...that China develops some kind of X platform to help control most aspects of the computer rather than relying heavily on the console. It would be impossible to control Linux through the console trying to use the Chineese writing system and keyboard.
It's too bad though that there's no real way we can drill it to the media, letting them know how much they blew this one. It was a lot like War of the Worlds, except drawn out over a period of three-four years.
One thing, though, that I don't really believe in, is how "special" the year 2000 was. It's just a number driven by media hype and economic thrust! We've already proven that we started at 1AD, that Jesus Christ was actually born a few years before then, and that we're just not perfect when it comes to telling time (it took us how long before we finally established the Jullian Calendar?). I personally didn't see anything spectacular in this year, besides the fact that we rolled over from 1999 to 2000.
It's not like I threw a celebration when I rolled my car's spedometer over from 99999.9 to 00000.0!
Do the lawyers know more about the technologies we love than we understand about the laws they fuss over? Or do we techies understand the realm of law on a level higher than the lawyer's understanding of technology?
First, the pivital question is this: how do lawyers understand the laws they fuss over, and how to techies understand the technology we fuss over? The answer: we're resourceful.
Lawyers spend eight years in schooling to learn their trade, plus many more in assisting and training before they become lawyers. Even then, they still don't know EVERY law on the books! So how do they familiarize themselves with the laws? They look them up! They know where to look, what to find, and how to apply it to their case.
Same thing with techies. It'd be incredibly difficult (although not impossible) for someone to be able to know and master the countless OSs out there, AND know the inner workings of a computer inside and out, AND know networking inside and out, etc. But if they're faced with a problem that they're not completely familiar with, they look it up.
There aren't too many lawyers who know what a HOWTO is, let alone understand what the Linux-lingo means. I don't think there are too many techies who know where to find information on up-to-date laws, let alone understand the law-lingo.
Case in point: we each have our own profession, and we each know the core knowledge of it, and how to expand our knowledge of it. If we don't understand something that's not in our realm, that's why we have people called "specialists" whom we use to tell us what to do. If my hot water heater wasn't working, should I a) Read a few books, become familiar with how it works, and attempt to fix it, or b) Hire a repairman to come over and fix it? Definately 'b'. Sure, we all like to think that we're smart enough to fix our own problems, but it takes a rocket scientist to build a rocket, not a skyscraper.
Would have a difficult time trying to get this one past the Supreme Court.
Technically, our government can't directly say "You can do this, you can't do this," over anything except what they're told to do through Article 1, Sec. 8, Clauses 1-17. But they found a loophole...they CAN say "If you don't do this, we'll pull government funding!" Course, loosing all that cash isn't really a good thing, so everyone goes along with what our government dictates (usually).
Course, the nice thing about fund appropriation is that it has to have merit. If it doesn't, the Supreme Court will kill the bill. Personally, I don't see how this would have any merit.
Besides, now that I think of it, all that above blather is just worthless, because there's one major thing that would keep our government from doing this: money. Speeding tickets were invented for INCOME, not penalty. The police don't want you to think that, but a major part of transportation funding actually comes from traffic violations. It would put a serious crink in the transportation budget if something like that was implemented here. Of course, I don't know how it is in Britain or Austrailia, but I don't know how they could afford to loose that kind of funding.
This is not a case of reverse engineering! Reverse engineering is where you take something created and break it apart to find what it's made out of. If I owned a Pizza shop and had a recipe for a pizza of mine, and someone from another company ordered my pizza, found out the ingredients, and made his own pizza with the same ingredients, that's reverse engineering.
The key was encrypted. It was forcefully broken. Encryption is just like a safe. If it's broken into, it's forceful intrusion, not "reverse engineering".
Quit whining about "but it's like making a math problem illegal!" That's a bunch of bullshit. Encryption isn't a simple "math problem." If someone broke into a bank safe by logically figuring out the combination, can he say it's just a simple "math problem" and walk away scott free?
Some guy's standing outside a bank, saying he'll tell you (if you want) the combination to the safe in the bank. You say you want it, and he gives you the combination. You go inside the bank, use the combination to open the safe, and you take the money. Who's at fault?
First of all, the guy stealed from the bank (obviously). He's definately at fault. Now, the big question is what about the guy who had the combo to the safe?
Here's the legal standpoint: if the guy passed around the combination with knowfull intent that it would be used to rob the bank, he is involved in the crime and is therefore part of the guilty party.
So, was the crypto found with knowfull intent that it would be used for illegal purposes? I don't know, but in most hacks, that's the case, especially when the key is made public and passed around the internet.
Yes, it was quite ignorant that the key was left open with very light encryption, but even so, the fact that the key was encrypted means that CSS had no intent of showing this off to the public, aka, a trade secret. Legally, forcefully breaking an encryption is the same as theft (aka breaking into) when it comes to trade secrets, patents, and copywrites. I'm sorry, but it looks as if things are weighing towards CSS.
That's the problem with the internet right now. It's anarchy. There's no limitations and only a few minor laws. Who said linking is illegal? Absolutely no one. So, they shouldn't have a case, right? Wrong.
First of all, they must legally prove that DeCSS is a direct infringement on their trade secret rights. If they can't prove that, then there's no case as far as linking goes. But what if the the case goes in favor of CSS?
From a judicial point of view, this is the United States, and the United States has a right to regulate commerce (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3). Guess what? The judicial branch is meant to uphold the laws created by the Legislative branch, and believe me, if they find an infringement, they're going to put an end to it ASAP.
As Hemos said, Once we cross the the bridge of dictating what can and cannot be linked to, than we open ourselves up to a world of people being able to sue whenever something they don't want linked is linked. Without linking, the Web is dead.
Well, the judiciaries are going to picture the internet just like the regular world (even though it's not). And they're going to see it like this: perhaps you're driving a car, and you drive your friend who's planning on robbing a 7-11 to the 7-11 store. Legally, it's aiding in a crime, and is subject to punishment. If someone is the "middleman" between a drug purchase, even if the middleman only directs the buyer to the seller, it's still aiding in the purchase of illegal substances. Case in point: if you're aiding a crime, you're part of the crime.
If you're feeling down and about ready to quit, let me tell you a quick story about two college dropouts who had an invention that no big corporations wanted. All the corporations that saw this invention said "It won't sell! No one's going to want one!" Well, that little invention was called the personal computer, and I don't think I have to explain about HOW WRONG the corporations were. The two little simpletons who decided to make the invention had their own corporation within five years called Apple Computers!
Let me first say GOOD JOB! It's pathetic, how 99.9% of stuff we purchase is either an overpriced, overhyped spinoff of last years fad or a product which went through a year of corporate testing and surveying before implemented. There's rarely ever an Original Idea that a simple person came up with in their little "personal work space."
When I read about this, I was thinking if this thing could even possibly have a good use. So, what's the problem? You're barking up the wrong tree. I work for Coca-Cola, and personally, I can see this working PERFECTLY in this business: invoices. Right now, Coca-Cola and Pepsi lug around a unit weighing about 16 pounds with one of those "Trackers," and a printer, and the unit costs around $250 (in this tech age, it isn't worth $15). But they continue to use it, because it gets the job done.
It would be SO CLEAN AND EFFICIENT to have a small, cheap "Paper Computer" that we could simply program to list the products on an invoice, compute their cost, and display it in a simple table (something even an 8088 processor could do), and have a little place for a signature. Personally, though, I'd much rather have it so they could be recycled rather than thrown away. The drivers would be much more happy to have a simple paper sheet they could pull from their truck programmed with the order, able to display it, and obtain/record a signature.
Another idea: use these paper computers on electronic clipboards. If you could make, as you claim, a cheap way to display text digitally on paper, you could easily replace all those "digital clipboards" that cost around $100.
There are plenty of inventions that were invented for a specific purpose, only to be adopted for a completely different use. Great example: the Tommy Gun. This gun could fire more rounds in a second than any other gun in it's time and was manufactured for use during WWI. They were shipped late, however, and were never use during the war. The inventor tried and tried to persuade security companies and police agencies to adopt the gun, but too many officers just couldn't fathom a use for an expensive gun that fired that fast (and was that big). So, where did it find it's niche? The mob. Price didn't matter, and it fit PERFECTLY into the lifestyle of the rich and aggressive.
Case in point: your invention sounds like a great one, but don't limit your views to a small market (and a very difficult one to enter into... the government, that is). Brainstorm, and try and find other markets.
One last thing to realize: if you want to push your product, YOU'RE going to have to do it, rather than hoping that some big-time corporation (or the government) will adopt it. Look around, becuase I'm SURE that there's a market for this somewhere!
And for all those asking about patents, quit asking. Had you actually looked at his web site, you would have discovered that it's patented... good thing too, considering how many inventions have been toiled over by individuals only to be swept away and adopted by corporations.
Melissa's a good beginning example to show the weakness of the internet, but all Melissa did was become a "cholesterol," if it were, to the "arteries" of the internet. Once it was cleaned out, everything got back up and running.
As it was suggested, I did some looking into BGP, because quite frankly, it'd be pathetic for me to blabber on about something that I didn't understand. The only problem is, you need a pretty good understanding of IP to understand how BGP works, and there isn't much documentation out there that sums it up in a dime. Here's the easiest explination I can get for how BGP works (the whole document that goes in to far greater detail can be found at http://www.netaxs.com/~freedman/bgp.html) :
The primary purpose of BGP4 (as we're studying it here) is to advertise routes to other networks ("Autonomous Systems").
An AS, or Autonomous System, is a way of referring to "someone's network". That network could be yours; a friend's; MCI's; Sprintlink's; or anyone's. Normally an AS will have someone or ones responsible for it (a point of contact, typically called a NOC, or Network Operations Center) and one or multiple "border routers" (where routers in that AS peer and exchange routes with other ASs), as well as a simple or complicated internal routing scheme so that every router in that AS knows how to get to every other router and destination within that AS.
Layman's terms: Every personal network out there (company networks, school networks, government networks) works in it's own little private world. BGP (BGP4 is just the current version of BGP) is the protocol (acronym stands for Border Gateway Protocol) that allows all these networks to talk to each other. The protocol is utilized by Cisco's routers, and since Cisco currently has the majority share of internet routers currently in use, if l0pht (or anyone else who knows how to do it) creates specific scripts that break these bonds between the network, the majority, not all the internet, but the good majority of it, will fall like the giant it is.
How can you bring it down? Well, due to my ignorance, I'm not completely sure, but I believe the web site I quoted earlier sheds some light on it:
When you "advertise" routes to other entities (ASs), one way of thinking of those route "advertisements" is as "promises" to carry data to the IP space represented in the route being advertised. For example, if you advertise 192.204.4.0/24 (the "Class C" starting at 192.204.4.0 and ending at 192.204.4.255), you promise that if someone sends you data destined for any address in 192.204.4.0/24, you know how to carry that data to its ultimate destination. The cardinal sin of BGP routing is advertising routes that you don't know how to get to. This is called "black-holing" someone - because if you advertise, or promise to carry data to, some part of the IP space that is owned by someone else, and that advertisement is more specific than the one made by the owner of that IP space, all of the data on the Internet destined for the black-holed IP space will flow to your border router. Needless to say, this makes that address space "disconnected from the 'net" for the provider that owns the space, and makes many people unhappy...Anyway, the bottom line: Test your configs and watch out for typos. Think everything that you do through in terms of how it could screw up.
Layman's terms: Say someone wanted to shop at Amazon.com. Their computer says "take me to Amazon.com". If my computer saw the request "take me to Amazon.com," and I wanted to stop the request, I could say "Sure, I know where it is... follow me!" Then I'd lead him to a cliff edge and tell him it's right over the cliff. Poof, end of request. If I wanted my computer to direct everyone who asked for Amazon.com to someplace OTHER than Amazon.com, I'd just stick an arrow sign by the cliff that said "Amazon.com -->", directing them over the cliff.
Even Lamer Layman's terms: remember the good old Looney Toons cartoons where Wil'E'Coyote would repaint the road and dashed-yellow line, directing it to the face of a cliff? If the Road Runner was a packet of information traveling pretty fast on a network (the roads), and you "tweaked" the network and told it that this new route (repainted road) went somewhere, when infact it ends abruptly (cliff wall), you're going to loose the information (aka "SPLAT!").
For man with no mind: "Oh, you want to know where New York is? Try looking in Russia."
I'm getting sick of this...AMD and Intel are just doing patty-cake over the chip market. "AMD ups Intel by 50MHz", "Intel ups AMD by 33MHz", "AMD ups Intel by 16MHz", "Intel ups AMD by 50MHz"...
The last important thing to happen in the chip market was AMD debuting the Athlon. It was a new chip, not an echo of a past one. New technology, not new numbers, finally allowed AMD to leap over Intel.
When will AMD go dual? When will Intel get RAMBUS and the i820 working right? When will AMD get a full 200MHz bus with 200MHz SDRAM? When will Intel try and streamline a new form factor motherboard?
AMD and Intel aren't innovating right now. They're just focused on a race for the first to break the GHz barrier. Until they pass it, computer users will only be getting "bigger," rather than "better."
Let's take a look for a second at Intel's chip names...
8086 -- Intel's first big 16-bit processor
80286 -- Intel's next 16-bit processor - name is known also as 8x286, shortened to the 286 (easier to call it the 286 rather than the 80286)
Pentium -- Intel finally feels that a name's better than a number. Many laugh at the name, but soon the term 586 becomes associated only with AMD.
Pentium Pro -- Again, another attempt to use words to describe power
Pentium II -- A legitimate upgrade to the Pentium in chip architecture (586 to 686) and in the name.
Up to that point, Intel's had a good strategy for naming things. But look at the Pentium III! Ther'es no big change in architecture except for a few instruction extensions, but they upgrade it from II to III! Why? Promotion. No other reason. It's really pathetic.
Pent- means five. It was named for the 586. That was back five years ago, and the name is just too old in technology years. It needs to be changed to something other than the "Pentium IV," but with their last name change from Merced to Itanium, I'm worried what they might come up with!
Throw out religion, throw out ethics, throw it all out, and just look at the root of it all: science.
We're a culture of science. If you want the culture of religion, go back to Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century. So, let's look at science:
The scientists don't really know what is going to happen, which is why they carrry out the experiment, but just removing possibly unneeded genetic material from an organism is no where near creating life.
EXACTLY! They don't know what's going to happen, so instead they have to DO it to find out. Except, are they mother nature? Have they been around for umpteen million years to know what survived and what didn't, know what code worked in this world and what didn't, know what could happen if they reintroduced certain genetic code?
Here's a what if (and the one I'm most afraid of): They create life that has just the minimum amount of genetic code to live. Do they know exactly what'll be created? What if...it was a virus? What if it might kill its creator? What if it adapted? What if someone decided to take this technology to manufacture viruses more powerful than Anthrax?
To create life and yet not know what kind of life we're creating is the most dangerous thing of all. It took mother nature MILLIONS of years to learn that dinosaurs were dumb, that saber tooth tigers needed smaller teeth, that bacteria need to change their code to survive... And we humans say "It took God a day to create humans, now watch us do it in an instant!"?!?
We should be saying something more along the lines of "It took God six days to create the Universe, now watch us take six days to dismantle it!"
Okay, I just got done with my research paper for college last week, and although I can pull a paper out of some orifice of my body, researching is always a pain.
Our library has a wonderful online database where you can type in keywords and search for them, but the keywords only look as far as the Title, Author, or abstract of the book. If you wanted to look up some narrow topic, you can't expect that there's books written exactly on that topic, but there's always bound to be a few books out there that have a few pages dedicated to that subject (but isn't listed in the abstract). So, what do you do? You have to get your hands dirty.
My topic: Holy Wisdom (I won't bore you with details, but just stick with the subject). Looking in the online database, I find that there are zero books on the subject. Darn. Let's do some lookin...
After I read in a few Religion Dictionaries, I find that Holy Wisdom is also called "Sophia." I go back to the catalog, type in "Sophia," and I get one book. I skim this one book, and find that Sophia has sometimes been associated with the Holy Trinity. So, I go back to the catalog, enter "Holy Trinity," and BOOM, I get back 400 results (anyone seeing a similarity here...). Let's limit them...we'll search within the results for "History of," and I get back about 11 results. I read the abstracts, find a few books of interest, and start skimmin...
...Well, whadda know, there's a page in one book that talks about Sophia, and half a chapter in another book that talks about Sophia as well. There's a few more sources for the paper!
Now, for those of you who just don't understand what I'm trying to say here, just read from here on, cause here's my point: Computers aren't smart enough yet to "guess" at what we want, and personally, I don't think they ever will. Internet keyword searches are just like asking someone to help you who has no idea what your topic is...they can only search for what you ask them to search for.
Internet keyword searches are a hastle, and many times the first few returns won't be anything CLOSE to what you want (search for "Computer Science," you get back porn, search for "Linux," you get back porn, search for "White House,"...). But if you learn how to dig, like the people who lived fifty years ago WITHOUT Boolean Searches, you'll find what you're looking for. Sometimes, it's just like searching for a topic...you might not find anything directly, but you can't sum up an entire book in just a paragraph either!
The criminal does something bad, is caught for it, then tries to weasel his way out of his crime by appealing to some law, even though he himself broke it when he committed his crime. And the worst part about it? He probably has a case that could get him to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit alleges the credit card companies participate in and profit from illegal online gambling by issuing merchant accounts to Internet casino operators who accept bets from web surfers located in California where such gambling is illegal.
So, if someone breaks the law by gambling in California, yet gambling in California is illegial, but online gambling exists (the majority of which are actually in another country), what do you do?
Well, the obvious question is: Can the laws of another country (aka legalized gambling) take precidence over laws of the US or of California (aka illegal gambling)? The obvious answer: no. But then, why are millions of people able to gamble even though it's illegal? Answer: they shouldn't, yet they do.
My point is this: here's a place where the internet is the gateway to breaking laws. Gambling is illegal, yet is it legal via the internet?
I'm afraid that people might start seeing government imposed limitations on the internet if this case actually gets enough media attention.
The Human Genome Project would be the best canidate of them all for a Nobel Prize. It's just like dynamite: invent it for good purposes, and before you know it, it's being used for anything and everything unimaginable by the inventor.
The question isn't what can you do with the human genome project, it's what can't you do with it! I'm sure the implications will go far beyond my imagination, but here's what I'm seeing right now:
1) Human Genome Project Completed (around 3 years from now). 2) Scientists create library of genetic information on specific genes (around 5-10 years from now). 3) Scientsis coordinate gene types with gene locations to create first genetic mapping of a human being (10-15 years from now). 4) Babies, when born, are given a genetic mapping of their chromosomes, kept with them in their medical file (15-18 years from now). 5) Your whole life revolves around what your "genetic apptitude."
And for those of you who noticed, yes, I did watch the movie Gattaca.
Just imagine who would kill to know you inside and out! Your insurance company, your employer, Big Brother (if you believe in that sort of thing...), the list goes on and on!
In the 20th century, the most repressive forms of government - Communism, Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism - have collapsed or been defeated. Their efforts to censor culture or employ technology to control behavior have failed.
That was then. If we see the rise of another Hitler who has to create his "Select Race" of humans, and this kind of genetic technology would be developed, who would stop him from messing with genetics? Again, genetic power is enormous! He could find out who was the wrong race, change the genetic code of humans so that we're all one "Unified People"...
Although Red Hat and Corel have been two major powers pushing the distribution of Linux to the masses, is it really good to begin turning Linux into a major business?
I mean, up to a few years ago, Linux has been created, developed, added to, changed, modified, and molded into what it is today through the works of private individuals rather than corporate projects. Especially with Red Hat going public, Linux is no longer a "customized development" formed by what the nerds of the world want, but it's slowly becomming what the businessmen of the world want.
It may not be here now, but I think people (or at least Linux users) have to be watchful of where business takes Linux. If RH was going to buy Corel, they're not "putting their heads together," but rather, letting money control development.
A 750 Mhz Athlon cannot be much better than a 733 Mhz Athlon...? Surely the huge price premium is more to make a profit for those k-rad hax0rs who can go and measure their processor speed in gigahertz...
Can't you see what's happening, though? We're actually seeing AMD for the first time as a competetor rather than an alternative.
Back with the K6, AMD leapfrogged Intel for a moment, but when Intel released the Pentium II a month later, AMD cowered back to it's corner, releasing processors where one could only brag about the price rather than the performance.
But now, AMD's no longer accepting second banana. They release Athlon, leapfrogging Intel. Intel releases Coppermine, catching up to Intel and leapfrogging them in MHz speeds. What does AMD do? They leapfrog Intel again in MHz speeds.
AMD no longer wants to say that they have a "cheap alternative" to Intel. They're finally saying "Screw Intel, we got the faster chip!" And they even have TV Adds now kickin Intel in the butt over it! And for the first time, Intel's actually worried over it!
The important point here is that AMD's fighting back Intel, and they're doing quite a nice job, too! Just because 750 MHz isn't much faster than 733MHz, it does mean that AMD's fighting back!
I was an avid BBSer four years ago. Heck, back when I first got a computer and learned about BBSs, I would get up at 4AM in the morning, turn on the computer, hope the churning of my 5 1/4" floppy drive and the modem dial-up noise wouldn't wake my mom, and go online.
Five years ago, our city had about 30 BBSs (and countless other "kiddie" ones that were run by 13 and 14 year olds at night when their mommies let them have the phone). About three and a half years ago, when the internet just started to kick in (when Netscape released v2.02), we were down to about 8 BBSs. Two years ago, our last three BBSs (two of the three at that point had been up for 8+ years) merged into one.
That last BBS, WestPole, is now down to four active local users and four active telnet users. The only way it's survived was by opening the BBS to Telnetters. Our sysop (alas, another term that's nearly died with the times), living about 1500 miles away from where the BBS box is, manages it remotely through Linux (another way it's survived...he only resets it once a year for maintinence).
BBSs as we know them from the past (1200/2400 baud modem & a dial up connection) are dead. I've been telnetting around, and have not found a single BBS that only has dial-up connections. But there are still a good number of telnet BBSs that have survived. You can find a hefty listing of them here.
Although I'm saddened by the fact that the "locality" of BBSs has died, they still have been able to maintain their sense of community, although you now need an internet connection to use them...kinda ironic that the internet, which destroyed BBSing, is the thing which still allows BBSing to survive.
Why hasn't anyone even touched on this great hack yet?
If you follow this definition: "Hacking might be characterized as `an appropriate application of ingenuity'. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it."
What better event would fit this definition of a hack than the hacking of the atom by Albert Einstein? It's an application of ingenuity, is a carefully crafted work of art (both the atom and Albert Einstein's equations), and who can't admire Einstein's ability to conquer the atom?
Following john_gault's meaning, it fits many aspects of his description:
A hack is often performed under a time crunch
With Hitler on his toes and countries hearing that they could make a bomb that would leave other countries to beg for mercy, he was certainly put under pressure to research as much as possible.
The job makes you incredibly proud of something that is often horribly ugly, and that the majority of other people view as something akin to magic (have no concept of how such job could possibly have been done or what was involved).
Before the 1900s, there was very little knowledge of what the atom was, and most people refused to listen to scientists saying that something existed that the human eye couldn't see, but was there. If it wasn't for Einstein, no one would have been able to realize the full power they could harness with the atom.
You might as well ask yourself, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
There's no true answer to this one. In all truth, in today's society, we don't blame the maker, we blame the user. It's how it is. When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, he saw a great tool... a stable compound that could be used for blowing up rock in order for creation and innovation. He never invisioned anyone using it to kill. Clearly in this case, the problem lies with the user.
Another good example: the atomic bomb. On the other end of the spectrum, here lies a weapon which was intended to be used to threat and kill. The nuclear arms race's only goal was to see who would have the power to kill millions first. Yet the person credited with giving us the power of the atom, Alfred Einstein, doesn't go down at all in the history books as a killer, but instead as another innovator, for by unleashing the power of the atom, he unleashed a whole new branch of science!
Yet, let's bring in another great, prime example: cigarettes. Cigarette manufacturers are making products that they know will do harm, but turn their backs at and deny the true harm cigarettes do. In this case, we said they should have to pay for their ignorance.
But, even so, it all boils down to this: if someone invents something to be used to do harm, intended it to do harm, and knows it will be used for harm, should he be responsible for inventing it?
Moral answer: they should. Reality answer: they don't.
I can't believe I'm replying to my own post...
on
Geek Christmas Ideas
·
· Score: 1
Okay, tell me, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS WRONG HERE?!?
My post:
The PERFECT Christmas Gift for geeks... (Score:0, Flaimbait) by Pollux splien/at/gloria/.cord/.edu) on Tuesday November 23, @10:53AM EST (#112)
His post:
Microsoft IntelliMouse with IntelliEye (Score:2, Interesting) by LordNimon on Tuesday November 23, @11:22AM EST (#137)
I get FLAIMBAIT and HE gets INTERESTING?!? Is there something wrong with the moderating system here?!?
I introduce it first, even offer links on where you can buy it cheap, and HE gets all the credit?!? HELLO?!?
Has got to be an Intellimouse with the Intellieye. Unless you hate Microsoft so much that you can't stand any of their products, this is a GOT TO HAVE! I've used one of these babies, and they are sweet! It's got an adaptor to work with either USB or PS2, but here's the best part: THEY WORK IN LINUX! Since it operates as a PS2 mouse, there's no problem whatsoever. They move around cleaner than any other mouse, and you can just throw away your mouse pad, cause you don't need one for these!
Now, if you're like me, you usually go out, buy a simple mouse for $5 (or one w/ a scrollwheel for $20), wait for it to bust in two to three years, and go and buy another one. You don't have to worry at all about these things breaking...they have a five year warranty, so even if Microsoft makes a shoddy product, they'll still back it up!:)
Here's where you can get more info from Microsoft's web site.
And for those of who you happen to be good friends of geeks (or for the lucky ones, mutual partners), you're probably saying to yourself, "But all these geek toys are all so Expensive! Well, don't worry about this one taking a crack out of your budget! You can get it right here at Software BuyOnline for only $41, and free shipping!
Trust me, your geek friends will be happy with this toy!
...much of the early impact survival work was carried out on animals. "We saw chimpanzees riding rocket sleds, a bear on an impact swing...
Can you imagine the reports collected from this? Maybe something along the lines of...
"After applying the collision test with various different animals, the following speeds much be achieved to severely maim or kill the following animals:
Chimpanzee: 34 mph Pig: 41 mph Dog: 38 mph Horse: Could not fit in viechle --Note: Remember to warn passengers horse can't fit in viechle Cat: 47 mph Hampster: Could not keep strapped in seat belt --Note: Optional cage in viechle for hampster? Guinea Pig: Inconclusive --Seat belt strangled Bob's pet Guinea Pig, Chippy...may he rest in peace in the name of science --Note: Jack lost the bet and paid Bob $10 since the innards of a Guinea Pig were pink, not grey.
Pigs were popular subjects because of their similarities to humans "in terms of their organ set-up," as one industry insider put it, and because they can be coaxed into a useful approximation of a human sitting in a car.
"Here pig, pig, pig, Here piggy, piggy, piggy! There's a nice piece of corn right here for you inside this car! That's right...it's good corn...yes, corn taste's good...(SPROING!) (SPLAT!)"
Less adorable was the experiment's objective: "To produce injuries sufficiently severe to cause death and possibly decapitation of the test animals."
Warning on side of car: "This viechle was designed for humans. We are not responsible for the injury, death, or brutal slaughter of any animals that might occur during an accident, including, but not excluded to, horses, sheep, pigs, cows, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats, dogs, guinea pigs (RIP, Chippy), rats, mice, and rabbits."
If/. is going to read past question #250 (or #200 for that matter), but even so, here's a question I haven't really seen discussed yet...
Obviously, Bill Gates is a businessman. There is clearly no possible way that Microsoft would have become such a dominant computer industry today without Bill Gates' strategic business practices.
With this in mind, it's pretty clear that Mr. Gates would be completely naive if he had no doubt in his mind that Microsoft would win the case in a higher court. How could Bill Gates and Microsoft take an anti-trust lawsuit like this and, despite possible fines and/or forced business restructurings, turn it into a way to benefit the company?
Slashdot Mirror
...that China develops some kind of X platform to help control most aspects of the computer rather than relying heavily on the console. It would be impossible to control Linux through the console trying to use the Chineese writing system and keyboard.
It's too bad though that there's no real way we can drill it to the media, letting them know how much they blew this one. It was a lot like War of the Worlds, except drawn out over a period of three-four years.
One thing, though, that I don't really believe in, is how "special" the year 2000 was. It's just a number driven by media hype and economic thrust! We've already proven that we started at 1AD, that Jesus Christ was actually born a few years before then, and that we're just not perfect when it comes to telling time (it took us how long before we finally established the Jullian Calendar?). I personally didn't see anything spectacular in this year, besides the fact that we rolled over from 1999 to 2000.
It's not like I threw a celebration when I rolled my car's spedometer over from 99999.9 to 00000.0!
Do the lawyers know more about the technologies we love than we understand about the laws they fuss over? Or do we techies understand the realm of law on a level higher than the lawyer's understanding of technology?
First, the pivital question is this: how do lawyers understand the laws they fuss over, and how to techies understand the technology we fuss over? The answer: we're resourceful.
Lawyers spend eight years in schooling to learn their trade, plus many more in assisting and training before they become lawyers. Even then, they still don't know EVERY law on the books! So how do they familiarize themselves with the laws? They look them up! They know where to look, what to find, and how to apply it to their case.
Same thing with techies. It'd be incredibly difficult (although not impossible) for someone to be able to know and master the countless OSs out there, AND know the inner workings of a computer inside and out, AND know networking inside and out, etc. But if they're faced with a problem that they're not completely familiar with, they look it up.
There aren't too many lawyers who know what a HOWTO is, let alone understand what the Linux-lingo means. I don't think there are too many techies who know where to find information on up-to-date laws, let alone understand the law-lingo.
Case in point: we each have our own profession, and we each know the core knowledge of it, and how to expand our knowledge of it. If we don't understand something that's not in our realm, that's why we have people called "specialists" whom we use to tell us what to do. If my hot water heater wasn't working, should I a) Read a few books, become familiar with how it works, and attempt to fix it, or b) Hire a repairman to come over and fix it? Definately 'b'. Sure, we all like to think that we're smart enough to fix our own problems, but it takes a rocket scientist to build a rocket, not a skyscraper.
Would have a difficult time trying to get this one past the Supreme Court.
Technically, our government can't directly say "You can do this, you can't do this," over anything except what they're told to do through Article 1, Sec. 8, Clauses 1-17. But they found a loophole...they CAN say "If you don't do this, we'll pull government funding!" Course, loosing all that cash isn't really a good thing, so everyone goes along with what our government dictates (usually).
Course, the nice thing about fund appropriation is that it has to have merit. If it doesn't, the Supreme Court will kill the bill. Personally, I don't see how this would have any merit.
Besides, now that I think of it, all that above blather is just worthless, because there's one major thing that would keep our government from doing this: money. Speeding tickets were invented for INCOME, not penalty. The police don't want you to think that, but a major part of transportation funding actually comes from traffic violations. It would put a serious crink in the transportation budget if something like that was implemented here. Of course, I don't know how it is in Britain or Austrailia, but I don't know how they could afford to loose that kind of funding.
North Dakota's gov. Ed Schafer:
"It was the biggest nonevent since Geraldo Rivera tried to open Al Capone's vault."
This is not a case of reverse engineering! Reverse engineering is where you take something created and break it apart to find what it's made out of. If I owned a Pizza shop and had a recipe for a pizza of mine, and someone from another company ordered my pizza, found out the ingredients, and made his own pizza with the same ingredients, that's reverse engineering.
The key was encrypted. It was forcefully broken. Encryption is just like a safe. If it's broken into, it's forceful intrusion, not "reverse engineering".
Quit whining about "but it's like making a math problem illegal!" That's a bunch of bullshit. Encryption isn't a simple "math problem." If someone broke into a bank safe by logically figuring out the combination, can he say it's just a simple "math problem" and walk away scott free?
Simple senario:
Some guy's standing outside a bank, saying he'll tell you (if you want) the combination to the safe in the bank. You say you want it, and he gives you the combination. You go inside the bank, use the combination to open the safe, and you take the money. Who's at fault?
First of all, the guy stealed from the bank (obviously). He's definately at fault. Now, the big question is what about the guy who had the combo to the safe?
Here's the legal standpoint: if the guy passed around the combination with knowfull intent that it would be used to rob the bank, he is involved in the crime and is therefore part of the guilty party.
So, was the crypto found with knowfull intent that it would be used for illegal purposes? I don't know, but in most hacks, that's the case, especially when the key is made public and passed around the internet.
Yes, it was quite ignorant that the key was left open with very light encryption, but even so, the fact that the key was encrypted means that CSS had no intent of showing this off to the public, aka, a trade secret. Legally, forcefully breaking an encryption is the same as theft (aka breaking into) when it comes to trade secrets, patents, and copywrites. I'm sorry, but it looks as if things are weighing towards CSS.
That's the problem with the internet right now. It's anarchy. There's no limitations and only a few minor laws. Who said linking is illegal? Absolutely no one. So, they shouldn't have a case, right? Wrong.
First of all, they must legally prove that DeCSS is a direct infringement on their trade secret rights. If they can't prove that, then there's no case as far as linking goes. But what if the the case goes in favor of CSS?
From a judicial point of view, this is the United States, and the United States has a right to regulate commerce (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3). Guess what? The judicial branch is meant to uphold the laws created by the Legislative branch, and believe me, if they find an infringement, they're going to put an end to it ASAP.
As Hemos said,
Once we cross the the bridge of dictating what can and cannot be linked to, than we open ourselves up to a world of people being able to sue whenever something they don't want linked is linked. Without linking, the Web is dead.
Well, the judiciaries are going to picture the internet just like the regular world (even though it's not). And they're going to see it like this: perhaps you're driving a car, and you drive your friend who's planning on robbing a 7-11 to the 7-11 store. Legally, it's aiding in a crime, and is subject to punishment. If someone is the "middleman" between a drug purchase, even if the middleman only directs the buyer to the seller, it's still aiding in the purchase of illegal substances. Case in point: if you're aiding a crime, you're part of the crime.
So, the true question is...is it a crime?
...just waiting to be unearthed!
If you're feeling down and about ready to quit, let me tell you a quick story about two college dropouts who had an invention that no big corporations wanted. All the corporations that saw this invention said "It won't sell! No one's going to want one!" Well, that little invention was called the personal computer, and I don't think I have to explain about HOW WRONG the corporations were. The two little simpletons who decided to make the invention had their own corporation within five years called Apple Computers!
Let me first say GOOD JOB! It's pathetic, how 99.9% of stuff we purchase is either an overpriced, overhyped spinoff of last years fad or a product which went through a year of corporate testing and surveying before implemented. There's rarely ever an Original Idea that a simple person came up with in their little "personal work space."
When I read about this, I was thinking if this thing could even possibly have a good use. So, what's the problem? You're barking up the wrong tree. I work for Coca-Cola, and personally, I can see this working PERFECTLY in this business: invoices. Right now, Coca-Cola and Pepsi lug around a unit weighing about 16 pounds with one of those "Trackers," and a printer, and the unit costs around $250 (in this tech age, it isn't worth $15). But they continue to use it, because it gets the job done.
It would be SO CLEAN AND EFFICIENT to have a small, cheap "Paper Computer" that we could simply program to list the products on an invoice, compute their cost, and display it in a simple table (something even an 8088 processor could do), and have a little place for a signature. Personally, though, I'd much rather have it so they could be recycled rather than thrown away. The drivers would be much more happy to have a simple paper sheet they could pull from their truck programmed with the order, able to display it, and obtain/record a signature.
Another idea: use these paper computers on electronic clipboards. If you could make, as you claim, a cheap way to display text digitally on paper, you could easily replace all those "digital clipboards" that cost around $100.
There are plenty of inventions that were invented for a specific purpose, only to be adopted for a completely different use. Great example: the Tommy Gun. This gun could fire more rounds in a second than any other gun in it's time and was manufactured for use during WWI. They were shipped late, however, and were never use during the war. The inventor tried and tried to persuade security companies and police agencies to adopt the gun, but too many officers just couldn't fathom a use for an expensive gun that fired that fast (and was that big). So, where did it find it's niche? The mob. Price didn't matter, and it fit PERFECTLY into the lifestyle of the rich and aggressive.
Case in point: your invention sounds like a great one, but don't limit your views to a small market (and a very difficult one to enter into... the government, that is). Brainstorm, and try and find other markets.
One last thing to realize: if you want to push your product, YOU'RE going to have to do it, rather than hoping that some big-time corporation (or the government) will adopt it. Look around, becuase I'm SURE that there's a market for this somewhere!
And for all those asking about patents, quit asking. Had you actually looked at his web site, you would have discovered that it's patented... good thing too, considering how many inventions have been toiled over by individuals only to be swept away and adopted by corporations.
Melissa's a good beginning example to show the weakness of the internet, but all Melissa did was become a "cholesterol," if it were, to the "arteries" of the internet. Once it was cleaned out, everything got back up and running.
h tm.
As it was suggested, I did some looking into BGP, because quite frankly, it'd be pathetic for me to blabber on about something that I didn't understand. The only problem is, you need a pretty good understanding of IP to understand how BGP works, and there isn't much documentation out there that sums it up in a dime. Here's the easiest explination I can get for how BGP works (the whole document that goes in to far greater detail can be found at http://www.netaxs.com/~freedman/bgp.html) :
The primary purpose of BGP4 (as we're studying it here) is to advertise routes to other networks ("Autonomous Systems").
An AS, or Autonomous System, is a way of referring to "someone's network". That network could be yours; a friend's; MCI's; Sprintlink's; or anyone's. Normally an AS will have someone or ones responsible for it (a point of contact, typically called a NOC, or Network Operations Center) and one or multiple "border routers" (where routers in that AS peer and exchange routes with other ASs), as well as a simple or complicated internal routing scheme so that every router in that AS knows how to get to every other router and destination within that AS.
Layman's terms: Every personal network out there (company networks, school networks, government networks) works in it's own little private world. BGP (BGP4 is just the current version of BGP) is the protocol (acronym stands for Border Gateway Protocol) that allows all these networks to talk to each other. The protocol is utilized by Cisco's routers, and since Cisco currently has the majority share of internet routers currently in use, if l0pht (or anyone else who knows how to do it) creates specific scripts that break these bonds between the network, the majority, not all the internet, but the good majority of it, will fall like the giant it is.
How can you bring it down? Well, due to my ignorance, I'm not completely sure, but I believe the web site I quoted earlier sheds some light on it:
When you "advertise" routes to other entities (ASs), one way of thinking of those route "advertisements" is as "promises" to carry data to the IP space represented in the route being advertised. For example, if you advertise 192.204.4.0/24 (the "Class C" starting at 192.204.4.0 and ending at 192.204.4.255), you promise that if someone sends you data destined for any address in 192.204.4.0/24, you know how to carry that data to its ultimate destination. The cardinal sin of BGP routing is advertising routes that you don't know how to get to. This is called "black-holing" someone - because if you advertise, or promise to carry data to, some part of the IP space that is owned by someone else, and that advertisement is more specific than the one made by the owner of that IP space, all of the data on the Internet destined for the black-holed IP space will flow to your border router. Needless to say, this makes that address space "disconnected from the 'net" for the provider that owns the space, and makes many people unhappy...Anyway, the bottom line: Test your configs and watch out for typos. Think everything that you do through in terms of how it could screw up.
Layman's terms: Say someone wanted to shop at Amazon.com. Their computer says "take me to Amazon.com". If my computer saw the request "take me to Amazon.com," and I wanted to stop the request, I could say "Sure, I know where it is... follow me!" Then I'd lead him to a cliff edge and tell him it's right over the cliff. Poof, end of request. If I wanted my computer to direct everyone who asked for Amazon.com to someplace OTHER than Amazon.com, I'd just stick an arrow sign by the cliff that said "Amazon.com -->", directing them over the cliff.
Even Lamer Layman's terms: remember the good old Looney Toons cartoons where Wil'E'Coyote would repaint the road and dashed-yellow line, directing it to the face of a cliff? If the Road Runner was a packet of information traveling pretty fast on a network (the roads), and you "tweaked" the network and told it that this new route (repainted road) went somewhere, when infact it ends abruptly (cliff wall), you're going to loose the information (aka "SPLAT!").
For man with no mind: "Oh, you want to know where New York is? Try looking in Russia."
Another place that explains the BGP protocol and actually makes the technicalities of it easier to understand (diagrams and simple numbers), the address is http://www.alliancedatacom.com/cisco-bgp-routing.
I'm getting sick of this...AMD and Intel are just doing patty-cake over the chip market. "AMD ups Intel by 50MHz", "Intel ups AMD by 33MHz", "AMD ups Intel by 16MHz", "Intel ups AMD by 50MHz"...
The last important thing to happen in the chip market was AMD debuting the Athlon. It was a new chip, not an echo of a past one. New technology, not new numbers, finally allowed AMD to leap over Intel.
When will AMD go dual? When will Intel get RAMBUS and the i820 working right? When will AMD get a full 200MHz bus with 200MHz SDRAM? When will Intel try and streamline a new form factor motherboard?
AMD and Intel aren't innovating right now. They're just focused on a race for the first to break the GHz barrier. Until they pass it, computer users will only be getting "bigger," rather than "better."
Let's take a look for a second at Intel's chip names...
8086 -- Intel's first big 16-bit processor
80286 -- Intel's next 16-bit processor - name is known also as 8x286, shortened to the 286 (easier to call it the 286 rather than the 80286)
Pentium -- Intel finally feels that a name's better than a number. Many laugh at the name, but soon the term 586 becomes associated only with AMD.
Pentium Pro -- Again, another attempt to use words to describe power
Pentium II -- A legitimate upgrade to the Pentium in chip architecture (586 to 686) and in the name.
Up to that point, Intel's had a good strategy for naming things. But look at the Pentium III! Ther'es no big change in architecture except for a few instruction extensions, but they upgrade it from II to III! Why? Promotion. No other reason. It's really pathetic.
Pent- means five. It was named for the 586. That was back five years ago, and the name is just too old in technology years. It needs to be changed to something other than the "Pentium IV," but with their last name change from Merced to Itanium, I'm worried what they might come up with!
Throw out religion, throw out ethics, throw it all out, and just look at the root of it all: science.
We're a culture of science. If you want the culture of religion, go back to Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century. So, let's look at science:
The scientists don't really know what is going to happen, which is why they carrry out the experiment, but just removing possibly unneeded genetic material from an organism is no where near creating life.
EXACTLY! They don't know what's going to happen, so instead they have to DO it to find out. Except, are they mother nature? Have they been around for umpteen million years to know what survived and what didn't, know what code worked in this world and what didn't, know what could happen if they reintroduced certain genetic code?
Here's a what if (and the one I'm most afraid of): They create life that has just the minimum amount of genetic code to live. Do they know exactly what'll be created? What if...it was a virus? What if it might kill its creator? What if it adapted? What if someone decided to take this technology to manufacture viruses more powerful than Anthrax?
To create life and yet not know what kind of life we're creating is the most dangerous thing of all. It took mother nature MILLIONS of years to learn that dinosaurs were dumb, that saber tooth tigers needed smaller teeth, that bacteria need to change their code to survive... And we humans say "It took God a day to create humans, now watch us do it in an instant!"?!?
We should be saying something more along the lines of "It took God six days to create the Universe, now watch us take six days to dismantle it!"
Okay, I just got done with my research paper for college last week, and although I can pull a paper out of some orifice of my body, researching is always a pain.
Our library has a wonderful online database where you can type in keywords and search for them, but the keywords only look as far as the Title, Author, or abstract of the book. If you wanted to look up some narrow topic, you can't expect that there's books written exactly on that topic, but there's always bound to be a few books out there that have a few pages dedicated to that subject (but isn't listed in the abstract). So, what do you do? You have to get your hands dirty.
My topic: Holy Wisdom (I won't bore you with details, but just stick with the subject). Looking in the online database, I find that there are zero books on the subject. Darn. Let's do some lookin...
After I read in a few Religion Dictionaries, I find that Holy Wisdom is also called "Sophia." I go back to the catalog, type in "Sophia," and I get one book. I skim this one book, and find that Sophia has sometimes been associated with the Holy Trinity. So, I go back to the catalog, enter "Holy Trinity," and BOOM, I get back 400 results (anyone seeing a similarity here...). Let's limit them...we'll search within the results for "History of," and I get back about 11 results. I read the abstracts, find a few books of interest, and start skimmin...
...Well, whadda know, there's a page in one book that talks about Sophia, and half a chapter in another book that talks about Sophia as well. There's a few more sources for the paper!
Now, for those of you who just don't understand what I'm trying to say here, just read from here on, cause here's my point: Computers aren't smart enough yet to "guess" at what we want, and personally, I don't think they ever will. Internet keyword searches are just like asking someone to help you who has no idea what your topic is...they can only search for what you ask them to search for.
Internet keyword searches are a hastle, and many times the first few returns won't be anything CLOSE to what you want (search for "Computer Science," you get back porn, search for "Linux," you get back porn, search for "White House,"...). But if you learn how to dig, like the people who lived fifty years ago WITHOUT Boolean Searches, you'll find what you're looking for. Sometimes, it's just like searching for a topic...you might not find anything directly, but you can't sum up an entire book in just a paragraph either!
Try some links, look around, and it'll be there!
The criminal does something bad, is caught for it, then tries to weasel his way out of his crime by appealing to some law, even though he himself broke it when he committed his crime. And the worst part about it? He probably has a case that could get him to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit alleges the credit card companies participate in and profit from illegal online gambling by issuing merchant accounts to Internet casino operators who accept bets from web surfers
located in California where such gambling is illegal.
So, if someone breaks the law by gambling in California, yet gambling in California is illegial, but online gambling exists (the majority of which are actually in another country), what do you do?
Well, the obvious question is: Can the laws of another country (aka legalized gambling) take precidence over laws of the US or of California (aka illegal gambling)? The obvious answer: no. But then, why are millions of people able to gamble even though it's illegal? Answer: they shouldn't, yet they do.
My point is this: here's a place where the internet is the gateway to breaking laws. Gambling is illegal, yet is it legal via the internet?
I'm afraid that people might start seeing government imposed limitations on the internet if this case actually gets enough media attention.
I wouldn't know where it existed.
The Human Genome Project would be the best canidate of them all for a Nobel Prize. It's just like dynamite: invent it for good purposes, and before you know it, it's being used for anything and everything unimaginable by the inventor.
The question isn't what can you do with the human genome project, it's what can't you do with it! I'm sure the implications will go far beyond my imagination, but here's what I'm seeing right now:
1) Human Genome Project Completed (around 3 years from now).
2) Scientists create library of genetic information on specific genes (around 5-10 years from now).
3) Scientsis coordinate gene types with gene locations to create first genetic mapping of a human being (10-15 years from now).
4) Babies, when born, are given a genetic mapping of their chromosomes, kept with them in their medical file (15-18 years from now).
5) Your whole life revolves around what your "genetic apptitude."
And for those of you who noticed, yes, I did watch the movie Gattaca.
Just imagine who would kill to know you inside and out! Your insurance company, your employer, Big Brother (if you believe in that sort of thing...), the list goes on and on!
In the 20th century, the most repressive forms of government - Communism, Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism - have collapsed or been defeated. Their efforts to censor culture or employ technology to control behavior have failed.
That was then. If we see the rise of another Hitler who has to create his "Select Race" of humans, and this kind of genetic technology would be developed, who would stop him from messing with genetics? Again, genetic power is enormous! He could find out who was the wrong race, change the genetic code of humans so that we're all one "Unified People"...
Although Red Hat and Corel have been two major powers pushing the distribution of Linux to the masses, is it really good to begin turning Linux into a major business?
I mean, up to a few years ago, Linux has been created, developed, added to, changed, modified, and molded into what it is today through the works of private individuals rather than corporate projects. Especially with Red Hat going public, Linux is no longer a "customized development" formed by what the nerds of the world want, but it's slowly becomming what the businessmen of the world want.
It may not be here now, but I think people (or at least Linux users) have to be watchful of where business takes Linux. If RH was going to buy Corel, they're not "putting their heads together," but rather, letting money control development.
A 750 Mhz Athlon cannot be much better than a 733 Mhz Athlon...? Surely the huge price premium is more to make a profit for those k-rad hax0rs who can go and measure their processor speed in gigahertz...
Can't you see what's happening, though? We're actually seeing AMD for the first time as a competetor rather than an alternative.
Back with the K6, AMD leapfrogged Intel for a moment, but when Intel released the Pentium II a month later, AMD cowered back to it's corner, releasing processors where one could only brag about the price rather than the performance.
But now, AMD's no longer accepting second banana. They release Athlon, leapfrogging Intel. Intel releases Coppermine, catching up to Intel and leapfrogging them in MHz speeds. What does AMD do? They leapfrog Intel again in MHz speeds.
AMD no longer wants to say that they have a "cheap alternative" to Intel. They're finally saying "Screw Intel, we got the faster chip!" And they even have TV Adds now kickin Intel in the butt over it! And for the first time, Intel's actually worried over it!
The important point here is that AMD's fighting back Intel, and they're doing quite a nice job, too! Just because 750 MHz isn't much faster than 733MHz, it does mean that AMD's fighting back!
I was an avid BBSer four years ago. Heck, back when I first got a computer and learned about BBSs, I would get up at 4AM in the morning, turn on the computer, hope the churning of my 5 1/4" floppy drive and the modem dial-up noise wouldn't wake my mom, and go online.
Five years ago, our city had about 30 BBSs (and countless other "kiddie" ones that were run by 13 and 14 year olds at night when their mommies let them have the phone). About three and a half years ago, when the internet just started to kick in (when Netscape released v2.02), we were down to about 8 BBSs. Two years ago, our last three BBSs (two of the three at that point had been up for 8+ years) merged into one.
That last BBS, WestPole, is now down to four active local users and four active telnet users. The only way it's survived was by opening the BBS to Telnetters. Our sysop (alas, another term that's nearly died with the times), living about 1500 miles away from where the BBS box is, manages it remotely through Linux (another way it's survived...he only resets it once a year for maintinence).
BBSs as we know them from the past (1200/2400 baud modem & a dial up connection) are dead. I've been telnetting around, and have not found a single BBS that only has dial-up connections. But there are still a good number of telnet BBSs that have survived. You can find a hefty listing of them here.
Although I'm saddened by the fact that the "locality" of BBSs has died, they still have been able to maintain their sense of community, although you now need an internet connection to use them...kinda ironic that the internet, which destroyed BBSing, is the thing which still allows BBSing to survive.
Why hasn't anyone even touched on this great hack yet?
If you follow this definition:
"Hacking might be characterized as `an appropriate application of ingenuity'. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it."
What better event would fit this definition of a hack than the hacking of the atom by Albert Einstein? It's an application of ingenuity, is a carefully crafted work of art (both the atom and Albert Einstein's equations), and who can't admire Einstein's ability to conquer the atom?
Following john_gault's meaning, it fits many aspects of his description:
A hack is often performed under a time crunch
With Hitler on his toes and countries hearing that they could make a bomb that would leave other countries to beg for mercy, he was certainly put under pressure to research as much as possible.
The job makes you incredibly proud of something that is often horribly ugly, and that the majority of other people view as something akin to magic (have no concept of how such job could possibly have been done or what was involved).
Before the 1900s, there was very little knowledge of what the atom was, and most people refused to listen to scientists saying that something existed that the human eye couldn't see, but was there. If it wasn't for Einstein, no one would have been able to realize the full power they could harness with the atom.
You might as well ask yourself, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
There's no true answer to this one. In all truth, in today's society, we don't blame the maker, we blame the user. It's how it is. When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, he saw a great tool... a stable compound that could be used for blowing up rock in order for creation and innovation. He never invisioned anyone using it to kill. Clearly in this case, the problem lies with the user.
Another good example: the atomic bomb. On the other end of the spectrum, here lies a weapon which was intended to be used to threat and kill. The nuclear arms race's only goal was to see who would have the power to kill millions first. Yet the person credited with giving us the power of the atom, Alfred Einstein, doesn't go down at all in the history books as a killer, but instead as another innovator, for by unleashing the power of the atom, he unleashed a whole new branch of science!
Yet, let's bring in another great, prime example: cigarettes. Cigarette manufacturers are making products that they know will do harm, but turn their backs at and deny the true harm cigarettes do. In this case, we said they should have to pay for their ignorance.
But, even so, it all boils down to this: if someone invents something to be used to do harm, intended it to do harm, and knows it will be used for harm, should he be responsible for inventing it?
Moral answer: they should.
Reality answer: they don't.
Okay, tell me, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS WRONG HERE?!?
My post:
The PERFECT Christmas Gift for geeks... (Score:0, Flaimbait) by Pollux splien/at/gloria/.cord/.edu) on Tuesday November 23, @10:53AM EST (#112)
His post:
Microsoft IntelliMouse with IntelliEye (Score:2, Interesting) by LordNimon on Tuesday November 23, @11:22AM EST (#137)
I get FLAIMBAIT and HE gets INTERESTING?!? Is there something wrong with the moderating system here?!?
I introduce it first, even offer links on where you can buy it cheap, and HE gets all the credit?!? HELLO?!?
Has got to be an Intellimouse with the Intellieye. Unless you hate Microsoft so much that you can't stand any of their products, this is a GOT TO HAVE! I've used one of these babies, and they are sweet! It's got an adaptor to work with either USB or PS2, but here's the best part: THEY WORK IN LINUX! Since it operates as a PS2 mouse, there's no problem whatsoever. They move around cleaner than any other mouse, and you can just throw away your mouse pad, cause you don't need one for these!
:)
Now, if you're like me, you usually go out, buy a simple mouse for $5 (or one w/ a scrollwheel for $20), wait for it to bust in two to three years, and go and buy another one. You don't have to worry at all about these things breaking...they have a five year warranty, so even if Microsoft makes a shoddy product, they'll still back it up!
Here's where you can get more info from Microsoft's web site.
And for those of who you happen to be good friends of geeks (or for the lucky ones, mutual partners), you're probably saying to yourself, "But all these geek toys are all so Expensive! Well, don't worry about this one taking a crack out of your budget! You can get it right here at Software BuyOnline for only $41, and free shipping!
Trust me, your geek friends will be happy with this toy!
...much of the early impact survival work was carried out on animals. "We saw chimpanzees riding rocket sleds, a bear on an impact swing...
Can you imagine the reports collected from this? Maybe something along the lines of...
"After applying the collision test with various different animals, the following speeds much be achieved to severely maim or kill the following animals:
Chimpanzee: 34 mph
Pig: 41 mph
Dog: 38 mph
Horse: Could not fit in viechle
--Note: Remember to warn passengers horse can't fit in viechle
Cat: 47 mph
Hampster: Could not keep strapped in seat belt
--Note: Optional cage in viechle for hampster?
Guinea Pig: Inconclusive
--Seat belt strangled Bob's pet Guinea Pig, Chippy...may he rest in peace in the name of science
--Note: Jack lost the bet and paid Bob $10 since the innards of a Guinea Pig were pink, not grey.
Pigs were popular subjects because of their similarities to humans "in terms of their organ set-up," as one industry insider put it, and because they can be coaxed into a useful approximation of a human sitting in a car.
"Here pig, pig, pig, Here piggy, piggy, piggy! There's a nice piece of corn right here for you inside this car! That's right...it's good corn...yes, corn taste's good...(SPROING!) (SPLAT!)"
Less adorable was the experiment's objective: "To produce injuries sufficiently severe to cause death and possibly decapitation of the test animals."
Warning on side of car: "This viechle was designed for humans. We are not responsible for the injury, death, or brutal slaughter of any animals that might occur during an accident, including, but not excluded to, horses, sheep, pigs, cows, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats, dogs, guinea pigs (RIP, Chippy), rats, mice, and rabbits."
If /. is going to read past question #250 (or #200 for that matter), but even so, here's a question I haven't really seen discussed yet...
Obviously, Bill Gates is a businessman. There is clearly no possible way that Microsoft would have become such a dominant computer industry today without Bill Gates' strategic business practices.
With this in mind, it's pretty clear that Mr. Gates would be completely naive if he had no doubt in his mind that Microsoft would win the case in a higher court. How could Bill Gates and Microsoft take an anti-trust lawsuit like this and, despite possible fines and/or forced business restructurings, turn it into a way to benefit the company?