And so a new adage is coined... "No news is Slashdot news"...
Re:It took bar codes 50+ years to mature...
on
The End of the Bar Code
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The fact it took barcodes 50 years to be ubiquitous doesn't mean that it will take 50 years for RFID to be ubiquitous too. In fact, if you estimate the time it will take RFID to be adopted based on barcode history, RFID usage will be universal in 10 years. Why? Because during the 20th century (1901-2000) mankind made 20 years progress in terms of the rate of progress for the year 2000. So on average, 50 years of progress in the 20th century leading to the adoption of the barcode will equate to 10 years today.
Difference is that the RFID can be read by machine from any angle and in most cases from relatively far away without help from a human. For some things RFID can be totally automated, unlike barcoding. Both have their place.
Zoom. That's 10 feet per second. Reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode where Lucy and Ethel were newly employed at a candy factory with them packing boxes while trying to keep pace with the machine producing chocolate candies.
Man, better not blink if you work in a Wal-Mart warehouse...
All the mainframe experts I know right now are barely past 40, and worried that their jobs will disappear before they hit retirement.
Good point. On the other hand, the fewer grads that learn mainframe technology, the more in demand that old timer will become (or stay in demand if you prefer).
Another issue not mentioned yet that I've seen is the self healing technology that IBM has been touting the last couple of years. Assuming it works (I have no information on the truth of IBM's claim), it would be an example for the computer tech world of the same phenomena that has been happening in many other professions, namely computer tech advances make it possible to do more with less people. So, while there may be fewer newcomers to the mainframe world, it doesn't necessarily hold that there will be a shortage.
No one knew until now that scanning a document in black and white and adjusting the black/white threshold value can make it easier to read marginal text? Wow. Sounds like a patent application to me. Whatever.
But they're bad films: badly written, badly plotted and largely badly acted.
Exactly. Anyone want to guess how long it took to work out the plot for Stealth? I'll bet that it was less than a day myself.
I think I could make a generalization that would go far in predicting a good movie in advance: If the movie is based on the work of a highly regarded author, then it has a good change of being worth the money. Why? Because you don't usually become a highly regarded author with out having some talent for telling a story. And if the screenwriters don't botch the plot and stay reasonably true to the storyline, you might end up with a good movie.
All of these movies that Hollywood keeps throwing together based on some off-the-wall catch phrase or popular buzz word start off with a serious disadvantage. One of the key characteristics that seem to appear in those quick-fix movies are ultra extremes. You know, where jokes aren't just meant to be funny, they has to be of such an extreme nature that they top the last three remakes that featured the same jokes (as an example, the jokes in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo come to mind -- Please note: This does not imply that Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo was a good movie).
Another Hollywood characteristic of the typical bad movie -- remakes remakes remakes. The percentage of original ideas coming out of Hollywood these days is pretty low. One reason for this (IMHO) is the perpetual extension of copyright. No need to come up with an original idea if you can simply regurgitate that same old movie modernized with new special effects.
OK, 'nough of my ranting...I now return you to the show currently in progress...
I'll tell you what they ought to do...they need to go back to all of the Sci-Fi books written in the sixties and collect the ideas promoted by the authors. Most of the authors were scientists in their own right and spent quite a lot of time researching what the actual details would have to be (within the then known facts and limitations of future tech). Spaceport location, for example, was a common topic that was investigated. I'm not saying that all of the ideas in those old stories are feasable but there's lots of good starting points. Might give one a leg up on the competition:)...
Many of the comments are talking about GCC being the answer to cross-platform development. But the question was is the availability of ICC the start of cross-platform development? If you are a software development company that only uses ICC (are there such animals?) then I would think the answer would be "very likely".
You have been redirected to this page during a temporary period of planned downtime. We apologise for any inconvenience this work may have caused you. ZDNet UK should be available shortly and we encourage you to visit us again soon.
Hate to see open source DRM developed. That will guarantee DRM improves until it actually works. We're looking at the death of file sharing as we know it...
Actually, I was thinking about all of the chip movements going on at the same time. And we're not just talking about one table, nor simply adding an extra chip to a "no more bets" pile of chips. For example, a set of chips might be split between numerous people and during the course of a day, pass from winning table to winning table, yet be grouped and redivided over and over again. Some chips from the original group are won by the house then won back by different patrons. As the day progresses, most of the chips would likely end up dispursed through out the casino. Only some of the original chips would remain with any given partner of some scheme that cheats sucessfully. I think the problem is much more complex than what everyone has been chatting about.
It's one thing to say you do something, it's an entirely different thing to say how you do it. For example, saying that you have an RFID chip in every casino chip is one thing. Having a monitoring system that can quickly and automatically identify a RFID position and movement anomaly among millions of active casino chips is something else.
I contend that time is truly an illusion based on our perception of the laws of physics. Consider this: According to our perception of time, events, changes in state, motion, etc., all of these things "take time" to occur. While sometimes we can't precisely know when an event will occur (the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, for example) we can say positively that we never perceive all events in the universe occurring simultaneously. Thus we "perceive" the passage of time. However, we also always measure the rate of time passage as a constant (it always passes at the same rate, except during tax time). For example, even if we were traveling close to the speed of light, our measurement would be that time would pass at exactly the same rate for us. Others who were not moving close to the speed of light would also measure time passing at the same rate as they always had. In other words, if we both had atomically precise clocks with each of us, both of us would report that each second took exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a Cesium-133 atom.
So what? That could mean that time is simply a physical property of matter and energy (whatever they are). Just as matter has inertia and takes up space, it also has a property that says all of the events that matter can participate in cannot happen simultaneously. There is only "room" for so many events in a given amount of space. (I'm trying to avoid using the word "time":). As space contracts (we speed up) or expands (we slow down), from the outsider's point of view of course, the room we have for events shrinks or grows in step with the change in our space. From our point of view, our space remains constant and so our room for events remains constant. In this regard, time could alternatively be considered a physical property of space itself instead of the matter found in space. But it doesn't seem likely that time is it's own dimension. Not that we really understand what a dimension is...
You need to take a class in logic. Probable cause is required. What I said was that refusal to agree to a search is not equivalent to probable cause. Please follow closely:
IF refusal was the same as probable cause THEN the cops would never need to ask BECAUSE the result would be the same. The cops DO ask and unless they are just giggling about the silliness of the question, the FACT that they ask MEANS your answer affects their actions, THEREFORE refusal IS NOT the same as probable cause.
You need to learn to stand up for your rights. Read this for some insight.
Some choice quotes:
Ordinarily, police must have a good reason to invade your privacy. If an officer wants to search your home, the Fourth Amendment requires that she first obtain a warrant -- after demonstrating to a neutral magistrate that she has probable cause to believe she will find evidence of crime there.
In the absence of a warrant, or an emergency explaining the failure to obtain a warrant, the police officer violates your constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures when she crosses the threshold of your home.
and...
As rare as it is for people to exercise their right to privacy in the face of police "requests" for forfeiture, those assertions -- when they do occur -- deserve respect. If the Court holds otherwise, it will further whittle away the right against unreasonable searches and seizures -- the right to make police accumulate probable cause and seek a warrant from a neutral magistrate before showing up at your doorstep or your car window, hoping to look around.
As a citizen of the US, I have the option to consent or not. If I do not consent then the police MUST be able to show probable cause or the search is illegal without a warrant. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing.
No, sorry, it's not. If it were, that would mean all they would have to do would be to ask and then go ahead and search regardless of your response (if they ask and you refuse, probable cause so they search...if they ask and you agree, they search with your permission -- in either case they would be able to search no matter your answer). So a refusal cannot be interpreted as probable cause, otherwise there would be no need to require probable cause.
Slashdot Mirror
And so a new adage is coined ... "No news is Slashdot news" ...
The fact it took barcodes 50 years to be ubiquitous doesn't mean that it will take 50 years for RFID to be ubiquitous too. In fact, if you estimate the time it will take RFID to be adopted based on barcode history, RFID usage will be universal in 10 years. Why? Because during the 20th century (1901-2000) mankind made 20 years progress in terms of the rate of progress for the year 2000. So on average, 50 years of progress in the 20th century leading to the adoption of the barcode will equate to 10 years today.
Difference is that the RFID can be read by machine from any angle and in most cases from relatively far away without help from a human. For some things RFID can be totally automated, unlike barcoding. Both have their place.
Zoom. That's 10 feet per second. Reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode where Lucy and Ethel were newly employed at a candy factory with them packing boxes while trying to keep pace with the machine producing chocolate candies.
Man, better not blink if you work in a Wal-Mart warehouse...
All the mainframe experts I know right now are barely past 40, and worried that their jobs will disappear before they hit retirement.
Good point. On the other hand, the fewer grads that learn mainframe technology, the more in demand that old timer will become (or stay in demand if you prefer).
Another issue not mentioned yet that I've seen is the self healing technology that IBM has been touting the last couple of years. Assuming it works (I have no information on the truth of IBM's claim), it would be an example for the computer tech world of the same phenomena that has been happening in many other professions, namely computer tech advances make it possible to do more with less people. So, while there may be fewer newcomers to the mainframe world, it doesn't necessarily hold that there will be a shortage.
I was taught mainframe technology while I was in school...
Of course, when I was in school there were no desktop computers...
Here's a link for those of you who would rather not register just to read the second half of the article...
Who'll mind the mainframes?
The vast majority of internet traffic are trillions and trillions and trillions of tiny voltage oscillations...
No one knew until now that scanning a document in black and white and adjusting the black/white threshold value can make it easier to read marginal text? Wow. Sounds like a patent application to me. Whatever.
Heh, I think it's the default pin used by the development engineers for the built-in DRM chip ...
...
5 1 1 5
But they're bad films: badly written, badly plotted and largely badly acted.
Exactly. Anyone want to guess how long it took to work out the plot for Stealth? I'll bet that it was less than a day myself.
I think I could make a generalization that would go far in predicting a good movie in advance: If the movie is based on the work of a highly regarded author, then it has a good change of being worth the money. Why? Because you don't usually become a highly regarded author with out having some talent for telling a story. And if the screenwriters don't botch the plot and stay reasonably true to the storyline, you might end up with a good movie.
All of these movies that Hollywood keeps throwing together based on some off-the-wall catch phrase or popular buzz word start off with a serious disadvantage. One of the key characteristics that seem to appear in those quick-fix movies are ultra extremes. You know, where jokes aren't just meant to be funny, they has to be of such an extreme nature that they top the last three remakes that featured the same jokes (as an example, the jokes in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo come to mind -- Please note: This does not imply that Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo was a good movie).
Another Hollywood characteristic of the typical bad movie -- remakes remakes remakes. The percentage of original ideas coming out of Hollywood these days is pretty low. One reason for this (IMHO) is the perpetual extension of copyright. No need to come up with an original idea if you can simply regurgitate that same old movie modernized with new special effects.
OK, 'nough of my ranting...I now return you to the show currently in progress...
I'll tell you what they ought to do...they need to go back to all of the Sci-Fi books written in the sixties and collect the ideas promoted by the authors. Most of the authors were scientists in their own right and spent quite a lot of time researching what the actual details would have to be (within the then known facts and limitations of future tech). Spaceport location, for example, was a common topic that was investigated. I'm not saying that all of the ideas in those old stories are feasable but there's lots of good starting points. Might give one a leg up on the competition :)...
Many of the comments are talking about GCC being the answer to cross-platform development. But the question was is the availability of ICC the start of cross-platform development? If you are a software development company that only uses ICC (are there such animals?) then I would think the answer would be "very likely".
You have been redirected to this page during a temporary period of planned downtime. We apologise for any inconvenience this work may have caused you. ZDNet UK should be available shortly and we encourage you to visit us again soon.
-The ZDNet UK Team
Slashdot, hello, anyone there???
Hate to see open source DRM developed. That will guarantee DRM improves until it actually works. We're looking at the death of file sharing as we know it...
Actually, I was thinking about all of the chip movements going on at the same time. And we're not just talking about one table, nor simply adding an extra chip to a "no more bets" pile of chips. For example, a set of chips might be split between numerous people and during the course of a day, pass from winning table to winning table, yet be grouped and redivided over and over again. Some chips from the original group are won by the house then won back by different patrons. As the day progresses, most of the chips would likely end up dispursed through out the casino. Only some of the original chips would remain with any given partner of some scheme that cheats sucessfully. I think the problem is much more complex than what everyone has been chatting about.
Surprised they're so open about what they do!
It's one thing to say you do something, it's an entirely different thing to say how you do it. For example, saying that you have an RFID chip in every casino chip is one thing. Having a monitoring system that can quickly and automatically identify a RFID position and movement anomaly among millions of active casino chips is something else.
Finally, a blue screen of death with teeth...
I contend that time is truly an illusion based on our perception of the laws of physics. Consider this: According to our perception of time, events, changes in state, motion, etc., all of these things "take time" to occur. While sometimes we can't precisely know when an event will occur (the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, for example) we can say positively that we never perceive all events in the universe occurring simultaneously. Thus we "perceive" the passage of time. However, we also always measure the rate of time passage as a constant (it always passes at the same rate, except during tax time). For example, even if we were traveling close to the speed of light, our measurement would be that time would pass at exactly the same rate for us. Others who were not moving close to the speed of light would also measure time passing at the same rate as they always had. In other words, if we both had atomically precise clocks with each of us, both of us would report that each second took exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a Cesium-133 atom.
:). As space contracts (we speed up) or expands (we slow down), from the outsider's point of view of course, the room we have for events shrinks or grows in step with the change in our space. From our point of view, our space remains constant and so our room for events remains constant. In this regard, time could alternatively be considered a physical property of space itself instead of the matter found in space. But it doesn't seem likely that time is it's own dimension. Not that we really understand what a dimension is...
So what? That could mean that time is simply a physical property of matter and energy (whatever they are). Just as matter has inertia and takes up space, it also has a property that says all of the events that matter can participate in cannot happen simultaneously. There is only "room" for so many events in a given amount of space. (I'm trying to avoid using the word "time"
I think it's time for a beer...
I'm holding out for a connection directly into my brain...
Parking lots will be overflowing with war drivers...
You mean where they will be in no danger from persistantly encroaching civilization...
You need to take a class in logic. Probable cause is required. What I said was that refusal to agree to a search is not equivalent to probable cause. Please follow closely:
IF refusal was the same as probable cause THEN the cops would never need to ask BECAUSE the result would be the same. The cops DO ask and unless they are just giggling about the silliness of the question, the FACT that they ask MEANS your answer affects their actions, THEREFORE refusal IS NOT the same as probable cause.
You need to learn to stand up for your rights. Read this for some insight.
Some choice quotes:
Ordinarily, police must have a good reason to invade your privacy. If an officer wants to search your home, the Fourth Amendment requires that she first obtain a warrant -- after demonstrating to a neutral magistrate that she has probable cause to believe she will find evidence of crime there.
In the absence of a warrant, or an emergency explaining the failure to obtain a warrant, the police officer violates your constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures when she crosses the threshold of your home.
and...
As rare as it is for people to exercise their right to privacy in the face of police "requests" for forfeiture, those assertions -- when they do occur -- deserve respect. If the Court holds otherwise, it will further whittle away the right against unreasonable searches and seizures -- the right to make police accumulate probable cause and seek a warrant from a neutral magistrate before showing up at your doorstep or your car window, hoping to look around.
As a citizen of the US, I have the option to consent or not. If I do not consent then the police MUST be able to show probable cause or the search is illegal without a warrant. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing.
No, sorry, it's not. If it were, that would mean all they would have to do would be to ask and then go ahead and search regardless of your response (if they ask and you refuse, probable cause so they search...if they ask and you agree, they search with your permission -- in either case they would be able to search no matter your answer). So a refusal cannot be interpreted as probable cause, otherwise there would be no need to require probable cause.