Hmm. Coming from a real embedded systems design point of view.. Why to people insist on calling handhelds 'embedded'?
Embedded systems are generally 'computers in things that aren't computers themselves'
like.. the computer in your car. In your clock radio. The microcontroller that runs the robot they sent to mars. The onboard computers on space probes. Small processors (or large) in remote sensors. etc.
THIS is the real use of an embedded systems.. and usually it's either 1) assembled from scratch or 2) using an RTOS, as timing is *everything* with a great many applications.
Linux on a chip? fantastic. I can think of a great many uses for it. 'Embedded systems' isn't one of them.
I relize this works in a lot of situations.. but is it part of the smtp rfc, or simply a common way of doing things? I mean.. bang-path addresses used to work too, and they slowly faded away.
So.. if it's not part of the RFC.. then it would be wrong to say a server that doesn't support it is a 'piece of crap' server.
When there are calls you can't afford to miss, you don't go places where your phone doesn't work, or where it's too noisy to use the phone. How is this any different?
I mean... cellular operates in a licensed band.. sure... but.. licensed how? At what power levels? A low-power jamming signal with an effective radius of say 10 meters or so should be completely legal.. and if it's in a private building, you could jam (or shield) any room or even the whole building, provided it didn't affect the otuside world. I believe these 'jammers' are used in Japan, mainly in theaters and conference rooms.
Could be. Could also be they are just 'misinterpreting' the 'named.cache' file, which simply lists the root servers (in other words, it's 'cached' the addresses of the root nameservers)
What's the problem? Why would you want to protect against it? People are free to use *ANY* lookup service they want.
The Internet does not = InterNIC + HTTP. It is what we make of it. DNS is just one protocol of the countless numbers we *could* be using.
Nothing.. *NOTHING* prevents, or dictates in *ANY* way that an ISP must use the global DNS system. THey just DO because it's the only one there, and because it seems to work for them.
The problem, of course, is that any 'pirate' (really bad term.. REALLY bad term.. it's not piracy in ANY sense) DNS system would have to get off the ground. That means ISP nameservers have to *chose* to use it. If they all chose to use it.. no problem. If they don't, it becomes useless.
I say the real answer is get off the whole damn DNS thing. It's just a tool to map IP addresses to names. How we've virtualized it and use it (abuse it) for things it wasn't intended for. your web site will be *just* as good no matter what hte URL is.
But.. Hmm... in a sense, they *are* hackers. I mean, sure... you say.. they just used 'scripts' to do it. You are a programmer.. but you need a 'compiler' to write code. They may not understand the details of creating a buffer overflow exploit script... but the fact is.. they *can* and *do* break into systems. So.. if a hacker (don't go off on me about proper definitions)is someone who can acquire unauthorized access to a computer.. then they *ARE*
Sorry.. but NT has been multitasking and multiuser from day 1. I mean this from the kernel point of view, of course. The overall implementation, and the functionality available to users hardly qualifies it as multiuser.. but the kernel is just as aware of multiple users and multiple tasks, if not *MORE* aware, than a unix kernel. The NT kernel was a good thing from the start. It is MS crappy use of it to build an OS that is, well, crappy.
Thanks for the clarification... as you say, though.. tdme deals iwth 'time slots', not simply having more than one transmitter separated temporally.
A PRI circuit would be TDMA, as each 'channel' is defined by a particular timeslice.
Ethernet is CSMA/CD, and may or may not be baseband depending on the medium. Also, according to 802.3, the backoff is not'random' but binary exponential.
Although I would love to see linux on every machine at work.. I have to say.
The administration style used to administer and install linux boxes is *NOT* the same that is required for NT boxes. Not that this is a good thing, mind you, but if you approach NT work in the right manner, it can be done quickly.
I roll out new workstations in ~20 minutes now, unattended. (Norton Ghost, several other nifty autoconfiguration things I whipped up, some neat network stuff)
Also, choice of servers is usually do to the fact, still, that *nobody out there has linux/unix experience*. It is still percieved as something that the general admin 'cannot understand'. THAT is the REAL PROBLEM.
I've tried to roll out linux servers at many companies. There main reasons for not doing it are they CANNOT SUPPORT IT. They don't have any linux people.
Believe me.. if the other admin in the company was a linux nut like me, I would have *no* problems convincing management to go with it.
We all feel that way. We all feel that MS products are a hog. We all feel that Linux is clean and fast...
Let me say though.. win2k feels much smoother and runs much cleaner than previous NT versions. It's more stable. IT *does* work better. it *IS* faster. And regardless of what everyone says, including me from time to time, at it's core, the NT kernel is *good* technology. I just wish MS would quit fucking it up. It's what they chose to do with it that sucks.. not the kernel itself.
And you are right. THis benchmark is absolutely meaningless. OS 'A' running server 'B' on hardware 'C' beat out OS 'X' running server 'Y' on hardware 'Z'.
Are we that low? Do we pull a Mindcraft whenever we want?
These systems, although very similar, are not identical. Different drive arrangements, different scsi controllers. And, to boot, one is running IIS 5 and one is running Tux 1.0 (whatever that is...).
What does this prove about the individual Operating systems? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! It shows that operating system 'A' running web software 'B' on machine 'C' is faster than operating system 'X' running web software 'Y' on machine 'Z'.
What the hell is 'Tux 1.0?' Yes.. I could look it up. WHy not at least benchmark Apache, so at least you could say 'benchmark of most common intenret platform for each OS' or something..
'Wideband' - Broadcasting the same signal over many bands at once. 'Narrowband' - using a very narrow band to transmit. Sort of opposite of wideband.
'Broadband' - The use of multiple 'bands' for transmission (or reception). ie: cable TV is broadband. Using multuiple carrier frequencies to divide a medium into many different bands. Baseband - using a single, base channel for all transmission. ie: Ethernet.
Please not that although there are obvious real-world examples of how broadband has a higher capacity than baseband, neither definnition has anything whatsoever to do with speed of data transmition.
Your cable modem is 'broadband' only because it modulates it's signal up into RF for transmission on the cable line. Technically, it doestn' really have 'broadband' characteristics; it can't receive on multiple channels at once.
If you had a 100baseT ethernet connection to your house, that would still be baseband, not broadband (hey.. that's what the 'base' stands for)
Perhaps one could consider CDPD data (19kbps or whatever) to the palmpilot or something, whatever it is, to be broadband. It is modulated up over a broadband medium (space).
No. The primary reason for stopping export was because encryption software is classified as a MUNITIION. So you needed the same license to export strong crypto as you did to export a tank or a box of ammunition, or an f-18.
It says that the use of devices covered by the ahra for noncommercial copying is legitimate.
The AHRA only applies to consumer electronics recording devices, and specifically exempts computers. It does not say in any way that 'all noncommercial copying is legal'. It simply says that the use of devices covered by the act for noncommercial purposes is completely legal.
Your rio can send software back to the computer, and easily.. just not with the software you got from Diamond.
As for the 'law' that protected them.. it was the fact that the DHRA (digital home recording act), when enacted by congress, *specifically* exempted PCs and their peripherals. It was designed to apply to consumer electronics *ONLY*.
And the RIO does *not* record. It only stores digital data, and plays music back. It absolutely does not do any recording, whatseover. If you have a rio, and no computer.. you can't get any music into it. And as the DHRA, which enforces the serial copy protection system, does not apply and CAN NOT be applied to PC's, then it cannot be expected for the rio to also follow the serial-copy system, as the devices that feed it data do not follow them in the first place.
It's about regionalal support and community. One thing multinationals do is exist outside the bounds of any particular nation. THey leech off a community; a McDonalds, aside from the minimum-wage jobs it provides for flipping burgers, does not add to it's local community as a business. Sure.. they pretend to spend money on other community things, but it's not the same thing. A restaurant using food grown locally enriches the community and strengthens it. A restaurant using food imported from outside the community when the same goods are available locally will simply erode the locals ability to maintain a living growing food locally (which is *IMPORTANT* to any community.. or at least, it should be.
Sealand is not in 'international waters' anymore. It is in the UK terretorial waters, yet retains it's own independant status.
And as they said, they will not do things to intentionally agitate a foreign government. THey will not host porn, they will not do shit to piss of the UK.
Although... sealand may be an independant state, but is that state not contained within the UK's terretorial waters? And you don't bring foreign subs into the UK's waters... no sir....
I bet they have all kinds of shielding anyway.. after all, the whole damn thing is made of steel..
Looks to me like a few/. readers got a bit of a smackdown there. Thinking they were 'all that' and knew global security inside and out, and trying to shoot down the whole project as 'bunk'.
Sounds to me like they know *exactly* what they are doing, and have been exceptionally thorough. And I bet they are also exceptionally profitable.
As for all the stuffa bout security/landline/whateever....look at it a different way. Rather than considering how easy it is to 'cut' such lines... how is this any less secure than within any other country? It's certainly not. Within the US? The UK? No.. it's *easy* to cut comm lines there.. laws are much stricter when it comes to cutting communication lines between countries.
I believe that cutting undersea cable, or destroying a cable landing would be tantamount to a nuclear strike in terms of political power.
Nope. Don't care. Still don't control the developers, and these site sprung up becuase people thought they would make a buck off of reporting on what we were already doing for kicks. I say let them. They still don't influence how I use linux, what I write for linux, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of file locking?
Hmm. Coming from a real embedded systems design point of view..
Why to people insist on calling handhelds 'embedded'?
Embedded systems are generally 'computers in things that aren't computers themselves'
like.. the computer in your car. In your clock radio. The microcontroller that runs the robot they sent to mars. The onboard computers on space probes. Small processors (or large) in remote sensors. etc.
THIS is the real use of an embedded systems.. and usually it's either 1) assembled from scratch or 2) using an RTOS, as timing is *everything* with a great many applications.
Linux on a chip? fantastic. I can think of a great many uses for it. 'Embedded systems' isn't one of them.
I relize this works in a lot of situations.. but is it part of the smtp rfc, or simply a common way of doing things? I mean..
bang-path addresses used to work too, and they slowly faded away.
So.. if it's not part of the RFC.. then it would be wrong to say a server that doesn't support it is a 'piece of crap' server.
If people are sending mail to @nospam.com, and someone IS receiving mail for *@nospam.com... what legal ground do they have? After all.. THEY SENT IT!
There is no 'law' that says how to use email..
When there are calls you can't afford to miss, you don't go places where your phone doesn't work, or where it's too noisy to use the phone. How is this any different?
I mean... cellular operates in a licensed band.. sure... but.. licensed how? At what power levels? A low-power jamming signal with an effective radius of say 10 meters or so should be completely legal.. and if it's in a private building, you could jam (or shield) any room or even the whole building, provided it didn't affect the otuside world. I believe these 'jammers' are used in Japan, mainly in theaters and conference rooms.
Could be. Could also be they are just 'misinterpreting' the 'named.cache' file, which simply lists the root servers (in other words, it's 'cached' the addresses of the root nameservers)
What's the problem? Why would you want to protect against it? People are free to use *ANY* lookup service they want.
The Internet does not = InterNIC + HTTP. It is what we make of it. DNS is just one protocol of the countless numbers we *could* be using.
Nothing.. *NOTHING* prevents, or dictates in *ANY* way that an ISP must use the global DNS system. THey just DO because it's the only one there, and because it seems to work for them.
The problem, of course, is that any 'pirate' (really bad term.. REALLY bad term.. it's not piracy in ANY sense) DNS system would have to get off the ground. That means ISP nameservers have to *chose* to use it. If they all chose to use it.. no problem. If they don't, it becomes useless.
I say the real answer is get off the whole damn DNS thing. It's just a tool to map IP addresses to names. How we've virtualized it and use it (abuse it) for things it wasn't intended for.
your web site will be *just* as good no matter what hte URL is.
But.. Hmm... in a sense, they *are* hackers. I mean, sure... you say.. they just used 'scripts' to do it. You are a programmer.. but you need a 'compiler' to write code. They may not understand the details of creating a buffer overflow exploit script... but the fact is.. they *can* and *do* break into systems. So.. if a hacker (don't go off on me about proper definitions)is someone who can acquire unauthorized access to a computer.. then they *ARE*
Except that, as long as both boxes are solairs... ascii mode shouldn't munge the file..
Sorry.. but NT has been multitasking and multiuser from day 1. I mean this from the kernel point of view, of course. The overall implementation, and the functionality available to users hardly qualifies it as multiuser.. but the kernel is just as aware of multiple users and multiple tasks, if not *MORE* aware, than a unix kernel. The NT kernel was a good thing from the start. It is MS crappy use of it to build an OS that is, well, crappy.
Thanks for the clarification... as you say, though.. tdme deals iwth 'time slots', not simply having more than one transmitter separated temporally.
A PRI circuit would be TDMA, as each 'channel' is defined by a particular timeslice.
Ethernet is CSMA/CD, and may or may not be baseband depending on the medium. Also, according to 802.3, the backoff is not'random' but binary exponential.
Although I would love to see linux on every machine at work.. I have to say.
The administration style used to administer and install linux boxes is *NOT* the same that is required for NT boxes. Not that this is a good thing, mind you, but if you approach NT work in the right manner, it can be done quickly.
I roll out new workstations in ~20 minutes now, unattended. (Norton Ghost, several other nifty autoconfiguration things I whipped up, some neat network stuff)
Also, choice of servers is usually do to the fact, still, that *nobody out there has linux/unix experience*. It is still percieved as something that the general admin 'cannot understand'. THAT is the REAL PROBLEM.
I've tried to roll out linux servers at many companies. There main reasons for not doing it are they CANNOT SUPPORT IT. They don't have any linux people.
Believe me.. if the other admin in the company was a linux nut like me, I would have *no* problems convincing management to go with it.
We all feel that way. We all feel that MS products are a hog. We all feel that Linux is clean and fast...
Let me say though.. win2k feels much smoother and runs much cleaner than previous NT versions. It's more stable. IT *does* work better. it *IS* faster. And regardless of what everyone says, including me from time to time, at it's core, the NT kernel is *good* technology. I just wish MS would quit fucking it up. It's what they chose to do with it that sucks.. not the kernel itself.
And you are right. THis benchmark is absolutely meaningless.
OS 'A' running server 'B' on hardware 'C' beat out
OS 'X' running server 'Y' on hardware 'Z'.
That is meaningless.
Are we that low? Do we pull a Mindcraft whenever we want?
These systems, although very similar, are not identical. Different drive arrangements, different scsi controllers.
And, to boot, one is running IIS 5 and one is running Tux 1.0 (whatever that is...).
What does this prove about the individual Operating systems? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
It shows that operating system 'A' running web software 'B' on machine 'C' is faster than operating system 'X' running web software 'Y' on machine 'Z'.
What the hell is 'Tux 1.0?' Yes.. I could look it up. WHy not at least benchmark Apache, so at least you could say 'benchmark of most common intenret platform for each OS' or something..
Wireless will save the outback. Really.
Just wait and see.
'Wideband' - Broadcasting the same signal over many bands at once.
'Narrowband' - using a very narrow band to transmit. Sort of opposite of wideband.
'Broadband' - The use of multiple 'bands' for transmission (or reception). ie: cable TV is broadband. Using multuiple carrier frequencies to divide a medium into many different bands.
Baseband - using a single, base channel for all transmission. ie: Ethernet.
Please not that although there are obvious real-world examples of how broadband has a higher capacity than baseband, neither definnition has anything whatsoever to do with speed of data transmition.
Your cable modem is 'broadband' only because it modulates it's signal up into RF for transmission on the cable line. Technically, it doestn' really have 'broadband' characteristics; it can't receive on multiple channels at once.
If you had a 100baseT ethernet connection to your house, that would still be baseband, not broadband (hey.. that's what the 'base' stands for)
Perhaps one could consider CDPD data (19kbps or whatever) to the palmpilot or something, whatever it is, to be broadband. It is modulated up over a broadband medium (space).
No.
The primary reason for stopping export was because encryption software is classified as a MUNITIION. So you needed the same license to export strong crypto as you did to export a tank or a box of ammunition, or an f-18.
It says that the use of devices covered by the ahra for noncommercial copying is legitimate.
The AHRA only applies to consumer electronics recording devices, and specifically exempts computers.
It does not say in any way that 'all noncommercial copying is legal'.
It simply says that the use of devices covered by the act for noncommercial purposes is completely legal.
Your rio can send software back to the computer, and easily.. just not with the software you got from Diamond.
As for the 'law' that protected them.. it was the fact that the DHRA (digital home recording act), when enacted by congress, *specifically* exempted PCs and their peripherals. It was designed to apply to consumer electronics *ONLY*.
And the RIO does *not* record. It only stores digital data, and plays music back. It absolutely does not do any recording, whatseover. If you have a rio, and no computer.. you can't get any music into it. And as the DHRA, which enforces the serial copy protection system, does not apply and CAN NOT be applied to PC's, then it cannot be expected for the rio to also follow the serial-copy system, as the devices that feed it data do not follow them in the first place.
It's about regionalal support and community. One thing multinationals do is exist outside the bounds of any particular nation. THey leech off a community; a McDonalds, aside from the minimum-wage jobs it provides for flipping burgers, does not add to it's local community as a business. Sure.. they pretend to spend money on other community things, but it's not the same thing.
A restaurant using food grown locally enriches the community and strengthens it. A restaurant using food imported from outside the community when the same goods are available locally will simply erode the locals ability to maintain a living growing food locally (which is *IMPORTANT* to any community.. or at least, it should be.
Sealand is not in 'international waters' anymore. It is in the UK terretorial waters, yet retains it's own independant status.
And as they said, they will not do things to intentionally agitate a foreign government. THey will not host porn, they will not do shit to piss of the UK.
Although... sealand may be an independant state, but is that state not contained within the UK's terretorial waters? And you don't bring foreign subs into the UK's waters... no sir....
I bet they have all kinds of shielding anyway.. after all, the whole damn thing is made of steel..
Looks to me like a few /. readers got a bit of a smackdown there. Thinking they were 'all that' and knew global security inside and out, and trying to shoot down the whole project as 'bunk'.
.look at it a different way. Rather than considering how easy it is to 'cut' such lines... how is this any less secure than within any other country? It's certainly not. Within the US? The UK? No.. it's *easy* to cut comm lines there.. laws are much stricter when it comes to cutting communication lines between countries.
Sounds to me like they know *exactly* what they are doing, and have been exceptionally thorough. And I bet they are also exceptionally profitable.
As for all the stuffa bout security/landline/whateever...
I believe that cutting undersea cable, or destroying a cable landing would be tantamount to a nuclear strike in terms of political power.
Nope. Don't care. Still don't control the developers, and these site sprung up becuase people thought they would make a buck off of reporting on what we were already doing for kicks.
I say let them. They still don't influence how I use linux, what I write for linux, etc...