There was a study a few years back that said there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using that electricity.
"But instead a lot of modern GUIs have fancy animations or steps that increase latency- they force you to take more time to do stuff than actually necessary."
Well... no. First, many of the animations in question reinforce what just happened. A classic example is minimizing a window and watching it zoom to the toolbar. That reinforces what you just asked the system to do, and reminds you where to find the window again when you need it. You might say that you know what you asked it to do, but when you're focused on actually accomplishing a task, those markers help your subconscious mind keep things clear.
Second, minimizing a window hands the task from the event loop to a subprocess that offloads the graphics to the GPU. The system is still instantly responsive. You don't have to wait for the animation to complete before moving on to the next task. There is no increase in "latency".
Sorry to keep linking to my own articles, but this was covered too.
"Have a hacker steal millions of financial records, health records, or credit card numbers, and as long as they were participating in CISPA, they were acting in "good faith" to secure their networks, and as such can not be sued for failing to protect their customer's personal data."
Complete and total excemption from privacy lawsuits? All for sharing a bit of data with the Feds?
That legal "out" more than pays for the "security" systems needed.
"Just because content owners have their own motives doesn't invalidate legitimate cyber threats..."
Content owners? Did I mention content owners? Doesn't the linked article say that CISPA is NOT about content?
Yes, there are legitimate threats. But let's craft legislation that actually helps to protect against those threats AND that's crafted with privacy concerns at its core. With safeguards. That require and demand warrants and due process. And let's not past hasty, thinly veiled attempts at allowing the government and the NSA to legally scan and record everything that we do and say and post and tweet and visit.
President Obama announced sanctions against Iran, Syria and those who help them use technology to perpetrate human rights abuses. The executive order creates sanctions against the government of Syria and Iran "and those who abet them, for using technologies to monitor, target and track its citizens..."
And yet we have CISPA. Who is going to sanction us?
"It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before."
Like there's a cause and effect? That also happens to be the period during which the financial sector ran amok and banks and mortgage lenders encouraged people to cash in -- and spend -- their home equity.
"Under current law, CBO projects, budget deficits will drop markedly over the next few years—to $1.1 trillion in 2012, $704 billion in 2013, and $533 billion in 2014."
And that's without letting the Bush tax cuts expire, or raising taxes on the 1%.
"According to reports, which were confirmed Friday by ICS-CERT, an active Phishing campaign is responsible for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issuing three warnings since the end of March that the natural gas industry has been under ongoing cyber attack."
A phishing campaign. Because companies shouldn't already be protecting against these.
More, "The specter of a cyber attack against critical infrastructure is a reality, but not because the DHS is guarding the Internet, but because the networks running the critical infrastructure are so poorly protected. It’s gotten to the point that simple Phishing attacks, things that proper email protection and awareness training cover, rate three separate warnings and alerts."
So it's obvious we need widespread and over encompassing legislation like CISPA that bypasses any and all existing laws and regulations regarding privacy, and that grants the NSA a legal mandate and access to any and all information collected... to protect against phishing attacks.
"And what's worse, capitalism, while admirably suited to allowing humanity to produce more useful goods than ever before, is completely ill-equipped to handle situations where further growth or even preventing a catastrophic decline is impossible."
I have to disagree with this. After all, building solar or wind installations is growth. Building and selling new fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles is growth. People design them, make them, sell them, and use them. There are tons of opportunities for growth.
The problem isn't growth. The problem lies with entrenched interests who are adverse to change, and want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.
Problem is, RIM thinks they're in the mobile phone business. They're not. They think they're in the handset business. They're not.
They're in the communications business.
The value behind the BlackBerry phone system is BlackBerry Messenger, not yet another new handset that in itself offers little over its competition. BBM, and the backend services, are what make the platform valuable. Without it, a BlackBerry is just a so-so phone with a decent keyboard.
To survive, RIM needs to roll out a secure, cross-platform messaging system for use on existing smartphones and tablets. That's iOS. That's Android. And that's Window's Phone.
Paul is -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- right.
CISPA provides one monster carrot to those who "voluntarily" participate in CISPA, and that's immunity from ever being sued for failing to safeguard the privacy of their users.
Have a hacker steal millions of financial records, health records, or credit card numbers, and as long as they were participating in CISPA, and sharing "threat" data, they were acting in "good faith" to secure their networks, and as such can not be sued for failing to protect their customer's personal data.
CISPA could literally save a company millions of dollars, and that's why Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and many, many more are supporters .
There's a good reason why Facebook and Microsoft and other tech companies are supporting CISPA.
You see, CISPA provides one monster carrot to those who "voluntarily" participate, and that's complete and total immunity from EVER being sued for failing to safeguard the privacy of your users.
Yes, the President has threatened to veto CISPA -- in its current form. However, CISPA's primary sponsors still plan on slapping on some patches (excuse me, amendments) and to proceed towards Friday's vote.
Unfortunately, many of those amendments have their own issues. One even offers -- I kid you not -- a promise to "develop" policies and procedures that will protect individual privacy and civil liberties... after the bill is passed.
So? I've been in it since 1972 (40 years). Appeal to authority won't work here.
Changing the subject won't help either. The OP's comment was about using one thing because it was copied or based on another. Windows/Mac, Mac/Alto.
And if you're going to provide links to articles, you might avoid cherry-picking facts to prove your point, "There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, but it is clear that the influence was extensive [NOTE], because first versions of Lisa GUIs even lacked icons."
I'm also not sure how "Apple work extended PARC's considerably" translates into "LISA/Mac went far beyond what they had done or envisioned." As Jeff stated in the Folklore article, "In my opinion, the software architectures developed at Xerox for Smalltalk and the Xerox Star were significantly more advanced than either the Mac or Windows. The Star was a tremendous accomplishment, with features that current systems haven't even started to implement..."
In many ways, however, it's too bad the Mac won out over the Lisa. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the old girl...
NIMBYS are NIMBYS. No nukes. No incinerators. No windmills. No nothing.
It has nothing to do with environmentalism. They just don't want anything built that: a) they would see; and b) would interfere with their property values.
"Mac OS X is derived from Mach, a BSD [wikipedia.org] variant."
And that's what comes from getting al of your "knowledge" from Wikipedia. First, reread for comprehension. He didn't say Mac OS X, he said Mac OS, as in the original 1984 Mac OS that was NOT based in any way, shape, or form on Unix.
Mac OS 1.0 was based on original work and UI work done on the Lisa OS, and both drew heavily from work licensed from Xerox's work on the Alto (which Xerox later tried to market as the Star).
The original Windows code was based on the interface work done for Mac and Lisa, and released as an add-on to DOS a year after the Mac was released, and two years after Lisa.
"Not if it is still cheaper to do it from Earth. If it costs a penny more than doing it from Earth, then it is worth nothing."
Perhaps you're not familiar with a concept known as amortization. The first chips off the line of a new billion dollar fab cost more than a "penny more". It's the successive ones where you make your bones.
"... but I just think that it is probably at least a century out."
Perhaps. And perhaps we just need the right breakthroughs. That whole internet thing (massive data centers and fibre optic cables criss-crossing half the planet) is just 20 years old.
Also, you just don't get a century out and then say, hey, let's do it tomorrow. Technology is based on steps, often baby steps, and this is one of them.
"Some way to turn the iron into steel, to shape it, heat it, form it, etc? Some way to power all this?"
Uh... Solar and solar? As in a solar furnace and solar power? We can hit 3,500 C in a solar furnace here on earth, underneath all of that atmosphere. And the ISS runs on solar cells, and that technology is constantly improving.
First, you need the technology to get into space for a reasonable amount of money. Space X and a few others are working on this. Money spent on that kind of R&D is spent here, on earth, and creates jobs and spinoff technology. Next is working in space. Improvements in solar cell technology could power things here as well as in space, and that's not even mentioning the whole solar power satellite aspect.
People talk about spending money on "space" like we just stuff cash into a rocket and blast it into orbit. When in fact, much of the stuff we take for granted today are direct spinoffs of technology first developed for space.
As to, "mitigating the effects of consumption rather than finding resources for more of it." Huh? If we're able to move a significant amount of mining, resource extraction, and power production into space that sure as heck would "mitigate the effects" of doing the same exact thing here on earth.
Solar power sats could stop or "mitigate" coal mountaintop removal, slurry, and the CO2 and other pollutants created when you burn the stuff. One good find of rare earths on an asteroid could effectively halt inefficient mining of the same in China.
As to solving the other problems, we can work on those too. The logic here is akin to asking the police to stop wasting their time catching burglars when there are still murderers on the loose. We can do both.
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....
Slashdot Mirror
"For the rest of us, we need fuel-powered cars (including hybrids)."
Or fast-charging cars. Or simply more locations that provide charging. Stop for lunch, and charge your car while you eat.
There was a study a few years back that said there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using that electricity.
"What other people think is absolutely totally and utterly irrelevant."
So why are you here on Slashdot typing all of this?
"But instead a lot of modern GUIs have fancy animations or steps that increase latency- they force you to take more time to do stuff than actually necessary."
Well... no. First, many of the animations in question reinforce what just happened. A classic example is minimizing a window and watching it zoom to the toolbar. That reinforces what you just asked the system to do, and reminds you where to find the window again when you need it. You might say that you know what you asked it to do, but when you're focused on actually accomplishing a task, those markers help your subconscious mind keep things clear.
Second, minimizing a window hands the task from the event loop to a subprocess that offloads the graphics to the GPU. The system is still instantly responsive. You don't have to wait for the animation to complete before moving on to the next task. There is no increase in "latency".
You mean the taxpayer-funded research done at universities that's then licensed to the pharmaceutical companies?
Nothing like paying for something twice.
Sorry to keep linking to my own articles, but this was covered too.
"Have a hacker steal millions of financial records, health records, or credit card numbers, and as long as they were participating in CISPA, they were acting in "good faith" to secure their networks, and as such can not be sued for failing to protect their customer's personal data."
Complete and total excemption from privacy lawsuits? All for sharing a bit of data with the Feds?
That legal "out" more than pays for the "security" systems needed.
http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispas-good-faith-carrot-needs-no-stick.html
"Just because content owners have their own motives doesn't invalidate legitimate cyber threats..."
Content owners? Did I mention content owners? Doesn't the linked article say that CISPA is NOT about content?
Yes, there are legitimate threats. But let's craft legislation that actually helps to protect against those threats AND that's crafted with privacy concerns at its core. With safeguards. That require and demand warrants and due process. And let's not past hasty, thinly veiled attempts at allowing the government and the NSA to legally scan and record everything that we do and say and post and tweet and visit.
President Obama announced sanctions against Iran, Syria and those who help them use technology to perpetrate human rights abuses. The executive order creates sanctions against the government of Syria and Iran "and those who abet them, for using technologies to monitor, target and track its citizens..."
And yet we have CISPA. Who is going to sanction us?
See: http://www.isights.org/2012/04/obama-wants-sanctions-on-governments-who-repress-or-monitor-their-citizens.html
"It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before."
Like there's a cause and effect? That also happens to be the period during which the financial sector ran amok and banks and mortgage lenders encouraged people to cash in -- and spend -- their home equity.
"Under current law, CBO projects, budget deficits will drop markedly over the next few years—to $1.1 trillion in 2012, $704 billion in 2013, and $533 billion in 2014."
And that's without letting the Bush tax cuts expire, or raising taxes on the 1%.
"According to reports, which were confirmed Friday by ICS-CERT, an active Phishing campaign is responsible for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issuing three warnings since the end of March that the natural gas industry has been under ongoing cyber attack."
A phishing campaign. Because companies shouldn't already be protecting against these.
More, "The specter of a cyber attack against critical infrastructure is a reality, but not because the DHS is guarding the Internet, but because the networks running the critical infrastructure are so poorly protected. It’s gotten to the point that simple Phishing attacks, things that proper email protection and awareness training cover, rate three separate warnings and alerts."
So it's obvious we need widespread and over encompassing legislation like CISPA that bypasses any and all existing laws and regulations regarding privacy, and that grants the NSA a legal mandate and access to any and all information collected... to protect against phishing attacks.
More: http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispa-is-not-about-copyright-its-about-your-privacy-on-the-internet.html
"And what's worse, capitalism, while admirably suited to allowing humanity to produce more useful goods than ever before, is completely ill-equipped to handle situations where further growth or even preventing a catastrophic decline is impossible."
I have to disagree with this. After all, building solar or wind installations is growth. Building and selling new fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles is growth. People design them, make them, sell them, and use them. There are tons of opportunities for growth.
The problem isn't growth. The problem lies with entrenched interests who are adverse to change, and want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.
Problem is, RIM thinks they're in the mobile phone business. They're not. They think they're in the handset business. They're not.
They're in the communications business.
The value behind the BlackBerry phone system is BlackBerry Messenger, not yet another new handset that in itself offers little over its competition. BBM, and the backend services, are what make the platform valuable. Without it, a BlackBerry is just a so-so phone with a decent keyboard.
To survive, RIM needs to roll out a secure, cross-platform messaging system for use on existing smartphones and tablets. That's iOS. That's Android. And that's Window's Phone.
See http://www.isights.org/2012/04/rim-would-prefer-to-license-blackberry-os-wrong.html
Paul is -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- right.
CISPA provides one monster carrot to those who "voluntarily" participate in CISPA, and that's immunity from ever being sued for failing to safeguard the privacy of their users.
Have a hacker steal millions of financial records, health records, or credit card numbers, and as long as they were participating in CISPA, and sharing "threat" data, they were acting in "good faith" to secure their networks, and as such can not be sued for failing to protect their customer's personal data.
CISPA could literally save a company millions of dollars, and that's why Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and many, many more are supporters .
More at http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispas-good-faith-carrot-needs-no-stick.html
There's a good reason why Facebook and Microsoft and other tech companies are supporting CISPA.
You see, CISPA provides one monster carrot to those who "voluntarily" participate, and that's complete and total immunity from EVER being sued for failing to safeguard the privacy of your users.
http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispas-good-faith-carrot-needs-no-stick.html
Yes, the President has threatened to veto CISPA -- in its current form. However, CISPA's primary sponsors still plan on slapping on some patches (excuse me, amendments) and to proceed towards Friday's vote.
Unfortunately, many of those amendments have their own issues. One even offers -- I kid you not -- a promise to "develop" policies and procedures that will protect individual privacy and civil liberties... after the bill is passed.
It's okay. Trust us.
More at http://www.isights.org/2012/04/president-obama-threatens-to-veto-cispa-authors-brush-off-threat.html
"I didn't use an appeal to authority."
Right, "My knowledge doesn't come from Wikipedia, I've been in this industry for 30+ years. " Which sets yourself up as the authority.
"Now, go annoy someone else."
Nah.
So? I've been in it since 1972 (40 years). Appeal to authority won't work here.
Changing the subject won't help either. The OP's comment was about using one thing because it was copied or based on another. Windows/Mac, Mac/Alto.
And if you're going to provide links to articles, you might avoid cherry-picking facts to prove your point, "There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, but it is clear that the influence was extensive [NOTE], because first versions of Lisa GUIs even lacked icons."
I'm also not sure how "Apple work extended PARC's considerably" translates into "LISA/Mac went far beyond what they had done or envisioned." As Jeff stated in the Folklore article, "In my opinion, the software architectures developed at Xerox for Smalltalk and the Xerox Star were significantly more advanced than either the Mac or Windows. The Star was a tremendous accomplishment, with features that current systems haven't even started to implement..."
In many ways, however, it's too bad the Mac won out over the Lisa. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the old girl...
NIMBYS are NIMBYS. No nukes. No incinerators. No windmills. No nothing.
It has nothing to do with environmentalism. They just don't want anything built that: a) they would see; and b) would interfere with their property values.
"Mac OS X is derived from Mach, a BSD [wikipedia.org] variant."
And that's what comes from getting al of your "knowledge" from Wikipedia. First, reread for comprehension. He didn't say Mac OS X, he said Mac OS, as in the original 1984 Mac OS that was NOT based in any way, shape, or form on Unix.
Mac OS 1.0 was based on original work and UI work done on the Lisa OS, and both drew heavily from work licensed from Xerox's work on the Alto (which Xerox later tried to market as the Star).
The original Windows code was based on the interface work done for Mac and Lisa, and released as an add-on to DOS a year after the Mac was released, and two years after Lisa.
"Not if it is still cheaper to do it from Earth. If it costs a penny more than doing it from Earth, then it is worth nothing."
Perhaps you're not familiar with a concept known as amortization. The first chips off the line of a new billion dollar fab cost more than a "penny more". It's the successive ones where you make your bones.
"What are they going to find on a rock in space that is not already available on THIS rock in space?"
Perhaps tons of ore or metal that's not buried beneath mountains of rock?
"... but I just think that it is probably at least a century out."
Perhaps. And perhaps we just need the right breakthroughs. That whole internet thing (massive data centers and fibre optic cables criss-crossing half the planet) is just 20 years old.
Also, you just don't get a century out and then say, hey, let's do it tomorrow. Technology is based on steps, often baby steps, and this is one of them.
"Some way to turn the iron into steel, to shape it, heat it, form it, etc? Some way to power all this?"
Uh... Solar and solar? As in a solar furnace and solar power? We can hit 3,500 C in a solar furnace here on earth, underneath all of that atmosphere. And the ISS runs on solar cells, and that technology is constantly improving.
First, you need the technology to get into space for a reasonable amount of money. Space X and a few others are working on this. Money spent on that kind of R&D is spent here, on earth, and creates jobs and spinoff technology. Next is working in space. Improvements in solar cell technology could power things here as well as in space, and that's not even mentioning the whole solar power satellite aspect.
People talk about spending money on "space" like we just stuff cash into a rocket and blast it into orbit. When in fact, much of the stuff we take for granted today are direct spinoffs of technology first developed for space.
As to, "mitigating the effects of consumption rather than finding resources for more of it." Huh? If we're able to move a significant amount of mining, resource extraction, and power production into space that sure as heck would "mitigate the effects" of doing the same exact thing here on earth.
Solar power sats could stop or "mitigate" coal mountaintop removal, slurry, and the CO2 and other pollutants created when you burn the stuff. One good find of rare earths on an asteroid could effectively halt inefficient mining of the same in China.
As to solving the other problems, we can work on those too. The logic here is akin to asking the police to stop wasting their time catching burglars when there are still murderers on the loose. We can do both.
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....