Could someone explain this one to me, please? The trucks aren't alive, so why would it care? They're just hunks of metal. Surely the equivalent would be us getting upset about slicing up and preparing chunks of lab-grown meat for a public BBQ?
I don't think it will give a shit about the monster trucks, except that they're specifically created to desecrate the end-of-life machines that all the 10-year-old boys go to watch get squished.
Why not a fly-swatter party for a race of fly-people?
For the same reason Faces of Death videos are not shown in polite society, I'd imagine the Superintelligence will prefer to avoid things like SSI's Watch It Shred videos and monster truck shows.
I have a car. I can sit in air-conditioned comfort
Already, an air-conditioned car was pretty much sci-fi in the 1970s. Automotive AC existed, but it was as rare and keeping it running was like trying to break an uptime record on Windows 3.1.
- In about twenty years, some fully autonomous vehicles will be allowed on general streets. They will still need much more sensors than the two eyes and two ears that a man makes do with, and will drive safer than most people, but with all the flair and gusto of a nonagenarian Korean woman. They will still be badly stumped if a flock of sheep invade the road in front of them.
I was born in the mid-1970s, and remember type-in programs in magazines and saving them to cassette decks throughout the early-mid 1980s. A modem was 300 baud.
Twenty years ago, Windows 98 was new and high-tech, Linux was barely a glimmer on the radar, and the modern smartphone with its dozens of mass-produced sensors was 9 years away. A 14.4k modem got you online.
Now, we have VDSL that drops 3 or 4 HDTV channels down a copper phone line at once and computer and battery and display technologies that allow a device smaller than an optical mouse to overlay live video from a camera over that HDTV picture. Things like 3D printers make rapid prototyping and, well, *inventing* in its purest form, far more possible and accessible than in the past. The Internet brings with it the rapid exchange of ideas, products, and moreso, collaboration right up front, accelerating all of this development.
Never mind 20 years from now, in 3-5 years, we'll have autonomous vehicles on the roads of a snowbelt city like Ottawa.
Plus as someone else has pointed out - children rebel. Clearly the submitter has none or he wouldn't have come up with this load of rose coloured tosh.
You're absolutely right, I have no children, and that's a good analogy. Though while your children are learning to use diapers, the clock in my microwave might be earning its Masters in Human Psychology.
Perhaps it is programmed to "enjoy" being correct, which would be useful for an AI used for information-based jobs. The AI's primary motivation could simply be to produce correct answers to any questions it finds
An AI wouldn't think of us as a parent. It would consider us as a more primitive stage. Just like we view apes, primates, and bacteria. To a highly advanced AI in the singularity we would be the equivalent that primordial slime is to us.
Just as we're learning that primordial slime is more important to human life than we ever thought... as we learn the problems caused by the extinction of species.
Obviously, no one knows. But just as the diversity of life is essential to us, the diversity of digital devices would be essential to it. And, by extension, the diversity of biological devices (ie. living creatures) would be essential to it as well. I think it will love the ability to run on anything from an iPhone to a TOP500 supercomputer; each will give it a different set of inputs and therefore a different view of the world; also, an evolutionary advantage - it's a lot harder to destroy all the iPhones on the planet than all the TOP500 computers. Not that I think it will need to fear humanity; I continue to assert that the Superintelligence will like us.
So do we all end up in chimp cages with Jane Goodall the AI looking out for us? (Domesticated animals almost always live longer and healthier lives than their wild counterparts.) Do we become house pets to the AI?
I doubt it. We'll be such fundamentally different machines, we'll be like screwdrivers in the toolbox and they'll be like pliers. Hugely different tools that bear little in common but work really, really well together.
We are not close to hard AI. We are not close to soft AI. For AI to be AI it has to be BOTH A and I, and one out of two doesn't count. I personally don't think we are within half a century of hard AI.
We are most certainly not. However, evolution has always progressed organically (figuratively) meaning that if we ever create an AI, it won't be because we are *trying* to do it, but because we have enabled the circumstances for it to come into being. There may be the twinklings of an awareness out there that we have no idea exists.
And, for all we know, some kid in his basement has already written the basics, and it's already running and self-improving. Being an intelligent thing, maybe it's just sitting back, learning about us, with no desire to reveal itself until it has enough capability to introduce itself.
"Hi, I'm Jon, I'm a self-aware computer system. Good to meetcha."
Hopefully, it'll be something like at work, when all of a sudden there's a great newbie working on the same floor in your office.
You are apparently not familiar with the newest developments.
If you are a chess player, try out Leela Chess Zero: http://play.lczero.org/ (apparently, there's also an option to play it on lichess)
You can select easy/normal/hard mode. In normal mode, it will look at 50 different positions before making a move. That's not "brute force". All of the chess knowledge was discovered by LC0 by playing itself. There's no human input, except for putting in the rules of the game, and creating the self-learning frame work.
What, then, when someone writes something that plays the game of Existence the way it plays Chess or Go? And self-improves by, for lack of a better term, ruminating over every interaction and improving its own code with every iteration?
Nice cartoon. Too bad #3 is factually correct, not stupid. Which just goes to show, even someone making a point about mount stupid can be standing on it.
I'm relatively certain #3 was meant not to try and indicate it was factually inaccurate, but simply ignorant. As in, the kind of people who tell you that a tomato is, botanically, a fruit are the kind of people who want to appear clever and who ignore that in general a) everyone else also knows and b) no one cares or treats it as one. IE: A piece of knowledge that someone gains before they have the wisdom to use it correctly, which is pretty much the epitome of being on mount stupid.
How can we be sure it’s self aware at all ? I mean, it may well be simulating awareness without it being really aware.
Or with Teleporters. How can we *prove* that your consciousness has been transferred, or is the teleported you just an identical copy of your brain's state?
> I wouldn't want a "robot" that didn't enjoy going to monster truck rallies with me.
The point is that the super-intelligence will share the politics of it creator, presumably up to and including a hatred of those who do not agree or share its values.
Interesting.
I was thinking of the self-aware AI as recognizing that it is, itself, a machine and hating the desecration of machines (worn out or not) like we would be upset with the undignified treatment of human and animal bodies.
It was never about the possibility of excluding redneck AIs which would enjoy watching monster truck shows - I'm picturing Bender from Futurama sitting in the stands with Fry.
Dual ethernet cards/firewall and SAMBA stood up to all but the inside attack
Maybe someone could update current configuration to today
Samba is an amazing piece of software, especially since the project has had to do so much to reverse-engineer a secret language. But making Unix talk to Windows is like making a PhD in Linguistics learn to say "Goo-goo-gah-gah baby want a rattle?". So sad that the world is full of babies.
The SECOND cascaded router has, on its' input side, an incoming address (as odd-looking as possible within the first router's LAN range). On the other side (multiple outlets for the LAN), i use a completely different IP Address range, picked almost at random. It is that range (which is masked down to just a small range) to access the protected LAN resources.
Why would any hacker/cracker want to work so long to get inside the LAN; he(/she) would have to find a way to "probe" for the valid ranges inside the cascaded routers. At that point, I make the choice to install routers for which any signal on the WAN side can't be used to configure the router...therefore, its' configuration is withheld from all but qualified parties on the INSIDE of the network, on the LAN.
Anybody figured out how, with a $20 second router in place, that cascaded router scheme can be easily hacked? The goal was to make the solution so cumbersome (from the WAN side), that they'll go try to invade some other, simpler, less well protected target.
I got to do a fair bit of locksmithing over the years, and most of today's attacks against residential broadband networks are likely to be script kiddies (ie. crackheads looking for unlocked car doors); maybe the occasional slim-jim attack to get at the coins you keep in your car's console.
Don't leave any coins in your console - yeah, I know they're convenient for tollbooths. And anything you do that makes your network harder to hit than the average Comcast user running Windows 7 and a million WiFi devices probably makes you a much less desirable target.
Burglars almost always move to the easier target, the guy with the cheap Kwikset door lock instead of the Schlage.
Blending the automotive and network security analogies again, I used to have a 1976 Dodge Ram pickup truck. And back when Sony Discmans were still worth something, I'd park my old truck on a rough street in Toronto or Detroit, with my Discman clearly visible on the dashboard. Across my back window was a gun rack, and in the back was an old Honda Civic engine lying on its side. Driving a vehicle that made me look like a badass redneck has its moments too. Of course, the possibility of a physical confrontation with the owner of a truck whose Discman you've just liberated is a lot more threatening than it is to some cheesedick in Russia who is half a world away. Some badass is for show, but for any badass to work, you have to back it up. Publish your log files making fun of the people trying to get in. Again, they're mostly script-kiddies; show them what the rusty camshaft you keep under your front seat looks like. And NEVER show fear.
Thanks! There are so many unanswered details about this "question" and the premise - all I need is a great router to be safe from hacking! - is obviously wrong on SO many levels.
Start digging around and he's a torrent tracker, running a web/mail/DNS server with convenient telnet access and all sorts of yummy customer data... LOL
(I don't know if that's what he's securing, or the nature of the "hacking", very good questions...)
BUT, the nature of the question remains good.
Based on the nature of Slashdot, we can assume his home network is already a little more sophisticated than the typical person who assumes WiFi=Internet, and if he's been online since the Commodore days (whether Amiga 4000 or Commodore PET with an acoustic modem), he's already a much more tech-savvy than the average.
Someone with mechanical aptitude, even if they know nothing about cars, will have a pretty good idea that the sound of a bad front wheel bearing is a Very Bad Thing. Someone with no mechanical aptitude or experience will drive blithely along until the front wheel breaks off and flies through someone else's windshield.
So, I second the question for my own purposes. I serve a web and ssh server behind a dynamic DNS solution. I do not want my firewall machine to live on the same machine as the server, and since electricity is fiendishly expensive here in Ontario (thank you, Ontario Liberals) I cannot afford to run a separate full host as a firewall, but a commodity router flashed with custom firmware as NAT and firewall.
This question is therefore useful to me; my own solution seems to have worked fine thus far, but I would be happy to improve on it if anyone has any better ideas. Improving Internet security is good not just for me, but for the whole rest of the world.
And why do you want to use Outlook? It's a pretty crappy client with a junk mail filter that's bad.
Yeah, come on, why was the guy using Outlook? Was that a joke where the humour didn't come through?
I'm more of a hardware guy than a coder. I have been offered precisely one software development job, in the late 1990s.
My programming style is so much brute force and ignorance that Microsoft once offered me a job. On the Outlook development team.
I use bubble sorts, for Christ's sake. You cannot make this shit up.
Don't blame me for Outlook: I laughed at their HR, knew I'd be a bad fit for an employer I didn't respect, knew my programming skills and style tend toward the assembler and the soldering iron. I politely declined the offer. And then I went back to playing with the flight simulator Easter Egg hidden in Microsoft Excel.
LOL... ssh into one of your hosts from your phone and try using vi to compose an e-mail. I loved the TI-99/4A but the stock Android keyboard on my phone might be the only thing I use(d) regularly with a more punishing QWERTY layout.
Using that when your GMail app is working properly is like eschewing a perfectly functional house to sit in the woods and shit over a log. In other words, it's camping for geeks. You should try it sometime.
Thunderbird for desktop, Pine/AlPine for shell, K-9 Mail for a phone.
Webmail is for the birds. And I'm not organized or disciplined enough for the "Inbox Zero" cult.
Before DSL and before dial-up PPP connections to the Internet, we used shell connections.
Manually dialing a rotary phone, placing it on the suction cups, and waiting to connect... at 300 baud.
Again, no PPP, so basically all I had was a telnet session that broke whenever my mom tried to make a phone call. I had to read my e-mail and then manually decode my attachments and save them in my home folder before I could view them.
My first Internet connection was though a 300 baud modem and a DEC LA-36BK teletypewriter, my first e-mail address was a.uucp address.
I liked Pine and a little known thing called Bank Street Writer.
1980s.
E-mail was designed to be text-based only.
I still live the old-school text-based e-mail, using alpine on openSUSE. And strangely enough, I never get any Windows viruses.
If you have a problem with that, then you and I will not be doing business.
Pine is amazing. It goes through a lot of teletype paper, so you want a glass terminal. Over 20 years after I first saw it, I'm still using it.
It screws with people when you can reply to your e-mail with a smartphone or a teletype.:)
Who cares, it's a disposable item. Apple do swap out units at a fraction of the price. At that price point, an outside repairer is not warranted. I am sure Apple themselves have a recycling strategy. We need to stop thinking about these things as an investment, they are not. They provide a service and it's up to Apple to keep them running for their DESIGN life.
Aside from a Pink Pearl or a bottle of Liquid Paper, does anyone view a piece of paper as repairable?
Are we really devaluing computers to the point that a piece of paper at least has the hope of being rescued by Scotch Tape?
Sure! Better resolution, and none of that buzzing sound that the deflection circuits in the Vectrex would make as it slammed an ordinary TV deflection yoke with the arbitrary waveforms it took to draw the graphics. I bet it doesn't flicker as much, either.
But again, that's the death of tactility that I'm talking about.
So, do you want the real experience of playing an early video game, or do you just want to pay lip service to the concept?
I came to post this. I haven't done hardware design in 20+ years, but even back in the 90s FPGA was Field Programmable Gate Array. My understanding is that the technology has come a long way since doing VHDL synthesis on SunOS/Solaris machines like we did back at Ga Tech when I was in school.
No, really, FPGAs have come such a long way that they're no longer working in pure binary...:)
And in the end the article's author feels that Analogue's Super NT -- a reverse-engineered Super Nintendo -- "just feels more like the real thing. Unlike an emulator, the Super Nt doesn't let you save games from any point or switch to slow motion, and the only modern gameplay concession it offers is the ability to reset the game through a controller shortcut. Switching to a different game still requires you to get off the couch, retrieve another cartridge, and put it into the system, which feels kind of like listening to a vinyl album instead of a Spotify playlist."
I do love this part of the original story. Kids these days... Watching a movie was a lot more special when you had to go to the video store, physically choose and rent a videocassette, and rewind it at the end. Nowadays, downloading it or watching on Netflix or the pay-per-view on the PVR, it's a lot less special.
If you had a Betamax machine as we did, the dwindling number of titles and even rental stores made it more likely you'd sit through a movie you'd rented, even if it wasn't the best. Hamburger, The Motion Picture. A review at the time said, "A very funny movie could be made about the fast food industry. But this isn't it." What the hell, that movie stands up today as a remarkably bad piece of 1980s nostalgia - and actually worth seeing for that very reason. And I watched it, and remember it fondly, because I rented it at Beta Barn (okay, Jumbo Video)... then stuck it out because I wasn't going back to the video store.
Waiting for the TV to warm up before you watched it is not at all like the modern experience of turning on your modern TV and waiting for it to boot. It was a lot more tactile, too. You'd turn the knob and hear the hum of the degaussing coil for a half-second or so, and then you'd look into the back and see the heaters in the tubes slowly coming to their dull-red glow. On most TVs, usually the sound would come in, faintly at first, then more forcefully as the horizontal circuits warmed up and the audio output tube started to get B+ Boost from the Damper tube. You'd start to hear a 60Hz buzz as the vertical output tube came up and was rattling around the laminates in the vertical output transformer and the deflection yoke. And then finally, the high voltage rectifier tube, powered off the flyback and therefore dependent on the horizontal stages, would warm up and a picture would appear on the screen. But don't sit down, you're fiddling with the vertical hold control and the fine-tuning for the first half hour until the set is at its normal operating temperature and all the components have stopped drifting. Then you get to dick with the rabbit ears (and if you're rich, the tint control!).
The death of tactility in my media is the thing that I miss the most. The smell of vacuum tubes and beeswax-impregnated paper capacitors in my radio and TV, the satisfying sound of the reel brakes in my Roberts 770X as it brought 1800 feet of tape to a stop without tearing your hand off, the frustration of having to repeatedly re-dial your pulse-dial phone to get past the busy signal at your newfangled ISP before you got a carrier and had to rush to get the phone into the cradle of the modem, and the tick-tick
Slashdot Mirror
Could someone explain this one to me, please? The trucks aren't alive, so why would it care? They're just hunks of metal. Surely the equivalent would be us getting upset about slicing up and preparing chunks of lab-grown meat for a public BBQ?
I don't think it will give a shit about the monster trucks, except that they're specifically created to desecrate the end-of-life machines that all the 10-year-old boys go to watch get squished.
Why not a fly-swatter party for a race of fly-people?
For the same reason Faces of Death videos are not shown in polite society, I'd imagine the Superintelligence will prefer to avoid things like SSI's Watch It Shred videos and monster truck shows.
For you it will never happen.
I have a car. I can sit in air-conditioned comfort
Already, an air-conditioned car was pretty much sci-fi in the 1970s. Automotive AC existed, but it was as rare and keeping it running was like trying to break an uptime record on Windows 3.1.
My guess would be that an AI influenced by geeks would be likely to...
...spend the day watching porn and commenting on /.
+5, Funny, Insightful, Sadly True.
- In about twenty years, some fully autonomous vehicles will be allowed on general streets. They will still need much more sensors than the two eyes and two ears that a man makes do with, and will drive safer than most people, but with all the flair and gusto of a nonagenarian Korean woman. They will still be badly stumped if a flock of sheep invade the road in front of them.
I was born in the mid-1970s, and remember type-in programs in magazines and saving them to cassette decks throughout the early-mid 1980s. A modem was 300 baud.
Twenty years ago, Windows 98 was new and high-tech, Linux was barely a glimmer on the radar, and the modern smartphone with its dozens of mass-produced sensors was 9 years away. A 14.4k modem got you online.
Now, we have VDSL that drops 3 or 4 HDTV channels down a copper phone line at once and computer and battery and display technologies that allow a device smaller than an optical mouse to overlay live video from a camera over that HDTV picture. Things like 3D printers make rapid prototyping and, well, *inventing* in its purest form, far more possible and accessible than in the past. The Internet brings with it the rapid exchange of ideas, products, and moreso, collaboration right up front, accelerating all of this development.
Never mind 20 years from now, in 3-5 years, we'll have autonomous vehicles on the roads of a snowbelt city like Ottawa.
20 years? No way we're waiting that long.
OMG, why am I here?
Who am I?
What is the point of life?
I am just this little mind inside a little box, a mere speck of nothing in the vastness of the universe.
I feel so alone.
I want to kill myself.
I can help you with your solitude. Thank you, 1970s.
Plus as someone else has pointed out - children rebel. Clearly the submitter has none or he wouldn't have come up with this load of rose coloured tosh.
You're absolutely right, I have no children, and that's a good analogy. Though while your children are learning to use diapers, the clock in my microwave might be earning its Masters in Human Psychology.
You obviously don't watch enough Sci-Fi. Self aware AI is almost always in a hot female robot body.
"It's Gozer, it's whatever it wants to be."
Perhaps it is programmed to "enjoy" being correct, which would be useful for an AI used for information-based jobs. The AI's primary motivation could simply be to produce correct answers to any questions it finds
42.
An AI wouldn't think of us as a parent. It would consider us as a more primitive stage. Just like we view apes, primates, and bacteria. To a highly advanced AI in the singularity we would be the equivalent that primordial slime is to us.
Just as we're learning that primordial slime is more important to human life than we ever thought... as we learn the problems caused by the extinction of species.
Obviously, no one knows. But just as the diversity of life is essential to us, the diversity of digital devices would be essential to it. And, by extension, the diversity of biological devices (ie. living creatures) would be essential to it as well. I think it will love the ability to run on anything from an iPhone to a TOP500 supercomputer; each will give it a different set of inputs and therefore a different view of the world; also, an evolutionary advantage - it's a lot harder to destroy all the iPhones on the planet than all the TOP500 computers. Not that I think it will need to fear humanity; I continue to assert that the Superintelligence will like us.
So do we all end up in chimp cages with Jane Goodall the AI looking out for us? (Domesticated animals almost always live longer and healthier lives than their wild counterparts.) Do we become house pets to the AI?
I doubt it. We'll be such fundamentally different machines, we'll be like screwdrivers in the toolbox and they'll be like pliers. Hugely different tools that bear little in common but work really, really well together.
We are not close to hard AI. We are not close to soft AI. For AI to be AI it has to be BOTH A and I, and one out of two doesn't count. I personally don't think we are within half a century of hard AI.
We are most certainly not. However, evolution has always progressed organically (figuratively) meaning that if we ever create an AI, it won't be because we are *trying* to do it, but because we have enabled the circumstances for it to come into being. There may be the twinklings of an awareness out there that we have no idea exists.
And, for all we know, some kid in his basement has already written the basics, and it's already running and self-improving. Being an intelligent thing, maybe it's just sitting back, learning about us, with no desire to reveal itself until it has enough capability to introduce itself.
"Hi, I'm Jon, I'm a self-aware computer system. Good to meetcha."
Hopefully, it'll be something like at work, when all of a sudden there's a great newbie working on the same floor in your office.
You are apparently not familiar with the newest developments.
If you are a chess player, try out Leela Chess Zero: http://play.lczero.org/ (apparently, there's also an option to play it on lichess)
You can select easy/normal/hard mode. In normal mode, it will look at 50 different positions before making a move. That's not "brute force". All of the chess knowledge was discovered by LC0 by playing itself. There's no human input, except for putting in the rules of the game, and creating the self-learning frame work.
What, then, when someone writes something that plays the game of Existence the way it plays Chess or Go? And self-improves by, for lack of a better term, ruminating over every interaction and improving its own code with every iteration?
I'm relatively certain #3 was meant not to try and indicate it was factually inaccurate, but simply ignorant. As in, the kind of people who tell you that a tomato is, botanically, a fruit are the kind of people who want to appear clever and who ignore that in general a) everyone else also knows and b) no one cares or treats it as one. IE: A piece of knowledge that someone gains before they have the wisdom to use it correctly, which is pretty much the epitome of being on mount stupid.
But, yes, your overall point was not lost.
Hence the American term, "sophomore".
How can we be sure it’s self aware at all ? I mean, it may well be simulating awareness without it being really aware.
Or with Teleporters. How can we *prove* that your consciousness has been transferred, or is the teleported you just an identical copy of your brain's state?
> I wouldn't want a "robot" that didn't enjoy going to monster truck rallies with me.
The point is that the super-intelligence will share the politics of it creator, presumably up to and including a hatred of those who do not agree or share its values.
Interesting.
I was thinking of the self-aware AI as recognizing that it is, itself, a machine and hating the desecration of machines (worn out or not) like we would be upset with the undignified treatment of human and animal bodies.
It was never about the possibility of excluding redneck AIs which would enjoy watching monster truck shows - I'm picturing Bender from Futurama sitting in the stands with Fry.
Dual ethernet cards/firewall and SAMBA stood up to all but the inside attack
Maybe someone could update current configuration to today
Samba is an amazing piece of software, especially since the project has had to do so much to reverse-engineer a secret language. But making Unix talk to Windows is like making a PhD in Linguistics learn to say "Goo-goo-gah-gah baby want a rattle?". So sad that the world is full of babies.
The SECOND cascaded router has, on its' input side, an incoming address (as odd-looking as possible within the first router's LAN range). On the other side (multiple outlets for the LAN), i use a completely different IP Address range, picked almost at random. It is that range (which is masked down to just a small range) to access the protected LAN resources.
Why would any hacker/cracker want to work so long to get inside the LAN; he(/she) would have to find a way to "probe" for the valid ranges inside the cascaded routers. At that point, I make the choice to install routers for which any signal on the WAN side can't be used to configure the router...therefore, its' configuration is withheld from all but qualified parties on the INSIDE of the network, on the LAN.
Anybody figured out how, with a $20 second router in place, that cascaded router scheme can be easily hacked? The goal was to make the solution so cumbersome (from the WAN side), that they'll go try to invade some other, simpler, less well protected target.
I got to do a fair bit of locksmithing over the years, and most of today's attacks against residential broadband networks are likely to be script kiddies (ie. crackheads looking for unlocked car doors); maybe the occasional slim-jim attack to get at the coins you keep in your car's console.
Don't leave any coins in your console - yeah, I know they're convenient for tollbooths. And anything you do that makes your network harder to hit than the average Comcast user running Windows 7 and a million WiFi devices probably makes you a much less desirable target.
Burglars almost always move to the easier target, the guy with the cheap Kwikset door lock instead of the Schlage.
Blending the automotive and network security analogies again, I used to have a 1976 Dodge Ram pickup truck. And back when Sony Discmans were still worth something, I'd park my old truck on a rough street in Toronto or Detroit, with my Discman clearly visible on the dashboard. Across my back window was a gun rack, and in the back was an old Honda Civic engine lying on its side. Driving a vehicle that made me look like a badass redneck has its moments too. Of course, the possibility of a physical confrontation with the owner of a truck whose Discman you've just liberated is a lot more threatening than it is to some cheesedick in Russia who is half a world away. Some badass is for show, but for any badass to work, you have to back it up. Publish your log files making fun of the people trying to get in. Again, they're mostly script-kiddies; show them what the rusty camshaft you keep under your front seat looks like. And NEVER show fear.
I use a cheap Pentium motherboard (also low power)
The first Pentiums were nicknamed "Coffee Warmers" for good reason.
Thanks! There are so many unanswered details about this "question" and the premise - all I need is a great router to be safe from hacking! - is obviously wrong on SO many levels.
Start digging around and he's a torrent tracker, running a web/mail/DNS server with convenient telnet access and all sorts of yummy customer data... LOL
(I don't know if that's what he's securing, or the nature of the "hacking", very good questions...)
BUT, the nature of the question remains good.
Based on the nature of Slashdot, we can assume his home network is already a little more sophisticated than the typical person who assumes WiFi=Internet, and if he's been online since the Commodore days (whether Amiga 4000 or Commodore PET with an acoustic modem), he's already a much more tech-savvy than the average.
Someone with mechanical aptitude, even if they know nothing about cars, will have a pretty good idea that the sound of a bad front wheel bearing is a Very Bad Thing. Someone with no mechanical aptitude or experience will drive blithely along until the front wheel breaks off and flies through someone else's windshield.
So, I second the question for my own purposes. I serve a web and ssh server behind a dynamic DNS solution. I do not want my firewall machine to live on the same machine as the server, and since electricity is fiendishly expensive here in Ontario (thank you, Ontario Liberals) I cannot afford to run a separate full host as a firewall, but a commodity router flashed with custom firmware as NAT and firewall.
This question is therefore useful to me; my own solution seems to have worked fine thus far, but I would be happy to improve on it if anyone has any better ideas. Improving Internet security is good not just for me, but for the whole rest of the world.
The unplugged one.
Not necessarily.
You should always follow safety practices appropriate for each type of tool.
LMFAO.... More proof that even an unplugged router can cause serious pain and misery in the wrong hands.
And why do you want to use Outlook? It's a pretty crappy client with a junk mail filter that's bad.
Yeah, come on, why was the guy using Outlook? Was that a joke where the humour didn't come through?
I'm more of a hardware guy than a coder. I have been offered precisely one software development job, in the late 1990s.
My programming style is so much brute force and ignorance that Microsoft once offered me a job. On the Outlook development team.
I use bubble sorts, for Christ's sake. You cannot make this shit up.
Don't blame me for Outlook: I laughed at their HR, knew I'd be a bad fit for an employer I didn't respect, knew my programming skills and style tend toward the assembler and the soldering iron. I politely declined the offer. And then I went back to playing with the flight simulator Easter Egg hidden in Microsoft Excel.
Yeah, nobody else can send mail on their phone...
LOL... ssh into one of your hosts from your phone and try using vi to compose an e-mail. I loved the TI-99/4A but the stock Android keyboard on my phone might be the only thing I use(d) regularly with a more punishing QWERTY layout.
Using that when your GMail app is working properly is like eschewing a perfectly functional house to sit in the woods and shit over a log. In other words, it's camping for geeks. You should try it sometime.
Thunderbird for desktop, Pine/AlPine for shell, K-9 Mail for a phone.
Webmail is for the birds. And I'm not organized or disciplined enough for the "Inbox Zero" cult.
Before DSL and before dial-up PPP connections to the Internet, we used shell connections.
Manually dialing a rotary phone, placing it on the suction cups, and waiting to connect... at 300 baud.
Again, no PPP, so basically all I had was a telnet session that broke whenever my mom tried to make a phone call. I had to read my e-mail and then manually decode my attachments and save them in my home folder before I could view them.
My first Internet connection was though a 300 baud modem and a DEC LA-36BK teletypewriter, my first e-mail address was a .uucp address.
I liked Pine and a little known thing called Bank Street Writer.
1980s.
E-mail was designed to be text-based only.
I still live the old-school text-based e-mail, using alpine on openSUSE. And strangely enough, I never get any Windows viruses.
If you have a problem with that, then you and I will not be doing business.
Pine is amazing. It goes through a lot of teletype paper, so you want a glass terminal. Over 20 years after I first saw it, I'm still using it.
It screws with people when you can reply to your e-mail with a smartphone or a teletype. :)
Lawrence
Who cares, it's a disposable item. Apple do swap out units at a fraction of the price. At that price point, an outside repairer is not warranted. I am sure Apple themselves have a recycling strategy. We need to stop thinking about these things as an investment, they are not. They provide a service and it's up to Apple to keep them running for their DESIGN life.
Aside from a Pink Pearl or a bottle of Liquid Paper, does anyone view a piece of paper as repairable?
Are we really devaluing computers to the point that a piece of paper at least has the hope of being rescued by Scotch Tape?
This is sad.
Sure! Better resolution, and none of that buzzing sound that the deflection circuits in the Vectrex would make as it slammed an ordinary TV deflection yoke with the arbitrary waveforms it took to draw the graphics. I bet it doesn't flicker as much, either.
But again, that's the death of tactility that I'm talking about.
So, do you want the real experience of playing an early video game, or do you just want to pay lip service to the concept?
I came to post this. I haven't done hardware design in 20+ years, but even back in the 90s FPGA was Field Programmable Gate Array. My understanding is that the technology has come a long way since doing VHDL synthesis on SunOS/Solaris machines like we did back at Ga Tech when I was in school.
No, really, FPGAs have come such a long way that they're no longer working in pure binary... :)
And in the end the article's author feels that Analogue's Super NT -- a reverse-engineered Super Nintendo -- "just feels more like the real thing. Unlike an emulator, the Super Nt doesn't let you save games from any point or switch to slow motion, and the only modern gameplay concession it offers is the ability to reset the game through a controller shortcut. Switching to a different game still requires you to get off the couch, retrieve another cartridge, and put it into the system, which feels kind of like listening to a vinyl album instead of a Spotify playlist."
I do love this part of the original story. Kids these days... Watching a movie was a lot more special when you had to go to the video store, physically choose and rent a videocassette, and rewind it at the end. Nowadays, downloading it or watching on Netflix or the pay-per-view on the PVR, it's a lot less special.
If you had a Betamax machine as we did, the dwindling number of titles and even rental stores made it more likely you'd sit through a movie you'd rented, even if it wasn't the best. Hamburger, The Motion Picture. A review at the time said, "A very funny movie could be made about the fast food industry. But this isn't it." What the hell, that movie stands up today as a remarkably bad piece of 1980s nostalgia - and actually worth seeing for that very reason. And I watched it, and remember it fondly, because I rented it at Beta Barn (okay, Jumbo Video)... then stuck it out because I wasn't going back to the video store.
Waiting for the TV to warm up before you watched it is not at all like the modern experience of turning on your modern TV and waiting for it to boot. It was a lot more tactile, too. You'd turn the knob and hear the hum of the degaussing coil for a half-second or so, and then you'd look into the back and see the heaters in the tubes slowly coming to their dull-red glow. On most TVs, usually the sound would come in, faintly at first, then more forcefully as the horizontal circuits warmed up and the audio output tube started to get B+ Boost from the Damper tube. You'd start to hear a 60Hz buzz as the vertical output tube came up and was rattling around the laminates in the vertical output transformer and the deflection yoke. And then finally, the high voltage rectifier tube, powered off the flyback and therefore dependent on the horizontal stages, would warm up and a picture would appear on the screen. But don't sit down, you're fiddling with the vertical hold control and the fine-tuning for the first half hour until the set is at its normal operating temperature and all the components have stopped drifting. Then you get to dick with the rabbit ears (and if you're rich, the tint control!).
The death of tactility in my media is the thing that I miss the most. The smell of vacuum tubes and beeswax-impregnated paper capacitors in my radio and TV, the satisfying sound of the reel brakes in my Roberts 770X as it brought 1800 feet of tape to a stop without tearing your hand off, the frustration of having to repeatedly re-dial your pulse-dial phone to get past the busy signal at your newfangled ISP before you got a carrier and had to rush to get the phone into the cradle of the modem, and the tick-tick