Call it terror, modern warfare, or Sponge Bog Squarepants if you wish, but annoyances such as a widespread power outage that occur frequently enough will eventually disrupt a country's economics and productivity on a large scale. Take, for another example, the threat of a mined harbor. That $100 device floating somewhere in the shipping lane (if it's even there) is designed to restrict access. Why is the US military spending many billions of dollars each year on mine countermeasures? In part, it's because your cheap explosive device is stalling millions of dollars per day on commercial traffic. A simple mine can be deployed by any country or organization. Likewise, destroying power infrastructure, oil supply lines, or communication lines can be done by anyone with the initiative. Still think a power outage is a minor inconvenience?
"The software uses a mathematical model to evaluate and process the spatial and temporal dimensions of waves inferred from the interaction between the radar's electromagnetic energy and the sea surface. The result is displayed in a color-coded image."
You mean it does filtering, beamforming, and displays results to a GUI? How profound! That sounds awfully similar to what we've been doing for the past 50 years in Radar/SONAR... The only difference here is what we're trying to detect. I imagine the target strength of a 70' tall planar wave is much easier to detect on the ocean surface than for example a Mig fighter jet flying at low altitudes.
A long while back (before I even knew what Linux was) I had asked my co-worker why they drove a standard transmission instead of giving in to the cushy automatics that hit the US for decades. His reply was, "Having a standard means you have complete control over your car. It's more fun that way." I feel the same way about computers. I was sick of the Windows OS trying to impose its default settings and archaic system organization on me. Linux now allows me the freedom to do exactly what I want with it. Sure it's a challenge sometimes to make something work correctly, but that's half the fun!
That's not correct. Though *some* classified information is freely available on the internet's web servers (check out www.janes.com for instance), most unclassified information is not made available for public release. An example would be a test and evaluation document that someone has on their work PC. If someone breakes into this machine through the firewall, then this would indeed be a "breach" of security.
Unclassified information can be dangerous if in the wrong hands. Why do you think foreign governments would want to know things such as physical locations of weapons and other military vessels? Knowing ones enemy and their strengths and weaknesses is the surest way to defeat them. Such information, when aggregated, can lead to a major advantage during wartime.
Again, race had nothing to do with the immoral behavior. It's simply what pornographers advertise across the net. Take a look at a short blurb from the links on tommys-bookmarks.com:
Blonde Interracial Sex 20 frames of a bimbo blonde in pigtails screwing two black hunks
Latina Alicia 15 pics of a juicy hot latina sucking and fucking for a facial in bed
Double Blowjob 15 thumbs Hardcore Desirae Double Blowjob and Threesome with Girl Girl
Housewives Sucking Dick 12 films of a whore sucking cock at the drunken party
Wifey Spreading For Sex 15 photos of a busty wife spreading and fucked in the office
Casting Couch Sex 16 frames of a sweetie getting sex on the casting couch
Teresa Sex Pics 15 photos of a cute girl hitch hiking and fucked on the pool table
I never said interracial sex was wrong. I said an interracial gang bang with a happy ending was unnatural. Would you want your son/daughter to think this is natural? No halfway decent parent would. Clearly there are worse things in life, but that is irrelevant and off-topic.
My post was simply stating the original poster was incorrect in his views on internet pornography and what is freely available for a child to see.
I apologize for name calling, but I am a little frustrated that instead of having an intelligent conversation about the economical effects this would have, I am modded down for trolling because of some moderators' impetuous clicking.
My post, had you read beyond the words "three black dudes", had infinitely more thought than you're clearly capable of on this subject. I had a good laugh at your troll accusing me of racism, because it's completely unwarranted and is obviously a defensive accusation.
The replies to your flame all have valid points backing my point of view. You should read them if you didn't understand me correctly. Regardless of what your views are, I can tell you it is most certainly not alright for a 13 year old to be exposed to violent and demeaning sex acts, regardless of race.
I was replying to the original poster who stated the following:
Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them. Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot.
The vast majority of pornography freely available on the 'net has nothing to do with "two people who like each other a lot" doing "natural things". I may be wrong, but to give further examples of unnatural sex acts: drunken college chicks, beastiality, cheating housewives, and sticking it up a girl's ass for bragging rights are most definately not "normal behavior" of two consenting adults.
Perhaps "Corrupt" is too strong of a word, but the fact remains that this type of 'entertainment' desensitizes a child until he accepts what he sees as the norm.
My last point clearly states that I don't believe this tax will do a damn thing, but strengthen the economical role pornography plays in our country.
Next time you decide to flame, at least make a valid point.
Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them. Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot.
Perhaps it's because 3 black dudes doing an asian chick at the same time and dropping their loads in her eye might give the wrong impression of what it's all about. I can't speak for you, but I don't partake in interracial gangbangs, facials, or S&M. If you consider that "normal" maybe you should see a therapist.
What do I think about this? I can't see how a tax could possibly do anything except make politicians justify keeping porn around longer since they are now financially benefitting from the adult industry.
Get NASA out of the hardware and flight businesses.
Hahaha. While it may seem like a good idea in theory (as does Socialism), in practice what you've described won't work.
I work for the US Navy on submarines and know first-hand what a joke this COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) plan is. Sure, it theoretically cuts costs by billions since we didn't have to develop all of the computer hardware that goes into our submarines and surface ships. BUT, the problem is that technology changes so quickly now, that by the time the systems design stage is over and procurement begins, we have thousands of 486 DX2/66Mhz computers in a warehouse somewhere. The Navy pre-orders all shipboard computers so that when these things become obsolete and something breaks, we have all the replacements handy. I should also mention that each and every computer we buy needs to be ruggardized so it will survive a higher impact than any crew could live through. That automatically makes the cost increase by an order of magnitude.
We never saved a dime since all of the money we would have spent on development is now spent on managing (babysitting and policing, actually) contracting companies and testing their work.
If NASA started working with private industry to the level that the DoD does, we would set our space program back about 20-30 years. Honestly, I think private industry and government space programs should co-exist, but with different goals. NASA should continue its effort at space exploration and the SETI program. Private industry should continue working toward space tourism in the short term and eventually work up to space colonization for when we pollute our own planet beyond repair. NASA is one of the last scientific government organizations with talent left in this country. Don't ruin a good thing!
$250k? I work for the gov't and you've got to be kidding me! What can they possibly accomplish with that little money? You'd be lucky to get 2 man-years out of that.
Small research projects get more money than that. I honestly don't see how this funding will be sufficient for anything other than posting the data on a webpage.
6 years ago I was in college dorm rooms and had my machine running constantly for the full 2 semesters. Occasionally someone would log in remotely or I would need to perform a much needed disk defrag.
The hard drive I had was a 20GB IBM DeskStar (a.k.a. DeathStar) and all I can remember is how noisy that thing was chomping away at its spindles. My roommate can attest to that! Now, my 200Gb Seagate drives run about 6 dB lower than that old beast.
The point is, all moving computer components become smoother and quiter over time as new innovative methods arise. I have a feeling noisy fans will be replaced by circulating fluid in the future to produce the 'ultra quiet' machine. We won't even be able to tell if it's on unless it has lots of flashing LEDs!
I know a thing or two about US corporate law.
Microsoft would be wise here to file the Counter-Counter Suit. Then again, if Google knows how to play the game, they will file a Counter-Counter-Double-Secret-with-no-Backsies Suit. If that happens, Microsoft is in big trouble and will have no other choice than to settle this thing under the big oak tree behind Palo Alto schoolyard...
This is an area that I actually know something about. I have an advanced degree in VLSI circuit design and have studied details of today's IC fabrication process.
First of all, the title is incorrect. RPI hasn't "created" anything. From what I read in the highly theoretical article, the only thing that Lu has done is start a program at RPI to look into stacking wafers. Granted, procuring funding for an IC fabrication research is phenomenal news given the exorbitant cost of the facilities! But this article serves no other purpose than to promote a new VLSI research program.
The concept of stacking ICs vertically is nothing new! The idea has been completely obvious since we started running out of room in the 2-dimensional plane. The root problem, and the one that Lu hopes to solve, is that IC fabrication is a highly complex chemical process. The bare Si wafers go through dozens of processing steps where liquids and gasses are deposited and then removed using masks accurate to the nanometer. Layer upon layer of accurately doped Si is added to yield the perfect consistency of impurities (usually Boron or Phosphorous). This gives the wafer its p-n junctions: the crux of every transistor and active circuit element. Multiple layers of polysilicon (a substitute for metal due to the improved accuracy in placement), and metal (usually alluminum) are used for interconnecting the active and passive devices created in the base silicon. The final layer deposited is a several micron-thick glass that serves to protect the wafer's ICs from any chemicals exposed to the wafer post-manufacturing. This is a severely minimalistic description of how ICs are created, but I think you get the picture of how difficult it is and why it costs so much.
The thing is, after the numerous layers of Si, Al, and SiO2 are deposited, the surface is extremely "rough and bumpy" for lack of a better word.
If you were to place the active regions of more transistors on top of all this stuff, your Xistors are almost guaranteed never to *all* be working. It is extremely difficult to expose the several nanometer wide interconnect from one layer through the glass. On all ICs, this is done on very large metal pads that are on the outer edges of the layout. In order to decrease the path length from one wafer layer to the next, this pad must be somewhere over the circuit, which is currently not feasible!
I'm curious how Lu theorizes he is going to slap 3 glued wafers together while guaranteeing proper interconnections. This is a problem we've been trying to solve for quite some time. Alas, the article doesn't state any of this useful information.
I was excited when I read the title, but this article doesn't deserve the headline on the front page of slashdot, IMHO.
On a less critical note, I'm confident that Lu (or any of the many other semiconductor researchers in the world) will eventually make progress toward 3-dimensional fabrication. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening for at least a decade. Even more unfortunate is that the cost of 3-dimensional stacking won't be cost effective for customers of ICs for quite some time (~20-30 years!). I wish Lu and his competitors all the luck that they'll need in this area.
Just because this is an electronic database doesn't mean there's inherently something illegal/immoral going on.
Your average Joe and local libraries hold newspapers from half a century ago. Most libraries even converted papers into microfische archives so they could be easily indexed and searched. They have been doing it for decades without such frivolous lawsuits.
How, in the name of Linus, is publishing anything on the internet for anyone to see different from disseminating information freely in a newspaper? Once news is out, it's in the public domain. End of story.
There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world...
Obviously Beethoven wasn't much of a tradesman with great foresight into insurance practices.
Stewie Griffen says, "Oh my! All the world's art in one large warehouse... Yes, it's splendid indeed! And then the joke will be on them when I burn it all down! Muahahahaha!"
Keep in mind that this is for applications compiled for a specific architecture. Furthermore, this is Intel's compiler, not MSVC or Borland...
When software is bundled into a self-installing executable for the windoze OS, programmers will generally use the generic x86 architecture with a mainstream compiler (most likely Visual C/C++) to guarantee maximum compatibility with all x86 architecture types and configurations.
So to answer your question, no, you wouldn't see programs all over that exhibits this behavior unless you compiled them on your machines and tried to run them on both architectures.
I'm not saying this isn't blatently wrong, but you're misinterpreting the scope of this fallacy, if it does in fact exist.
Personally I can't wait to see what sort of animal illustration O'Reilly will stick on the front cover this time. Will it be the triple-billed platypuss/rhinoceros this time? Perhaps an Ewok?
If this backscatter imaging technology is as effective at seeing weapons carried on a person's body, I fail to see how some pattern recognition software can't be used to discern between a threat and non-threat.
One would argue that the human eye can detect a threat more accurately than some software, but what about after the 100th person walks past the screen. The thousanth? Computers won't fatigue and potentially miss the first threat after countless passengers are screened. The technology is there...
I'm vehemently opposed to having some minimum wage security officer leering at naked people all day. I work for a gov't office and know for a fact that more than a few government security officers think of screening the "hot chicks" that come through the gate as a major job perk.
Would you be as opposed to this technology if a human were only screening people that came up as a potential threat by the computer?
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. Will it be running on the Android OS?
Call it terror, modern warfare, or Sponge Bog Squarepants if you wish, but annoyances such as a widespread power outage that occur frequently enough will eventually disrupt a country's economics and productivity on a large scale. Take, for another example, the threat of a mined harbor. That $100 device floating somewhere in the shipping lane (if it's even there) is designed to restrict access. Why is the US military spending many billions of dollars each year on mine countermeasures? In part, it's because your cheap explosive device is stalling millions of dollars per day on commercial traffic. A simple mine can be deployed by any country or organization. Likewise, destroying power infrastructure, oil supply lines, or communication lines can be done by anyone with the initiative. Still think a power outage is a minor inconvenience?
"The software uses a mathematical model to evaluate and process the spatial and temporal dimensions of waves inferred from the interaction between the radar's electromagnetic energy and the sea surface. The result is displayed in a color-coded image." You mean it does filtering, beamforming, and displays results to a GUI? How profound! That sounds awfully similar to what we've been doing for the past 50 years in Radar/SONAR... The only difference here is what we're trying to detect. I imagine the target strength of a 70' tall planar wave is much easier to detect on the ocean surface than for example a Mig fighter jet flying at low altitudes.
A long while back (before I even knew what Linux was) I had asked my co-worker why they drove a standard transmission instead of giving in to the cushy automatics that hit the US for decades. His reply was, "Having a standard means you have complete control over your car. It's more fun that way." I feel the same way about computers. I was sick of the Windows OS trying to impose its default settings and archaic system organization on me. Linux now allows me the freedom to do exactly what I want with it. Sure it's a challenge sometimes to make something work correctly, but that's half the fun!
That's not correct. Though *some* classified information is freely available on the internet's web servers (check out www.janes.com for instance), most unclassified information is not made available for public release. An example would be a test and evaluation document that someone has on their work PC. If someone breakes into this machine through the firewall, then this would indeed be a "breach" of security.
Unclassified information can be dangerous if in the wrong hands. Why do you think foreign governments would want to know things such as physical locations of weapons and other military vessels? Knowing ones enemy and their strengths and weaknesses is the surest way to defeat them. Such information, when aggregated, can lead to a major advantage during wartime.
Again, race had nothing to do with the immoral behavior. It's simply what pornographers advertise across the net. Take a look at a short blurb from the links on tommys-bookmarks.com:
I never said interracial sex was wrong. I said an interracial gang bang with a happy ending was unnatural. Would you want your son/daughter to think this is natural? No halfway decent parent would. Clearly there are worse things in life, but that is irrelevant and off-topic.
My post was simply stating the original poster was incorrect in his views on internet pornography and what is freely available for a child to see.
I apologize for name calling, but I am a little frustrated that instead of having an intelligent conversation about the economical effects this would have, I am modded down for trolling because of some moderators' impetuous clicking.
My post, had you read beyond the words "three black dudes", had infinitely more thought than you're clearly capable of on this subject. I had a good laugh at your troll accusing me of racism, because it's completely unwarranted and is obviously a defensive accusation.
The replies to your flame all have valid points backing my point of view. You should read them if you didn't understand me correctly. Regardless of what your views are, I can tell you it is most certainly not alright for a 13 year old to be exposed to violent and demeaning sex acts, regardless of race.
I was replying to the original poster who stated the following:
The vast majority of pornography freely available on the 'net has nothing to do with "two people who like each other a lot" doing "natural things". I may be wrong, but to give further examples of unnatural sex acts: drunken college chicks, beastiality, cheating housewives, and sticking it up a girl's ass for bragging rights are most definately not "normal behavior" of two consenting adults.
Perhaps "Corrupt" is too strong of a word, but the fact remains that this type of 'entertainment' desensitizes a child until he accepts what he sees as the norm.
My last point clearly states that I don't believe this tax will do a damn thing, but strengthen the economical role pornography plays in our country.
Next time you decide to flame, at least make a valid point.
Jackass.What do I think about this? I can't see how a tax could possibly do anything except make politicians justify keeping porn around longer since they are now financially benefitting from the adult industry.
When will it be available on Freshmeat.net?
Hahaha. While it may seem like a good idea in theory (as does Socialism), in practice what you've described won't work.
I work for the US Navy on submarines and know first-hand what a joke this COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) plan is. Sure, it theoretically cuts costs by billions since we didn't have to develop all of the computer hardware that goes into our submarines and surface ships. BUT, the problem is that technology changes so quickly now, that by the time the systems design stage is over and procurement begins, we have thousands of 486 DX2/66Mhz computers in a warehouse somewhere. The Navy pre-orders all shipboard computers so that when these things become obsolete and something breaks, we have all the replacements handy. I should also mention that each and every computer we buy needs to be ruggardized so it will survive a higher impact than any crew could live through. That automatically makes the cost increase by an order of magnitude.
We never saved a dime since all of the money we would have spent on development is now spent on managing (babysitting and policing, actually) contracting companies and testing their work.
If NASA started working with private industry to the level that the DoD does, we would set our space program back about 20-30 years. Honestly, I think private industry and government space programs should co-exist, but with different goals. NASA should continue its effort at space exploration and the SETI program. Private industry should continue working toward space tourism in the short term and eventually work up to space colonization for when we pollute our own planet beyond repair. NASA is one of the last scientific government organizations with talent left in this country. Don't ruin a good thing!
$250k? I work for the gov't and you've got to be kidding me! What can they possibly accomplish with that little money? You'd be lucky to get 2 man-years out of that.
Small research projects get more money than that. I honestly don't see how this funding will be sufficient for anything other than posting the data on a webpage.
6 years ago I was in college dorm rooms and had my machine running constantly for the full 2 semesters. Occasionally someone would log in remotely or I would need to perform a much needed disk defrag. The hard drive I had was a 20GB IBM DeskStar (a.k.a. DeathStar) and all I can remember is how noisy that thing was chomping away at its spindles. My roommate can attest to that! Now, my 200Gb Seagate drives run about 6 dB lower than that old beast. The point is, all moving computer components become smoother and quiter over time as new innovative methods arise. I have a feeling noisy fans will be replaced by circulating fluid in the future to produce the 'ultra quiet' machine. We won't even be able to tell if it's on unless it has lots of flashing LEDs!
I know a thing or two about US corporate law. Microsoft would be wise here to file the Counter-Counter Suit. Then again, if Google knows how to play the game, they will file a Counter-Counter-Double-Secret-with-no-Backsies Suit. If that happens, Microsoft is in big trouble and will have no other choice than to settle this thing under the big oak tree behind Palo Alto schoolyard...
Heat is unfortunately not the limiting factor here. See my post here.
This is an area that I actually know something about. I have an advanced degree in VLSI circuit design and have studied details of today's IC fabrication process.
First of all, the title is incorrect. RPI hasn't "created" anything. From what I read in the highly theoretical article, the only thing that Lu has done is start a program at RPI to look into stacking wafers. Granted, procuring funding for an IC fabrication research is phenomenal news given the exorbitant cost of the facilities! But this article serves no other purpose than to promote a new VLSI research program.
The concept of stacking ICs vertically is nothing new! The idea has been completely obvious since we started running out of room in the 2-dimensional plane. The root problem, and the one that Lu hopes to solve, is that IC fabrication is a highly complex chemical process. The bare Si wafers go through dozens of processing steps where liquids and gasses are deposited and then removed using masks accurate to the nanometer. Layer upon layer of accurately doped Si is added to yield the perfect consistency of impurities (usually Boron or Phosphorous). This gives the wafer its p-n junctions: the crux of every transistor and active circuit element. Multiple layers of polysilicon (a substitute for metal due to the improved accuracy in placement), and metal (usually alluminum) are used for interconnecting the active and passive devices created in the base silicon. The final layer deposited is a several micron-thick glass that serves to protect the wafer's ICs from any chemicals exposed to the wafer post-manufacturing. This is a severely minimalistic description of how ICs are created, but I think you get the picture of how difficult it is and why it costs so much.
The thing is, after the numerous layers of Si, Al, and SiO2 are deposited, the surface is extremely "rough and bumpy" for lack of a better word.
If you were to place the active regions of more transistors on top of all this stuff, your Xistors are almost guaranteed never to *all* be working. It is extremely difficult to expose the several nanometer wide interconnect from one layer through the glass. On all ICs, this is done on very large metal pads that are on the outer edges of the layout. In order to decrease the path length from one wafer layer to the next, this pad must be somewhere over the circuit, which is currently not feasible!
I'm curious how Lu theorizes he is going to slap 3 glued wafers together while guaranteeing proper interconnections. This is a problem we've been trying to solve for quite some time. Alas, the article doesn't state any of this useful information.
I was excited when I read the title, but this article doesn't deserve the headline on the front page of slashdot, IMHO.
On a less critical note, I'm confident that Lu (or any of the many other semiconductor researchers in the world) will eventually make progress toward 3-dimensional fabrication. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening for at least a decade. Even more unfortunate is that the cost of 3-dimensional stacking won't be cost effective for customers of ICs for quite some time (~20-30 years!). I wish Lu and his competitors all the luck that they'll need in this area.
Just because this is an electronic database doesn't mean there's inherently something illegal/immoral going on.
Your average Joe and local libraries hold newspapers from half a century ago. Most libraries even converted papers into microfische archives so they could be easily indexed and searched. They have been doing it for decades without such frivolous lawsuits.
How, in the name of Linus, is publishing anything on the internet for anyone to see different from disseminating information freely in a newspaper? Once news is out, it's in the public domain. End of story.
I was never that big into classical music, but after hearing the BBC's broadcasts on mp3 I'm starting to dig them.
And to think, I was actually going to look for other classical works to buy. What a bunch of losers.
Stewie Griffen says, "Oh my! All the world's art in one large warehouse... Yes, it's splendid indeed! And then the joke will be on them when I burn it all down! Muahahahaha!"
Keep in mind that this is for applications compiled for a specific architecture. Furthermore, this is Intel's compiler, not MSVC or Borland...
When software is bundled into a self-installing executable for the windoze OS, programmers will generally use the generic x86 architecture with a mainstream compiler (most likely Visual C/C++) to guarantee maximum compatibility with all x86 architecture types and configurations.
So to answer your question, no, you wouldn't see programs all over that exhibits this behavior unless you compiled them on your machines and tried to run them on both architectures.
I'm not saying this isn't blatently wrong, but you're misinterpreting the scope of this fallacy, if it does in fact exist.
Oh crap! Does this mean my Mom will find out about all that pr0n I was downloading last week?
Maybe NASA is leasing their timer from the NFL where the last several minutes really takes a half hour.
Personally I can't wait to see what sort of animal illustration O'Reilly will stick on the front cover this time. Will it be the triple-billed platypuss/rhinoceros this time? Perhaps an Ewok?
Ahhh, but they did! This was a fake comet smashing!
Everyone knows Gee Dubya just released this fake news story and pictures to distract the public from knowing he's taking stupid pills.
If this backscatter imaging technology is as effective at seeing weapons carried on a person's body, I fail to see how some pattern recognition software can't be used to discern between a threat and non-threat.
One would argue that the human eye can detect a threat more accurately than some software, but what about after the 100th person walks past the screen. The thousanth? Computers won't fatigue and potentially miss the first threat after countless passengers are screened. The technology is there...
I'm vehemently opposed to having some minimum wage security officer leering at naked people all day. I work for a gov't office and know for a fact that more than a few government security officers think of screening the "hot chicks" that come through the gate as a major job perk.
Would you be as opposed to this technology if a human were only screening people that came up as a potential threat by the computer?