I'm rather disappointed that the push is to make things "wireless" without real consideration of the ramifications.
How about more RF noise? Signal overlap?
It seems the world is so enthralled with the idea of giving everyone a "megaphone" so they can shout coast-to-coast that they've ceased thinking about what would happen when you have millions of people shouting that loud back and forth to one another.
Security... overlap... sheesh, can't someone take a breather and figure out a *good* way of doing this instead of just figuring out how to do it most quickly? 8P
Not trying to annoy ya' with the question, but how much did those tape robots cost? And what about read/write speed?
I know it isn't considered as important (the speed) when you're looking at long-term backup. Especially since most applications that utilize tape try to have a "write once, read never" policy; who cares how long it takes to retrieve data if it isn't a normal aspect of the operation?
Does tape store/keep that much better than a hard drive does? I know mechanical parts will degrade just from environmental causes, but if properly stored, won't they keep just as well? This, I'm not sure about. 8/
Admittedly, we're only now coming close to being able to match massive tape solutions with hard drive capacity with price/storage. I just think that the long-term viability of tape is slipping quietly into that good night. 8)
Especially if they can get Flash tech to a point where it'll match capacity and storage longevity. Can't beat "no moving parts!";)
At the very least, you have to agree that the market for tape is moving more into the special-use market and away from Joe Average's Business backup. How many companies (and I'm not talking about the IBM's of the world... you gotta include Mom-n-Pop in there too) even have that much data to store?
I used to have a tape changer, but honestly, with disc getting so cheap, fast, and (as almost always) reliable, why use tape anymore?
And for offsite storage, you can always get fancy drive-rails.;)
For *less* than $400 (with a cheap-o Via-based system and *2* 200G Seagate harddrives from CompUSA for $99/each post-rebate), I have a backup solution with just shy of 400G of space.
I'd be more comfortable with them calling it "Moore's Observation."
Or, to put it more directly, "Moore's Observation of a Small Sample of the Overall Computing Power Increase In A Specific Timeframe... Limited Application!" 8)
But, you'll also be incuring greated magnetic field interference. Heck, the thing will also generate more heat as driving current through smaller traces creates more "friction;" the chip might break itself simply under thermal load.
Just because you can make it smaller, doesn't mean it'll function properly. There's a theoretical limit to how small traces can go before the interference makes signaling impossible.
I can't wait to see how many processors get "down-binned" once they ramp up production with this tech. 8/
There's some information about that lack of feedback; a so called "stupid people don't know they're stupid" syndrome.
Seems like the very mechanism we use to "do something" is the same mechanism we use to "evaluate how well we do something."
So, if you're no good at running a business, you have no idea how to get better because (put simply) you already think you're doing a great job. Otherwise, you would have corrected the problem to begin with!
I could have *sworn* that the political PR machine has been pumping out stories that the economy is improving and has been since November 2001 (!)... gotta love revisionist economics! 8P
Of course, this news goes with my experience; I know plenty of talented developers/tech-people who've been unemployed or lost a job to outsourcing with nary a replacement in sight.
I could rant about the loss of jobs (as I'm sure many/. readers could). What I'd like instead is an honest accounting of where our economy is, is going, and what the heck is being done to make sure we keep it moving in the right direction. Then when that data is available, I'd want to get good answers about why we are or aren't on target. I'm just fed up with all the crap^H^H^H^Hspin being put out on news feeds about a recovery that (obviously) isn't happening yet... or, at least, not to the degree that's being reported.
Nope... instead I'll get to read in news papers 3 years from now how there never was a recession between 2000-2003 (or 4). >8(
Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that Microsoft is violating copyright law... although it wouldn't surprise me greatly to find out if they did (considering how the basis for DOS was "acquired").
No, I was just suggesting that they already take advantage of the OSS by incorporating "free" software into their core instead of developing it from scratch themselves.
For the very reason you give, I bet they have tight controls on what can be integrated and what can't. Heck, just from a PR point of view, even if everything was above-board, they could still be vulnerable (?) to some negative spin about using software from the very source they bash.
OTOH, if they made public their use of OSS software, they could potentially parlay that into a PR win: the reliability of community supported software is integrated into Windows XXX! I think the "win" they'd get from that would be greater than the "loss" they'd suffer by validating the OSS. Just my WAG... I'm no marketing guru.
While he does have a company of developers, there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from integrating OpenSource solutions into their software. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening, and they're just not broadcasting that fact to the world.
My point still stands... it doesn't matter that it is end-to-end... it isn't allowed in the US to go over the airwaves in a manner that doesn't allow the government to listen in if they wish... and if they can, someone else can figure out how to break-in too.
My point is you can accomplish the same thing using cheaper (and legal, via loopholes) methods. For example, why not use your GSM connection (GPRS, to be specific), setup a VPN and use VoIP tech to talk in a completely encrypted manner? Not only would you be able to talk to several people (conference), but you wouldn't be limited to how you connect and chat.
IMHO, it just seems to me that $4K is a high premium to collect from those who don't know there's better (defined as more flexible) and cheaper options available.
First, cell-phone encryption has AT LEAST been available (weak or otherwise) in GSM since 1990. Sure, it is crackable, but it takes hours to do... making it impractical for eavesdropping on a conversation in real-time.
Ok... let's say you're not happy with the encryption. This product will have use in every part of the world *except* the US because, I believe, encrypted voice transmission is illegal. Heck, there have even been home cordless phones available for years that would encrypt only between the handset and the base station... and you're not allowed to have them in the US for that same restriction.
So... either you're going to spend a lot of money to gain encrypted communication that you could more cheaply acquire with other technologies, or you won't be allowed to use it (in the US) without giving the government a backdoor to listen in. For $4K? Forget it.
I really don't understand why we're so fascinated with what will be an inevitable conclusion: we can always throw more power at the problem until a computer expert system whoops any human (key word: expert system).
Nah... after that, we'll need to make these contests interesting.
Give the computer a certain amount of battery with which to do calculations... so, it can "get tired" just like a human opponent.;)
Imagine the awe-inspiring sight of a larger-scale version (say, with the wing-span of half a football field) flying over head... especially if it was armed to the teeth.
The concept is good in that it can take a predefined set of available optimizations and "figure out" (via some AI magic) optimal settings. This is good.
But, a more interesting problem might be more of a meta-compiler problem. Sure, we can optimize a set of options that we humans have determined/guessed are most influential in the building of efficient code. But what about running an analysis on the options themselves?
If we want to get real optimization, why not apply some data-mining theory to the different switches available within the compiler to generate the set of option switches selection?
Then, post selection of switches that are most influential in the compilation process, you can run this genetic algorithm to select "best switches" for the program you're compiling.
I suppose if they felt they were still getting useful information from the probe (ie, it was "looking" at something "interesting" with sensors that still worked), they could always launch a relay-type satellite... just like a network repeater.
Good thing they have several years to decide both if they:
A) want to have/fund such a thing
B) are getting new information worth collecting
Heck... who knows where our terrestrial (or even space-stationed) receiver technology will be in 5 years; perhaps we'll be able to pick out the signal from here, no matter how weak nor how noisy.
How does one take a search engine and make it profitable?
This sounds like the same rhetoric from the late 90's about free email and other free services... "As soon as we get people good and hooked, THEN we'll REALLY profit!"
They'll have a hard time turning the most public part of their business (the web search) into a cash machine and making gobs of money with it; the model just doesn't work to that extent.
I'd be interested in the answer if you have one. But, if you did, you should go do it instead of buying into the hype of 4 years ago!
(Launches word, starts "Thank You, Microsoft" letter with help of Clippy... and uninstalls Mozilla because, well, it is obviously the cause of the frustration it senses).
Slashdot Mirror
Now there'll be even MORE bandwidth/protocols poorly thought-through to expose my data! 8P
Ugh... good point, but you don't go far enough.
I'm rather disappointed that the push is to make things "wireless" without real consideration of the ramifications.
How about more RF noise? Signal overlap?
It seems the world is so enthralled with the idea of giving everyone a "megaphone" so they can shout coast-to-coast that they've ceased thinking about what would happen when you have millions of people shouting that loud back and forth to one another.
Security... overlap... sheesh, can't someone take a breather and figure out a *good* way of doing this instead of just figuring out how to do it most quickly? 8P
Time to buy stock in AMD, Via, or any other chip-maker that *doesn't* jump on the bandwagon.
As long as there's an alternative, people will flock to it... especially when it comes to "locking down choice."
I'm not making a moral judgement against Intel, just following a pattern seen in recent tech history.
Not trying to annoy ya' with the question, but how much did those tape robots cost?
;)
And what about read/write speed?
I know it isn't considered as important (the speed) when you're looking at long-term backup. Especially since most applications that utilize tape try to have a "write once, read never" policy; who cares how long it takes to retrieve data if it isn't a normal aspect of the operation?
Does tape store/keep that much better than a hard drive does? I know mechanical parts will degrade just from environmental causes, but if properly stored, won't they keep just as well? This, I'm not sure about. 8/
Admittedly, we're only now coming close to being able to match massive tape solutions with hard drive capacity with price/storage. I just think that the long-term viability of tape is slipping quietly into that good night. 8)
Especially if they can get Flash tech to a point where it'll match capacity and storage longevity. Can't beat "no moving parts!"
At the very least, you have to agree that the market for tape is moving more into the special-use market and away from Joe Average's Business backup. How many companies (and I'm not talking about the IBM's of the world... you gotta include Mom-n-Pop in there too) even have that much data to store?
Too little, too late, I'd say.
;)
I used to have a tape changer, but honestly, with disc getting so cheap, fast, and (as almost always) reliable, why use tape anymore?
And for offsite storage, you can always get fancy drive-rails.
For *less* than $400 (with a cheap-o Via-based system and *2* 200G Seagate harddrives from CompUSA for $99/each post-rebate), I have a backup solution with just shy of 400G of space.
Virtual Singer has been a favorite of mine for playing around.
The software is of (lesser) but similar quality to the demos I just checked out for this new engine.
But, it also begs the question: what *really* is the purpose of software designed to replace humans going to be used for besides... replacing humans?
The appeal seems to be to small-time musicians/hobbyists (no money to pay people) and big-time corporations (wanna keep more money for themselves). 8/
Awww... I was hoping the "impact" you were going to talk about would be measured in crater size...
The proverbial "Denial Of Justice" attack... very clever. ;)
I'd be more comfortable with them calling it "Moore's Observation."
Or, to put it more directly, "Moore's Observation of a Small Sample of the Overall Computing Power Increase In A Specific Timeframe... Limited Application!" 8)
Maybe then it can go away... as it should.
But, you'll also be incuring greated magnetic field interference. Heck, the thing will also generate more heat as driving current through smaller traces creates more "friction;" the chip might break itself simply under thermal load.
Just because you can make it smaller, doesn't mean it'll function properly. There's a theoretical limit to how small traces can go before the interference makes signaling impossible.
I can't wait to see how many processors get "down-binned" once they ramp up production with this tech. 8/
There's some information about that lack of feedback; a so called "stupid people don't know they're stupid" syndrome.
Seems like the very mechanism we use to "do something" is the same mechanism we use to "evaluate how well we do something."
So, if you're no good at running a business, you have no idea how to get better because (put simply) you already think you're doing a great job. Otherwise, you would have corrected the problem to begin with!
There's a better description of it here
I could have *sworn* that the political PR machine has been pumping out stories that the economy is improving and has been since November 2001 (!)... gotta love revisionist economics! 8P
/. readers could). What I'd like instead is an honest accounting of where our economy is, is going, and what the heck is being done to make sure we keep it moving in the right direction. Then when that data is available, I'd want to get good answers about why we are or aren't on target. I'm just fed up with all the crap^H^H^H^Hspin being put out on news feeds about a recovery that (obviously) isn't happening yet... or, at least, not to the degree that's being reported.
;)
Of course, this news goes with my experience; I know plenty of talented developers/tech-people who've been unemployed or lost a job to outsourcing with nary a replacement in sight.
I could rant about the loss of jobs (as I'm sure many
Nope... instead I'll get to read in news papers 3 years from now how there never was a recession between 2000-2003 (or 4). >8(
Doh... that wound up being a rant, didn't it?
Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that Microsoft is violating copyright law... although it wouldn't surprise me greatly to find out if they did (considering how the basis for DOS was "acquired").
No, I was just suggesting that they already take advantage of the OSS by incorporating "free" software into their core instead of developing it from scratch themselves.
For the very reason you give, I bet they have tight controls on what can be integrated and what can't. Heck, just from a PR point of view, even if everything was above-board, they could still be vulnerable (?) to some negative spin about using software from the very source they bash.
OTOH, if they made public their use of OSS software, they could potentially parlay that into a PR win: the reliability of community supported software is integrated into Windows XXX! I think the "win" they'd get from that would be greater than the "loss" they'd suffer by validating the OSS. Just my WAG... I'm no marketing guru.
Well, that's true and not...
While he does have a company of developers, there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from integrating OpenSource solutions into their software. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening, and they're just not broadcasting that fact to the world.
My point still stands... it doesn't matter that it is end-to-end... it isn't allowed in the US to go over the airwaves in a manner that doesn't allow the government to listen in if they wish... and if they can, someone else can figure out how to break-in too.
My point is you can accomplish the same thing using cheaper (and legal, via loopholes) methods. For example, why not use your GSM connection (GPRS, to be specific), setup a VPN and use VoIP tech to talk in a completely encrypted manner? Not only would you be able to talk to several people (conference), but you wouldn't be limited to how you connect and chat.
IMHO, it just seems to me that $4K is a high premium to collect from those who don't know there's better (defined as more flexible) and cheaper options available.
First, cell-phone encryption has AT LEAST been available (weak or otherwise) in GSM since 1990. Sure, it is crackable, but it takes hours to do... making it impractical for eavesdropping on a conversation in real-time.
Ok... let's say you're not happy with the encryption. This product will have use in every part of the world *except* the US because, I believe, encrypted voice transmission is illegal. Heck, there have even been home cordless phones available for years that would encrypt only between the handset and the base station... and you're not allowed to have them in the US for that same restriction.
So... either you're going to spend a lot of money to gain encrypted communication that you could more cheaply acquire with other technologies, or you won't be allowed to use it (in the US) without giving the government a backdoor to listen in. For $4K? Forget it.
Otherwise, they'd realize that BSD is already dead. ;)
For the humor-impaired: take tongue A, insert into cheek B...
I really don't understand why we're so fascinated with what will be an inevitable conclusion: we can always throw more power at the problem until a computer expert system whoops any human (key word: expert system).
;)
Nah... after that, we'll need to make these contests interesting.
Give the computer a certain amount of battery with which to do calculations... so, it can "get tired" just like a human opponent.
Imagine the awe-inspiring sight of a larger-scale version (say, with the wing-span of half a football field) flying over head... especially if it was armed to the teeth.
Talk about fun!
(This disclaimer is for the sarcasm impaired...)
The concept is good in that it can take a predefined set of available optimizations and "figure out" (via some AI magic) optimal settings. This is good.
But, a more interesting problem might be more of a meta-compiler problem. Sure, we can optimize a set of options that we humans have determined/guessed are most influential in the building of efficient code. But what about running an analysis on the options themselves?
If we want to get real optimization, why not apply some data-mining theory to the different switches available within the compiler to generate the set of option switches selection?
Then, post selection of switches that are most influential in the compilation process, you can run this genetic algorithm to select "best switches" for the program you're compiling.
That link again for people who missed it is: Privoxy
Can't recommend it strongly enough... nor agree with Improv more. 8)
I suppose if they felt they were still getting useful information from the probe (ie, it was "looking" at something "interesting" with sensors that still worked), they could always launch a relay-type satellite... just like a network repeater.
Good thing they have several years to decide both if they:
A) want to have/fund such a thing
B) are getting new information worth collecting
Heck... who knows where our terrestrial (or even space-stationed) receiver technology will be in 5 years; perhaps we'll be able to pick out the signal from here, no matter how weak nor how noisy.
Where's the "loads of cash" hidden?
How does one take a search engine and make it profitable?
This sounds like the same rhetoric from the late 90's about free email and other free services... "As soon as we get people good and hooked, THEN we'll REALLY profit!"
They'll have a hard time turning the most public part of their business (the web search) into a cash machine and making gobs of money with it; the model just doesn't work to that extent.
I'd be interested in the answer if you have one. But, if you did, you should go do it instead of buying into the hype of 4 years ago!
Hope they weren't desuaded by the results of the "space debris" experiment from the Enterprise Model Test
Me: Launch Mozilla
(Launches IE)
Me: LAUNCH MOZILLA
(Launches IE)
Me: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, LAUNCH MOZILLA.
(Launches word, starts "Thank You, Microsoft" letter with help of Clippy... and uninstalls Mozilla because, well, it is obviously the cause of the frustration it senses).
You might laugh, but...