As soon as a P2P network sprang up the RIAA/MPAA/bad corpde jour would track down the key owned and sue their ass Having a P2P network is not illegal. Transferring files is not illegal. Breaking copyright is the illegal part, and they'd have to get into your network to prove you were doing that. The whole trust thing is to prevent them from doing just that.
How to attack a P2P network (aka, find 'em, fake 'em, and kill 'em): 1. Find 'em: Break the confidentiality. If you can sniff the network, and gain access to it, then you can find who has stuff being shared and thus sue them out of existence. 2. Fake 'em: Break the data's integrity. Basically, shove in tons of fake data to piss off other users. 3. Kill 'em: Break the availability of the network. Screw with the protocol, drop packets, generate thousands of fake clients, flood off other clients with search requests.
How to defend a P2P with something like Palladium: Basically, it breaks down to not letting untrusted clients into your network. Since you can now trust that the hardware is secured, and since every client has to be vouched for in order to get in, you can stop all three of the attacks dead in their tracks. A P2P can be trusted in that other clients it tries to connect to will be able to verify that trust mechanism using the very same secure computing methods that this stuff gives you.
Think of it like this. I trust Bob, so I let Bob connect. Bob trusts Cathy, so I can get a network of trust relationships going. Obviously, somewhere, someone could break that trust chain, but the existence of the trust chain is a new thing that hasn't been implemented yet. Combine it with encryption to prevent sniffing the network or at least make it way too difficult, and I can build a trusted network over which anything can be shared, *and* know that nobody is hacking my clients on either the software or hardware level, such that they can see or send things that they shouldn't.
Find 'em breaks down simply by going through enough nodes to make it impossibly difficult to track down where the hell the data actually is. This is already a nearly solved problem anyway, with stuff like FreeNet's method of ensuring that even the clients don't know what they're sharing.
Fake 'em is broken by the trusted architecture. I can trust, to some degree, anyone on my network because of the chain. I can trust the client isn't doing shit it ain't supposed to be doing. I can trust that the hardware hasn't been modified to some degree. I can revoke clients by breaking the trust links to them or creating an "antitrust" kind of link that other clients might use as well. If someone injects fakes onto the network, I put down that I don't trust them, and voila, that propgates to those who trust me and so on. Creates a closed circle.
Kill 'em is broken by the same trust relationship to some extent. If the client can't get into the network, he can't inject things onto the network. Once someone doesn't trust that client, it finds that nobody trusts him anymore. If someone is attacking via flooding, obviously there's not much you can do except block them down the pipe, but the trust chain lets me tell others on the network that this guy is a jackass and thus they don't trust them either.
And so on.
Doesn't meet my minimum specifications
on
Neuros Review
·
· Score: 1
First off, this player has features that I don't want. It's impressive, I grant you, but I have no desire nor need for a built in FM broadcaster, nor for song recognition, nor for recording capabilities.
I will buy a portable MP3 player when the following requirements are met: -The device must have at least 20 gig storage. -The device must be portable and reasonably small. I'm not talking iPod small, I could care less about that size. This one is a fine size. -The device must support a FireWire connection. Fsck USB 2.0. -The interface to load songs on can have special software if you like, but it must also have the capability to simply appear to my PC as a HARD DRIVE. What better way to make moving files around easy? What better open architecture than to simply let anyone write software that can do a simple COPY to move files to the unit? -The device must have a DOCKING STATION. I'm tired of dealing with cables. -The Docking Station, or a separate docking station, must have the capability for in-car mounting. This could be a hack it in there yourself kind of deal if needs be. The short answer is that the docking station that could be mounted in a car must have audio outputs. The preferable answer is that the docking station should have a way to feed it power to recharge the device, and it would be nice if there was a way I could control the device's playback via some kind of serial or IR interface as well. I can come up with my own device to convert my car's controls or steering wheel controls into serial or IR commands to the unit. There's a load of ways to do this, so provide me an input on the dock to interface to.
That's it. Satisfy those and I'll buy it. This is the first device I've seen that can do this sort of thing via some kind of add on module, so it has potential, but it's not there yet.
That's very nice, but do you define a nanosecond... (I suppose one could do it by basing on how long excited atoms of some particular isotope take to decay back to ground state)
Actually, you can define the nanosecond in terms of the speed of light as well, although you're right, that's not as easy then if you're trying to multiply by light to get an actual length out of it.
Which is why the second is defined in two exact ways. "One second is the time that elapses during 9.192631770 x 10^9 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of Cesium 133. It is also the time required for an EM field to propagate 299,792,458 (2.99792458 x 10^8) meters through a vacuum."
Once you get it from http://methlabs.org/pg/ then its all GUI from there.
Support>Visit PG2 Database to get more IPs.
Yes, but that doesn't actually get those IPs into your system. Nor does it remove the bad IP ranges listed at the top of the file. Copying the plaintext version into your blocklist is easier to manage.
For those who want to use PeerGuardian, here's how:
1. Download PG from here: http://methlabs.org/pg/ 2. Install it. 3. Edit "C:\Program Files\PeerGuardian\Guarding.P2P" in a text editor. 4. Go to http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2_plain text.asp for the plaintext list of ranges to block. 5. Copy and Paste it into the Guarding.P2P file. It must have no empty lines at the beginning of the file, and must have at least one blank line at the end of the file. You may want to leave off the last few lines from that webpage, this is a submission type of thing, and new submissions are added to the bottom of the list. Delete the bad lines from morons and such at the end. They get onto the list every so often. 6. Startup PG and make sure it reads in the block list correctly.
Congratulations, you're now blocking all TCP connections with over 50 million IP addresses, most of which are probably "the bad guys". I don't generally steal music or offer up music, I just don't like these people and so I block them on principle.
Also, PeerGuardian supports a pgdat:// type of link, so as new addresses are changed, you can click the links on http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp to add them to PeerGuardian directly instead of manually editing the blockfile.
However, I firmly believe that slashdot IS a blog, as is K5, as are many legitimate news sources, and they will probably be filtered as well by whatever googlebot determines what is and isn't a blog. Nope. Google has already got most of those sites tagged as "news" and therefore can rather easily exclude them from the "blog" category if such be their wish.
I'm not totally familiar with the Infiniti, so I can't tell you exactly.
However, the 12 pin connector I was describing isn't a "J1850 connector" as such. J1850 VPW is a one line serial protocol. Meaning it needs only one (sometimes two) wire(s) to do it's business. The audio inputs to the unit are decidedly not RCA, they are in that 12 pin connector.
That 12 pin connector is not a standard, as such. Well, standard to the cars that have it, I suppose. I guess you could think of it as the radio accessory connection. It connects to a slave unit, like the XM device or the CD Changer, and passes it control signals over the J1850 VPW wire, and the device passes back audio over other wires. The PAC interface simply has a passthrough connection for this and a switch to override the incoming audio signals.
The 12 pin connector is a GM specific thing, and not even all GM cars have it (most newer ones do now though). Every car is different, and you'll need to investigate your specific car and understand how the radio is wired up. There are no real "standards" in cars.;)
Every radio I've ever seen has a power lead and an ignition lead which tells the radio when the car is off.
Not anymore. Newer cars don't have leads to the radio that are key controlled. The radio is being integrated more and more into the rest of the system. GM, for instance, has a lot of cars that have the radio have power at all times. When it's time to shut the radio off, the Body Control Module sends a command over the Class 2 Serial Network (J1850 VPW in GM's case) to shut off the radio.
One easy way to notice this sort of thing is to look at when the radio turns off. In my car, I can stop the car and remove the key and the radio will remain on for up to 10 minutes, or until I open a door. Then it shuts off. This is how it works, the body control module notices the door opening and shuts off the radio. It's doing other things too, like monitoring the battery power in order to shut off other things if the battery gets too low, or waiting 10 minutes to make sure I turned off the headlights, etc, etc.
Another way to tell is to look at the integration of the radio. For example, on my radio, you can do a trick by holding a button down or what have you to get a menu display. This lets you reset the oil life monitor (which you do every time you change the oil), program new keyfobs to control the locks, change how the interior lighting works when you open the door or what have you, etc. All sorts of minor customization. All the radio is doing in this mode is acting as an interface to the Body Control Module to set some flags in there.
Anyway, in these cars, you usually have to run another wire to get an ignition controlled power source. My car has one on the AUX plug hidden underneath the passenger side dashboard. But it varies from car to car, of course.
To some extent, you're correct. The dubs I've seen on most things suck. However, a lot of this stuff is now being redubbed by people who know what they're doing. Why? Because it is going mainstream. Slowly, but surely. I mean, some reasonably good anime is being shown on Cartoon Network for crying out loud... And a lot of it is being redubbed for that purpose. It'll get better, I'm pretty sure.
Note that some of these require that you have a CD Changer or some other form of accessory slave device (like a factory XM receiever, perhaps) already in the vehicle. For an example, the Chevy Impala has the capability to have a CD Changer and the newer Impala's have the built in XM slave device. These use the same connection (a 12 pin connector) to talk to the radio. If you want to use PAC's AAI-GM12, you must have some form of slave. These don't emulate the CD Changer, they simply provide a switch to the audio signal inputs.
It's entirely possible for someone to make a device to interface with the radio as a slave unit in the same way the factory devices do. The advantage to this method would be that stuff like text could be put onto the Radio's display. Newer GM cars, for instance, use the Class 2 Serial Bus (J1850 VPW for those of you in the know) to talk between the radio and the radio's slave unit. The text you see on the screen is actually coming from that slave unit over the data network. That's why you see different things for the XM slave unit, the radio itself is identical, the data it's getting is not.
Nobody I've found makes a device to do specifically this task, but it actually wouldn't be difficult to roll your own. Devices to convert J1850 to RS232 Serial can be had for $75 or so, and usually have a "sniffer" type of mode so you can easily reverse engineer the protocol. If you're into this sort of thing, you could probably write some code to actually display song titles and such from a laptop playing MP3's without a heck of a lot of difficulty. And all your steering wheel controls (which are also on the bus) could work too.
Cars are getting more and more networked, and it's only a matter of time before some bright boy creates a portable MP3 player with an in-car docking station to let it: a) get power from the car, and possibly recharge b) send and receive serial type data to the car's network thus allowing in car controls to work and stuff like ID3 tags to be displayed on the radio.
Nearly all modern GM cars have this potential right now. Most Ford's do too. Probably many foreign cars as well, albeit I'm not familiar with their systems. If I could find a MP3 portable device with connections that could allow a docking station in car to be made, I'd roll my own.
I agree that the use of the SAP channel is a damn good idea, SAP is underused all across the board.
However, if you want to appeal to the masses, you have to have dubs. Many anime fans do dislike dubs, but then anime isn't mainstream. Anime is currently in the realm of the fanboy only, and if you want it to get out of that realm, you need dubs.
Dubs sound better to most English speakers, simply because you hear more nuance of the voice when you can understand the words. The inflection makes a huge difference. Reading the subtitles let's you know what's going on, but hearing the voice lets you know how it's going on as well. And the vast majority of the people cannot hear nuance without understanding the language. I can't.
Even if you lose a lot in the translation, it's better to have dubs than not to have them.
Cowboy Bebop, for example, has some of the best dubs of any Anime series. Yes, a lot is lost in the translation, however, the dubs sound better, to me, than the Japanese. Why? Because I don't speak Japanese, and the voices are a dead flat monotone to my ear.
No, because what I said is not absurd in the slightest. However:
On the one hand you're saying that the anecdotal evidence of one man's observation regarding the effectiveness of a single product...
Whoa there, Billy. I said no such thing. I'm not saying that a) anecdotal evidence is good, nor b) that unbiased reviews are bad.
What I'm saying is that telling someone that "the product doesn't work because XXX says so!" when the product clearly does work, and furthermore the guy you're telling that to has one and knows damn well that it works, is absurd.
If you told me "the sky is pink and full of doughnuts", and I went outside and looked at the sky, and I came back and told you were mistaken, and then you told me that I was wrong because, while you've never seen the sky, a magazine you read once said that the sky was pink and full of doughnutty goodness.. well, I'd say that the arguement is kinda over at that point.
If you're willing to believe anybody's outrageous claims to the extent that, despite other claims to the contrary from equally capable observers, well then, why judge anything at all? Why not simply make shit up, yeah?
This isn't about believing anecdotal evidence over reviews, this is about dismissing *all* opposing evidence in favor of contrary viewpoints. He didn't just say "well, CR said differently and I'm more inclined to trust them", he said "You are wrong."...is sufficient proof of the worthiness of a product, but a comparative study between multiple competitive products with a documented, and reproducible, methodology where they observed the effectiveness isn't worthy (masked under the righteous "graphs and statistics". Uh huh).
When did "effectiveness" come into this? The original poster I complained about said that "CR said it does NOT work". Not "CR said it is ineffective". Two *wholly* different things.
Telling someone that a thing does not work when it clearly does work and the person has stated as much seems to me to be the end-all be-all of closed-mindedness and idiocy.
Let's make your example a little closer to the actual discussion:
Your belief, apparently, is that because they claimed that it sped up their PCs, therefore it does, and is undebatable fact that cannot be questioned or opposed.
No, but you appearantly would. See, I prefer to find out what's really going on. You, however, would accept graphs and statistics by some magazine simply because they're colorful.
The fact that the graphs have no bearing on the reality of the situation is irrelevant. The magazine made them, therefore they must be accurate!
Me, I'd be the one who'd try it myself, find it didn't do shit, and then proclaim it loudly. You, however, having read the magazine, would say "the magazine says it works, therefore you must be wrong despite the fact that you have tried it and I have not".
I'm not the one claiming it works. Indeed, I'm not the one claiming that it doesn't work.
No, you're the one defending a guy who attacked and derided someone's actual *experience* because he thought the opinion of a *magazine* was a better authority on the matter.
You're the kind of guy that believes *authority* is more important than experience. That's what you're saying by defending the "skeptic".
However simply claiming evidence that one has to clean dust off of a device therefore it works is pretty weak evidence, though if you're willing to set up two such devices I would be very interested.I'd be especially interested if you furthermore compared it against devices that used other forms of filtration, as the original skeptic claimed that the fanless ionic filtration was weak compared to other filters (no one has said that it does _nothing_, but just that as a filter it's rather piss poor).
I, in fact, do have two of the devices, and while I have not set up a controlled test, experience shows me that yes, it does collect dust when on and not when off.
However, I really fail you see where you're driving this though. Does it work as well as a HEPA filter? Of course not. Nobody made the claim that it does. And anyway, this is all beside the point. I never attacked him for criticizing the device, I attacked him for taking the word of authority and putting it over the word of actual experience. A man says "it works for me" and this guy says "CR says it doesn't, therefore you're wrong". I mean, honestly, how more stupid of a methodology can you concieve than that?
Personally observations expressed as facts absolutely are open to debate. Your impression that they are faultless is truly a sign of great naivety.
Open to debate, how? A fact is a fact no matter who observes it. You can question the observer, you can debate his motives and whether he's lying, but you absolutely cannot question the fact itself, if it is indeed true.
So when people respond favourably to placebos, that is an indication that sugar has medicinal qualities?
No, it's an indication that placebo's do have an effect on mental health. However, the "sugar has medicinal qualities" you stated is not the fact you presented, it's the conclusion you're drawing from the fact of people responding favorably to sugar pills. The conclusion may be incorrect, but the fact simply *is*.
Interesting consumer technique: Trust no-one and buy everything and see what you think personally (man I'm going to need a bigger drive way for my 200 cars).
Not *buy*, but *try*. If you are getting conflicting reports, then instead of deciding between them, go check the device out at a store. In your example, go test drive the car. Ask for an extended test drive, where you can take the car home for a night. In other words, what makes anybody's opinion better than yours? Answer: your opinion is better than anybody else's when it comes to you. Period.
Oh, wait, simultaneously believe any subjective impression presented as fact online without question. This makes absolutely no sense.
You're right. So I prefer to believe facts that are objective and repeatable by myself, personally. The fact is that a) the device collects dust from the air, b) the device moves air *without* a fan, c) consumer reports is flat out wrong or their conclusions are being presented incorrectly (if they indeed said contrary to a) or b)). These are not subjective impressions, these are facts. Unalterable. No matter who says them, they are so.
You can question my methods or my motives, but you cannot question the facts themselves.
Oh good grief. If you're going to attack my point, at least attack the ones you can reasonably attack well.:-P
So my desk is a air filtration system? I'm literally cleaning a layer of dust off it every week (indeed I'm behind so there's a hearty layer of dust on it right now). Indeed, pretty much everything in my house must be a highly effective air filtration system as it all seems to magically attract dust. Maybe I should sell "picture frame air filtration systems" based upon the evidence that I have to clean dust off them frequently. I apologize for being sarcastic, however the observation that one cleans dust off something, without any sort of quantity or comparison to a placebo, is of limited value.
Fine. Get two of the devices. Turn one on. Leave one off. Watch the on one gather dust and the off one not.
Look, all I was doing was to tell the guy that listening to the advice of authority is well and good, but not at the expense of your own damn experience. The original poster has the experience, and based on that experience, he says it works. To tell him that it doesn't, because authority says so, is just obviously stupid.
Couple this with the fact that the skeptic specifically stated that the electrostatic filter approach is a good one, and will likely draw in dust in a close proximity, and one could accept that yes, sure it does draw in some dust, but it most certainly isn't a virtual fan. As far as your silk ribbon test, I suggest you declare any static object a air draw, specifically those that create heat, and hold a silk ribbon near them.
a) This device doesn't create heat. b) You can feel the damn air moving out of it. Slowly, admittedly. Much more slowly than a fan, but in a double blind test you would be able to tell if it was on or off based on the amount of air being felt by your hand. c) If the device had a fan, it wouldn't be as effective at removing particles from the air. Adding a fan would move air through it, granted, but there's an optimal efficentcy for an electrostatic precipation system. Without extremely high voltages, you're simply not going to be able to charge fast moving particles and catch them in the shorter time that they're there. Since this isn't a high voltage system, the air must be around for a longer time in order for the filter to be effective. Really, look into the dynamics of the principle itself.
Your point is contradictory: You claim that his observation should be lauded and accepted as true without question, while simultaneously holding him (the fanless ionization guy) as deciding for himself rather than "simply believing anyone and everyone else's opinions". Huh?
How is this contradictory? For one thin, yes, his observation SHOULD be accepted as true, if it's a valid observation. Facts simply are. They're not subject to debate. You can question the person's motives or methods or say he's lying. That I have no problem with. But this skeptic guy didn't do that. He's believing Consumer Reports to such a great extent that he'll visiously attack someone who says "it works" because hey, authority said differently. The skeptic here blindly accepts his authority on the subject (Consumer Reports) and anyone else is obviously wrong.
I don't believe CR for shit anymore, because they're wrong in nearly all cases I have personally investigated. You may disagree. Fine. But the point I made is not to believe anybody that blindly. Instead, get the damn thing and decide for yourself. That's the point I was trying to make.
This is the first time I've seen noise brought up at all. The original skeptic pointed out that the device in question used a good approach if only it had a fan, and that there were other units with a fan that were a far better choices. The defenders, I'd say almost certainly owners of the device in question defending their judgement in buying such a device, have come out swinging in a rather bizarre way, blaming the methodology of the Consumer Rep
... they'd be a bit louder than the Ionic Breeze (understatement), but they'd actually do something useful for the money spent.
For some of us, the silence is more important than how many roomfuls of air it can move in an hour.
Hey, reviews are great and all, but what I do know is that every 2-3 days, I have to wipe the dust off the blades of the Ionic Breeze. So, it seems to be "doing something useful" just dandy, thank you.
It's okay to listen to claims based on authority, but not over the evidence of your own damn eyes.
That article is talking about an entirely different type of cleaner. An "ozone generator" is a device that uses ozone as the primary method of cleaning. You find them a lot for industrial applications, to clean large areas of smell when people aren't around.
These devices are "electrostatic precipitators" and are an entirely different kind of beast. They do generate ozone in extremely small quantities, as a side effect. But then again, so does the tube of your TV. So does anything with electrical fields exposed to air and, therefore, oxygen.
Look, guy, it's all well and good to believe unbiased reviews and so forth. I'm not saying that I'd consider CR a source of such, but hey, you believe what you want.
However, that's beside the damn point here. The guy has one. He says it works for him. To tell him he's been duped when he's the one cleaning the dust off the blades every couple of days is a bit ridiclous.
That's all people are saying. Nobody's defending a "shiny piece of crap", they're defending the guy who makes personal observations and decides for himself rather than simply believing anyone and everyone else's opinions.
As for "not moving air", you're wrong. You're just simply wrong. They do move air, just not as quickly as one with a fan. You can hold up a piece of silk ribbon in front of one of the things and see that for yourself quite easily. Or if you prefer, blow smoke at it. That works just as well. I admit that it doesn't move 6 roomfulls of air in an hour, but then that's the whole point. Some people need air filtering, but cannot deal with noise. If you need air filtering and don't mind noise, then by all means get a fan system.
a hack to dis-allow Tivo from updating my V1 unit?
Sure. Just modify the dialing script. It's in TCL, and is reasonably easy to read/learn. Anyway, the update happens in there, and all you have to do is basically comment out a few chunks of code to prevent it rebooting after receiving an update. Voila.
There's also code in the rc.sysinit startup script that actually applies the update if it is found (after the reboot). You can either comment this out, or set a variable to false so it skips that chunk of code. Read the scripts yourself and figure it out, because it's simple, really.
Anything post-3.0 doesn't use a script for the dialing anymore, it uses executable code, so it's definitely trickier to prevent it from downloading the update and auto-rebooting, but the code in the startup that actually applies the update is still scripted and easily modified.
Look guy, he obviously did a frame by frame of that section to determine what the hell was bugging him about that scene when it went by in full play real-time like mode.
The floating truck bothered me too. It looked so obviously fake. Yeah, it looks like a truck, but no, it doesn't move like a truck moves. You don't have to overanalyse to see a scene and say "something about that scene didn't look right".
A scene that bothers me like that throws me right out of the movie. I'm no longer thinking about how The guy is going to get away from the truck, I'm thinking that "the truck scene looked weird somehow". This is why GOOD special FX people are worth their weight in gold, they can see that sort of thing in advance and make it so that those scenes, in full motion, won't bother you.
What about those boxes that are essentially never updated? These are the *vast* majority of machines on the network, causing all the problems and eating all the bandwidth.
It's fine and great that you keep your box patched and up to date, but at some point, failure to do so should be considered negligent. You put a box on the network, don't keep it up to date, eventually it gets rooted, and starts attacking everyone else. Everyone else is justifiably pissed off at you now for not taking care of your own shit.
Either they need to have a legal recourse for your negligence, in order to force you to stop being so negligent, or they need to have a legal means of self defense. You won't fix your box, they should be able to.
The key is not is this right or not, it most certainly is right. The key is where is the line drawn? How up to date with patches and fixes should be required to keep it? Exactly at what point does stupidity become negligence?
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as a P2P network sprang up the RIAA/MPAA/bad corpde jour would track down the key owned and sue their ass
Having a P2P network is not illegal. Transferring files is not illegal. Breaking copyright is the illegal part, and they'd have to get into your network to prove you were doing that. The whole trust thing is to prevent them from doing just that.
Okay, in summation:
How to attack a P2P network (aka, find 'em, fake 'em, and kill 'em):
1. Find 'em: Break the confidentiality. If you can sniff the network, and gain access to it, then you can find who has stuff being shared and thus sue them out of existence.
2. Fake 'em: Break the data's integrity. Basically, shove in tons of fake data to piss off other users.
3. Kill 'em: Break the availability of the network. Screw with the protocol, drop packets, generate thousands of fake clients, flood off other clients with search requests.
How to defend a P2P with something like Palladium:
Basically, it breaks down to not letting untrusted clients into your network. Since you can now trust that the hardware is secured, and since every client has to be vouched for in order to get in, you can stop all three of the attacks dead in their tracks. A P2P can be trusted in that other clients it tries to connect to will be able to verify that trust mechanism using the very same secure computing methods that this stuff gives you.
Think of it like this. I trust Bob, so I let Bob connect. Bob trusts Cathy, so I can get a network of trust relationships going. Obviously, somewhere, someone could break that trust chain, but the existence of the trust chain is a new thing that hasn't been implemented yet. Combine it with encryption to prevent sniffing the network or at least make it way too difficult, and I can build a trusted network over which anything can be shared, *and* know that nobody is hacking my clients on either the software or hardware level, such that they can see or send things that they shouldn't.
Find 'em breaks down simply by going through enough nodes to make it impossibly difficult to track down where the hell the data actually is. This is already a nearly solved problem anyway, with stuff like FreeNet's method of ensuring that even the clients don't know what they're sharing.
Fake 'em is broken by the trusted architecture. I can trust, to some degree, anyone on my network because of the chain. I can trust the client isn't doing shit it ain't supposed to be doing. I can trust that the hardware hasn't been modified to some degree. I can revoke clients by breaking the trust links to them or creating an "antitrust" kind of link that other clients might use as well. If someone injects fakes onto the network, I put down that I don't trust them, and voila, that propgates to those who trust me and so on. Creates a closed circle.
Kill 'em is broken by the same trust relationship to some extent. If the client can't get into the network, he can't inject things onto the network. Once someone doesn't trust that client, it finds that nobody trusts him anymore. If someone is attacking via flooding, obviously there's not much you can do except block them down the pipe, but the trust chain lets me tell others on the network that this guy is a jackass and thus they don't trust them either.
And so on.
First off, this player has features that I don't want. It's impressive, I grant you, but I have no desire nor need for a built in FM broadcaster, nor for song recognition, nor for recording capabilities.
I will buy a portable MP3 player when the following requirements are met:
-The device must have at least 20 gig storage.
-The device must be portable and reasonably small. I'm not talking iPod small, I could care less about that size. This one is a fine size.
-The device must support a FireWire connection. Fsck USB 2.0.
-The interface to load songs on can have special software if you like, but it must also have the capability to simply appear to my PC as a HARD DRIVE. What better way to make moving files around easy? What better open architecture than to simply let anyone write software that can do a simple COPY to move files to the unit?
-The device must have a DOCKING STATION. I'm tired of dealing with cables.
-The Docking Station, or a separate docking station, must have the capability for in-car mounting. This could be a hack it in there yourself kind of deal if needs be. The short answer is that the docking station that could be mounted in a car must have audio outputs. The preferable answer is that the docking station should have a way to feed it power to recharge the device, and it would be nice if there was a way I could control the device's playback via some kind of serial or IR interface as well. I can come up with my own device to convert my car's controls or steering wheel controls into serial or IR commands to the unit. There's a load of ways to do this, so provide me an input on the dock to interface to.
That's it. Satisfy those and I'll buy it. This is the first device I've seen that can do this sort of thing via some kind of add on module, so it has potential, but it's not there yet.
That's very nice, but do you define a nanosecond... (I suppose one could do it by basing on how long excited atoms of some particular isotope take to decay back to ground state)
Actually, you can define the nanosecond in terms of the speed of light as well, although you're right, that's not as easy then if you're trying to multiply by light to get an actual length out of it.
Which is why the second is defined in two exact ways.
"One second is the time that elapses during 9.192631770 x 10^9 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of Cesium 133. It is also the time required for an EM field to propagate 299,792,458 (2.99792458 x 10^8) meters through a vacuum."
Once you get it from http://methlabs.org/pg/ then its all GUI from there.
Support>Visit PG2 Database to get more IPs.
Yes, but that doesn't actually get those IPs into your system. Nor does it remove the bad IP ranges listed at the top of the file. Copying the plaintext version into your blocklist is easier to manage.
For those who want to use PeerGuardian, here's how:
n text.asp for the plaintext list of ranges to block.
1. Download PG from here: http://methlabs.org/pg/
2. Install it.
3. Edit "C:\Program Files\PeerGuardian\Guarding.P2P" in a text editor.
4. Go to http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2_plai
5. Copy and Paste it into the Guarding.P2P file. It must have no empty lines at the beginning of the file, and must have at least one blank line at the end of the file.
You may want to leave off the last few lines from that webpage, this is a submission type of thing, and new submissions are added to the bottom of the list. Delete the bad lines from morons and such at the end. They get onto the list every so often.
6. Startup PG and make sure it reads in the block list correctly.
Congratulations, you're now blocking all TCP connections with over 50 million IP addresses, most of which are probably "the bad guys". I don't generally steal music or offer up music, I just don't like these people and so I block them on principle.
Also, PeerGuardian supports a pgdat:// type of link, so as new addresses are changed, you can click the links on http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp to add them to PeerGuardian directly instead of manually editing the blockfile.
However, I firmly believe that slashdot IS a blog, as is K5, as are many legitimate news sources, and they will probably be filtered as well by whatever googlebot determines what is and isn't a blog.
Nope. Google has already got most of those sites tagged as "news" and therefore can rather easily exclude them from the "blog" category if such be their wish.
I'm not totally familiar with the Infiniti, so I can't tell you exactly.
;)
However, the 12 pin connector I was describing isn't a "J1850 connector" as such. J1850 VPW is a one line serial protocol. Meaning it needs only one (sometimes two) wire(s) to do it's business. The audio inputs to the unit are decidedly not RCA, they are in that 12 pin connector.
That 12 pin connector is not a standard, as such. Well, standard to the cars that have it, I suppose. I guess you could think of it as the radio accessory connection. It connects to a slave unit, like the XM device or the CD Changer, and passes it control signals over the J1850 VPW wire, and the device passes back audio over other wires. The PAC interface simply has a passthrough connection for this and a switch to override the incoming audio signals.
The 12 pin connector is a GM specific thing, and not even all GM cars have it (most newer ones do now though). Every car is different, and you'll need to investigate your specific car and understand how the radio is wired up. There are no real "standards" in cars.
Every radio I've ever seen has a power lead and an ignition lead which tells the radio when the car is off.
Not anymore. Newer cars don't have leads to the radio that are key controlled. The radio is being integrated more and more into the rest of the system. GM, for instance, has a lot of cars that have the radio have power at all times. When it's time to shut the radio off, the Body Control Module sends a command over the Class 2 Serial Network (J1850 VPW in GM's case) to shut off the radio.
One easy way to notice this sort of thing is to look at when the radio turns off. In my car, I can stop the car and remove the key and the radio will remain on for up to 10 minutes, or until I open a door. Then it shuts off. This is how it works, the body control module notices the door opening and shuts off the radio. It's doing other things too, like monitoring the battery power in order to shut off other things if the battery gets too low, or waiting 10 minutes to make sure I turned off the headlights, etc, etc.
Another way to tell is to look at the integration of the radio. For example, on my radio, you can do a trick by holding a button down or what have you to get a menu display. This lets you reset the oil life monitor (which you do every time you change the oil), program new keyfobs to control the locks, change how the interior lighting works when you open the door or what have you, etc. All sorts of minor customization. All the radio is doing in this mode is acting as an interface to the Body Control Module to set some flags in there.
Anyway, in these cars, you usually have to run another wire to get an ignition controlled power source. My car has one on the AUX plug hidden underneath the passenger side dashboard. But it varies from car to car, of course.
To some extent, you're correct. The dubs I've seen on most things suck. However, a lot of this stuff is now being redubbed by people who know what they're doing. Why? Because it is going mainstream. Slowly, but surely. I mean, some reasonably good anime is being shown on Cartoon Network for crying out loud... And a lot of it is being redubbed for that purpose. It'll get better, I'm pretty sure.
If you have a Nissan Quest, there's adapters on that rcainput.com page. I think the Quest is actually a Ford though, judging from the adapters there.
There's more than just those listed out there. Do some searching if yours isn't on that rcainput.com page.
Pacific Accessory Corporation makes several different adapters, as does Precision Interface Electronics.
Note that some of these require that you have a CD Changer or some other form of accessory slave device (like a factory XM receiever, perhaps) already in the vehicle. For an example, the Chevy Impala has the capability to have a CD Changer and the newer Impala's have the built in XM slave device. These use the same connection (a 12 pin connector) to talk to the radio. If you want to use PAC's AAI-GM12, you must have some form of slave. These don't emulate the CD Changer, they simply provide a switch to the audio signal inputs.
It's entirely possible for someone to make a device to interface with the radio as a slave unit in the same way the factory devices do. The advantage to this method would be that stuff like text could be put onto the Radio's display. Newer GM cars, for instance, use the Class 2 Serial Bus (J1850 VPW for those of you in the know) to talk between the radio and the radio's slave unit. The text you see on the screen is actually coming from that slave unit over the data network. That's why you see different things for the XM slave unit, the radio itself is identical, the data it's getting is not.
Nobody I've found makes a device to do specifically this task, but it actually wouldn't be difficult to roll your own. Devices to convert J1850 to RS232 Serial can be had for $75 or so, and usually have a "sniffer" type of mode so you can easily reverse engineer the protocol. If you're into this sort of thing, you could probably write some code to actually display song titles and such from a laptop playing MP3's without a heck of a lot of difficulty. And all your steering wheel controls (which are also on the bus) could work too.
Cars are getting more and more networked, and it's only a matter of time before some bright boy creates a portable MP3 player with an in-car docking station to let it:
a) get power from the car, and possibly recharge
b) send and receive serial type data to the car's network thus allowing in car controls to work and stuff like ID3 tags to be displayed on the radio.
Nearly all modern GM cars have this potential right now. Most Ford's do too. Probably many foreign cars as well, albeit I'm not familiar with their systems. If I could find a MP3 portable device with connections that could allow a docking station in car to be made, I'd roll my own.
I agree that the use of the SAP channel is a damn good idea, SAP is underused all across the board.
However, if you want to appeal to the masses, you have to have dubs. Many anime fans do dislike dubs, but then anime isn't mainstream. Anime is currently in the realm of the fanboy only, and if you want it to get out of that realm, you need dubs.
Dubs sound better to most English speakers, simply because you hear more nuance of the voice when you can understand the words. The inflection makes a huge difference. Reading the subtitles let's you know what's going on, but hearing the voice lets you know how it's going on as well. And the vast majority of the people cannot hear nuance without understanding the language. I can't.
Even if you lose a lot in the translation, it's better to have dubs than not to have them.
Cowboy Bebop, for example, has some of the best dubs of any Anime series. Yes, a lot is lost in the translation, however, the dubs sound better, to me, than the Japanese. Why? Because I don't speak Japanese, and the voices are a dead flat monotone to my ear.
Do you realize how absurd this sounds?
...is sufficient proof of the worthiness of a product, but a comparative study between multiple competitive products with a documented, and reproducible, methodology where they observed the effectiveness isn't worthy (masked under the righteous "graphs and statistics". Uh huh).
No, because what I said is not absurd in the slightest. However:
On the one hand you're saying that the anecdotal evidence of one man's observation regarding the effectiveness of a single product...
Whoa there, Billy. I said no such thing. I'm not saying that a) anecdotal evidence is good, nor b) that unbiased reviews are bad.
What I'm saying is that telling someone that "the product doesn't work because XXX says so!" when the product clearly does work, and furthermore the guy you're telling that to has one and knows damn well that it works, is absurd.
If you told me "the sky is pink and full of doughnuts", and I went outside and looked at the sky, and I came back and told you were mistaken, and then you told me that I was wrong because, while you've never seen the sky, a magazine you read once said that the sky was pink and full of doughnutty goodness.. well, I'd say that the arguement is kinda over at that point.
If you're willing to believe anybody's outrageous claims to the extent that, despite other claims to the contrary from equally capable observers, well then, why judge anything at all? Why not simply make shit up, yeah?
This isn't about believing anecdotal evidence over reviews, this is about dismissing *all* opposing evidence in favor of contrary viewpoints. He didn't just say "well, CR said differently and I'm more inclined to trust them", he said "You are wrong."
When did "effectiveness" come into this? The original poster I complained about said that "CR said it does NOT work". Not "CR said it is ineffective". Two *wholly* different things.
Telling someone that a thing does not work when it clearly does work and the person has stated as much seems to me to be the end-all be-all of closed-mindedness and idiocy.
Let's make your example a little closer to the actual discussion:
Your belief, apparently, is that because they claimed that it sped up their PCs, therefore it does, and is undebatable fact that cannot be questioned or opposed.
No, but you appearantly would. See, I prefer to find out what's really going on. You, however, would accept graphs and statistics by some magazine simply because they're colorful.
The fact that the graphs have no bearing on the reality of the situation is irrelevant. The magazine made them, therefore they must be accurate!
Me, I'd be the one who'd try it myself, find it didn't do shit, and then proclaim it loudly. You, however, having read the magazine, would say "the magazine says it works, therefore you must be wrong despite the fact that you have tried it and I have not".
That's a much closer analogy, I think.
I'm not the one claiming it works. Indeed, I'm not the one claiming that it doesn't work.
No, you're the one defending a guy who attacked and derided someone's actual *experience* because he thought the opinion of a *magazine* was a better authority on the matter.
You're the kind of guy that believes *authority* is more important than experience. That's what you're saying by defending the "skeptic".
However simply claiming evidence that one has to clean dust off of a device therefore it works is pretty weak evidence, though if you're willing to set up two such devices I would be very interested.I'd be especially interested if you furthermore compared it against devices that used other forms of filtration, as the original skeptic claimed that the fanless ionic filtration was weak compared to other filters (no one has said that it does _nothing_, but just that as a filter it's rather piss poor).
I, in fact, do have two of the devices, and while I have not set up a controlled test, experience shows me that yes, it does collect dust when on and not when off.
However, I really fail you see where you're driving this though. Does it work as well as a HEPA filter? Of course not. Nobody made the claim that it does. And anyway, this is all beside the point. I never attacked him for criticizing the device, I attacked him for taking the word of authority and putting it over the word of actual experience. A man says "it works for me" and this guy says "CR says it doesn't, therefore you're wrong". I mean, honestly, how more stupid of a methodology can you concieve than that?
Personally observations expressed as facts absolutely are open to debate. Your impression that they are faultless is truly a sign of great naivety.
Open to debate, how? A fact is a fact no matter who observes it. You can question the observer, you can debate his motives and whether he's lying, but you absolutely cannot question the fact itself, if it is indeed true.
So when people respond favourably to placebos, that is an indication that sugar has medicinal qualities?
No, it's an indication that placebo's do have an effect on mental health. However, the "sugar has medicinal qualities" you stated is not the fact you presented, it's the conclusion you're drawing from the fact of people responding favorably to sugar pills. The conclusion may be incorrect, but the fact simply *is*.
Interesting consumer technique: Trust no-one and buy everything and see what you think personally (man I'm going to need a bigger drive way for my 200 cars).
Not *buy*, but *try*. If you are getting conflicting reports, then instead of deciding between them, go check the device out at a store. In your example, go test drive the car. Ask for an extended test drive, where you can take the car home for a night. In other words, what makes anybody's opinion better than yours? Answer: your opinion is better than anybody else's when it comes to you. Period.
Oh, wait, simultaneously believe any subjective impression presented as fact online without question. This makes absolutely no sense.
You're right. So I prefer to believe facts that are objective and repeatable by myself, personally. The fact is that a) the device collects dust from the air, b) the device moves air *without* a fan, c) consumer reports is flat out wrong or their conclusions are being presented incorrectly (if they indeed said contrary to a) or b)). These are not subjective impressions, these are facts. Unalterable. No matter who says them, they are so.
You can question my methods or my motives, but you cannot question the facts themselves.
Oh good grief. If you're going to attack my point, at least attack the ones you can reasonably attack well. :-P
So my desk is a air filtration system? I'm literally cleaning a layer of dust off it every week (indeed I'm behind so there's a hearty layer of dust on it right now). Indeed, pretty much everything in my house must be a highly effective air filtration system as it all seems to magically attract dust. Maybe I should sell "picture frame air filtration systems" based upon the evidence that I have to clean dust off them frequently. I apologize for being sarcastic, however the observation that one cleans dust off something, without any sort of quantity or comparison to a placebo, is of limited value.
Fine. Get two of the devices. Turn one on. Leave one off. Watch the on one gather dust and the off one not.
Look, all I was doing was to tell the guy that listening to the advice of authority is well and good, but not at the expense of your own damn experience. The original poster has the experience, and based on that experience, he says it works. To tell him that it doesn't, because authority says so, is just obviously stupid.
Couple this with the fact that the skeptic specifically stated that the electrostatic filter approach is a good one, and will likely draw in dust in a close proximity, and one could accept that yes, sure it does draw in some dust, but it most certainly isn't a virtual fan. As far as your silk ribbon test, I suggest you declare any static object a air draw, specifically those that create heat, and hold a silk ribbon near them.
a) This device doesn't create heat.
b) You can feel the damn air moving out of it. Slowly, admittedly. Much more slowly than a fan, but in a double blind test you would be able to tell if it was on or off based on the amount of air being felt by your hand.
c) If the device had a fan, it wouldn't be as effective at removing particles from the air. Adding a fan would move air through it, granted, but there's an optimal efficentcy for an electrostatic precipation system. Without extremely high voltages, you're simply not going to be able to charge fast moving particles and catch them in the shorter time that they're there. Since this isn't a high voltage system, the air must be around for a longer time in order for the filter to be effective. Really, look into the dynamics of the principle itself.
Your point is contradictory: You claim that his observation should be lauded and accepted as true without question, while simultaneously holding him (the fanless ionization guy) as deciding for himself rather than "simply believing anyone and everyone else's opinions". Huh?
How is this contradictory? For one thin, yes, his observation SHOULD be accepted as true, if it's a valid observation. Facts simply are. They're not subject to debate. You can question the person's motives or methods or say he's lying. That I have no problem with. But this skeptic guy didn't do that. He's believing Consumer Reports to such a great extent that he'll visiously attack someone who says "it works" because hey, authority said differently. The skeptic here blindly accepts his authority on the subject (Consumer Reports) and anyone else is obviously wrong.
I don't believe CR for shit anymore, because they're wrong in nearly all cases I have personally investigated. You may disagree. Fine. But the point I made is not to believe anybody that blindly. Instead, get the damn thing and decide for yourself. That's the point I was trying to make.
This is the first time I've seen noise brought up at all. The original skeptic pointed out that the device in question used a good approach if only it had a fan, and that there were other units with a fan that were a far better choices. The defenders, I'd say almost certainly owners of the device in question defending their judgement in buying such a device, have come out swinging in a rather bizarre way, blaming the methodology of the Consumer Rep
... they'd be a bit louder than the Ionic Breeze (understatement), but they'd actually do something useful for the money spent.
For some of us, the silence is more important than how many roomfuls of air it can move in an hour.
Hey, reviews are great and all, but what I do know is that every 2-3 days, I have to wipe the dust off the blades of the Ionic Breeze. So, it seems to be "doing something useful" just dandy, thank you.
It's okay to listen to claims based on authority, but not over the evidence of your own damn eyes.
That article is talking about an entirely different type of cleaner. An "ozone generator" is a device that uses ozone as the primary method of cleaning. You find them a lot for industrial applications, to clean large areas of smell when people aren't around.
These devices are "electrostatic precipitators" and are an entirely different kind of beast. They do generate ozone in extremely small quantities, as a side effect. But then again, so does the tube of your TV. So does anything with electrical fields exposed to air and, therefore, oxygen.
Look, guy, it's all well and good to believe unbiased reviews and so forth. I'm not saying that I'd consider CR a source of such, but hey, you believe what you want.
However, that's beside the damn point here. The guy has one. He says it works for him. To tell him he's been duped when he's the one cleaning the dust off the blades every couple of days is a bit ridiclous.
That's all people are saying. Nobody's defending a "shiny piece of crap", they're defending the guy who makes personal observations and decides for himself rather than simply believing anyone and everyone else's opinions.
As for "not moving air", you're wrong. You're just simply wrong. They do move air, just not as quickly as one with a fan. You can hold up a piece of silk ribbon in front of one of the things and see that for yourself quite easily. Or if you prefer, blow smoke at it. That works just as well. I admit that it doesn't move 6 roomfulls of air in an hour, but then that's the whole point. Some people need air filtering, but cannot deal with noise. If you need air filtering and don't mind noise, then by all means get a fan system.
Given the amount of bandwidth Windows Update takes, I wonder how much of AOL's bandwidth it takes.
None. AOL users don't do "updates" or "patches".
Seems obvious in retrospect, doesn't it?
a hack to dis-allow Tivo from updating my V1 unit?
Sure. Just modify the dialing script. It's in TCL, and is reasonably easy to read/learn. Anyway, the update happens in there, and all you have to do is basically comment out a few chunks of code to prevent it rebooting after receiving an update. Voila.
There's also code in the rc.sysinit startup script that actually applies the update if it is found (after the reboot). You can either comment this out, or set a variable to false so it skips that chunk of code. Read the scripts yourself and figure it out, because it's simple, really.
Anything post-3.0 doesn't use a script for the dialing anymore, it uses executable code, so it's definitely trickier to prevent it from downloading the update and auto-rebooting, but the code in the startup that actually applies the update is still scripted and easily modified.
Look guy, he obviously did a frame by frame of that section to determine what the hell was bugging him about that scene when it went by in full play real-time like mode.
The floating truck bothered me too. It looked so obviously fake. Yeah, it looks like a truck, but no, it doesn't move like a truck moves. You don't have to overanalyse to see a scene and say "something about that scene didn't look right".
A scene that bothers me like that throws me right out of the movie. I'm no longer thinking about how The guy is going to get away from the truck, I'm thinking that "the truck scene looked weird somehow". This is why GOOD special FX people are worth their weight in gold, they can see that sort of thing in advance and make it so that those scenes, in full motion, won't bother you.
These stories are the most sensationalistic crap I've read in a long while.
Here's a (only slightly dumbed down) better explanation: http://physics.ucsd.edu/~drs/left_home.htm
Uh huh. And yet Nimda continues to spread.
What about those boxes that are essentially never updated? These are the *vast* majority of machines on the network, causing all the problems and eating all the bandwidth.
It's fine and great that you keep your box patched and up to date, but at some point, failure to do so should be considered negligent. You put a box on the network, don't keep it up to date, eventually it gets rooted, and starts attacking everyone else. Everyone else is justifiably pissed off at you now for not taking care of your own shit.
Either they need to have a legal recourse for your negligence, in order to force you to stop being so negligent, or they need to have a legal means of self defense. You won't fix your box, they should be able to.
The key is not is this right or not, it most certainly is right. The key is where is the line drawn? How up to date with patches and fixes should be required to keep it? Exactly at what point does stupidity become negligence?