Your description is excellent. I would, however, view this first generation as more 'proof of concept' than anything else. Devising variants which return back variable sized documents or which return 'correct' sizes for a limites set of specific requests can't be long in coming. Likewise you may assume that future versions will examine the request strings and reply only to a subset and only some of the time. Counter measures will develop, of cours, and so will the complexity of the trojan horses.
I think a bigger concern is the potential for this to undermine anonymous P2P networks. Inspired by the RIA, MPAA, hostile governments, etc., many efforts are being made to develop systems which fully hide the identity of the parties involved. It seems that this would also hide the origin of any trojans injected into the system. If users are no longer able to trust the content they receive, will they continue to use these systems?
For those people (myself included) who are too lazy to interpret the specification and enter the code in yourself, you can find a C & C++ implementation here. Note a link to this and other useful information is provided from the original link.
I just don't understand this NASA / JHUAPL team. You'd think that crashing into an astroid would be enough, BUT NO, these guys need a second time. Just get it right the first time. You're giving us space-probe-obituary writers from getting ulcers.
In the words of the music group Stxy from their 1980 song...
Well, I'm a jet fuel genius - I can solve the world's problems
Without even trying
I have dozens of friends and the fun never ends
That is, as long as I'm buying
Is it any wonder I'm not the president
(He's not the president)
Is it any wonder I'm null and void?
Is it any wonder I've got
Too much time on my hands, it's ticking away at my sanity
I've got too much time on my hands, it's hard to believe such a calamity
I've got too much time on my hands and it's ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands
My time estimate, while admittedly weak, is based on the assumption that reserve fuel would be available and that every ounce would be spent on changing the trajectory and returning to earth.
I can foresee a competition between the ad producers and proxy developers. It's evolution... Developing ads costs money. Hence most will use standard techniques which proxies can detect and filter. As schemes get blocked, ad agencies will just try different tactics. And so the proxies will need to handle these. And so on...
Particularly innovative designs will dodge the detection schemes. I don't see this as bad. My goal isn't to avoid seeing all ads (because I do enjoy the sophisticated ones), so a proxy which can filter out 90% is about perfect. Targeted advertising done well also reduces my demand for ad blockers. I enjoy the banners on Slashdot, for instance, and even buy some magazines for the ads!
A second point: viewers can record programs on television and use their VCR/Tivo to skip past unwanted information. The barrier, be it purchasing the unit of programming it in advance, is small, but people are lazy and watch the ads anyway. The same will be true for the net. The more annoying the ads are judged, the larger percentage will choose some blocking scheme. Adversizers have an incentive to keeps ads 'reasonable'.
On the other hand, I haven't had much incentive to use proxies because I really don't find banner ads all that annoying. With this new scheme, I suspect that proxy use will skyrocket!
One important lesson from Alpha, Mir, and even the US space shuttle is that when items break in space, they're hard to repair. The space shuttle is only expected to be in space for a few days (maximum of about 2 weeks, I belive). If something serious goes wrong, they can always abort the mission and land early. Likewise, Alpha and Mir underwent periodic resupply and in extreme cases could flee back to Earth.
Now consider a mission to Mars. This would have a duration of about 3 years. If you ran into problems two months out, if should take at least a month to return, and more likely 3 (depending of fuel capacity and burn rate). So, you simply fix the problem or you die. Now who here trusts their engineering for that project?
There's an additional factor of 2 because, on average, you only need to check half the possibilities. So it's actually 5 quadrillion years. See? Now that seems much more achievable!
I don't know about a miniseries, but a movie is supposedly planned. According to a story last month in the Hollywood Reporter (as interpreted by Space.com), "Phil Tippett, Oscar-winning visual effects mastermind behind Star Wars, Starship Troopers and other FX-driven spectacles, will make his directorial debut with the project".
I'm not sure that I'd hold my breath, but it does sound intriguing.
Even if these did get to 95+% accuracy (conceivable in several years), primative encryption of the data defeats every on of these. I can easily imaging sending someone a encrypted data file, the java viewer, and a password embedded in the text of the email for decryption. Why do they bother with email???
The same approach could be applied to the web, though it would be slightly harder to implement.
As an undergrad years back, we considered putting together a system like this. We were planning to use an obscure game console, the Vectrex (image; emulator ) and projecting on the clouds above Los Angeles.
There are two problems with this approach. First, clouds aren't solid so higher altitude clouds are preferable and higher powered lasers necessary. Secondly, the FAA doesn't like lasers lighting up their airspace and possibly interfering with pilot's vision. The first issue didn't bother us, but lasers have a disadvantage that you can easily track them back to their source.
This was the most insightful and best researched bit of social commentary I've ever read on Slashdot.
I don't fully blame Congress or the candidates in the US for this situation. I hesitate to say this next bit: I blame the competition among the local news programs. I believe that in the competition for viewers, the major networks and their local affiliates learned that highlighting local stories involving violence, sex, and preferably both attracted viewers. The teasers like "see how this ordinary housewife obsession led her to kill her lover, after these messages" wouldn't be used unless they worked. Just as websites are judged by advertisers for their 'stickiness', TV news programs fight to keep viewers glued to the channel. The resulting coverage becomes more focused on violence than the statistics alone would justify.
A second important point is one of perception. The media may run one two minute spot discussing the "drop of violence according to a recent government report" and 200 stories about individual violent acts. To the viewer, the repetition will win out.
I'd like to conclude by saying that we also have ourselves to blame. As the viewing audience, we could select alternate news sources like Public Television (US) or the BBC. But we don't. Instead we gossip around the proverbial water cooler about the horrible carnage on last night's news. Maybe today's news is yesterday's gladiatorial combat.
I have a confession - I really want a D1. I bought a film camera about a year ago. I intentionally selected a vendor (Nikon) which made digital cameras which could use the same lens. To understand why this matters, when you buy a nice camera, you invariably buy nice lenses. Individually, these may equal or exceed the price of the camera body. As a collection, your lenses are where you make the serious investment. You don't want to throw this away when you select a digital camera.
Why should I care about using these lenses? There is the obvious benefit of extending the range of digital cameras to encompass telephoto, macro, and wide angle subjects. You also benefit from sharper photos with less spherical aberration. Your existing or new filters can be reused.
You may say (as I did) that this is all nice, but at several thousand, the D1 had better offer some other benefits. It does. The electronics are also superior. For a review see
http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/d1/index. html . To summarize this report, the D1 has far less image noise and better control over saturation. See the images in the review.
Before jumping into this market, a few important numbers (in US dollars). The D1 is now about 9 months old and cost about $5k. Cannon is scheduled to release a similar camera this fall for $3.5k. I anticipate that Nikon will be introducing a successor to their D1 at a lower price point in the next few months, though I haven't heard any specific rumors.
Because Katz isn't a geek, and yet seeks to write about them in perpetuity, he continually convinces himself that there is an overall geek outlook.
There is an overall geek philosophy. Technology and innovation are valued above more conservative standards. When a millimeter-sized camera is announced, the geek will react first in appreciation (Neat. Cool. How does it work? Must get one.), then with caution (But what about privacy?), and finally with acceptance (Everyone will have one, but just wait until the micron-sized ones are released!).
The non-geek will react differently. First with detached appreciation (Look what those wacky scientists/engineers created.), then with caution (If I can monitor my son/daughter, does this mean they can watch me at work?), and finally with legislation (Digital Camera Protection Act).
The difference is that a geek believes that technical progress is its own reward. The non-geek wants to understand how technology impacts the social framework.
If you check out the expansion options on the Apple marketing page, you'll notice that you are correct. But who cares? These computers are not intended to meet the needs of every user. If you really must have the PCI slots, buy a traditional G4 machine. If, on the other hand, you match the tradional profile of a mac user who can get by with 2 USB ports, 2 400 Mbps Firewire ports, up to 1.5 GB DRAM, and an AirPort card, then this machine will work fine.
BTW: the picture of the disassembly is really cool.
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to leave my computer on 24x7. Unfortunately, it resides in the bedroom so the noise from the computer and CRT drives me crazy.
The Powermac Cube has a G4 and no fan. Apple has done this with G3's previously (iMac) but never a G4. So between this and the LCD, I'll finally have the silent system I've always wanted. Now if they can only squeeze a second processor into the case...
RM 101, I enjoyed your comments very much. Here's my take on the issue.
I try to practice what I preach. I work in the hi-tech industry and admire innovative companies. When I buy products, I try to pick the ones which demonstrate forward progress. I believe that Apple has helped push the industry forward, unlike another company (which shall remain nameless) which has proved more of an anchor.
Apple managed to migrate all their users from the Motorola 68000 to PowerPC architecture with minimal pain. That took balls. Apple is planning to migrate their OS from a custom kernal to a BSD based product. For a consumer oriented company, that definitely takes balls. Apple has firmly embraced SCSI, USB, FireWire, etc. Apple made ethernet standard equipment and is doing the same with wireless connectivity. Apple is shipping video editing software with some iMacs. Apple believes in leading edge industrial design. On both the hardware and software side, Apple has a consistent history of innovation which has helped stimulate the industry.
As primates age, they tend to get more agressive. Parrots may bite, but they don't generally break bones.
Han: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a wookie.
C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han: That's cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies are known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookie win.
The biggest advantage of 'traditional media' is that information is generally confirmed before publication. New media, in constrast, all too often must rely of rumors and shoddy confirmation to get the story out first.
Consider at how many stories on Slashdot have been withdrawn or severely modified after the original posting. This is a criticism, not condemnation. I appreciate the 'peer review' present here for technical issues which 'old media' cannot match.
This is intentional hyperbole. My long term argument (looking a few decades into the future) is that confining ourselves to a single planet is a dangerous strategy. Technological advances allow individuals / organizations / countries to affect larger areas and populations. Biotech weapons are a good example. They're currently very expensive and difficult to target, but the costs will dimenish and the control will increase. You can make similar arguments about nuclear weapons. Given that the surface area of the earth is not increasing, getting off the planet may be an essential long term survival strategy.
An extremist may argue that this should justify immediate and overwhelming investment. If migrating into space is our goal, I would only ask how our current spending helps achieve this goal. The X-38 launch program is great because it reduces cost to orbit. NEAR and DS-1 test technologies and may provide commercial incentives. But constantly reviewing Apollo seems counterproductive.
Everytime I read a review for an Apollo program I think - why are we constantly resting on past accomplishments? This chapter of history has been covered in rich detail in numerous books, documentaries, and even Hollywood movies. I know that the authors of these accounts favor an investment in space. Why then, then, do these chronicles seem so melancholy?
Get off you ass, mankind. Earth - been there done that. Time for something new.
Slashdot Mirror
Your description is excellent. I would, however, view this first generation as more 'proof of concept' than anything else. Devising variants which return back variable sized documents or which return 'correct' sizes for a limites set of specific requests can't be long in coming. Likewise you may assume that future versions will examine the request strings and reply only to a subset and only some of the time. Counter measures will develop, of cours, and so will the complexity of the trojan horses.
I think a bigger concern is the potential for this to undermine anonymous P2P networks. Inspired by the RIA, MPAA, hostile governments, etc., many efforts are being made to develop systems which fully hide the identity of the parties involved. It seems that this would also hide the origin of any trojans injected into the system. If users are no longer able to trust the content they receive, will they continue to use these systems?
For those people (myself included) who are too lazy to interpret the specification and enter the code in yourself, you can find a C & C++ implementation here. Note a link to this and other useful information is provided from the original link.
Maybe I'm weird, but is sure feels great to slashdot the ABA!
I just don't understand this NASA / JHUAPL team. You'd think that crashing into an astroid would be enough, BUT NO, these guys need a second time. Just get it right the first time. You're giving us space-probe-obituary writers from getting ulcers.
<serious>This is quite impressive.</serious>
You can find it in the Internet Movie Database.
In the words of the music group Stxy from their 1980 song...
Well, I'm a jet fuel genius - I can solve the world's problems
Without even trying
I have dozens of friends and the fun never ends
That is, as long as I'm buying
Is it any wonder I'm not the president
(He's not the president)
Is it any wonder I'm null and void?
Is it any wonder I've got
Too much time on my hands, it's ticking away at my sanity
I've got too much time on my hands, it's hard to believe such a calamity
I've got too much time on my hands and it's ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands
My time estimate, while admittedly weak, is based on the assumption that reserve fuel would be available and that every ounce would be spent on changing the trajectory and returning to earth.
These are good points.
I can foresee a competition between the ad producers and proxy developers. It's evolution... Developing ads costs money. Hence most will use standard techniques which proxies can detect and filter. As schemes get blocked, ad agencies will just try different tactics. And so the proxies will need to handle these. And so on...
Particularly innovative designs will dodge the detection schemes. I don't see this as bad. My goal isn't to avoid seeing all ads (because I do enjoy the sophisticated ones), so a proxy which can filter out 90% is about perfect. Targeted advertising done well also reduces my demand for ad blockers. I enjoy the banners on Slashdot, for instance, and even buy some magazines for the ads!
A second point: viewers can record programs on television and use their VCR/Tivo to skip past unwanted information. The barrier, be it purchasing the unit of programming it in advance, is small, but people are lazy and watch the ads anyway. The same will be true for the net. The more annoying the ads are judged, the larger percentage will choose some blocking scheme. Adversizers have an incentive to keeps ads 'reasonable'.
On the other hand, I haven't had much incentive to use proxies because I really don't find banner ads all that annoying. With this new scheme, I suspect that proxy use will skyrocket!
One important lesson from Alpha, Mir, and even the US space shuttle is that when items break in space, they're hard to repair. The space shuttle is only expected to be in space for a few days (maximum of about 2 weeks, I belive). If something serious goes wrong, they can always abort the mission and land early. Likewise, Alpha and Mir underwent periodic resupply and in extreme cases could flee back to Earth.
Now consider a mission to Mars. This would have a duration of about 3 years. If you ran into problems two months out, if should take at least a month to return, and more likely 3 (depending of fuel capacity and burn rate). So, you simply fix the problem or you die. Now who here trusts their engineering for that project?
There's an additional factor of 2 because, on average, you only need to check half the possibilities. So it's actually 5 quadrillion years. See? Now that seems much more achievable!
About the movie
I don't know about a miniseries, but a movie is supposedly planned. According to a story last month in the Hollywood Reporter (as interpreted by Space.com), "Phil Tippett, Oscar-winning visual effects mastermind behind Star Wars, Starship Troopers and other FX-driven spectacles, will make his directorial debut with the project".
I'm not sure that I'd hold my breath, but it does sound intriguing.
Even if these did get to 95+% accuracy (conceivable in several years), primative encryption of the data defeats every on of these. I can easily imaging sending someone a encrypted data file, the java viewer, and a password embedded in the text of the email for decryption. Why do they bother with email???
The same approach could be applied to the web, though it would be slightly harder to implement.
As an undergrad years back, we considered putting together a system like this. We were planning to use an obscure game console, the Vectrex (image; emulator ) and projecting on the clouds above Los Angeles.
There are two problems with this approach. First, clouds aren't solid so higher altitude clouds are preferable and higher powered lasers necessary. Secondly, the FAA doesn't like lasers lighting up their airspace and possibly interfering with pilot's vision. The first issue didn't bother us, but lasers have a disadvantage that you can easily track them back to their source.
This was the most insightful and best researched bit of social commentary I've ever read on Slashdot.
I don't fully blame Congress or the candidates in the US for this situation. I hesitate to say this next bit: I blame the competition among the local news programs. I believe that in the competition for viewers, the major networks and their local affiliates learned that highlighting local stories involving violence, sex, and preferably both attracted viewers. The teasers like "see how this ordinary housewife obsession led her to kill her lover, after these messages" wouldn't be used unless they worked. Just as websites are judged by advertisers for their 'stickiness', TV news programs fight to keep viewers glued to the channel. The resulting coverage becomes more focused on violence than the statistics alone would justify.
A second important point is one of perception. The media may run one two minute spot discussing the "drop of violence according to a recent government report" and 200 stories about individual violent acts. To the viewer, the repetition will win out.
I'd like to conclude by saying that we also have ourselves to blame. As the viewing audience, we could select alternate news sources like Public Television (US) or the BBC. But we don't. Instead we gossip around the proverbial water cooler about the horrible carnage on last night's news. Maybe today's news is yesterday's gladiatorial combat.
I have a confession - I really want a D1. I bought a film camera about a year ago. I intentionally selected a vendor (Nikon) which made digital cameras which could use the same lens. To understand why this matters, when you buy a nice camera, you invariably buy nice lenses. Individually, these may equal or exceed the price of the camera body. As a collection, your lenses are where you make the serious investment. You don't want to throw this away when you select a digital camera.
Why should I care about using these lenses? There is the obvious benefit of extending the range of digital cameras to encompass telephoto, macro, and wide angle subjects. You also benefit from sharper photos with less spherical aberration. Your existing or new filters can be reused.
You may say (as I did) that this is all nice, but at several thousand, the D1 had better offer some other benefits. It does. The electronics are also superior. For a review see http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/d1/index. html . To summarize this report, the D1 has far less image noise and better control over saturation. See the images in the review.
Before jumping into this market, a few important numbers (in US dollars). The D1 is now about 9 months old and cost about $5k. Cannon is scheduled to release a similar camera this fall for $3.5k. I anticipate that Nikon will be introducing a successor to their D1 at a lower price point in the next few months, though I haven't heard any specific rumors.
Because Katz isn't a geek, and yet seeks to write about them in perpetuity, he continually convinces himself that there is an overall geek outlook.
There is an overall geek philosophy. Technology and innovation are valued above more conservative standards. When a millimeter-sized camera is announced, the geek will react first in appreciation (Neat. Cool. How does it work? Must get one.), then with caution (But what about privacy?), and finally with acceptance (Everyone will have one, but just wait until the micron-sized ones are released!).
The non-geek will react differently. First with detached appreciation (Look what those wacky scientists/engineers created.), then with caution (If I can monitor my son/daughter, does this mean they can watch me at work?), and finally with legislation (Digital Camera Protection Act).
The difference is that a geek believes that technical progress is its own reward. The non-geek wants to understand how technology impacts the social framework.
If you check out the expansion options on the Apple marketing page, you'll notice that you are correct. But who cares? These computers are not intended to meet the needs of every user. If you really must have the PCI slots, buy a traditional G4 machine. If, on the other hand, you match the tradional profile of a mac user who can get by with 2 USB ports, 2 400 Mbps Firewire ports, up to 1.5 GB DRAM, and an AirPort card, then this machine will work fine.
BTW: the picture of the disassembly is really cool.
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to leave my computer on 24x7. Unfortunately, it resides in the bedroom so the noise from the computer and CRT drives me crazy.
The Powermac Cube has a G4 and no fan. Apple has done this with G3's previously (iMac) but never a G4. So between this and the LCD, I'll finally have the silent system I've always wanted. Now if they can only squeeze a second processor into the case...
RM 101, I enjoyed your comments very much. Here's my take on the issue.
I try to practice what I preach. I work in the hi-tech industry and admire innovative companies. When I buy products, I try to pick the ones which demonstrate forward progress. I believe that Apple has helped push the industry forward, unlike another company (which shall remain nameless) which has proved more of an anchor.
Apple managed to migrate all their users from the Motorola 68000 to PowerPC architecture with minimal pain. That took balls. Apple is planning to migrate their OS from a custom kernal to a BSD based product. For a consumer oriented company, that definitely takes balls. Apple has firmly embraced SCSI, USB, FireWire, etc. Apple made ethernet standard equipment and is doing the same with wireless connectivity. Apple is shipping video editing software with some iMacs. Apple believes in leading edge industrial design. On both the hardware and software side, Apple has a consistent history of innovation which has helped stimulate the industry.
As primates age, they tend to get more agressive. Parrots may bite, but they don't generally break bones.
It all starts to make sense now.
Yep. I still disagree, but complain all you want. ;-)
The biggest advantage of 'traditional media' is that information is generally confirmed before publication. New media, in constrast, all too often must rely of rumors and shoddy confirmation to get the story out first.
Consider at how many stories on Slashdot have been withdrawn or severely modified after the original posting. This is a criticism, not condemnation. I appreciate the 'peer review' present here for technical issues which 'old media' cannot match.
Your closing sentence scares me.
This is intentional hyperbole. My long term argument (looking a few decades into the future) is that confining ourselves to a single planet is a dangerous strategy. Technological advances allow individuals / organizations / countries to affect larger areas and populations. Biotech weapons are a good example. They're currently very expensive and difficult to target, but the costs will dimenish and the control will increase. You can make similar arguments about nuclear weapons. Given that the surface area of the earth is not increasing, getting off the planet may be an essential long term survival strategy.
An extremist may argue that this should justify immediate and overwhelming investment. If migrating into space is our goal, I would only ask how our current spending helps achieve this goal. The X-38 launch program is great because it reduces cost to orbit. NEAR and DS-1 test technologies and may provide commercial incentives. But constantly reviewing Apollo seems counterproductive.
Everytime I read a review for an Apollo program I think - why are we constantly resting on past accomplishments? This chapter of history has been covered in rich detail in numerous books, documentaries, and even Hollywood movies. I know that the authors of these accounts favor an investment in space. Why then, then, do these chronicles seem so melancholy?
Get off you ass, mankind. Earth - been there done that. Time for something new.