Well, early America compared to Mars is a lush land and after settlers learned how to deal with living in a new environment, some were enormously successful -- some sold tobacco or cotton for huge profits (although this is some time later than the time of the very first settlers).
I don't really see how living on Mars could be profitable, so that motivation is gone. As far as being free on Mars, I don't know if such a situation would ever truely exist. How can you show that the plot of land that you own is actually yours? What is to stop your neighbor for killing you in order to take your land? The only thing that could do this would be some kind of law enforcement and then you would still be in the same situation as you are now.
My point is that for the majority of citizens in America, there is probably no motivation to move to Mars. Most will see no oppurtunity and many people probably don't feel that they are being persecuted for political reasons or are having their freedoms stepped upon.
When I read the title of the submission, I thought that there might be some unique incite into the future of the internet, but this article was exremely lacking. The only real prediction that he makes is that all voice calls will be routed over the internet. I guess that is an easy prediction with all of the working in VOIP. However, I was hoping he would have something more interesting to say, not simply just saying that there is a lot more room for innovation.
I have read many posts where the author compares moving into space or another planet to that of the colonial period in North America. However, I think there is one key difference between that time in history and the possibilty of the current topic and that is oppurtunity. Many early settlers moved to the Americas looking for prosperity, some found it and others perished. Also, others moved looking for religious or other types of freedom. However, they knew that upon arrival they would find a lush land capable of supporting them. There is no such lush land on Mars or any of the planets close to us. Which brings about the question: what oppurtunity is awaiting these people? The only one I can think of is fame, which still seems remote to me. How many colonists from America can you name? Probably only a handful and certainly not Mr. John Doe who died from starvation. My point is, I don't think many people would be compelled to leave Earth permanantly. Certainly, the only way I would leave is if I knew that I could return in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not really in that much of a hurry to fly out to a giant red desert not meant to support human life.
"I firmly believe that our future lies in some day getting off this Earth and spreading throughout space."
My brother and I had a conversation about this just the other day and I came to the conclusion that even if we did have a population living on Mars or the Moon, I would not want to live there permanently. Of course, I would want to visit at least once, but as far as a home is concerned I don't think I would be very happy. I mean when you think of the beauty of Earth, the vegitation, lakes, oceans, and wonderful landscapes compared to the baren lands on the Moon and Mars, it seems very depressing. I think that most people would not give up living on Earth in order to have a home on another planet.
This might be slightly off topic, but it seems to me that an idea very similar to this is already being used in development. What I am talking about is the new Unreal engine. From the videos I have seen, it seems like the technology strives to create complex surfaces without using many polygons. Once of the examples they show in the game is a box with a complex grated surface which interacts with light and is shadowed appropriately, but when viewed in wireframe mode is simply a flat box made of very few polygons. They also give many more examples, including a wall made of bricks which a bump-mapped correctly but, again, in wireframe the wall is flat and the bricks are not composed of polygons. You can see the video for yourself here.
To me, I think that web services or applications delivered through a web browser could play a large part in the future, they will not be the only (or the best, IMHO) choice unless there are major changes to how we approach these technologies. The author of the article talks about the major problems holding back (mainly poor GUIs in terms of design and responsiveness) and I think that this problem won't be easily solved without some new technologies that are not based on HTML. Once we get past HTML, I think better web apps will be possible.
Until then I will continue to see this dilema: what advantage does using a "web app" version of my software give me? Certainly, I can't imagine using some of my favorite sofware (Photoshop, iTunes, VS) as web apps. I think that as things work now, it would be possible to make web apps like Word, Excel, and definetly Outlook possible, but why? and what do I gain? When I type in Word, I don't want to wait 30 seconds for spell check to complete. When its late at night and I am writing a paper and it just so happens that the latest and greatest virus hits and my connection keeps bottoming out because of all the traffic, I don't want my word processing software to stop working. To me, using the common "desktop" software in a web interface would just be more of a pain. And I can't imagine what something like Photoshop would be like if developed using this type of technology. I think that software like Photoshop will always have to be developed as rich client or "desktop" software. The only other feasable solution that I see, is if one was to use some sort of Adobe portal where you log in, the latest version of their software is stored locally on your computer, and is run in some time of intrepreter much in the same way that Java or JavaScript works now.
Of course this is what I think when looking at technology as it stands now. I do think that in the future someone may create a new protocol for the internet that allows for a truely "web app" driven lifestyle, where you boot your computer, Mozilla (or whatever browser is popular by then) loads displaying something that could look like a standard desktop, execpt all of the icons really link to web apps that stream off of a server and are never actually installed locally. This could be a feasable future, but it is definetly not going to happen with HTTP and HTML, at least I hope not!
At least when you have a virtual monopoly on broadband as it does in my area (only cable provider and most homes too far from CO for DSL). I mean, why would you? I would say that most of the people who use dial-up now probably have no desire for broadband and only a small part of the market is stuck on dial-up because of broadband pricing being too high for them.
Well, if your primary concern is with the audio streaming and you think it will be in range of your existing network...get it and then you can let us know later if it actually can extend the range of non-Apple wireless networks.
"Does anyone know if this will interoperate properly with non-Apple base stations?"
The answer in short is no. Look here and at the 4th foot note at the bottom. Honestly, I would just look into getting another Netgear access point and setting it to repeat the existing network. Most access points can do this.
"I can't think of a single OS that runs the breadth of programs Windows does from so many years of computing...I've loaded up DOS programs from the 80s in Windows XP and was surprised they run more or less perfectly (even when the original app expected full control over the computer)."
I think what you said here is really the key to why MS is able to still have a large amount of dominance in the market. Business and users alike hate to upgrade. People in general hate change. You would be surprised at the lengths that some companies take to minimize upgrading. For instance, I just learned of one company who provides a software package that's sole purpose is to take output from old COBOLT programs designed to interface with green screen terminals and modernize it so that it can be interfaced with a web browser. In the end, the old program is still doing all the work, but this company just gives it a face lift. Do you think that companies that are in the market for this type of solution are willing to drop their systems in favor of using Linux or OS X? It doesn't seem likely. However, if the newest version of Windows will still run all of their old programs, it seems likely that they will upgrade. I think that if MS ever decides to make their next version of Windows not backward compatible, then people will either choose Linux or OS X for their next operating system. I like the idea of not having to buy new programs every time I want to use the latest version of Windows, and I think many others feel the same way.
Does anyone know, with a relative amount of certainty, how easy (or impossible) it is for the government to break standard encryption in use today? For instance, if I encrypt my email in 128-bit encryption, is there any possibilty that the government would be able to break that easily? I know that it its technically possible to break the key by using large number of computers chugging away at the problem, but I don't the government has the time or the resources to do so.
Oh, I have a very good clue about what Darwin was going on about. He had pretty decent evidence showing that small attributes of animals might adapt to the environment over time, such as the beak of a bird or the pattern of a moth, but he did not prove that one species can or did evolve into another. This is simply an extrapolation of his research, and , to my knowledge, hasn't been proven scientifically.
"I see science not as competition for religion, but as complimentary. When we discover how things work, we discover more about God."
As a Christian, I agree that we should not dismiss science and that it can also be used to reveal, to some small extent, how God works. I think that since we were created as intelligent beings, it was part of God's plan that we would eventually come to a great understanding of the world around us. However...
"I have no problem accepting evolution as the PROCEESS that was used, for example."
I tend to disagree with some aspects of this assertion. I certainly believe that evolution exists to some amount, but I don't believe that humans evolved from lesser animals. I feel that the Bible makes it fairly clear that we were a special creation by God and not simply an advanced form of one of his earlier creations. As for other species, from a religious stand point, I have no problem with one species evolving into another. However, I am not convinced scientifically that this is a possibilty, but that is another story.
"But I do have a problem with organized belief, i.e. religion. Whenever there's an institution that tells others what they have to belief I think it's just wrong (and dangerous, as the past has proven)."
I can't speak for other religions, but as a Christian I can say that I think your view of organized religion is wrong. Certainly, my religion doesn't tell me what to believe but my faith in the Bible does. Let me clarify, if I ever came accross a church the taught ideas contrary to what was taught in the Bible, I would want nothing to do with that church. Good organized religion should not teach you to believe in something original (unless of course you are new to the faith, then instruction is in order), but merely reinforce one's beliefs as founded in the Bible and provide a way to come together for the good of the body of the church and society. As a Christian, my beliefs should translate accross any denomination of the faith and be upheld by any Christian church. Also, I am a Protestant and our churches seem to be more democratic in that we don't have one central "head" telling us how to administer to our own faith. We simply have a body that is capable of organizing things for the greater good.
Gamespy just released an article detailing a hands-on with DS. You can check it out here. Also, it seems like every freaking video game website on the net is slow as anything. In fact, Nintendo's own website appears to be down. Ouch! I wish I could find some free videos of today's press conferences, since I am too cheap to pay for accounts to video game websites.
No, I haven't assumed that the ports are open. What I have assumed is that the system has never been tested. If there is an open interface that has a flaw, it is possible that it could be exploited just no one has done it yet.
Yes, this is much along the lines of what I was trying to say.
"A similar statement can also be true of Macs and viruses, presently. Right now, it's simply a safer neighborhood."
What I really want to know is if the "neighborhood" that Macs exist in suddenly turned as violent as the one that Windows is in, is if they would hold up. I think eventually, someone will try to create something that will attempt harm to Mac users and I would like to know how successful someone might be at this attempt.
What I have always wondered is if there are groups of people who actively try to write viruses for OS X. I would imagine that there has to be at least one person who has tried to do so, even if it is just as a proof of concept and not intended to be released in the wild. At least the idea of being the first person to write a majorly destructive virus for OS X must be appealing to the type of person that creates Windows viruses for fame. I think that answers to questions like these are important because it relates to how we view the security of the system. Along the lines you mentioned, how can people say that OS X has very tight security if it has never been put to the test in the wild? That is like saying my home is ultra secure because it has never been broken into, when, in reality, I leave my doors unlocked and all my windows open.
"90% of the jobs out there are development positions. These require basic programming skills, understanding of the newest buzz technology and an eye for asthetics. "
I would say that as a CS major you should still be very good at development. Obviously, as a CS major you will study much theory, but you must be able to turn that theory into code and a working application. Also, to create good applications, one should have a good understanding of CS and programming, more than just the basics. Although, I would agree that being a CS major might be overkill for developing a website that uses PHP or something like that. However, for pretty much any applications more advanced than this, you will definitely want someone who knows how to code very well. This might even apply to large/powerful web apps. Think about amazon or eBay. Surely, you wouldn't want someone who doesn't know how to create quality code and move around large amounts of data to write the backend to a site like that. I would say, that if you are a CS major who can turn theory into working code, then you are more than qualified to turn design specs or anything else into a quality program.
"If you have this great fast connection with restrictions that make it useless to most people, then the beancounters are going to notice that you're paying a hefty sum each month for an effectively unused resource. They're going to start demanding their money back so they can spend it on a bigger football stadium or something."
Thats why its good to go to Drexel: Internet2, no football team.
"Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!"
I know that Windows doesn't have a good history with security, but honestly I think lots of patches are a good thing because this means that for every patch that is one less way that my system can be compromised. If MS simply sat around and waited for working exploits in the wild, life could be very bad. However, having things patched now and in the future with SP 2, I think Windows will begin to be viewed as having tighter security.
I really don't want to cut up someone's work and I think the art itself is fine, but not as the symbol for what could be a very significant piece of software. I don't think I want to trust my sensitive or important files to something that portrays itself as a retarded scavenger bird. I think something simple yet elegant would have been the best choice here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, early America compared to Mars is a lush land and after settlers learned how to deal with living in a new environment, some were enormously successful -- some sold tobacco or cotton for huge profits (although this is some time later than the time of the very first settlers).
I don't really see how living on Mars could be profitable, so that motivation is gone. As far as being free on Mars, I don't know if such a situation would ever truely exist. How can you show that the plot of land that you own is actually yours? What is to stop your neighbor for killing you in order to take your land? The only thing that could do this would be some kind of law enforcement and then you would still be in the same situation as you are now.
My point is that for the majority of citizens in America, there is probably no motivation to move to Mars. Most will see no oppurtunity and many people probably don't feel that they are being persecuted for political reasons or are having their freedoms stepped upon.
When I read the title of the submission, I thought that there might be some unique incite into the future of the internet, but this article was exremely lacking. The only real prediction that he makes is that all voice calls will be routed over the internet. I guess that is an easy prediction with all of the working in VOIP. However, I was hoping he would have something more interesting to say, not simply just saying that there is a lot more room for innovation.
I have read many posts where the author compares moving into space or another planet to that of the colonial period in North America. However, I think there is one key difference between that time in history and the possibilty of the current topic and that is oppurtunity. Many early settlers moved to the Americas looking for prosperity, some found it and others perished. Also, others moved looking for religious or other types of freedom. However, they knew that upon arrival they would find a lush land capable of supporting them. There is no such lush land on Mars or any of the planets close to us. Which brings about the question: what oppurtunity is awaiting these people? The only one I can think of is fame, which still seems remote to me. How many colonists from America can you name? Probably only a handful and certainly not Mr. John Doe who died from starvation. My point is, I don't think many people would be compelled to leave Earth permanantly. Certainly, the only way I would leave is if I knew that I could return in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not really in that much of a hurry to fly out to a giant red desert not meant to support human life.
"I firmly believe that our future lies in some day getting off this Earth and spreading throughout space."
My brother and I had a conversation about this just the other day and I came to the conclusion that even if we did have a population living on Mars or the Moon, I would not want to live there permanently. Of course, I would want to visit at least once, but as far as a home is concerned I don't think I would be very happy. I mean when you think of the beauty of Earth, the vegitation, lakes, oceans, and wonderful landscapes compared to the baren lands on the Moon and Mars, it seems very depressing. I think that most people would not give up living on Earth in order to have a home on another planet.
And you know this stuff really does work too! It actually increased my size by 10x! The size of my storage space that is.
This might be slightly off topic, but it seems to me that an idea very similar to this is already being used in development. What I am talking about is the new Unreal engine. From the videos I have seen, it seems like the technology strives to create complex surfaces without using many polygons. Once of the examples they show in the game is a box with a complex grated surface which interacts with light and is shadowed appropriately, but when viewed in wireframe mode is simply a flat box made of very few polygons. They also give many more examples, including a wall made of bricks which a bump-mapped correctly but, again, in wireframe the wall is flat and the bricks are not composed of polygons. You can see the video for yourself here.
To me, I think that web services or applications delivered through a web browser could play a large part in the future, they will not be the only (or the best, IMHO) choice unless there are major changes to how we approach these technologies. The author of the article talks about the major problems holding back (mainly poor GUIs in terms of design and responsiveness) and I think that this problem won't be easily solved without some new technologies that are not based on HTML. Once we get past HTML, I think better web apps will be possible.
Until then I will continue to see this dilema: what advantage does using a "web app" version of my software give me? Certainly, I can't imagine using some of my favorite sofware (Photoshop, iTunes, VS) as web apps. I think that as things work now, it would be possible to make web apps like Word, Excel, and definetly Outlook possible, but why? and what do I gain? When I type in Word, I don't want to wait 30 seconds for spell check to complete. When its late at night and I am writing a paper and it just so happens that the latest and greatest virus hits and my connection keeps bottoming out because of all the traffic, I don't want my word processing software to stop working. To me, using the common "desktop" software in a web interface would just be more of a pain. And I can't imagine what something like Photoshop would be like if developed using this type of technology. I think that software like Photoshop will always have to be developed as rich client or "desktop" software. The only other feasable solution that I see, is if one was to use some sort of Adobe portal where you log in, the latest version of their software is stored locally on your computer, and is run in some time of intrepreter much in the same way that Java or JavaScript works now.
Of course this is what I think when looking at technology as it stands now. I do think that in the future someone may create a new protocol for the internet that allows for a truely "web app" driven lifestyle, where you boot your computer, Mozilla (or whatever browser is popular by then) loads displaying something that could look like a standard desktop, execpt all of the icons really link to web apps that stream off of a server and are never actually installed locally. This could be a feasable future, but it is definetly not going to happen with HTTP and HTML, at least I hope not!
At least when you have a virtual monopoly on broadband as it does in my area (only cable provider and most homes too far from CO for DSL). I mean, why would you? I would say that most of the people who use dial-up now probably have no desire for broadband and only a small part of the market is stuck on dial-up because of broadband pricing being too high for them.
Owner of LED Display: I never knew LEDs could burst into flames like that. Curse you /. and your endless masses!
Well, if your primary concern is with the audio streaming and you think it will be in range of your existing network...get it and then you can let us know later if it actually can extend the range of non-Apple wireless networks.
"Does anyone know if this will interoperate properly with non-Apple base stations?"
The answer in short is no. Look here and at the 4th foot note at the bottom. Honestly, I would just look into getting another Netgear access point and setting it to repeat the existing network. Most access points can do this.
Apple is pretty good except for the Dock...I hate the Dock!!!!!
"I can't think of a single OS that runs the breadth of programs Windows does from so many years of computing...I've loaded up DOS programs from the 80s in Windows XP and was surprised they run more or less perfectly (even when the original app expected full control over the computer)."
I think what you said here is really the key to why MS is able to still have a large amount of dominance in the market. Business and users alike hate to upgrade. People in general hate change. You would be surprised at the lengths that some companies take to minimize upgrading. For instance, I just learned of one company who provides a software package that's sole purpose is to take output from old COBOLT programs designed to interface with green screen terminals and modernize it so that it can be interfaced with a web browser. In the end, the old program is still doing all the work, but this company just gives it a face lift. Do you think that companies that are in the market for this type of solution are willing to drop their systems in favor of using Linux or OS X? It doesn't seem likely. However, if the newest version of Windows will still run all of their old programs, it seems likely that they will upgrade. I think that if MS ever decides to make their next version of Windows not backward compatible, then people will either choose Linux or OS X for their next operating system. I like the idea of not having to buy new programs every time I want to use the latest version of Windows, and I think many others feel the same way.
Does anyone know, with a relative amount of certainty, how easy (or impossible) it is for the government to break standard encryption in use today? For instance, if I encrypt my email in 128-bit encryption, is there any possibilty that the government would be able to break that easily? I know that it its technically possible to break the key by using large number of computers chugging away at the problem, but I don't the government has the time or the resources to do so.
Oh, I have a very good clue about what Darwin was going on about. He had pretty decent evidence showing that small attributes of animals might adapt to the environment over time, such as the beak of a bird or the pattern of a moth, but he did not prove that one species can or did evolve into another. This is simply an extrapolation of his research, and , to my knowledge, hasn't been proven scientifically.
"I see science not as competition for religion, but as complimentary. When we discover how things work, we discover more about God."
As a Christian, I agree that we should not dismiss science and that it can also be used to reveal, to some small extent, how God works. I think that since we were created as intelligent beings, it was part of God's plan that we would eventually come to a great understanding of the world around us. However...
"I have no problem accepting evolution as the PROCEESS that was used, for example."
I tend to disagree with some aspects of this assertion. I certainly believe that evolution exists to some amount, but I don't believe that humans evolved from lesser animals. I feel that the Bible makes it fairly clear that we were a special creation by God and not simply an advanced form of one of his earlier creations. As for other species, from a religious stand point, I have no problem with one species evolving into another. However, I am not convinced scientifically that this is a possibilty, but that is another story.
"But I do have a problem with organized belief, i.e. religion. Whenever there's an institution that tells others what they have to belief I think it's just wrong (and dangerous, as the past has proven)."
I can't speak for other religions, but as a Christian I can say that I think your view of organized religion is wrong. Certainly, my religion doesn't tell me what to believe but my faith in the Bible does. Let me clarify, if I ever came accross a church the taught ideas contrary to what was taught in the Bible, I would want nothing to do with that church. Good organized religion should not teach you to believe in something original (unless of course you are new to the faith, then instruction is in order), but merely reinforce one's beliefs as founded in the Bible and provide a way to come together for the good of the body of the church and society. As a Christian, my beliefs should translate accross any denomination of the faith and be upheld by any Christian church. Also, I am a Protestant and our churches seem to be more democratic in that we don't have one central "head" telling us how to administer to our own faith. We simply have a body that is capable of organizing things for the greater good.
Gamespy just released an article detailing a hands-on with DS. You can check it out here. Also, it seems like every freaking video game website on the net is slow as anything. In fact, Nintendo's own website appears to be down. Ouch! I wish I could find some free videos of today's press conferences, since I am too cheap to pay for accounts to video game websites.
No, I haven't assumed that the ports are open. What I have assumed is that the system has never been tested. If there is an open interface that has a flaw, it is possible that it could be exploited just no one has done it yet.
Yes, this is much along the lines of what I was trying to say.
"A similar statement can also be true of Macs and viruses, presently. Right now, it's simply a safer neighborhood."
What I really want to know is if the "neighborhood" that Macs exist in suddenly turned as violent as the one that Windows is in, is if they would hold up. I think eventually, someone will try to create something that will attempt harm to Mac users and I would like to know how successful someone might be at this attempt.
What I have always wondered is if there are groups of people who actively try to write viruses for OS X. I would imagine that there has to be at least one person who has tried to do so, even if it is just as a proof of concept and not intended to be released in the wild. At least the idea of being the first person to write a majorly destructive virus for OS X must be appealing to the type of person that creates Windows viruses for fame. I think that answers to questions like these are important because it relates to how we view the security of the system. Along the lines you mentioned, how can people say that OS X has very tight security if it has never been put to the test in the wild? That is like saying my home is ultra secure because it has never been broken into, when, in reality, I leave my doors unlocked and all my windows open.
"90% of the jobs out there are development positions. These require basic programming skills, understanding of the newest buzz technology and an eye for asthetics. "
I would say that as a CS major you should still be very good at development. Obviously, as a CS major you will study much theory, but you must be able to turn that theory into code and a working application. Also, to create good applications, one should have a good understanding of CS and programming, more than just the basics. Although, I would agree that being a CS major might be overkill for developing a website that uses PHP or something like that. However, for pretty much any applications more advanced than this, you will definitely want someone who knows how to code very well. This might even apply to large/powerful web apps. Think about amazon or eBay. Surely, you wouldn't want someone who doesn't know how to create quality code and move around large amounts of data to write the backend to a site like that. I would say, that if you are a CS major who can turn theory into working code, then you are more than qualified to turn design specs or anything else into a quality program.
"If you have this great fast connection with restrictions that make it useless to most people, then the beancounters are going to notice that you're paying a hefty sum each month for an effectively unused resource. They're going to start demanding their money back so they can spend it on a bigger football stadium or something."
Thats why its good to go to Drexel: Internet2, no football team.
"Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!"
I know that Windows doesn't have a good history with security, but honestly I think lots of patches are a good thing because this means that for every patch that is one less way that my system can be compromised. If MS simply sat around and waited for working exploits in the wild, life could be very bad. However, having things patched now and in the future with SP 2, I think Windows will begin to be viewed as having tighter security.
I really don't want to cut up someone's work and I think the art itself is fine, but not as the symbol for what could be a very significant piece of software. I don't think I want to trust my sensitive or important files to something that portrays itself as a retarded scavenger bird. I think something simple yet elegant would have been the best choice here.