I was waiting for someone to say that. Google is becoming big. But I don't see them hurting competition just yet. As long as MSN is around Google has competition. Maybe not technically but as for user-base it does. Millions upon millions have IE set to MSN and even more millions have MSN internet service defaulted to MSN. There is no way Google can compete with a default setting. And "educating" them about MSN and alternatives won't work because a lot of them don't even know that MSN is a webpage.
Google has quite a following but this sure as hell couldn't hurt their image. There are so many users that default to MSN search because that's all they know. Getting their name out there for more that just searches to the common users is going to help them establish even more dominance.
Which works for browsing the web and cuts down on overhead only. Doesn't work for P2P or just plain downloading from the internet. Cutting down on overhead is still never going to account for raw bits per second that can be transmitted between point A and point B. But you make a good point.
So say you make a request for an image from a site. The ISP has to go, retrieve the ENTIRE image, de-compress, recompress at a higher level, and then begin transfer. Talk about latency issues. The only way they could do this it with caching. But then it would only be good for the most popular sites. And even then it would highly degrade the image quality.
Oh, and one more thing. If they do like AOL did and use LOSSY compression and re-compress the JPGs and other images on a website, forget it. Not only does that not save much space, it makes the images look like shit.
The compression AOL was using was lossy. They could retrieve the image from the sever, decompress, re-compress at a higher ratio and send it off to you. It did suck, it make the images look like shit. It was on by default though and most users had no idea how to turn it off. This acceleration technology is lossless (Think ZIP). Therefore compressing things that have already been compressed with a lossy algorithm with this lossless is going to do next to nothing. Formats like JPEG, MP3, OGG, MPG, ASF, ZIP, and a whole slew of others will not be compressed hardly at all. So this lossless compression will work great for HTML markup and that's about it.
They compress the packets of data. Where will this help? In compressible places that aren't already compressed. Such as the HTML markup for webpages. This wont help already compressed JPGs, or already compressed MP3s or already compressed ZIP/GZIP files or already compressed videos (MPG/AVI/ASF). So is this really going to help much? Sure, there is always going to be a small percent of space (and therefore time) saved even transferring these formats. Is it going to make a 5X difference? No. Is it going to make a noticeable difference? It's unlikely but possible. The only way this "new technology" is going to help is if you are a dialup user without broadband options.
Video games have used camera morphing and strange distortions for a long time. The Matrix was the first move I can think of that used those techniques successfully. They look cool and were good for a few movies. But taking them to the extreme is always going to feel like a Matrix/Video Game rip-off. Instead of making a movie that uses every excuse for a new morph, how about using traditional cinematography for 99% of the film and using one or two really cool and appropriate morphing effects.
Don't get my wrong, I love the effects. They look great. But c'mon, when someone has a good idea you don't beat it to death. You subtly modify and expand on it to create something unique and equally pleasing. The movie industry seems to lack creativity lately.
That could be solved by a clever engineer. How about the rout is pre-programmed so it knows what tracks it is on, then instead of measuring the horizontal (which track it is on), that is known and only the vertical (along the track) is needed from GPS. Or, how about DGPS, to enhance the accuracy. Now how GPS is going to tell them when a cow is crossing is another story. Last I checked cows were not born with transmitters.
I hate to give MS any credit, but even they figured that one out. Check out their Ten Immutable Laws of Security. -- "Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, its not your computer anymore."
We really need a service pack 2 for XP. There's a million updates on windowsupdate, too many for most modem users. So let's see MS bring out sp2 and get working on sp3 so that we don't have more and more security updates to download.
Was that OpenLindows was a small group (one guy?), maybe one person that didn't like the idea of having to pay for click-n-run to get many free applications. Open Lindows isn't going to take off because there's allready a website for that. www.debian.org And the few Lindows users out there that want to stick with it most likely can compile the software and so don't need OpenLindows. Nice idea though.
I may not get 40 CDs a day from them but I have more than 40 of their CDs. Most come because I am a former subscriber. Others come from random mailings. Others from purchases that bundle them alongside the product. I don't think there should be a timeframe. I consider constant bombardment from advertisement of the course of a few years harassment and spam.
Glass still works great and I still don't have any fiber coming to my doorstep. Perhaps we should get it there (and to other households) before we start looking to replace and upgrade what we allready have. Besides that, everything's great with the new discovery.
Which was my point exactly. While a freezer may get cold, it can't possible move enough energy fast enough to be effective. I did not do the math or site any numbers but what I was saying was that the computer generates way more heat than a freezer could ever get rid of. Unless you get ridiculous with the aquarium chiller you mentioned. Thanks for sighting the numbers though, I didn't know the exact rang of BTU/hr but I knew it wouldn't cut it. I hadn't even taken the power supply into account. (Mine is a 500 Watt)
So water cooling is good if you run tubes outside the case and you use a large dissipating device (radiator). The cost of course is a computer that is not fully self-contained as well as desk space lost. However in most water-cooling solutions I have seen the radiator is inside the case. In which case the water as a transport still isn't taking the heat very far and then trying to get rid of it. I think water cooling can be done right, I just don't think in most implementations it does all that much good.
Correct my if I am wrong but here are my thoughts on water.
Water has an extremely high specific heat compared to air so it can dissipate many more watts of energy from the processor. Acting much like an energy buffer. But what happens when you are running at high temps for a long time? (SETI, Games, Photoshop filters) At some point that water is going to get hot and then it is going to lose its effectiveness. That heat in the water is going to have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the air. It's a closed water system after all and we all know that dissipating in the air is no better for water than it is for aluminum or copper. So what does air get you? More time running hot before you have a problem? More surface area to dissipate into the air? It sounds to me like water cooling is only good for when you have short bursts of high-usage followed by long idle periods. So the water can suck up the heat fast when it needs to and then bleed it off when it can. Which of course, won't help a bit if your processor is running at 100% 24/7 like mine.
The freezer you are speaking of is a heat pump. It moves heat from the air inside it to the coolant which then dissipates heat via coils on the back. What advantage do the coils have on the back that the blades on a heat sink don't have? Surface area? Maybe, but that could be changed with better heat sink designs. Besides, the heat sink has a fan to move the air, the freezer doesn't have air moving across those coils. The freezer may sound like a good idea but when you get down to the thermodynamics of the beast it too is using air dissipate heat.
I overclock. I run a decent cooling fan. I have never seen solid comparison results between water cooling and just high-performance fans. If I (and the public) were to see dramatic improvements published in say THG or some other more mainstream publications perhaps water-cooling will gain even more ground. But as it is I have never really seen anything that has jumped out at me and said "go water". If it is so good and is gaining more ground then why haven't I seen more about it? Slashdot educate me!
That is a blanket statement that has little truth to it. The internet is made of the computers that connect to it. Many computers that make the internet are not secure. A fully patched system, be it Linux, Unix, or Windows is for all intensive purposes, secure -- for the time being. What people don't get is that security is not a constant thing. It has to be kept up with. How many times do people need to be told to patch their system? But the model and structure of the internet as a decentralized system, is very secure.
How about the time between Windows crashes? Oh wait, that is predictable after all! What about if we just measure the 50% that are not the fault of third party code? Damn, predictable again!
The system you propose is a form of one time pad. While it works in theory, it is not the application needed here. Random numbers are needed in streams where there can be no pattern known or logical pattern findable. How many ways can you think to scratch a CD? Up and down, right and left, circles? With this sort of information you could start to predict the general "form" of the number. Besides, when you need a stream of numbers it needs to change over time. The CD is scratch once use once.
Slashdot Mirror
I was waiting for someone to say that. Google is becoming big. But I don't see them hurting competition just yet. As long as MSN is around Google has competition. Maybe not technically but as for user-base it does. Millions upon millions have IE set to MSN and even more millions have MSN internet service defaulted to MSN. There is no way Google can compete with a default setting. And "educating" them about MSN and alternatives won't work because a lot of them don't even know that MSN is a webpage.
Google has quite a following but this sure as hell couldn't hurt their image. There are so many users that default to MSN search because that's all they know. Getting their name out there for more that just searches to the common users is going to help them establish even more dominance.
Which works for browsing the web and cuts down on overhead only. Doesn't work for P2P or just plain downloading from the internet. Cutting down on overhead is still never going to account for raw bits per second that can be transmitted between point A and point B. But you make a good point.
So say you make a request for an image from a site. The ISP has to go, retrieve the ENTIRE image, de-compress, recompress at a higher level, and then begin transfer. Talk about latency issues. The only way they could do this it with caching. But then it would only be good for the most popular sites. And even then it would highly degrade the image quality.
Oh, and one more thing. If they do like AOL did and use LOSSY compression and re-compress the JPGs and other images on a website, forget it. Not only does that not save much space, it makes the images look like shit.
The compression AOL was using was lossy. They could retrieve the image from the sever, decompress, re-compress at a higher ratio and send it off to you. It did suck, it make the images look like shit. It was on by default though and most users had no idea how to turn it off. This acceleration technology is lossless (Think ZIP). Therefore compressing things that have already been compressed with a lossy algorithm with this lossless is going to do next to nothing. Formats like JPEG, MP3, OGG, MPG, ASF, ZIP, and a whole slew of others will not be compressed hardly at all. So this lossless compression will work great for HTML markup and that's about it.
They compress the packets of data. Where will this help? In compressible places that aren't already compressed. Such as the HTML markup for webpages. This wont help already compressed JPGs, or already compressed MP3s or already compressed ZIP/GZIP files or already compressed videos (MPG/AVI/ASF). So is this really going to help much? Sure, there is always going to be a small percent of space (and therefore time) saved even transferring these formats. Is it going to make a 5X difference? No. Is it going to make a noticeable difference? It's unlikely but possible. The only way this "new technology" is going to help is if you are a dialup user without broadband options.
Video games have used camera morphing and strange distortions for a long time. The Matrix was the first move I can think of that used those techniques successfully. They look cool and were good for a few movies. But taking them to the extreme is always going to feel like a Matrix/Video Game rip-off. Instead of making a movie that uses every excuse for a new morph, how about using traditional cinematography for 99% of the film and using one or two really cool and appropriate morphing effects.
Don't get my wrong, I love the effects. They look great. But c'mon, when someone has a good idea you don't beat it to death. You subtly modify and expand on it to create something unique and equally pleasing. The movie industry seems to lack creativity lately.
That could be solved by a clever engineer. How about the rout is pre-programmed so it knows what tracks it is on, then instead of measuring the horizontal (which track it is on), that is known and only the vertical (along the track) is needed from GPS. Or, how about DGPS, to enhance the accuracy. Now how GPS is going to tell them when a cow is crossing is another story. Last I checked cows were not born with transmitters.
I hate to give MS any credit, but even they figured that one out. Check out their Ten Immutable Laws of Security. -- "Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, its not your computer anymore."
We really need a service pack 2 for XP. There's a million updates on windowsupdate, too many for most modem users. So let's see MS bring out sp2 and get working on sp3 so that we don't have more and more security updates to download.
I knew a guy like that. He's in jail now...
Mod this guy down, he's smoking the same crack the author of this article is.
Was that OpenLindows was a small group (one guy?), maybe one person that didn't like the idea of having to pay for click-n-run to get many free applications. Open Lindows isn't going to take off because there's allready a website for that. www.debian.org And the few Lindows users out there that want to stick with it most likely can compile the software and so don't need OpenLindows. Nice idea though.
I may not get 40 CDs a day from them but I have more than 40 of their CDs. Most come because I am a former subscriber. Others come from random mailings. Others from purchases that bundle them alongside the product. I don't think there should be a timeframe. I consider constant bombardment from advertisement of the course of a few years harassment and spam.
Glass still works great and I still don't have any fiber coming to my doorstep. Perhaps we should get it there (and to other households) before we start looking to replace and upgrade what we allready have. Besides that, everything's great with the new discovery.
Which was my point exactly. While a freezer may get cold, it can't possible move enough energy fast enough to be effective. I did not do the math or site any numbers but what I was saying was that the computer generates way more heat than a freezer could ever get rid of. Unless you get ridiculous with the aquarium chiller you mentioned. Thanks for sighting the numbers though, I didn't know the exact rang of BTU/hr but I knew it wouldn't cut it. I hadn't even taken the power supply into account. (Mine is a 500 Watt)
So water cooling is good if you run tubes outside the case and you use a large dissipating device (radiator). The cost of course is a computer that is not fully self-contained as well as desk space lost. However in most water-cooling solutions I have seen the radiator is inside the case. In which case the water as a transport still isn't taking the heat very far and then trying to get rid of it. I think water cooling can be done right, I just don't think in most implementations it does all that much good.
Correct my if I am wrong but here are my thoughts on water.
Water has an extremely high specific heat compared to air so it can dissipate many more watts of energy from the processor. Acting much like an energy buffer. But what happens when you are running at high temps for a long time? (SETI, Games, Photoshop filters) At some point that water is going to get hot and then it is going to lose its effectiveness. That heat in the water is going to have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the air. It's a closed water system after all and we all know that dissipating in the air is no better for water than it is for aluminum or copper. So what does air get you? More time running hot before you have a problem? More surface area to dissipate into the air? It sounds to me like water cooling is only good for when you have short bursts of high-usage followed by long idle periods. So the water can suck up the heat fast when it needs to and then bleed it off when it can. Which of course, won't help a bit if your processor is running at 100% 24/7 like mine.
Wont work, here is why:
The freezer you are speaking of is a heat pump. It moves heat from the air inside it to the coolant which then dissipates heat via coils on the back. What advantage do the coils have on the back that the blades on a heat sink don't have? Surface area? Maybe, but that could be changed with better heat sink designs. Besides, the heat sink has a fan to move the air, the freezer doesn't have air moving across those coils. The freezer may sound like a good idea but when you get down to the thermodynamics of the beast it too is using air dissipate heat.
I overclock. I run a decent cooling fan. I have never seen solid comparison results between water cooling and just high-performance fans. If I (and the public) were to see dramatic improvements published in say THG or some other more mainstream publications perhaps water-cooling will gain even more ground. But as it is I have never really seen anything that has jumped out at me and said "go water". If it is so good and is gaining more ground then why haven't I seen more about it? Slashdot educate me!
Burn AOL CDs or will we have to wait for the upgraded toxic waste burning model?
That is a blanket statement that has little truth to it. The internet is made of the computers that connect to it. Many computers that make the internet are not secure. A fully patched system, be it Linux, Unix, or Windows is for all intensive purposes, secure -- for the time being. What people don't get is that security is not a constant thing. It has to be kept up with. How many times do people need to be told to patch their system? But the model and structure of the internet as a decentralized system, is very secure.
How about the time between Windows crashes? Oh wait, that is predictable after all! What about if we just measure the 50% that are not the fault of third party code? Damn, predictable again!
The system you propose is a form of one time pad. While it works in theory, it is not the application needed here. Random numbers are needed in streams where there can be no pattern known or logical pattern findable. How many ways can you think to scratch a CD? Up and down, right and left, circles? With this sort of information you could start to predict the general "form" of the number. Besides, when you need a stream of numbers it needs to change over time. The CD is scratch once use once.