True, actually detecting the finger hovering over but not touching the screen might be pretty problematic. There have already been two ideas that I think are much better than mine. The solution used in the Storm seems the most intuitive. Slide your finger to hover, press harder to click. That would also prevent all the accidental taps I get on my Droid.
I looked into the styluses for capacitive touch screens. They are just as big as the end of my pinky finger. I want something with a point about the size of a regular pencil. Just like I have on my Tablet PC and had on my Palm.
As to touch sensitive regular screens. I used to retrofit regular monitors for touch-screens as part of a job I once had. That worked for the environment where they were to be used but I would never use a touch screen on my regular desktop. I have so much more control with a mouse. I also have a graphics tablet for when I am using, well, graphics software but I don't use it for regular activity. Again, a mouse is more versatile.
But, back to my phone, or a small tablet style pc, I would definitely want a stylus so I could write on it like a piece of paper. I do it every day in class on my Tablet PC and it is so handy I would find it pretty hard to live without it.
As to the hovering aspect in the OP: I liked oji-sama's idea.
What? If you don't want to use that button you don't have to. It would be easy. The software already listens for the hover event. It would be like a shift click or something. When you "hover-tap" the OS just sends the hover event to the software. No complication at all.
I agree. With the OP's logic, half of the internet should be banned from the entire i* line of products. However, there are two hardware solutions that could solve the problem for all touch screen devices.
1) Add proximity sensing. Not just for your whole face, but to sense when a finger is held near the screen. It is capacitive touch after all.
2) Add active stylus input. The main thing I miss on my Droid vs my old Palm Handheld is the fine grain control afforded by a stylus. I know Palms were just pressure touch sensitive and so had the same hover issues. But I also have a Table PC and I can hover the stylus over the screen to move the pointer without ever touching the screen. Then a tap on the screen is the same as a click. I don't care what Steve Jobs says, I like having a stylus.
Even if the software uses the same hash function to reduce all the data points to a smaller data value for storage and searching purposes, the scanning hardware from different vendors has subtle differences. Different hardware scanning the same fingerprint would come up with a different original set of data points to pass to the hash function. So it would be difficult to take the hashed data, which is usually all that is stored, and make use of that on another system that uses a different brand or model of scanner.
Often, when an institution has to get a new set of these scanners because a lot of them have gone bad, everyone has to do an original scan all over again because the new scanners produce a data set that is just different enough that it won't match up to the right people. The inaccuracy of these systems should be more troubling. If a system doesn't require a PIN then there is a statistical chance that it could misidentify someone and claim they clocked out when they did not.
As to the school fingerprinting programs: How detailed of a scan they are collecting depends on the purpose of the scan. If it is just to check people in and out then it is probably not of much concern. However, if the purpose is for future identification from actual fingerprints then they may, in fact, be storing an accurate image of the entire fingerprint. In the past, there were programs to fingerprint children but those prints were stored on a paper card in the parent's possession. If a full image is being stored by the school then that would be a breach of privacy.
GEEZ! The Slashdoters sure can pitch a fit about nothing!
These devices only store a few numbers that were derived from the patterns of your prints. They don't store anything near the actual image. When you re-scan your finger to clock in it creates a new set of numbers and looks for a set that is statistically close to something it has in it's database. Usually you have to enter a PIN as well because these things do such a crappy job that without knowing where to start, it would have a terrible time figuring out which of the stored sets of numbers match up to the one you just scanned in. I'm not saying that some systems can't do a great job. I'm just saying that the kinds of systems they sell for time-clocks are usually pretty lame. Especially after they get beat around for a while. So all these time-clock units really do is determine if the clock-in scan is statistically close enough to the original scan to be more likely to be you than some other employee. The actual data stored is less personally identifiable than your name. Are you gonna complain if they ask you to give your name when you clock in?
I also seriously doubt that these things produce any form of standardized data that could be transferred to any other system. Heck, sometimes the scans won't match up just because you bought a slightly different model from the same manufacturer to replace a broken unit. Ever try to troubleshoot one of these systems? It is a nightmare.
So, you have nothing to worry about. "They" are more likely to track you by mere facial recognition via security cameras than by your fingerprints.
Even if the most common way of cheating is for some students to let other students copy, this does not mean that ALL the students have any means whatsoever for preventing that. Only those involved should be punished. Not those who had not way to stop it or even know about it.
I feel another reason the teachers may be more willing to spread that punishment around is that it causes grumbling but no lawsuits. One of the reasons many teachers are hesitant to fail or expel a student is that it often results in a lawsuit. Even if the teacher or school wins it is costly and time consuming.
How many time have you known what was going to be on the syllabus before enrolling in a class?
My point is that collective punishment should be against the policy. I certainly wouldn't want to attend a university that endorsed it.
Finally, someone is talking about the real problem with that article: Group punishment. I thought that was outlawed somehow. If I were in that class I would summarily drop and file a complaint with the dean. Group punishment is a lazy professor's choice. It forces the responsibility for preventing cheating down to the students, many of whom have now power to change the behavior of others. But the lazy professor can sit up there and smugly say, "You should have policed your peers better." WTF!?
So I'm supposed to pay a monthly fee so someone can lock my documents up in a cloud somewhere where I may or may not be able to get to them one day? I know there is a free version but it is just a teaser for anyone who does real research or information hoarding.
I have supported lots of special-purpose, niche-market software over the years. It is almost all crap. I suspect this is so because the vendors have no market-based motivation to change their code. As long as they are the only company selling software that does what there's does, then they will only update their code for one of the two following reasons: 1) Competition. 2) To con their victims/customers into shelling out more cash. Some of this crap still runs in DOS! I have had customers or departments that had to keep old DOS-only machines around well into the XP days just to run some old piece of software that wouldn't even run in a DOS box under Windows. What is even more astounding is that the users simply accepted this as part and partial of dealing with those magic boxes on their desks called "computers." Or as they often call them, "the hard disk."
So, if there is no financial incentive for the vendors of these massively out of date programs to provide upgrades out of this archaic and anacronistic morass, what makes you think that something like WAT is going to force their hand? Only when there is enough quality competition on the Linux platform that a critical mass of users actually switch (and prefer it for all of their applications rather than running Windows apps in Virtual Box) and at least some competitive, quality Linux apps are developed will software vendors venture into this uncharted (at least as far as they are concerned) territory. "Quality" is the key word here. The linux apps don't just have to do the same things as the Windows apps. They have to do it better. Most businesses are not going to make the switch on principles alone. They need a compelling business case for going to the trouble.
Yes, many users don't necessarilly notice if you switch them to Linux as long as you put their icons in the same spot on the desktop. However, if the application they use is even slightly different, they just fall apart. I've seen users revolt against an upgrade simply because the sequence of shortcut key-strokes they had to press to get certain common tasks done had changed by as little as one key. So, the new version - whether it be on linux or Windows - has to be significantly better to justify retraining all those users. Not to mention the decreased productivity as they figure out the new shortcuts and new ways to defeat the system safeguards. Remember, you aren't retraining the users on the operating system. You are retraining them on the new applications. So, the benefit to the company incurred by the upgrade/switch absolutely must be greater than the cost of the change - in terms of price, training, and lost productivity.
Unfortunately, all this process must also take place for a critical mass of different applications. Many of which have very limited use. Each of those niche-market applications is like a stake in the ground, holding the Windows tent in place and preventing Linux from pouring a foundation. And there are thousands of them. Each one holding a different subset of users in place and frustrating any desire they may have of getting away from that buggy Windows tent. So, even if they can pull up one or two stakes, they may still have others holding that tent over them. And, because they still have to live in the tent, there is little reason to even work on building a Linux "foundation" for just one or two apps.
Well, if the Linux community really wants to get that darned, bug-infested Microsoft tent out of the way, they have got to pull up almost all of those stakes themselves. In other words, the Linux community needs to make lots and lots of quality applications. The users certainly aren't going to do it. And the vendors aren't going to do it without a good financial reason. I have never been a big fan of Bill Gates, but I haven't made the switch to Linux yet either. Nor do I expect to any time soon. I have too many stakes holding my part of the tent down. Namely: Microsoft OneNote (all my personal notes and information storage), Outlook (complete integration of all
Have you ever actually tried to use Dragon Naturally Speaking (DNS) in this environment? Obviously not. It would be full of garbled crap. First, you have to train DNS to your voice. Second you have to speak clearly and enunciate well. When was the last time you had a professor do that? Then you have to have a virtually noise free environment.
I have been using a Tablet PC for my school notes ever since I went back to school in the summer of 2005. I use Microsoft OneNote to take all my notes in handwriting right on my laptop. I can draw a diagram anywhere I want. I can Make the "page" as big as I need, both sideways or up and down just by scrolling over there and writing something. I can later search for all of my notes because it recognizes the handwriting in the background. And I can convert that handwriting to text to put in a more organized format or send to someone else. Heck, I can even record the lecture at the same time I am taking the notes and OneNote time-stamps each thing I write so it can later go back and play back what it recorded when I wrote that thing. If you have a web-cam hooked up it will do the same with video! This way I can clarify my notes later. You show me an iAnything or NetAnything that can do that. I can make more room between things or move things around instantly. I use an Acer C300 tablet PC that was built a while back but has a 14" diagonal screen. This makes it just slightly larger than a letter sized piece of paper. It is the perfect note-taking system. And OneNote comes free on almost every Tablet PC sold now.
It just boggles my mind how something that has been around for over six years has been completely ignored by the press, the education community, and techies all over. Tablet PCs frikkin work and it is as if they don't exist just because Steve Jerk-us-around didn't keep it "secret", leak photos of it, hype it up, then eventually hold it up with a smirk on his face. How many more times is the tech community going to fall for that crap?
I am no fan of Bill Gates, but this is ridiculous. So, if the rest of you want to fumble around paying more attention to buzzwords than substance... go for it. I will just continue on with my "special power", kicking ass and taking notes. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
I guess I read that Thorium "could" be extracted from seawater and thought that meant that it "is" extracted from seawater. Perhaps the article I read mentioned that as a supposedly more environmentally friendly way of getting it. However, if you can mine it faster, then guess which way we will get it.
All in all, it looks as if we are in for some interesting changes. I think we need to work on both Thorium and Fast Breeders. This all does make me wonder if the energy companies have been dragging their feet simply because they want to keep energy prices high. What we need is a "Race to the Moon" level program to get this done as soon as possible. It would mean an end to petroleum dependence and a lot of good jobs that can't be farmed out.
I think they are less popular because it is harder to make plutonium in them. However, I am not positive. I know that the current water cooled technology was chosen specifically because it is the best for creating weapons grade material. Now that the nuclear power plant builders know how to build the current style power plants, that is what they want to do because that is what they know. It's kind of like how Hollywood knows we want unique stories but they keep churning out the same old thing simply because they know it works. No one wants to risk billions of dollars on what they perceive as an unknown. Yes, even though it is proven technology and there are even Fast Breeder plants in operation. The industry, as high-tech as it is, still fears going with anything new.
Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.
They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades. They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology. They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it. We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years. The current technology only uses less than 5% of the energy that is actually in the fuel. Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it. They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left. They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.
I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment. Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater. On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.
Bottom line. Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.
Modifying DNS in the way they are requesting could be used - along with the technologies mentioned in this article - to determine or narrow down location information even on connections that aren't going to Google's servers. Thus allowing Google to track location information on everyone in the world all the time. That would be very valuable information to Google even if it were not as accurate as GPS, or as specific as a whole IP address, and even if it were in aggregate form.
The more information they can glom together the better for them and potentially worse for us in the long run. Especially when they redefine "evil" to mean "anything that doesn't help us make money."
Now we know the real reason for the suggestion Google has made recently to change the way DNS works to report part of the requesting IP address. They don't give one whit about decreasing unnecessary traffic. They just want to use that for additional location data.
This is the problem with frikkin cloud computing. Everybody and their brother wants to reach down from that cloud and stick their finger in your pie. When they are done they just give you the finger and you are left with a useless mess in your pie-tin.
Just imagine a sick cross between Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and American Pie.
There are European countries where software cannot be patented. The relevant question is whether this has caused their software and IT industries to collapse, and it has not. So it has already been demonstrated that software patents are not an essential component of a working economy. The burden of proof is therefore on anyone who suggests that the USA is a special case, that it cannot live without them even though other countries can.
Very good point. The first step, in designing any new system, is asking, "Do we need this system at all?"
Slashdot Mirror
Or vice-versa depending on who makes the phone.
True, actually detecting the finger hovering over but not touching the screen might be pretty problematic. There have already been two ideas that I think are much better than mine. The solution used in the Storm seems the most intuitive. Slide your finger to hover, press harder to click. That would also prevent all the accidental taps I get on my Droid.
I looked into the styluses for capacitive touch screens. They are just as big as the end of my pinky finger. I want something with a point about the size of a regular pencil. Just like I have on my Tablet PC and had on my Palm.
As to touch sensitive regular screens. I used to retrofit regular monitors for touch-screens as part of a job I once had. That worked for the environment where they were to be used but I would never use a touch screen on my regular desktop. I have so much more control with a mouse. I also have a graphics tablet for when I am using, well, graphics software but I don't use it for regular activity. Again, a mouse is more versatile.
But, back to my phone, or a small tablet style pc, I would definitely want a stylus so I could write on it like a piece of paper. I do it every day in class on my Tablet PC and it is so handy I would find it pretty hard to live without it.
As to the hovering aspect in the OP: I liked oji-sama's idea.
What? If you don't want to use that button you don't have to. It would be easy. The software already listens for the hover event. It would be like a shift click or something. When you "hover-tap" the OS just sends the hover event to the software. No complication at all.
That's an awesome idea! So much easier to implement than mine.
I agree. With the OP's logic, half of the internet should be banned from the entire i* line of products. However, there are two hardware solutions that could solve the problem for all touch screen devices.
1) Add proximity sensing. Not just for your whole face, but to sense when a finger is held near the screen. It is capacitive touch after all.
2) Add active stylus input. The main thing I miss on my Droid vs my old Palm Handheld is the fine grain control afforded by a stylus. I know Palms were just pressure touch sensitive and so had the same hover issues. But I also have a Table PC and I can hover the stylus over the screen to move the pointer without ever touching the screen. Then a tap on the screen is the same as a click. I don't care what Steve Jobs says, I like having a stylus.
Even if the software uses the same hash function to reduce all the data points to a smaller data value for storage and searching purposes, the scanning hardware from different vendors has subtle differences. Different hardware scanning the same fingerprint would come up with a different original set of data points to pass to the hash function. So it would be difficult to take the hashed data, which is usually all that is stored, and make use of that on another system that uses a different brand or model of scanner.
Often, when an institution has to get a new set of these scanners because a lot of them have gone bad, everyone has to do an original scan all over again because the new scanners produce a data set that is just different enough that it won't match up to the right people. The inaccuracy of these systems should be more troubling. If a system doesn't require a PIN then there is a statistical chance that it could misidentify someone and claim they clocked out when they did not.
As to the school fingerprinting programs: How detailed of a scan they are collecting depends on the purpose of the scan. If it is just to check people in and out then it is probably not of much concern. However, if the purpose is for future identification from actual fingerprints then they may, in fact, be storing an accurate image of the entire fingerprint. In the past, there were programs to fingerprint children but those prints were stored on a paper card in the parent's possession. If a full image is being stored by the school then that would be a breach of privacy.
All the physicists I know are now programmers.
GEEZ! The Slashdoters sure can pitch a fit about nothing!
These devices only store a few numbers that were derived from the patterns of your prints. They don't store anything near the actual image. When you re-scan your finger to clock in it creates a new set of numbers and looks for a set that is statistically close to something it has in it's database. Usually you have to enter a PIN as well because these things do such a crappy job that without knowing where to start, it would have a terrible time figuring out which of the stored sets of numbers match up to the one you just scanned in. I'm not saying that some systems can't do a great job. I'm just saying that the kinds of systems they sell for time-clocks are usually pretty lame. Especially after they get beat around for a while. So all these time-clock units really do is determine if the clock-in scan is statistically close enough to the original scan to be more likely to be you than some other employee. The actual data stored is less personally identifiable than your name. Are you gonna complain if they ask you to give your name when you clock in?
I also seriously doubt that these things produce any form of standardized data that could be transferred to any other system. Heck, sometimes the scans won't match up just because you bought a slightly different model from the same manufacturer to replace a broken unit. Ever try to troubleshoot one of these systems? It is a nightmare.
So, you have nothing to worry about. "They" are more likely to track you by mere facial recognition via security cameras than by your fingerprints.
Even if the most common way of cheating is for some students to let other students copy, this does not mean that ALL the students have any means whatsoever for preventing that. Only those involved should be punished. Not those who had not way to stop it or even know about it.
I feel another reason the teachers may be more willing to spread that punishment around is that it causes grumbling but no lawsuits. One of the reasons many teachers are hesitant to fail or expel a student is that it often results in a lawsuit. Even if the teacher or school wins it is costly and time consuming.
How many time have you known what was going to be on the syllabus before enrolling in a class?
My point is that collective punishment should be against the policy. I certainly wouldn't want to attend a university that endorsed it.
Finally, someone is talking about the real problem with that article: Group punishment. I thought that was outlawed somehow. If I were in that class I would summarily drop and file a complaint with the dean. Group punishment is a lazy professor's choice. It forces the responsibility for preventing cheating down to the students, many of whom have now power to change the behavior of others. But the lazy professor can sit up there and smugly say, "You should have policed your peers better." WTF!?
So I'm supposed to pay a monthly fee so someone can lock my documents up in a cloud somewhere where I may or may not be able to get to them one day? I know there is a free version but it is just a teaser for anyone who does real research or information hoarding.
Are you sure it wasn't made for Unix in the first place?
I have supported lots of special-purpose, niche-market software over the years. It is almost all crap. I suspect this is so because the vendors have no market-based motivation to change their code. As long as they are the only company selling software that does what there's does, then they will only update their code for one of the two following reasons: 1) Competition. 2) To con their victims/customers into shelling out more cash. Some of this crap still runs in DOS! I have had customers or departments that had to keep old DOS-only machines around well into the XP days just to run some old piece of software that wouldn't even run in a DOS box under Windows. What is even more astounding is that the users simply accepted this as part and partial of dealing with those magic boxes on their desks called "computers." Or as they often call them, "the hard disk."
So, if there is no financial incentive for the vendors of these massively out of date programs to provide upgrades out of this archaic and anacronistic morass, what makes you think that something like WAT is going to force their hand? Only when there is enough quality competition on the Linux platform that a critical mass of users actually switch (and prefer it for all of their applications rather than running Windows apps in Virtual Box) and at least some competitive, quality Linux apps are developed will software vendors venture into this uncharted (at least as far as they are concerned) territory. "Quality" is the key word here. The linux apps don't just have to do the same things as the Windows apps. They have to do it better. Most businesses are not going to make the switch on principles alone. They need a compelling business case for going to the trouble.
Yes, many users don't necessarilly notice if you switch them to Linux as long as you put their icons in the same spot on the desktop. However, if the application they use is even slightly different, they just fall apart. I've seen users revolt against an upgrade simply because the sequence of shortcut key-strokes they had to press to get certain common tasks done had changed by as little as one key. So, the new version - whether it be on linux or Windows - has to be significantly better to justify retraining all those users. Not to mention the decreased productivity as they figure out the new shortcuts and new ways to defeat the system safeguards. Remember, you aren't retraining the users on the operating system. You are retraining them on the new applications. So, the benefit to the company incurred by the upgrade/switch absolutely must be greater than the cost of the change - in terms of price, training, and lost productivity.
Unfortunately, all this process must also take place for a critical mass of different applications. Many of which have very limited use. Each of those niche-market applications is like a stake in the ground, holding the Windows tent in place and preventing Linux from pouring a foundation. And there are thousands of them. Each one holding a different subset of users in place and frustrating any desire they may have of getting away from that buggy Windows tent. So, even if they can pull up one or two stakes, they may still have others holding that tent over them. And, because they still have to live in the tent, there is little reason to even work on building a Linux "foundation" for just one or two apps.
Well, if the Linux community really wants to get that darned, bug-infested Microsoft tent out of the way, they have got to pull up almost all of those stakes themselves. In other words, the Linux community needs to make lots and lots of quality applications. The users certainly aren't going to do it. And the vendors aren't going to do it without a good financial reason. I have never been a big fan of Bill Gates, but I haven't made the switch to Linux yet either. Nor do I expect to any time soon. I have too many stakes holding my part of the tent down. Namely: Microsoft OneNote (all my personal notes and information storage), Outlook (complete integration of all
Have you ever actually tried to use Dragon Naturally Speaking (DNS) in this environment? Obviously not. It would be full of garbled crap. First, you have to train DNS to your voice. Second you have to speak clearly and enunciate well. When was the last time you had a professor do that? Then you have to have a virtually noise free environment.
Exactly!
I have been using a Tablet PC for my school notes ever since I went back to school in the summer of 2005. I use Microsoft OneNote to take all my notes in handwriting right on my laptop. I can draw a diagram anywhere I want. I can Make the "page" as big as I need, both sideways or up and down just by scrolling over there and writing something. I can later search for all of my notes because it recognizes the handwriting in the background. And I can convert that handwriting to text to put in a more organized format or send to someone else. Heck, I can even record the lecture at the same time I am taking the notes and OneNote time-stamps each thing I write so it can later go back and play back what it recorded when I wrote that thing. If you have a web-cam hooked up it will do the same with video! This way I can clarify my notes later. You show me an iAnything or NetAnything that can do that. I can make more room between things or move things around instantly. I use an Acer C300 tablet PC that was built a while back but has a 14" diagonal screen. This makes it just slightly larger than a letter sized piece of paper. It is the perfect note-taking system. And OneNote comes free on almost every Tablet PC sold now.
It just boggles my mind how something that has been around for over six years has been completely ignored by the press, the education community, and techies all over. Tablet PCs frikkin work and it is as if they don't exist just because Steve Jerk-us-around didn't keep it "secret", leak photos of it, hype it up, then eventually hold it up with a smirk on his face. How many more times is the tech community going to fall for that crap?
I am no fan of Bill Gates, but this is ridiculous. So, if the rest of you want to fumble around paying more attention to buzzwords than substance ... go for it. I will just continue on with my "special power", kicking ass and taking notes. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
I guess I read that Thorium "could" be extracted from seawater and thought that meant that it "is" extracted from seawater. Perhaps the article I read mentioned that as a supposedly more environmentally friendly way of getting it. However, if you can mine it faster, then guess which way we will get it.
All in all, it looks as if we are in for some interesting changes. I think we need to work on both Thorium and Fast Breeders. This all does make me wonder if the energy companies have been dragging their feet simply because they want to keep energy prices high. What we need is a "Race to the Moon" level program to get this done as soon as possible. It would mean an end to petroleum dependence and a lot of good jobs that can't be farmed out.
Sorry, not on the tip of my tongue (or fingers). I remember there was a great Scientific American article about the technology in December of 2005. Unfortunately, they have changed their web site and you have to have a subscription to read it. SciAm is a good source of info on this topic. Here is a link to search results on SciAm's site. And here is a link to a talk by the scientist who is promoting the technology (I know. Esquire?).
I think they are less popular because it is harder to make plutonium in them. However, I am not positive. I know that the current water cooled technology was chosen specifically because it is the best for creating weapons grade material. Now that the nuclear power plant builders know how to build the current style power plants, that is what they want to do because that is what they know. It's kind of like how Hollywood knows we want unique stories but they keep churning out the same old thing simply because they know it works. No one wants to risk billions of dollars on what they perceive as an unknown. Yes, even though it is proven technology and there are even Fast Breeder plants in operation. The industry, as high-tech as it is, still fears going with anything new.
Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.
They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades. They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology. They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it. We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years. The current technology only uses less than 5% of the energy that is actually in the fuel. Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it. They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left. They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.
I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment. Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater. On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.
Bottom line. Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.
Did you read my other comments in response to this point?
Modifying DNS in the way they are requesting could be used - along with the technologies mentioned in this article - to determine or narrow down location information even on connections that aren't going to Google's servers. Thus allowing Google to track location information on everyone in the world all the time. That would be very valuable information to Google even if it were not as accurate as GPS, or as specific as a whole IP address, and even if it were in aggregate form.
The more information they can glom together the better for them and potentially worse for us in the long run. Especially when they redefine "evil" to mean "anything that doesn't help us make money."
Now we know the real reason for the suggestion Google has made recently to change the way DNS works to report part of the requesting IP address. They don't give one whit about decreasing unnecessary traffic. They just want to use that for additional location data.
This is the problem with frikkin cloud computing. Everybody and their brother wants to reach down from that cloud and stick their finger in your pie. When they are done they just give you the finger and you are left with a useless mess in your pie-tin.
Just imagine a sick cross between Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and American Pie.
There are European countries where software cannot be patented. The relevant question is whether this has caused their software and IT industries to collapse, and it has not. So it has already been demonstrated that software patents are not an essential component of a working economy. The burden of proof is therefore on anyone who suggests that the USA is a special case, that it cannot live without them even though other countries can.
Very good point. The first step, in designing any new system, is asking, "Do we need this system at all?"