That would be fantastic if the technology could be perfected, but there is still the risk of external influences that can't be wired into skynet. Even if one car can detect that the casr ahead is going to be slowing down to pass, you could still have failure causing more accidents.
I am not saying it isn't possible to reach this point, but don't expect it soon after the technology's invention.
That was mainly my point. American Transit systems were built out of the othos that Americans don't use it. I live in Canada, and even modest sized cities have decent public bus systems. They might not be as well utilized as they could be, but at least there is the system.
Much of europe was the same way. When in Prague, everyone rides a tram, or a bus, or whatever. You can see why with the difficult-to-navigate streets, but whatever the reason for usimg mass transit, they are better off for it IMHO.
Well, lets look at the traditional american ethos of automobiles. You love them!
Forget the limited number of people who are unable to use a car for day-to-day use. Although they still count in the numbering scheme, they are only a small segment of the vehicle's potential markets.
You love to drive. If you didn't, LA would've made mass transit commuting manditory long ago. The infrasructure could be built without a serious budgetary crunch, you'd drop your external oil dependencies, and you'd have a lot less pollution.
So, now that you have these autonomous vehicles that cost just as much as your auto, but they are safer to use as long as everyone else uses them as well.
Besides killing the Trucker / Taxi / etc.. industries which would theoretically dry up if these machines would be put in place, what motivation would a normal person have in buying this vehicle that costs more than the average commuter car?
The only way I see this catching on in the consumer world is through legislative mandate; you just love to drive your cars too much!
Farscape is definitly a hole in my TV watching life, hell I can't find much ogf any new sci-fi coming out in Canada, just more syndication of shows i've watched already.
The only show that gave me a wow factor this year is Carnivale from HBO, which IMHO is a fantasticly twisted show.
What would stop a reseller like Dell from installing whatever OS they liked after it left the factory / country?
I wouldn't say that manditory OS lockin is an appropriate measure, but neither is the backstabing monopolization that COTS players have been doing for the last 20 years. If you have to play hardball to compete with the US backed IT giants, then so be it.
Until it catches up with the DMCA, and the Mono devs are arrested for circumventing microsoft signed.NET interpreter copy protection schemes, or such nonsense.
Problem is, they can't properly sign the interpreter until the OS and hardware are signed as well. Fcked to be VMWare if microsoft doesn't license their secure certificates for them.
You need to differentiate the Source from the community. The XFree86 community is quite stagnant compared to its importance and size. This can be blamed somewhat on the complexity of the system, but musch more blame can be put on the facist development paradigms of the core team.
The code from XFree86 is basically BSD licensed, so anyone and their dogs can take the XFree86 source base and create a new community around that community.
You neglect one of the most important issues plaguing X today:
1. Implementing the latest a greatest into release code hoping not to break anything critical 2. Implementing the latest a greatest into CVS hoping not to break anything critical; releasing stable code into releases 3. Implementing the stable code into CVS
Linux is (1) Xouvert is apparently (2) XFree86 is (3)
Because of the incredible lag in getting anything int CVS, they are stagnating and frustrating developers that are MORE THAN WILLING to help out. Keith Packard has a mini-X server implementation inside the XFree86 (kdrive) to do his development work on such 'trivial' enhancements such as RENDER and RANDR.
It is all of our responsibility that corporations are responsible to their shareholders, we elected the politicians who wrote these laws. Write to your representatives if you are so upset over it!
A new documentary called "The Corporation" tries to analyze the nature of the corproate entity, and to describe the inherent flaw that lead to the destructive nature of many organizations. The movie has a leftist view point, but no matter what side of the spectrum you are on, you'll find value in it.
If the telcos are anything like they are today (or maybe through federal regulation), you'll be using the telco's voip servers to receive the call, not directly from the sender of the call.
ME -> My Outgoing VOIP Provider -> My friend's VOIP provider -> My Friend
Realistically, who wants to risk their phones being hacked, DOSed, hijacked, wormed, virused, etc? How do you expect to block tele-marketers that can use dynamic IP's across the planet to connect to you? There are so many reasons that this is suck a rediculious idea, that I will just stop there.
My point wes to exemplify the fact that a phone or doesn't need to host services to THE INTERNET. They could contain dozens of useful services, but I don't see direct contact to the device as a requirement.
A hosted service like IM can be accomplished by the phone or watch making an outbound connection, but there'll be no hard-fast requirement for the wristwatch to host an internet addressible service EVER!/* 50 years later, Aww Crap! */
Be it the cause, or just fall-out, I don't see NAT's disapearing. In fact, I see quite the opposite. Now that protocols or firewalls are getting smarter with NAT, I can see a lot less need for public address space.
And before someone mentions their cell phones, exactly who plans on hosting services from their phones anyways?
Implementing Phone based IPv4 private IP's is just as difficult as implementing IPv6 public IP's. Each phone will have a MAC, and you will have a DHCP-like mechanism to establish an ip/route/subnet, etc..
The only difference is that you can't host services on your phone that are internet addressable. Darn.
Re:Especially in the fog of marketese that is .NET
on
Advanced .NET Remoting
·
· Score: 1
FYI,.net remoting is the sucessor to DCOM.
Basically it is RPC related to the.NET framework. Think RMI/Corba for java.
Re:Bluetooth will take off like USB did
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
USB was a natural evolution to the RS232 & Parports in ones system. USB was good for this market because it was easier and had more uses because of its speed increase.
The downside of USB was that people quibled over the IP of the stacks, so there was OHCI and UHCI. Working USB wasn't feasible even if the hardware was around, because the periferal manufactures weren't motiviated enough at the time to implement it. AGP on the other hand flew off the shelves minutes after its releaser because of our unatainable lust for infinitly fast gaming.
Bluetooth would be usefull today to replace IRDA, but Bluetooth and 802.11 can do that the same. 802.11 is pre-installed in many laptops today, so that leaves Bluetooth out of a potentially viable market.
Basically, Bluetooth will die in the end because it is a technology searching for a problem to solve and not the other way around.
remember that Equifax has done this for years. I think credit is a lot more invasive than being allowed in bars IMHO; although, you may really like bars.
they couldn't make graphics drivers any more instable. Trying to make ATI/NV cards run on Linux and Windows simultaniously is like watching a quadrapalegic juggling.
The problem originated when USB 2 first made its rounds. For the first year or so, the only people using or selling USB 2 devices were manufacturers that were selling high-speed devices that utilized the extended bandwidth.
I didn't even know until the first article that USB 2 -could- be dropped into lower bandwith. I am sure I'm not alone.
Now, we start seeing companies without fully developed USB2 high speed implementations dumping USB2 compatible crap onto the market making many people pissed off. I was pissed off enough by having laptops still shipping USB 1.1 a year after USB 2 was out in consumer land.
If the standards body had any fcking sense, they would have defined the spec a little better for those that have an interest in the technologies without looking at the spec.
Slashdot Mirror
If its in the die, then how do they 'upgrade' the system when someone invariably cracks the copy protection ala DeCSS?
That would be fantastic if the technology could be perfected, but there is still the risk of external influences that can't be wired into skynet. Even if one car can detect that the casr ahead is going to be slowing down to pass, you could still have failure causing more accidents.
I am not saying it isn't possible to reach this point, but don't expect it soon after the technology's invention.
That was mainly my point. American Transit systems were built out of the othos that Americans don't use it. I live in Canada, and even modest sized cities have decent public bus systems. They might not be as well utilized as they could be, but at least there is the system.
Much of europe was the same way. When in Prague, everyone rides a tram, or a bus, or whatever. You can see why with the difficult-to-navigate streets, but whatever the reason for usimg mass transit, they are better off for it IMHO.
Well, lets look at the traditional american ethos of automobiles. You love them!
Forget the limited number of people who are unable to use a car for day-to-day use. Although they still count in the numbering scheme, they are only a small segment of the vehicle's potential markets.
You love to drive. If you didn't, LA would've made mass transit commuting manditory long ago. The infrasructure could be built without a serious budgetary crunch, you'd drop your external oil dependencies, and you'd have a lot less pollution.
So, now that you have these autonomous vehicles that cost just as much as your auto, but they are safer to use as long as everyone else uses them as well.
Besides killing the Trucker / Taxi / etc.. industries which would theoretically dry up if these machines would be put in place, what motivation would a normal person have in buying this vehicle that costs more than the average commuter car?
The only way I see this catching on in the consumer world is through legislative mandate; you just love to drive your cars too much!
Farscape is definitly a hole in my TV watching life, hell I can't find much ogf any new sci-fi coming out in Canada, just more syndication of shows i've watched already.
The only show that gave me a wow factor this year is Carnivale from HBO, which IMHO is a fantasticly twisted show.
Unless you're sent to guantanamo bay!
Just pointing out that not all systems are perfect. As described in the Matrix, there are ALWAYS defects to the rule.
What would stop a reseller like Dell from installing whatever OS they liked after it left the factory / country?
I wouldn't say that manditory OS lockin is an appropriate measure, but neither is the backstabing monopolization that COTS players have been doing for the last 20 years. If you have to play hardball to compete with the US backed IT giants, then so be it.
Corporations pay for assurance which is effectively the same thing.
Until it catches up with the DMCA, and the Mono devs are arrested for circumventing microsoft signed .NET interpreter copy protection schemes, or such nonsense.
Problem is, they can't properly sign the interpreter until the OS and hardware are signed as well. Fcked to be VMWare if microsoft doesn't license their secure certificates for them.
You need to differentiate the Source from the community. The XFree86 community is quite stagnant compared to its importance and size. This can be blamed somewhat on the complexity of the system, but musch more blame can be put on the facist development paradigms of the core team.
The code from XFree86 is basically BSD licensed, so anyone and their dogs can take the XFree86 source base and create a new community around that community.
You neglect one of the most important issues plaguing X today:
1. Implementing the latest a greatest into release code hoping not to break anything critical
2. Implementing the latest a greatest into CVS hoping not to break anything critical; releasing stable code into releases
3. Implementing the stable code into CVS
Linux is (1)
Xouvert is apparently (2)
XFree86 is (3)
Because of the incredible lag in getting anything int CVS, they are stagnating and frustrating developers that are MORE THAN WILLING to help out. Keith Packard has a mini-X server implementation inside the XFree86 (kdrive) to do his development work on such 'trivial' enhancements such as RENDER and RANDR.
If you actually followed X or even the discussion linked to for 5 minutes you'd realized that it is NOT the problem at all.
The problem as cited through the list is that the core developers do not allow external commits by major commiters like the entire Xwin cygwin port.
These people have to wait weeks for any changes to possibly show up in the CVS because the core developers don't have time for it.
The core dev's answer: Shut up and stop complaining we are doing the best we can.
This has nothing to do with bloat and everything to do with control and workload.
It is doing its rounds in film festivals. I saw it in Vancouver, but I think they said the DVD would come out eventually.
If they had been bought, just imagine the internal flame wars between the KDE loving Suzeques and the GNOMing ximanites!
It is all of our responsibility that corporations are responsible to their shareholders, we elected the politicians who wrote these laws. Write to your representatives if you are so upset over it!
A new documentary called "The Corporation" tries to analyze the nature of the corproate entity, and to describe the inherent flaw that lead to the destructive nature of many organizations. The movie has a leftist view point, but no matter what side of the spectrum you are on, you'll find value in it.
If the telcos are anything like they are today (or maybe through federal regulation), you'll be using the telco's voip servers to receive the call, not directly from the sender of the call.
ME -> My Outgoing VOIP Provider -> My friend's VOIP provider -> My Friend
Realistically, who wants to risk their phones being hacked, DOSed, hijacked, wormed, virused, etc? How do you expect to block tele-marketers that can use dynamic IP's across the planet to connect to you? There are so many reasons that this is suck a rediculious idea, that I will just stop there.
My point wes to exemplify the fact that a phone or doesn't need to host services to THE INTERNET. They could contain dozens of useful services, but I don't see direct contact to the device as a requirement.
/* 50 years later, Aww Crap! */
A hosted service like IM can be accomplished by the phone or watch making an outbound connection, but there'll be no hard-fast requirement for the wristwatch to host an internet addressible service EVER!
I am still not giving up my NAT!
Be it the cause, or just fall-out, I don't see NAT's disapearing. In fact, I see quite the opposite. Now that protocols or firewalls are getting smarter with NAT, I can see a lot less need for public address space.
And before someone mentions their cell phones, exactly who plans on hosting services from their phones anyways?
Implementing Phone based IPv4 private IP's is just as difficult as implementing IPv6 public IP's. Each phone will have a MAC, and you will have a DHCP-like mechanism to establish an ip/route/subnet, etc..
The only difference is that you can't host services on your phone that are internet addressable. Darn.
FYI, .net remoting is the sucessor to DCOM.
.NET framework. Think RMI/Corba for java.
Basically it is RPC related to the
USB was a natural evolution to the RS232 & Parports in ones system. USB was good for this market because it was easier and had more uses because of its speed increase.
The downside of USB was that people quibled over the IP of the stacks, so there was OHCI and UHCI. Working USB wasn't feasible even if the hardware was around, because the periferal manufactures weren't motiviated enough at the time to implement it. AGP on the other hand flew off the shelves minutes after its releaser because of our unatainable lust for infinitly fast gaming.
Bluetooth would be usefull today to replace IRDA, but Bluetooth and 802.11 can do that the same. 802.11 is pre-installed in many laptops today, so that leaves Bluetooth out of a potentially viable market.
Basically, Bluetooth will die in the end because it is a technology searching for a problem to solve and not the other way around.
remember that Equifax has done this for years. I think credit is a lot more invasive than being allowed in bars IMHO; although, you may really like bars.
Wazza book? You mean like those things people were looking at in that bzoring movie? I'd prefer my pr0n any day, thank you. bye bye.
You kidding? I have a movie store so close that it'd take me less time to rent a DVD than it would to RIP one.
they couldn't make graphics drivers any more instable. Trying to make ATI/NV cards run on Linux and Windows simultaniously is like watching a quadrapalegic juggling.
The problem originated when USB 2 first made its rounds. For the first year or so, the only people using or selling USB 2 devices were manufacturers that were selling high-speed devices that utilized the extended bandwidth.
I didn't even know until the first article that USB 2 -could- be dropped into lower bandwith. I am sure I'm not alone.
Now, we start seeing companies without fully developed USB2 high speed implementations dumping USB2 compatible crap onto the market making many people pissed off. I was pissed off enough by having laptops still shipping USB 1.1 a year after USB 2 was out in consumer land.
If the standards body had any fcking sense, they would have defined the spec a little better for those that have an interest in the technologies without looking at the spec.
EG.
2.0 - Base spec compatibility
2.1 - 1.0 compat. mode
2.1 - 1.1 compat. mode
2.3 - High-speed bulk
2.4 - High-speed interactive
etc...