Have you ever used any of the "traditional" light sources he is trying to eliminate in the article? And, have you ever visited any of the communities this is targeted towards? In the US, there is absolutely no reason to use this kind of system, but the rest of the world does not always have the same standards of living that the US does.
I spent some time working in rural villages in the Dominican Republic, and I can guarantee that you have no idea what real poverty is until you have been to some such place. These people had no electricity (the nearest town with power was 40 miles away), no potable water or sewage, nor any other form of technology more advanced that several hundred years ago. Their lives are regulated by the day/night cycle; you get up at dawn, work hard, and go to bed at dusk because kerosene is too expensive, as are candles. I really hope you weren't suggesting using electric lanterns, as that would just have been silly. THAT is the target market for these kind of devices. He is talking about producing these for about $50/household, maybe less. This probabally won't be paid for by the people themselves, but more likely by first-world charity organizations, or subsidies from the parent government.
Please, please read and comprehend the article before you reply.
You make some good points, but I still want to know why I just spent $190 for a P Chem textbook; granted, it is a fairly thick book, but except for a few page number changes and a few different questions at the end of the chapters, it is exactly the same as the last edition from 5 years ago. I don't see how this is anything other than a blatent grab for more money by the printers (and the bookstore.....who buys books back for 20% of their list price, and sells the used books for 80% of the list price).
Fron FusionLightings website: "Fusion lamps have been designed to run in the radio-frequency range (hundreds of MHz) all the way up to the microwave range (2.45 GHz). Fusion products are designed to meet all government regulations. Fusion invented proprietary ways to efficiently couple the electromagnetic energy to the bulb, and has pioneered the development of very high efficiency RF power oscillators."
What this means is, instead of using a charged plasma to emit UV light, which is converted by the pigments in the glass tube of a fluoroescent light into visible light (normal fluoroescent light), they are somehow using a material that absorbs this higher-frequency radiation and converts it to visible light. All they are doing is changing the source of the excitation radiation that makes the fluoroescent material glow. Sounds like a neat product.
You obviously don't know how fluorescent lighting works. Incandescent and fluorescent lighting operate on fundamentally different principles. The parent poster is correct, fluorescent lighting flickers on and off very fast, at a frequency of 60-120Hz (IIRC). This is why it can be a very bad idea to use fluorescent lights and a computer monitor at the same time, as you can get nasty flicker from the interactions of the two refresh rates. Go do your homework before you make stupid replies.
Craichy and a friend gave Priest about $500,000 for a stake in VisionTek, the company the Priests formed to sell their invention.
Not that I would accuse this article of being a hoax itself, but VisionTek is a company that makes [excellent] video cards....I use them in my boxes. Poking around Google yielded no companies with similiar names....what gives?
Of course, with many distro's, upgrading to KDE3 is trivial...for my MDK 7.2 boxes, I downloaded all the RPM's, switched to runlevel 3, and typed urpmi * and waited 3 minutes. Switched back to runlevel 5 and all was good. No more problems. [shrug]
I *did* just try it, then searched the log for my name, etc etc, and NOTHING of the sort was found in the log. Looks like they are actually serious about the no personal information part...better check your story.
Although the above poster makes a few points on the quality of lossy compression routines, it is important to remember that the term "audiophile" exists for a reason. I personally use 128bit mp3's for all my music, because I cannot really tell the difference between CD's and mp3's on my fairly cheap stereos and speakers. However, I know a guy who has a $26,000 stereo system, and it is absolutely unbelievable. Note that this guys stereo was $28,000 and mine was $100. Plus, I have maybe 150 CD's, and he has perhaps 2-3k. Who do you think represents more of a market influence?
Even though I rip everything to MP3, I like having the real discs around, just in case I ever get a nice stereo...:)
The amount of subpoenas that carriers receive today is roughly doubling every month -- we're talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for customer records
...HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!! There are hundreds of thousands of suspected terrorists or people with involvement in terrorist activities in the US each month??
"The war on terrorism is basically a war of intelligence," Scowcroft said. "Every time they move, every time they get money or spend money, there's a trace, somewhere. What we need to do is get as many of those traces as we can and put them together into a mosaic which will allow us to uncover the al-Qaida network."
It seems to me that the full power of the US intelligence community has had more than enough time to uncover terrorist organizations operating in the US. I understand that it is much, much more difficult to conduct investigations in other countries, but the domestic investigations are getting ridiculous. What is really disturbing, is the way that the "al-Qaida network" is turning into a real-life Immanuel Goldstein....and we must take any and all measures to find him, no matter what it takes.
Excellent point...don't most (all?) of the popular base stations just have a PCMCIA (or whatever its called these days) card inside? Would be kind of awkward to try to include 64meg of RAM & a 200mhz processor...:)
I would argue that surfing the web is one of the core features of the computer and thus should be part of the OS I would have to strongly disagree with you. Perhaps this is because I miss the days when I could get all of my Internet fix through my remote shell account from my long-defunct local ISP. Web use (bah, graphics, waste of bandwidth!) may be something you spend a lot of time doing, but a core feature of your computer? Plus, this is certainly NOT the case in the business world.
IE happens to be the best browser on the market Hardly. Go snag the latest release of Mozilla. Quicker, prettier, more customizable, more stable, and it doesn't spam me with pop-up windows. I only drag out IE when some dumbass web designer uses an old version of FrontPage and fills their HTML with non-compliant crap that only IE can decipher.
Playing media is now a core feature of the computer. Users expect this functionality out of the box, thus it belongs in a desktop OS (server OS is a different matter). Moreover it should be as feature rich as possible, which will cause some intermingling with the OS. Playing media falls into the same category as web use as a "core" use of your computer. I use all my computers as MP3 clients (and a central MP3 server), and I STILL don't use it as much as my web browser, and I don't believe that web browsers are a core feature. Again, not the case in the business world. There is also no need for a media player to be integrated into the OS in order for it to be full-featured, I have been using high quality audio programs for years without them being integrated into my OS.
I honestly don't believe that microsoft gains suppremissy (sic) by using special APIs. Go tell this to the Samba team. Go tell this to anyone who has tried to get a mixed-environment Kerberos system working. Go tell this to any one of the various office suite teams that try to decode MS's secret formats. Microsoft's "embrace and extend" policy (in order to make the origional spec incompatible) has been used sucessfully for years.
Just my opinions. I have no problem with Microsoft supplying free web/media/etc. components that system integrators can include if they wish (and NOT be forced to include, or suffer penalties if they do not), as long as I can easily uninstall them and replace them with components of my choosing.
Actually, density is basically irrelevant (except in extreme cases) as gravity is a point source....that is, it acts as though all of the mass of the object was concentrated in a single point at the gravitational center of the object.
Re:Of all the billions of stars to choose...
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 1
One in a billion? Where did you get that from?
Don't you know that 62% of statistics are made up on the spot?
Re:"Up" quarks and "down" quarks.
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 1
There are only a few properties used to describe subatomic particles, many of which have to do solely with its energy level, or position in an atomic shell or something. For example, every electron is exactly the same as every other electron, but there are 4 quantum numbers that describe it (l, m(l), m(s), and s). No two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers in a single atom (or they would be the same electron), but of course you could have precisely the same quantum numbers in another atom. I am virtually certain that the same general principle applies to quarks. Their classification has nothing to do with the instruments we use to detect them, but rather with the parameters used to define them.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that the densities of unusual astrophysical bodies are always measured in tons per teaspoon? The same way that the de facto measurement of storage is the Library of Congress (ie, this new optical disc can hold 300 Libraries of Congress!!) or "encyclopedias" (the Encyclopedia Britannica, I presume, and not Worldbook)? Bah. News writers.
Ah, glad to see a fellow P Chem student here! I have my book handy, and so I figured I'd make a stab at posting that more precise explanation you asked for.
Tunneling has to do with the energy of the particle. In the one-dimensional particle in the box theory, the transmission coefficient T is given by an equation that I cannot reproduce due to the ascii art issues, but is a roughly second-order polynomial curve when plotted as T versus E/V0, where E is the energy of the particle and V0 is the "height" of the potential barrier, moving from T=0 at E/V0=0 to T=~1 at E/V0=~2. This would mean that the higher energy of the particle, the higher of a potential barrier needed to prevent tunneling. Now, free electrons have higher energy than photons, so it would be harder to contain them, as it were. Plus, this isn't the only issue. Photons have no charge, and so are undisturbed by electrical and magnetic fields, but electrons of course are negatively charged, which complicates things in 2 main ways, first they do not travel in a straight line (like photons), and having 2 narrowly separated regions with different charges (such as in a transistor) will lower the potential barrier. I believe this is why SOI (silicon-on-insulator) is useful, as it makes it more difficult for the electrons to migrate from region to region.
I hope this helps some, and if I am wrong, feel free to correct me!
(quote)If there's something that he talking about on the phone that he doesn't want his parents hearing, it's usually something the parents need to hear. (/quote)
Not to flame you, but did you EVER have a girlfriend??? Or did you let your parents listen in on an extension to every phone conversation you had with your gf/bf? When I turned 15 and got a job (McD's, w00t!), I paid for my own internet connection, my own phone line to use that internet connection w/o disturbing the rest of the household, and I had the phone in my room. I can't imagine that my parents would have been interested in listening to any of my conversations with my significant others, nor would I have been pleased to have those conversations within their earshot. We didn't have cable or an antenna when I was a kid, but my younger brother bought a TV now that we have DirecTV, and he seems to be turning out pretty well. The system that my parents used (that seemed to work astonishingly well) was to treat us as though we were intelligent, responsible people, and give us all the privlidges that a normal human being would have, such as privacy, autonomity as necessary, and so on. If we proved that we were not capable of handling that level of trust, then the privlidges were removed until we proved we were capable of handling them. Interestingly enough, although many of my friends snuck out of the house to go do illicit things, and constantly violated their parents rules to do things that were not allowed, I never had to break any rules. I rarely had a set curfew, but that was because I knew to be home by 10/11 on school nights (this is high school). I never had to try to convince my parents to let me go places, I just always called them quick and let them know where I was going to be, and an approximate time range for my activity. Maybe I just had unusually reasonable parents (and we were unusually reasonable kids), but i have always been of the opinion that giving us as much freedom as we needed (within the bounds of reason) made us much more responsible. Just my 2c.
If you will take a moment to read some of the comments posted above, this is not a question of whether or not RD is "better" than VNC. They both have their respective stregths and weaknesses (if you can get RD to work happily with any of my linux boxes as a client, or have RD run as its own web server so I can access it from the computers on my school's campus, then more power to you!). RD is a great solution for an all-Windows environment, VNC works for those of us who need a bit more flexibility. For the record, I am not a Microsoft hater, happily using various versions of Windows alongside my Linux boxes.
In any case, this discussion is over Microsoft's sheer gall in declaring the use of competitors software to be against the EULA you must agree to in order to use XP. The quality of the abovementioned software is not the issue. Plus, as a poster mentioned above, this clause refers to any "unlicensed" program running or accessing ANY executable on the XP box, which could easily be defined to include ANY sort of network communication (web, FTP, icmp pings, etc.), which is a bit more disturbing. At the moment it's irrelevant except to large corporate environments, but watch out for the day when all these licenses are suddenly enforcable due to advances in technology and the passage of laws.
Seriously, Slashdot is my homepage and I check it perhaps 10-15 times per day. The stories are sometimes questionable but usually interesting, and the comments are usually blatent stupidity or flamebait, but sometimes though-provoking. I decided I'll just block the BFA's so I don't forget to shoot them $5 on a regular basis, but really the ads don't bother me. This is a part of that whole tip jar using, user community supported, huge media comglomerate free thing that the New Internet was supposed to be all about, whats so terrible about tossing in $5? I guess that seems cheap to me, but then again I tend to use the tip jar for all my favorite sites a couple times a year, never much (because I am a poor college student), but I don't want the sites that I enjoy to disappear. just my quick thoughts-
Have you used Mozilla 0.9.7? I use it exclusively on my Win2K boxes because it is much, much faster than IE5.5SP2, or, god forbit, IE6...plus it looks better, IMHO.
Never mind...found it. Pretty neat, 2 WAN ports for DSL/Cable plus 8 port switch, for $399. Check it out http://www.nexland.com/product_spec/Nexland_Pro800 turbo_Data.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
The article clearly states that one LED was more than sufficient to read by. Try reading the whole article....
Have you ever used any of the "traditional" light sources he is trying to eliminate in the article? And, have you ever visited any of the communities this is targeted towards? In the US, there is absolutely no reason to use this kind of system, but the rest of the world does not always have the same standards of living that the US does.
I spent some time working in rural villages in the Dominican Republic, and I can guarantee that you have no idea what real poverty is until you have been to some such place. These people had no electricity (the nearest town with power was 40 miles away), no potable water or sewage, nor any other form of technology more advanced that several hundred years ago. Their lives are regulated by the day/night cycle; you get up at dawn, work hard, and go to bed at dusk because kerosene is too expensive, as are candles. I really hope you weren't suggesting using electric lanterns, as that would just have been silly. THAT is the target market for these kind of devices. He is talking about producing these for about $50/household, maybe less. This probabally won't be paid for by the people themselves, but more likely by first-world charity organizations, or subsidies from the parent government.
Please, please read and comprehend the article before you reply.
You make some good points, but I still want to know why I just spent $190 for a P Chem textbook; granted, it is a fairly thick book, but except for a few page number changes and a few different questions at the end of the chapters, it is exactly the same as the last edition from 5 years ago. I don't see how this is anything other than a blatent grab for more money by the printers (and the bookstore.....who buys books back for 20% of their list price, and sells the used books for 80% of the list price).
Fron FusionLightings website: "Fusion lamps have been designed to run in the radio-frequency range (hundreds of MHz) all the way up to the microwave range (2.45 GHz). Fusion products are designed to meet all government regulations. Fusion invented proprietary ways to efficiently couple the electromagnetic energy to the bulb, and has pioneered the development of very high efficiency RF power oscillators."
What this means is, instead of using a charged plasma to emit UV light, which is converted by the pigments in the glass tube of a fluoroescent light into visible light (normal fluoroescent light), they are somehow using a material that absorbs this higher-frequency radiation and converts it to visible light. All they are doing is changing the source of the excitation radiation that makes the fluoroescent material glow. Sounds like a neat product.
You obviously don't know how fluorescent lighting works. Incandescent and fluorescent lighting operate on fundamentally different principles. The parent poster is correct, fluorescent lighting flickers on and off very fast, at a frequency of 60-120Hz (IIRC). This is why it can be a very bad idea to use fluorescent lights and a computer monitor at the same time, as you can get nasty flicker from the interactions of the two refresh rates. Go do your homework before you make stupid replies.
Craichy and a friend gave Priest about $500,000 for a stake in VisionTek, the company the Priests formed to sell their invention.
Not that I would accuse this article of being a hoax itself, but VisionTek is a company that makes [excellent] video cards....I use them in my boxes. Poking around Google yielded no companies with similiar names....what gives?
Of course, with many distro's, upgrading to KDE3 is trivial...for my MDK 7.2 boxes, I downloaded all the RPM's, switched to runlevel 3, and typed urpmi * and waited 3 minutes. Switched back to runlevel 5 and all was good. No more problems. [shrug]
[drool]...Billy Bass Intercom system...now I can have high-tech communication systems without sacrificing my tacky white-trash heritage! :)
Seriously though, I want one! or 4.
I *did* just try it, then searched the log for my name, etc etc, and NOTHING of the sort was found in the log. Looks like they are actually serious about the no personal information part...better check your story.
Although the above poster makes a few points on the quality of lossy compression routines, it is important to remember that the term "audiophile" exists for a reason. I personally use 128bit mp3's for all my music, because I cannot really tell the difference between CD's and mp3's on my fairly cheap stereos and speakers. However, I know a guy who has a $26,000 stereo system, and it is absolutely unbelievable. Note that this guys stereo was $28,000 and mine was $100. Plus, I have maybe 150 CD's, and he has perhaps 2-3k. Who do you think represents more of a market influence?
:)
Even though I rip everything to MP3, I like having the real discs around, just in case I ever get a nice stereo...
A few things I found noteworthy...
The amount of subpoenas that carriers receive today is roughly doubling every month -- we're talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for customer records
...HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!! There are hundreds of thousands of suspected terrorists or people with involvement in terrorist activities in the US each month??
"The war on terrorism is basically a war of intelligence," Scowcroft said. "Every time they move, every time they get money or spend money, there's a trace, somewhere. What we need to do is get as many of those traces as we can and put them together into a mosaic which will allow us to uncover the al-Qaida network."
It seems to me that the full power of the US intelligence community has had more than enough time to uncover terrorist organizations operating in the US. I understand that it is much, much more difficult to conduct investigations in other countries, but the domestic investigations are getting ridiculous. What is really disturbing, is the way that the "al-Qaida network" is turning into a real-life Immanuel Goldstein....and we must take any and all measures to find him, no matter what it takes.
Excellent point...don't most (all?) of the popular base stations just have a PCMCIA (or whatever its called these days) card inside? Would be kind of awkward to try to include 64meg of RAM & a 200mhz processor... :)
I've got IE 6 installed right now, which lists it's version number as: 6.0.2600.0000.xpclnt_qfe.010827-1803.
2600, eh??? You must be one of those evil hacker types!!! Either that, or all your web browsers are belong to us!
I have to refute a few of your points...
I would argue that surfing the web is one of the core features of the computer and thus should be part of the OS
I would have to strongly disagree with you. Perhaps this is because I miss the days when I could get all of my Internet fix through my remote shell account from my long-defunct local ISP. Web use (bah, graphics, waste of bandwidth!) may be something you spend a lot of time doing, but a core feature of your computer? Plus, this is certainly NOT the case in the business world.
IE happens to be the best browser on the market
Hardly. Go snag the latest release of Mozilla. Quicker, prettier, more customizable, more stable, and it doesn't spam me with pop-up windows. I only drag out IE when some dumbass web designer uses an old version of FrontPage and fills their HTML with non-compliant crap that only IE can decipher.
Playing media is now a core feature of the computer. Users expect this functionality out of the box, thus it belongs in a desktop OS (server OS is a different matter). Moreover it should be as feature rich as possible, which will cause some intermingling with the OS.
Playing media falls into the same category as web use as a "core" use of your computer. I use all my computers as MP3 clients (and a central MP3 server), and I STILL don't use it as much as my web browser, and I don't believe that web browsers are a core feature. Again, not the case in the business world. There is also no need for a media player to be integrated into the OS in order for it to be full-featured, I have been using high quality audio programs for years without them being integrated into my OS.
I honestly don't believe that microsoft gains suppremissy (sic) by using special APIs.
Go tell this to the Samba team. Go tell this to anyone who has tried to get a mixed-environment Kerberos system working. Go tell this to any one of the various office suite teams that try to decode MS's secret formats. Microsoft's "embrace and extend" policy (in order to make the origional spec incompatible) has been used sucessfully for years.
Just my opinions. I have no problem with Microsoft supplying free web/media/etc. components that system integrators can include if they wish (and NOT be forced to include, or suffer penalties if they do not), as long as I can easily uninstall them and replace them with components of my choosing.
Actually, density is basically irrelevant (except in extreme cases) as gravity is a point source....that is, it acts as though all of the mass of the object was concentrated in a single point at the gravitational center of the object.
One in a billion? Where did you get that from?
Don't you know that 62% of statistics are made up on the spot?
There are only a few properties used to describe subatomic particles, many of which have to do solely with its energy level, or position in an atomic shell or something. For example, every electron is exactly the same as every other electron, but there are 4 quantum numbers that describe it (l, m(l), m(s), and s). No two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers in a single atom (or they would be the same electron), but of course you could have precisely the same quantum numbers in another atom. I am virtually certain that the same general principle applies to quarks. Their classification has nothing to do with the instruments we use to detect them, but rather with the parameters used to define them.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that the densities of unusual astrophysical bodies are always measured in tons per teaspoon? The same way that the de facto measurement of storage is the Library of Congress (ie, this new optical disc can hold 300 Libraries of Congress!!) or "encyclopedias" (the Encyclopedia Britannica, I presume, and not Worldbook)? Bah. News writers.
Ah, glad to see a fellow P Chem student here! I have my book handy, and so I figured I'd make a stab at posting that more precise explanation you asked for.
Tunneling has to do with the energy of the particle. In the one-dimensional particle in the box theory, the transmission coefficient T is given by an equation that I cannot reproduce due to the ascii art issues, but is a roughly second-order polynomial curve when plotted as T versus E/V0, where E is the energy of the particle and V0 is the "height" of the potential barrier, moving from T=0 at E/V0=0 to T=~1 at E/V0=~2. This would mean that the higher energy of the particle, the higher of a potential barrier needed to prevent tunneling. Now, free electrons have higher energy than photons, so it would be harder to contain them, as it were. Plus, this isn't the only issue. Photons have no charge, and so are undisturbed by electrical and magnetic fields, but electrons of course are negatively charged, which complicates things in 2 main ways, first they do not travel in a straight line (like photons), and having 2 narrowly separated regions with different charges (such as in a transistor) will lower the potential barrier. I believe this is why SOI (silicon-on-insulator) is useful, as it makes it more difficult for the electrons to migrate from region to region.
I hope this helps some, and if I am wrong, feel free to correct me!
(quote)If there's something that he talking about on the phone that he doesn't want his parents hearing, it's usually something the parents need to hear.
(/quote)
Not to flame you, but did you EVER have a girlfriend??? Or did you let your parents listen in on an extension to every phone conversation you had with your gf/bf? When I turned 15 and got a job (McD's, w00t!), I paid for my own internet connection, my own phone line to use that internet connection w/o disturbing the rest of the household, and I had the phone in my room. I can't imagine that my parents would have been interested in listening to any of my conversations with my significant others, nor would I have been pleased to have those conversations within their earshot. We didn't have cable or an antenna when I was a kid, but my younger brother bought a TV now that we have DirecTV, and he seems to be turning out pretty well.
The system that my parents used (that seemed to work astonishingly well) was to treat us as though we were intelligent, responsible people, and give us all the privlidges that a normal human being would have, such as privacy, autonomity as necessary, and so on. If we proved that we were not capable of handling that level of trust, then the privlidges were removed until we proved we were capable of handling them. Interestingly enough, although many of my friends snuck out of the house to go do illicit things, and constantly violated their parents rules to do things that were not allowed, I never had to break any rules. I rarely had a set curfew, but that was because I knew to be home by 10/11 on school nights (this is high school). I never had to try to convince my parents to let me go places, I just always called them quick and let them know where I was going to be, and an approximate time range for my activity. Maybe I just had unusually reasonable parents (and we were unusually reasonable kids), but i have always been of the opinion that giving us as much freedom as we needed (within the bounds of reason) made us much more responsible. Just my 2c.
If you will take a moment to read some of the comments posted above, this is not a question of whether or not RD is "better" than VNC. They both have their respective stregths and weaknesses (if you can get RD to work happily with any of my linux boxes as a client, or have RD run as its own web server so I can access it from the computers on my school's campus, then more power to you!). RD is a great solution for an all-Windows environment, VNC works for those of us who need a bit more flexibility. For the record, I am not a Microsoft hater, happily using various versions of Windows alongside my Linux boxes.
In any case, this discussion is over Microsoft's sheer gall in declaring the use of competitors software to be against the EULA you must agree to in order to use XP. The quality of the abovementioned software is not the issue. Plus, as a poster mentioned above, this clause refers to any "unlicensed" program running or accessing ANY executable on the XP box, which could easily be defined to include ANY sort of network communication (web, FTP, icmp pings, etc.), which is a bit more disturbing. At the moment it's irrelevant except to large corporate environments, but watch out for the day when all these licenses are suddenly enforcable due to advances in technology and the passage of laws.
Seriously, Slashdot is my homepage and I check it perhaps 10-15 times per day. The stories are sometimes questionable but usually interesting, and the comments are usually blatent stupidity or flamebait, but sometimes though-provoking. I decided I'll just block the BFA's so I don't forget to shoot them $5 on a regular basis, but really the ads don't bother me. This is a part of that whole tip jar using, user community supported, huge media comglomerate free thing that the New Internet was supposed to be all about, whats so terrible about tossing in $5? I guess that seems cheap to me, but then again I tend to use the tip jar for all my favorite sites a couple times a year, never much (because I am a poor college student), but I don't want the sites that I enjoy to disappear. just my quick thoughts-
Have you used Mozilla 0.9.7? I use it exclusively on my Win2K boxes because it is much, much faster than IE5.5SP2, or, god forbit, IE6...plus it looks better, IMHO.
Never mind...found it. Pretty neat, 2 WAN ports for DSL/Cable plus 8 port switch, for $399. Check it out http://www.nexland.com/product_spec/Nexland_Pro800 turbo_Data.pdf
Cool...where is this device? I would love one...