I think that most people who say they dislike visual effects actually think about USELESS eye candy.
A visual effect is useful only if it conveys additional information. It must not be used simply because it's possible to do so. For background/low importance tasks, I'll take a subtle icon animation over a modal dialog box any day.
It was mentionned in the more technical articles, but unfortunately I can't find back the links right now. It is mentionned on esa website (look at the bottom of Feb. 15). The press did not put much emphasis on the failure of that particular experiment either. There were pictures! Everything must have worked!
I suppose they wanted to make sure that the experiment would really be salvaged before announcing it.
To have a "trusted computing" environment as they want it, we need hardware to ensure that software is what it says it is.
Usually it involves having key (as in RSA) locked down in a temper-proof hardware chip, and the computer use that key to assert that the software it is about to run is indeed signed by and for that key. For example, a Linux kernel could be signed by such a key, and at boot time the system would validate it and if it passes, we can assume that it is not compromised by a virus or something. The kernel would then have the job to verify the rest of the programs it wants to run.
Of course the safety of such systems relies on the chips containing the keys. Any attempts to get them out of there would trigger them to self-destruct.
There is a project around working on an IBM card like that to provide a virtual currency, but i can't find the link right now. It basically runs an open source package, and the card can verify that it not modified. (I would like the link if anyone knows) It allows anyone to check the source code and see for themselves that it contains no backdoor.
Like any powerful technology, it can be used to do very good things(tm), and very bad things(tm).
Unsafe code is not subject to security checks of the.NET virtual machine. To execute unsafe code, you have to specifically grant those rights to the executing program. It is not something automatic.
Applications that require safety (for example running plugins downloaded from the net) simply don't allow those assemblies to be loaded.
The problem is that data does not have to cross the border to fall under the PATRIOT act jusridiction.
Canadian branches of US corporations can be ordered to give their data too. And THAT is the problem the governement tries to fix. It has nothing to do with "exported" data.
I agree that Canadian laws should not extend across our borders, but the reverse is true and US laws have nothing to do outside theirs.
Maybe our own universe is already unatractive to the infinite numbers of parallel-universe refugee. They do after all have another infinite number of better destinations to choose.
You can easily replace Ted's central data storage with something distributed such as a P2P network à la Kademlia.
They key point of his work is that all data is in the same globally adressable "carpet" that nobody can modify. Nothing is deleted, only added. When you want to "modify" something, you write a new copy and link to that new data instead. And you get the tree you talked about.
As long as someone on the network is interested in the data (ie. is caching it) it will remain available to everyone else.
This kind of program would be awesome for open source software. Imagine a fully distributed Sourceforge.
Has it occured to you that if writing language extensions were easier, you would do so more often?
We are already creating words (named functions), creating rules to use them (languages...) would allow you to create task-specific languages very easily.
As other posters noted, the.torrent contains the "signature" of the data, so you can be sure it is really what you asked for.
But unlike other p2p programs, you need to get the.torrent from a TRUSTED source, usually a web site, instead of searching the network itself using keywords.
This is why you can still get fakes on eDonkey even if the files are also identified by their hash. Of course if you are using a trusted website to get your ed2k:// links, you get the same benefits (minus the incredible bittorrent speed of course).
Using Google-Mind to search and "experience" other people's memory will drastictly alter the very concept of "individual".
I doubt stupid (and artificial) concepts such as "patentable intellectual property" will survive the process.
Anyway, i'll be part of a drm-free open-sourced mind-network. I'm confident in our collective problem solving skills to address those issues in due time.
Slashdot Mirror
Or Squeak, which already has tons of educational content (the primary objective of the language).
I think that most people who say they dislike visual effects actually think about USELESS eye candy.
A visual effect is useful only if it conveys additional information. It must not be used simply because it's possible to do so. For background/low importance tasks, I'll take a subtle icon animation over a modal dialog box any day.
BEFORE
/. Microsoft!
they were evil because they wanted to charge for something everybody using their crappy OS needs.
AFTER
they will be evil because they will bundle useful software with their OS killing competing third parties.
Have another good day on
Because people need help even (especially?) under a stupid governement.
It was mentionned in the more technical articles, but unfortunately I can't find back the links right now. It is mentionned on esa website (look at the bottom of Feb. 15). The press did not put much emphasis on the failure of that particular experiment either. There were pictures! Everything must have worked!
I suppose they wanted to make sure that the experiment would really be salvaged before announcing it.
It was specially planned in case of equipment failure, and to add redundency. Which obviously was a good idea in this case :).
Not that I completely disagree with you, but where else would you find people who are specialized (experts) in this?
But I agree that they should disclose it more visibly.
Yeah, damn those chemists. They know nothing.
Explain to me how STUDIES are irresponsible? It's not like they are on their way right now with their greenhouse gas factories.
What is irresponsible is not to think about it until it's too late.
Where the hell are we supposed to get that much of ANY gas?
From the article in the New Scientist: "The study found four fluorine-based gases that could be made of elements abundant on the Martian surface."
The New Scientist also has an article on the subject.
Eventually they will go too far and the whole thing will collapse, and we will again be able to do what we want.
And as things are going, too far might not be very farther.
And then your software by a chance in a trillion points to Taiwan as "country". And you get banned from Chinese market. Way to go boy!
To have a "trusted computing" environment as they want it, we need hardware to ensure that software is what it says it is.
Usually it involves having key (as in RSA) locked down in a temper-proof hardware chip, and the computer use that key to assert that the software it is about to run is indeed signed by and for that key. For example, a Linux kernel could be signed by such a key, and at boot time the system would validate it and if it passes, we can assume that it is not compromised by a virus or something. The kernel would then have the job to verify the rest of the programs it wants to run.
Of course the safety of such systems relies on the chips containing the keys. Any attempts to get them out of there would trigger them to self-destruct.
There is a project around working on an IBM card like that to provide a virtual currency, but i can't find the link right now. It basically runs an open source package, and the card can verify that it not modified. (I would like the link if anyone knows) It allows anyone to check the source code and see for themselves that it contains no backdoor.
Like any powerful technology, it can be used to do very good things(tm), and very bad things(tm).
Unsafe code is not subject to security checks of the .NET virtual machine. To execute unsafe code, you have to specifically grant those rights to the executing program. It is not something automatic.
Applications that require safety (for example running plugins downloaded from the net) simply don't allow those assemblies to be loaded.
Where is the problem again?
The problem is that data does not have to cross the border to fall under the PATRIOT act jusridiction.
Canadian branches of US corporations can be ordered to give their data too. And THAT is the problem the governement tries to fix. It has nothing to do with "exported" data.
I agree that Canadian laws should not extend across our borders, but the reverse is true and US laws have nothing to do outside theirs.
Maybe our own universe is already unatractive to the infinite numbers of parallel-universe refugee. They do after all have another infinite number of better destinations to choose.
ClearType can still improve text on a CRT, but since the pixels aren't correctly aligned as in a LCD it acts only as good anti-aliasing.
You can easily replace Ted's central data storage with something distributed such as a P2P network à la Kademlia.
They key point of his work is that all data is in the same globally adressable "carpet" that nobody can modify. Nothing is deleted, only added. When you want to "modify" something, you write a new copy and link to that new data instead. And you get the tree you talked about.
As long as someone on the network is interested in the data (ie. is caching it) it will remain available to everyone else.
This kind of program would be awesome for open source software. Imagine a fully distributed Sourceforge.
How is using one data serialization scheme over any other possible choice an abomination?
If you read TFA, you would notice that in their view, no human being would ever see or edit XML.
Of course you must still write Postscript instead of using a visual word processor.
Has it occured to you that if writing language extensions were easier, you would do so more often?
We are already creating words (named functions), creating rules to use them (languages...) would allow you to create task-specific languages very easily.
To make sciences look cool, you need to fix the problem that causes nerds to be unpopular.
As if
As other posters noted, the .torrent contains the "signature" of the data, so you can be sure it is really what you asked for.
.torrent from a TRUSTED source, usually a web site, instead of searching the network itself using keywords.
But unlike other p2p programs, you need to get the
This is why you can still get fakes on eDonkey even if the files are also identified by their hash. Of course if you are using a trusted website to get your ed2k:// links, you get the same benefits (minus the incredible bittorrent speed of course).
If there is *anything* that my computer can do for me, why would I want to do it myself?
Maybe you don't trust Microsoft, but indexing and personal agents technologies are the futur.
Don't have a closed mind.
Using Google-Mind to search and "experience" other people's memory will drastictly alter the very concept of "individual".
I doubt stupid (and artificial) concepts such as "patentable intellectual property" will survive the process.
Anyway, i'll be part of a drm-free open-sourced mind-network. I'm confident in our collective problem solving skills to address those issues in due time.