Well, I'm glad that someone's out there talking about it, but here on/. it really is preaching to the choir.
That being said, I'd love to see this video get sent out to the masses of people on some major news channels. Getting a couple million more people interested in upgrading and modding their own computer would do wonders for increasing the interest of computer parts manufacturers in catering to the upgrade/modding community.
Are these ideas realistic anytime soon? Not really. Are they possible with today's technology? Iffy, although some probably are. Would I like to see most of them actually in existence now, if it were possible? Most definitely!
Especially the space ones, and the pyramid city. I like those ideas!
Probably the amusing part is that this all assumes that increased internet speeds actually *help* people. Being able to load funny cat videos 100x faster isn't really a significant benefit, really. And lets be honest: Most people getting these gigabit connections are not going to be spending their time exclusively doing research and watching online courses. If they did, maybe it will help the rich more than the poor, but chances are they won't.
And I fail to see how any online service could start to default to 4k video anytime in the near future. 4k screens aren't exactly common. There isn't even enough market saturation of high bandwidth connection (and big screens) for 1080p to the the default size on youtube. (I think it's generally defaulting to 480p or maybe 720p).
Having widespread gigabit internet should, in theory, continue to benefit the entire society, not just those capable of affording it. Even if the lower segment of society can not afford it, they should still benefit from it. After all, libraries and other public access points should be able to afford it, especially given that encouraging education is part of their mandate.
That being said, I disagree with the logic that one needs to have access to top-tier internet in order to advance one's education. Most of that bandwidth, in private use instances, is going to be taken up in streaming netflix, videogames, and torrents. (and related services) Very little is going to be used for educational purposes. If one is actually intent on learning, a tiny fraction of a gigabit connection is all that is needed, so long as one focuses on that and not trying to multitask.
The point, I think, is to get the government institutions (who are the ones who don't have to make money at things) OUT of the business of doing repetitious, potentially profitable things. Like putting satellites into orbit, doing ISS supply runs, and other generic things that are pretty much routine these days.
If they are barred from doing easy stuff, maybe they will take their budget where it is supposed to go: into exploration and the development of new things, things that the the private industry won't do because there is no profit there yet.
I'm not griping about features I wish it had, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the features they (or others) are claiming as new additions are, in fact, things that Alpha Centauri had about a decade ago. And I'll point out that it was, by and large, made by the same creator...
And yes, it would change the tone. I want another AC. Actually, I'd be happy with the old AC, with updated engine. (something that runs on modern systems, uses millions of colours, and supports modern screen resolutions. Maybe expand it to support having the whole slew of factions active simultaneously, too. (and bigger maps)
Well, it's nice that they're issuing a new Civilization game, but I'm still hoping they'll include more of the stuff they used in Alpha Centauri. That being said, some of the things they mention here *are* from Alpha Centauri, so there's hope yet. (for those unaware, Alpha Centauri was produced by Sid Meirs and Firaxis (among others) around 2000. Or at least, that was when they issued the last official patch.
For instance, ranged combat: Alpha Centauri had an artillery system built in, and the computer AI used it fairly effectively. Including artillery duels, bombardment, etc. Ship to shore combat was automatically a bombardment.
Modability: All the files for creating your own scenarios were there, easy to modify, written in plain english, and usually with explanations. And the game had a built in map editor. Which includes modifying factions, creating new ones, etc.
In fact, that leads directly to the one feature I really want to see in Civ V: Customized units. Not mods, but the ability, in game, to create new units by combining technology. For example, you've figured out how to make iron armor. Great. But you only know how to make longbows? So you now have iron-plated archers. Or whatever. That was one thing in Alpha Centauri that made the game truly unique: Tech developments gave you aspects of units, not the units themselves. As in they gave you a new type of weapon, a new type of armor, a new special ability, a new reactor (aka more hitpoints), new chassis (determines whether it's land, water, or air, and how fast it is, how often it needs to return to a city, etc)... Then the player puts them together to create the unit they want, the system figures out how much it costs, and there you go.
It led to some funny possibilities, like when you have really high powered cities, that you can create terraformers (equiv to engineers) that have tougher armor/hitpoints than most combat units. (although they still got a non-combat penalty) Or whatever one's heart desires, really. Not planning on going anywhere, but need defence? Then put together some sentinels with top of the line armor and hp, but leave them with the bare minimum for weaponry and chasis, and maybe give them one of the defensive special abilities. Or planning on doing some exploration? Throw together some rovers with high speed equipment, and deep radar (see 2 squares instead of 1), but leave off the weapons and armor. Almost anything is possible, really. And it adds so much variety to the game, so much re-playability.
The other thing I'm looking forward to seeing is the automation control. Can you activate an automated "governor" for a city? Can you tell that governor to only build stuff towards a specific end (say, research, or population expansion). Can you forbid the governor from building certain types of units (or any unit, for that matter)? On the same vein, can you give specific limits to engineer's automation? (for example, only allow them to build certain types of terrain improvement?
These are all things that they had in Alpha Centauri back in 2000, but have been almost entirely absent to all the Civ games produced since then. Otherwise, I'll probably just keep playing AC. Sure the graphics are bad (by 2010 standards, anyway), but it's the gameplay that matters.
Exactly. The possibilities of this are endless, and it could be a major step down the path towards true cybernetic integration (or the Mind/Machine Interface, as some think of it). Starting out with applying it to the blind and otherwise visually impaired serves two important points:
1) Public perception. There is bound to eventually be an outcry in some sectors about the sanctity of human beings and how machines shouldn't be wired into people and vice versa, machines reading our minds, etc. If the technology has a working application of serious humane benefit, which the gov't is actually pursuing, this negates this to large extent.
2) Technological progression. If the gov't and others are putting money into it, it will most likely progress faster and more reliably than if it has to depend on commercial sources who understandably want to make money off it. And if it stops looking like it will make money... There goes the project into obscurity.
There have been numerous articles on Slashdot and various science sites on how the human brain can adapt to other forms of "senses". The vibrating belt that always indicated North, the possibility of humans learning to echonavigate, and many, many others. While the tongue is maybe not the most convenient way of integrating with our neural system, it is at least demonstrating the possibility. Once the technology starts to mature, deeper and more invasive integration starts to become possible. While I doubt we'd get to the point of being like the Matrix, how about something more like Harper from Andromeda? A network jack of some kind in one's neck, and thus a direct link in to appropriately configured equipment.
And on that note, while I'd find it immensely cool and useful to be able to access, manipulate, and process data via a direct cable feed, I'd hate to have a wireless connection. Imagine being able to drive-by hack somebody's head? Talk about the privacy issues with that...
I don't have the link ready to hand, but the technology behind this was posted to slashdot quiet a while ago. (At least many months, possibly over a year ago)
Anyway, I was wondering when we would hear about this technology again, since it has tremendous potential both for sight-restoration applications, as well as furthur development towards the integration of machine and brains. If the resolution was high enough, for instance, a pilot could use this to see underneath the plane, or in other directions normally blocked. The potential application for guided search and rescue, and other remote controlled devices is also large. "being" there is better than simply seeing on a screen, after all, even if virtually.
I hope that the various gov't and none-profit groups that support the visually impaired take note of this as a way to help people become active and contributing parts of society again. It's nice to take care of the impaired, but better to help them regain their independence.
I think this is an excellent idea, so long as there are limits to it.
For instance, the network should NOT be connected to, or capable of connecting to, the actual functioning of the vehicle. Worst case example being it should NOT be even vaguely possible for someone to hack into your car and turn off the engine. Or slam on the brake/gas.
That being said, being able to read/broadcast status reports would be good. Such as letting the driver behind me know that I just slammed on the brakes. I know tail lights are supposed to do that, but anyway. Or possibly acting like the yellow flag at the racetrack : "a car 500m ahead just lost control, be careful".
Likewise, for areas subject to snow storms, fog, or other conditions of poor visibility, such tracking would be *very* appreciated just knowing how far away the next car is in front/behind.
Likewise, if such a mesh network was actually part of the internet, it could conceivably make it possible to connect to the internet, access it, and whatnot without going through *any* ISP.
On the one hand, the potential for tracking should worry the privacy and rights advocates, and with good cause.
On the other, such distribution of networking could also enable rights and privacy, since it'd be hard to track anything through such a constantly changing network, and even harder to filter anything. I would say it pretty much eliminates the option of filtering our internet.
All that being said, I'm not too sure what the connection is with the electrical grid, aside from the potential of "smart" use of electricity, which would be good.
Since you mentioned preferring to use Apple's stuff, buy yourself an older laptop. You don't have to go back too far before they stop having cameras. That being said, I'm currently using an iBook that's well into it's 7th year, and still works great. It won't play the latest games, and doing large scale graphics is slow, to say the least, but otherwise it works quiet well. Just find one that hasn't been abused.
This is definitely the attitude we need to take with space exploration. There have been many valid points made in these posts. I would like to highlight just a few:
Firstly, the gov't has no place competing in commercial markets, that's not it's point. NASA should not be trying to provide commercially available services, whether it is ferrying rich tourists into space, or launching satelites. So it should get out of these markets, and let private firms do the research and development that is the focus of this. Let the private folks do the LEO stuff.
On the other hand, private firms have no interest in going where there is no immediate profit, or even short term profit. Gov't, on the other hand, can and should be aiming at things that aren't profitable now, but will be critical and likely very profitable in 15+ years. Manned space flight to the moon, and especially to points beyond are a case in point.
Asteroid mining, a staple of Sci-fi, is not profitable right now. Nor is it likely to be in the next ten years. But when industry gets into space, when we actually start having cities on the moon (or mars, or space stations, take your pic), mining the rest of the solar system is going to be very profitable. There is the potential for millions, possibly billions of jobs in that, since, eventually, the entire economy, from janitorial all the way up to senior management, will be replicated in space (hopefully more efficiently, but probably not). The country that gets there first, that actually becomes an space power (not just who can reach space, but who actually is permanently in space) is going to have a tremendous advantage in nearly every sphere of influence.
Throwing money at it won't help much, but taking away what they have is likely to hurt a lot more than the potential benefit of increased efficiency. Efficiency is good, but not if it means retarding the entire manned space flight program by decades.
In reality, we are still in the pre-space age. The space age will truly have arrived when space is a work place for more than a select elite and a few rich guys.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
Why *do* so many people seem to have this base-level objection to paying for recording music? Is it that they think all musicians want to be rapper-rich? I'd be happy earning the same as I do now, but for making music all day, and I don't earn all that much compared to many of you reading this I suspect...:)
From what I've seen, both in myself, my friends, and others aronud me, we do NOT have an objection to paying for music. What we have an objection to is paying money to corporations. It seems to be rather distinct hypocracy on the part of many of the large corporations: They make money from selling the music, they make money from selling the CD burner, they make money from selling the blank CDs, and they make money from getting some of the levies on those CDs on the assumption that they'll be used to violate copyright law (regardless of actual use. Why should I pay a levy for the priveledge of backing up my work data?) They make money from every step of the game. On that note, I do NOT think that they should get a levi on the basis that the consumer might actually use the things that the company sold them in the first place.
As far as that goes, shouldn't the companies be forced to repay those levies when the CDs are taken out of the circulation? A friend of mine recently cleaned out his archives and ditched (as in permanently destroyed) something in the range of 50-100 burned disks. Since he had to pay a levi in order to use them, they should be forced to give him the levi back since those disks obviously can't be used for anything anymore, and therefore could not possibly be used to contravene the law. On the same note, I think that one should be able to get one's levi back if you can demonstrate that the media was used for some purpose that does not violate copyright law. And no, it's not an insignificant amount. The Levi is somewhere in the range of 25-50% the cost of a blank CD.
Likewise, I am firmly of the conviction that file sharing and P2P stuff helps artists based on my own observations. I know people who have downloaded material, sure. I also know that, if they actually like said material, they almost always go out and buy it. I, personally, think that paying 20-40$ is far, far, far to much for some CD from some group I've never heard from. On the other hand, I can go home, check them out, see if I actually like their stuff, and if I do, go back and buy it. And yes, it *is* a forced purchase. There is no option to return a CD, unless it is still un-opened.
Next, there is the fact that DRM technology is getting increasingly common. Sure, I like supporting artists and being legal and all that. But if paying for a legally acquired disk results in the fact that my computer can no longer work properly and I am treated like a criminal by my own legally purchased material, then I think I will simply stick with the cheaper, safer, alternative. I mean, common. Who wants to pay for the privelege of being treated like a criminal?
Lastly, and summary: I would love to purchase music and stuff directly from the artist. Given the chance, I buy the independently produced CDs at concerts and fairs and whatnot, where I can be reasonably certain that the money is going straight into the ARTIST's pockets, most likely from wence the cost of the CD came out. It's the corporations that we don't want to pay. They are a bloat, a cancer, and something which should be eradicated. Music should be like Shareware. Listen, and if you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't listen to it ever again. Without all the forced purchases that the stores force upon us overall industry profit will probably be hugelly, massively lower than it is now, sure. But I dare say that (with the possible exception of the elite artists) the artists themselves would make a fair bit more.
Well, for all of the rabid anti-copy protection types up there, here's something nice and constructive you can do: Get your wallet, and go visit your local gaming store. Now, buy every single computer game in there (every copy of them, too) that doesn't have any kind of copy-protection on it. Now go sell them on Ebay or your local pawn shop or something. It doesn't matter what you do with them, so long as you buy them legitimatly and don't return them.
If enough people do this, it will create a large enough blip in the demographics that maybe, just maybe, these companies will sit up and take notice that non-copy-protected stuff can actually make money and all that. And they'll even save money on being able to skip buying some outrageously expensive CP thing.
After all, about all the copy-protection thing ever did was nail the average user. Anyone with any knowledge at all can find hacks on the web to get around it (or, for that matter, a full copy of it for free without the CP). And those with a lot of knowledge can flat out get around it anyway. In short, it doesn't affect those they declare themselves as targeting.
In the mean time, here's hoping that Ubisoft continues their way on the return to sanity, and learns a valuable lesson from all this.
[Aeroplanes intended for VFR night or IFR operation shall meet the following requirements:
[...]a)[...]
(b) Left and right position lights. Left and right position lights shall consist of a red and a green light spaced laterally as far apart as practicable and installed on the aeroplane such that, with the aeroplane in the normal flying position, the red light is on the left side and the green light is on the right side;
(c) Rear position light. The rear position light shall be a white light mounted as far aft as practicable on the tail or on each wing tip; and
(d) [...]
This is the relevant excert from the Canadian code, and I'm fairly sure the US has a similar section. That being said, lightining meeting these requirements makes almost anything extremely visible at night. (the technical requirement for light intensity requires them to be visible from at least several miles away. Same brightness as for those jet's you can watch go overhead at 30'000 feet or more away...) On the same token, those lights do almost nothing during daytime (and in fact, don't need to be on during day time either).
So we end up with a situation where they are extremely visible during night time (so no covert surveillance at night when most crime and stuff happens anyway), and still remain invisible enough during daytime to pose a serious threat to air traffic.
It should also be noted that, while flying objects stand out really well against the sky, small flying objects (and I'm including things as big as large geese at more than 30' distance, or large aircraft at a mile or more) are quite hard to see against the ground.
Net summary: At night they are extremely visible to everyone. During daytime they are extremely visible to anyone on the ground, and well-nigh invisible to anyone in flight.
We have problems enough with recreational pilots flying those paragliders and small A/C, let alone unguided things that are even smaller. Thus we need the relevant aviation authorities to take a firm hand on these things and keep them where they belong: At very low altitudes. As in under 500', and preferably a very long way outside any aproach/departure path where a/c routinely fly below 500'.
Oh, and someone above called the people of/. luddiets due to the lack of support/enthousiasm for tech projects such as this. I disagree with that assessement. We're not luddites, we're advocates of the NIOBY (Not In Our Back Yard) theory. I like the technology, but I don't want to run into it (litterally or figuratively). Same probably applies to almost everything else surveillance related. I like the tech, but I hate the applications being made with it.
Oh, and many pilots consider auto-pilots to be the bane of the industry: Not only do they reduce the need for pilots, but they render the plane less safe, since the pilot is no longer actively involved in the flight of the a/c, thus more readily distracted by others in the plane, or whatnot. Ideally it would giving the pilot the chance to focus on his surrounding instead of on the mechanics of flight, but this rarely happens. And lastly, as has been mentioned, how many airports come equiped with the high-precision landing guidance systems required for those things? very, very few. Not even all the international caliber airports have them, although many do. And we *really* don't want those things taking up airspace there.
As far as such cards go, they can be sabotaged... Me and several of my friends all use the same loyalty card, which actually belongs to the mother of of them. So we all get discounts, she gets whatever credit she gets for so many purchases, and the company gets one really messed up customer profile.
This would be the main difference between said loyalty cards and spyware. The loyalty card we can pass aroud between a whole lot of us, effectiely rendering it's determination of our "unique purchasing pattern" worthless, (since not only are the users not part of the same demographic as the card's actual holder, but there's a bunch of us magnifying it). The spyware, we can't.
Furthur more, the loyalty card we can throw out, lose, or just plain decide on a day to day basis whether to use or not. The Spyware, you can't. It all comes down to choice. Now, if they gave you, say, ten cents an hour that you browsed online while allowing the to track you, and you could turn it on or off at will, then that makes it reasonable. But as of yet, I see no reason for anyone to want it in the first place.
In view of the following news released on the developers site, I think we can all take a deep breath and recognize that this was entirely overblown, and probably didn't really deserve to be mentioned on slashdot at all. Yet, anyway. If it actually was the newsworthy event originally claimed, then yes, deffinitly, but it's just alpha1, and not even a complete one, from the sounds of it.
Taken directly from mozillanews
BEGIN QUOTE HERE
Code Freeze for 2.0 Alpha1 this Thursday at 11:59PM PST
As discussed at the BonEcho status meeting today we will be doing a 1.8 branch code freeze on Thursday March 16, 2006 at 11:59PM PST in preparation for a Alpha 1 release next Tuesday.
If you are trying to get a bug landed for Alpha1 please be sure to set the target milestone as follows:
Ben G and Schrep will organize a quick triage session to stay on top of these bugs Weds/Thurs.
The Alpha1 is primarily designed to test the places backend. The UI is not anywhere near final and mind the standard disclaimers about how it's alpha software and is thus buggy - so use at your own risk.
Now, I'd expect this amount of excitement over, say, a BETA release, but for an Alpha? Why bother? I like checking out new things and having the latest and greatest, but I think I'll wait for one that the developers at least hope will be functional enough to release. I'm not a developer, I don't need to be digging out a Tinderbox version to satisfy my needs.
Oh, and for informational purpsoses:
Firefox = official public release
DeerPark = developer's copies, optimized and/or individualized bulids, and all those other builds that aren't the official issued-for-the-general-public builds. Which, it would stand to reason, would include all the alpha and beta builds.
It is no surprise to discover that the phone companies aren't providing cheap phones. Imagine the outcry when the customers found out that the cellphone that they got for free (a supposed 99 "gift" or somesuch), is actually only worth a fraction of it.
As far as that goes, I still think the entire cellphone industry is a scam.
Case in point: Friend calls me long distance from her cell, she gets dinged with longdistance charges. I call her, and both her AND me get dinged with longdistance charges. (and this happens with both cell companies she's been with over the past few years)
On top of that, even when I'm calling (and I've got a very good long distance plan. First 500 mins a month free, and the rest for dirt cheap) they still charge her her normal longdistance while draning my minutes at the same time. (And I'm on a landline, to boot)
Now, I have no objection to the longdistance getting paid by someone at one end of the conversation or the other, but I refuse to believe that somehow going longdistance from a landline to a cell phone is twice as expensive as going from a cell phone to the landline.
It more or less guarantees that I won't be getting a cell phone anytime soon. At the absolute least, not untill cellphones are subject to the same laws and regulations (and standards) as the regular phone industry, which doesn't get to double charge. (I am quite sure they would if they could)
Well, in the walls themselves one should be able to use proper metal sheating or mesh, but that would deffinitly do for the windows. Many of them (especially skylights) could even be brightly colored stained-glass windows (preferably pale blues and whites mainly), and then no-one would even notice that you'd done it.
Lead paint would be a deffinite thing to avoid. I'd rather not risk poisoning myself or my family.
Well, for the actual house design, I think we all have our own desires as to that, and probably for the better. As far as technology itself goes, there's a fair number of extras I'd love to have in my house. Most of these would, ideally, not be overly visible changes in decor or anything. Technology is good, but I like to keep it low profile.
1) The entire house being a Faraday Cage would be very nice. I'm not sure how hard it would be to build it perfectly without doing silly things like getting rid of windows, but it shoud be possible to get one that is substantially intact. With the prevalance of wireless *everything* nowdays, I enjoy being able to keep it all on the outside. Probably do good things for my risk of getting cancer and whatnot too. (and becomes an eternal cellphone black-out zone as an added bonus...)
2) Shielded power supply that keeps electronic stuff from interfering with each other.
2b) UPS protected power supply wired in for a small range of "essential" stuff, and for those things that really shouldn't be at the mercy of power fluctuations and what not. Along the lines of a single pair of plugs per room (using different colored plugins to differentiate)
2c) Alternate power supplies: Whether it be solar panels, a small wind turbine, or whatever, something would be good. Understandably, it might not be able to keep the entire house running, but it'd be good to have *something*, anyway.
3) Phone and network jacks in every room. Standard phone jack, and whatever one desires as a network interface for that. But one port for each in every room, and all wired into a nice spot for a router. In my case, I'd want it on a shelf out of the way in my comp area where I could still see it/acces it, but it'd never get in the way.
4) Alternate heating: If at all possible, solar water heater tank, maybe even full scale solar heating. If local terrain permits, geothermal heating/cooling. The fridge could be tied directly into the later, making the kitchen quiter and reducing inefficiencies in the system. (heat inside the fridge isn't stuck into the area immidiadly surrounding it to warm it up again)
5) Good, variable, lighting: Sometimes I like to have bright lights illuminating everything, sometimes I don't want anything more than indirect gentle lighting. Likewise, the option to let good large amouts of natural light in would be a deffinite plus, although the blinds or covers would also be desired. I'm not a fan of those big glass houses with zero-privacy.
6) At least two exterior doors, on opposite sides of the house from each other. Not that I feel the need to always have escape options, but sometimes I may just need to leave the house in the opposite direction of the front door, for whatever reason. That, and I like having equally easy access to both front and back yards.
6b) That being said, having at least one door being wheelchair accessible would be nice. I don't have very many friends in wheelchairs, but should I invite them over, I'd like at least the public part of my house (aka living room, dining room, entryway, and a bathroom) to be accessible. Note that doesn't necesarily require that the house have each of those as seperate rooms (depending on budget and design, the first three could very well be a single room). And as far as that goes, if chance should happen that I am in a wheelchair for some reason, I'd like to be able to live in at least part of my house without problem.
7) Garages: A garage is optional, I don't really see much need for one, unless I'm located out of town a long ways or need to comute long distances for some other reason. But a half-sized garage would be nice, about the right size for a couple bicycles or a motorcycle... Regardless, though, the garage should NOT be a central feature in the house. All those houses that look like someone designed a garage and stuck a house on the back look, quite honestly, extre
Well, I wish both the best of luck in their endeavors. Wall street will deffinitly need it to get much in the way of change out of google, and on the other hand, one of the things that makes google so attractive is the fact that it doesn't play by the rules. So far, it's *not* just another computer company. I rather think that, once it stops being so distinctive and unique, it will likely stop being as successfull as it is now.
Stay strong, Google! You may do things we don't like ocasionally, but you're still a wonderfull breath of fresh air in this rather stagnant world...
*shrug* It's been a long time, so my memory might be foggy, but I think it *was* a female that encouraged me to switch. And none that I know use AIM's client, for that matter.
It's all in who one knows, I guess.
I suppose now alternate clients may become more common, since they seem to be encouraging it. Might even make it more popular, I suppose. If they're encouraging it, and providing the knowledge to do it, independents no longer have to worry about their client being blocked out.
I do have to wonder why they are doing it. Maybe they are hoping to get out of the client side entirely. Probably simpler for them if they simply have to maintain the server and make the code to connect to it available, and let a couple hundred freeware types deal with the clients. Cheaper, too. Less people to pay.
I've been using Fire for years now, and from what I can recall, I can't think of a single person who actually uses AIM. We've been going over their network, yes, but I don't know of anyone actually using the software AIM to do so...
And as far as that goes, same thing for MSN.
About all this means, from my POV, is that we don't have to worry about them sporadically changing how their server works to disrupt every other client out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm glad that someone's out there talking about it, but here on /. it really is preaching to the choir.
That being said, I'd love to see this video get sent out to the masses of people on some major news channels. Getting a couple million more people interested in upgrading and modding their own computer would do wonders for increasing the interest of computer parts manufacturers in catering to the upgrade/modding community.
Are these ideas realistic anytime soon? Not really. Are they possible with today's technology? Iffy, although some probably are. Would I like to see most of them actually in existence now, if it were possible? Most definitely!
Especially the space ones, and the pyramid city. I like those ideas!
Probably the amusing part is that this all assumes that increased internet speeds actually *help* people. Being able to load funny cat videos 100x faster isn't really a significant benefit, really. And lets be honest: Most people getting these gigabit connections are not going to be spending their time exclusively doing research and watching online courses. If they did, maybe it will help the rich more than the poor, but chances are they won't.
And I fail to see how any online service could start to default to 4k video anytime in the near future. 4k screens aren't exactly common. There isn't even enough market saturation of high bandwidth connection (and big screens) for 1080p to the the default size on youtube. (I think it's generally defaulting to 480p or maybe 720p).
Having widespread gigabit internet should, in theory, continue to benefit the entire society, not just those capable of affording it. Even if the lower segment of society can not afford it, they should still benefit from it. After all, libraries and other public access points should be able to afford it, especially given that encouraging education is part of their mandate.
That being said, I disagree with the logic that one needs to have access to top-tier internet in order to advance one's education. Most of that bandwidth, in private use instances, is going to be taken up in streaming netflix, videogames, and torrents. (and related services) Very little is going to be used for educational purposes. If one is actually intent on learning, a tiny fraction of a gigabit connection is all that is needed, so long as one focuses on that and not trying to multitask.
The point, I think, is to get the government institutions (who are the ones who don't have to make money at things) OUT of the business of doing repetitious, potentially profitable things. Like putting satellites into orbit, doing ISS supply runs, and other generic things that are pretty much routine these days.
If they are barred from doing easy stuff, maybe they will take their budget where it is supposed to go: into exploration and the development of new things, things that the the private industry won't do because there is no profit there yet.
And yes, it would change the tone. I want another AC. Actually, I'd be happy with the old AC, with updated engine. (something that runs on modern systems, uses millions of colours, and supports modern screen resolutions. Maybe expand it to support having the whole slew of factions active simultaneously, too. (and bigger maps)
For instance, ranged combat: Alpha Centauri had an artillery system built in, and the computer AI used it fairly effectively. Including artillery duels, bombardment, etc. Ship to shore combat was automatically a bombardment.
Modability: All the files for creating your own scenarios were there, easy to modify, written in plain english, and usually with explanations. And the game had a built in map editor. Which includes modifying factions, creating new ones, etc.
In fact, that leads directly to the one feature I really want to see in Civ V: Customized units. Not mods, but the ability, in game, to create new units by combining technology. For example, you've figured out how to make iron armor. Great. But you only know how to make longbows? So you now have iron-plated archers. Or whatever. That was one thing in Alpha Centauri that made the game truly unique: Tech developments gave you aspects of units, not the units themselves. As in they gave you a new type of weapon, a new type of armor, a new special ability, a new reactor (aka more hitpoints), new chassis (determines whether it's land, water, or air, and how fast it is, how often it needs to return to a city, etc)... Then the player puts them together to create the unit they want, the system figures out how much it costs, and there you go.
It led to some funny possibilities, like when you have really high powered cities, that you can create terraformers (equiv to engineers) that have tougher armor/hitpoints than most combat units. (although they still got a non-combat penalty) Or whatever one's heart desires, really. Not planning on going anywhere, but need defence? Then put together some sentinels with top of the line armor and hp, but leave them with the bare minimum for weaponry and chasis, and maybe give them one of the defensive special abilities. Or planning on doing some exploration? Throw together some rovers with high speed equipment, and deep radar (see 2 squares instead of 1), but leave off the weapons and armor. Almost anything is possible, really. And it adds so much variety to the game, so much re-playability.
The other thing I'm looking forward to seeing is the automation control. Can you activate an automated "governor" for a city? Can you tell that governor to only build stuff towards a specific end (say, research, or population expansion). Can you forbid the governor from building certain types of units (or any unit, for that matter)? On the same vein, can you give specific limits to engineer's automation? (for example, only allow them to build certain types of terrain improvement?
These are all things that they had in Alpha Centauri back in 2000, but have been almost entirely absent to all the Civ games produced since then. Otherwise, I'll probably just keep playing AC. Sure the graphics are bad (by 2010 standards, anyway), but it's the gameplay that matters.
1) Public perception. There is bound to eventually be an outcry in some sectors about the sanctity of human beings and how machines shouldn't be wired into people and vice versa, machines reading our minds, etc. If the technology has a working application of serious humane benefit, which the gov't is actually pursuing, this negates this to large extent.
2) Technological progression. If the gov't and others are putting money into it, it will most likely progress faster and more reliably than if it has to depend on commercial sources who understandably want to make money off it. And if it stops looking like it will make money... There goes the project into obscurity.
There have been numerous articles on Slashdot and various science sites on how the human brain can adapt to other forms of "senses". The vibrating belt that always indicated North, the possibility of humans learning to echonavigate, and many, many others. While the tongue is maybe not the most convenient way of integrating with our neural system, it is at least demonstrating the possibility. Once the technology starts to mature, deeper and more invasive integration starts to become possible. While I doubt we'd get to the point of being like the Matrix, how about something more like Harper from Andromeda? A network jack of some kind in one's neck, and thus a direct link in to appropriately configured equipment.
And on that note, while I'd find it immensely cool and useful to be able to access, manipulate, and process data via a direct cable feed, I'd hate to have a wireless connection. Imagine being able to drive-by hack somebody's head? Talk about the privacy issues with that...
I don't have the link ready to hand, but the technology behind this was posted to slashdot quiet a while ago. (At least many months, possibly over a year ago) Anyway, I was wondering when we would hear about this technology again, since it has tremendous potential both for sight-restoration applications, as well as furthur development towards the integration of machine and brains. If the resolution was high enough, for instance, a pilot could use this to see underneath the plane, or in other directions normally blocked. The potential application for guided search and rescue, and other remote controlled devices is also large. "being" there is better than simply seeing on a screen, after all, even if virtually. I hope that the various gov't and none-profit groups that support the visually impaired take note of this as a way to help people become active and contributing parts of society again. It's nice to take care of the impaired, but better to help them regain their independence.
I think this is an excellent idea, so long as there are limits to it. For instance, the network should NOT be connected to, or capable of connecting to, the actual functioning of the vehicle. Worst case example being it should NOT be even vaguely possible for someone to hack into your car and turn off the engine. Or slam on the brake/gas. That being said, being able to read/broadcast status reports would be good. Such as letting the driver behind me know that I just slammed on the brakes. I know tail lights are supposed to do that, but anyway. Or possibly acting like the yellow flag at the racetrack : "a car 500m ahead just lost control, be careful". Likewise, for areas subject to snow storms, fog, or other conditions of poor visibility, such tracking would be *very* appreciated just knowing how far away the next car is in front/behind. Likewise, if such a mesh network was actually part of the internet, it could conceivably make it possible to connect to the internet, access it, and whatnot without going through *any* ISP. On the one hand, the potential for tracking should worry the privacy and rights advocates, and with good cause. On the other, such distribution of networking could also enable rights and privacy, since it'd be hard to track anything through such a constantly changing network, and even harder to filter anything. I would say it pretty much eliminates the option of filtering our internet. All that being said, I'm not too sure what the connection is with the electrical grid, aside from the potential of "smart" use of electricity, which would be good.
Since you mentioned preferring to use Apple's stuff, buy yourself an older laptop. You don't have to go back too far before they stop having cameras. That being said, I'm currently using an iBook that's well into it's 7th year, and still works great. It won't play the latest games, and doing large scale graphics is slow, to say the least, but otherwise it works quiet well. Just find one that hasn't been abused.
This is definitely the attitude we need to take with space exploration. There have been many valid points made in these posts. I would like to highlight just a few: Firstly, the gov't has no place competing in commercial markets, that's not it's point. NASA should not be trying to provide commercially available services, whether it is ferrying rich tourists into space, or launching satelites. So it should get out of these markets, and let private firms do the research and development that is the focus of this. Let the private folks do the LEO stuff. On the other hand, private firms have no interest in going where there is no immediate profit, or even short term profit. Gov't, on the other hand, can and should be aiming at things that aren't profitable now, but will be critical and likely very profitable in 15+ years. Manned space flight to the moon, and especially to points beyond are a case in point. Asteroid mining, a staple of Sci-fi, is not profitable right now. Nor is it likely to be in the next ten years. But when industry gets into space, when we actually start having cities on the moon (or mars, or space stations, take your pic), mining the rest of the solar system is going to be very profitable. There is the potential for millions, possibly billions of jobs in that, since, eventually, the entire economy, from janitorial all the way up to senior management, will be replicated in space (hopefully more efficiently, but probably not). The country that gets there first, that actually becomes an space power (not just who can reach space, but who actually is permanently in space) is going to have a tremendous advantage in nearly every sphere of influence. Throwing money at it won't help much, but taking away what they have is likely to hurt a lot more than the potential benefit of increased efficiency. Efficiency is good, but not if it means retarding the entire manned space flight program by decades. In reality, we are still in the pre-space age. The space age will truly have arrived when space is a work place for more than a select elite and a few rich guys.
From what I've seen, both in myself, my friends, and others aronud me, we do NOT have an objection to paying for music. What we have an objection to is paying money to corporations. It seems to be rather distinct hypocracy on the part of many of the large corporations: They make money from selling the music, they make money from selling the CD burner, they make money from selling the blank CDs, and they make money from getting some of the levies on those CDs on the assumption that they'll be used to violate copyright law (regardless of actual use. Why should I pay a levy for the priveledge of backing up my work data?) They make money from every step of the game. On that note, I do NOT think that they should get a levi on the basis that the consumer might actually use the things that the company sold them in the first place.
As far as that goes, shouldn't the companies be forced to repay those levies when the CDs are taken out of the circulation? A friend of mine recently cleaned out his archives and ditched (as in permanently destroyed) something in the range of 50-100 burned disks. Since he had to pay a levi in order to use them, they should be forced to give him the levi back since those disks obviously can't be used for anything anymore, and therefore could not possibly be used to contravene the law. On the same note, I think that one should be able to get one's levi back if you can demonstrate that the media was used for some purpose that does not violate copyright law. And no, it's not an insignificant amount. The Levi is somewhere in the range of 25-50% the cost of a blank CD.
Likewise, I am firmly of the conviction that file sharing and P2P stuff helps artists based on my own observations. I know people who have downloaded material, sure. I also know that, if they actually like said material, they almost always go out and buy it. I, personally, think that paying 20-40$ is far, far, far to much for some CD from some group I've never heard from. On the other hand, I can go home, check them out, see if I actually like their stuff, and if I do, go back and buy it. And yes, it *is* a forced purchase. There is no option to return a CD, unless it is still un-opened.
Next, there is the fact that DRM technology is getting increasingly common. Sure, I like supporting artists and being legal and all that. But if paying for a legally acquired disk results in the fact that my computer can no longer work properly and I am treated like a criminal by my own legally purchased material, then I think I will simply stick with the cheaper, safer, alternative. I mean, common. Who wants to pay for the privelege of being treated like a criminal?
Lastly, and summary: I would love to purchase music and stuff directly from the artist. Given the chance, I buy the independently produced CDs at concerts and fairs and whatnot, where I can be reasonably certain that the money is going straight into the ARTIST's pockets, most likely from wence the cost of the CD came out. It's the corporations that we don't want to pay. They are a bloat, a cancer, and something which should be eradicated. Music should be like Shareware. Listen, and if you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't listen to it ever again. Without all the forced purchases that the stores force upon us overall industry profit will probably be hugelly, massively lower than it is now, sure. But I dare say that (with the possible exception of the elite artists) the artists themselves would make a fair bit more.
If enough people do this, it will create a large enough blip in the demographics that maybe, just maybe, these companies will sit up and take notice that non-copy-protected stuff can actually make money and all that. And they'll even save money on being able to skip buying some outrageously expensive CP thing.
After all, about all the copy-protection thing ever did was nail the average user. Anyone with any knowledge at all can find hacks on the web to get around it (or, for that matter, a full copy of it for free without the CP). And those with a lot of knowledge can flat out get around it anyway. In short, it doesn't affect those they declare themselves as targeting.
In the mean time, here's hoping that Ubisoft continues their way on the return to sanity, and learns a valuable lesson from all this.
For one, (using Canadian flight legal code, aka the TC AIM, I quote: section reference
This is the relevant excert from the Canadian code, and I'm fairly sure the US has a similar section. That being said, lightining meeting these requirements makes almost anything extremely visible at night. (the technical requirement for light intensity requires them to be visible from at least several miles away. Same brightness as for those jet's you can watch go overhead at 30'000 feet or more away...) On the same token, those lights do almost nothing during daytime (and in fact, don't need to be on during day time either).
So we end up with a situation where they are extremely visible during night time (so no covert surveillance at night when most crime and stuff happens anyway), and still remain invisible enough during daytime to pose a serious threat to air traffic.
It should also be noted that, while flying objects stand out really well against the sky, small flying objects (and I'm including things as big as large geese at more than 30' distance, or large aircraft at a mile or more) are quite hard to see against the ground.
Net summary: At night they are extremely visible to everyone. During daytime they are extremely visible to anyone on the ground, and well-nigh invisible to anyone in flight.
We have problems enough with recreational pilots flying those paragliders and small A/C, let alone unguided things that are even smaller. Thus we need the relevant aviation authorities to take a firm hand on these things and keep them where they belong: At very low altitudes. As in under 500', and preferably a very long way outside any aproach/departure path where a/c routinely fly below 500'.
/. luddiets due to the lack of support/enthousiasm for tech projects such as this. I disagree with that assessement. We're not luddites, we're advocates of the NIOBY (Not In Our Back Yard) theory. I like the technology, but I don't want to run into it (litterally or figuratively). Same probably applies to almost everything else surveillance related. I like the tech, but I hate the applications being made with it.
Oh, and someone above called the people of
Oh, and many pilots consider auto-pilots to be the bane of the industry: Not only do they reduce the need for pilots, but they render the plane less safe, since the pilot is no longer actively involved in the flight of the a/c, thus more readily distracted by others in the plane, or whatnot. Ideally it would giving the pilot the chance to focus on his surrounding instead of on the mechanics of flight, but this rarely happens. And lastly, as has been mentioned, how many airports come equiped with the high-precision landing guidance systems required for those things? very, very few. Not even all the international caliber airports have them, although many do. And we *really* don't want those things taking up airspace there.
This would be the main difference between said loyalty cards and spyware. The loyalty card we can pass aroud between a whole lot of us, effectiely rendering it's determination of our "unique purchasing pattern" worthless, (since not only are the users not part of the same demographic as the card's actual holder, but there's a bunch of us magnifying it). The spyware, we can't.
Furthur more, the loyalty card we can throw out, lose, or just plain decide on a day to day basis whether to use or not. The Spyware, you can't. It all comes down to choice. Now, if they gave you, say, ten cents an hour that you browsed online while allowing the to track you, and you could turn it on or off at will, then that makes it reasonable. But as of yet, I see no reason for anyone to want it in the first place.
In view of the following news released on the developers site, I think we can all take a deep breath and recognize that this was entirely overblown, and probably didn't really deserve to be mentioned on slashdot at all. Yet, anyway. If it actually was the newsworthy event originally claimed, then yes, deffinitly, but it's just alpha1, and not even a complete one, from the sounds of it.
Taken directly from mozillanews
BEGIN QUOTE HERE
Code Freeze for 2.0 Alpha1 this Thursday at 11:59PM PST
As discussed at the BonEcho status meeting today we will be doing a 1.8 branch code freeze on Thursday March 16, 2006 at 11:59PM PST in preparation for a Alpha 1 release next Tuesday.
If you are trying to get a bug landed for Alpha1 please be sure to set the target milestone as follows:
Firefox product: Firefox 2 alpha1
Toolkit/Core products: mozilla1.8.1alpha1
Ben G and Schrep will organize a quick triage session to stay on top of these bugs Weds/Thurs.
The Alpha1 is primarily designed to test the places backend. The UI is not anywhere near final and mind the standard disclaimers about how it's alpha software and is thus buggy - so use at your own risk.
END QUOTE HERE
Oh, and for informational purpsoses:
Firefox = official public release
DeerPark = developer's copies, optimized and/or individualized bulids, and all those other builds that aren't the official issued-for-the-general-public builds. Which, it would stand to reason, would include all the alpha and beta builds.
As far as that goes, I still think the entire cellphone industry is a scam.
Case in point: Friend calls me long distance from her cell, she gets dinged with longdistance charges. I call her, and both her AND me get dinged with longdistance charges. (and this happens with both cell companies she's been with over the past few years)
On top of that, even when I'm calling (and I've got a very good long distance plan. First 500 mins a month free, and the rest for dirt cheap) they still charge her her normal longdistance while draning my minutes at the same time. (And I'm on a landline, to boot)
Now, I have no objection to the longdistance getting paid by someone at one end of the conversation or the other, but I refuse to believe that somehow going longdistance from a landline to a cell phone is twice as expensive as going from a cell phone to the landline.
It more or less guarantees that I won't be getting a cell phone anytime soon. At the absolute least, not untill cellphones are subject to the same laws and regulations (and standards) as the regular phone industry, which doesn't get to double charge. (I am quite sure they would if they could)
Lead paint would be a deffinite thing to avoid. I'd rather not risk poisoning myself or my family.
1) The entire house being a Faraday Cage would be very nice. I'm not sure how hard it would be to build it perfectly without doing silly things like getting rid of windows, but it shoud be possible to get one that is substantially intact. With the prevalance of wireless *everything* nowdays, I enjoy being able to keep it all on the outside. Probably do good things for my risk of getting cancer and whatnot too. (and becomes an eternal cellphone black-out zone as an added bonus...)
2) Shielded power supply that keeps electronic stuff from interfering with each other.
2b) UPS protected power supply wired in for a small range of "essential" stuff, and for those things that really shouldn't be at the mercy of power fluctuations and what not. Along the lines of a single pair of plugs per room (using different colored plugins to differentiate)
2c) Alternate power supplies: Whether it be solar panels, a small wind turbine, or whatever, something would be good. Understandably, it might not be able to keep the entire house running, but it'd be good to have *something*, anyway.
3) Phone and network jacks in every room. Standard phone jack, and whatever one desires as a network interface for that. But one port for each in every room, and all wired into a nice spot for a router. In my case, I'd want it on a shelf out of the way in my comp area where I could still see it/acces it, but it'd never get in the way.
4) Alternate heating: If at all possible, solar water heater tank, maybe even full scale solar heating. If local terrain permits, geothermal heating/cooling. The fridge could be tied directly into the later, making the kitchen quiter and reducing inefficiencies in the system. (heat inside the fridge isn't stuck into the area immidiadly surrounding it to warm it up again)
5) Good, variable, lighting: Sometimes I like to have bright lights illuminating everything, sometimes I don't want anything more than indirect gentle lighting. Likewise, the option to let good large amouts of natural light in would be a deffinite plus, although the blinds or covers would also be desired. I'm not a fan of those big glass houses with zero-privacy.
6) At least two exterior doors, on opposite sides of the house from each other. Not that I feel the need to always have escape options, but sometimes I may just need to leave the house in the opposite direction of the front door, for whatever reason. That, and I like having equally easy access to both front and back yards.
6b) That being said, having at least one door being wheelchair accessible would be nice. I don't have very many friends in wheelchairs, but should I invite them over, I'd like at least the public part of my house (aka living room, dining room, entryway, and a bathroom) to be accessible. Note that doesn't necesarily require that the house have each of those as seperate rooms (depending on budget and design, the first three could very well be a single room). And as far as that goes, if chance should happen that I am in a wheelchair for some reason, I'd like to be able to live in at least part of my house without problem.
7) Garages: A garage is optional, I don't really see much need for one, unless I'm located out of town a long ways or need to comute long distances for some other reason. But a half-sized garage would be nice, about the right size for a couple bicycles or a motorcycle... Regardless, though, the garage should NOT be a central feature in the house. All those houses that look like someone designed a garage and stuck a house on the back look, quite honestly, extre
Stay strong, Google! You may do things we don't like ocasionally, but you're still a wonderfull breath of fresh air in this rather stagnant world...
*shrug* It's been a long time, so my memory might be foggy, but I think it *was* a female that encouraged me to switch. And none that I know use AIM's client, for that matter. It's all in who one knows, I guess.
I suppose now alternate clients may become more common, since they seem to be encouraging it. Might even make it more popular, I suppose. If they're encouraging it, and providing the knowledge to do it, independents no longer have to worry about their client being blocked out.
I do have to wonder why they are doing it. Maybe they are hoping to get out of the client side entirely. Probably simpler for them if they simply have to maintain the server and make the code to connect to it available, and let a couple hundred freeware types deal with the clients. Cheaper, too. Less people to pay.
I've been using Fire for years now, and from what I can recall, I can't think of a single person who actually uses AIM. We've been going over their network, yes, but I don't know of anyone actually using the software AIM to do so...
And as far as that goes, same thing for MSN.
About all this means, from my POV, is that we don't have to worry about them sporadically changing how their server works to disrupt every other client out there.