This whole "breaking-into-a-house" analogy is getting out of hand. New York Times is a public webside, a corporation. If you're going to make up an analogy, do not use a personal HOUSE as an example.
This is more akin to a big Mall having a few doors that are supposed to be for mall employees only, yet they forget to lock a door, or have a security guard around.
Lamo's method was obviously illegal, though the damages were not nearly as high as stated. Removing his name from that database cannot take that long. If they plan on charging him for a new lock for a door that was never locked, that's wrong. He seems like a pretty ethical guy, and is reported to have worked with other large companies to fix there problems - I think attacking him shows a failure on the Times' side as well. They're not interested in security.
I think what he's getting at, is that while you're on the drugs, you can start to retrain your brain to work in a more productive manner. You can hold on to the benifits that ADHD can give ("hyperfocus", and multitasking), while minimizing the bad points.
I'm sure there might be some form of ADHD that requires medication, but there's no reason to assume that proper mental conditioning can't help you over come some of it. The brain is an amazing organ, and incredibly adaptive, it's atleast worth a try to add behavior reconditioning in with the medication.
A big question is though: Can we use these basic building blocks to help improve our knowledge base of biology? Could this be used as a link to help more efficently understand more biology? Could there be a way of coding biological structures to communicate with a more typical logic-program? The logic-program could help output data in a form we're more accustomed to.
He wasn't saying HE (the poster) believed it was in the "middle", he was saying the crowd was complaining because it was in the middle. Many people who saw the movie did not know it was part of a trilogy, let alone based on a book.
For what it's worth, you have a good summary of the ideas he seems to be presenting.
The problem is the way he's doing it. If the author was to say that the current UI metephores are outdated, I'm sure the discussion here would be more productive. Instead, he contridicts himself with his terminology.
As for computers being able to be "Used" like a newspaper: Newspapers don't have nearly the dynamic interface that is required for most applications. It's a passive medium.
Even in the passive-medium sense, it still takes some learning to "use". Different pages have different sorts of content on them, and the content is often in different sorts of formats. A front page story on terrorists does not have the same format as a Help Wanted ad.
There's surely improvements that can take place through new or different analogies. Lots of simplification and unification is on the way. Lots of aspects of the lower OS will be hidden in the future.. but in order for computers to remain useful to the different people using them, the flexability needs to still be available (Different "programs" available for opening different "files", even if they're refered to as "tasks" and as "documents", it's the same thing).
that would be a meaningful possible senerio if all that research was done with the company's actual money.
In a lot of these cases the large amounts of research money come from grants and donations.
If this is what companies do when they help research and refine research, I say let the private sector leave it! The techniques may take longer develop on a 100% public-funded track, but in the end it will be more benificial to many more people.
First off, I find your post rather questionable. This is the first time I've ever heard claims like what you've offered.
Your first point, about the midranges is interesting, and I guess is atleast possible.. Though, I really think you're "simple proof" is a bit rediculous. Just the simple suggestion that you "can't sing along" as easilly with ogg would be enough to through some ppl off. I'd need a good double-blind test to proove anything there.
Your second point... WHAT are you complaining about?? You say MP3 does a poor hack for stereo (sounds fine to me!), and then you say Ogg does true stereo, but fakes 5.1 - So obviously it's better then MP3 in that it uses real stereo!
For the third point, I'd like to see proof of this, or some reference links. Just saying it creates a harmonic effect that degrades speakers sounds like a bunch of buzz-word science to me. Wouldn't bad harmonics produce a poor waveform that would sound different then the original? Links, references, tests.
I can't believe ppl modded you up so high w/out any sort of proof what so ever.
I have an open mind, so if you can show me references or articles about any of these effects (necessary harmonic differencials to cause speaker degredation, how much differences would be audable, whatever..) I'd reconsider my point of view..
How much do you know about DRM? Public Key Encryption (PGP is based on this) is quite well tested.
Now, Imagine for a moment that an email is sent to someone using Outlook Express. Instead of sending a normal Plain Text or HTML text email, Outlook Express notices that your TO: is going to someone you know, with a Passport ID which has a public-key for encryption. The email gets encrypted, and Signed with the rights you choose.
The OS, when it opens it, has full control over it. It does not allow certain actions (Forward, Copy and Paste, Print, etc) because of the signed right's block in teh email. No one else can read it because no one else has the key. The key for decrypting could even be tied to the computer you're using through the hardware ID's.
Sure, there may be ways around it at first.. but those holes will be plugged. Afterall, the OS you're on will not allow you to hack the DLL's for Outlook Express. And the next trick: The CPU and the Harddrive will not allow you access to the drive with unsigned code! SO, If you try to hack it from a linux install, you're out of luck! This will only be useful if hardware end-to-end is encryptable this way, and you'll only beable tomake use of DRM on computers that are protected this way of course. No sending secure emails to ppl on unsecure computers - and if so, they won't beable to read it.
Have an open mind. You're obviously not all-knowing.
Security suggestions are fine, content control (other then legally persued methods) arn't.
As far as I know the article doesn't deal with censorship or porn or anything like that.
And as far as that is concerned, I think censorship is dangerous. Putting one group in control of deciding what is and what is-not appropriate is just a Bad Idea. Tools are already available for you (as an admin, and a parent) to censor, watch, control, and report those areas. A requirement for that to be freely available (from the ISP?) is one thing, but requiring all content providers to be policed by one central group is another IMHO.
Nice link - The ideas behind "intentional programming" sound rather interesting. Making a language for abstractions would surely ease programming by huge amounts, especially with how the abstractions sound adaptable to new events and problems.
If it ever succeeds, it will be quite interesting.
There was a tone towards the end though that was a bit scarey - it almost made it sound like the abstractions themselves could become a popular commodity. That could be a scarey day, especially with the patent and copyright laws.
Facinating idea still.
Re:Crack to stop all this...
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Do you seriously believe that the first (or second, or third, etc) DRM controlled OS will be 100% free of bugs and holes?
All it takes will be -ONE- cracker to snoop an encryption key over a bus, or a few months of distributed hacking, and then there will be signatures available for all the viruses!
Or what of the hundereds of holes that will be discovered in MS's scripting security model?
I'm sure the Powers that be will try and push DRM on everything, but in the end I'm sure it will also be cracked, and just as dangerous.
I wouldn't call it irony. Atleast not for me. I have my entire cd collection ripped to MP3 so I can easily play it on a computer, and listen to it in my car with a portable MP3 player.
That's not illegal, it's fair use.
And most of the posters arn't complaining about the.75 fee in itself, just that it was Changed, and free software used to be clearly exempt. Now things have changed, and it's not so clear by the wording that free software is exempt.
blind people have a good spacial sense, and that could be tied pretty heavily to the visual cortex. Atleast for shape recognition. They know by feel what a circle or sphere or box feels like, and they have to represent that internally somehow - most likely the same way sighted people can.
There was that article a while back here on slashdot about a program for drawing for the blind - I think that proves the point.
Now, whether they can adapt to the full pixilated view as well as a sighted person remains to be tested. Though, I think the mind is quite adaptable.
On another note - I wonder if this could be used for some form of overlay input to a sighted-person's vision - such as heat vision, or some form of marker input. If so, there's a world of possibilities that was just opened, especially in machinery control and such.
The lead developer who is accepting patches would notice code that has potential security risks. If the lead developer was intentionally introducing bugs, Other develoeprs in the project could notice this as well.
And as another reply mentioned - A gov. agency could be created to audit versions before they are adapted into government use. You would not have to worry about the security and identity of the developers any more then you have to with companies. And, with a private company, the gov. doesn't have the ability to look at the code to determine how "Safe" it is to run.
One could turn around your statement and say that Copyright has played an important part in 20th century law. Maybe we should abandon that instead?
And how will technology improve once Fair Use is abandoned? Arn't current mega-corps trying to limit the techology we're CURRENTLY using so that they can make more money?
Do you really want to live in a world where you get a micro-charge everytime you listen to a song on your RIAA-certified-music-player? Or have to buy a song again if you want to listen to it on a portable device instead of a home system? And pay another micro-charge if you want to listen to it at the computer?
We have technology now that can easilly move copyrighted material between various mediums, making for a very powerful approach to a data-driven life.
It sounds like you want this technology to be limited to satisfy these content provider's way of business, all for what? So that we can have better technology? Killing this current technology will bring something better? I'd like to know, what?
I think the problem is that Techie's are concerned about using the best solution to a problem. Statistically tech-minded people believe good business will follow through use of good solutions.
Business-minded people are more concerned about how to make the world use THERE solution, dispite whether it's the best solution to the problem or not, since the best solution may be someone else's product.
Mr. Love's reply had lots of buzz words and information about "Developers" choosing there platform - I don't see why this would happen considering lots of the replies here are from possible developers, and most seem to be negative.
In fact, as far as Tech's who will recommend purchasing of UL, I think those are pretty few and far between as well.
I can see why you would be weary of it, but I think you're jumping to conclusions too quickly.
Anyway, with that said: Cg itself not being crossplatform is a completely different topic then the OUTPUT. The compiled shaders should work on any platform that has Opengl with nvidia extensions (linux, windows, etc). I see nothing wrong with that. It's a development issue, not a runtime issue. Cg is used at the design development stage, not on the end-users' machine.
Again, I see nothing wrong with NVidia controling the compiler. I can't seem to see any information on licensing fees for other vendors to make the profiles for Cg. It may be cheap, it may not be. The market will decide. Just because there a company does not mean they have evil intentions for everything.
Either way, this is NOT a lockin solution (like Glide was). Developers can still write shaders by hand for whichever card they choose - this tool just makes it easier to make them for nvidia chipsets, or directx in general. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.
As far as the directx vs opengl debate goes.. opengl moves way too slow to keep up with the hardware. 2.0 will be nice, if it ever happens. Until then, as long as OpenGL extensions (Nvidia's, or ATI's) are available, I see no problem. It may add a little more to development cost, but it's not all that complicated really. A game can quite easilly support shaders for Nvidia or ATI, or whatever. Most already have tools for handling the conversion using a generic subset.
Did you miss the point about it having cross-platform support, and being hardware independant?
AKA OTHER video card manufacturers can write there own compilers..!
Can you tell me how this locks anyone into Nvidia? Is it because they didn't do ATI's job for them? Or because they want there technology (vertex and pixel shaders) used now, instead of whenever opengl 2.0 comes along?
And can you also tell me why this compiler language will be unable to compile Opengl 2.0 compliant code? This may be a good forward-looking tool/initiative.
if defence or prosecution methodes were patented?
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What if current copyright/patent law allowed lawyers to patent a particular defense if it worked well in court? Wouldn't that make it more difficult for you to do your job if you had to pay someone to use a particular tactic to defend one of your clients? Or even to prosecute a particular case of infringment?
That's what it's like for software - You make a comment about how Talented programers "don't want any impediments whatsoever", how is that special treatment? Do Carpenters need to pay for a license before they put up an A-Frame house? To do math, do you have to pay extra to use the square-root key?
Patented software takes away fundemental tools and solutions available to developers. It may be true that the solutions may not be discovered until a problem is encountered, but just because someone was the first to file a patent for a new problem should not give them the right to deny others use of it.
I'll admit that I have my doubts about some forms of software patents - certain video and sound compression algorthms especially. These take a lot of work and time, and can be truely inovative (and easilly copied once discovered), but I have never seen another "inovative" software patent.
It's always the same dumb worm/virus. Replication is the only real goal - no distributed computing, no political vendeta, not even maliciousness (which I'm thankful for, even though I needn't worry of infection).
This one has the popup ad thing, but my guess is the money is going to a randomly selected target.
This reminds me a lot of that viri/worm on the gnutella network a year+ back.
I was just looking into XML-RPC and SOAP the other day, and for the most part Transport and even Serialization are separate components - fully replacable...
To build something that inter-ops well, you don't need to use things that are 100% standard. Especially in a component world. Worse-case-senerio a new transport protocol needs implementing in a different language - for the most part that should be very simple.
In my opinion, if a problem or software design requires that much processing power and HD space in one unit, then something is wrong with the approach to the problem.
Very very few problems have only one approach to solve. Basically it comes down to getting it all in one package at a much greater price, or hiring some skilled technicians to rearrange the problem.
All in all it probably comes out even in the end - cheaper hardware and more expensive labor, or more expensive hardware, and less hassle.
Linux may not beable to match that in a single box, but it can get close, and when arranged in clusters, can probably solve the same problem with less expensive hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole "breaking-into-a-house" analogy is getting out of hand. New York Times is a public webside, a corporation. If you're going to make up an analogy, do not use a personal HOUSE as an example.
This is more akin to a big Mall having a few doors that are supposed to be for mall employees only, yet they forget to lock a door, or have a security guard around.
Lamo's method was obviously illegal, though the damages were not nearly as high as stated. Removing his name from that database cannot take that long. If they plan on charging him for a new lock for a door that was never locked, that's wrong. He seems like a pretty ethical guy, and is reported to have worked with other large companies to fix there problems - I think attacking him shows a failure on the Times' side as well. They're not interested in security.
I think what he's getting at, is that while you're on the drugs, you can start to retrain your brain to work in a more productive manner. You can hold on to the benifits that ADHD can give ("hyperfocus", and multitasking), while minimizing the bad points.
I'm sure there might be some form of ADHD that requires medication, but there's no reason to assume that proper mental conditioning can't help you over come some of it. The brain is an amazing organ, and incredibly adaptive, it's atleast worth a try to add behavior reconditioning in with the medication.
A big question is though:
Can we use these basic building blocks to help improve our knowledge base of biology? Could this be used as a link to help more efficently understand more biology? Could there be a way of coding biological structures to communicate with a more typical logic-program? The logic-program could help output data in a form we're more accustomed to.
Flamebait.
He wasn't saying HE (the poster) believed it was in the "middle", he was saying the crowd was complaining because it was in the middle. Many people who saw the movie did not know it was part of a trilogy, let alone based on a book.
For what it's worth, you have a good summary of the ideas he seems to be presenting.
The problem is the way he's doing it. If the author was to say that the current UI metephores are outdated, I'm sure the discussion here would be more productive. Instead, he contridicts himself with his terminology.
As for computers being able to be "Used" like a newspaper: Newspapers don't have nearly the dynamic interface that is required for most applications. It's a passive medium.
Even in the passive-medium sense, it still takes some learning to "use". Different pages have different sorts of content on them, and the content is often in different sorts of formats. A front page story on terrorists does not have the same format as a Help Wanted ad.
There's surely improvements that can take place through new or different analogies. Lots of simplification and unification is on the way. Lots of aspects of the lower OS will be hidden in the future.. but in order for computers to remain useful to the different people using them, the flexability needs to still be available (Different "programs" available for opening different "files", even if they're refered to as "tasks" and as "documents", it's the same thing).
I think this link describes the hardware being used - atleast an earlier version of it. Found through google "touch device phantom"
t ml
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1998/phantom.h
that would be a meaningful possible senerio if all that research was done with the company's actual money.
In a lot of these cases the large amounts of research money come from grants and donations.
If this is what companies do when they help research and refine research, I say let the private sector leave it! The techniques may take longer develop on a 100% public-funded track, but in the end it will be more benificial to many more people.
First off, I find your post rather questionable. This is the first time I've ever heard claims like what you've offered.
... WHAT are you complaining about?? You say MP3 does a poor hack for stereo (sounds fine to me!), and then you say Ogg does true stereo, but fakes 5.1 - So obviously it's better then MP3 in that it uses real stereo!
Your first point, about the midranges is interesting, and I guess is atleast possible.. Though, I really think you're "simple proof" is a bit rediculous. Just the simple suggestion that you "can't sing along" as easilly with ogg would be enough to through some ppl off. I'd need a good double-blind test to proove anything there.
Your second point
For the third point, I'd like to see proof of this, or some reference links. Just saying it creates a harmonic effect that degrades speakers sounds like a bunch of buzz-word science to me. Wouldn't bad harmonics produce a poor waveform that would sound different then the original? Links, references, tests.
I can't believe ppl modded you up so high w/out any sort of proof what so ever.
I have an open mind, so if you can show me references or articles about any of these effects (necessary harmonic differencials to cause speaker degredation, how much differences would be audable, whatever..) I'd reconsider my point of view..
How much do you know about DRM? Public Key Encryption (PGP is based on this) is quite well tested.
Now, Imagine for a moment that an email is sent to someone using Outlook Express. Instead of sending a normal Plain Text or HTML text email, Outlook Express notices that your TO: is going to someone you know, with a Passport ID which has a public-key for encryption. The email gets encrypted, and Signed with the rights you choose.
The OS, when it opens it, has full control over it. It does not allow certain actions (Forward, Copy and Paste, Print, etc) because of the signed right's block in teh email. No one else can read it because no one else has the key. The key for decrypting could even be tied to the computer you're using through the hardware ID's.
Sure, there may be ways around it at first.. but those holes will be plugged. Afterall, the OS you're on will not allow you to hack the DLL's for Outlook Express. And the next trick: The CPU and the Harddrive will not allow you access to the drive with unsigned code! SO, If you try to hack it from a linux install, you're out of luck! This will only be useful if hardware end-to-end is encryptable this way, and you'll only beable tomake use of DRM on computers that are protected this way of course. No sending secure emails to ppl on unsecure computers - and if so, they won't beable to read it.
Have an open mind. You're obviously not all-knowing.
Security suggestions are fine, content control (other then legally persued methods) arn't.
As far as I know the article doesn't deal with censorship or porn or anything like that.
And as far as that is concerned, I think censorship is dangerous. Putting one group in control of deciding what is and what is-not appropriate is just a Bad Idea. Tools are already available for you (as an admin, and a parent) to censor, watch, control, and report those areas. A requirement for that to be freely available (from the ISP?) is one thing, but requiring all content providers to be policed by one central group is another IMHO.
Nice link - The ideas behind "intentional programming" sound rather interesting. Making a language for abstractions would surely ease programming by huge amounts, especially with how the abstractions sound adaptable to new events and problems.
If it ever succeeds, it will be quite interesting.
There was a tone towards the end though that was a bit scarey - it almost made it sound like the abstractions themselves could become a popular commodity. That could be a scarey day, especially with the patent and copyright laws.
Facinating idea still.
Do you seriously believe that the first (or second, or third, etc) DRM controlled OS will be 100% free of bugs and holes?
All it takes will be -ONE- cracker to snoop an encryption key over a bus, or a few months of distributed hacking, and then there will be signatures available for all the viruses!
Or what of the hundereds of holes that will be discovered in MS's scripting security model?
I'm sure the Powers that be will try and push DRM on everything, but in the end I'm sure it will also be cracked, and just as dangerous.
I wouldn't call it irony. Atleast not for me.
.75 fee in itself, just that it was Changed, and free software used to be clearly exempt. Now things have changed, and it's not so clear by the wording that free software is exempt.
I have my entire cd collection ripped to MP3 so I can easily play it on a computer, and listen to it in my car with a portable MP3 player.
That's not illegal, it's fair use.
And most of the posters arn't complaining about the
".. or manual process to monitor or copy our Web pages .."
So that means you're not allowed to manually check daily to see if it changes, right?
It sounds like a good effective bann on regular readers!
blind people have a good spacial sense, and that could be tied pretty heavily to the visual cortex. Atleast for shape recognition. They know by feel what a circle or sphere or box feels like, and they have to represent that internally somehow - most likely the same way sighted people can.
There was that article a while back here on slashdot about a program for drawing for the blind - I think that proves the point.
Now, whether they can adapt to the full pixilated view as well as a sighted person remains to be tested. Though, I think the mind is quite adaptable.
On another note - I wonder if this could be used for some form of overlay input to a sighted-person's vision - such as heat vision, or some form of marker input. If so, there's a world of possibilities that was just opened, especially in machinery control and such.
Do you know anything about programming?
The lead developer who is accepting patches would notice code that has potential security risks. If the lead developer was intentionally introducing bugs, Other develoeprs in the project could notice this as well.
And as another reply mentioned - A gov. agency could be created to audit versions before they are adapted into government use. You would not have to worry about the security and identity of the developers any more then you have to with companies. And, with a private company, the gov. doesn't have the ability to look at the code to determine how "Safe" it is to run.
One could turn around your statement and say that Copyright has played an important part in 20th century law. Maybe we should abandon that instead?
And how will technology improve once Fair Use is abandoned? Arn't current mega-corps trying to limit the techology we're CURRENTLY using so that they can make more money?
Do you really want to live in a world where you get a micro-charge everytime you listen to a song on your RIAA-certified-music-player? Or have to buy a song again if you want to listen to it on a portable device instead of a home system? And pay another micro-charge if you want to listen to it at the computer?
We have technology now that can easilly move copyrighted material between various mediums, making for a very powerful approach to a data-driven life.
It sounds like you want this technology to be limited to satisfy these content provider's way of business, all for what? So that we can have better technology? Killing this current technology will bring something better? I'd like to know, what?
Fair use is important.
I think the problem is that Techie's are concerned about using the best solution to a problem. Statistically tech-minded people believe good business will follow through use of good solutions.
Business-minded people are more concerned about how to make the world use THERE solution, dispite whether it's the best solution to the problem or not, since the best solution may be someone else's product.
Mr. Love's reply had lots of buzz words and information about "Developers" choosing there platform - I don't see why this would happen considering lots of the replies here are from possible developers, and most seem to be negative.
In fact, as far as Tech's who will recommend purchasing of UL, I think those are pretty few and far between as well.
Hm.
A few small things:
I can see why you would be weary of it, but I think you're jumping to conclusions too quickly.
Anyway, with that said:
Cg itself not being crossplatform is a completely different topic then the OUTPUT. The compiled shaders should work on any platform that has Opengl with nvidia extensions (linux, windows, etc). I see nothing wrong with that. It's a development issue, not a runtime issue. Cg is used at the design development stage, not on the end-users' machine.
Again, I see nothing wrong with NVidia controling the compiler. I can't seem to see any information on licensing fees for other vendors to make the profiles for Cg. It may be cheap, it may not be. The market will decide. Just because there a company does not mean they have evil intentions for everything.
Either way, this is NOT a lockin solution (like Glide was). Developers can still write shaders by hand for whichever card they choose - this tool just makes it easier to make them for nvidia chipsets, or directx in general. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.
As far as the directx vs opengl debate goes.. opengl moves way too slow to keep up with the hardware. 2.0 will be nice, if it ever happens. Until then, as long as OpenGL extensions (Nvidia's, or ATI's) are available, I see no problem. It may add a little more to development cost, but it's not all that complicated really. A game can quite easilly support shaders for Nvidia or ATI, or whatever. Most already have tools for handling the conversion using a generic subset.
Did -you- read the article?
Did you miss the point about it having cross-platform support, and being hardware independant?
AKA OTHER video card manufacturers can write there own compilers..!
Can you tell me how this locks anyone into Nvidia?
Is it because they didn't do ATI's job for them? Or because they want there technology (vertex and pixel shaders) used now, instead of whenever opengl 2.0 comes along?
And can you also tell me why this compiler language will be unable to compile Opengl 2.0 compliant code? This may be a good forward-looking tool/initiative.
What if current copyright/patent law allowed lawyers to patent a particular defense if it worked well in court? Wouldn't that make it more difficult for you to do your job if you had to pay someone to use a particular tactic to defend one of your clients? Or even to prosecute a particular case of infringment?
That's what it's like for software - You make a comment about how Talented programers "don't want any impediments whatsoever", how is that special treatment? Do Carpenters need to pay for a license before they put up an A-Frame house? To do math, do you have to pay extra to use the square-root key?
Patented software takes away fundemental tools and solutions available to developers. It may be true that the solutions may not be discovered until a problem is encountered, but just because someone was the first to file a patent for a new problem should not give them the right to deny others use of it.
I'll admit that I have my doubts about some forms of software patents - certain video and sound compression algorthms especially. These take a lot of work and time, and can be truely inovative (and easilly copied once discovered), but I have never seen another "inovative" software patent.
I agree completely!
It's always the same dumb worm/virus. Replication is the only real goal - no distributed computing, no political vendeta, not even maliciousness (which I'm thankful for, even though I needn't worry of infection).
This one has the popup ad thing, but my guess is the money is going to a randomly selected target.
This reminds me a lot of that viri/worm on the gnutella network a year+ back.
I was just looking into XML-RPC and SOAP the other day, and for the most part Transport and even Serialization are separate components - fully replacable...
To build something that inter-ops well, you don't need to use things that are 100% standard. Especially in a component world. Worse-case-senerio a new transport protocol needs implementing in a different language - for the most part that should be very simple.
In my opinion, if a problem or software design requires that much processing power and HD space in one unit, then something is wrong with the approach to the problem.
Very very few problems have only one approach to solve. Basically it comes down to getting it all in one package at a much greater price, or hiring some skilled technicians to rearrange the problem.
All in all it probably comes out even in the end - cheaper hardware and more expensive labor, or more expensive hardware, and less hassle.
Linux may not beable to match that in a single box, but it can get close, and when arranged in clusters, can probably solve the same problem with less expensive hardware.
That's be a good trade - lower electric bills, probably longer lasting bulbs, and exercise on top of it.
Not only would it help solve energy-problemed areas, it would also improve the health.