This comment and the parent comment frustrate me. They are short-sighted criticisms of a fundamentally new technology. I've held samples of this technology in my hand, and its potential is staggering. Sure, the current prototypes are a bit crude in terms of contrast and resolution, but these are engineering issues that will go away with time and more R&D money.
The two key features that make this a revolutionary new display technology is that it is thin and flexible (and can be manufactured and processed as giant sheets) and that it is bi-stable, meaning once you set the image it takes no power to retain that image. These two features are unlike any other display technology we have today, and unltimately will define the applications it is appropriate for. This really does have the potential to radically change periodical print media, personal printing, and poster/billboard advertising.
In the future, I would encourage you to learn a little bit more about a new technology before saying it sucks.
A lasting effect can be accomplished if you motion track the laptop and motion track the viewer's head. It requires a much more sophisitcated modeling of the environment than a still picture (not necessarily full 3D, but an image based approximatation woul suffice). This was done as reach work about 5+ years ago at UNC. It's a VERY neat experience, but the downsides are that a) it requires a cumbersome motion tracking infrastructure 2) still only works for one viewer.
They are "solar cells" or rather photovoltaic cells. Traditional light sensors would require a seperate power supply thus making a feasible implant impossible. These generate the electricity for stimulation directly from the light coming into the eye, which I would consider one of the more ingenius decisions about this approach.
I am not a security expert, but I am familiar enough with computer technology to know the dangers of taking it's security for granted and they simply relying on the good will of humanity to keep your system, property, or money safe is not a very good idea. Any security expert (computer or not) is paid to find flaws and opportunities to abuse freedoms allowed by a particular system. Becuase if someone can find a way to benefit from such a flaw, they will take advantage of it. Your mentality can be extrapolated to an argument against laws in general or for simply leaving your money on your front porch. If find your line of thought far more strange than the thought process of security professionals.
When you store digital video on tape, you don't store frames. You just store the file like any other magnetic media. Because of the cross frame compression, the decompressor will have to buffer the data in memory. This is true for DVD players as well. Trying to decompress directly off the tape (or any other media) without memory would be stupid.
Cross-frame/intraframe compression, it doesn't matter. It's just data. Tape is fine for this task and more stable than hard drives.
The sound is impressive for an off the shelf scanner. I do not know if they exist as a consumer product, but an optical record player would be quite significant. It would preserve the record by not causing physical wear and could likely be made much more sensitive than a needle. A flat bed scanner isn't really they way to go, but it's a definite and very impressive proof of concept.
I won't spend much time on this since your post is obviously not worth the time. The moderators that brought you up to a five apparently understood less about the topic than you do.
This is indeed a niche interest that when driven by market forces will become a bigger issue. But this is likely to happen with the coming generation of video cards (R300 & NV30) when high level shading algorithms can be implemented to run on GPU's (see post on raytracing). Being able to readback the framebuffer quickly will be critical to making this feature usable to. See this article. These media producers are also likely to be the same people that buy large disk arrays that can push 200MB/s which is comparable to HDTV production. It depends a who you are and what you need.
How you got into talking about internet streaming is beyond me.
I know from a small filmmaking background, the ability to copy move and manipulate media (audio or video) is an absolute necessity for small time filmmaking, or any other multimedia work for that matter. If can't use your favorite CD as a sound track for a short film you are making, you stuck with making your own music (or hiring a small band to make some for you). Neither of these are realistic options for a guy siting in front of his iMac.
It's also rather out of character for Apple to be depending on a third party to provide such a key piece of software. Chances are if new restrictions are introduced that inhibit Apple's "vision" they'll either buy Roxio, or release thier own piece of software that lack those restrictions. However, it may come in a pro/non-pro version ala Quicktime.
The original statement is correct. A single recording is never "completely" destroyed. It becomes more difficult to extract with introduction other signals and noise. The amount of recoverable information shrinks exponentially with each generation but never reaches zero. The amount of recoverable data left from each recording is a geometric function and sums to a constant, not infinity as you so boldy proclaim. As technology improves we can get closer and closer to this theoretical constant, extracting data that was previously too difficult to recover.
Seems to me you'd lose a lot of that HD picture after a few viewings too
The "D" stands for digital, which means that there is no degredation in quality between viewings or replications. This is only a problem when using analog equipment.
I work in acedemia (HCI at that) and the thought of RSI strike fear into professors and researchers because it disables them from being capable of doing anything for months at a time in a "publish or perish" type of environment. And the instant a fellow research says they've gotten RSI, everyone panics, blames UI technology, and becomes an evangelist for more sophisticated interaction techniques.
But all I can say is that I've used crappy keyboards and crappy mice for hours everyday for more than 16 years and I've never had a problem. To me RSI feel much more like a product of bad work habits and popular hysteria than a real problem that can be engineered/designed out.
Have humans really become this pethetically weak that we can't handle a simple task of sitting at a desk and using a regular keyboard and mouse? Technology really has made humans wimpy creatures.
Re:How to Think about Security
on
Byte Wars
·
· Score: 1
This apprach doesn't leave open the concept of prevention. It assumes that problem must already exist before a solution can be justified. This 5-step process seems overly naive to me. Creating a solution that can deal unforseen problems is good design.
It seems to me that Kazaa has now developed one of the first electronic business model that rivals the best brick and mortar models like that of Walmart.
From my understanding, Walmart has placed itself in the very convinient position where it does not own any of the product sitting on its shelves. They have become powerful enough that they simply rent out space in thier stores to manufactures, and they provide the customers. Any unsold product is the manufactures problem, not Walmarts.
Kazaa has now used P2P file sharing to place itself in the same position. They have a service which brings them an audience of 50 million people (over 1 million active at anyone time). And although I find thier practices a bit under handed, its incredibly smart with a lot of potential. They now have an audience the is large enough and consistent enough to rent or sell space in thier applications to partner companies. This distributed computing concept just pushes that concept even further. Kazaa can not only resell user information, they can resell computation as well as storage space. All of which could be buried in thier EULAs.
Although people who are used to the traditional philosophies of how software should behave, there is nothing necessarily caustic about this approach. Kazaa unfortunately has used it in the slimiest way possible. But if Kazaa teamed up with more legitimate institutions most people simply won't care and, honeslty, may care even less in the future as this becomes more common. The same can be said about many other technolgies we currently take for granted to day like credit cards.
In the HCI research community, there is actually quite a lot of work similar to this. It's generally refered as situationally aware, or context senstiive computing. The philosophy involves giving information systems about thier surroundings (location, time of day, tempurature, and even some other higher level abstract stuff like social context - in a meeting, etc.) in an effort to drive or moderate infromation delivery to the user.
Of course, the military has been very interested in this kind of technology for a while now because the applciation to wearble devices on soldiers in the battle field are obvious.
I did this once late one night at a unpopulated computer lab at a university. I did it during the holidays when most of the students had gone home. 100 computers, all ripping at the same time. You can pace yourself so that as you get the last computer, the first computer is done. You'll be pretty busy for the two hours it'll take you to rip a hundred CD's
Slashdot Mirror
This comment and the parent comment frustrate me. They are short-sighted criticisms of a fundamentally new technology. I've held samples of this technology in my hand, and its potential is staggering. Sure, the current prototypes are a bit crude in terms of contrast and resolution, but these are engineering issues that will go away with time and more R&D money.
The two key features that make this a revolutionary new display technology is that it is thin and flexible (and can be manufactured and processed as giant sheets) and that it is bi-stable, meaning once you set the image it takes no power to retain that image. These two features are unlike any other display technology we have today, and unltimately will define the applications it is appropriate for. This really does have the potential to radically change periodical print media, personal printing, and poster/billboard advertising.
In the future, I would encourage you to learn a little bit more about a new technology before saying it sucks.
A lasting effect can be accomplished if you motion track the laptop and motion track the viewer's head. It requires a much more sophisitcated modeling of the environment than a still picture (not necessarily full 3D, but an image based approximatation woul suffice). This was done as reach work about 5+ years ago at UNC. It's a VERY neat experience, but the downsides are that a) it requires a cumbersome motion tracking infrastructure 2) still only works for one viewer.
They are "solar cells" or rather photovoltaic cells. Traditional light sensors would require a seperate power supply thus making a feasible implant impossible. These generate the electricity for stimulation directly from the light coming into the eye, which I would consider one of the more ingenius decisions about this approach.
I am not a security expert, but I am familiar enough with computer technology to know the dangers of taking it's security for granted and they simply relying on the good will of humanity to keep your system, property, or money safe is not a very good idea. Any security expert (computer or not) is paid to find flaws and opportunities to abuse freedoms allowed by a particular system. Becuase if someone can find a way to benefit from such a flaw, they will take advantage of it. Your mentality can be extrapolated to an argument against laws in general or for simply leaving your money on your front porch. If find your line of thought far more strange than the thought process of security professionals.
When you store digital video on tape, you don't store frames. You just store the file like any other magnetic media. Because of the cross frame compression, the decompressor will have to buffer the data in memory. This is true for DVD players as well. Trying to decompress directly off the tape (or any other media) without memory would be stupid. Cross-frame/intraframe compression, it doesn't matter. It's just data. Tape is fine for this task and more stable than hard drives.
A quick jump of Google turned up a couple optical record players.
http://www.elpj.com/main.html
Still, it's pretty darn neat to do it with a scanner.
The sound is impressive for an off the shelf scanner. I do not know if they exist as a consumer product, but an optical record player would be quite significant. It would preserve the record by not causing physical wear and could likely be made much more sensitive than a needle. A flat bed scanner isn't really they way to go, but it's a definite and very impressive proof of concept.
I won't spend much time on this since your post is obviously not worth the time. The moderators that brought you up to a five apparently understood less about the topic than you do.
This is indeed a niche interest that when driven by market forces will become a bigger issue. But this is likely to happen with the coming generation of video cards (R300 & NV30) when high level shading algorithms can be implemented to run on GPU's (see post on raytracing). Being able to readback the framebuffer quickly will be critical to making this feature usable to. See this article. These media producers are also likely to be the same people that buy large disk arrays that can push 200MB/s which is comparable to HDTV production. It depends a who you are and what you need.
How you got into talking about internet streaming is beyond me.
I know from a small filmmaking background, the ability to copy move and manipulate media (audio or video) is an absolute necessity for small time filmmaking, or any other multimedia work for that matter. If can't use your favorite CD as a sound track for a short film you are making, you stuck with making your own music (or hiring a small band to make some for you). Neither of these are realistic options for a guy siting in front of his iMac.
It's also rather out of character for Apple to be depending on a third party to provide such a key piece of software. Chances are if new restrictions are introduced that inhibit Apple's "vision" they'll either buy Roxio, or release thier own piece of software that lack those restrictions. However, it may come in a pro/non-pro version ala Quicktime.
The original statement is correct. A single recording is never "completely" destroyed. It becomes more difficult to extract with introduction other signals and noise. The amount of recoverable information shrinks exponentially with each generation but never reaches zero. The amount of recoverable data left from each recording is a geometric function and sums to a constant, not infinity as you so boldy proclaim. As technology improves we can get closer and closer to this theoretical constant, extracting data that was previously too difficult to recover.
Seems to me you'd lose a lot of that HD picture after a few viewings too
The "D" stands for digital, which means that there is no degredation in quality between viewings or replications. This is only a problem when using analog equipment.
I work in acedemia (HCI at that) and the thought of RSI strike fear into professors and researchers because it disables them from being capable of doing anything for months at a time in a "publish or perish" type of environment. And the instant a fellow research says they've gotten RSI, everyone panics, blames UI technology, and becomes an evangelist for more sophisticated interaction techniques. But all I can say is that I've used crappy keyboards and crappy mice for hours everyday for more than 16 years and I've never had a problem. To me RSI feel much more like a product of bad work habits and popular hysteria than a real problem that can be engineered/designed out. Have humans really become this pethetically weak that we can't handle a simple task of sitting at a desk and using a regular keyboard and mouse? Technology really has made humans wimpy creatures.
This apprach doesn't leave open the concept of prevention. It assumes that problem must already exist before a solution can be justified. This 5-step process seems overly naive to me. Creating a solution that can deal unforseen problems is good design.
It seems to me that Kazaa has now developed one of the first electronic business model that rivals the best brick and mortar models like that of Walmart. From my understanding, Walmart has placed itself in the very convinient position where it does not own any of the product sitting on its shelves. They have become powerful enough that they simply rent out space in thier stores to manufactures, and they provide the customers. Any unsold product is the manufactures problem, not Walmarts. Kazaa has now used P2P file sharing to place itself in the same position. They have a service which brings them an audience of 50 million people (over 1 million active at anyone time). And although I find thier practices a bit under handed, its incredibly smart with a lot of potential. They now have an audience the is large enough and consistent enough to rent or sell space in thier applications to partner companies. This distributed computing concept just pushes that concept even further. Kazaa can not only resell user information, they can resell computation as well as storage space. All of which could be buried in thier EULAs. Although people who are used to the traditional philosophies of how software should behave, there is nothing necessarily caustic about this approach. Kazaa unfortunately has used it in the slimiest way possible. But if Kazaa teamed up with more legitimate institutions most people simply won't care and, honeslty, may care even less in the future as this becomes more common. The same can be said about many other technolgies we currently take for granted to day like credit cards.
In the HCI research community, there is actually quite a lot of work similar to this. It's generally refered as situationally aware, or context senstiive computing. The philosophy involves giving information systems about thier surroundings (location, time of day, tempurature, and even some other higher level abstract stuff like social context - in a meeting, etc.) in an effort to drive or moderate infromation delivery to the user. Of course, the military has been very interested in this kind of technology for a while now because the applciation to wearble devices on soldiers in the battle field are obvious.
I did this once late one night at a unpopulated computer lab at a university. I did it during the holidays when most of the students had gone home. 100 computers, all ripping at the same time. You can pace yourself so that as you get the last computer, the first computer is done. You'll be pretty busy for the two hours it'll take you to rip a hundred CD's