>the ripping divide between those who still have Space as a goal in their hearts, vs. those who don't give a damn.
It might be a bit hasty to declare that those with anti-NASA sentiments as not caring about space exploration as a whole. I think that many/.ers are just fed up with the bumbling government bureaucracy running (and funding) the show.
Rare is the geek who doesn't think space itself is cool.
>Or would it be impractical or inefficient to do that?
Yes, and yes. At least, for a while.
By the sounds of the article, they've only managed to create a handful of transistors using this new process. All a transistor consists of is 3 layers of semiconductor with interconnects -- not a particularly complex structure. The next phase will be building a non-trivial circuit. This, no doubt, will require reworking of their technique (read: years of research) to produce an experimental prototype. Then comes tuning to actually make it useful. At this point, they're still basically producing the chips "by hand" -- very expensive and time consuming with a very low yields.
Once they've proven that the process really does work (assuming, of course, that it does), and that you could conceivably build a real chip with it, they need to design the mass production fabrication hardware. When that's done, they'll actually be able to turn out a few chips, as you said, on a smaller scale -- no doubt still at tremendous cost.
The last barrier is the infrastructure. The final version of the new process will likely require overhauling one or more existing FABs (or building a new one), again at huge cost, both money and time.
10 years from single transistor demo to the first production model is actually pretty quick. It's the same story again for other innovations -- be it faster/smaller chips, higher density hard disks, holographic storage, whatever. The more radical the new strategy, the longer it takes to get it right and get it ready.
> which totally misses out on all of the downloads.
Sure, but don't forget that these are business-type-guys here. To them, the interesting copies of Linux aren't the ones Joe Schmedly installed, but the ones that SchmedlyCo bought support contracts for.
Trying to actually determine the market share of Linux by counting the number of sales is just a futile as counting Win98 CDs to determine the number of Windows installs.
While it would be ultra-cool if they could ship a bulletproof fuzzy-happy-NT-in-a-box, it wouldn't work. Again...harsh truth time: most users are lusers, the rest are hackers and wannabes.
If you give Joe Schmedly a full NT to play with, sooner or later he'll trash it. Somehow. Probably the result of some bogus software downloaded from a dark corner of the web ("FREE porn! Just download and run this executable!" or "Upgrade to Netscape 9.07alpha2?") or equally bogus advice from an equally dubious web site ("5 easy steps to DOUBLE your download speed! [1] Run 'regedit.exe'..."). This puts us almost right back where we started...random boxen with bogus untrusted software.
On the other hand, there's the hackers (and h4x0rZ). Our job is to scam MS for a cheap PC a-la iOpener etc. How long before someone patches the real UI back on top of the fuzzy happy one? How long before slashdot has a link to detailed Linux installation instructions?
What it really comes down to, though, is money. MS can only afford to "give away" consoles (and you can be sure that the price tag will be a good imitation of "free") if they can be assured of making money on the games (and possibly internet access deals). With a real box you can't make as much money on dev tools, and your piracy losses are much higher. Some customers won't even buy ANY games. Consider: you're a big business with thousands of drones. You can either buy machines from Dell, Gateway, or Compaq to run Office (>$1500 each), or shell out for Xboxen which also run Office (<$500 each). What do you choose? (Ok, so I pulled those numbers out of my ass. Whatever. You get the picture.)
Microsoft is willing to take a cash hit to win market share (IE anyone?), but not that kind of hit. MS isn't known for *stupid* business practices.
> one can see that the X-box really seems to be just a regular computer with a few things disabled
This is exactly the point. Their strategy is obvious: make a machine that games developers can port to easily. Most game shops target Win32/DirectX. (Sorry, Linux dudes but that's the harsh truth). That makes for a huge base of games that can probably be made to run on Xbox with little or no modification, and a huge base of developers with valuable experience long before the hardware even ships.
The second half of the equation is consistency. The major cause of NT crashes is bogus drivers. With a fixed platform like this they can smoke (most) all of the bugs out of the drivers, not to mention optimizing the snot out of them. They don't have to worry about whether or not the latest driver patch works with last month's firmware upgrade for some bogus 3d card that nobody cares about this week. Each game can be intensively tested since the target hardware/OS is perfectly known.
> who would want a computer that is simply disabled just to play games?
Sure it's just a crippled computer, but I'll work right out of the box. It won't need configuration or tweaking. It won't crash randomly. Plug in your cable modem and it'll surf the web. Kids will be able to use it -- Hell, even parents will be able to use it. It'll be cheap, and games will be everywhere. Most people don't want the hassle of a "computer", they just want lots of cool games and their daily pr0n. Give the users what *they* want, not what *you* want.
Microsoft has come up with a great story (from their point of view). However, it may fail -- they may blow it, or nobody may care when it ships. It wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.
>...wireless ethernet. It does EVERYTHING bluetooth is suppose to...
Bluetooth is more than just wireless networking. In fact, it's more like USB than ethernet. The protocol is short-range (~10m, boosted signals to ~100m) with many devices, plug&play style negotiation, etc. While it *can* replace 802.11 type wireless in many cases, that's not really the goal.
Two simple examples; these are both specific app targets of the Bluetooth SIG:
- Wireless headsets for cellphones. Having ethernet in a phone is overkill, let along in an earphone/mic headset.
- Using a cellphone as a modem for a laptop/PDA. The idea is simple: without taking your phone out of your pocket/purse/holster/etc, or plugging anything in, you can dial through it as a modem. Using a full ethernet implementation, the phone would have to act as a gateway, rather than a "dumb" modem.
Add to those ideas wireless keyboards and mice, and places where IR is currently used (PDA data transfer, for example). There's even some talk that Bluetooth could replace X10 as the home-automation protocol of choice.
I'd refer you to the Bluetooth SIG site for more info, but it seems to be dead. Sigh. Hunting around on the various members (Ericsson, IBM, and Intel come to mind) sites might turn up something.
>They should never have changed beauty and truth quarks to bottem and top. I think they lose their charm.
Strange, that.
Re:Happy birthday and the best is yet to come.
on
Happy Birthday, KDE
·
· Score: 2
>"Is Unix ready for the desktop"... >..."Yes, but only with KDE".
Bzzzt! Wrong.
Wake up and smell the caffeine. Mac OS X client looks to be a very promising desktop Unix, and it's time people started accepting it as "part of the family".
What's more, OS X is based on NEXTSTEP. NeXT deployed a fully-functional Unix with an excellent user-friendly interface over 10 years ago. Take a close look at the changes between Win31 and Win95 (the model everyone uses today) and then take a look at the NeXT UI. It becomes pretty obvious where those "innovations" came from.
This isn't intended as a flame towards the KDE, or Linux in general. Linux usability has been progressing by leaps and bounds these last few years. The folks involved in these efforts all deserve a BIG round of applause for delivering us from the ugliness of X/Motif and its bastard offspring. The point is that none of this is new; this wheel has been invented before.
Hey! Mice are *already* much smarter than we are. After all, this planet was created to their specifications.
straying from the theological...
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
...to the practical, for a moment.
For information about Robert Sawyer and his works, including samples (several short stories and selections from novels), visit his site.
I'd strongly recommend his work to anyone looking for intelligently written SF. He really seems to take the time to understand the science he writes about; a refreshing change from the usual treknology and handwaving.
>...perhaps Microsoft could become incorporated in Canada...
Sigh. MS is already incorporated in Canada, and many other countries too. Take a quick look here.
As for officially moving the headquarters to another country, MS officials have denied all rumors. It simply wouldn't be cost-effective for them to move all their assets (esp. developers) -- anything left behind would still be fair game.
The key to success in today's volatile market is maintaining a diverse portfolio. A mix of high-risk stocks, blue chips, RAM chips and bonds maximizes potential while guaranteeing long term value.
...and here I am with my money tied up in pumpkins. D'oh!
>Assuming you could create one, could you create a craft capable of withsanting the freakish >forces exerted on it by the wormhole? or are we just hoping that there won't be any turbulence?
Actually, as I understand it, this is where most of the current theory is focusing. It's believed that quantum wormholes (i.e. *very* small) exist in some interesting quantity. The trick is to "inflate" one to a useful size. The tiny detail often omitted is that a "useful" size isn't the size of the ship, but rather big enough for the forces to be sufficently weak in the center that a ship could conceivably survive. The sizes postulated are ludicrous -- in the millions of kilometers, I think.
This inflating process requires "negative energy" (which I need better drugs to understand) in obscene quantities. The article seems to imply a theoretical wormhole that is somehow self-sustaining -- the wormhole itself, directly or indirectly, generates enough negative energy to maintain its size.
Man my hands are tired from all this furious waving.
> *idly wonders the possibility of an Open Source space program*
Great idea! Let everyone participate in the development of these projects. Surely any random guy who who can hack the Linux kernel is qualified to work on a space probe. After all, it's not like it's rocket science.
>Is it because Cisco doesn't live by "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"?
No, it's because pipes aren't glamorous and routers aren't sexy. Everyone who uses a computer has seen Windows; it's always right there in your face. As a result, MS is a household word. On the other hand, most people don't have a clue how data gets from A to B. Come on, some people still think electricity just comes out of the wall.
Cisco is worth lots because they're BIG. They have a set of TV ads on the go right now with a tagline something like 'almost all Internet traffic travels over a Cisco product at one point or another'. Anything Internet is a huge growth industry, and as their propaganda will tell you, they're "the worldwide leader in networking for the Internet".
They're low profile because the end user doesn't give a damn; the Internet just comes out of the wall and into their computer.
>The choice that would face Apple is this: Do we, Apple, want to concede the hardware business? ... >Sans doubt, Jobs says no.
You are, of course, referring to Steve Jobs.
- The same Steve Jobs that, when kicked out of Apple, started his own company. A company that built an excellent product with top notch (custom, 68K based) hardware and ahead-of-its-time (custom) software.
- The same company that, years later, gave up on the hardware business. Instead they porting their software from 68K to PPC, Sparc, PA-RISC and, yes, x86.
- The same company that, years later, was bought by Apple for 400M$ and tasked to create the next generation MacOS.
I'm not saying that Apple/Jobs is ready to give up on the hardware business, just remember that Jobs knows how and when to change tactics.
OSX is not BSD! OSX is OSX. Well, actually, OSX is NeXTSTEP.
The BSD that everyone keeps talking about is the unix interface. The OSX unix layer presents BSD compatible APIs, libraries, and tools; just like the classic layer presents MacOS classic APIs. OSX is BSD in the same way that SunOS was. It is not a derivative of {Free,Open,Net}BSD, it's just not System V.
It probably doesn't have an OS, as such. As far as I understand it, VME busses are programmed via a variant of Forth. If this is true, only the Forth interpreter would be running (bare metal).
Of course, the use of Forth is enough to question its sanity.
Penrose also did a followup book, _Shadows_of_the_Mind_. He refined his position from "AI can't exist" to "AI isn't digitally possible". He postulates that the physical structure of the brain causes quantum interactions that can't be digitally replicated (analog) or simulated (non-computable). The implication of this is that human consciousness (indeed, any consciousness) cannot exist without special hardware (wetware?). Downloading a human neural net into a digital computer would only preserve the "data", not the "program".
Of course, this doesn't rule out the concept. Quantum computers, for example, operate on vastly different principles. There is also the possibility for computing devices built from artificial neurons that have the required quantum properties.
VisualAge for Java Version 3.0 includes an Early Adopters Environment providing support for Java 2, formerly known as JDK 1.2. Developers can start now to build and deploy selected applications that target the Java 2 platform, taking advantage of Java 2 features such as improved security, portability, and advanced user interface controls.
In response to popular demand from developers, IBM is providing VisualAge for Java for the Linux platform, underscoring IBM's commitment to supporting customers on the platforms they choose. With VisualAge for Java support for Linux, developers will be able to quickly build, test and deploy 100% Pure Java applets, applications, JavaBeans components and servlets on Linux. VisualAge for Java on Linux is available at http://www.ibm.com/software/vadd.
Slashdot Mirror
> Whats so important about the distance?
Simple. They were just trying to justify having OC3 lines to their desks.
>the ripping divide between those who still have Space as a goal in their hearts, vs. those who don't give a damn.
/.ers are just fed up with the bumbling government bureaucracy running (and funding) the show.
It might be a bit hasty to declare that those with anti-NASA sentiments as not caring about space exploration as a whole. I think that many
Rare is the geek who doesn't think space itself is cool.
>Or would it be impractical or inefficient to do that?
Yes, and yes. At least, for a while.
By the sounds of the article, they've only managed to create a handful of transistors using this new process. All a transistor consists of is 3 layers of semiconductor with interconnects -- not a particularly complex structure. The next phase will be building a non-trivial circuit. This, no doubt, will require reworking of their technique (read: years of research) to produce an experimental prototype. Then comes tuning to actually make it useful. At this point, they're still basically producing the chips "by hand" -- very expensive and time consuming with a very low yields.
Once they've proven that the process really does work (assuming, of course, that it does), and that you could conceivably build a real chip with it, they need to design the mass production fabrication hardware. When that's done, they'll actually be able to turn out a few chips, as you said, on a smaller scale -- no doubt still at tremendous cost.
The last barrier is the infrastructure. The final version of the new process will likely require overhauling one or more existing FABs (or building a new one), again at huge cost, both money and time.
10 years from single transistor demo to the first production model is actually pretty quick. It's the same story again for other innovations -- be it faster/smaller chips, higher density hard disks, holographic storage, whatever. The more radical the new strategy, the longer it takes to get it right and get it ready.
> which totally misses out on all of the downloads.
Sure, but don't forget that these are business-type-guys here. To them, the interesting copies of Linux aren't the ones Joe Schmedly installed, but the ones that SchmedlyCo bought support contracts for.
Trying to actually determine the market share of Linux by counting the number of sales is just a futile as counting Win98 CDs to determine the number of Windows installs.
> Why dumb it down by default?
While it would be ultra-cool if they could ship a bulletproof fuzzy-happy-NT-in-a-box, it wouldn't work. Again...harsh truth time: most users are lusers, the rest are hackers and wannabes.
If you give Joe Schmedly a full NT to play with, sooner or later he'll trash it. Somehow. Probably the result of some bogus software downloaded from a dark corner of the web ("FREE porn! Just download and run this executable!" or "Upgrade to Netscape 9.07alpha2?") or equally bogus advice from an equally dubious web site ("5 easy steps to DOUBLE your download speed! [1] Run 'regedit.exe'..."). This puts us almost right back where we started...random boxen with bogus untrusted software.
On the other hand, there's the hackers (and h4x0rZ). Our job is to scam MS for a cheap PC a-la iOpener etc. How long before someone patches the real UI back on top of the fuzzy happy one? How long before slashdot has a link to detailed Linux installation instructions?
What it really comes down to, though, is money. MS can only afford to "give away" consoles (and you can be sure that the price tag will be a good imitation of "free") if they can be assured of making money on the games (and possibly internet access deals). With a real box you can't make as much money on dev tools, and your piracy losses are much higher. Some customers won't even buy ANY games. Consider: you're a big business with thousands of drones. You can either buy machines from Dell, Gateway, or Compaq to run Office (>$1500 each), or shell out for Xboxen which also run Office (<$500 each). What do you choose? (Ok, so I pulled those numbers out of my ass. Whatever. You get the picture.)
Microsoft is willing to take a cash hit to win market share (IE anyone?), but not that kind of hit. MS isn't known for *stupid* business practices.
> one can see that the X-box really seems to be just a regular computer with a few things disabled
This is exactly the point. Their strategy is obvious: make a machine that games developers can port to easily. Most game shops target Win32/DirectX. (Sorry, Linux dudes but that's the harsh truth). That makes for a huge base of games that can probably be made to run on Xbox with little or no modification, and a huge base of developers with valuable experience long before the hardware even ships.
The second half of the equation is consistency. The major cause of NT crashes is bogus drivers. With a fixed platform like this they can smoke (most) all of the bugs out of the drivers, not to mention optimizing the snot out of them. They don't have to worry about whether or not the latest driver patch works with last month's firmware upgrade for some bogus 3d card that nobody cares about this week. Each game can be intensively tested since the target hardware/OS is perfectly known.
> who would want a computer that is simply disabled just to play games?
Sure it's just a crippled computer, but I'll work right out of the box. It won't need configuration or tweaking. It won't crash randomly. Plug in your cable modem and it'll surf the web. Kids will be able to use it -- Hell, even parents will be able to use it. It'll be cheap, and games will be everywhere. Most people don't want the hassle of a "computer", they just want lots of cool games and their daily pr0n. Give the users what *they* want, not what *you* want.
Microsoft has come up with a great story (from their point of view). However, it may fail -- they may blow it, or nobody may care when it ships. It wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.
National Security Agency
Application for Employment
Social Security Number: __________
Thank you for your interest in the NSA!
Qualified applicants will be contacted.
> ...wireless ethernet. It does EVERYTHING bluetooth is suppose to...
Bluetooth is more than just wireless networking. In fact, it's more like USB than ethernet. The protocol is short-range (~10m, boosted signals to ~100m) with many devices, plug&play style negotiation, etc. While it *can* replace 802.11 type wireless in many cases, that's not really the goal.
Two simple examples; these are both specific app targets of the Bluetooth SIG:
- Wireless headsets for cellphones. Having ethernet in a phone is overkill, let along in an earphone/mic headset.
- Using a cellphone as a modem for a laptop/PDA. The idea is simple: without taking your phone out of your pocket/purse/holster/etc, or plugging anything in, you can dial through it as a modem. Using a full ethernet implementation, the phone would have to act as a gateway, rather than a "dumb" modem.
Add to those ideas wireless keyboards and mice, and places where IR is currently used (PDA data transfer, for example). There's even some talk that Bluetooth could replace X10 as the home-automation protocol of choice.
I'd refer you to the Bluetooth SIG site for more info, but it seems to be dead. Sigh. Hunting around on the various members (Ericsson, IBM, and Intel come to mind) sites might turn up something.
>Patrick will team up with Scully to help track down the abducted Agent Mulder.
(holds up pictuce of Mulder)
"Have you seen this Agent?"
>They should never have changed beauty and truth quarks to bottem and top. I think they lose their charm.
Strange, that.
>"Is Unix ready for the desktop"...
>..."Yes, but only with KDE".
Bzzzt! Wrong.
Wake up and smell the caffeine. Mac OS X client looks to be a very promising desktop Unix, and it's time people started accepting it as "part of the family".
What's more, OS X is based on NEXTSTEP. NeXT deployed a fully-functional Unix with an excellent user-friendly interface over 10 years ago. Take a close look at the changes between Win31 and Win95 (the model everyone uses today) and then take a look at the NeXT UI. It becomes pretty obvious where those "innovations" came from.
This isn't intended as a flame towards the KDE, or Linux in general. Linux usability has been progressing by leaps and bounds these last few years. The folks involved in these efforts all deserve a BIG round of applause for delivering us from the ugliness of X/Motif and its bastard offspring. The point is that none of this is new; this wheel has been invented before.
> I would propose putting this technology into cochroaches and other insects
It's bad enough that code has bugs, do we really need bugs that have code?
> ...mice that are smarter than we are...
Hey! Mice are *already* much smarter than we are.
After all, this planet was created to their specifications.
...to the practical, for a moment.
For information about Robert Sawyer and his works, including samples (several short stories and selections from novels), visit his site.
I'd strongly recommend his work to anyone looking for intelligently written SF. He really seems to take the time to understand the science he writes about; a refreshing change from the usual treknology and handwaving.
> ...perhaps Microsoft could become incorporated in Canada...
Sigh. MS is already incorporated in Canada, and many other countries too. Take a quick look here.
As for officially moving the headquarters to another country, MS officials have denied all rumors. It simply wouldn't be cost-effective for them to move all their assets (esp. developers) -- anything left behind would still be fair game.
>Now - the real question is since there is a port of Linux on the StrongARM processor
Indeed. Here is the place to start looking.
There is also a NetBSD port in progress here.
>Assuming you could create one, could you create a craft capable of withsanting the freakish
>forces exerted on it by the wormhole? or are we just hoping that there won't be any turbulence?
Actually, as I understand it, this is where most of the current theory is focusing. It's believed that quantum wormholes (i.e. *very* small) exist in some interesting quantity. The trick is to "inflate" one to a useful size. The tiny detail often omitted is that a "useful" size isn't the size of the ship, but rather big enough for the forces to be sufficently weak in the center that a ship could conceivably survive. The sizes postulated are ludicrous -- in the millions of kilometers, I think.
This inflating process requires "negative energy" (which I need better drugs to understand) in obscene quantities. The article seems to imply a theoretical wormhole that is somehow self-sustaining -- the wormhole itself, directly or indirectly, generates enough negative energy to maintain its size.
Man my hands are tired from all this furious waving.
> *idly wonders the possibility of an Open Source space program*
Great idea! Let everyone participate in the development of these projects. Surely any random guy who who can hack the Linux kernel is qualified to work on a space probe. After all, it's not like it's rocket science.
Oh, wait. Never mind...
>Is it because Cisco doesn't live by "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"?
No, it's because pipes aren't glamorous and routers aren't sexy. Everyone who uses a computer has seen Windows; it's always right there in your face. As a result, MS is a household word. On the other hand, most people don't have a clue how data gets from A to B. Come on, some people still think electricity just comes out of the wall.
Cisco is worth lots because they're BIG. They have a set of TV ads on the go right now with a tagline something like 'almost all Internet traffic travels over a Cisco product at one point or another'. Anything Internet is a huge growth industry, and as their propaganda will tell you, they're "the worldwide leader in networking for the Internet".
They're low profile because the end user doesn't give a damn; the Internet just comes out of the wall and into their computer.
>The choice that would face Apple is this: Do we, Apple, want to concede the hardware business?
...
>Sans doubt, Jobs says no.
You are, of course, referring to Steve Jobs.
- The same Steve Jobs that, when kicked out of Apple, started his own company. A company that built an excellent product with top notch (custom, 68K based) hardware and ahead-of-its-time (custom) software.
- The same company that, years later, gave up on the hardware business. Instead they porting their software from 68K to PPC, Sparc, PA-RISC and, yes, x86.
- The same company that, years later, was bought by Apple for 400M$ and tasked to create the next generation MacOS.
I'm not saying that Apple/Jobs is ready to give up on the hardware business, just remember that Jobs knows how and when to change tactics.
OSX is not BSD! OSX is OSX. Well, actually, OSX is NeXTSTEP.
The BSD that everyone keeps talking about is the unix interface. The OSX unix layer presents BSD compatible APIs, libraries, and tools; just like the classic layer presents MacOS classic APIs. OSX is BSD in the same way that SunOS was. It is not a derivative of {Free,Open,Net}BSD, it's just not System V.
> Now, I wonder that OS runs on the 68060)...
It probably doesn't have an OS, as such. As far as I understand it, VME busses are programmed via a variant of Forth.
If this is true, only the Forth interpreter would be running (bare metal).
Of course, the use of Forth is enough to question its sanity.
Penrose also did a followup book, _Shadows_of_the_Mind_. He refined his position from "AI can't exist" to "AI isn't digitally possible". He postulates that the physical structure of the brain causes quantum interactions that can't be digitally replicated (analog) or simulated (non-computable). The implication of this is that human consciousness (indeed, any consciousness) cannot exist without special hardware (wetware?). Downloading a human neural net into a digital computer would only preserve the "data", not the "program".
Of course, this doesn't rule out the concept. Quantum computers, for example, operate on vastly different principles. There is also the possibility for computing devices built from artificial neurons that have the required quantum properties.
From the VisualAge web site:
Java 2 and Linux Support
VisualAge for Java Version 3.0 includes an Early Adopters Environment providing support for Java 2, formerly known as JDK 1.2. Developers can start now to build and deploy selected applications that target the Java 2 platform, taking advantage of Java 2 features such as improved security, portability, and advanced user interface controls.
In response to popular demand from developers, IBM is providing VisualAge for Java for the Linux platform, underscoring IBM's commitment to supporting customers on the platforms they choose. With VisualAge for Java support for Linux, developers will be able to quickly build, test and deploy 100% Pure Java applets, applications, JavaBeans components and servlets on Linux. VisualAge for Java on Linux is available at http://www.ibm.com/software/vadd.