If there are funds and a strong ideology to not use proprietary code, one could also take an advanced FOSS project and code the missing features. Or start one from the scratch...
Another dumb question : NASA, ESA, and most public research facilities are quite friendly to open source and frequently develop their own (I know NASA provides a fluid mechanics analysis tool for instance). Did you check what they use for CAD ?
Well that is one of my other criticisms as well : we are currently wasting our exponential technological progress and efforts at making more people live on Earth instead of using it to make our lives exponentially better. Just imagine what could be done in a world with a constant population. It is bewildering...
Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."
What's worse is that these virus were not tailored against the UK Navy. Now China has invested a lot of money into building tools to shut down military networks. Guess what will happen if something serious comes.
Some materials have an intrinsic cost that is higher than the cost of transport. Building a mass driver on the moon would offset the transportation costs a lot. For these calculations, people use to compare the cost of the Apollo program to the few tons of lunar rock they brought back, that is a bit silly when you know that a big trebuchet could send tons of rock back to Earth. But yes it is not going to be economically sound quickly, but it can be a way to offset costs if someone wants to build a moon colony anyway. Once you are there. Sending rocks to earth is quite cheap and can be profitable, but probably not to the point of paying back for the building of the colony.
The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today.
That's debatable. With the shuttle being terminated this year, the NASA will have no more programs to launch humans into orbit. It can still launch satellites but so can SpaceX, Musk's private company. They even subcontract launches for NASA.
It's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago.
While I agree that NASA was more audacious and had more far-reaching missions in 1970, I'd like to point out that the Google-Ansari lunar Xprize aims at doing what was done about 50 years ago by the NASA : landing (well the NASA crashed it IIRC) a probe on the moon. I think we are less than 10 years from that, that would put us to what NASA did 50 years ago. I don't think the ten years missing are woth 80 years in "company time".
But one thing is sure : the economical incentive is not there yet.
The fact they are offering rewards for it and that no other competitor do can only be appreciated and approved. And to be frank, I doubt that monetizing a zero-day is as easy as you make it sound. You would have to quickly develop an exploit, sell it to the correct person, who may have more or less shady connections and an uncertain pay. On the other hand, Google offers $500, don't ask for a working exploit, is 100% legal and also awards you a lot in reputation money.
There are also some people who would never sell an exploit to criminals. Today they have no way to be rewarded if they signal a bug. It is good that they can be rewarded. IMO, if Microsoft had done this a few years ago, the world of computer security may have been totally different.
The current political way of doing is by having new generations more populous than the older ones. A famous scientist said about this that one had to ignore what an exponential curve is to find this position sane.
If you are in the field, can you explain why such a temperature is significant ? Was it never attained with this kind of tech ?
I was under the impression that higher temperatures were common in fusion research. I mean, the Z-machine reached more than 2 billions Kelvins :
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html
I don't understand why this is even doing news. The temperatures that were reach are commonly reached inside tokamaks. Fusion itself has already been sustained in them for several seconds,a feat a laser confinement mechanism cannot do. Of course these reactions did use more energy than it created. Laser mechanisms have a longer way to go in order to be credible fusion power plants.
Actually I'm opening a porn studio in Kabul. I could get girls to undress but still no men to shave. If these directives pass I could have an opening in Australia...
I'm not sure how Apple's DRMs are more of a choice than any DRMs are.
If users like the idea of being locked into the store, fine. RMS, the EFF, Slashdot, "whine" by showing people the bars they are getting into. I must say that I never heard Apple bragging that they locked in users or that it was hard to get the kind of apps you like for their devices. For that I thank those "whiners".
"Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it's classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It's declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up "base instincts" in certain people."
"Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?"
I suggest that from now:
- Flat chested women stop having sex, this is obscene, they are like, you know, children, that's unhealthy
- People having sex with flat women should be charged as pedophiles.
- Pubic shaving should be forbidden. It makes the body look juvenile.
- Men should have mandatory beard, otherwise they look too similar to children
- Men without beard should be barred from doing porn.
Yeah, Ubuntu has always been a "compromise" with the world of proprietary software and the "regular" software businesses. It accepted to make easy integration with proprietary drivers, with flash plugins, etc... This is one more little modification that will make them profitable. People have all the right to protest about this practice and switch to Debian. Ubuntu has no lock-ins. It provides an easy-to-use system at the cost of compromising certain principles. Everyone place his one's bar where he sees fit.
No, Apple, please do continue to act this way. Most people are confused about whether or not you are a closed-source company. This makes things perfectly clear.
Knowledge is mobile. However the biggest barriers it meets today are those of language. This isn't a smoking gun (enough other posts point out to the IPs of the control servers and the fact that targeting human rights activists in China benefits no one else) but a clue that everything looks like it is of Chinese origin.
Google is operating a website. I can reach it from France, I can reach Chinese websites too. The fact Chineses can't reach google.com from their connection has little to do with Google's policy.
It requires someone with enough confidence and resources to attack about twenty US companies for months.
It requires someone to anticipate the unusual move of Google on this attack.
It requires someone confident enough to operate from China and escape the Chinese government's scrutiny, even after their operations have been revealed. I think that makes a lot of hypothesis.
The Chinese government has spent hundreds of millions training a "cyber-army". Maybe they have spent so much in that toy that they are flexing their muscles a bit ? It is not that long ago that experts were warning about the hacking capabilities of China
Exactly. I would also like to add that using the number of publication as a metric is easily falsifiable. If one wants to inflate numbers, a research can stop doing research and begin publish ten papers per year. Somewhere, the quality of papers and their innovativeness has to be evaluated.
In the risk of appearing trollish, I would say that this is why "integrists" of FOSS like the debian group are useful even in a world where the Ubuntu compromise had such a success.
Slashdot Mirror
If there are funds and a strong ideology to not use proprietary code, one could also take an advanced FOSS project and code the missing features. Or start one from the scratch...
Another dumb question : NASA, ESA, and most public research facilities are quite friendly to open source and frequently develop their own (I know NASA provides a fluid mechanics analysis tool for instance). Did you check what they use for CAD ?
Well that is one of my other criticisms as well : we are currently wasting our exponential technological progress and efforts at making more people live on Earth instead of using it to make our lives exponentially better. Just imagine what could be done in a world with a constant population. It is bewildering...
Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."
What's worse is that these virus were not tailored against the UK Navy. Now China has invested a lot of money into building tools to shut down military networks. Guess what will happen if something serious comes.
That's not all.
Join the Pirate Party.
Some materials have an intrinsic cost that is higher than the cost of transport. Building a mass driver on the moon would offset the transportation costs a lot. For these calculations, people use to compare the cost of the Apollo program to the few tons of lunar rock they brought back, that is a bit silly when you know that a big trebuchet could send tons of rock back to Earth. But yes it is not going to be economically sound quickly, but it can be a way to offset costs if someone wants to build a moon colony anyway. Once you are there. Sending rocks to earth is quite cheap and can be profitable, but probably not to the point of paying back for the building of the colony.
The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today.
That's debatable. With the shuttle being terminated this year, the NASA will have no more programs to launch humans into orbit. It can still launch satellites but so can SpaceX, Musk's private company. They even subcontract launches for NASA.
It's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago.
While I agree that NASA was more audacious and had more far-reaching missions in 1970, I'd like to point out that the Google-Ansari lunar Xprize aims at doing what was done about 50 years ago by the NASA : landing (well the NASA crashed it IIRC) a probe on the moon. I think we are less than 10 years from that, that would put us to what NASA did 50 years ago. I don't think the ten years missing are woth 80 years in "company time".
But one thing is sure : the economical incentive is not there yet.
The fact they are offering rewards for it and that no other competitor do can only be appreciated and approved. And to be frank, I doubt that monetizing a zero-day is as easy as you make it sound. You would have to quickly develop an exploit, sell it to the correct person, who may have more or less shady connections and an uncertain pay. On the other hand, Google offers $500, don't ask for a working exploit, is 100% legal and also awards you a lot in reputation money.
There are also some people who would never sell an exploit to criminals. Today they have no way to be rewarded if they signal a bug. It is good that they can be rewarded. IMO, if Microsoft had done this a few years ago, the world of computer security may have been totally different.
The current political way of doing is by having new generations more populous than the older ones. A famous scientist said about this that one had to ignore what an exponential curve is to find this position sane.
If you are in the field, can you explain why such a temperature is significant ? Was it never attained with this kind of tech ?
I was under the impression that higher temperatures were common in fusion research. I mean, the Z-machine reached more than 2 billions Kelvins : http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html
I don't understand why this is even doing news. The temperatures that were reach are commonly reached inside tokamaks. Fusion itself has already been sustained in them for several seconds,a feat a laser confinement mechanism cannot do. Of course these reactions did use more energy than it created. Laser mechanisms have a longer way to go in order to be credible fusion power plants.
http://hackaday.com/2010/01/27/nanotouch-a-tiny-avr-media-thing/
http://hackaday.com/2009/11/03/8-bit-device-quenches-iphone-envy/
Hackers are doing stuff (these are more of a showcase than a real product) but suck at selling it. But Please observe than open source / open hardware phones DO exist, but that in order for a phone to be useful, one needs an operator, and they are less than friendly with openness.
Actually I'm opening a porn studio in Kabul. I could get girls to undress but still no men to shave. If these directives pass I could have an opening in Australia...
I'm not sure how Apple's DRMs are more of a choice than any DRMs are.
If users like the idea of being locked into the store, fine. RMS, the EFF, Slashdot, "whine" by showing people the bars they are getting into. I must say that I never heard Apple bragging that they locked in users or that it was hard to get the kind of apps you like for their devices. For that I thank those "whiners".
It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like
A brain-implanted chip that makes clients REALLY "think different" ?
But why ?
"Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it's classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It's declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up "base instincts" in certain people."
"Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?"
I suggest that from now :
- Flat chested women stop having sex, this is obscene, they are like, you know, children, that's unhealthy
- People having sex with flat women should be charged as pedophiles.
- Pubic shaving should be forbidden. It makes the body look juvenile.
- Men should have mandatory beard, otherwise they look too similar to children
- Men without beard should be barred from doing porn.
That is maybe the most hilarous comment I read recently.
Yeah, Ubuntu has always been a "compromise" with the world of proprietary software and the "regular" software businesses. It accepted to make easy integration with proprietary drivers, with flash plugins, etc... This is one more little modification that will make them profitable. People have all the right to protest about this practice and switch to Debian.
Ubuntu has no lock-ins. It provides an easy-to-use system at the cost of compromising certain principles. Everyone place his one's bar where he sees fit.
No, Apple, please do continue to act this way. Most people are confused about whether or not you are a closed-source company. This makes things perfectly clear.
Knowledge is mobile. However the biggest barriers it meets today are those of language. This isn't a smoking gun (enough other posts point out to the IPs of the control servers and the fact that targeting human rights activists in China benefits no one else) but a clue that everything looks like it is of Chinese origin.
Google is operating a website. I can reach it from France, I can reach Chinese websites too. The fact Chineses can't reach google.com from their connection has little to do with Google's policy.
It requires someone with enough confidence and resources to attack about twenty US companies for months.
It requires someone to anticipate the unusual move of Google on this attack.
It requires someone confident enough to operate from China and escape the Chinese government's scrutiny, even after their operations have been revealed.
I think that makes a lot of hypothesis.
The Chinese government has spent hundreds of millions training a "cyber-army". Maybe they have spent so much in that toy that they are flexing their muscles a bit ? It is not that long ago that experts were warning about the hacking capabilities of China
Exactly. I would also like to add that using the number of publication as a metric is easily falsifiable. If one wants to inflate numbers, a research can stop doing research and begin publish ten papers per year. Somewhere, the quality of papers and their innovativeness has to be evaluated.
In the risk of appearing trollish, I would say that this is why "integrists" of FOSS like the debian group are useful even in a world where the Ubuntu compromise had such a success.