I want a system that allows every CPU on my network to be available to every process on the network as if it were another CPU in the same machine. Sort of Distributed Multiprocessing.
I want a system where I can add a HD to any machine on my LAN and have that added into a single pool of diskspace much like multiple drives are attached to the root filesystem in Unix.
Then in this model every computer consists of a "CPU server" a "Disk server" and a terminal with attached peripherals, like keyboard, mouse, scanner, joystick etc. The whole network is literally a single high availability computer.
If I set fire to a particular box then the computer/network just doesn't use those resources anymore. When I replace that box the whole network/computer is faster/has more space seamlessly.
Every application sees a "simple" multitasking environment. It tries to execute on the local node. (i.e. the one the terminal is connected to) and draws resources as needed from any other nodes.
The entire thing should be asymetric so if I try to run Quake on a 386, it just runs out to the network right away and uses additional CPU's to run possibly even assigning the whole process to another more capable CPU like the athlon in the next room.
The question is,"Why is the ability to handle uncompressed video advantageous or good, when the source formats are compressed digital video ?"
There is an inherent assumption in the question, that the source and output media will be the same. First off, I might have MiniDV source and I may be outputting to DVD. These use different compression algorithms. Second, I may be outputting to an analog format, like VHS, Betacam SP or 3/4" tapes. Finally and probably of the least impact, there is a difference in how different recorders encode even the same format.
When you take source material that's already compressed add edit layers and effects then recompress it you get compression artifacts.
Better to take the source (camera) material decompress it. Edit it uncompressed add any uncompressed effects and titling, then compress that. You get fewer artifacts.
If you are just using NLE for some simple cuts and arrangements and adding some simple titles, handling the material compressed may be acceptable for all but broadcast level reproduction. The more you do to the source in post-production the more you need to handle the material uncompressed.
If I have a composite shot of a rendered vehicle, rendered background, foreground actors and set, studio sound then titling, that's five layers of material. Any of that is subject to editing for multiple camera views. If you try a shot like that using one of the DV boards that handle everything compressed, you are going to have one ugly composite final cut. Even with good DV source material you'll end up looking like you shot with an old cheap VHS consumer camcorder.
An example of the above shot would be the Babylon 5 Command deck or the Bridge of the Enterprise on Star Trek. You have the Captain and someone talking in front of the viewscreen/viewport. The viewscreen has some activity in it, a ship or planet moving or rotating or whatever. The background of the viewscreen is a rendered starfield. The ships/planet are either rendered or are models bluescreened in. On the set you have a bunch of computer terminals with changing output, that has to be added in post or else you get that flicker effect you see with monitors on the news. Finally you throw in some opening credits along the bottom, you know guest stars etc. In Babylon 5 they once had this shot set up from the perspective of a news camera that superimposed its station identification in real time.
Those shows both shot film, so they had a lot of problems with those shots, they end up costing a lot. They simply can't be done (yet) to broadcast standards with editing boards that handle the video while it is compressed. Of course a lot of those boards can't put out broadcast quality at all, I refer to the ones that claim to do so.
The Video Toaster is among those systems that can accomplish this shot to the highest video production standards. It is right up there with the AVID and Media 100 systems as far as quality goes. As a matter of fact, Babylon 5 used Video Toasters for a great deal of their work, so the shots cost them a lot less than Star Trek shots cost. (Using film makes it harder to edit the source material, and forces you to go with higher resolution renderings. You also have a conversion step. That is why B5's shot cost a lot more than the same shot using a Toaster and DV/MiniDV source material.)
Slightly offtopic, but I can't resist...The reason B5, X-Files and Star Trek are shot on film is to create a darker deeper image. The result using film also looks sharper. High Density Video may well change that. [drool]I can't wait to get my hands on an HDCAM and a system that can handle HD in/out... [/drool]
I have previously used Newtek's Video Toaster Products, so when I started into this I naturally thought of them. I was surprised not to see any mention of their newer VideoToaster NT.
While the original Toaster and the Toaster Flyer are not suited to NLE (non linear editing) the newer Toaster NT is well suited to it.
The system comes with outstanding software, Speedrazor VT and Lightwave VT are the biggies.
There are options that allow you to handle IEEE 1394 in/out.
The big advantage of using a Video Toaster is that your video is handled UNCOMPRESSED. That means, given a digital source, that you will have no quality loss no matter how many generations or layers you use in your projects. You have to step up to very expensive AVID systems to get better quality.
This does come at a price though. You will need a LARGE and FAST disk subsystem capable of handling a sustained transfer rate of 23.4MB/s. You can also plan on about 1.3 GB per minute of video. Medea offers some excellent systems that can meet these needs. I suggest their VideoRaidrt series, which are actually based on IDE DMA drives that'll plug into the external connector of your fast SCSI controller. This makes the drive arrays very affordable. I think you could build a similiar HD array using Linux and an IDE RAID controller, but I don't know how to get it to act as a drive and communicate across the SCSI channel like an ordinary SCSI device. That approach would no doubt save you a pretty penny though.
You will need a fast system, I think a system with two Pentium 3 600 Coppermines is a good start. Look for 256MB RAM or more. You also need a high qualtiy PCI sound card. I am still looking onto those, but you can always start with Soundblaster. I am using a GeForce 256 DDR video card. You could probably use an older card, but I'd urge you to get as nice a video card as you can.
The Toaster itself is about $3000 US dollars, and you can expect to spend about $5,000 US on a system and drives.
You didn't mention camera's. I am using a Canon XL1 for most of my work. The camera has interchangeable lenses and with a converter can use any EF series photographic lens. An XL1 will run you about $3800 US. If I had the budget I'd look at the JVC GY-DV500 which has larger CCD's and uses standard professional video lenses. It also has better low light performance and a more professional look and feel. This means that if you have to hire a cameraman, they'll probably be reasonably familiar with teh camera. It runs about $5,000 US. The lenses are harder to find and more expensive than EF lenses. I plan on using a Canon GL1 as a second unit camera, when my budget allows me to acquire one. ( Of course if my budget allows I'll probably go after the JVC and using the XL1 as a second unit.) All these cameras use MiniDV cassettes and have IEEE 1394 in/out.
That said, I have to forewarn you to remember that you will need to budget for lighting equipment, professional microphones, particularly if you are going to shoot outside on windy days tripods and LAN-C or Control L controllers that will allow you to operate the camera while it is on a tripod. If you are going to try to move the camera I reccomend a steadicam. Also for the XL1 I reccomend using a shoulder mount that will counterbalance the camera as it is "front heavy" with most of its lenses.
I think that the HP890c is one of those "winprinters." OF course I could be talking out of my ass. If it is I'm pleasantly surprised that it works at all.
Anyway, I have an HP Laserjet 5L and it works like a charm. Absolutely flawless, its faster than under Win 98 or NT.
I have it shared with SAMBA to my Windows boxes. On windows I install the HP PCL driver, and I get EVERY feature that is available to me if I am connected directly to the printer. Its just a little quicker.
Thinking the speed difference might be an illusion, I devised a rudimentary test. I printed a sample of documents, and timed how long it took. I printed all documents to a local printer, and to a network printer. In all cases when the printer was attached to Linux it was faster. I used the same printer for all tests.
How much faster, about 8%, not earth shattering but you notice on longer documents and ones with lots of graphics. Interestingly the fastest combination is printing from Windows NT to the Linux SAMBA share for the laser. The difference is minute, but consistently about 0.8%. [I wouldn't have noticed without the stopwatch] I didn't account for CPU speed, but I will say that Linux is running on the slowest machines (Pentium 60 and Pentium 100) in the house. Windows 98 is on the fastest (K6-2 300). All my machines have the same network card (Netgear FA310TX) on a 100Mbit LAN (NetWorth Micro 100 rack repeater)
Does this mean that Linux printer support is all done ? I don't think so. It is pretty good for HP black and white laser printers, without multiple paper sources though.
What do you think about the ability of Open Source applications to penetrate into the Windows market.
Do you see products like GIMP competing meaningfully with products like Photo-Paint on Windows or other non-open platforms ?
The cost of Open Source (i.e. free) is a positive factor in that people who don't want to pay can get products for free, and a negative factor in that people feel that they get what they pay for. What do you think the overall effect of Open Source's cost will have on Open Source's penetration into the market ?
Lastly, in a market where users are accustomed to easy installation wizards etc. How valuable is having the source code to most of your customers ?
Actually, the professional edition comes with Paradox, Corel's RDBMS
Oh, I thought Borland/Inprise still had that.
Consider my question officially retracted.
I feel silly. Especially since I just noticed that cute little 'No Score +1 Bonus' button. When did that show up ? (I'll leave the +1 on this so you can all see my retraction.)
On another note, I wish there were someway I could go back and take that bonus off the original post.
I noticed that the Wordperfect Office bundle does not include a database product ?
How does Corel intend to fill this 'gap' in its suite ? It seems to me that any newcomer to the area would simply be overwhelmed by Access on Windows, but on Linux and other platforms (Such as Apple) there may be more opportunity.
What about using an open source product, such as PostgreSQL ? Naturally this is already included in many Linux distributions, but you could include it in your Office suite as a way of giving customers on other platforms greater value and leveling the playing field with Microsoft Office.
Re:If you like slave labour, go for it.
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 2
I really don't believe that any of the codes were difficult.
But they were all different. That's the key point of interest. How many people know BOTH Morse and binary/ASCII codes ? I don't know morse at all. (except for SOS) I didn't even recognize it at first. How many people would recognize the binary and be able to translate it to ASCII ? Not to mention finding it required a trick. The pool of people that would recognize both morse and binary encoded ASCII is small.
Although the "challenge" was simple it is the variety that makes it interesting at all. By picking different "encodings" they can see how flexible you are. This certainly doesn't prove you to be a master cryptanalyst.
It does mean you are observant, thorough and that you have "some" talent in the area of decoding. I expect that almost everyone here (/.) is a suitable candidate for these kinds of jobs.
Now go to work or school and ask yourself how many of those people could do it.
Re:Here's one - if anyone's interested
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, typo
should be
WELL DONE! NOW APPLY FOR A JOB!
Re:Here's one - if anyone's interested
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 5
WELLD ONE!N OWAPP LYFOR AJOB!
WELL DONE NOW! APPLY FOR A JOB!
Re:Here's one - if anyone's interested
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 3
You mention exactly the type of field I envisioned. I don't know if it is practical, though I conjecture it is.
As to the particles dropping through the poles, why sheild them ? It seems to me there may be solution that allows the particles to flow right through the flight axis, allowing the solution to the radiation problem to also serve in a propulsive capacity. Rather elegant.
The ship would have to be a tube. You could even accelerate the particles as they flow through the vessel. Some of the waste heat from the generators could be used to warm the crew quarters.
Of course with the energy of these particles, it might also prove to be a significant beam weapon that we have shooting out the back of our craft. I haven't done the math, but future astronauts may have to be as careful what they fly away from as they are with what they fly towards.
(That was an awkward sentence.)
In any case, I have no clue what Isp would be for such a propulsion system, it may prove to be a waste of effort. Sure sounds good though.
I don't know of any experimental work in the area.
I am a member of the contributor network for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. The objective of the program is to create new propulsion and energy technologies that would allow mankind to reasonably travel within the solar system and to nearby stars.
Given the staggering problems, what sources of propulsion and energy do you envision that might realistically allow humanity to travel within the solar system with relative ease ?
What solutions do you see for radioactive sheilding on such trips ? Do you think we will always be bound to using massive sheilds, or will we become able to use some sort of electromagnetic barrier ?
Gee that's nice. I am impressed by your profound Windows mastery, but I think you missed the point AC.
I upgraded a machine that used 68 MB under NT4 and now it uses 104MB under RC2, never mind the damn configuration. Why should it take an extra 36 MB to run the SAME services ?
As to whether or not I have a lot of shit running, why yes I do, The machine in question is admittedly both a server and a workstation. It doesn't surprise me in the least that almost any clueless AC can use less memory. It is still the same configuration, the only difference is now I have RC2 instead of NT4sp4.
RC2 Couldn't be that great, since they are releasing RC3. While I am on the bitchwagon, Under RC2 I can not sync with my Palm 3x anylonger. The process starts, but then it just hangs seemingly forever. RC2's version of IE5 also seems to have misplaced my mail stores, and account information. Also RC2 can't see my Samba shares. I didn't change the setup that works with my default Win98 and my other WinNT box. (And this one previously.) It is also much slower, presently however I attribute that to Beta code and what is definitely OLD hardware for NT. (P200MMX, 128 MB RAM, 4MB S3Virge Video, ATAPI drives...its really a PC not a server)
RC2 has serious problems. I find it overall far worse than every version of NT4, including the beta releases. I am not comparing it to Linux or Solaris or IRIX. I am comparing it to Windows NT 4. I found Windows 98 Beta 3 and newer to all be "better" than the then current releases of Win 95. I expected more of the same, Even as a Beta product I find Win2kRC2 disappointing. I can't see how I'll be able to reccomend upgrades to my clients. Next on my list is to evaluate the server as a fresh install. Even if I can reccomend a fresh system, this is terrible in any production environment, for obvious reasons. It leaves customers with a mix of systems. I think most of my clients could be convinced to start migrating file, internet and print services to Linux. I am starting to see a real backlash against NT in the corporate environment.
Perhaps part of the point of this bit of news is to assure the flock out there that the FoF will not impact MS's activities. All is normal.
Right ?
I wonder why MS simply doesn't set up an online store for all their software ? It isn't like stores will stop carrying MS product if they do. MS could catch some of that margin for themselves. Like they need the money.
Well, if Win 2000 is as crappy as the RC2 indicates it might be, then they may actually need every penny they can scrape up.
Win 2000's DNS server managed to destroy all the domain records on my intranet (Linux 2.2.5 Bind 4) when I started it...that was a neat trick. I know everyone on the Internet will want that feature. It is time to upgrade to BIND 8 people. Worse Win 2000 Server didn't give me the option NOT to install its DNS Manager. Win 2000RC2 also uses 30% more RAM on my system immediately after a system startup. (104MB with 2000RC2, 68MB on NT4 same hardware.)
Oops, this turned into an anti-Windows rant...sorry. Then again Win2K deserves it more than any Windows to-date. Beta or otherwise
No, you didn't think of it first. This idea has been bandied about for rather some time. At least a decade or so.
This isn't to say that you didn't come up with it independently. I invented it in high school, and quickly found out it was already proposed. Makes you think they already had all the good ideas eh ?
Let users get access to the system with Username/Password.
Once they have this access, give them a choice of less secure to most secure methods of accessing their data and explain it to them. Make it clear security of their communications is their responsibility as well. Have them sign something next time they are physically at your offices.
If they are lazy they can just use u/p as they just did. Let them pick an easy to remember password if they like they can pick their damn username. They use this to login to a message center via https, make them use a 128-bit browser, you can even give one away on CD when the user comes in for a visit.
If they are more energetic, they can submit their password to a password verifier/tester that makes sure it isn't a dictionary word, 3l33t 5p3ak, or otherwise easy to guess. To help keep it easy, you could have your password generator/tester check for "pronounceable" passwords like gerpratlis, which, as far as I know, is not a word but perhaps easier to remember.
For those who want better security, support a public key system like PGP on their normal internet email systems. This system is probably great for most users. This brings up some issues, like making sure every doctor has an email address accessible to the outside world, I'll come back to this.
For the truly paranoid you have PGP messages submitted over 128-bit encrypted https to your message center.
This brings up the notion of supporting all these communication types. First let me address your users.
Well, the first two options are technically the same except at password generation/assignment time.
Users of PGP over https (the last option) have all the problems of the first two options, but you have to support PGP for those users.
Users of PGP alone (the third option) only burden you with support for PGP.
Supporting all this within your organization is perhaps easier. First make sure that all your communications are signed in PGP. If the patient uses PGP, you encrypt and sign. The difficulty comes in making sure that all your staff can easily tell whether or not their patients use PGP or not. One method would be to require PGP users to send their public key whenever communicating. This is easily enforced on users of your own "message board." Another supplementary method would be to mark all PGP using patients records with a clear code that indicates they use PGP. You could also maintain your own keyservers.
Remember the third option, you now have to be certain that your doctors can send and recieve Internet mail the same way they use the "hospital message board." If the message board is just some sort of mail repository this is easy. you can implement this by giving all https submitters an email account at your site, and then accept outgoing mail (mail from your patients and staff using your mailserver) only from your website, where patients are logged in, and from your internal machines. This approach is subject to spoofing. You can deal with that by allowing mail from the website only on direct physical connections. Similiarly connections from the hospital will only be allowed from the intranet. Users using Internet mail with PGP will have to depend on PGP only for authentication, as will the hospital.
I know this wasn't exactly the clearest posting, but I hope it can be made out.
Once we reach this scale I think we will not use electric gates as we do today with our semiconductor technology.
Rather we will have to use mechanical computers, if only to avoid the wierdness of QED. A return to Babbages original ideas. Babbage would be rather pleased.
Of course this will nullify some of the speed gains.
DURHAM, N.C. - November 1, 1999 - Red Hat, Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT) announced today the formation of a new non-profit organization, the Red Hat Center for Open Source (RHCOS), that will sponsor, support, promote and engage in a wide range of scientific and educational projects intended to advance the social principles of open source for the greater good of the general public.
"The open source software movement has been successful because it has provided unprecedented control and quality to users, and at the same time enabled a model for cooperative development of technology that leveraged the expertise of the global community," said Ewing. "The implications of this model when applied outside of software development are enormous, and the benefits to society will be huge. Advancing this global cooperative model for the development of technologies and ideas is what RHCOS is all about."
I guess this means that Red Hat is going to try and focus now on getting all those windows (l)users to at least try Linux. Mostly they want them to try Red Hat, of course, but this move is meant to make sure that whatever they come up with can benefit everyone.
Frankly, I don't know if they really needed to do this. It might be a PR move rather than any kind of a technical move. (I know that sounds kind of obvious.) A lot of people, especially around here have been bashing Red Hat for "selling out." This could be the first part of their answer to those critics.
Overemphasis on any facet of implementation, including (perhaps especially) requirements and design, will lead to a flawed product. (The greatest flaw is never geting done.) Finding overemphasis of the design phase is a very common problem.
The opposite problem, not enough emphasis is also prevalent. You can't simply wade in on any but the smallest projects.
Overall the real problem is finding the right balance between these extremes is the key to success. Unfortunately this balance changes with every project. As cworley said on simple projects planning til the cows come home is effective. Then again, so is wading in and hacking away.
Unfortunately there are "forces" at work making this balancing act particularly hard. Management and most consultants want the design phase to be highly detailed and documented. Management wants all this in its standard form. The consultants have their own different forms. The code jockeys want to start hacking away. These activities are the ones that directly generate income for each of these groups. There are precious few whose responsibilites cross these boundaries. As a result "failed" projects have a great deal of finger pointing. The suits say the code jockeys didn't follow "The Plan", the programmers say they coded to the available spec., but that the spec was incomplete or downright wrong.
This leads to a vicious circle where more design procedures are put in place, and where programmers are tied more and more to operating in their little areas of the code. In essence the reaction to the failure ensures more of the activity that caused the failure!!
You must seek balance in thought and source, only then a Jedi will you be.
I think if they just made sure that their staff was competent and that the technologies they selected were well understood, they could confidently proceed without one.
I think part of the problem is that "big clients" are used to purchasing buggy closed source products, like Windows, that crash for no discernable reason. Unless they can call Microsoft in on the case, there is simply no solution easily available. No one else understands the product.
Open source should be the answer to this problem. There is only one problem, How many Linux users actually read the source ?
Of those how many can change it to fix a problem ?
How many can actually decide whether changing the code is appropiate ? It may be easier to change the project implementation rather than the OS code.
This leads back to making sure you have qualified pesonnel. At this level of sophistication, you really need fairly sophisticated interviewers in order to understand whether or not you are actually getting a qualified professional. Most organizations simply don't have this core competence. (A lot do, especially in hardware development and civil engineering.)
This leads to another business opportunity, a consulting firm could offer technical interview services. Unlike headhunter's these firms would "guarantee" a persons technical qualifications only. The prospective employer pays a one time fee for this evaluation.
Back to the idea of developing an OSS solution for E-Commerce...if such a "turnkey" solution appeared today it would be some time before it was well understood by the community at large. This negates the short term advantages of OSS. You still have to be able to "call" someone. If that someone isn't being paid, how can you be sure they'll be there ? Only after an Open Source solution has been used for a while will it seem an acceptable alternative to large companies.
What companies fail to understand is the cost of e-business. A lot of companies go into e-commerce thinking about the costs they can avoid, like real estate and sales staff. They don't want to hear about how some of those expenses are going to be replaced by the purchase of high tech talent.
Along with failing to understand the costs, companies fail to understand some fundamental advantages. Most companies don't want to pioneer, they want to follow where others have already been and avoid mistakes. Sensibly cautious. Unfortunately this closes those companies to new revenue opportunities.
Have you ever seen a customer kiosk that allows you access to a company web site in that companies stores ? This would seem to be the cost effective way to give brick and mortar customers access to everything that may not be in their particular store. No more dealing with sales associates for special orders. If it is on the web site, the store can deliver straight to your home so why lose that customer because they go home and surf the net to a competitor's site ? Ever try to explain that simple idea to the VP of Sales ? Might as well be talking to a wall.
Take it another step. Why don't stores have interactive maps and stock levels of/for themselves ? I want to know where the baby oil is at this "X-Mart" so I go to the kiosk and click to Baby Oil and have the store map come up. (You are here, baby oil here) Now if this particular store is out of stock, you can automatically be given a chance to order online...seems like a no brainer eh ?
The innovation here is obviously in its early stages, but I would have liked to see some questions answered...
1. How suitable is this material for mass production ?
2. How much power can be generated per unit area ? I'd like to see the "theoretical maximum" and the actual measure of the current material. This would allow elementary comparisons between solar collector's and chlorophyll. This sounds like a great breakthrough, but exactly how good is it compared to what we have ?
3. What frequencies can the material respond to ? This question could be important to the space program, if materials can be made that convert even a fraction of the radiation from the sun to usable energy there could be a great saving in mission mass requirements ? This could come from simply replacing inert shielding with this material, thus you eliminate some power generation/fuel requirements, making the whole mission more efficient. Using this material as the membrane of a solar sail would be doubly effective, deriving propulsion as well as any energy requirements.
4. My previous inquiries beg the question, What is the tensile strength of this material ? How malleable is it ?
Again it is clear the technology is far from ready for prime time, but the possiblities are exciting.
Applications and ethics
on
The Cat Cam
·
· Score: 3
I am making a huge assumptive leap in the capabilities of the science we see here. I know a lot of what I postulate below is far removed from what can actually be done, but it may be an eventual outcome...though I hope a distant one.
The military might find it attractive to implant this type of system into its troops in the field, and those dolphins they train to redirect enemy torpedoes. (Yeah I know, they say they quit that, but they can always restart it.)
There is a "bright" side of course, this type of recording could be used to train people how to do a by giving them the experiences of someone skilled in that area. You could learn how to play hockey by being Wayne Gretzky for an afternoon.
It is a bit of a stretch, but if this method is extended to other processes you could "teach" certain purely cognitive processes by example. Wouldn't it be neat to learn to do Physics by being Stephen Hawking for a few days. That is about the only way to gain a real insight into how he solves problems and how he understands the universe.
Before this type of "learning" could take place there may have to be a non-invasive method for retrieving the necessary data patterns from a brain.
Unfortunately the possibilites for abuse are so high, it is scary. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing. It has already been mentioned that certain entities may want to use these possible future systems to monitor criminals.
What if the government decides to monitor anyone with access to classified information ? What if they decide they want to monitor people who are percieved to be a threat ? Let's say they get used to that sort of thing over time, will they then want to monitor everyone all the time ? After all if you have nothing to hide...
What are the boundaries ? What kind of world can this technology create ? What kind of world should this technology create ? Before moving forward too quickly we should understand the extremes of the application possible.
Science Fiction has shown dystopic visions of civilizations equipped with ultimate personal monitoring technology. (1984, Borg...) Has anyone seen a Utopian vision of a community with this technology ? What does it mean to bereft of all personal privacy ? Can humans remain sane without their privacy ? Which, if any, of our thoughts and actions does any government or community have a "need to know ? Is this sort of thing ever appropiate, regardless of the benefits it may provide to civilization ?
I have not seen the distro, but maybe Corel intends this non-disclosure to cover only their propietary portions of the distro. I assume it includes products like WordPerfect etc. I suppose it also includes customized installer routines etc.
Does/Should the GPL cover those products too ?
Even if Corel does intend to cover the whole distro, they might have plans in place to remove restrictions before the final product ships out the door. Strictly this wouldn't be permitted, but I don't think anyone should file lawsuits just yet. If they attempt to release the "non-beta" distro like this, then I'll pitch in on the GPL defense fund. Until then there is the risk of scaring off not just Corel, but other large corporate developers...many of whom have products that would bring value to Linux but are tepid about entering a strange new market.
In any case, I think this question should be answered before OSS people fly off the handle.
Slashdot Mirror
I want a system that allows every CPU on my network to be available to every process on the network as if it were another CPU in the same machine. Sort of Distributed Multiprocessing.
I want a system where I can add a HD to any machine on my LAN and have that added into a single pool of diskspace much like multiple drives are attached to the root filesystem in Unix.
Then in this model every computer consists of a "CPU server" a "Disk server" and a terminal with attached peripherals, like keyboard, mouse, scanner, joystick etc. The whole network is literally a single high availability computer.
If I set fire to a particular box then the computer/network just doesn't use those resources anymore. When I replace that box the whole network/computer is faster/has more space seamlessly.
Every application sees a "simple" multitasking environment. It tries to execute on the local node. (i.e. the one the terminal is connected to) and draws resources as needed from any other nodes.
The entire thing should be asymetric so if I try to run Quake on a 386, it just runs out to the network right away and uses additional CPU's to run possibly even assigning the whole process to another more capable CPU like the athlon in the next room.
There is an inherent assumption in the question, that the source and output media will be the same. First off, I might have MiniDV source and I may be outputting to DVD. These use different compression algorithms. Second, I may be outputting to an analog format, like VHS, Betacam SP or 3/4" tapes. Finally and probably of the least impact, there is a difference in how different recorders encode even the same format.
When you take source material that's already compressed add edit layers and effects then recompress it you get compression artifacts.
Better to take the source (camera) material decompress it. Edit it uncompressed add any uncompressed effects and titling, then compress that. You get fewer artifacts.
If you are just using NLE for some simple cuts and arrangements and adding some simple titles, handling the material compressed may be acceptable for all but broadcast level reproduction. The more you do to the source in post-production the more you need to handle the material uncompressed.
If I have a composite shot of a rendered vehicle, rendered background, foreground actors and set, studio sound then titling, that's five layers of material. Any of that is subject to editing for multiple camera views. If you try a shot like that using one of the DV boards that handle everything compressed, you are going to have one ugly composite final cut. Even with good DV source material you'll end up looking like you shot with an old cheap VHS consumer camcorder.
An example of the above shot would be the Babylon 5 Command deck or the Bridge of the Enterprise on Star Trek. You have the Captain and someone talking in front of the viewscreen/viewport. The viewscreen has some activity in it, a ship or planet moving or rotating or whatever. The background of the viewscreen is a rendered starfield. The ships/planet are either rendered or are models bluescreened in. On the set you have a bunch of computer terminals with changing output, that has to be added in post or else you get that flicker effect you see with monitors on the news. Finally you throw in some opening credits along the bottom, you know guest stars etc. In Babylon 5 they once had this shot set up from the perspective of a news camera that superimposed its station identification in real time.
Those shows both shot film, so they had a lot of problems with those shots, they end up costing a lot. They simply can't be done (yet) to broadcast standards with editing boards that handle the video while it is compressed. Of course a lot of those boards can't put out broadcast quality at all, I refer to the ones that claim to do so.
The Video Toaster is among those systems that can accomplish this shot to the highest video production standards. It is right up there with the AVID and Media 100 systems as far as quality goes. As a matter of fact, Babylon 5 used Video Toasters for a great deal of their work, so the shots cost them a lot less than Star Trek shots cost. (Using film makes it harder to edit the source material, and forces you to go with higher resolution renderings. You also have a conversion step. That is why B5's shot cost a lot more than the same shot using a Toaster and DV/MiniDV source material.)
Slightly offtopic, but I can't resist...The reason B5, X-Files and Star Trek are shot on film is to create a darker deeper image. The result using film also looks sharper. High Density Video may well change that. [drool]I can't wait to get my hands on an HDCAM and a system that can handle HD in/out... [/drool]
I have previously used Newtek's Video Toaster Products, so when I started into this I naturally thought of them. I was surprised not to see any mention of their newer VideoToaster NT.
While the original Toaster and the Toaster Flyer are not suited to NLE (non linear editing) the newer Toaster NT is well suited to it.
The system comes with outstanding software, Speedrazor VT and Lightwave VT are the biggies.
There are options that allow you to handle IEEE 1394 in/out.
The big advantage of using a Video Toaster is that your video is handled UNCOMPRESSED. That means, given a digital source, that you will have no quality loss no matter how many generations or layers you use in your projects. You have to step up to very expensive AVID systems to get better quality.
This does come at a price though. You will need a LARGE and FAST disk subsystem capable of handling a sustained transfer rate of 23.4MB/s. You can also plan on about 1.3 GB per minute of video. Medea offers some excellent systems that can meet these needs. I suggest their VideoRaidrt series, which are actually based on IDE DMA drives that'll plug into the external connector of your fast SCSI controller. This makes the drive arrays very affordable. I think you could build a similiar HD array using Linux and an IDE RAID controller, but I don't know how to get it to act as a drive and communicate across the SCSI channel like an ordinary SCSI device. That approach would no doubt save you a pretty penny though.
You will need a fast system, I think a system with two Pentium 3 600 Coppermines is a good start. Look for 256MB RAM or more. You also need a high qualtiy PCI sound card. I am still looking onto those, but you can always start with Soundblaster. I am using a GeForce 256 DDR video card. You could probably use an older card, but I'd urge you to get as nice a video card as you can.
The Toaster itself is about $3000 US dollars, and you can expect to spend about $5,000 US on a system and drives.
You didn't mention camera's. I am using a Canon XL1 for most of my work. The camera has interchangeable lenses and with a converter can use any EF series photographic lens. An XL1 will run you about $3800 US. If I had the budget I'd look at the JVC GY-DV500 which has larger CCD's and uses standard professional video lenses. It also has better low light performance and a more professional look and feel. This means that if you have to hire a cameraman, they'll probably be reasonably familiar with teh camera. It runs about $5,000 US. The lenses are harder to find and more expensive than EF lenses. I plan on using a Canon GL1 as a second unit camera, when my budget allows me to acquire one. ( Of course if my budget allows I'll probably go after the JVC and using the XL1 as a second unit.) All these cameras use MiniDV cassettes and have IEEE 1394 in/out.
That said, I have to forewarn you to remember that you will need to budget for lighting equipment, professional microphones, particularly if you are going to shoot outside on windy days tripods and LAN-C or Control L controllers that will allow you to operate the camera while it is on a tripod. If you are going to try to move the camera I reccomend a steadicam. Also for the XL1 I reccomend using a shoulder mount that will counterbalance the camera as it is "front heavy" with most of its lenses.
I think that the HP890c is one of those "winprinters." OF course I could be talking out of my ass. If it is I'm pleasantly surprised that it works at all.
Anyway, I have an HP Laserjet 5L and it works like a charm. Absolutely flawless, its faster than under Win 98 or NT.
I have it shared with SAMBA to my Windows boxes. On windows I install the HP PCL driver, and I get EVERY feature that is available to me if I am connected directly to the printer. Its just a little quicker.
Thinking the speed difference might be an illusion, I devised a rudimentary test. I printed a sample of documents, and timed how long it took. I printed all documents to a local printer, and to a network printer. In all cases when the printer was attached to Linux it was faster. I used the same printer for all tests.
How much faster, about 8%, not earth shattering but you notice on longer documents and ones with lots of graphics. Interestingly the fastest combination is printing from Windows NT to the Linux SAMBA share for the laser. The difference is minute, but consistently about 0.8%. [I wouldn't have noticed without the stopwatch] I didn't account for CPU speed, but I will say that Linux is running on the slowest machines (Pentium 60 and Pentium 100) in the house. Windows 98 is on the fastest (K6-2 300). All my machines have the same network card (Netgear FA310TX) on a 100Mbit LAN (NetWorth Micro 100 rack repeater)
Does this mean that Linux printer support is all done ? I don't think so. It is pretty good for HP black and white laser printers, without multiple paper sources though.
What do you think about the ability of Open Source applications to penetrate into the Windows market.
Do you see products like GIMP competing meaningfully with products like Photo-Paint on Windows or other non-open platforms ?
The cost of Open Source (i.e. free) is a positive factor in that people who don't want to pay can get products for free, and a negative factor in that people feel that they get what they pay for. What do you think the overall effect of Open Source's cost will have on Open Source's penetration into the market ?
Lastly, in a market where users are accustomed to easy installation wizards etc. How valuable is having the source code to most of your customers ?
Oh, I thought Borland/Inprise still had that.
Consider my question officially retracted.
I feel silly. Especially since I just noticed that cute little 'No Score +1 Bonus' button. When did that show up ? (I'll leave the +1 on this so you can all see my retraction.)
On another note, I wish there were someway I could go back and take that bonus off the original post.
I noticed that the Wordperfect Office bundle does not include a database product ?
How does Corel intend to fill this 'gap' in its suite ? It seems to me that any newcomer to the area would simply be overwhelmed by Access on Windows, but on Linux and other platforms (Such as Apple) there may be more opportunity.
What about using an open source product, such as PostgreSQL ? Naturally this is already included in many Linux distributions, but you could include it in your Office suite as a way of giving customers on other platforms greater value and leveling the playing field with Microsoft Office.
(Interactive PostgreSQL for Windows is available at http://www.zeos.dn.ua/download/ipg sql-latest.zip. It seems to be mostly a way of interacting with PostgreSQL. I am not clear on its license.)
I really don't believe that any of the codes were difficult.
But they were all different. That's the key point of interest. How many people know BOTH Morse and binary/ASCII codes ? I don't know morse at all. (except for SOS) I didn't even recognize it at first. How many people would recognize the binary and be able to translate it to ASCII ? Not to mention finding it required a trick. The pool of people that would recognize both morse and binary encoded ASCII is small.
Although the "challenge" was simple it is the variety that makes it interesting at all. By picking different "encodings" they can see how flexible you are. This certainly doesn't prove you to be a master cryptanalyst.
It does mean you are observant, thorough and that you have "some" talent in the area of decoding. I expect that almost everyone here (/.) is a suitable candidate for these kinds of jobs.
Now go to work or school and ask yourself how many of those people could do it.
Sorry, typo
should be
WELL DONE! NOW APPLY FOR A JOB!
WELLD
ONE!N
OWAPP
LYFOR
AJOB!
WELL DONE NOW! APPLY FOR A JOB!
Easier to read if you view source.
That is how I found it.
You mention exactly the type of field I envisioned. I don't know if it is practical, though I conjecture it is.
As to the particles dropping through the poles, why sheild them ? It seems to me there may be solution that allows the particles to flow right through the flight axis, allowing the solution to the radiation problem to also serve in a propulsive capacity. Rather elegant.
The ship would have to be a tube. You could even accelerate the particles as they flow through the vessel. Some of the waste heat from the generators could be used to warm the crew quarters.
Of course with the energy of these particles, it might also prove to be a significant beam weapon that we have shooting out the back of our craft. I haven't done the math, but future astronauts may have to be as careful what they fly away from as they are with what they fly towards.
(That was an awkward sentence.)
In any case, I have no clue what Isp would be for such a propulsion system, it may prove to be a waste of effort. Sure sounds good though.
I don't know of any experimental work in the area.
I am a member of the contributor network for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. The objective of the program is to create new propulsion and energy technologies that would allow mankind to reasonably travel within the solar system and to nearby stars.
Given the staggering problems, what sources of propulsion and energy do you envision that might realistically allow humanity to travel within the solar system with relative ease ?
What solutions do you see for radioactive sheilding on such trips ? Do you think we will always be bound to using massive sheilds, or will we become able to use some sort of electromagnetic barrier ?
Thank you.
Alexander Ibrahim
aibrahim@zenera.com
I upgraded a machine that used 68 MB under NT4 and now it uses 104MB under RC2, never mind the damn configuration. Why should it take an extra 36 MB to run the SAME services ?
As to whether or not I have a lot of shit running, why yes I do, The machine in question is admittedly both a server and a workstation. It doesn't surprise me in the least that almost any clueless AC can use less memory. It is still the same configuration, the only difference is now I have RC2 instead of NT4sp4.
RC2 Couldn't be that great, since they are releasing RC3. While I am on the bitchwagon, Under RC2 I can not sync with my Palm 3x anylonger. The process starts, but then it just hangs seemingly forever. RC2's version of IE5 also seems to have misplaced my mail stores, and account information. Also RC2 can't see my Samba shares. I didn't change the setup that works with my default Win98 and my other WinNT box. (And this one previously.) It is also much slower, presently however I attribute that to Beta code and what is definitely OLD hardware for NT. (P200MMX, 128 MB RAM, 4MB S3Virge Video, ATAPI drives...its really a PC not a server)
RC2 has serious problems. I find it overall far worse than every version of NT4, including the beta releases. I am not comparing it to Linux or Solaris or IRIX. I am comparing it to Windows NT 4. I found Windows 98 Beta 3 and newer to all be "better" than the then current releases of Win 95. I expected more of the same, Even as a Beta product I find Win2kRC2 disappointing. I can't see how I'll be able to reccomend upgrades to my clients. Next on my list is to evaluate the server as a fresh install. Even if I can reccomend a fresh system, this is terrible in any production environment, for obvious reasons. It leaves customers with a mix of systems. I think most of my clients could be convinced to start migrating file, internet and print services to Linux. I am starting to see a real backlash against NT in the corporate environment.
Right ?
I wonder why MS simply doesn't set up an online store for all their software ? It isn't like stores will stop carrying MS product if they do. MS could catch some of that margin for themselves. Like they need the money.
Well, if Win 2000 is as crappy as the RC2 indicates it might be, then they may actually need every penny they can scrape up.
Win 2000's DNS server managed to destroy all the domain records on my intranet (Linux 2.2.5 Bind 4) when I started it...that was a neat trick. I know everyone on the Internet will want that feature. It is time to upgrade to BIND 8 people. Worse Win 2000 Server didn't give me the option NOT to install its DNS Manager. Win 2000RC2 also uses 30% more RAM on my system immediately after a system startup. (104MB with 2000RC2, 68MB on NT4 same hardware.)
Oops, this turned into an anti-Windows rant...sorry. Then again Win2K deserves it more than any Windows to-date. Beta or otherwise
This isn't to say that you didn't come up with it independently. I invented it in high school, and quickly found out it was already proposed. Makes you think they already had all the good ideas eh ?
Once they have this access, give them a choice of less secure to most secure methods of accessing their data and explain it to them. Make it clear security of their communications is their responsibility as well. Have them sign something next time they are physically at your offices.
If they are lazy they can just use u/p as they just did. Let them pick an easy to remember password if they like they can pick their damn username. They use this to login to a message center via https, make them use a 128-bit browser, you can even give one away on CD when the user comes in for a visit.
If they are more energetic, they can submit their password to a password verifier/tester that makes sure it isn't a dictionary word, 3l33t 5p3ak, or otherwise easy to guess. To help keep it easy, you could have your password generator/tester check for "pronounceable" passwords like gerpratlis, which, as far as I know, is not a word but perhaps easier to remember.
For those who want better security, support a public key system like PGP on their normal internet email systems. This system is probably great for most users. This brings up some issues, like making sure every doctor has an email address accessible to the outside world, I'll come back to this.
For the truly paranoid you have PGP messages submitted over 128-bit encrypted https to your message center.
This brings up the notion of supporting all these communication types. First let me address your users.
Well, the first two options are technically the same except at password generation/assignment time.
Users of PGP over https (the last option) have all the problems of the first two options, but you have to support PGP for those users.
Users of PGP alone (the third option) only burden you with support for PGP.
Supporting all this within your organization is perhaps easier. First make sure that all your communications are signed in PGP. If the patient uses PGP, you encrypt and sign. The difficulty comes in making sure that all your staff can easily tell whether or not their patients use PGP or not. One method would be to require PGP users to send their public key whenever communicating. This is easily enforced on users of your own "message board." Another supplementary method would be to mark all PGP using patients records with a clear code that indicates they use PGP. You could also maintain your own keyservers.
Remember the third option, you now have to be certain that your doctors can send and recieve Internet mail the same way they use the "hospital message board." If the message board is just some sort of mail repository this is easy. you can implement this by giving all https submitters an email account at your site, and then accept outgoing mail (mail from your patients and staff using your mailserver) only from your website, where patients are logged in, and from your internal machines. This approach is subject to spoofing. You can deal with that by allowing mail from the website only on direct physical connections. Similiarly connections from the hospital will only be allowed from the intranet. Users using Internet mail with PGP will have to depend on PGP only for authentication, as will the hospital.
I know this wasn't exactly the clearest posting, but I hope it can be made out.
Rather we will have to use mechanical computers, if only to avoid the wierdness of QED. A return to Babbages original ideas. Babbage would be rather pleased.
Of course this will nullify some of the speed gains.
DURHAM, N.C. - November 1, 1999 - Red Hat, Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT) announced today the formation of a new non-profit organization, the Red Hat Center for Open Source (RHCOS), that will sponsor, support, promote and engage in a wide range of scientific and educational projects intended to advance the social principles of open source for the greater good of the general public.
"The open source software movement has been successful because it has provided unprecedented control and quality to users, and at the same time enabled a model for cooperative development of technology that leveraged the expertise of the global community," said Ewing. "The implications of this model when applied outside of software development are enormous, and the benefits to society will be huge. Advancing this global cooperative model for the development of technologies and ideas is what RHCOS is all about."
I guess this means that Red Hat is going to try and focus now on getting all those windows (l)users to at least try Linux. Mostly they want them to try Red Hat, of course, but this move is meant to make sure that whatever they come up with can benefit everyone.
Frankly, I don't know if they really needed to do this. It might be a PR move rather than any kind of a technical move. (I know that sounds kind of obvious.) A lot of people, especially around here have been bashing Red Hat for "selling out." This could be the first part of their answer to those critics.
Overemphasis on any facet of implementation, including (perhaps especially) requirements and design, will lead to a flawed product. (The greatest flaw is never geting done.) Finding overemphasis of the design phase is a very common problem.
The opposite problem, not enough emphasis is also prevalent. You can't simply wade in on any but the smallest projects.
Overall the real problem is finding the right balance between these extremes is the key to success. Unfortunately this balance changes with every project. As cworley said on simple projects planning til the cows come home is effective. Then again, so is wading in and hacking away.
Unfortunately there are "forces" at work making this balancing act particularly hard. Management and most consultants want the design phase to be highly detailed and documented. Management wants all this in its standard form. The consultants have their own different forms. The code jockeys want to start hacking away. These activities are the ones that directly generate income for each of these groups. There are precious few whose responsibilites cross these boundaries. As a result "failed" projects have a great deal of finger pointing. The suits say the code jockeys didn't follow "The Plan", the programmers say they coded to the available spec., but that the spec was incomplete or downright wrong.
This leads to a vicious circle where more design procedures are put in place, and where programmers are tied more and more to operating in their little areas of the code. In essence the reaction to the failure ensures more of the activity that caused the failure!!
You must seek balance in thought and source, only then a Jedi will you be.
I think part of the problem is that "big clients" are used to purchasing buggy closed source products, like Windows, that crash for no discernable reason. Unless they can call Microsoft in on the case, there is simply no solution easily available. No one else understands the product.
Open source should be the answer to this problem. There is only one problem, How many Linux users actually read the source ?
Of those how many can change it to fix a problem ?
How many can actually decide whether changing the code is appropiate ? It may be easier to change the project implementation rather than the OS code.
This leads back to making sure you have qualified pesonnel. At this level of sophistication, you really need fairly sophisticated interviewers in order to understand whether or not you are actually getting a qualified professional. Most organizations simply don't have this core competence. (A lot do, especially in hardware development and civil engineering.)
This leads to another business opportunity, a consulting firm could offer technical interview services. Unlike headhunter's these firms would "guarantee" a persons technical qualifications only. The prospective employer pays a one time fee for this evaluation.
Back to the idea of developing an OSS solution for E-Commerce...if such a "turnkey" solution appeared today it would be some time before it was well understood by the community at large. This negates the short term advantages of OSS. You still have to be able to "call" someone. If that someone isn't being paid, how can you be sure they'll be there ? Only after an Open Source solution has been used for a while will it seem an acceptable alternative to large companies.
What companies fail to understand is the cost of e-business. A lot of companies go into e-commerce thinking about the costs they can avoid, like real estate and sales staff. They don't want to hear about how some of those expenses are going to be replaced by the purchase of high tech talent.
Along with failing to understand the costs, companies fail to understand some fundamental advantages. Most companies don't want to pioneer, they want to follow where others have already been and avoid mistakes. Sensibly cautious. Unfortunately this closes those companies to new revenue opportunities.
Have you ever seen a customer kiosk that allows you access to a company web site in that companies stores ? This would seem to be the cost effective way to give brick and mortar customers access to everything that may not be in their particular store. No more dealing with sales associates for special orders. If it is on the web site, the store can deliver straight to your home so why lose that customer because they go home and surf the net to a competitor's site ? Ever try to explain that simple idea to the VP of Sales ? Might as well be talking to a wall.
Take it another step. Why don't stores have interactive maps and stock levels of/for themselves ? I want to know where the baby oil is at this "X-Mart" so I go to the kiosk and click to Baby Oil and have the store map come up. (You are here, baby oil here) Now if this particular store is out of stock, you can automatically be given a chance to order online...seems like a no brainer eh ?
1. How suitable is this material for mass production ?
2. How much power can be generated per unit area ? I'd like to see the "theoretical maximum" and the actual measure of the current material. This would allow elementary comparisons between solar collector's and chlorophyll. This sounds like a great breakthrough, but exactly how good is it compared to what we have ?
3. What frequencies can the material respond to ? This question could be important to the space program, if materials can be made that convert even a fraction of the radiation from the sun to usable energy there could be a great saving in mission mass requirements ? This could come from simply replacing inert shielding with this material, thus you eliminate some power generation/fuel requirements, making the whole mission more efficient. Using this material as the membrane of a solar sail would be doubly effective, deriving propulsion as well as any energy requirements.
4. My previous inquiries beg the question, What is the tensile strength of this material ? How malleable is it ?
Again it is clear the technology is far from ready for prime time, but the possiblities are exciting.
The military might find it attractive to implant this type of system into its troops in the field, and those dolphins they train to redirect enemy torpedoes. (Yeah I know, they say they quit that, but they can always restart it.)
There is a "bright" side of course, this type of recording could be used to train people how to do a by giving them the experiences of someone skilled in that area. You could learn how to play hockey by being Wayne Gretzky for an afternoon.
It is a bit of a stretch, but if this method is extended to other processes you could "teach" certain purely cognitive processes by example. Wouldn't it be neat to learn to do Physics by being Stephen Hawking for a few days. That is about the only way to gain a real insight into how he solves problems and how he understands the universe.
Before this type of "learning" could take place there may have to be a non-invasive method for retrieving the necessary data patterns from a brain.
Unfortunately the possibilites for abuse are so high, it is scary. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing. It has already been mentioned that certain entities may want to use these possible future systems to monitor criminals.
What if the government decides to monitor anyone with access to classified information ? What if they decide they want to monitor people who are percieved to be a threat ? Let's say they get used to that sort of thing over time, will they then want to monitor everyone all the time ? After all if you have nothing to hide...
What are the boundaries ? What kind of world can this technology create ? What kind of world should this technology create ? Before moving forward too quickly we should understand the extremes of the application possible.
Science Fiction has shown dystopic visions of civilizations equipped with ultimate personal monitoring technology. (1984, Borg...) Has anyone seen a Utopian vision of a community with this technology ? What does it mean to bereft of all personal privacy ? Can humans remain sane without their privacy ? Which, if any, of our thoughts and actions does any government or community have a "need to know ? Is this sort of thing ever appropiate, regardless of the benefits it may provide to civilization ?
I have not seen the distro, but maybe Corel intends this non-disclosure to cover only their propietary portions of the distro. I assume it includes products like WordPerfect etc. I suppose it also includes customized installer routines etc.
Does/Should the GPL cover those products too ?
Even if Corel does intend to cover the whole distro, they might have plans in place to remove restrictions before the final product ships out the door. Strictly this wouldn't be permitted, but I don't think anyone should file lawsuits just yet. If they attempt to release the "non-beta" distro like this, then I'll pitch in on the GPL defense fund. Until then there is the risk of scaring off not just Corel, but other large corporate developers...many of whom have products that would bring value to Linux but are tepid about entering a strange new market.
In any case, I think this question should be answered before OSS people fly off the handle.
We will be able to use lasers to read the data off of these structures after all:
Light Microscopy: Resolution beyond the lightwave barrier
Hopefully this will quell the reliability issues raised elsewhere regarding these devices.
It will be practical to use these devices in very small ruggedized devices by use of an array of solid state lasers. This will allow very fast, highly parallelized reading.