Imagine if he made a mistake about Linux...
on
Review:Cryptonomicon
·
· Score: 1
Neal Stephenson makes a reasonable effort to get the technical details in his stories right. However, he seems to be far more interested in the social aspects of technology than the technical details, so he makes some mistakes. A lot of his audience consists of the type of people who do know the technical details, including many who look down on anyone who knows less about their particular technical specialties. I'm sure he caught a lot of grief about the "Built In Operating System" mistake in Snow Crash. If Stephenson had written about Linux rather than Finux, and gotten one detail (however minor) wrong, what would have happened? A bunch of Rabid Linux Advocates would have been flooding him with hatemail (a la Mindcraft) and badmouthing him all over the net. Writing about Finux is a reminder that Cryptonomicron is Only A Novel.
You can have 16 different "channels" (A-P), with 16 different devices on each channel (1-16) for up to 256 different devices. The transponder/appliance module acts as device 1 on whatever channel you pick, so you can't have multiple transponders on one channel. Within the 256-device limit described above, you can use as many lamp modules, on one or multiple channels, as you want. You can have as many remotes as you want; a remote is set for a given channel, but you can switch channels fairly easily (just turn a dial with a screwdriver or paperclip). Same thing for the computer module. So, there isn't that much advantage to getting multiple kits; if you want a bunch of lamp and/or (non-transceiver) appliance modules, X10 offers much better deals.
Even if you can't use the computer interface, the kit does come with a handheld remote. Except for the interface itself, all the hardware is X-10 standard, so the lamp and appliance modules will work with any X-10 controller, apparently including some that do have Linux software. Besides, this interface is a brand-new gadget, and I'm sure some Linux hacker is already working on a driver.
I bought one of these sets during the ZDNet offer a few weeks ago. Here's what you get:
The serial computer interface: a pass-through DB9 module, about 1"x.75"x.5". Has no noticable effect on the pen pad I have connected to that port, although I have yet to use both at the same time.
1 transciever/appliance module: 3"x3"x1", plugs into a 2-prong polarized outlet. It serves two purposes: First, it receives the signals from whatever remote you're using, and relays it into your electrical system. Second, it acts as a remotely-switchable outlet for any appliance you plug into it. You must plug this in, even if you don't used its switched outlet. there's a button on the module to override it.
1 Lamp module: 3"x3"x1", plugs into a polarized outlet. Doesn't act as a transciever, but does allow you to switch and dim a lamp plugged into it. You can override this module by switching the lamp off and back on.
1 Remote control: 3"x4"x.75", allows you to switch appliances on or off, or adjust lights, individually.
The Firecracker software: Win95/98/NT program to be downloaded from X-10's web site. (No source, before you ask.) Simulates a remote control. In fact, the default interface looks exactly like the aforementioned remote. Also lets you print a label strip for the (physical) remote, but doesn't do much else. Most importantly, no timer or macro functions.
A ton of e-mail. X-10 sends me ads daily, which would be annoying if I didn't just filter it into its own folder. If you're interested in using their other home automation products, these ads have some huge (50-75%) markdowns from their normal prices. Other than their own ads, I don't think my spam level has gone up since I ordered, but I'm not certain.
My experiences: I've only used the computer interface for pure novelty value. But then, I live in an apartment where I can walk to any appliance in the apartment almost as quick as I can load the program. Also, most of the electrical stuff in my apartment is either stuff I don't want to switch at the socket, or lighting from convenient wall switches. For the most part, I only really use the handheld remote and a lamp dimmer which is currently hooked up to a lamp in a hard-to-reach corner. I like the kit for that, but don't think I would have spent any more than the $6 S&H that I did.
On the other hand, my dad is more heavily into the X-10 stuff. At his house, he's replaced several wall switches for ceiling lights with X-10 wall switches. He has a more advanced controller package and software (again, Windows-only) which does have timer functions, macros, etc. Although the software allows him to program the controller, the controller itself operates independently of the computer and will continue timer functions, etc. wehn the computer is off. He used to use the old mechanical timed switches to make the house look occupied on vactions; now he uses this Firecracker stuff.
Warning: The special $6 Firecracker deal may be only for new customers. My dad, who had bought their stuff before, ordered a set. He just got his credit card bill, and had been charged $20. I don't know if this was a clerical error, or whether the that's the price for existing customers. Still, that's less than he'd pay for an extra lamp module and appliance module.
From what I understand, X-10 is just one supplier of these home automation gizmos. They sell several types of wall modules, switches, and controllers, as well as security equipment. They also have stuff for letting you control your computer from your TV. I know Radio Shack sells compatible gear, and I'm sure someone has written Linux controller software for some of the existing control units.
Anyway, I may get some more of their home automation stuff in the future (a keychain remote to turn on the lights before I go in might be nice). Which is the point: this deal is just to give you a taste of their products. This new computer module seems to have more novelty value than anything else, but the remote control and switches aren't bad.
I didn't understand that the acceptance of the MP3 format would end the distribution of other formats. I thought that MP3's were better suited for some situations, and CD's for others. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have both. I suppose that having a hard disk full of MP3's and a few racks of CD's is a disaster waiting to happen.
So, will the RIAA consider the failure of DIVX, a proprietary recording format that offered little or no benefit to consumers over an established format, as they try to come up with an MP3-killer? I believe that unless they can convince every digital audio player manufacturer to go along with their SDMI plans (including rumored MP3-crippling schemes), consumers will choose the format that best meest their needs.
I vaguely recall some screed David Brin wrote (which was posted to USENET, IIRC) several years ago when Ralph Bakshi's toons-meet-reality movie "Cool World" came out. It was basically a rant about how everyone should boycott the new movie because Baksi's classic "Wizards" glorified cheating and advocated totalitarian ideals, or something like that. (The article may have exhibited more than a little contempt for fantasy in general, but I'm not as sure of that.) I read a little bit of Brin's Salon piece, and it brought back enough hazy memories of his "Cool World" letter to give me an "Oh, no, there he goes again" feeling. As much as I enjoy some of Brin's fiction (mainly the original "Uplift" trilogy), I can't bring myself to take his nonfiction seriously. YMMV.
If it's not computing, it's not technical?
on
35mm Handbook
·
· Score: 2
Photography, at the level that this book appears to cover, is a very technical field. Even though it's been at least a decade since I've used a camera that didn't have a better understanding of how to operate itself than I do, I know how complex taking a professional-quality photograph can be.
So, what other non-computing topics is Slashdot not allowed to cover? Engineering? Physics? Biotechnology?
IIRC, FireWire was intended to support daisy-chaining. In addition, I think it has an addressing scheme that allows you to add any component anywhere in the chain. If anything, I'd think you'd end up with no more cabling than you have now, and more flexibility to arrange wires so they don't form a rat's nest. Finally, 1394 also supplies some power, so you won't have to fuss with power cords and transformers for speakers, scanners, etc.
The idea of replacing the old ISA/PCI/AGP/whatever interface with USB and Firewire is that you can upgrade without going into the case. You just cable a buch of components together. On my current home PC, I'm using every IRQ, the hard drive cables just barely reach, the CD to sound card cable runs dangerously close to the CPU fan, etc. I'd be much happier to be able to daisy-chain or hub-connect components where I need them.
Thinking Outside the Box
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
I thought that one of the points of USB and Firewire (1394) was to provide a standard bus for interconnecting components that didn't have to be inside the same box. I agree that all-in-one motherboards are a bad idea, but I don't think that internal buses are the final word either. My impression when I first heard about the new buses was that you'd have a bunch of external components cabled to the processor unit. A video processor would be in its own case rather than in the sytem box, but still have as good a connection to the CPU. You want the latest 3d technology? Unplug a couple of cables from the old unit, connect them to the new, and you're done as quickly as you can get a modern case open. Easier to connect than fitting a card into a slot. Daisy-chain components, connect them to hubs, whatever; the adressing scheme will sort everything out.
Yeah, these cases are a little far out there. I'm sure someone will introduce a more conservative design. Hey, what about producing stackable components in a standard size? Stack the CPU module, a couple of hard drives, a network interface, and a video processor, shove it under your desk. Wire it to the hub on your desktop to connect it to your keyboard, monitor, DVD-ROM, etc. Hot swap peripherals as you need them. Want a laptop? Put everything you need on the road in one case like it is now, but plug it into the hub when you get home. Or plug it into anyone else's hub on an office visit without worrying about compatibility.
Yeah, I'm getting way into pipe dream territory here. Still, I think some of these ideas might be the way Intel is trying to go.
One of the most amusing things I've seen out of Mozilla was the screenshot of Gecko running as an ActiveX control in IE. Probably the only way IE is ever going to render Box Acid worth a damn.
I don't want AC posting to go away entirely, but if it ever does, it only takes a few minutes to create a throwaway user account using a throwaway freemail account. The effort would probably be too much trouble for some little dweeb who wants to flood a thread with garbage, but worthwhile if you were posting priveleged info or something of the sort. This isn't an optimal solution, but it'd be nice to think that Hotmail was useful for something.
The Jedi fadeout may simply require an act of will and/or preparation. I have always believed that Vader never actually touched Obi-Wan; instead, I think Obi-Wan willed himself out of existence just as Vader struck. Why? Maybe to frustrate and/or confuse Vader (and give Luke a better chance of escape), maybe to give himself the power to help Luke later on, or maybe I'm way off base. At any rate, Yoda and Obi-Wan both had the opportunity to compose themselves for death; Anakin and Qui-Gon were mortally wounded, in pain, and trying valiantly to hang on for a few last words.
I started to like Anakin a lot better when I realized he reminded me of a child I know. My cousin has a son with the same kind of enthusiasm. He sounds a lot like Anakin does when he's trying to impress older children or grown-ups. And the way Anakin acted when he left his mother reminded me a lot of one time when my cousin's boy left to return to his mother after spending the summer with his father. I didn't have problems with Jake Lloyd's acting, because I know real people who act the same way.
As far as the self-narration goes, Luke did the exact same thing (with the same droid, for that matter) during Empire and Jedi, when he travelled to Dagobah. Personally, I enjoyed Anakin's enthusiasm much more than Luke's whining in A New Hope.
By the way, I don't believe that the "one big city" bit would have been at all obvious to someone who didn't already know something about Coruscant from other sources.
And then, if we do ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, this will be an ideal way to communicate with them. Just impant a few, and they're sure to see the benefits of bringing the rest of their people into the col^H^H^Hnetwork. And both races can benefit from sharing their unique technological advances. With bio-engineering, it may even be possible to take advantage of each other's biological disti^H^H^H^H^Hqualities. This could lead us to assi^H^H^H^Hcommunication with yet other races, and...
The FAQ (by Stephenson, although this isn't clear from papertiger's description) is much more interesting than the "interview" by Leonard (who seems more interested in his own words than Stephenson's). The Frequently Anticipated Questions include some nice technical detail and a cool "Should I read this book" section.
MIT was the first place at which the term "hacking" was used to describe computer tinkering. By then, it had already been long used to describe elaborate, carefully-engineered pranking. If someone from MIT calls it a hack, it's a hack.
There is an excellent book on college pranks by Neil Steinberg, entitled If At All Possible, Involve a Cow. A few pages are dedicated to the various decorations which have graced this dome at MIT over the years; my personal favorite is the phone booth which began ringing when campus security approached. The book has a whole chapter dedicated to MIT/Caltech type "Tech Pranks," and another covering Caltech's Ditch Day. Good reading.
It's obvious that their list had a PC bias, but it's obvious from their comments about Marc Andreessen (sp?) that they do consider the net significant. So, why no mention of Jon Postel or Tim Berners-Lee?
Sounds to me like his comments should be evaluated in terms of what he thinks the question is. As much as I like Java (for some purposes), I think that Sun is still working too hard to find questions for which Java is the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Neal Stephenson makes a reasonable effort to get the technical details in his stories right. However, he seems to be far more interested in the social aspects of technology than the technical details, so he makes some mistakes. A lot of his audience consists of the type of people who do know the technical details, including many who look down on anyone who knows less about their particular technical specialties. I'm sure he caught a lot of grief about the "Built In Operating System" mistake in Snow Crash. If Stephenson had written about Linux rather than Finux, and gotten one detail (however minor) wrong, what would have happened? A bunch of Rabid Linux Advocates would have been flooding him with hatemail (a la Mindcraft) and badmouthing him all over the net. Writing about Finux is a reminder that Cryptonomicron is Only A Novel.
You can have 16 different "channels" (A-P), with 16 different devices on each channel (1-16) for up to 256 different devices. The transponder/appliance module acts as device 1 on whatever channel you pick, so you can't have multiple transponders on one channel. Within the 256-device limit described above, you can use as many lamp modules, on one or multiple channels, as you want. You can have as many remotes as you want; a remote is set for a given channel, but you can switch channels fairly easily (just turn a dial with a screwdriver or paperclip). Same thing for the computer module. So, there isn't that much advantage to getting multiple kits; if you want a bunch of lamp and/or (non-transceiver) appliance modules, X10 offers much better deals.
Even if you can't use the computer interface, the kit does come with a handheld remote. Except for the interface itself, all the hardware is X-10 standard, so the lamp and appliance modules will work with any X-10 controller, apparently including some that do have Linux software. Besides, this interface is a brand-new gadget, and I'm sure some Linux hacker is already working on a driver.
I bought one of these sets during the ZDNet offer a few weeks ago. Here's what you get:
My experiences: I've only used the computer interface for pure novelty value. But then, I live in an apartment where I can walk to any appliance in the apartment almost as quick as I can load the program. Also, most of the electrical stuff in my apartment is either stuff I don't want to switch at the socket, or lighting from convenient wall switches. For the most part, I only really use the handheld remote and a lamp dimmer which is currently hooked up to a lamp in a hard-to-reach corner. I like the kit for that, but don't think I would have spent any more than the $6 S&H that I did.
On the other hand, my dad is more heavily into the X-10 stuff. At his house, he's replaced several wall switches for ceiling lights with X-10 wall switches. He has a more advanced controller package and software (again, Windows-only) which does have timer functions, macros, etc. Although the software allows him to program the controller, the controller itself operates independently of the computer and will continue timer functions, etc. wehn the computer is off. He used to use the old mechanical timed switches to make the house look occupied on vactions; now he uses this Firecracker stuff.
Warning: The special $6 Firecracker deal may be only for new customers. My dad, who had bought their stuff before, ordered a set. He just got his credit card bill, and had been charged $20. I don't know if this was a clerical error, or whether the that's the price for existing customers. Still, that's less than he'd pay for an extra lamp module and appliance module.
From what I understand, X-10 is just one supplier of these home automation gizmos. They sell several types of wall modules, switches, and controllers, as well as security equipment. They also have stuff for letting you control your computer from your TV. I know Radio Shack sells compatible gear, and I'm sure someone has written Linux controller software for some of the existing control units.
Anyway, I may get some more of their home automation stuff in the future (a keychain remote to turn on the lights before I go in might be nice). Which is the point: this deal is just to give you a taste of their products. This new computer module seems to have more novelty value than anything else, but the remote control and switches aren't bad.
I didn't understand that the acceptance of the MP3 format would end the distribution of other formats. I thought that MP3's were better suited for some situations, and CD's for others. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have both. I suppose that having a hard disk full of MP3's and a few racks of CD's is a disaster waiting to happen.
So, will the RIAA consider the failure of DIVX, a proprietary recording format that offered little or no benefit to consumers over an established format, as they try to come up with an MP3-killer? I believe that unless they can convince every digital audio player manufacturer to go along with their SDMI plans (including rumored MP3-crippling schemes), consumers will choose the format that best meest their needs.
I vaguely recall some screed David Brin wrote (which was posted to USENET, IIRC) several years ago when Ralph Bakshi's toons-meet-reality movie "Cool World" came out. It was basically a rant about how everyone should boycott the new movie because Baksi's classic "Wizards" glorified cheating and advocated totalitarian ideals, or something like that. (The article may have exhibited more than a little contempt for fantasy in general, but I'm not as sure of that.) I read a little bit of Brin's Salon piece, and it brought back enough hazy memories of his "Cool World" letter to give me an "Oh, no, there he goes again" feeling. As much as I enjoy some of Brin's fiction (mainly the original "Uplift" trilogy), I can't bring myself to take his nonfiction seriously. YMMV.
Photography, at the level that this book appears to cover, is a very technical field. Even though it's been at least a decade since I've used a camera that didn't have a better understanding of how to operate itself than I do, I know how complex taking a professional-quality photograph can be.
So, what other non-computing topics is Slashdot not allowed to cover? Engineering? Physics? Biotechnology?
IIRC, FireWire was intended to support daisy-chaining. In addition, I think it has an addressing scheme that allows you to add any component anywhere in the chain. If anything, I'd think you'd end up with no more cabling than you have now, and more flexibility to arrange wires so they don't form a rat's nest. Finally, 1394 also supplies some power, so you won't have to fuss with power cords and transformers for speakers, scanners, etc.
The idea of replacing the old ISA/PCI/AGP/whatever interface with USB and Firewire is that you can upgrade without going into the case. You just cable a buch of components together. On my current home PC, I'm using every IRQ, the hard drive cables just barely reach, the CD to sound card cable runs dangerously close to the CPU fan, etc. I'd be much happier to be able to daisy-chain or hub-connect components where I need them.
I thought that one of the points of USB and Firewire (1394) was to provide a standard bus for interconnecting components that didn't have to be inside the same box. I agree that all-in-one motherboards are a bad idea, but I don't think that internal buses are the final word either. My impression when I first heard about the new buses was that you'd have a bunch of external components cabled to the processor unit. A video processor would be in its own case rather than in the sytem box, but still have as good a connection to the CPU. You want the latest 3d technology? Unplug a couple of cables from the old unit, connect them to the new, and you're done as quickly as you can get a modern case open. Easier to connect than fitting a card into a slot. Daisy-chain components, connect them to hubs, whatever; the adressing scheme will sort everything out.
Yeah, these cases are a little far out there. I'm sure someone will introduce a more conservative design. Hey, what about producing stackable components in a standard size? Stack the CPU module, a couple of hard drives, a network interface, and a video processor, shove it under your desk. Wire it to the hub on your desktop to connect it to your keyboard, monitor, DVD-ROM, etc. Hot swap peripherals as you need them. Want a laptop? Put everything you need on the road in one case like it is now, but plug it into the hub when you get home. Or plug it into anyone else's hub on an office visit without worrying about compatibility.
Yeah, I'm getting way into pipe dream territory here. Still, I think some of these ideas might be the way Intel is trying to go.
One of the most amusing things I've seen out of Mozilla was the screenshot of Gecko running as an ActiveX control in IE. Probably the only way IE is ever going to render Box Acid worth a damn.
I don't want AC posting to go away entirely, but if it ever does, it only takes a few minutes to create a throwaway user account using a throwaway freemail account. The effort would probably be too much trouble for some little dweeb who wants to flood a thread with garbage, but worthwhile if you were posting priveleged info or something of the sort. This isn't an optimal solution, but it'd be nice to think that Hotmail was useful for something.
Taco, what did you do to tick off the CIA Script Kiddies?
The Jedi fadeout may simply require an act of will and/or preparation. I have always believed that Vader never actually touched Obi-Wan; instead, I think Obi-Wan willed himself out of existence just as Vader struck. Why? Maybe to frustrate and/or confuse Vader (and give Luke a better chance of escape), maybe to give himself the power to help Luke later on, or maybe I'm way off base. At any rate, Yoda and Obi-Wan both had the opportunity to compose themselves for death; Anakin and Qui-Gon were mortally wounded, in pain, and trying valiantly to hang on for a few last words.
I started to like Anakin a lot better when I realized he reminded me of a child I know. My cousin has a son with the same kind of enthusiasm. He sounds a lot like Anakin does when he's trying to impress older children or grown-ups. And the way Anakin acted when he left his mother reminded me a lot of one time when my cousin's boy left to return to his mother after spending the summer with his father. I didn't have problems with Jake Lloyd's acting, because I know real people who act the same way.
As far as the self-narration goes, Luke did the exact same thing (with the same droid, for that matter) during Empire and Jedi, when he travelled to Dagobah. Personally, I enjoyed Anakin's enthusiasm much more than Luke's whining in A New Hope.
By the way, I don't believe that the "one big city" bit would have been at all obvious to someone who didn't already know something about Coruscant from other sources.
Did it crash on its own, or did the same rat-boy who was trying to flood this thread dig up some DoS scipt?
And then, if we do ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, this will be an ideal way to communicate with them. Just impant a few, and they're sure to see the benefits of bringing the rest of their people into the col^H^H^Hnetwork. And both races can benefit from sharing their unique technological advances. With bio-engineering, it may even be possible to take advantage of each other's biological disti^H^H^H^H^Hqualities. This could lead us to assi^H^H^H^Hcommunication with yet other races, and...
The FAQ (by Stephenson, although this isn't clear from papertiger's description) is much more interesting than the "interview" by Leonard (who seems more interested in his own words than Stephenson's). The Frequently Anticipated Questions include some nice technical detail and a cool "Should I read this book" section.
MIT was the first place at which the term "hacking" was used to describe computer tinkering. By then, it had already been long used to describe elaborate, carefully-engineered pranking. If someone from MIT calls it a hack, it's a hack.
Does anyone else find it strange that Wired News felt the need to explain to its readers exactly what R2-D2 is?
There is an excellent book on college pranks by Neil Steinberg, entitled If At All Possible, Involve a Cow. A few pages are dedicated to the various decorations which have graced this dome at MIT over the years; my personal favorite is the phone booth which began ringing when campus security approached. The book has a whole chapter dedicated to MIT/Caltech type "Tech Pranks," and another covering Caltech's Ditch Day. Good reading.
It's obvious that their list had a PC bias, but it's obvious from their comments about Marc Andreessen (sp?) that they do consider the net significant. So, why no mention of Jon Postel or Tim Berners-Lee?
Sounds to me like his comments should be evaluated in terms of what he thinks the question is. As much as I like Java (for some purposes), I think that Sun is still working too hard to find questions for which Java is the answer.
What do you expect? They bet the farm on NT.