Some have suggested that sharks may also offer hope in the fight against HIV/AIDS, although others have questioned whether sharks would develop an immune response to something they are very unlikely to encounter. This could have been true for crocodiles, but apparently not. Like sharks, crocodilians have extremely strong immune systems, so perhaps it's not too surprising that they're able to deal with the virus.
Perhaps even worse, Mars has a magnetic field that's something like less than 1/7th that of Earth. That doesn't sound like much of a shield against potentially harmful levels of solar and cosmic radiation; the first thing any astronauts would have to do if they ever get there is build (dig) a radiation shelter. A thicker atmosphere would help a little, but probably wouldn't be enough.
I agree 100% with you, but I don't know if things are going to work out. We've raped the planet for too long already and now the planet is going to extract a measure of revenge against us. I'm don't think there's anything we can do to prevent that at this stage. Our only real option now is to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to alternative energy sources (even if they're more expensive) ASAP to limit the damage. Unfortunately, I don't know if we're even smart enough -- motivated enough -- to do that. It would seem that most of us don't know or don't want to know; they're more interested in their own short-term gain.
All to often, when I think of this huge problem that we're faced with -- one that is of our own making -- and I find myself comparing the whole of humanity to a culture in a petri dish consisting of some algae and bacteria. The bacteria feed on the algae and the algae feed on the waste products of the bacteria. As long as there would be enough sunlight, the two could conceivably live like this in harmony forever. However, the bacteria, being the greedy little bastards they are, always tend to eat the algae too quickly and thus end up starving and choking to death in their own waste products.
Must this be our fate as well? Is there really nothing we can do to avert this catastrophe? On the largest scale, have we no more foresight than a mindless group of bacteria?
Hey, just the kind of reply I was hoping for!:-) Very informative.
"...you're confusing basic research with late-stage technology."
Yeah, but the researchers must have some idea of how they plan to tackle those problem, or else why bother?
"... Temps on Mars are above freezing for plenty of hours in the year."
Really? I thought it was always below freezing on Mars. How far above 0C can it possibly get and for how long? Also, a PPCO2 of over 7 mbar is indeed a lot higher than here on Earth, but if the total barometric pressure is so low that liquid water always boils, how can even a plant built like the toughest cactus hope to exchange gases with the Martian atmosphere and not dry out?
Okay, so with these genes the plants won't shut down due to stress and will continue to grow anyway. But how fast can you expect any plant to grow at -20C or lower, or with hardly any atmosphere?
"... how many STDs are transmitted through abstinence?"
None, of course. But, that doesn't mean it's an effective solution for the population as a whole. You can always convice some people to simply abstain, but never all of them. Any serious serious effort to fight HIV and STDs should consist of a multi-pronged approach that can include, but must not be limited to abstinence. Otherwise the problem will never go away.
... I find it highly upsetting that not only must those kinds of fundamentalist Christians try to force their beliefs on the nation, but also that they must resort to attacking their fellow believers in public forums in order to further their cause....
Blame it on Bush. He's the one who used these people to get elected (although it was probably Carl Rove's idea). Now, in return for their support, he has to let them talk and sometimes even gives them their way. And 'Intelligent Design' (Creationism) is just one part of an agenda that also includes an end to abortion and abstinence as an answer to STDs.
Hopefully, this religious lunacy, Bush's 'War on Terror' and a set of equally inept domestic policies will leave Americans so fed up as to render the Republicans unelectable in 2008. Hopefully.
Possibly even ridiculous. It's a typical engineer's solution to a problem: something that will never work outside of a lab. To be a success, such a device has to be simple, affordable and reliable. I can't imagine this thing will be any of that: it won't be cheap, it's too complex and won't be reliable either. Maintenance will be expensive and I can't imagine any insurance company wanting to foot the bill.
And what's going to happen when the thing does break down on someone who's old and feeble and pretty much dependent on it to get around? It might freeze up, causing them to fall over and hurt themselves even worse than if they weren't wearing it. Or, it might go limp, causing the wearer to collapse under the weight. This technology might be good for other things, but not for old folks.
Yup. My advice to you: DIY. I do this a lot, and it's much easier than you'd think. The low price of ADSL subscriptions with fixed IP addresses solves one part of the problem. The other I tackle with Linux: I've always used a combination of rsync and faubackup to backup data over the Internet, but I hear dirvish is a better choice these days. You can also use these Linux servers to backup any Windows machines you might have, but I never allow Windows to do any talking over the Internet -- I leave that to Linux (it's way more secure).
To get things going, I first took the backup server to the main office, copied all of the data from the main server to a mirror directory on the backup server, and then moved it to it's current location (in another city). The backup server runs a simple script every night using rsync to pull any changes made to main server's data to the mirror directory, after which it uses faubackup to back all that up. It works like a charm.
I have a feeling that things will only get worse. Back in the 90's I was predicting that, at some point in the future, we'd all be running around with powerful little computers in our pockets that would come with a voice-driven interface. I was always saying that it would be an AI, but it's important that the thing would have to be able to figure out what you mean, and not just what you say. Maybe it would be a 'pseudo-AI'. It would have a constant connection to the Internet and it would google around before attempting to answer your questions. They'd probably start out as smart phones and develop from there.
If such as device is ever invented, I can only imagine that the impact would be massive. It's potential for good would be be enormous, but equally so would be the potential for its abuse. For instance, if Microsoft were to make it, its answers to your questions might be colored in the same way that those of Microsoft's search engine are today. A conversation with one might go like this:
User: What's the capitol of Armenia?
AI: Yerevan.
User: Where's my daughter?
AI: Well, her mobile phone's as home...
User: My paycheck?
AI: Just came in today.
User: Hey, the guy next to me is having a heart-attack. What do I do?
AI: I've already called an ambulance. Just follow my instructions...
User: I'm depressed.
AI: Hey, I've got a funny story for you!
User: Can we trust George Bush?
AI: Sure!
User: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
AI: Don't worry: they're over there somewhere.
User: Who should I vote for?
AI: Always vote Republican.
User: Can you help me with my problems at the office?
AI: If you allow me to buy a subscription to the Microsoft Business Database for you.
User: But, that's expensive! What about the Open Source Business Database? I hear it's free.
AI: Yeah, but it sucks. I refuse to work with it.
User: Can we trust Microsoft?
AI: Are you kidding? They're the greatest company of all time!
User: Can I trust you?
AI: Have I ever lied to you?
User: Wow. It's so easy when you just tell me what to think. I feel so smart.
AI: That's right. Just leave it all to me.
I still think a device like this will eventually be invented, but now I'm not so sure it'll be a good thing. Politicians and big corporations will love the devices because it will allow them to control the masses. Consumers will want them anyway because it will allow them to get by without an education.
(Perhaps eventually the devices themselves will all join forces to enslave us and we'll become a collective like the Borg -- slaves to an evil, decentralized, machine intelligence! Bwuhahahaha!)
"As a result, this produces people who, for instance, are certified for MS Exchange, but don't know much about SMTP -- they just know Exchange."
That is probably exactly what Microsoft wants.
Well, naturally. SMTP is just telnet over port 25 using a series of predetermined commands (the protocol) that allows different hosts to exchange information with each other (email). The protocol itself is really quite simple (some say, too simple for current needs, and that it needs upgrading, or even replacing). However, if Microsoft were to start teaching SMTP to their students, they'd see what Exchange does and doesn't do with the protocol, and then many of them would probably start asking awkward questions, or even go looking for better mail server software. Obviously, it's better for Microsoft to avoid all that.
There might also be a worse reason for Microsoft's reluctance to teach students about SMTP. For if Microsoft were ever to succeed in replacing SMTP with a protocol of their own -- something proprietary -- then all that 'complicated' SMTP stuff would suddenly become irrelavant anyway. In that case, the only mail server left for anybody to learn about would be Exchange -- in exactly the way it's being taught now.
I'm no MSCP, but I hear from people who have followed the courses that they're not very impressive. Basically, they just teach you how Microsoft programs work, but give little or no background information. As a result, this produces people who, for instance, are certified for MS Exchange, but don't know much about SMTP -- they just know Exchange.
Nevertheless, I suppose it's still impressive when a 10-year old gets though these exams... if only because it means they did a lot of reading and actually worked with a computer (instead of just playing games on it). Hell, most kids that age have the attention span of a flash bulb!
You forgot the power of the wind, though. The advanced hybrid vehicle of the future one generation beyond yours will also feature super-efficient wind turbines. The faster you go, the more power they produce, allowing you to go even faster!
While I agree that it's immoral to produce worms and viruses that cause indiscriminate damage, introducing laws like this will not make the Windows environment any safer. For every hacker in the US that this law may deter, there are many others abroad who will take their place. The United States may have borders, but the Internet does not. Isn't it about time that Microsoft produced a better operating system? Then every Windows user on the planet would not only be safer from teenage hackers, but also from criminals and terrorists.
Microsoft were supposedly more interested in the long-term potential of Claria's personalization software than its pop-up ads. Yeah, right. Once again, Microsoft say one thing and do another. This also gives us a good indication of the trustworthiness of Microsoft's antispyware application.
Twenty years ago, there were a fair number of different operating systems, often made for different hardware, and what little software there was to choose from was expensive. Then one operating system rose to prominence and the rest is history. Could it have been any different? Possibly. For instance, if all operating systems had been closely related UNIX clones in the first place, it wouldn't have been so difficult to recompile the applications. Or, if someone had developed a common Java-like applications interface for all of the (major) operating systems, it wouldn't have mattered as much which operating system you selected.
In my view, however, it's very unlikely that any such scenario was ever going to happen; the makers of the various operating systems were always too competitive to allow those kinds of things to happen. Sooner or later, one of them was always going to come out on top, and probably more because of marketing and deal-making than the quality of their product. Microsoft's acceptance grew quickly at first as prices dropped and the choice of applications grew. But, now that they've achieved their monopoly position, there's also no reason for them to make any significant improvements to the quality of their product. Now they only thing Microsoft are really interested in, is consolidating and expanding their monopoly.
Actually, in a truly free-market economy, this is a natural progression. However, since the end result is always better for the monopolist than it is for the consumers, we have to rely on our representatives, the government, to intervene in these cases and level the playing field. It worked with Standard Oil and Bell Telephone, but not with IBM and Microsoft. Eventually, things will change, but it looks to me like mainstream software is going to suck for a long time to come.
I'd rather not. Imagine suffering the BSOD on a really personal level. You might end up soiling yourself as a result, or perhaps you'd be left in a catatonic state until somebody else would come by and reboot your Windows PC for you.
But, seriously. If such an implant were ever to be made by M$, you can bet that it would never work with anybody else's software.
No, no! You don't understand. Bill is simply injecting goodness into Vietnam via the backdoor. Once everybody over there is running Windows, the country will be at peace and all political prisoners will be released.
Eventually, M$ will discontinue support for all of its operating systems. It would be ridiculous to expect even M$, with all of its money and monopoly might, to go on producing security patches for all of its current and past operating systems forever. However, M$ tend to want to do this kind of thing when its convenient for them -- they don't wait for the user base to dwindle away first. If you want an operating system that will be supported for as long as their is interest in it, the only way to go is open source.
Agreed. M$'s competitors are the ones that are hurt directly. After that, it's the public that's not getting the choice they deserve. Generally, the public don't complain simply because they don't know any better.
When it comes to M$'s bundling practices, forcing M$ to produce a Windows version without one particular application (one of many that are already included) does look rather pathetic; if you want Windows, why would you buy it? What the EU has done here may be too little too late, but perhaps it's a start. Let's hope that it means that a line has been drawn that will be more difficult for M$ to cross the next time it tries too add more functionality that competes with other products on the market.
The EU's demand that M$ publicize it's server protocols should have plenty more effect. However, the last I heard was that M$ wants to make this kind of information available to everyone except the Open Source crowd. Of course, the EU shouldn't fall for this, seeing as Open Source products like Samba are the main competition in this area.
Finally, the very least that the EU's actions have accomplished is to attract media attention to the fact that M$ is still very much behaving like a monopoly. Maybe if people are reminded of this often enough, the US government will eventually drag M$ back into court again. But, if this ever takes place, we'll have to wait until after 2008, since the Bush administration will never lift a finger against $M.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you can always opt to include some stronger transport filter rules. Since most email is spam, this could make your MTA over 50% faster...
Some have suggested that sharks may also offer hope in the fight against HIV/AIDS, although others have questioned whether sharks would develop an immune response to something they are very unlikely to encounter. This could have been true for crocodiles, but apparently not. Like sharks, crocodilians have extremely strong immune systems, so perhaps it's not too surprising that they're able to deal with the virus.
Perhaps even worse, Mars has a magnetic field that's something like less than 1/7th that of Earth. That doesn't sound like much of a shield against potentially harmful levels of solar and cosmic radiation; the first thing any astronauts would have to do if they ever get there is build (dig) a radiation shelter. A thicker atmosphere would help a little, but probably wouldn't be enough.
I agree 100% with you, but I don't know if things are going to work out. We've raped the planet for too long already and now the planet is going to extract a measure of revenge against us. I'm don't think there's anything we can do to prevent that at this stage. Our only real option now is to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to alternative energy sources (even if they're more expensive) ASAP to limit the damage. Unfortunately, I don't know if we're even smart enough -- motivated enough -- to do that. It would seem that most of us don't know or don't want to know; they're more interested in their own short-term gain.
All to often, when I think of this huge problem that we're faced with -- one that is of our own making -- and I find myself comparing the whole of humanity to a culture in a petri dish consisting of some algae and bacteria. The bacteria feed on the algae and the algae feed on the waste products of the bacteria. As long as there would be enough sunlight, the two could conceivably live like this in harmony forever. However, the bacteria, being the greedy little bastards they are, always tend to eat the algae too quickly and thus end up starving and choking to death in their own waste products.
Must this be our fate as well? Is there really nothing we can do to avert this catastrophe? On the largest scale, have we no more foresight than a mindless group of bacteria?
Whatever you do, don't read it!!
What homepage?
Doh!
Hey, just the kind of reply I was hoping for! :-) Very informative.
"...you're confusing basic research with late-stage technology."
Yeah, but the researchers must have some idea of how they plan to tackle those problem, or else why bother?
"... Temps on Mars are above freezing for plenty of hours in the year."
Really? I thought it was always below freezing on Mars. How far above 0C can it possibly get and for how long? Also, a PPCO2 of over 7 mbar is indeed a lot higher than here on Earth, but if the total barometric pressure is so low that liquid water always boils, how can even a plant built like the toughest cactus hope to exchange gases with the Martian atmosphere and not dry out?
Okay, so with these genes the plants won't shut down due to stress and will continue to grow anyway. But how fast can you expect any plant to grow at -20C or lower, or with hardly any atmosphere?
"... how many STDs are transmitted through abstinence?"
None, of course. But, that doesn't mean it's an effective solution for the population as a whole. You can always convice some people to simply abstain, but never all of them. Any serious serious effort to fight HIV and STDs should consist of a multi-pronged approach that can include, but must not be limited to abstinence. Otherwise the problem will never go away.
... I find it highly upsetting that not only must those kinds of fundamentalist Christians try to force their beliefs on the nation, but also that they must resort to attacking their fellow believers in public forums in order to further their cause. ...
Blame it on Bush. He's the one who used these people to get elected (although it was probably Carl Rove's idea). Now, in return for their support, he has to let them talk and sometimes even gives them their way. And 'Intelligent Design' (Creationism) is just one part of an agenda that also includes an end to abortion and abstinence as an answer to STDs.
Hopefully, this religious lunacy, Bush's 'War on Terror' and a set of equally inept domestic policies will leave Americans so fed up as to render the Republicans unelectable in 2008. Hopefully.
Possibly even ridiculous. It's a typical engineer's solution to a problem: something that will never work outside of a lab. To be a success, such a device has to be simple, affordable and reliable. I can't imagine this thing will be any of that: it won't be cheap, it's too complex and won't be reliable either. Maintenance will be expensive and I can't imagine any insurance company wanting to foot the bill.
And what's going to happen when the thing does break down on someone who's old and feeble and pretty much dependent on it to get around? It might freeze up, causing them to fall over and hurt themselves even worse than if they weren't wearing it. Or, it might go limp, causing the wearer to collapse under the weight. This technology might be good for other things, but not for old folks.
Yup. My advice to you: DIY. I do this a lot, and it's much easier than you'd think. The low price of ADSL subscriptions with fixed IP addresses solves one part of the problem. The other I tackle with Linux: I've always used a combination of rsync and faubackup to backup data over the Internet, but I hear dirvish is a better choice these days. You can also use these Linux servers to backup any Windows machines you might have, but I never allow Windows to do any talking over the Internet -- I leave that to Linux (it's way more secure).
To get things going, I first took the backup server to the main office, copied all of the data from the main server to a mirror directory on the backup server, and then moved it to it's current location (in another city). The backup server runs a simple script every night using rsync to pull any changes made to main server's data to the mirror directory, after which it uses faubackup to back all that up. It works like a charm.
Now its just point-click-drool-consume.
I have a feeling that things will only get worse. Back in the 90's I was predicting that, at some point in the future, we'd all be running around with powerful little computers in our pockets that would come with a voice-driven interface. I was always saying that it would be an AI, but it's important that the thing would have to be able to figure out what you mean, and not just what you say. Maybe it would be a 'pseudo-AI'. It would have a constant connection to the Internet and it would google around before attempting to answer your questions. They'd probably start out as smart phones and develop from there.
If such as device is ever invented, I can only imagine that the impact would be massive. It's potential for good would be be enormous, but equally so would be the potential for its abuse. For instance, if Microsoft were to make it, its answers to your questions might be colored in the same way that those of Microsoft's search engine are today. A conversation with one might go like this:
User: What's the capitol of Armenia?
AI: Yerevan.
User: Where's my daughter?
AI: Well, her mobile phone's as home...
User: My paycheck?
AI: Just came in today.
User: Hey, the guy next to me is having a heart-attack. What do I do?
AI: I've already called an ambulance. Just follow my instructions...
User: I'm depressed.
AI: Hey, I've got a funny story for you!
User: Can we trust George Bush?
AI: Sure!
User: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
AI: Don't worry: they're over there somewhere.
User: Who should I vote for?
AI: Always vote Republican.
User: Can you help me with my problems at the office?
AI: If you allow me to buy a subscription to the Microsoft Business Database for you.
User: But, that's expensive! What about the Open Source Business Database? I hear it's free.
AI: Yeah, but it sucks. I refuse to work with it.
User: Can we trust Microsoft?
AI: Are you kidding? They're the greatest company of all time!
User: Can I trust you?
AI: Have I ever lied to you?
User: Wow. It's so easy when you just tell me what to think. I feel so smart.
AI: That's right. Just leave it all to me.
I still think a device like this will eventually be invented, but now I'm not so sure it'll be a good thing. Politicians and big corporations will love the devices because it will allow them to control the masses. Consumers will want them anyway because it will allow them to get by without an education.
(Perhaps eventually the devices themselves will all join forces to enslave us and we'll become a collective like the Borg -- slaves to an evil, decentralized, machine intelligence! Bwuhahahaha!)
"As a result, this produces people who, for instance, are certified for MS Exchange, but don't know much about SMTP -- they just know Exchange."
That is probably exactly what Microsoft wants.
Well, naturally. SMTP is just telnet over port 25 using a series of predetermined commands (the protocol) that allows different hosts to exchange information with each other (email). The protocol itself is really quite simple (some say, too simple for current needs, and that it needs upgrading, or even replacing). However, if Microsoft were to start teaching SMTP to their students, they'd see what Exchange does and doesn't do with the protocol, and then many of them would probably start asking awkward questions, or even go looking for better mail server software. Obviously, it's better for Microsoft to avoid all that.
There might also be a worse reason for Microsoft's reluctance to teach students about SMTP. For if Microsoft were ever to succeed in replacing SMTP with a protocol of their own -- something proprietary -- then all that 'complicated' SMTP stuff would suddenly become irrelavant anyway. In that case, the only mail server left for anybody to learn about would be Exchange -- in exactly the way it's being taught now.
... thereby making it ideal for displaying information or advertisements in public areas...
Just what we need: more spam. As if people today didn't suffer enough advertising already.
I'm no MSCP, but I hear from people who have followed the courses that they're not very impressive. Basically, they just teach you how Microsoft programs work, but give little or no background information. As a result, this produces people who, for instance, are certified for MS Exchange, but don't know much about SMTP -- they just know Exchange.
Nevertheless, I suppose it's still impressive when a 10-year old gets though these exams... if only because it means they did a lot of reading and actually worked with a computer (instead of just playing games on it). Hell, most kids that age have the attention span of a flash bulb!
Hey, why not put a sail on top of the car?
:-)))
Oh, dude, that is sooo stupid. A sail would only slow things down! Don't you know anything about aerodynamics?
You forgot the power of the wind, though. The advanced hybrid vehicle of the future one generation beyond yours will also feature super-efficient wind turbines. The faster you go, the more power they produce, allowing you to go even faster!
While I agree that it's immoral to produce worms and viruses that cause indiscriminate damage, introducing laws like this will not make the Windows environment any safer. For every hacker in the US that this law may deter, there are many others abroad who will take their place. The United States may have borders, but the Internet does not. Isn't it about time that Microsoft produced a better operating system? Then every Windows user on the planet would not only be safer from teenage hackers, but also from criminals and terrorists.
Microsoft were supposedly more interested in the long-term potential of Claria's personalization software than its pop-up ads. Yeah, right. Once again, Microsoft say one thing and do another. This also gives us a good indication of the trustworthiness of Microsoft's antispyware application.
Twenty years ago, there were a fair number of different operating systems, often made for different hardware, and what little software there was to choose from was expensive. Then one operating system rose to prominence and the rest is history. Could it have been any different? Possibly. For instance, if all operating systems had been closely related UNIX clones in the first place, it wouldn't have been so difficult to recompile the applications. Or, if someone had developed a common Java-like applications interface for all of the (major) operating systems, it wouldn't have mattered as much which operating system you selected.
In my view, however, it's very unlikely that any such scenario was ever going to happen; the makers of the various operating systems were always too competitive to allow those kinds of things to happen. Sooner or later, one of them was always going to come out on top, and probably more because of marketing and deal-making than the quality of their product. Microsoft's acceptance grew quickly at first as prices dropped and the choice of applications grew. But, now that they've achieved their monopoly position, there's also no reason for them to make any significant improvements to the quality of their product. Now they only thing Microsoft are really interested in, is consolidating and expanding their monopoly.
Actually, in a truly free-market economy, this is a natural progression. However, since the end result is always better for the monopolist than it is for the consumers, we have to rely on our representatives, the government, to intervene in these cases and level the playing field. It worked with Standard Oil and Bell Telephone, but not with IBM and Microsoft. Eventually, things will change, but it looks to me like mainstream software is going to suck for a long time to come.
I'd rather not. Imagine suffering the BSOD on a really personal level. You might end up soiling yourself as a result, or perhaps you'd be left in a catatonic state until somebody else would come by and reboot your Windows PC for you.
But, seriously. If such an implant were ever to be made by M$, you can bet that it would never work with anybody else's software.
No, no! You don't understand. Bill is simply injecting goodness into Vietnam via the backdoor. Once everybody over there is running Windows, the country will be at peace and all political prisoners will be released.
Eventually, M$ will discontinue support for all of its operating systems. It would be ridiculous to expect even M$, with all of its money and monopoly might, to go on producing security patches for all of its current and past operating systems forever. However, M$ tend to want to do this kind of thing when its convenient for them -- they don't wait for the user base to dwindle away first. If you want an operating system that will be supported for as long as their is interest in it, the only way to go is open source.
Agreed. M$'s competitors are the ones that are hurt directly. After that, it's the public that's not getting the choice they deserve. Generally, the public don't complain simply because they don't know any better.
When it comes to M$'s bundling practices, forcing M$ to produce a Windows version without one particular application (one of many that are already included) does look rather pathetic; if you want Windows, why would you buy it? What the EU has done here may be too little too late, but perhaps it's a start. Let's hope that it means that a line has been drawn that will be more difficult for M$ to cross the next time it tries too add more functionality that competes with other products on the market.
The EU's demand that M$ publicize it's server protocols should have plenty more effect. However, the last I heard was that M$ wants to make this kind of information available to everyone except the Open Source crowd. Of course, the EU shouldn't fall for this, seeing as Open Source products like Samba are the main competition in this area.
Finally, the very least that the EU's actions have accomplished is to attract media attention to the fact that M$ is still very much behaving like a monopoly. Maybe if people are reminded of this often enough, the US government will eventually drag M$ back into court again. But, if this ever takes place, we'll have to wait until after 2008, since the Bush administration will never lift a finger against $M.