With advent of advanced free Java IRC client applets the skill threshold to access IRC has been vastly lowered, the underlying system is more rich than most of online chat applications, and this being IRC, it allows power-users to access it using more advanced dedicated clients.
So often on a site instead of "Live Chat" link you'll see "IRC channel", which leads you to a page with the applet and irc:// link for these who prefer their dedicated clients. For most users this is nothing but another glorified web chatroom, but it gives the admins more power.
If a forum site blocks valid outgoing traffic to given IP address/block, serving "Your IP has been banned" page instead, isn't it in violation of this law?
What if an IRC user is unable to access a channel due to ban?
While trying to read nonexistent pages on my server results in 402 Payment Required (pay me and I'll write this page for you), the URLs for most comon IIS exploits all return 301 Moved Permanently with a redirect to Microsoft. I don't know how many hacker tools support 301, but I guess some do...
The problem with RTS games path finding vs robot path finding is that the games have a flawless description of the environment (the description IS the environment) and no inherent physical limitations on the driven device, only ones programmed in.
A real obstacle can move, can be hard to spot or misrecognized as non-obstacle, can resist traditional methods of surmounting it (say, is slippery or crumbles). A real robot has to deal with traction slipping, in route deviating due to slipping on the surface, limited acceleration and braking power, environment behaving against specs (tell a crumbling building to follow the computational model...), communication shortages and so on.
Also, this is a demo, to let people see how that works. I believe it could be done 20 times faster by an experienced operator doing actual work instead of a demo.
Option 2, manned, strongly independent and building local bases. Not waiting for probes, sending a scientific crew with a full, well-equipped base at once. And scientists have initiative of their own, not waiting 4 years for an order of Na'vi DNA sample, just sending it back away as soon as the analysis is done.
20 years till the scientific phase ends and commercial begins isn't all that much. Note the 8 years is constant (comfortable) acceleration/deceleration at 1g, that's not all that strong.
A well-equipped Pandora base can build most equipment, machinery etc locally (from ores, Pandora is very rich). DNA data can be transmitted by radio (The whole genome is a puny 2GB gzipped, for Eywa's sake!)
Heavy unmanned transport doesn't have to care for 1g limit, and likely only one (unmanned) trip with heavy factory machinery from Earth was needed to establish the production base. First commercial grade bulk unobtainium transport could reach Earth 10-12 years after commercial operations was greenlighted (and starting continuous flow), and that could be 15 years after the scientific operation start.
Then troubles mount and next 10 years later the militarization of the operation enters full phase.
Interestingly, the very first commercial in Polish TV after beginning of transformation towards capitalism was for Prusakolep, a bug bait with pesticide against the German cockroach, (Croton bug, Steam fly, Blattella germanica). It wasn't all that much of a problem really and it being the first and only commercial on tv for quite a while (and run pretty frequently) it was pretty much leaving many people stumped, wtf is this about...
"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old and it has taken that long to accumulate our helium reserves"
Bullshit. We accumulated our reserves in a little over 100 years, since fraction distillation of air became commonplace. The very useful oxygen gets all used up. There is a surplus of nitrogen, over what we use. Helium over a long time was a by-product with production far over demand, and that's how our reserves were made. And that's why it is so cheap - production was greater than demand.
Great most of helium "used up" is released back into the air. Being a noble gas, the helium that isn't released, is still stored in whatever it was used in, unchanged. And even if not, there's still a plenty of it.
Even at 5.2 parts per million in air, that's 5.2cm^3 in a cubic meter of air. If the demand grows enough, air can be distilled for helium alone, surplus oxygen and nitrogen released back into the atmosphere, and by doing so through right mechanisms we can recover most of energy used to liquefy air in the first place. Or use it to cool devices that need cooling - imagine producing helium as a byproduct of cooling a data center.
This all of course needs infrastructure and infrastructure needs time. So if the policy doesn't change, we're up for a period of helium crisis, when the reserve runs out and the new infrastructure still isn't in place. But it's only the lack of infrastructure to extract it that is missing - natural supplies of helium are nowhere near to depletion.
A typical 17" display is 909cm^2, that is 185,000 of your 1024x1024 0.7mm units. At 1 byte per pixel (256 grey levels), that gives 181 gigabytes per image. Not far off from my 200GB per frame estimate. That's vs 6MB per frame of 1080p hdtv which is currently the state of art. Your hologram pixels are below 0.7 microns. The state of the art (LCD projectors) is about 10 microns, and seem to have hit a roadblock with increasing resolution while keeping this pixel size.
And you're doing no more than that 1024x1024 at a time in digital display, I guess. The result is fixed on film, and you move to expose another 0.7mm unit. The film is analog hologram storage. Like a mosaic printer that punches the image on paper and moves on.
Holography is analog data storage. Just like normal photography is. And a hologram picture vs holography data storage vs hologram display device is like an analog photo (or mosaic printer printout) vs a CD disk vs an LCD screen. You can't store that much raw data in analog photo comparing to a CD, which IS an optical storage just the same, just not meant "for human consumption".
We are capable of creating printouts, and then using old page-flip animation with these. We are not able to record a holographic scene live to a hard disk, then replay it as a movie without transferring it to a film. We might if we had holographic counterpart to a CD and LCD screen, instead of a counterpart to a paper printout.
Yes, the media is not durable enough, yes, the machines are not consumer grade. The problem is I heard exactly the same excuse 15 years ago. WHAT has changed since then?
Once you have separated the hard drive from the chassis by magnetic bearings in vacuum, so that its vibrations wouldn't transfer and create noise, you still need a super-SATA cable to suppress all mechanical vibrations along its length. Just don't forget about super-Power cable to go along with it!
I concede the color point - in case of transmissive holograms. Still, a "flatscreen holograph device" looking like a standard modern TV set/monitor would rather be reflective than transmissive. Or we're back to CRT times with big "ray tube" sticking far back, except now it shoots lasers instead of electrons.
Static imaging is there, is old, and is almost forgotten. Yes, we can computer-generate a static hologram. Create the holographic representation of an image in memory, get an old 800x600 wall projector LCD and a handful of optics, then use photographic technique to transfer the hologram in pieces where the 800x600 image is like 0.1mm. Repeat over whole surface, done. Will take a long time, lots of CPU time and disk space but is perfectly doable.
OTOH, the LIDAR imaging - first, I doubt the level of detail a LIDAR produces is comparable with a live photo, and then, we're talking military budget here. Not exactly consumer level. 15FPS is not quite there yet either.
If you want to be able to dynamically vary the width of the fringe in 1% intervals you need at the very least 100px per the thinnest stripe width used. That's 2000px per mm for you.
Pixels are square, so if you want a circular pattern you have to have pixels vastly smaller - the resulting drawn circle must be comparable in size with visible light wave length, while its imperfections (pixellated border) must be well beyond that scale, and you can't cheat by antialiasing. That's the pixel size we're talking about.
What level of detail were you able to achieve with your CCD? A picture of a human face that is recognizable? A picture of a human body, where the face is recognizable? A picture of a room of people where all the faces are recognizable? I doubt anything beyond the first. And consumer grade requires the last.
I'm not going to argue "yes there are", "no there aren't". Would you just care to give examples of what level of detail are the devices you mentioned capable of? I'm pretty much aware a standard wall display projector with modified optics is mostly capable of displaying simplest holograms. Still, these seem to have hit a roadblock when it comes to display resolution, and a holographic display would need very similar parts, just vastly higher resolution...
Noticed anything missing in the page from the link you gave me? Like, say, a "products" section? Holographic storage news appear once a year on the average, with "five years until mass production" date tag each. I was excited the first 3 times or so, some 15 years ago. Then I learned of the word "vaporware". There is NO consumer-grade holographic memory devices and there are hundreds of vaporware companies that show a lot of pretty animations about what their devices will be when they build them. The day I can order a holographic storage disk in an online shop, and plug it into SATA interface of my computer I'll say consumer-grade holographic display is a viable option.
Yes, holography might be the future, but along with flying cars, thinking AI, working voice recognition, affordable space tourism, neural UI, and a cure for cancer, it's yet another of the products that "will be on the market in 5 years" for the past 50 years or so.
True that you can store whatever resolution of holographic data (the diffraction pattern) you want. True that higher resolution leads to higher quality. But you conveniently omit the fact that resolution of 1000x1000 is barely sufficient to get a hologram of two dots. Gigapixel resolution is needed to store holographic equivalent of a thumbnail image in quality that allows one to recognize the content. The rule of thumb is resolution roughly 1000 times higher than respective 2D image for similar quality. And we're talking about consumer appliances here, 100x100px equivalent won't cut it.
"discrete captured from a high-resolution CCD"? Bullshit. A 100 megapixel camera will produce a hologram that is no more than few rough, blurred shapes. 100 megapixels at what FPS? And what are the highest resolution CCDs available on the market nowadays?
"but I'm not telling you the right name either, do your homework." Of course they are not named holographic projectors, because while there is a wide range of 3D display devices, none of them uses holography. Do YOUR homework and check what principles use the devices you talk about.
And if there's so much competition and development, as you claim, why does the article state to the contrary? Why do wall projectors of >1024x768 are still so rare and expensive? Why still no holographic data storage, which is hmuch easier than holographic display? And why posting as AC?
First, they are static. There's no viable storage to contain reasonable amounts of holograph data, other than holograms themselves. So, old tape-style movies with separate frames are possible, but a computer display - not really, it would take many megabytes per second of the movie and no device has throughputs of this scale, storage notwithstanding. A video that uses generated (computed) image may be possible, a live movie - not yet.
Secondly, they are not color. Or more precisely, they are all colors. The rainbowy nature of a hologram seems inherent, it's very difficult to obtain anything near a clear color in a hologram. Some kind of RGB might be possible, but not nearly as crisp as flat image. Also, for a hologram you need a continuous image, you can't intermix pixels - one hologram per image, so it would need rather to be a Red frame-Green frame-Blue frame sequence, than an image containing mix of all.
Lastly, there is no holographic output device, like a monitor, on which to show holograms. The MarkII you linked achieves puny 144 scan lines in horizontal parallax only. That is how it translates to current displays. It could be defined as 256000 x 144 px display, the 256k pixels being sufficient to create one channel of holo photography.
Assuming we give up full parallax, and go with horizontal parallax and 800 scanlines (a low resolution for contemporary monitors) in RGB that would be 15GB per second, and not 3D in vertical direction. If we take the full parallax, we need about 256k x 256k pixels @ 180Hz (for 60Hz on each color compound). 85 femtosecond pixel clock in case of scanning laser like in the example, about 200GB per frame at 24-bit color depth, and 3 micron big pixels on a wide screen. Calculate data throughput needed for that yourself.
No, we aren't anywhere close to being able to produce a consumer grade holographic display.
So no FF4 for me. At least on the netbook... I can use my mobile connection responsibly and the 500MB limit will last me a month. But at some $0.25/500K above limit, if Firefox decides to download 15MB of updates, sorry, no deal.
you're skipping many abstraction layers: - video RGB data - screen pixel data / electric levels - liquid crystal polarization/ - light emitted from screen, filtered through liquid crystal - light transformed through eye optics - chemical levels in eye sensors - neural impulses. A lot of lossy transformations between different formats. We lose color on LCD. We lose field of vision on screen size. We lose sharpness on eye optics. We lose resolution and framerate on eye cones. The neural display has a potential to be vastly superior in means of quality. And with some smart programming we could skip some more abstraction layers. Image recognition replaced by content awareness, visual to text to language to data replaced by direct data input, and reverse, commands given by intention as opposed to intention-language-typing-muscles-keys.
Is it true that they give away cars on the Red Square? Yes, mostly. Just some small corrections: not on the Red Square but on the Arbat, not cars but bicycles, and not give away but steal.
Agreed, the amount alone is nowhere near enough. A hijacker can just replace target account number while retaining the amount. This one gives 4 first and 4 last target account number digits, so it's quite impossible this could be hijacked.
Using SMS to control the bank account requires a separate PIN, different than anything else.
Distinguishing between what is important and what is not can be achieved also by attaching weight metadata to any information. That weight can be correlated with the age of the information too.
Nature has no Moore's Law built into it. Storage capacity is following in close steps behind volume of created information.
Mother Nature has limited resources. Human genome can be gzipped to under one gigabyte. Human brain uses compression so lossy it allows for recognition, but not of anywhere near to precise duplication of memories. Electronic memory CAN remember everything, simply because there's enough of it and it's cheap enough.
And forgiving based on forgetting is as careless and dangerous as is classifying information as less important by deleting it.
'without some form of forgetting, forgiving becomes a difficult undertaking.'
Forgiving should never be based on forgetting. Forgive, yes - give another chance, people change, mistakes of the past should not be repeated. Forget? - This is a guaranteed method to repeat the mistakes of the past.
1) Please send it to my mailing address. I have requested over and again that I do NOT consent to ANY telemarketing. 2) Well, please do. I just performed it. I can give you the number I just used (it's been used up and it can only confirm that particular transaction anyway). I don't really see them being able to obtain anything of use to them. 3) So they can DoS the transaction by cancelling the codes I receive. They still don't get me to sign transactions they want to perform.
The possible scenario for hijack in this case could be: my PC is compromised, and they control the SMS transmission. * I enter transaction details, and click "send". * The trojan hijacks the POST content and replaces account number and value with their own, * The trojan notifies the hacked SMS gateway with both real and fake details of the transaction. * The gateway intercepts the incoming SMS (with wrong transaction details and a valid code to authorize the illegal transaction) * it then cancels the SMS from the bank before I get to read it. * it sends out their own SMS containing the "correct" transaction details (the ones I have entered) and auth code for the fraudulent transaction. * the trojan displays confirmation page with the bank's reply (mule's account#) replaced with details I have entered.
That's a lot of steps to perform. And there's reading out someone's SMS, injecting some SMS with spoofed caller's number, and associating a hijacked computer's IP with owner's phone number too.
Nope, the girl asks what is your phone account management code. This is how it works with all operators in my country. If it's a birthsday in your country, it's completely retarded.
There is a system that is currently (AFAIK) uncrackable. Details of the transaction you sign are sent back to you through SMS with authorization code. So you know the transaction has been hijacked if the SMS contains wrong data. The code is one-use, generated by bank upon submitting the transaction for authorization.
(of course this may still fall victim to people not reading the SMS beyond the auth code...)
I guess it could be hackable if the attackers could hijack the owner's phone (make a clone of the SIM card?) and learn the password at the same time.
Always a scrolling ticker, two big, flashy, animated popups in the corners, something popping up near the bottom, the actual content is obscured in 50% or more.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, they do.
With advent of advanced free Java IRC client applets the skill threshold to access IRC has been vastly lowered, the underlying system is more rich than most of online chat applications, and this being IRC, it allows power-users to access it using more advanced dedicated clients.
So often on a site instead of "Live Chat" link you'll see "IRC channel", which leads you to a page with the applet and irc:// link for these who prefer their dedicated clients. For most users this is nothing but another glorified web chatroom, but it gives the admins more power.
I wonder about an unintended side effect.
If a forum site blocks valid outgoing traffic to given IP address/block, serving "Your IP has been banned" page instead, isn't it in violation of this law?
What if an IRC user is unable to access a channel due to ban?
While trying to read nonexistent pages on my server results in 402 Payment Required (pay me and I'll write this page for you), the URLs for most comon IIS exploits all return 301 Moved Permanently with a redirect to Microsoft. I don't know how many hacker tools support 301, but I guess some do...
The problem with RTS games path finding vs robot path finding is that the games have a flawless description of the environment (the description IS the environment) and no inherent physical limitations on the driven device, only ones programmed in.
A real obstacle can move, can be hard to spot or misrecognized as non-obstacle, can resist traditional methods of surmounting it (say, is slippery or crumbles). A real robot has to deal with traction slipping, in route deviating due to slipping on the surface, limited acceleration and braking power, environment behaving against specs (tell a crumbling building to follow the computational model...), communication shortages and so on.
Also, this is a demo, to let people see how that works. I believe it could be done 20 times faster by an experienced operator doing actual work instead of a demo.
Use it for what it is... great dish ...fill it with spaghetti...
Option 2, manned, strongly independent and building local bases. Not waiting for probes, sending a scientific crew with a full, well-equipped base at once. And scientists have initiative of their own, not waiting 4 years for an order of Na'vi DNA sample, just sending it back away as soon as the analysis is done.
20 years till the scientific phase ends and commercial begins isn't all that much. Note the 8 years is constant (comfortable) acceleration/deceleration at 1g, that's not all that strong.
A well-equipped Pandora base can build most equipment, machinery etc locally (from ores, Pandora is very rich). DNA data can be transmitted by radio (The whole genome is a puny 2GB gzipped, for Eywa's sake!)
Heavy unmanned transport doesn't have to care for 1g limit, and likely only one (unmanned) trip with heavy factory machinery from Earth was needed to establish the production base. First commercial grade bulk unobtainium transport could reach Earth 10-12 years after commercial operations was greenlighted (and starting continuous flow), and that could be 15 years after the scientific operation start.
Then troubles mount and next 10 years later the militarization of the operation enters full phase.
Interestingly, the very first commercial in Polish TV after beginning of transformation towards capitalism was for Prusakolep, a bug bait with pesticide against the German cockroach, (Croton bug, Steam fly, Blattella germanica).
It wasn't all that much of a problem really and it being the first and only commercial on tv for quite a while (and run pretty frequently) it was pretty much leaving many people stumped, wtf is this about...
"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old and it has taken that long to accumulate our helium reserves"
Bullshit. We accumulated our reserves in a little over 100 years, since fraction distillation of air became commonplace. The very useful oxygen gets all used up. There is a surplus of nitrogen, over what we use. Helium over a long time was a by-product with production far over demand, and that's how our reserves were made. And that's why it is so cheap - production was greater than demand.
Great most of helium "used up" is released back into the air. Being a noble gas, the helium that isn't released, is still stored in whatever it was used in, unchanged. And even if not, there's still a plenty of it.
Even at 5.2 parts per million in air, that's 5.2cm^3 in a cubic meter of air. If the demand grows enough, air can be distilled for helium alone, surplus oxygen and nitrogen released back into the atmosphere, and by doing so through right mechanisms we can recover most of energy used to liquefy air in the first place. Or use it to cool devices that need cooling - imagine producing helium as a byproduct of cooling a data center.
This all of course needs infrastructure and infrastructure needs time. So if the policy doesn't change, we're up for a period of helium crisis, when the reserve runs out and the new infrastructure still isn't in place. But it's only the lack of infrastructure to extract it that is missing - natural supplies of helium are nowhere near to depletion.
Doesn't seem so.
A typical 17" display is 909cm^2, that is 185,000 of your 1024x1024 0.7mm units. At 1 byte per pixel (256 grey levels), that gives 181 gigabytes per image. Not far off from my 200GB per frame estimate. That's vs 6MB per frame of 1080p hdtv which is currently the state of art. Your hologram pixels are below 0.7 microns. The state of the art (LCD projectors) is about 10 microns, and seem to have hit a roadblock with increasing resolution while keeping this pixel size.
And you're doing no more than that 1024x1024 at a time in digital display, I guess. The result is fixed on film, and you move to expose another 0.7mm unit. The film is analog hologram storage. Like a mosaic printer that punches the image on paper and moves on.
Holography is analog data storage. Just like normal photography is. And a hologram picture vs holography data storage vs hologram display device is like an analog photo (or mosaic printer printout) vs a CD disk vs an LCD screen. You can't store that much raw data in analog photo comparing to a CD, which IS an optical storage just the same, just not meant "for human consumption".
We are capable of creating printouts, and then using old page-flip animation with these. We are not able to record a holographic scene live to a hard disk, then replay it as a movie without transferring it to a film. We might if we had holographic counterpart to a CD and LCD screen, instead of a counterpart to a paper printout.
Yes, the media is not durable enough, yes, the machines are not consumer grade. The problem is I heard exactly the same excuse 15 years ago. WHAT has changed since then?
Once you have separated the hard drive from the chassis by magnetic bearings in vacuum, so that its vibrations wouldn't transfer and create noise, you still need a super-SATA cable to suppress all mechanical vibrations along its length. Just don't forget about super-Power cable to go along with it!
I concede the color point - in case of transmissive holograms. Still, a "flatscreen holograph device" looking like a standard modern TV set/monitor would rather be reflective than transmissive. Or we're back to CRT times with big "ray tube" sticking far back, except now it shoots lasers instead of electrons.
Static imaging is there, is old, and is almost forgotten. Yes, we can computer-generate a static hologram. Create the holographic representation of an image in memory, get an old 800x600 wall projector LCD and a handful of optics, then use photographic technique to transfer the hologram in pieces where the 800x600 image is like 0.1mm. Repeat over whole surface, done. Will take a long time, lots of CPU time and disk space but is perfectly doable.
OTOH, the LIDAR imaging - first, I doubt the level of detail a LIDAR produces is comparable with a live photo, and then, we're talking military budget here. Not exactly consumer level. 15FPS is not quite there yet either.
20 fringes OF WHAT SIZE per mm?
If you want to be able to dynamically vary the width of the fringe in 1% intervals you need at the very least 100px per the thinnest stripe width used. That's 2000px per mm for you.
Pixels are square, so if you want a circular pattern you have to have pixels vastly smaller - the resulting drawn circle must be comparable in size with visible light wave length, while its imperfections (pixellated border) must be well beyond that scale, and you can't cheat by antialiasing. That's the pixel size we're talking about.
What level of detail were you able to achieve with your CCD? A picture of a human face that is recognizable? A picture of a human body, where the face is recognizable? A picture of a room of people where all the faces are recognizable? I doubt anything beyond the first. And consumer grade requires the last.
I'm not going to argue "yes there are", "no there aren't". Would you just care to give examples of what level of detail are the devices you mentioned capable of? I'm pretty much aware a standard wall display projector with modified optics is mostly capable of displaying simplest holograms. Still, these seem to have hit a roadblock when it comes to display resolution, and a holographic display would need very similar parts, just vastly higher resolution...
Noticed anything missing in the page from the link you gave me? Like, say, a "products" section?
Holographic storage news appear once a year on the average, with "five years until mass production" date tag each. I was excited the first 3 times or so, some 15 years ago. Then I learned of the word "vaporware". There is NO consumer-grade holographic memory devices and there are hundreds of vaporware companies that show a lot of pretty animations about what their devices will be when they build them. The day I can order a holographic storage disk in an online shop, and plug it into SATA interface of my computer I'll say consumer-grade holographic display is a viable option.
Yes, holography might be the future, but along with flying cars, thinking AI, working voice recognition, affordable space tourism, neural UI, and a cure for cancer, it's yet another of the products that "will be on the market in 5 years" for the past 50 years or so.
True that you can store whatever resolution of holographic data (the diffraction pattern) you want. True that higher resolution leads to higher quality. But you conveniently omit the fact that resolution of 1000x1000 is barely sufficient to get a hologram of two dots. Gigapixel resolution is needed to store holographic equivalent of a thumbnail image in quality that allows one to recognize the content. The rule of thumb is resolution roughly 1000 times higher than respective 2D image for similar quality. And we're talking about consumer appliances here, 100x100px equivalent won't cut it.
"discrete captured from a high-resolution CCD"? Bullshit. A 100 megapixel camera will produce a hologram that is no more than few rough, blurred shapes. 100 megapixels at what FPS? And what are the highest resolution CCDs available on the market nowadays?
"but I'm not telling you the right name either, do your homework." Of course they are not named holographic projectors, because while there is a wide range of 3D display devices, none of them uses holography. Do YOUR homework and check what principles use the devices you talk about.
And if there's so much competition and development, as you claim, why does the article state to the contrary? Why do wall projectors of >1024x768 are still so rare and expensive? Why still no holographic data storage, which is hmuch easier than holographic display? And why posting as AC?
First, they are static. There's no viable storage to contain reasonable amounts of holograph data, other than holograms themselves. So, old tape-style movies with separate frames are possible, but a computer display - not really, it would take many megabytes per second of the movie and no device has throughputs of this scale, storage notwithstanding. A video that uses generated (computed) image may be possible, a live movie - not yet.
Secondly, they are not color. Or more precisely, they are all colors. The rainbowy nature of a hologram seems inherent, it's very difficult to obtain anything near a clear color in a hologram. Some kind of RGB might be possible, but not nearly as crisp as flat image. Also, for a hologram you need a continuous image, you can't intermix pixels - one hologram per image, so it would need rather to be a Red frame-Green frame-Blue frame sequence, than an image containing mix of all.
Lastly, there is no holographic output device, like a monitor, on which to show holograms. The MarkII you linked achieves puny 144 scan lines in horizontal parallax only. That is how it translates to current displays. It could be defined as 256000 x 144 px display, the 256k pixels being sufficient to create one channel of holo photography.
Assuming we give up full parallax, and go with horizontal parallax and 800 scanlines (a low resolution for contemporary monitors) in RGB that would be 15GB per second, and not 3D in vertical direction. If we take the full parallax, we need about 256k x 256k pixels @ 180Hz (for 60Hz on each color compound). 85 femtosecond pixel clock in case of scanning laser like in the example, about 200GB per frame at 24-bit color depth, and 3 micron big pixels on a wide screen. Calculate data throughput needed for that yourself.
No, we aren't anywhere close to being able to produce a consumer grade holographic display.
So no FF4 for me. At least on the netbook...
I can use my mobile connection responsibly and the 500MB limit will last me a month. But at some $0.25/500K above limit, if Firefox decides to download 15MB of updates, sorry, no deal.
you're skipping many abstraction layers:
- video RGB data
- screen pixel data / electric levels
- liquid crystal polarization/
- light emitted from screen, filtered through liquid crystal
- light transformed through eye optics
- chemical levels in eye sensors
- neural impulses.
A lot of lossy transformations between different formats. We lose color on LCD. We lose field of vision on screen size. We lose sharpness on eye optics. We lose resolution and framerate on eye cones. The neural display has a potential to be vastly superior in means of quality. And with some smart programming we could skip some more abstraction layers. Image recognition replaced by content awareness, visual to text to language to data replaced by direct data input, and reverse, commands given by intention as opposed to intention-language-typing-muscles-keys.
Traditional news accuracy.
Is it true that they give away cars on the Red Square?
Yes, mostly. Just some small corrections: not on the Red Square but on the Arbat, not cars but bicycles, and not give away but steal.
Agreed, the amount alone is nowhere near enough. A hijacker can just replace target account number while retaining the amount. This one gives 4 first and 4 last target account number digits, so it's quite impossible this could be hijacked.
Using SMS to control the bank account requires a separate PIN, different than anything else.
Distinguishing between what is important and what is not can be achieved also by attaching weight metadata to any information. That weight can be correlated with the age of the information too.
Nature has no Moore's Law built into it.
Storage capacity is following in close steps behind volume of created information.
Mother Nature has limited resources. Human genome can be gzipped to under one gigabyte. Human brain uses compression so lossy it allows for recognition, but not of anywhere near to precise duplication of memories. Electronic memory CAN remember everything, simply because there's enough of it and it's cheap enough.
And forgiving based on forgetting is as careless and dangerous as is classifying information as less important by deleting it.
'without some form of forgetting, forgiving becomes a difficult undertaking.'
Forgiving should never be based on forgetting.
Forgive, yes - give another chance, people change, mistakes of the past should not be repeated.
Forget? - This is a guaranteed method to repeat the mistakes of the past.
1) Please send it to my mailing address. I have requested over and again that I do NOT consent to ANY telemarketing.
2) Well, please do. I just performed it. I can give you the number I just used (it's been used up and it can only confirm that particular transaction anyway). I don't really see them being able to obtain anything of use to them.
3) So they can DoS the transaction by cancelling the codes I receive. They still don't get me to sign transactions they want to perform.
The possible scenario for hijack in this case could be: my PC is compromised, and they control the SMS transmission.
* I enter transaction details, and click "send".
* The trojan hijacks the POST content and replaces account number and value with their own,
* The trojan notifies the hacked SMS gateway with both real and fake details of the transaction.
* The gateway intercepts the incoming SMS (with wrong transaction details and a valid code to authorize the illegal transaction)
* it then cancels the SMS from the bank before I get to read it.
* it sends out their own SMS containing the "correct" transaction details (the ones I have entered) and auth code for the fraudulent transaction.
* the trojan displays confirmation page with the bank's reply (mule's account#) replaced with details I have entered.
That's a lot of steps to perform. And there's reading out someone's SMS, injecting some SMS with spoofed caller's number, and associating a hijacked computer's IP with owner's phone number too.
Nope, the girl asks what is your phone account management code. This is how it works with all operators in my country. If it's a birthsday in your country, it's completely retarded.
If the device requires only the last digit of the account number, you need a total of 10 money mules to capture money from all infected people.
There is a system that is currently (AFAIK) uncrackable. Details of the transaction you sign are sent back to you through SMS with authorization code. So you know the transaction has been hijacked if the SMS contains wrong data. The code is one-use, generated by bank upon submitting the transaction for authorization.
(of course this may still fall victim to people not reading the SMS beyond the auth code...)
I guess it could be hackable if the attackers could hijack the owner's phone (make a clone of the SIM card?) and learn the password at the same time.
Always a scrolling ticker, two big, flashy, animated popups in the corners, something popping up near the bottom, the actual content is obscured in 50% or more.