The question is whether and how we can get sufficient oversight.
Actually, I don't entirely agree. Brin argues that when new infringements on the nations privacy are proposed, the people ought to demand oversight. This is how we can get sufficient oversight. He makes a lengthy point of how the privacy organizations are totalling missing this key concept. They are arguing so hard (and mostly futily) that by the time the privacy infringing bills are passed (which they all have been, so far) we're left with no oversight, the worst possible situation, according to Brin.
Precisely. There are many that obviously believe that many things should be kept private, however, as law abiding citizens (we all are, aren't we?) the number of things that really need to be kept secret, as long as there is oversight, is far smaller.
As far as the oversight issue goes, I am a strong believer in not providing corporations any privacy infringing abilities or access to any information that infringes on privacy. In contrast to gov't. organizations which can be effectively watched over (I'm not saying that they currently are, just that it is possible and has been proven on a few occasions), corporations can not effectively be watched over - equal opportunity employment is a good example of that.
The potential AND liklihood of abuse of personal information by corporations is great - they have far more to gain and comparably far less to lose (individuals hide behind the corporate veil and large corporations have pricey lawyers).
This interview explains very well Brin's viewpoints, very valid viewpoints, at that. I think it would interest many people to know that analysis of many privacy-thru-secrecy advocates actually subscribe to a philosophy closer to Brin's than they think. After all, it is not the additional security that privacy advocates are against, it is the potential for harm through abuse of the system that they decry. Precisely this harm is what is limited and eliminated by the oversight that Brin speaks of. When you have the good and eliminate the bad, what's to lose?
Most importantly, Brin points out that the citizens should have a say in what aspects of our supposed privacy should be 'transparent' and what should be kept private. This is an important point, don't miss it: the amount of privacy we enjoy should be determined not by committee, but by the masses. What could be more Open Source than this? Even if the committee contains members of the EFF, ACLU, or whatever other organization, that's not enough... it should be up to the citizens themselves to determine as a mass what is adequate privacy, where to draw the line.
Whenever I think about national ID cards or have a conversation about it, I have to balance my views on privacy (as an EFF member, I have pretty strong views, views that didn't necessarily jive with Brin's before reading this article) and views on the benefits of a national ID system (done right) to verifying identity for online transactions, and such. The potential for limiting fraud through identity verification (done right) is quite large, when you think about it. I would love to see a system that provides for the strongest security (hardware device, biometric, and soft device) in all cases. If a system like this can be assembled and made easy to use without compromising its strength, that would be sweet.
This is a very true note, however, as my fiancee points out to me, the trade-off for signing with a music label, that ends up paying out less than $1 per CD sold is quite significant to the artist. Promotion of a new artist or an artists new album is a significant cost expenditure in and of itself. Not to mention going on tour (apparently, ticket sales alone are not enough), apparel, fan club sites, recording time, etc.
I don't agree with any of what the RIAA members are doing, but according to my fiancee, the recording artists *do* get something in return for their contractual obligations, something they cannot get any other way. She should know, she is a certified audio engineer, trained in LA, and she has worked (and sometimes even lived!) with many bands over the years.
Give credit where credit is due, but a legal precedent is unnecessary. What you have is copyright violation since your page is a copy of the page that the image originally appeared on. That's ALWAYS been the case. See, there's always been plenty of laws to handle this - why we need more precedents in place to complicate matters (and allow for more abuse) is what is difficult to understand.
Precisely. I totally agree with alecto. I am usually in favor of protecting copyright and the like, but this goes too far. You have posted your images on the Internet. Not in a magazine, not at a gallery, not in a museum. The Internet! If you don't like what the Internet is (a shared medium) then don't put your pictures there! Nobody is forcing you to put your pictures there, if they're proprietary or important to you in some other way, password protect your site - a.htaccess file in the images directory will work just fine.
This ruling is absolutely ridiculous and I so very much hope that the EFF takes issue with this... in a big way. I'll be writing my check out next payday...
The liquid cooling system mentioned in this article doesn't use a pump, read the article and visit the site:).
Re:Same thing, other side of the border
on
Is Hyperchip Hype?
·
· Score: 2
And support. I've personally experienced and heard from others that Cisco's technical support is amazing, bar none. Being transferred around the globe to catch people 'awake' in the proper timezones is a measure of how seriously Cisco take support. I've never worked with other vendor's routers, but ISP's familiarity and appreciation of Cisco's support system will be difficult to overcome.
So Apple having something like $4 billioncash in the bank (let's not forget, that's not assets) as well as having a very low debt load for a company of its size means that Steve Jobs doesn't get it?!? I typically read what JonKatz writes with a relatively open mind, but trash talking what Apple (and Linux!) has done is silly.
I had a friend write me today with the news that he downgraded his main dual-proc PC from Win2K to Win95 (only single-proc capable) because '95 could run certain applications better and didn't crash as much! Is this what makes Microsoft a more successful company? This person was 'Joe average user', for certain. The average, middle-class PC owner does not use Windows to the exclusion of Linux or MacOS (by PC I don't only mean x86) because Microsoft targets their needs better, its quite simply because since its inception, Microsoft has had a marketing engine the likes of which the world had never seen. Getting your name out there and getting OEMs (who always want to make a quick buck) to rollup your OS with their systems is what got Microsoft its success.
This feature makes me question how much JonKatz has experienced Apple products, to think that Steve Jobs doesn't know what the 'average user' wants. How about all those adds that Apple ran when the first iMacs came out? Out of the box and on the Internet with three cables (keyboard/mouse, power, phone) in less than 10 minutes. I do believe 'easy as 1-2-3' appeared in one of the ads (I recall Jeff Goldblum's ads most distinctly). The new iMac will be no different, except that now it addresses more issues that the average user wants (speed: G4 processor, compactness: LCD flat-screen, etc.) The fact that Apple is able to bring to market a machine that 'fits the bill' and looks designed is remarkable and only to be lauded, imho.
In a book I read a while back (by Tom Clancy and Steve Pieczenik) in a series called 'Net Force' a super-geek (described as a brilliant genius) apparently had a bad childhood that caused him to want to wipe out any informational link to his family that might exist. The book is set in a time where the Internet is far more expansive than it is now, where all information is stored online and all communications take place online and search engines are all powerful. In this setting, the author introduces what he terms a 'killbot' - a small application or scriptlet whose purpose is to literally 'kill' information.
The way it is described, these 'killbots' are illegal (big surprise). They apparently work by hacking into information sources turned up by search engines and removing the relevant information from the source's databases. While all very fictional, I wonder how far we are from something of this nature. Information may want to be free, but if someone wants to remove information by any means necessary, this may not be far off.
Wow, 10%!?! That's a lot. Though as far as the US is concerned, at what generation does an American qualify as a 'native' English speaker? Might be difficult to quantify that comparison.
I can definitely vouch for the nativelike proficiency of some of India's English speakers. I recently saw a show on 'the next Hollywood' - in India. The creator of this 'Film City' was interviewed and spoke English amazingly well - and he wasn't even of the youngest generation (18-24) - he was probably in his 40s, by my poor guesstimate!
It stands to reason that this would be the case (there are more speakers of English in India than there are in the UK) since the population of India is so HUGE (and populous) and the UK is (after all) still only an island. I recall hearing that there are more first generation Irish in the US than there are in Ireland... not entirely surprising either:).
I'm not entirely sure of what fly flew into your drink, but at no point was any portion of this story or discussion topic related to the differences in English semantics, pronunciations and accents of the various English speaking communities around the world. So, chill out! As an American, if I were to travel to Great Britain, Australia or a variety of other countries whose main language is English, I wouldn't have much of a problem communicating at a high level - this is what I am speaking of when I write of flawless English. Not the nitpick items you are talking of, rather the ability to communicate at a high level (both effectively, efficiently and intellectually). This language barrier is what is keeping the residents of India and China at a disadvantage currently. Lest I get more flames, please don't construe this as meaning that all natives of India and China speak flawed English, I am merely addressing a common problem I see.
Very much agreed, on all points. While I do love capitalism as much as the next person, the way it has evolved in the US (politically) is self-defeating and in constant need of 'fixing' to keep the common-folk happy. My personal feeling is that as long as the country is led by people who care more about power than more idealistic things (human rights, our environment, spiritual (not religious) understanding and things like a uniform code of morals and ethics) - we will be forever in this position. As a male that is at least somewhat enlightened to these types of things, I am very interested in seeing what happens to our country (and other countries as well) as more women take on leadership roles. I can't say that women won't succomb as men have, but I am hopeful and interested.
'Creative' development jobs will stay here for now
on
Can China Pull An India?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree with the poster that, for now, creative development jobs are likely to stay state-side (or in the EU: Finland, anyone?). However, I'll throw out this bit of caution: from my own experience at one of the world's largest avionics company, where we routinely out-sourced tedious work to Chinese developers, the major stumbling block at the moment is language. As technology and intercultural exchange advances (say the next generation of developers), a common language will become less and less of a problem as many (if not all) will speak flawless English and be able to understand and convey complex engineering topics. When this day comes, I am afraid that developers in the US will feel the same fear as auto workers, factory assembly line workers and many other 'out-sourced' industry workers have felt in the past.
The developers in India, offering to develop, test, and deploy your software for pennies on the dollar (or Euro) are not dumb, not by any stretch of the imagination. They have excellent resources, many times (books, 'Net connections, hardware) and they almost always have degrees in CS from accredited (and damn good) institutions. I recall a professor I had in my undergraduate schooling (in the US) that went to undergrad school in India, and Georgia Tech for her graduate work. She was one of the most amazingly intelligent professors I have ever run across.
The point? Don't sit on your duff - get out there, get smarter, stay current, try to think of new things, evolve. Good hunting.
Re:This is a sign of some sort of cultural deficie
on
Goodbye, "Majestic"
·
· Score: 2
I think that the responses to this post that are making light of it, do not understand that what aussersterne is writing is in fact a natural evolution of where we stand now. Look at history, every step that humankind has taken, especially with respect to entertainment, invariably evolves to something bigger, better, more realistic and most recently, more immersive. Is this healthy?
I am sure that most peoples opinion on this will vary, but let me caution those that would utter "but, its only a game". Maybe, from the outsider looking in, this is the case. However, for those that are constantly pushing for more realism, more immersion, more intelligent AI - they are asking for these things to make the game more real. And now for a mathematical analogy, what happens when the limit of the game with respect to increasing realism approaches some point that we'll label infinity? That's right, the game becomes real. When will this happen? When is enough, enough? What happens when VR immersion rivals reality? When you can no longer discern if you are in VR or 'unplugged'?
I recall reading a 'young adult' book by Tom Clancy in his Net Force series (co-authored with someone else) that dealt with a VR world that is highly immersive, and people started getting killed (in real life). Obviously this is still fiction, but the story-line tells of the evolution of this game... single player RPG run on a person's PC. Take a highly realistic game, good AI, network gaming, and immersive VR and what does that give you? A recipe for trouble or for way cool gaming, I'm afraid.
Before people start flaming me, I myself love immersive fantasy, usually I only read fantasy books (older D&D ones like Forgotten Realms, etc.) where the immersive reality is in my mind. Thankfully, putting the book down 'unplugs' me for now:). I am also eagerly awaiting amazingly realistic AI and highly immersive VR, but when this all arrives, I hope that as a society we'll have learned where the boundaries are and we (for once) will know not to push those boundaries.
Ever used VNC, Timbuktu, or pcAnywhere? These applications work acceptably well over typical broadband connections to the 'Net, sometimes even over 56k dial-up. On a LAN, they're close to perfect, minimal lag, etc. And yes, even at 1024x768 @ 24-bit color (my iMac doesn't do 32-bit color, I'm not sure if any do). Watching a DVD via such software may not be recommended, but otherwise, it is highly useable.
Think before speaking and save us all some trouble!
This isn't about defending MS. Its making a point against wasting energy and discrediting the Open Source community. While some Open Source protagonists are merely high school or college students, others (like myself) have staked companies on Open Source technologies, amongst other things. The continuing perception amongst executives that the Open Source movement is more akin to the '60s than anything professional and worth paying attention to makes the jobs of professional promoters and users Linux quite a bit more difficult.
Anyone looking to see if all those Linux folk are still zealots w/r/t Linux v. Microsoft would only need to measure the response to a story like this. Do you hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of many fine folks wasting their time and energy on bashing Microsoft, their products, their practices, their religions...
It doesn't need to be like this, folks. Speak with your wallets, speak with your advice to people who seek out your opinions, speak with your civil rights as a citizen of a free country (whichever country that might be!) Don't buy Microsoft products if they aren't any good or if you have ideological reasons not to (this is always your dime, as people say). If you're asked for your opinion on technology, recommend Open Source products if applicable or products produced by competitors of Microsoft if they are better, or if you have ideological reasons not to recommend Microsoft products. Write your senators, representatives, school board members, and city council members about your opinions. Propose alternatives to Microsoft packaged solutions. Maybe your solution costs less, maybe its more reliable, maybe it just makes the point of not supporting a company found guilty of anticompetitive practices, whatever.
Summing up: who cares what Microsoft thinks of Linux, don't waste your time on fruitless flames, trolls, op-ed, etc. that merely 'sings to the choir'. Do something that counts or don't do anything at all. Perpetuating the opinion of others, that all folks involved with Open Source are anti-Microsoft zealots doesn't gain us favor in areas that might provide some of us Open Source advocates money in the future. Its all about impressions when dealing with conservative (or even just fiscally minded) executives. A sure thing is always going to be better than the latest underground trend.
From what I was able to gather from the article, it seems that only very, very small amounts of methanol will actually be used in cells. As such, I don't think you'll actually have enough fuel there to cause much of a safety/security hazard. There are quite a few different materials in common use that are quite unsafe and/or explosive in much larger quantities.
Keep in mind that 'safety' and 'security' concerns should deal primarily with 'accidental' hazards, not purposeful exploits which the technologies themselves cannot prevent. Take for example a standard Dell laptop with a front loadable battery and modular drive that can have a second battery inserted. What if a extension battery were purchased then had the Li core removed, replaced with an explosive of some sort and inserted into the expansion slot. The cursory examinations that laptops are subject to in most security conscious situations (airports, court rooms, etc.) involve simply turning it on - well, if a standard battery is installed next to the explosive, this test will pass. Voila, you've breached security purposefully. Not only that, but an X-ray of the laptop will likely show only the same thing as if an actual extension battery were installed. The image (as seen by an X-ray) of an explosive and Li battery is likely very similar.
Don't forget: the companies that are developing these technologies don't have morons working for them (by-and-large). If Sony, NEC and Toshiba are all pursuing this technology, I'm sure a few intelligent people have already brought up the possible security/safety hazards in the device's most typical usage venues. Additionally, the article mentions a targeted consumer release date of this technology as 2005 which makes this:
...all of the current concern about bombs...
somewhat irrelevant. Who knows what conditions will dictate in 2005? I certainly do not!
In the near future, we will see many, many more 'main stream' applications such as Adobe's prestigious family of design applications, Macromedia's design, multimedia and production applications, etc. running 'natively' on OS X. Don't look for any of these applications to be ported to UNIX. Developing for OS X is absolutely nothing like developing for UNIX, take it from a developer.
For example, a carbon applications is still based on the same MacOS APIs that have existed in the past - with a few omissions and a few additions, of course. The point of Carbon, though, is to make porting existing MacOS applications as easy as possible. Cocoa, on the other hand, is very different and is a totally new creature, and one that is proprietary, I'm afraid. I don't think we will see a Cocoa compatability layer for Linux - ever. These OS X applications are not based on the FreeBSD/OpenBSD foundation of OS X, it is the OS itself that is based on these foundations, not the applications that run on top of the OS.
A valid analogy might be the fact that in a large part, Windows NT was initially based in a large part on VMS, if I recall - maybe not the actual code, but I have heard varying reports of that as well. Of course, no application that runs on NT will run on VMS (without significant recoding). This is because the foundation of these OS's is less important than the APIs they are written against.
Bottom line here is that OS X is far more than a foundation of FreeBSD/OpenBSD with a pretty window manager. For more info, check out Apple's site for developers: click here. You'll find info on Darwin (the FreeBSD/OpenBSD layer), Cocoa, Carbon, how the various layers interact, what depends on what, etc. Enjoy!
This is absolutely correct. Your BS or Bachelor of Science indicates that you have completed a certain set of requirements relatively common across all types of degrees that indicate they are of this type. For me, this included a few Chemistry classes, a few Physics classes, a good many Mathematics classes, various humanities and social science classes (various psychology classes, a literature class on Sci-Fi, and quite a few foreign language courses in my case) as well as classes in other disciplines such as Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering (logic gates, anyone?) to name but a few.
As was mentioned above, you may be a crack programmer, but that's not all that's required for a degree, which is why you need a degree to continue to progress on your career ladder. The tasks that most probably await you will require certain degrees of critical thinking that are enhanced with the variety of non-CS classes that are required for the BS degree.
Another thought: do you have any degree? I assume you do not, but if you *did* many CS Masters programs (for example that at Chicago's DePaul University) will allow you to either take or test through a variety of core classes that essentially determine if you have what it takes for the Masters courses, if so - you're home free and on your way to your Masters. If not, you simply take the classes you need (shouldn't take more than a couple semesters) and then you're on your way. Again, I believe this only works if you have an undergraduate degree of some sort already.
Contrary to what others are writing, I agree with this poster. Regardless of if you're intending to be working with graphics or not, if you intend to be taken seriously, a design is essential. A simple 2-3 page site (which is what it looks like they currently have) plus maybe a released template that they can use to add their own pages later doesn't have to cost $20K.
Creating sites that load quickly (for the target audience), are most compatible across browsers (including text console apps such as Lynx, if desired) and are low-load for the server (to sustain a slashdot effect) are what professional interactive agencies are called on to do. My company (shameless plug) answers that call and answers it well (say what you will about our own site, which doesn't get nearly as much time invested in it as our client's sites do).
For something like Tungsten, I'd say that having a page that loads in Lynx isn't nearly as important as having a page that looks professional and inspires trust in this brand new company. And while many, many slashdotters will be going to their site from Linux workstations using Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror, or Opera, the visits that probably matter most to the executives at the moment are those coming in on IE, from other executives sitting in plush offices with money to invest!
I am curious as to why this game wasn't released. Why did it remain vaporware? Its interesting, though, that apparently the binary image can be posted w/o fear of copyright infringement. Are all 2600 games 'free' now? I recall that for SNES games and the like the ROMs are still considered warez or bootlegged.
At what age does a game enter the public domain? If it was never released, is it automagically in the public domain if you can get your hands on it? I'll have to wait a few hours!
I haven't personally checked out this site, though I'd like to, apparently its already suffered the ill effects of/., too bad.
NP completeness is something that you will come across in many undergraduate CS programs (e.g. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, my alma mater) and something you should most definitely come across in any self-respecting masters program for CS.
Once you start to understand NP completeness, you won't write statements such as:
... So if (when) the time comes...
Many NP complete and NP hard problems have approximations that are extremely close to the optimal answer. A solution to an NP complete problem is unlikely. Quantum computing may in fact be able to solve an NP complete problem because it entirely changes the playing field for mathematical calculations - but who knows? We don't have any quantum computers yet that are more than a meager 'proof-of-concept'. Additionally, it has already been discussed that quantum computing would severely impact the longevity of cryptographic algorithms. I imagine researchers are working on quantum-safe cryptographic algorithms as I write this, though I don't know of any off-hand.
In short, NP complete is a difficult concept to even grasp the basic gist of, much less to fully understand and appreciate the magnitude of its implications. If you want to check out something I wrote on the topic for a master's class at DePaul, go here: http://www.webprojkt.com/brice/csc491/
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't entirely agree. Brin argues that when new infringements on the nations privacy are proposed, the people ought to demand oversight. This is how we can get sufficient oversight. He makes a lengthy point of how the privacy organizations are totalling missing this key concept. They are arguing so hard (and mostly futily) that by the time the privacy infringing bills are passed (which they all have been, so far) we're left with no oversight, the worst possible situation, according to Brin.
No?
Precisely. There are many that obviously believe that many things should be kept private, however, as law abiding citizens (we all are, aren't we?) the number of things that really need to be kept secret, as long as there is oversight , is far smaller.
As far as the oversight issue goes, I am a strong believer in not providing corporations any privacy infringing abilities or access to any information that infringes on privacy. In contrast to gov't. organizations which can be effectively watched over (I'm not saying that they currently are, just that it is possible and has been proven on a few occasions), corporations can not effectively be watched over - equal opportunity employment is a good example of that.
The potential AND liklihood of abuse of personal information by corporations is great - they have far more to gain and comparably far less to lose (individuals hide behind the corporate veil and large corporations have pricey lawyers).
This interview explains very well Brin's viewpoints, very valid viewpoints, at that. I think it would interest many people to know that analysis of many privacy-thru-secrecy advocates actually subscribe to a philosophy closer to Brin's than they think. After all, it is not the additional security that privacy advocates are against, it is the potential for harm through abuse of the system that they decry. Precisely this harm is what is limited and eliminated by the oversight that Brin speaks of. When you have the good and eliminate the bad, what's to lose?
Most importantly, Brin points out that the citizens should have a say in what aspects of our supposed privacy should be 'transparent' and what should be kept private. This is an important point, don't miss it: the amount of privacy we enjoy should be determined not by committee, but by the masses. What could be more Open Source than this? Even if the committee contains members of the EFF, ACLU, or whatever other organization, that's not enough ... it should be up to the citizens themselves to determine as a mass what is adequate privacy, where to draw the line.
Whenever I think about national ID cards or have a conversation about it, I have to balance my views on privacy (as an EFF member, I have pretty strong views, views that didn't necessarily jive with Brin's before reading this article) and views on the benefits of a national ID system (done right) to verifying identity for online transactions, and such. The potential for limiting fraud through identity verification (done right) is quite large, when you think about it. I would love to see a system that provides for the strongest security (hardware device, biometric, and soft device) in all cases. If a system like this can be assembled and made easy to use without compromising its strength, that would be sweet.
This is a very true note, however, as my fiancee points out to me, the trade-off for signing with a music label, that ends up paying out less than $1 per CD sold is quite significant to the artist. Promotion of a new artist or an artists new album is a significant cost expenditure in and of itself. Not to mention going on tour (apparently, ticket sales alone are not enough), apparel, fan club sites, recording time, etc.
I don't agree with any of what the RIAA members are doing, but according to my fiancee, the recording artists *do* get something in return for their contractual obligations, something they cannot get any other way. She should know, she is a certified audio engineer, trained in LA, and she has worked (and sometimes even lived!) with many bands over the years.
Give credit where credit is due, but a legal precedent is unnecessary. What you have is copyright violation since your page is a copy of the page that the image originally appeared on. That's ALWAYS been the case. See, there's always been plenty of laws to handle this - why we need more precedents in place to complicate matters (and allow for more abuse) is what is difficult to understand.
Precisely. I totally agree with alecto. I am usually in favor of protecting copyright and the like, but this goes too far. You have posted your images on the Internet. Not in a magazine, not at a gallery, not in a museum. The Internet ! If you don't like what the Internet is (a shared medium) then don't put your pictures there! Nobody is forcing you to put your pictures there, if they're proprietary or important to you in some other way, password protect your site - a .htaccess file in the images directory will work just fine.
This ruling is absolutely ridiculous and I so very much hope that the EFF takes issue with this ... in a big way. I'll be writing my check out next payday ...
The liquid cooling system mentioned in this article doesn't use a pump, read the article and visit the site :).
And support. I've personally experienced and heard from others that Cisco's technical support is amazing, bar none. Being transferred around the globe to catch people 'awake' in the proper timezones is a measure of how seriously Cisco take support. I've never worked with other vendor's routers, but ISP's familiarity and appreciation of Cisco's support system will be difficult to overcome.
So Apple having something like $4 billion cash in the bank (let's not forget, that's not assets) as well as having a very low debt load for a company of its size means that Steve Jobs doesn't get it ?!? I typically read what JonKatz writes with a relatively open mind, but trash talking what Apple (and Linux!) has done is silly.
I had a friend write me today with the news that he downgraded his main dual-proc PC from Win2K to Win95 (only single-proc capable) because '95 could run certain applications better and didn't crash as much! Is this what makes Microsoft a more successful company? This person was 'Joe average user', for certain. The average, middle-class PC owner does not use Windows to the exclusion of Linux or MacOS (by PC I don't only mean x86) because Microsoft targets their needs better, its quite simply because since its inception, Microsoft has had a marketing engine the likes of which the world had never seen. Getting your name out there and getting OEMs (who always want to make a quick buck) to rollup your OS with their systems is what got Microsoft its success.
This feature makes me question how much JonKatz has experienced Apple products, to think that Steve Jobs doesn't know what the 'average user' wants. How about all those adds that Apple ran when the first iMacs came out? Out of the box and on the Internet with three cables (keyboard/mouse, power, phone) in less than 10 minutes. I do believe 'easy as 1-2-3' appeared in one of the ads (I recall Jeff Goldblum's ads most distinctly). The new iMac will be no different, except that now it addresses more issues that the average user wants (speed: G4 processor, compactness: LCD flat-screen, etc.) The fact that Apple is able to bring to market a machine that 'fits the bill' and looks designed is remarkable and only to be lauded, imho.
In a book I read a while back (by Tom Clancy and Steve Pieczenik) in a series called 'Net Force' a super-geek (described as a brilliant genius) apparently had a bad childhood that caused him to want to wipe out any informational link to his family that might exist. The book is set in a time where the Internet is far more expansive than it is now, where all information is stored online and all communications take place online and search engines are all powerful. In this setting, the author introduces what he terms a 'killbot' - a small application or scriptlet whose purpose is to literally 'kill' information.
The way it is described, these 'killbots' are illegal (big surprise). They apparently work by hacking into information sources turned up by search engines and removing the relevant information from the source's databases. While all very fictional, I wonder how far we are from something of this nature. Information may want to be free, but if someone wants to remove information by any means necessary, this may not be far off.
Just a thought.
Wow, 10%!?! That's a lot. Though as far as the US is concerned, at what generation does an American qualify as a 'native' English speaker? Might be difficult to quantify that comparison.
I can definitely vouch for the nativelike proficiency of some of India's English speakers. I recently saw a show on 'the next Hollywood' - in India. The creator of this 'Film City' was interviewed and spoke English amazingly well - and he wasn't even of the youngest generation (18-24) - he was probably in his 40s, by my poor guesstimate!
It stands to reason that this would be the case (there are more speakers of English in India than there are in the UK) since the population of India is so HUGE (and populous) and the UK is (after all) still only an island. I recall hearing that there are more first generation Irish in the US than there are in Ireland ... not entirely surprising either :).
Btw, thanks for the back up - I appreciate it.
I'm not entirely sure of what fly flew into your drink, but at no point was any portion of this story or discussion topic related to the differences in English semantics, pronunciations and accents of the various English speaking communities around the world. So, chill out! As an American, if I were to travel to Great Britain, Australia or a variety of other countries whose main language is English, I wouldn't have much of a problem communicating at a high level - this is what I am speaking of when I write of flawless English. Not the nitpick items you are talking of, rather the ability to communicate at a high level (both effectively, efficiently and intellectually). This language barrier is what is keeping the residents of India and China at a disadvantage currently. Lest I get more flames, please don't construe this as meaning that all natives of India and China speak flawed English, I am merely addressing a common problem I see.
Very much agreed, on all points. While I do love capitalism as much as the next person, the way it has evolved in the US (politically) is self-defeating and in constant need of 'fixing' to keep the common-folk happy. My personal feeling is that as long as the country is led by people who care more about power than more idealistic things (human rights, our environment, spiritual (not religious) understanding and things like a uniform code of morals and ethics) - we will be forever in this position. As a male that is at least somewhat enlightened to these types of things, I am very interested in seeing what happens to our country (and other countries as well) as more women take on leadership roles. I can't say that women won't succomb as men have, but I am hopeful and interested.
I agree with the poster that, for now, creative development jobs are likely to stay state-side (or in the EU: Finland, anyone?). However, I'll throw out this bit of caution: from my own experience at one of the world's largest avionics company, where we routinely out-sourced tedious work to Chinese developers, the major stumbling block at the moment is language. As technology and intercultural exchange advances (say the next generation of developers), a common language will become less and less of a problem as many (if not all) will speak flawless English and be able to understand and convey complex engineering topics. When this day comes, I am afraid that developers in the US will feel the same fear as auto workers, factory assembly line workers and many other 'out-sourced' industry workers have felt in the past.
The developers in India, offering to develop, test, and deploy your software for pennies on the dollar (or Euro) are not dumb, not by any stretch of the imagination. They have excellent resources, many times (books, 'Net connections, hardware) and they almost always have degrees in CS from accredited (and damn good) institutions. I recall a professor I had in my undergraduate schooling (in the US) that went to undergrad school in India, and Georgia Tech for her graduate work. She was one of the most amazingly intelligent professors I have ever run across.
The point? Don't sit on your duff - get out there, get smarter, stay current, try to think of new things, evolve. Good hunting.
I think that the responses to this post that are making light of it, do not understand that what aussersterne is writing is in fact a natural evolution of where we stand now. Look at history, every step that humankind has taken, especially with respect to entertainment, invariably evolves to something bigger, better, more realistic and most recently, more immersive. Is this healthy?
I am sure that most peoples opinion on this will vary, but let me caution those that would utter "but, its only a game". Maybe, from the outsider looking in, this is the case. However, for those that are constantly pushing for more realism, more immersion, more intelligent AI - they are asking for these things to make the game more real . And now for a mathematical analogy, what happens when the limit of the game with respect to increasing realism approaches some point that we'll label infinity? That's right, the game becomes real. When will this happen? When is enough, enough? What happens when VR immersion rivals reality? When you can no longer discern if you are in VR or 'unplugged'?
I recall reading a 'young adult' book by Tom Clancy in his Net Force series (co-authored with someone else) that dealt with a VR world that is highly immersive, and people started getting killed (in real life). Obviously this is still fiction, but the story-line tells of the evolution of this game ... single player RPG run on a person's PC. Take a highly realistic game, good AI, network gaming, and immersive VR and what does that give you? A recipe for trouble or for way cool gaming, I'm afraid.
Before people start flaming me, I myself love immersive fantasy, usually I only read fantasy books (older D&D ones like Forgotten Realms, etc.) where the immersive reality is in my mind. Thankfully, putting the book down 'unplugs' me for now :). I am also eagerly awaiting amazingly realistic AI and highly immersive VR, but when this all arrives, I hope that as a society we'll have learned where the boundaries are and we (for once) will know not to push those boundaries.
Ever used VNC, Timbuktu, or pcAnywhere? These applications work acceptably well over typical broadband connections to the 'Net, sometimes even over 56k dial-up. On a LAN, they're close to perfect, minimal lag, etc. And yes, even at 1024x768 @ 24-bit color (my iMac doesn't do 32-bit color, I'm not sure if any do). Watching a DVD via such software may not be recommended, but otherwise, it is highly useable.
Think before speaking and save us all some trouble!
This isn't about defending MS. Its making a point against wasting energy and discrediting the Open Source community. While some Open Source protagonists are merely high school or college students, others (like myself) have staked companies on Open Source technologies, amongst other things. The continuing perception amongst executives that the Open Source movement is more akin to the '60s than anything professional and worth paying attention to makes the jobs of professional promoters and users Linux quite a bit more difficult.
Anyone looking to see if all those Linux folk are still zealots w/r/t Linux v. Microsoft would only need to measure the response to a story like this. Do you hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of many fine folks wasting their time and energy on bashing Microsoft, their products, their practices, their religions ...
It doesn't need to be like this, folks. Speak with your wallets, speak with your advice to people who seek out your opinions, speak with your civil rights as a citizen of a free country (whichever country that might be!) Don't buy Microsoft products if they aren't any good or if you have ideological reasons not to (this is always your dime, as people say). If you're asked for your opinion on technology, recommend Open Source products if applicable or products produced by competitors of Microsoft if they are better, or if you have ideological reasons not to recommend Microsoft products. Write your senators, representatives, school board members, and city council members about your opinions. Propose alternatives to Microsoft packaged solutions. Maybe your solution costs less, maybe its more reliable, maybe it just makes the point of not supporting a company found guilty of anticompetitive practices, whatever.
Summing up: who cares what Microsoft thinks of Linux, don't waste your time on fruitless flames, trolls, op-ed, etc. that merely 'sings to the choir'. Do something that counts or don't do anything at all. Perpetuating the opinion of others, that all folks involved with Open Source are anti-Microsoft zealots doesn't gain us favor in areas that might provide some of us Open Source advocates money in the future. Its all about impressions when dealing with conservative (or even just fiscally minded) executives. A sure thing is always going to be better than the latest underground trend.
From what I was able to gather from the article, it seems that only very, very small amounts of methanol will actually be used in cells. As such, I don't think you'll actually have enough fuel there to cause much of a safety/security hazard. There are quite a few different materials in common use that are quite unsafe and/or explosive in much larger quantities.
Keep in mind that 'safety' and 'security' concerns should deal primarily with 'accidental' hazards, not purposeful exploits which the technologies themselves cannot prevent. Take for example a standard Dell laptop with a front loadable battery and modular drive that can have a second battery inserted. What if a extension battery were purchased then had the Li core removed, replaced with an explosive of some sort and inserted into the expansion slot. The cursory examinations that laptops are subject to in most security conscious situations (airports, court rooms, etc.) involve simply turning it on - well, if a standard battery is installed next to the explosive, this test will pass. Voila, you've breached security purposefully. Not only that, but an X-ray of the laptop will likely show only the same thing as if an actual extension battery were installed. The image (as seen by an X-ray) of an explosive and Li battery is likely very similar.
Don't forget: the companies that are developing these technologies don't have morons working for them (by-and-large). If Sony, NEC and Toshiba are all pursuing this technology, I'm sure a few intelligent people have already brought up the possible security/safety hazards in the device's most typical usage venues. Additionally, the article mentions a targeted consumer release date of this technology as 2005 which makes this:
somewhat irrelevant. Who knows what conditions will dictate in 2005? I certainly do not!In the near future, we will see many, many more 'main stream' applications such as Adobe's prestigious family of design applications, Macromedia's design, multimedia and production applications, etc. running 'natively' on OS X. Don't look for any of these applications to be ported to UNIX. Developing for OS X is absolutely nothing like developing for UNIX, take it from a developer.
For example, a carbon applications is still based on the same MacOS APIs that have existed in the past - with a few omissions and a few additions, of course. The point of Carbon, though, is to make porting existing MacOS applications as easy as possible. Cocoa, on the other hand, is very different and is a totally new creature, and one that is proprietary, I'm afraid. I don't think we will see a Cocoa compatability layer for Linux - ever. These OS X applications are not based on the FreeBSD/OpenBSD foundation of OS X, it is the OS itself that is based on these foundations, not the applications that run on top of the OS.
A valid analogy might be the fact that in a large part, Windows NT was initially based in a large part on VMS, if I recall - maybe not the actual code, but I have heard varying reports of that as well. Of course, no application that runs on NT will run on VMS (without significant recoding). This is because the foundation of these OS's is less important than the APIs they are written against.
Bottom line here is that OS X is far more than a foundation of FreeBSD/OpenBSD with a pretty window manager. For more info, check out Apple's site for developers: click here. You'll find info on Darwin (the FreeBSD/OpenBSD layer), Cocoa, Carbon, how the various layers interact, what depends on what, etc. Enjoy!
This is absolutely correct. Your BS or Bachelor of Science indicates that you have completed a certain set of requirements relatively common across all types of degrees that indicate they are of this type. For me, this included a few Chemistry classes, a few Physics classes, a good many Mathematics classes, various humanities and social science classes (various psychology classes, a literature class on Sci-Fi, and quite a few foreign language courses in my case) as well as classes in other disciplines such as Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering (logic gates, anyone?) to name but a few.
As was mentioned above, you may be a crack programmer, but that's not all that's required for a degree, which is why you need a degree to continue to progress on your career ladder. The tasks that most probably await you will require certain degrees of critical thinking that are enhanced with the variety of non-CS classes that are required for the BS degree.
Another thought: do you have any degree? I assume you do not, but if you *did* many CS Masters programs (for example that at Chicago's DePaul University) will allow you to either take or test through a variety of core classes that essentially determine if you have what it takes for the Masters courses, if so - you're home free and on your way to your Masters. If not, you simply take the classes you need (shouldn't take more than a couple semesters) and then you're on your way. Again, I believe this only works if you have an undergraduate degree of some sort already.
Contrary to what others are writing, I agree with this poster. Regardless of if you're intending to be working with graphics or not, if you intend to be taken seriously, a design is essential. A simple 2-3 page site (which is what it looks like they currently have) plus maybe a released template that they can use to add their own pages later doesn't have to cost $20K.
Creating sites that load quickly (for the target audience), are most compatible across browsers (including text console apps such as Lynx, if desired) and are low-load for the server (to sustain a slashdot effect) are what professional interactive agencies are called on to do. My company (shameless plug) answers that call and answers it well (say what you will about our own site, which doesn't get nearly as much time invested in it as our client's sites do).
For something like Tungsten, I'd say that having a page that loads in Lynx isn't nearly as important as having a page that looks professional and inspires trust in this brand new company. And while many, many slashdotters will be going to their site from Linux workstations using Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror, or Opera, the visits that probably matter most to the executives at the moment are those coming in on IE, from other executives sitting in plush offices with money to invest!
I am curious as to why this game wasn't released. Why did it remain vaporware? Its interesting, though, that apparently the binary image can be posted w/o fear of copyright infringement. Are all 2600 games 'free' now? I recall that for SNES games and the like the ROMs are still considered warez or bootlegged.
At what age does a game enter the public domain? If it was never released, is it automagically in the public domain if you can get your hands on it? I'll have to wait a few hours!
I haven't personally checked out this site, though I'd like to, apparently its already suffered the ill effects of /., too bad.
NP completeness is something that you will come across in many undergraduate CS programs (e.g. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, my alma mater) and something you should most definitely come across in any self-respecting masters program for CS.
Once you start to understand NP completeness, you won't write statements such as:
Many NP complete and NP hard problems have approximations that are extremely close to the optimal answer. A solution to an NP complete problem is unlikely. Quantum computing may in fact be able to solve an NP complete problem because it entirely changes the playing field for mathematical calculations - but who knows? We don't have any quantum computers yet that are more than a meager 'proof-of-concept'. Additionally, it has already been discussed that quantum computing would severely impact the longevity of cryptographic algorithms. I imagine researchers are working on quantum-safe cryptographic algorithms as I write this, though I don't know of any off-hand.
In short, NP complete is a difficult concept to even grasp the basic gist of, much less to fully understand and appreciate the magnitude of its implications. If you want to check out something I wrote on the topic for a master's class at DePaul, go here: http://www.webprojkt.com/brice/csc491/