In fairness, there are people out there who end up in charge of systems that don't have the time, inclination, or experience to install patches, upgrades, updates, etc. The people who did the default install and left it at that.
These are the people that are potentially at risk. Sure, Microsoft's code has just as many (if not more) holes in it. But the holes aren't as well known.
In a perfect (or at least mostly-intelligent) world, the Open Source argument wouldn't exist, and we'd all have more time to devote to hangliding.
But then, communism is the "perfect world" - on paper anyway.
Maxis made some wonderful manuals for the Sim games - also the About boxes were full of laughs. Haven't bought one lately, so I don't know if EA killed that, but I hope not.
Actually, as stated in the article, cable consumes more bandwidth than the Internet connection and therefore a "trap" which will basically choke the cable connection out of the line, will work.
I'm going to take issue only with a few points here.
No USB 2
Why would you want it? USB 2.0 may give yout 480 Mbps instead of 400, but they have virtually identical tranfer rates (limitations of the external drive's mechanism, usually). plus, FireWire is less processor intensive.
FireWire is meant for a wider range of applications. Monitors, for instance, can use FireWire to communicate. FireWire also allows devices to communicate with each other directly, meaning with your DV camera could play directly to your monitor, or record directly to your DVD-R. Sure, you *only* get 63 devices, but unless you're setting up a huge RAID system (over USB 2.0?), it's not an issue.
Also, FireWire can offer more power than USB over-the-cable, allowing a wider range of devices that do not need separate power connectors.
Sealed construction
This is a mindset more than a drawback. For the never-happy gamer, a full-ATX case is the only way to go. But for most people, once you have the computer running the way you want it, opening it up isn't high on the priority list. Add more RAM, maybe, but that's easy enough to do with an iMac (unscrew the bottom). As for additional drives, that's why they included FireWire. Few people want to mess with external drives, but then, few people need them.
Prefer Linux OS
What do you get in Linux that you can't have in MacOS X? emacs? No. XFree? No. KDE? GNOME? Thousands of free applications? No, no, no. The only thing you don't get is source for the GUI. You can get Darwin and play with the kernel. You can even use XFree + Darwin to replace MacOS X, but you lose access to the software so many people spend time in Windows for - Office.
--
I will say that it would be cool to be able to detatch the arm and monitor, being able to tuck your computer under your arm would be a nice little option. Of course, that's what laptops are for.
--
If you lived here, you would be home right now.
Well, there are several angles to look at. I'm going to hazard a few guesses at the situation, and hopefully I won't be too far off.
Accounts: You mentioned many accounts, so part of the problem could be (not saying that you don't know, just that I don't). different users on different boxes. It's initially easier to use groups to clear up these issues, and tackle account changes later. Create some extra users to make usernames match for box to box, and then group them together so they all can access the appropriate files. This still leaves room for account name matching later.
File System Uniformity: Some people will probably think this is an awful solution, but if you use a single directory (like/mnt) and mount/link everything to identical naming on each box, you won't have the location problems. Sure, it's cyclical to have/ linked to/mnt/mylinuxbox on your linux box, but you will always know that your MP3s are in/mnt/mylinuxbox/mp3 (or whereve the hell they are).
Remote Access to your Filesystems: I'm not really qualified for this one, but the NFS/SSH combo is secure and tried. If you don't mind the at-home network traffic, you can make life easier by mounting everything on one computer, and then mounting it. Not recommended for heavy use, but it's easier than managing four connections.
Mirroring is OK if you have specific, regular downtime that the computers can spend, or you have an OC-3 from home to work and great drive access times. The probelm mirroring can present is synchronization lag. Unless you specifically set up your mirroring to syns ASAP, what will you do if you make it home before your data does? Live access does two things; you only transfer the files you need, and you don't have to worry about sync'ing. Plus, what's the point of the Internet if not to make information available? : )
Organization: I've been re-organizing my files for years now, and the best this I've done for most files is to just simplify. I used to make subdirectories for everything. Just recently I have realized the real intent of the "filing cabinet" metaphor...
Filing cabinets are only ever four layers deep. Department (what the cabinet is for - cabinets and drawers are physical limitations, not part of the concept), Group (Hanging Folders), Project (Manila Folders) and then files. Sure, you may end up with alot of "Groups", but that is what alphabetization is for.
Mind you, I haven't managed to change over all of my filing systems to this format. It takes time to sit down and think about what should be where. But it seems (at least to me) like a good though for personal file organization.
The Power Supply in your computer may not mind square waveform because it's just making nice clean DC out of it, but I think the more sensitive components in your computer wouldn't like it so much.
Of course, you could go laptop auto-adapter style and have a clean DC-to-DC conversion.
Not just terraforming, but this makes a manned mission truly feasible. With huge stores of water available, we won't need to waste energy on moving as much. This means a manned Mars mission could be much cheaper.
I really hate it when people point at statistics and say, "Cloned animals don't survive very often!"
Neither do people.
Approxiamtely 70% of human conceptions fail; usually in the first week or so. (Have you ever heard a woman say she was late? Well, odds are she was pregnant for a short while.) We don't really pour money into studying naturally aborted pregnancies (at least I don't think we do...) so we really can't say what kills us.
As for cloning defects, there may be problems with our technique. But that's what research is for - finding out what happens and why, and making changes. Sure it might not work right now, but does that mean we should give up on the future?
We could take cells from embryos without harming them - they do this in fertility clinics to test for certain genetic anomalies and diseases. Why, then, could we not take a four-cell embryo, break two cells off, let half go on to be a child (possibly, anyway), and continue to harvest cells from the other half?
Look, no death. You instantly have a child and a source of stem cells to treat any future diseases it may contract.
If you want to really go over the top with it, you could even try to have the same baby again if you lost it the first time.
*Disclaimer* A geneticist I am not, so if my idea contains some horrible erroneous technical assumption, let me know.
The simple fact is software, music, art, etc, can only be free if we live in one of two types of societies:
1. Communism/Socialism: If the government has the ability to support people who are furthering the minds of the people/state, then art, music, and software can be free to us, even if we are not free oursleves.
2. Social Democracy: This concept is much harder for Americans than others, as it is contrary to pure capitalism. We would have to support those who make a contribution to our state, but whose contribution should be free. In this model, the government funds artists, music costs are virtually non-existant (you would still have to pay "cost" for physical media, and a "artist tax") and we can get all the music and software for nothing.
The US is a social/capitalist democracy, and very often we are living in the No Man's Land between the two sides.
Sorry for the rant.--
Freedom of Information doesn't mean that information is free.
Guilt? There is no guilt. In an attempt show good faith efforts being made, Microsoft will start modularizing their OS.
Soon, spurred by the concept of modularity, they will make the jump to encapsulation. Further moved by the benefits this produces, they will convert all Microsoft codebases to Visual C++.
After the massive outcry from all the people who really hate C++ because few things need the OOP that C++ gives you (and b/c Microsoft's default OS install will have bloated to 2GB) Microsoft will slowly convert everything over to C#, and the entire operating system will then be based on.Net.
Spurred on by this, Microsoft will then drop the current licensing scheme, and offer operating systems as.Net service only -.Net boot loaders will be free.
Soon, licensing will be directly attached to your.Net Passport, and corporate logins will be another service of Windows.Net. Companies will pay exorbitant fees to set up XP.Net Networks. No one will need Exchange anymore, as we will all have Hotmail.Net accounts, now a pay-per-message service. There will be surcharges for leaving a company, as your Identity.Net profile will have to be updated.
Microsoft will then make the push to DataCenter.Net - ending support for hard disks in client computers accidentally when a particularly malicious.Net virus they can't seem to kill prevents any fixed drives from functioning on computers with a video card. All companies will be required to license DataCenter.Net on a Hardware.Net compliant server to be able to store any files on fixed media, or they can purchase private space on Microsoft's CentralFile.Net.
The need for bandwidth will increase exponentially, as your will need to download an operating system everytime you log in. To improvie the bandwidth situation at your company, you will be able to license OSProxy.Net. To cope with the ever-increasing need for their own bandwidth, starting up a computer will become a "service" of Microsoft, as will OS updates, even minor builds. To prevent version conflicts, you will only be able to have the most recent version of Windows.Net. If an upgrade occurs and your computer is not capable of handling the new version (which you just paid for by attempting to download it), you will receive a message directing you to both local stores where you can purchase acceptable hardware and computer recycling centers.
Excited by the money Microsoft is making with this method, software vendors will flock to join the Software.Net program, allowing you to pay usage licensing instead of flat rates for almost any program or utility. Many gaming companies will stick with CDs, with increased development for Macintosh and Linux. Sadly, installing from a CD will require a small per-use fee for Add/Remove Programs.Net
On the upside, though. Windows.Net will be completely modular, ensuring that you can use any browser you wish to take the time of loading each time you start up.
They did mention replicators (Molecular Manufacturing). The ability to create complex molecular structure without large equipment is a very exciting concept...
Then comes the problem of the trillions of trillions of bytes of storage it would need to know how to create anything. We would probably have to create absolutely incredible new storage and compression technologies to make it work well. That, or we could carry around suitcases filled with Super-MegaDVD v9 discs (the 60 terabyte verions;) and spend a day watching messages like, "Please insert disc 371..." to have the computer build us that watch we really like.
My bet for future data storage is a microscopic version of IBM's storage brick - something that can be easily added to, is self-maintaining, and takes up as little space as is possible.
I truly hope it makes it this time. With the movie industry desperately looking for the next big movie, I think it will.
There seem to be three trends in major movies right now - epics (LotR, Star Wars), series (Matrix, LotR, Star Wars), and comics (Spider-Man, Incredible Hulk). I think the scope of Ender's will be tempting enough for some nice funding.
The excessive bandwidth problem that you suggest was already taken care of (to an extent) in the form of multicast.
Multicast would allow that radio station to send one packet (theoretically, but the header would be HUGE with 4,000,000 addresses in it) to reach everyone, or at least fewer packets to reach everyone.
As far as the OC-9645 goes, you forgot to multiply by 3 after. OC lines scale up linearly, so the 51.84 = 3. The line would need to be an OC-28935 for full one-to-one packet-to-recipient ratio.
People who are born with visual impairments that can be corrected with technology (i.e. not visual cortex failure) have very low chances of worthwhile results.
When the brain never receives stimulus in a cortex, it never forms any pathways. That portion of the brain, while functional, makes no connections with anything else. A person with visual implants might be able to see as well (maybe better) than you and I, but they wouldn't understand what they saw. They would have technical function but no visual acuity.
This same issue has been demonstrated in people who grew up deaf. They may obtain the ability to hear, but understanding is something they can most likely never acheive. The new sense has missed the "formative" years of the brain, and the individual will never be able to use the sense as others do.
For those who have a hard time comprehending this concept (which is completely understandable), liken it to suddenly having wings surgically attached. Sure, you may have wings, and it's physically possible to fly, but you've never had wings before. They don't work like arms or legs, and you'll probably never learn to control them well enough to fly.
If you still aren't sure, watch At First Sight. It shows quite well the problems a person would face were they to regain sight. And keep in mind, he once could see.
I think most people think that companies actively choose to not make Linux versions of their software, whereas it is not really the case.
Writing one application for Linux (take QuickTime Player, for example) doesn't require that much work. It's writing the compatibility code. Unlike commercial operating systems which have a few functionally different versions out (e.g. Win 9x, NT, 2k, Me, XP) and don't require in-depth compatibility testing. Running QuickTime in Linux reminds me of old combinatorics math problems (6 shirts, 3 ties, 8 pairs of pants, 4 pairs of shoes = 576 outfits)... A dozen or so linux distros, a dozen or so kernel versions, a dozen or so versions of XFree, a myriad of window managers...
There are thousands of "versions" of Linux out there, and writing an application to cover all of them isn't a walk in the park. Sure, you could say "well, we'll stick to the latest and greatest, but that leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
So when it comes to Linux support, companies look at the distros, kernels, X, window managers, sound managers, stable & unstable, release and pre-release, main, contrib, non-free......they end up asking themselves if it's worth the time for the number of users.
I don't doubt that some Linux users would accept the fact that they needed certain packages or had to meet certain requirements to install the software. But if Apple came out with QuickTime for RedHat and Mandrake, most everyone else would complain, and in the end Apple would get more flack than goodwill out of their efforts.
It's easy to be paranoid when the general public fears/loathes your operating system (kinda like being a Mac user, but with more hash marks), but it comes down to good business. Companies aren't about to release the source to much of their commercial software, and while the open source community can do great things, it doesn't offer great potential as a "development division" for an established company who lives by the reputation that everything just works.
Say what you will about Apple, but there is method to that madness. Look at the Software Update downloads. Huge lists of print drivers for that "it just works" USB experience that Windows would love to have. The iPod that auto-syncs and has one, count them, one port. iMovie that auto-recognizes hundreds of DV Cams. iPhoto that auto-downloads images from hundreds of cameras. iTunes that finds all your music so you don't have to. iDVD that makes content creation a relaxing pastime. USB & FireWire are both hot-connect technology. Wi-Fi with DHCP and Bluetooth both practically auto-configure.
While Apple may have brought the command line to the Macintosh, they spent much more time leaving the challenges and comment-filled plain-text config files behind. QuickTime in Linux won't fly because it won't be a click-through experience.
I'm with you on the TiBook. As sleek and slim and shiny as it is, there's something about the shape/design of the thing that isn't as appealing as my Pismo.
The Pismo case could easily be used today. Plenty of space for the components, still only one PC Card slot, but they were popular when you didn't have (almost) everything on-board. The 14" screen is comfortable, easy to look at and not too low or high resolution to be comfortable for most people. The media bay (love those eject handles) is especially useful for both media users and power consumers (second battery? *click*).
If Apple made a G4 upgrade for the Pismo, I'd never let mine go. Up to a gig of RAM, DVD-ROM, Zip, CD-RW, and hard drive options for the bay, roomy screen, nice sound, ports, ports, and more ports, and an attractive, sleek case.
That's a fair and expansive use of the term. But the positive effects of such work would probably be categorized as bio/genetic engineering instead of nanotechnology. For instance, we use recombinant DNA to create insulin-producing bacteria, but we do not call this nanotechnology.
We have golden rice, maroon carrots, and tomatoes that last longer than usual. All of these involved changes on the. All of these have been called feats of genetic engineering.
Perhaps some of us (myself included) hold our perception of the word "technology" too closely to the electron.
Nanotech has some great possibilities, but some of the biggest advances are also the biggest problems.
Like he mentioned - nanotech could "cure" old age. What, then, will we do with the rapid population increase? We don't have the resources to handle that many people. Move into space, perhaps. And what happens to our rights when an "old" person decides they now want to grow old and die? Suicide is illegal here, might that not also be? Can you imagine being imprisoned for life if life meant forever?
Also, electronics are succeptible to electromagnetic fields. No MRIs for the people with nanotech running around inside them. And if you stand too close to the microwave or have a cellphone? It's bad enough with a pacemaker. What happens when nanotech is used to compensate for brian deterioration? Lead hats?
Presumably the technology won't ever self-replicate. That would be a nightmare. Imagine the resources it would consume. We would need huge processing power in tiny spaces to prevent deaths from over-replication.
Don't get me wrong. Nanotechnology has some great potential benefits - going where no doctor could safely go, curing terminal diseases, destroying viruses, and much more. But at first, all those advances will come at a pretty high price.
It has been said that science and discovery is neither good nor evil, but scientists have to look at the potential consequences of their actions. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer were opponents of nuclear weapons after they had been created. A few quotes to close:
I do not know how World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-- Einstein
I am not an evil man, but I have done evil things.
-- Oppenheimer
Now I can't speak for non-American films (I don't see too many films as it is), but I can fairly say that America produces some wonderful films. It also produces a very large number of films. I suppose that no European country has ever released a bad film, have they?
If you don't like the movies that are playing, don't see them. If you don't like the books being printed, don't read them. If you don't like the shows on TV, don't watch them. Find what you like and try to accept that others don't share your opinions.
Some intelligent people enjoy pop-culture. Once upon a time the Beatles were a pop boy-band. Did you ever like a Beatles song? If not, that's OK.
It's fine to disagree. Having an opinion is an important part of society.You don't need to be a pretentious malcontent about it, though.
Hey, I've seen alot of people get paid alot of money to do some very bad work. Quality isn't something you can equate with Professional anymore. Quality is now considered to be the mark of Mastery.
There was a time when people were apprenticed, and they learned and were paid, but they were not professionals. When they attained a level of quality, they became professionals. When they obtained superior quality, they became Masters.
You can still find this in a few places, but there are some things we have lost.
Not that I think the review was bad; I just had a point to make about quality. : )
There's a bit in the OfflineRT section of the FCP pages that mentions using the iPod as storage, but no on-Pod editing.
I think the iPod's wheel/buttons would make editing a breeze... I wonder if we could get apple to use the iPod's controller for editing... Get a mouse/iPod interface and hardly touch the keyboard...
I didn't intend to indicate the software was useless. However, the average user (i.e. "home movie spectaculars") doesn't need it. If you are a professional who needs the film-quality editing, then this is a great thing.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness, there are people out there who end up in charge of systems that don't have the time, inclination, or experience to install patches, upgrades, updates, etc. The people who did the default install and left it at that.
These are the people that are potentially at risk. Sure, Microsoft's code has just as many (if not more) holes in it. But the holes aren't as well known.
In a perfect (or at least mostly-intelligent) world, the Open Source argument wouldn't exist, and we'd all have more time to devote to hangliding.
But then, communism is the "perfect world" - on paper anyway.
--
Don't scream at me, I can't hear you.
Maxis made some wonderful manuals for the Sim games - also the About boxes were full of laughs. Haven't bought one lately, so I don't know if EA killed that, but I hope not.
Actually, as stated in the article, cable consumes more bandwidth than the Internet connection and therefore a "trap" which will basically choke the cable connection out of the line, will work.
I'm going to take issue only with a few points here.
Why would you want it? USB 2.0 may give yout 480 Mbps instead of 400, but they have virtually identical tranfer rates (limitations of the external drive's mechanism, usually). plus, FireWire is less processor intensive.
FireWire is meant for a wider range of applications. Monitors, for instance, can use FireWire to communicate. FireWire also allows devices to communicate with each other directly, meaning with your DV camera could play directly to your monitor, or record directly to your DVD-R. Sure, you *only* get 63 devices, but unless you're setting up a huge RAID system (over USB 2.0?), it's not an issue.
Also, FireWire can offer more power than USB over-the-cable, allowing a wider range of devices that do not need separate power connectors.
This is a mindset more than a drawback. For the never-happy gamer, a full-ATX case is the only way to go. But for most people, once you have the computer running the way you want it, opening it up isn't high on the priority list. Add more RAM, maybe, but that's easy enough to do with an iMac (unscrew the bottom). As for additional drives, that's why they included FireWire. Few people want to mess with external drives, but then, few people need them.
What do you get in Linux that you can't have in MacOS X? emacs? No. XFree? No. KDE? GNOME? Thousands of free applications? No, no, no. The only thing you don't get is source for the GUI. You can get Darwin and play with the kernel. You can even use XFree + Darwin to replace MacOS X, but you lose access to the software so many people spend time in Windows for - Office.
--
I will say that it would be cool to be able to detatch the arm and monitor, being able to tuck your computer under your arm would be a nice little option. Of course, that's what laptops are for.
--
If you lived here, you would be home right now.
Well, you may not be able to buy them with the new iMac, but you can still the black keyboard and mouse at the Apple Store.
Of course, I would be loathe to shell out an additional $118 for them. Maybe you know an iMac user who would prefer white?
You could call 1-800-MY-APPLE and see if they'll change 'em out for you... Good luck, though.
Well, there are several angles to look at. I'm going to hazard a few guesses at the situation, and hopefully I won't be too far off.
Accounts: You mentioned many accounts, so part of the problem could be (not saying that you don't know, just that I don't). different users on different boxes. It's initially easier to use groups to clear up these issues, and tackle account changes later. Create some extra users to make usernames match for box to box, and then group them together so they all can access the appropriate files. This still leaves room for account name matching later.
File System Uniformity: Some people will probably think this is an awful solution, but if you use a single directory (like /mnt) and mount/link everything to identical naming on each box, you won't have the location problems. Sure, it's cyclical to have / linked to /mnt/mylinuxbox on your linux box, but you will always know that your MP3s are in /mnt/mylinuxbox/mp3 (or whereve the hell they are).
Remote Access to your Filesystems: I'm not really qualified for this one, but the NFS/SSH combo is secure and tried. If you don't mind the at-home network traffic, you can make life easier by mounting everything on one computer, and then mounting it. Not recommended for heavy use, but it's easier than managing four connections.
Mirroring is OK if you have specific, regular downtime that the computers can spend, or you have an OC-3 from home to work and great drive access times. The probelm mirroring can present is synchronization lag. Unless you specifically set up your mirroring to syns ASAP, what will you do if you make it home before your data does? Live access does two things; you only transfer the files you need, and you don't have to worry about sync'ing. Plus, what's the point of the Internet if not to make information available? : )
Organization: I've been re-organizing my files for years now, and the best this I've done for most files is to just simplify. I used to make subdirectories for everything. Just recently I have realized the real intent of the "filing cabinet" metaphor...
Filing cabinets are only ever four layers deep. Department (what the cabinet is for - cabinets and drawers are physical limitations, not part of the concept), Group (Hanging Folders), Project (Manila Folders) and then files. Sure, you may end up with alot of "Groups", but that is what alphabetization is for.
Mind you, I haven't managed to change over all of my filing systems to this format. It takes time to sit down and think about what should be where. But it seems (at least to me) like a good though for personal file organization.
Good Luck.
The Power Supply in your computer may not mind square waveform because it's just making nice clean DC out of it, but I think the more sensitive components in your computer wouldn't like it so much.
Of course, you could go laptop auto-adapter style and have a clean DC-to-DC conversion.
Say, anyone feel like a UPS-in-a-case mod?
Not just terraforming, but this makes a manned mission truly feasible. With huge stores of water available, we won't need to waste energy on moving as much. This means a manned Mars mission could be much cheaper.
I really hate it when people point at statistics and say, "Cloned animals don't survive very often!"
Neither do people.
Approxiamtely 70% of human conceptions fail; usually in the first week or so. (Have you ever heard a woman say she was late? Well, odds are she was pregnant for a short while.) We don't really pour money into studying naturally aborted pregnancies (at least I don't think we do...) so we really can't say what kills us.
As for cloning defects, there may be problems with our technique. But that's what research is for - finding out what happens and why, and making changes. Sure it might not work right now, but does that mean we should give up on the future?
How about split harvesting?
We could take cells from embryos without harming them - they do this in fertility clinics to test for certain genetic anomalies and diseases. Why, then, could we not take a four-cell embryo, break two cells off, let half go on to be a child (possibly, anyway), and continue to harvest cells from the other half?
Look, no death. You instantly have a child and a source of stem cells to treat any future diseases it may contract.
If you want to really go over the top with it, you could even try to have the same baby again if you lost it the first time.
*Disclaimer* A geneticist I am not, so if my idea contains some horrible erroneous technical assumption, let me know.
I agree.
The simple fact is software, music, art, etc, can only be free if we live in one of two types of societies:
1. Communism/Socialism: If the government has the ability to support people who are furthering the minds of the people/state, then art, music, and software can be free to us, even if we are not free oursleves.
2. Social Democracy: This concept is much harder for Americans than others, as it is contrary to pure capitalism. We would have to support those who make a contribution to our state, but whose contribution should be free. In this model, the government funds artists, music costs are virtually non-existant (you would still have to pay "cost" for physical media, and a "artist tax") and we can get all the music and software for nothing.
The US is a social/capitalist democracy, and very often we are living in the No Man's Land between the two sides.
Sorry for the rant.--
Freedom of Information doesn't mean that information is free.
Guilt? There is no guilt. In an attempt show good faith efforts being made, Microsoft will start modularizing their OS.
Soon, spurred by the concept of modularity, they will make the jump to encapsulation. Further moved by the benefits this produces, they will convert all Microsoft codebases to Visual C++.
After the massive outcry from all the people who really hate C++ because few things need the OOP that C++ gives you (and b/c Microsoft's default OS install will have bloated to 2GB) Microsoft will slowly convert everything over to C#, and the entire operating system will then be based on .Net.
Spurred on by this, Microsoft will then drop the current licensing scheme, and offer operating systems as .Net service only - .Net boot loaders will be free.
Soon, licensing will be directly attached to your .Net Passport, and corporate logins will be another service of Windows.Net. Companies will pay exorbitant fees to set up XP.Net Networks. No one will need Exchange anymore, as we will all have Hotmail.Net accounts, now a pay-per-message service. There will be surcharges for leaving a company, as your Identity.Net profile will have to be updated.
Microsoft will then make the push to DataCenter.Net - ending support for hard disks in client computers accidentally when a particularly malicious .Net virus they can't seem to kill prevents any fixed drives from functioning on computers with a video card. All companies will be required to license DataCenter.Net on a Hardware.Net compliant server to be able to store any files on fixed media, or they can purchase private space on Microsoft's CentralFile.Net.
The need for bandwidth will increase exponentially, as your will need to download an operating system everytime you log in. To improvie the bandwidth situation at your company, you will be able to license OSProxy.Net. To cope with the ever-increasing need for their own bandwidth, starting up a computer will become a "service" of Microsoft, as will OS updates, even minor builds. To prevent version conflicts, you will only be able to have the most recent version of Windows.Net. If an upgrade occurs and your computer is not capable of handling the new version (which you just paid for by attempting to download it), you will receive a message directing you to both local stores where you can purchase acceptable hardware and computer recycling centers.
Excited by the money Microsoft is making with this method, software vendors will flock to join the Software.Net program, allowing you to pay usage licensing instead of flat rates for almost any program or utility. Many gaming companies will stick with CDs, with increased development for Macintosh and Linux. Sadly, installing from a CD will require a small per-use fee for Add/Remove Programs.Net
On the upside, though. Windows.Net will be completely modular, ensuring that you can use any browser you wish to take the time of loading each time you start up.
They did mention replicators (Molecular Manufacturing). The ability to create complex molecular structure without large equipment is a very exciting concept...
Then comes the problem of the trillions of trillions of bytes of storage it would need to know how to create anything. We would probably have to create absolutely incredible new storage and compression technologies to make it work well. That, or we could carry around suitcases filled with Super-MegaDVD v9 discs (the 60 terabyte verions ;) and spend a day watching messages like, "Please insert disc 371..." to have the computer build us that watch we really like.
My bet for future data storage is a microscopic version of IBM's storage brick - something that can be easily added to, is self-maintaining, and takes up as little space as is possible.
I truly hope it makes it this time. With the movie industry desperately looking for the next big movie, I think it will.
There seem to be three trends in major movies right now - epics (LotR, Star Wars), series (Matrix, LotR, Star Wars), and comics (Spider-Man, Incredible Hulk). I think the scope of Ender's will be tempting enough for some nice funding.
Of course, I could be insane.Just a few issues with your argument.
The excessive bandwidth problem that you suggest was already taken care of (to an extent) in the form of multicast.
Multicast would allow that radio station to send one packet (theoretically, but the header would be HUGE with 4,000,000 addresses in it) to reach everyone, or at least fewer packets to reach everyone.
As far as the OC-9645 goes, you forgot to multiply by 3 after. OC lines scale up linearly, so the 51.84 = 3. The line would need to be an OC-28935 for full one-to-one packet-to-recipient ratio.
People who are born with visual impairments that can be corrected with technology (i.e. not visual cortex failure) have very low chances of worthwhile results.
When the brain never receives stimulus in a cortex, it never forms any pathways. That portion of the brain, while functional, makes no connections with anything else. A person with visual implants might be able to see as well (maybe better) than you and I, but they wouldn't understand what they saw. They would have technical function but no visual acuity.
This same issue has been demonstrated in people who grew up deaf. They may obtain the ability to hear, but understanding is something they can most likely never acheive. The new sense has missed the "formative" years of the brain, and the individual will never be able to use the sense as others do.
For those who have a hard time comprehending this concept (which is completely understandable), liken it to suddenly having wings surgically attached. Sure, you may have wings, and it's physically possible to fly, but you've never had wings before. They don't work like arms or legs, and you'll probably never learn to control them well enough to fly.
If you still aren't sure, watch At First Sight. It shows quite well the problems a person would face were they to regain sight. And keep in mind, he once could see.
Apple doesn't want other people using the libraries that they payed millions of dollars for. That what the whole lawsuit is about.
I think most people think that companies actively choose to not make Linux versions of their software, whereas it is not really the case.
Writing one application for Linux (take QuickTime Player, for example) doesn't require that much work. It's writing the compatibility code. Unlike commercial operating systems which have a few functionally different versions out (e.g. Win 9x, NT, 2k, Me, XP) and don't require in-depth compatibility testing. Running QuickTime in Linux reminds me of old combinatorics math problems (6 shirts, 3 ties, 8 pairs of pants, 4 pairs of shoes = 576 outfits)... A dozen or so linux distros, a dozen or so kernel versions, a dozen or so versions of XFree, a myriad of window managers...
There are thousands of "versions" of Linux out there, and writing an application to cover all of them isn't a walk in the park. Sure, you could say "well, we'll stick to the latest and greatest, but that leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
So when it comes to Linux support, companies look at the distros, kernels, X, window managers, sound managers, stable & unstable, release and pre-release, main, contrib, non-free... ...they end up asking themselves if it's worth the time for the number of users.
I don't doubt that some Linux users would accept the fact that they needed certain packages or had to meet certain requirements to install the software. But if Apple came out with QuickTime for RedHat and Mandrake, most everyone else would complain, and in the end Apple would get more flack than goodwill out of their efforts.
It's easy to be paranoid when the general public fears/loathes your operating system (kinda like being a Mac user, but with more hash marks), but it comes down to good business. Companies aren't about to release the source to much of their commercial software, and while the open source community can do great things, it doesn't offer great potential as a "development division" for an established company who lives by the reputation that everything just works.
Say what you will about Apple, but there is method to that madness. Look at the Software Update downloads. Huge lists of print drivers for that "it just works" USB experience that Windows would love to have. The iPod that auto-syncs and has one, count them, one port. iMovie that auto-recognizes hundreds of DV Cams. iPhoto that auto-downloads images from hundreds of cameras. iTunes that finds all your music so you don't have to. iDVD that makes content creation a relaxing pastime. USB & FireWire are both hot-connect technology. Wi-Fi with DHCP and Bluetooth both practically auto-configure.
While Apple may have brought the command line to the Macintosh, they spent much more time leaving the challenges and comment-filled plain-text config files behind. QuickTime in Linux won't fly because it won't be a click-through experience.
I'm with you on the TiBook. As sleek and slim and shiny as it is, there's something about the shape/design of the thing that isn't as appealing as my Pismo.
The Pismo case could easily be used today. Plenty of space for the components, still only one PC Card slot, but they were popular when you didn't have (almost) everything on-board. The 14" screen is comfortable, easy to look at and not too low or high resolution to be comfortable for most people. The media bay (love those eject handles) is especially useful for both media users and power consumers (second battery? *click*).
If Apple made a G4 upgrade for the Pismo, I'd never let mine go. Up to a gig of RAM, DVD-ROM, Zip, CD-RW, and hard drive options for the bay, roomy screen, nice sound, ports, ports, and more ports, and an attractive, sleek case.
They could flip the apple logo over, though. ;)
That's a fair and expansive use of the term. But the positive effects of such work would probably be categorized as bio/genetic engineering instead of nanotechnology. For instance, we use recombinant DNA to create insulin-producing bacteria, but we do not call this nanotechnology.
We have golden rice, maroon carrots, and tomatoes that last longer than usual. All of these involved changes on the. All of these have been called feats of genetic engineering.
Perhaps some of us (myself included) hold our perception of the word "technology" too closely to the electron.
Nanotech has some great possibilities, but some of the biggest advances are also the biggest problems.
Like he mentioned - nanotech could "cure" old age. What, then, will we do with the rapid population increase? We don't have the resources to handle that many people. Move into space, perhaps. And what happens to our rights when an "old" person decides they now want to grow old and die? Suicide is illegal here, might that not also be? Can you imagine being imprisoned for life if life meant forever?
Also, electronics are succeptible to electromagnetic fields. No MRIs for the people with nanotech running around inside them. And if you stand too close to the microwave or have a cellphone? It's bad enough with a pacemaker. What happens when nanotech is used to compensate for brian deterioration? Lead hats?
Presumably the technology won't ever self-replicate. That would be a nightmare. Imagine the resources it would consume. We would need huge processing power in tiny spaces to prevent deaths from over-replication.
Don't get me wrong. Nanotechnology has some great potential benefits - going where no doctor could safely go, curing terminal diseases, destroying viruses, and much more. But at first, all those advances will come at a pretty high price.
It has been said that science and discovery is neither good nor evil, but scientists have to look at the potential consequences of their actions. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer were opponents of nuclear weapons after they had been created. A few quotes to close:
Now I can't speak for non-American films (I don't see too many films as it is), but I can fairly say that America produces some wonderful films. It also produces a very large number of films. I suppose that no European country has ever released a bad film, have they?
If you don't like the movies that are playing, don't see them. If you don't like the books being printed, don't read them. If you don't like the shows on TV, don't watch them. Find what you like and try to accept that others don't share your opinions.
Some intelligent people enjoy pop-culture. Once upon a time the Beatles were a pop boy-band. Did you ever like a Beatles song? If not, that's OK.
It's fine to disagree. Having an opinion is an important part of society.You don't need to be a pretentious malcontent about it, though.
Hey, I've seen alot of people get paid alot of money to do some very bad work. Quality isn't something you can equate with Professional anymore. Quality is now considered to be the mark of Mastery.
There was a time when people were apprenticed, and they learned and were paid, but they were not professionals. When they attained a level of quality, they became professionals. When they obtained superior quality, they became Masters.
You can still find this in a few places, but there are some things we have lost.
Not that I think the review was bad; I just had a point to make about quality. : )
There's a bit in the OfflineRT section of the FCP pages that mentions using the iPod as storage, but no on-Pod editing.
I think the iPod's wheel/buttons would make editing a breeze... I wonder if we could get apple to use the iPod's controller for editing... Get a mouse/iPod interface and hardly touch the keyboard...
Then again, maybe not. : )
I didn't intend to indicate the software was useless. However, the average user (i.e. "home movie spectaculars") doesn't need it. If you are a professional who needs the film-quality editing, then this is a great thing.
And you can pay for it.