I think your "in the wild" point needs to be stressed here.
Study should say, "Microsoft theoretically more secure than Linux, if both sustained the same level of malicious attacks and exploit scrutiny"
I'd rather live in a hut than a castle always under siege. Not that I'm conceding the accuracy of their study in any event. I don't have any experience with their server software, but use both Linux and Windows, and don't need a study to tell me which one is more secure. Thank GOD for Firefox.
None of these numbers surprises me, and are probably accurate. I know people that are addicted to buying DVDs just to have them though they never watch them. I have a collection of about 50, but they are my all time favorites and I watch them all about once or twice a year (this is a little too obsessive the other way).
At Wallmart I recently saw DVDs on sale for $1 and $2. Granted nothing I'd like to watch, all old John Wayne movies and bad animation from the 50s, but at $1 dollar I have to admit I was almost tempted to by some very marginal crap (but restrained myself).
As for 4%, I have archived some of my movies, but it is a touchy time consuming business. For now, massive piracy is for East Asian DVD rings. BUT the MPAA is worried about trends, and home burning of DVDs won't always be above the average Joe. I only have a 1 layer DVD burner, which is what makes copying tricky, two layer burners probably would get the job done fine on the last generation of DVDs, but the blanks are over $10, so why not just get the original for $15? Of course dual layer DVD blanks will eventually be $1, and some years down the line so will Blu-Ray blanks. When you can archive 10 of your favorite DVDs to one Blu-Ray, well the industry is sweating about that.
You deal five cards then with + - / * try to find a combination that totals to a card you then put down as the target.
I found my own variation of crypto that worked well with my girlfriend's two children, one 9 and one 13. I had to use all 5 of my cards, the 13 year old had to use 4 of her 5, and the 9 year old only had to use 3. After yelling Crypto and laying out your winning hand, we would then examine the loosing hands to find a combination that would have worked for them.
True, true, and any modern CPU is way overkill for "The Game of Life" anyway, but this doesn't mean Cellular Automata have to be written as Integer only. What new routines could you write that comunicate between 27 processors to simulate 3D processes in a Cellular Automata way? Some new Protean Folding algorithms perhaps.
Some people may not be familiar with John Conway's Game of Life, though they have probably seen screen savers that demonstrate it. It is not really a game but the unfolding of a Cellular Automata simulation where each grid point state depends on the state of its 8 neighbors by a set of simple rules.
I actually thought immediately of Cellular Automata when I read some of the specs on the new Cell, and the name may just be a coincidence, but maybe not. It would be interesting to see a Cell architecture where there are 27 Cell sub-processors, because my Life is more than two dimensional.
On not once, but two separate and recent occasions I put new video cards during upgrades to my spare machines only to not seat the board completely and have the yellow blinking power light of "hey I have some kind of serious problem." Unplug, reseat board, repeat. Still blinking. Repeat. Still blinking. Take to used computer store. Only to find out the next day it works fine for them with no problem, so they charge the minimum one-hour service charge.
Moral of the story: if it might be an overloaded power supply from a one time short, give it a few hours and try again. Unless of course there is copious smoke emanating from said machine.
We are all born into a death-cult. Simply being told what death is and the knowledge that it will occur to us is what makes us members. The various major religions are the dominant death-cults. Any change to when death occurs interferes with their dogma. This usually manifests by making some moral judgment about interfering with what God has allotted us.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people given a choice between having babies and living a health vigorous life for +1000 years will choose the latter. Not all of course, see paragraph one. We don't even have to give up having babies entirely, but engage in a huge slow down. Say one baby per couple, per average lifespan to date. The rate of growth would slow and slow. Assuming accidental or eventual death it would even start to reverse at some point. In several centuries a couple of more population doubling may have occurred (I haven't done the math), but science will no doubt have progressed so far as to keep us all well fed.
Abrey De Grey may be onto something or not. I applaud his work not because I expect to live to One Thousand Years Plus, but because I believe in the Singularity with respect to progress. I think its most likely arrival is 50 to 100 years. An extra 50 human years nets me an immortality of transcendent survival in the machine. Maybe it comes in 30 years and I don't need De Grey's help. Maybe it comes in 300 years (I would mark this the outer bound for the Singularity), in which case I hope De Grey has gotten all the funding he wants.
I the meantime to hedge my bets even more, I'm getting brochures from Alcor
Things that fire the imagination often provide the groundwork for other things of more practical benefit. You berate donating cycles to SETI@Home versus say Folding.stanford.edu, BUT what are the chances the distributed online Folding project wouldn't even exist if SETI@Home hadn't blazed the trail?
Progress relies on a Free Market of ideas. Priorities must be made, but focusing everything on the few things deemed immediate and important will no doubt ironically cause a slowing of technology in general and impede progress in the long run on the very things you decide were more important to the exclusion of all else.
Of course there is always the morality card to be played by some as in "look how much better I am than you, I donate to such and such, and if you don't, you are morally bankrupt"
If I were a friend or relative I wouldn't want to find out by FOX or CNN news. My original post wasn't about ignoring American casualties, it's about ghoulishly focusing on them to the exclusion of the larger tragedy. I've seen no (confirmed) reports of any Americans dead (yet), but lots of speculation from the news sources on the possibility.
I saw this in the news last night and the death estimates where ludicrously low. This always seems to be the case for these types of events, while death estimates in Western countries always seem to start on the high side and trend down. I'm not sure why this should be. I understand that some less powerful countries (or more centrally controlled) always want to put the best spin on things, but during disasters it always ends up sounding like a Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition routine. Since this type of news is certain to get out, why delay it? Perhaps it is not purposely delayed in this case, but one certainly sees this happening often in other parts of the world. Granted downed communication networks make getting precise news hard (impossible), but perhaps I have already answered my own question. Maybe it's not so much about owning up to a terrible human tragedy, but an unwillingness of admitting not having the technology and infrastructure to make better estimates.
I've heard no word in the news about Arthur C. Clark. While thousands are dead, he likely has a sturdy structure to live in, and it would be unlikely statistically he perished. Has as been posted though, he lives on the coast so really stating any odds would be hard. I hope he is alive, but only to the extent I wish anyone life and happiness. He has lived a full life, and should he be gone our concern should be with the living. Ironically should he have perished, it would probably inspire more aid for those left alive.
Hopefully the now approximately 6000 estimate wont climb much higher, but if the past is any guide expect this to grow at least past 20,000.
BTW is it just me, or does it seem in poor taste for News outlets like FOX and CNN to focus on possible American casualties when these kind of natural disasters happen? I can understand this in the case of Attacks and Bombings, since Americans could be the targets. But with thousands dead, the news agencies are scrambling to find out if one or two Americans snuffed it.
Having a back collection of about 100 12" laser discs I can tell you this is not the way to go.
Sure they would have the storage, but the disks are THICK and HEAVY. They take time to spin up and stabilize. I suspect the wobble would be hard to deal with at the kind of track pitches DVD have, so you are only using a fraction of the area you could. They were expensive to produce even at the end, probably like 10 to 15 dollars to manufacturer, instead of 10 to 15 cents for DVDs. With Blu-Ray in sight there is just no need. Teleport us back 5-10 years and release something short of HD but better than DVD on 7" like an old 45rpm record, now your talking. 7" media can still be fairly thin and light, but still sturdy. I always liked the size, and can imagine the 7" jackets looking better than the stupid rectangle boxes DVDs come in. Probably would take up the same space or less in a storage rack.
To Rant on about DVD holders a moment longer, I guess they wanted to be sure you didn't mistake them for CD crystal cases (which admittedly are crap for holding up). Disney's early cases took the cake for being monstrously large, and wouldn't fit in standard DVD racks. I guess also the industry wants a standard case the can take two disks for extra long movies or the special features disks. Still what a waste of physical storage space if you want to keep your covers with the DVDs. I personally wish they would include a 5" square slick back flier so I could keep every thing in a CD valet (which I do for my travelling collection).
One final complaint about DVD cases, WHY can't they standardize on a release button that works, and works well, for all cases. While I'm always able to get the DVD out, there have been times I worried I might crack it in the process. I'm sure there are a lot of senior citizens that can't get them out at all from some cases.
I have to confess I have been googling on this matter the last 24 hours and am surprised by how many news sites picked up on the 1/233 1/300 chance when at 2 on the Torino scale, but a full day later, no major news sites are mentioning the move to a 4 (currently a 1/45 chance).
I don't see a conspiracy here, and do think we will be missed, but given how much they hyped previous possible events with less statistical support it is curious they aren't doing follow ups. Could just be that it's Christmas, and things in the science departments are on autopilot.
If this thing stays greater than 1/100 by Monday, expect the papers and television to start picking up on it again. There was a close encounter today with 2004-vw14 (something like 5 lunar orbit distance), and the kooks where on the net prophesizing doom (even though it wasn't all that big a rock). It may take some years to really get a bead on where this thing is going, likely going up and down in probability.
Expect no fewer than a dozen Death-Cults if it stays in double-digit probabilities. Do the Darwin Awards cover Death-Cults?
This should be an ideal transitional format (assuming it's not to prone to damage). I applaud the fact that this should beat back HD-DVD once and for all. However, movies will likely be released in 3 formats now: standard DVD, hybrid Blu-Ray/DVD (more expensive), Full Blu-Ray (more expensive still). The Full Blu-Ray being released months or years later with added features and improved HD definition. Until about 30 or 40 percent of people have Blu-Ray players, rental stores will not stock many titles (only a few blockbusters), and HD enthusiasts will have to buy disks at higher sell through prices.
This probably speeds the adoption of Blu-Ray players and while not a complete panacea in the interim, it is probably better than a protracted war between Full Blu-Ray and the crippled HD-DVD/DVD hybrid.
For those holding out for a Tera-byte disk of some sort with Ultra-HD, I think 25-50Gig standard HD is just about good enough, and should be around for awhile. My HD experience at home is already superior to going to our local Cineplex. Given that Blu-Ray can vary its bit rate on the fly all the way up to about double broadcast HD, and using better codecs to boot, this should make for some truly stunning Blu-Ray releases in the future. The digital release in theaters of Star-Wars were not (in pixel count) better than HD (about 1 mega-pixel for Phantom Menace and 2 mega-pixel for Attack of the Clones). Ultra HD would be what they call a 4k scan (about 4 thousand horizontal lines, 8 meg-pixel). Expect this to be what theaters start releasing in soon. A good HD (2k) scan will look virtually identical unless you have REALLY expensive equipment and a 10-foot wide screen. Many people can't tell the difference between a good upconverted DVD and HD on a good system. Knowing what a good HD source looks like, I'm pretty sure UHD finally gets us to the point of diminishing returns. Not that UHD won't ever catch on, just don't expect as rapid adoption as DVD or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. With HD specs already set in stone by the FCC, a custom higher format will have quite the battle to catch on.
I expect to have a Blu-Ray in my Computer by 2006. I may even start trying to sell off my DVD collection in 2005 before they become completely worthless. Given that most were purchased used on Amazon, it won't be that big a loss.
This probably won't be a popular opinion with the slashdot crowd, but the argument used to be there where no rival powers after the end of the Cold-War that could threaten the U.S. with nuclear ICBMs, thus missile defense was a colossal waste of money. And besides any terrorist nuclear threat was likely to come in via a storage container or small boat along our coast.
While the latter is still possible, we now have Korea probably a nuclear power, Iran trying to become a nuclear power and both developing ICBMs. And all I hear here is about what a waste of money this is. Even an imperfect shield is likely to be a deterrent to nuclear blackmail from Korea or Iran. And just call it a guess, but like Israel or not, if Iran had the bomb and a missile, I give it a 50-50 chance of just being crazy enough to lob it at Tel-Aviv.
I would rather see some slashdot reasonable alternatives to pursuing this technology that is other than wishful thinking and a can't-we-all-just-get-along mantra.
Did we make in Iraq? No doubt. Being wrong in Iraq doesn't mean we should prepare for threats from this area of the globe.
Pei Wei may not have persuaded a patent, but it still sounds amusingly like a we-stole-it-from-someone else defense. Relating to the previously posted Patent overhaul article, there needs to be a way to compensate prior art originators when their insights makes corporations millions down stream. Maybe if this were the case people and corporations wouldn't be so rabid to patent every little thought no matter how trivial.
But of course then lawyers would switch to suing who had first prior art rather then first valid patent.
I just saw a commercial and the 2nd screen was being used as a customized button interface.
Don't get me wrong, I think a 2nd small monochrome screen for a button interface could be a good idea, but the second screen on the DS is suppose to support color and advanced games interfaces, and the best some game engineer could think to do with it was make it for buttons.
Now the PSP looks sweet. Please people hold out for this one, with its larger wide screen display and DVD quality video on the go.
Your point about when people will adopt Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) is a good one.
Most people don't realize most of the HDTV, HDTV-Ready, HDTV-Compatible equipment they see at BestBuy is not TRUE HDTV. The Plasma and LCD stuff maxes out at 1280x768, the rear projection is marketed as 1080i, but if you read the small print you find it is 1600 lines horizontal not 1920, and this is an exaggeration based on the theoretical ability of the lens to resolve the tri-beam image. In truth there is no consumer brand HDTV that goes much above 1000 Horizontal lines of resolution when you factor in the artifacts from the front plastic concentrating sheet, the resolution on the individual tubes, the lens, the critical alignment, the critical focus.
My system is an NEC-135XL which can address 2500x2000, but in reality with all the tweaking I've done I'm probably lucky to get 1500 horizontal lines of resolution. However image quality is not a simple thing to measure. My 1500 lines displaying HDTV looks far better than most systems rated at 1600. The contrast is better, the color gamut is better, there is no pixalization. The image looks painted on the screen. What little softening there is from the limitations of the Lenses and focusing can actually make some Images look better.
My point is, no one yet has equipment that shows TRUE 1920x1080 save for maybe some $50,000+ systems. My projector would have been more than $30,000 had I purchased it new 7 yeas ago instead of $4,000 used 3 years ago (ebay). So there is still room to show off really good HDTV content as the equipment improves. So I don't necessarily think the HD-DVD will be good enough for equipment that will be out in 2-3 years time, though it would pass muster for most people today with what is in stores now.
DLP is a technology that has the potential to improve very quickly and can be used Front or Rear Projection. I predict it will improve past HDTV resolution soon, and will be marketed to people that want to really view their 5meg-pixel pictures without printing them. In fact I will go so far as to predict Our Display technologies will continue to increase in quality quickly for the next 10 years before leveling off at a Nirvana of about 10mega-pixel.
Since DLP will be easy to manufacture its cost will be quite modest, most of the cost will be in the light source it uses. A 10meg-pixel DLP system ten years from now will cost less than a 1meg-pixel DPL system today. DLP is more like chip manufacturing or CCD manufacturing, which is why I predict these improvements.
48" inch screens where rare and expensive 10 years ago. Now they are passe and can be had for less than $500. I'm sure people back then would have said that not many people would have 48"+ plus sets today. But most everyone I know does have 48"+ sets, or are planning on getting one.
Once the content is there, and the displays are affordable, Lots of People will opt for Big multi-mega-pixel displays.
Some final notes on the (hopefully) upcoming multi-mega-pixel displays: Though an HDTV signal will max out at 2 million pixels, it will look better when displayed on a 10 mega-pixel display. DVDs only have 720x480, but with proper scaling they look even better when viewed at 1920x1080. There are many signal processing tricks to make this so and it isn't just of matter of using multiple pixels for each DVD pixel. This is a just a guess, but I think 2 million pixels is as good as will be needed for moving images, and 10 million pixels are about has good as is needed for stills or any kind of computer application. The fact that a good still 35mm print is about 10 million pixels is probably no coincidence, as it full fills the eyes desire for detail. 35mm movie film may theoretically have the same 10meg resolution, but in reality it rarely exceeds 3 or 4 by the time it makes it to the movie house. Again, it is a matter of having evolved to the state that satisfies the eye's desire for detail. I would also argue that a digital direct 2 meg pixel is as good as or better than a sort of 3 or 4 meg movie film mega pixel. Maybe the people that drafted this standard knew what they were doing.
On a 32" inch set you are right DVD is good enough.
I have a 120" front projection system, and let me tell you the difference between HDTV and DVD isn't just minor but HUGE. A good HDTV source (and the quality on this front varies greatly depending on production) is better seen on my system than any Cineplex movie I've seen in the last 5 years (granted our local Cineplexes are crap).
Not many consumers today have 120" screens with high-end data grade projectors (I'm homebrew), but the quality of consumer TV Gear is improving at a phenomenal rate. 100"+ systems under $1000 will be the norm in 2 or 3 years time. Given how crappy (or expensive for passable) HDTV offerings were 5 years ago (with no channels to watch anyway) this is a bit of a surprise.
True 1920x1080 is finally a true movie going experience. When you see stuff shot in True 1080i with a good HDTV camera directly your jaw drops. Most stuff is still shot on 35mm and scanned in. This is superior to DVD, but not the huge improvement of direct to digital. There is something about the grain of most 35mm film that makes HDTV transfer kind of muddy and muted (granted scanning technologies will improve).
Instead of more pixels we now need higher scan rates (something I've brought up in other discussions). Instead of shooting movies in 24fps they should be shot in 60fps. 1080p at 60fps would be awesome and Blu-Ray has the capacity to pull it off. If you have ever noticed the choppiness of a fast sideways scroll of Text or Action at a Movie, you know what I'm talking about. Regular 35mm at 60fps could be marketed as IMAX35 or something to indicate a bump up in quality (though not true 70mm IMAX).
When you have the equipment to show the true difference (which I repeat is HUGE) you will notice and you will care.
This sounds great until you really look at the storage numbers.
A 4.6 GB DVD layer
And a 15 GB HD-DVD Layer
15 GB not even twice a 9 GB standard double layer disk. The few movies released in HD on DVD compressed and using VC9 are not full HD resolution. You think and extra 6 GB is going to get you there all the way???
Blu-Ray starts out with 25 GB single layer and 50 GB for double.
Even with the Mpeg 4 encoding, the makers will be struggling to get true full HD on the disks for 2 hour plus movies and forget the bonus features.
HD-DVD used to have 2/3 the storage of Blu-Ray, now it will have 1/3 (1/12 if Blu-Ray delivers on 8 layer media)
Might as well just release HD on multiple regular double layer DVD and have a tray switch disks when last disk is done.
What seems like an advance is really just going to make certain the majority of HD-DVD content will be over compressed and crappy compared to Blu-Ray. Plus it is unclear the HD layer will not be overly affected by interference from the regular DVD layer (I am assuming larger standard DVD pits might create more optical interference for the lower layer than if an HD-DVD layer were above), thus more prone to failure and damage.
The sad thing is I can't deny the marketing genius of it.
I believe it unlikely there are super microbes on Mars that could cause harm on Earth. As has been posted by others (and by myself to other previously posted life on Mars's articles). Martian microbes will be well adapted to living on Mars not Earth. Cactuses are well adapted to living in harsh deserts. One could call them battle hardened by the extreme conditions, yet put them your average garden and they go belly up (faster still if you try to raise them in a swamp), the same is likely to be true for Martian microbes. To them the harsh conditions of Mars will seem temperate, and the moist, warm, oxygen rich conditions of Earth will seem Hellish.
I for one would like to see a sample return mission soon from mars, but would like to see the samples returned to the ISS first for quarantine and study. This gives the ISS a true scientific mission, and allays many general population worries about a super-bug scenario. I for one would take the risk of a direct return mission, but in light of the recent failed Genesis return mission, I can see a great deal of public agitation in the making. This article at Space.com seems to indicate NASA is still planning on direct return. I realize that this keeps costs down, but for NASA survival and funding I would think public support should be more paramount. Its easier to get 10 billion approved for something the public supports as opposed to a billion for something the public is worried about.
All of this said, I would like to address the Andromeda scenario. I have never read the book, though I have read several of Michael Crichton's other books. I do own the DVD and have seen the film several times. I only have 2 quibbles with the movie version (and probably the book version as well). Why do all the organisms in Andromeda Strain evolve in lock step? Even when separated by hundreds of miles and in completely different environments? Most organisms radiate when evolving. Andromeda's microbes all evolve into a benign form that is then killed before it can evolve again.
The other nit-pick, why does clotted blood instantly turn to powder? I would think it would turn to a gooey, slimy, red jell like normal clotted blood. A scab is only solid and dry because it is exposed to the desiccating effects of air. Also once clotting starts, why does it race through the body? If the circulation stops due to clotting in one area, how does what is inducing clotting continue to travel through the whole body to induce clotting everywhere?
Minor nit-picks aside, I loved the movie, and you sometimes need to overlook a few details in order to motivate and move the plot along.
On to my last, and maybe most important, Andromeda Strain inspired point, and on this subject I am going to reverse myself a bit. What if life in the Universe is common, but only the microbe variety? What if it is rare and unlikely that multi-cellular life can arise because super strain type bugs like Andromeda kill them. The Andromeda strain envisioned by Michael Crichton was completely waste free, assimilating all Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen (albeit in a very specific ratio). Andromeda was more like a crystal than an organic, and one could imagine an Ice 9 scenario arising with such an organism. This would explain the Fermi Paradox, though not in a manner I'm hoping for. On the other hand, if we ever do detect signals from other Intelligences in the Universe, and they are relatively close by, then this would suggest such super bugs are unlikely.
Given the proximity of Mars, should such a super bug live there, we probably would have been exposed by meteorites from Mars already, so again I'm not so worried about our immediate neighborhood. And with a 4 billion-year history of life on Earth, I won't lie awake worrying such a bug will arrive tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps these are the chips Supercomputer manufactures should be building machines with. Sounds to be low in cost to build AND low in cost to run.
Study should say, "Microsoft theoretically more secure than Linux, if both sustained the same level of malicious attacks and exploit scrutiny"
I'd rather live in a hut than a castle always under siege. Not that I'm conceding the accuracy of their study in any event. I don't have any experience with their server software, but use both Linux and Windows, and don't need a study to tell me which one is more secure. Thank GOD for Firefox.
Your analysis is spot on.
File under: what to do when you are a hypocritical politician living large in a GREEN state.
At Wallmart I recently saw DVDs on sale for $1 and $2. Granted nothing I'd like to watch, all old John Wayne movies and bad animation from the 50s, but at $1 dollar I have to admit I was almost tempted to by some very marginal crap (but restrained myself).
As for 4%, I have archived some of my movies, but it is a touchy time consuming business. For now, massive piracy is for East Asian DVD rings. BUT the MPAA is worried about trends, and home burning of DVDs won't always be above the average Joe. I only have a 1 layer DVD burner, which is what makes copying tricky, two layer burners probably would get the job done fine on the last generation of DVDs, but the blanks are over $10, so why not just get the original for $15? Of course dual layer DVD blanks will eventually be $1, and some years down the line so will Blu-Ray blanks. When you can archive 10 of your favorite DVDs to one Blu-Ray, well the industry is sweating about that.
You deal five cards then with + - / * try to find a combination that totals to a card you then put down as the target.
I found my own variation of crypto that worked well with my girlfriend's two children, one 9 and one 13. I had to use all 5 of my cards, the 13 year old had to use 4 of her 5, and the 9 year old only had to use 3. After yelling Crypto and laying out your winning hand, we would then examine the loosing hands to find a combination that would have worked for them.
True, true, and any modern CPU is way overkill for "The Game of Life" anyway, but this doesn't mean Cellular Automata have to be written as Integer only. What new routines could you write that comunicate between 27 processors to simulate 3D processes in a Cellular Automata way? Some new Protean Folding algorithms perhaps.
I actually thought immediately of Cellular Automata when I read some of the specs on the new Cell, and the name may just be a coincidence, but maybe not. It would be interesting to see a Cell architecture where there are 27 Cell sub-processors, because my Life is more than two dimensional.
Moral of the story: if it might be an overloaded power supply from a one time short, give it a few hours and try again. Unless of course there is copious smoke emanating from said machine.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people given a choice between having babies and living a health vigorous life for +1000 years will choose the latter. Not all of course, see paragraph one. We don't even have to give up having babies entirely, but engage in a huge slow down. Say one baby per couple, per average lifespan to date. The rate of growth would slow and slow. Assuming accidental or eventual death it would even start to reverse at some point. In several centuries a couple of more population doubling may have occurred (I haven't done the math), but science will no doubt have progressed so far as to keep us all well fed.
Abrey De Grey may be onto something or not. I applaud his work not because I expect to live to One Thousand Years Plus, but because I believe in the Singularity with respect to progress. I think its most likely arrival is 50 to 100 years. An extra 50 human years nets me an immortality of transcendent survival in the machine. Maybe it comes in 30 years and I don't need De Grey's help. Maybe it comes in 300 years (I would mark this the outer bound for the Singularity), in which case I hope De Grey has gotten all the funding he wants.
I the meantime to hedge my bets even more, I'm getting brochures from Alcor
Progress relies on a Free Market of ideas. Priorities must be made, but focusing everything on the few things deemed immediate and important will no doubt ironically cause a slowing of technology in general and impede progress in the long run on the very things you decide were more important to the exclusion of all else.
Of course there is always the morality card to be played by some as in "look how much better I am than you, I donate to such and such, and if you don't, you are morally bankrupt"
9 unordered categories, multiple entries per category, this is not a "Top Ten List"
(OK I love to Nit-Pick)
I've heard no word in the news about Arthur C. Clark. While thousands are dead, he likely has a sturdy structure to live in, and it would be unlikely statistically he perished. Has as been posted though, he lives on the coast so really stating any odds would be hard. I hope he is alive, but only to the extent I wish anyone life and happiness. He has lived a full life, and should he be gone our concern should be with the living. Ironically should he have perished, it would probably inspire more aid for those left alive.
Hopefully the now approximately 6000 estimate wont climb much higher, but if the past is any guide expect this to grow at least past 20,000.
BTW is it just me, or does it seem in poor taste for News outlets like FOX and CNN to focus on possible American casualties when these kind of natural disasters happen? I can understand this in the case of Attacks and Bombings, since Americans could be the targets. But with thousands dead, the news agencies are scrambling to find out if one or two Americans snuffed it.
Sure they would have the storage, but the disks are THICK and HEAVY. They take time to spin up and stabilize. I suspect the wobble would be hard to deal with at the kind of track pitches DVD have, so you are only using a fraction of the area you could. They were expensive to produce even at the end, probably like 10 to 15 dollars to manufacturer, instead of 10 to 15 cents for DVDs. With Blu-Ray in sight there is just no need. Teleport us back 5-10 years and release something short of HD but better than DVD on 7" like an old 45rpm record, now your talking. 7" media can still be fairly thin and light, but still sturdy. I always liked the size, and can imagine the 7" jackets looking better than the stupid rectangle boxes DVDs come in. Probably would take up the same space or less in a storage rack.
To Rant on about DVD holders a moment longer, I guess they wanted to be sure you didn't mistake them for CD crystal cases (which admittedly are crap for holding up). Disney's early cases took the cake for being monstrously large, and wouldn't fit in standard DVD racks. I guess also the industry wants a standard case the can take two disks for extra long movies or the special features disks. Still what a waste of physical storage space if you want to keep your covers with the DVDs. I personally wish they would include a 5" square slick back flier so I could keep every thing in a CD valet (which I do for my travelling collection).
One final complaint about DVD cases, WHY can't they standardize on a release button that works, and works well, for all cases. While I'm always able to get the DVD out, there have been times I worried I might crack it in the process. I'm sure there are a lot of senior citizens that can't get them out at all from some cases.
I don't see a conspiracy here, and do think we will be missed, but given how much they hyped previous possible events with less statistical support it is curious they aren't doing follow ups. Could just be that it's Christmas, and things in the science departments are on autopilot.
If this thing stays greater than 1/100 by Monday, expect the papers and television to start picking up on it again. There was a close encounter today with 2004-vw14 (something like 5 lunar orbit distance), and the kooks where on the net prophesizing doom (even though it wasn't all that big a rock). It may take some years to really get a bead on where this thing is going, likely going up and down in probability.
Expect no fewer than a dozen Death-Cults if it stays in double-digit probabilities. Do the Darwin Awards cover Death-Cults?
This probably speeds the adoption of Blu-Ray players and while not a complete panacea in the interim, it is probably better than a protracted war between Full Blu-Ray and the crippled HD-DVD/DVD hybrid.
For those holding out for a Tera-byte disk of some sort with Ultra-HD, I think 25-50Gig standard HD is just about good enough, and should be around for awhile. My HD experience at home is already superior to going to our local Cineplex. Given that Blu-Ray can vary its bit rate on the fly all the way up to about double broadcast HD, and using better codecs to boot, this should make for some truly stunning Blu-Ray releases in the future. The digital release in theaters of Star-Wars were not (in pixel count) better than HD (about 1 mega-pixel for Phantom Menace and 2 mega-pixel for Attack of the Clones). Ultra HD would be what they call a 4k scan (about 4 thousand horizontal lines, 8 meg-pixel). Expect this to be what theaters start releasing in soon. A good HD (2k) scan will look virtually identical unless you have REALLY expensive equipment and a 10-foot wide screen. Many people can't tell the difference between a good upconverted DVD and HD on a good system. Knowing what a good HD source looks like, I'm pretty sure UHD finally gets us to the point of diminishing returns. Not that UHD won't ever catch on, just don't expect as rapid adoption as DVD or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. With HD specs already set in stone by the FCC, a custom higher format will have quite the battle to catch on.
I expect to have a Blu-Ray in my Computer by 2006. I may even start trying to sell off my DVD collection in 2005 before they become completely worthless. Given that most were purchased used on Amazon, it won't be that big a loss.
While the latter is still possible, we now have Korea probably a nuclear power, Iran trying to become a nuclear power and both developing ICBMs. And all I hear here is about what a waste of money this is. Even an imperfect shield is likely to be a deterrent to nuclear blackmail from Korea or Iran. And just call it a guess, but like Israel or not, if Iran had the bomb and a missile, I give it a 50-50 chance of just being crazy enough to lob it at Tel-Aviv.
I would rather see some slashdot reasonable alternatives to pursuing this technology that is other than wishful thinking and a can't-we-all-just-get-along mantra.
Did we make in Iraq? No doubt. Being wrong in Iraq doesn't mean we should prepare for threats from this area of the globe.
But of course then lawyers would switch to suing who had first prior art rather then first valid patent.
I just saw a commercial and the 2nd screen was being used as a customized button interface.
Don't get me wrong, I think a 2nd small monochrome screen for a button interface could be a good idea, but the second screen on the DS is suppose to support color and advanced games interfaces, and the best some game engineer could think to do with it was make it for buttons.
Now the PSP looks sweet. Please people hold out for this one, with its larger wide screen display and DVD quality video on the go.
Most people don't realize most of the HDTV, HDTV-Ready, HDTV-Compatible equipment they see at BestBuy is not TRUE HDTV. The Plasma and LCD stuff maxes out at 1280x768, the rear projection is marketed as 1080i, but if you read the small print you find it is 1600 lines horizontal not 1920, and this is an exaggeration based on the theoretical ability of the lens to resolve the tri-beam image. In truth there is no consumer brand HDTV that goes much above 1000 Horizontal lines of resolution when you factor in the artifacts from the front plastic concentrating sheet, the resolution on the individual tubes, the lens, the critical alignment, the critical focus.
My system is an NEC-135XL which can address 2500x2000, but in reality with all the tweaking I've done I'm probably lucky to get 1500 horizontal lines of resolution. However image quality is not a simple thing to measure. My 1500 lines displaying HDTV looks far better than most systems rated at 1600. The contrast is better, the color gamut is better, there is no pixalization. The image looks painted on the screen. What little softening there is from the limitations of the Lenses and focusing can actually make some Images look better.
My point is, no one yet has equipment that shows TRUE 1920x1080 save for maybe some $50,000+ systems. My projector would have been more than $30,000 had I purchased it new 7 yeas ago instead of $4,000 used 3 years ago (ebay). So there is still room to show off really good HDTV content as the equipment improves. So I don't necessarily think the HD-DVD will be good enough for equipment that will be out in 2-3 years time, though it would pass muster for most people today with what is in stores now.
DLP is a technology that has the potential to improve very quickly and can be used Front or Rear Projection. I predict it will improve past HDTV resolution soon, and will be marketed to people that want to really view their 5meg-pixel pictures without printing them. In fact I will go so far as to predict Our Display technologies will continue to increase in quality quickly for the next 10 years before leveling off at a Nirvana of about 10mega-pixel.
Since DLP will be easy to manufacture its cost will be quite modest, most of the cost will be in the light source it uses. A 10meg-pixel DLP system ten years from now will cost less than a 1meg-pixel DPL system today. DLP is more like chip manufacturing or CCD manufacturing, which is why I predict these improvements.
48" inch screens where rare and expensive 10 years ago. Now they are passe and can be had for less than $500. I'm sure people back then would have said that not many people would have 48"+ plus sets today. But most everyone I know does have 48"+ sets, or are planning on getting one.
Once the content is there, and the displays are affordable, Lots of People will opt for Big multi-mega-pixel displays.
Some final notes on the (hopefully) upcoming multi-mega-pixel displays: Though an HDTV signal will max out at 2 million pixels, it will look better when displayed on a 10 mega-pixel display. DVDs only have 720x480, but with proper scaling they look even better when viewed at 1920x1080. There are many signal processing tricks to make this so and it isn't just of matter of using multiple pixels for each DVD pixel. This is a just a guess, but I think 2 million pixels is as good as will be needed for moving images, and 10 million pixels are about has good as is needed for stills or any kind of computer application. The fact that a good still 35mm print is about 10 million pixels is probably no coincidence, as it full fills the eyes desire for detail. 35mm movie film may theoretically have the same 10meg resolution, but in reality it rarely exceeds 3 or 4 by the time it makes it to the movie house. Again, it is a matter of having evolved to the state that satisfies the eye's desire for detail. I would also argue that a digital direct 2 meg pixel is as good as or better than a sort of 3 or 4 meg movie film mega pixel. Maybe the people that drafted this standard knew what they were doing.
I have a 120" front projection system, and let me tell you the difference between HDTV and DVD isn't just minor but HUGE. A good HDTV source (and the quality on this front varies greatly depending on production) is better seen on my system than any Cineplex movie I've seen in the last 5 years (granted our local Cineplexes are crap).
Not many consumers today have 120" screens with high-end data grade projectors (I'm homebrew), but the quality of consumer TV Gear is improving at a phenomenal rate. 100"+ systems under $1000 will be the norm in 2 or 3 years time. Given how crappy (or expensive for passable) HDTV offerings were 5 years ago (with no channels to watch anyway) this is a bit of a surprise.
True 1920x1080 is finally a true movie going experience. When you see stuff shot in True 1080i with a good HDTV camera directly your jaw drops. Most stuff is still shot on 35mm and scanned in. This is superior to DVD, but not the huge improvement of direct to digital. There is something about the grain of most 35mm film that makes HDTV transfer kind of muddy and muted (granted scanning technologies will improve).
Instead of more pixels we now need higher scan rates (something I've brought up in other discussions). Instead of shooting movies in 24fps they should be shot in 60fps. 1080p at 60fps would be awesome and Blu-Ray has the capacity to pull it off. If you have ever noticed the choppiness of a fast sideways scroll of Text or Action at a Movie, you know what I'm talking about. Regular 35mm at 60fps could be marketed as IMAX35 or something to indicate a bump up in quality (though not true 70mm IMAX).
When you have the equipment to show the true difference (which I repeat is HUGE) you will notice and you will care.
A 4.6 GB DVD layer And a 15 GB HD-DVD Layer
15 GB not even twice a 9 GB standard double layer disk. The few movies released in HD on DVD compressed and using VC9 are not full HD resolution. You think and extra 6 GB is going to get you there all the way???
Blu-Ray starts out with 25 GB single layer and 50 GB for double.
Even with the Mpeg 4 encoding, the makers will be struggling to get true full HD on the disks for 2 hour plus movies and forget the bonus features.
HD-DVD used to have 2/3 the storage of Blu-Ray, now it will have 1/3 (1/12 if Blu-Ray delivers on 8 layer media)
Might as well just release HD on multiple regular double layer DVD and have a tray switch disks when last disk is done.
What seems like an advance is really just going to make certain the majority of HD-DVD content will be over compressed and crappy compared to Blu-Ray. Plus it is unclear the HD layer will not be overly affected by interference from the regular DVD layer (I am assuming larger standard DVD pits might create more optical interference for the lower layer than if an HD-DVD layer were above), thus more prone to failure and damage.
The sad thing is I can't deny the marketing genius of it.
I for one would like to see a sample return mission soon from mars, but would like to see the samples returned to the ISS first for quarantine and study. This gives the ISS a true scientific mission, and allays many general population worries about a super-bug scenario. I for one would take the risk of a direct return mission, but in light of the recent failed Genesis return mission, I can see a great deal of public agitation in the making. This article at Space.com seems to indicate NASA is still planning on direct return. I realize that this keeps costs down, but for NASA survival and funding I would think public support should be more paramount. Its easier to get 10 billion approved for something the public supports as opposed to a billion for something the public is worried about.
All of this said, I would like to address the Andromeda scenario. I have never read the book, though I have read several of Michael Crichton's other books. I do own the DVD and have seen the film several times. I only have 2 quibbles with the movie version (and probably the book version as well). Why do all the organisms in Andromeda Strain evolve in lock step? Even when separated by hundreds of miles and in completely different environments? Most organisms radiate when evolving. Andromeda's microbes all evolve into a benign form that is then killed before it can evolve again.
The other nit-pick, why does clotted blood instantly turn to powder? I would think it would turn to a gooey, slimy, red jell like normal clotted blood. A scab is only solid and dry because it is exposed to the desiccating effects of air. Also once clotting starts, why does it race through the body? If the circulation stops due to clotting in one area, how does what is inducing clotting continue to travel through the whole body to induce clotting everywhere?
Minor nit-picks aside, I loved the movie, and you sometimes need to overlook a few details in order to motivate and move the plot along.
On to my last, and maybe most important, Andromeda Strain inspired point, and on this subject I am going to reverse myself a bit. What if life in the Universe is common, but only the microbe variety? What if it is rare and unlikely that multi-cellular life can arise because super strain type bugs like Andromeda kill them. The Andromeda strain envisioned by Michael Crichton was completely waste free, assimilating all Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen (albeit in a very specific ratio). Andromeda was more like a crystal than an organic, and one could imagine an Ice 9 scenario arising with such an organism. This would explain the Fermi Paradox, though not in a manner I'm hoping for. On the other hand, if we ever do detect signals from other Intelligences in the Universe, and they are relatively close by, then this would suggest such super bugs are unlikely.
Given the proximity of Mars, should such a super bug live there, we probably would have been exposed by meteorites from Mars already, so again I'm not so worried about our immediate neighborhood. And with a 4 billion-year history of life on Earth, I won't lie awake worrying such a bug will arrive tomorrow.