It doesn't seem like anyone has yet mentioned that HP has already had a Linux (SUSE) laptop (nx5000) available, and in the US. Here's a slashdot reference.
It's a 2004 model that's not available anymore, unfortunately, but hopefully HP will have Linux laptops in the US again soon.
No popup su/sudo thing in windows, but I have recently discovered the "Run as..." in the context menu to be very useful. Right click on an application icon, select "Run as...", and then enter the Administrator's username and password, and you have the Windows version of sudo.
I found this question very interesting and I've been dismayed by all the naysaying. To be fair, though, there are serious objection to this proposal. One of the big objections is the problem of routing. Let me think out loud for a minute about geographic based routing.
Let me start by saying I want to figure out an ad hoc p2p routing protocol for use in the lower 48 contiguous United States. We can think about the rest of the world later. For starters, let's use zip codes. I'm thinking of a routing protocol that is extremely easy to configure. All you do is enter your zip code.
Each nodes within a zip code area has a routing table to all other nodes in within that zip code (ouch, we may need to break that up a bit, maybe use Long and Lat instead?). Each node also maintains a list of available nodes in adjacent zip code areas. This routing within a zip code could be done with standard OSPF.
The routing protocol would be geographically-aware. If I need to send packets to the other side of the States, the routing protocol would be smart enough to send the packets in a beeline from my zip code to the destination zip code. Once the packets arrive anywhere within that zip code, that node can forward them on to the destination node.
Something along those lines seems to solve the routing problem and also help the latency problem. Another thing that can be done to help latency is to have every node also be a caching proxy. Ah, but this doesn't do anything for real-time latency problems like you would have with VoIP. Perhaps for VoIP the solution would be to build in virtual circuit support into the routing protocol.
Are we so far away from this being possible? All that would be needed is long range, high speed wireless. I'm looking to buy a new computer that will probably end up having an average CPU utilitization of less than 5%, leaving plenty there for spanning tree algorithms, routing, etc. It will probably have something like a 120GB hard drive, 100GB of which I would gladly offer up for use as a cache.
Another point about financial feasibility. Since we're daydreaming here, why not combine this idea with the idea of Grid Computing. The point being that a company might buy you the wireless transmitter and any specialized equipment you might need to use for your computer in order to set up a decentralized grid to do high performance computing. In turn, you let them use a fraction of your CPU time. There might even be a business model where you get paid to turn your computer into a wireless router in this scenario. If enough people bite to reach a critical mass, you could have your wireless dream. Then people might be willing to buy the equipment themselves because they hear from their "connected" friends that they have essentially unlimited bandwidth and free long distance, etc.
Of course, I've overlooked several things, like trans-oceanic communications, but perhaps those can be overcome as well.
I completely agree with this. The original post says:
Now we have Windows, which typically comes with no built-in programming language. What can be done to improve the situation?
However, I disagree. Windows as well as most operating systems come with a web browser, which provides a great starting platform to begin programming. Teach the kids HTML and JavaScript.
The major advantage of HTML and JavaScript over the BASIC I learned on my Atari 800XL growing up, is that with HTML and JavaScript you also can learn some GUI design as well. It wouldn't take much, for instance, for a bright kid to learn enough HTML and JS to code a simple calculator.
Geez, I hate to defend shabby plots, but . . . okay, I'll give it a shot.
You're first question is why can't they figure out how to generate water and food? Well, we're not certain what circumstances the aliens were in prior to this movie. Maybe their solar system was destroyed by a supernova, leaving them just enough time to get the heck out of there. Thus they wouldn't have many options for food unless they did an ark sort of thing and took their livestock with them.
Even then you might ask why they don't just synthesize their food. With their technology, they probably could, but come on, would you rather have (assuming you aren't a vegetarian) Tofurkey (tofu-based turkey-like product) or actual turkey. Let's go with the theory that they like human meat, it's tasty, they're connesieurs.
This kind of reminds me of the Matrix where they concoct this goo that provides "everything the body needs", except of course that it tastes like snot. Sure they could synthesize their food, but would it really be better than the real thing?
People have mentioned that they could have gotten their water elsewhere. Well, if they have a taste for human meat, then perhaps they looked at Earth as offering a twofer. Sure, they could get water at Europa, but why not just get it at Earth along with the humans.
Finally, why not just invade? Again, if they like human meat, then, unless they are just making a intergalactic pit stop and need a bite to eat, they will want to domesticate their game. Using your logic, a farmer should "invade" his animals when he gets hungry. Farmers do just the opposite, they take care of and breed their animals for the purpose of slaughtering and eating them at some point. The animals are sufficiently fooled by the farmer's care taking.
And on one last note, maybe they get their kicks on this crap. They got tired of playing world domination video games and thought it would be cool to see if they could do the real thing.
Ok, I'll stop. Loved V, would love to see it back again.
This is an interesting idea, but the main problem is the notion of a "single topic". That's a huge gaping loophole. Your best bet would probably to get a truth in legislation amendment to the constitution stating that each bill must involve only a single topic (which, of course, is a long shot). Then it would be up to the courts to determine what a "single topic" requires. That way, you could take a bill that you believe goes off topic to the Supreme Court. If it's found to not stay on topic, the court can throw it out.
This, of course, wouldn't prevent bills being passed with a pile of unrelated crap added on, but it would serve as a way of getting them repealed. And perhaps, if applied enough, it would significantly deter this kind of bad legislation.
One of the major flaws I see with this article (and many like it) is that it assumes that if the US weans itself off Middle Eastern oil that this will erase dependence on Middle Eastern oil and will thus lead to better (or less) relations with Middle Eastern countries. The idea is that if we don't depend on oil then we don't have to go in there Desert Storm style every once in a while to protect our oil interests, which only agitates terrorists to be.
Sounds good. However, there is a major problem. We exist in a global economy. So, if Japan depends on Middle Eastern oil, and we depend on Japan's exports and imports, then if access to Middle Eastern oil is jeopardized for Japan, say, by some dictator, then the US will certainly care. And, the US would likely do something about it.
A recent news report on NBC gave some numbers concerning our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Not too high, actually (I recall them saying 10%, I've seen other posts that suggest 20%). However, the dependence of Japan and Europe, for example, on Middle Eastern oil is much higher (I recall it being in the 30-50% range).
Therefore, if we expect to cut off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we have to come up with an alternate energy source for ourselves AND all of our major trading partners.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem like anyone has yet mentioned that HP has already had a Linux (SUSE) laptop (nx5000) available, and in the US. Here's a slashdot reference.
It's a 2004 model that's not available anymore, unfortunately, but hopefully HP will have Linux laptops in the US again soon.
MarcNo popup su/sudo thing in windows, but I have recently discovered the "Run as..." in the context menu to be very useful. Right click on an application icon, select "Run as ...", and then enter the Administrator's username and password, and you have the Windows version of sudo.
I found this question very interesting and I've been dismayed by all the naysaying. To be fair, though, there are serious objection to this proposal. One of the big objections is the problem of routing. Let me think out loud for a minute about geographic based routing.
Let me start by saying I want to figure out an ad hoc p2p routing protocol for use in the lower 48 contiguous United States. We can think about the rest of the world later. For starters, let's use zip codes. I'm thinking of a routing protocol that is extremely easy to configure. All you do is enter your zip code.
Each nodes within a zip code area has a routing table to all other nodes in within that zip code (ouch, we may need to break that up a bit, maybe use Long and Lat instead?). Each node also maintains a list of available nodes in adjacent zip code areas. This routing within a zip code could be done with standard OSPF.
The routing protocol would be geographically-aware. If I need to send packets to the other side of the States, the routing protocol would be smart enough to send the packets in a beeline from my zip code to the destination zip code. Once the packets arrive anywhere within that zip code, that node can forward them on to the destination node.
Something along those lines seems to solve the routing problem and also help the latency problem. Another thing that can be done to help latency is to have every node also be a caching proxy. Ah, but this doesn't do anything for real-time latency problems like you would have with VoIP. Perhaps for VoIP the solution would be to build in virtual circuit support into the routing protocol.
Are we so far away from this being possible? All that would be needed is long range, high speed wireless. I'm looking to buy a new computer that will probably end up having an average CPU utilitization of less than 5%, leaving plenty there for spanning tree algorithms, routing, etc. It will probably have something like a 120GB hard drive, 100GB of which I would gladly offer up for use as a cache.
Another point about financial feasibility. Since we're daydreaming here, why not combine this idea with the idea of Grid Computing. The point being that a company might buy you the wireless transmitter and any specialized equipment you might need to use for your computer in order to set up a decentralized grid to do high performance computing. In turn, you let them use a fraction of your CPU time. There might even be a business model where you get paid to turn your computer into a wireless router in this scenario. If enough people bite to reach a critical mass, you could have your wireless dream. Then people might be willing to buy the equipment themselves because they hear from their "connected" friends that they have essentially unlimited bandwidth and free long distance, etc.
Of course, I've overlooked several things, like trans-oceanic communications, but perhaps those can be overcome as well.
I completely agree with this. The original post says:
Now we have Windows, which typically comes with no built-in programming language. What can be done to improve the situation?
However, I disagree. Windows as well as most operating systems come with a web browser, which provides a great starting platform to begin programming. Teach the kids HTML and JavaScript.
The major advantage of HTML and JavaScript over the BASIC I learned on my Atari 800XL growing up, is that with HTML and JavaScript you also can learn some GUI design as well. It wouldn't take much, for instance, for a bright kid to learn enough HTML and JS to code a simple calculator.
Geez, I hate to defend shabby plots, but . . . okay, I'll give it a shot.
You're first question is why can't they figure out how to generate water and food? Well, we're not certain what circumstances the aliens were in prior to this movie. Maybe their solar system was destroyed by a supernova, leaving them just enough time to get the heck out of there. Thus they wouldn't have many options for food unless they did an ark sort of thing and took their livestock with them.
Even then you might ask why they don't just synthesize their food. With their technology, they probably could, but come on, would you rather have (assuming you aren't a vegetarian) Tofurkey (tofu-based turkey-like product) or actual turkey. Let's go with the theory that they like human meat, it's tasty, they're connesieurs.
This kind of reminds me of the Matrix where they concoct this goo that provides "everything the body needs", except of course that it tastes like snot. Sure they could synthesize their food, but would it really be better than the real thing?
People have mentioned that they could have gotten their water elsewhere. Well, if they have a taste for human meat, then perhaps they looked at Earth as offering a twofer. Sure, they could get water at Europa, but why not just get it at Earth along with the humans.
Finally, why not just invade? Again, if they like human meat, then, unless they are just making a intergalactic pit stop and need a bite to eat, they will want to domesticate their game. Using your logic, a farmer should "invade" his animals when he gets hungry. Farmers do just the opposite, they take care of and breed their animals for the purpose of slaughtering and eating them at some point. The animals are sufficiently fooled by the farmer's care taking.
And on one last note, maybe they get their kicks on this crap. They got tired of playing world domination video games and thought it would be cool to see if they could do the real thing.
Ok, I'll stop. Loved V, would love to see it back again.
This is an interesting idea, but the main problem is the notion of a "single topic". That's a huge gaping loophole. Your best bet would probably to get a truth in legislation amendment to the constitution stating that each bill must involve only a single topic (which, of course, is a long shot). Then it would be up to the courts to determine what a "single topic" requires. That way, you could take a bill that you believe goes off topic to the Supreme Court. If it's found to not stay on topic, the court can throw it out. This, of course, wouldn't prevent bills being passed with a pile of unrelated crap added on, but it would serve as a way of getting them repealed. And perhaps, if applied enough, it would significantly deter this kind of bad legislation.
One of the major flaws I see with this article (and many like it) is that it assumes that if the US weans itself off Middle Eastern oil that this will erase dependence on Middle Eastern oil and will thus lead to better (or less) relations with Middle Eastern countries. The idea is that if we don't depend on oil then we don't have to go in there Desert Storm style every once in a while to protect our oil interests, which only agitates terrorists to be.
Sounds good. However, there is a major problem. We exist in a global economy. So, if Japan depends on Middle Eastern oil, and we depend on Japan's exports and imports, then if access to Middle Eastern oil is jeopardized for Japan, say, by some dictator, then the US will certainly care. And, the US would likely do something about it.
A recent news report on NBC gave some numbers concerning our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Not too high, actually (I recall them saying 10%, I've seen other posts that suggest 20%). However, the dependence of Japan and Europe, for example, on Middle Eastern oil is much higher (I recall it being in the 30-50% range).
Therefore, if we expect to cut off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we have to come up with an alternate energy source for ourselves AND all of our major trading partners.