"Nano" technology is not invevitable
on
The Timekeeper
·
· Score: 1
...assuming you mean "nanobots", in the science fiction sense of being able to change/build objects at the molecular level.
Others know a lot more about this than I do, but this has always struck me as pure fantasy. Sure, it would be cool -- in the sense that a star trek transporter would be cool. However, the engineering and practical aspects would be immense. Power, organization, communication, reliability -- it would just be insanely difficult.
On the other hand, small bots that deliver medicine, swim through the bloodstream to do surgery and micro-repairs, that seems very doable and practical.
Q: If everyone decides that the word "gay" means homosexual, but you refuse to accept it, and continue to believe it only means "happy" is it did originally, are you wrong?
A: Yes. Language is a non-static, evolving entity. Words mean what society decides they mean. If Century/Millennium means "00", then that's what they mean. Note that there is nothing wrong with this; definitions generally change because they become more useful. In this case, "00" is a more useful definition, and thus it has been adopted.
The new Millennium began around 1997, because the monk screwed up the date of Christ. Face it: The true pedantic start is 1997. The popular start is 2000. Whatever it is, it's not 2001.
Your argument is incorrect anyway, if the real 3rd Millennium began in 1997, why should we observe it in 2000?
Exactly the point. It's stupid to try and have exact accuracy on this point. Exact accuracy demands 1997, which no one will accept, so why not go with the round number, which is the most useful definition?
The millennium ends this year. No question about it. You are absolutely wrong. Jan 1, 2000 is the beginning of the 3rd millennium.
And yes-- everybody knows that there was no year zero. Nobody cares, because 1) zeroes feel psychologically like a milestone, and milestones are about psychology, and 2) the monk screwed up the date of the birth of Christ. Most scholars believe the 3rd M' began around 1997 anyway.
Bottom line: You can't have it both ways. If you want to be pedantic, then say the millennium has already started. If you don't, then embrace the popular (and sensical) redefinition.
The solution is... uh, don't do it. Revolt against what? Are they chaining you to your desk? It's not as if it isn't a pro-worker environment right now.
I can just see you during the Great Depression, with your sign out saying, "Hey! I just got out of college! Where's my $70K/year job? Where are my stock options? I thought I was supposed to be a millionaire in my twenties!"
This perspective brought to you by the Clue Stick. Workers today are so incredibly spoiled.
If the client is (not) displaying the "shadow warriors", then the client knows they are shadow warriors. The Aimbot can just look at the skin to see if it's transparent, for example.
The Aimbot is going to know everything a human player knows, only more.
If the program had been open source from the beginning, absolutely nothing would be different. The protocol is designed the way it was to make a "twitch"-style game possible over high-latency Internet connections. It's not as if Carmack while smoking his crack pipe suddenly thought "I think I'll give tons of control to the clients"! Open Source development won't magically make latency go away.
The only difference if it had been Open Source from the beginning is that the Quake phenomenon may never have gotten started, because cheating would have been so easy.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but aren't you just moving the obscurity to hardware? After all, anything that can be processed in hardware can be processed in software (only slower).
Quake was designed with the Internet in mind from the beginning, but Carmack underestimated the effect of modem latency. His infamous plan update went something like, "well, I have a T1 to my house, so I didn't realize how bad modems were." or words to that effect.:)
Aimbots have already been written even for the closed source version via a shell program that sits between Quake and TCP/IP. Obviously that program was a lot harder to create than a simple hack to the source code to create auto-aiming.
Fortunately, the aim-bot cheat is also much less interesting from a general security point of view. It's hard to imagine anything but a twitch game in which the client user can cheat effectively by altering the millisecond-level timing of command packets. So the real lesson of both cheats may be that a closed-source program like Carmack's hypothetical secured program launcher is indeed a good idea for security -- but only if you're a hyperadrenalized space marine on a shooting spree.
Uh, with all due respect, THAT IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM!! You in essense admit that this problem is unsolvable, then go on to say that it's really not a problem that anyone that's important (to you) cares about. Well, trivializing the problem by mocking quake fans doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't change the fact that open source has made the problem infinitely worse.
Then, of course, you go on to conclude that open source is the ultimate answer (while giving no evidence).
ESR, normally I'm with you, but this essay was major smoke and mirrors.
The point of patents is not so much to protect the IBMs of the world; it's to protect the little guy from the IBMs of the world. If I'm Joe Littleguy, and I invent copper interconnects, then I would never be able to develop the idea because some other company with bigger dollars would instantly steal it and beat me to market. This is a huge disincentive to invent anything, and promotes monopolies.
I'm actually glad you brought this up, because there is far too anti-patent thinking on Slashdot. Patents are your friend.
Now software patents are different. Personally, I think the problem is that the "science" of software is so new that we are still inventing "wheels" so to speak. My thought is that we should allow no software patents until an arbitrary date (say, 2029), and after that when the industry has presumably matured, we'll assume that everything obvious has been invented and start allowing software patents again.
If it wasn't for the military, we would all be living under Hitler -- and he might still be alive today, picking the next racial target to exterminate.
I am genuinely curious what you would have done, as a pacifist, when Hitler started rolling through Europe (I'm assuming you are too young to have been there -- a European pacifist almost by definition would have to be).
And what if you had been Jewish? Would you simply have engaged "passive resistance" as your entire race was wiped out?
Katz needs to get out more. Please explain to me how Jeff Bezos qualifies as "greedy". Oh, I forgot, if someone has more money than Jon Katz, then he must be greedy.
And let me tackle this issue of profit ONE MORE TIME (by me and others). Amazon can make profit anytime they want. All they have to do is dial back their advertising. However, since they are smart (and clearly know more about business than Jon Katz -- not saying much), they have chosen to spend money on building their brand. This is why they are one of the top brands on the Internet. Jon, it's not rocket science. Go take a business class.
I will grant you that the "patent issue" disturbs me. However, other than that, I have never gotten less than superb service from Amazon, and Bezos deserves every dollar he has earned. Yes, I know the concept of earning money is foreign to Katz, but some of us actually believe that people who provide thousands of jobs and provide a valuable service to the economy deserve what they make. Apparently all the Amazon customers agree.
I would assume that Knuth is being nominated for TeX. How influential has TeX been? I never see it used in the "real" world. I would assume it used mostly in academic circles, but it clearly has not made any penetration otherwise. Now, software doesn't have to be used widely to be influential (see B and BCPL). Does anyone know what TeX has influenced in the publishing industry?
Once we went to the moon, what happened? The program bit the dust, because there was no point to keeping it going. The exact same thing is going to happen if somehow NASA gets funding to go to mars, because there's nothing to keep them there.
The solution to getting people into space on a permanent basis is privatizing space! When there is an economic reason to keep us on mars, then we will have permanent colonies. People didn't create new colonies on Earth because of some romantic need for exploration, they formed them to a) get free land, b) escape political problems, c) get rich on abundant resources, or d) all of the above.
Let's be honest: most of us want the space program to succeed because we personally want to go to space! That will only happen when economics rule space and not meaningless petitions.
...the reader to not only read the literal words, but to interpret their underlying meaning based on context and verbiage....the typical defense is to deny any underlying meaning and insist on second-grade, literal interpretation of the words written, ignoring or playing down any context or common meaning of the verbiage employed.
Are you seriously arguing that the meaning of the words should not have as much weight as your interpretation of the words???
That's right, you've got me, everything I say is couched in code words. I don't really mean what I actually say.
Let's take this laughable example (there I go with the rhetoric again)...
My comment: "Women... again, you give credit where none is due, unless you count silly gestures like "burning bras" somehow got woman into boardrooms."
(Here you state emphatically that the women's movement had little or no effect on the treatment of women and the opening of career opportunities previously denied them...
Do you actually read what you write? Hint: The context (as you so like to point out) is "hippies" and their impact on society. I mocked the hippie's influence on the women's movement, and you change that into mocking the women's movement. Of course, my objecting to your twisting my words is merely "denying any underlying meaning" (how can I be so blind to the truth of my inner feelings?).
The women's movement clearly had a positive impact on society, but that has nothing to do with hippies. Burning bras was meaningless symbolism. The real work was done by the rank and file who became educated, worked hard, and progressed up through the ranks, taking the hits along the way.
That's called substance, not symbolism. People like you worship the symbols of the culture, rather than real progress, because they make you feel good. That's why you're so outlandishly defensive about "hippies" because they represent a symbol to you. Never mind looking at history and what the real effect of that was.
Face it: Your radical, extreme views don't need to be discredited by me; history has done a fine job. I know it's difficult to face the truth. Questioning your inner beliefs is one of the most difficult things in the world, which explains your unreasonable hatred and anger of opposing beliefs.
And as for Jane Fonda, congratulation on having the guts to say she was wrong. Too bad so many hippies embraced her as a hero back then -- and many still do today.
What's typical is that liberals read what they want to read, not what's actually there.
In my original post, I didn't "diss" everyone left of center, I dissed "hippies". In my follow up post, I dissed many philosophies left of center, not "all peoples".
Exactly where did I say that everyone opposed to Vietnam approved of Jane Fonda? Please supply a quote. Jane Fonda was a well-known hippie, however. My point is that public opinion ended vietnam, whereas hippies often did more harm than good.
And, of course, I never said that the ACLU is responsible for "all" of our educational problems. They are, however, responsible for many of them. (A much bigger target is the national teacher union, but that is off the subject).
LOL! I can't believe how much credit you give to the whining middle class white children of the 60s.
Vietnam war... there is no doubt that the hippies were part of it, but it was primarily the huge losses that changed public opinion. Public opinion, not "hippie opinion". Of course, we could bring up Jane Fonda, who called a bunch of prisoners "liars" for claiming they were tortured. I guess you think JF was a national hero?
Civil rights... typical liberal. Take credit for someone else's work. I think Martin Luther King and other black leaders had a lot more to do with it.
ACLU... Some good (privacy), some bad, but mostly bad. They are one of the most responsible for the death of common sense in the law. Of course children have the right to disrupt their schools! It's free speech, dontcha know? (never mind that the other students are thus denied the right to an education in a reasonable environment)
Women... again, you give credit where none is due, unless you count silly gestures like "burning bras" somehow got woman into boardrooms. And by the way, those "equal pay" figures are usually completely false. It's not equal, but it's far closer than the "urban legend" figures that everyone quotes. Read actual studies.
Free thought... free thought is fine. It's when society becomes slaves to a tyranny of the minority that things become a problem. Schools are a disaster because the 5% wackos make such a problem that they sound like 51%.
Drugs... Ah, finally. I notice that you conveniently leave out LSD, Heroin, etc. The hippie's greatest legacy is the drug culture. Aren't you proud?
Extreme views... Again, LOL. You only have to look at the trail of damage that came out of the 60s to see the truth. I'm sure you were also a fan of the Great Society.
I'm sure it makes you feel good to brag to your friends about how much you "care". What's amusing is that you make so many assumptions about what I believe based on my post. You are so hate-filled about what you think of as the "political right" that you can't even think logically. I'm thinking the anger is caused by the fact that you know the truth, but you can't admit your liberal/socialist philosophies have caused "Untold Damage" to the country. I hope someday you will see the truth.
Maybe I'm "too young to understand" (I'm right on the cusp, being 35), but why would anyone want to identify themselves as a hippie? To me, a hippie represents self-indulgent destructiveness. We're still suffering the damage that was caused by these self-titled "free thinkers". Not to say that everything that came out of the 60-70s was bad, but the "hippies" had very little to do with the good parts (OK, perhaps much of the music can be credited to hippies).
By calling themselves hippies, is this supposed to create some sort of trust in me? If so, it has utterly failed in my case.
Slashdot Mirror
...assuming you mean "nanobots", in the science fiction sense of being able to change/build objects at the molecular level.
Others know a lot more about this than I do, but this has always struck me as pure fantasy. Sure, it would be cool -- in the sense that a star trek transporter would be cool. However, the engineering and practical aspects would be immense. Power, organization, communication, reliability -- it would just be insanely difficult.
On the other hand, small bots that deliver medicine, swim through the bloodstream to do surgery and micro-repairs, that seems very doable and practical.
---
Q: If everyone decides that the word "gay" means homosexual, but you refuse to accept it, and continue to believe it only means "happy" is it did originally, are you wrong?
A: Yes. Language is a non-static, evolving entity. Words mean what society decides they mean. If Century/Millennium means "00", then that's what they mean. Note that there is nothing wrong with this; definitions generally change because they become more useful. In this case, "00" is a more useful definition, and thus it has been adopted.
---
Actually, this debate happens every century, in every country. The pedantics pout, and the normal people accept the useful definition.
---
The new Millennium began around 1997, because the monk screwed up the date of Christ. Face it: The true pedantic start is 1997. The popular start is 2000. Whatever it is, it's not 2001.
---
Your argument is incorrect anyway, if the real 3rd Millennium began in 1997, why should we observe it in 2000?
Exactly the point. It's stupid to try and have exact accuracy on this point. Exact accuracy demands 1997, which no one will accept, so why not go with the round number, which is the most useful definition?
---
The millennium ends this year. No question about it. You are absolutely wrong. Jan 1, 2000 is the beginning of the 3rd millennium.
And yes-- everybody knows that there was no year zero. Nobody cares, because 1) zeroes feel psychologically like a milestone, and milestones are about psychology, and 2) the monk screwed up the date of the birth of Christ. Most scholars believe the 3rd M' began around 1997 anyway.
Bottom line: You can't have it both ways. If you want to be pedantic, then say the millennium has already started. If you don't, then embrace the popular (and sensical) redefinition.
---
The solution is... uh, don't do it. Revolt against what? Are they chaining you to your desk? It's not as if it isn't a pro-worker environment right now.
I can just see you during the Great Depression, with your sign out saying, "Hey! I just got out of college! Where's my $70K/year job? Where are my stock options? I thought I was supposed to be a millionaire in my twenties!"
This perspective brought to you by the Clue Stick. Workers today are so incredibly spoiled.
---
If the client is (not) displaying the "shadow warriors", then the client knows they are shadow warriors. The Aimbot can just look at the skin to see if it's transparent, for example.
The Aimbot is going to know everything a human player knows, only more.
---
If the program had been open source from the beginning, absolutely nothing would be different. The protocol is designed the way it was to make a "twitch"-style game possible over high-latency Internet connections. It's not as if Carmack while smoking his crack pipe suddenly thought "I think I'll give tons of control to the clients"! Open Source development won't magically make latency go away.
The only difference if it had been Open Source from the beginning is that the Quake phenomenon may never have gotten started, because cheating would have been so easy.
---
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but aren't you just moving the obscurity to hardware? After all, anything that can be processed in hardware can be processed in software (only slower).
---
Quake was designed with the Internet in mind from the beginning, but Carmack underestimated the effect of modem latency. His infamous plan update went something like, "well, I have a T1 to my house, so I didn't realize how bad modems were." or words to that effect. :)
---
Aimbots have already been written even for the closed source version via a shell program that sits between Quake and TCP/IP. Obviously that program was a lot harder to create than a simple hack to the source code to create auto-aiming.
---
Fortunately, the aim-bot cheat is also much less interesting from a general security point of view. It's hard to imagine anything but a twitch game in which the client user can cheat effectively by altering the millisecond-level timing of command packets. So the real lesson of both cheats may be that a closed-source program like Carmack's hypothetical secured program launcher is indeed a good idea for security -- but only if you're a hyperadrenalized space marine on a shooting spree.
Uh, with all due respect, THAT IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM!! You in essense admit that this problem is unsolvable, then go on to say that it's really not a problem that anyone that's important (to you) cares about. Well, trivializing the problem by mocking quake fans doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't change the fact that open source has made the problem infinitely worse.
Then, of course, you go on to conclude that open source is the ultimate answer (while giving no evidence).
ESR, normally I'm with you, but this essay was major smoke and mirrors.
---
The point of patents is not so much to protect the IBMs of the world; it's to protect the little guy from the IBMs of the world. If I'm Joe Littleguy, and I invent copper interconnects, then I would never be able to develop the idea because some other company with bigger dollars would instantly steal it and beat me to market. This is a huge disincentive to invent anything, and promotes monopolies.
I'm actually glad you brought this up, because there is far too anti-patent thinking on Slashdot. Patents are your friend.
Now software patents are different. Personally, I think the problem is that the "science" of software is so new that we are still inventing "wheels" so to speak. My thought is that we should allow no software patents until an arbitrary date (say, 2029), and after that when the industry has presumably matured, we'll assume that everything obvious has been invented and start allowing software patents again.
---
To quote the cliche... it's free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
ESR is right: "Open Source" is a way, way better term than "free software".
---
If it wasn't for the military, we would all be living under Hitler -- and he might still be alive today, picking the next racial target to exterminate.
I am genuinely curious what you would have done, as a pacifist, when Hitler started rolling through Europe (I'm assuming you are too young to have been there -- a European pacifist almost by definition would have to be).
And what if you had been Jewish? Would you simply have engaged "passive resistance" as your entire race was wiped out?
---
Katz needs to get out more. Please explain to me how Jeff Bezos qualifies as "greedy". Oh, I forgot, if someone has more money than Jon Katz, then he must be greedy.
And let me tackle this issue of profit ONE MORE TIME (by me and others). Amazon can make profit anytime they want. All they have to do is dial back their advertising. However, since they are smart (and clearly know more about business than Jon Katz -- not saying much), they have chosen to spend money on building their brand. This is why they are one of the top brands on the Internet. Jon, it's not rocket science. Go take a business class.
I will grant you that the "patent issue" disturbs me. However, other than that, I have never gotten less than superb service from Amazon, and Bezos deserves every dollar he has earned. Yes, I know the concept of earning money is foreign to Katz, but some of us actually believe that people who provide thousands of jobs and provide a valuable service to the economy deserve what they make. Apparently all the Amazon customers agree.
---
M11 was almost good enough to replace Netscape 4.61 ...
That must be mean M11 was really bad... :)
---
I would assume that Knuth is being nominated for TeX. How influential has TeX been? I never see it used in the "real" world. I would assume it used mostly in academic circles, but it clearly has not made any penetration otherwise. Now, software doesn't have to be used widely to be influential (see B and BCPL). Does anyone know what TeX has influenced in the publishing industry?
Once we went to the moon, what happened? The program bit the dust, because there was no point to keeping it going. The exact same thing is going to happen if somehow NASA gets funding to go to mars, because there's nothing to keep them there.
The solution to getting people into space on a permanent basis is privatizing space! When there is an economic reason to keep us on mars, then we will have permanent colonies. People didn't create new colonies on Earth because of some romantic need for exploration, they formed them to a) get free land, b) escape political problems, c) get rich on abundant resources, or d) all of the above.
Let's be honest: most of us want the space program to succeed because we personally want to go to space! That will only happen when economics rule space and not meaningless petitions.
You are absolutely amazing.
Are you seriously arguing that the meaning of the words should not have as much weight as your interpretation of the words???
That's right, you've got me, everything I say is couched in code words. I don't really mean what I actually say.
Let's take this laughable example (there I go with the rhetoric again)...
My comment: "Women... again, you give credit where none is due, unless you count silly gestures like "burning bras" somehow got woman into boardrooms."
(Here you state emphatically that the women's movement had little or no effect on the treatment of women and the opening of career opportunities previously denied them...
Do you actually read what you write? Hint: The context (as you so like to point out) is "hippies" and their impact on society. I mocked the hippie's influence on the women's movement, and you change that into mocking the women's movement. Of course, my objecting to your twisting my words is merely "denying any underlying meaning" (how can I be so blind to the truth of my inner feelings?).
The women's movement clearly had a positive impact on society, but that has nothing to do with hippies. Burning bras was meaningless symbolism. The real work was done by the rank and file who became educated, worked hard, and progressed up through the ranks, taking the hits along the way.
That's called substance, not symbolism. People like you worship the symbols of the culture, rather than real progress, because they make you feel good. That's why you're so outlandishly defensive about "hippies" because they represent a symbol to you. Never mind looking at history and what the real effect of that was.
Face it: Your radical, extreme views don't need to be discredited by me; history has done a fine job. I know it's difficult to face the truth. Questioning your inner beliefs is one of the most difficult things in the world, which explains your unreasonable hatred and anger of opposing beliefs.
And as for Jane Fonda, congratulation on having the guts to say she was wrong. Too bad so many hippies embraced her as a hero back then -- and many still do today.
What's typical is that liberals read what they want to read, not what's actually there.
In my original post, I didn't "diss" everyone left of center, I dissed "hippies". In my follow up post, I dissed many philosophies left of center, not "all peoples".
Exactly where did I say that everyone opposed to Vietnam approved of Jane Fonda? Please supply a quote. Jane Fonda was a well-known hippie, however. My point is that public opinion ended vietnam, whereas hippies often did more harm than good.
And, of course, I never said that the ACLU is responsible for "all" of our educational problems. They are, however, responsible for many of them. (A much bigger target is the national teacher union, but that is off the subject).
LOL! I can't believe how much credit you give to the whining middle class white children of the 60s.
Vietnam war... there is no doubt that the hippies were part of it, but it was primarily the huge losses that changed public opinion. Public opinion, not "hippie opinion". Of course, we could bring up Jane Fonda, who called a bunch of prisoners "liars" for claiming they were tortured. I guess you think JF was a national hero?
Civil rights... typical liberal. Take credit for someone else's work. I think Martin Luther King and other black leaders had a lot more to do with it.
ACLU... Some good (privacy), some bad, but mostly bad. They are one of the most responsible for the death of common sense in the law. Of course children have the right to disrupt their schools! It's free speech, dontcha know? (never mind that the other students are thus denied the right to an education in a reasonable environment)
Women... again, you give credit where none is due, unless you count silly gestures like "burning bras" somehow got woman into boardrooms. And by the way, those "equal pay" figures are usually completely false. It's not equal, but it's far closer than the "urban legend" figures that everyone quotes. Read actual studies.
Free thought... free thought is fine. It's when society becomes slaves to a tyranny of the minority that things become a problem. Schools are a disaster because the 5% wackos make such a problem that they sound like 51%.
Drugs... Ah, finally. I notice that you conveniently leave out LSD, Heroin, etc. The hippie's greatest legacy is the drug culture. Aren't you proud?
Extreme views... Again, LOL. You only have to look at the trail of damage that came out of the 60s to see the truth. I'm sure you were also a fan of the Great Society.
I'm sure it makes you feel good to brag to your friends about how much you "care". What's amusing is that you make so many assumptions about what I believe based on my post. You are so hate-filled about what you think of as the "political right" that you can't even think logically. I'm thinking the anger is caused by the fact that you know the truth, but you can't admit your liberal/socialist philosophies have caused "Untold Damage" to the country. I hope someday you will see the truth.
Maybe I'm "too young to understand" (I'm right on the cusp, being 35), but why would anyone want to identify themselves as a hippie? To me, a hippie represents self-indulgent destructiveness. We're still suffering the damage that was caused by these self-titled "free thinkers". Not to say that everything that came out of the 60-70s was bad, but the "hippies" had very little to do with the good parts (OK, perhaps much of the music can be credited to hippies).
By calling themselves hippies, is this supposed to create some sort of trust in me? If so, it has utterly failed in my case.
Alpha: Ready for internal testing
Beta: Ready for external testing (i.e., outside the lab)
Release candidate: Feature complete, and if no serious bugs come up after a certain amount of time, the software is released.
"Gold" has also turned up in recent years, which means released to manufacturing.