Sadly, I would say that a reduced death rate on the highway would not be an improvement for the gene pool. It's true that about half the people killed on the road are innocent, or at least in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the other half are instigators and poor drivers that make the world a dangerous place through their inability to make good decisions. Since we can't just up and kill someone for needin' it anymore, the highway is the last place we can expect those folks to pass on without living for another 70 years, and ruining the world for the rest of us.
JH ps. For the humor impaired, the above is at least 70% tongue in cheek. I'd welcome a good law allowing us to vote people dead, though.
I, for one, appreciate your honesty. The truth is, you're not the only one out there. What makes my situation different is that I am actually a full-time game developer, with a wife and two small kids. In much the same way that you describe, I have had to almost walk away from *gaming*, but not the game industry. I can only play when the kids are asleep and the wife isn't watching Tivo'd programs. You see, neither of us want our kids watching a lot of TV when they're young; we want them to develop a strong imagination, an independence from electronics to find entertainment, and hopefully avoid ADD/ADHD if it is actually a patterned trait formed by overstimulation at an early age (I think it generally is).
The lack of TV time means raising kids takes a whole lot more energy than for parents who choose to use the tube as a baby sitter. Since my wife is the one doing the most work, staying home with them, I let her use the TV to watch her shows while I surf, email,/. etc. I could spend this time gaming on the PC, or buy another TV just for consoles, but in the end I would be so far behind in the mundane that I would suffer in some other way.
When my kids are a few years older, they'll naturally discover the TV, gaming, and music, and hopefully balance them all in some meaningful way with other interests... some of which, I hope, even involves the use of daylight. IMO, just because you love gaming doesn't mean that is the only thing you have to enjoy. I know my life would be a lot emptier had that been the only experience I sought, and I would like for my kids to value that as well.
It may seem I'm reactionary; I am. I know a widowed single mother who plays an MMO to the extent of criminal neglect. She has no job, but manages to keep the game account and ISP paid up, even though the gas is 5 months past due and shut off. She has a new computer every year, but the kids don't have clothes that fit, and half the time no food to eat. This is the darkest side of gaming addiction, first hand.
What they are recording is not solely a pixel, I would suspect, but the configuration of mirrors that achieved that point. So, there is a significant amount of information that they can extrapolate from just a random number seed and the final color. The plenoptic function that describes the transfer of light from the environment to the plane of the sensor is 4D. By capturing from many different non-parallel input rays onto a sensor, you can extrapolate a lot about the environment that isn't present in a purely parallel data set.
What I suspect they're goal is, is ultimately getting an array of mirrors onto a consumer-grade camera, and having it take three or four shots in rapid succession, then merge the information gained from each so that the result is more like having a High Dynamic Range image (well beyond the capabilities of any consumer-grade sensor) and use a tone-mapping algorithm to bring it back into a typical 8-bit range per component. It's complicated, but not impossible. Similar such things that are only a year or two old in the graphics community (flash + non-flash images being merged to give good color in low-light situations, multiple exposure images merged for HDR, etc) should come out in a couple of years as automatic modes for color correction, probably even on low-end cameras.
Of course, I still have a 6 year old point and shoot, so what do I know?:-)
I'm still wondering how Google accepting China's demands to do business with their country is any different than Amazon bowing to Germany by filtering out Nazi paraphenalia. Each country has its own definition of unacceptable material. The USA (and virtually every other country on earth) believes child porn is taboo. But it's still a choice that was made, to filter and prosecute those who deal with it.
Ultimately, what people are complaining about isn't Google buckling to a country's demands, because that happens all the time. The niggling detail is that the demands are coming from a Communist government, not a democratic one, where the people themselves did not vote for these restrictions.
I'm sad to say it, but the Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country, and the same right to make demands on businesses who want to deal with their peoples. These are typically called tarriffs and licenses to bricks and mortar businesses.
I also support the Chinese people's right to change if that's what they want, but it's an Americanism and an indulgence of mine that I think is shared among democratic nations. I'm hoping that access to information is a catalyst for that change. Time will tell.
I have little to add to the discussion, except that anyone with a computer who thinks they need spyware detectors, AV software, or (software) firewalls are being taught this by companies that sell these things. What you need is a physical hardware firewall, a friend or professional to set it up, and a thimble full of education. Learn not to click on this-or-that. Learn not to install such-and-such on your machine unless it's reputable, or you're doing it in a Virtual PC (which you can shut off at any time and still get work done). Learn not to sign up for Blue Mountain Cards or any other online humor or pr0n sites. Just learn to be less gullible. But people are generally trusting, and that makes them suckers.
Phew. And I was actually only planning on commenting on your super rad nickname. Heh. peek -16336 and all.
People go to movies to be entertained, same as with playing video games. The difference between games and movies is that the person sitting in the theater is only allowed the experience someone else crafted, and none other. With games, you are intimately involved with how the story unfolds, how the story paces as a direct result of your actions. Does this deprecate in any way the quality of entertainment? Maybe it does for people who have little to offer themselves within games, but for me, it's better than movies. Or, I should say, a great game is significantly better than a great movie for me. This is because I have control over the pacing, quality, tone, and length of the experience. For example, when I've seen a great movie two or three times, I probably won't watch it again. Great games can keep my interest for considerably longer.
So, yes, games do deserve as much or more respect as movies, as they are a lot harder to produce. Perhaps I'm biased as a game developer (no! not me!), but having played some really great games this year, I can say that very few movies have been as captivating.
"Prestigious critical acclaim" is only prestigious because movies have gone from the 5 cent junk drama to a more revered form of storytelling. I think (good) games are well on the road to doing that in their own right.
Honestly, one of the reason I've doubted the research is I don't trust the U.N. or Europeans to be objective. There's a greater potential for tinkering with other people's economies and shifting global economic power by screaming about the environment than by any other mechanism. That's reason one.
Reason two, is that my uncle--a logical and educated man whom I respect very much, and owe much of my current interests to--has a degree in geology and chemistry, and was in college in the mid-70's. He distinctly remembers the same groups of people screaming "global winter". Remember that? No, you won't hear that mentioned today, but it came from the same mouths that scream "global warming" today. The same push for legislation happened then, as it does now. Aren't you glad we resisted those laws then, when they had such a potential for damage? Why, pray tell, should we make the same mistake now, unless the science is bulletproof. Remember, in the 70's, they said it was good science too. Who to trust?
Recently, however, I've come to believe that there's something to the studies and I've read the IPCC and several other papers (not fully understanding some of it, as I'm not a researcher), and I have doubts that the current US administration is objective. Last year, I sold my car and bike everywhere.
That's my contribution, from a doubting Thomas. What's yours?
I'd have to say the auction would be much better if I could sign on over the internet, purchase Greg Fischbach's desk. I'd like to have it shipped to my home, where myself and my fellow ex-Acclaim buddies could bash it, cut it into small pieces, then when we tire of performing our selfless duty, set fire to it in effigy. On video. And mail him the tape.
That is, right after we karma whore by linking to it on Slashdot.:-)
Dude, this is some funny shit. I haven't laughed out loud at a forum post in a loooong time. Thanks!
Saw it July 4th, first day they revealed it.
on
Disney Goes Boom!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I took my wife and kids to Disneyland in Anaheim to check out the display. I have some video of it that isn't quite ready for web display (or should I say, I'm too busy:-), but suffice it to say it's a different show. They actually had two displays on July 4th, with slightly different timings and effects.
After seeing the same sort of fireworks for decades, I think it was more interesting than the old fire up and go boom. The most noticeable change is they can do much higher quality synchronized launches. One effect (a little overused) fired off a bunch of streamers in sequence at different angles, and because the flaming bits are not powered after launch, they have a nice regular parabolic trajectory. Nice effect.
However, they have a great Grand Finale either way. It's also nice to know my $150 worth of tickets went to something donated to the public (patents).
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this, but I rather think it's strange that a Linux distro would be in favor of forcibly rebooting a machine just to start your own. I mean, at my office and all the offices I've worked at previously, computers stay on 24/7 and only reboot when IT decided to dump a bunch of Wind0ze updates on us. The Unix/Linux boxen never rebooted unless there was hardware failure involved.
Even if someone isn't present that day, there's usually something going on that shouldn't be disturbed, even if it's browser windows being open or a notepad window editing text. Finding a machine thats 'safe' to cycle power on is pretty unusual.
I was really excited about the prospects, especially if it were hijacking the main machine's hardware via USB live through Windows or another Linux install, but I fail to find any real value in this offering. It's interesting, sure, but not if it requires rebooting.
I'm so please that Adams will be doing his voice, because I thought of all the clever plot devices and inadvertancies in the series, Agrajag was one of my favorites. The idea that such a thing could come full circle, literally, so many times and so many ways is just too much--so much that it's a good thing!
Excuse? I don't expect you were looking for a serious answer here, and I shouldn't feed trolls, but....
My explanation is that Windows is a consumer product whose first focus is not quality or secure code. Their top priority is to add more gizmos and change the interface to look hip and now, so they can sell it to their users again. Fixing bugs has rarely sold new product. In addition, they have a headlock on the consumer desktop market with their monopoly, giving them even less reason to spend money after issues that aren't show stoppers.
That said, I'm not a fan of Windows, but I do use it. I also use Debian and have for years.
The problem with your analogy is that you neglect to consider that only qualified people are touching the code in the space shuttle. With Linux, anybody who can type 'make' can do whatever they like on their own machine, and that's impossible for a vendor to give warranty for.
I'm all for making the vendor liable, but to the limits that make sense. If you have a million dollar business riding on some software working, you should have insured your operation by paying experts to help you maintain it. Whereas Joe Bob who has at most a $1000 investment in his computer and his own time is not negotiable, typically does not have such a contract. Thus, the support you should expect is commensurate with what you are willing to pay. It's a basic law of economics.
I'm not surprised that I only saw one person speak up about the language choice for operating systems software. It goes without saying that C is the only natural choice for operating systems software, because of its portability. But I've also noted in my travails that C/C++ leads to a set of problems that are nearly unavoidable--mostly related to memory management and pointers--even with the most careful programming. I'm not convinced it makes the most sense to write applications software in it, though. Sure, it's the fastest language out there, but if you eventually resort to what I describe below, it no longer is...
I have to wonder if it makes sense to seriously expect to find all the vulnerabilities when the language has such an unsafe run time library, and outdated weak type system. It seems that a more sensible approach is to write only a tiny kernel in C which has minimal, but functional, connectivity with the host machine; then have it execute virtual machines (using QEMU?) for all other programs, such that they are totally sandboxed, extremely sandboxed.
I'm talking each app being located in a virtual hard drive, essentially a more extreme chroot, and each app having its own IP address and memory space, so all network activity can be gated or inspected.
Something like QEMU would be a great starting point for a secure OS like this, plus since it does transcoding, it could even make binary distributions of applications portable. Going this way, C apps would run about 4x slower on the same hardware, without considering the process overhead of access management.
...except that I did it from Austin to Santa Monica, by way of eastern Utah and Colorado, so the scenery is pretty. Here's a link to it. It requires Divx5, I think. It's set to music and all that.
The main difference in techniques, though, is that I did it the hard way, because my digital video camera did not have an intermittent record function, so I had to reach over after every song (3-5 minutes) and switch it on, record 5 seconds, then switch it back off. When the scenery was nicer, I recorded more frequently. Then I spent a week chopping it down in Premier. The result is pretty watchable, though it isn't as dramatic as taking intermittent images the whole drive. I did find out that my Canon DV45 can be turned on and off about 125 times without draining the battery completely, which is impressive.:-)
the ability to grow back bone mass lost to periodontic disease. I have really bad teeth--not from lack of care, either--and unfortunately for me, I've suffered some gum recession and some bone loss where my teeth are attached to the jaw. Not a lot yet, but it's impossible to reverse at the moment.
This new tooth technology will allow you to grow back a tooth in case you knocked it out in a fight or something, sure, but for people who have serious dental problems won't necessarily be helped by it. Especially because they haven't been able to stimulate root growth in the tooth yet, just the enamel (according to my dentist at least, who follows this mighty closely). Without a root, it's no better than the falsies they can make today, especially since the titanium socket bonds even better to your jaw than your real teeth do. Human bones grow very well into titanium for some reason.
I'll be waiting for the shot that grows back a little bone and stimulates gum growth, at which time I'll jump for joy.
...everything looks like a nail. The author of this article is one of "those people". You know, the ones who attach themselves to current fads and don't realize when they're dying or dead, and keep flogging the blog, er, I mean horse well beyond its death throes.
Whether Dean was or was not a potential candidate is beside this guy's point--he was arguing that the internet is an effete medium that cannot overthrow "big corporate" control. I've got news for him, the internet isn't media-controlled. If someone wants to find something, there are ample search engines and plenty of word-of-mouth via email. Over 70% of the American populace is logging on, so it's not like there's an accessibility problem. Fewer than that even bother to vote!
If people are gullible enough to believe what's on the TV, they're never going to choose the candidate that represents them. The internet isn't necessarily a more pure medium, but there are at least a lot of voices. The problem is, bloggers are bought the same way TV and radio spots are, so how does a change in media really matter? It doesn't. That's why Dean isn't the Democratic candidate: he didn't win.
I haven't met anyone who has used the service. For being a fairly large database of reading material, is it only capable of archiving things so old that they have expired copyrights, or specifically released material? If so, you can hardly expect it to become a cultural phenomenon, what with copyrights extending to a million years after all progeny of the author are dead... Which is a shame, because on the merits of recording things for the public domain alone, it's worthwhile, but if people don't use it, what's the true value?
Anyone here regularly read from Project G? What did you read?
The major problems, as I see it, with the pay-to-send method is there's no incentive for people to read the mail they receive. I, for one, don't care a bit if I receive spam or valid email--if I am being paid to do so.
If the sender pays money to send an email, I should collect it, not some impossible 3rd party that happens to run a relay service and handle micropayments. It's simplistic to expect SMTP (or any other protocol) should connect directly from end users machines to a central server and forward mail directly to other end users machines. The reason for having many mail servers and lots of routing is for connection redundancy and bandwidth control--any inexpensive (non-monthly charge) system would be DDOSed out of existence.
My second issue with the idea is $0.01 is far too little to charge. Instead, make it $1 or $5 per email, so people think a bit before sending one. Each email would have a button that the receiver could click to redeem their money, and it would be common courtesy to not click the button from friends or strangers with legitimatge business. Or you could redeem it and turn around and send them a thank you note, so that you return the sender's money to them. If someone sends you a nasty letter, or spams you, you mutter 'fuck it' under your breath and keep their money.
Suddenly email becomes friendlier, and you now have a way to transfer cash to relatives without bank charges (assuming you can raise the cost of an email arbitrarily).
The only problem is that any decent server that accepts micropayments would want to require a digital certificate for a user to modify their account, so it really doesn't simplify the matter much, except that they (the micropayment service) could issue the certificates and link it to banking information.
It's a monochrome monitor from circa 1981, with an ISA MGA adapter, running happily in a Pentium 100 from about 1995, which has been my router and firewall for the past several years... running Linux. Can't tell you how proud/surprised/mortified I was to see such a junky video display still supported in Linux.:-)
I actually just sold the whole machine for $25 where it'll be put in service for several more years, I expect.
I'd buy if I got two versions of the music: the version I use when listening on an audiophile quality stereo, at home, when enjoying the music to its fullest; and secondly, I'd want a really gritty quality version that is low bandwidth and mostly representative of the music, with a short clip of audio at the end of each song giving the WWW for how to buy the original.
That way I could distribute to my friends low grade versions that prompts them to buy the originals, and I don't have to feel guilty about discovering a great band and wanting to share the joy of music to friends and family.
The high quality versions could be upwards of 10mb per song, the low quality should be less than a meg or so. Really dirty. If someone likes what they hear and are inspired, each song will tell them how to buy the good quality ones.
Just an idea. I know I'd be more likely to buy online if that were the case.
Now that I have Nike RocketAirs...
on
Sports Technology?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
...it no longer fazes me when I see 7' goliaths on the basketball court. I just lace them up, ignite the rocket packs embedded in the soles, and dunk all over my meager competition. From 4'6" to 25' in 2.2 seconds, as the ads say.
And it helps to use the RimPop Magneto Homing Ball, too, because at 60mph it's hard to actually make a clean shot.
Heh. Last time I did anything sporting-like was fighting over the last Athlon XP2000+ at Fry's.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I would say that a reduced death rate on the highway would not be an improvement for the gene pool. It's true that about half the people killed on the road are innocent, or at least in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the other half are instigators and poor drivers that make the world a dangerous place through their inability to make good decisions. Since we can't just up and kill someone for needin' it anymore, the highway is the last place we can expect those folks to pass on without living for another 70 years, and ruining the world for the rest of us.
JH
ps. For the humor impaired, the above is at least 70% tongue in cheek. I'd welcome a good law allowing us to vote people dead, though.
I, for one, appreciate your honesty. The truth is, you're not the only one out there. What makes my situation different is that I am actually a full-time game developer, with a wife and two small kids. In much the same way that you describe, I have had to almost walk away from *gaming*, but not the game industry. I can only play when the kids are asleep and the wife isn't watching Tivo'd programs. You see, neither of us want our kids watching a lot of TV when they're young; we want them to develop a strong imagination, an independence from electronics to find entertainment, and hopefully avoid ADD/ADHD if it is actually a patterned trait formed by overstimulation at an early age (I think it generally is).
/. etc. I could spend this time gaming on the PC, or buy another TV just for consoles, but in the end I would be so far behind in the mundane that I would suffer in some other way.
The lack of TV time means raising kids takes a whole lot more energy than for parents who choose to use the tube as a baby sitter. Since my wife is the one doing the most work, staying home with them, I let her use the TV to watch her shows while I surf, email,
When my kids are a few years older, they'll naturally discover the TV, gaming, and music, and hopefully balance them all in some meaningful way with other interests... some of which, I hope, even involves the use of daylight. IMO, just because you love gaming doesn't mean that is the only thing you have to enjoy. I know my life would be a lot emptier had that been the only experience I sought, and I would like for my kids to value that as well.
It may seem I'm reactionary; I am. I know a widowed single mother who plays an MMO to the extent of criminal neglect. She has no job, but manages to keep the game account and ISP paid up, even though the gas is 5 months past due and shut off. She has a new computer every year, but the kids don't have clothes that fit, and half the time no food to eat. This is the darkest side of gaming addiction, first hand.
I think you may be missing the point (har har).
:-)
What they are recording is not solely a pixel, I would suspect, but the configuration of mirrors that achieved that point. So, there is a significant amount of information that they can extrapolate from just a random number seed and the final color. The plenoptic function that describes the transfer of light from the environment to the plane of the sensor is 4D. By capturing from many different non-parallel input rays onto a sensor, you can extrapolate a lot about the environment that isn't present in a purely parallel data set.
What I suspect they're goal is, is ultimately getting an array of mirrors onto a consumer-grade camera, and having it take three or four shots in rapid succession, then merge the information gained from each so that the result is more like having a High Dynamic Range image (well beyond the capabilities of any consumer-grade sensor) and use a tone-mapping algorithm to bring it back into a typical 8-bit range per component. It's complicated, but not impossible. Similar such things that are only a year or two old in the graphics community (flash + non-flash images being merged to give good color in low-light situations, multiple exposure images merged for HDR, etc) should come out in a couple of years as automatic modes for color correction, probably even on low-end cameras.
Of course, I still have a 6 year old point and shoot, so what do I know?
I'm still wondering how Google accepting China's demands to do business with their country is any different than Amazon bowing to Germany by filtering out Nazi paraphenalia. Each country has its own definition of unacceptable material. The USA (and virtually every other country on earth) believes child porn is taboo. But it's still a choice that was made, to filter and prosecute those who deal with it.
Ultimately, what people are complaining about isn't Google buckling to a country's demands, because that happens all the time. The niggling detail is that the demands are coming from a Communist government, not a democratic one, where the people themselves did not vote for these restrictions.
I'm sad to say it, but the Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country, and the same right to make demands on businesses who want to deal with their peoples. These are typically called tarriffs and licenses to bricks and mortar businesses.
I also support the Chinese people's right to change if that's what they want, but it's an Americanism and an indulgence of mine that I think is shared among democratic nations. I'm hoping that access to information is a catalyst for that change. Time will tell.
I have little to add to the discussion, except that anyone with a computer who thinks they need spyware detectors, AV software, or (software) firewalls are being taught this by companies that sell these things. What you need is a physical hardware firewall, a friend or professional to set it up, and a thimble full of education. Learn not to click on this-or-that. Learn not to install such-and-such on your machine unless it's reputable, or you're doing it in a Virtual PC (which you can shut off at any time and still get work done). Learn not to sign up for Blue Mountain Cards or any other online humor or pr0n sites. Just learn to be less gullible. But people are generally trusting, and that makes them suckers.
Phew. And I was actually only planning on commenting on your super rad nickname. Heh. peek -16336 and all.
JH
Apparently the way to make money selling e-books is to write something Slashdot will post, then charge an outrageous sum for it on Forrester.
I'd also like to point out that AOP is just a fancy term for globally-accessible singleton (GAS). I've got GAS, but I don't brag about it. Sheesh.
People go to movies to be entertained, same as with playing video games. The difference between games and movies is that the person sitting in the theater is only allowed the experience someone else crafted, and none other. With games, you are intimately involved with how the story unfolds, how the story paces as a direct result of your actions. Does this deprecate in any way the quality of entertainment? Maybe it does for people who have little to offer themselves within games, but for me, it's better than movies. Or, I should say, a great game is significantly better than a great movie for me. This is because I have control over the pacing, quality, tone, and length of the experience. For example, when I've seen a great movie two or three times, I probably won't watch it again. Great games can keep my interest for considerably longer.
So, yes, games do deserve as much or more respect as movies, as they are a lot harder to produce. Perhaps I'm biased as a game developer (no! not me!), but having played some really great games this year, I can say that very few movies have been as captivating.
"Prestigious critical acclaim" is only prestigious because movies have gone from the 5 cent junk drama to a more revered form of storytelling. I think (good) games are well on the road to doing that in their own right.
Honestly, one of the reason I've doubted the research is I don't trust the U.N. or Europeans to be objective. There's a greater potential for tinkering with other people's economies and shifting global economic power by screaming about the environment than by any other mechanism. That's reason one.
Reason two, is that my uncle--a logical and educated man whom I respect very much, and owe much of my current interests to--has a degree in geology and chemistry, and was in college in the mid-70's. He distinctly remembers the same groups of people screaming "global winter". Remember that? No, you won't hear that mentioned today, but it came from the same mouths that scream "global warming" today. The same push for legislation happened then, as it does now. Aren't you glad we resisted those laws then, when they had such a potential for damage? Why, pray tell, should we make the same mistake now, unless the science is bulletproof. Remember, in the 70's, they said it was good science too. Who to trust?
Recently, however, I've come to believe that there's something to the studies and I've read the IPCC and several other papers (not fully understanding some of it, as I'm not a researcher), and I have doubts that the current US administration is objective. Last year, I sold my car and bike everywhere.
That's my contribution, from a doubting Thomas. What's yours?
I'd have to say the auction would be much better if I could sign on over the internet, purchase Greg Fischbach's desk. I'd like to have it shipped to my home, where myself and my fellow ex-Acclaim buddies could bash it, cut it into small pieces, then when we tire of performing our selfless duty, set fire to it in effigy. On video. And mail him the tape.
:-)
That is, right after we karma whore by linking to it on Slashdot.
Dude, this is some funny shit. I haven't laughed out loud at a forum post in a loooong time. Thanks!
I took my wife and kids to Disneyland in Anaheim to check out the display. I have some video of it that isn't quite ready for web display (or should I say, I'm too busy :-), but suffice it to say it's a different show. They actually had two displays on July 4th, with slightly different timings and effects.
After seeing the same sort of fireworks for decades, I think it was more interesting than the old fire up and go boom. The most noticeable change is they can do much higher quality synchronized launches. One effect (a little overused) fired off a bunch of streamers in sequence at different angles, and because the flaming bits are not powered after launch, they have a nice regular parabolic trajectory. Nice effect.
However, they have a great Grand Finale either way. It's also nice to know my $150 worth of tickets went to something donated to the public (patents).
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this, but I rather think it's strange that a Linux distro would be in favor of forcibly rebooting a machine just to start your own. I mean, at my office and all the offices I've worked at previously, computers stay on 24/7 and only reboot when IT decided to dump a bunch of Wind0ze updates on us. The Unix/Linux boxen never rebooted unless there was hardware failure involved.
Even if someone isn't present that day, there's usually something going on that shouldn't be disturbed, even if it's browser windows being open or a notepad window editing text. Finding a machine thats 'safe' to cycle power on is pretty unusual.
I was really excited about the prospects, especially if it were hijacking the main machine's hardware via USB live through Windows or another Linux install, but I fail to find any real value in this offering. It's interesting, sure, but not if it requires rebooting.
I'm so please that Adams will be doing his voice, because I thought of all the clever plot devices and inadvertancies in the series, Agrajag was one of my favorites. The idea that such a thing could come full circle, literally, so many times and so many ways is just too much--so much that it's a good thing!
Excuse? I don't expect you were looking for a serious answer here, and I shouldn't feed trolls, but....
My explanation is that Windows is a consumer product whose first focus is not quality or secure code. Their top priority is to add more gizmos and change the interface to look hip and now, so they can sell it to their users again. Fixing bugs has rarely sold new product. In addition, they have a headlock on the consumer desktop market with their monopoly, giving them even less reason to spend money after issues that aren't show stoppers.
That said, I'm not a fan of Windows, but I do use it. I also use Debian and have for years.
The problem with your analogy is that you neglect to consider that only qualified people are touching the code in the space shuttle. With Linux, anybody who can type 'make' can do whatever they like on their own machine, and that's impossible for a vendor to give warranty for.
I'm all for making the vendor liable, but to the limits that make sense. If you have a million dollar business riding on some software working, you should have insured your operation by paying experts to help you maintain it. Whereas Joe Bob who has at most a $1000 investment in his computer and his own time is not negotiable, typically does not have such a contract. Thus, the support you should expect is commensurate with what you are willing to pay. It's a basic law of economics.
I'm not surprised that I only saw one person speak up about the language choice for operating systems software. It goes without saying that C is the only natural choice for operating systems software, because of its portability. But I've also noted in my travails that C/C++ leads to a set of problems that are nearly unavoidable--mostly related to memory management and pointers--even with the most careful programming. I'm not convinced it makes the most sense to write applications software in it, though. Sure, it's the fastest language out there, but if you eventually resort to what I describe below, it no longer is...
I have to wonder if it makes sense to seriously expect to find all the vulnerabilities when the language has such an unsafe run time library, and outdated weak type system. It seems that a more sensible approach is to write only a tiny kernel in C which has minimal, but functional, connectivity with the host machine; then have it execute virtual machines (using QEMU?) for all other programs, such that they are totally sandboxed, extremely sandboxed.
I'm talking each app being located in a virtual hard drive, essentially a more extreme chroot, and each app having its own IP address and memory space, so all network activity can be gated or inspected.
Something like QEMU would be a great starting point for a secure OS like this, plus since it does transcoding, it could even make binary distributions of applications portable. Going this way, C apps would run about 4x slower on the same hardware, without considering the process overhead of access management.
...except that I did it from Austin to Santa Monica, by way of eastern Utah and Colorado, so the scenery is pretty. Here's a link to it. It requires Divx5, I think. It's set to music and all that.
:-)
The main difference in techniques, though, is that I did it the hard way, because my digital video camera did not have an intermittent record function, so I had to reach over after every song (3-5 minutes) and switch it on, record 5 seconds, then switch it back off. When the scenery was nicer, I recorded more frequently. Then I spent a week chopping it down in Premier. The result is pretty watchable, though it isn't as dramatic as taking intermittent images the whole drive. I did find out that my Canon DV45 can be turned on and off about 125 times without draining the battery completely, which is impressive.
the ability to grow back bone mass lost to periodontic disease. I have really bad teeth--not from lack of care, either--and unfortunately for me, I've suffered some gum recession and some bone loss where my teeth are attached to the jaw. Not a lot yet, but it's impossible to reverse at the moment. This new tooth technology will allow you to grow back a tooth in case you knocked it out in a fight or something, sure, but for people who have serious dental problems won't necessarily be helped by it. Especially because they haven't been able to stimulate root growth in the tooth yet, just the enamel (according to my dentist at least, who follows this mighty closely). Without a root, it's no better than the falsies they can make today, especially since the titanium socket bonds even better to your jaw than your real teeth do. Human bones grow very well into titanium for some reason. I'll be waiting for the shot that grows back a little bone and stimulates gum growth, at which time I'll jump for joy.
"I'll only fly Quantus."
-- Rainman
...everything looks like a nail. The author of this article is one of "those people". You know, the ones who attach themselves to current fads and don't realize when they're dying or dead, and keep flogging the blog, er, I mean horse well beyond its death throes.
Whether Dean was or was not a potential candidate is beside this guy's point--he was arguing that the internet is an effete medium that cannot overthrow "big corporate" control. I've got news for him, the internet isn't media-controlled. If someone wants to find something, there are ample search engines and plenty of word-of-mouth via email. Over 70% of the American populace is logging on, so it's not like there's an accessibility problem. Fewer than that even bother to vote!
If people are gullible enough to believe what's on the TV, they're never going to choose the candidate that represents them. The internet isn't necessarily a more pure medium, but there are at least a lot of voices. The problem is, bloggers are bought the same way TV and radio spots are, so how does a change in media really matter? It doesn't. That's why Dean isn't the Democratic candidate: he didn't win.
I haven't met anyone who has used the service. For being a fairly large database of reading material, is it only capable of archiving things so old that they have expired copyrights, or specifically released material? If so, you can hardly expect it to become a cultural phenomenon, what with copyrights extending to a million years after all progeny of the author are dead... Which is a shame, because on the merits of recording things for the public domain alone, it's worthwhile, but if people don't use it, what's the true value?
Anyone here regularly read from Project G? What did you read?
The major problems, as I see it, with the pay-to-send method is there's no incentive for people to read the mail they receive. I, for one, don't care a bit if I receive spam or valid email--if I am being paid to do so.
If the sender pays money to send an email, I should collect it, not some impossible 3rd party that happens to run a relay service and handle micropayments. It's simplistic to expect SMTP (or any other protocol) should connect directly from end users machines to a central server and forward mail directly to other end users machines. The reason for having many mail servers and lots of routing is for connection redundancy and bandwidth control--any inexpensive (non-monthly charge) system would be DDOSed out of existence.
My second issue with the idea is $0.01 is far too little to charge. Instead, make it $1 or $5 per email, so people think a bit before sending one. Each email would have a button that the receiver could click to redeem their money, and it would be common courtesy to not click the button from friends or strangers with legitimatge business. Or you could redeem it and turn around and send them a thank you note, so that you return the sender's money to them. If someone sends you a nasty letter, or spams you, you mutter 'fuck it' under your breath and keep their money.
Suddenly email becomes friendlier, and you now have a way to transfer cash to relatives without bank charges (assuming you can raise the cost of an email arbitrarily).
The only problem is that any decent server that accepts micropayments would want to require a digital certificate for a user to modify their account, so it really doesn't simplify the matter much, except that they (the micropayment service) could issue the certificates and link it to banking information.
It's a monochrome monitor from circa 1981, with an ISA MGA adapter, running happily in a Pentium 100 from about 1995, which has been my router and firewall for the past several years... running Linux. Can't tell you how proud/surprised/mortified I was to see such a junky video display still supported in Linux. :-)
I actually just sold the whole machine for $25 where it'll be put in service for several more years, I expect.
I'd buy if I got two versions of the music: the version I use when listening on an audiophile quality stereo, at home, when enjoying the music to its fullest; and secondly, I'd want a really gritty quality version that is low bandwidth and mostly representative of the music, with a short clip of audio at the end of each song giving the WWW for how to buy the original.
That way I could distribute to my friends low grade versions that prompts them to buy the originals, and I don't have to feel guilty about discovering a great band and wanting to share the joy of music to friends and family.
The high quality versions could be upwards of 10mb per song, the low quality should be less than a meg or so. Really dirty. If someone likes what they hear and are inspired, each song will tell them how to buy the good quality ones.
Just an idea. I know I'd be more likely to buy online if that were the case.
...it no longer fazes me when I see 7' goliaths on the basketball court. I just lace them up, ignite the rocket packs embedded in the soles, and dunk all over my meager competition. From 4'6" to 25' in 2.2 seconds, as the ads say.
And it helps to use the RimPop Magneto Homing Ball, too, because at 60mph it's hard to actually make a clean shot.
Heh. Last time I did anything sporting-like was fighting over the last Athlon XP2000+ at Fry's.