If this works on an iBook, can a similar trick work on the eMac? That's cheap AND has a G4... It's just a thought. (Can't imagine I didn't think of that before)
Err... You're kidding right? I've used both, but own neither:-( but given the choice I'd have a PowerBook G4, why?
It's a G4 (obvious I know) but that's quicker (if you do video on it then it's LOTS quicker.
It's got a bigger screen (and it's a laptop - you won't be next to a display all the time will you? {if the answers yes - get a PowerMac!})
It's thinner.
It can take more RAM.
It looks nicer. (ok maybe that's subjective)
The G4 PowerBook will last you longer (unless you drop it) as it is a better machine to start with. (So you'll feel the "upgrade itch" later)
Dude, the G4 PowerBook is one, nice Mac, sure the iBook is nice too, but the PowerBook usually has the edge. (Ok, when doesn't it have the edge? When money's short {duh} or when you want a REALLY small machine to stuff in a small bag)
Yeah, this is nice for anyone who has an iBook (assuming this actually works properly long term) but it hardly devalues the PowerBook. (Anyway the PowerBook has a certain prestige)
Linux isn't actually Linux at all, it's the Linux kernel AND a whole host of tool, utilities, applications. A distribution is a blend of these OS "parts". There isn't actually any real "magic" about a distribution either - if you want you can gather up your own set of these "parts" even add your own custom built ones and create your own unique "Linux". If it turns out well you might even start distributing it (that's why Linux distributions are call that and not versions).
The configuration you talk about is the Kernel itself, it's what's called a Monolithic Kernel (almost all of the Kernels in general use are Monolithic) but in the case of Linux you can build a Kernel that supports only the features you want or need (before you even get into reworking the Kernel - this is just changing the "make"). Linux's Kernel makes some good pragmatic choices in it's design - it doesn't try and be leading edge, it was designed to be a good conventional Kernel, and later effort was put in to make it portable (it owes much to the wide availability of gcc for it's portability).
Of course people use Linux for a wide range of reasons, and different aspects are important to these groups, this means that they blend their distributions together differently. Mostly this works well, and software is highly portable between different distributions. There are areas that are quite different (package handlng is one example) but mostly there are lots of design choices that are pretty standard. Again, just because you've got a Linux distribution from one group or vender doesn't mean you are forced to accept it as is, you can alter it. The is the very good thing about the GPL - no one can deny you the right to change what you have. You can even rebuild the kernel if you want (in the early days you needed to do this, but not the NEED isn't so common - but it can still improve the system by only building in support for what you have and intend to use)
Of course much of these "rights" might be outside the skill set of those new to Linux, and might not seem important - but it does mean that people will be working away with Linux trying to better solve any problem you can think of. It is that explains how Linux has come so far without huge funding. Lots of poeple see the number of different distributions as a weakness, where as it is actually a demonstration that Linux can be what ever you want it to be: the OS of some monster server or the OS that powers a little PDA or set-top box or anything else.
That's also why Linux users are SO passionate about it - Linux can be whatever you make it. Especially if there's enough of you!
Ok people, how do I get a job in the US Patent Office? This looks like the easiest damn job in the world. Some asks for a patent, I give it to them. I could do THAT.
Gizzusajob!!! Flippin' heck - is this the most stupid thing you've ever heard?
I see your point (it was me describing defeating the machine's power saving features wasn't it?) but as long as the display powers down and the harddisk can spin down then most of the power savings can be achieved.
On the NeXT there wasn't any power saving - such things hadn't been thought of, so this wasn't an issue. But as the display and the harddisk aren't needed for this kind of application they can shutdown as normal. I guess once the "community supercomputer" had finished doing whatever it was asked to do then it should restore all the power saving features (and be able to suspend them if it had a new problem issued to it).
Thinking ecologically about it, remember how much energy was used in the manufacture and delivery of those computers - we should use them as much as we can to make best use of the resources already invested in them.
"Right now, there is no enforcement at all on how your guns are stored. Also, if your gun is improperly stored, you are not always liable if it would be used in a crime or an accident"
Wow, I didn't know that - you're right that seems crazy. What about training, are do you have to have proper training or take a test? I gun can be very dangerous to it's owner if they don't know how to handle it properly. As I live in the UK I don't know these things, I mean you can't just walk into a shop and buy a gun can you? What kinds of controls are there to who can legally own a gun?
I was reading about a "smart gun" that can identify its owner and only fire for them - I've no idea how this works, but this seems like a very positive move. The example they gave was so a cop's gun couldn't be used on him. I imagine it would cost more than a normal gun, but seems worth the cash if it'll save a cop's life. I guess it all comes down to if it adversly effects the guns reliability, otherwise in a different situation it could put the cop at greater risk.
"By the way, I appreciate you discussing this in a calm and rational fashion. Thank you."
That's okay, I can tell that you are a very careful owner of your gun, I respect that. If people are going to have guns I'd rather it was people like you.
Well I guess the first thing that needed are developer tools to ease the creation of programs to run on the platform - I guess a new project type in Project Builder would help and maybe even some language additions to allow people to more easily create programs. There are a number of challenges involved with creating programs of this type, how do nodes communicate? What happens when a node goes away (someone starts to use the computer for instance) what happens when a new node becommes available? And of course how easy is it to deploy these programs? What you'd like to do is "feed" these programs in via some kind of queue, and allow that queue to be reordered - how does that work? You possibly want to prevent the machines from sleeping or being shutdown, this will also need some UI changes - maybe a machine needs to be shutdown for an upgrade or simply to be moved, how do you over ride the settings? You might also want to see how the programs impact the network (you can imagine that a program could swamp the network with IP traffic if you weren't careful) some form of debuging software that could run on a single machine to simulate it's deployment would also be useful.
Of course Apple have some good tools here - perhaps Rendezvous (Apple's dynamic discovery or services over IP) could help. These such tools could help make it much easier to provide "community supercomputers". This would be especially useful in higher education, a place where Apple has been traditionally strong.
This seems like a really good idea, I don't really understand why more places don't do this. I mean most of us work in offices where the computer power is amazing and largely untapped.
I think what this really needs is to be make easier for the mainstream, so anyone could do it. Perhaps bundle the tools (programming and deployment) with mainstream operating systems?
It's just an idea, my NeXT had Zilla (it's version of this) years ago - seems a shame that this hasn't caught on more widely. So come on Apple - let's see it, put it in the Darwin project and put a nice UI on it in Mac OS X.
I don't think this is a question at all - we have to stand against this latest MS evil plan. Not everyone agrees with everything RMS says (though I do think that GPL style free software is a blessing, I'm not against software that's more restrictive - but there needs to be a choice) but on this issue I don't think there can be too many who think he's wrong.
Afterall wasn't it Microsoft who lied in court? Or just last week about the "switcher"? They can't be trusted, it's that simple - they've shown that time and time again.
As for Hollywood, well again why should my computer put the needs and wishes above my own? So I buy a DVD, why can't I play that everywhere? Why can't I create my own player? Who says I shouldn't be able to buy a DVD while on holiday and be able to watch it when I get home? If I save a little money by buying it overseas isn't that my good fortune? Why should a commodity like a DVD have such wide differences between price and terms in different places?
No there are legitimate reasons why I might want to do things that MS/Hollywood want to stop - I don't see why my computer should help them take away MY FREEDOM?
Personally I think it's time we started something like FSF for hardware (FHF if you will) so that we can escape the clutches of "the evil Empire".
What happens next? The PC refuses to run any OS without a Microsoft signature, and we're blocked from reverse engineering it? This seems to be happening already with the Xbox, is this just a test case for the whole PC?!
Perhaps Red Hat should make a PCs, and allow anyone to copy the design. For no other reason than to protect THEIR business model.
Quote: "And it would be better for him to doe to a private citizen than be a martyr against the state."
I'm not sure, in some minds that would make private citizens (more) legitimate targets, personally I find the act of killing anyone totally sickening. I do understand that there are occations where it is the only alternative, but killing another human being should always be the last resort. (By this I mean that for someone to shoot and kill someone who is threatening your life or the life of another seems reasonable)
Perhaps you'd support spot checks upon how firearms are stored? So that an official agency would come and ask to inspect how your firearms are being stored, and remove those firearms if they were not being stored correctly. I'm not talking about some random search of your home here either, just a couple of officials wanting to see how the guns you legitimatly own are stored, with no mandate (or power) to snoop into anything else. This seems like a reasonable measure.
Err I think that's the point - some effort (not much) is required to make pages that "render" well with devices like screen readers.
I have to say I think the judge was wrong on this one, considering that all that was being asked was for was a little effort. One good thing though is that this has made more web designers aware of the problem, so we can all do something about this. (That is build sites that work well for those with disabilities or provide alternative interfaces where that isn't practical)
Err, I think the car is pretty easy to answer - if the sniper was using his van to kill people he'd have been caught before now.
I also don't think he'd find the other methods quite so easy either. Of course I don't like knives much either anyone caught with a concealed kitchen knife should have that removed too. I agree that we could classify almost anything as a weapon if we wanted. But we're talking about guns here, guns are used to shoot things (or people) cars are transportation, sure you can use one as a weapon, but that's not it's primary purpose.
Let me put it another way - would you allow a blade to be fitted to cars to make them more leathal? Of course not, such things would be rightly banned.
In fact if something could be done to a car to make it less dangerous then I think most people would support that.
But surely tighter control on guns will make it harder to obtain a gun for illegal purposes (I agress not impossible). As for the a gun in the house making it safer, I'm not so sure. I'd like to think that such a thing would be under lock and key - I don't much care for the idea that it is easy to find and remove. If it is under lock and key then I doubt it'll do you much good if someone breaks in (let's hope that theory remains unanswered).
I'm also a bit wary of the idea that the best outcome of this sniper thing is for the sniper to be killed. I think this might encourage (these particular) terrorists more than anything, then seem to relish "a glorous death". I think we're all very much at a loss as to what to do.
But wharever lets hope he's caught soon, and we don't see his kind again.
Here I was using the term HDTV to describe the resolution. I don't know about the FCC. I imagine this display will cost a fortune, at least at first. I guess this is a display one would like to use for everything.
I also imagine this could produce some pretty fantasic PDAs with this too. I imagine a Palm using this technology would be pretty cool.
Well they're talking about ultra-high resolutions for things like photographs, and maps. Of course this is going to need huge storage and processing abiliy if they're going to reporduce photographic quality on anything larger than a really small display. I'm guessing that the display would probably be most useful if it could dynamically change resolution perhaps displaying several resolutions at once, to combine video (HDTV perhaps) a computer output at a "normal resolution" (90dpi or so) and a photo quality section (say 300dpi or better).
The abiliy to offload some of the processing on the display would be very helpful. I can see that being a very useful display. Still the idea of storage on the display sounds like Minority Report to me. Very cool.
I think we all need to THINK about what those limits should be, and maybe in a rural area on your own land it's fine for you to take pot shops at beer cans. I don't know - but I DO think it's something that needs to be discussed.
I take your point about the intruder - I hope that everyone who owns a gun understands the point you made, it seem like VERY good advice.
You're right I'm much more worried about guns being carried on the street than who actually OWNS the gun. I also worry about guns falling into the hands of minors - guns should always be stored somewhere secure. I'm guessing you'd agree with that too.
From my point of view, at the moment, I don't see a legitimate reason for a normal citizen to own a gun, and keep it at home. However if there is such a reason then we need to make that as safe as we can. I think time would be better spent working this issue out than worrying about some "cyber threat" that doesn't even seem to exist.
Over here in the UK, we're seeing a lot about the sniper in the US, and I find it hard to understand why making guns illegal. Of course this is a gut reaction to some shocking and deeply upsetting events - I never claimed to have fully thought the issue through. I am greatly concerned that this person has demonstrated a very effective new tactic of terror, one that might well be copied. Especially by someone who doesn't value their own life.
Well right - we have controls on those items too, it all a question of extent. And I take it that you'd agree there isn't any justification to take a knife or a screwdriver on to a plane right?
I'm just saying why do you need to be allowed to take a gun into the street? I'm not trying to deny anyone legitimate pleasure from a gun - but you must agree there is a risk in allowing guns to be available. All I think is there limits are wrong. I'd also agree that some limits on knives should also be introduced.
I take it you're in some way disagreeing with my point. Guns are at the end of the day weapons - designed to put a projectile into (or through) an object usually a human being. I understand people like to shoot at targets and find that enjoyable, that's fine. Why do they need to take this weapon into the street? Why can't they go to somewhere setup for this kind of activity? I honestly don't get it.
As far as protection is concerned - personally I think this is a red herring; they guy trying to kill you CAN get a gun just like you, and he can kill you before you're even aware of his intentions. I personally think it would be safer all round if neither of you had a gun. Even if he has and you don't - you're still safer, if he knows this he doesn't actually need to kill you. You point a gun at him, it either you or him - someone is getting hurt. Of course we're totally off topic here.
I'm for limited freedom, that is freedom upto the point where my freedom unjustly curtails the freedom of others.
Every society has (some) violent crime, I'd just rather the dude with evil in mind wasn't carrying a gun. Or if he was that alone would get him arrested.
That way he be a criminal BEFORE he shot someone.
As I said before, this is only my view. I know many people see gun ownership is a right, I just think the right to life is more important than other rights. Maybe I'm wrong on this one.
Sorry, but I think guns are dangerous. I know they weren't used in Sept 11. But I do think that the ease that guns can be obtained in the US is questionable at best. I know a lot of people get a lot of quite innocent pleasure from shooting firearms, and I think this pass time should be protected, but I personally don't see the need for normal citizens to own firearms. I'm not American, so perhaps I have a different perspective on this.
I guess what I'm thinking about is the ongoing sniper shootings in the US, I'm sure that terrorist will be following these event closely. It would be easier to stop someone from misusing a gun, if you could stop him from (legally) owning it. Anyway I didn't mean to cause offence - sorry.
IF they stick together then there isn't much that the gov can do, aside from switch off the Internet in the UK - and I don't think that's very likely. They know this has little to do with terrorism. If Sept 11 and Bali teach us anything, they should teach us that someone with no regard for their own life, and simple weapons (knives in the case of Sept 11) can do horrific damage.
They don't need to hack your computer, use strong cyphers, or any other "high tech" terrorism. Much more effective is blow something up with a lot of people nearby. These guys aren't rocket scientists, and the gov knows that - this is a cynical manipulation of human tragady for their own political ends. Personally it makes me sick. This is disrespectful of those who died on Sept 11 and in Bali, of course anyone who questions these new powers is accused of being "unAmerican", and "against the war on terror". This is just cynical political posturing. A better way to fight terror would surly be to remove guns from America society - I think that would save a lot more lives than reading my email or anyone elses.
Does Osama bin Laden even have an email address? It seems pretty clear that terrorists don't need such things, a bomb, a gun or even a knife are (tragically) enough.
Slashdot Mirror
If this works on an iBook, can a similar trick work on the eMac? That's cheap AND has a G4... It's just a thought. (Can't imagine I didn't think of that before)
Err... You're kidding right? I've used both, but own neither :-( but given the choice I'd have a PowerBook G4, why?
It's a G4 (obvious I know) but that's quicker (if you do video on it then it's LOTS quicker.
It's got a bigger screen (and it's a laptop - you won't be next to a display all the time will you? {if the answers yes - get a PowerMac!})
It's thinner.
It can take more RAM.
It looks nicer. (ok maybe that's subjective)
The G4 PowerBook will last you longer (unless you drop it) as it is a better machine to start with. (So you'll feel the "upgrade itch" later)
Dude, the G4 PowerBook is one, nice Mac, sure the iBook is nice too, but the PowerBook usually has the edge. (Ok, when doesn't it have the edge? When money's short {duh} or when you want a REALLY small machine to stuff in a small bag)
Yeah, this is nice for anyone who has an iBook (assuming this actually works properly long term) but it hardly devalues the PowerBook. (Anyway the PowerBook has a certain prestige)
Doesn't your question give the answer?
Linux isn't actually Linux at all, it's the Linux kernel AND a whole host of tool, utilities, applications. A distribution is a blend of these OS "parts". There isn't actually any real "magic" about a distribution either - if you want you can gather up your own set of these "parts" even add your own custom built ones and create your own unique "Linux". If it turns out well you might even start distributing it (that's why Linux distributions are call that and not versions).
The configuration you talk about is the Kernel itself, it's what's called a Monolithic Kernel (almost all of the Kernels in general use are Monolithic) but in the case of Linux you can build a Kernel that supports only the features you want or need (before you even get into reworking the Kernel - this is just changing the "make"). Linux's Kernel makes some good pragmatic choices in it's design - it doesn't try and be leading edge, it was designed to be a good conventional Kernel, and later effort was put in to make it portable (it owes much to the wide availability of gcc for it's portability).
Of course people use Linux for a wide range of reasons, and different aspects are important to these groups, this means that they blend their distributions together differently. Mostly this works well, and software is highly portable between different distributions. There are areas that are quite different (package handlng is one example) but mostly there are lots of design choices that are pretty standard. Again, just because you've got a Linux distribution from one group or vender doesn't mean you are forced to accept it as is, you can alter it. The is the very good thing about the GPL - no one can deny you the right to change what you have. You can even rebuild the kernel if you want (in the early days you needed to do this, but not the NEED isn't so common - but it can still improve the system by only building in support for what you have and intend to use)
Of course much of these "rights" might be outside the skill set of those new to Linux, and might not seem important - but it does mean that people will be working away with Linux trying to better solve any problem you can think of. It is that explains how Linux has come so far without huge funding. Lots of poeple see the number of different distributions as a weakness, where as it is actually a demonstration that Linux can be what ever you want it to be: the OS of some monster server or the OS that powers a little PDA or set-top box or anything else.
That's also why Linux users are SO passionate about it - Linux can be whatever you make it. Especially if there's enough of you!
Ok people, how do I get a job in the US Patent Office? This looks like the easiest damn job in the world. Some asks for a patent, I give it to them. I could do THAT.
Gizzusajob!!! Flippin' heck - is this the most stupid thing you've ever heard?
I'm amazed, truly amazed.
I see your point (it was me describing defeating the machine's power saving features wasn't it?) but as long as the display powers down and the harddisk can spin down then most of the power savings can be achieved.
On the NeXT there wasn't any power saving - such things hadn't been thought of, so this wasn't an issue. But as the display and the harddisk aren't needed for this kind of application they can shutdown as normal. I guess once the "community supercomputer" had finished doing whatever it was asked to do then it should restore all the power saving features (and be able to suspend them if it had a new problem issued to it).
Thinking ecologically about it, remember how much energy was used in the manufacture and delivery of those computers - we should use them as much as we can to make best use of the resources already invested in them.
"Right now, there is no enforcement at all on how your guns are stored. Also, if your gun is improperly stored, you are not always liable if it would be used in a crime or an accident"
Wow, I didn't know that - you're right that seems crazy. What about training, are do you have to have proper training or take a test? I gun can be very dangerous to it's owner if they don't know how to handle it properly. As I live in the UK I don't know these things, I mean you can't just walk into a shop and buy a gun can you? What kinds of controls are there to who can legally own a gun?
I was reading about a "smart gun" that can identify its owner and only fire for them - I've no idea how this works, but this seems like a very positive move. The example they gave was so a cop's gun couldn't be used on him. I imagine it would cost more than a normal gun, but seems worth the cash if it'll save a cop's life. I guess it all comes down to if it adversly effects the guns reliability, otherwise in a different situation it could put the cop at greater risk.
"By the way, I appreciate you discussing this in a calm and rational fashion. Thank you."
That's okay, I can tell that you are a very careful owner of your gun, I respect that. If people are going to have guns I'd rather it was people like you.
Ah I stand corrected thanks - And to be totally English about it, I can't spell in French either, Duh!
Nurse - let's cut down on the medication a bit.
Wow a computer etched on glass - reminds me of Minority Report ... WAIT A MINUTE! As the sports writer says: "It's deja vous all over again!"
Nurse - more medication!
Well I guess the first thing that needed are developer tools to ease the creation of programs to run on the platform - I guess a new project type in Project Builder would help and maybe even some language additions to allow people to more easily create programs. There are a number of challenges involved with creating programs of this type, how do nodes communicate? What happens when a node goes away (someone starts to use the computer for instance) what happens when a new node becommes available? And of course how easy is it to deploy these programs? What you'd like to do is "feed" these programs in via some kind of queue, and allow that queue to be reordered - how does that work? You possibly want to prevent the machines from sleeping or being shutdown, this will also need some UI changes - maybe a machine needs to be shutdown for an upgrade or simply to be moved, how do you over ride the settings? You might also want to see how the programs impact the network (you can imagine that a program could swamp the network with IP traffic if you weren't careful) some form of debuging software that could run on a single machine to simulate it's deployment would also be useful.
Of course Apple have some good tools here - perhaps Rendezvous (Apple's dynamic discovery or services over IP) could help. These such tools could help make it much easier to provide "community supercomputers". This would be especially useful in higher education, a place where Apple has been traditionally strong.
This seems like a really good idea, I don't really understand why more places don't do this. I mean most of us work in offices where the computer power is amazing and largely untapped.
I think what this really needs is to be make easier for the mainstream, so anyone could do it. Perhaps bundle the tools (programming and deployment) with mainstream operating systems?
It's just an idea, my NeXT had Zilla (it's version of this) years ago - seems a shame that this hasn't caught on more widely. So come on Apple - let's see it, put it in the Darwin project and put a nice UI on it in Mac OS X.
I don't think this is a question at all - we have to stand against this latest MS evil plan. Not everyone agrees with everything RMS says (though I do think that GPL style free software is a blessing, I'm not against software that's more restrictive - but there needs to be a choice) but on this issue I don't think there can be too many who think he's wrong.
Afterall wasn't it Microsoft who lied in court? Or just last week about the "switcher"? They can't be trusted, it's that simple - they've shown that time and time again.
As for Hollywood, well again why should my computer put the needs and wishes above my own? So I buy a DVD, why can't I play that everywhere? Why can't I create my own player? Who says I shouldn't be able to buy a DVD while on holiday and be able to watch it when I get home? If I save a little money by buying it overseas isn't that my good fortune? Why should a commodity like a DVD have such wide differences between price and terms in different places?
No there are legitimate reasons why I might want to do things that MS/Hollywood want to stop - I don't see why my computer should help them take away MY FREEDOM?
Personally I think it's time we started something like FSF for hardware (FHF if you will) so that we can escape the clutches of "the evil Empire".
What happens next? The PC refuses to run any OS without a Microsoft signature, and we're blocked from reverse engineering it? This seems to be happening already with the Xbox, is this just a test case for the whole PC?!
Perhaps Red Hat should make a PCs, and allow anyone to copy the design. For no other reason than to protect THEIR business model.
Quote: "And it would be better for him to doe to a private citizen than be a martyr against the state."
I'm not sure, in some minds that would make private citizens (more) legitimate targets, personally I find the act of killing anyone totally sickening. I do understand that there are occations where it is the only alternative, but killing another human being should always be the last resort. (By this I mean that for someone to shoot and kill someone who is threatening your life or the life of another seems reasonable)
Perhaps you'd support spot checks upon how firearms are stored? So that an official agency would come and ask to inspect how your firearms are being stored, and remove those firearms if they were not being stored correctly. I'm not talking about some random search of your home here either, just a couple of officials wanting to see how the guns you legitimatly own are stored, with no mandate (or power) to snoop into anything else. This seems like a reasonable measure.
Err I think that's the point - some effort (not much) is required to make pages that "render" well with devices like screen readers.
I have to say I think the judge was wrong on this one, considering that all that was being asked was for was a little effort. One good thing though is that this has made more web designers aware of the problem, so we can all do something about this. (That is build sites that work well for those with disabilities or provide alternative interfaces where that isn't practical)
Let's help get the message out.
Err, I think the car is pretty easy to answer - if the sniper was using his van to kill people he'd have been caught before now.
I also don't think he'd find the other methods quite so easy either. Of course I don't like knives much either anyone caught with a concealed kitchen knife should have that removed too. I agree that we could classify almost anything as a weapon if we wanted. But we're talking about guns here, guns are used to shoot things (or people) cars are transportation, sure you can use one as a weapon, but that's not it's primary purpose.
Let me put it another way - would you allow a blade to be fitted to cars to make them more leathal? Of course not, such things would be rightly banned.
In fact if something could be done to a car to make it less dangerous then I think most people would support that.
But surely tighter control on guns will make it harder to obtain a gun for illegal purposes (I agress not impossible). As for the a gun in the house making it safer, I'm not so sure. I'd like to think that such a thing would be under lock and key - I don't much care for the idea that it is easy to find and remove. If it is under lock and key then I doubt it'll do you much good if someone breaks in (let's hope that theory remains unanswered).
I'm also a bit wary of the idea that the best outcome of this sniper thing is for the sniper to be killed. I think this might encourage (these particular) terrorists more than anything, then seem to relish "a glorous death". I think we're all very much at a loss as to what to do.
But wharever lets hope he's caught soon, and we don't see his kind again.
Here I was using the term HDTV to describe the resolution. I don't know about the FCC. I imagine this display will cost a fortune, at least at first. I guess this is a display one would like to use for everything.
I also imagine this could produce some pretty fantasic PDAs with this too. I imagine a Palm using this technology would be pretty cool.
Well they're talking about ultra-high resolutions for things like photographs, and maps. Of course this is going to need huge storage and processing abiliy if they're going to reporduce photographic quality on anything larger than a really small display. I'm guessing that the display would probably be most useful if it could dynamically change resolution perhaps displaying several resolutions at once, to combine video (HDTV perhaps) a computer output at a "normal resolution" (90dpi or so) and a photo quality section (say 300dpi or better).
The abiliy to offload some of the processing on the display would be very helpful. I can see that being a very useful display. Still the idea of storage on the display sounds like Minority Report to me. Very cool.
Wow, sounds a bit like the computers in Minority Report
I think we all need to THINK about what those limits should be, and maybe in a rural area on your own land it's fine for you to take pot shops at beer cans. I don't know - but I DO think it's something that needs to be discussed.
I take your point about the intruder - I hope that everyone who owns a gun understands the point you made, it seem like VERY good advice.
You're right I'm much more worried about guns being carried on the street than who actually OWNS the gun. I also worry about guns falling into the hands of minors - guns should always be stored somewhere secure. I'm guessing you'd agree with that too.
From my point of view, at the moment, I don't see a legitimate reason for a normal citizen to own a gun, and keep it at home. However if there is such a reason then we need to make that as safe as we can. I think time would be better spent working this issue out than worrying about some "cyber threat" that doesn't even seem to exist.
Over here in the UK, we're seeing a lot about the sniper in the US, and I find it hard to understand why making guns illegal. Of course this is a gut reaction to some shocking and deeply upsetting events - I never claimed to have fully thought the issue through. I am greatly concerned that this person has demonstrated a very effective new tactic of terror, one that might well be copied. Especially by someone who doesn't value their own life.
Well right - we have controls on those items too, it all a question of extent. And I take it that you'd agree there isn't any justification to take a knife or a screwdriver on to a plane right?
I'm just saying why do you need to be allowed to take a gun into the street? I'm not trying to deny anyone legitimate pleasure from a gun - but you must agree there is a risk in allowing guns to be available. All I think is there limits are wrong. I'd also agree that some limits on knives should also be introduced.
Sorry I'm missing the point you're making.
I take it you're in some way disagreeing with my point. Guns are at the end of the day weapons - designed to put a projectile into (or through) an object usually a human being. I understand people like to shoot at targets and find that enjoyable, that's fine. Why do they need to take this weapon into the street? Why can't they go to somewhere setup for this kind of activity? I honestly don't get it.
As far as protection is concerned - personally I think this is a red herring; they guy trying to kill you CAN get a gun just like you, and he can kill you before you're even aware of his intentions. I personally think it would be safer all round if neither of you had a gun. Even if he has and you don't - you're still safer, if he knows this he doesn't actually need to kill you. You point a gun at him, it either you or him - someone is getting hurt. Of course we're totally off topic here.
I'm for limited freedom, that is freedom upto the point where my freedom unjustly curtails the freedom of others.
Every society has (some) violent crime, I'd just rather the dude with evil in mind wasn't carrying a gun. Or if he was that alone would get him arrested.
That way he be a criminal BEFORE he shot someone.
As I said before, this is only my view. I know many people see gun ownership is a right, I just think the right to life is more important than other rights. Maybe I'm wrong on this one.
Sorry, but I think guns are dangerous. I know they weren't used in Sept 11. But I do think that the ease that guns can be obtained in the US is questionable at best. I know a lot of people get a lot of quite innocent pleasure from shooting firearms, and I think this pass time should be protected, but I personally don't see the need for normal citizens to own firearms. I'm not American, so perhaps I have a different perspective on this.
I guess what I'm thinking about is the ongoing sniper shootings in the US, I'm sure that terrorist will be following these event closely. It would be easier to stop someone from misusing a gun, if you could stop him from (legally) owning it. Anyway I didn't mean to cause offence - sorry.
Ha Ha!
I think your joke makes my point perfectly - thanks.
IF they stick together then there isn't much that the gov can do, aside from switch off the Internet in the UK - and I don't think that's very likely. They know this has little to do with terrorism. If Sept 11 and Bali teach us anything, they should teach us that someone with no regard for their own life, and simple weapons (knives in the case of Sept 11) can do horrific damage.
They don't need to hack your computer, use strong cyphers, or any other "high tech" terrorism. Much more effective is blow something up with a lot of people nearby. These guys aren't rocket scientists, and the gov knows that - this is a cynical manipulation of human tragady for their own political ends. Personally it makes me sick. This is disrespectful of those who died on Sept 11 and in Bali, of course anyone who questions these new powers is accused of being "unAmerican", and "against the war on terror". This is just cynical political posturing. A better way to fight terror would surly be to remove guns from America society - I think that would save a lot more lives than reading my email or anyone elses.
Does Osama bin Laden even have an email address? It seems pretty clear that terrorists don't need such things, a bomb, a gun or even a knife are (tragically) enough.