You're probably looking at the application window, not the screen saver. It can be run in either of these two modes. Perhaps you should read the documentation that came with it before posting stuff like this to Slashdot?
Try waiting until your screensaver comes on, or open your screen saver settings and click on Preview. It is indeed a "screen saver" (in the modern sense) and even asks me for my password.
I launched it in application mode (constantly doing processing) and noticed that it does *not* automatically lower its priority. It runs right alongside other apps and will degrade your system's processing ability.
To fix this under NT, open the Task Manager (ctrl-alt-del), click the Processes tab, right-click on the "SETI@Home.exe" entry and select Low priority.
Once I did that it things started working as I'd expected them to.
To the best of my knowledge, there shouldn't be much in the way of "critical" nodes that need to be upgraded. IPv6 routers will (for now) be capable of doing both IPv4 and IPv6 (since the version number is stored in the IP packet, it's pretty trivial to decide how to handle it). Over an IPv6 Internet, your old IPv4 addresses (munged up a bit to make them IPv6-compatible) will still work over IPv6 networks. I also don't know why you can't have IPv4 hosts and IPv6 hosts talking to each other on the same ethernet segment, so long as there's a router capable of speaking both protocols.
Maybe I'm just being naïve. *shrug* It just seems to me that once we have IPv6-capable routers, we can migrate everything else at our own individual pace. Once that's all done, we just drop our IPv4 addresses in favor of our IPv6 addresses...
You see those scrolling (sometimes multi-color) LED signs in shops, banks and airports. A couple of these hanging in a few rooms would make for some excellent notification devices and probably wouldn't take much on the computer-end to use.
Has anyone spent time using these? Where could I get a few cheap ones?
Re:Fire Insurance, Fire Detector, Firewall
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 1
Good points, but you're going to have to have Magnavox software (or perhaps some generic "scheduling" software if we can abstract these devices enough) one way or the other. Either it's running on a PC or it's running as a CGI or Servlet applet on your "WWW-enabled automation server."
However, using NAT like this precludes the possibility of me being able to easily do things like:
* IP-based telephone calls to a specific phone in someone else's house * *Forwarding* IP-based telephone calls to the nearest telephone in whatever building I'm currently in * Reception/sending of video images from one specific camera to a specific display unit in another location * Easy collection of thermostat temperatures for apartment buildings with central A/C / heat. * Sending text-based messages to specific devices in another building
etc.
Granted, there can be ways of setting up proxies or the like in conjunction with your NAT setup, but we'd effectively need to build another entire layer of software to make devices work transparently.
Re:Fire Insurance, Fire Detector, Firewall
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 1
It's only more secure if you're talking about each device being equivalent in flexibility and power as a PC. And while you don't necessarily need a firewall for each machine, you *will* need something doing the NAT translations between your private home network and the outside world.
When people say refrigerators and televisions will have an IP address, they don't mean that these devices will be *capable* of being broken into. You can work up a very simple network device that simply reports temperature information or allows the user to change the TV channel without allowing a criminal to insert some sort of virus into the system or program your microwave oven to explode.
Simple devices will have simple network services provided by simple programming.
And in response to the idea that people can just use port forwarding or some similar technology to get around the restrictions imposed by NAT, remember that these devices are *appliances* and won't necessarily be running in the home of a computer person. Not everyone is a network administrator.
I'm aware of what * is, but how is 0.18 network an IPv6 equivalent to the IPv4 18 network?
The 18 class A represented in IPv6 would look like 0:0:0:0:0:0:18.x.y.z (or::18.x.y.z) or 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:18.x.y.z (or::ffff:18.x.y.z), but chances are, your school's "new" IPv6 assignment will probably be a "real" IPv6 assignment and won't start with 0.18 or look like the IPv4-embedded addresses above.
Or were you just picking random numbers here? I'm getting the feeling that I'm taking what you said a bit more seriously than you meant it. Heh. If so, I apologize. I guess I'm just confused.
But yah, I sympathize with you losing your 1/255 status.:)
Re:Fire Insurance, Fire Detector, Firewall
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think this is better? It simply adds a layer of complexity and the requirement for a machine or device performing the address translations.
I don't understand the "18.*" to "0.18.*".. and yes, of course the percentage of global address space assigned to a particular entity will go down when the total number of global addresses goes up. IPv6 sucks because of that?
Re:The scarcity is still just "approaching"
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 4
Where is IPv6 hard to implement?
The transition from IPv4 -> IPv6 should be totally transparent. Things like TCP and UDP should work under IP with no problems at all, since they don't themselves deal with things like IP addresses or quality-of-service.
IPv6 was designed from the drawing board to be an easy upgrade. IPv4-compatible address space was built-in, and the protocol itself is meant to allow hosts to inter-communicate between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts on mixed networks.
A "funky" (even if simple) multi-level proxy system as you say is simply a rather nasty band-aid. While something like this may work, it introduces a tremendous amount of complexity. You'd still need to have things like web servers, e-mail gateways, etc., on globally visible IP's, and there are useful reasons to have individual PC's visible as well. Behind NAT, you lose a lot of usefulness out of Internet hosts. If such usefulness isn't a factor (such as on networks where the machines are already firewalled into next-to-nothingness), this is probably fine, and using private addresses with NAT is acceptable (and even desirable).
For your first idea, you assume every household will have a computer to do this "figuring out devices." That won't always be the case. In theory, you should be able to use an IP-enabled remote and an IP-enable television together (and from the Internet via an IP-enabled telephone or other network access point, for example) without having to rely on a *computer* to do the "figuring out". Once we start moving away from the PC and more towards the Internet-enabled appliances, where does this computer fit in?
With respect to your second idea, using "TCP/IP" with a single "household" IP and using port numbers to differentiate between devices: What if someone had a really big house? (Granted, 64k of ports is probably plenty, but you never know...) What if we're talking about a company, where 64k ports might not be enough? What if some of those ports were needed for outbound connections? Do we then start assigning a second or third IP for these types of devices?
What if a single device had several services? Use a separate port for each service? Would there be standard ports for things like TV, VCR, Pool, Telephone, etc? What if you had multiple TV's? Things could get very confusing here, but there are probably ways to classify and place these mappings in some sort of standard directory.
Also (and this might clarify some confusion for you, or you may have meant this and are just using wrong terminology), we're not necessarily saying devices need to be able to communicate via *TCP*.. just IP. We can build any other protocols or use existing protocols as needed for the devices themselves...
Reasons like this are precisely why there isn't an immediate "IP crisis." Unless we move towards IPv6, however, global IP addresses will become scarce in the future. There still won't be much of a crisis (providers will work around it by using private addresses and NAT surely, like you say), but using "real" IP's is so much more of a "real" solution.
For that, IPv6 is the way to go.
Re:Fire Insurance, Fire Detector, Firewall
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 3
I don't think the emphasis is on putting these devices on the global Internet; it's on allowing these devices to communicate between one another via IP.
And if it already speaks IP, why not let them communicate over the Internet as needed while we're at it?
10.x.x.x addresses seem like a good idea (my network at home uses this), but what if you wanted to check your answering machine messages from a neighbor's house? What if you wanted to record the game that comes on in 20 minutes? I'm probably only pointing out some of the lesser reasons why these devices might need a "real" IP, but IMO they're enough.:)
It most certainly is not nothing. I for one routinely read the Tech section of the ABCNEWS site, and there's always a new "answer geek" question there along the sidebar that I glance over at. I'd bet it gets more readers than Slashdot by several orders of magnitude.
Most *self-proclaimed* hackers, perhaps. Those types tend to be the IRC script kiddies that think they know something, so they label themselves "hackers" to all of their friends and co-workers, who in reality know they're idiots.
Data is data.. Using a "bad" browser won't cause the MP3 to sound any different any more than it would cause downloaded images or applications to look/behave any differently.
You're right in suggesting an alternative player though. Some players are better at removing artifacts and other nastiness than others.
Ordinarily, popups don't bother me *that* much (though they do kinda tick me off), but when sites set up popups to only appear when someone LEAVES a page on your site, that just kinda pisses me off. They're just trying to get one final advertisement in because you're leaving their site, and that's lame.
That second paragraph was meant more as a joke than a real insult. I'm sorry it was taken so seriously. I honestly intended to write some more and add a few smileys, but IE is pretty particular about which keystrokes are allowed in a form and which keystrokes are designed to submit it.
No new DNS information, no silly things to remember when typing in URL's. We may end up with a few more TLD's in the future, but that's irrelevant.
The only thing will change is that you will have more people from which to purchase domain names, and yes, the prices will be significantly lower than what NetSol is charging now (from what I've read, almost a tenth of the cost).
Most people will never know the difference, nor do they really need to.
I agree. What's the difference between some guy going to a concert and buying up all of the tickets only to sell them at ten times the price at the door and these domain gimps going up and buying all of the domains they think are interesting and re-selling them?
IMO, this should be made "illegal" at the top level, namely ICANN. The registrars should be asked to enforce the rule and those found scalping domains should simply lose them and perhaps be barred from registering domains in the future.
If this practice is ignored or even legitimized, what's to stop our friendly new registrars from doing the same thing? Is there a rulebook someplace that states what the registrars can and cannot do with respects to their new power over domain names? I'm going to go read the site here shortly, so if it's talked about there, you don't have to respond...
AFAIK, if InterNIC won't let you simply transfer your domain over when you request it, you can always:
a. Cancel your registration with InterNIC and re-register the domain with another registrar; or
b. Wait until your InterNIC domain registration expires and re-register it with another registrar.
Of course, unless you have prior arrangements with said registrars, there might be a sort of race condition during which any Joe Bloe might come along and register your domain while you aren't looking. I've known people that set up minute-by-minute cron jobs performing whois lookups on particular domains and setting off all sorts of alarms, etc., when the domain comes up unregistered. It's usually re-registered shortly thereafter, oftentimes to the dismay of the original holder.
Even if NetSol ends up being marginally cheaper than a competitor (from what I've read, at 9$/year, that's pretty freakin' cheap, but the other registrars shouldn't be that much more), I'd urge everyone to think hard about staying with NetSol.
If important people notice the way everyone flocks *away* from NetSol despite their possibly lower prices, it might make them take note of NetSol's poor ethical practices in the past with respects to internic.net and whois, and hopefully, similar incidents will not be repeated by other companies in similar positions.
I thought it was hillarious that he tacked on a few of the more idiotic e-mails he received.
Sometimes I'm embarrassed by the number of Slashdot kiddies that go to such lengths to show people that they're smarter than they are because they can install Linux.
Instead of flaming and attacking every single Windows user when he describes the issues he had to deal with during the course of his Linux installation, try LISTENING instead. Every single time an article is posted to Slashdot that has a Windows user's take on installing Linux, the idiot Slashdot kiddies come out of the woodwork and thoroughly embarass the rest of us.
He's right: Linux users for the most part tend to agree that the next step in the OS's evolution is to work towards becoming a mainstream OS, replacing the niche that Windows currently holds. If all we do is tell those Windows users that report on their efforts to make that leap that they are idiots, morons or should "learn Unix" first, we do NOTHING to help Linux reach that goal. In fact, not only do we set Linux back, but we give the entire OpenSource community a very bad name.
Wasn't Linux ranked as having the best peer technical support available? So why the hell do we have all of these Slashdimwits telling those in a position to help us immensely that they are "a moron"?
Think about it folks, and remember, if these aren't the types of people we're trying to convert to Linux, who are?
Slashdot Mirror
You're probably looking at the application window, not the screen saver. It can be run in either of these two modes. Perhaps you should read the documentation that came with it before posting stuff like this to Slashdot?
Try waiting until your screensaver comes on, or open your screen saver settings and click on Preview. It is indeed a "screen saver" (in the modern sense) and even asks me for my password.
I launched it in application mode (constantly doing processing) and noticed that it does *not* automatically lower its priority. It runs right alongside other apps and will degrade your system's processing ability.
To fix this under NT, open the Task Manager (ctrl-alt-del), click the Processes tab, right-click on the "SETI@Home.exe" entry and select Low priority.
Once I did that it things started working as I'd expected them to.
To the best of my knowledge, there shouldn't be much in the way of "critical" nodes that need to be upgraded. IPv6 routers will (for now) be capable of doing both IPv4 and IPv6 (since the version number is stored in the IP packet, it's pretty trivial to decide how to handle it). Over an IPv6 Internet, your old IPv4 addresses (munged up a bit to make them IPv6-compatible) will still work over IPv6 networks. I also don't know why you can't have IPv4 hosts and IPv6 hosts talking to each other on the same ethernet segment, so long as there's a router capable of speaking both protocols.
Maybe I'm just being naïve. *shrug* It just seems to me that once we have IPv6-capable routers, we can migrate everything else at our own individual pace. Once that's all done, we just drop our IPv4 addresses in favor of our IPv6 addresses...
You see those scrolling (sometimes multi-color) LED signs in shops, banks and airports. A couple of these hanging in a few rooms would make for some excellent notification devices and probably wouldn't take much on the computer-end to use.
Has anyone spent time using these? Where could I get a few cheap ones?
Good points, but you're going to have to have Magnavox software (or perhaps some generic "scheduling" software if we can abstract these devices enough) one way or the other. Either it's running on a PC or it's running as a CGI or Servlet applet on your "WWW-enabled automation server."
However, using NAT like this precludes the possibility of me being able to easily do things like:
* IP-based telephone calls to a specific phone in someone else's house
* *Forwarding* IP-based telephone calls to the nearest telephone in whatever building I'm currently in
* Reception/sending of video images from one specific camera to a specific display unit in another location
* Easy collection of thermostat temperatures for apartment buildings with central A/C / heat.
* Sending text-based messages to specific devices in another building
etc.
Granted, there can be ways of setting up proxies or the like in conjunction with your NAT setup, but we'd effectively need to build another entire layer of software to make devices work transparently.
It's only more secure if you're talking about each device being equivalent in flexibility and power as a PC. And while you don't necessarily need a firewall for each machine, you *will* need something doing the NAT translations between your private home network and the outside world.
When people say refrigerators and televisions will have an IP address, they don't mean that these devices will be *capable* of being broken into. You can work up a very simple network device that simply reports temperature information or allows the user to change the TV channel without allowing a criminal to insert some sort of virus into the system or program your microwave oven to explode.
Simple devices will have simple network services provided by simple programming.
And in response to the idea that people can just use port forwarding or some similar technology to get around the restrictions imposed by NAT, remember that these devices are *appliances* and won't necessarily be running in the home of a computer person. Not everyone is a network administrator.
I'm aware of what * is, but how is 0.18 network an IPv6 equivalent to the IPv4 18 network?
::18.x.y.z) or 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:18.x.y.z (or ::ffff:18.x.y.z), but chances are, your school's "new" IPv6 assignment will probably be a "real" IPv6 assignment and won't start with 0.18 or look like the IPv4-embedded addresses above.
:)
The 18 class A represented in IPv6 would look like 0:0:0:0:0:0:18.x.y.z (or
Or were you just picking random numbers here? I'm getting the feeling that I'm taking what you said a bit more seriously than you meant it. Heh. If so, I apologize. I guess I'm just confused.
But yah, I sympathize with you losing your 1/255 status.
Why do you think this is better? It simply adds a layer of complexity and the requirement for a machine or device performing the address translations.
I don't understand the "18.*" to "0.18.*".. and yes, of course the percentage of global address space assigned to a particular entity will go down when the total number of global addresses goes up. IPv6 sucks because of that?
Did I miss something?
Both IPv4 and IPv6 will use 16-bit port numbers.
Where is IPv6 hard to implement?
The transition from IPv4 -> IPv6 should be totally transparent. Things like TCP and UDP should work under IP with no problems at all, since they don't themselves deal with things like IP addresses or quality-of-service.
IPv6 was designed from the drawing board to be an easy upgrade. IPv4-compatible address space was built-in, and the protocol itself is meant to allow hosts to inter-communicate between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts on mixed networks.
A "funky" (even if simple) multi-level proxy system as you say is simply a rather nasty band-aid. While something like this may work, it introduces a tremendous amount of complexity. You'd still need to have things like web servers, e-mail gateways, etc., on globally visible IP's, and there are useful reasons to have individual PC's visible as well. Behind NAT, you lose a lot of usefulness out of Internet hosts. If such usefulness isn't a factor (such as on networks where the machines are already firewalled into next-to-nothingness), this is probably fine, and using private addresses with NAT is acceptable (and even desirable).
For your first idea, you assume every household will have a computer to do this "figuring out devices." That won't always be the case. In theory, you should be able to use an IP-enabled remote and an IP-enable television together (and from the Internet via an IP-enabled telephone or other network access point, for example) without having to rely on a *computer* to do the "figuring out". Once we start moving away from the PC and more towards the Internet-enabled appliances, where does this computer fit in?
With respect to your second idea, using "TCP/IP" with a single "household" IP and using port numbers to differentiate between devices: What if someone had a really big house? (Granted, 64k of ports is probably plenty, but you never know...) What if we're talking about a company, where 64k ports might not be enough? What if some of those ports were needed for outbound connections? Do we then start assigning a second or third IP for these types of devices?
What if a single device had several services? Use a separate port for each service? Would there be standard ports for things like TV, VCR, Pool, Telephone, etc? What if you had multiple TV's? Things could get very confusing here, but there are probably ways to classify and place these mappings in some sort of standard directory.
Also (and this might clarify some confusion for you, or you may have meant this and are just using wrong terminology), we're not necessarily saying devices need to be able to communicate via *TCP*.. just IP. We can build any other protocols or use existing protocols as needed for the devices themselves...
Reasons like this are precisely why there isn't an immediate "IP crisis." Unless we move towards IPv6, however, global IP addresses will become scarce in the future. There still won't be much of a crisis (providers will work around it by using private addresses and NAT surely, like you say), but using "real" IP's is so much more of a "real" solution.
For that, IPv6 is the way to go.
I don't think the emphasis is on putting these devices on the global Internet; it's on allowing these devices to communicate between one another via IP.
:)
And if it already speaks IP, why not let them communicate over the Internet as needed while we're at it?
10.x.x.x addresses seem like a good idea (my network at home uses this), but what if you wanted to check your answering machine messages from a neighbor's house? What if you wanted to record the game that comes on in 20 minutes? I'm probably only pointing out some of the lesser reasons why these devices might need a "real" IP, but IMO they're enough.
"When to use root@ e-mail addresses."
;)
It most certainly is not nothing. I for one routinely read the Tech section of the ABCNEWS site, and there's always a new "answer geek" question there along the sidebar that I glance over at. I'd bet it gets more readers than Slashdot by several orders of magnitude.
Most *self-proclaimed* hackers, perhaps. Those types tend to be the IRC script kiddies that think they know something, so they label themselves "hackers" to all of their friends and co-workers, who in reality know they're idiots.
Data is data.. Using a "bad" browser won't cause the MP3 to sound any different any more than it would cause downloaded images or applications to look/behave any differently.
You're right in suggesting an alternative player though. Some players are better at removing artifacts and other nastiness than others.
Ordinarily, popups don't bother me *that* much (though they do kinda tick me off), but when sites set up popups to only appear when someone LEAVES a page on your site, that just kinda pisses me off. They're just trying to get one final advertisement in because you're leaving their site, and that's lame.
That second paragraph was meant more as a joke than a real insult. I'm sorry it was taken so seriously. I honestly intended to write some more and add a few smileys, but IE is pretty particular about which keystrokes are allowed in a form and which keystrokes are designed to submit it.
No new DNS information, no silly things to remember when typing in URL's. We may end up with a few more TLD's in the future, but that's irrelevant.
The only thing will change is that you will have more people from which to purchase domain names, and yes, the prices will be significantly lower than what NetSol is charging now (from what I've read, almost a tenth of the cost).
Most people will never know the difference, nor do they really need to.
I agree. What's the difference between some guy going to a concert and buying up all of the tickets only to sell them at ten times the price at the door and these domain gimps going up and buying all of the domains they think are interesting and re-selling them?
IMO, this should be made "illegal" at the top level, namely ICANN. The registrars should be asked to enforce the rule and those found scalping domains should simply lose them and perhaps be barred from registering domains in the future.
If this practice is ignored or even legitimized, what's to stop our friendly new registrars from doing the same thing? Is there a rulebook someplace that states what the registrars can and cannot do with respects to their new power over domain names? I'm going to go read the site here shortly, so if it's talked about there, you don't have to respond...
AFAIK, if InterNIC won't let you simply transfer your domain over when you request it, you can always:
a. Cancel your registration with InterNIC and re-register the domain with another registrar; or
b. Wait until your InterNIC domain registration expires and re-register it with another registrar.
Of course, unless you have prior arrangements with said registrars, there might be a sort of race condition during which any Joe Bloe might come along and register your domain while you aren't looking. I've known people that set up minute-by-minute cron jobs performing whois lookups on particular domains and setting off all sorts of alarms, etc., when the domain comes up unregistered. It's usually re-registered shortly thereafter, oftentimes to the dismay of the original holder.
You snooze you lose.
Even if NetSol ends up being marginally cheaper than a competitor (from what I've read, at 9$/year, that's pretty freakin' cheap, but the other registrars shouldn't be that much more), I'd urge everyone to think hard about staying with NetSol.
If important people notice the way everyone flocks *away* from NetSol despite their possibly lower prices, it might make them take note of NetSol's poor ethical practices in the past with respects to internic.net and whois, and hopefully, similar incidents will not be repeated by other companies in similar positions.
I thought it was hillarious that he tacked on a few of the more idiotic e-mails he received.
Sometimes I'm embarrassed by the number of Slashdot kiddies that go to such lengths to show people that they're smarter than they are because they can install Linux.
Instead of flaming and attacking every single Windows user when he describes the issues he had to deal with during the course of his Linux installation, try LISTENING instead. Every single time an article is posted to Slashdot that has a Windows user's take on installing Linux, the idiot Slashdot kiddies come out of the woodwork and thoroughly embarass the rest of us.
He's right: Linux users for the most part tend to agree that the next step in the OS's evolution is to work towards becoming a mainstream OS, replacing the niche that Windows currently holds. If all we do is tell those Windows users that report on their efforts to make that leap that they are idiots, morons or should "learn Unix" first, we do NOTHING to help Linux reach that goal. In fact, not only do we set Linux back, but we give the entire OpenSource community a very bad name.
Wasn't Linux ranked as having the best peer technical support available? So why the hell do we have all of these Slashdimwits telling those in a position to help us immensely that they are "a moron"?
Think about it folks, and remember, if these aren't the types of people we're trying to convert to Linux, who are?