It would be just plain stupid to go ahead and find this kindof a solution to a problem that doesn't exist at this time.
The most cost-effective route in the long-term is probably to develop other technologies while we squeeze every last PN junction out of current technologies. We have mult-tasking operating systems, multi-threading programs, even multi-threading kernels. There have been entire books written on the advantages of parallelizing jobs and system redundancy.
I don't see why we shouldn't have multi-threading industry research.
I'm looking forward to semiconductors based on carbon crystals. (read, "diamond.") Germanium, Silicon and Carbon all have the same number of valence electrons (4), which is what makes them good semiconductors.
Interesting to note, though, that while a germanium PN junction only has a voltage drop of 0.3V, silicon has a drop of 0.7V. Anyone know what the voltage drop would be for a carbon junction?
Also, one of the main reasons they switched from germanium to silicon was silicon's greater endurance to physical stress. I'm pretty sure diamond will be still stronger, despite the doping.
Maybe, just maybe, they'll be able to use channels in the diamond crystal as optic conductors. Considering crystalline Si is opaque, that would be a huge advantage. Wouldn't it be great if your clock signal was represented as a flash of light through the entire die? (Have to worry about reflection off the sides, though. Hmm.)
It's just a rearranged alphabet. I have a shell set up so I can accomplish certain tasks(chores involving poorly named directories) at work without my network access being suspended.
All you need to do is print out half the alphabet on one line, then, on the next line, print out the other half, directly underneath the first half. Bingo: You have a conversion table.
First you learn certain key phrases, like "terc" for "grep"...After a while, you only need the conversion table occasionally. (I'm still not quite off it.)
That reminds me of a screw-up in some Fortune 500 company that someone on Slashdot mentioned a few years ago.
Sensitive information was removed from a Word document, which was then sent outside the company. A quick Edit->Undo revealed the information that had been "removed."
Someone followed up with a comment about how documents in the CIA and NSA were required to be plain ASCII. (I obviously can't vouch for the authenticity of that, though.)
It's called the Public Switched Telephone Network, though its name doesn't do it much justice now.
It got its name from being a publicly available way of connecting two wires from one house to another, without laying wires from each house to each house.
There are some interesting advantages and disadvantages to that. I'll probably write it up in my journal.
The lab I'll be working in has about 30 computers, but they all already have Windows installed on them. I don't have room to put more than two or three live stations, so most of the experience is going to be over a network.
I don't want to install Cygwin to get an X server, and I don't want to shell out money to get a commercial implementation for Windows. For shells, I'm planning on using PuTTY, since it emulates terminals very well. VNC and PuTTY are already approved software for use on-campus, so I can kill two birds with one stone.
Unfortunately, using it remotely doesn't give you a feeling for how different it is. All you get is a neat window with graphics or text in it, all within the "safe confines" of Windows. So I'm planning on having students rotate between using live stations and connecting remotely.
...Christian, but I believe in evolution and all the rest of methodical science.
Confusing?
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
Ok...So we had the Big Bang, everything cooled down a bit, stars were born, and this little dustball of a planet was compacted by gravity into a nice ball of molten rock. Thanks to the parallel axis theorem, the spin of all the dust in the solar system gave us angular momentum, so we now have a day and a night.
At some point, God created life in his image. OK, so now we have biological functions.
Unless you can read Hebrew, all you have to go on is other peoples' interpretations of the original text into a different langauge.
Even the concept Man was created first depends on the translation of that specific word. And did you know Hebrew wasn't spoken natively (again) until the 1900s? Plenty of time for humanity to lose touch with the language.
No kidding, since it isn't possible to copyright factual information.
But is it really factual information? The prices weren't in effect yet, and have always been subject to change.
There's a line that has to be drawn: How specific must a fact be? Must it be something as specific as a mathematical definition of a law in physics? Or is something with a very general definition also eligible? (Like an emotion, or the difference between sharp and dull.)
On the other hand, can it really be copyrightable if it is not intended to be viewed by the public? Anyone have reasons why/not?
While I applaud your distinction between peer review and open source, I have to ask: How do we know that a binary we're given, and some source code we're given, amount to the same product?
Take "main(){printf("Hello!\n")}" and "main(){printf("%s","Hello!\n")}"
While functionally identical, gcc will compile them into two very different binaries.
In short, there's no way to verify that the source code and the program are the same. Even if the two programs appear to respond to every interaction in the same manner, there's no way to know that there isn't a back door in the pre-compiled version.
And we're prohibited from using the provided source code for anything but verifying a lack of flaws. Legally, we can't buy the program and compile the accomanied source for personal use.
I'm not saying "Don't trust PGP." I'm just pointing out a flaw in their peer-review logic. If they allowed you to use the compiled source for personal use, then all would be well. (Aside from moral compunctions, of course.)
What we need to be concerned about is the marketing hype that will surround "trusted computing."
For an analogy, I recall a line from a web site I read years ago about XML:
"Q: What can XML do? A: Anything your boss tells you to do with it."
We're going to see infomercials and targeted advertising at corporate executives (Microsoft's most lucrative market gateway) about how "trusted computing" can ensure the safety of your data. (Complete with rear-view video of a someone typing away at a keyboard, in a dark room with the outline of the person only visible by reflection from the CRT.)
At the point when data in "trusted" portions of computers can only be transferred to other computers with such "trusted" data storage capabilities, the necessity of having such a PC at home will become vital for anyone who wants to work at home with any data some hair-brained exec decides is important enough to encrypt.
So people start buying computers with these trusted regions, with the only operating system that can access these regions already installed.
And for those few who still say DRM won't be enforced by Palladium and the like: All the record company has to do is release the digital version of an audio file in the "protection" region of memory, and you're now subject to the whims of the licensing arrangements devised for that file.
Perhapse the worst part: Even inadvertently recording such data that was played through someone's speakers will be a violation of the DMCA.
Unfortunately, Microsoft does have a "Shared Source" program.
Now, assuming that the gov't can demand source code from a vendor before using their software, is that source code then available under the Freedom of Information Act? Without signing an NDA?
Even if it is, anyone who sees the code is tainted; Microsoft can probably still patent portions of its source code, even after other people make modifications and extionsions. After all, does "prior art" refer to before the patent or before the invented device?
Have you looked at current publicly available satellite photos? Even the resolution those supply would be sufficient for point-source tracking.
Tracking the point-source is probably the cheapest, most effective method available to distinguish between an attempt at jamming and an actual source of signal.
This is ideal for optical frequencies because you can order the technology off-the-shelf.
It's even suitable inside buildings because you need only an optical sensor for every open area you want to receive in. I was going to do something like this for my laptop's IR port, at home.
Re:Depends on the effective distance in the laser.
on
Optical Cellphones
·
· Score: 2
Don't believe him, folks. Read the Everything2 node. (And, no, I didn't do any of the writeups.)
Wouldn't a better solution be cellphones which support heavy encryption?
No, because at some point or another, the encryption will be cracked, and there may be recordings of the signal, which can be decoded later.
Unless, of course, you use a one-time-pad system. (But then you have to worry about the entropy level of your key)
Depends on the effective distance in the laser.
on
Optical Cellphones
·
· Score: 2
The longer the effective distance the light spends in the cavity, the narrower your beam will be.
You can increase your effective distance by lengthening your mirrored cavity, and by increasing the silvered amount of your semisilvered mirror at the front.
If it proves to be a gov't-use-only technology, why worry about it?
Instead of looking for specific levels of brightness, look for the delta of those levels. Or even delta^2.
Given that current satellites are able to read print the size of license plates, and we have a lot of computing power available these days, I would imagine that software could track a single point signal source and ignore others.
This is a supreme advantage of optical over other methods. We have CCDs that can see visible light and infrared, but no hi-rez CCD that can "picture" radio sources.
Jamming is only useful if all your signals come in over the same antenna. It's much, much less effective if you can easily distinguish the locations of multiple sources, then authenticate against the source you want to communicate with.
Granted, this means cell-to-satellite is easy. Not satellite-to-cell.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be just plain stupid to go ahead and find this kindof a solution to a problem that doesn't exist at this time.
The most cost-effective route in the long-term is probably to develop other technologies while we squeeze every last PN junction out of current technologies. We have mult-tasking operating systems, multi-threading programs, even multi-threading kernels. There have been entire books written on the advantages of parallelizing jobs and system redundancy.
I don't see why we shouldn't have multi-threading industry research.
I'm looking forward to semiconductors based on carbon crystals. (read, "diamond.") Germanium, Silicon and Carbon all have the same number of valence electrons (4), which is what makes them good semiconductors.
Interesting to note, though, that while a germanium PN junction only has a voltage drop of 0.3V, silicon has a drop of 0.7V. Anyone know what the voltage drop would be for a carbon junction?
Also, one of the main reasons they switched from germanium to silicon was silicon's greater endurance to physical stress. I'm pretty sure diamond will be still stronger, despite the doping.
Maybe, just maybe, they'll be able to use channels in the diamond crystal as optic conductors. Considering crystalline Si is opaque, that would be a huge advantage. Wouldn't it be great if your clock signal was represented as a flash of light through the entire die? (Have to worry about reflection off the sides, though. Hmm.)
Anybody else have thoughts or knowledge?
It's just a rearranged alphabet. I have a shell set up so I can accomplish certain tasks(chores involving poorly named directories) at work without my network access being suspended.
All you need to do is print out half the alphabet on one line, then, on the next line, print out the other half, directly underneath the first half. Bingo: You have a conversion table.
First you learn certain key phrases, like "terc" for "grep"...After a while, you only need the conversion table occasionally. (I'm still not quite off it.)
I think you're right. That sounds more familiar. (I had to fill in information I couldn't quite recall.)
That reminds me of a screw-up in some Fortune 500 company that someone on Slashdot mentioned a few years ago.
Sensitive information was removed from a Word document, which was then sent outside the company. A quick Edit->Undo revealed the information that had been "removed."
Someone followed up with a comment about how documents in the CIA and NSA were required to be plain ASCII. (I obviously can't vouch for the authenticity of that, though.)
!!gniluam UNG a fo DRAEH neve REVEN ev'I dna ,SSO evol I .tuoba gniklat era elpoep uoy tawh wonk t'nod I
It's called the Public Switched Telephone Network, though its name doesn't do it much justice now.
It got its name from being a publicly available way of connecting two wires from one house to another, without laying wires from each house to each house.
There are some interesting advantages and disadvantages to that. I'll probably write it up in my journal.
Certainly helped improve his ego. :)
They tried that. They compressed his bytecode, and called it Lor.
The problem was, they forgot to decompress the code before running it, which was why he was always messed up.
The lab I'll be working in has about 30 computers, but they all already have Windows installed on them. I don't have room to put more than two or three live stations, so most of the experience is going to be over a network.
I don't want to install Cygwin to get an X server, and I don't want to shell out money to get a commercial implementation for Windows. For shells, I'm planning on using PuTTY, since it emulates terminals very well. VNC and PuTTY are already approved software for use on-campus, so I can kill two birds with one stone.
Unfortunately, using it remotely doesn't give you a feeling for how different it is. All you get is a neat window with graphics or text in it, all within the "safe confines" of Windows. So I'm planning on having students rotate between using live stations and connecting remotely.
...Christian, but I believe in evolution and all the rest of methodical science.
Confusing?
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
Ok...So we had the Big Bang, everything cooled down a bit, stars were born, and this little dustball of a planet was compacted by gravity into a nice ball of molten rock. Thanks to the parallel axis theorem, the spin of all the dust in the solar system gave us angular momentum, so we now have a day and a night.
At some point, God created life in his image. OK, so now we have biological functions.
Unless you can read Hebrew, all you have to go on is other peoples' interpretations of the original text into a different langauge.
Even the concept Man was created first depends on the translation of that specific word. And did you know Hebrew wasn't spoken natively (again) until the 1900s? Plenty of time for humanity to lose touch with the language.
...but is it wireless?
:P )
Can I put a PCMCIA 802.11b adapter into it? (and use the tracks as an antenna?
Punny isn't funny if the viewer isn't punny. However, punny isn't punny unless people don't find it funny.
What happens if a punny person meets another punny person? They go out and have a steak and eggs--instant breakfast. (And, pretty quickly, friends.)
No kidding, since it isn't possible to copyright factual information.
But is it really factual information? The prices weren't in effect yet, and have always been subject to change.
There's a line that has to be drawn: How specific must a fact be? Must it be something as specific as a mathematical definition of a law in physics? Or is something with a very general definition also eligible? (Like an emotion, or the difference between sharp and dull.)
On the other hand, can it really be copyrightable if it is not intended to be viewed by the public? Anyone have reasons why/not?
While I applaud your distinction between peer review and open source, I have to ask: How do we know that a binary we're given, and some source code we're given, amount to the same product?
Take "main(){printf("Hello!\n")}" and "main(){printf("%s","Hello!\n")}"
While functionally identical, gcc will compile them into two very different binaries.
In short, there's no way to verify that the source code and the program are the same. Even if the two programs appear to respond to every interaction in the same manner, there's no way to know that there isn't a back door in the pre-compiled version.
And we're prohibited from using the provided source code for anything but verifying a lack of flaws. Legally, we can't buy the program and compile the accomanied source for personal use.
I'm not saying "Don't trust PGP." I'm just pointing out a flaw in their peer-review logic. If they allowed you to use the compiled source for personal use, then all would be well. (Aside from moral compunctions, of course.)
You could say the same thing about Windows. Granted, for the people who know of them, PGP Corp has a better reputation.
What we need to be concerned about is the marketing hype that will surround "trusted computing."
For an analogy, I recall a line from a web site I read years ago about XML:
"Q: What can XML do? A: Anything your boss tells you to do with it."
We're going to see infomercials and targeted advertising at corporate executives (Microsoft's most lucrative market gateway) about how "trusted computing" can ensure the safety of your data. (Complete with rear-view video of a someone typing away at a keyboard, in a dark room with the outline of the person only visible by reflection from the CRT.)
At the point when data in "trusted" portions of computers can only be transferred to other computers with such "trusted" data storage capabilities, the necessity of having such a PC at home will become vital for anyone who wants to work at home with any data some hair-brained exec decides is important enough to encrypt.
So people start buying computers with these trusted regions, with the only operating system that can access these regions already installed.
And for those few who still say DRM won't be enforced by Palladium and the like: All the record company has to do is release the digital version of an audio file in the "protection" region of memory, and you're now subject to the whims of the licensing arrangements devised for that file.
Perhapse the worst part: Even inadvertently recording such data that was played through someone's speakers will be a violation of the DMCA.
Unfortunately, Microsoft does have a "Shared Source" program.
Now, assuming that the gov't can demand source code from a vendor before using their software, is that source code then available under the Freedom of Information Act? Without signing an NDA?
Even if it is, anyone who sees the code is tainted; Microsoft can probably still patent portions of its source code, even after other people make modifications and extionsions. After all, does "prior art" refer to before the patent or before the invented device?
(In other words, "Kids, don't try this at home.")
Have you looked at current publicly available satellite photos? Even the resolution those supply would be sufficient for point-source tracking.
Tracking the point-source is probably the cheapest, most effective method available to distinguish between an attempt at jamming and an actual source of signal.
This is ideal for optical frequencies because you can order the technology off-the-shelf.
It's even suitable inside buildings because you need only an optical sensor for every open area you want to receive in. I was going to do something like this for my laptop's IR port, at home.
Don't believe him, folks. Read the Everything2 node. (And, no, I didn't do any of the writeups.)
Wouldn't a better solution be cellphones which support heavy encryption?
No, because at some point or another, the encryption will be cracked, and there may be recordings of the signal, which can be decoded later.
Unless, of course, you use a one-time-pad system. (But then you have to worry about the entropy level of your key)
The longer the effective distance the light spends in the cavity, the narrower your beam will be.
You can increase your effective distance by lengthening your mirrored cavity, and by increasing the silvered amount of your semisilvered mirror at the front.
An Opera (browser) comic insinuated that I needed to take a few whacks with a cloo-by-four, since I don't read UserFriendly daily...
If it proves to be a gov't-use-only technology, why worry about it?
Instead of looking for specific levels of brightness, look for the delta of those levels. Or even delta^2.
Given that current satellites are able to read print the size of license plates, and we have a lot of computing power available these days, I would imagine that software could track a single point signal source and ignore others.
This is a supreme advantage of optical over other methods. We have CCDs that can see visible light and infrared, but no hi-rez CCD that can "picture" radio sources.
Jamming is only useful if all your signals come in over the same antenna. It's much, much less effective if you can easily distinguish the locations of multiple sources, then authenticate against the source you want to communicate with.
Granted, this means cell-to-satellite is easy. Not satellite-to-cell.
How to keep your cell phone from being jammed? Bathe it in grape jelly, instead...