution channels.
4) Ethanol is a renewable energy source, that could boost the farm economy, give jobs to Americans, lower the trade deficit, and give us something to export for a change. It does not need to be "found", it's "grown".
5) There are straightforward engineering solutions to the few problems that might remain.
Drawbacks;
1) It takes 1700 F heat for the process
2) Large companies are not going to want to see you leave the grid, and will do anything to influence corrupt politicians to tie it in red tape. Expect to see legislation because "it is a fire hazard".
3) It does produce CO2. However, it can't be any worse than what natural gas, coal fired plants produce. This also might be mitigated by the development of inexpensive CO2 scrubbers.
I find it apropos that news of this breakthrough appears on the same day that Opec decides to cut back production.
Current price for a gallon of ethanol is $1.30. A gallon of gas is headed to record levels.
People are going to start looking at ethanol technology pretty hard when gas hits $2.50 a gallon.
If I were OPEC, I'd be shaking in my boots.
Actually legal widespread hemp growing is not a ridiculous idea.
It's an entirely political debate, not based on science whatsoever.
"Industrial" hemp as a crop has many useful benifits. And such hemp also has very little THC, in fact so little that it is difficult to get "high" off from it.
If this really was the issue behind it, the government could find a way to regulate it, as they do alcohol.
People who want to get "high" will find a way to do so one way or another. The fact is industrial hemp plants make a very poor drug.
Sure someone might find a way to get a bunch of hemp and distill out more THC, but it would be easier sneaking it over the border.
The fact is people are already making meth from cough syrup, but does that mean we stop the sale of cough syrup?
I'm all for a crop that would put our farmers to work, decrease government subsidies, is enviromental friendly, and decrease our foreign imports.
Industrial Hemp could do this. The number of pot smokers would not increase either.
The account continues in verse seven if you don't know how it turned out. I agree with Groklaw's advice. Leave it be!
Please choose your worldview;
worldview 1)
Well, unfortunately they did not leave the forbidden fruit alone.
Since we all are descendants of Adam and his transgression, we inherit the propensity to commit sin.
Therefore there are those of us among us who cannot resist the temptation, will partake of the sweet fruit, and will be beguiled by the evil forces once again.
We should prepare for the worst, and be ready to watch episodes of "Cops" busting nerds for copyright violations. Or at the very least read on Groklaw the fate of nerd souls as they are the subject of much legal action, most of which is unfair.
The outcome is nerds repent, and align themselves with the forces of good. They become resolute in their purpose, forming alliances among themselves that allows them to produce OSS that is competitive in a market economy, and embraced by all. Corporate propriety code is rendered irrelevant.
worldview 2)
The same evolutionary forces that gifted fish with the ability to walk will once again affect the evolution of humans. As those nerds who are jailed for their infringing OSS projects they are effectively removed from the nerd genepool and cannot reproduce. Other nerds through fear, uncertainty and doubt are driven into deeper social isolation and fail to reproduce also. The remaining nerds who through acts of pity from the opposite sex produce progeny who have the ability to produce functional code on their own, free from infringing material.
However, because the number of nerds has actually been reduced through this attrition, they are at a competitive disadvantage to corporate propriety interests. They are subsequently harassed into submission and have to work for "The Man" producing closed-source software.
worldview 3)
There is a malevolent alien on a mountain trapped by lasers somewhere. His name is a lot like element Xenon atomic number 54 except the end rhymes with "gnu" or "boo". Anyway there are these harmful things that are called "thetans" that are removed through a strange process called "auditing". In order to prevent harm from these malicious forces, nerds "audit" their OSS projects and learn that it is actually composed of software owned by corporate interests.
They also learn that corporations produce superior code through their closed-source ways. It becomes obvious that they should obey whatever the corporate interest wants concerning their IP. If somebody questions anything, they are "silenced" one way or another, usually by suing them into oblivion. Nerds are at peace with this.
worldview 4)
Comet C/2002 T7 (Linear) is about to swing by in May. This is actually a spaceship, and with the way things are going your gonna want to be on it.
Dude, I'm not gonna let you play with the "fembot" I'm building.
Well my friend, you may not be a nerd.
My first "real computer" was a C64 too.
Part of being a nerd is exploring technology and how it works technically and works in our lives.
By looking at our history and the roads we have travelled, we get a better sense of where we are at in time and where we want to be in the future.
Seeing this story on slashdot, I thought about the usefulness of this application and reflected that it was all done on a eight bit 6502 derivative operating at 1 Mhz with 64k of memory.
I know many on here reflected the same way and immediately started thinking of applications that might be generated. I didn't even know that "Contiki" or "Lunix" existed. These would be easy to port to an embedded device.
Many of us on slashdot have ham-radio licenses. Much of the "old" technology that ham's were investigating in the seventies have become economic realities now thirty years later. I remember when I was riding on a bus and I made a phone call on a repeater with my handy-talkie. Every body thought that was "cool". Now people just get annoyed when it's done on a cellphone. So by reflecting on "old" technology, we can maybe recycle it for use into "new" technology
Many on here like to listen to "glass audio", or "antique radio". You can learn a lot about technolgy and design issues when restoring an old radio. Many of these same issues occur in modern day electronics as well (like dried out capacitors).
For christmas I bought one of those joystick "namco" game that plug directly into the TV. It was loaded with five arcade games which included pac-man, dig dug (my personal favorite), and galaxian. I thought that my six year old niece would be the only one to get a kick out of it, but the whole family did. Just because these games were "old" did not make them any less fun. And Namco was brilliant for taking this "old" technology and repackaging it in an accessible and fun format. The thing that's nice about these games is they have a zero learning curve. You can sit down and immediately play a game and relax and not have to worry about game complexity that many PS2 games have.
Just because these things are not "new" does not make them "irrelevant" to a nerd's life. On the contrary, nerds embrace such things.
Old radio, glass audio, retro-gaming, and antique computing represent technologies that brought us to this particular point in time. So it is very much a part of a "nerd's history" (this one's anyway).
Even though I may not be actively participating in them, I enjoy reading about the adventures of others, and see what they are learning and developing with them. With a sentimental eye in this "throw away" society we live in, I'm glad to see others keep the (nerd's) flame alive.
So, it's all about interest in technology, whether it be old or brand new that makes a nerd "a nerd". These things, both "old and new" will matter to the nerd on a deep, cerebral level. As compared to an average person that is "just a user" and would just as likely throw away the antique radio than repair it. Or the old computer, as it "does not matter" to them any more.
I think you fall in this latter category of "user".
I mean no offense and I hate to say it, but for the above reasons, you may not be a "nerd".
Anything windows-sounding is a tardmark.
Don't make me come over there and slap you.
Kill the mars program and fix the Hubble.
We will go more places this way.
google doesn't care about grammar.
The google bomb is not going to work when you misspell litigious bastards.
Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.
*sigh*
The 22 million prediction sounds like re-election propaganda...
Probably along the lines that they are going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and give rich peopl^H^H^Heveryone more tax breaks.
oh yeah, we're buying a rocket to Mars too.