"Using MPEG-1, Audio Layer 2 data compression, the PXR4 records 24-bit audio at 32 kHz resolution. You must select one of three recording modes -- Hi Quality, Standard, and Economy -- at the beginning of a project. As you'd expect, the higher quality the recording mode, the less recording time you get (see the table "PXR4 Recording Mode Times")."
Sure it's 300 bucks, sure you'll have to buy a new CF card to get useful space out of it, but if you're thinking of using it anywhere near professionally, it's worth it.
You can even plug it into your monitor out
and record crap at your shows.
Korg Pandora PX-4: 299
I agree. "copying a large file only moves at ~18MB/s.. why aren't I getting 80MB/s?!!!1" is kind of a stupid question. If you want to run a speed test, repeatedly copy a smaller file that your linux box can cache in memory, over and over again so you _KNOW_ it's cached. Make sure the file can fit inside whatever linux says your average 'cached' memory load is. Then get and re-get it and see how fast it gets. I'll bet that done right, you can get probably 45MB/s sustained.
The other thing is that you have to look at your PCI bus. If you're using 32-bit PCI66, I think 200MB/s (or thereabout) is your max speed. And that's sustained write as bus master. now with your IDE controller and 3(!) Gigabit NICs, that's going to be cut by, say, 1/2 to (say) 1/4 depending.
You're kind of complaining "My speedometer goes to 140, but my car only gets up to 98 before the tires fly off!"...don't confuse "theoretical maximum" with "real-world use"
You know, firefox is a great application, but it really needs to become more of a platform, you know, that supports a great many features for all users, most importantly, e-mail.
I seem to remember some program years ago that started out as just some crappy simple web browser, Net-somethingoranother. One day, it got an email application, and it took over the WORLD.
" What I really don't understand is why it would be necessary or smart to brand such a product as Windows at all. Windows means graphical user interface, and the way it's presented ties quite closely to desktop use. "
No, no, what windows MEANS is the win32 API, and ease of development using Visual Studio and its concommitant libraries.
What they're really doing is going after, as the Ballmer-monster would say, "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
The scary part is that they'll probably push some sort of.NET solution.
Let's look at that list. Doom3? What? Who cares? This list includes "games I'll buy for my PC, and that were easily portable to the XBox as a 'gimme' for developing for the PC" This is like saying "Final Fantasy franchise continues to by-pass XBox" or "Solaris continues to not run on my toaster".
Okay, first off, "offering an.iso of OpenBSD" is the most ridiculous solution I'v ever heard. Why not just ship an EEPROM burner?
How about this: They require a DOS boot floppy because
a: These tools usually operate in real mode
b: DOS is real mode
c: DOS fits on a floppy
d: DOS isn't free
Oh, wait, DOS IS FREE.
STOP WHINING. Your knee-jerk reaction to "this needs DOS" is to think inside the box and whine about how MSFT eats babies and is a monopoly and nobody considers freedom important and TEH LUNIX ROXORZ J00!.
Just get a DOS boot disk from freedos, or any of the other DOS-alikes. That's what I do. It's useful to have around... Sure. In some Magical Future, we won't have floppies or DOS. And then you can burn a FreeDOS.iso, I'm sure.
My god, people, show a little flexibility.
On a serious note, I hope it has subliminal images of teletubbies or something, or if you win, you're suddenly playing the Death to Smoochie game... Something completely off.
I agree totally with this mysterious anonymous poster. I mean, my god, why not just do what I did and download the trial edition of VMWare and boot solaris in it? I mean, my god, I got it not only working, but networked through a Coyote Linux firewall running in another VMWare instance on the same BOX. Fewl indeed!
Look
"This is your audio clue. You will use the third letter in elephant, the fourth letter in cheese, and the eighth letter in consequences, and the fifth number in eight-nine-nine-five-six"
text-to-speech that, freaks
Mendelson's Electronic Surplus, Dayton OH
on
Great Surplus Stores?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
http://www.meci.com/
You want a generator? They got that. You want a Xerox Star? They've had 'em. You want an AT&T unix workstation from god knows when? They got 'em. Need 10Kv capacitors? Sure! Need a freezer? No, no, I mean a WALK IN FREEZER! They GOT THAT? Mannequin parts? THAT TOO!
Yeah! It's real easy. You set up a perlbot that uses GPG. You give perlbot your public key and it gives you a public key YOU set up, then you encrypt your command using it's GPG key and it unencrypts it, runs it then returns the results encrypted using your key!
Sure, it's nearly useless and it's stupid, but what you're suggesting is nearly useless and stupid. Why don't you just set up VNC to use port 80? Hmmm? Would that make things too easy? Oh, I'm sorry, what I meant to ask was "maybe I could use that VNC thing... I hear it's kind of like Remote Desktop, but for Lunix. I hear Perl is cool. I liked Perl Jam in middle school. Where are my Puddle of Mudd CDs?"...okay, that was harsh. But... seriously here. To use the common "If your computer was your house" what you're doing is leaving the key under the rug, then buying a billboard in your neighborhood that says "Hey, Bob, My key is under the rug. I left some coffee brewing and my wife is sleeping so don't wake her."
years ago, I worked at a small web development company. One day, one of the other sysadmins came to me with mail he had found on the mailserver while checking some error he was having, that proved that the CEO's wife (herself a VP) was sleeping with the CEO's best friend (another VP). We sat and decided that the ethical answer was to forward the info to the CEO. After, of course, we had both resigned the company. What do you do? Shoot the hostage?
But seriously, corporate mail isn't some sacrosanct thing. It's less like the US mail and more like FedEx. If you discovered that you'd mailed the wrong package, I figure FedEx should return it to you and let you make it right. What you're doing is saving the company from liability: "Oh, crap! I Didn't mail out Teddy Bears to that orphanage, I mailed out Glass Shards!" In all honesty, if you got fired for it, you had it coming. You're someone's employee. Next time check the org. chart.
Congratulations. You've just invented this great new cipher, and you want to do something with it. You're new in the field; no one's heard of you, and you don't have any credentials as a cryptanalyst. You want to get well-known cryptographers to look at your work. What can you do?
Unfortunately, you have a tough road ahead of you. I see about two new cipher designs from amateur cryptographers every week. The odds of any of these ciphers being secure are slim. The odds of any of them being both secure and efficient are negligible. The odds of any of them being worth actual money are virtually non-existent.
Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around.
"The best cryptographers around" break a lot of ciphers. The academic literature is littered with the carcasses of ciphers broken by their analyses. But they're a busy bunch; they don't have time to break everything. How do they decide what to look at?
Ideally, cryptographers should only look at ciphers that have a reasonable chance of being secure. And since anyone can create a cipher that he believes to be secure, this means that cryptographers should only look at ciphers created by people whose opinions are worth something. No one is impressed if a random person creates an cipher he can't break; but if one of the world's best cryptographers creates an cipher he can't break, now that's worth looking at.
The real world isn't that tidy. Cryptographers look at algorithms that are either interesting or are likely to yield publishable results. This means that they are going to look at algorithms by respected cryptographers, algorithms fielded in large public systems (e.g., cellular phones, pay-TV decoders, Microsoft products), and algorithms that are published in the academic literature. Algorithms posted to Internet newsgroups by unknowns won't get a second glance. Neither will patented but unpublished algorithms, or proprietary algorithms embedded in obscure products.
It's hard to get a cryptographic algorithm published. Most conferences and workshops won't accept designs from unknowns and without extensive analysis. This may seem unfair: unknowns can't get their ciphers published because they are unknowns, and hence no one will ever see their work. In reality, if the only "work" someone ever does is in design, then it's probably not worth publishing. Unknowns can become knowns by publishing cryptanalyses of existing ciphers; most conferences accept these papers.
When I started writing _Applied Cryptography_, I heard the maxim that the only good algorithm designers were people who spent years analyzing existing designs. The maxim made sense, and I believed it. Over the years, as I spend more time doing design and analysis, the truth of the maxim has gotten stronger and stronger. My work on the Twofish design has made me believe this even more strongly. The cipher's strength is not in its design; anyone could design something like that. The strength is in its analysis. We spent over 1000 man-hours analyzing Twofish, breaking simplified versions and variants, and studying modifications. And we could not have done that analysis, nor would we have had any confidence in that analysis, had not the entire design team had experience breaking many other algorithm designs.
A cryptographer friend tells the story of an amateur who kept bothering him with the cipher he invented. The cryptographer would break the cipher, the amateur would make a change to "fix" it, and the cryptographer would break it again. This exchange went on a few times until the cryptographer became fed up. When the amateur visited him to hear what the cryptographer thought, the cryptographer put three envelopes face down on the table. "In each of these envelopes is an attack against your cipher. Take one and read it. Don't come back until you've discovered the other two attacks." The amateur was never heard from again.
I don't mean to be completely negative. People occasionally design strong ciphers. Amateur cryptographers even design strong ciphers. But if you are not known to the cryptographic community, and you expect other cryptographers to look at your work, you have to do several things:
1. Describe your cipher using standard notation. This doesn't mean C code. There is established terminology in the literature. Learn it and use it; no one will learn your specialized terminology.
2. Compare your cipher with other designs. Most likely, it will use some ideas that have been used before. Reference them. This will make it easier for others to understand your work, and shows that you understand the literature.
3. Show why your cipher is immune against each of the major attacks known in literature. It is not good enough just to say that it is secure, you have to show why it is secure against these attacks. This requires, of course, that you not only have read the literature, but also understand it. Expect this process to take months, and result in a large heavily mathematical document. And remember, statistical tests are not very meaningful.
4. Explain why your cipher is better than existing alternatives. It makes no sense to look at something new unless it has clear advantages over the old stuff. Is it faster on Pentiums? Smaller in hardware? What? I have frequently said that, given enough rounds, pretty much anything is secure. Your design needs to have significant performance advantages. And "it can't be broken" is not an advantage; it's a prerequisite.
5. Publish the cipher. Experience shows that ciphers that are not published are most often very weak. Keeping the cipher secret does not improve the security once the cipher is widely used, so if your cipher has to be kept secret to be secure, it is useless anyway.
6. Don't patent the cipher. You can't make money selling a cipher. There are just too many good free ones. Everyone who submitted a cipher to the AES is willing to just give it away; many of the submissions are already in the public domain. If you patent your design, everyone will just use something else. And no one will analyze it for you (unless you pay them); why should they work for you for free?
7. Be patient. There are a lot of algorithms to look at right now. The AES competition has given cryptographers 15 new designs to analyze, and we have to pick a winner by Spring 2000. Any good cryptographer with spare time is poking at those designs.
If you want to design algorithms, start by breaking the ones out there. Practice by breaking algorithms that have already been broken (without peeking at the answers). Break something no one else has broken. Break another. Get your breaks published. When you have established yourself as someone who can break algorithms, then you can start designing new algorithms. Before then, no one will take you seriously.
Creating a cipher is easy. Analyzing it is hard.
See "Self-Study Course in Block Cipher Cryptanalysis": http://www.counterpane.com/self-study.html
I mean, really. MSI has got what you need. And if you use Visual Studio, then, well, DUH. It lets you remotely install stuff... it helps you manage your installs... it integrates with Terminal Services. Really. It's the Offical Microsoft Answer to RPM. sheesh!
Just make sure there's no hubs between your server and your printer, that they're on a switched network, and that client-to-server traffic is all encrypted. voila!
You know, first it's "is it possible to build a computer from components" and now it's "how can I make my Sentra Type-R get an extra 10 bhp?" Sweet lord... Pretty soon there'll be an Icy Hot Stuntaz topic label. Well, time to subscribe to ArsTechnica.
I wouldn't call this "easy" but there's plenty of sites that should have instructions on re-usering people to log on to the fileserver as a domain server and resetting their my documents folders to be on the file server... then it's just going around and mopping up. Then you back up the file server and tell people if it's not in 'my documents' then it's gone gone gone and its their fault.
I can imagine them doing this... as a tiny little logo in the lower corner where normal networks (read: obnoxious corporate machines that can only differentiate their programming by putting their logo on the screen) Sure, you'll get 24 hours of Pong, but as a little window in otherwise non-related programming.
Slashdot Mirror
" It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?"
Repeat after me: "CONGRESS shall make no law[...]" I can sue you to, as it were, "stfu" any time.
Come ON people, TORT LAW != CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I'm really tired of this. "But Teh SCO is taking Lunix's Free Speach Away!!!1" Christ. Get a clue.
"Using MPEG-1, Audio Layer 2 data compression, the PXR4 records 24-bit audio at 32 kHz resolution. You must select one of three recording modes -- Hi Quality, Standard, and Economy -- at the beginning of a project. As you'd expect, the higher quality the recording mode, the less recording time you get (see the table "PXR4 Recording Mode Times")."
I wouldn't call MPEG "proprietary"
You can even plug it into your monitor out and record crap at your shows. Korg Pandora PX-4: 299
I agree. "copying a large file only moves at ~18MB/s.. why aren't I getting 80MB/s?!!!1" is kind of a stupid question. If you want to run a speed test, repeatedly copy a smaller file that your linux box can cache in memory, over and over again so you _KNOW_ it's cached. Make sure the file can fit inside whatever linux says your average 'cached' memory load is. Then get and re-get it and see how fast it gets. I'll bet that done right, you can get probably 45MB/s sustained.
...don't confuse "theoretical maximum" with "real-world use"
The other thing is that you have to look at your PCI bus. If you're using 32-bit PCI66, I think 200MB/s (or thereabout) is your max speed. And that's sustained write as bus master. now with your IDE controller and 3(!) Gigabit NICs, that's going to be cut by, say, 1/2 to (say) 1/4 depending.
You're kind of complaining "My speedometer goes to 140, but my car only gets up to 98 before the tires fly off!"
You know, firefox is a great application, but it really needs to become more of a platform, you know, that supports a great many features for all users, most importantly, e-mail.
I seem to remember some program years ago that started out as just some crappy simple web browser, Net-somethingoranother. One day, it got an email application, and it took over the WORLD.
Adding email is always the BEST MOVE
My god... with google down my effective IQ is 12!
No, no, what windows MEANS is the win32 API, and ease of development using Visual Studio and its concommitant libraries.
What they're really doing is going after, as the Ballmer-monster would say, "Developers! Developers! Developers!"The scary part is that they'll probably push some sort of
Let's look at that list. Doom3? What? Who cares? This list includes "games I'll buy for my PC, and that were easily portable to the XBox as a 'gimme' for developing for the PC" This is like saying "Final Fantasy franchise continues to by-pass XBox" or "Solaris continues to not run on my toaster".
Hold stick near centre of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion."
...is that the original site was loading slower than carorcar.com.
Hell. I'm hoping I get popular enough to be hosted on a fat pipe in taiwan.
OH, and ahem DOS ISOs.
Freaks.
Okay, first off, "offering an .iso of OpenBSD" is the most ridiculous solution I'v ever heard. Why not just ship an EEPROM burner?
.iso, I'm sure.
How about this: They require a DOS boot floppy because
a: These tools usually operate in real mode
b: DOS is real mode
c: DOS fits on a floppy
d: DOS isn't free
Oh, wait, DOS IS FREE.
STOP WHINING. Your knee-jerk reaction to "this needs DOS" is to think inside the box and whine about how MSFT eats babies and is a monopoly and nobody considers freedom important and TEH LUNIX ROXORZ J00!.
Just get a DOS boot disk from freedos, or any of the other DOS-alikes. That's what I do. It's useful to have around... Sure. In some Magical Future, we won't have floppies or DOS. And then you can burn a FreeDOS
My god, people, show a little flexibility.
DON'T MAKE A VIDEO GAME OF FIGHT CLUB!
On a serious note, I hope it has subliminal images of teletubbies or something, or if you win, you're suddenly playing the Death to Smoochie game... Something completely off.
Clue time, people: FRODO THROWS THE RING IN THE VOLCANO.
OMFG! FRODO TROHWS TEH RIGN INOT TEH MT DEWM!!!???J00 R TEH SUCK!!!
Seriously... that's like saying that you're posting spoilers to The Ten Commandments. "Tell no one, but God destroys the Egyptian Army!" NO!
I agree totally with this mysterious anonymous poster. I mean, my god, why not just do what I did and download the trial edition of VMWare and boot solaris in it? I mean, my god, I got it not only working, but networked through a Coyote Linux firewall running in another VMWare instance on the same BOX. Fewl indeed!
Look
"This is your audio clue. You will use the third letter in elephant, the fourth letter in cheese, and the eighth letter in consequences, and the fifth number in eight-nine-nine-five-six"
text-to-speech that, freaks
http://www.meci.com/ You want a generator? They got that. You want a Xerox Star? They've had 'em. You want an AT&T unix workstation from god knows when? They got 'em. Need 10Kv capacitors? Sure! Need a freezer? No, no, I mean a WALK IN FREEZER! They GOT THAT? Mannequin parts? THAT TOO!
Yeah! It's real easy. You set up a perlbot that uses GPG. You give perlbot your public key and it gives you a public key YOU set up, then you encrypt your command using it's GPG key and it unencrypts it, runs it then returns the results encrypted using your key!
...okay, that was harsh. But... seriously here. To use the common "If your computer was your house" what you're doing is leaving the key under the rug, then buying a billboard in your neighborhood that says "Hey, Bob, My key is under the rug. I left some coffee brewing and my wife is sleeping so don't wake her."
Sure, it's nearly useless and it's stupid, but what you're suggesting is nearly useless and stupid. Why don't you just set up VNC to use port 80? Hmmm? Would that make things too easy? Oh, I'm sorry, what I meant to ask was "maybe I could use that VNC thing... I hear it's kind of like Remote Desktop, but for Lunix. I hear Perl is cool. I liked Perl Jam in middle school. Where are my Puddle of Mudd CDs?"
Dear lord.
years ago, I worked at a small web development company. One day, one of the other sysadmins came to me with mail he had found on the mailserver while checking some error he was having, that proved that the CEO's wife (herself a VP) was sleeping with the CEO's best friend (another VP). We sat and decided that the ethical answer was to forward the info to the CEO. After, of course, we had both resigned the company. What do you do? Shoot the hostage?
But seriously, corporate mail isn't some sacrosanct thing. It's less like the US mail and more like FedEx. If you discovered that you'd mailed the wrong package, I figure FedEx should return it to you and let you make it right. What you're doing is saving the company from liability: "Oh, crap! I Didn't mail out Teddy Bears to that orphanage, I mailed out Glass Shards!" In all honesty, if you got fired for it, you had it coming. You're someone's employee. Next time check the org. chart.
Quote
Memo to the Amateur Cipher Designer
Congratulations. You've just invented this great new cipher, and you want to do something with it. You're new in the field; no one's heard of you, and you don't have any credentials as a cryptanalyst. You want to get well-known cryptographers to look at your work. What can you do?
Unfortunately, you have a tough road ahead of you. I see about two new cipher designs from amateur cryptographers every week. The odds of any of these ciphers being secure are slim. The odds of any of them being both secure and efficient are negligible. The odds of any of them being worth actual money are virtually non-existent.
Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around.
"The best cryptographers around" break a lot of ciphers. The academic literature is littered with the carcasses of ciphers broken by their analyses. But they're a busy bunch; they don't have time to break everything. How do they decide what to look at?
Ideally, cryptographers should only look at ciphers that have a reasonable chance of being secure. And since anyone can create a cipher that he believes to be secure, this means that cryptographers should only look at ciphers created by people whose opinions are worth something. No one is impressed if a random person creates an cipher he can't break; but if one of the world's best cryptographers creates an cipher he can't break, now that's worth looking at.
The real world isn't that tidy. Cryptographers look at algorithms that are either interesting or are likely to yield publishable results. This means that they are going to look at algorithms by respected cryptographers, algorithms fielded in large public systems (e.g., cellular phones, pay-TV decoders, Microsoft products), and algorithms that are published in the academic literature. Algorithms posted to Internet newsgroups by unknowns won't get a second glance. Neither will patented but unpublished algorithms, or proprietary algorithms embedded in obscure products.
It's hard to get a cryptographic algorithm published. Most conferences and workshops won't accept designs from unknowns and without extensive analysis. This may seem unfair: unknowns can't get their ciphers published because they are unknowns, and hence no one will ever see their work. In reality, if the only "work" someone ever does is in design, then it's probably not worth publishing. Unknowns can become knowns by publishing cryptanalyses of existing ciphers; most conferences accept these papers.
When I started writing _Applied Cryptography_, I heard the maxim that the only good algorithm designers were people who spent years analyzing existing designs. The maxim made sense, and I believed it. Over the years, as I spend more time doing design and analysis, the truth of the maxim has gotten stronger and stronger. My work on the Twofish design has made me believe this even more strongly. The cipher's strength is not in its design; anyone could design something like that. The strength is in its analysis. We spent over 1000 man-hours analyzing Twofish, breaking simplified versions and variants, and studying modifications. And we could not have done that analysis, nor would we have had any confidence in that analysis, had not the entire design team had experience breaking many other algorithm designs.
A cryptographer friend tells the story of an amateur who kept bothering him with the cipher he invented. The cryptographer would break the cipher, the amateur would make a change to "fix" it, and the cryptographer would break it again. This exchange went on a few times until the cryptographer became fed up. When the amateur visited him to hear what the cryptographer thought, the cryptographer put three envelopes face down on the table. "In each of these envelopes is an attack against your cipher. Take one and read it. Don't come back until you've discovered the other two attacks." The amateur was never heard from again.
I don't mean to be completely negative. People occasionally design strong ciphers. Amateur cryptographers even design strong ciphers. But if you are not known to the cryptographic community, and you expect other cryptographers to look at your work, you have to do several things:
1. Describe your cipher using standard notation. This doesn't mean C code. There is established terminology in the literature. Learn it and use it; no one will learn your specialized terminology.
2. Compare your cipher with other designs. Most likely, it will use some ideas that have been used before. Reference them. This will make it easier for others to understand your work, and shows that you understand the literature.
3. Show why your cipher is immune against each of the major attacks known in literature. It is not good enough just to say that it is secure, you have to show why it is secure against these attacks. This requires, of course, that you not only have read the literature, but also understand it. Expect this process to take months, and result in a large heavily mathematical document. And remember, statistical tests are not very meaningful.
4. Explain why your cipher is better than existing alternatives. It makes no sense to look at something new unless it has clear advantages over the old stuff. Is it faster on Pentiums? Smaller in hardware? What? I have frequently said that, given enough rounds, pretty much anything is secure. Your design needs to have significant performance advantages. And "it can't be broken" is not an advantage; it's a prerequisite.
5. Publish the cipher. Experience shows that ciphers that are not published are most often very weak. Keeping the cipher secret does not improve the security once the cipher is widely used, so if your cipher has to be kept secret to be secure, it is useless anyway.
6. Don't patent the cipher. You can't make money selling a cipher. There are just too many good free ones. Everyone who submitted a cipher to the AES is willing to just give it away; many of the submissions are already in the public domain. If you patent your design, everyone will just use something else. And no one will analyze it for you (unless you pay them); why should they work for you for free?
7. Be patient. There are a lot of algorithms to look at right now. The AES competition has given cryptographers 15 new designs to analyze, and we have to pick a winner by Spring 2000. Any good cryptographer with spare time is poking at those designs.
If you want to design algorithms, start by breaking the ones out there. Practice by breaking algorithms that have already been broken (without peeking at the answers). Break something no one else has broken. Break another. Get your breaks published. When you have established yourself as someone who can break algorithms, then you can start designing new algorithms. Before then, no one will take you seriously.
Creating a cipher is easy. Analyzing it is hard.
See "Self-Study Course in Block Cipher Cryptanalysis": http://www.counterpane.com/self-study.html
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howi tworks/management/installer.asp
I mean, really. MSI has got what you need. And if you use Visual Studio, then, well, DUH. It lets you remotely install stuff... it helps you manage your installs... it integrates with Terminal Services. Really. It's the Offical Microsoft Answer to RPM. sheesh!
Switches, billy, and lots of 'em!
Just make sure there's no hubs between your server and your printer, that they're on a switched network, and that client-to-server traffic is all encrypted. voila!
You know, first it's "is it possible to build a computer from components" and now it's "how can I make my Sentra Type-R get an extra 10 bhp?"
Sweet lord... Pretty soon there'll be an Icy Hot Stuntaz topic label. Well, time to subscribe to ArsTechnica.
I wouldn't call this "easy" but there's plenty of sites that should have instructions on re-usering people to log on to the fileserver as a domain server and resetting their my documents folders to be on the file server... then it's just going around and mopping up. Then you back up the file server and tell people if it's not in 'my documents' then it's gone gone gone and its their fault.
I can imagine them doing this... as a tiny little logo in the lower corner where normal networks (read: obnoxious corporate machines that can only differentiate their programming by putting their logo on the screen) Sure, you'll get 24 hours of Pong, but as a little window in otherwise non-related programming.