You've got it pretty much exactly right. This is wavelength switching, not packet switching. You demux a DWDM transmission on a fiber, pass the resulting light through some kind of filter mechanism, then all of the destinations mux their incoming transmissions back into a DWDM stream.
The tricky bit is filtering on the basis of wavelength. There's more information on LightChip's Website (http://www.lightchip.com).
And besides... this isn't 1975 anymore. I think we can do better than blasting bitmaps across the network using a broken security scheme.
Where did you get your information? The X Protocol sends raw bitmaps only in the case of a client server bitmap x-fer request (seminal transfer of an XPixmap, or an XImage XPixmap copy). Otherwise it uses other primitives like lines, rects, font glyphs, and server-side bitmaps (XPixmaps).
The ratio of people dogging X11 to people who actually understand X11 hovers around 100:1. There is so much uninformed drivel regarding X11 floating around that zero productive criticism of X11 can actually be accomplished, these days.
X11 would benefit from a new imaging model, something akin to SVG or PDF, much like Quartz or Display Postscript. Unfortunately, the bulk of graphical computing applications on *all* platforms is adapted to the old, limited model of the original X11. What you don't seem to recognize is that X11 survives precisely because of the abominable state-of-the-art in GUI technology (again, on all platforms).
Your precious Quartz might have changed that, except that it's owned and developed by Apple Computer. That, in itself, is a death warrant for promising technologies.
You can advocate a change in the laws, certainly, but to advocate unConstitutional changes is to oppose the Rule of Law. One classic example of this is the use of the Commerce Clause to expand the powers of the federal government into the domain of state governments. Recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to reverse this trend, but the fact that federal rape-crime legislation has even been enacted is highly disturbing and grossly contradictory to the Rule of Law. Those who passed the legislation were "outlaws", yes, despite the fact that our system no longer holds such Congressional outlaws accountable for their abuses.
As for the gun control issue, it would be one thing to argue passionately that the Second Amendment should be repealed. I would find that argument offensive and destructive, but it would be lawful, nevertheless. Any other gun control legislation is unlawful because as long as the Second Amendment exists, by definition, the "Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
You ask about "being an advocate for changing the law". My answer is that advocacy is no crime. We don't police thought in this country (not officially, anyway), and I find it offensive to suggest that one's advocacy could be the basis for criminal charges. Still, being an advocate of criminal action (enacting legislation which transgresses the 2nd Amendment) puts you in treasonous company. Your reputation might suffer a setback (not that that is always a bad thing).
Let's face it, the moderation system gives too much power to a bunch of idiots. The best idea so far for a moderation system overhaul is to hire away the Helpful Daikatana Monkey and give him unlimited moderation points.
Cool. It is an exquisite pleasure to be understood.
My favorite part: any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity -- I prefer a side salad to impunity, but to each their own...
Hehe:-) I didn't make that up, I got it from Richard Maybury, who wrote all those "Uncle Eric" books about the Founding Fathers, basic economics, and the history of Libertarianism. They're written for kids, but I read them at age 22 and they changed my whole outlook. Nowadays I read meatier Lib stuff, but sometimes the simplest stuff is the most persuasive.
Nader's campaign managers are probably buying into the same ideology as the major parties: winning the election is all-important. Hence, they want to be taken seriously as a "major candidate".
I think that 3rd-party candidates need to accept the fact that they are setting the stage for a revolution in American politics. There is little-to-no chance that the political establishment will allow a 3rd-party win, at this point.
As Wanniski says of those who cherish the status quo, they will attack your character, they will attack your record. When that fails, they will attack you with real bullets. It's that important to them, and besides, they've done it many times before.
The power to do as one pleases is anarchy. It may please me to molest my neighbor, but to do so is unlawful and unLibertarian. It means infringing on the rights on another individual, which is utterly contrary to Libertarianism. I might as well be my own private despot, molesting others at will on the basis of Might Makes Right.
Freedom from restraint similarly implies that there is no magistrate or judicial body to condemn my actions (and censor them). This does not imply the necessity of government in Libertarian thinking, it merely implies that some sort of restraint is absolutely necessary.
In Libertarian thinking, we call this restraint "Rule of Law". Once Rule of Law is established, those who abide by the Law are protected by it. By contrast, those who reject the Law are "outlaws". They are not protected by it, and any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity because they no longer carry the protection of the law. This is the origin of the word "outlaw", meaning "one who is outside the law".
This is the double-edged sword of Libertarianism: that those who wish to be free must uphold the Law at every juncture, every moment, in order to ensure its protection for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their neighbors. To break the Law and fail to pay restitution is to deny the Law and its protection, thereby annulling its benefits.
Every man, it is assumed, will see in the Law greater benefits than detriments. In other words, it will serve me better to uphold the Law than to break it. Those who break it will be punished according to the Law, and those who flout it will be rendered "lawless", and treated as any man sees fit.
Keep in mind, that Law is a distinct concept: the bureaucratic code imposed by the federal government may or may not be right. The principal deciding factor is the Rule, the highest Law of the Land, and in the United States that is the Constitution. All actions must be judged according to that Body, and nothing can be allowed to transgress it -- including the Congress.
When you hear "gun nuts" ranting about the Second Amendment, what you are actually hearing are law-abiders insisting on their rights under Law. When you hear gun control advocates ranting about protecting our children, what you are actually hearing are outlaws and hypocrites, people who who would transgress the Law, yet insist on their rights under that same Law. By rights, this is anathema, which explains the justifiable outrage amongst the "gun nuts".
You have to justify the price you want for something when federally-imposed regulations inflate that price artificially. Copyright laws claim to protect artists and provide income for creative arts, but that is blatant bullshit. Copyright laws simply prop up IP organizations and enable obscene profits for a modicum of creative effort.
Read your Constitution. I'll even give you a pointer: Article I, Section 8. Compare with the US Copyright Act of 1976, then come back and tell us all about justification.
If prices were high because of natural supply-and-demand, I'd agree with you: I've got no right to complain. After all, it's a market phenomenon, totally justified. But the government has engaged in its tinkering, grossly disrupting the market balance of producer/consumer with regard to creative works.
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me *that* doesn't need to be justified.
The M-W definition is only correct if, by its own definitions of "liberty", it is very selective:
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
To say that Libertarianism means "unrestricted liberty" is true only if definition '1c' is used. Definitions '1a' and '1b' are definitely not compatible, if the point of the exercise is to say that Libertarians believe in "unrestricted liberty".
If you go by the proverbial "books" for Libertarian political and social stance they do come out sounding pretty selfish and obsessed with making money.
Which books? I have a huge library of Libertarian and Austrian Economics books, and I've never encountered the "obsessed with making money" viewpoint. The list of Libertarian authors is dominated by professors, scholars, and authors.
You think corporations need the government to fuck us? What had M$ been doing for over a decade? What were you paying for gas last month? What is the average American's standard of living today, in comparison to the 1950s? In a word, it's all fucked.
This is just plain uninformed drivel. You think oil prices are high because of some kind of corporate conspiracy? Check the facts. Specifically, check the political situation in the Middle East. The United States government is largely to blame for the bolluxed state of affairs.
We're getting pricejacked left and right, but no one gets paid more. In today's money, the average laborer made $50,000 per year in the 50s, and had a good pension to retire on. Today, laborers are lucky to make $35,000, even though cost of living has jumped, and pensions are practically unheard of.
These are outright lies. I hope you're the victim of bad information, and not trying to pawn off these lies on your own.
I've heard it said that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party: the party of Power. They simply disagree on the details of how to impose their values upon your life.
I've even heard it argued (compellingly so) that the Republican/Democrat split is a well-instrumented system for exploiting the US government by providing two popular -- and supposedly alternative -- paths to the same goal: centralization.
In my view, the Republicans and Democrats are akin to the Karma Mafia scam perpetrated here on Slashdot.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)
It's plain disingenuous to quote out of context to support your argument.
This is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
What systems have you examined? It seems to me that there is a *lot* of interesting work being done in this area, particularly that which involves, or responds to, the Coase Theorem.
Reason Magazine has published a lot of editorial material regarding the Commons, and it has served me well as an introduction to the Classical Liberal discussion of the Tragedy.
It's true that Libertarianism is poorly understood in the United States; elsewhere in the world it is known as Liberalism, or "classical liberalism". Here in the States, "liberals" are equivalent to what Europe calls "social democrats".
Unfortunately, you've fallen into the same trap that Stateside media has -- this meaningless Left/Right distinction.
For more information, see http://www.libertarian.org/history.html#classical:
Libertarians don't believe in unrestricted liberty. They believe in unrestricted private activity. Anything that infringes upon another would not be considered private activity.
Maybury sums up Libertarian thought with his "Two Fundamental Laws":
1) Do not infringe on anyone else's person or property (the basis of Tort Law)
2) Do all that you have said you will do (the basis of Cntract Law)
The reasoning generally follows this pattern: drunkenness sacrifices the individual's ability to act responsibly. In doing so publicly and then operating a vehicle (an activity which requires substantial personal accountability) an individual is placing others in danger.
By contrast, gun ownership is in no way an abdication of responsibility or faculty. In most cases, in fact, it is actually an indicator of greater vigilance. All of the gun owners I know are terribly straight-laced people who bought guns out of a sense of responsibilty for the defense of their families.
I doubt that Libertarians are in favor of outlawing drunk driving, in any case. Many Libertarians favor a restitution-based legal system, whereby there is no such thing as "debt to society", but rather a debt to those who have been harmed by one's actions. Awarding substantial settlements to those who have been materially damaged by another's actions would be a powerful deterrent to irresponsible action, and might cause many a barfly to rethink his driving habits.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it pretty much exactly right. This is wavelength switching, not packet switching. You demux a DWDM transmission on a fiber, pass the resulting light through some kind of filter mechanism, then all of the destinations mux their incoming transmissions back into a DWDM stream.
The tricky bit is filtering on the basis of wavelength. There's more information on LightChip's Website (http://www.lightchip.com).
MJP
And besides... this isn't 1975 anymore. I think we can do better than blasting bitmaps across the network using a broken security scheme.
Where did you get your information? The X Protocol sends raw bitmaps only in the case of a client server bitmap x-fer request (seminal transfer of an XPixmap, or an XImage XPixmap copy). Otherwise it uses other primitives like lines, rects, font glyphs, and server-side bitmaps (XPixmaps).
The ratio of people dogging X11 to people who actually understand X11 hovers around 100:1. There is so much uninformed drivel regarding X11 floating around that zero productive criticism of X11 can actually be accomplished, these days.
X11 would benefit from a new imaging model, something akin to SVG or PDF, much like Quartz or Display Postscript. Unfortunately, the bulk of graphical computing applications on *all* platforms is adapted to the old, limited model of the original X11. What you don't seem to recognize is that X11 survives precisely because of the abominable state-of-the-art in GUI technology (again, on all platforms).
Your precious Quartz might have changed that, except that it's owned and developed by Apple Computer. That, in itself, is a death warrant for promising technologies.
MJPYou can advocate a change in the laws, certainly, but to advocate unConstitutional changes is to oppose the Rule of Law. One classic example of this is the use of the Commerce Clause to expand the powers of the federal government into the domain of state governments. Recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to reverse this trend, but the fact that federal rape-crime legislation has even been enacted is highly disturbing and grossly contradictory to the Rule of Law. Those who passed the legislation were "outlaws", yes, despite the fact that our system no longer holds such Congressional outlaws accountable for their abuses.
As for the gun control issue, it would be one thing to argue passionately that the Second Amendment should be repealed. I would find that argument offensive and destructive, but it would be lawful, nevertheless. Any other gun control legislation is unlawful because as long as the Second Amendment exists, by definition, the "Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
You ask about "being an advocate for changing the law". My answer is that advocacy is no crime. We don't police thought in this country (not officially, anyway), and I find it offensive to suggest that one's advocacy could be the basis for criminal charges. Still, being an advocate of criminal action (enacting legislation which transgresses the 2nd Amendment) puts you in treasonous company. Your reputation might suffer a setback (not that that is always a bad thing).
MJP
Let's face it, the moderation system gives too much power to a bunch of idiots. The best idea so far for a moderation system overhaul is to hire away the Helpful Daikatana Monkey and give him unlimited moderation points.
MJP*Now* I understand Libertarianism. Thanks.
Cool. It is an exquisite pleasure to be understood.
My favorite part: any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity -- I prefer a side salad to impunity, but to each their own ...
Hehe :-) I didn't make that up, I got it from Richard Maybury, who wrote all those "Uncle Eric" books about the Founding Fathers, basic economics, and the history of Libertarianism. They're written for kids, but I read them at age 22 and they changed my whole outlook. Nowadays I read meatier Lib stuff, but sometimes the simplest stuff is the most persuasive.
btw: Fat chicks. Party Hats ....!???
Kind of a private joke. Check out Fat Chicks In Party Hats for a good laugh.
MJPNader's campaign managers are probably buying into the same ideology as the major parties: winning the election is all-important. Hence, they want to be taken seriously as a "major candidate".
I think that 3rd-party candidates need to accept the fact that they are setting the stage for a revolution in American politics. There is little-to-no chance that the political establishment will allow a 3rd-party win, at this point.
As Wanniski says of those who cherish the status quo, they will attack your character, they will attack your record. When that fails, they will attack you with real bullets. It's that important to them, and besides, they've done it many times before.
MJP
Oh, gosh, you're right. We shouldn't wait for a crime to be committed, we should be policing thought and behavior in order to pre-empt crime.
Fuckwit. Moron. Shit-for-brains. Take your pick.
MJP
Heh :-)
The power to do as one pleases is anarchy. It may please me to molest my neighbor, but to do so is unlawful and unLibertarian. It means infringing on the rights on another individual, which is utterly contrary to Libertarianism. I might as well be my own private despot, molesting others at will on the basis of Might Makes Right.
Freedom from restraint similarly implies that there is no magistrate or judicial body to condemn my actions (and censor them). This does not imply the necessity of government in Libertarian thinking, it merely implies that some sort of restraint is absolutely necessary.
In Libertarian thinking, we call this restraint "Rule of Law". Once Rule of Law is established, those who abide by the Law are protected by it. By contrast, those who reject the Law are "outlaws". They are not protected by it, and any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity because they no longer carry the protection of the law. This is the origin of the word "outlaw", meaning "one who is outside the law".
This is the double-edged sword of Libertarianism: that those who wish to be free must uphold the Law at every juncture, every moment, in order to ensure its protection for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their neighbors. To break the Law and fail to pay restitution is to deny the Law and its protection, thereby annulling its benefits.
Every man, it is assumed, will see in the Law greater benefits than detriments. In other words, it will serve me better to uphold the Law than to break it. Those who break it will be punished according to the Law, and those who flout it will be rendered "lawless", and treated as any man sees fit.
Keep in mind, that Law is a distinct concept: the bureaucratic code imposed by the federal government may or may not be right. The principal deciding factor is the Rule, the highest Law of the Land, and in the United States that is the Constitution. All actions must be judged according to that Body, and nothing can be allowed to transgress it -- including the Congress.
When you hear "gun nuts" ranting about the Second Amendment, what you are actually hearing are law-abiders insisting on their rights under Law. When you hear gun control advocates ranting about protecting our children, what you are actually hearing are outlaws and hypocrites, people who who would transgress the Law, yet insist on their rights under that same Law. By rights, this is anathema, which explains the justifiable outrage amongst the "gun nuts".
MJP
You have to justify the price you want for something when federally-imposed regulations inflate that price artificially. Copyright laws claim to protect artists and provide income for creative arts, but that is blatant bullshit. Copyright laws simply prop up IP organizations and enable obscene profits for a modicum of creative effort.
Read your Constitution. I'll even give you a pointer: Article I, Section 8. Compare with the US Copyright Act of 1976, then come back and tell us all about justification.
If prices were high because of natural supply-and-demand, I'd agree with you: I've got no right to complain. After all, it's a market phenomenon, totally justified. But the government has engaged in its tinkering, grossly disrupting the market balance of producer/consumer with regard to creative works.
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me *that* doesn't need to be justified.
MJP
The M-W definition is only correct if, by its own definitions of "liberty", it is very selective:
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
To say that Libertarianism means "unrestricted liberty" is true only if definition '1c' is used. Definitions '1a' and '1b' are definitely not compatible, if the point of the exercise is to say that Libertarians believe in "unrestricted liberty".
As you say, just a clarification.
MJPIf you go by the proverbial "books" for Libertarian political and social stance they do come out sounding pretty selfish and obsessed with making money.
Which books? I have a huge library of Libertarian and Austrian Economics books, and I've never encountered the "obsessed with making money" viewpoint. The list of Libertarian authors is dominated by professors, scholars, and authors.
MJP
There's another review at Mises.org: http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=472&m onth=22&title=+Cyberjealous+&id=23
It's not as good as the Reason review, but it's still worth reading for additional insight.
MJP
You think corporations need the government to fuck us? What had M$ been doing for over a decade? What were you paying for gas last month? What is the average American's standard of living today, in comparison to the 1950s? In a word, it's all fucked.
This is just plain uninformed drivel. You think oil prices are high because of some kind of corporate conspiracy? Check the facts. Specifically, check the political situation in the Middle East. The United States government is largely to blame for the bolluxed state of affairs.
We're getting pricejacked left and right, but no one gets paid more. In today's money, the average laborer made $50,000 per year in the 50s, and had a good pension to retire on. Today, laborers are lucky to make $35,000, even though cost of living has jumped, and pensions are practically unheard of.
These are outright lies. I hope you're the victim of bad information, and not trying to pawn off these lies on your own.
MJPI've heard it said that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party: the party of Power. They simply disagree on the details of how to impose their values upon your life.
I've even heard it argued (compellingly so) that the Republican/Democrat split is a well-instrumented system for exploiting the US government by providing two popular -- and supposedly alternative -- paths to the same goal: centralization.
In my view, the Republicans and Democrats are akin to the Karma Mafia scam perpetrated here on Slashdot.
MJP
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)
It's plain disingenuous to quote out of context to support your argument.
MJPThis is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
What systems have you examined? It seems to me that there is a *lot* of interesting work being done in this area, particularly that which involves, or responds to, the Coase Theorem.
Reason Magazine has published a lot of editorial material regarding the Commons, and it has served me well as an introduction to the Classical Liberal discussion of the Tragedy.
MJP
No kidding, there. A Browne-Nader debate would be the indicator I've been wishing for -- that politics in the United States still has a pulse.
MJP
Mmmm, such discriminating logic, coupled with biting wit.
MJP
It's true that Libertarianism is poorly understood in the United States; elsewhere in the world it is known as Liberalism, or "classical liberalism". Here in the States, "liberals" are equivalent to what Europe calls "social democrats".
:
Unfortunately, you've fallen into the same trap that Stateside media has -- this meaningless Left/Right distinction.
For more information, see http://www.libertarian.org/history.html#classical
MJP
Libertarians don't believe in unrestricted liberty. They believe in unrestricted private activity. Anything that infringes upon another would not be considered private activity.
Maybury sums up Libertarian thought with his "Two Fundamental Laws":
1) Do not infringe on anyone else's person or property (the basis of Tort Law)
2) Do all that you have said you will do (the basis of Cntract Law)
MJP
The reasoning generally follows this pattern: drunkenness sacrifices the individual's ability to act responsibly. In doing so publicly and then operating a vehicle (an activity which requires substantial personal accountability) an individual is placing others in danger.
By contrast, gun ownership is in no way an abdication of responsibility or faculty. In most cases, in fact, it is actually an indicator of greater vigilance. All of the gun owners I know are terribly straight-laced people who bought guns out of a sense of responsibilty for the defense of their families.
I doubt that Libertarians are in favor of outlawing drunk driving, in any case. Many Libertarians favor a restitution-based legal system, whereby there is no such thing as "debt to society", but rather a debt to those who have been harmed by one's actions. Awarding substantial settlements to those who have been materially damaged by another's actions would be a powerful deterrent to irresponsible action, and might cause many a barfly to rethink his driving habits.
MJP
You could probably repackage the iMac as a network computer for $325... maybe call it the iSore.
MJP
SVG is designed for integration with SMIL, which allows for all manner of multimedia. It's a powerful combination.
MJP
Adobe's beta plugin for SVG display works on Windows with Navigator and IE 5.x. It's a good implementation for proof-of-concept and testing.
http://www.adobe.com/SVG
MJP
Any idea what Postscript is? (Hint: a vector graphics format)
MJP