Well, on a cheap motherboard, it could be possible that the IDE's V+ and ground aren't regulated seperatly from the main power regulator on the board. A short across the two could cause the power regulator to heat up very quickly, and the radient heat could spell trouble for the nearby caps. I can't imagine that it would all happen instantly though. There also could be a problem with the drive that would cause the 12 volt power to short to ground. That would reverse the polarity on lower voltage caps. This is all a long shot though, and I'd be surprised if all that was new in the setup was the cables.
Funny, I can get water right out of my faucet, and you can get mineral oil at the grocery store... Where are you from that you can only get Fluorinert?
(Of course I'd deionize the water before I poured it on my PC...)
Do you hear about terrorist bombings in Germany? Yes...
Or Italy? yes...
Or Britain? Definatly yes...
Or even Canada Well, no but...
Come back from your own little world sometime.
Or maybe you'd rather give up your freedom and start oppressing women to fit into these peoples ideals. Kill your wife if she shows skin in public. Mutilate your daughter's genitalia. That's way more humane.
1. What are the uses of cryptography as a "Human Rights Tool"?
Perhaps you wish to speak out about about something which the government of your country forbids. People who are oppressed in certain ways by their government cannot improve their situation if discussion of improvement can lead to death.
2. If in fact tools such as PGP are used by terrorists, how do governments protect against this?
They cannot, they have to find another way. Not only can gavernments not see what a terrorist group might be saying if they encrypt it, but they cannot stop the terrorists from using the encryption. Remove the words "such as PGP" from your question and think about it more.
Re:How will this affect the Nintendo GameCube?
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 2
Ok. I'll bet we see Geforce 4 within days after XBox has been available for 6 months. The release schedule will be different this time because Geforce 3 does not represent Nvidia's state of the art at the time of it's release. We already know that they have better stuff because it's in the XBox. I'm sure the only reason that Geforce3 isn't as good as XBox is because of contractual obligations to MS. Once the limits on that contract expire, they'll let out the good stuff. I would be surprised if Nvidia would have accepted a contract that made them wait more then 6 months.
Rambus (Probably) won't stop manufacturing RAM. If anyhing changes it will be the size available. Sony can just put the bigger chips in when the current sizes are obsolete and just not connect the new significant address lines. Intel already anounced that it's canning the P3. IBM allows anyone to license their PPC core. It's even advertized on their website. Now that Nintendo has a PPC core license, it can manufacture PPC based CPUs (with the specific core they licensed) until the cows come home using any fab they wish. Intel does *not* license their P3 core. No one can manufacture Intel processors but Intel, so when they say no more then there will be no more. Now that MS is locked into haveing SSE support, Intel knows that they can pressure MS into switching to P4 without worry that MS will go AMD on them. You're going to see one of two things happen. Microsoft's costs on the P3 will go through the roof, or version 2 of the Xbox will have a P4 in it and will come out just after christmas. IBM most certainly does business much differently then Intel.
By tomorrow I mean 6-9 months from now.
The XBox is a PC with a different memory map and no IBM PC compatable BIOS. As far as I've seen the only thing the XBox *doesn't* have in common with a PC is the BIOS. I'm not sure wether they included the video framebuffer in the CPU's virtual address space or not, but if they did it wouldn't be that big of deal because many architectures have allowed large chunks of device memory to be maped in the CPU region before. Of course it doesn't have a comodity motherboard. You think a different PCB layout changes things much? Have you ever written low level software? I bet once the memory map is figured out and someone finds a way to load software off a non-official MS DVD someone will have linux running on this thing in days. In fact, if I had that information, I'd bet I could do it in two or three days. Microsoft will tell you it's *not* a PC all day, but in reality it's a PC with no BIOS. All that means is that it can't run the Win9x series of operating systems. I hope that XBox has an influence on future PCs, because the XBox is more of what I'd like to see todays workstations be then the hacks that they are in order to support legacy crap.
Re:How will this affect the Nintendo GameCube?
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 2
The reality for the XBox will be different then for sony, because sony owns ALL the technology in the PS2. They can have their fab make as many chips as they need. Even nintendo can do this because they have a license to the PPC core from IBM. Microsoft, however, is in a different boat. They bought pieces of technology from companies that do business in a different world then Nintendo and Sony. The manufacturers that Microsoft buys from will have increasing costs where Sony and Nintendo have decreasing costs. Microsofts factories may get more efficient, but the 3rd party parts are what are going to get more expensive. The components are already ramped up and at the bottom of their price cycle. There is nowhere to go but up. Everywhere that Sony and Nintendo use a propriatary part and MS uses a commodity part they have a long term win over MS.
It doesn't matter that XBox isn't a PC in this manner, because it uses PC parts! The XBox will not follow the price decrease trend of a console, it will follow the trend of PC components because that's what it is made out of. The parts come from the same place no matter what they are used for. Intel will stop manufacturing P3s this year. If MS creates a demand for them with the XBox anyway, what do you think is going to happen to the cost of a P3 chip? Maybe MS will switch to P4. Having a different CPU in half of the boxes would make it a stable platform...
I was not claiming that the $280 machine is a gaming machine comprable to the XBox, I'm saying that the $280 machine of tomorrow will be a better gaming machine then the XBox. A year ago before the Geforce2 was a gleam in the Nvidia retail channel's eye, I bet you would have killed to replace your TNT2/P3 500 with a 700 Mhz machine with a Gforce 2 MX 400.
Care for a friendly wager about when the Gforce4 will come out (Or whatever they end up calling it)
Re:How will this affect the Nintendo GameCube?
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 2
If I recall the X-Box has a 700Mhz CPU for starters. I just put a 700Mhz box together for my mom for $280. That's with a Geforce2, but in 6 months (Nvidia is coming out with new Geforce cards that are better then what's in the X-Box in a few months, so Geforce 3's will drop in price) you'll be able to build a PC that is superior to the X-Box for less then $400, and you be able to use it as a PC too! The X-Box will not be able to drop in price much though, because they will need to continue using the same parts even after the rest of the industry moves on. Intel is not taking any more Pentium 3 orders after october. I think that MS plans on having the platform last longer then two weeks, so they are going to have to pay a premium to get more P3 chips. Suddenly Microsoft has higher costs. As time goes on the X-Box is going to get more expensive to produce, and good PCs and PS2s are going to get cheaper.
Re:what is it good for?
on
2.2 GHz Xeon
·
· Score: 2
If you think about the PC industry's history you'll realize that this is a continuous cycle. First a difficult task is handled in expensive hardware (Say a modem, or hardware encryption, or a raytracing coprocessor). Then the CPU gets faster, and people stop buying the expensive hardware and do the task in software (WinModems, Doom, ssl) to save money. Now that the hardware companies are motivated, and the software has popularized the task they can do volume production and sell the hardware on the cheap ("accelerated" modems, GPUs, system bridges with encryption built in) and the task gets offloaded again and the CPU can be used for the next big thing.
Ethernet is going through this same cycle right now. Most cheap ethernet cards now have stopped doing their address table lookups (for MAC addresses) and checksuming and all the rest of the compute intensive stuff on the chip, and have offloaded it into the driver. This has happened gradually over the last 6 years or so. Now, with 10GB ethernet coming out, you can't process that stuff fast enough on the CPU, so it's moving back onto the chip along with other software like the TCP/IP stack. Ethernet is so intrenched in the marketplace that the manufacturers are guaranteed high volumes and can afford it.
3D processors right now are far ahead of what you can do with current CPUs because of the limitations of memory bandwith, so I don't think that it's a task that's likely to make another loop through the cycle in the near future, but it will probably happen eventually. The real question is what cool technology that now requires additional hardware will soon become available to mainstream users? Video decoders seem to be in the software stage of the loop already, and are starting to move back into hardware by being embedded in regular video cards. Real time video encoding and editing could be the next big thing though...
Yup, that's it, I had a desire to be superior. No, wait, it was that "right" thing, yeah. My opinion is better then yours. And I really told you...
Or maybe you said that you had "an environment that looks for headers in your include path, then puts them in a suggested list". Sounds like you have a script that pulls all the header files out of your include path and then lets you choose from them. But I didn't say anything like that so of course my comment is unrelated.
If you want me to read into your comment that it selectively chooses include files for you based on definitions then why don't you say that in the fucking comment?
I once had a Professor that had a "nifty" little script that included all the.h files in his include path. He never could understand why it took so long to compile simple little programs.
Better to understand how your libraries work. Then you'll already know what to include and you'll write a better program too.
It doesn't really matter, all the application's you're going to want to run on such a small screen have naitive PPC versions. That includes my favorite: Linux. If there really were no good apps for MacOS, and you really couldn't interoperate with the rest of the world do you think Apple would still be in business?
Who cares what the binary format is if the same software is available? The only place MacOS is behind is games. Will you be playing games on your slowass Crusoe with a tiny screen?
Setup you BOOTP/DHCP and TFTP servers apropriatly and then try this command at the Open Firmware prompt:
'boot enet:<NIC #>,<bootfile name>'
enet:0 should give you the onboard cabled ethernet, and enet:1 should let you boot off the wireless. Whatever you put as the bootfile name is the file it will download off the TFTP server and execute.
I don't know how windows works (I don't program for it), but in linux, the debugging information is in the symbol table. If debugging symbols changed the way the code worked it would be a big problem, because you could have code that broke when you compiled it normally and then work differently when you were debugging it. I've never heard of a compiler (Again I don't program for windows so my experience is limited in that aspect) that generated different code when you compile with debugging mode. There is no reason to anyway. There is no need to mingle the hints for your debugger among the code when it could be in a seperate place. The only thing that I could think of that would slow down a program if it was in "debug" mode is if you had #defines or the like at compile time that enabled code for debugging like assertions that compile out; but if your assertion code causes that big of a performance hit then you have other issues. I always thought that assertions that compiled out were dumb anyway. There is no reason that you can't use your debugging tools to put dynamic triggers in if you control the calling code and you know they're safe to remove later, and if you don't trust the calling code then you should be leaving the assertions in when you ship anyway.
the conservative vision that government should step in and use the threat of force to coerce individual or social moral decisions
I believe that both sides are guilty of this, but individuals of either persuasion only notice when the other side does it because it forces things that they don't agree with.
Wireless technologies such as 802.11b and short-range Bluetooth radios eventually could be replaced by UWB products that would have a throughput capacity 1,000 times greater than 802.11b (11M bit/sec).
Who's paying who not to give publicity to the (low) throughput of Bluetooth? I understand that people who have bought into it have adopted this marketing strategy of pushing it's features and not it's speed, but does the media have to buy into this strategy. I've seen hundreds of articles mention Bluetooth, and I've only ever seen one mention it's speed. (That was on the register, so it hardly counts as mainstream.) This especially bothers me since as far as I can tell there's nothing that Bluetooth can do that couldn't be implemented with fancy software (except for that whole low power thing...), and from what I've heard (I've never been able to get a Bluetooth device close enough to any 802.11 equipment to find out for myself) Bluetooth and 802.11 don't play nicely with each other.
You were talking about peer to peer applications needing an intermediary. My point was that the entire internet is based upon using intermediaries
That's not an intermediary in the same sense. Once you look up the piece of information you need from DNS you're done with that connection. When you have two IM clients that are behind firewalls, they relay ALL the data through the intermediary. It is impossible for them to connect to each other directly ever. That's a lot different.
Are you familiar with SOCKS? The client requests a port to be listened on, and incoming connections to that port are tunnelled through to the client.
I'm sure you're aware of what happens when two machines behind the proxy request the same port. If it has to pick a different one, then how are the devices on the outside to know? What if it's this new DNS like server that conflicts? It'll have to be well known by the router or even implemented IN the router then. Now you're changing the router and you might as well go IPv6.
Which applications? Once again, if you have a lookup server (similar to a DNS server) acting as an intermediary, this isn't a problem
Like I said above, the DNS server isn't an intermediary in the sense that I meant. As for which applications, cat/etc/services next time you're on a *NIX box. If you don't have a *NIX box then just think about all the URL prefixes you've seen before the ':'. Those are well known ports. Those are the ones that exist now. As for the ones that exist in the future, if I knew what they were going to be I'd go create them and become very wealthy.
If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded.
You still haven't told me who is going to set up these forwards, and who is going to arbitrate them.
Not every router would need to be changed, only the router the DSL user is using.
Really? So how many DSL routers out there do you think are this intellegent. It's less then 10%. Most ISP's who do NAT do it on the other side of the DSL link. It's way cheaper to buy a nice NAT capable Cisco switch and a bunch of dumb DSL bridges then to give everyone a router. THese ISPs are the same ones who are the roadblock to switching to IPv6, so do you think it's going to be any easier to get them to change to your new NATlike scheme?
If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded.
Say you do come up with the perfect 'hack' over IPv4 to make IPv6 unessicary. Why would you use the hack when there's this nice elegant new technology that is ready to be dropped into place? Whatever hack is used has to become universal if it is to be built into consumer devices, and that deployment would end up being just as expensive as deploying any other solution...
No computer savvy person in his right mind wouldn't buy a 1.4 ghz chip over a 1.2 if there wasn't a big price difference
I wouldn't if the 1.4ghz part was slower then the 1.2ghz part. For example, I'd rather have a 1.4ghz Athlon then a 1.7ghz P4 even if they were the same price. Why? the 1.4ghz part is faster for what I'd use it for.
Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record?
That's a whole different (unrelated) problem. Of course it makes more sence to change a DNS record, that's how it works now. However, I thought we were talking about devices sharing an address...
A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on a single port.
A single IP address with each device that's behind it listening on a different port is possible, but unrealistic. First off, you broke one of the rules: with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices. If the NAT device needs to be programmed with each new device added to the network then the device is screwed in the mass market. Most people aren't going to reprogram their router. Worse, NAT is being implemented by ISPs these days. People's ISPs definatly aren't going go reprogram their router to open a port every time you get a new device. Hell, you'd be lucky if you could get them on the phone in the first place. Then you have the problem of which device get's which port. For most applications, if they don't have a well known port then they're almost useless since you won't be able to find them. The problem could be solved by inventing some kind of automatic port allocation, and linking it to dynamically assigned DNS entrys, but if every router would need to be changed to support that then you might as well just switch to IPv6 which is already implemented and solves more then one problem.
To what end do you need an outside device initiating a conversation with your fridge?
I wonder if I should stop and pick up some milk on the way home. I'll just telnet to my fridge to... Oh wait, the fridge is behind my firewall, and I can't get that information...
Having a fridge initiate an order is probably a bad idea, but of course one that someone trying to make some money off of the idea is going to try to get you to like. There are way more bad ideas out there then there are good ones. Being able to find out what's in your fridge while you're, say, at the grocery store seems like a good idea though. So, the ideas that we've thought of that can work with NAT aren't too appealing, but the ideas that don't work with NAT are the ones that are truely interesting. Score 1 for having non translated addresses.
It doesn't matter if most of the population can imagine new devices that would use these address. Only the people who invent them need this ability. They will not have this creative freedom without the addresses being there.
Not ALL network applications require two-way communication.
So by your logic no devices should be able to have communications initiated from either end?
---
Every time a new car is built do they reinvent the wheel?
Why should application developers have to do something similar?
---
You don't WANT a class A because you can't imagine what kinds of technologies you could use if you and everyone else did have one.
Also, Instant messaging doesn't work as well as you say. When people are behind NAT, an intermediary who isn't behind NAT is required. It solves the p2p issue by not being p2p. If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
The flourescent backlight of your LCD screen does definatly flicker(More acurately, the backlight flickers). The DC voltage of your laptop battery is put through an inverter to convert it to AC before powering the lamp. It's just so fast you don't notice it. A dell laptop I took apart once had an 80Hz cycle. I'm sure that they very from manufacturer to manufacturer though. I must say though that it is a different kind of flicker that that caused by redraw. It's more like the kind you'll see at a movie.
The LED backlights also have the same kind of flicker as your current LCD backlight. It's not a redraw kind of flicker, but an all-at-once kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, on a cheap motherboard, it could be possible that the IDE's V+ and ground aren't regulated seperatly from the main power regulator on the board. A short across the two could cause the power regulator to heat up very quickly, and the radient heat could spell trouble for the nearby caps. I can't imagine that it would all happen instantly though. There also could be a problem with the drive that would cause the 12 volt power to short to ground. That would reverse the polarity on lower voltage caps. This is all a long shot though, and I'd be surprised if all that was new in the setup was the cables.
Funny, I can get water right out of my faucet, and you can get mineral oil at the grocery store... Where are you from that you can only get Fluorinert?
(Of course I'd deionize the water before I poured it on my PC...)
Do you hear about terrorist bombings in Germany? Yes...
Or Italy? yes...
Or Britain? Definatly yes...
Or even Canada Well, no but...
Come back from your own little world sometime.
Or maybe you'd rather give up your freedom and start oppressing women to fit into these peoples ideals. Kill your wife if she shows skin in public. Mutilate your daughter's genitalia. That's way more humane.
1. What are the uses of cryptography as a "Human Rights Tool"?
Perhaps you wish to speak out about about something which the government of your country forbids. People who are oppressed in certain ways by their government cannot improve their situation if discussion of improvement can lead to death.
2. If in fact tools such as PGP are used by terrorists, how do governments protect against this?
They cannot, they have to find another way. Not only can gavernments not see what a terrorist group might be saying if they encrypt it, but they cannot stop the terrorists from using the encryption. Remove the words "such as PGP" from your question and think about it more.
Ok. I'll bet we see Geforce 4 within days after XBox has been available for 6 months. The release schedule will be different this time because Geforce 3 does not represent Nvidia's state of the art at the time of it's release. We already know that they have better stuff because it's in the XBox. I'm sure the only reason that Geforce3 isn't as good as XBox is because of contractual obligations to MS. Once the limits on that contract expire, they'll let out the good stuff. I would be surprised if Nvidia would have accepted a contract that made them wait more then 6 months.
Rambus (Probably) won't stop manufacturing RAM. If anyhing changes it will be the size available. Sony can just put the bigger chips in when the current sizes are obsolete and just not connect the new significant address lines. Intel already anounced that it's canning the P3. IBM allows anyone to license their PPC core. It's even advertized on their website. Now that Nintendo has a PPC core license, it can manufacture PPC based CPUs (with the specific core they licensed) until the cows come home using any fab they wish. Intel does *not* license their P3 core. No one can manufacture Intel processors but Intel, so when they say no more then there will be no more. Now that MS is locked into haveing SSE support, Intel knows that they can pressure MS into switching to P4 without worry that MS will go AMD on them. You're going to see one of two things happen. Microsoft's costs on the P3 will go through the roof, or version 2 of the Xbox will have a P4 in it and will come out just after christmas. IBM most certainly does business much differently then Intel.
By tomorrow I mean 6-9 months from now.
The XBox is a PC with a different memory map and no IBM PC compatable BIOS. As far as I've seen the only thing the XBox *doesn't* have in common with a PC is the BIOS. I'm not sure wether they included the video framebuffer in the CPU's virtual address space or not, but if they did it wouldn't be that big of deal because many architectures have allowed large chunks of device memory to be maped in the CPU region before. Of course it doesn't have a comodity motherboard. You think a different PCB layout changes things much? Have you ever written low level software? I bet once the memory map is figured out and someone finds a way to load software off a non-official MS DVD someone will have linux running on this thing in days. In fact, if I had that information, I'd bet I could do it in two or three days. Microsoft will tell you it's *not* a PC all day, but in reality it's a PC with no BIOS. All that means is that it can't run the Win9x series of operating systems. I hope that XBox has an influence on future PCs, because the XBox is more of what I'd like to see todays workstations be then the hacks that they are in order to support legacy crap.
The reality for the XBox will be different then for sony, because sony owns ALL the technology in the PS2. They can have their fab make as many chips as they need. Even nintendo can do this because they have a license to the PPC core from IBM. Microsoft, however, is in a different boat. They bought pieces of technology from companies that do business in a different world then Nintendo and Sony. The manufacturers that Microsoft buys from will have increasing costs where Sony and Nintendo have decreasing costs. Microsofts factories may get more efficient, but the 3rd party parts are what are going to get more expensive. The components are already ramped up and at the bottom of their price cycle. There is nowhere to go but up. Everywhere that Sony and Nintendo use a propriatary part and MS uses a commodity part they have a long term win over MS.
It doesn't matter that XBox isn't a PC in this manner, because it uses PC parts! The XBox will not follow the price decrease trend of a console, it will follow the trend of PC components because that's what it is made out of. The parts come from the same place no matter what they are used for. Intel will stop manufacturing P3s this year. If MS creates a demand for them with the XBox anyway, what do you think is going to happen to the cost of a P3 chip? Maybe MS will switch to P4. Having a different CPU in half of the boxes would make it a stable platform...
I was not claiming that the $280 machine is a gaming machine comprable to the XBox, I'm saying that the $280 machine of tomorrow will be a better gaming machine then the XBox. A year ago before the Geforce2 was a gleam in the Nvidia retail channel's eye, I bet you would have killed to replace your TNT2/P3 500 with a 700 Mhz machine with a Gforce 2 MX 400.
Care for a friendly wager about when the Gforce4 will come out (Or whatever they end up calling it)
If I recall the X-Box has a 700Mhz CPU for starters. I just put a 700Mhz box together for my mom for $280. That's with a Geforce2, but in 6 months (Nvidia is coming out with new Geforce cards that are better then what's in the X-Box in a few months, so Geforce 3's will drop in price) you'll be able to build a PC that is superior to the X-Box for less then $400, and you be able to use it as a PC too! The X-Box will not be able to drop in price much though, because they will need to continue using the same parts even after the rest of the industry moves on. Intel is not taking any more Pentium 3 orders after october. I think that MS plans on having the platform last longer then two weeks, so they are going to have to pay a premium to get more P3 chips. Suddenly Microsoft has higher costs. As time goes on the X-Box is going to get more expensive to produce, and good PCs and PS2s are going to get cheaper.
If you think about the PC industry's history you'll realize that this is a continuous cycle. First a difficult task is handled in expensive hardware (Say a modem, or hardware encryption, or a raytracing coprocessor). Then the CPU gets faster, and people stop buying the expensive hardware and do the task in software (WinModems, Doom, ssl) to save money. Now that the hardware companies are motivated, and the software has popularized the task they can do volume production and sell the hardware on the cheap ("accelerated" modems, GPUs, system bridges with encryption built in) and the task gets offloaded again and the CPU can be used for the next big thing.
Ethernet is going through this same cycle right now. Most cheap ethernet cards now have stopped doing their address table lookups (for MAC addresses) and checksuming and all the rest of the compute intensive stuff on the chip, and have offloaded it into the driver. This has happened gradually over the last 6 years or so. Now, with 10GB ethernet coming out, you can't process that stuff fast enough on the CPU, so it's moving back onto the chip along with other software like the TCP/IP stack. Ethernet is so intrenched in the marketplace that the manufacturers are guaranteed high volumes and can afford it.
3D processors right now are far ahead of what you can do with current CPUs because of the limitations of memory bandwith, so I don't think that it's a task that's likely to make another loop through the cycle in the near future, but it will probably happen eventually. The real question is what cool technology that now requires additional hardware will soon become available to mainstream users? Video decoders seem to be in the software stage of the loop already, and are starting to move back into hardware by being embedded in regular video cards. Real time video encoding and editing could be the next big thing though...
Yup, that's it, I had a desire to be superior. No, wait, it was that "right" thing, yeah. My opinion is better then yours. And I really told you...
Or maybe you said that you had "an environment that looks for headers in your include path, then puts them in a suggested list". Sounds like you have a script that pulls all the header files out of your include path and then lets you choose from them. But I didn't say anything like that so of course my comment is unrelated.
If you want me to read into your comment that it selectively chooses include files for you based on definitions then why don't you say that in the fucking comment?
I once had a Professor that had a "nifty" little script that included all the .h files in his include path. He never could understand why it took so long to compile simple little programs.
Better to understand how your libraries work. Then you'll already know what to include and you'll write a better program too.
It doesn't really matter, all the application's you're going to want to run on such a small screen have naitive PPC versions. That includes my favorite: Linux. If there really were no good apps for MacOS, and you really couldn't interoperate with the rest of the world do you think Apple would still be in business?
Who cares what the binary format is if the same software is available? The only place MacOS is behind is games. Will you be playing games on your slowass Crusoe with a tiny screen?
Setup you BOOTP/DHCP and TFTP servers apropriatly and then try this command at the Open Firmware prompt:
'boot enet:<NIC #>,<bootfile name>'
enet:0 should give you the onboard cabled ethernet, and enet:1 should let you boot off the wireless. Whatever you put as the bootfile name is the file it will download off the TFTP server and execute.
I don't know how windows works (I don't program for it), but in linux, the debugging information is in the symbol table. If debugging symbols changed the way the code worked it would be a big problem, because you could have code that broke when you compiled it normally and then work differently when you were debugging it. I've never heard of a compiler (Again I don't program for windows so my experience is limited in that aspect) that generated different code when you compile with debugging mode. There is no reason to anyway. There is no need to mingle the hints for your debugger among the code when it could be in a seperate place. The only thing that I could think of that would slow down a program if it was in "debug" mode is if you had #defines or the like at compile time that enabled code for debugging like assertions that compile out; but if your assertion code causes that big of a performance hit then you have other issues. I always thought that assertions that compiled out were dumb anyway. There is no reason that you can't use your debugging tools to put dynamic triggers in if you control the calling code and you know they're safe to remove later, and if you don't trust the calling code then you should be leaving the assertions in when you ship anyway.
the conservative vision that government should step in and use the threat of force to coerce individual or social moral decisions
I believe that both sides are guilty of this, but individuals of either persuasion only notice when the other side does it because it forces things that they don't agree with.
While I agree that the speed is adequate for a single device, what happens when there's 10 devices?
Funny, Last I checked debug information only effected load times.
Wireless technologies such as 802.11b and short-range Bluetooth radios eventually could be replaced by UWB products that would have a throughput capacity 1,000 times greater than 802.11b (11M bit/sec).
Who's paying who not to give publicity to the (low) throughput of Bluetooth? I understand that people who have bought into it have adopted this marketing strategy of pushing it's features and not it's speed, but does the media have to buy into this strategy. I've seen hundreds of articles mention Bluetooth, and I've only ever seen one mention it's speed. (That was on the register, so it hardly counts as mainstream.) This especially bothers me since as far as I can tell there's nothing that Bluetooth can do that couldn't be implemented with fancy software (except for that whole low power thing...), and from what I've heard (I've never been able to get a Bluetooth device close enough to any 802.11 equipment to find out for myself) Bluetooth and 802.11 don't play nicely with each other.
How would you do video on demand with multicast, period. You would need for multiple people to start watching the same thing at the same time.
You were talking about peer to peer applications needing an intermediary. My point was that the entire internet is based upon using intermediaries
/etc/services next time you're on a *NIX box. If you don't have a *NIX box then just think about all the URL prefixes you've seen before the ':'. Those are well known ports. Those are the ones that exist now. As for the ones that exist in the future, if I knew what they were going to be I'd go create them and become very wealthy.
That's not an intermediary in the same sense. Once you look up the piece of information you need from DNS you're done with that connection. When you have two IM clients that are behind firewalls, they relay ALL the data through the intermediary. It is impossible for them to connect to each other directly ever. That's a lot different.
Are you familiar with SOCKS? The client requests a port to be listened on, and incoming connections to that port are tunnelled through to the client.
I'm sure you're aware of what happens when two machines behind the proxy request the same port. If it has to pick a different one, then how are the devices on the outside to know? What if it's this new DNS like server that conflicts? It'll have to be well known by the router or even implemented IN the router then. Now you're changing the router and you might as well go IPv6.
Which applications? Once again, if you have a lookup server (similar to a DNS server) acting as an intermediary, this isn't a problem
Like I said above, the DNS server isn't an intermediary in the sense that I meant. As for which applications, cat
If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded.
You still haven't told me who is going to set up these forwards, and who is going to arbitrate them.
Not every router would need to be changed, only the router the DSL user is using.
Really? So how many DSL routers out there do you think are this intellegent. It's less then 10%. Most ISP's who do NAT do it on the other side of the DSL link. It's way cheaper to buy a nice NAT capable Cisco switch and a bunch of dumb DSL bridges then to give everyone a router. THese ISPs are the same ones who are the roadblock to switching to IPv6, so do you think it's going to be any easier to get them to change to your new NATlike scheme?
If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded.
Say you do come up with the perfect 'hack' over IPv4 to make IPv6 unessicary. Why would you use the hack when there's this nice elegant new technology that is ready to be dropped into place? Whatever hack is used has to become universal if it is to be built into consumer devices, and that deployment would end up being just as expensive as deploying any other solution...
No computer savvy person in his right mind wouldn't buy a 1.4 ghz chip over a 1.2 if there wasn't a big price difference
I wouldn't if the 1.4ghz part was slower then the 1.2ghz part. For example, I'd rather have a 1.4ghz Athlon then a 1.7ghz P4 even if they were the same price. Why? the 1.4ghz part is faster for what I'd use it for.
Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record?
That's a whole different (unrelated) problem. Of course it makes more sence to change a DNS record, that's how it works now. However, I thought we were talking about devices sharing an address...
A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on a single port.
A single IP address with each device that's behind it listening on a different port is possible, but unrealistic. First off, you broke one of the rules: with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices. If the NAT device needs to be programmed with each new device added to the network then the device is screwed in the mass market. Most people aren't going to reprogram their router. Worse, NAT is being implemented by ISPs these days. People's ISPs definatly aren't going go reprogram their router to open a port every time you get a new device. Hell, you'd be lucky if you could get them on the phone in the first place. Then you have the problem of which device get's which port. For most applications, if they don't have a well known port then they're almost useless since you won't be able to find them. The problem could be solved by inventing some kind of automatic port allocation, and linking it to dynamically assigned DNS entrys, but if every router would need to be changed to support that then you might as well just switch to IPv6 which is already implemented and solves more then one problem.
To what end do you need an outside device initiating a conversation with your fridge?
I wonder if I should stop and pick up some milk on the way home. I'll just telnet to my fridge to... Oh wait, the fridge is behind my firewall, and I can't get that information...
Having a fridge initiate an order is probably a bad idea, but of course one that someone trying to make some money off of the idea is going to try to get you to like. There are way more bad ideas out there then there are good ones. Being able to find out what's in your fridge while you're, say, at the grocery store seems like a good idea though. So, the ideas that we've thought of that can work with NAT aren't too appealing, but the ideas that don't work with NAT are the ones that are truely interesting. Score 1 for having non translated addresses.
It doesn't matter if most of the population can imagine new devices that would use these address. Only the people who invent them need this ability. They will not have this creative freedom without the addresses being there.
Not ALL network applications require two-way communication.
So by your logic no devices should be able to have communications initiated from either end?
Two points:
---
Every time a new car is built do they reinvent the wheel?
Why should application developers have to do something similar?
---
You don't WANT a class A because you can't imagine what kinds of technologies you could use if you and everyone else did have one.
Also, Instant messaging doesn't work as well as you say. When people are behind NAT, an intermediary who isn't behind NAT is required. It solves the p2p issue by not being p2p. If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
Funny, your phone doesn't run windows....
The flourescent backlight of your LCD screen does definatly flicker(More acurately, the backlight flickers). The DC voltage of your laptop battery is put through an inverter to convert it to AC before powering the lamp. It's just so fast you don't notice it. A dell laptop I took apart once had an 80Hz cycle. I'm sure that they very from manufacturer to manufacturer though. I must say though that it is a different kind of flicker that that caused by redraw. It's more like the kind you'll see at a movie.
The LED backlights also have the same kind of flicker as your current LCD backlight. It's not a redraw kind of flicker, but an all-at-once kind of thing.