Assuming this "Internet driver license" is a good idea, I wonder who should do the preparation, who should do the testing, and what type of office should hand out the certification. Should we have MS itself handling the preparation? Or Google? Or the government? Regardless of your thoughts on who should control, Internet is just a medium, like TV. Teaching how to use automatically put limits on the ability to experiment, to discover and to adjust to a new medium. Afterall, nobody thought us how to use a TV, or a phone. If you are rude or misbehave, then you will pay for it sooner of later, not in money, but in social skills.
So count me off. I rather give someone a PC with a browser and a few directions on how to start. The rest should remain totally in the end of the user.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. DARPA does (and did) many things besides working on missile defense and laser tech. You might remember Internet to be one of it. More modestly I actually work on a DARPA project for next generation electronics. Hardly something confined in missiles.
You are confusing Chrome with Chromium. While the latter is open source and released with the BSD license you correctly reported, Chrome has proprietary parts in it that are not covered by BSD and thus as reported in the TFA, not freely redistributable.
Educating in what? Your view or mine? Your worldview or my worldview?
Math and Science, or vocational training (nursing, machining, etc). Those are not confined to the Western world.
Science is not the solution to all problems in the world. What if Muslims didn't hate people for having a faith other than their own? What if they were not daily deciding that the only way they could get their view across was to blow people up? I don't see this in any other religion in the world, and I don't see science or educations changing their fundamental views. If you build schools for them, they will indoctrinate their youth even more!
Wrong. Your statement is a very common misconception, and it is not based on actual facts. People become fundamentalists (Talibans are one example) because there is no alternative. If there is an alternative (provided by better education), it is solidly proven that a more moderate approach is followed.
Don't believe it? Read "Three cups of tea"...
Building schools and educating people in developing countries (that vocally demand education) is a proven much more effective way to fight against fundamentalisms of all types.
The reason Android is picking up so well within cellphone manufacturers is that it allows for customization without the burden of maintaining a full OS. Google plan is to have another platform designed around their very profitable services. There is no need for Google to get money from device makers, the use of services would amply justify the profits. In a way, it's the same philosophy phone carriers use in subsidizing devices to make you use their network. Google has the inherent advantage to allow customization, so every device maker can have their own skin.
At the end, Google wants to control the key parts that make you use their services. So no hard drive (everything is in their cloud), Small, efficient screen (long battery time), reliable connection. I am sure it won't care what chip you use, because, from their perspective, that is totally irrelevant.
Download Ubuntu 9.10
This is the latest version, released in October of 2009 and maintained until 2011
Download Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
Released in April 2008 and maintained until April 2011 - ideal for large deployments"
LTS: long term support. It means you get support for longer, not that it gets a better support than in regular version of Ubuntu. So in terms of understanding the benefits for you, end user, and how much more stable a LTS system is, the description is useless.
No. LTS releases are supported for longer, that's all. 9.10 is production ready even if it's not LTS. It's not a beta or a pre-release. In fact there is no sign of saying: "Use with caution because it may bork your system". It's prominently featured in the front page as the best of the latest stable. And even LTS have their issues too. The current "stable" version of LTS (8.04) had a great deal of beta software when it came out (including Firefox).
So my point still stands, as proven by many other comments below. I understand it's nice and all to bash Microsoft when it's delivering sub-par uncooked software (Vista anyone?). But this doesn't mean that Linux should be not judged by the same standards.
Disclaimer: I am an Ubuntu user since 5.10. Currently running 9.04 in my laptops and 8.04 in my netbook.
I was looking to replace the default 8.04 in my dell mini 9 with the 9.10 netbook remix. I found out that the desktop-switcher is not included in the distro. So I need to stick with the default single windows window manager, instead of the full GNOME. Why you may ask? Well, the desktop-switcher application was too buggy on release time, and they decided to remove it from the distro instead of fixing it. So nobody can complain and more important, there is nothing to be fixed if it's not there in first place. I'll stick to the old but reliable 8.04, for the time being.
It seems canonical is more interested to show they can deliver something on time, rather than delivering something good when it's ready or delaying the release until proper QA is done.
Obviously the protocol will remain closed source. However everything else, apparently will be open. Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications. For example Empathy will have built in support for skype, or even GoogleTalk!
Now this is less than ideal. But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate (PulseAudio support, mainly), and the painfully slow development cycle, this can only be good news.
Keep in mind this is a simulation paper (i.e. pretty much a proof of concept). There isn't any device made yet, only in a oversimplified model within a simulation.
As I said before on similar occasions, those are only calculations on the feasibility of making the atomic motor. As much as these calculations can be difficult, the actual experimental realization is even more complicated. Think for example in the challenges in making the ring shaped optical lattice with atomic precision, while maintaining the atoms cold enough (usually with laser pumps).
Only at that point I will be really impressed, and actually start thinking on how to integrate it with more complex molecular machines.
You are completely right. For a major step forward a new type of computation technology (either with molecular electronics, spintronics, quantum electronics) is needed. But that is not anywhere near in sight. So companies, although they keep an eye and actually pursue basic research on alternatives (IBM in particular), want to develop an intermediate platform post silicon. By intermediate I mean, using conventional nanofab tools, on new materials. Hence, my suggestion of graphene.
Carbon has a van der Waals radius of 170pm, and covalent radii of around 70pm, compared to Silicon's 210 and 111pm. So it's smaller, but not orders of magnitude so. Seems to me they're still going to hit a brick wall sooner or later if they try to keep shrinking feature size. And I doubt they're going to figure out how to use Hydrogen as a substrate.
Graphene, cut in nanoribbons of less than 10 nm have been used to make prototype transistors. Carbon (mostly in its graphitic form) is much more stable, and it can be scaled down to only few atoms. No need to use hydrogen, which, BTW, doesn't really exist as a solid, at reasonable temperatures.
No, I am not assuming they will use silicon. I was just commenting on what pretty much everybody else in this forum wrongly referred to (the Si radius). So the possibility for them to use anything else is more than real, in fact it's a requirement. Si, even in the stable form you mention, may just never get there, since it still is based on its cubic phase. Obviously, one has to be able to make (for real, not just in a computer simulation) such novel phase.
(BTW, a possible choice is graphene. Intel won a major grant from DARPA in development of graphene based electronics for high frequency applications).
The atomic radius is not the proper distance to consider. If you do so, you assume that atoms can touch each other, which is very far from the truth. The closest distance "allowed" is the first nearest-neighbor (NN), which is related to the crystal lattice constant (for Si: 0.543 nm), and the crystal structure (Si has a diamond structure). For Si that NN distance is 0.235 nm.
This is all very much academic tough. Even if you could make a circuit that small, you would then have to wonder, left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc.
Before I can get excited, I need to know when this is proven experimentally. The FTA refers to a calculation. There are lots of possible things that are achieved with a calculation, but translating it in practice is a totally different matter. BTW, I am an experimentalist nanoscientist (working on graphene, actually), part of my daily job is to prove that computational results can be achieved in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming this "Internet driver license" is a good idea, I wonder who should do the preparation, who should do the testing, and what type of office should hand out the certification. Should we have MS itself handling the preparation? Or Google? Or the government? Regardless of your thoughts on who should control, Internet is just a medium, like TV. Teaching how to use automatically put limits on the ability to experiment, to discover and to adjust to a new medium. Afterall, nobody thought us how to use a TV, or a phone. If you are rude or misbehave, then you will pay for it sooner of later, not in money, but in social skills.
So count me off. I rather give someone a PC with a browser and a few directions on how to start. The rest should remain totally in the end of the user.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. DARPA does (and did) many things besides working on missile defense and laser tech. You might remember Internet to be one of it. More modestly I actually work on a DARPA project for next generation electronics. Hardly something confined in missiles.
More about the difference here: http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html
You are confusing Chrome with Chromium. While the latter is open source and released with the BSD license you correctly reported, Chrome has proprietary parts in it that are not covered by BSD and thus as reported in the TFA, not freely redistributable.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. http://www.darpa.mil/
Educating in what? Your view or mine? Your worldview or my worldview?
Math and Science, or vocational training (nursing, machining, etc). Those are not confined to the Western world.
Science is not the solution to all problems in the world. What if Muslims didn't hate people for having a faith other than their own? What if they were not daily deciding that the only way they could get their view across was to blow people up? I don't see this in any other religion in the world, and I don't see science or educations changing their fundamental views. If you build schools for them, they will indoctrinate their youth even more!
Wrong. Your statement is a very common misconception, and it is not based on actual facts. People become fundamentalists (Talibans are one example) because there is no alternative. If there is an alternative (provided by better education), it is solidly proven that a more moderate approach is followed. Don't believe it? Read "Three cups of tea"...
Building schools and educating people in developing countries (that vocally demand education) is a proven much more effective way to fight against fundamentalisms of all types.
Books instead of bombs.
https://www.ikat.org/
Greg Mortenson really deserves it.
http://www.gregmortenson.com/
It might sound trivial (which it is) but there is way and way to propose and adopt open source. Check this out: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10398202-16.html
The reason Android is picking up so well within cellphone manufacturers is that it allows for customization without the burden of maintaining a full OS. Google plan is to have another platform designed around their very profitable services. There is no need for Google to get money from device makers, the use of services would amply justify the profits. In a way, it's the same philosophy phone carriers use in subsidizing devices to make you use their network. Google has the inherent advantage to allow customization, so every device maker can have their own skin. At the end, Google wants to control the key parts that make you use their services. So no hard drive (everything is in their cloud), Small, efficient screen (long battery time), reliable connection. I am sure it won't care what chip you use, because, from their perspective, that is totally irrelevant.
From the download page:
"Choose a version
Download Ubuntu 9.10
This is the latest version, released in October of 2009 and maintained until 2011
Download Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
Released in April 2008 and maintained until April 2011 - ideal for large deployments"
LTS: long term support. It means you get support for longer, not that it gets a better support than in regular version of Ubuntu. So in terms of understanding the benefits for you, end user, and how much more stable a LTS system is, the description is useless.
No. LTS releases are supported for longer, that's all. 9.10 is production ready even if it's not LTS. It's not a beta or a pre-release. In fact there is no sign of saying: "Use with caution because it may bork your system". It's prominently featured in the front page as the best of the latest stable. And even LTS have their issues too. The current "stable" version of LTS (8.04) had a great deal of beta software when it came out (including Firefox).
So my point still stands, as proven by many other comments below. I understand it's nice and all to bash Microsoft when it's delivering sub-par uncooked software (Vista anyone?). But this doesn't mean that Linux should be not judged by the same standards.
Disclaimer: I am an Ubuntu user since 5.10. Currently running 9.04 in my laptops and 8.04 in my netbook.
I was looking to replace the default 8.04 in my dell mini 9 with the 9.10 netbook remix. I found out that the desktop-switcher is not included in the distro. So I need to stick with the default single windows window manager, instead of the full GNOME. Why you may ask? Well, the desktop-switcher application was too buggy on release time, and they decided to remove it from the distro instead of fixing it. So nobody can complain and more important, there is nothing to be fixed if it's not there in first place. I'll stick to the old but reliable 8.04, for the time being.
It seems canonical is more interested to show they can deliver something on time, rather than delivering something good when it's ready or delaying the release until proper QA is done.
No, no! My wrong wording. I mean to say that Google talk will be able to support Skype. Apologizes...
Obviously the protocol will remain closed source. However everything else, apparently will be open. Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications. For example Empathy will have built in support for skype, or even GoogleTalk! Now this is less than ideal. But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate (PulseAudio support, mainly), and the painfully slow development cycle, this can only be good news.
In fact I am not anywhere near a computer. I am doing everything remotely: sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Keep in mind this is a simulation paper (i.e. pretty much a proof of concept). There isn't any device made yet, only in a oversimplified model within a simulation.
As I said before on similar occasions, those are only calculations on the feasibility of making the atomic motor. As much as these calculations can be difficult, the actual experimental realization is even more complicated. Think for example in the challenges in making the ring shaped optical lattice with atomic precision, while maintaining the atoms cold enough (usually with laser pumps). Only at that point I will be really impressed, and actually start thinking on how to integrate it with more complex molecular machines.
Water: lethal if inhaled...
You are completely right. For a major step forward a new type of computation technology (either with molecular electronics, spintronics, quantum electronics) is needed. But that is not anywhere near in sight. So companies, although they keep an eye and actually pursue basic research on alternatives (IBM in particular), want to develop an intermediate platform post silicon. By intermediate I mean, using conventional nanofab tools, on new materials. Hence, my suggestion of graphene.
Carbon has a van der Waals radius of 170pm, and covalent radii of around 70pm, compared to Silicon's 210 and 111pm. So it's smaller, but not orders of magnitude so. Seems to me they're still going to hit a brick wall sooner or later if they try to keep shrinking feature size. And I doubt they're going to figure out how to use Hydrogen as a substrate.
Graphene, cut in nanoribbons of less than 10 nm have been used to make prototype transistors. Carbon (mostly in its graphitic form) is much more stable, and it can be scaled down to only few atoms. No need to use hydrogen, which, BTW, doesn't really exist as a solid, at reasonable temperatures.
No, I am not assuming they will use silicon. I was just commenting on what pretty much everybody else in this forum wrongly referred to (the Si radius). So the possibility for them to use anything else is more than real, in fact it's a requirement. Si, even in the stable form you mention, may just never get there, since it still is based on its cubic phase. Obviously, one has to be able to make (for real, not just in a computer simulation) such novel phase. (BTW, a possible choice is graphene. Intel won a major grant from DARPA in development of graphene based electronics for high frequency applications).
The atomic radius is not the proper distance to consider. If you do so, you assume that atoms can touch each other, which is very far from the truth. The closest distance "allowed" is the first nearest-neighbor (NN), which is related to the crystal lattice constant (for Si: 0.543 nm), and the crystal structure (Si has a diamond structure). For Si that NN distance is 0.235 nm. This is all very much academic tough. Even if you could make a circuit that small, you would then have to wonder, left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc.
Before I can get excited, I need to know when this is proven experimentally. The FTA refers to a calculation. There are lots of possible things that are achieved with a calculation, but translating it in practice is a totally different matter. BTW, I am an experimentalist nanoscientist (working on graphene, actually), part of my daily job is to prove that computational results can be achieved in reality.