Ebay, heh. Not to sound like a geezer or anything (I'm not - honest!), but what passed for a "modem" back when I was BBSing consisted of this contraption that you stuck the telephone handset in - they only worked with the generic Ma Bell phone, and were prone to environmental noise - like loud music! A person was l337 if they had 300 baud.
Well, we do use WEP, naturally. But really, some of the moderators lately need to get the stick out of their asses. I didn't think that your post was a troll. Informative, perhaps - I would have given it that. Oh, well, that's what M2 is for.
Heh, something in your message tells me that you were never on a BBS back in the day when you had to tell someone on the board to turn their music down because it was bleeding around the edge of the modem handset receiver and printing rhythmic streams of gibberish onto the board:)
Nothing annoys me more than the overly-precise. Let me take this point-by-point:
Yer right about the method by which the author asserts that the extra channel is made possible by addition of the third dimension (or third floor, in the least-case solution of his problem). But then you go and blow it with hyper-precision. Honestly, in this day and age, your "site survey" will very likely consist of a tech wandering around with a laptop looking at the signal meter. If the company in question is particularly anal, that tech might be actually carrying a notepad and perhaps an actual signal strength meter. Numerical modeling? Not likely.
Your second paragraph is predicated on the idea that the lan will consist solely of wireless. Again, not likely: not many people want to bother with replacing existing ethernet cards sitewide with 802.11 cards. More often, the wireless is for new computers and for laptop users, which is really a small proportion of all the computers in the building, no? As for myself, I have a wireless link in my office, which is fine for all sorts of "real work," and if for some reason I need to move big chunks of data, then and only then will I bother grabbing a 100-base-T link.
As to your third paragraph, utter hogwash. We have been very successfully setting up reasonably-sized labs with wireless-only networking for some time. It's really nice to do this when buying new hardware - what a dream when the only cable you need is power! (big hint here: try to find a cheap - US$750 with air, er, 802.11 built-in - computer, with a unix installed, and no butt-full of spaghetti sticking out the back. Give up? Think different) No problems. None.
Hey, uh, you wouldn't happen to be German, would you? Your comment was interesting, but I couldn't help but notice the way you used a capital Letter for most of the Nouns in your Comment:)
I've got karma to burn here. My question is: does anyone here happen to know where I could find a Linux/PPC implementation of Flash? Macromedia says they only support x86. TIA.
Link at the bottom of this page. Looks like the 3d version will be a dissappointment. What made the original so interesting was that the animators had the freedom to script each scene more or less as they wanted. As a result, you had lots of time to reflect on your character's goofy looks as he got into and out of trouble, died, lived, and fought. In the new version, it looks like you mostly watch the back of your goofy character as he runs around a modified doom world. I'm sure they have added a couple of special bits to make us remember the original, but for the most part, feh. I'll stick to UT.
I was just thinking about Dragon's Lair last week. I once watched some kid burn a pile of Chuck E. Cheese tokens in the game and actually solve it. Dragon's Lair was the only motivation I had for going to Chuck E. Cheese - it certainly wasn't for the quality of the pizza, and sure as hell wasn't to be tormented by those godawful cartoon dancing robotic stereotyped Italians above the dining room - even as a kid I found those offensive. So what did you get when you wasted hours of your life in front of an interactive laser disk player? A friggin valentine. That was probably the last time I went to Chuckies place. But I still remember the "boink" when you were given the hints, the music swell after you made your choice, and the "die" music:) It was a fun game.
OK, maybe I am missing some bit of tech here, but won't a substantial amount of data need to initially pass over that 56k line to iinitiate the stream? Uploading an album-length mp3/ogg/ whatever is non-trivial timewise. Does the protocol allow for some caching and buffering? Otherwise I, with 5mbps download, am liable to see a given stream, go "oh, that sounds groovy," start to d/l it, and within a couple of seconds have burned through what has already taken a couple of hours to upload at the source. Assuming the issues of buffering have been addressed (I.E.: don't make a stream available until it is complete on the network), this could be a pretty neat idea.
I'm assuming that if there is any significance to this, it would be related to this site andnot, say this one. Then again, I could be wrong. Probably am wrong, the more I think about it.
Ok, I admit. I did post my opinion, which is based upon experience both with the router in question, and several NAT boxes I've setup using old peecees and iptables. I base my statement on security on the returns I get when I nmap one of my NAT boxes versus the linky router I use at home. Five million versus fourteen (not thousand or million, just 14). And yes, I do patch all of the hardware I have to take care of. So, opinion, yes, based on experience, yes as well. One side issue: It's a hell of a lot harder for a student to walk out of a lab unnoticed with a 486 (assuming that student would even want to do so which seems unlikely to me) versus slipping a BESFR41 into his backpack. So there's that layer of security as well... although that same student would probably swipe the switch now that I think of it:)
And why in God's own bumfucking earth would you run a crappy router like this in a LAB? Seriously, you can get a decent 8-port switch for under fifty bux, grab a 486 at goodwill (frequently for free, as nobody wants a 486 anymore except cash-starved K-12 net admins looking for cheap routers), toss in a couple of old nics, write five lines of iptables, and guess what? You have a hell of a lot more secure NAT solution for your lab than a crufty plastic home gateway router. Assuming you don't let the kids see your root password. Don't get me wrong, I like my BEFSR41, but no way in hell would I ever use it outside of my house.
Yeah, right. "Clickin' and dickin'. Assuming you have something which can run Win32 executables. I like my router quite a bit, believe it or not, but it annoys the hell out of me that Linksys is so Windows-centric. Kinda sabotages the Apple switch campaign when Mac users find they can't perform routine maintainance on their existing hardware with their new computers (imagine asking Joe Luser to setup Wine on OS X. Then drink until you forget the thought). And no, a tftp transfer of the code.bin won't work either.
Nah, dude. I've had a BEFSR41 for almost two years now, and it has been nothing but rock-solid. Zero complaints on this unit. Of course, nmap identifies it as "trivial" but it's just a home box, more than adequate for keeping the casual s'kiddie off my back:)
From the e-week article, all you have to do is disable remote admin, which is the default setting, which you should have confirmed anyhow. Duh. No firmware flashing needed.
I was having to highlight over the text to deal with a wierd OS X issue where text randomly disappears (IE, Moz, doesn't matter) when I noticed a bunch of letters in the spaces between some of the words. The text isn't justified in any way that I could see, just left-aligned, so these weren't some kind of spacing tool, so I can't figure this out. I did a view source, and here's a bit chopped out of the article:
system<font color=white>U</font>and other information<font color=white>A</font>systems will be built for<font color=white>U</font>collecting, collating, disseminating<font color=white>E</font>and
Does anyone have any idea what the heck this is all about? One pattern I do seem to be noticing is that the "hidden" letters are all vowels.
And, while I understand that having Apple say "its easy" makes you want to blame them, you really ought to blame MS or yourselves for purchasing MS technology.Believe me, if it were my choice, we wouldn't have a single Windows machine on our network, either server or client. But it's not my decision to make. Given the reality that I am in a Windows shop, I do my best to make things work right. And, so far, OS X clients only work marginally well. Users can manually mount NT shares using their AD auth, but we'd relly prefer to see login screens at bootup authing against the AD. And that's where the problem lies. I agree that the problem is probably M$, but what can I do?
As I mentioned earlier, we have Active Directory, as well as a Jag server. We had an Apple engineer here for two days, and not even he was able to get AD-style login-auth to work - the basics like proper mapping and creation of home dirs on network instead of local host and all that. It looks like Apple still has quite a bit of work to do here. On the bright side, I use Cmd-K to logon to any of the network shares, and the perms are correctly handled. But we are looking for a logon screen for OS X that uses our AD for auth, and so far nyet.
Actually, we have AD running, along with a bunch of OS X clients. We even had an Apple engineer here last week, and he couldn't figure out how to get the auth to handle such things as creating user dirs. It's a large, ugly mess.
No offense, but the term ignorant comes to mind when I read your comment. Just so you know, there areplentyofreferencestomy"Completely Untrue Statement". Seriously, if you want to whine about your tax dollars, find out how much of them go to subsidize big oil and then wonder why people think and say negative things about the Loner Star State.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you very much :)
Ebay, heh. Not to sound like a geezer or anything (I'm not - honest!), but what passed for a "modem" back when I was BBSing consisted of this contraption that you stuck the telephone handset in - they only worked with the generic Ma Bell phone, and were prone to environmental noise - like loud music! A person was l337 if they had 300 baud.
Well, we do use WEP, naturally. But really, some of the moderators lately need to get the stick out of their asses. I didn't think that your post was a troll. Informative, perhaps - I would have given it that. Oh, well, that's what M2 is for.
Heh, something in your message tells me that you were never on a BBS back in the day when you had to tell someone on the board to turn their music down because it was bleeding around the edge of the modem handset receiver and printing rhythmic streams of gibberish onto the board :)
I'm using 802.1sssjjjjssss;;;sjsfffeighbor insists that ''''ing the sa;e channesswill majjjjhe conn;;;ion stronger. Hessssery smart, don't you think?
Nothing annoys me more than the overly-precise. Let me take this point-by-point:
Yer right about the method by which the author asserts that the extra channel is made possible by addition of the third dimension (or third floor, in the least-case solution of his problem). But then you go and blow it with hyper-precision. Honestly, in this day and age, your "site survey" will very likely consist of a tech wandering around with a laptop looking at the signal meter. If the company in question is particularly anal, that tech might be actually carrying a notepad and perhaps an actual signal strength meter. Numerical modeling? Not likely.
Your second paragraph is predicated on the idea that the lan will consist solely of wireless. Again, not likely: not many people want to bother with replacing existing ethernet cards sitewide with 802.11 cards. More often, the wireless is for new computers and for laptop users, which is really a small proportion of all the computers in the building, no? As for myself, I have a wireless link in my office, which is fine for all sorts of "real work," and if for some reason I need to move big chunks of data, then and only then will I bother grabbing a 100-base-T link.
As to your third paragraph, utter hogwash. We have been very successfully setting up reasonably-sized labs with wireless-only networking for some time. It's really nice to do this when buying new hardware - what a dream when the only cable you need is power! (big hint here: try to find a cheap - US$750 with air, er, 802.11 built-in - computer, with a unix installed, and no butt-full of spaghetti sticking out the back. Give up? Think different) No problems. None.
"It's people like you what cause unrest"
Hey, uh, you wouldn't happen to be German, would you? Your comment was interesting, but I couldn't help but notice the way you used a capital Letter for most of the Nouns in your Comment :)
So much for the community of users helping one another out. The above comment was, believe it or not, an honest request for help. You'll get yours.
I've got karma to burn here. My question is: does anyone here happen to know where I could find a Linux/PPC implementation of Flash? Macromedia says they only support x86. TIA.
Link at the bottom of this page. Looks like the 3d version will be a dissappointment. What made the original so interesting was that the animators had the freedom to script each scene more or less as they wanted. As a result, you had lots of time to reflect on your character's goofy looks as he got into and out of trouble, died, lived, and fought. In the new version, it looks like you mostly watch the back of your goofy character as he runs around a modified doom world. I'm sure they have added a couple of special bits to make us remember the original, but for the most part, feh. I'll stick to UT.
I was just thinking about Dragon's Lair last week. I once watched some kid burn a pile of Chuck E. Cheese tokens in the game and actually solve it. Dragon's Lair was the only motivation I had for going to Chuck E. Cheese - it certainly wasn't for the quality of the pizza, and sure as hell wasn't to be tormented by those godawful cartoon dancing robotic stereotyped Italians above the dining room - even as a kid I found those offensive. :) It was a fun game.
So what did you get when you wasted hours of your life in front of an interactive laser disk player? A friggin valentine. That was probably the last time I went to Chuckies place. But I still remember the "boink" when you were given the hints, the music swell after you made your choice, and the "die" music
OK, maybe I am missing some bit of tech here, but won't a substantial amount of data need to initially pass over that 56k line to iinitiate the stream? Uploading an album-length mp3/ogg/ whatever is non-trivial timewise. Does the protocol allow for some caching and buffering? Otherwise I, with 5mbps download, am liable to see a given stream, go "oh, that sounds groovy," start to d/l it, and within a couple of seconds have burned through what has already taken a couple of hours to upload at the source.
Assuming the issues of buffering have been addressed (I.E.: don't make a stream available until it is complete on the network), this could be a pretty neat idea.
I'm assuming that if there is any significance to this, it would be related to this site andnot, say this one. Then again, I could be wrong. Probably am wrong, the more I think about it.
Aww, be nice to the guy - he's obviously off his meds and coming down off a crack binge. I'm sure he'll come to his senses in a few days.
Ok, I admit. I did post my opinion, which is based upon experience both with the router in question, and several NAT boxes I've setup using old peecees and iptables. I base my statement on security on the returns I get when I nmap one of my NAT boxes versus the linky router I use at home. Five million versus fourteen (not thousand or million, just 14). And yes, I do patch all of the hardware I have to take care of. :)
So, opinion, yes, based on experience, yes as well. One side issue: It's a hell of a lot harder for a student to walk out of a lab unnoticed with a 486 (assuming that student would even want to do so which seems unlikely to me) versus slipping a BESFR41 into his backpack. So there's that layer of security as well... although that same student would probably swipe the switch now that I think of it
Ooh. I've always wanted an opportunity to do this, particularly when it's so well deserved.
RTFM
And why in God's own bumfucking earth would you run a crappy router like this in a LAB? Seriously, you can get a decent 8-port switch for under fifty bux, grab a 486 at goodwill (frequently for free, as nobody wants a 486 anymore except cash-starved K-12 net admins looking for cheap routers), toss in a couple of old nics, write five lines of iptables, and guess what? You have a hell of a lot more secure NAT solution for your lab than a crufty plastic home gateway router. Assuming you don't let the kids see your root password. Don't get me wrong, I like my BEFSR41, but no way in hell would I ever use it outside of my house.
Yeah, right. "Clickin' and dickin'. Assuming you have something which can run Win32 executables. I like my router quite a bit, believe it or not, but it annoys the hell out of me that Linksys is so Windows-centric. Kinda sabotages the Apple switch campaign when Mac users find they can't perform routine maintainance on their existing hardware with their new computers (imagine asking Joe Luser to setup Wine on OS X. Then drink until you forget the thought). And no, a tftp transfer of the code.bin won't work either.
Nah, dude. I've had a BEFSR41 for almost two years now, and it has been nothing but rock-solid. Zero complaints on this unit. Of course, nmap identifies it as "trivial" but it's just a home box, more than adequate for keeping the casual s'kiddie off my back :)
From the e-week article, all you have to do is disable remote admin, which is the default setting, which you should have confirmed anyhow. Duh.
No firmware flashing needed.
And, while I understand that having Apple say "its easy" makes you want to blame them, you really ought to blame MS or yourselves for purchasing MS technology.Believe me, if it were my choice, we wouldn't have a single Windows machine on our network, either server or client. But it's not my decision to make. Given the reality that I am in a Windows shop, I do my best to make things work right. And, so far, OS X clients only work marginally well. Users can manually mount NT shares using their AD auth, but we'd relly prefer to see login screens at bootup authing against the AD. And that's where the problem lies. I agree that the problem is probably M$, but what can I do?
As I mentioned earlier, we have Active Directory, as well as a Jag server. We had an Apple engineer here for two days, and not even he was able to get AD-style login-auth to work - the basics like proper mapping and creation of home dirs on network instead of local host and all that. It looks like Apple still has quite a bit of work to do here. On the bright side, I use Cmd-K to logon to any of the network shares, and the perms are correctly handled. But we are looking for a logon screen for OS X that uses our AD for auth, and so far nyet.
Actually, we have AD running, along with a bunch of OS X clients. We even had an Apple engineer here last week, and he couldn't figure out how to get the auth to handle such things as creating user dirs. It's a large, ugly mess.
No offense, but the term ignorant comes to mind when I read your comment. Just so you know, there are plenty of references to my "Completely Untrue Statement". Seriously, if you want to whine about your tax dollars, find out how much of them go to subsidize big oil and then wonder why people think and say negative things about the Loner Star State.