"Not setting off alarms" in this case means hacking through firewalls and scanning the machines within. They explicitly stated this. THAT is a gross violation of privacy, and possibly even illegal. A firewall should be just as much a sign that 'you are not welcome' as a banner statement on your login, and just as defensible (if not moreso, as it's a physical deterrent rather than just a statement) in court.
Right on the mark! I felt the same way when I first discovered that I could telnet to port 25, and talk to a mail server. (many years ago) It was the thrill of doing something (seemingly) illicit.
Of course, the real trick if you're after that sort of thrill from breaking into machines, is to get good, get a job, and do it for a living.
"Katz is really making too much out of a simple issue."
But of course! It's his way. (or rather, His Way!) He's only reported on two topics I can think of where his hype and alarmist attitude were even close to justified.
Jon seems absolutely desperate to make every aspect of the 'internet culture' unique, novel, fearsome to the old guard, and endangered. Sad but true, there's not that much new under the sun.
Seriously, you're quite right--it's endemic to society. Unfortunately, it comes with some degree of truth (wait, hear me out!), as part of a vicious circle.
1) Women are underrepresented in computing (and other fields, of course). Thus... 2) Not as many women vs. men know computers intimately. Thus... 3) Assuming women are technologically less savvy is likely correct. (not fair, not justifiable, but likely correct) 4) Given this behaviour, it's less likely that women will enter into said technical fields. 5) Repeat.
The real problem with this is that after a while, you create a groove of unconscious behaviour patterns. "Oh, a woman-she's not too bright about (x)." As you say, this is just as true for other women. I've overheard groups of women talking, and am appalled to hear things like, "oh those computers--I just don't understand them! Aren't they the worst?" If another woman mentions being a computer professional, the general attitude is, "ooooh, you must be INCREDIBLY smart!" Note that _male_ computer professionals don't have to be as smart (in the eyes of these women) as women do.
It's tragic and destructive--we're just not working effectively as a society, and I wish I knew how to change it.
I can't believe someone moderated this brainless flamebait _up_. I guess if you act offensive enough, someone is bound to think you're right.
The round mouse is a bad design. It Doesn't Work. Guiding it with three fingers instead of the palm of a hand might aleviate some wrist and forearm problems, at the expense of _far_ more severe shoulder and upper back problems. Then you're looking at spinal misalignment, long term disability, and extensive physiotherapy. Great design there. REAL great design!
Why don't you just shut up, rather than calling everyone else in the world a Nazi, just because they have a clue?
"...but this is now officially Frankenstein time..."
Cool! What does a time/era/moment in history have to do to get "official" status? Maybe I can get next year officially declared "daemon time."
More generally, it's funny how Jon writes such scary, dramatic, button-pushing stuff about 'media megahype.' Maybe he's not heard that old parable about the pot and the kettle.
OK, you've already been moderated down (which is good), but honestly--what else would you have them do? Play Quake at 50k frames/sec.? Crack crypto keys?
'Nuclear simulations' doesn't just mean figuring out how many people they can kill per megaton. It ties in plasma physics and a dozen other related fields, which tie in closely to astrophysics, i.e. how stars happen. Then there's the residual interesting bits, which can lead to advances in almost any random field. (maybe not random, but indeterminate)
Fundamentally, they're using tons of computing power to investigate stuff we _don't_know_ yet. They're not just cranking out bigger numbers faster, but looking in different directions.
To say, "I don't think we need more (fill in the blank) research" is to utterly fail to understand how good science works, and ties together.
Oh, no doubt--mainframes still make good sense in a variety of situations. However, reinventing such a niche item from the ground up seems a pretty poor idea. (just ask SGI:-)
"I wish they'd help us with our intellectual property issues instead of just spanking us all like the bad children they claim us to be. They could be helping us be good."
The problem here is that they don't want to help us! They are in it for the money and for the power, despite being an "association." They control the vertical. They control the horizontal. And they will NOT stand by while a new medium forms that they don't have control over.
Consider that Metallica is generally considered an exception. Most of the artists (small, medium, and even really big) who have either dealt with the RIAA, or have been unable to do so because of their (small) potential sales are fairly happy with the idea of MP3. Alanis Morrisette was sued by her own record company for releasing the music she wrote and recorded in MP3 format!
Bottom line is that the industry doesn't have the interests of the musicians or the public in mind--only their own.
Great example of the magic demanded from the computer industry! Out of curiosity, when did this professor make his statement? I'm interested in how long the astute have been able to pinpoint the problems this accurately, and not manage to get anything done about it.
And with all those servers in a single box, you'd be reduced to a single power cord, a single UPS, a single point of failure...
Yeah, I know that you can (should, would) have multiple redundant power supplies, but if you're going to design something utterly centralised, then to make it replace a reliable server farm you're going to end up reinventing the mainframe.
44100kHz means 44,100 samples per second. 16bit means each one of those (44,100) samples is 16 bits long. Classical music may be more revealing than (most) metal, and is often better recorded, but there's nothing particularly magic about it. Actually, if you want good 'revealing' music, find a minimally-processed recording of solo piano works. Chopin and Beethoven work very well for finding faults in audio recording/playback equipment.
I suspect, now that I think about it, that you're thinking of the jitter problem that plagued early CD players. When you got down to quiet passages (which you're more likely to find in, for instance, solo piano), then you've only got a few effective bits of amplitude; thirteen of those bits may be full off, squeezing the useful information into the remaining three bits. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that most early CD players under $1000 actually only used 14-bit DACs.
Curiously, the best way around this turned out to be to _add_ some digital jitter to the signal. There have been other methods and refinements, but the bottom line is that it's long since a decent player will suffer from this effect.
Colin (who loves his vinyl and turntable just as much as his CDs, for the record)
My AKGs (going through cheap 25-year-old Heathkit equipment) make the difference noticible. I'm sure your phones do as well. However, most of the headphones that people are going to use are cheap, tinny, $20 walkman phones; and for that matter, they won't _care_ much about the lack of perfection in the sound. This is exactly why MP3 is such a popular (and good!) format.
Learn something about the Nyquist criterion. Learn why (and how) an analog wavelength of a certain frequency is mathematically equivalent to a sampled waveform at twice the frequency.
There are problems with CDs; The frequency they chose for sampling (44.1kHz) gives a cutoff of 22050Hz, rather close to the 20kHz that is the _approximate_ top range of human hearing. Also, 16 bits of data turns out to be fairly borderline as well, and low-level jitter is a pretty tough nut to really crack.
At the same time, crosstalk is unheard of. The absolute noise floor is incredibly low. Tape stretch, surface noise, and so forth are nonexistent.
A casually thrown together CD will outperform an equally casually thrown together tape or record any day of the week. A very carefully created tape or record will beat that CD. (Mind you, the tape will only do so for a while--tape is an inherently unstable medium.) However, a very carefully recorded CD, even within the 44.1kHz/16bit limitations, will reproduce sound more accurately than any consumer format going.
Sorry for the long rant, but don't blame CDs for bad engineering, and DON'T blame the "evils" of digital sampling for bad CDs.
I would have liked to see a few more serious questions, but on the whole, interesting stuff.
I can hardly wait for the movie. I'm curious as to which existing script it'll follow closest. (the radio series, tv series, or books--they're all fairly different)
OK, this is truly cool. Laptops have always been expensive despite the fact that they've never been designed for or good at 'bleeding edge' stuff. (graphics especially) While I'm not too excited about a laptop playing games better, I'm DEFINITELY excited by the prospect of a laptop that costs less than my first born son, and will run current productivity software. Of course, if laptops come down, then home computers (i.e. desktops) will be forced down as well. Hmmmm....
Now for the really OT bit. Can someone well-versed in the arcane ways of advanced HTML please tell me how ZD has bolloxed up their web page, so that I can't even scroll without a huge (1/2 second) lag between typing and response. (or mouse control, same problem) This is on any computer I've used, and through any bandwidth I've had access to. Why do they suck so much???
I don't know what you've got against Woz--you keep harping on this point over and over.
How do you draw the defining line between innovation and invention? Hell, the transistor wasn't anything new--it did the same thing as the vacuum tube, but in a solid substrate instead of by boiling off electrons. Nothing inventive there.
Maybe more to the point, tell me who, if not Woz and co., invented the personal computer.
There were the Amdahls, and the various 'do it yourself' S-100 machines out there. None of them were home computers, but rather hobbyists' toys. It's like comparing a ham radio to an FM tuner.
In my mind, Woz is an inventor, and deserves the award as much as anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
"Not setting off alarms" in this case means hacking through firewalls and scanning the machines within. They explicitly stated this. THAT is a gross violation of privacy, and possibly even illegal. A firewall should be just as much a sign that 'you are not welcome' as a banner statement on your login, and just as defensible (if not moreso, as it's a physical deterrent rather than just a statement) in court.
Now there's someone who doesn't have mortgage payments to make!
Right on the mark! I felt the same way when I first discovered that I could telnet to port 25,
and talk to a mail server. (many years ago) It was
the thrill of doing something (seemingly) illicit.
Of course, the real trick if you're after that sort of thrill from breaking into machines, is to get good, get a job, and do it for a living.
"Isn't this what killed John Belushi?
strredwolf writes "If you haven't heard, XFree86 4.0.1"
So THAT's what did it!
Amusingly (or frighteningly?), this reminds me of NRA pamphlets. And tactics.
"Katz is really making too much out of a simple issue."
But of course! It's his way. (or rather, His Way!) He's only reported on two topics I can think of where his hype and alarmist attitude were even close to justified.
Jon seems absolutely desperate to make every aspect of the 'internet culture' unique, novel, fearsome to the old guard, and endangered. Sad but true, there's not that much new under the sun.
"That's nice dear... (pat pat)"
Seriously, you're quite right--it's endemic to society. Unfortunately, it comes with some degree
of truth (wait, hear me out!), as part of a
vicious circle.
1) Women are underrepresented in computing (and
other fields, of course). Thus...
2) Not as many women vs. men know computers
intimately. Thus...
3) Assuming women are technologically less savvy
is likely correct. (not fair, not justifiable,
but likely correct)
4) Given this behaviour, it's less likely that
women will enter into said technical fields.
5) Repeat.
The real problem with this is that after a while,
you create a groove of unconscious behaviour
patterns. "Oh, a woman-she's not too bright about
(x)." As you say, this is just as true for other
women. I've overheard groups of women talking, and
am appalled to hear things like, "oh those
computers--I just don't understand them! Aren't
they the worst?" If another woman mentions being
a computer professional, the general attitude is,
"ooooh, you must be INCREDIBLY smart!" Note that
_male_ computer professionals don't have to be as
smart (in the eyes of these women) as women do.
It's tragic and destructive--we're just not
working effectively as a society, and I wish I
knew how to change it.
(a man)
Oh, bullshit!
I can't believe someone moderated this brainless flamebait _up_. I guess if you act offensive enough, someone is bound to think you're right.
The round mouse is a bad design. It Doesn't Work.
Guiding it with three fingers instead of the palm
of a hand might aleviate some wrist and forearm
problems, at the expense of _far_ more severe
shoulder and upper back problems. Then you're
looking at spinal misalignment, long term
disability, and extensive physiotherapy. Great
design there. REAL great design!
Why don't you just shut up, rather than calling
everyone else in the world a Nazi, just because
they have a clue?
All I can say is that I hope his book had editors.
Ceramical? Is that like ceramic?
Regardless, here's a very useful application of
the idea. Wish I could afford them.
http://www.fantes.com/kyocera.htm
Don't suppose that's Rune Conquest you're working on? :-)
"...but this is now officially Frankenstein time..."
Cool! What does a time/era/moment in history have to do to get "official" status? Maybe I can get next year officially declared "daemon time."
More generally, it's funny how Jon writes such scary, dramatic, button-pushing stuff about 'media megahype.' Maybe he's not heard that old parable about the pot and the kettle.
OK, you've already been moderated down (which is
good), but honestly--what else would you have them
do? Play Quake at 50k frames/sec.? Crack crypto
keys?
'Nuclear simulations' doesn't just mean figuring
out how many people they can kill per megaton.
It ties in plasma physics and a dozen other
related fields, which tie in closely to
astrophysics, i.e. how stars happen. Then there's
the residual interesting bits, which can lead to
advances in almost any random field. (maybe not
random, but indeterminate)
Fundamentally, they're using tons of computing
power to investigate stuff we _don't_know_ yet.
They're not just cranking out bigger numbers
faster, but looking in different directions.
To say, "I don't think we need more (fill in the
blank) research" is to utterly fail to understand
how good science works, and ties together.
Oh, no doubt--mainframes still make good sense in :-)
a variety of situations. However, reinventing such
a niche item from the ground up seems a pretty
poor idea. (just ask SGI
"I wish they'd help us with our intellectual property issues instead of just spanking us all like the bad children they claim us to be. They could be helping us be good."
The problem here is that they don't want to help us! They are in it for the money and for the power, despite being an "association." They control the vertical. They control the horizontal. And they will NOT stand by while a new medium forms that they don't have control over.
Consider that Metallica is generally considered an exception. Most of the artists (small, medium, and even really big) who have either dealt with the RIAA, or have been unable to do so because of their (small) potential sales are fairly happy with the idea of MP3. Alanis Morrisette was sued by her own record company for releasing the music she wrote and recorded in MP3 format!
Bottom line is that the industry doesn't have the interests of the musicians or the public in mind--only their own.
Great example of the magic demanded from the
computer industry! Out of curiosity, when did this
professor make his statement? I'm interested in
how long the astute have been able to pinpoint
the problems this accurately, and not manage to
get anything done about it.
And with all those servers in a single box, you'd
be reduced to a single power cord, a single UPS,
a single point of failure...
Yeah, I know that you can (should, would) have
multiple redundant power supplies, but if you're
going to design something utterly centralised,
then to make it replace a reliable server farm
you're going to end up reinventing the mainframe.
Same thing, I'm afraid.
44100kHz means 44,100 samples per second. 16bit
means each one of those (44,100) samples is 16
bits long. Classical music may be more revealing
than (most) metal, and is often better recorded,
but there's nothing particularly magic about it.
Actually, if you want good 'revealing' music, find
a minimally-processed recording of solo piano
works. Chopin and Beethoven work very well for
finding faults in audio recording/playback
equipment.
I suspect, now that I think about it, that you're
thinking of the jitter problem that plagued early
CD players. When you got down to quiet passages
(which you're more likely to find in, for
instance, solo piano), then you've only got a few
effective bits of amplitude; thirteen of those
bits may be full off, squeezing the useful
information into the remaining three bits. This
problem was exacerbated by the fact that most
early CD players under $1000 actually only used
14-bit DACs.
Curiously, the best way around this turned out to
be to _add_ some digital jitter to the signal.
There have been other methods and refinements,
but the bottom line is that it's long since a
decent player will suffer from this effect.
Colin
(who loves his vinyl and turntable just as much
as his CDs, for the record)
Obviously he wasn't talking about you, then. :-)
My AKGs (going through cheap 25-year-old Heathkit
equipment) make the difference noticible. I'm
sure your phones do as well. However, most of the
headphones that people are going to use are cheap,
tinny, $20 walkman phones; and for that matter,
they won't _care_ much about the lack of
perfection in the sound. This is exactly why MP3
is such a popular (and good!) format.
Ah, the joys of brainless audiophilia.
Learn something about the Nyquist criterion. Learn why (and how) an analog wavelength of a certain frequency is mathematically equivalent to a sampled waveform at twice the frequency.
There are problems with CDs; The frequency they chose for sampling (44.1kHz) gives a cutoff of 22050Hz, rather close to the 20kHz that is the _approximate_ top range of human hearing. Also, 16 bits of data turns out to be fairly borderline as well, and low-level jitter is a pretty tough nut to really crack.
At the same time, crosstalk is unheard of. The absolute noise floor is incredibly low. Tape stretch, surface noise, and so forth are nonexistent.
A casually thrown together CD will outperform an equally casually thrown together tape or record any day of the week. A very carefully created tape or record will beat that CD. (Mind you, the tape will only do so for a while--tape is an inherently unstable medium.) However, a very carefully recorded CD, even within the 44.1kHz/16bit limitations, will reproduce sound more accurately than any consumer format going.
Sorry for the long rant, but don't blame CDs for bad engineering, and DON'T blame the "evils" of digital sampling for bad CDs.
Some links:
A good definition
Another one, this time with more maths.
I would have liked to see a few more serious
questions, but on the whole, interesting stuff.
I can hardly wait for the movie. I'm curious as
to which existing script it'll follow closest.
(the radio series, tv series, or books--they're
all fairly different)
OK, this is truly cool. Laptops have always been expensive despite the fact that they've never been designed for or good at 'bleeding edge' stuff. (graphics especially) While I'm not too excited about a laptop playing games better, I'm DEFINITELY excited by the prospect of a laptop that costs less than my first born son, and will run current productivity software. Of course, if laptops come down, then home computers (i.e. desktops) will be forced down as well.
Hmmmm....
Now for the really OT bit. Can someone well-versed in the arcane ways of advanced HTML please tell me how ZD has bolloxed up their web page, so that I can't even scroll without a huge (1/2 second) lag between typing and response. (or mouse control, same problem) This is on any computer I've used, and through any bandwidth I've had access to. Why do they suck so much???
For the uninformed, "ell, ess, dee" is pronounced
'acid.'
And is often served on...a sugar cube!!!
Coincidence?
Disney (I realize that the fact that his company is the best source for G rated softcore porn isn't his fault but still.)
Not his fault? The guy certainly had some say over the nymphs, fairies, etc. in Fantasia. I've always assumed that Walt was a dirty old man. :-)
I don't know what you've got against Woz--you keep
harping on this point over and over.
How do you draw the defining line between
innovation and invention? Hell, the transistor
wasn't anything new--it did the same thing as the
vacuum tube, but in a solid substrate instead of
by boiling off electrons. Nothing inventive there.
Maybe more to the point, tell me who, if not Woz
and co., invented the personal computer.
There were the Amdahls, and the various 'do it
yourself' S-100 machines out there. None of them
were home computers, but rather hobbyists' toys.
It's like comparing a ham radio to an FM tuner.
In my mind, Woz is an inventor, and deserves the
award as much as anyone.