Doktor Doktor Jochum Bloch, chief naval architect for the Austrian Navy, has announced that it is a myth that ships sink: "With the proper application of inherently bouyant designs, limitations on the load, and the use of double-hulled and compartmentalized designs, it is quite possible to build a ship that cannot sink." Herr Bloch added that the ships on the bottom of the seas are simply representative samples of poor design. "Putting too much stuff into ships and not spending enough money to keep them afloat." Herr Bloch is now turning his attention to "airplanes that cannot crash."
I was hunting on some property a friend of mine owns and here in the middle of this field is a tattered old wind sock and a broken down hanger. I checked an old USGS map and there it was, some old airfield.
A much different experience was seeing the massive B-29 airfields on the island of Guam. I suppose they have been turned into tourist hotels and streets by now.
I see a future where nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and weapons that we cannot even dream of can and will be manufactured and used by nearly anyone with the time, funds, and motivation. A jealous boyfriend could decide to take out neighborhood with a nerve agent; a road-raged driver could toss a vial of engineered influenza at an offending traffic jam; a religious zealot could obliterate a city with a nuclear weapon. Is this future really speculative? Or is it the product of the inevitable march of technological "progress" that will continue until 9/11 is reduced to a quaint footnote in history? Is
After losing, say, several major metropolitan areas here and after watching the extermination of millions or billions elsewhere on the planet, is it too far-fetched to say that the American public will beg the government to take away every last vestige of its privacy? To establish a world where every action that could possibly pose a threat will be monitored, recorded, and analyzed?
My question is whether that day has already arrived, and if not, then what events will have to transpire before we willingly give up our rights to privacy in return for security? Will the delay to impose "big brother" controls only serve to hasten the demise of this Camelot of freedom that we have enjoyed for the last two centuries?
I think that this Apple web page is probably just a way to harvest e-mails for apple spam. But even if someone actually reads the comments, my guess is that they will indicate a growing concern among regular consumers that Apple computers may not be compatable with existing networks of PCs.
I believe that the biggest long-term threat facing Apple may be the fact that the consumer market is increasingly likely to have 2 or more computers in a wireless or ethernet network. Before, Apple could compete against lower cost PCs by offering some better media handling software (video, sound, graphics, etc.) Now, it will face networks of PCs. As an example, I have three smart kids that use a home network of PCs for their homework and research. What kind of hurdles would I face trying to integrate an Apple into the mix? The incompatabilities of Apples with PC networks and software (real or imagined) make it increasingly less likely that an Apple will be considered to be a viable alternative, regardless of its capabilities. Either that, or it will only be purchased as a stand-alone for a single purpose. Look at it this way, who is going to seriously contemplate replacing three or four PCs with that many Apples? And if you can't integrate the Apple, then what is going to happen? People won't buy Apples.
The ultimate copy protection scheme is right around the corner. Word has it that the major studios will encode their movies on celluloid "film" and maintain exclusive proprietary rights to the product. In order to view it you will have to purchase a "ticket" and attend a "theater" which will post the showing times on the lighted billboard outside.
One of the primary reasons that we are faced with a bandwidth issue is that the best answer from a technological perspective, DSL, is hampered by the fact that the old telephone infrastructure is still largely built on the monopolistic Bell system. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does little to encourage infrastructure investment by the old Bells. Sure, they have to provide a hookup at their exchange office, but the law does not, and cannot, require that they build new exchange capabilities only to turn it over to a competitive communications company, even if it provides a profit. The baby Bells likewise have little incentive to invest in the needed infrastructure themselves because the competitive communications companies will end up out-marketing them for customers anyway. And they end up using the new Bell equipment to boot! The current problem is not much unlike what faced the population at the turn of the century when we wired the country for telephones. Local demand created small companies that installed the wires on a neighborhood/town/city basis and Ma Bell hooked them all up for a fee. In many cases, Ma Bell bought/purchased/outmanuevered the locals which eventually led to the breakup. But we got wired. The biggest difference now is our increased mobility. We move around too much to want to bother with a bottom-up communications solution. Why put in the effort to form a new company for your town or county that will do the wiring for you when you are probably going to get transferred anyway.
I see the current situation as fairly hopeless for the 45% or so that will never be able real bandwidth without latency problems--people out in the sticks or small towns. For the rest of us, it will take a long time for the baby bells to work things out in a tit-for-tat investment process. I'm thinking ten years at a minimum for universal DSL availability for the urban and densely populated suburban areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Doktor Doktor Jochum Bloch, chief naval architect for the Austrian Navy, has announced that it is a myth that ships sink: "With the proper application of inherently bouyant designs, limitations on the load, and the use of double-hulled and compartmentalized designs, it is quite possible to build a ship that cannot sink." Herr Bloch added that the ships on the bottom of the seas are simply representative samples of poor design. "Putting too much stuff into ships and not spending enough money to keep them afloat." Herr Bloch is now turning his attention to "airplanes that cannot crash."
I was hunting on some property a friend of mine owns and here in the middle of this field is a tattered old wind sock and a broken down hanger. I checked an old USGS map and there it was, some old airfield.
A much different experience was seeing the massive B-29 airfields on the island of Guam. I suppose they have been turned into tourist hotels and streets by now.
I see a future where nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and weapons that we cannot even dream of can and will be manufactured and used by nearly anyone with the time, funds, and motivation. A jealous boyfriend could decide to take out neighborhood with a nerve agent; a road-raged driver could toss a vial of engineered influenza at an offending traffic jam; a religious zealot could obliterate a city with a nuclear weapon. Is this future really speculative? Or is it the product of the inevitable march of technological "progress" that will continue until 9/11 is reduced to a quaint footnote in history? Is
After losing, say, several major metropolitan areas here and after watching the extermination of millions or billions elsewhere on the planet, is it too far-fetched to say that the American public will beg the government to take away every last vestige of its privacy? To establish a world where every action that could possibly pose a threat will be monitored, recorded, and analyzed?
My question is whether that day has already arrived, and if not, then what events will have to transpire before we willingly give up our rights to privacy in return for security? Will the delay to impose "big brother" controls only serve to hasten the demise of this Camelot of freedom that we have enjoyed for the last two centuries?
I think that this Apple web page is probably just a way to harvest e-mails for apple spam. But even if someone actually reads the comments, my guess is that they will indicate a growing concern among regular consumers that Apple computers may not be compatable with existing networks of PCs.
I believe that the biggest long-term threat facing Apple may be the fact that the consumer market is increasingly likely to have 2 or more computers in a wireless or ethernet network. Before, Apple could compete against lower cost PCs by offering some better media handling software (video, sound, graphics, etc.) Now, it will face networks of PCs. As an example, I have three smart kids that use a home network of PCs for their homework and research. What kind of hurdles would I face trying to integrate an Apple into the mix? The incompatabilities of Apples with PC networks and software (real or imagined) make it increasingly less likely that an Apple will be considered to be a viable alternative, regardless of its capabilities. Either that, or it will only be purchased as a stand-alone for a single purpose. Look at it this way, who is going to seriously contemplate replacing three or four PCs with that many Apples? And if you can't integrate the Apple, then what is going to happen? People won't buy Apples.
The ultimate copy protection scheme is right around the corner. Word has it that the major studios will encode their movies on celluloid "film" and maintain exclusive proprietary rights to the product. In order to view it you will have to purchase a "ticket" and attend a "theater" which will post the showing times on the lighted billboard outside.
One of the primary reasons that we are faced with a bandwidth issue is that the best answer from a technological perspective, DSL, is hampered by the fact that the old telephone infrastructure is still largely built on the monopolistic Bell system. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does little to encourage infrastructure investment by the old Bells. Sure, they have to provide a hookup at their exchange office, but the law does not, and cannot, require that they build new exchange capabilities only to turn it over to a competitive communications company, even if it provides a profit. The baby Bells likewise have little incentive to invest in the needed infrastructure themselves because the competitive communications companies will end up out-marketing them for customers anyway. And they end up using the new Bell equipment to boot! The current problem is not much unlike what faced the population at the turn of the century when we wired the country for telephones. Local demand created small companies that installed the wires on a neighborhood/town/city basis and Ma Bell hooked them all up for a fee. In many cases, Ma Bell bought/purchased/outmanuevered the locals which eventually led to the breakup. But we got wired. The biggest difference now is our increased mobility. We move around too much to want to bother with a bottom-up communications solution. Why put in the effort to form a new company for your town or county that will do the wiring for you when you are probably going to get transferred anyway. I see the current situation as fairly hopeless for the 45% or so that will never be able real bandwidth without latency problems--people out in the sticks or small towns. For the rest of us, it will take a long time for the baby bells to work things out in a tit-for-tat investment process. I'm thinking ten years at a minimum for universal DSL availability for the urban and densely populated suburban areas.