Heck, I want an RFID spoofer that respsonds to any scan with whatever info I want it to send. That could be lots of fun.
Re:Anything you say will be taken down and used ..
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 1
ROTFLMAO!
Only on/. would a jest encompassing a few lines of "code" turn into a unending string of improvements to that code and a discussion about wether it would actually work or not.
Talk about Geeks 'R Us
On a more serious note, don't threads like that actually prove that code == speech ?
There are some issues with this. Parallel programming is hard, and not every application supports it.
and
The real question is, do the majority of users out there really hammer their systems like that? I think the answer is no
I have to say I disagree. IMO many people, including home users, are running more than one application at a time -that means the apps don't have to have multiple, parallelizable threads to take advantage of multiple processors. Maybe its the people I hang around with, but more and more of them are working more with multimedia files -wether it be listening to music while surfing the web or capturing/transcoding the latest home movie while playing the latest Yahoo game they're hooked on. They can stress even the fastest systems.
Second, and you probably already know this, but adding processors does not linearly increase your performance
and
those that do are willing to pay the premium.
If you can buy two 2 GHz processors for the price of one 3.4 GHz processor, you may not paying a premium at all, and two 3 GHz processors get you performance that's simply not available otherwise.
I agree there are a number of people who really only do one thing at a time with their computer and don't stress it too much, but I think the number of people who could benefit from multiple processors is waaay underestimated.
Just MO, but I see the biggest force pushing down power consumption being the good-old portable. People don't want laptop computers that are half the speed of a much cheaper desktop box (at least I don't).
And they'll be Apple zealots quick to correct your errors. Yes its idustrial design means a higher initial cost, but it actually uses much less fuel (compare the power use of a PPC vs. Pentium).
Not only that, they're easier to fly and cheaper to maintain.
Oh, and it doesn't get bogged down by all those viruses and worms...and its connected to the iTMS so you can plug in your iPod and purchase music to listen to on the way there (other players not supported).
And considering the PPC has several funtional units, it could actually carry out several instructions/cycle. Unless this PPC for some reason only has an integer execution unit and no floating point or others. For all I know it may even be altivec enabled -be a big help for manipulating images. Although I'm guessing based on the "early 90's" reference its probably G1 or G2 at best (601-604 range).
Was it a flash memory problem? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really heard anything even remotely concrete about what the problem was, or even what the current hypotheses are.
What worries me though, is they continuously state that the two rovers are twins and use identical computers. Maybe its just me, but if one "twin" develops a problem that may be genetic, I'm worried about the other one too!
Nonetheless, could you live without the scroll-wheel? You must admit that's a worthwhile innovation, and it's astounding that Apple still hasn't appropriated it.
Not at all. One of Apple's primary goals is to sell the easiest-to-use computer in the world. A simple, one-button mouse fits that description. Its ergonomically more sound, and can be used much easier by young kids and anyone with motor control difficulties.
Besides, once you get past 1 button, everyone has their own preference on how many buttions there should be, so IMO it just wouldn't work to sell one kind of >1 button mouse. Then you're getting into the economics of offering more choices at added cost to all customers.
There really is a reason Apple is still bundling one-button mice.
Not only that, isn't the next rover pretty much identical to this one? It might be worth spending more time on this just in case the same thing happens on its twin.
The other question is how long most ISPs keep logs. When the "owner" of an IP address changes often, that's important. The logs linking this information with a real person might already have been purged.
I really don't think it matters how long they keep logs because:
1) The RIAA is going after the people they see as the biggest threat -meaning sharing lots of files with a broadband connection that's pretty much up 24x7. I understand the parent basically said if the IP address changes frequently, I'm just pointing out I don't think it will for the people the RIAA is targeting.
2) I'll give them 2 days to "verify" they want to pursue a given site, then 2 more days to file a lawsuit and get a court-ordered subpeona they can deliver to the ISP.
I'm guessing they can get a subpeona to an ISP before the computer involved ever gets a new IP address, much less before the ISP purges any logs.
I'll admit I have no direct knowledge about this, but I thought even after the expiration you would get the same IP address if its not being used -depending on how the DHCP server is set up.
IOW I thought the DHCP server did its best to always give you the same IP address. Is that wrong?
IOW, it may be a broken system, but that's no excuse for breaking the law -can't say I disagree. I keep remembering that a couple years ago the mantra was that its bad for the RIAA to go after P2P networks, they should go after the people who are actually infringing copyright.
So then the RIAA does this with the help of questionable use of the DMCA. Then the mantra is that they should be forced to file a John Doe lawsuit to go after the infringers, not just say hello to a clerk.
So now, the RIAA is forced to file lawsuits in order to get any information, which is good. So isn't the RIAA now doing what we've been saying they should do for the last few years?
My biggest beef with the whole process right now is simply the outrageous fines that can apparently be levied without even having to prove any actual harm has been done. IMO there's no way a potential liability in the $millions is acceptable punishment for a teen who's gone overboard with the "sharing" (unless you can prove they've done $millions in damage). That's what's causing people to settle instead of going to court, and IMO that should be the next battle front.
As I understand it, the RIAA finds someone who's sharing too many files, they go to the court, file a suit, and get a warrant dictating that the ISP turn over records. At that point the ISP is required to turn over the information. Its not like they wait six months until there's an actual trial date before they go to the ISP for the information, and destroying the "evidence" is a big no-no. I'm assuming it could all be done within a couple days.
Maybe someone else has a better idea than me of how the system works (I hope someone knows more about it than me).
For that matter, look at the order in which different life forms were "Created" according to the bible and compare that with the order they are thought to have evolved.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, I want an RFID spoofer that respsonds to any scan with whatever info I want it to send. That could be lots of fun.
ROTFLMAO!
/. would a jest encompassing a few lines of "code" turn into a unending string of improvements to that code and a discussion about wether it would actually work or not.
Only on
Talk about Geeks 'R Us
On a more serious note, don't threads like that actually prove that code == speech ?
Also, when the last time anyone had to reboot a TV or VCR?
Maybe someone should invite him to come to a security convention in the US and give a presentation on how he did it.
That'd fix him.
There are some issues with this. Parallel programming is hard, and not every application supports it.
and
The real question is, do the majority of users out there really hammer their systems like that? I think the answer is no
I have to say I disagree. IMO many people, including home users, are running more than one application at a time -that means the apps don't have to have multiple, parallelizable threads to take advantage of multiple processors. Maybe its the people I hang around with, but more and more of them are working more with multimedia files -wether it be listening to music while surfing the web or capturing/transcoding the latest home movie while playing the latest Yahoo game they're hooked on. They can stress even the fastest systems.
Second, and you probably already know this, but adding processors does not linearly increase your performance
and
those that do are willing to pay the premium.
If you can buy two 2 GHz processors for the price of one 3.4 GHz processor, you may not paying a premium at all, and two 3 GHz processors get you performance that's simply not available otherwise.
I agree there are a number of people who really only do one thing at a time with their computer and don't stress it too much, but I think the number of people who could benefit from multiple processors is waaay underestimated.
Just MO, but I see the biggest force pushing down power consumption being the good-old portable. People don't want laptop computers that are half the speed of a much cheaper desktop box (at least I don't).
I was just going to say,
"In Soviet Russia, space irradiates you."
but it made too much sense.
And they'll be Apple zealots quick to correct your errors. Yes its idustrial design means a higher initial cost, but it actually uses much less fuel (compare the power use of a PPC vs. Pentium).
..and its connected to the iTMS so you can plug in your iPod and purchase music to listen to on the way there (other players not supported).
Not only that, they're easier to fly and cheaper to maintain.
Oh, and it doesn't get bogged down by all those viruses and worms.
I could go on, but....
And considering the PPC has several funtional units, it could actually carry out several instructions/cycle. Unless this PPC for some reason only has an integer execution unit and no floating point or others. For all I know it may even be altivec enabled -be a big help for manipulating images. Although I'm guessing based on the "early 90's" reference its probably G1 or G2 at best (601-604 range).
Anybody know any more specifics on the processor?
Just found http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spirit_sendsp ic_040129.html which says,
"Engineers have since determined that the problem appears to involve too many files overloading the onboard computer memory"
to answer my own question.
Was it a flash memory problem? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really heard anything even remotely concrete about what the problem was, or even what the current hypotheses are.
What worries me though, is they continuously state that the two rovers are twins and use identical computers. Maybe its just me, but if one "twin" develops a problem that may be genetic, I'm worried about the other one too!
Will they even be selling them?
I don't know anything about VT, but how many computer labs could benefit from new G5's?
How about other departments? Do they have a need/use for them? If nothing else, put them on faculty desktops.
Then there's always the possibility of reselling them to the current students.
Nonetheless, could you live without the scroll-wheel? You must admit that's a worthwhile innovation, and it's astounding that Apple still hasn't appropriated it.
Not at all. One of Apple's primary goals is to sell the easiest-to-use computer in the world. A simple, one-button mouse fits that description. Its ergonomically more sound, and can be used much easier by young kids and anyone with motor control difficulties.
Besides, once you get past 1 button, everyone has their own preference on how many buttions there should be, so IMO it just wouldn't work to sell one kind of >1 button mouse. Then you're getting into the economics of offering more choices at added cost to all customers.
There really is a reason Apple is still bundling one-button mice.
After pounding on my old Apple II/e's keyboard through grade school & high school almost anything was bound to be more efficient.
Ahhh, youth.
If you think that was bad, try pounding through on a manual typewriter.
Or writing it all by hand.
As long as you're talking about it not being free, don't forget you presumably have to pay for the bottle of Pepsi that bottle cap come off of.
I'd make it simpler.
The engine on my weed-eater can go 10,000 rpm. The engine on my car only 6000. Which one delivers more power?
Not only that, isn't the next rover pretty much identical to this one? It might be worth spending more time on this just in case the same thing happens on its twin.
Oops! Would you believe a subpeona instead of a warrant?
Actually that would mean that Apple is charging per connection, not per user.
My understanding was that it was 10 concurrent users, any of which can have more than one "connection". Is it just 10 connections?
The other question is how long most ISPs keep logs. When the "owner" of an IP address changes often, that's important. The logs linking this information with a real person might already have been purged.
:
I really don't think it matters how long they keep logs because
1) The RIAA is going after the people they see as the biggest threat -meaning sharing lots of files with a broadband connection that's pretty much up 24x7. I understand the parent basically said if the IP address changes frequently, I'm just pointing out I don't think it will for the people the RIAA is targeting.
2) I'll give them 2 days to "verify" they want to pursue a given site, then 2 more days to file a lawsuit and get a court-ordered subpeona they can deliver to the ISP.
I'm guessing they can get a subpeona to an ISP before the computer involved ever gets a new IP address, much less before the ISP purges any logs.
I'll admit I have no direct knowledge about this, but I thought even after the expiration you would get the same IP address if its not being used -depending on how the DHCP server is set up.
IOW I thought the DHCP server did its best to always give you the same IP address. Is that wrong?
IOW, it may be a broken system, but that's no excuse for breaking the law -can't say I disagree. I keep remembering that a couple years ago the mantra was that its bad for the RIAA to go after P2P networks, they should go after the people who are actually infringing copyright.
So then the RIAA does this with the help of questionable use of the DMCA. Then the mantra is that they should be forced to file a John Doe lawsuit to go after the infringers, not just say hello to a clerk.
So now, the RIAA is forced to file lawsuits in order to get any information, which is good. So isn't the RIAA now doing what we've been saying they should do for the last few years?
My biggest beef with the whole process right now is simply the outrageous fines that can apparently be levied without even having to prove any actual harm has been done. IMO there's no way a potential liability in the $millions is acceptable punishment for a teen who's gone overboard with the "sharing" (unless you can prove they've done $millions in damage). That's what's causing people to settle instead of going to court, and IMO that should be the next battle front.
What do you mean by "come about"?
As I understand it, the RIAA finds someone who's sharing too many files, they go to the court, file a suit, and get a warrant dictating that the ISP turn over records. At that point the ISP is required to turn over the information. Its not like they wait six months until there's an actual trial date before they go to the ISP for the information, and destroying the "evidence" is a big no-no. I'm assuming it could all be done within a couple days.
Maybe someone else has a better idea than me of how the system works (I hope someone knows more about it than me).
For that matter, look at the order in which different life forms were "Created" according to the bible and compare that with the order they are thought to have evolved.
You mean that great land that's above water 96% of the time?