Although I'm sure he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the pros and cons of USB (I certainly can't speak for it), I somehow can't acknowledge his credibility when he makes so many factual errors in his article. To whit (and I'm going to ignore the implication that somehow the Apple II was only "along side [the PC] riding the new technology boom"--rather than predating the PC and helping cause the technology boom):
That said, the IBM PC had something unique for it's day: a keyboard that wasn't built into the case. The plug this keyboard used was typically called the AT keyboard port1, named after the IBM PC-AT family of computers. This plug was about an inch in diameter, round, and had 5 pins.
The first keyboard connector for the IBM PC and the XT (the 5 pin DIN) was called, believe it or not, simply a "keyboard connector." Yes, people nowadays erroneously refer to it as an "AT keyboard connector"--but that's only because they're so new to the PC game that they didn't realize that there was a distinct difference between the XT and AT protocols (most of the new keyboards during that turbulent transition had a switch to account for the protocol change). Yes, this distinction is actually explained a bit in his footnote... but still, his sentence is historically incorrect. Here is a link that can explain the protocol difference far better than I can: http://www.clickykeyboards.com/index.cfm/fa/items. main/parentcat/11066/subcatid/0/id/176955
Now you could build a computer with only two or three kinds of plugs and never have to worry about how to explain to your grandmother what the difference between SCSI and PS/2 is and why she can't plug her new printer into either of them.
By 1998, all Apple Macintoshes were also shipping with USB,...
Again, the implication is that somehow the popular computer (e.g., a "PC") pre-dated the Apple's adoption of the standard whereas the exact opposite is true. It was only after the Macintosh adopted USB that the standard actually took off. Here is a link for a more accurate history of this transition: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-spec7.html
Now you could build a computer with only two or three kinds of plugs and never have to worry about how to explain to your grandmother what the difference between SCSI and PS/2 is and why she can't plug her new printer into either of them.
The author neglects to take into account that although there is only one overarching "USB Protocol" you still need to explain to your grandmother why she needs to use a cable with an "A" port instead of a "B" port or a mini USB 2.0 port, or the Canon USB port.... Still, I agree that this is a great deal better than we had prior to the adoption of USB.
The article itself was generally correct in its assessment of the impact of the USB port on industry. I just take issue with the rewriting of history as I (and I am sure, many of you) were there to witness it firsthand.
the authors of the article couldn't even make up their mind about what this invention is intended for. In the heading they talk about rockets for launching satellites, but everywhere else in the article, they talk about "satellite engines" used in orbit, which are apparently some form of improved ion-drive, completely useless for launch vehicles.
I too had an issue at first with the article--but then I saw at least one point: if a satellites maneuvering fuel can be reduced, there is less mass that needs to be launched therefore saving reaction mass costs during launch time without sacrificing the useful lifespan of the satellite (assuming that the satellite's mission includes manuever). Taken from this perspective the article does make sense although it still doesn't justify the article's bad writing.
This isn't SMTP. SMTP is a layer built atop of TCP/IP for sending of very specialized messages. Apparently BBN's protocol is generic enough to conceivably cache HTTP requests (e.g. the reference to a "google earth map.") So I would give them the benefit of the doubt until more information is forthcoming.
A real criticism of what BBN is doing is that, heck, my cell phone is low enough on memory already--and I would be very put out having to share that meager space in order to persist that scoutmaster request for google earth maps. Also, think about how that mechanism would have to be configured--does every scout have to "allow" the scoutmaster to query/query-through their PDA's? How complicated would that be? If BBN decides to simplify it by allowing a certain level of adhoc-ness, then what would be the security ramifications?
I suppose that that's why this is a DARPA project (which connotes research)--because I think there is no way this can be more than an experiment.
Running out of oil might be a good thing. Think about it--in the U.S., the huge strides in alternative energy research and development and the consumer acceptance of hybrid and electric vehicles can be attributed almost directly at oild prices breaking the $3.00 barrier. Long before the world runs out of oil, the oil prices will go through the roof and there will be a mad scramble to develop viable alternatives. It's guns and butter in liquid form.
So I refuse to get worried about oil either way. I believe technology will have an answer.
Even the footage that was shown, the man was not "adequately restrained" as some previous posters think. It appeared that the police were trying to put handcuffs on the guy, and the guy wouldn't let them. Try it sometime with a buddy of yours and film it, putting on handcuffs on a guy who doesn't want them on is a pretty difficult task.
I thought about this some, and I think the sympathetic public is part of the crime problem. As it is now, police are afraid of pulling a gun--and trying to subdue a suspect can lead a policeman into potential litigation (as it is with this video). If you're a smart criminal, you'd quickly realize:
(1) don't carry a weapon
(2) If you are caught in the act of the crime, and the police tell you to stop, run for the nearest populated area.
(3) If the police catch up with you, don't hit them, simply tense up your muscles so they have to roughhandle you. All the while crying "please don't hurt me!"
(4) Then sue the police department afterward.
If you are a policeman, it appears the best course of action if the perpetrator doesn't pull a weapon on you is to yell "stop! police." If they run, let them go.
Somehow I don't think this trend is in the best interest of society.
It must be just me--but I thought the article was an excellent example of lots of words not saying anything at all. As someone pointed out already, they talk about devices 2-3 inches big as "nano technology." But the incomprehensibility doesn't stop there! They also use this "nanotechnology sensor" interchangeably with "transistor." But wait! There is more... somehow this technology applies to refrigerators and other appliances (although the article doesn't even begin to explain how).
Perhaps the article is the output from an "infinite number of monkeys" simulation?
You guys aren't near paranoid enough. Ballmer's reference to IP and licensing may be a future reference. Imagine what the linux world would be like if they built into Windows 2003 and Vista servers enforcement of client access licenses--and the only linux that it would work on is SUSE? Suddenly, all those Linux installations out there that rely on talking to Windows file servers, remote desktops, and what-not--all of those will have to move to Microsoft Linux.
Secondly, apparently because you are stupid, or you are disfunctional to the teeth, you have chosen to disregard the iq factor of either squids, or dolphins.
Hmmmm. I had to think about that. If the dolphins are so smart, then how come they allow themselves to get herded into a cove and slaughtered for the last hundred years? I mean, it would be different if we were talking about human prey who are limited by the same constraints that human hunters would be; but really dolphin can travel much faster than most boats, can dive deeper than most fishermen can, and have a far greater range not constrained by the contents of a fuel tank. So if they're so smart, then how come the Japanese have been able to slaughter them for so long?
I mean, think about it... if all they did was communicate to each other and say "hey, stay out of the Sea of Japan in Q4 of any year" that article would be about how Japanese fishermen are scratching their heads and having to import dolphins from Mexico in order to slaughter them...
The reason that the prediction of scientific organizations such as the Club of Rome fell short is that their methodology was simplistic and could not foresee future economic, social, and technological trends. It wasn't just the "fossil fuel" projection that failed; if you remember, we were supposed to have worldwide famine, overcrowding, and unbreathable air.
As I stated before there are already projects that are attempting to solve at least some of these problems: replenishment programs (USAID and the NOAA both have successful projects), fish farms, new laws and legislation, etc.--all of which have some levels of success (and failures). Perhaps eventually, we will have technology that will make deep-sea fish farming technologically and economically viable, or have cheap and effective methods of replenishing fish stock, or maybe even develop cloned fish sushi--I don't know and I venture to say that neither do you.
One funny thing about the past is that it unequivocably demonstrates that no one can accurately predict the future.
In 1976, eco-scientists predicted that by 1990, all the world would have exhausted its fossil fuel supply. Needless to say, the doom didn't happen.
I don't understand why some people read articles like the subject one, and then decide that by somehow getting their panties in a bunch, it'll be better. There are programmes already in place that are trying to address this problem just like in 1976 there was ongoing research into technologies for finding new oil and increasing efficiency for its use.
Of course, if you insist on losing sleep over this, I won't stop you.
This is a really bad problem because somehow, someone could break open the seals, unlock the box, flip a switch, insert an unverified EEPROM, and then seal it all up again in such a way that the people who guard these machines, or oversight them don't notice?
Wow. I bet you lose sleep every night with the thought that someone could overpower marine guards, seize a nuclear submarine and start World War III.
Back in my day, it was really hard to come up with a "Law." You had "hypotheses" (otherwise known as wild-ass guesses), "theories" ("well we tested it and it *looks* right") and after those theories have been tested over and over again without failing ONCE... you called it a "Law."
It is a testament of today's liberalization that laws are passed without any supporting evidence for the hypothesis. This apparently now applies to science as well as politics.
We are going bankrupt in an attempt to chase down a threat that kills fewer people every year than car accidents.
And I really never understood why there were vast and very costly organizations who fought against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when the number of people killed by nukes is so much fewer than those killed by car accidents.
Oh wait a minute, that's right, both of those arguments are invalid, aren't they?
The government needs to show me that all these extra wiretappings and detainments and searches have actually done something. I'm not saying they need to let me in on their super secret intel. I'm saying I want them to give me several clear-cut cases where their methods have achieved results that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten to. I don't need to know every detail -- I want to know that they've captured X terrorist who was associated with Y group, and has gone on such-and-such missions in the past. Again, I know they can't reveal everything or even some things in a lot of situations, but I want to see *some* result. "We haven't been attacked" doesn't cut it.
Not hard to find. Section 201 of the Patriot Act is the section that allows the extra electronic surveillance to investigate offenses that terrorists are likely to commit. Section 201 has been used a grand total of (get this) four times for two different investigations. One of these investigations is still ongoing. The other one led to the arrest of an Imperial Wizard of the KKK who attempted to purchase hand grenades for the purpose of bombing abortion clinics.
Section 202 makes computer fraud (including computer espionage, extortion, and identity theft) an official felony. It was used in an investigation involving 2 acts of drug-trafficing related computer fraud.
Section 206 allows the federail government to attach a wiretap authorization to a suspect not a device. In this age of disposable cellphones, do you think this is a bad idea? It has been invoked 49 times as of December 31, 2005 to effectively monitor and track international terrorists.
Section 207 extends the amount of time for an initial wiretap authorization of 90 days to 120 days and extended the maximum to up to one year (instead of 90 days at a time). In other words, it just extended the deadlines, it didn't grant new powers.
Section 209 allows voicemail to be searched via warrant... not a wiretap order. It's been used more times than I can count.
Section 212 allows service providers to disclose customer records and/or communications to a government agency in times of a life-or-death (or serious physical injury) emergency. A notable incident involving this section was the arrest and indictment of Jared Bjarnason who threatened a muslim mosque in El Paso via email. He threatened to burn the mosque to the ground if certain hostages were not freed in three days. US Government agencies were able to trace this email (via Section 212) to its source. Without 212, a separate warrant would have to be obtained from each service provider--which is estimated to require weeks.
There are other sections that cover wiretapping, surveillance, and computer hacking in the Patriot Act. After actually reading the Act (something I think that/.'rs rarely do), I am willing to give up some of my freedoms if they cna help protect the lives of my loved ones because, well, a lot of it makes sense in this day and age. As you can see they have already been effective in avoiding deaths of innocents.
As for your second assertion, I'm willing to bet that the government is MUCH better equipped to take away our rights than "the terrorists." The terrorists have a handful of nuts with shoe-bombs and AK-47's. The government has an army numbering in the hundreds of thousands, which, while not directly for the idea of taking away your rights, must follow the commands of the few people who *are* interested in doing so.
Ah, but the terrorists are much better equipped to take the life of my 6 year old son than the government is. And that is what matters to me. Those alzheimer-diseased left wing mypoics forget about the daycare that was in the World Trade Center or the number of children on flight 93. They worry that wiretapping becomes a little easier to perform? If I should lose the life of my son to a terrorist act that could have been prevented if the government were allowed to intercept a call--should I do the Democrat thing and THEN blame the government that they're not doing enough to protect our lives?
I hear so much whining on the liberal side about what the current administration is doing--but I don't hear much detail about what those liberals propose to do instead.
I just wanted to point out that there are circumstances where the practice of requiring kiosk entry of job applications can be considered discriminatory: if such a requirement violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. If an applicant was blind or armless (for example) then the he/she could not apply. Of course such an applicant would probably be incapable of stocking shelves too.
I so agree with this. I've always told my kids that (1) I believe God exists (2) He is a programmer and (3) He believes in code reuse. The silliness that commonality = evolution (we differ from the Apes by only 2%!) is getting way out of hand. Compare the bytes that make up Microsoft Excel to Microsoft Word and you'll likely find that they too are quite similar (excel.exe has long strings of 0x00 just like word.exe does!)--and we should therefore conclude that they weren't designed, but have evolved from one to the other.
As so many have said--evolution does not exclude intelligent design (or vice versa). I, for example, believe in evolutionary adaptation within a species, and concur that interspecies evolution is plausible (though very difficult to prove, maybe to the same order of difficulty as proving God exists...or doesn't). The bonehead self-proclaimed "scientists" we find here on/. are so arrogant that they forget that until relatively recently, we had been teaching that dinosaurs were reptiles as if it were accepted fact. My God is not so small that He could not conceive of "evolution" as a way to accomplish His Will.
Having BOTH a media PC and a DLink DSM-320 media lounge I can definitely say that there is a place for a full-blown PC in a home entertainment unit. My media PC talks wirelessly to a 4TB file server to retrieve content and such; no content is stored locally except those needed to boot the machine or play local games.
The first advantage of a PC is that it can play any kind of video format out there: the media lounge I have has some problems with OGG files, some AVI formats, etc. Of course, if the industry standardizes on a well-supported handful of formats then this wouldn't be an issue--but I don't see this happening anytime soon.
The second advantage is processing power. Full blown PC's tend to be much faster than the processor they stick in these standalone components. The DLink 320 (albeit a low-end player) skips and stutters when playing CPU-intensive formats such as XVID or DIVX.
Third, PC's are more flexible. When I first installed my PC, I tried to use 802.11b (which of course was insufficient for full video). I then used 802.11g... but because of conflicts with other wifi devices, I moved it to 802.11a. If a newer wireless technology comes out, there is a 99% chance I can upgrade the PC, and 0% chance I can upgrade the DSM.
Then, of course, there is games. The PC is already hooked up to the large screen TV. Playing games in the living room PC is a joy.
There are advantages to the component approach: noise, power requirements, form factor, etc. But given my experience with both, I don't think that my media PC will be leaving the living room any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
The first keyboard connector for the IBM PC and the XT (the 5 pin DIN) was called, believe it or not, simply a "keyboard connector." Yes, people nowadays erroneously refer to it as an "AT keyboard connector"--but that's only because they're so new to the PC game that they didn't realize that there was a distinct difference between the XT and AT protocols (most of the new keyboards during that turbulent transition had a switch to account for the protocol change). Yes, this distinction is actually explained a bit in his footnote... but still, his sentence is historically incorrect. Here is a link that can explain the protocol difference far better than I can: http://www.clickykeyboards.com/index.cfm/fa/itemsAgain, the implication is that somehow the popular computer (e.g., a "PC") pre-dated the Apple's adoption of the standard whereas the exact opposite is true. It was only after the Macintosh adopted USB that the standard actually took off. Here is a link for a more accurate history of this transition: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-spec7.html
Now you could build a computer with only two or three kinds of plugs and never have to worry about how to explain to your grandmother what the difference between SCSI and PS/2 is and why she can't plug her new printer into either of them.The author neglects to take into account that although there is only one overarching "USB Protocol" you still need to explain to your grandmother why she needs to use a cable with an "A" port instead of a "B" port or a mini USB 2.0 port, or the Canon USB port.... Still, I agree that this is a great deal better than we had prior to the adoption of USB.
The article itself was generally correct in its assessment of the impact of the USB port on industry. I just take issue with the rewriting of history as I (and I am sure, many of you) were there to witness it firsthand.
I too had an issue at first with the article--but then I saw at least one point: if a satellites maneuvering fuel can be reduced, there is less mass that needs to be launched therefore saving reaction mass costs during launch time without sacrificing the useful lifespan of the satellite (assuming that the satellite's mission includes manuever). Taken from this perspective the article does make sense although it still doesn't justify the article's bad writing.
A real criticism of what BBN is doing is that, heck, my cell phone is low enough on memory already--and I would be very put out having to share that meager space in order to persist that scoutmaster request for google earth maps. Also, think about how that mechanism would have to be configured--does every scout have to "allow" the scoutmaster to query/query-through their PDA's? How complicated would that be? If BBN decides to simplify it by allowing a certain level of adhoc-ness, then what would be the security ramifications?
I suppose that that's why this is a DARPA project (which connotes research)--because I think there is no way this can be more than an experiment.
So I refuse to get worried about oil either way. I believe technology will have an answer.
I thought about this some, and I think the sympathetic public is part of the crime problem. As it is now, police are afraid of pulling a gun--and trying to subdue a suspect can lead a policeman into potential litigation (as it is with this video). If you're a smart criminal, you'd quickly realize:
(1) don't carry a weapon
(2) If you are caught in the act of the crime, and the police tell you to stop, run for the nearest populated area.
(3) If the police catch up with you, don't hit them, simply tense up your muscles so they have to roughhandle you. All the while crying "please don't hurt me!"
(4) Then sue the police department afterward.
If you are a policeman, it appears the best course of action if the perpetrator doesn't pull a weapon on you is to yell "stop! police." If they run, let them go.
Somehow I don't think this trend is in the best interest of society.
Perhaps the article is the output from an "infinite number of monkeys" simulation?
You guys aren't near paranoid enough. Ballmer's reference to IP and licensing may be a future reference. Imagine what the linux world would be like if they built into Windows 2003 and Vista servers enforcement of client access licenses--and the only linux that it would work on is SUSE? Suddenly, all those Linux installations out there that rely on talking to Windows file servers, remote desktops, and what-not--all of those will have to move to Microsoft Linux.
Hmmmm. I had to think about that. If the dolphins are so smart, then how come they allow themselves to get herded into a cove and slaughtered for the last hundred years? I mean, it would be different if we were talking about human prey who are limited by the same constraints that human hunters would be; but really dolphin can travel much faster than most boats, can dive deeper than most fishermen can, and have a far greater range not constrained by the contents of a fuel tank. So if they're so smart, then how come the Japanese have been able to slaughter them for so long?
I mean, think about it... if all they did was communicate to each other and say "hey, stay out of the Sea of Japan in Q4 of any year" that article would be about how Japanese fishermen are scratching their heads and having to import dolphins from Mexico in order to slaughter them...
As I stated before there are already projects that are attempting to solve at least some of these problems: replenishment programs (USAID and the NOAA both have successful projects), fish farms, new laws and legislation, etc.--all of which have some levels of success (and failures). Perhaps eventually, we will have technology that will make deep-sea fish farming technologically and economically viable, or have cheap and effective methods of replenishing fish stock, or maybe even develop cloned fish sushi--I don't know and I venture to say that neither do you.
One funny thing about the past is that it unequivocably demonstrates that no one can accurately predict the future.
I don't understand why some people read articles like the subject one, and then decide that by somehow getting their panties in a bunch, it'll be better. There are programmes already in place that are trying to address this problem just like in 1976 there was ongoing research into technologies for finding new oil and increasing efficiency for its use.
Of course, if you insist on losing sleep over this, I won't stop you.
This is a really bad problem because somehow, someone could break open the seals, unlock the box, flip a switch, insert an unverified EEPROM, and then seal it all up again in such a way that the people who guard these machines, or oversight them don't notice? Wow. I bet you lose sleep every night with the thought that someone could overpower marine guards, seize a nuclear submarine and start World War III.
Back in my day, it was really hard to come up with a "Law." You had "hypotheses" (otherwise known as wild-ass guesses), "theories" ("well we tested it and it *looks* right") and after those theories have been tested over and over again without failing ONCE... you called it a "Law." It is a testament of today's liberalization that laws are passed without any supporting evidence for the hypothesis. This apparently now applies to science as well as politics.
Oh wait a minute, that's right, both of those arguments are invalid, aren't they?
Not hard to find. Section 201 of the Patriot Act is the section that allows the extra electronic surveillance to investigate offenses that terrorists are likely to commit. Section 201 has been used a grand total of (get this) four times for two different investigations. One of these investigations is still ongoing. The other one led to the arrest of an Imperial Wizard of the KKK who attempted to purchase hand grenades for the purpose of bombing abortion clinics.
Section 202 makes computer fraud (including computer espionage, extortion, and identity theft) an official felony. It was used in an investigation involving 2 acts of drug-trafficing related computer fraud.
Section 206 allows the federail government to attach a wiretap authorization to a suspect not a device. In this age of disposable cellphones, do you think this is a bad idea? It has been invoked 49 times as of December 31, 2005 to effectively monitor and track international terrorists.
Section 207 extends the amount of time for an initial wiretap authorization of 90 days to 120 days and extended the maximum to up to one year (instead of 90 days at a time). In other words, it just extended the deadlines, it didn't grant new powers.
Section 209 allows voicemail to be searched via warrant... not a wiretap order. It's been used more times than I can count.
Section 212 allows service providers to disclose customer records and/or communications to a government agency in times of a life-or-death (or serious physical injury) emergency. A notable incident involving this section was the arrest and indictment of Jared Bjarnason who threatened a muslim mosque in El Paso via email. He threatened to burn the mosque to the ground if certain hostages were not freed in three days. US Government agencies were able to trace this email (via Section 212) to its source. Without 212, a separate warrant would have to be obtained from each service provider--which is estimated to require weeks.
There are other sections that cover wiretapping, surveillance, and computer hacking in the Patriot Act. After actually reading the Act (something I think that /.'rs rarely do), I am willing to give up some of my freedoms if they cna help protect the lives of my loved ones because, well, a lot of it makes sense in this day and age. As you can see they have already been effective in avoiding deaths of innocents.
Ah, but the terrorists are much better equipped to take the life of my 6 year old son than the government is. And that is what matters to me. Those alzheimer-diseased left wing mypoics forget about the daycare that was in the World Trade Center or the number of children on flight 93. They worry that wiretapping becomes a little easier to perform? If I should lose the life of my son to a terrorist act that could have been prevented if the government were allowed to intercept a call--should I do the Democrat thing and THEN blame the government that they're not doing enough to protect our lives?
I hear so much whining on the liberal side about what the current administration is doing--but I don't hear much detail about what those liberals propose to do instead.
I just wanted to point out that there are circumstances where the practice of requiring kiosk entry of job applications can be considered discriminatory: if such a requirement violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. If an applicant was blind or armless (for example) then the he/she could not apply. Of course such an applicant would probably be incapable of stocking shelves too.
I so agree with this. I've always told my kids that (1) I believe God exists (2) He is a programmer and (3) He believes in code reuse. The silliness that commonality = evolution (we differ from the Apes by only 2%!) is getting way out of hand. Compare the bytes that make up Microsoft Excel to Microsoft Word and you'll likely find that they too are quite similar (excel.exe has long strings of 0x00 just like word.exe does!)--and we should therefore conclude that they weren't designed, but have evolved from one to the other. As so many have said--evolution does not exclude intelligent design (or vice versa). I, for example, believe in evolutionary adaptation within a species, and concur that interspecies evolution is plausible (though very difficult to prove, maybe to the same order of difficulty as proving God exists...or doesn't). The bonehead self-proclaimed "scientists" we find here on /. are so arrogant that they forget that until relatively recently, we had been teaching that dinosaurs were reptiles as if it were accepted fact. My God is not so small that He could not conceive of "evolution" as a way to accomplish His Will.
Having BOTH a media PC and a DLink DSM-320 media lounge I can definitely say that there is a place for a full-blown PC in a home entertainment unit. My media PC talks wirelessly to a 4TB file server to retrieve content and such; no content is stored locally except those needed to boot the machine or play local games. The first advantage of a PC is that it can play any kind of video format out there: the media lounge I have has some problems with OGG files, some AVI formats, etc. Of course, if the industry standardizes on a well-supported handful of formats then this wouldn't be an issue--but I don't see this happening anytime soon. The second advantage is processing power. Full blown PC's tend to be much faster than the processor they stick in these standalone components. The DLink 320 (albeit a low-end player) skips and stutters when playing CPU-intensive formats such as XVID or DIVX. Third, PC's are more flexible. When I first installed my PC, I tried to use 802.11b (which of course was insufficient for full video). I then used 802.11g... but because of conflicts with other wifi devices, I moved it to 802.11a. If a newer wireless technology comes out, there is a 99% chance I can upgrade the PC, and 0% chance I can upgrade the DSM. Then, of course, there is games. The PC is already hooked up to the large screen TV. Playing games in the living room PC is a joy. There are advantages to the component approach: noise, power requirements, form factor, etc. But given my experience with both, I don't think that my media PC will be leaving the living room any time soon.