"It's peculiar, added Mr. Sasseville, that the ISPs are fighting the order so fiercely since many of them own entertainment subsidiaries that produce TV and film content"
So let me get this right... It's "peculiar" for a monopoly to NOT abuse it's position? What kind of world are we living in? It's normal for a business to take advantage of its conflict-of-interest position... and it's "peculiar" for a company to actually resist the urge to violate customer rights in one subsidiary in order to benefit another subsidiary.
Frankly Quebecor Media Inc. should be sued for monopolistic practices, conflict-of-interest, abusing their power, and violating customer rights.
Is *finding* the bugs really the limiting factor? It seems like bug databases have lots of entries--the hard part is to (1) isolate what exactly is causing the bug (which requires reproducible testing) and (2) to code a fix.
The users, in the comfort of their own homes, already do a pretty good job of "trying to break the software" just by using it to get their work done!
Exactly. These are famous last words, but: "how hard can it be?"
You have the exact musical score, and that as a first-guess MIDI file should be pretty good (but will lack "feeling")... then you have an algorithm (genetic algorithm maybe?) that varies the exact timing and release of keys and stuff, until it best approximates the original recording. Since you're starting with the real musical score, getting the notes right shouldn't be the hard part... the rest of it should be the hard part.
In fact, you can always ask a music expert what notes are being played, and guide the algorithm appropriately. Any human composer can tell you what notes are supposed to be played... the hard part is specifying microsecond timing of how the keys/pedals are pressed and released.
Now, IANAM (musician), but I have programmed fitting routines many times... so what am I missing?
The problem is that the scheme you describe is fairly easy for big companies to implement, and impossible for small-time inventor/programmers to implement.
One of the main objections to the current patent system is that it has a large barrier to entry. This makes it difficult for the "small guy" (which includes most F/OSS projects) to play with the big-boys. The small guy has to pay all kinds of court fees, do extensive patent searches, and jump through all sorts of hoops, even if he ultimately wants to give *away his software and source code for free*!! To say nothing about small companies or individuals that want to take out a valid patent.
Big companies won't mind writing up tons of documentation. Every single one of their products will simply mention *every* patent # their own, just to be sure no one can claim they were not warned. The little guy still has the impossible task of navigating this complex system.
Most online newspapers, I think, will not close off their content... it would kill their business. Sure, some of them already charge for access (WSJ, NYT, etc.) but most of them make money by posting news stories for free, and having people see the ads on the side of the page. These sites will be willing to pay a little premium to get access to news articles, since they more than recover these costs via ads.
With things like Google News out there, the consumer will tend to read the online news sources that are most accessible (i.e.: free)... the sources that are not accessible won't make add money and will have a hard time pulling in subscribers. It is really a minority of newspapers that have enough of "a name" to charge for access.
Google News is good for business for most online news places. The bandwidth cost is a small price to pay for *driving eager eyeballs* to your site!
Users will have a perspective on products that the programmer never will--namely the perspective of someone who *doesn't understand* how the application works! After designing and/or programming a piece of software for a long time, you can get to know it so well that every aspect of it seems obvious. Yet to a fresh user, who has no clue what is going on behind the scenes, your choice of layout may seem confusing. It has been said (many times) before, but programmers/designers need to *listen* to what users are saying. If something is hard to use, then it should be fixed! And yes, the users of a product will have tons of useful ideas for how to make a product better.
Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system... and thus they will immediately think of all the reasons why an innovative idea (interface element or feature) won't work. But the naive user, not encumbered by such restrictive thinking, may propose powerful features and novel interaction schemes. Some of these won't work, and some really are too hard to code, but there are many gems.
Vonage has had 911 calling in most of the states for awhile, and has phased-in 911 calling in Canada recently. I don't know about other VoIP providers, but it appears that this situation is being dealt with.
When you sign up with Vonage, they are exceedingly clear about the limitations of 911 dialing (and the fact that you have to explicitly sign up for it). This is certainly in response to criticisms (and lawsuits). I know that in Canada the CRTC was strongly urging VoIP providers to supply this functionality (and it may become law soon enough).
The net effect: if a consumer does his homework a little bit, he'll have 911 calling on his VoIP line.
Good point!
On the other hand, cell phone roaming and out-of-zone charges can be quite high. Using a cell phone in another country may be impossible (or very expensive). Using a VoIP box in another country is easy (as long as there is a high-speed net connection, of course!). So for some people, a VoIP box may be cheaper for making calls when on the road.
However, each person is different and should look into their spending habits. If you already have high-speed internet, VoIP is a cheap replacement for a landline. However, a cellphone is obviously much more portable and has other uses, so yes that's probably better for folks who travel alot.
Cellphone: 40-60$/month (which includes voicemail and some long-distance)
VoIP: 23$/month (which includes voicemail and unlimited long-distance)
For some people, long-distance doesn't matter, and for some people, spending 20$/month extra for the phone to be truly portable is worth it. To each his own!
Basically each phone will "use up" one REN to make it ring. Newer phones actually only use 0.5 REN or something like that. A typical hardware box can supply REN of 4 or 5 or something (for example this
Linksys box has REN 5). This is more than enough to run most modest domestic setups. If you load the box too much, none of the phones will ring. Then you just turn the ringer off one phone at a time, until the system is able to ring. You can have lots of phones, but only so many will ring when a call comes (the box can only supply so much power). In most homes, this is fine... you can still hear the phone ring if only 4 of the 8 phones are ringing.
The short answer: a decent box should work for a normal home setup (with 4-6 phones). If in doubt, check what the REN number is.
You can build your own VoIP system, and you won't have to pay anyone or be regulated. You don't have to use headphones and a mic: you can get the hardware so that you can use a normal telephone, and call other users of the software anywhere in the world. No cost (other than you buying the hardware and paying for broadband). These issues have all been dealt with. The software is available.
The difference is that a VoIP provider needs money because they are routing your call down that "last mile" of conventional telephony... this means that you can make phone calls to people that have normal telephones. Without having a provider do this, you can only call other people that also are doing VoIP. That's where most of the cost and regulation comes from.
The day may come where everyone has VoIP and conventional phone systems will die. In such a case, the end consumer can run his all his phone systems on a server he put together himself. Until then, VoIP providers are great. Also many users don't want the hassle and responsibility of managing their own phone server (or even software/hardware), so VoIP providers offer a low-cost "package deal" that takes care of everything.
Yes, changing phone numbers really sucks... but consider the flip-side: the fact that you can keep your number with VoIP, even if you move across the country!
Seriously, I can take my VoIP box on trips and still receive my local calls anywhere... if I move somewhere new in town, my number doesn't change, and I don't have to pay new installation or connection fees... as far as VoIP is concerned nothing has changed. And even if I moved far away, I could keep my local number (and get a new number in the new city), so all my friends and family can still call me (and it's only a local call for them).
In a sense, VoIP is the ultimate in *keeping* your phone number. I'm glad I made the switch.
I recently switched to Vonage from a standard phone, and I'm very happy. With regard to hardware, they ship you a Linksys router that is pre-configured with your details, so all you have to do is plug it in and it works. The router replaced my previous router for my home network, and seems to work great. The hardware hasn't caused me any problems.
The harder part was re-wiring my house so that all the phones would work using voip (instead of just having one phone plugged into the Linksys router). Even this is not too bad: just disconnect your internal wiring from the Telco, and then plug the voip router into a wall-jack, so that all wall-jacks are now connected to it. (Be sure to disconnect from Telco wiring properly, or you'll fry your voip hardware!!) Even getting my alarm system to work with voip was pretty easy (just had to invert its wiring...).
Serious geeks may want to shop around for the coolest hardware, but honestly the box that Vonage ships is good enough for most people. I think voip is fast becoming accessible to the "average consumer" and I'm now recommending it to everyone I know. For a low price you get every telephone service imaginable, free long-distance calling... The Vonage ads (phone bill going from 60$ to 20$) are not exagerations. So my hardware review is: you can use whatever the voip provider ships and you won't have any hassles!
The inclusion of more relevant graphics on slashdot may be to discourage readers from blocking all images on slashdot pages (which would block some advertisements...)... in addition to graphics sometimes being very useful of course.
Exactly. The fact of the matter is that end-users (and managers that are in charge of buying lots of machines) have just a bit of knowledge, so marketing has a huge effect. The words "Intel" and "Pentium" are deeply ingrained in the minds of most people, whereas "AMD" is really only known to geeks. Honestly, I know tons of really smart people who don't know much too about computers... if they had to pick a "fast machine" off a list, they would gravitate towards the specs that included the word "Pentium 4." Maybe it's sad, but Intel's marketing is way better, and this means they get lots of sales based solely on name. Dell knows this and isn't going to stop putting the "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers anytime soon.
Remember, Dell's main market is not geeks (who will build their computer from scratch anyway), it is the mass market.
yeah, but it it's over a few nanometers it's pretty big. If we built a generator on that scale it might be worthwhile...
The gradient isn't over a few nanometers. The chip has nano-sized components, but overall it is basically a 10mm X 10mm slice of metal that is getting hot. It will try to equilibrate with its surroundings, and the gradient in temperature near it is really not that substantial.
"Another fun-fact is that it takes about ~7 years of using a solar-panel before the energy savings offset the production cost."
Where do you get this from? I keep seeing that argument over and over again, but I can't seem to find any data to back it up.
Sorry, the ~7 years figure is out of date. Modern panels will achieve payback in 3 or 4 years. I'm certainly not arguing that it's not worth using solar panels, merely pointing out that you always have to consider the production cost when considering energy savings and/or pollution mitigation.
For references on this subject, I'll quote two reviews of the state-of-the-art in Science magazine. Unfortunately (an expensive) subscription is required for full access, but I'll reproduce some pertinent details here (the two links below will only work if you have a subscription to Science)(btw, PV = Photo-Voltaic):
The present cost of electricity from PV installations
is generally (except in remote areas)
about an order of magnitude higher than the
current commercial prices of electricity generated
by hydraulic power and nuclear and fossil
fuels. Because of physical reasons, it appears at
present to be very difficult to substantially increase
the energy conversion efficiency of lowcost
PV modules over 15%....
Although solar cells and PV installations
do not generate any CO2 during their operation,
they do, however, consume considerable
amounts of energy and cause the generation
of CO2 and certain pollutants during their
manufacture. The energy payback time and
the ecological balance sheet of solar modules
and PV installations are, therefore, important
issues to be considered when choosing a future
technology.
require more energy in their manufacture than
they produce in their lifetime; however, actual
calculations show a very rapid payback. For
example, the energy payback for current PV
systems has been calculated to range from 3 to
4 years, depending on the type of PV panel
(thin-film technology or multicrystalline silicon,
respectively). This energy payback time
includes the energy costs for processing the
semiconductor and assembling a module,
frame, and support structure (5-8) and is expected
to be reduced to 1 to 2 years as manufacturing
techniques improve. Wind energy
has an even faster payback of 3 to 4 months
(9). During their lifetime (30 years for PV
and 20 years for wind), these technologies
not only pay back the original energy investment,
but also the emissions produced
from their own manufacture.
For those interested, the quoted references are:
5. E. Alsema, Report BNL-52557 (Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1998).
6. K. Kato, A. Murata, K. Sakuta, Report No. 97072
(Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1977), appendix
B-8.
7. R. Dones and R. Frischknecht, ibid., appendix B-9.
8. W. Palz and H. Zibetta, Int. J. Sol. Energy 10, 211
(1991).
9. See P. Gipe, Wind Energy Wkly. No. 521
Well if you don't want to donate, that's your choice of course.
However, for all of us who dislike all that modern copyright and RIAA stuff, then we should seriously consider giving donations to musicians we like who distribute their work freely.
The best way to send a message to the industry, to society, and to musicians is with money. Actions speak louder than words, but money speaks louder still. If artists know that they can actually be compensated for distributing their music freely, then new business models have a chance to catch on, thrive, and maybe even become commonplace.
That's not to say that local public music programs don't also deserve support... but I think donating to things like creative commons music, open-source software, etc. is the easiest and best way to send a message (and maybe change the world too).
I see the same thing at the undergraduate level. Technology is obviously helpful: science students can't do their work without computers, word processors, spreadsheet programs, etc. And the internet is an amazing resource for getting extra information, watching lectures online, downloading class notes, etc.
However, alot of money/effort goes into "multimedia education" and this stuff is mostly useless in its current form, IMHO. There are all sorts of CDs that come with science textbooks, that have interactive demos that supposedly help understanding. However, these demos are "all flash and no bang" as you say. They are not really interactive anyway (the number of options available to the user is very very limited), and the information content is nil compared to a traditional textbook. The impact they have on student understanding is basically zero.
Technology can help when added to conventional education (showing computer simulations of a concept can help alot!)... however, the vast majority of technology-inspired education-revolutions I've seen implemented at the undergrad level have been pointless.
You're right, diamond is more expensive. But let me add:
Most real proposals for using diamond in microprocessors suggest using synthetic diamond, not natural diamond. You can use CVD (chemical vapor deposition) to make good quality artificial diamonds. Currently, growing CVD-diamond is expensive, but then again, taking sand and purifying it into a huge cylinder of single-crystal silicon is also not cheap. If synthetic diamond research continues, it could prove to be competitive with Si.
The cost of DeBeers natural diamonds is inflated based on the rarity of natural diamonds (and successful marketing), not based on superior performance. Synthetic diamonds are in fact much better for industrial uses (like bits for high-performance oil drills) because they are cheaper and you can tune the manufacturing to optimize for the important figures-of-merit.
Re:Why is heat reclamation not worth it?
on
The Not-So-Cool Future
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In principle, yes, any temperature gradient can be harnessed to do some amount of useful work. Thermodynamics certainly allows this (without perfect 100% conversion, obviously).
AFAIK, it really is an engineering issue. Converting a temperature gradient to electricity works great when you have huge temperature gradients (like in nuclear reactors, coal plants, steam engine, etc.), but is not so useful in a computer tower. Firstly, the whole point of putting fins on a chip is to spread the heat out quickly, so that it doesn't build up and make the chip too hot (i.e. melt it and stuff). So for our chips to work, we can't run them any hotter than 60C (or maybe 100C or whatever). The gradient between 60C and room temperature, over a few centimeters, is not that great (imagine putting a paddle wheel above your CPU, and letting the current of up-flowing air turn it... now imagine how much useful work that puny paddle wheel is really going to do). If you actually built a device to extract that energy, it wouldn't be worth it. It would take a 1000 years (or whatever) of running it before the electricity savings would offset the cost of having built that little device.
So even though in principle you're right, in practice (from an engineering perspective) there's no economic advantage to doing this.
Another fun-fact is that it takes about ~7 years of using a solar-panel before the energy savings offset the production cost. So solar panels that burn out before this mark are actually *worse* for the environment that getting electricity from coal (or wherever)... (because producing a solar panel also pollutes the environment) Solar power is only going to be viable if they are either 1. cheaper or 2. longer-lasting or 3. more efficient than they are now (all of the above would be great).
Lastly, thermodynamics guarantees that in the winter, in a cold place, it's impossible to waste electricity (if you have a thermostated heating system). Basically any inefficiency in your home (be it from your vacuum cleaner or computer) ends up as heat, which makes the house warmer, and makes the thermostat's job a little easier. In the summer, however, it really is wasted energy.
FTA: Current chips generate about 50-100 watts of heat per square centimeter.
"But in the future, say 15 to 20 years from now, the heat generation will likely be much more than that, especially in so-called hot spots, where several kilowatts of heat per square centimeter may be generated over very small regions of the chip..."
Let's not confuse power with power density. When the article says "10 times the heat" they mean kW/cm^2, not kW. Chips of the future will generate a few kW/cm^2 of heat in their hottest spots, but they will still be supplied from conventional 200W power supplies that run off of normal 120V power lines. It's the dissipation of so much heat in such a small area that is the issue, not the raw amount of energy being consumed.
So, again, it's not the the processor will draw 1 kW of power (it may draw considerably less), but rather that it's hottest spots will need to dissipate ~1 kW/cm^2 (i.e.: 1000 joules of heat per second per square centimeter).
Actually many researchers are in fact seriously pursuing using diamond as a future replacement for silicon. Both diamond and silicon are *very bad* conductors in their pure state. Both have to be doped (with phosphorous, boron, etc.) to become p-type or n-type semiconductors, which makes them useful as a substrate for microprocessors (note that when doped they are semiconductors, not conductors... your microchip would just short-out if the entire wafer was made of a metal/conductor).
Diamond's superior thermal, optical, and chemical-resistance properties make it attractive for future microprocessors... but unfortunately it is more difficult to make it work as a semiconductor, which is why silicon has always been the substrate of choice.
Consider this: the webpage (with ads) is purposefully placing itself in the public's view. This is done with the hope that people will go to the page and incidentally see ads. This is their business model. They have chosen to expose the content. We, the viewer, can do whatever we want with the information streaming towards us. We can look at it, we can ignore it, or we can selectively look at some parts and ignore (or even block) other parts.
As I walk down the street, I can look at billboards or I can purposefully ignore them. That is my right. The ad company decided to put the billboard there in the hopes that they would make money... but they put the billboard in a public location.
In the event that the companies in question decide that they are not making enough money off the ads (that people are not looking at the ads), they are free to change their business model, take the webpage off the net, start charging for access, or whatever they want.
If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content.
I disagree. Again, the webpage is purposefully made easy-access to encourage people to access it... but there is no guarantee that people will look at the ads. If the company doesn't like it, then they can tune their advertising methods (or business model in general) until a useful compromise is reached. The onus lies with the company to come up with a viable business model, not with the consumers to play by the implicit rules of a particular advertising scheme.
IANAL, and I guess I really don't understand the law. I understand that new laws are required sometimes, especially when something in society/technology changes. However, why is a new law (such as preventing communities from funding local internet iniatives) required in this case? Are there not already laws on the books that describe exactly what a local government can spend money on? Are there not already laws that indicate proper procedure (like, if X% of the population is in favor of funding a community project, like garbage collection or power company, then it can be allowed)...
Why can't conventional laws simply be applied in this case? Some communities have decided to fund their infrastructure, others don't. This has been going on for a long time and I don't see the need to re-open the debate. Simply let the current laws do their job.
Or is there something about the current laws that I just don't get? (bear in mind that I'm not an American...)
I just tried it. The trick works, but the example link is deprecated and no longer points to anything valid. Find a link to a story you want, copy the link address, and modify it using the recipe provided, and you will indeed be brought to the article without having to log in.
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
Some people support copyright because they think that artists deserve to control their creations however they want. It would be hypocritical for *those people* to favor one copyright license over another.
Some other people support GPL because they think that information should be free, and that costless, effortless reproduction should not be illegal. These people thus support laws that encourage these freedoms (such as GPL copyright) but do not support laws that restrict these freedoms (such as conventional copyright, DMCA, etc.). For *these people* it is not hypocritical to be in favor of some copyrights but not others. These people have decided that the "information should be free" moral principle is more important than the "author should control work" principle. That's a moral choice, and is not self-contradictory. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it hypocritical or inconsistent.
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
For the record, you are assigning a binary state, but in the real-world, ethics are more complicated. A person can decide that "a creator has right to control their creation... as long as it doesn't involve hurting anyone else." In ethics, we can place as many qualifiers and caveats as we want. This is not hypocritical, it is how ethics work in the real-world. Similarly, someone can believe that "a creator has the right to control their creation... as long as no one gets hurt, and as long as no one is prevented from creating non-commercial copies for themselves and friends." This is their world-view, and is not inconsistent. You may not agree with it (that's your choice), but it isn't hypocritical.
Oh, and if you think "information would be free" in your ideal world... then you *don't* support the right of the author/artist to control his creation. And therefore you lost any moral high ground.
As I insinuated before, ethics involve establishing a hierarchy of principles. Some trump others. "Artists have the right to be compensated for their work" is trumped by "Killing is bad." The argument in copyright, in a certain sense, is between the people who feel "artists should have control of distribution of their work" trumps "information should be free"... and the people who place these two principles in the other order. It's not immediately obvious which one is more important, and that's why the debate exists. There is no moral high ground. Just opinions.
And you seem to be arguing for force. That's a dangerous road.
Democratic laws are, by definition, an agreement by the people to have the government use force to ensure a certain rule is followed (the rule may be pragmatic and/or ethical). So the question is merely what rules are sufficiently important that we should mandate the government to enforce. There is a strong case that can be made for copyright being put back into it's pre-18th century status: every man for himself. We can have moral opinions on whether copyright is good or bad, but should we really be asking the government to punish people that don't comply with this moral principle? People can cheat on their spouses, and it is immoral, but not punished criminally (at least where I live).
You either force people to your worldview, or you give them a choice.
No, we (as a society) get to choose which ethical opinions should be enforced, and which should merely be suggestions. We enforce the "do not kill" thing, but merely suggest the "do not cheat on spouse" thing. It's okay for a society to force people on some issues but not others. If you force everything, it becomes totallitarian... if you force nothing, it becomes anarchy. Neither is desirable.
In any case, the point of my post was to address the oft-spouted criticism that the GPL is hypocritical (not to defend the GPL per se). I support the GPL for a variety of reasons (some ethical, some pragmatic), but that is another debate entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's peculiar, added Mr. Sasseville, that the ISPs are fighting the order so fiercely since many of them own entertainment subsidiaries that produce TV and film content"
So let me get this right... It's "peculiar" for a monopoly to NOT abuse it's position? What kind of world are we living in? It's normal for a business to take advantage of its conflict-of-interest position... and it's "peculiar" for a company to actually resist the urge to violate customer rights in one subsidiary in order to benefit another subsidiary.
Frankly Quebecor Media Inc. should be sued for monopolistic practices, conflict-of-interest, abusing their power, and violating customer rights.
Is *finding* the bugs really the limiting factor? It seems like bug databases have lots of entries--the hard part is to (1) isolate what exactly is causing the bug (which requires reproducible testing) and (2) to code a fix.
The users, in the comfort of their own homes, already do a pretty good job of "trying to break the software" just by using it to get their work done!
Exactly. These are famous last words, but: "how hard can it be?"
You have the exact musical score, and that as a first-guess MIDI file should be pretty good (but will lack "feeling")... then you have an algorithm (genetic algorithm maybe?) that varies the exact timing and release of keys and stuff, until it best approximates the original recording. Since you're starting with the real musical score, getting the notes right shouldn't be the hard part... the rest of it should be the hard part.
In fact, you can always ask a music expert what notes are being played, and guide the algorithm appropriately. Any human composer can tell you what notes are supposed to be played... the hard part is specifying microsecond timing of how the keys/pedals are pressed and released.
Now, IANAM (musician), but I have programmed fitting routines many times... so what am I missing?
The problem is that the scheme you describe is fairly easy for big companies to implement, and impossible for small-time inventor/programmers to implement.
One of the main objections to the current patent system is that it has a large barrier to entry. This makes it difficult for the "small guy" (which includes most F/OSS projects) to play with the big-boys. The small guy has to pay all kinds of court fees, do extensive patent searches, and jump through all sorts of hoops, even if he ultimately wants to give *away his software and source code for free*!! To say nothing about small companies or individuals that want to take out a valid patent.
Big companies won't mind writing up tons of documentation. Every single one of their products will simply mention *every* patent # their own, just to be sure no one can claim they were not warned. The little guy still has the impossible task of navigating this complex system.
Most online newspapers, I think, will not close off their content... it would kill their business. Sure, some of them already charge for access (WSJ, NYT, etc.) but most of them make money by posting news stories for free, and having people see the ads on the side of the page. These sites will be willing to pay a little premium to get access to news articles, since they more than recover these costs via ads.
With things like Google News out there, the consumer will tend to read the online news sources that are most accessible (i.e.: free)... the sources that are not accessible won't make add money and will have a hard time pulling in subscribers. It is really a minority of newspapers that have enough of "a name" to charge for access.
Google News is good for business for most online news places. The bandwidth cost is a small price to pay for *driving eager eyeballs* to your site!
Users will have a perspective on products that the programmer never will--namely the perspective of someone who *doesn't understand* how the application works! After designing and/or programming a piece of software for a long time, you can get to know it so well that every aspect of it seems obvious. Yet to a fresh user, who has no clue what is going on behind the scenes, your choice of layout may seem confusing. It has been said (many times) before, but programmers/designers need to *listen* to what users are saying. If something is hard to use, then it should be fixed! And yes, the users of a product will have tons of useful ideas for how to make a product better.
Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system... and thus they will immediately think of all the reasons why an innovative idea (interface element or feature) won't work. But the naive user, not encumbered by such restrictive thinking, may propose powerful features and novel interaction schemes. Some of these won't work, and some really are too hard to code, but there are many gems.
Vonage has had 911 calling in most of the states for awhile, and has phased-in 911 calling in Canada recently. I don't know about other VoIP providers, but it appears that this situation is being dealt with.
When you sign up with Vonage, they are exceedingly clear about the limitations of 911 dialing (and the fact that you have to explicitly sign up for it). This is certainly in response to criticisms (and lawsuits). I know that in Canada the CRTC was strongly urging VoIP providers to supply this functionality (and it may become law soon enough).
The net effect: if a consumer does his homework a little bit, he'll have 911 calling on his VoIP line.
Good point! On the other hand, cell phone roaming and out-of-zone charges can be quite high. Using a cell phone in another country may be impossible (or very expensive). Using a VoIP box in another country is easy (as long as there is a high-speed net connection, of course!). So for some people, a VoIP box may be cheaper for making calls when on the road. However, each person is different and should look into their spending habits. If you already have high-speed internet, VoIP is a cheap replacement for a landline. However, a cellphone is obviously much more portable and has other uses, so yes that's probably better for folks who travel alot. Cellphone: 40-60$/month (which includes voicemail and some long-distance) VoIP: 23$/month (which includes voicemail and unlimited long-distance) For some people, long-distance doesn't matter, and for some people, spending 20$/month extra for the phone to be truly portable is worth it. To each his own!
The number of phones depends on a number called the Ringer Equivalency Number. (see also here for a quick definition.)
Basically each phone will "use up" one REN to make it ring. Newer phones actually only use 0.5 REN or something like that. A typical hardware box can supply REN of 4 or 5 or something (for example this Linksys box has REN 5). This is more than enough to run most modest domestic setups. If you load the box too much, none of the phones will ring. Then you just turn the ringer off one phone at a time, until the system is able to ring. You can have lots of phones, but only so many will ring when a call comes (the box can only supply so much power). In most homes, this is fine... you can still hear the phone ring if only 4 of the 8 phones are ringing.
The short answer: a decent box should work for a normal home setup (with 4-6 phones). If in doubt, check what the REN number is.
You can build your own VoIP system, and you won't have to pay anyone or be regulated. You don't have to use headphones and a mic: you can get the hardware so that you can use a normal telephone, and call other users of the software anywhere in the world. No cost (other than you buying the hardware and paying for broadband). These issues have all been dealt with. The software is available.
The difference is that a VoIP provider needs money because they are routing your call down that "last mile" of conventional telephony... this means that you can make phone calls to people that have normal telephones. Without having a provider do this, you can only call other people that also are doing VoIP. That's where most of the cost and regulation comes from.
The day may come where everyone has VoIP and conventional phone systems will die. In such a case, the end consumer can run his all his phone systems on a server he put together himself. Until then, VoIP providers are great. Also many users don't want the hassle and responsibility of managing their own phone server (or even software/hardware), so VoIP providers offer a low-cost "package deal" that takes care of everything.
Yes, changing phone numbers really sucks... but consider the flip-side: the fact that you can keep your number with VoIP, even if you move across the country!
Seriously, I can take my VoIP box on trips and still receive my local calls anywhere... if I move somewhere new in town, my number doesn't change, and I don't have to pay new installation or connection fees... as far as VoIP is concerned nothing has changed. And even if I moved far away, I could keep my local number (and get a new number in the new city), so all my friends and family can still call me (and it's only a local call for them).
In a sense, VoIP is the ultimate in *keeping* your phone number. I'm glad I made the switch.
I recently switched to Vonage from a standard phone, and I'm very happy. With regard to hardware, they ship you a Linksys router that is pre-configured with your details, so all you have to do is plug it in and it works. The router replaced my previous router for my home network, and seems to work great. The hardware hasn't caused me any problems.
The harder part was re-wiring my house so that all the phones would work using voip (instead of just having one phone plugged into the Linksys router). Even this is not too bad: just disconnect your internal wiring from the Telco, and then plug the voip router into a wall-jack, so that all wall-jacks are now connected to it. (Be sure to disconnect from Telco wiring properly, or you'll fry your voip hardware!!) Even getting my alarm system to work with voip was pretty easy (just had to invert its wiring...).
Serious geeks may want to shop around for the coolest hardware, but honestly the box that Vonage ships is good enough for most people. I think voip is fast becoming accessible to the "average consumer" and I'm now recommending it to everyone I know. For a low price you get every telephone service imaginable, free long-distance calling... The Vonage ads (phone bill going from 60$ to 20$) are not exagerations. So my hardware review is: you can use whatever the voip provider ships and you won't have any hassles!
The inclusion of more relevant graphics on slashdot may be to discourage readers from blocking all images on slashdot pages (which would block some advertisements...)... in addition to graphics sometimes being very useful of course.
I'm basing this partially on this CmdrTaco comment. Am I reading it right?
Exactly. The fact of the matter is that end-users (and managers that are in charge of buying lots of machines) have just a bit of knowledge, so marketing has a huge effect. The words "Intel" and "Pentium" are deeply ingrained in the minds of most people, whereas "AMD" is really only known to geeks. Honestly, I know tons of really smart people who don't know much too about computers... if they had to pick a "fast machine" off a list, they would gravitate towards the specs that included the word "Pentium 4." Maybe it's sad, but Intel's marketing is way better, and this means they get lots of sales based solely on name. Dell knows this and isn't going to stop putting the "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers anytime soon.
Remember, Dell's main market is not geeks (who will build their computer from scratch anyway), it is the mass market.
The gradient isn't over a few nanometers. The chip has nano-sized components, but overall it is basically a 10mm X 10mm slice of metal that is getting hot. It will try to equilibrate with its surroundings, and the gradient in temperature near it is really not that substantial.
"Another fun-fact is that it takes about ~7 years of using a solar-panel before the energy savings offset the production cost."
Where do you get this from? I keep seeing that argument over and over again, but I can't seem to find any data to back it up.
Sorry, the ~7 years figure is out of date. Modern panels will achieve payback in 3 or 4 years. I'm certainly not arguing that it's not worth using solar panels, merely pointing out that you always have to consider the production cost when considering energy savings and/or pollution mitigation.
For references on this subject, I'll quote two reviews of the state-of-the-art in Science magazine. Unfortunately (an expensive) subscription is required for full access, but I'll reproduce some pertinent details here (the two links below will only work if you have a subscription to Science)(btw, PV = Photo-Voltaic):
From A. Shah et al. Science 30 July 1999; 285: 692-698 [DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5428.692]:
Which is all pretty obvious stuff. And quoting from John A. Turner, Science 30 July 1999; 285: 687-689 [DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5428.687]:
For those interested, the quoted references are:
Well if you don't want to donate, that's your choice of course.
However, for all of us who dislike all that modern copyright and RIAA stuff, then we should seriously consider giving donations to musicians we like who distribute their work freely.
The best way to send a message to the industry, to society, and to musicians is with money. Actions speak louder than words, but money speaks louder still. If artists know that they can actually be compensated for distributing their music freely, then new business models have a chance to catch on, thrive, and maybe even become commonplace.
That's not to say that local public music programs don't also deserve support... but I think donating to things like creative commons music, open-source software, etc. is the easiest and best way to send a message (and maybe change the world too).
I see the same thing at the undergraduate level. Technology is obviously helpful: science students can't do their work without computers, word processors, spreadsheet programs, etc. And the internet is an amazing resource for getting extra information, watching lectures online, downloading class notes, etc.
However, alot of money/effort goes into "multimedia education" and this stuff is mostly useless in its current form, IMHO. There are all sorts of CDs that come with science textbooks, that have interactive demos that supposedly help understanding. However, these demos are "all flash and no bang" as you say. They are not really interactive anyway (the number of options available to the user is very very limited), and the information content is nil compared to a traditional textbook. The impact they have on student understanding is basically zero.
Technology can help when added to conventional education (showing computer simulations of a concept can help alot!)... however, the vast majority of technology-inspired education-revolutions I've seen implemented at the undergrad level have been pointless.
You're right, diamond is more expensive. But let me add:
Most real proposals for using diamond in microprocessors suggest using synthetic diamond, not natural diamond. You can use CVD (chemical vapor deposition) to make good quality artificial diamonds. Currently, growing CVD-diamond is expensive, but then again, taking sand and purifying it into a huge cylinder of single-crystal silicon is also not cheap. If synthetic diamond research continues, it could prove to be competitive with Si.
The cost of DeBeers natural diamonds is inflated based on the rarity of natural diamonds (and successful marketing), not based on superior performance. Synthetic diamonds are in fact much better for industrial uses (like bits for high-performance oil drills) because they are cheaper and you can tune the manufacturing to optimize for the important figures-of-merit.
In principle, yes, any temperature gradient can be harnessed to do some amount of useful work. Thermodynamics certainly allows this (without perfect 100% conversion, obviously).
AFAIK, it really is an engineering issue. Converting a temperature gradient to electricity works great when you have huge temperature gradients (like in nuclear reactors, coal plants, steam engine, etc.), but is not so useful in a computer tower. Firstly, the whole point of putting fins on a chip is to spread the heat out quickly, so that it doesn't build up and make the chip too hot (i.e. melt it and stuff). So for our chips to work, we can't run them any hotter than 60C (or maybe 100C or whatever). The gradient between 60C and room temperature, over a few centimeters, is not that great (imagine putting a paddle wheel above your CPU, and letting the current of up-flowing air turn it... now imagine how much useful work that puny paddle wheel is really going to do). If you actually built a device to extract that energy, it wouldn't be worth it. It would take a 1000 years (or whatever) of running it before the electricity savings would offset the cost of having built that little device.
So even though in principle you're right, in practice (from an engineering perspective) there's no economic advantage to doing this.
Another fun-fact is that it takes about ~7 years of using a solar-panel before the energy savings offset the production cost. So solar panels that burn out before this mark are actually *worse* for the environment that getting electricity from coal (or wherever)... (because producing a solar panel also pollutes the environment) Solar power is only going to be viable if they are either 1. cheaper or 2. longer-lasting or 3. more efficient than they are now (all of the above would be great).
Lastly, thermodynamics guarantees that in the winter, in a cold place, it's impossible to waste electricity (if you have a thermostated heating system). Basically any inefficiency in your home (be it from your vacuum cleaner or computer) ends up as heat, which makes the house warmer, and makes the thermostat's job a little easier. In the summer, however, it really is wasted energy.
FTA:
Current chips generate about 50-100 watts of heat per square centimeter.
"But in the future, say 15 to 20 years from now, the heat generation will likely be much more than that, especially in so-called hot spots, where several kilowatts of heat per square centimeter may be generated over very small regions of the chip..."
Let's not confuse power with power density. When the article says "10 times the heat" they mean kW/cm^2, not kW. Chips of the future will generate a few kW/cm^2 of heat in their hottest spots, but they will still be supplied from conventional 200W power supplies that run off of normal 120V power lines. It's the dissipation of so much heat in such a small area that is the issue, not the raw amount of energy being consumed.
So, again, it's not the the processor will draw 1 kW of power (it may draw considerably less), but rather that it's hottest spots will need to dissipate ~1 kW/cm^2 (i.e.: 1000 joules of heat per second per square centimeter).
Actually many researchers are in fact seriously pursuing using diamond as a future replacement for silicon. Both diamond and silicon are *very bad* conductors in their pure state. Both have to be doped (with phosphorous, boron, etc.) to become p-type or n-type semiconductors, which makes them useful as a substrate for microprocessors (note that when doped they are semiconductors, not conductors... your microchip would just short-out if the entire wafer was made of a metal/conductor).
Diamond's superior thermal, optical, and chemical-resistance properties make it attractive for future microprocessors... but unfortunately it is more difficult to make it work as a semiconductor, which is why silicon has always been the substrate of choice.
It's very interesting research, and we'll see where it goes. For more info, this C&E News article is good, or check here, or here and there's a bit here.
Consider this: the webpage (with ads) is purposefully placing itself in the public's view. This is done with the hope that people will go to the page and incidentally see ads. This is their business model. They have chosen to expose the content. We, the viewer, can do whatever we want with the information streaming towards us. We can look at it, we can ignore it, or we can selectively look at some parts and ignore (or even block) other parts.
As I walk down the street, I can look at billboards or I can purposefully ignore them. That is my right. The ad company decided to put the billboard there in the hopes that they would make money... but they put the billboard in a public location.
In the event that the companies in question decide that they are not making enough money off the ads (that people are not looking at the ads), they are free to change their business model, take the webpage off the net, start charging for access, or whatever they want.
If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content.
I disagree. Again, the webpage is purposefully made easy-access to encourage people to access it... but there is no guarantee that people will look at the ads. If the company doesn't like it, then they can tune their advertising methods (or business model in general) until a useful compromise is reached. The onus lies with the company to come up with a viable business model, not with the consumers to play by the implicit rules of a particular advertising scheme.
IANAL, and I guess I really don't understand the law. I understand that new laws are required sometimes, especially when something in society/technology changes. However, why is a new law (such as preventing communities from funding local internet iniatives) required in this case? Are there not already laws on the books that describe exactly what a local government can spend money on? Are there not already laws that indicate proper procedure (like, if X% of the population is in favor of funding a community project, like garbage collection or power company, then it can be allowed)...
Why can't conventional laws simply be applied in this case? Some communities have decided to fund their infrastructure, others don't. This has been going on for a long time and I don't see the need to re-open the debate. Simply let the current laws do their job.
Or is there something about the current laws that I just don't get? (bear in mind that I'm not an American...)
I just tried it. The trick works, but the example link is deprecated and no longer points to anything valid. Find a link to a story you want, copy the link address, and modify it using the recipe provided, and you will indeed be brought to the article without having to log in.
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
... and the people who place these two principles in the other order. It's not immediately obvious which one is more important, and that's why the debate exists. There is no moral high ground. Just opinions.
Some people support copyright because they think that artists deserve to control their creations however they want. It would be hypocritical for *those people* to favor one copyright license over another.
Some other people support GPL because they think that information should be free, and that costless, effortless reproduction should not be illegal. These people thus support laws that encourage these freedoms (such as GPL copyright) but do not support laws that restrict these freedoms (such as conventional copyright, DMCA, etc.). For *these people* it is not hypocritical to be in favor of some copyrights but not others. These people have decided that the "information should be free" moral principle is more important than the "author should control work" principle. That's a moral choice, and is not self-contradictory. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it hypocritical or inconsistent.
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
For the record, you are assigning a binary state, but in the real-world, ethics are more complicated. A person can decide that "a creator has right to control their creation... as long as it doesn't involve hurting anyone else." In ethics, we can place as many qualifiers and caveats as we want. This is not hypocritical, it is how ethics work in the real-world. Similarly, someone can believe that "a creator has the right to control their creation... as long as no one gets hurt, and as long as no one is prevented from creating non-commercial copies for themselves and friends." This is their world-view, and is not inconsistent. You may not agree with it (that's your choice), but it isn't hypocritical.
Oh, and if you think "information would be free" in your ideal world... then you *don't* support the right of the author/artist to control his creation. And therefore you lost any moral high ground.
As I insinuated before, ethics involve establishing a hierarchy of principles. Some trump others. "Artists have the right to be compensated for their work" is trumped by "Killing is bad." The argument in copyright, in a certain sense, is between the people who feel "artists should have control of distribution of their work" trumps "information should be free"
And you seem to be arguing for force. That's a dangerous road.
Democratic laws are, by definition, an agreement by the people to have the government use force to ensure a certain rule is followed (the rule may be pragmatic and/or ethical). So the question is merely what rules are sufficiently important that we should mandate the government to enforce. There is a strong case that can be made for copyright being put back into it's pre-18th century status: every man for himself. We can have moral opinions on whether copyright is good or bad, but should we really be asking the government to punish people that don't comply with this moral principle? People can cheat on their spouses, and it is immoral, but not punished criminally (at least where I live).
You either force people to your worldview, or you give them a choice.
No, we (as a society) get to choose which ethical opinions should be enforced, and which should merely be suggestions. We enforce the "do not kill" thing, but merely suggest the "do not cheat on spouse" thing. It's okay for a society to force people on some issues but not others. If you force everything, it becomes totallitarian... if you force nothing, it becomes anarchy. Neither is desirable.
In any case, the point of my post was to address the oft-spouted criticism that the GPL is hypocritical (not to defend the GPL per se). I support the GPL for a variety of reasons (some ethical, some pragmatic), but that is another debate entirely.