I would imagine that most flocks, or even single birds, could be detected well in advance of impact by using radar or some other imaging device.
Perhaps using that technology, and some sort of explosive shell (think fireworks), they could clear a path through the flock (at least for the engines).
If the shell was powerful enough, it could actually use the force of the explosion to force the birds out of the flight path. If not, at least it would have the potential of scaring the flock into changing course.
Patents mean that you might not be legally allowed to use the results of your R&D without paying off someone else first. They also don't ensure that the results of your R&D will actually be useful or sellable. The only mean that others can't directly copy your results, but copying something physical takes long enough that you'd probably have a substantial first-mover advantage anyway.
To provide a vague but true example, I recently worked for a startup that developed a product independently for something that was fairly obvious (applying existing technology to a different industry), and during a patent search it was discovered that to bring their product to market would violate several patents (all of them software).
After trying to re-design the product to steer clear of patent issues, the product never achieved its potential before the money ran out. Had we taken the direct route, we would have been done and sold a million units by now.
The problem with process and method patents is that they patent the goal rather than how the goal was achieved. With a typical mechanical patent, you first state your goal and then patent the 'way' to achieve the goal. If someone wants to achieve the same goal they can, so long as they use a different 'way' to get there. A process patent frequently focuses on the goal rather than the way.
For example, I should be able to implement a way of creating a PDF compatible file without violating any patents... assuming I used different code to achive the same result. This being the case, there is little reason to patent software, as it's trivial to change code and arrive at the same result.
Or, say I want to encode an MPEG compliant file, so long as I don't use the same code as someone else, I should be able to create my own implementation without being in violation of any patents or copyrights.
Oh, and stop with the packaging for crying out loud! A desktop system is antithetical to a centralized software repository. Desktop systems should have a standard method of software distribution that accepts any software from anywhere, commercial or OSS.
Oh god please don't do away with package management!
I agree that a universal package management standard needs to be settled on, but to suggest that we do away with package management is plain scary.
I love how Ubuntu/Debian do it... I know, with one click of the mouse, that I am running the latest updates available for every piece of software I use.
I think if they could standardize on a package management solution that includes the transparent addition of that softwares online repository to your system, then all would be happy.
In my Windows work world, I crave a central repository for software... with the ability to add third party repo's of course.
I see this being the hot new frontend for mythtv. With VDPAU supported for HD decoding, fanless/quiet fan, atom processor, a bit of ram, and a SD card for storage I could make one hell of a nice tiny front end.
I use DVDFab to backup disks that are not supported by Linux tools in the Ubuntu Repo's... however it's 'Official' wine support is sketchy at best.
I can do a full disk backup... but nothing else. I can't even change the application settings from within the application because the settings page won't allow me to navigate.
I say, that if developers add their names to this list, their software should be on par with the same software in a windows environment.
I bet that the poster of this article is exploring his options, after all, he's not allow to purchase his media legally, so perhaps he would be better served by a free alternative?
I am sure Apple did it only to make someone else happy (labels, investors, foreign governments, us government, etc...) however, it's ridiculous to suggest that this will do anything but increase piracy.
This depends on how the organization is structured. Sure you could have a VP who oversees all security related issues, and in some organizations where security is a very high priority it makes sense (banks for example).
However most small-medium companies don't have significant physical security needs, except perhaps to hire a consultant to assess, recommend, and implement. And maybe contract a security company to patrol or monitor the cameras. These kind of companies need someone with some weight in the IT department, and a VP/CTO/CIO who gives information security some real authority.
An IT department can be perfectly able to create and manage secure systems without a separate entity telling them what to do... but you do need someone to justify the expenses and policies incurred on the behalf of security concerns. My argument is simply that the recent publicity of data theft/loss has resulted in increased understanding by those who control purse strings... and now that IT departments are starting to have some authority to actually dictate their needs and expect them to be addressed... we will see some improvements made to prevent data loss/theft. Improvements that previously were unfunded or not important enough to address because no one had the ear of upper management.
WRONG... WRONG... WRONG... it is not a good thing in any sense of the word.
Do I want web developers using.net and making my non-dotnet-capable machines unusable. NO!
I don't want Microsoft fooling developers into using.net to develop web apps that are not standards compliant and are dependent upon Microsoft anything.
I would rather developers not use Flash, Silverlight, vbs, or any other technologies that require a non-open technology of any sort.
Imagine if MS starts publishing the.net proliferation and developers see that 95% of computers can run.net code in their browsers. Since that developer knows.net he decides that he will use.net thinking he doesn't care so much if he loses 5% of his traffic to compatibility issues. Now your iPhone, netbook, and most devices with embedded browsers won't work.
If MS want's.net in the browser, they should open it up and make it entirely up to the user to choose to install it. After all, it's not a web standard.
Except AFAIK there aren't any solid state circuit elements that deal well with three states.
I personally like analog for AI. For example, for recognition of similar objects... one could assume that two trees would have a similar analog signature if scanned with a radar/sonar/3d imaging type device. That's how some radar systems can identify an object purely based upon it's radar signature. For example the AWACS uses an analog computer to process its radar signals.
it's a wonder that a little upfront money isn't being directed at prevention
No it's not... Only in the last few years have management began to look at IT as something more than a "support" department. I have worked in companies where the IT department head reported to the Facilities Management Director (think landscaping and custodial services), who reported to the VP of Finance. Essentially, IT had no influence or budget to speak of, even when we pointed out that we were ripe for the picking when it concerned customer data and trade secrets.
Jump forward a few years, and now that same company has an VP of Information Technology and an annual IT budget of 4X the Finance department's total budget.
It's no surprise that it's still taking time to get pro-active expenditures approved. What I'm actually surprised about is that most Presidents/CEO's are actually aware of the risks now. If not for a few recent high profile leaks, most IT departments couldn't get any money for such projects.
Finally, there is no evidence that upfront money wasn't spent. Most companies just haven't figured out how to adequately secure their data, not for lack of resources or trying, but because there isn't a formula for guaranteed success.
As a former nuclear engineer you must also be aware that nuclear material can and is frequently used with virtually no risk to anyone.
I too am scared by unregulated, corner-cutting businesses working with the stuff. But no more afraid of a commercial farmer breeding a potentially lethal or ecologically dangerous super-crop though... and that's legal. So is colliding particles that may or may not cause the end of the planet.
The nuclear industry exists now, and there have been tremendous strides in the technology and safety. To suggest that we should not encourage an industry that may, with advances such as this article discusses, result in nearly zero net effect on the environment is pretty awesome if you ask me.
Honestly, nuclear fission is probably the best energy source we could pursue right now. Why, because we can do it now with virtually no waiting and no chance of finding out later that we rushed into something we shouldn't have (like corn ethanol).
Think shipping and receiving docks, law enforcement, bars restaurants (digital order taking, entertainment), and many many more industries where something like this would be awesome.
My biggest issue with computers today is the idea that a keyboard is required, or even necessary.
I would love to see far more development focused on purpose built computing using general computing equipment. Kinda like they are doing with the netbooks. This would make devices like this, and other low powered computers, much more usable.
I realize it has a shell... and I realize it's extremely powerful.
But it's not intuitive. I can fire up nautilus, or Thunar, or some other graphical file manager and have some level of competency almost immediately. With MC, VI, and emacs I feel like an accident victim learning to walk again.
Learning anything incrementally, when you already know an alternative, assumes an investment in time. Not to mention habit. I type "sudo nano/etc/xxxx" without thinking about it anymore... and editing, though not nearly as fast as a vi pro can do it, is equally brainless. It may take months to achieve that level of comfort with a new tool, and in those months I will be repeatedly distracted by trying to figure out the tool I am using.
Anyone else regret not getting attached to tools like MC years ago?
There are a few tools that pop up whenever people discuss the easiest or best way to do a task... and I always wish I had made the investment of time to get proficient with those tools. However it almost seems too late.
For example, vi and emacs... I am sure they are great, but the investment of time to get proficient makes it hard to justify even trying. So on my headless linux boxen I use nano, I can do everything I need to do without a cheatsheet.
MC is the same way... I have tinkered with it, but I always found myself exiting to the command line because I would find something I didn't know how to do and didn't want to take the time to figure it out.
Does anyone have any tips on how to best add these types of tools to your tool set when you've mastered an alternative. Simply saying to use it doesn't take into consideration productivity.
Are these tools worth investing personal time into, say instead of studying for a certification or something. Are the gains really that significant?
It used to be, you would write a law to punish those who used technology unwisely. For example, robbery vs. armed robbery. You bring a gun you get additional charges. Now they try and use technology to prevent the crime from happening at all.
This is a free country. Our laws are not supposed to prevent us from doing anything, only to punish those who fail to respect the societies wishes. A better law would be to increase the penalty against those creating explicit images without consent. Call it the upskirt law or some shit.
More and more, our law makers are trying to create laws that FORCE us to behave properly... not acceptable!
Yeah, though I doubt any scientist would dispute that a thermoelectric device that uses the peltier effect is commonly called a Pletier cooler... even if the name makes little sense in conversations between physicists.
There are many scientific products who's common name makes little sense in the context of those concerned with the theory of the device.
For example, if your an American I would bet that you incorrectly call a voltaic cell a battery. That's the common name even if it's dead wrong in a technical sense. When electronic engineers talk, they discuss a 1.5V AA size cell; while my wife would ask for a AA battery.
circuit operates at 3GHz at 20C or at 4GHz at 10C. So you say, lets cool it then!
Well if you couple chip to copper heatsink and fan, you can't possibly drop temps to sub-ambient temps.
However, with a cooler, you can... so long as you can dump the extra heat fast enough.
The biggest reason peltier coolers are rarely used is that they tend to cause condensation, and they acutally generate additional heat, requiring even more cooling.
However, if you could create a small one, that was within the housing, cooled only the necessary areas, and didn't need to be sealed from the humidity... it would be this.
Don't think of it as a peltier cooler... think of it as a way of instantly transporting the heat away from a particular portion of an IC. It is integrated into the IC itself, so it's not a cooler, but a heat transmitter.
So, for example, if I want to "over clock" a portion of my IC, but it keeps running to hot, I could use this to extract heat from the area and distribute it where it doesn't matter so much.
Essentially... the Watts of heat you pull from your CPU, aren't generated across the entire chip, but are commonly more localized. For example, cache doesn't generate much heat. If I can take heat from the FPU and move it to the cache area, I can clock the FPU higher, and have fewer heat-related failures.
True... there is no way to know what might have happened.
I can only say that for many years, MS dominated for no reason other that the fact that most businesses were dependent on one or more MS products.
Because of this, MS could have moved much slower and cheaper and the market would likely have allowed it. We can see examples of this in the slow adoption of any of MS's new technologies. As it stands, it looks like Vista should have been held back for another year or two in development.
If you consider the speed at which most monopolies innovate, Microsoft has actually done OK (certainly not as good as one would like). A good example are phone, cable, and power companies, when they monopolized their industries they stagnated almost completely; then came VOIP, satellite TV, and...
IBM went hunting for an OS for the IBM PC. There wasn't much to choose from. The only real player in the Intel 8080 arena was CP/M... but they wouldn't agree to IBM's terms, so Gates bought a CP/M-like OS (QDOS) and rebranded it MS-DOS... And screwed us for a lifetime.
QNX, what IBM should have used, was a year or so too late.
Comparing UNIX of the time to anything running on a computer smaller than a commercial refrigerator and costing less than a new luxury car is completely unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's assuming that the concussion was near enough to be felt.
Obviously, with a larger concussion, the explosion would need to take place further ahead of the aircraft.
I would imagine that most flocks, or even single birds, could be detected well in advance of impact by using radar or some other imaging device.
Perhaps using that technology, and some sort of explosive shell (think fireworks), they could clear a path through the flock (at least for the engines).
If the shell was powerful enough, it could actually use the force of the explosion to force the birds out of the flight path. If not, at least it would have the potential of scaring the flock into changing course.
Patents mean that you might not be legally allowed to use the results of your R&D without paying off someone else first. They also don't ensure that the results of your R&D will actually be useful or sellable. The only mean that others can't directly copy your results, but copying something physical takes long enough that you'd probably have a substantial first-mover advantage anyway.
To provide a vague but true example, I recently worked for a startup that developed a product independently for something that was fairly obvious (applying existing technology to a different industry), and during a patent search it was discovered that to bring their product to market would violate several patents (all of them software).
After trying to re-design the product to steer clear of patent issues, the product never achieved its potential before the money ran out. Had we taken the direct route, we would have been done and sold a million units by now.
The problem with process and method patents is that they patent the goal rather than how the goal was achieved. With a typical mechanical patent, you first state your goal and then patent the 'way' to achieve the goal. If someone wants to achieve the same goal they can, so long as they use a different 'way' to get there. A process patent frequently focuses on the goal rather than the way.
For example, I should be able to implement a way of creating a PDF compatible file without violating any patents... assuming I used different code to achive the same result. This being the case, there is little reason to patent software, as it's trivial to change code and arrive at the same result.
Or, say I want to encode an MPEG compliant file, so long as I don't use the same code as someone else, I should be able to create my own implementation without being in violation of any patents or copyrights.
Oh, and stop with the packaging for crying out loud! A desktop system is antithetical to a centralized software repository. Desktop systems should have a standard method of software distribution that accepts any software from anywhere, commercial or OSS.
Oh god please don't do away with package management!
I agree that a universal package management standard needs to be settled on, but to suggest that we do away with package management is plain scary.
I love how Ubuntu/Debian do it... I know, with one click of the mouse, that I am running the latest updates available for every piece of software I use.
I think if they could standardize on a package management solution that includes the transparent addition of that softwares online repository to your system, then all would be happy.
In my Windows work world, I crave a central repository for software... with the ability to add third party repo's of course.
I see this being the hot new frontend for mythtv. With VDPAU supported for HD decoding, fanless/quiet fan, atom processor, a bit of ram, and a SD card for storage I could make one hell of a nice tiny front end.
I want one now!
I use DVDFab to backup disks that are not supported by Linux tools in the Ubuntu Repo's... however it's 'Official' wine support is sketchy at best.
I can do a full disk backup... but nothing else. I can't even change the application settings from within the application because the settings page won't allow me to navigate.
I say, that if developers add their names to this list, their software should be on par with the same software in a windows environment.
I bet that the poster of this article is exploring his options, after all, he's not allow to purchase his media legally, so perhaps he would be better served by a free alternative?
I am sure Apple did it only to make someone else happy (labels, investors, foreign governments, us government, etc...) however, it's ridiculous to suggest that this will do anything but increase piracy.
This depends on how the organization is structured. Sure you could have a VP who oversees all security related issues, and in some organizations where security is a very high priority it makes sense (banks for example).
However most small-medium companies don't have significant physical security needs, except perhaps to hire a consultant to assess, recommend, and implement. And maybe contract a security company to patrol or monitor the cameras. These kind of companies need someone with some weight in the IT department, and a VP/CTO/CIO who gives information security some real authority.
An IT department can be perfectly able to create and manage secure systems without a separate entity telling them what to do... but you do need someone to justify the expenses and policies incurred on the behalf of security concerns. My argument is simply that the recent publicity of data theft/loss has resulted in increased understanding by those who control purse strings... and now that IT departments are starting to have some authority to actually dictate their needs and expect them to be addressed... we will see some improvements made to prevent data loss/theft. Improvements that previously were unfunded or not important enough to address because no one had the ear of upper management.
WRONG... WRONG... WRONG... it is not a good thing in any sense of the word.
Do I want web developers using .net and making my non-dotnet-capable machines unusable. NO!
I don't want Microsoft fooling developers into using .net to develop web apps that are not standards compliant and are dependent upon Microsoft anything.
I would rather developers not use Flash, Silverlight, vbs, or any other technologies that require a non-open technology of any sort.
Imagine if MS starts publishing the .net proliferation and developers see that 95% of computers can run .net code in their browsers. Since that developer knows .net he decides that he will use .net thinking he doesn't care so much if he loses 5% of his traffic to compatibility issues. Now your iPhone, netbook, and most devices with embedded browsers won't work.
If MS want's .net in the browser, they should open it up and make it entirely up to the user to choose to install it. After all, it's not a web standard.
Except AFAIK there aren't any solid state circuit elements that deal well with three states.
I personally like analog for AI. For example, for recognition of similar objects... one could assume that two trees would have a similar analog signature if scanned with a radar/sonar/3d imaging type device. That's how some radar systems can identify an object purely based upon it's radar signature. For example the AWACS uses an analog computer to process its radar signals.
it's a wonder that a little upfront money isn't being directed at prevention
No it's not... Only in the last few years have management began to look at IT as something more than a "support" department. I have worked in companies where the IT department head reported to the Facilities Management Director (think landscaping and custodial services), who reported to the VP of Finance. Essentially, IT had no influence or budget to speak of, even when we pointed out that we were ripe for the picking when it concerned customer data and trade secrets.
Jump forward a few years, and now that same company has an VP of Information Technology and an annual IT budget of 4X the Finance department's total budget.
It's no surprise that it's still taking time to get pro-active expenditures approved. What I'm actually surprised about is that most Presidents/CEO's are actually aware of the risks now. If not for a few recent high profile leaks, most IT departments couldn't get any money for such projects.
Finally, there is no evidence that upfront money wasn't spent. Most companies just haven't figured out how to adequately secure their data, not for lack of resources or trying, but because there isn't a formula for guaranteed success.
As a former nuclear engineer you must also be aware that nuclear material can and is frequently used with virtually no risk to anyone.
I too am scared by unregulated, corner-cutting businesses working with the stuff. But no more afraid of a commercial farmer breeding a potentially lethal or ecologically dangerous super-crop though... and that's legal. So is colliding particles that may or may not cause the end of the planet.
The nuclear industry exists now, and there have been tremendous strides in the technology and safety. To suggest that we should not encourage an industry that may, with advances such as this article discusses, result in nearly zero net effect on the environment is pretty awesome if you ask me.
Honestly, nuclear fission is probably the best energy source we could pursue right now. Why, because we can do it now with virtually no waiting and no chance of finding out later that we rushed into something we shouldn't have (like corn ethanol).
My god man... a sensable explanation that doesn't require a PHD in physics. This site isn't what it used to be!
MOD parent up.... and find more like him.
Or wear a patch... that's why the pirates wore them, all the moving from darkness below decks to the bright sun above.
ARRRR....
$2000 is cheap for a device as versatile as this.
Think shipping and receiving docks, law enforcement, bars restaurants (digital order taking, entertainment), and many many more industries where something like this would be awesome.
My biggest issue with computers today is the idea that a keyboard is required, or even necessary.
I would love to see far more development focused on purpose built computing using general computing equipment. Kinda like they are doing with the netbooks. This would make devices like this, and other low powered computers, much more usable.
I realize it has a shell... and I realize it's extremely powerful.
But it's not intuitive. I can fire up nautilus, or Thunar, or some other graphical file manager and have some level of competency almost immediately. With MC, VI, and emacs I feel like an accident victim learning to walk again.
Learning anything incrementally, when you already know an alternative, assumes an investment in time. Not to mention habit. I type "sudo nano /etc/xxxx" without thinking about it anymore... and editing, though not nearly as fast as a vi pro can do it, is equally brainless. It may take months to achieve that level of comfort with a new tool, and in those months I will be repeatedly distracted by trying to figure out the tool I am using.
Is it worth it?
Anyone else regret not getting attached to tools like MC years ago?
There are a few tools that pop up whenever people discuss the easiest or best way to do a task... and I always wish I had made the investment of time to get proficient with those tools. However it almost seems too late.
For example, vi and emacs... I am sure they are great, but the investment of time to get proficient makes it hard to justify even trying. So on my headless linux boxen I use nano, I can do everything I need to do without a cheatsheet.
MC is the same way... I have tinkered with it, but I always found myself exiting to the command line because I would find something I didn't know how to do and didn't want to take the time to figure it out.
Does anyone have any tips on how to best add these types of tools to your tool set when you've mastered an alternative. Simply saying to use it doesn't take into consideration productivity.
Are these tools worth investing personal time into, say instead of studying for a certification or something. Are the gains really that significant?
It used to be, you would write a law to punish those who used technology unwisely. For example, robbery vs. armed robbery. You bring a gun you get additional charges. Now they try and use technology to prevent the crime from happening at all.
This is a free country. Our laws are not supposed to prevent us from doing anything, only to punish those who fail to respect the societies wishes. A better law would be to increase the penalty against those creating explicit images without consent. Call it the upskirt law or some shit.
More and more, our law makers are trying to create laws that FORCE us to behave properly... not acceptable!
Yeah, though I doubt any scientist would dispute that a thermoelectric device that uses the peltier effect is commonly called a Pletier cooler... even if the name makes little sense in conversations between physicists.
There are many scientific products who's common name makes little sense in the context of those concerned with the theory of the device.
For example, if your an American I would bet that you incorrectly call a voltaic cell a battery. That's the common name even if it's dead wrong in a technical sense. When electronic engineers talk, they discuss a 1.5V AA size cell; while my wife would ask for a AA battery.
Imagine this...
circuit operates at 3GHz at 20C or at 4GHz at 10C. So you say, lets cool it then!
Well if you couple chip to copper heatsink and fan, you can't possibly drop temps to sub-ambient temps.
However, with a cooler, you can... so long as you can dump the extra heat fast enough.
The biggest reason peltier coolers are rarely used is that they tend to cause condensation, and they acutally generate additional heat, requiring even more cooling.
However, if you could create a small one, that was within the housing, cooled only the necessary areas, and didn't need to be sealed from the humidity... it would be this.
I retract my previous statement... I thought this was a different tech I read about somewhere.
This is a cooler, it's a thin cooler they are placing between the chip and it's housing.
So it's a peltier cooler after all.
Don't think of it as a peltier cooler... think of it as a way of instantly transporting the heat away from a particular portion of an IC. It is integrated into the IC itself, so it's not a cooler, but a heat transmitter.
So, for example, if I want to "over clock" a portion of my IC, but it keeps running to hot, I could use this to extract heat from the area and distribute it where it doesn't matter so much.
Essentially... the Watts of heat you pull from your CPU, aren't generated across the entire chip, but are commonly more localized. For example, cache doesn't generate much heat. If I can take heat from the FPU and move it to the cache area, I can clock the FPU higher, and have fewer heat-related failures.
So in summery... it's not a cooler!
True... there is no way to know what might have happened.
I can only say that for many years, MS dominated for no reason other that the fact that most businesses were dependent on one or more MS products.
Because of this, MS could have moved much slower and cheaper and the market would likely have allowed it. We can see examples of this in the slow adoption of any of MS's new technologies. As it stands, it looks like Vista should have been held back for another year or two in development.
If you consider the speed at which most monopolies innovate, Microsoft has actually done OK (certainly not as good as one would like). A good example are phone, cable, and power companies, when they monopolized their industries they stagnated almost completely; then came VOIP, satellite TV, and ...
QNX was released a year later than MS-DOS... and it's a shame that it was!
IBM went hunting for an OS for the IBM PC. There wasn't much to choose from. The only real player in the Intel 8080 arena was CP/M... but they wouldn't agree to IBM's terms, so Gates bought a CP/M-like OS (QDOS) and rebranded it MS-DOS... And screwed us for a lifetime.
QNX, what IBM should have used, was a year or so too late.
Comparing UNIX of the time to anything running on a computer smaller than a commercial refrigerator and costing less than a new luxury car is completely unreasonable.