Yeah, it's 1024x768, but it covers the whole wall. Nice contrast, no flicker... hard to see how there'd be any eye strain with that if you have it set up right (proper distance from projector to wall, and between you and wall.)
FOX News not too long ago ran a story by Carl Cameron that alleged that there was a single company responsible for doing all the billing for telephone calls throughout the United States.
In other words, one small group of people knows the phone number of every call you and I place. Supposedly an investigation was launched to determine whether the information was being used for foul purposes, but it was called off before foul play could be established.
But that isn't what is so troubling. FOX News reported this on the air, and had the story up on their web site, but it was taken down.
Why?
The company had connections to Israel.
I wish we could get past the fact that the Jews have suffered horribly, etc., and appreciate the fact that there are bad people in all denominations. There are American criminals, and Swedish criminals, and Mongolian criminals, and there are probably Israeli criminals too.
Of course, they might've taken it down because it was wrong, but why no retraction then?
Whether the phone company is losing money to hackers who use the network for free doesn't concern me as much as somebody knowing what I pay to use the network and why. Put all those phone calls into a Beowulf cluster and I gotta believe the resulting graph gives the owner quite a bit of power. And I don't care who has it, whatever the religion, race, creed, the perp needs to be run down.
Then again, the software contained in the stock LFS system is pretty minimal, and has been around forever.
The other thing I should mention is that at some point I want to put some machines on the Net and I am convinced that the best way to achieve security is through simplicity. By building your own system you know very well what is and isn't running on it.
glibc, gcc, emacs, gawk... there is some non-trivial code here, I'm not sure I'll ever understand gcc completely, for instance, but the others over time I'm sure I will learn.
This is why I haven't moved to XFree86 yet. It's going to be some time before I'm comfortable with even the few components contained within the basic linuxfromscratch distro.
I'm not committing myself to *understanding* it all, as much as I am being *comfortable* with it. In other words, if there's a program that has had its source out there for over ten years, and I can inspect all the patches made to it over that time, and see that nothing funky was inserted while at the same time noticing that none of you guys found anything funky with the code, well... where I come from that's good code.
You know, it's not like the effort to understand this code is a waste. There's a lot I've learned from even the simplest programs here.
Also, one of the things to remember when perusing this code is that the ratio of dangerous code to harmless code is fairly low. Which is to say, you don't need to spend a lot of time looking at whether somebody's pointer arithmetic is correct, but you do need to take a close look at the system calls, like when files are being played with.
I figure in another couple of years I'll have this shit down cold. Maybe to some it seems like I'm mastering the obvious... I see it more as building a sturdy foundation.
I have a lot of faith in you guys, even though I realize that when the gcc source is broadcast that not everybody reads through every single expression.
But we're all single-stepping through the code it produces at some point.
I've seen people reporting compiler bugs that makes you wonder just what the fuck these people are doing. When you read the back-and-forth between the people who use the compilers and those who write them it's pretty clear who's on top.
Plus, there's Codewarrior, and Borland (is that right?) and there's always the archived compilers to compare against.
In short, it's all out there in the open, and there are like at least ten million eyeballs on the case.
I'm willing to risk letting the compiler prove me to be the fool.
It ain't that I'm stuck. It's only that I don't want to install packages that I'm not prepared to fully understand.
No doubt most of the new stuff available today only needs a./configure and a make install, and there it is, on your disk.
But in my mind that's no different than installing using somebody else's distribution.
I should fess up and say that I don't always use my installation, but that's mostly because my paycheck demands I use other code.
That doesn't change my lust for a system I can understand, down to the statement, and one that I have complete control over. I'm sure that a lot of you who've been with Linux forever you've acquired a sense for this a long time ago; I'm kind of new to the OS though, I've only been using it for a couple of years.
It's biggest attraction for me is that I get to be anal about learning it. Taking it one step at a time, and leaving nothing to chance.
So what if I don't have windows! Most everything I end up doing on the Mac or on Windows is all text-based anyways. Look at the interface for Visual C or Codewarrior on the Mac and tell me exactly what I'm missing when using something like EMACS on a screen that has a resolution of over 200 characters across.
Pretty colors? Alpha-blending? Anti-aliased fonts? It's all shit! It makes everything go slower, while making me put my nose up to the monitor so I can see what the fuck is going on!
The tinfoil hat only serves to deliver a false sense of security.
To be truly secure, you need to build your own distribution. You need to understand what is being put on your system, and why. You need to be able to verify that the program that says it edits streams really does that, and does it without any funny business.
I ***know*** what it running on my system. I know this because I built the binaries myself. I know this because I can look at the source code and see what it does. This is the most beautiful feature of open source; the ability to let tinfoil hat wearers like myself have near-total assurance that our systems are running only the code we want them to run.
You don't get to say that if you're running Red Hat or Suse, or Windows or Mac. How do you know that any of these companies haven't been approached by the Feds and forced to include code that compromises your security and privacy?
Admittedly, it's going to be some time before I get to running KDE or Gnome. Of course, I can always install a standard distribution and see what is available today. But I appreciate the ability not to have to trust one of these distributions with my personal data, or my source code.
Actually, I'm still not to the point where I can run XFree86 yet, but EMACS using SVGATextMode on new hardware is so obscenely fast, why should I care? Except when I want to look at naked women.
Bacteria carried by humans to other populations is still bacteria adapted to humans.
You are so wrong.
The question isn't whether the bacteria has adapted to humans.
It's whether the humans have adapted to the bacteria.
I'm going to guess you're either a biologist, or a scientist of some other persuasion. One of the more sobering facts in this life concerns the relative ease with which we award such credentials upon people, regardless of whether they are possessed with the faculties necessary to administer their responsiblities.
All too often they are not.
And more often than not, this is how disaster occurs.
I don't say this in reference to you. Necessarily. It's more of a point aimed at the current crop of "scientists" who inhabit NASA these days. You're right when you point out that they appear ready to sign off on this.
For the record, SciFi predicted rockets, satellites, geostationary orbit, that little trip from the Earth to the Moon... let's not start dissing SciFi, and let's not ignore the other more salient points made in that last post.
You argue that it is unlikely that any alien organism can pose a threat here, but your arguments are the same as might have been made in years past, when instead of visiting alien worlds we travelled to undiscovered countries.
Look at all of the bacteria and virii on Earth today! Only a small fraction of these can infect a human! So no need to take precautions before we visit these natives over here, or this tribe or that tribe.
And of course, what happened? Whole populations were decimated, and why? Because that one seemingly insignificant bacteria or virii that we didn't give a second thought too was something that the people who lived in these parts of the worlds had never encountered.
History is replete with examples of our causing great destruction borne of nothing but our arrogance.
If we know everything already, then why spend so much money bringing this stuff back?
In as much as NASA has set up this facility for studing potential alien lifeforms on Earth, not in zero-G, I'd have to call your assertion into question.
If you read the article carefully, you will note that the facility being constructed is not slated for analyzing alien samples but is, rather, simply "laying the groundwork."
And if you do your research, you'll learn that most marine biologist spend most of their time on shore.
This will be true with astrobiologists as well; they will spend most of their time on Earth.
There is no reason for an astrobiologist to go into space, given the costs and the fact that any organisms on the space station would already be out of their habitat...
The organisms being studied are going to be out of the habitat regardless of whether they are here on Earth or on the Space Station.
And there is a reason to send biologists into space to perform these studies... to reduce the risk of accidental contagion here on Earth to zero.
And, no, no robot is as good as having a human in there. Ask any lab scientist you know, and they'll confirm: there is no substitute for having a person running the experiments.
Most if not all lab scientists have never had the opportunity to work with the kind of robots I'm talking about. Recent achievements in minaturization and computer technology can produce an experience that is as good, if not better, than actually being there.
Machines don't have all of our sense. Half of good science is serendipity, often resulting from someone noticing something really subtle. Machines don't notice things, and by design, have restricted senses.
We wouldn't be using the machines to design experiments or analyze the results. And machines have far greater sensory capabilities than we do, and are able to communicate this information to us in ways far more useful than what the unadorned eye or ear otherwise could.
And it isn't like Mars rocks are more scary than, say, smallpox or e. coli.
How do you know this?
And if we really do know this, why spend the money to bring the stuff back?
We let biologists work with known hazardous organisms (under careful conditions, much like NASA astrobiology lab) here on Earth.
Organisms that evolved on Earth.
I've got some movies I'd like you to go see, um, Alien, um, Andromeda Strain, er, War of the Worlds, the Martian Chronicles...
Odds are highly weighted against there being any danger in Mars rocks.
So if the choice is between low, but real, risk and zero risk, you want to take the risk, even if it means that if you are wrong all of humanity might be threatened?
If NASA were really smart, they'd use the return of alien samples as a way of bolstering the funding for the Space Station. We spent the money to put it up there, now let's put it to use!
> You can't do that via remotely controlled robots, either on Mars or in the next room of the space station.
Of course we can, and more importantly, it's the only safe way of proceeding. Robots can be controlled easily when they're in the next room and there's no round-trip lag in telemetry/communications and the bandwidth is whatever you want it to be, and any tests not anticipated can be sent up on the next shuttle flight.
And I tell you what, if you want to be a biologist that specializes in the study of alien lifeforms you have better start getting used to the idea of working in zero-g.
To insist otherwise isn't too different than being a marine biologist who refuses to get wet.
Why bring it to Earth? Just bring it to the Space Station.
Specifically, you have the returning space probe enter Earth orbit. A service vehicle is then dispatched to dock with the probe. Part of the service vehicle is designed to serve as a containment module for whatever beasties the probe brought back.
Then the service vehicle navigates back to the space station and docks. The containment module remains off-limits to personnel, all observation/experiments are performed using machines preinstalled in the containment module.
If the beasties start pulling an Andromeda on us, you jettison the module and send it on its way to the Sun.
I just wouldn't be calling myself Grand Emperor Software Architect, that's all. Not when there's work to be done. Not when my holding such a key position might impede redesigning all these bugs.
Not if I wanted everybody to take this initiative on Microsoft's part seriously.
He's the Supreme Intergalactic Software Architect at Microsoft now, right?
Hard to see how they can be serious about this when the guy who designed all these bugs is busy partying with Bono at this Davos thing here in Manhattan.
I mean, to really do DRM right, we need to be where Ray Kurzweil says we'll be in twenty years or so, with nanobots running around in our heads directly feeding our brains with analog-encoded digital input (or something.)
Every nanobot is going to have to verify the digital signature of its source, and then maybe, just maybe, DRM will have a clear, unrestricted path from the bits to my neurons. Maybe.
I mean, it's easy to envision having other nanobots loose in my head too, there for no other reason than to pirate the signal, yes?
Information wants to be free. And dammit, that's the way it's gonna be, no matter how many idiots you pay to make it otherwise!
Anybody who's thought through DRM knows it's pure shit. The key's going to live in the box, and somebody, somewhere, is going to find it.
And even assuming the key won't be retrievable, unencrypted content will be available at some point along the path from where the bits live to how my brain gets the input.
Let MS invest billions into this nonsense. It'll get cracked before it's out of beta, just like everything else they do.
Here's an idea the New York Times can explore...
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's called telling the truth.
One of the novel concepts of the last year, the truth was recently proposed as a way of more accurately conveying information.
Some naysayers point out that telling the truth necessarily means not being able to tell lies, as has been the custom, but defenders of the truth counter that the lies were never all that attractive in the first place.
Moreover, lies make inefficient use of bandwidth, leading some to suggest that the truth is perhaps the most effective form of data compression available.
Cryptographers have also expressed interest in this new concept, suggesting that since so many people are unaccustomed to hearing the truth they wouldn't be able to understand a message if it were true.
However, leaders on Capitol Hill expressed alarm that the people should have access to such technology. The fear is that were the truth to be used by hostile forces we would be put in a position where we might be forced to respond with the truth. The ramifications of such a exchange are simply too horrible to contemplate.
Slashdot Mirror
The more lawyers get fed by big corporations, the less will come after me, so I say, lets mod this lawsuit up all the way to the supreme Court!
I'm still trying to return this damn dvd100i. The thing is worthless, can't even play music CD's let alone burn anything.
I have *very* fond memories of my HP-9100A and HP-41C calculators, but frankly, everything I've bought from HP after that has been shit.
I'm getting sick of the smell.
I'm confident in my woody as well, so much so I'm ready to release it too!
Yeah, it's 1024x768, but it covers the whole wall. Nice contrast, no flicker... hard to see how there'd be any eye strain with that if you have it set up right (proper distance from projector to wall, and between you and wall.)
Of course, the things make a racket.
FOX News not too long ago ran a story by Carl Cameron that alleged that there was a single company responsible for doing all the billing for telephone calls throughout the United States.
In other words, one small group of people knows the phone number of every call you and I place. Supposedly an investigation was launched to determine whether the information was being used for foul purposes, but it was called off before foul play could be established.
But that isn't what is so troubling. FOX News reported this on the air, and had the story up on their web site, but it was taken down.
Why?
The company had connections to Israel.
I wish we could get past the fact that the Jews have suffered horribly, etc., and appreciate the fact that there are bad people in all denominations. There are American criminals, and Swedish criminals, and Mongolian criminals, and there are probably Israeli criminals too.
Of course, they might've taken it down because it was wrong, but why no retraction then?
Whether the phone company is losing money to hackers who use the network for free doesn't concern me as much as somebody knowing what I pay to use the network and why. Put all those phone calls into a Beowulf cluster and I gotta believe the resulting graph gives the owner quite a bit of power. And I don't care who has it, whatever the religion, race, creed, the perp needs to be run down.
None.
Then again, the software contained in the stock LFS system is pretty minimal, and has been around forever.
The other thing I should mention is that at some point I want to put some machines on the Net and I am convinced that the best way to achieve security is through simplicity. By building your own system you know very well what is and isn't running on it.
Yes!
Er, no!
Um, sort of.
glibc, gcc, emacs, gawk... there is some non-trivial code here, I'm not sure I'll ever understand gcc completely, for instance, but the others over time I'm sure I will learn.
This is why I haven't moved to XFree86 yet. It's going to be some time before I'm comfortable with even the few components contained within the basic linuxfromscratch distro.
I'm not committing myself to *understanding* it all, as much as I am being *comfortable* with it. In other words, if there's a program that has had its source out there for over ten years, and I can inspect all the patches made to it over that time, and see that nothing funky was inserted while at the same time noticing that none of you guys found anything funky with the code, well... where I come from that's good code.
You know, it's not like the effort to understand this code is a waste. There's a lot I've learned from even the simplest programs here.
Also, one of the things to remember when perusing this code is that the ratio of dangerous code to harmless code is fairly low. Which is to say, you don't need to spend a lot of time looking at whether somebody's pointer arithmetic is correct, but you do need to take a close look at the system calls, like when files are being played with.
I figure in another couple of years I'll have this shit down cold. Maybe to some it seems like I'm mastering the obvious... I see it more as building a sturdy foundation.
To each his own.
Note that I said "near-total assurance".
I have a lot of faith in you guys, even though I realize that when the gcc source is broadcast that not everybody reads through every single expression.
But we're all single-stepping through the code it produces at some point.
I've seen people reporting compiler bugs that makes you wonder just what the fuck these people are doing. When you read the back-and-forth between the people who use the compilers and those who write them it's pretty clear who's on top.
Plus, there's Codewarrior, and Borland (is that right?) and there's always the archived compilers to compare against.
In short, it's all out there in the open, and there are like at least ten million eyeballs on the case.
I'm willing to risk letting the compiler prove me to be the fool.
It ain't that I'm stuck. It's only that I don't want to install packages that I'm not prepared to fully understand.
./configure and a make install, and there it is, on your disk.
No doubt most of the new stuff available today only needs a
But in my mind that's no different than installing using somebody else's distribution.
I should fess up and say that I don't always use my installation, but that's mostly because my paycheck demands I use other code.
That doesn't change my lust for a system I can understand, down to the statement, and one that I have complete control over. I'm sure that a lot of you who've been with Linux forever you've acquired a sense for this a long time ago; I'm kind of new to the OS though, I've only been using it for a couple of years.
It's biggest attraction for me is that I get to be anal about learning it. Taking it one step at a time, and leaving nothing to chance.
So what if I don't have windows! Most everything I end up doing on the Mac or on Windows is all text-based anyways. Look at the interface for Visual C or Codewarrior on the Mac and tell me exactly what I'm missing when using something like EMACS on a screen that has a resolution of over 200 characters across.
Pretty colors? Alpha-blending? Anti-aliased fonts? It's all shit! It makes everything go slower, while making me put my nose up to the monitor so I can see what the fuck is going on!
Why do I need that?
The tinfoil hat only serves to deliver a false sense of security.
To be truly secure, you need to build your own distribution. You need to understand what is being put on your system, and why. You need to be able to verify that the program that says it edits streams really does that, and does it without any funny business.
I ***know*** what it running on my system. I know this because I built the binaries myself. I know this because I can look at the source code and see what it does. This is the most beautiful feature of open source; the ability to let tinfoil hat wearers like myself have near-total assurance that our systems are running only the code we want them to run.
You don't get to say that if you're running Red Hat or Suse, or Windows or Mac. How do you know that any of these companies haven't been approached by the Feds and forced to include code that compromises your security and privacy?
Admittedly, it's going to be some time before I get to running KDE or Gnome. Of course, I can always install a standard distribution and see what is available today. But I appreciate the ability not to have to trust one of these distributions with my personal data, or my source code.
Actually, I'm still not to the point where I can run XFree86 yet, but EMACS using SVGATextMode on new hardware is so obscenely fast, why should I care? Except when I want to look at naked women.
That's why I have a Mac.
Bacteria carried by humans to other populations is still bacteria adapted to humans.
You are so wrong.
The question isn't whether the bacteria has adapted to humans.
It's whether the humans have adapted to the bacteria.
I'm going to guess you're either a biologist, or a scientist of some other persuasion. One of the more sobering facts in this life concerns the relative ease with which we award such credentials upon people, regardless of whether they are possessed with the faculties necessary to administer their responsiblities.
All too often they are not.
And more often than not, this is how disaster occurs.
I don't say this in reference to you. Necessarily. It's more of a point aimed at the current crop of "scientists" who inhabit NASA these days. You're right when you point out that they appear ready to sign off on this.
More frightening than even the movie 'Alien'.
For the record, SciFi predicted rockets, satellites, geostationary orbit, that little trip from the Earth to the Moon... let's not start dissing SciFi, and let's not ignore the other more salient points made in that last post.
You argue that it is unlikely that any alien organism can pose a threat here, but your arguments are the same as might have been made in years past, when instead of visiting alien worlds we travelled to undiscovered countries.
Look at all of the bacteria and virii on Earth today! Only a small fraction of these can infect a human! So no need to take precautions before we visit these natives over here, or this tribe or that tribe.
And of course, what happened? Whole populations were decimated, and why? Because that one seemingly insignificant bacteria or virii that we didn't give a second thought too was something that the people who lived in these parts of the worlds had never encountered.
History is replete with examples of our causing great destruction borne of nothing but our arrogance.
If we know everything already, then why spend so much money bringing this stuff back?
In as much as NASA has set up this facility for studing potential alien lifeforms on Earth, not in zero-G, I'd have to call your assertion into question.
If you read the article carefully, you will note that the facility being constructed is not slated for analyzing alien samples but is, rather, simply "laying the groundwork."
And if you do your research, you'll learn that most marine biologist spend most of their time on shore.
This will be true with astrobiologists as well; they will spend most of their time on Earth.
There is no reason for an astrobiologist to go into space, given the costs and the fact that any organisms on the space station would already be out of their habitat...
The organisms being studied are going to be out of the habitat regardless of whether they are here on Earth or on the Space Station.
And there is a reason to send biologists into space to perform these studies... to reduce the risk of accidental contagion here on Earth to zero.
And, no, no robot is as good as having a human in there. Ask any lab scientist you know, and they'll confirm: there is no substitute for having a person running the experiments.
Most if not all lab scientists have never had the opportunity to work with the kind of robots I'm talking about. Recent achievements in minaturization and computer technology can produce an experience that is as good, if not better, than actually being there.
Machines don't have all of our sense. Half of good science is serendipity, often resulting from someone noticing something really subtle. Machines don't notice things, and by design, have restricted senses.
We wouldn't be using the machines to design experiments or analyze the results. And machines have far greater sensory capabilities than we do, and are able to communicate this information to us in ways far more useful than what the unadorned eye or ear otherwise could.
And it isn't like Mars rocks are more scary than, say, smallpox or e. coli.
How do you know this?
And if we really do know this, why spend the money to bring the stuff back?
We let biologists work with known hazardous organisms (under careful conditions, much like NASA astrobiology lab) here on Earth.
Organisms that evolved on Earth.
I've got some movies I'd like you to go see, um, Alien, um, Andromeda Strain, er, War of the Worlds, the Martian Chronicles...
Odds are highly weighted against there being any danger in Mars rocks.
So if the choice is between low, but real, risk and zero risk, you want to take the risk, even if it means that if you are wrong all of humanity might be threatened?
If NASA were really smart, they'd use the return of alien samples as a way of bolstering the funding for the Space Station. We spent the money to put it up there, now let's put it to use!
> You can't do that via remotely controlled robots, either on Mars or in the next room of the space station.
Of course we can, and more importantly, it's the only safe way of proceeding. Robots can be controlled easily when they're in the next room and there's no round-trip lag in telemetry/communications and the bandwidth is whatever you want it to be, and any tests not anticipated can be sent up on the next shuttle flight.
And I tell you what, if you want to be a biologist that specializes in the study of alien lifeforms you have better start getting used to the idea of working in zero-g.
To insist otherwise isn't too different than being a marine biologist who refuses to get wet.
Stick to the Discovery Channel.
Why bring it to Earth? Just bring it to the Space Station.
Specifically, you have the returning space probe enter Earth orbit. A service vehicle is then dispatched to dock with the probe. Part of the service vehicle is designed to serve as a containment module for whatever beasties the probe brought back.
Then the service vehicle navigates back to the space station and docks. The containment module remains off-limits to personnel, all observation/experiments are performed using machines preinstalled in the containment module.
If the beasties start pulling an Andromeda on us, you jettison the module and send it on its way to the Sun.
Seriously, somebody needs to use the force on this guy.
Sure, I'd be partying.
I just wouldn't be calling myself Grand Emperor Software Architect, that's all. Not when there's work to be done. Not when my holding such a key position might impede redesigning all these bugs.
Not if I wanted everybody to take this initiative on Microsoft's part seriously.
He's the Supreme Intergalactic Software Architect at Microsoft now, right?
Hard to see how they can be serious about this when the guy who designed all these bugs is busy partying with Bono at this Davos thing here in Manhattan.
Off the top of my head, what about "Hannibal"?
No credit for David Warner? He was the Master Control Program for goodness sakes!
If Star Trek wasn't around to give us the Borg, Slashdot would instead be depicting Gates as the MCP.
Who better to understand this new technology?
I mean, to really do DRM right, we need to be where Ray Kurzweil says we'll be in twenty years or so, with nanobots running around in our heads directly feeding our brains with analog-encoded digital input (or something.)
Every nanobot is going to have to verify the digital signature of its source, and then maybe, just maybe, DRM will have a clear, unrestricted path from the bits to my neurons. Maybe.
I mean, it's easy to envision having other nanobots loose in my head too, there for no other reason than to pirate the signal, yes?
Information wants to be free. And dammit, that's the way it's gonna be, no matter how many idiots you pay to make it otherwise!
Anybody who's thought through DRM knows it's pure shit. The key's going to live in the box, and somebody, somewhere, is going to find it.
And even assuming the key won't be retrievable, unencrypted content will be available at some point along the path from where the bits live to how my brain gets the input.
Let MS invest billions into this nonsense. It'll get cracked before it's out of beta, just like everything else they do.
It's called telling the truth.
One of the novel concepts of the last year, the truth was recently proposed as a way of more accurately conveying information.
Some naysayers point out that telling the truth necessarily means not being able to tell lies, as has been the custom, but defenders of the truth counter that the lies were never all that attractive in the first place.
Moreover, lies make inefficient use of bandwidth, leading some to suggest that the truth is perhaps the most effective form of data compression available.
Cryptographers have also expressed interest in this new concept, suggesting that since so many people are unaccustomed to hearing the truth they wouldn't be able to understand a message if it were true.
However, leaders on Capitol Hill expressed alarm that the people should have access to such technology. The fear is that were the truth to be used by hostile forces we would be put in a position where we might be forced to respond with the truth. The ramifications of such a exchange are simply too horrible to contemplate.
Precisely. I'm amazed that nobody else is mentioning the shower's occurance on a new moon.
You could have a perfectly clear sky and be out in the middle of the desert or the ocean and still not see anything with a full moon.
Meteor showers are rare. Showers that take place under a new moon are rarer still.